We shall therefore proceed to ascertain the Scripture doctrine in regard to the influence of the sacraments in general. For the sake of brevity and perspicuity, we shall present it in a concatenation of propositions, that in the end will cover the whole ground, and conduct us safely to the surest biblical results.
Scripture view of the Influence of the Sacraments.
I. The plan of salvation, revealed in God's word, presupposes that, man is afallen creature, depraved in nature and practice,—that all men are rebels against the righteous government of God, lying under his righteous displeasure, and morally disqualified for heaven. And also, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord! [Note 2] "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," is sinful, and except a man beborn again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." [Note 3] Consequently, without a new-birth, an entire moral renovation, in which the rebel lays down the arms of his rebellion, and the slave of sin is delivered from the dominion of his depraved habits, and becomes an obedient servant of Christ, loving holiness and delighting in the service of God, it is impossible for him to obtain pardon or to be justifled.
II. Thegrand meansby which the Holy Spirit effects this moral reformation, isdivine truth, either oral, written or symbolic. "Go ye into all the world, says the Saviour, andpreach the gospelto every creature; he thatbelievethand is baptised, shall be saved, and he thatbelievethnot shall be damned." Here preaching the "gospel," the truths of God's word, is placedforemostin the list of instrumentalities, and baptism is only appended as a rite to be performedafterthe Holy Spirit, through the preached word, has wrought faith in the hearer's soul. But faith presupposes regeneration. Hence, as truth is the instrumentality employed by the Holy Spirit in the production ofregeneration, andfaith, as baptism is to be addedafterthe great moral change, conversion has been effected in adults, it follows that the truth or word is the grand and principal means of grace, and not secondary to baptism.
In other passages themission of the apostlesis characterized as a mission topreach, and baptism is not even named at all. Jesus ordained the twelve, we are told, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth topreach, &c.; Mark iii. 14, 15. And Paul even thanks God, in his epistle to the Corinthians, [Note 4] that he had baptized none of them save Crispus and Caius, and adds: "For Christ sent me,not to baptise, but topreachthe gospel." Paul, therefore, certainly regarded preaching as far more important than baptism. Of the apostles, Luke informs us, theydailyin the temple and in every house, ceased notto teach and preachJesus Christ; Acts v. 41, 42. And in order to gain more time for their great work, they appointed deacons to attend at tables, that they might give themselves "continually to prayer and theministry of the Word," but they say nothing of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Paul expressly tells the Romans (x. 13-15,) that faith comes byhearing(not by baptism); and to the Corinthians he says, "For in Christ, Jesus I have begotten you, through thegospel. 1 Cor. iv. 15. We are regenerated by the incorruptible "seed of the word." [Note 5] We are sanctified by "the truth." 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 thewordortruth, and it must be the grand means of grace. [Note 11]
This truth, contained in God's Word, is therefore fully adequate to the production of all the progressive changes, by which we pass from the condition of the careless sinner to that of the advanced and sanctified believer.
III. Thestage of progressin this moral renovation which inrequisitebefore the returning sinner ismorallyqualified for pardon or justification, is that implied by aliving faith. This justifying faith may be defined to be, "that voluntary act of the illuminated and evangelically penitent sinner, by which he confides in the mercy of God through Christ for salvation, on the terms offered in the gospel." [Note 12] A more historical faith implies no such preparation, nor the more intellectual belief of the reality and truth of 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 devils still. Nor does the state of the convicted, or penitent, or seeking, but yet unconverted sinners furnish such moral preparation to receive pardon. Evidently nothing short of living faith will satisfy the representations of God's Word and the nature of the case. Whenever the returning sinner exercises the first act of this living faith, he is justified, that is, then God performs that judicial or forensic act, by which a believing sinner, in consideration of the merits of Christ, is released from the penalty of the divine law, and is declared to be entitled to heaven. [Note 13] In this state of justification the believer continues through life, unless he by voluntary transgression falls from a state, of grace and becomes a backslider.
IV.The evidence of this pardon or justification, to the believer himself, is within his own heart:—
(a) It is that peace of God, or sense of pardoned sin, wrought in the soul by the Holy Spirit. "Being justified by faith, we havepeace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. v. 1.
(b) "The love of God shed abroad in our heartsby the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. [Note 14]
(c) It is the testimony of "the Spirit bearing witness with our spirits that we are children of God." [Note 15] "He that believeth hath the witness in himself." [Note 16]
(d) It is thefruit 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 the apostle," [sic on punctuation] they are the sons of God. [Note 18]
All these evidences presuppose or involve that great change of heart and life, termed by the Saviour new birth, by which the sinner becomes morally qualified for that pardon, purchased by the blood of Christ, and appropriate to the believer by his faith. But no outward ritesnecessarilyimply such moral preparation, and hence they could not be the conditions of justification, according to the analogy of God's Word.
V. Hence the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are not theimmediateconditions or means of pardon or justification;but they are means of grace, like the Word of God, and seals of grace to all worthy recipients. They havean intrinsic efficacyby virtue of the truths symbolically represented by them, and anadditional specific efficacyin virtue of their peculiar nature, in connexion with the influence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken, convert and sanctify the soul. The distinguished Lutheran divine,Dr. Baumgarten, speaking of adult receivers of these ordinances, thus expresses his view: "The sacraments stand in the same relation to these influences, (namely, those of covenant grace,) as does theWord of God. Hence they are also called the visible word of God,verbum visible;because theofferof their reformatory, changing and restoring influence is universal, and reaches every recipient of these ordinances; but its actual communication and full effect take place only in those, who permit themselves to be made susceptible of it." [Note 19] In regard to children, however, he with equal 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 any particular progress in the work of conversion, or any definite state of mind, except, a general disposition to seek the Lord, which is implied in the willingness to attend on these ordinances. They cannot therefore be the condition of pardon or justification.
These influences, like those of the truth, may be resisted, and depend for their success on the disposition of the recipient; they do not actex opere operato. Thespecialinfluence of the sacraments, so far as known, is the same in kind_ as that of the truth.
That the sacraments are notIMMMEDIATEconditions of pardon or justification, is evident, from a multitude of considerations.
1. If the sincere reception of the sacraments actually secures pardon or justificationper se, immediately, without the intervening instrumentality of a living faith, then faith is not the only condition of justification as the scriptures teach, but we are justified either by faith, or by the sacraments, and then there will bethree conditions of justification, faith, baptism, and the Lord's Supper! For thousands receive the eucharist sincerely, who are unregenerate, and have not a living faith.
2. Because no sinner is morally qualified for pardon, until he has been regenerated, and has consecrated himself to the service of God; but multitudes receive the sacrament who are unregenerate, and who therefore cannot be justified or pardoned, even by the sincere reception of the sacraments. Hence as the reception of the sacraments is no certain proof of pardon, it cannot be the immediate condition of it.
3. The sacraments are not immediate conditions of justification or pardon, becauseprevious faithis required in the recipients of each of 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 the existence of faith is not necessarily involved in baptism. And as baptism without faith does not rescue the soul from damnation, it evidently cannot be theimmediateor certain condition of pardon; for if the immediate condition of a blessing is performed, that blessing must be conferred. And since previous faith is required in baptism, and none but the baptised are admitted to the Lord's Supper, it is evident that faith is also required of communicants.
4. That they are notimmediateconditions of pardon, is evident, because the same truths which the sacraments inculcate, do not when taught orally or in God's word, invariably or necessarily secure the pardon or justification of all attentive hearers. The result of the proper use of the truth preached or read, is invariably the spiritual advancement of the sinner, whatever the stage of his progress may be. And such appears to be the operation of the sacraments. As it is absurd to affirm that each sermon preached, will convert or affect the pardon of every sinner who attentively hears it; so it were equally gratuitous to affirm the same of the sacraments. If the sinner had been on the verge of regeneration and faithbeforehe heard the sermon in question, and the hearing of that discourse completed the change, the result might be affirmed of the last sermon which preceded his faith, but not of its predecessors; and so also of the sacraments as means of grace. Every sermon attentively heard will benefit all who thus hear it. But whether it will produce conviction, or penitence, or faith, or a sense of pardoned sin, depends on the recipient's previous stage of progress in the divine life.
5. If the sacraments were possessed of a sin-forgiving power, in such a sense, as to be theimmediateconditions of pardon or justification, then the sinner would be dependent for pardon on the sacraments, and on the clergyman who administers them, and not immediately on the Spirit of God. But this would virtually be one of the most dangerous features of Puseyism and Romanism, by which the minister is thrust in between the penitent, sinner and his God, and the priest is elevated to the position of the dispenser of pardon, holding in his hand the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Now it is indeed flattering to the frail heart of the minister (for we are all mere men) to find himself elevated to such an exalted post, to stand (as the Papists say of their priest) in the place of God, and have his whole congregationlook to himfor the pardon of sin, in private confession and the sacraments; and this may possibly be one of the reasons why this Puseyite, semi-Romish system is more popular with the clergy than with the laity. But Protestant ministers should never forget, that the Saviour himself asserted it as his peculiar characteristic, "that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sin." Mark ii. 7.
6. That the sacraments are not the necessary or certain conditions of pardon, is evident, also, from the fact, that some, as the thief upon the cross, were saved without them after their institution, whilst others who had partaken of them were lost, of which Judas and Simon Magus are examples.
7. That the sacraments are not immediate conditions of pardon is finally evident from the declaration of the apostle Peter, "The like figure whereunto baptism doth now save us;not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, that is,not the mere outward riteof applying the water, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." [Note 21] that is, the faithful performance of the duties to which our Christian profession, made in baptism, obligated us, by keeping a conscience void of offence before God and man.
From all this, it is very clear, that whilst the sacraments are divinely appointed as means and seals of grace, they operate like divine truth, either oral or written, by promoting that great change of heart, without which no man can see God: that where they are received with a living faith, there is indeed pardon of sin or justification; but this pardon is the result of that living faith, the appointed condition of justification, and not of the sacraments, which can only tend to secure pardon by promoting faith.
That these views of the mode of operation of the sacraments, are sustained by many of our ablest divines, is evinced by the following extracts from their works.Dr. Mosheim, one of the greatest ornaments of the Lutheran Church, expressly affirms, "Those who possessfaithhave the benefits of Christ sealed and confirmed to them. Let it therefore be remarked, thatfaith is necessary to the salutary fruit and effect of the sacraments, though not required as necessary to their essence (namely, as valid outward ordinances.") [Note 22] The distinguishedDr. Reinhardsays, "We attribute to the sacraments a really beneficial influence in effecting our salvation, only in as far as they are used in accordance with their design. This is a necessary inference from the nature of a ceremony (or rite) in general, which can only then be of any service, when it excitesthose views and feelings, which it is designed to produce." Here this illustrious divine evidently implies that the sacraments exert their influence by promoting certain views and feelings, and that these are theimmediatecauses of the beneficial results, such as pardon and salvation: consequently the sacraments are mediate, but not immediate conditions of pardon.
One extract more, taken from the "Biblical Theology" of the venerableDr. Knapp, of Halle, edited byDr. Guericke, may suffice: "The power and influence of these several religious ordinances or sacraments, isnot physicalandmechanical, and alsonot magical, or operating by enchantment (or charm.) Nor does the mere external rite exert any influence. On the contrary, they stand in the most intimate connexion with the doctrines themselves, which they represent, and never exert any influence without them. Therefore they can by themselves exert no influence in the case of a person who has no knowledge and lively conviction of the doctrines which they represent. But the truths which are thereby represented to the senses, and are to be appropriated to ourselves, operate precisely in the same way, or the Holy Spirit works through them on the hearts of men, in exactly the same way as these truths are wont to act apart, (from the sacraments,) when they are heard, read or meditated on by any person; only, that in the case of the sacraments, these truths are not communicated by words, but in a different 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 the hearts of men, is also applicable to this subject. For he operates in a similar manner in these religious ordinances, through the divine doctrines which are represented by them to the senses, and appropriated by ourselves. Against the abuse of such divinely appointed religious ordinances, when their mere external performance is regarded as sufficient, (as in the case of the sacrifices,) even Moses and all the prophets, protest in the most emphatic manner." [Note 23]
From all those considerations it is most evident, that althoughbaptism and the Lord's Supper are important, and influential, and divinely appointed ordinances; neither of them can be the immediate condition of pardon or justification, because neither necessarily involves that state of moral qualification, which, the Scriptures require for pardon, namely, genuine conversion or regeneration, evinced by its immediate and invariable result, aliving faith.
Note 1. For the information of such of our readers as prefer a skeleton of the Puseyite system of the sacraments, rather than wade through volumes of Semi-romish discussion, we annex its features:—-
I. That man is "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," in and by holy Baptism.
II. That man "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," in and by holy Baptism, is renewed from time to time in holy Communion.
III. That a "death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness" is given to every adult, and every infant, in and by the outward visible sign or form in Baptism, "water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
IV. That the gift may be received, in the case of adults, worthily or unworthily, but that it is always received.
V. That the body and blood of Christ are given to every one who receives the Sacramental Bread and Wine.
VI. That the gift may be received worthily or unworthily, but that it is 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 whole process of conversion is described, and the grand instrumentality is the word 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 salutisefficacissimum, quippe cujus vis 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.Repentye andbelievethe gospel. James ii. 14-17 Even sofaith, 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, illis beneficia Christi obsignantur et confirmantur. Notandum ergo est, fidem quidem ad salutarem fructum et effectum sacramentorum, non autem ad corum essentiam requiri.
Note 23. Biblische Glaubenslehre von Dr. H. E. F. Knapp, Prop. Halle, 1840, p. 292.
In regard to this error, the author of the Plea, relieves us from the necessity of proving that it is contained in the Symbolical books, by himself not only acknowledging the fact, but also defending the doctrine. For ourselves we do not think it taught as clearly in the Augsburg Confession, as most of the other errors touched on in the Definite Platform. But although not inculcated as explicitly as the others, the substance of the doctrine runs through the entire symbolic system, and therefore is justly chargeable on it. The name is not often distinctly 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 early Lutheran divines.
ART. II. -Augsburg Confession
"Our churches teach that this innate disease and original sin, is truly sin, and condemneth all those under the eternal wrath of God, who arenot 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 thatBaptism is necessary to salvation, and that the baptism of infants is not fruitless, but necessary and salutary.
Luther's Smaller Catechism.
"What does Baptism confer or benefit?
"Ans.—It effects theforgiveness of sins, delivers from deathandthe devil, and conferseverlasting salvationupon all who believe it, (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 Word of God that is with and in the water, and the faith trusting such Word of God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is mere water, hence no baptism; but with the Word of God it constitutes a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and awashing of regeneration, in the Holy Ghost."—Symb. B., p. 421.
Luther's Larger Catechism.
"Every Christian, therefore, has enough to learn and practice in baptism during his life; for he must ever exert himself tomaintaina firm faith inwhat it promises and bringshim, namely, triumph over the devil and death, theremission of sins, the grace of God, Christ with all his works, andthe Holy Ghost with all his gifts. In short, the blessings of baptism are so great, that if feeble nature could but comprehend them we might justly doubt their reality. For, imagine to yourself a physician, who possessed an art preventing persons from dying; or, even if they died, immediately restoring them to life so as to live eternally afterwards, how the world would rush and flock around him with money, while the poor, prevented by the rich, could not approach him! And yet, here inbaptism, every one has such a treasure, and medicine gratuitously brought to his door-a medicine which abolishes death, and preserves all men to eternal life_."—P. 525.
Luther's Larger Catechism.
"It (baptism) is, therefore, very appropriately called food for the soul, which flourishes and strengthens the new man;for through baptism we are born anew;but beside this, the old vicious nature in the flesh and blood nevertheless adheres to man, in which there are so many impediments and obstacles, with which we are opposed as well by the devil as by the world, so that we often become weary and faint, and sometimes stumble."—Symb. B., p. 533.
In theVisitation Articles, published fourteen years after the other symbolical books for the purpose of explaining their true import, and then made symbolic in Saxony:
ART. III.—On Baptism.
SECT. II. "By baptism as thelaver of regeneration, andthe renewing of the Holy Ghost, God saves us, and works in us such righteousness and purification from sins, that whosoeverperseveresin such covenant, and reliance,will not be lost, but have eternal life."
SECT. IV. "Baptism is the bath (laver) of regeneration,because in it we are regenerated, and sealed with the spirit of sonship and obtain pardon."-Mueller's Symb. Buecher, pp. 848, 849.
That the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was taught by Luther, and the prominent older divines of our church, is well known to those acquainted with their works.
1.Luther, indeed, sometimes expressed the most extravagant ideas of baptism, maintaining that the water in baptism, was pervaded by the divine majesty, and was a (durch goettertes Wasser,) water penetrated through and through with God! [Note 1] He compares the water in baptism to heated iron, in which, though you see nought but iron, fire also is contained, which represents the divine name and power pervading the water. But we will not enter any further into his extravagant illustrations of the power of baptism. The result at which he arrives is thus expressed: "Therefore, he (this omnipotent name or power of God,) must also in baptism, make pure and holy, heavenly and divine persons, as we shall hereafter further see." (Darum musz er auch in der Taufe 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 this ordinance:—"The import of baptism is a blessed dying unto sin, and resurrection in the grace of God, that the old man that was conceived in sin, may arise and go fortha new manborn of grace. Thus St. Paul in, Tit. iii. 5, terms baptism a bath ofthe new birth, that in this bath men may beborn againand renewed. Thus also Christ, in John iii. 3, says: Unless ye are born again of water and the Spirit (of grace), ye cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. For just as a child is born of its mother, and by this bodily birth is a sinful being and achild of wrath;thus also is man taken andborn spirituallyfrom the baptism, and bythis birth he is a child of grace and a justified person. Thus are sins drowned in baptism, and thus does righteousness arise in the place of sin." [Note 3]
2.Melancthon, whilst he by no means indulges in the extravagant and unscriptural views of a change in the water employed in baptism, by the Deity's pervading it, &c., seems however in substance to have entertained views of the efficacy of this ordinance, amounting to baptismal regeneration.
"The real use of baptism," (says he,) "is taught by these two particulars, the outward sign and the promise, 'he that believeth and is 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 Holy Ghost:' that is, through this outward sign (baptism) I, in the place of God,testify that you are reconciled to God, and accepted of him, who is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Father receives you for the sake of the Son, and grants you the Holy Spirit, by which he will renew, make alive, comfort, and sanctify you." [Note 4]
And, again, when discussing the subject, of pedobaptism, he thus describes his view:—"In and by baptism the Holy Spirit is given to children, who operates in them according to their measure (masse) or capacity, as he operated in John in the womb of Elizabeth. And although there, is a difference between the old and the young, inasmuch as the old are attentive to the works, still the influences of the Holy Spirit are in both old and young a tendency toward God." [Note 5]
That this doctrine was also taught by the great majority of the most distinguished older theologians of our church, is a point which requires no proof to those acquainted with those authors. As their works are accessible to comparatively few of our readers, we will annex a quotation from several of them, at the same time abbreviating them as much as is consistent with perspicuity. Thus, Dr. Hunnius, professor at Wittenberg, and subsequently Superintendent at Luebeck, [Note 6] in his Epitome Credendorum, says:—"The sacrament of baptism is a spiritual action, instituted and ordained by Christ, by the performance of which a man is baptised with water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost; and by means of which he receivesforgiveness of sins, is received into God's covenant of mercy, and is made partaker of the merits of Christ, ofadoptionand ofeternal salvation." [Note 7] Again, "Baptism is not a sign of regeneration, that is to take place some time after baptism had been administered to him. For asbaptism causes regeneration, it cannot be said to signify the same," &c. [Note 8] And again, "Nevertheless, we have seen it to be the will of God, that they (children) should enter the kingdom of heaven, and it therefore becomes indispensably necessary for them to be regenerated. But thisregeneration is brought about by no other means than by baptism, which we know to be the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost," &c. [Note 9] The celebratedDr. Gerhardsays, "The holy Trinity is present with his grace (in baptism). The Father receives the baptized person into favor; the Son bestows his righteousness upon him, and the Holy Spiritregeneratesandrenews him,—produces faith,regenerationand renovation, and seals the covenant of grace in the hearts of the baptized." [Note 10]
Again, "Baptism is the first gateway of grace, the sacrament of initiation: the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of confirmation; by baptism we areregenerated, by the Holy Supper we are nourished and strengthened to eternal life. As in nature so in grace, we are first born and then fed, first generated and then we increase, (ix. 67.)Dr. Buddeus, one of the most distinguished theologians of the School of Halle, in his "Theologia Dogmatica, [sic on punctuation] p. 1127, says, "The design of the baptism of infants is theirregeneration;in the case of adults, the confirmation and sealing of that faith, which they should have before (the reception of the rite.")
Since therefore we have seen that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was taught not only by the symbolical books, but also by Luther and Melancthon in their other writings, as well as by the leading divines of the first two centuries after the Reformation, who all received the symbolical books, and understood their import, we may regard 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 all mankind 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 short of the glory of God:" and affirms that the carnal mind is enmity against God. The faithful ambassador of Christ must therefore announce the command of God, "that all men every where should repent: and that unless they do repent, they shall all likewise perish. He must divide his congregation into two classes, the friends and the enemies of God, those who are for the Saviour and those who are against him: and he must insist upon judging not by their profession, "Lord, Lord, but by the question, whether theydo the will of our Father in heaven." Thus when the faithful servant of Christ represents all as unconverted, and exposed to the curse of the divine law, who do not give evidence of regeneration in their walk and conversation; careless sinners become alarmed and feel the necessity of fleeing from the wrath to come, by repenting and turning to God, by seeking pardon and a new heart, and consecrating 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 hearersregenerated, (for they are generally all baptised) even those whose life presents not the least evidence of piety, and many proofs to the contrary; we still must believe them in some sense the children of God, as they are born again! We cannot tell them that they are in the gall of bitterness and bonds 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 in trespasses and sins, to pray for anew heartand a new spirit; for these, as regenerated persons, they have obtained.
3. The minister who believes in baptismal regeneration, cannot with Paul 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 his ungodly baptised hearers are all new creatures by baptism, and yet their old sinful habitshave not passed away, and all things have not become new 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 the majority of those said to be regenerated, or to have put on the new man by baptism, continue in sin and are destitute of righteousness and trim holiness.
5. He cannot, with the blessed Master, preach, "by their fruits ye shall know them; for here, on his theory, are regenerate souls bringing forth the fruits of death, good (regenerate) trees bringing forth rotten fruits," which is as incredible as thorns producing grapes, and thistles yielding figs.
6. The believer in baptismal regeneration cannot consistently preach, that "not every one who saith, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who also do the will of our heavenly Father; for here are regenerate men who have the germ of eternal life in them (by baptism) who do not the will of God. Now as these on his theory are regenerate men, the bible promises them salvation. But according to the Saviour they shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The apostle James Inquires, [sic] "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Will his (dead) faith save, him?" Or we may add, can his dead baptismal regeneration do it? As the apostle of the Gentiles declares, that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God: so as baptism occupies the place of circumcision, baptism is nothing and the want of it nothing, unless accompanied with a sincere, universal and irrevocable purpose to keep the 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 deceive yourselves and others by employing the name, when you do not mean the thing. The Saviour uses it for an entire, and radical change, and we have no right to use it for anything else.
Or does any one say, by baptismal regeneration, we understand an inferior kind or degree of regeneration, the beginning of the change. If so, then do not mistake the beginning for the completion of this great spiritual renovation; nor ascribe to the one, the precious promises and spiritual benefits which belong only to the other.
In short, if the word regeneration, in connexion with baptism, be employed to signify anything resembling its proper meaning, its influence on the preached gospel must be baneful; and just in proportion as we use it in a sense approximating to its legitimate import, does it obscure, confuse and derange the ideas of men as to the great and glorious plan of salvation in the gospel, which represent all men as either for or against Christ, and appeals to their works as decisive of their actual, spiritual character, as friends or as enemies of the Redeemer.
Such being the deleterious influence of this doctrine, it is important to show, that it finds no sanction from a just interpretation of the Word of God.
By baptismal regeneration is properly meant the doctrine that baptism is necessarily and invariably attended by spiritual regeneration; and that such water baptism is essential to salvation.
In the case of all adults, the Scriptures representfaith in Christas the necessary prerequisite to baptism, and baptism as a rite by which those who had already consecrated themselves to Christ, or been converted, made a public profession of the fact, received a pledge of the divine favor, or of forgiveness of sins, and were admitted to membership in the visible church. The same inspired records also teach, that if men are destitute of this faith, if they believe not, they shall be damned, notwithstanding their baptism. "He thatbelievethand is baptized shall be saved, and he thatbelievethnot, shall be damned," Matt. xvi. 16. And Philip said to the eunuch, "If thoubelievestwith all thy heart, thou mayest be baptized," Acts viii. 37. "Repentand be baptized," Acts ii. 38; viii. 62; xviii. 8. Hence if baptism required previous faith and repentance, or conversion in adults, and if, when they were destitute of this faith or conversion, they were damned, notwithstanding their baptism; it follows that baptism was not, and is not, a converting ordinance in adults, and does not necessarily effect or secure their regeneration.
Now that baptism cannot accomplish more in infants than in adults, is self-evident; hence if it is not a converting ordinance in adults, it cannot be in infants.
The effects of baptism oninfants are nowhere specified in Scripture;hence we must suppose them to be same as in adults, so far as children are naturally capable of them. Ofregeneration, in the proper sense of the term, infants are incapable; for it consists in a radical change in our religious views of the divine character, law, &c.; a change in our religious 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 natural depravity, or innate, sinful dispositions of the Christian, (for these still remain in him after conversion,) it must consist mainly in a change, of that _increased predisposition to sin arising from action, of that preponderance ofsinful habitsformed by voluntary indulgence of our natural depravity, after we have reached years of moral agency. But infants have no suchincreasedpredisposition, nohabitsof sin prior to moral agency, consequently there can be no change of them, no regeneration in this meaning of the term. Hence, if baptism even did effect regeneration in adults, which we have proved not to be the case; still it could have no such influence on infants, as they arenaturally incapableof the mental exercises involved in it. The child, on its first attainment of moral agency, has merely natural depravity, until by voluntary indulgence in sin, it contracts personal guilt, and forms habits of sinful action. If the child, by the grace of God and proper religious instruction, continues to resist the solicitations of its depraved nature, its continued obedience will form holy habits, and this preponderance of holy habits, when established, constitutes its regeneration. If the growing child, as its powers of moral agency are developed, for any reason indulges its innate sinful propensities, it becomes a confirmed sinner, and its subsequent regeneration, if it take place, will be the more striking, as its change of habits must be greater.
Baptism inadults, is a means of making a public 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, and offered to all who repent, believe in him, and profess his name by baptism.
Baptism ininfants, is the pledge of the bestowment of those blessings purchased by Christ for all. " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." And "The promise is to you and yourchildren," Acts ii. 39. These blessings are forgiveness of sins, or exemption from the penal consequences of natural depravity, (which would at least be exclusion from heaven on account of moral disqualification for admission,) reception into the visible church of Christ, grace to help in every time of need, and special provision for the nurture and admonition in the Lord, to which parents pledge themselves.
The language of the Saviour to Nicodemus, John iii. 6, "Unless a man be born of water and the spirit" doubtless refers also to baptism, which had been known to the Jews, and practiced by John the Baptist, before the ministry of Christ, as a mode ofpublic receptionof proselytes, who were then said to be new born. Its import is to inform Nicodemus, that he mustpubliclyprofess the religion of Jesus by baptism, and also be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, if he desired to enter the kingdom of heaven. Thus, also, the words, Acts xxii. 16, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins," were addressed to Paulafterhe had surrendered himself to Christ, and signifies: "Arise, and publicly profess Christ by baptism, and thus complete your dedication of yourself to his cause, the condition, on the sincere performance of which, God will for Christ's sake, pardon your sins."
Baptismal regeneration, either in infants or adults, is therefore a doctrine not taught in the Word of God, and fraught with much injury to the souls of men, although inculcated in the former symbolical books. At the same time, whilst the doctrine of baptismal regeneration certainly did prevail in our European churches, and is taught in the former symbolical books, it is proper to remark, that the greater part of the passages in the symbols relating to this subject, are explained by 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.
That the doctrine of thereal presenceof the body and blood of the Saviour in the eucharist, is taught in the symbolical books, is acknowledged by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann, and indeed generally admitted, though variously stated and explained. It would therefore be unnecessary to quote those symbols in proof, were it not that many of our readers have not access to them elsewhere, and that the completeness of our representation, as well as the plan of our work require it. The following passages will suffice to explain this view:—
Augsburg Confession, Art. X.
"Concerning the holy Supper of the Lord, it is taught, that thetrue body and bloodof Christ are truly present, under the form of bread and wine, in the Lord's Supper, and are there administered and received."—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 thebody and bloodof Christ our Lord, aretruly presentin the holy supper, and administered and received with the visible elements, the bread and wine, as hitherto maintained in the (Romish) church, and as the Greek Canon shows."—Symb. Books, p. 227.
Smalcald, Article VI.
"Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Eucharist, arethe true body and bloodof Christ, which are administered and received, not only by pious, but also by impious Christians."—Symb. Books, p. 384.
Luther's Smaller Catechism.
"What is the Sacrament of the altar?
"Ans.—It is thetrue body and bloodof our Lord Jesus Christ, with bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself, for us Christians to eat and drink."—Symb. Books, p. 124.
Form of Concord, Pt. I., Art. VII.
"We teach that thetrue body and bloodof our Lord Jesus Christ, are truly and essentially, or substantially, present in the Lord's Supper, administered with the bread and wine, andreceived with the lips by allthose who use this sacrament, be they worthy or unworthy, good or evil, believing or unbelieving; being received by the believing unto consolation and life, but by the unbelieving unto judgment."-Symb. Books, p. 570.
"We believe, teach, and confess, that the words of the testament of Christ, are not to be understood otherwise than according to theirliteralsense, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but on account of their sacramental union,that the bread and wineAREtruly the body and blood of Christ." (Sondern dass es wahrhaftig um sacramentlicher Einigkeit willen der Leib und Blut Christi sei. Sed ut propter sacramentalem unionem panis et vinumvere sint corpus et sanguis Christi.)—Idem., p. 571.
"We believe, teach, and confess, that not only the truly believing and the worthy, but also the unworthy and the unbelieving,receive the true body and blood of Christ."-Page 572.
"In addition to the above clear passages, incontestably teaching the real presence, it deserves to be ever remembered, that only fourteen years after the Form of Concord was published, when Duke Frederick William, during the minority of Christian II., published the VISITATION ARTICLES OF SAXONY, in 1594, in order to suppress the Melancthonian tendencies to reject this and other peculiarities of the symbols, the Article on this subject which was framed by men confessedly adhering to the old symbols, and designing to re-enunciate their true import, and which was enforced upon the whole church in Saxony as symbolic, gives the most objectionable view of this doctrine, viz.: I. 'The pure doctrine of our church is, that the words, 'Take and eat, this is my body: drink, this is my blood, are to be understoodsimply and according to the letter.' II. That the body (which is received and eaten,) is theproperandnatural body(der rechte natuerliche Leib) of Christ,which hung upon the cross;and the blood (which is drunk) is theproperandnatural blood(das rechte natuerliche Blut)which flowed from the side of Christ.' Mueller's Symb. Books, p. 847. Now we cannot persuade ourselves, that this is the view of a single minister of the General Synod, or of many out of it; and yet these are the views that those are obligated to receive, who avow implicit allegiance to the former symbolical books of our church in Europe. If any adopt the modification received by many of our distinguished divines, such as Reinhard Storr, Knapp, and others, they do not faithfully embrace the symbolical doctrine, and cannot fairly profess to do so."
In regard to the arguments against this view of themodeof the Saviour's presence, we shall merely add an enumeration of the principal, and refer the reader for a more full and detailed discussion of the subject to Discourse IV. contained in our History of the American Lutheran Church, pp. 120 to 154, 5th edition.
The Reformers justly rejected the Romish error, that the bread and wine were transformed and transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. But they still adhered to the opinion, that the real body and blood of the Saviour are present at the Eucharist, in some mysterious way, and are received by the month of every communicant, worthy and unworthy. This view of the subject appears inconsistent with the Word of God, for various reasons:-
(a) When Christ uttered the words, this (bread) is my body, his body was not yet dead, but living and reclining, at their side at the table. It was therefore certainly not received by them into their mouths. The language must, therefore, have been figurative, such as Jesus was accustomed often to employ. Thus, when he said, "I am thedoor" John x. 9, he certainly does not mean a literal door, such as a door of wood or stone or brass or of any other material. He means that the acceptance of the atonement and mediation by the sinner is the appointed condition of salvation to him. Thus also when he says, "I am thetrue vine" John xv. 1; or "The field is the world," "The seed is the word," &c., he evidently is speaking figuratively and communicating important moral truth, by images drawn from physical nature, as is naturally done by nearly all writers and speakers of all ages and in all languages.
(b) The blessed Saviour himself exhorts us, "Do this in remembrance of me;" but we can remember only that which is past and absent. Hence when he admonishes us to do this in remembrance of him, he teaches us, that he is not personally or bodily present at the eucharistic celebration.
(c) Paul also represents the design of this ordinance to be, "To show or publish theLord's death," until he comes. But the Lord's death upon the cross occurred about eighteen hundred and twenty years ago. Therefore, according to Paul, the object of the holy supper is to commemorate apast event, and not a present person.
(d) The doctrine of the real presence of the true body and blood of Christ, contradicts the clear and indisputable testimony of our senses, for as the body and blood are to be received by the mouth of the communicant, they must be circumscribed by space, and the reception must be a local and material one, which if it did occur at sacramental occasions, could be observed by the senses.
(e) It contradicts the observation of all nations and all ages, that every body or material substance must occupy a definite portion of space, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time.
For these and other reasons the great mass of our ministers and churches, connected with the General Synod, reject this doctrine, as inconsistent with the word of God. The disposition to reject this error, or at least to leave the mode of the Saviour's presence undecided, was manifested by Melancthon himself, as is evident from his having stricken out the words which teach it from the Augsburg Confession, and from his having inserted others in their stead of a general nature, leaving room for different opinions on this question. The same disposition prevailed extensively in Germany in the latter third of the sixteenth century. But during the first quarter of the present century, the conviction that the Reformers did not purge away the whole of the Romish error from this doctrine, gained ground universally until the great mass of the whole Lutheran Church, before the year 1817, had rejected the doctrine of the real presence. During the last twenty years the doctrines and writings of the Reformation in general have been the subject of extensive study by the reviving church in Germany, and as is natural, a small portion of the churches have embraced the symbolic view of this doctrine in full, and have become known as Old Lutherans, whilst others, both there and in this country, have embraced various modifications of it. But the great body of the ministers and churches regard the real presence of thebodyandbloodof the Saviour, in any proper sense, which the words 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 the less educated, who are most liable to these erroneous views, but little need be said in addition to the principles established on the subject of the sacraments in general. The word of God clearly inculcates the doctrine, to which Luther and his coadjutors gave such prominence, that no 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 the sinner exercises this living faith in Christ he is justified, that is, his sins are pardoned, he is in astate of justification, and continues 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 he communes; if he is destitute of this faith, his communing cannot justify or pardon him; for man is justified by faith alone. Yet are there thousands of church members who afford no satisfactory evidence of regeneration, or of that faith which works by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes the world; who, because they approach the sacramental table with seriousness and sincerity, and perhaps with some sorrow for their sins, believe that they obtain pardon for their transgressions, and yet still continue in their unregenerate state. It cannot be said that the symbolical books clearly teach the above error, but they are not sufficiently guarded, and are understood by many as inculcating the doctrine, that a sincere and devout participation of the Lord's Supper secures the pardon of sin, even where satisfactory evidences of regeneration are wanting, the persons referred to mistaking a mere historical belief for a living faith. Hence, as theScripture nowhere connects the forgiveness of sins with the duty of sacramental communion, any more than with the performance of any other prominent christian duty, it is not proper that we should do so. The design of the Holy Supper is to show forth the Lord's death, to profess the name of the Redeemer before the world, to confirm the previous faith of the communicant, to bring him into closest spiritual communion with his blessed Saviour, and to secure his special spiritual blessing: but not to bestow forgiveness of sins upon the unregenerate, however serious they may be. Against this dangerous error all should therefore carefully guard, and ever remember the declaration of the Lord Jesus when he said, "Unless a man be born again(become a new creature in Christ Jesus)he cannot see the kindom [sic] of God."
This superstitious practice, which consists in a prescribed formula of adjuration, accompanied by various menacing demonstrations, by the use of which the priest professes to expel the evil spirits from an individual, of whom they are supposed to have taken possession, was practised in the Romish Church, principally before the baptism of infants. The rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe, for several centuries. In the American Lutheran Church, it was never received by the fathers of 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 not discussed by the Rev. Mr. Mann, in his Plea. But as others have objected to the Platform for representing it as in any degree a part of the Symbolic system, we will adduce evidence enough to satisfy every impartial and reasonable reader, that it was so regarded for several centuries, 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 Church in Europe, for several centuries," (p. 23,) is even more than sustained.
As our church, in common with the other state churches of Europe, is controlled by the civil government, the ministers and members of the church were never invited or permitted to deliberate and decide on the question what books they will receive as symbolical or binding. This work the political rulers or princes determined for them, in consultation with some leading divines. Still we may fairly regard those confessional writings as symbolical, which have been prescribed by the government, and received andpracticedon by the churches. Now, if the "Taufbuechlein," " Tract or Directory for Baptism," of Luther,in which Exorcism is commanded, was thus prescribed and received [tr. note: there is a space here which could be meant to contain the word "by"] two or three principalities or provinces of Europe, the position of the Platform is vindicated; but the truth is, it was received by entire kingdoms and provinces, and retained in practice for centuries; so that the Platform is more than sustained. Let usfirsthear the testimony of the best authorities of Germany on the subject, andthensum up the results.
(a) _Dr. Guericke, [Note 1] Professor of Theology at Halle, the author of a well-known Church History, testifies: "Moreover, the Smaller Catechism (of Luther) contained, even in the oldest known German edition, (Wittenberg, 1529,) several forms of prayer, the Family diretory [sic] or selection of Scripture passages on the duties of all orders and conditions of men, and the Directory for marriage andbaptism, all of which supplementary tracts were also received into theFIRSTauthentic edition of the German "Book of Concord." The baptismal directory was therefore received into the very first authentic edition of the symbolical books.
(b)Dr. Koellner, Professor of Theology at Goettingen, in his excellent "Symbolik," p. 501, states: "There was a Latin Directory for Baptism extant, (in the Romish church,) which Luther translated into German unaltered in 1523. It is found in Vol. II. of his works, Jena edition, pp. 248-252, and Vol. II. All, pp. 304-327. But in 1524 or 1526 he wrote the Baptismal Directory, and brought it into the form in which it 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, and at the earliest period (of the Reformation.) [Note 2] The directory for the solemnization of matrimony was also added by Luther in the 2d edition. Both those Tracts were usually published together with the smaller Catechism; and were also received into the Corpus Thuring. and intothe first edition of the Book of Concord, June, 1580."
Again, we see that this Directory for baptism in which exorcism is prescribed, was not only the production of Luther, but also added by him to his Catechism, and introduced into the very first collection of the symbolical book.
(c)Dr. Baumgarten Crusius, Professor of Theology at Jena, in his History of Christian Doctrines, Vol. II. p. 322, thus testifies: "By means of the religiously energetic language of Luther,exorcismwas introduced among his party, and established itself amid much opposition, (amongst others from the Papists) in rigid opposition to Calvinism, and as is the case amongst usat present, (1846,) from attachment to ancient, stern orthodoxy, and their idea of genuine Lutheranism, as well as from the superstitious belief of a magic influence over the kingdom of evil spirits."—"The liturgic formula (for exorcism) retained in the Lutheran church, was first zealously espoused by the populace, when the Crypto-Calvinists especially in Saxony, raised opposition to it; and since then it has been regarded as acriterion of Lutheranism, although exorcism is not mentioned in the Saxon Articles of Visitation, and from an early period it was defended by the Lutheran theologians merely as a free matter of indifference, with only a figurative meaning." Here we find not only that exorcism has extensively prevailed in the Lutheran church of Germany, but that as late as 1846, it still was adhered to by some in Saxony: and that for a long time after the rise of Crypto-Calvinism in the latter part of the sixteenth century, adherence to this rite was regarded as atestof genuine Lutheranism. How vain therefore the attempt to deny that it was regarded as a part of symbolic Lutheranism in some parts of the church!
(d.)Dr. Augusti, Professor of Theology at Bonn, and more recently at Berlin, the celebrated author of numerous works, bears the following testimony: "At the close of the sixteenth century the vindication of exorcism was considered a proof ofLutheran orthodoxyin opposition to the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was much contention for and against it; and even in thenineteenthcentury its retention or rejection was not yet regarded as a matter of indifference." p. 350.
(e) InSiegel'sManual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, (a learned 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 ashighly useful, in order to remind the people very impressively of the power of sin and the devil; it was not remarkable that the zealous adherents of Luther were also unwilling to abandon his views on this subject. Hence we find thatin all countries in which the views and example of Luther were rigidly adhered to, as in Saxony, Wuertemburg, Hanover, Sweden, and other places, a strong attachment to exorcism prevailed, which was often regardedas the criterion of orthodoxy." "Some Lutherans cherished exorcism with a kind ofpassionate fondness." "In the sixteenth century exorcism was alternately defended in one place and disapproved in another; and in the latter half of the eighteenth, attention was again directed to the subject partly by accidental circumstances, and partly also by the great changes in the department of theology. The result has been that exorcism has been entirely abolished in different individual towns; and in several countries. This, for example, was the case in Regensburg in 1781, in Hamburg in 1786, and since 1811, in all Sweden." "In other Protestant Lutheran Stales, it is still left to the choice of the parents, whether they will have their children baptised with or without exorcism." "The author (says Siegel) was himself placed in the unpleasant predicament in the year 1836," of having been requested to perform baptism with exorcism!!
(f)Dr. Sigismund J. Baumgartenof Halle, one of the most learned and profound divines that ever adorned the Lutheran church, who himself published one of the best and the most extensively circulated editions of the symbolical books in 1747, not only inserts the Directory for Baptism (which inculcates exorcism) among the symbolical books, but on p. 637 bears the following testimony: "The Directory for solemnizing marriage, as well as the followingDirectory for Baptism, are found in theoldest Corp. Doctrinae, in theThuringian, Julian, Brandenburg, and first DRESDEN EDITIONS, and also subsequently, in the Leipsic and Reineccian," p. 637.
From these historical testimonies the following points are clearly established:
1. That the Directory for Baptism, in whichexorcismis prescribed, was certainly received into the first and authentic edition of the German Book of Concord, or collection of symbolical books. This is attested by Drs. Guericke, Sig. Baumgarten, and Koellner. It was subsequently republished in various other editions, down till the recent editions of Mueller, and also of Ludwig in our own country. In other editions [Note 3] it was omitted, because in some portions of Germany exorcism was rejected at an early day, as stated in the History of the American Lutheran Church.
2. It is proved that thepractice of exorcismwas for a long time regarded as atest of orthodoxyin many Lutheran territories of Germany. Attested by Drs. Augusti, Baumgarten Crusius and Siegel. In these countries editions of the symbolical books containing the Baptismal Directory were in use, and the rite was regarded as symbolical.
3. The rite was received and practised throughout Sweden, the entire kingdom of Wuertemberg, Hanover, Saxony, &c., &c. Siegel and others. [sic]
4. It is established incontestibly [sic] that the practice was continued for centuries in some of these countries, and was but recently renounced by others. Siegel and others. [sic]
We may therefore well affirm, that the position of the Definite Platform on this subject has been established beyond the possibility of serious doubt, namely, "That this rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe for several centuries." p. 23.
As to making the symbolic character of a book depend on its being found in any particular number of editions or in them all, it is inadmissible, because, as Dr. Hase remarks, and the respected author of the Plea admits, the Augsburg Confession is the only one of the Lutheran symbolical books which has been universally received throughout the church. These editions, moreover, have been published, some by the civil governments, and others by private individuals; and the Lutheran church as such, has never been called on to decide which books are symbolic. The practice of different portions of the church is different, therefore the distinction must be made as to the extent to which each book was received; and as it is certain that exorcism was in some countries and periods even regarded as adistinctive testof orthodoxy,then and there, this rite must have been regarded as symbolic in the highest degree.
Note 1. Symbolik, p. 103, n. 2.
Note 2. The original is: Also von Luther selbst und schon in den erstenZeugenvon ihm dem Katechismus ange haengt." [sic on punctuation]Zeugenhere is evidently a typographical error for Zeiten.
Note 3. For particulars see the writer's History of the AmericanLutheran Church, pp. 239-241.
We have thus found the statements of the Definite Platform, as to the tenets taught in the Augsburg Confession and other Symbolical books, established by the most careful and conscientious investigation of the original sources. Such are the facts incontestibly [sic] proved. They are true, and will remain true, notwithstanding all the ill-advised efforts to hide them. The Augsburg Confession, and other symbols, do teach the tenets ascribed to them in the Platform, and, in the judgment of the great mass of American Lutherans, the Word of God rejects them, and inculcates the contrary. All the invective and vituperation, not of the author of the Plea but of multitudes of old-Lutherans, &c., cannot change the truth, for it is unchangeable and eternal; nor is it their duty 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 the interests and management of a portion of his church are confided? As men to 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 his fellow-laborers much, but desire to love Christ more?
Does our duty call on us to deny the truth, and say, these doctrines are not taught in these books, when the most careful examination has assured us of the contrary? No honest man can affirm this.
Is it honest or honorable to avow, unconditionally, creeds containing errors, and then labor to gloss over or defend these errors, because they are there? This would be to descend to the level of corrupt politicians, who professedly defend every measure of their party, whether right or wrong.
Is it our duty to profess such creeds, then by arbitrary interpretations to explain away these errors, and thus endeavor to hide them from the public view? This would be injustice to the memory of their authors, and cast reproach on the principles of the Reformation, the essence of which was, that human errors must be rejected in favor of God's Word; and that the standards or professed doctrines of the church, must in every age be conformed to her views of Scripture truth.
Is it our duty, is it the Master's will, that we should try to believe those tenets of a creed which the Scriptures condemn? This would be treason to the Master, and be hearkening to the teachings of man rather than of God! Yet how many are there from whose lips the phrase confessional fidelity (Bekenntnisstreue,) is heard far oftener than fidelity to God's word (Bibeltreue)!
Is it our duty to renounce the Augsburg Confession altogether? This would be the case,if its errors were fundamental. But as they are few in number, and all relate to non-fundamental points, this does not necessarily follow. As nineteen twentieths of the creed are sustained by Scripture, and embody a rich and ample exhibition of divine truth, ten times as extended as that which was invested with normative authority in the golden age, the first three centuries of the Christian church, and used as a term of Christian fellowship, we may well retain the creed, after in some way disavowing its several errors. And the historical importance of the document, as the type of a renovated Christianity, authenticated by the blessing of Heaven, renders its retention desirable, as far as it has approved itself to the conscience of the church, after the increasing philological, exegetical, and historical light of three progressive centuries.
The position of those who maintain thatgenuine Lutheranismdemands perpetual adherence to everything contained in this Confession, yea, as some affirm, to all the former symbolical books, is utterly untenable. In thefirstplace, these brethren forget that the symbolic system,i.e., the practice of binding ministers to the so-called symbolical books, wasnotadopted at the organization of the Lutheran Church,nor at any time during Luther's life, nor until more than half a century after the rise of Lutheranism, and more than a quarter of a century after the noble Luther had gone to his heavenly rest.Symbolism is therefore no part of original Lutheranism. The efforts of Luther to reform the Romish Church began in 1517—the first regular organization of Lutheran churches was not made until some time after his excommunication by the Pope, in 1520. The first directory for Lutheran worship was published by Luther in 1523, in which, although private masses and the idea of the mass being a sacrifice had been rejected, theceremoniesof the mass, even theelevation of the host, (though not for adoration) were retained; another improved one in 1526; and the Augsburg Confession was presented to the Diet in 1530; but the full symbolic system contended for by some of our opponents, was not adopted until 1580,after the Lutheran church had existed more than half a century!!That system, historically considered, is not, therefore, Lutheran, butPost-Lutheran andUltra-Lutheran, for it is after him in time, and goes beyond him at least in one point of doctrine, and far beyond him in the abridgement [sic] of ministerial liberty of doctrinal profession, and in exaction of uniformity on minor points. Again, these brethren forget that Luther thought it his duty toreformthe church of his birth, and didnot leave it until driven out by the Pope. The efforts of American Lutherans to reform and render more biblical the ecclesiastical framework of our church, is therefore,truly Lutheran in principle, indeed far more Lutheran, than to retain unaltered those symbols, when we believe that the progress of Protestant light and biblical investigation for three hundred years, has proved them to contain important errors.