Book: American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics

S >> Samuel Simon Schmucker >> American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics




These _inspired_ Apostles left a _written record of this divine
institution_, of the church with its ordinances, as well as of the
doctrines and duties to be inculcated by its teachers. They also
pronounce this record to be _complete_, and threaten to blot out from
the book of life, the names of those who add to or subtract from it.
Hence it is evident, that the church of this record is not as Romanists
and Puseyites imagine, a mere seminal principle or germ, to which
equally binding additions may be made by the church of every generation;
but on the contrary, that the _church of the New Testament_ is the
church in its most perfect and faultless form, _is the model church for
all ages_, which in its development and adaptation to different
countries and generations, must ever remain faithful to its primitive
and inspired lineaments. This church, whilst administered by inspired
men during the first century, must also have been more pure, than in
its subsequent periods, when placed under uninspired and fallible
teachers, and in corrupting contact with Pagan philosophy, as well as
in debasing union with civil governments.

Now, in this apostolic age, this golden era of the church, we hear of
no other creed than the word of God itself, which was regarded as
sufficient. And certainly, if as Romanists, after the report of
_Rufinus_, believed the Apostles had either written or employed this
creed, the piety of that age would have enrolled it in the Scripture
canon, and the early church have guarded it with special care. But
there is not a word in the Old or New Testament authorizing or
commanding the church of any future age to frame a creed in addition to
the Bible, as a rule for admission into the church, or exclusion from
it. The only scriptural ground for such a creed is inferential. We are
instructed "earnestly to contend for the faith (doctrines) once
delivered to the saints," and "not to bid God speed," to him who
preaches another Gospel, or denies that Jesus is the Christ. In order
to obey these injunctions we must demand, of applicants for church
membership or ordination, their views of the prominent doctrines of
the Bible, and judge whether they accord with ours. Or we may state to
them our views of these topics, and require their assent. In either
case, we have a creed, and for obvious reasons it is preferable for us
to prepare a carefully written statement of Bible truth, so that it may
be known, examined and improved by renewed comparison with God's word.
On the other hand, the Apostle commands us to "receive into our
community the brother (him whom we regard as a true disciple of Christ,)
who is weak in the faith, (imperfect in some of his views of the truth)
but not for doubtful disputations;" not for the purpose of disputing
with him on doubtful points. Moreover, the primitive disciples, of
contiguous residence, were all united into one church by the Apostles,
and the Savior enjoins it on _all_ his disciples to love one another,
to "be one, as He and his Father are one." Therefore, it was then
sinful to divide and separate true Christians from one another, and
must be so at present, as a general rule. Now, as human creeds, when
extended so as to embrace minor doctrines, on which good men differ,
necessarily do divide, them, such creeds are inconsistent with the
precepts of Christ. The result of these two principles, the duty to
exclude fundamental errorists on the one hand, and the command not to
separate, but to unite the true disciples of Christ on the other, by
reciprocal limitation, affords us the rule, to employ a human creed
specifying the cardinal truths of the Scriptures, but not to include in
it minor doctrines, which would divide the great mass of true disciples
of Christ; nor to introduce more specifications of government or modes
of worship, than are necessary to enable enlightened Christians to walk
harmoniously together.

Accordingly, we find that such was the character of the earliest
uninspired creed of the church, the only one that was extensively
employed in the admission and exclusion of members during the first
three centuries of her history. We allude, of course to the Apostles'
creed, so called, not because the Apostles were at first supposed to
have written it, but because, it confessedly contained doctrines
promulged by the Apostles. This creed, which was for along time
circulated orally among the churches, embraces only fundamental
doctrines, forms less than half a page in the Definite Synodical
Platform, and is believed by all evangelical denominations at the
present time. Here then we have the christian church in her _golden
age_ of greatest purity, the first three centuries, relying on the
word of God alone, with only this brief human creed.

In the fourth century, (A. D. 325,) the Council of Nice adopted a
creed, which is but a paraphrase of the above, following the order of
its subjects, and adding various specifications to repel heresies which
had arisen. Yet even this does not amount to one page in the Definite
Platform. Near the close of the fifth, or perhaps in the sixth century,
the so-called Athanasian Creed was adopted, which would form less than
three pages of the Platform. During the subsequent, centuries of
Romish corruption, different councils made various enactments for the
church, but they generally related to the multitudinous rites and
ceremonies introduced into the popish worship, or to the functions,
rights and privileges of the pope, the different ranks of priests,
bishops, arch-bishops and the inferior officers; and in the progress
of time, men were allowed to adopt almost any error, provided they
paid their dues to the priests, and performed the superstitious
ceremonies of the church.

In the age of the Reformation, Luther had obligated himself to the
entire Romish system, yea, had at the receipt of his Doctorate, taken
an oath to _obey the Church of Rome, and not to teach any doctrines
condemned by her_ [Note 2] But having been enlightened by the study of
the Bible, which providentially fell into his hands, he saw his errors,
and wisely judging that _an oath to do any criminal deed ceases to be
obligatory after the sinfulness of the contemplated act is seen_, he
renounced those errors one after another, as fast as the light of
truth illumined his mind. This work he commenced in 1517, and continued
from year to year till near the close of his life. In 1530, eleven
years after, he began the work of reform, and sixteen before his death,
he approved the Augsburg confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,
although he told him in a letter during the diet, that he had yielded
too much to the papists, as will be seen in the sequel. But Luther
never signed any confession of faith; nor was a pledge to the Augsburg
confession or to any other symbol required of the ministers of the
church during his lifetime; although the Augsburg confession was
regarded as the exponent of the prevalent views of the Protestant
churches in Germany. It was not until a quarter of a century after
Luther had left the church militant, and not until the Lutheran church
had been established in Germany for full half a century, that the
so-called _symbolic system_ was regularly and generally introduced by
the civil authorities of the major portion of Protestant Germany. Now
it is in regard to the import of this Confession of Augsburg,
published before the middle of Luther's labors as a reformer, that
some differences of opinion have been entertained. To ascertain the
true sense of such passages according to the most impartial and just
principle of exegesis, is one principal object of our investigations
in the following pages.

It has often been affirmed by some, who have not examined the history
of that eventful diet with particular care, that the Augsburg
Confession was prepared under the most favorable circumstances for an
impartial and full exhibition of all the views of the confessors, both
of positive truth and papal errors. The contrary was, however, the
case, as will be distinctly shown in the sequel. But we will first
reply to the _General Observations_ of the Plea of our esteemed brother,
the _Rev. Mr. Mann_. Let it be remembered, however, that whatever may
be the import of this and other creeds, they have all been formed since
the age of inspiration, they are all uninspired and therefore fallible.
Hence, it is equally the duty of the church, in every generation, to
test her existing creed by the word of God, and to correct and improve
it, if found unscriptural in any of its teachings, or if experience has
taught that it is too brief or too extended, successfully to accomplish
the legitimate purposes of such documents. The idea of the
infallibility of any human creed, or even its semi-inspiration, is
philosophically unreasonable, and either a remnant of Romish
superstition, or an amiable weakness of judgment. Melancthon himself
did not regard his Confession as perfect, for he made sundry
alterations in it in his successive editions. And even at Augsburg,
after the confession had been sent to Luther, at Coburg, and returned
with his approbation on the 16th of May, Melancthon, in a letter to
him, dated six days later, (May 22,) employs the following language:
"In the Apology, (which was the name first intended for the Augsburg
Confession,) I daily make _many changes_. The section concerning
'_Vows_,' which was too meagre, I have stricken out, and have treated
the subject more fully. I am now doing the name with the section
concerning '_The Keys_.' I wish you could have reviewed the doctrinal
articles," (namely, as now amended,) "and then, if you found nothing
defective in them, I would discuss the remaining articles as well as
may be. _For, in Articles of faith, some change must be made, from
time to time, and they must be adapted to the occasions." [Note 3] Here
is anything else than the idea of the immaculate and unalterable nature
of the Augsburg Confession for all after times.

Note 1. In 1529, whilst Melancthon was attending the Conferences at
Spire, this great and good man made a little excursion to Bretton, to
visit his mother. During their interview, she asked him what she should
believe amid so many disputes, and repeated to him her prayers, which
were free from superstition. "Go on, mother," said he, "to believe and
to pray as you have done, and never trouble yourself about religious
controversies."

Note 2. As this oath is a literary curiosity, we subjoin it, in the
original, for the gratification of our learned readers: Ego juro
Domino Decano et Magistris Facultatis Theologiae obedientiam et
reverentiam debitam, et in quocunque statu utilitatem universitatis,
et maxime Facultatis Theologicae, _pro virili mea_ procurabo, et omnes
actus theologicos exercebo in mitra, (nisi fuerit religiosus) vanas,
peregrinas _doctrinas, ab ecclesia damnatas, et piarum aurium
offensivas non dogmatisabo_, sed dogmatisantem Dn. Decano denunciabo
intra octendium, et manutenebo consuetudines, libertates et privilegia
Theologicae Facultatis _pro virili mea_, ut me Deus adjuvet, et
Sanctorum evangeliorum conditores. _Juro etiam Romanae ecclesiae
obedientiam_, et procurabo pacem inter Magistros et Scholasticos
seculares et religiosos, et _biretum_ in nullo alio gymnasio
recipiam." Lib. Statutorum facultatis theol. Academiae Wittemberg.
Cap. 7.

Note 3. An der Apologie (Confession) aendere ich taeglich Vieles. Den
Abschnitt von den Geluebden, der zu mager war, habe ich gestrichen
und den Gegenstand ausfuehrlicher abgehandelt. Eben so verfahre ich
jetzo mit dem Abschnitt von "den Schluesseln." Ich wuenschte, du
haettest die "Glaubensartikel" ueberblickt, wo ich dann, wenn du nichts
fehlerhaftes darin gefunden, das uebrige, so gut es gehen will,
abhandeln werde. Denn es musz zum oeftern an den Glaubensartikeln
abgeaendert werden, und man musz sie den Gelegenheiten anbequemen. In
the Latin: Vellem percurisses articulos fidei, in quibus si nihil
putaveris esse vitii, reliqua utcunque tractabimus. "_Subinde enim,
mutandi stint atque ad occasiones accommodandi." Christian Niemeyer's
Philip Melancthon_, im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, pp. 13, 14.


CHAPTER II.
REPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA.

In replying to the general observations, which constitute the
introduction of the Plea, we shall pursue the order of their occurrence.

"We shall, in this short tract," says the author, "not speak of the
objections, which in the Definite Platform are set forth against some
errors, contained in some other symbolical books of the Lutheran Church,
but we shall confine ourselves exclusively to the errors pointed out in
the Augsburg Confession, the work of Luther and Melancthon themselves,
and _the only one of our Confessions which was universally received as
such, by the whole Lutheran Church in all parts of the world_," p. 4.
This concession is no less honorable to the reverend author, than the
fact itself is important in the discussion of the subject before us. As
the contrary has frequently been asserted in this country, in the face
of history, it seems proper to advert to its details. The facts in the
case are the following:

_The Form of Concord_ was rejected in Denmark, Sweden, Hessia,
Pommerania, Holstein, Anhalt, and the cities of Strasburg, Frankfurt
a. m. Speier, Worms, Nuerenberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Dantzig, &c. For
particulars see Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I, pp. 575-77.

_The Smalcald Articles_ were rejected by Sweden and Denmark.

_The Apology_ to the Augsburg Confession, was denied, official
authority, by Sweden and Denmark.

_The Larger Catechism_ of Luther, in Sweden and Denmark.

Even _the Smaller Catechism_ of Luther was not received as symbolic in
Sweden. See Guericke's Symbolik, pp. 67, &c., 113.

Here, then, we perceive, that those ultra Lutherans of our day, who
insist on the whole mass of former symbols as essential to Lutheranism,
must unchurch a very large portion of the Lutheran Church even of the
sixteenth century. But among these we can by no means class the author
of the Plea, who is evidently a Lutheran of the more enlightened and
liberal class.

The author of the Plea represents "the Augsburg Confession, as the
_unexceptionable_ password of the adherents of the Lutheran Church for
three centuries." The idea designed probably is, that the _great mass_
of doctrines taught in this confession has been thus received. For it
is a historical fact, that cannot be contested, that private confession,
which is enjoined in the eleventh, twenty-fifth and twenty-eighth
Articles of the Augsburg Confession, and was retained by Luther,
Melancthon and their churches, was from the begining [sic] rejected by
the _entire Lutheran Church in Sweden and Denmark_, as well as other
places, and a public confession of the whole church, such as is now
employed in Germany and this country, introduced in its stead. See
Siegel's Handbuch, Vol. I., p. 200.

"Of course the accusation against the Augsburg Confession, involves an
exhibition of Luther and Melancthon, those pillars of the Reformation,
as teaching _heretical doctrines_, which are not in accordance with the
word of God." p. 4. This language we regard as not entirely correct.
Those errors alone are, in correct English, usually termed "heretical,"
which are of fundamental importance, and deny some doctrine that is
necessary to salvation. That this is neither affirmed or implied by the
Platform, must, we think, be admitted by all. But that both Luther and
Melancthon did entertain some erroneous views in 1530, some of which
are taught in the Augsburg Confession, namely, those specified in the
Platform, is affirmed by the great body of our American Lutheran
Church.

"The errors are not, on the side of the Augsburg Confession, but on the
side of those _who agitate our Lutheran Church_ with the introduction
of a fatherless and motherless child, the Definite Platform." To this
we reply, the Platform was publicly adopted by three or four Synods in
the West, within a few weeks after its publication. As to its
authorship, we never denied having prepared it, at the urgent request
of some of those brethren, on the plan agreed on by them, and some
Eastern brethren of the very first respectability. It was carefully
revised by ourselves and Dr. B. Kurtz, and we have not yet found a
single one of its positions refuted. That the request was made and
complied with, will not be regarded as discreditable to either party by
impartial judges, after the smoke of battle shall have disappeared, and
the vision of men again be unobstructed. As to the friends of the
Platform being agitators of the church, we regard the supposition as
erroneous. The Platform was designed to be adopted by those Western
Synods, as it has been, publicly, but without controversy, as other
Synods had done before with their symbolic platforms. But enemies of
the Platform raised the alarm, and agitated the church with threatened
dangers. That the friends of the assailed instrument should stand up in
its vindication, was an indispensable act of self-defence, to which no
impartial man will object.

"We shall endeavor to maintain in this controversy, a dignified and
Christian spirit, as becomes this holy subject, and those who,
differing in some points, know one Master and one service. People on
earth will always differ in their opinions. The truth will gain by
giving free scope to investigation, and by the illustration of the
different sides of the same question." This position is true, and
creditable alike to the head and the heart of the author. Church
government and doctrine are topics of primary importance to the
prosperity of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and no reason can be
assigned why they cannot be debated to the edification of the church,
except the human frailty of disputants. Had these subjects been
discussed in our religious papers with calmness, and in a Christian
spirit, they would have been alike instructive and edifying both to
ministers and laity. The discussion would have infused into laymen a
deeper interest for the welfare of the church, and a larger liberality
in the support of her institutions. Are we not commanded to prove all
things, and hold fast that which is good; and to be always ready to
give to him that asked us a reason for the hope that is in us? But let
us not despond; God will overrule even these controversies to the good
of his church. _Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit._

"The Synods adopting this Platform are expected to make it a principle
_not to receive into their membership any one who will not subscribe
this Definite Platform_," (meaning the whole pamphlet,) p. 6. On this
subject the Platform was entirely misapprehended, by the readers not
reflecting that the third resolution, on p. 6, must be construed in
connection with the two immediately preceding and numerically connected
with it. Resolutions first and second declare the "doctrinal Platform"
to consist of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American
Recension of the Augsburg Confession, together with the General Synod's
Formula of Government and Discipline. And the third resolution adds, no
one shall be received into this Synod who will not subscribe "_this_
Platform," namely, the one just defined. This American Recension or
Revision of the Augsburg Confession, contains, _unaltered_, the
doctrinal articles of that Confession, except, that a few sentences are
omitted, and _nothing added in their stead_. Now, if it be admitted that
when an enumeration of the parts of a whole is professedly and
explicitly made, any thing not included in that enumeration is excluded,
then certainly, as the first two resolutions enumerated specifically
the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American Recension of the
Augsburg Confession, as the parts constituting the Platform to which
assent was required, it follows that the list of Symbolic Errors
rejected, which is not named at all, and which formed a separate part of
the pamphlet, is excluded. But the misapprehension evidently arose from
the fact, that after the term _doctrinal platform_ had been used in the
work, to designate the doctrinal and disciplinarian basis contained in
the first part of it, the name _Definite Synodical Platform_ was
selected for the whole pamphlet, and the distinction not kept up with
sufficient prominence before the mind of the reader. This is remedied in
the second edition, by employing the phrase _Doctrinal Basis or Creed_
for the first, and "_Synodical Disclaimer_, or List of Symbolical
Errors" for the second part. Moreover it is expressly stated, on p. 5,
that "whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who believes in
Exorcism, Private Confession, and Absolution, or the Ceremonies of the
Mass," (not one of which is practiced, so far us we know, by a single
minister connected with the General Synod), the Platform "grants
liberty in regard to all the other topics, omitted from the Augsburg
Confession in the American Recension of it." For it adds, "We are
willing, as heretofore, to admit ministers who receive these views,
provided they regard them as _non-essential_" (that is, as
_non-fundamental_, not, as has been asserted by others, as of minor or
of little importance), "and are willing to co-operate in peace with
those who reject them." To the List of Errors rejected no one is
required to subscribe, and it is published by the Synod as a disclaimer
of these errors, which are often imputed to us, but which are rejected
by the great body of the American Lutheran Church. The Platform cannot,
therefore, with truth, be said to exclude old-Lutherans, unless they
are so rigid as to regard their own views on these disputed points as
essential, and are unwilling to co-operate in _peace_ with their
brethren: and in that case it is certainly preferable for all parties,
that they should organize a Synod for themselves.

Says the author of the Plea, p. 6: "Suppose some Episcopal ministers
having arrived at the conviction that some of their church canons were
wrong," "would it be regarded as anything else than a most _astounding
presumption_, for such men to dare to change the character of the church
canons and denounce some of them as errors, and at the same time to
maintain that _they themselves are the true representatives of the
Episcopal Church_, and can _unchurch_ others?" Here are three
positions, all of which we regard as erroneous. In the _first_ place,
it is not presumptuous, but a Christian duty, when ministers of a
church are firmly convinced, that the avowed standards of their church
contain some tenets contrary to the word of God, publicly to disavow
them, that their influence may not aid in sustaining error; and if the
majority of a synod participate in this opinion, it is their duty to
change their standards into conformity with God's word. The Augsburg
Confession itself was such, a disclaimer of Romish errors, and avowal
of the truth: and if it was the duty of the ministry in the sixteenth
century to make their public profession conform to their belief of
Scripture truth, it is equally the duty of every other age. But
although their case involves the _principle_ objected to by the _Plea_,
the following cases are more exactly analogous. The Episcopal ministry
and laity did, after the American Revolution, change their doctrine,
that the king is the head of the church and adopted the opinion that no
civil officer, as such, has any office in the church. They accordingly
rejected from their creed Article XXI., and also excluded from their
liturgy and forms of prayer, all allusion to the king as the head or
governor of the church. Listen to the testimony of the _Episcopal_
ministers of Maryland, in 1783, soon after the acknowledgment of the
independence of this country. They passed a number of resolutions, of
which the fourth reads thus: "That as it is the _right_, so it will be
the _duty_ of the Episcopal Church, when duly organized, constituted,
and represented in a Synod or Convention of the different orders of her
ministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms of prayer and of
public worship, in order to adapt the same _to the late Revolution_,
and OTHER LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF AMERICA," [Note 1] &c.

Our _Presbyterian_ brethren also changed their Confession of Faith, and
adapted it to their belief. Hear the testimony of _Dr. Hodge_, in his
Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States: [Note 2] the Synod then "took into consideration the twentieth
chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the third paragraph of
the twenty-third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-first
chapter; and having made some alterations, agreed that the said
paragraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together with
a draught of a plan of government and discipline." They were
subsequently adopted.

In like manner did our _Methodist Episcopal_ brethren deal with the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal Church, which they had avowed
from the days of Wesley. They not only rejected the recognition of the
king as the head of the church, but also entirely omitted Article
XVII., which is supposed by many to inculcate Calvinism, together with
several others; and materially altered Articles I., II., VI., IX.,
XXVI., and XXXIV. If, then, it be competent for these several Synods,
or Conferences, to change the Westminster Confession and Thirty-nine
Articles, which were prepared far more deliberately, and with much less
restraint, and had become equally venerable by age, without any one
pretending to deny their authority, or to pronounce the measure
"presumptuous," why may not the Synod of Wittenberg, and other similar
bodies, correct the Augsburg Confession, by the omission of several
tenets, believed not only by her members, but by the great body of
American Lutherans, to be unscriptural? Now the Definite Platform was
prepared at the request of the leading members of those Western Synods,
according to a plan previously agreed on among them and others, for the
express purpose of being proposed for discussion, correction, and
_adoption by these Synods;_ and, until so acted on, was a mere
unofficial proposal, _such as any friends of the church have a right to
make_. And who can dispute their right, or the right of any Synod, to
adopt a Confession of Faith for herself, when the Constitution of the
General Synod originally conceded this power specifically to each
Synod, and still does so, in Article III., Section 3, by requiring them
only to adhere to the _fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible, as taught
by our church? Is not a Lutheran Synod possessed of as much power as an
Episcopal or Methodist convention? And although an individual
necessarily drew up the document, it was prepared according to the plan
decided on by about twenty brethren, and claimed no authority until
acted on by Synod. The Definite Platform could never, _with truth_, be
regarded as the work of a few individuals. Its inception was the result
of a consultation of a large number of influential brethren, especially
of the West, who had been convinced by the aggressions of surrounding
symbolists, that a decided, but also a more _definite_ stand on the
ground of the General Synod, was necessary in self-defence. It was
prepared and published at their request, not as an official document,
but as a draft of such a basis as they had agreed on. It was presented
to them, and taken up for consideration by their several Synods; and
the unanimity with which they adopted it is conclusive proof that it
was prepared according to the stipulated principles. By denying the
right of the several Synods of Ohio, and of any other Synod, to improve
or decide on their own doctrinal basis, within the fundamentals of
Scripture as taught in the Augsburg Confession, the enemies of the
Platform _renounce the principles of the General Synod_, which
expressly allows this right; and they also renounce the original and
universally acknowledged Independent or Congregational principles of
Lutheran Church Government, avowed by Luther, Melancthon, and all the
leading divines of our church, one part of which is the right and
obligation to form our own views of Scripture truth, and to avow them
to the world.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.