4. That the words [sic] mass is used in its appropriate specific sense in this Article, and not as synonymous with Lord's Supper, or eucharist, as the Plea for the Augsburg Confession [Note 33] asserts, is proved by the fact, thatif you substitute either of these words for it, many passages in the Article will not make sense. We will present a few specimens, which may be multiplied by any one who will take Article XXIV. of the Confession and read it, substituting either Lord's Supper or eucharist in place of the word mass.
"By which means the people are attracted to the communion and theeucharist, (the mass;") which is equivalent to saying, they were attracted to the eucharist and the eucharist.
"An annual fair was made, at whicheucharists(masses) were bought and sold." This would be historically untrue.
"And the greater part of them (theeucharists) in all the churches, were performed for money." To this the same remark applies.
"These money-eucharistsand closeteucharists(masses,) have ceased in our churches:" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased.
"Hence also arose the controversy, whether aeucharist(mass) performed for (not by) a number of persons collectively, was as efficacious as a separateeucharistfor each individual." This question applies only to the mass proper, and was never mooted about the eucharist.
"The ancient canons also show, that one of the priests performed or celebrated (halten, celebrare) _eucharist, and administered the communion 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 the mass, is evident from the fact that theRomanists so understoodit, and in their answer to the Confession attempt to refute the Protestant rejection not of the Lord's Supper, but of the privatemasses, the closetmasses, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of themassin general whilst they applaud the retention of public mass by the Reformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonical regulations. We will cite a single passage, out of many that might be adduced:—
"It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the (Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. of their Confession, on which they are commenting,) celebrate one common (or public) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (the Protestants) reject allothermasses, can neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith and Catholic profession;" (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess the Roman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarely met with, we add the exact original: "Wird demnach nicht verworfen noch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten ein gemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtig nach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten und thaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten: Dieweil sie aber alle andere Messen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und Catholische Profession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden."
6. The same fact is confirmed still further bythe Apology to the Augsburg Confession, written by Melancthon, in reply to the Romish Refutation, from which we have just presented an extract. From this it is evident that the Papists had correctly understood the Augsburg Confession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we have therefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it. Speaking of the very part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited, Melancthon says: "In the first place, we must state, by way of introduction, that wedo not abolish the mass. For on every Sunday and Festival,masses, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in our churches, at which thesacramentis administered to those who desire it." Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things.
"Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about theLatinmass, that is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and isreadin Latin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord's Supper.
"But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that thehearingof the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato, meritorious and saving?" The termhearingevidently refers to the mass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrasehearingthe Lord's Supper?
"That we do not celebrate private masses, but only apublic mass(eine oeffentliche Messe,) when the people also commune, is not at all contrary to the common (or general) Christian church." Here theprivatemasses are distinguished from thepublicmass, and the fact affirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that theReformers did retain and practicePUBLICmass on sacramental occasions." [Note 36] We might easily adduce a number of other passages from this book, but really it seems to be a work of supererogation.
To this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his assertions on other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to Margrave George, of Brandenburg, on theprivatemass, he uses this language: "Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in our churches of the ceremonies of the mass, I would inform your excellence, that the mass is entirely abolished,except when are persons presentwho wish to receive the Lord's Supper;" [Note 37] that is, we have entirely abolished private masses; at which, as it is well known, no one communed but the priest himself, but retain thepublic massat communion seasons.
Finally, to make assurance doubly sure, we will add a similar testimony from Luther himself, in a letter of Counsel to Lazarus Spengler, in 1528: "In thefirst place, let all masses be absolutely dispensed with at which there are no communicants present; as they properly ought to be set aside. Secondly, that in the two parish churches (namely, in Nuerenberg, where Spongier resided,) one or two masses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there may be many or few communicants." [Note 38]
Now, in this passage, the word mass either means Lord's Supper in general or mass in particular. It does not mean the former, because it was something which Luther says had been performedwithout anycommunicants being present, but should not be performed hereafter, unless there were communicants. Again, he says, that on Sabbath or holy days, when there are communicants present, this mass, which from its naturecouldbe and had been performed without communicants, should be performed once or twice. But what sense is there in terming that the administration of the Lord's Supper at which there are no communicants. Or in talking about administering one or two Lord's Suppers, as the number of communicants might be large or small? For ourselves, it is impossible to doubt, that the mass proper is here intended, which was often celebrated by the minister alone, and which, at communion seasons, 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 the Romanists does now, so it did at the time of the the [sic] Reformation, and several centuries before, specifically signify a certain service of about an hour's length, consisting of a commixture of Scripture passages, long and short prayers, invocations, extracts from the gospels and epistles, liturgic forms, the forms of consecration of the elements and transubstantiation of them into the Saviour's body and blood, with numerous crossings, genuflexions, the elevation of the host and especially the self-communion of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a bloodless sacrifice for the sins of the living or dead; all of which was read and done by thepriest himselfbefore the altar; and which preceded the sacramental communion of the congregation, and was the only preparation for the communion.
We also admitted, that then, as now, the word mass was sometimes used by the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, including the mass proper.
Thirdly, we assumed as undenied, that the Reformers, having been born and educated in the Romish religion till their majority, were accustomed to this two-fold use of the term mass.
We then asserted that the Reformers continued the twofold use of the term, and as its occasional use for the eucharist in general is not disputed, we especially proved that they continued to observe the distinction and to employ it in itsspecific sense, whenever the mass proper was spoken of.
We proved from various letters and other documents ofLuther, written in the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses the term mass for the above described mass proper.
We proved from various letters and other articles ofMelancthon, written during the session of the Diet, that he employed it in this specific sense.
We proved that the other Reformers used the word in this specific sense, such as Aurifaber, and Spalatin. And finally:
We proved that theRomanistsused it in this sense at the Diet, in their pretended Refutation of the Augsburg Confession.
There being no possible doubt of the Reformers using the word mass to mean the specific mass, in their other writings at that time; the, only remaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputed passages of the Article XXIV. of the Augsburg Confession.
That he did here employ it, in this specific sense, we proved by the following facts: Because he made two different captions or headings for two different articles, and in the one headed "Of the Lord's Supper," he discusses that subject, and in the other headed "The Mass," he discusses what is specifically termed mass.
We proved, that Melancthon and all other translators from the Latin orGerman copy, have translated these passages, messa, andmass, and notAbendmahl, or Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.
We have proved, that in this very Article XXIV., the mass and sacrament are spoken of in the same sentence as different things, being connected together by the word "and."
We have proved, that if we substitute the Lord's Supper instead of mass in this Article, many of the passages will make nonsense.
We have proved, that the Romanists themselves in their Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, understood this Article XXIV. as speaking of the Mass proper, and censured it for rejecting private masses,whilst it approved of itfor retaining public masses.
Finally, we have proved, that Melancthon, in replying to this Romish Refutation, does not charge them with having misunderstood the XXIV. Article; but goes on to refute their arguments, implying that they had understood him correctly.
In view of all these facts it is impossible for us to doubt, that the word mass in the objected passages of the Article XXIV., signifies the mass in its specific sense, and not the Lord's Supper in general: and that when the Reformers affirm in their Confession, that "they are unjustly charged with having abolished the mass" they meant that they retained the mass on sacramental occasions, with the limitations and altered explanations of the nature and application of it, specified in different parts of the Confession; whilst they freely admitted, that they 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 its being offered by him for others than himself, either living or dead, and its being performed at any other time, or for any other purpose than as a preparative for Sacramental Communion, the Confession rejects, but theoutwardrite itself, on public sacramental occasions, it professes to retain: and this being the only charge made in thePlatformon 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 Confession than Luther approved, and whether any of the alterations confessedly made in the Confession after Luther had approved it, related to this Article, is quite a different question, and cannot affect the meaning of the Article itself. It is not improbable that such was the case; but even the ritual, which Luther prepared in 1523, contained the greater part of the Romish mass, such as theIntroitus, theKyrie Eleison, theCollecta, or prayer andepistles, Singing of the Gradual, aShort Sequens, theGospel, theNicene Creed, and a number of other matters, not excepting even theelevationof 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 of the mass. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only with favoring theCeremonies of the Mass, the charge is not only sustained, but falls short, of what we have established in the preceding pages: and all the vituperation aimed at us by different individuals, who have studied the subject imperfectly, or not at all, we cheerfully forgive, conscious that the aim of all we have published on this subject has been the prosperity of the church, and assured that it will be blessed by the Master to this glorious end.
Reference to the author's former works containing representationsof this subject.
In view of these indisputable results of a careful investigation of the original sources, it may not be amiss to cast a glance at the representations of this subject in our former publications during the last quarter of a century, as we have frequently been charged, not indeed by the author of the Plea, but by superficial writers, with self-contradiction and misrepresentation. It would indeed have been in perfect unison with the habit of the best authors of Europe and America, to change our opinions as we extended our investigations, and freely to profess such change. Nor should we feel any reluctance in following such distinguished authorities, if we felt that our case required it. But in reperusing our former statements, we cannot see that they differ, in any material point, from the results of our latest investigations above given.
In the Popular Theology, (page 406 of the seventh edition,) first published in 1834, speaking of the article of the Augsburg Confession on the Mass, we find the following:—"On this subject, (the mass,) the language of the Confession was less condemnatory, than that which they soon after employed. In the Smalcald Articles, which were published seven years after this Confession, in 1537, Luther declares the Papal mass to be a most momentous and abominable corruption; because it militates directly and powerfully against the fundamental doctrine, (justification by faith in Jesus Christ.") We then add several extracts from the Augsburg Confession, showing that the confessors rejected thesacrificialandvicariousnature of the mass, as well as other objectionable features of it. Now here we find the same two positions taken, which the preceding discussions of this chapter have established, namely, that the Confession is less condemnatory than the later Smalcald Articles; that it favors the mass more, and speaks of it in milder language than was employed at a subsequent period. As no one of any note at that day pretended to urge the adoption of the entire Augsburg Confession, much less of all the symbolical books, there was no necessity of dilating on the objectionable features of the Confession, and we of course abstain from doing so. In this silence we would have persevered to this day, had not a new generation of European symbolists since then sought refuge on our shores, and carried on aggressive operations, incessantly assailing the General Synod and her members, and charging them with unfaithfulness to Confessions which they never adopted, except as to fundamentals; thus compelling us to expose these remnants of Romish error which they certainly do contain.
When, we turn to ourHistory 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 ceremoniesof the Romish mass, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors in doctrine, by which the Romish mass grew out of the Scripture doctrine of the Lord's Supper, were rejected in that as well as subsequent symbols." "Our churches," (says the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXIV.) "areunjustlycharged with having rejected the mass, (messe.) For it is publicly known that the mass is celebrated amongst us with greater devotion and earnestness, than amongst our opponents." "Nor has there been any perceptible change made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except that at several placesGermanhymns are sung along with theLatinones." "Our custom is on holy days (and at other times also,if there be communicants) tosay mass, (not to say a Lord's Supper,) and those who desire it, receive the Lord's Supper." Subsequently, however, great changes were made in the public ceremonies attendant on the Lord's Supper, and Luther in his Smalcald Articles rejects the mass entirely, both the name and accompanying ceremonies. And soon after the whole Lutheran church followed him. Still, if the Augsburg Confession werestrictly binding on us, we should be under the necessity of adopting on sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual in the Romish Church in celebrating public mass." Here again we see the following points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the Augsburg Confession denies having rejected the mass. 2. That she does reject those doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish mass. 3. That it was their custom on public occasions (when persons were present who desired to commune) to say a mass, and then administer the sacrament to them. 4. That the Confession explicitly asserts that "no perceptible change" had been made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the introduction of German hymns along with the Latin ones in several places. Hence the inference would necessarily follow, that if they had made no perceptible change in the public ceremonies of the mass, we could make none, if the Confession wasstrictly bindingon us: and as the ceremonies of the Romish mass are the same now as then, the ceremonies which the Confession prescribes are the same as those now observed in the church, and if we obeyed the Confession, we should have to perform the same without any "perceptible" difference, except the addition of German hymns along with the Latin, which were at that time used in the Lutheran Church. These, Luther for sometime himself defended, as it is certain he did the elevation of the host, (but not for adoration,) till 1542, more thantwenty yearsafter he commenced the Reformation. Those who object to these statements confound the teachings of the Confession with thesubsequent practice of Luther and the churches; yea, it has appeared to us, in the course of our recent examinations on these subjects, that the Augsburg Confession was not even up to the progress of reform attained by churches at that day, and this may be one reason why Luther told Melancthon he had yielded too much to the Papists in the Confession. In our Lutheran Manual, we have simply presented the article of the Confession in full, in juxtaposition with the Smalcald Article, treating of the same subject; and have done so without note or comment, except the remark, that the latter refutes the tolerant views of the mass expressed in the former. We can, therefore, see no inconsistency between what we have published on this subject at distant intervals, certainly much less than might have occurred to the most careful and conscientious writer, on a subject so closely connected with the fluctuations of language. Doubtless, by taking detached portions of a paragraph apart from the limitations connected with them, and falsely imputing sinister motives to almost every sentence, it in possible to make the most correct author contradict himself and misrepresent his subject; but with such men, whether their misrepresentations arise from deliberate design or inveterate general habit, we cannot consent to debate. The injury done is rather to the cause of Christ and of truth than ourselves, and we can well afford to commit the case for adjudication to that Omniscient Being, "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's Letters 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.
This rite, in any sense of the term, that can be given to it in the Augsburg 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 Old Lutherans, and among those foreigners in the west of our country, who constitute the Missouri Synod. It is historically unjust to apply the termprivateconfession to that public confession of sins, made by the congregation collectively, as part of our preparatory exercises on sacramental occasions, and usually a misnomer to apply the name private confession, to the habit of some of our German ministers, (termed Anmeldung,) of having all communicants call on them for conversation on their spiritual state, prior to sacramental communion. Although these customs both grew out of private confession properly so called, neither of them retains its essential elements.
Let us first inquirewhat does the Augsburg Confession mean by the phrase Private Confession. Among the Romanists,AuricularConfession is that rite, in which every individual of both sexes must, at least once a year, appear before the priest at the confession box in the church or chapel, and confess in detail all the sins that he can recollect; after which, the priest assigns the penitent some acts of penance, and on his promising to perform them, he then, as in the stead of God, professes to forgive him his sins. The Reformers, however, distinctly rejected the necessity of the penitents enumerating his individual sins, and the propriety of the minister's prescribing any penance to the penitent. They also distinctly made confession optional with the penitent, and the absolution dependent on his faith; and this purified rite they termedPrivateConfession, although in some parts of the church it was still called Auricular Confession (Ohrenbeicht). [Note 1] The manner in which this rite was performed in the Lutheran Church, is thus described byFunkin his work entitled "Kirchenordnungen of the first century of the Lutheran Church in Germany," in which he presents the results of thirty of theoldestLutheran Formulas of Church Discipline and Worship. "Absolution was receivedprivately, by each oneindividually, kneelingbefore theconfessional, the confessorimposing his handsat the time. Private confession was given onlyin the church, in which the confessional was so locatednear the pulpit, thatno other person could be near, or hear what was saidby the penitent." [Note 2]
But
I. What does the Platform teach in regard tothis Private Confession?The Platform teaches, 1. That it was retained by the Augsburg Confession and other symbolical books. 2. It is objected to by the Platform, as unauthorized by the Word of God. 3. And thirdly, as being inconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation, thatfaith it the only conditionof the justification or pardon of the sinner.
II. What does the Plea object to these positions?
1. That the impression might be made by the Platform, that the Lutheran doctrine has some affinity to the Romish doctrine of Auricular Confession. But the Platform expressly states the rejection ofAuricularConfession by the Reformers, and their retention of what they called private confession in its stead, the latter differing from the former as above stated. The Plea next introduces a formula of absolution, used in Wittenberg, in 1559, to show the harmlessness of the rite. But here, unfortunately, if we are not entirely mistaken, our friend has overlooked the fact, that it is a formula forpublic, andnot privateconfession which he cites. This is certain from the language throughout, being addressed "to all such as are here present," &c. It is well known thatprivateconfession was rejected in the Lutheran Church in Denmark and Sweden in the beginning, as well as by different portions of Germany at an early day, and a public or general confession adopted in its stead. In Luther's Short Directory for Confession, &c., [[Note 3] tr. note: there is no note number in the original to go with the corresponding footnote, but this appears to be where it should go] we have his formula forprivateor individual absolution, which will convey to the reader a more correct idea of its form: 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, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in peace."
Another specimen of private absolution we find in the Kirchenordnung, [Note 4] or Church Directory of CountWolfgang, of the Palatinate, on the Rhine, &c., published in Nuernberg, 1557.
"The Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be gracious and merciful to thee, and will pardon all thy sins, for the sake of his dear Son Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for them. And in the name of this, our Lord Jesus Christ, by his command, and in virtue of his declaration, 'Whose sins ye remit they am remitted,' &c.,I pronounce thee free and clear of all thy sins, that they shall all be forgiven thee, as certainly and completely, as Jesus Christ by his sufferings and death merited the same, and in his gospel has commanded it to be preached to all the world. Receive, therefore, this consoling promise, which I have now made to thee in the name of the Lord Christ, let thy conscience be at rest, and do thou confidently believe, that thy sins are assuredly forgiven thee, for Christ's sake, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen."
2. The Plea affirms, that private confession may be useful as a means of bringing the, members of the church into personal interview with their pastor. The advantage of such interviews we freely admit; but they can be and are secured in our churches without this rite; and as it is confessedly destitute of Scripture authority, we have no right to invent anew ordinancein 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, and appeals to Matth. xviii. 18, "Whatsoever ye shall bind one arth," [sic] &c. But the previous context "tell it to thechurch" &c., clearly shows that it refers to church discipline, and signifies "whatever acts of discipline ye enact in regard to such an individual, I will ratify in heaven." 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, to discern the condition of the heart, and to announce pardon to those whom they knew to be truly penitent and believing; or it confers on the ministry, in all ages, the power to announcein generalthe conditions on which God will pardon sinners. But it contains no authority to uninspired ministers to apply these promises to individuals, the condition of whose hearts they cannot know, as is done in 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 the Augsburg Confession, is so evident, that it cannot be successfully denied. Nor is this done only in the Abuses Corrected, as the Plea seems to suppose, p. 20. In Art. XI. of the Confession, we read: "In regard to confession, they teach,that private absolution ought to be retained in the church;but that an enumeration of all our transgressions is not requisite to confession."
In theApology [Note 5] to the Confession, Melancthon employs this language: "Wherefore it would beimpiousto take away private absolution from the church." (Quare impium esset, &c.)Luther, in the Smalcald Articles, Art. VIII., says, confession and absolution oughtby no meansbe abolished in the church, &c., (Nequaquam in ecclesia confessio et absolutio abolenda est, &c.;) and he is speaking ofprivateconfession.
The Romish alleged Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, on the above cited Art. XI., thus expresses its approbation: "This article (Art. XI.) that private and special absolution should remain, and be preserved in the churches isCatholic. Yet two things must be required of them, (of the Reformers,) that both men and women should attend confession at least once a year, &c.; secondly, to confess all the sins youcanrecollect." [Note 6]
Dr. Plank, in his celebrated and elaborate History of the Origin and Changes of the Protestant Doctrinal System, [Note 7] speaking of the negotiations between the Reformers and Papists during the Diet of Augsburg, says, "On the subject of the Confessionalthere was an entire agreement, for they (the Reformers) had declared that they regarded Confession as a very useful institution, and had no idea of suffering it to fall, and also regarded it as good, that the people should be accustomed to confess their sins," viz., at the confessional.
Siegel, in his Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, [Note 8] after stating that Luther rejectedAuricularConfession, as a sacrament, and a means of oppressing the conscience, adds: "But, on the other hand, Luther was as unwilling as Melancthon, to haveprivate confessionabolished, and the latter had, in his Loci Theologici, pronounced private absolution to be as necessary as baptism." In regard to confession in the Lutheran Church of Germany, the fact is, that private confession, which the Reformers so earnestly recommended, is almost entirely abandoned and changed into a general (and public) confession, which may with more propriety be termed preparatory services to the Lord's Supper."
Finally, we will add the testimony of only one more witness,Prof. Jacobson, in the excellentTheological Encyclopedia of Dr. Herzog, now in progress of publication in Germany, who says, "Whilst the compulsory part of the institution (private confession,) fell to the ground, each one was left to judge whether and how much he would confess. The institution itselfwas retained, andprivate confessionespecially recommended. The Augsburg Confession presupposes it (private confession,)as the rule:" Our custom is not to give the sacrament to those who have not first been confessed and absolved;" and the Smalcald articles [sic] teach that Confession and Absolution must by no means be allowed to be omitted in the church." [Note 9]
After all this testimony, it may be regarded as incontestably established, that the former symbolical books of our church do teachprivate confessionand absolution, with some modifications, and hence, that the church in Sweden and Denmarkalways rejected this part of the Augsburg Confession, in practice, and that the entire church in Germany and the United States, which now use apublicconfession, have made a similar departure from the teachings of the Augsburg Confession as well as of Luther, Melancthon and the other Lutheran reformers.
2. Thatthis rite of private confession, is unauthorized by any command of the Word of God, in so clear, that the Symbolical books themselves admit it, and commend the rite merely on the ground of human expediency, and inferential scriptural reasoning. The same acknowledgment is made by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann. In Art. XXVI. of Augsburg Confession, being Topic V. of the Abuses Corrected, the confession says: "Confession isnot commanded in Scripture, but has been institutedby the church." [Note 10]
3. The rite ofprivate absolution, on which the Reformers lay much stress, is in like manner destitute of scriptural authority, and most injurious to the interests of spiritual religion. TheomniscientSaviour 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 are forgiven." Luke vii. 48.
But, even the inspired apostles never in a single instance, either undertook to forgive sins themselves, or to announce the pardon of sin to anyindividual personally. It is therefore a solemn thing for ministers, unguided by inspiration, to assume greater power. To proclaim publicly and privately the willingness of God to pardon the impenitent, is an important and delighful [sic] part of the minister's duty; but for uninspired men to institute a special rite in the church, for the express purpose of announcingpardon to individuals, even when done conditionally, as the reformers maintained it always should be, is inevitably calculated to lead, especially the less intelligent, to believe their sins forgiven, at least in part, because the ministers announce 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 representGod, andthe 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 address our supplication, not to the minister, but to ourheavenly Father, "forgive us our sins," &c., Luke xi. 4. He says nothing, nor does any writer of the Old or New Testamentsay a wordabout advising a resort to the priest or minister to obtain forgiveness of sins. The same truth is taught in a multitude of other passages. We refer the reader to a few: 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 essentiallyagainst God, is a violation ofhislaw, implies that no other being, not even an angel or archangel, much less a man, can forgive it, "Against thee, thee only have I sinned," said the Psalmist, "and done this evil in thy sight."
(c) The offers of pardon in God's Word, are allconditionalandgeneral, and these alone has the minister the right to proclaim, either to a congregation or to an individual. The implication of the promise to individuals is made by the Holy Spirit, working faith in the individual, or enabling him to trust in Christ. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God," and this peace is the believer's evidence, is the Testimony of the Spirit, that our sins are forgiven.
(d) The actual pardon of individuals by God, depends on their possessing the moral fitness required by him. It is based on their having performed the prescribed moral conditions sincerely, of which none but the Omniscient Jehovah can certainly judge; hence, even the declarative annunciation of pardon to individuals, is not only unauthorized but dangerous. Because, even if conditionally announced, the formality of the absolution, and the fact that the church has made aspecial riteof it, are calculated to beget the idea, especially in the unintelligent, that the granting of absolutions by the minister, is proof of the genuineness of their faith, and reality of their pardon.
(e) Finally, the doctrine of ministerial absolution, or the supposed sin-forgiving power of the ministry, is inconsistent with the doctrine, that justification or pardon can be attained only by a living faith in Jesus Christ, a doctrine of cardinal importance in the eyes of the Reformers, and the one which Luther has styled thearticulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae, the doctrine with which the church must stand or fall." The Scriptures and also the Reformers, teach that pardon or justification can be obtained only through the merits of Christ, which merits must be apprehended by a living faith, which living faith can be found only in the regenerate or converted soul. Hence, as none but a regenerate sinner can exercise living faith, no other can be pardoned, whatever else he may do or possess. Now those who attend confession are either regenerate, or they are not. If they were regenerated or converted before they went to confession, they had faith, and were pardoned before; if they were unregenerate or unconverted, then neither their confession, nor the priest's absolution, can confer pardon on them, because they have not a living faith, although they may be sincere and exercise some sorrow for their sins. On the other hand, if any amount of seriousness and penitence, short of true conversion or regeneration, could, through the confessional, or any other rite, confer pardon of sin; the line of distinction between converted and unconverted, between mere formalists and true Christians would be obliterated; we should have pardoned saints and pardoned sinners in the church, converted and unconverted heirs of the promise, believing and unbelieving subjects of justification, and the words of the Lord Jesus would prove a lie, "That,unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven!"-Def. Platform, p. 25.
On the subject of this rite, we regret to state, that a more careful study of the subject, as presented in the above results, will not permit us to speak as favorably of the practice of the Reformers, as we did in some of our former publications, twenty years ago, and even later. The positions above maintained, we think, cannot be successfully controverted, as our investigations of the original sources has been sufficiently 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.
The incalculable importance of the proper observation of the Christian Sabbath to the progress of the kingdom of Christ in general, and to the growth of piety in the heart of every Christian in particular, is a point on which, we are happy to state, there is no difference between the Plea and the Platform. Yet we cannot resist the conviction, that in our efforts to observe this day, not with the pharisaic formalities of the Jew, but with the conscientious spirituality of the Christian, the question whether in doing so, we are obeying an injunction of God, exhibited in the inspired example of his apostles, or are merely conforming to an uninspired regulation of the church, must be of great importance.
The lax views of the early reformers on this subject are so frequently met with in theological discussions, that we had not expected to find the position of the Platform disputed; but rather that the theory of the Reformers would be defended, as is done by writers of no mean name in Germany at the present day. The author of the Plea, however, takes a different view of the Confession, and affirms that this venerable document does not deny the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath. "Luther and Melancthon (says he,) had received from the older church, the doctrine and practice of the Christian Sabbath, as a holy day, as a divine institution and obligation, and they had not a word to say against this view of the Sabbath. But they had a great deal to say against the abuses, by which the bishops made the Sabbath a day of sin and dishonor to God and his church, instead of making it a day devoted to his glory," p. 28.
This opinion is different from that commonly entertained among the learned. A few authorities alone may suffice to sustain our statement.Dr Ruecker, in his work onThe Lord's Day, in which he thoroughly examines the views of the church on this subject, in all the different ages of her history, fully confirms the position of the Definite Platform. He says, "The Reformers do not recognize in the religious observance of Sunday an institution resting on an immediate divine command;and the idea of a transfer of the Sabbatic law of the Old to the New Testament Sunday, is altogether strange to them, and is positively rejected by them, as in consistent with the gospel" (Die Reformatorem erkennen in der Sonntagsfeierkeine unmittelbar goettliche anordnung, &c.) Ruckert, von Tage des Herrn, p. 48.
And again, on p. 67, he affirms this more liberal view of the Lord's Day, to be the more general one in Germany at the present time. "So far," says he, "as we know, the most important, living, theological writers, of the present day, entertain this so-called more liberal or lax view, (namely, that of Luther.)"
Dr. Hengstenberg, the well-known editor of the Evangelical Church Paper at Berlin, Prussia, and author of numerous learned and valuable works, uses the following language: "What Luther's views were, on the law concerning the Sabbath, may easily be inferred from his views of the Old Testament law in general, and of the Decalogue in particular. The distinction which became current after his day, between the moral and ceremonial law, according to which Christ abrogated only the latter, whilst the former is regarded as universal and binding on all ages, was distant from his views. He regards the whole law as an external, coercive letter, designed only for the Jews." "HowLutherregarded the Sabbath from this general view, is so clearly exhibited in his Larger Catechism, that the introduction of other passages from his writings, is entirely superfluous." He then quotes the passages which will be given in full in our next section, in which Luther declares the Sabbath to be designed only for the Jews, and that in its outward sense it does not concern Christians. (Darum, says Luther, gehet nun dies gebot nach dem groben Verstande uns Christen nichts an, &c.) Melancthon (continues Hengstenberg,) agreed with Luther, and this view was introduced into the Augsburg Confession." See Hengstenberg, ueber den Tag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 108, 109, 110.
But the accuracy of the Platform will no longer be disputed, when evenDr. Walter, [sic; should be Walther] the leader of the old Lutheran Synod of Missouri, and editor of their periodical, a man of acknowledged theological learning and rigid advocate for the entire Augsburg Confession, bears testimony in favor of our position. In the March No. of the Lehre und Wehre, p. 93, he thus expresses his views: "We cannot agree with him (the author, whom he is reviewing) in the views he expresses concerning the Sabbath. He asserts that the Sabbath or Christian Sundayis a divine institution, and that this is the doctrine of the Lutheran Symbols: That the Lutheran Church differs from the Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the former advocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method.The contrary of this is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. of the Augsburg Confession, and it would bealmost incomprehensible how the author could fail to perceive this, were it not for his manifest desire to make the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any other precept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not be accomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointment of the Sunday.
Once more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of that learned 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 as to Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishops may and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and the people should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conducive to 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 Jewish institution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety of our retaining the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the churches for the convenience of general convocation.
II. What ground does the Plea take?
It denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, while it supposes the Confession to object not to the divine institution and obligation of the Lord's Day, but to the corruptions which the Romish church had connected with it, and especially the idea that the observance of the Lord's Day was a meritorious work, which would secure our justification before God.
The observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of the Sabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of the Platform. 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 obligation to observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by God or by the church. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains, for the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtually acknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says: "The Augsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite assertion that the Christian Sabbath rests onno special dictate of the Word of God, maintains that by necessity, and by right, thechurchinstituted our Christian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it." P. 34. To this we shall confine our proof.
III.We shall prove that the Augsburg Confession does deny the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day.
In establishing this position, we shall first prove from the other writings of Luther and Melancthon, that they both rejected the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day; secondly, show from the Augsburg Confession itself, as well as the Apology to it, both written by Melancthon, that its divine appointment is there denied.
Let us listen to thedeclarations of Lutheron this subject. In his Commentary on the Pentateuch, speaking of the decalogue, he says: "Saint Paul and the entire New Testament have abolished the Sabbath of the Jews, in order that men may understand that the Sabbath concerns the Jews alone. It is therefore unnecesssary [sic] that the Gentiles should observe the Sabbath, although it was a great and rigid command among the Jews." [Note 1] "Among Christians, under the New Testament, every day is a holy day, andall days are free. Therefore, says Christ, the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. Matt. xii. 8. Therefore Paul, at different places, admonishes the Christians, not to suffer themselves to be bound to any particular day. Ye observe days and months, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. Gal. iv. 10, 11. And still more clearly in Colossians ii. 16, 17. Let no mint therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come." "But although the Sabbath isnow revoked, and the consciences of men are free from it, it is nevertheless good and necessary thatsomeparticular day of the week be observed, in order that the word of God may be dispensed on it, may be 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 the week, and abstain from labor. Hence, if any one desires to make a necessary command out of the Sabbath, as a work required of God, he must observe Saturday and not Sunday, for Saturday was enjoined upon the Jews, and not Sunday. But Christians have hitherto observed Sunday, and not Saturday, because on that day Christ, arose. Now this is a certain evidence to us that the Sabbath, yea the entire Moses (Mosaic dispensation) no longer concerns us, else we would be under obligation to observe Saturday. This is a great and strong proof that the Sabbath is revoked; for throughout the whole New Testament we find no place in which 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 still necessary and good, yea, very necessary, that some one day be observed,whether it be Sabbath, Sunday or any other day. For God designs to lead the world decently, and govern it peaceably; therefore he gave six days for work, but on the seventh day, servants, hirelings, and laborers of every kind, yea, even horses and oxen and other laboring animals shall have rest, as this precept requires, in order that they may be refreshed by rest. And especially in order that those, who at other times have no leisure, may hear the preached word and thereby learn to know God. And for this reason, namely, of love and necessity, Sunday has been retained, not on account of the Mosaic precept, but for the sake of our necessities in order that we might rest and learn the word of God." [Note 2]
In his larger Catechism, Luther thus expresses himself. [Note 3]
"This commandment, therefore, with respect to its outward and literal sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is wholly an external thing, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, confined to certain conditions, and places, which are all now left free through Christ. But in order that we may draw up for the uninformed, a Christian meaning of what God requires of us in this commandment, is is necessary to observe, thatwe keep the Sabbath-day, not for the sake of intelligent and learned (gelehrten) Christians; for these have no need of it:but in the first place, on account, of physical reasons and necessities, which nature teaches and requires for thecommon massof people,men-servantsandmaid-servants, who attend during the whole week totheir labor and employments, so that they may also have a day set apart forrest and refreshment (erquicken:) in the second, mostly for the purpose of enabling us to take time and opportunity on these Sabbath-days, (since we cannot otherwise attain them,) to attendto divine service, so that we may assemble ourselves to hear and treat of the 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 not better in itself than another, but it should be daily attended to;but since the mass of the people cannot attend to it, we shouldreserve one day in the week, at least, for this purpose. Inasmuch, however, as Sunday has beenset apart from of oldfor this purpose, we should therefore let it remain so, that the Sabbath may be observed withuniformity, and that no one create disorder through unnecessary innovation."
The above testimony of Luther is so distinct and decided, that he certainly would not have approved of the Augsburg Confession if Melancthon had introduced a different doctrine into it. But there was no difference of opinion on this point, between these two luminaries of the church.
2.Melancthon, in a letter addressed to Luther from Augsburg, dated July 27, 1530, thus speaks of the Christian Sabbath: "When St. Peter appoints the religious observance of Sunday, I regard this work (the observance of the day)not as divine worship, (Gottesdienst, cultus,) but as being attended by bodily advantage, (leiblichen Nutzen,) if the people assemble together on a fixed day." [Note 4]
Again, in hisSystem of Divinity, orLoci Theologici," [Note 5] we find the following unequivocal declaration: "We have, heard above that the Leviticalceremoniesare abolished. But the law concerning the Sabbath is a Levitical ceremony, andSt. Paulexpressly 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;) why then (it may be asked) do you insist so rigidly on this precept? Answer. This precept in the words of Moses embraces two things, onecommon, that is necessary to the church at all times, and aparticular day, which concerned only the government of Israel. Thecommonpart (of this precept) is the proper public office (or duty) to preach and to observe the divine ceremonies, which God has at any time enjoyed. Thiscommonprecept binds all men; for this honor all rational creatures owe to God, to aid in sustaining the office of preacher, and Christian assemblies, (public worship,) according to the condition and calling of each one, as shall be farther stated hereafter.But the particular part, concerning the seventh day, DOES NOT BIND US: therefore we hold meetings on thefirst day and on any other daysof the week,as occasion offers."
Such then being the views of the illustrious reformers, one of whom penned the Augsburg Confession, and the other sanctioned it, we might naturally expect to find them expressed in the Confession itself, which a bare recital of a few passages, will prove to be the case.
And, I. From theAugsburg Confession, Art. XXVIII.
"And what are we to believe concerningSunday(the Lord's day,) and other similar ordinances and ceremonies of the church? To this inquiry we reply, the bishops and clergy may make regulations, that order may be observed in the church, not with the view of thereby obtaining the grace of God, nor in order thus to make satisfaction for sins, nor to bind the consciences, to hold and regard this as anecessaryworship of God, or to believe that they wouldcommit sinif theyviolatedthese regulations without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xi. 5,) has ordained thatwomen shall have their headscovered in the congregation; also, that ministers should not all speak at the same time in the congregation, but in an orderly manner, one after another.
"It is becoming in a Christian congregation to observe such order, for the sake of love and peace, and to obey the bishops and clergy in these cases, and to observe these regulations so far as not to give offence to one another, so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct in the church. Nevertheless, the consciences of men must not be oppressed, by representing these things asnecessary to salvation, orteaching that they are guilty of sin, if they break these regulations without offence to others;for no one affirms that a woman commits sin who goes out with her head uncovered, without giving offence to the people. SUCH ALSO IS THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUNDAY, Easter, Whitsunday, and similar festivals and customs. Forthose who suppose that the ordinance concerning Sundayinstead of Sabbath,is enacted as necessary, are greatly mistaken. For the Holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and teaches that all the ceremonies of the old law may be omitted, since the publication of the gospel. And yet, as it was necessary to appoint a certain day, in order that the people might know when they should assemble, theChristian church, (not the apostles,) has up appointed Sunday (the Lord's day) for this purpose; and to this change she was the more inclined and willing, that the people might have an example of Christianliberty, and might know thatthe observance of neither the Sabbath nor any other day is necessary. 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 and erroneous opinion, that Christians must have such a mode of divine worship as is conformed to the Levitical or Jewish service, and that Christ enjoined it on the apostles and bishops, to invent new ceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation." [Note 6]
Here we are distinctly taught, (a) that the Jewish Sabbath is entirely abolished; (b) that no particular day was divinely appointed in its stead; (c) that those who suppose the ordinance concerning Sunday instead of Sabbath is enacted as necessary, "are greatly mistaken." (d) But that, as it was necessary to appoint a certain day for the, convocation of the people, "theChristian church(not the apostles,) appointed Sunday."
II. Of similar import are the teachings of theApology 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 by variations in suchhuman ordinances, than it is by variations in the natural length of the day in different places. Yet we like to see thegeneral ceremoniesuniformly kept, for the sake of harmony and order, as in our churches, for instance, we retain (behalten) themass, theLord's Day, andother great festivals.
"And we approve, allhuman ordinanceswhich are good and useful, especially those which promote good external discipline among youth and the people generally. But the inquiry is not, shall human ordinances be observed on account of external discipline and tranquillity? [sic] The question is altogether different; it is, is the observance of such human ordinances a divine service by which God is reconciled; and that without such ordinances, no one can be righteous before God? This is the chief inquiry, and when this shall have been finally answered, it will be easy to judge whether the unity of the church requires uniformity in such ordinances." [Note 7]
Here again the Lord's day (a) is classed in the category ofhumanordinances, the observance of which is free, and may differ in different places.
(b) Yet uniformity in general ceremonies is pleasing, such as "the mass, the Lord's day, and other great festivals."
(c) It is classed again withhumanordinances which promote good external 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 to it by the learned in Germany generally, that Luther and Melancthon teach them in their other writings: in view of all these evidences, we ask every impartial, conscientious reader, whether it is possible to doubt the accuracy of the positions maintained by the Platform on this subject—namely, that the Augsburg Confession treats the Sabbath, or religious observance of theseventhday of the week, as a mere Jewish institution, an institution appointed of God for the Jews alone; whilst the propriety of retaining theLord's dayor Christian Sabbath, as a day of religious observation and worship, in their judgment, rests on the appointment of the church, and the necessity of having some one day for the convenience of the people in assembling for public worship. The act of keeping any one dayentirelyfor religious observance, they regard as ceremonial and temporary, and the moral or common part of the precept, as stated in our extract from Melancthon, they resolve into the general duty of preaching and hearing the gospel, and of sustaining public assemblies for this purpose; that is, of bearing the expenses incident to the support of the ministry and the ordinances of God's house.
"Our American churches, on the contrary, as well as some few in Germany, believe in the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day, convinced that the Old Testament Sabbath was not a mere Jewish institution; but that it was appointed by God at the close of the creative week, when he rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and sanctified it, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) that is, set it (namely, one whole day in seven,) apart for holy purposes, for reasons of universal and perpetual nature, Exod. xx. 11. Even in the re-enactment of it in the Mosaic rode, its original appointment is acknowledged, 'Rememberthe Sabbath day—because in six days God made heaven and earth—and rested on theseventh; whereforehe, (then, in the beginning,)blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' Now this reason has no more reference to the Jews than to any other nation, and if it was sufficient to make the observance of the Sabbath obligatory on them, it must be equally so for all other nations before and after them.
'Since therefore the observance and sanctification of a portion of his time, is based on universal reasons in the nature of man, especially as a religious being, and the proportion of time was fixed at aseventh, by the example and precepts of the Creator in the beginning; the Sabbath or religious observance of one day in seven, must be universally obligatory, and the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, can at most only repeal those ceremonial additions which that ritual made, and must leave the original Sabbath as it found it. Now whilst the apostles, and first Christians under the inspired guidance, for a season also attended worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they observed the day of the Lord's resurrection, the first day of the week, as their day of special religious convocations; and thisinspired exampleis obligatory on Christians in all ages. Still the essence of the institution consists, not in the particular day of the week, though that is now fixed, but in the religious observance of one entire day in seven." [Note 8]
We do not, indeed, maintain that the conduct of the apostles was inspired on all occasions; but it seems just and necessary to maintain, that when engaged in the specific and appropriate duties of that office, for which they were inspired, they were as much under the guidance of the Spirit in theiractions, as their words.
On the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, we refer the reader to an extended argument in its favor, in the author's Lutheran 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.
On this subject the author of the Plea does not pursue the order of the Platform, in which baptism and the eucharist are discussed separately; but he unites the two under the caption of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and enters into some discussions of the sacraments in general, and then introduces remarks on each in particular. Whilst we deem a separate discussion of each sacrament necessary to its proper elucidation, there are certain general views common to them both, which may with propriety be considered in connexion. We, therefore, devote some pages to this purpose, under the head of theGeneral Nature of the Sacraments, and reserve the discussion of each one individually to subsequent chapters. It would require an extended volume to discuss all the several aspects of this interesting and solemn subject glanced at by our author. He does not, however, present in definite lineaments the precise system, which he attributes to the Lutheran Symbols; and lest we should do him injustice in endeavoring to present his system in detail, in order to controvert it, we deem it more Christian and courteous to specify only a few items of his chapter, and occupy our space chiefly in presenting and defending what we regard as the doctrine taught in the Word of God on this subject. This doctrine is also the theory that underlies the positions of the Definite Platform, and, we suppose, is assented to by its friends.
The Plea affirms, "The Lutheran doctrine maintains that the Sacraments have an _intrinsic value; but the Definite Platform seems to regard them as meresigns, which may have a tendency topromote piety, p. 35. On this point we think our author has not clearly presented the point of difference between the friends of the Platform and the Plea. We not only admit, but strenuously affirm, that the sacraments have an importantintrinsicinfluence. 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 apledgeandconditionof obtainingthose blessings purchased by Christ, and offered to all who repent, believe in him and profess his name by baptism," p. 30. As to the question, whether this influence is intrinsic or not, it is not touched in the Platform; although we doubt not its adherents very generally hold the affirmative. But the real point of dispute is theprecise natureof the influence exerted by the sacraments. The symbolsseemto regardforgiveness of sins, that is, justification, as theimmediateeffect of every worthy reception of these ordinances; whilst the friends of the Platform hold this influence to consist in their tendency to produce thatliving faith, resulting from regeneration, which is theonly condition of pardon, and without the possession of which God has not promised to forgive the sins of any one, no matter what outward duties he may perform. For God will not forgive the sins of an unconverted sinner. The symbols do, indeed, often insist on the necessity of faith, yet they speak as though in those who do believe, it was the sacrament, and not their faith in the Redeemer, which secured the blessing. Nor do they in many passages sufficiently discriminate, that it is not a mere historical or intellectual, but a living faith, a faith of the heart also, a faith that works by love and purifies the heart and overcomes the world, a faith that involves an entire surrender to the soul of God, which is required to the full efficacy 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 fact from God's word, or theapostolicchurch; and the church of subsequent ages 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 of regeneration in the heart of the little child." "The expression used in the Augsburg Confession, Art. II., is, regenerated by baptism and the Holy Ghost, (John iii. 5.) This doctrine, however, is not to be understood as if the new creation was fully completed by new generation. It is complete so far as alive seedis complete in itself. This does, by no means, exclude subsequent development brought about by favorable internal and external influences;" p. 36. "And Christ, the Godman, is able to make us poor earthly creatures partakers of his celestial nature_, (2 Pet. i. 4,) in the most solemn rite of his church, (the eucharist,) which is therefore communion between Christ and man, in the fullest manner possible on earth;" p. 37. Here the respected author, by adopting the theory thata living seedis implantedby baptism, (whether into the soul or body he does not specify,) and then that the Godman Christ Jesus makes these baptized individualspartakers of his CELESTIAL NATURE by the sacramental supper, seems to favor something like that theory of concorporation, or a physical union between Christ and the believer, which is known invariousphases as Puseyism in England, and Nevinism in the German Reformed Church of this country, and which has spread a withering influence over the interests of practical piety wherever embraced. Yet we would by no means affirm that the 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 it in God's word. [Note 1]