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




After all this testimony, it may be regarded as incontestably
established, that the former symbolical books of our church do teach
_private confession_ and absolution, with some modifications, and
hence, that the church in Sweden and Denmark _always rejected this part
of the Augsburg Confession_, in practice, and that the entire church in
Germany and the United States, which now use a _public_ confession,
have made a similar departure from the teachings of the Augsburg
Confession as well as of Luther, Melancthon and the other Lutheran
reformers.

2. That _this rite of private confession, is unauthorized by any
command of the Word of God, in so clear, that the Symbolical books
themselves admit it_, and commend the rite merely on the ground of
human expediency, and inferential scriptural reasoning. The same
acknowledgment is made by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann. In Art. XXVI.
of Augsburg Confession, being Topic V. of the Abuses Corrected, the
confession says: "Confession is _not commanded in Scripture_, but has
been instituted _by the church_." [Note 10]

3. The rite of _private absolution_, on which the Reformers lay much
stress, is in like manner destitute of scriptural authority, and most
injurious to the interests of spiritual religion. The _omniscient_
Saviour could well say to the sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good cheer,
thy sins be forgiven thee," Matt. ix. 2; for he knew the heart of man.

For the same reason he could say to Mary Magdalene, "Thy sins are
forgiven." Luke vii. 48.

But, even the inspired apostles never in a single instance, either
undertook to forgive sins themselves, or to announce the pardon of sin
to any _individual personally_. It is therefore a solemn thing for
ministers, unguided by inspiration, to assume greater power. To
proclaim publicly and privately the willingness of God to pardon the
impenitent, is an important and delighful [sic] part of the minister's
duty; but for uninspired men to institute a special rite in the church,
for the express purpose of announcing _pardon to individuals_, even when
done conditionally, as the reformers maintained it always should be, is
inevitably calculated to lead, especially the less intelligent, to
believe their sins forgiven, at least in part, because the ministers
announce the fact, and because they have professed penitence to him.
But this is wholly unauthorised in God's Word. On the contrary:--

(_a_) The Scriptures throughout represent _God_, and _the Lamb of God_,
as the only beings that can "forgive" and "take away" sin. Exod. xxxiv.
6, 7. The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, "The Lord God,
merciful--_forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin_."

The blessed Saviour, in his memorable prayer, teaches us to address
our supplication, not to the minister, but to our _heavenly Father_,
"forgive us our sins," &c., Luke xi. 4. He says nothing, nor does any
writer of the Old or New Testament _say a word_ about advising a resort
to the priest or minister to obtain forgiveness of sins. The same truth
is taught in a multitude of other passages. We refer the reader to a
few: Eph. iv. 32; Acts viii. 22; 1 John i. 9; Matth. ix. 6; Mark xi. 25;
1 Kings viii. 30; 2 Chron. vii. 14; Psalm lxxxvi. 5; Jerem. xxxi. 34;
Dan. ix. 19.

(_b_) The very fact, that sin is committed essentially _against God_,
is a violation of _his_ law, implies that no other being, not even an
angel or archangel, much less a man, can forgive it, "Against thee,
thee only have I sinned," said the Psalmist, "and done this evil in
thy sight."

(_c_) The offers of pardon in God's Word, are all _conditional_ and
_general_, and these alone has the minister the right to proclaim,
either to a congregation or to an individual. The implication of the
promise to individuals is made by the Holy Spirit, working faith in the
individual, or enabling him to trust in Christ. "Being justified by
faith, we have peace with God," and this peace is the believer's
evidence, is the Testimony of the Spirit, that our sins are forgiven.

(_d_) The actual pardon of individuals by God, depends on their
possessing the moral fitness required by him. It is based on their
having performed the prescribed moral conditions sincerely, of which
none but the Omniscient Jehovah can certainly judge; hence, even the
declarative annunciation of pardon to individuals, is not only
unauthorized but dangerous. Because, even if conditionally announced,
the formality of the absolution, and the fact that the church has made
a _special rite_ of it, are calculated to beget the idea, especially in
the unintelligent, that the granting of absolutions by the minister, is
proof of the genuineness of their faith, and reality of their pardon.

(_e_) Finally, the doctrine of ministerial absolution, or the supposed
sin-forgiving power of the ministry, is inconsistent with the doctrine,
that justification or pardon can be attained only by a living faith in
Jesus Christ, a doctrine of cardinal importance in the eyes of the
Reformers, and the one which Luther has styled the _articulus stantis
vel cadentis ecclesiae_, the doctrine with which the church must stand
or fall." The Scriptures and also the Reformers, teach that pardon or
justification can be obtained only through the merits of Christ, which
merits must be apprehended by a living faith, which living faith can be
found only in the regenerate or converted soul. Hence, as none but a
regenerate sinner can exercise living faith, no other can be pardoned,
whatever else he may do or possess. Now those who attend confession are
either regenerate, or they are not. If they were regenerated or
converted before they went to confession, they had faith, and were
pardoned before; if they were unregenerate or unconverted, then neither
their confession, nor the priest's absolution, can confer pardon on
them, because they have not a living faith, although they may be
sincere and exercise some sorrow for their sins. On the other hand, if
any amount of seriousness and penitence, short of true conversion or
regeneration, could, through the confessional, or any other rite,
confer pardon of sin; the line of distinction between converted and
unconverted, between mere formalists and true Christians would be
obliterated; we should have pardoned saints and pardoned sinners in the
church, converted and unconverted heirs of the promise, believing and
unbelieving subjects of justification, and the words of the Lord Jesus
would prove a lie, "That, _unless a man be born again, he cannot enter
the kingdom of heaven!_"-Def. Platform, p. 25.

On the subject of this rite, we regret to state, that a more careful
study of the subject, as presented in the above results, will not
permit us to speak as favorably of the practice of the Reformers, as we
did in some of our former publications, twenty years ago, and even
later. The positions above maintained, we think, cannot be successfully
controverted, as our investigations of the original sources has been
sufficiently extensive to dispel all doubt.

Note 1. See Koecher, p. 515.

Note 2. Funk's Kirchenordnungen, pp. 189, 190.

Note 3. Mueller's Symb. B., p. 364.

Note 4. Page 97.

Note 5. Mueller's Symb. B., p. 185.

Note 6. Pleiffer, p. 534. [sic]

Note 7. Vol. iii. pt. 1, p. 125.

Note 8. Vol. i., pp. 199, 206.

Note 9. Vol. iv., p. 781.

Note 10. Lutheran Manual, p. 293.


CHAPTER VII.
DENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

The incalculable importance of the proper observation of the Christian
Sabbath to the progress of the kingdom of Christ in general, and to
the growth of piety in the heart of every Christian in particular, is
a point on which, we are happy to state, there is no difference between
the Plea and the Platform. Yet we cannot resist the conviction, that in
our efforts to observe this day, not with the pharisaic formalities of
the Jew, but with the conscientious spirituality of the Christian, the
question whether in doing so, we are obeying an injunction of God,
exhibited in the inspired example of his apostles, or are merely
conforming to an uninspired regulation of the church, must be of great
importance.

The lax views of the early reformers on this subject are so frequently
met with in theological discussions, that we had not expected to find
the position of the Platform disputed; but rather that the theory of
the Reformers would be defended, as is done by writers of no mean name
in Germany at the present day. The author of the Plea, however, takes a
different view of the Confession, and affirms that this venerable
document does not deny the divine institution and obligation of the
Christian Sabbath. "Luther and Melancthon (says he,) had received from
the older church, the doctrine and practice of the Christian Sabbath,
as a holy day, as a divine institution and obligation, and they had not
a word to say against this view of the Sabbath. But they had a great
deal to say against the abuses, by which the bishops made the Sabbath a
day of sin and dishonor to God and his church, instead of making it a
day devoted to his glory," p. 28.

This opinion is different from that commonly entertained among the
learned. A few authorities alone may suffice to sustain our statement.
_Dr Ruecker_, in his work on _The Lord's Day_, in which he thoroughly
examines the views of the church on this subject, in all the different
ages of her history, fully confirms the position of the Definite
Platform. He says, "_The Reformers do not recognize in the religious
observance of Sunday an institution resting on an immediate divine
command;_ and the idea of a transfer of the Sabbatic law of the Old to
the New Testament Sunday, is altogether strange to them, and is
positively rejected by them, as in consistent with the gospel" (Die
Reformatorem erkennen in der Sonntagsfeier _keine unmittelbar
goettliche anordnung, &c._) Ruckert, von Tage des Herrn, p. 48.

And again, on p. 67, he affirms this more liberal view of the Lord's
Day, to be the more general one in Germany at the present time. "So
far," says he, "as we know, the most important, living, theological
writers, of the present day, entertain this so-called more liberal or
lax view, (namely, that of Luther.)"

_Dr. Hengstenberg_, the well-known editor of the Evangelical Church
Paper at Berlin, Prussia, and author of numerous learned and valuable
works, uses the following language: "What Luther's views were, on the
law concerning the Sabbath, may easily be inferred from his views of
the Old Testament law in general, and of the Decalogue in particular.
The distinction which became current after his day, between the moral
and ceremonial law, according to which Christ abrogated only the
latter, whilst the former is regarded as universal and binding on all
ages, was distant from his views. He regards the whole law as an
external, coercive letter, designed only for the Jews." "How _Luther_
regarded the Sabbath from this general view, is so clearly exhibited in
his Larger Catechism, that the introduction of other passages from his
writings, is entirely superfluous." He then quotes the passages which
will be given in full in our next section, in which Luther declares the
Sabbath to be designed only for the Jews, and that in its outward sense
it does not concern Christians. (Darum, says Luther, gehet nun dies
gebot nach dem groben Verstande uns Christen nichts an, &c.) Melancthon
(continues Hengstenberg,) agreed with Luther, and this view was
introduced into the Augsburg Confession." See Hengstenberg, ueber den
Tag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 108, 109, 110.

But the accuracy of the Platform will no longer be disputed, when even
_Dr. Walter_, [sic; should be Walther] the leader of the old Lutheran
Synod of Missouri, and editor of their periodical, a man of acknowledged
theological learning and rigid advocate for the entire Augsburg
Confession, bears testimony in favor of our position. In the March No.
of the Lehre und Wehre, p. 93, he thus expresses his views: "We cannot
agree with him (the author, whom he is reviewing) in the views he
expresses concerning the Sabbath. He asserts that the Sabbath or
Christian Sunday _is a divine institution_, and that this is the
doctrine of the Lutheran Symbols: That the Lutheran Church differs from
the Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the former
advocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method. _The contrary of
this is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. of the Augsburg
Confession_, and it would be _almost incomprehensible how the author
could fail to perceive this_, were it not for his manifest desire to
make the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any other
precept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not be
accomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointment
of the Sunday.

Once more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of that
learned and impartial historian of our own country, _Dr. Murdock_,
himself, though a native American, a highly respectable German scholar:
"The XXVIII. Article of Augsburg Confession," says he, "teaches that as
to Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishops
may and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and the
people should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conducive
to good order and edification." Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. iii., p. 53,
Harper's edition.

I. _What is the charge of the Definite Platform against the Augsburg
Confession on this subject?_ It is, that

The Augsburg Confession "treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish
institution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety
of our retaining the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of
religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the
churches for the convenience of general convocation.

II. What ground does the Plea take?

It denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, while
it supposes the Confession to object not to the divine institution and
obligation of the Lord's Day, but to the corruptions which the Romish
church had connected with it, and especially the idea that the
observance of the Lord's Day was a meritorious work, which would secure
our justification before God.

The observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of the
Sabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of the
Platform. The author also intersperses other useful practical remarks,
which we have not have room to quote. The simple point of difference,
of any moment, is that relating to the question whether our obligation
to observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by God or by
the church. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains,
for the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtually
acknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says: "The
Augsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite assertion that the
Christian Sabbath rests on _no special dictate of the Word of God_,
maintains that by necessity, and by right, the _church_ instituted our
Christian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it." P. 34. To this we shall
confine our proof.

III. _We shall prove that the Augsburg Confession does deny the divine
appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day_.

In establishing this position, we shall first prove from the other
writings of Luther and Melancthon, that they both rejected the divine
appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day; secondly, show from
the Augsburg Confession itself, as well as the Apology to it, both
written by Melancthon, that its divine appointment is there denied.

Let us listen to the _declarations of Luther_ on this subject. In his
Commentary on the Pentateuch, speaking of the decalogue, he says:
"Saint Paul and the entire New Testament have abolished the Sabbath of
the Jews, in order that men may understand that the Sabbath concerns
the Jews alone. It is therefore unnecesssary [sic] that the Gentiles
should observe the Sabbath, although it was a great and rigid command
among the Jews." [Note 1] "Among Christians, under the New Testament,
every day is a holy day, and _all days are free_. Therefore, says
Christ, the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. Matt. xii. 8.
Therefore Paul, at different places, admonishes the Christians, not to
suffer themselves to be bound to any particular day. Ye observe days and
months, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed
upon you labor in vain. Gal. iv. 10, 11. And still more clearly in
Colossians ii. 16, 17. Let no mint therefore judge you in meat or in
drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbath
days: which are a shadow of things to come." "But although the Sabbath
is _now revoked_, and the consciences of men are free from it, it is
nevertheless good and necessary that _some_ particular day of the week
be observed, in order that the word of God may be dispensed on it, may
be heard and learned; for not every one can attend to it every day.
Moreover, nature demands that both man and beast rest one day in the
week, and abstain from labor. Hence, if any one desires to make a
necessary command out of the Sabbath, as a work required of God, he must
observe Saturday and not Sunday, for Saturday was enjoined upon the
Jews, and not Sunday. But Christians have hitherto observed Sunday, and
not Saturday, because on that day Christ, arose. Now this is a certain
evidence to us that the Sabbath, yea the entire Moses (Mosaic
dispensation) no longer concerns us, else we would be under obligation
to observe Saturday. This is a great and strong proof that the Sabbath
is revoked; for throughout the whole New Testament we find no place in
which the observance of the Sabbath in enjoined upon Christians."

"But why (continues Luther,) is Sunday observed among Christians?
Although, _all days are free and one day is like another_, it is still
necessary and good, yea, very necessary, that some one day be observed,
_whether it be Sabbath, Sunday or any other day_. For God designs to
lead the world decently, and govern it peaceably; therefore he gave six
days for work, but on the seventh day, servants, hirelings, and
laborers of every kind, yea, even horses and oxen and other laboring
animals shall have rest, as this precept requires, in order that they
may be refreshed by rest. And especially in order that those, who at
other times have no leisure, may hear the preached word and thereby
learn to know God. And for this reason, namely, of love and necessity,
Sunday has been retained, not on account of the Mosaic precept, but for
the sake of our necessities in order that we might rest and learn the
word of God." [Note 2]

In his larger Catechism, Luther thus expresses himself. [Note 3]

"_This commandment, therefore, with respect to its outward and literal
sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is wholly an external
thing, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, confined to certain
conditions, and places, which are all now left free through Christ_.
But in order that we may draw up for the uninformed, a Christian
meaning of what God requires of us in this commandment, is is necessary
to observe, that _we keep the Sabbath-day, not for the sake of
intelligent and learned (gelehrten) Christians; for these have no need
of it:_ but in the first place, on account, of physical reasons and
necessities, which nature teaches and requires for the _common mass_ of
people, _men-servants_ and _maid-servants_, who attend during the whole
week to _their labor and employments_, so that they may also have a day
set apart for _rest and refreshment (erquicken:_) in the second, mostly
for the purpose of enabling us to take time and opportunity on these
Sabbath-days, (since we cannot otherwise attain them,) to attend _to
divine service_, so that we may assemble ourselves to hear and treat of
the Word of God, and then to praise him, to sing and pray to him.

"But this, I say, is not so confined to time, _as ii was among the Jews,
that it must be precisely on this or that day; for one day is not
better in itself than another, but it should be daily attended to;_ but
since the mass of the people cannot attend to it, we should _reserve
one day in the week, at least, for this purpose_. Inasmuch, however, as
Sunday has been _set apart from of old_ for this purpose, we should
therefore let it remain so, that the Sabbath may be observed with
_uniformity_, and that no one create disorder through unnecessary
innovation."

The above testimony of Luther is so distinct and decided, that he
certainly would not have approved of the Augsburg Confession if
Melancthon had introduced a different doctrine into it. But there was
no difference of opinion on this point, between these two luminaries of
the church.

2. _Melancthon_, in a letter addressed to Luther from Augsburg, dated
July 27, 1530, thus speaks of the Christian Sabbath: "When St. Peter
appoints the religious observance of Sunday, I regard this work (the
observance of the day) _not as divine worship_, (Gottesdienst, cultus,)
but as being attended by bodily advantage, (leiblichen Nutzen,) if the
people assemble together on a fixed day." [Note 4]

Again, in his _System of Divinity_, or _Loci Theologici_," [Note 5] we
find the following unequivocal declaration: "We have, heard above that
the Levitical _ceremonies_ are abolished. But the law concerning the
Sabbath is a Levitical ceremony, and _St. Paul_ expressly says,
Col. ii., Let no one judge you, if you do not observe the Sabbaths,"
(Niemend [sic] soll euch richten, so ihr die Sabbathe nicht haltet;) why
then (it may be asked) do you insist so rigidly on this precept? Answer.
This precept in the words of Moses embraces two things, one _common_,
that is necessary to the church at all times, and a _particular day_,
which concerned only the government of Israel. The _common_ part (of
this precept) is the proper public office (or duty) to preach and to
observe the divine ceremonies, which God has at any time enjoyed. This
_common_ precept binds all men; for this honor all rational creatures
owe to God, to aid in sustaining the office of preacher, and Christian
assemblies, (public worship,) according to the condition and calling of
each one, as shall be farther stated hereafter. _But the particular
part, concerning the seventh day_, DOES NOT BIND US: therefore we hold
meetings on the _first day and on any other days_ of the week, _as
occasion offers_."

Such then being the views of the illustrious reformers, one of whom
penned the Augsburg Confession, and the other sanctioned it, we might
naturally expect to find them expressed in the Confession itself, which
a bare recital of a few passages, will prove to be the case.

And, I. From the _Augsburg Confession_, Art. XXVIII.

"And what are we to believe concerning _Sunday_ (the Lord's day,) and
other similar ordinances and ceremonies of the church? To this inquiry
we reply, the bishops and clergy may make regulations, that order may be
observed in the church, not with the view of thereby obtaining the grace
of God, nor in order thus to make satisfaction for sins, nor to bind the
consciences, to hold and regard this as a _necessary_ worship of God, or
to believe that they would _commit sin_ if they _violated_ these
regulations without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians
(1 Cor. xi. 5,) has ordained that _women shall have their heads_ covered
in the congregation; also, that ministers should not all speak at the
same time in the congregation, but in an orderly manner, one after
another.

"It is becoming in a Christian congregation to observe such order, for
the sake of love and peace, and to obey the bishops and clergy in these
cases, and to observe these regulations so far as not to give offence
to one another, so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct
in the church. Nevertheless, the consciences of men must not be
oppressed, by representing these things as _necessary to salvation_, or
_teaching that they are guilty of sin, if they break these regulations
without offence to others;_ for no one affirms that a woman commits sin
who goes out with her head uncovered, without giving offence to the
people. SUCH ALSO IS THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUNDAY, Easter,
Whitsunday, and similar festivals and customs. For _those who suppose
that the ordinance concerning Sunday_ instead of Sabbath, _is enacted
as necessary, are greatly mistaken_. For the Holy Scripture has
abolished the Sabbath, and teaches that all the ceremonies of the old
law may be omitted, since the publication of the gospel. And yet, as it
was necessary to appoint a certain day, in order that the people might
know when they should assemble, the _Christian church_, (not the
apostles,) has up appointed Sunday (the Lord's day) for this purpose;
and to this change she was the more inclined and willing, that the
people might have an example of Christian _liberty_, and might know
that _the observance of neither the Sabbath nor any other day is
necessary_. There have been numerous erroneous disputations published,
concerning the change of the law, the ceremonies of the New Testament,
and the change of the Sabbath, which have all sprung from the false and
erroneous opinion, that Christians must have such a mode of divine
worship as is conformed to the Levitical or Jewish service, and that
Christ enjoined it on the apostles and bishops, to invent new
ceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation." [Note 6]

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