{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18107/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18107","id":"gutenberg_18107","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18107","summary":null,"tags":["Augsburg Confession","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Lutheran Church -- Catechisms","Lutheran Church -- Controversial literature","Mann, W. J. (William Julius), 1819-1892. Plea for the Augsburg Confession"],"text":"Produced by Rev. Kurt A. T. Bodling, presently at the State\nLibrary of Pennsylvania\n\n\n\n\n\nAMERICAN LUTHERANISM VINDICATED; OR, EXAMINATION OF THE\nLUTHERAN SYMBOLS,\non\nCERTAIN DISPUTED TOPICS:\nINCLUDING A REPLY\nTO THE PLEA OF Rev. W. J. MANN.\nBY\nS. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D.,\nProfessor of Christian Theology in the Theological\nSeminary of General Synod at Gettysburg, Pa.\n\nEarnestly contend for the faith, once delivered to the saints. JUDE 3.\n\nBALTIMORE:\nPUBLISHED BY T. NEWTON KURTZ,\nNo. 151 WEST PRATT STREET.\n1856\n\nEntered according to act of Congress in the year 1856,\nBY S. S. SCHMUCKER,\nIN THE CLERK'S OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,\nFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.\nSTEREOTYPED BY GEORGE CHARLES, NO. 9 SANSOM ST., PHILA.\nPRINTED BY C. SHERMAN & SON.\n\n\nTO THE READER.\nThe design of the following treatise, and the occasion which elicited\nit, are indicated both on the title page and in the introduction of the\nwork itself. Its primary object is not to discuss the obligation of\nSynods to adopt the doctrinal basis of the Platform. What we felt it a\nduty to the church to publish on that subject, we have presented in the\nLutheran Observer. But the pamphlet of the Rev. Mann, entitled Plea for\nthe Augsburg Confession, having called in question the accuracy of some\nof the interpretations of that Confession contained in the Definite\nSynodical Platform, and affirmed the Scriptural truth of some of the\ntenets there dissented from; it becomes a question of interest among us\nas Lutherans, which representation is correct. For the points disputed\nare those, on the ground of which the constitutions of the General\nSynod and of her Seminary avow only a qualified assent to the Augsburg\nConfession. In hope of contributing to the prevalence of truth, and the\ninterests of that kingdom of God which is based on it, the writer has\ncarefully re-examined the original documents, and herewith submits the\nresults to the friends of the General Synod and her basis. Since these\nresults as to the question, what do the symbols actually teach? are\ndeduced impartially, as must be admitted, from the original symbolical\nbooks themselves, as illustrated by the writings of Luther, Melancthon,\nand of the other Reformers of the same date; those who approve of those\nbooks should so far sustain our work: and those who reject these tenets,\nthat is, the New School portion of the church, will not object to seeing\na vindication of the reason why they and the General Synod avow only a\nqualified assent even to the Augsburg Confession, namely, because these\nerrors are there taught.\n\n_The topics here discussed,_ are all such as are left free to individual\njudgment, both by the Constitution of the General Synod, and that of her\nTheological Seminary. Both explicitly bind to the Augsburg Confession,\nonly so far as the _fundamental_ doctrines, not of that confession, but\nof the _Scriptures_ are concerned. A _fundamental_ doctrine of Scripture\nis one that, is regarded by the great body of evangelical Christians as\nessential to salvation, or essential to the system of Christianity; so\nthat he who rejects it cannot be saved, neither be regarded as a\nbeliever in the system of Christian doctrine. The doctrinal\npeculiarities of no denomination, though often highly important, can\ntherefore be regarded as _fundamental,_ without unchurching all other\ndenominations and consigning them to perdition. The topics here\ndiscussed are, 1. Ceremonies of the Mass. 2. Private Confession and\nAbsolution. 3. The Divine institution of the Christian Sabbath. 4.\nNature of Sacramental Influence. 5. Baptismal Regeneration. 6. The\nnature of the Saviour's presence in the Lord's Supper; and, 7. Exorcism.\nNow, not one of these is found in the list of fundamentals published by\nthe Synod of Maryland, and by the great Evangelical Alliance of all the\nprominent Christian denominations assembled in London in 1846,\nconsisting of more than a thousand ministers of Christ, delegated from\nnearly all parts of Europe and America. That list is found in the\nLutheran Manual, and is the following:--\n\n\"1. The Divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Holy\nScriptures. 2. The right and duty of private judgment in the\ninterpretation of the Scriptures. 3. The unity of the Godhead, and the\nTrinity of persons therein. 4. The utter depravity of human nature in\nconsequence of the fall. 5. The incarnation of the Son of God, his work\nof atonement for sinners of mankind, and his mediatorial intercession\nand reign. 6. The justification of the sinner by faith alone. 7. The\nwork of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the\nsinner. 8. The Divine institution of Christian ministry, and the\nobligation and perpetuity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and 9. The\nimmortality of the soul and the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus\nChrist, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal\npunishment of the wicked.\" Not one of these are here discussed.\n\nAs to the _doctrines taught_ in this little volume, they are the same\ninculcated in our Popular Theology twenty-one years ago, and in our\ndifferent works published since that time. And here it seems proper to\navail ourselves of this public opportunity to correct an error\ncommitted by our esteemed friend, Dr. Schaff, of Mercersburg, in his\nrecent work on the American churches, in which he represents us as\ndenying the _reality,_ as well as the guilt of natural depravity. This\nis entirely a mistake. The reality of Natural Depravity is a doctrine\nso clearly taught in God's word, as well as by the history of the human\nrace, that we have never even been tempted to doubt it. In the eighth\nedition of the Popular Theology, (p. 144,) which has recently left the\npress, our views on this subject are thus summed up:-- \"The Augsburg\nConfession seems to combine, both these views, (_i.e._ both absence of\nholiness and predisposition to sin,) and the great body of Lutheran\ndivines has regarded natural, or original, or innate depravity, as that\ndisorder in the mental and bodily constitution of man, which was\nintroduced by the fall of Adam, is transmitted by natural generation\nfrom parent to child, and the result of which is, that all men who are\nnaturally engendered, evince in their action want of holiness and a\npredisposition to sin. Without the admission of such a disorder in the\nhuman system, _no satisfactory reason can be assigned for the\nuniversality of actual transgression_ amongst men.\" \"Our own views on\nthis disputed subject, maybe summed up in the following features: 1.\nAll mankind, in consequence of their descent from fallen Adam, _are born\nwith a depraved nature,_ that is, their bodily and mental system is _so\ndisordered, as_ in result of its operation _to evince a predisposition\nto sin._ 2. This natural depravity _disqualifies its subjects for\nheaven_. Because the action of depraved (disordered) faculties and\npowers, would not, even in heaven itself, be conformed to the divine\nlaw, and _could not be acceptable to God_ In our natural state,\nmoreover, we have not the _qualifications requisite for the enjoyment\nof heaven_, having no spiritual appetites. But we cannot suppose that\nGod would condemn us to positive and eternal misery merely on account of\nthis depraved (disordered) nature; for we are in no sense the authors or\ncauses of it; and a just God will not punish his creatures for acts\nwhich they did not perform;\" (p. 147.) It is evident, therefore, that we\ndo maintain _the reality_ of natural depravity inherited from our first\nparents, but _deny the imputation of it to us as personal guilt_. This\ncorrection, we doubt not, Dr. Schaff will make in the future editions of\nhis work. Nor are we more chargeable with even the remotest tendency to\nrationalism, than the great mass of American and English theologians,\nincluding such men as Drs. Dwight, Mason, Woods and Alexander, who all\ndistinguish things _above_ reason from those _contrary_ to it, and\nwhilst they deny that revelation teaches any doctrine of the latter\nclass, admit and believe a number of its doctrines, such as the Trinity,\nIncarnation, &c., to be _above_ the comprehension of human reason. With\nthem, moreover, we maintain, that in doctrines which lie within the\ngrasp of human reason, it is proper and a duty to expect and to\ninculcate a harmony between the teachings of revelation and the dictates\nof reason, thus to exhibit and confirm the _intrinsic moral fitness and\nglory of those truths of revelation_. And it is these and similar things\nwhich a certain class of German theologians of late are wont to style\nrationalizing tendencies.\n\nAs to the _necessity of this work;_ two little volumes have appeared,\nassailing some of the positions of the Definite Platform, and none in\nvindication of them. The New School must therefore receive credit for\nmoderation. Those volumes were hailed with exultation by the four or\nfive Old-School papers of our church, and all of them, even the\nMissionary, invite the continuance of the discussion in pamphlet form.\nThose publications did not agitate the church, neither will this. That\nman must be ignorant of human nature, who does not perceive a vast\ndifference between a controversy conducted in the newspapers of the\nchurch, and one confined to independent pamphlets or volumes. In the\nformer case, the dispute is forced upon all who see the paper, and\nreaches fifty times as many persons, amongst whom may be many who, from\nprejudice, or want of sufficient intelligence, do not appreciate the\nimportance of the discussion; in the latter, it reaches only those who\ndesire to see it, and feel sufficient interest to purchase the volume.\nYet the Definite Platform, be it remembered, was not the cause but the\nresult of Symbolic agitation, continual, progressive, and aggressive, in\nthe several Old-School papers and periodicals, for eight or ten years\npast. As it evinced a spirit of resistance, they of course pounced down\nupon it, and labored hard for its destruction. But their continued\ndiscussion has brought to light such high-toned and intolerant grounds\nof opposition, that the church generally, we doubt not, will settle\ndown, in a just appreciation of the case.\n\nThe course pursued by the ministers of the General Synod, has always\nbeen a liberal one. They have freely expressed their sentiments on these\ndisputed topics, and cheerfully conceded to others the same liberty.\nThis principle pervades the Constitution of the General Synod and of\nher Seminary. Even within the last few weeks, the Directors of the\nSeminary have listened to a vindication of the entire symbolic system,\nin the Inaugural of their German Theological Professor, and resolved\nto publish it, although it advocates some views rejected by the\nmajority of the Board, and by the other members of the Faculty. After\nsuch a specimen of liberality, we may well hope that the propriety of\nany of the other Professors advocating the doctrines, which have from\nthe beginning been taught in the institution, will be conceded by all.\n\nFor the information of those foreign brethren who have recently taken\npart in our ministry, we deem it just to remark, that the term\n_American_ was employed in reference to our church, many years before\nthe existence of the political party now designated by this name, and\nis used by us, not in distinction from those born in foreign lands, but\nto designate those peculiarities of doctrine, discipline, and worship,\nwhich characterize the great mass of the churches of the General Synod,\nas the terms _Danish_ Lutheran, or _Swedish_ Lutheran, and _German_\nLutheran, indicate the peculiarities of our church in those countries.\nSome of our best _American_ Lutherans are natives of foreign lands.\n\nIn conclusion, we repeat the assurance, that it has been with deep\nregret that we have felt compelled, in defence of American, that is,\nNew School Lutheranism, to exhibit what we regard the errors of the\nformer symbols. But as the existence of these errors has of late years\nbeen perseveringly denied, and New School Lutherans have been\nincessantly reproached for not yielding an unqualified assent, to these\nbooks, necessity was laid on us; and the evil of the controversy, if\nany, lies at the door of the aggressors.\n\nPraying that our Divine Master may bless this little volume to the\nadvancement of his glory and the welfare of his church, we submit it\nto the friends of truth.\n\nS. S. SCHMUCKER.\nGettysburg, April 23d, 1856.\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS.....13\nReligious Controversy. Plea of Rev. Mann. Apostolic Church. Authority\nof Creeds. Apostles' Creed. Augsburg Confession-altered by Melancthon.\n\nCHAPTER II.\nREPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA.....24\nAugsburg Confession the only universal symbol of the Lutheran Church.\nDefinite Platform liberal. The Episcopalians, Presbyterians and\nMethodists, altered their European Creeds in this country. Creeds\nsubordinate, to Scripture. Progressive light of Scripture. Human\ncreeds fallible. Drs. Lochman, Endress, F. C. Schaeffer, Hazelius,\nBachman, &c. Origin of the Definite Synodical Platform. Dr. Kocher on\nCreeds.\n\nCHAPTER III.\nDISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED.....47\nDiet of Augsburg. Alarm of Melancthon-his complaints to Luther-his\nletters to Camerarius, remarkable letter to Campegius. Luther checks\nMelancthon's Concessions.\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nPOSITIONS OF THE DEFINITE SYNODICAL PLATFORM ESTABLISHED.....57\nThe Reformers progressive. Rigid Symbolic System rejected in Germany.\nReinhard, Knapp, Storr, Olshausen, Tholuk, Hengstenberg, &c. Analysis\nof the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession, it is almost the\nentire Augsburg Confession.\n\nCHAPTER V.\nSYNODICAL DISCLAIMER.....63\nLuther on the Elevation of the Host. Ceremonies of the Mass. Drs.\nMurdock, Fuhrman. Import of the term Mass among Romanists, and amongst\nthe Reformers whilst in the Romish Church. Testimony of Luther in his\nTreatise on the Mass, in his letters to Spangler, to Duke George, in\nthe Short Confession, letter to Justus Jonas, &c. Testimony of\nMelancthon, in his letter to Luther during the Diet. Testimony of other\nReformers, Aurifaber, Spalatin. Testimony of the Romish Refutation of\nthe Augsburg Confession. Internal evidence from the Augsburg Confession\nitself. Separate captions and articles for Mass and the Lord's Supper.\nThe two kept distinct in Melancthon's translation; if you exchange the\nwords the articles make nonsense. The Romanists understood the\nConfession to mean mass proper. Melancthon in the Apology to the\nConfession so understands it. Refutation of the proofs. Reference to\nthe author's former works, the Popular Theology, the History of the\nAmerican Lutheran Church.\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nPRIVATE CONFESISONAND ABSOLUTION.....97\nImport of the phrase. Dr. Funck's early Lutheran Directories for\nWorship. Formularies for private Confession and Absolution, Luther's,\nthat of Wolfgang, &c., in 1557. Proof that this rite is inculcated in\nthe Augsburg Confession. Siegel, Prof. Jacobsen. Augsburg Confession\nadmits the want of Scripture authority for it. God alone can forgive\nsin.\n\nCHAPTER VII.\nDENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF THE CHRISTIAN\nSABBATH.....107\nProofs of the Charge, Drs. Rucker, Hengstenberg, Walter, Murdock.\nGround taken by the Plea. The same opinion taught by Luther in his\nCommentary, Larger Catechism, &c., and by Melancthon, in Loci\nCommunes, or system of Divinity, &c., in Augsburg Confession, and in\nhis Apology to it.\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\nGENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTAL INFLUENCE.....121\nDoctrine of the Plea-not fully developed. Scriptural view of\nSacramental Influence. Man a sinner by nature and practice, Divine\ntruth the grand instrumentality of the Spirit in our spiritual\nrenovation. The stage of progress in this renovation, morally requisite\nfor pardon, is that of living faith, or entire surrender to God.\nEvidence of this pardon or justification, is internal; peace, love, joy,\ntestimony of the Spirit, fruits of the Spirit, and not any outward\nrite-Sacraments therefore only mediate and not immediate conditions of\npardon-proofs, Mosheim, Reinhard, Knapp.\n\nCHAPTER IX.\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION.....135\nIs taught in Symbolical books and by the Reformers and early\nTheologians, Hunnius, Gerhard, Buddeus. Influence of this doctrine on\nthe pulpit-proofs against it.\n\nCHAPTER X.\nTHE LORD'S SUPPER.....148\nExtracts from the Symbols. Arguments. Supposed Sin-forgiving Power of\nthe Eucharist.\n\nCHAPTER XI.....155\nEXORCISM.\nAltered interpretation of this rite. Proofs that it was regarded as\nsymbolic and was practised in different parts of the Lutheran Church.\nTestimony of Drs. Guericke, Koellner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Augusti,\nSiegel, Sigismund, Baumgarten. At some periods regarded as a test of\northodoxy.\n\nCHAPTER XII.\nCONCLUDING REMARKS.....161\nWhat is our duty under these circumstances? Erroneous reasonings of\nthe rigid Lutherans. Four different remedies considered--the true one.\n\nAPPENDIX.....169\n\n\nEXAMINATION OF THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS.\nCHAPTER I.\nINTRODUCTORY REMARKS.\n\nReligious controversy, though it often degenerates from that calm and\ndignified character, which it should ever sustain as a mutual search\nafter truth, seems sometimes to be necessary and proper. It springs out\nof the nature of that moral evidence, never amounting to demonstration,\nby which religious doctrines are sustained, and from the fact, that\nwhilst the word of God reveals what is necessary to salvation with\nentire distinctness, it leaves undecided, or to be deduced from clearer\npassages of Scripture, many points which are both interesting and\nimportant, as well as naturally sought for by the constitutional,\nsystematizing tendencies of the human mind. Discussions on such topics\nof practical utility, are alike pleasing to God and beneficial to the\nchurch, if conducted in a Christian spirit, and if the parties have\ntruth and not victory for their aim. Truth is the will of God,\nexhibited in the diversified creations of his hand, either physical,\nintellectual, or moral, and the revelations of his word, correctly\napprehended by the human mind. Since truth, therefore, is of God, it\nneed fear no investigation. The divinity that is in it, will secure its\nultimate triumph. Though it may for a season be obscured, or crushed to\nearth by passion, prejudice, or irresponsible authority, it will sooner\nor later assert its rights, and secure the homage of all upright minds.\nNo friend of truth should dread impartial investigation. If he has\nunconsciously imbibed erroneous opinions, he will thus be conducted to\nthe truth; and if his views are correct, they will be confirmed by\ninvestigation. \"Eternal vigilance has been styled the price of civil\n'liberty;'\" and to \"search the Scriptures daily,\"  to \"prove all things\nand hold fast that which is good,\" is the grand safeguard of religious\ntruth and ecclesiastical purity. No new enterprise of Christian\nbenevolence has ever been achieved, no reformation of established\ninstitutions or doctrines ever been accomplished in the church of\nChrist, without discussion and controversy either oral or written;\nbecause error when assailed by the truth, will always make more or less\nresistance. The life of the greatest moral hero of the sixteenth\ncentury, to whom Christianity is so hugely indebted, was almost\nentirely expended in controversial efforts; and even the mild and\npeace-loving Melancthon, though he advised his aged mother not to\ntrouble herself about religious controversies, himself felt it his duty\nto devote much of his time, his learning, and his talents to the\nvindication of the truth against its enemies. [Note 1] We are commanded\n\"earnestly to contend for the faith once, delivered to the saints,\" and\nby inference for those regulations, which tend to secure that faith. We\nare taught to pray for the unity of the disciples of Christ, \"that they\nmay be one as He and the Father are one,\" and consequently to oppose\nsuch regulations as tend to sever the bonds of union among God's people,\nand cause divisions in the household of Christ. Such means for\ndefending the faith, are creeds which inculcate only those doctrines\nclearly taught in Scripture; such hindrances to union and apples of\ndiscord, are creeds embracing many minor points, not clearly decided in\nScripture, on which true Christians differ, and which are not necessary\nfor cordial co-operation among the children of God.\n\nWithin the last few months, a discussion on creeds has occupied the\nreligious papers of our church in this country, the specific subjects\nof which were the merits of the \"_Definite Synodical Platform_\"\nrecently adopted by several of our Western Synods, and the import and\nscriptural truth of some portions of that venerable document, the\n_Augsburg Confession_. In these discussions we took part, in a series\nof articles over the initials of our name, in the Lutheran Observer, in\nvindication of the Definite Platform, which we hold to be a faithful\nand definite exhibition of the import of the _generic_ doctrinal pledge\nof the General Synod. That pledge includes, in connection with absolute\nassent to the Word of God, as the only infallible rule of faith and\npractice, the belief \"that the fundamental doctrines of Scripture are\ntaught in a manner substantially correct in the doctrinal articles of\nthe Augsburg Confession:\" and the Platform is an unaltered copy of\nthese articles of that confession, only omitting those parts, which we\nknow by long acquaintance with American Lutherans, to be generally\nregarded by them not only as nonfundamental, but _erroneous_. The\nDefinite Platform, therefore, retains _even more_ of the Augsburg\nConfession than the General Synod's pledge requires; for it contains\nsome specifications of the Augsburg Confession, which though true, are\nnot fundamental. The Platform is, therefore, more symbolic than the\nGeneral Synod's doctrinal basis, though the contrary opinion has\nrepeatedly been expressed, by those who have not carefully examined.\nHad both parties in this discussion exhibited more christian comity,\nand abstained from personalities, levelling their logical artillery\nagainst opinions instead of the persons entertaining them; the effect\nupon the church would, we think, have been favorable, and unity of\nsentiment might have been promoted. That a different impression has\nbeen made on many minds is, doubtless, owing to the human infirmity\nand passion that mingled in the contest. Which party exhibited the\nlargest amount of this weakness, we will not undertake to decide,\nalthough we doubt not, that here as in most other cases, the judgment\nof the Leyden cobbler would be found correct, who was in the habit of\nattending the public Latin disputations of the university, and when\nasked whether he understood Latin, replied, \"No, but I know who is\nwrong in the argument, by seeing _who gets angry first_.\" Nevertheless,\nchristian truth has often been defended in a very unchristian way, and\ndoubtless more depends on the natural temper and the manners of the\ndisputants, as well as the extent to which divine grace enables them to\nsubdue their passions. The disposition occasionally evinced, to frown\ndown discussion by invective and denunciation, is not only illogical,\nas it proves neither the affirmative nor negative of the disputed\nquestion; but in this free country, where we acknowledge no popes, and\nin the judgment of free Americans, who think for themselves, it must\nalways reflect unfavorably on its authors.\n\nThe same topic, so closely connected with the prosperity of our beloved\nchurch, is to engage our attention on the present occasion, in reply to\nan interesting, christian, and gentlemanly pamphlet, from the pen of\nthe _Rev. Mr. Mann_, of Philadelphia, who controverts some of the\npositions of the Definite Synodical Platform. It shall be my earnest\neffort to write in the same christian manner, and my prayer is that the\nSpirit of our Divine Master may direct my pen, that it may record\n     \"No line, which dying, I could wish to blot.\"\n\nIn order that our readers may follow, with advantage, the reasonings of\nthis treatise, it is necessary that we should conduct them to the\nproper stand-point, from which the interesting and important subject\nbefore us should be examined. The same object, viewed from different\npositions, often presents a very different appearance; but contemplated\nfrom the same point of observation, by impartial observers of sound\nvision, it will, by the laws of our organization, appear the same to\nall. The questions before us relate to the meaning of certain\ndocuments, which were adopted some centuries ago in a foreign land and\nforeign tongue, as a creed or test of membership in the church. A very\nbrief glance at this church, the authority of human creeds, and the\ncircumstances under which this one was published, will prepare us for\nthe more satisfactory solution of the points in question.\n\nThe most important visible organization of the human family, is\nundoubtedly the church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The\npolitical institutions of the world, such as republics, kingdoms and\nempires, are instituted to administer the temporal affairs of men; but\nthe church of the divine Redeemer involves the never-dying interest of\nimmortal souls. The former are established and conducted by the\nordinary powers of men; the latter is heaven descended, and was founded\nby the incarnate Son of God, and his inspired Apostles. The former are\nsustained, as far as defensible, by the ordinary evidences of human\nwisdom, manifest in their adaptation to secure our material interests;\nthe _divinity_ of the latter is established by the most stupendous\nmiracles of Jesus and his Apostles, as well as by internal evidence of\nsuperhuman wisdom, goodness and knowledge, seen alike in the\ninstitutions it embraces and the truths it inculcates.\n\nThese _inspired_ Apostles left a _written record of this divine\ninstitution_, of the church with its ordinances, as well as of the\ndoctrines and duties to be inculcated by its teachers. They also\npronounce this record to be _complete_, and threaten to blot out from\nthe book of life, the names of those who add to or subtract from it.\nHence it is evident, that the church of this record is not as Romanists\nand Puseyites imagine, a mere seminal principle or germ, to which\nequally binding additions may be made by the church of every generation;\nbut on the contrary, that the _church of the New Testament_ is the\nchurch in its most perfect and faultless form, _is the model church for\nall ages_, which in its development and adaptation to different\ncountries and generations, must ever remain faithful to its primitive\nand inspired lineaments. This church, whilst administered by inspired\nmen during the first century, must also have been more pure, than in\nits subsequent periods, when placed under uninspired and fallible\nteachers, and in corrupting contact with Pagan philosophy, as well as\nin debasing union with civil governments.\n\nNow, in this apostolic age, this golden era of the church, we hear of\nno other creed than the word of God itself, which was regarded as\nsufficient. And certainly, if as Romanists, after the report of\n_Rufinus_, believed the Apostles had either written or employed this\ncreed, the piety of that age would have enrolled it in the Scripture\ncanon, and the early church have guarded it with special care. But\nthere is not a word in the Old or New Testament authorizing or\ncommanding the church of any future age to frame a creed in addition to\nthe Bible, as a rule for admission into the church, or exclusion from\nit. The only scriptural ground for such a creed is inferential. We are\ninstructed \"earnestly to contend for the faith (doctrines) once\ndelivered to the saints,\" and \"not to bid God speed,\" to him who\npreaches another Gospel, or denies that Jesus is the Christ. In order\nto obey these injunctions we must demand, of applicants for church\nmembership or ordination, their views of the prominent doctrines of\nthe Bible, and judge whether they accord with ours. Or we may state to\nthem our views of these topics, and require their assent. In either\ncase, we have a creed, and for obvious reasons it is preferable for us\nto prepare a carefully written statement of Bible truth, so that it may\nbe known, examined and improved by renewed comparison with God's word.\nOn the other hand, the Apostle commands us to \"receive into our\ncommunity the brother (him whom we regard as a true disciple of Christ,)\nwho is weak in the faith, (imperfect in some of his views of the truth)\nbut not for doubtful disputations;\" not for the purpose of disputing\nwith him on doubtful points. Moreover, the primitive disciples, of\ncontiguous residence, were all united into one church by the Apostles,\nand the Savior enjoins it on _all_ his disciples to love one another,\nto \"be one, as He and his Father are one.\" Therefore, it was then\nsinful to divide and separate true Christians from one another, and\nmust be so at present, as a general rule. Now, as human creeds, when\nextended so as to embrace minor doctrines, on which good men differ,\nnecessarily do divide, them, such creeds are inconsistent with the\nprecepts of Christ. The result of these two principles, the duty to\nexclude fundamental errorists on the one hand, and the command not to\nseparate, but to unite the true disciples of Christ on the other, by\nreciprocal limitation, affords us the rule, to employ a human creed\nspecifying the cardinal truths of the Scriptures, but not to include in\nit minor doctrines, which would divide the great mass of true disciples\nof Christ; nor to introduce more specifications of government or modes\nof worship, than are necessary to enable enlightened Christians to walk\nharmoniously together.\n\nAccordingly, we find that such was the character of the earliest\nuninspired creed of the church, the only one that was extensively\nemployed in the admission and exclusion of members during the first\nthree centuries of her history. We allude, of course to the Apostles'\ncreed, so called, not because the Apostles were at first supposed to\nhave written it, but because, it confessedly contained doctrines\npromulged by the Apostles. This creed, which was for along time\ncirculated orally among the churches, embraces only fundamental\ndoctrines, forms less than half a page in the Definite Synodical\nPlatform, and is believed by all evangelical denominations at the\npresent time. Here then we have the christian church in her _golden\nage_ of greatest purity, the first three centuries, relying on the\nword of God alone, with only this brief human creed.\n\nIn the fourth century, (A. D. 325,) the Council of Nice adopted a\ncreed, which is but a paraphrase of the above, following the order of\nits subjects, and adding various specifications to repel heresies which\nhad arisen. Yet even this does not amount to one page in the Definite\nPlatform. Near the close of the fifth, or perhaps in the sixth century,\nthe so-called Athanasian Creed was adopted, which would form less than\nthree pages of the Platform. During the subsequent, centuries of\nRomish corruption, different councils made various enactments for the\nchurch, but they generally related to the multitudinous rites and\nceremonies introduced into the popish worship, or to the functions,\nrights and privileges of the pope, the different ranks of priests,\nbishops, arch-bishops and the inferior officers; and in the progress\nof time, men were allowed to adopt almost any error, provided they\npaid their dues to the priests, and performed the superstitious\nceremonies of the church.\n\nIn the age of the Reformation, Luther had obligated himself to the\nentire Romish system, yea, had at the receipt of his Doctorate, taken\nan oath to _obey the Church of Rome, and not to teach any doctrines\ncondemned by her_ [Note 2] But having been enlightened by the study of\nthe Bible, which providentially fell into his hands, he saw his errors,\nand wisely judging that _an oath to do any criminal deed ceases to be\nobligatory after the sinfulness of the contemplated act is seen_, he\nrenounced those errors one after another, as fast as the light of\ntruth illumined his mind. This work he commenced in 1517, and continued\nfrom year to year till near the close of his life. In 1530, eleven\nyears after, he began the work of reform, and sixteen before his death,\nhe approved the Augsburg confession, as drawn up by Melancthon,\nalthough he told him in a letter during the diet, that he had yielded\ntoo much to the papists, as will be seen in the sequel. But Luther\nnever signed any confession of faith; nor was a pledge to the Augsburg\nconfession or to any other symbol required of the ministers of the\nchurch during his lifetime; although the Augsburg confession was\nregarded as the exponent of the prevalent views of the Protestant\nchurches in Germany. It was not until a quarter of a century after\nLuther had left the church militant, and not until the Lutheran church\nhad been established in Germany for full half a century, that the\nso-called _symbolic system_ was regularly and generally introduced by\nthe civil authorities of the major portion  of Protestant Germany. Now\nit is in regard to the import of this Confession of Augsburg,\npublished before the middle of Luther's labors as a reformer, that\nsome differences of opinion have been entertained. To ascertain the\ntrue sense of such passages according to the most impartial and just\nprinciple of exegesis, is one principal object of our investigations\nin the following pages.\n\nIt has often been affirmed by some, who have not examined the history\nof that eventful diet with particular care, that the Augsburg\nConfession was prepared under the most favorable circumstances for an\nimpartial and full exhibition of all the views of the confessors, both\nof positive truth and papal errors. The contrary was, however, the\ncase, as will be distinctly shown in the sequel. But we will first\nreply to the _General Observations_ of the Plea of our esteemed brother,\nthe _Rev. Mr. Mann_. Let it be remembered, however, that whatever may\nbe the import of this and other creeds, they have all been formed since\nthe age of inspiration, they are all uninspired and therefore fallible.\nHence, it is equally the duty of the church, in every generation, to\ntest her existing creed by the word of God, and to correct and improve\nit, if found unscriptural in any of its teachings, or if experience has\ntaught that it is too brief or too extended, successfully to accomplish\nthe legitimate purposes of such documents. The idea of the\ninfallibility of any human creed, or even its semi-inspiration, is\nphilosophically unreasonable, and either a remnant of Romish\nsuperstition, or an amiable weakness of judgment. Melancthon himself\ndid not regard his Confession as perfect, for he made sundry\nalterations in it in his successive editions. And even at Augsburg,\nafter the confession had been sent to Luther, at Coburg, and returned\nwith his approbation on the 16th of May, Melancthon, in a letter to\nhim, dated six days later, (May 22,) employs the following language:\n\"In the Apology, (which was the name first intended for the Augsburg\nConfession,) I daily make _many changes_. The section concerning\n'_Vows_,' which was too meagre, I have stricken out, and have treated\nthe subject more fully. I am now doing the name with the section\nconcerning '_The Keys_.' I wish you could have reviewed the doctrinal\narticles,\" (namely, as now amended,) \"and then, if you found nothing\ndefective in them, I would discuss the remaining articles as well as\nmay be. _For, in Articles of faith, some change must be made, from\ntime to time, and they must be adapted to the occasions.\" [Note 3] Here\nis anything else than the idea of the immaculate and unalterable nature\nof the Augsburg Confession for all after times.\n\nNote 1. In 1529, whilst Melancthon was attending the Conferences at\nSpire, this great and good man made a little excursion to Bretton, to\nvisit his mother. During their interview, she asked him what she should\nbelieve amid so many disputes, and repeated to him her prayers, which\nwere free from superstition. \"Go on, mother,\" said he, \"to believe and\nto pray as you have done, and never trouble yourself about religious\ncontroversies.\"\n\nNote 2. As this oath is a literary curiosity, we subjoin it, in the\noriginal, for the gratification of our learned readers: Ego juro\nDomino Decano et Magistris Facultatis Theologiae obedientiam et\nreverentiam debitam, et in quocunque statu utilitatem universitatis,\net maxime Facultatis Theologicae, _pro virili mea_ procurabo, et omnes\nactus theologicos exercebo in mitra, (nisi fuerit religiosus) vanas,\nperegrinas _doctrinas, ab ecclesia damnatas, et piarum aurium\noffensivas non dogmatisabo_, sed dogmatisantem Dn. Decano denunciabo\nintra octendium, et manutenebo consuetudines, libertates et privilegia\nTheologicae Facultatis _pro virili mea_, ut me Deus adjuvet, et\nSanctorum evangeliorum conditores. _Juro etiam Romanae ecclesiae\nobedientiam_, et procurabo pacem inter Magistros et Scholasticos\nseculares et religiosos, et _biretum_ in nullo alio gymnasio\nrecipiam.\" Lib. Statutorum facultatis theol. Academiae Wittemberg.\nCap. 7.\n\nNote 3. An der Apologie (Confession) aendere ich taeglich Vieles. Den\nAbschnitt von den Geluebden, der zu mager war, habe ich gestrichen\nund den Gegenstand ausfuehrlicher abgehandelt. Eben so verfahre ich\njetzo mit dem Abschnitt von \"den Schluesseln.\" Ich wuenschte, du\nhaettest die \"Glaubensartikel\" ueberblickt, wo ich dann, wenn du nichts\nfehlerhaftes darin gefunden, das uebrige, so gut es gehen will,\nabhandeln werde. Denn es musz zum oeftern an den Glaubensartikeln\nabgeaendert werden, und man musz sie den Gelegenheiten anbequemen. In\nthe Latin: Vellem percurisses articulos fidei, in quibus si nihil\nputaveris esse vitii, reliqua utcunque tractabimus. \"_Subinde enim,\nmutandi stint atque ad occasiones accommodandi.\" Christian Niemeyer's\nPhilip Melancthon_, im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, pp. 13, 14.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\nREPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA.\n\nIn replying to the general observations, which constitute the\nintroduction of the Plea, we shall pursue the order of their occurrence.\n\n\"We shall, in this short tract,\" says the author, \"not speak of the\nobjections, which in the Definite Platform are set forth against some\nerrors, contained in some other symbolical books of the Lutheran Church,\nbut we shall confine ourselves exclusively to the errors pointed out in\nthe Augsburg Confession, the work of Luther and Melancthon themselves,\nand _the only one of our Confessions which was universally received as\nsuch, by the whole Lutheran Church in all parts of the world_,\" p. 4.\nThis concession is no less honorable to the reverend author, than the\nfact itself is important in the discussion of the subject before us. As\nthe contrary has frequently been asserted in this country, in the face\nof history, it seems proper to advert to its details. The facts in the\ncase are the following:\n\n_The Form of Concord_ was rejected in Denmark, Sweden, Hessia,\nPommerania, Holstein, Anhalt, and the cities of Strasburg, Frankfurt\na. m. Speier, Worms, Nuerenberg, Magdeburg, Bremen, Dantzig, &c. For\nparticulars see Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I, pp. 575-77.\n\n_The Smalcald Articles_ were rejected by Sweden and Denmark.\n\n_The Apology_ to the Augsburg Confession, was denied, official\nauthority, by Sweden and Denmark.\n\n_The Larger Catechism_ of Luther, in Sweden and Denmark.\n\nEven _the Smaller Catechism_ of Luther was not received as symbolic in\nSweden. See Guericke's Symbolik, pp. 67, &c., 113.\n\nHere, then, we perceive, that those ultra Lutherans of our day, who\ninsist on the whole mass of former symbols as essential to Lutheranism,\nmust unchurch a very large portion of the Lutheran Church even of the\nsixteenth century. But among these we can by no means class the author\nof the Plea, who is evidently a Lutheran of the more enlightened and\nliberal class.\n\nThe author of the Plea represents \"the Augsburg Confession, as the\n_unexceptionable_ password of the adherents of the Lutheran Church for\nthree centuries.\" The idea designed probably is, that the _great mass_\nof doctrines taught in this confession has been thus received. For it\nis a historical fact, that cannot be contested, that private confession,\nwhich is enjoined in the eleventh, twenty-fifth and twenty-eighth\nArticles of the Augsburg Confession, and was retained by Luther,\nMelancthon and their churches, was from the begining [sic] rejected by\nthe _entire Lutheran Church in Sweden and Denmark_, as well as other\nplaces, and a public confession of the whole church, such as is now\nemployed in Germany and this country, introduced in its stead. See\nSiegel's Handbuch, Vol. I., p. 200.\n\n\"Of course the accusation against the Augsburg Confession, involves an\nexhibition of Luther and Melancthon, those pillars of the Reformation,\nas teaching _heretical doctrines_, which are not in accordance with the\nword of God.\" p. 4. This language we regard as not entirely correct.\nThose errors alone are, in correct English, usually termed \"heretical,\"\nwhich are of fundamental importance, and deny some doctrine that is\nnecessary to salvation. That this is neither affirmed or implied by the\nPlatform, must, we think, be admitted by all. But that both Luther and\nMelancthon did entertain some erroneous views in 1530, some of which\nare taught in the Augsburg Confession, namely, those specified in the\nPlatform, is affirmed by the great body of our American Lutheran\nChurch.\n\n\"The errors are not, on the side of the Augsburg Confession, but on the\nside of those _who agitate our Lutheran Church_ with the introduction\nof a fatherless and motherless child, the Definite Platform.\" To this\nwe reply, the Platform was publicly adopted by three or four Synods in\nthe West, within a few weeks after its publication. As to its\nauthorship, we never denied having prepared it, at the urgent request\nof some of those brethren, on the plan agreed on by them, and some\nEastern brethren of the very first respectability. It was carefully\nrevised by ourselves and Dr. B. Kurtz, and we have not yet found a\nsingle one of its positions refuted. That the request was made and\ncomplied with, will not be regarded as discreditable to either party by\nimpartial judges, after the smoke of battle shall have disappeared, and\nthe vision of men again be unobstructed. As to the friends of the\nPlatform being agitators of the church, we regard the supposition as\nerroneous. The Platform was designed to be adopted by those Western\nSynods, as it has been, publicly, but without controversy, as other\nSynods had done before with their symbolic platforms. But enemies of\nthe Platform raised the alarm, and agitated the church with threatened\ndangers. That the friends of the assailed instrument should stand up in\nits vindication, was an indispensable act of self-defence, to which no\nimpartial man will object.\n\n\"We shall endeavor to maintain in this controversy, a dignified and\nChristian spirit, as becomes this holy subject, and those who,\ndiffering in some points, know one Master and one service. People on\nearth will always differ in their opinions. The truth will gain by\ngiving free scope to investigation, and by the illustration of the\ndifferent sides of the same question.\" This position is true, and\ncreditable alike to the head and the heart of the author. Church\ngovernment and doctrine are topics of primary importance to the\nprosperity of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and no reason can be\nassigned why they cannot be debated to the edification of the church,\nexcept the human frailty of disputants. Had these subjects been\ndiscussed in our religious papers with calmness, and in a Christian\nspirit, they would have been alike instructive and edifying both to\nministers and laity. The discussion would have infused into laymen a\ndeeper interest for the welfare of the church, and a larger liberality\nin the support of her institutions. Are we not commanded to prove all\nthings, and hold fast that which is good; and to be always ready to\ngive to him that asked us a reason for the hope that is in us? But let\nus not despond; God will overrule even these controversies to the good\nof his church. _Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit._\n\n\"The Synods adopting this Platform are expected to make it a principle\n_not to receive into their membership any one who will not subscribe\nthis Definite Platform_,\" (meaning the whole pamphlet,) p. 6. On this\nsubject the Platform was entirely misapprehended, by the readers not\nreflecting that the third resolution, on p. 6, must be construed in\nconnection with the two immediately preceding and numerically connected\nwith it. Resolutions first and second declare the \"doctrinal Platform\"\nto consist of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American\nRecension of the Augsburg Confession, together with the General Synod's\nFormula of Government and Discipline. And the third resolution adds, no\none shall be received into this Synod who will not subscribe \"_this_\nPlatform,\" namely, the one just defined. This American Recension or\nRevision of the Augsburg Confession, contains, _unaltered_, the\ndoctrinal articles of that Confession, except, that a few sentences are\nomitted, and _nothing added in their stead_. Now, if it be admitted that\nwhen an enumeration of the parts of a whole is professedly and\nexplicitly made, any thing not included in that enumeration is excluded,\nthen certainly, as the first two resolutions enumerated specifically\nthe Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American Recension of the\nAugsburg Confession, as the  parts constituting the Platform to which\nassent was required, it follows that the list of Symbolic Errors\nrejected, which is not named at all, and which formed a separate part of\nthe pamphlet, is excluded. But the misapprehension evidently arose from\nthe fact, that after the term _doctrinal platform_ had been used in the\nwork, to designate the doctrinal and disciplinarian basis contained in\nthe first part of it, the name _Definite Synodical Platform_ was\nselected for the whole pamphlet, and the distinction not kept up with\nsufficient prominence before the mind of the reader. This is remedied in\nthe second edition, by employing the phrase _Doctrinal Basis or Creed_\nfor the first, and \"_Synodical Disclaimer_, or List of Symbolical\nErrors\" for the second part. Moreover it is expressly stated, on p. 5,\nthat \"whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who believes in\nExorcism, Private Confession, and Absolution, or the Ceremonies of the\nMass,\" (not one of which is practiced, so far us we know, by a single\nminister connected with the General Synod), the Platform \"grants\nliberty in regard to all the other topics, omitted from the Augsburg\nConfession in the American Recension of it.\" For it adds, \"We are\nwilling, as heretofore, to admit ministers who receive these views,\nprovided they regard them as _non-essential_\" (that is, as\n_non-fundamental_, not, as has been asserted by others, as of minor or\nof little importance), \"and are willing to co-operate in peace with\nthose who reject them.\" To the List of Errors rejected no one is\nrequired to subscribe, and it is published by the Synod as a disclaimer\nof these errors, which are often imputed to us, but which are rejected\nby the great body of the American Lutheran Church. The Platform cannot,\ntherefore, with truth, be said to exclude old-Lutherans, unless they\nare so rigid as to regard their own views on these disputed points as\nessential, and are unwilling to co-operate in _peace_ with their\nbrethren: and in that case it is certainly preferable for all parties,\nthat they should organize a Synod for themselves.\n\nSays the author of the Plea, p. 6: \"Suppose some Episcopal ministers\nhaving arrived at the conviction that some of their church canons were\nwrong,\" \"would it be regarded as anything else than a most _astounding\npresumption_, for such men to dare to change the character of the church\ncanons and denounce some of them as errors, and at the same time to\nmaintain that _they themselves are the true representatives of the\nEpiscopal Church_, and can _unchurch_ others?\" Here are three\npositions, all of which we regard as erroneous. In the _first_ place,\nit is not presumptuous, but a Christian duty, when ministers of a\nchurch are firmly convinced, that the avowed standards of their church\ncontain some tenets contrary to the word of God, publicly to disavow\nthem, that their influence may not aid in sustaining error; and if the\nmajority of a synod participate in this opinion, it is their duty to\nchange their standards into conformity with God's word. The Augsburg\nConfession itself was such, a disclaimer of Romish errors, and avowal\nof the truth: and if it was the duty of the ministry in the sixteenth\ncentury to make their public  profession conform to their belief of\nScripture truth, it is equally the duty of every other age. But\nalthough their case involves the _principle_ objected to by the _Plea_,\nthe following cases are more exactly analogous. The Episcopal ministry\nand laity did, after the American Revolution, change their doctrine,\nthat the king is the head of the church and adopted the opinion that no\ncivil officer, as such, has any office in the church. They accordingly\nrejected from their creed Article XXI., and also excluded from their\nliturgy and forms of prayer, all allusion to the king as the head or\ngovernor of the church. Listen to the testimony of the _Episcopal_\nministers of Maryland, in 1783, soon after the acknowledgment of the\nindependence of this country. They passed a number of resolutions, of\nwhich the fourth reads thus: \"That as it is the _right_, so it will be\nthe _duty_ of the Episcopal Church, when duly organized, constituted,\nand represented in a Synod or Convention of the different orders of her\nministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms of prayer and of\npublic worship, in order to adapt the same _to the late Revolution_,\nand OTHER LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF AMERICA,\" [Note 1] &c.\n\nOur _Presbyterian_ brethren also changed their Confession of Faith, and\nadapted it to their belief. Hear the testimony of _Dr. Hodge_, in his\nConstitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United\nStates: [Note 2] the Synod then \"took into consideration the twentieth\nchapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the third paragraph of\nthe twenty-third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-first\nchapter; and having made some alterations, agreed that the said\nparagraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together with\na draught of a plan of government and discipline.\" They were\nsubsequently adopted.\n\nIn like manner did our _Methodist Episcopal_ brethren deal with the\nThirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal Church, which they had avowed\nfrom the days of Wesley. They not only rejected the recognition of the\nking as the head of the church, but also entirely omitted Article\nXVII., which is supposed by many to inculcate Calvinism, together with\nseveral others; and materially altered Articles I., II., VI., IX.,\nXXVI., and XXXIV. If, then, it be competent for these several Synods,\nor Conferences, to change the Westminster Confession and Thirty-nine\nArticles, which were prepared far more deliberately, and with much less\nrestraint, and had become equally venerable by age, without any one\npretending to deny their authority, or to pronounce the measure\n\"presumptuous,\" why may not the Synod of Wittenberg, and other similar\nbodies, correct the Augsburg Confession, by the omission of several\ntenets, believed not only by her members, but by the great body of\nAmerican Lutherans, to be unscriptural? Now the Definite Platform was\nprepared at the request of the leading members of those Western Synods,\naccording to a plan previously agreed on among them and others, for the\nexpress purpose of being proposed for discussion, correction, and\n_adoption by these Synods;_ and, until so acted on, was a mere\nunofficial proposal, _such as any friends of the church have a right to\nmake_. And who can dispute their right, or the right of any Synod, to\nadopt a Confession of Faith for herself, when the Constitution of the\nGeneral Synod originally conceded this power specifically to each\nSynod, and still does so, in Article III., Section 3, by requiring them\nonly to adhere to the _fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible, as taught\nby our church? Is not a Lutheran Synod possessed of as much power as an\nEpiscopal or Methodist convention? And although an individual\nnecessarily drew up the document, it was prepared according to the plan\ndecided on by about twenty brethren, and claimed no authority until\nacted on by Synod. The Definite Platform could never, _with truth_, be\nregarded as the work of a few individuals. Its inception was the result\nof a consultation of a large number of influential brethren, especially\nof the West, who had been convinced by the aggressions of surrounding\nsymbolists, that a decided, but also a more _definite_ stand on the\nground of the General Synod, was necessary in self-defence. It was\nprepared and published at their request, not as an official document,\nbut as a draft of such a basis as they had agreed on. It was presented\nto them, and taken up for consideration by their several Synods; and\nthe unanimity with which they adopted it is conclusive proof that it\nwas prepared according to the stipulated principles. By denying the\nright of the several Synods of Ohio, and of any other Synod, to improve\nor decide on their own doctrinal basis, within the fundamentals of\nScripture as taught in the Augsburg Confession, the enemies of the\nPlatform _renounce the principles of the General Synod_, which\nexpressly allows this right; and they also renounce the original and\nuniversally acknowledged Independent or Congregational principles of\nLutheran Church Government, avowed by Luther, Melancthon, and all the\nleading divines of our church, one part of which is the right and\nobligation to form our own views of Scripture truth, and to avow them\nto the world.\n\nNo individual can justly pronounce the Platform an invasion of his\nrights; for it has never even been proposed by _its friends_ to any\nSynod other than those at the request of whose members it was prepared;\nand should it, at any time hereafter, be presented, it will possess no\nauthority unless conferred on it by Synodical action, in which each\nminister has a right to participate. The war that has been and is still\nwaged against the Platform, by old Lutheran Synods, and papers, to whom\nit was never proposed for adoption, is wholly offensive; and whilst we\ndo not deny the right of any Synod to take it up by way of counsel, the\nintolerant and aggressive principles avowed by Old School papers, is a\ndirect assault on the rights of American or New School Lutherans, which\ncannot in the end fail to unite them in measures of self-defence.\n\n_Secondly_, the Plea is mistaken, in supposing that the friends of the\nPlatform profess to be the true representatives of the Lutheran Church\nin the _symbolic_ sense of the term: for have they not reiterated, in a\nscore of publications, for five and twenty years past, that they do not\nhold all the views of the former symbols; and does not the Platform\nitself explicitly disclaim any such idea, by publicly protesting\nagainst the errors of those books?\n\n_Thirdly_, the idea of our \"unchurching others,\" is openly disclaimed\nby the Platform, as was proved above.\n\nAgain, says the Plea: \"Those who undertake to change the doctrinal\nbasis of a church, take upon themselves an awful responsibility,\" p. 7.\nTrue; but there is an equally awful responsibility resting on those\nwho, favored by Providence with the increased light of three centuries,\ncontinue to avow in their creed, and thus lead multitudes to embrace\nthe superstitious and truly dangerous errors, which remain in these\ndocuments issued in the earlier and immature stages of the Reformation,\nand some of them under circumstances unpropitious to a free expression\nof views of Scripture doctrine. If these errors constituted the essence\nof Lutheranism, we ought to forsake the church; but as they do not, we\nare under sacred obligation to expunge them from our creed, so that we\nmay not aid in their perpetuation.\n\n\"From this renewed church (of the Reformation) as from a new heart, of\nmankind, new and fresh and vigorous blood flows in an uninterrupted\nstream through mighty arteries, into the whole world.\" p. 7. Or rather,\nwe would say, this fresh and vigorous blood flows not from the church,\nmuch less from the errors which she retained in her symbols, but from\nthat amount, of _God's truth_, which constitutes the great mass of her\nconfession. The separation of these errors, instead of impairing the\nefficiency of the church, will greatly multiply her energies, and pave\nthe way for new and enlarged conquests over the world.\n\n\"Let any one examine the theological mastership, which this learned\nand honored disciple of Christ (Melancthon) exhibited in his Apology\nfor the Augsburg Confession--and he will be convinced of the folly of\nthose, who presume to think, that he, or his mighty coadjutor,\n(Luther,) might be materially benefited by the dogmatical and exegetical\ninstructions of the theological professors and authors of the present\ntimes.\" p. 7.8. This all sounds well enough in the abstract, and we\nourselves have frequently and with equal sincerity, praised these great\nreformers. But after all, they were fallible men. This same Melancthon,\nin this same Apology for the Augsburg Confession, regards Private\nConfession and Absolutism [sic] as the third _sacrament_. At\nthe Diet of Augsburg, he was willing to yield to Romish bishops the\ndangerous powers which they formerly had exercised over the churches,\nand when he saw danger thicken around him, he positively wrote to\nLuther, inquiring whether they might not, yield to the papists in the\nmatter of _private and closet masses_, as will be seen in the sequel!\nBesides, these modern \"professors, authors,\" and, we will add, pastors,\ndo not propose to improve the Confession by any light of their own; but\nby the progressive light, which the Providence of God has vouchsafed to\nthe prayers, the philological and exegetical studies of three centuries.\nThis light we receive with gratitude to God, and cannot for a moment\ndoubt, that if these noble servants of Christ were now living, they\nwould be amongst its most grateful recipients. They both continued\nthrough life to study the word of God, and to profess their improved\nviews without the least hesitation. So far was Melancthon himself from\nregarding any of his works perfect, that he continued  deliberately to\nmake improvements, even in this same Augsburg Confession, after the\nstorms of papal persecution had subsided, till the end of his life. And\nwe might easily fill pages with the declarations of Luther, avowing his\nsense of the imperfections of his publications, and of the work of\nReformation in his day.\n\n\"We believe,\" says the Plea, \"that they (Luther and Melancthon) are no\nmore than guides to the fountain of truth, to the gospel; and whenever\nwe find that they lead us off from the Word of God, we are bound not to\nhesitate in our decided deviation from their views.\" p. 8. This is\nprecisely the noble, enlightened, and christian stand point of the\nAmerican Lutheran Church. In principle, the respected author of the\nPlea, does not differ from us. It is only in its application to\nparticular cases, that we may occasionally not coincide.\n\n\"The state of theology and religion of an age, does not at all depend\nupon the progress of general science and social life.\" p. 10. From this\nsentiment and the train of observation in reference to it on the same\npage, we do not dissent. But no American Lutheran appeals to _this_\nspirit of the age, exhibited in the progress of the physical sciences,\nas proofs of any advance in theology. The sciences to which we refer as\nmedia of increasing life, are those on which the proper interpretation\nof the sacred volume depends, philology, archaeology, hermeneutics, &e.,\nand certainly our brother cannot dissent from this position, he will not\nmaintain, that no progress has been made, in the knowledge of the\noriginal languages of Scripture by continued studies of scores of the\nablest  philologians the world has ever seen, especially during the last\nhalf century. He will not deny, that the exploring labors of travellers\n[sic] to the lands of holy writ, the increased study of the manners and\ncustoms and institutions of the nations inhabiting them, have\nillustrated some portions of the sacred volume. Nor will he affirm the\nutter fruitlessness of all the prayerful efforts of men of God, during\nthe last three centuries, to understand the general principles of\nlanguge, [sic] the different significations of words, (the literal, the\ntropical, the typical, the allegorical, &c.,) and the proper rules for\nthe interpretation of the Sacred Record. He is too well acquainted with\nthe literary fame of Germany and the writings of that galaxy of\ntheological luminaries, that has reflected so much glory on the land of\nthe Reformation, not to admit that many parts of the Sacred Record are\nbetter understood at present, than they were three centuries ago. But\nthe principal difficulty which prevented the full and clear appreciation\nof divine truth in the earlier Reformers, was the fact that _they were\neducated till adult age, [Note 3] in all the superstitious rites and\nceremonies of the Romish Church_, and we all know that it is impossible\nentirely to emancipate ourselves from the prejudices of early education.\nUnder these circumstances the marvel is, not that they retained a few\npapal views and practices, but that they accomplished as much as they\ndid, in unlearning the errors of their early education.\n\n\"If all Christianity were to take its first start to-day;-to-morrow\nalready interpretations and confessions would spring up like mushrooms\nin a hot-bed.\" p. 11. This idea is expressed rather too strongly for\nthe claims of history; as it is certain that during the golden era of\nChristianity, the first three centuries, no other creeds were employed\nby the churches generally, than the so-called Apostles' and the Nicene\nCreeds. It is chiefly since the period of the Reformation, that the\nchurch of the Redeemer has been cut up into so many denominations,\nprofessing different and some of them very extended creeds.\n\n\"Every denomination has an individual life, and the law of\nself-preservation ought, to teach her, that she is throwing herself\naway, if she, is not determined to stand by her banners and to defend\nher position.\" p. 11. Whatever definition we may adopt of the\nindefinite and cloudy term \"_life_\" in this passage, our reply is, the\nlife of every Christian church ought to be the _life of the Gospel_,\nand the life of the church as established and conducted by the inspired\napostles. Every thing in the life of any church inconsistent with this,\nmust be wrong. It is true, since the formation of the different\nProtestant denominations, each one of them has a different creed, and\nis characterized by some peculiarities of government or worship, and if\nthese peculiarities are intended by the \"peculiar life\" of a\ndenomination, we judge it would be equally wrong for the members of any\nchurch, to lay it down as a rule in every case to defend them. It would\nbear some resemblance to the corrupt, political motto, so justly\ndenounced by all good men: _Our Country right or wrong_. Had Luther\nadopted this rule, it would have required him to defend all the errors\nof Rome, which had been fully sanctioned by that church. But his\njudgment taught him differently, and he gradually rejected every one of\nthose elements of the peculiar _life_ of Romanism, which he found\nhostile to the life of the [sic] God's word. But if it be replied,\nthat by \"peculiar life\" is intended those peculiarities of our\nchurch, which are accordant with the Gospel; we fully assent to the\nposition. This is precisely the principle, on which we endeavor to act.\n_We defend and retain every peculiarity of the church of our fathers,\nwhich we find taught in the word of God, or consistent with its spirit_;\nwhilst we deem it a privilege and duty to labor at the improvement of\nour church and her ecclesiastical framework or platform, by removing\nfrom it every thing which, after a life of prayerful study, we are\npersuaded is offensive to God, because opposed to His word. Even the\nForm of Concord affirms the principle for which we here contend, by\nrepresenting creeds as exhibitions of the sense in which _Christians of\na particular age_ understood the Bible; and never, until the duty of the\nchurch in every age to conform her standards to the word of God, is\nconceded; can she as a whole become more united, more pure and\nscriptural, and the kingdom of Christ be extended throughout the earth.\n\nThe Plea objects to what it styles \"the officious manner in which some\npersons raise alarm throughout the church, promulgate their intention\nto change the Augsburg Confession, and act in such a manner as if their\nviews in regard to the so-called errors of the Augsburg Confession were\nabsolutely above all possibility of error.\" p. 13. This objection is\nprobably based on a want of acquaintance with the history of our church\nin this country, if it is designed to refer particularly to the\nDefinite Platform; which would be excuseable in our brother, as his\nresidence amongst us is comparatively of recent date. But the truth is,\nthat the rejection of the custom of requiring assent to the Augsburg\nConfession by the fathers in the Pennsylvania Synod _fifty years ago_,\nis proof enough of their dissatisfaction with that document. Nor did\nthey hesitate distinctly to declare their dissent from some of its\ntenets. This was done not only privately, but also in their occasional\npublications. As to private confession and absolution, _they never\nadopted that practice in this country;_ but from the beginning\nemployed a _public_ and _general_ confession, preparatory to the Lord's\nSupper, as our church in Sweden and Denmark did in the days of the\nReformation. As to the _ceremonies_ of the public mass, they were\nrejected by our church universally, some years after the diet of\nAugsburg, as private and closet masses had been before. The General\nSynod, at the adoption of her constitution in 1820, freely expressed\nher dissatisfaction in the public discussions, with some parts of the\nAugsburg Confession, and inserted a clause in her constitution, giving\n_power both to the General Synod and to each District Synod to form a\nnew Confession of Faith_, for their own use. _Dr. Lochman_, one of the\nmost active, pious, and respected divines of our church, in his\nCatechism, published in 1822, states it as one of \"_the leading\nprinciples_ of our church, [sic on quotation marks] \"that\nthe Holy Scriptures and _not human authority_, are the only source\nwhence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate to\nfaith or practice.\" \"That Christians are accountable to God alone for\ntheir religious principles,\" and says not a word about adherence to the\nAugsburg Confession, as one of the principles of our church.\n\nHe also published an edition of the Augsburg Confession, in his work,\nentitled Doctrine and Discipline of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in\nwhich _he made more omissions than are found in the American\nRecension;_ and yet no one found fault with him for doing so. That the\nreader may judge of the extent of these omissions, we specify them: In\n\nArt. I. he omitted the definition of _person_, in the Trinity.\n\nArt. II. omits the condemnatory clause.\n\nArt. III. omits the epithet _pure_, in reference to the Virgin Mary,\nand the reference to the so called \"Apostles' Creed.\"\n\nArt. IV. omits the closing sentence, that God will regard this faith as\nrighteousness.\n\nArt. V. omits the condemnatory clause, and part of another sentence.\n\nArt. VI. omits the word \"_true_\" in reference to the unity of the\nchurch.\n\nArt. VIII. omits the condemnatory clause concerning the _Donatists_.\n\nArt. IX. omits the name _Anabaptists_.\n\nArt. X. omits the condemnatory clause.\n\nArt. XII. omits \"absolution\" and part of the condemnatory clause.\n\nArt. XVII. omits the condemnatory clause.\n\nArt. XVIII. omits the name of Augustine's work, Hypognosticon, and\nabout _ten lines at the close_.\n\nArt. XIX. omits the _last sentence_.\n\nArt. XX. omits different portions of this long article, amounting to\none-half of the whole.\n\nArt. XXI. omits all that is said on war, and the Turks, &c., and the\nentire concluding paragraph, amounting to half a page 12mo.\n\nYet this work was circulated throughout the church, and we never heard\na single word of objection, although the notes appended to it are far\nfrom being symbolic.\n\nRev. J. A. Probst, in his work on the Reunion of the Lutheran and\nReformed Churches, published in 1826, speaking of this country, and\nespecially the Synod of Pennsylvania, of which he was a member, says,\n\"Zwingle's more liberal, rational, and scriptural view of this doctrine,\n(election) as well as of the _Lord's Supper, has become the prevailing\none among the Lutheran and Reformed_,\" p. 74. The same fact, the\nrejection of some of the articles of the Augsburg Confession, is taught\nin some publications in 1827, by _Dr. Endress_, one of our most\nrespected and learned ministers; and is confirmed by the language of the\nresolution passed by the Synod of Pennsylvania in 1823, on the subject\nof union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches in this country,\nbetween which bodies they affirm a _unity of doctrinal views_. This\ndissent, was publicly avowed by Dr. _F. C. Schaeffer_, of New York, who,\nin  his edition of Luther's Catechism, published in 1820, omitted the\nword \"_real_ or _true_\" in reference to the Saviour's body in the\neucharist, (p. 21,) and in his Address at the Laying of the Corner-stone\nof St. Matthew's Church, thus expresses himself. \"We rejoice with\nthanksgiving before the Lord, because he has given us _our great\nsymbolical book, the bible_. This is preferable to all the \"books\" and\n\"_confessions\" of men_. According to a fundamental principle of the\nLutherans, we depend not merely on the irrigating streamlets that\noriginate in the fountain to which we have access, but we rather drink\nfrom that fountain itself. The study and proper interpretation of the\nsacred writings, accompanied by the use of all outward helps which\nGod's providence has furnished, and aided by fervent prayer in the\nacceptable name of Jesus Christ the Mediator, is mainly inculcated in\nthe Evangelical Lutheran Church.\" p. 10.\n\nThis same dissent from the symbols, was also publicly avowed by _Dr.\nHazelius_, who in his Annotations on the Augsburg Confession,\npublished in 1841, says, \"The opinions now entertained in the Lutheran\nchurch, as to the nature of the sacrament of the _Lord's Supper_,\ndiffer in no material point from those entertained by the other\nprotestant churches on the subject.\" p. 21. This dissent in\nnon-fundamentals from the Augsburg Confession, is also avowed by _Dr.\nBachman_, in his Discourse on the Doctrines and Discipline of the\nLutheran Church, published in 1837, and sanctioned by his Synod: also\nby _Dr. Lintner_, in his preface to the Augsburg Confession, in 1837,\npp. 3, 4; by _Dr. Krauth_, in his Sketch of the Evangelical Lutheran\nChurch in the United Slates, for Buck's Theological Dictionary, in\n1830; in which he says the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church\nare _substantially_ those of the Augsburg Confession,\" [sic on\nquotation mark!] implying dissent from that creed in some\nnon-essentials; and recently his own dissent in an article in the\nLutheran Observer, and the Evangelical Review of July, 1850. _Dr. G. B.\nMiller_ published his dissent from the Confession on some of its\nrepresentations of baptism, (baptismal regeneration, as he contends,)\nand the _real presence_ in the Eucharist, in his Sermon before the\nMinisterium of New York, in 1831.\n\nThe same dissent was freely expressed by _Dr. Baugher_, in his Report\non the \"Doctrines and Usages of the Synod of Maryland,\" in which he\nthus describes his position and that of this Synod:\n\n\"ON REGENERATION.--We believe that the Scriptures teach that\nregeneration is the act of God, the Holy Ghost, by which, through the\ntruth, the sinner is persuaded to abandon his sins and submit to God,\non the terms made known in the gospel. This change, we are taught, is\nradical and is essential to present peace and eternal happiness.\nConsequently, it is possible, and is the privilege of the regenerated\nperson to know and rejoice in the change produced in him.\"\n\n\"OF THE SACRAMENTS.--We believe that the Scriptures teach, that there\nare but two sacraments, viz.: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in each\nof which, truths essential to salvation are symbolically represented.\nWe do not believe that they exert any influence '_ex opere operato_,'\nbut only through the faith of the believer. _Neither do the Scriptures\nwarrant the belief, that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper in any\nother than a spiritual manner_.\"\n\n\"OF THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS.--Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, the\nFormula Concordiae, Augsburg Confession, Apology, and Smalkald\nArticles are called in Germany the Symbolical Books of the church. We\nregard them as good and useful exhibitions of truth, but do not receive\nthem as binding on the conscience, except so far as they agree with the\nWord of God.\"\n\nTo this catalogue we might add the names of many others, who have\navowed the same position of dissent from this venerable symbol, long\nbefore the Definite Platform was thought of. No one in former times\npresumed to deny the right of our ministers and synods expressing this\ndissent, and proposing to form a new creed, if they deem it requisite.\nTo call the dissenting position of the _Definite Platform_ a new one,\nis therefore a historical error; and to attempt to cast odium on it by\nthe charge of officiousness, is also an act of injustice. The same\ncharge would equally lie against the greater part of our best\nministers during the last half century, _and against the founders of\nthe General Synod themselves_.\n\nWith this occasional disclaimer of these errors, American Lutherans\nhave hitherto been satisfied, nor would the question of officially\nadopting a new creed have been raised at this time, had not the\nUltra-Lutherans of our land, of late become animated by a new zeal to\ndisseminate their symbolic errors, and to denounce as not Lutherans,\nall who do not receive them. When the adoption of a new creed was thus\nforced upon them, a number of the brethren advocated the formation of\none entirely new; but others believing it best to retain the venerable\nmother symbol of Protestantism, as far as we could regard her\nteachings as Scriptural, proposed the omission of the few disputed\npoints, and the adoption of the residue unaltered, thus retaining\nnearly the whole of the doctrinal articles. The suggestion was\nadopted, as being more respectful to the venerable symbol of our\nchurch, we were urged to prepare the work for the consideration of\nsome of the Western Synods; and thus the American Recension of the\nAugsburg Confession originated from respect for that creed, rather\nthan the want of it. The talk about sacrilege, &c., would sound more\nnatural among Romanists than Protestants; and the idea of deception\nis utterly unfounded, because the very name adopted, \"American\nRecension,\" is a constant notification to the reader of some change.\nNeither one or the other charge was ever made against the Methodist\nEpiscopal Church, for making four times as many changes in the\nThirty-nine Articles. As to respect for the Confession, we see but\nlittle difference between several methods proposed amongst American\nLutherans; to adopt the Confession as to the fundamentals of Scripture\ndoctrine, leaving all free to  reject the non-fundamentals; or to\npublish the symbol, with a list appended of some of its articles,\nwhich may be rejected; or to omit those same articles, leaving them\nfree, and adopting all the residue unconditionally. On neither of\nthese three plans does the _matter_ of the Confession remain intact,\neven if the letter does; for in _all_, certain parts of it divested\nof binding authority, and left to the judgment of each individual.\nThe American Recension is nothing more than a revised edition of the\nConfession, in which those parts are omitted that had already been\ndivested of binding authority, and thus been superseded by subsequent\necclesiastical legislation.\n\nAnd is it not creditable to any church, when she finds some tenets of\nher creed in conflict with the Scriptures, and calculated to circulate\nerror, to reform and improve it? We should suppose that every\nenlightened and reflecting theologian, and still more every intelligent\nlayman, would concur in the sentiments of that devoted friend and\ndefender of the Lutheran Church, _Dr. Koecher_, of Jena, in 1759, who,\ndiscussing the charge that our church had changed her doctrines, says,\n\"It avails nothing merely to charge a church with having made changes\nin her Creed; we must direct our attention to the subject or doctrine\nitself, and inquire whether it is true or false. Because, _not every\nalteration in matters of faith is inadmissible and censurable_.\nSuppose a church to perceive that a doctrinal error has crept into her\ncreed, and to correct it by the exclusion of the error; does she not\nmerit our approbation, much rather that our censure or abuse? Suppose\nthat the Lutherans did formerly believe in transubstantiation (as has\nbeen charged,) but in the course of time rejected this doctrine,\nbecause they found it militate against divine truth; suppose the\nearlier Lutheran divines did approve of the doctrine of unconditional\nelection, and limited grace of God, whilst our later theologians had\nrenounced them, because they are in conflict with the teachings of\nGod's word:--we say, suppose this had been the case, though it was not;\ntheir procedure would not be improper, and their doctrinal change\nwould merit our approbation and praise, rather than censure.\" How much\nmore christian and manly are these views, than the position which,\nthough not avowed, is acted on by many, that the members of a church\nshould never attempt to improve her symbols; but, as a matter of\ncourse, defend any doctrine taught by them, because it is there\ninculcated. What is this else than practically to elevate Luther,\nMelancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, or Wesley, above Christ? What is it else,\nthan prefering [sic] to be Lutherans rather than Christians, if we are\nnot ever ready to renounce anything Lutheran, if found not to be\nChristian? How can the church of Christ continue to develope [sic]\nherself in accordance with the divine purposes and plan, unless every\npart of the church is kept in constant contact with the Bible, and is\never willing to improve and conform its entire framework to the\nincreased light of God's word and Providence? It was Luther's deep\nsense of obligation to the Bible, as paramount to all human authority,\nwhich enabled him and his Spartan band of coadjutors, under God, to\nreform the church of Germany from so many Romish errors, and nothing\nshort of the same noble principle can conduct the church safely in her\nhigh and holy mission of converting the world. Whilst, therefore, we\nlove Luther much, let us, my brethren, ever love Christ more. And\nwhilst we respect the soul-stirring productions of the illustrious\nreformers, let that respect never induce us to sanction any errors\ncontained in them, or bias our minds against the free and full\nreception of the revelations of God's holy Word!\n\nNote 1. Colton's Genius of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the\nUnited States, &c., p. 151.\n\nNote 2. Vol. ii., p. 498.\n\nNote 3. Luther was a faithful papist until he was upwards of _thirty\nyears_ did, when he began to protest against the errors of Rome.\n\n\nCHAPTER  III.\nDISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED.\n\nIn forming an idea of the estimate which should be placed on the\nAugsburg Confession, as an expression of the results attained by the\nbiblical studies of Luther, Melancthon and their associates, at the\ndate of the diet in 1530; much depends on the question, whether the\ncircumstances under which it was prepared, and the design for which it\nwas intended, were favorable to a free and full exhibition of their\nviews. The affirmative of this question has often been declared in this\ncountry; but the contrary is incontestably established by authentic\nhistory, as well as by the declarations of the Reformers themselves.\nThe diet, it will be remembered, was appointed by the Emperor of\nGermany, Charles V., for the purpose of settling the controversies\nbetween the Pope and the Protestant princes of his empire, as well as\nfor other political purposes. The place selected was the City of\n_Augsburg_, in Bavaria, about two hundred English miles from\nWittenberg, and about ninety miles from Coburg, where Luther was left\nby the Elector during the diet. [Note 1] The Pope had long been urging\nthe emperor to adopt violent measures for the suppression of the\nProtestants. He fondly anticipated that a deathblow would now be given\nto the Protestant cause, and with which party the emperor would side\nwas not fully known, although, being a Romanist, little favor could be\nexpected by the Confessors. The Confession was composed by Melancthon\nout of the Torgau Articles, at Augsburg, where he and the Elector John,\nwith his retinue, arrived on the 2d of May. On the 10th of May, it was\nsent to Luther, at Coburg, for his revision, and he returned it with\nhis approbation on the 16th, remarking, \"I have read Philip's Apology\n(the Confession,) and am very well (_fast_ wohl, an obsolete meaning of\nthe term \"fast,\") pleased with it. I know nothing to improve or alter\nat it; nor would it be suitable, as I cannot tread so softly and\nlightly.\" [Note 2] As the emperor did not arrive until about a month\nlater, Melancthon continued to make various alterations, to render the\nConfession more acceptable to the Romanists; for the fears of the\nProtestants were greatly excited, as will appear by the following\nextracts from Melancthon's own letters, penned at this eventful period.\n\nIn a letter to _Luther_, dated Augsburg, June 15th, Melancthon says,\n\"On the day before Corpus Christi festival, at 8 o'clock, P. M., the\nemperor arrived at Augsburg. From the imperial court, it appears, we\nhave nothing to expect; for the sole object which _Campegius_ seeks to\naccomplish, is that we should be suppressed _by force_. Nor is there\nany one in the emperor's entire court, who is milder than he himself.\"\n[Note 3] This was indeed a gloomy prospect, for they were entirely at\nthe mercy of their emperor. He could reenact the scenes of the previous\ncentury, and send them, like Huss and Jerome, to the dungeon and the\nstake.\n\nOn the 26th of June, the day after the public presentation of the\nConfession, he again addresses _Luther:_ \"We live here in the _most\nlamentable anxiety and incessant tears_. To this a new source of\nconsternation has been added today, after we had read the letter of\n_Vitus_ (Dietrich, Luther's friend,) in which he states that you are so\nmuch offended at us, that you are unwilling even to read our letters.\nMy father, I will not increase my sufferings by words, but I merely beg\nyou to consider, where and _in what danger we are_, where we can have\nnothing to tranquilize us except your consolations. Streams of sophists\nand monks collect here daily, to inflame the hatred of the emperor\nagainst us. But the friends, if we could formerly number them amongst\nour (party,) are no longer with us. Alone and despised, we are here\n_contending against endless dangers_. Our Vindication (the Confession)\nhas been presented to the emperor, and I herewith send it to you for\nperusal. (If it had not been altered after Luther had seen and approved\nit, it would have been superfluous to send him another copy.) In my\njudgment, it is strong enough; for you will here perceive the monks\ndepicted sufficiently. Now, it appears to me, that before our enemies\nreply, we must determine, _what we will yield to them_ in reference to\nthe 'eucharist in both kinds,' what touching matrimony (_celibacy_ of\npriests,) and what in regard to 'CLOSET MASSES.' In [sic] appears\nthey are determined in no case to yield the last two.\" [Note 4]\n\nIn a letter to _Camerarius_, [Note 5] he thus describes his condition:\n\"My spirit is _filled with lamentable anxiety_, not for the sake of our\ncause, but on account of the indifference of our associates. Be not\nconcerned about me, for I commit myself to God. But _something\nremarkable disturbs us_, which I can only tell you personally.\" [Note 6]\n\nTo _Luther_, he writers [sic] on the 27th of June, \"I cannot\ndescribe how deeply I was distressed, on reading in the letter of\n_Vitus_, (or Dietrich, a favorite of Luther, who remained with him at\nCoburg, as his associate,) that you are irreconciliably [sic] offended,\nbecause I do not write with sufficient frequency.\" \"The condition of our\naffairs here is still such, that we spend the _greater part of our time\nin tears_. We have written very often, as we can prove.\" From this and\nother passages in Melancthon's letters, as well as from his complaints,\nthat he could not induce [Note 7] the _Protestant princes_ to send\nmessengers regularly to Luther, Niemeyer regards it as evident, that\nLuther's displeasure arose in part from the fact, that the princes felt\ndisposed, at this important juncture, to act without either his\nknowledge, counsel, or co-operation, probably under the impression,\nthat, they could more easily effect a reconciliation, if the intrepid,\nfirm and hated Luther were kept out of view.\n\nBut to proceed with Melancthon's letter. \"Our Confession (he says,) has\nbeen presented to the emperor, and I have sent you a copy. I entreated\nyou (in my former letter) to inform me, how far we might _yield to our\nopponents_, if it is practicable. It is true, as you know, we have\nalready consulted on these subjects; but they are always adjusted in a\ndifferent manner on the field of battle (sie geben sich im Schlachtfeld\nallezeit anders,) from what they are when previously made the subjects\nof discussion. I presume the greatest conflict will occur in regard to\n_private masses_. But as yet I have no certain information.\" [Note 8]\n\nIn another letter to Luther, dated Aug. 6, he says: \"The Landgrave\nproceeds with great moderation, and has openly told me, that in order\nto preserve peace, _he would submit to still more severe conditions_,\nprovided they could be accepted without bringing reproach on the\ngospel.\"\n\nDuring the pendency of these negotiations, Melancthon made repeated\nefforts by letter to conciliate influential individuals of the papal\nparty. Among these is his letter to _Cardinal Campegius, the apostolic\nlegate, of July 6th, which reflects no little light on the state of his\nmind. This intense anxiety to gain the imperial favor for the\nProtestant cause, could not fail strongly to tempt him to make the\nConfession as palatable as possible to the Romanists, by yielding\nnearly everything that he did not regard as essential. Hear the letter:\n\n\"_Most Reverend Sir:_--As many good men applaud the very great\nmoderation exhibited by your Eminence, amid your honors and elevation,\nI am induced to cherish the hope, that your Eminence will receive my\nletter with favor. Verily it was a true saying which Plato uttered,\nthat nothing more desirable, or better, or more divine, can happen to\nmen, than when wisdom is associated with power in government. Hence,\nwhen the intelligence arrived, that your Eminence was sent to this Diet,\nas judge in the pending religious controversy, many good men\ncongratulated Germany, that the investigation of these most important\naffairs was confided to a man, who transcended others not merely by his\nhigh (official) dignity, but also much more by his wisdom; for even\nheretofore the fame of your Eminence's wisdom him resounded through all\nGermany. Now, as I believed, that with this wisdom your Eminence would\ngreatly abhor violent measures, I was thereby induced to write to your\nEminence, that it might be made known to you, that we also long only\nfor peace and concord, and reject no condition for the restoration of\npeace.\"\n\n\"We have _no doctrine different from that of the Romish Church_, (wir\nhaben keinen von der Roemischen Kirche verschiedenen Lehrsatz,) yea, we\nhave restrained many who wished to disseminate pernicious doctrines, as\nmay be proved by public testimonies. [Note 9] _We are prepared to obey\nthe Romish Church, if, with that mildness which she has always\nmanifested toward all men, she will only overlook and yield, some\nlittle_, (einiges Wenige,) _which we could not now alter if we would_.\"\n[Note 10] Let not your Eminence believe our enemies, who wickedly\npervert our writings, and falsely impute to us anything which can\ninflame the general hatred against us. We reverently _pledge obedience\n[Note 11] to the authority of the Roman Pontif_, [sic] and to the entire\norganization of the (Verfassung) of the [sic on repetition]\nchurch, only let not the Pope of Rome reject us. Many feel assured,\nthat if your Eminence were better acquainted with our cause and views,\nyou would not approve of these violent counsels. For no other reason do\nwe incur greater hostility in Germany, than because we defend the\ndoctrines of the Romish [Note 12] Church with the utmost steadfastness.\nThis fidelity, if the Lord will, we will show to the Romish Church\n_until our last breath_. There is indeed some _small_ difference in\nusages, which seems to be unfavorable to union. But the ecclesiastical\nlaws themselves declare, that the unity of the church may continue even\namid such diversity of customs.\" [Note 13]\n\nIs it possible that any impartial man, after reading this letter can\nsuppose the circumstances of this diet to have been favorable to a free\nand full expression of the points of dissent, between the Protestants\nand Papists, even at that day? During the entire six weeks that\nMelancthon was at Augsburg, before the arrival of the Emperor, his mind\nwas in this agitated and alarmed condition. According to his own\naccount he continued daily to make changes in the Confession, _after_\nit had been submitted to Luther. No wonder, therefore, that Luther,\nresponding to Melancthon's inquiry, \"what more they could yield to the\nRomanists,\" makes this rather dissatisfied reply, under date June 29:\n\"_Your Apology_ (the Augsburg Confession, as altered by Melancthon.\nafter Luther had sanctioned it on the 15th of May, and it had been\npresented to tho diet on the 25th of June,) _I have received, and\nwonder what you mean, when you desire to know, what and how much, may\nbe yielded to the papists. As far as I am concerned, TOO MUCH HAS\nALREADY BEEN YIELDED TO THEM IN THE APOLOGY (Confession).\" [Note 14]\nHere it in evident that the various changes, made by Melancthon between\nthe 15th of May and 25th of June, led Luther to affirm what American\nLutherans now maintain, that _he had yielded too much to the papists in\nthe Augsburg Confession_. \"I daily altered and recast the greater part\nof it, (says Melancthon himself,) and would [Note 15] have altered still\nmore if our counsellors [sic] had allowed it.\" And so much greater was\nhis dissatisfaction at the still more important concessions, [Note 16]\nwhich Melancthon and his associates were willing to make, in their\nnegotiations after the Confession had been delivered, that, in a letter\nof Sept. 20, to _Justus Jonas_, one of the principal Protestant\ntheologians at the Diet, he gives vent to his feelings in the following\nremarkable language: \"I almost burst with anger and displeasure, (Ich\nboerste schier fuer Zorn und Widerwillen,) and I beg you only to cut\nshort the matter, cease to negotiate with them (the Papists,) any\nlonger, and come home. They have the Confession. They have the gospel.\nIf they are willing to yield to it, then it is well. If they are\nunwilling, they may go. If war comes out of it, let it come. We have\nentreated and done enough. The Lord has prepared them as victims for the\nslaughter, that he may reward them according to their works. But us, his\npeople, he will deliver, even if we were sitting in the fiery furnace at\nBabylon.\" [Note 17] Thus have we heard abundant evidence from the lips\nof Melancthon and Luther themselves, that the circumstances under which\nthe Augsburg Confession was composed, in eight days, before its\nsubmission for Luther's sanction, and the increasing pressure under\nwhich Melancthon afterwards made numerous changes in it, during five\nweeks before its presentation to the Diet, were far from being favorable\nto a full and free exhibition of the deliberate views of the Reformers\neven at that date, and fully account for some of the remnants of\nRomanism still found in that confession, whose import we are now to\nexamine. The declaration of that elaborate historian _Arnold_, is\ntherefore only too true; \"_Melancthon had prepared the Confession amid\ngreat fear and trembling, and in many things accommodated himself to\nthe Papists_.\" (Nun hatte dieselbe Melancthon zuvor in grossen Zittern\nund Angsten aufgesetzet, und sich in vielen nach den Papisten\nbequemet.\" [Note 18]\n\nOf similar import is the judgment of _Dr. Hazelius.\" [sic on\nquotation mark] [Note 19] In reference to the article of Baptism, says\nhe, we have first to remind the reader of the sentiments expressed by\nthe Confessors, in the preface to this (the Augsburg) Confession,\ndeclaring there, and in various passages of their other writings, that\n_it was their object_, not only to couch the sentiments and doctrines\nthey professed, in language the least offensive to their opponents,\nbut also to GIVE WAY AS FAR AS CONSCIENCE WOULD PERMIT. This being\npremised, we shall endeavor to discover the meaning of the Reformers in\nregard to the article of baptism from some of those portions of their\nwritings, where they had not cause to be so circumspect and careful of\nnot giving offence to the Roman party, as they had in the delivery of\nthe Augsburg Confession.\"\n\nNor is it at all surprising, that, as Luther's views of the evils of the\nmass were so much clearer even at this period, he should, after seven\nyears more time for study, and in times of peace and security, express\nhis abhorrence of this Romish error in such strong terms as we meet in\nthe Smalcald Articles. Indeed, it was this undecided character of the\nAugsburg Confession on some points, which led the Elector, who, in other\nrespects valued it highly, to have this new Confession prepared by\nLuther for the Council, which Pope Paul III. [sic] had\nconvoked, to meet at Mantua, in 1537, for the purpose of settling these\nreligious disputes. Because, says Koellner, \"the Augsburg Confession\nhad been prepared with the view to give the _least possible offence to\nthe opponents_. But now, the Evangelical party, being stronger, were not\nonly able to avow the points of difference more openly; but they were\nalso determined to do so; and for such negotiations a different form\n(from that of the Augsburg Confession) was of course requisite. Finally,\nthe transactions at Augsburg, during the reciprocal efforts at\nreconciliation, and especially through the great mildness and yielding\ndisposition of Melancthon, had in regard to many doctrines, obliterated\nthe clear and real point of difference, so that in many of them the\n_opponents affirmed, there was no longer any difference at all_.\"\nKoellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 441.\n\nNote 1. The reason why he was left, was because the civil authorities\nof Augsburg excepted him in the safe passport, which they sent to the\nElector, under date of April 30. See Koellner, Vol. I., p. 172.\n\nNote 2. \"Ich habe M. Philipsen's Apologie ueberlesen, die gefaellt mir\nfast wohl, und weisz nichts daran zu bessern, noch zu aendern, wuerde\nsich auch nicht schicken: denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten\nkann.\"\n\nNote 3. We mention here once for that all our extracts from\nMelancthon's Letters are translated from _C. Niemeyer's_ work, entitled\n_Philip Melancthon_ im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, Halle, 1830.\n\nNote 4. Niemeyer, pp. 26, 27.\n\nNote 5. At that time Professor of Greek and Latin Literature in the\nGymnasium of Nurenberg.\n\nNote 6. Niemeyer, p. 28.\n\nNote 7. Niemeyer, p. 78. \"Ich kann es bei Hofe nicht erlangen, dasz von\nheir [sic] ein bestimmter Bote an Luther geschickt wird.\"\n\nNote 8. Page 30.\n\nNote 9. Dogma nullum habemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia.\n\nNote 10. Here Niemeyer also gives the Latin: \"Parati sumus, obedire\necclesiae Romanae, modo ut illa pro sua dementia, qua semper ergo omnes\nhomines usa est, pauca quaedam vel dissimulet, vel relaxet, quae jam ne\nquidem, si velimus, mutare queamus.\n\nNote 11. Ad haec Romani Pontificis auctoritatem et universam politiam\necclesiasticam, reverenter colimus, modo non abjiciat nos Romanus\nPontifex.\n\nNote 12. Here, says Niemeyer, Melancthon probably means the Romish\nchurch as she ought to be, and not as she was.\n\nNote 13. Page 32.\n\nNote 14. Eure Apologia habe ich empfangen, und nimmt mich wunder was\nihr meynet, dasz ihr begehrt zu wissen, was und wie viel man den\npaepstlichen soll nachgeben. _Fuer meine person ist ihnen allzuviel\nnachgegeben in der Apologia (Confession)_. Luther's Werke, B. XX.,\np. 185, Leipsic Edit.\n\nNote 15. See his letter to Camerarius, dated June 26, 1530. \"Ich\nveraenderte und gosz das meiste taeglich um, und wuerde noch mehreres\ngeaedert [sic] haben, wenn es unsere Raethe erlaubt\nhatten.\" Niemeyer, p. 28.\n\nNote 16. Melancthon had agreed to the restoration of the power of the\nbishops, and evidently, as seen by his letter to Luther, of June 26,\nif Luther had not objected, he would have made some retractions on the\ncelibacy of the clergy, the communion in both kinds and even the\nprivate and closet masses. The Protestants did admit that the saints\npray for us in heaven, and that commemorative festivals might be kept\nto pray God to accept the intercession of these saints; but by no\nmeans that our prayers should be addressed to the saints themselves.\nNiemeyer, p. 87.\n\nNote 17. Luther's Works, Vol. XX, p. 196.\n\nNote 18. Gottfried Arnold's Unpartheische Kirchen und Ketzer Historien,\nVol. I., p. 809, edit. 2d of 1740.\n\nNote 19. Doctrine and Discipline of the Synod of South Carolina, pp.\n18, 19, published in 1841.\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\nCUMULATIVE PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF THE SEVERAL POSITIONS OF THE DEFINITE\nSYNODICAL PLATFORM.\n\n_The Preamble_.\n\nOn the subject of the preamble, we will add a few authorities for one\nor two of its positions, which we have heard called in question. On\npage 3, we read:--\n\n\"Subsequently, Luther and his coadjutors _still further changed_ their\nviews on some subjects in that Confession, such as the mass.\" The truth\nof this position is demonstrated even by the extract from the Smalcald\nArticles, given on p. 22 of the Platform. In the Augsburg Confession,\nMelanchon [sic] says (and Luther approved of it): \"It, is\n_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the\nmass. For it is notorious that the _mass is celebrated among us_ with\ngreater devotion and seriousness than by our opponents.\" But seven\nyears later, in the Smalcald Articles, Luther employs this very\ndifferent language, which was sanctioned by his coadjutors: \"_The mass\nin the Papal church, must be the greatest and most terrible\nabomination_, since it is directly and strongly opposed to this chief\narticle (of Justification through faith in Christ,)\" &c. Here the\ncontradiction in words is positive and unqualified. But we must\nrecollect that the term mass here, as will be fully proved hereafter,\ndoes not signify the Papal mass in full. It is a well-known fact, and\nthe Confession itself informs us, that the confessors had long before\nrejected _private and closet masses_, and also had rejected the idea of\nthe public mass being a _sacrifice_, or offering of Christ, for the\nsins of the living or the dead. But that the word mass cannot be\nregarded as merely synonymous with Lord's Supper, or communion, in this\npassage, as it frequently is elsewhere, is clear from the context. For\nwe are told that by proper and diligent instruction \"in the design and\nproper mode of receiving the holy sacrament,\" \"the people are attracted\nto the _communion and to the mass_,\" (zur communion _und_ mess gezogen\nwird;) clearly proving that by mass they here meant something else than\ncommunion, namely, the public mass, divested of its _sacrificial_\nnature, and of its design to benefit any others than the communicants\nthemselves; in short, regarding it, thus modified, as an admissible\n_preparation_ for the holy communion. This mass, which the Platform,\n_with great moderation_, styles merely \"_Ceremonies_\" of the mass,\" p.\n21, they confessedly did subsequently also abandon, as they had done\nprivate and closet masses before.\n\nAgain, if we may believe Luther himself, they certainly did a afterward\nchange their ground in regard to the jurisdiction of the Pope and\nbishops. Hear his own language in 1533, three years later: \"Hitherto we\nhave always, and especially at the diet of Augsburg, very humbly\noffered to the Pope and bishops, that we would not destroy their\necclesiastical right and power, but that we would gladly be consecrated\nand governed by them, and _aid in maintaining their prerogatives and\npower_, if they would not force upon us articles too unchristian. But\nwe have been unable to obtain this; on the contrary, they wish to force\nus away from the truth, to adopt their lies and abominations, or wish\nus put to death. If now, (as they are such hardened Pharaohs,) their\nauthority and consecration should fare as their indulgences did, whose\nfault will it be?\" He then proceeds to denounce the power and\nconsecration which he had admitted at the time of the Augsburg Diet,\nand declares the church's entire independence of Rome for ordination.\n[Note 1]\n\nAgain, the Preamble asserts, \"That the entire Lutheran Church of\nGermany has rejected the symbolical books _as a whole_, and also\nabandoned some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, among\nothers the far greater part of them, the doctrine of the _bodily_\npresence of the Saviour in the eucharist.\"\n\nThe truth of these positions is well known to those acquainted with\nthe churches in Germany generally. A few extracts from standard\nauthorities may be pleasing to those not well informed on this subject.\nSays _Koellner_, in 1837: \"The theologians of more recent times have,\nas a body, departed from the rigid doctrinal system of the symbols, and\nlet it be particularly noted, not only those who in the opposing parties\nare termed rationalists, but also those who, in antithesis to these,\ndesire to be regarded as _champions for the doctrines of the church._\nAccordingly, not only those who have been sufficiently denounced as\nheterodox, have abandoned the doctrines of the symbols, but also the\nso-called _orthodox_, such as _Doederlein, Morus, Michaelis_, the\nvenerable _Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz, Augusti,\nMarheinecke_, as well as _Hahn, Oltshausen, Tholuk_, and _Hengstenberg_.\nIn like manner has the public _pledge to the symbols_ been greatly\nrelaxed, and is _nowhere unconditional_; but in fidelity to the\nprinciples of Protestantism, and guarding it, the obligation is always\nexpressed with the _explicit reservation_ of the supreme authority of\nthe Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledges\nprescribed in the different Protestant countries.\" [Note 2] Again: \"It\nmay as well be confessed and openly avowed, for the good of the church,\nthat, _there are but few theologians who still believe and teach the\ndoctrines of the symbols_.\" [Note 3]\n\nProfessor _Schultz_, in his work on the Eucharist, [Note 4] in 1831,\nsays: \"If, in the most recent times, individuals have here and there\narisen in the Lutheran Church itself, as defenders of Luther's views\nof the Lord's Supper, it must not be overlooked, that even they,\nsensibly feeling the difficulty of their undertaking, resort to all\nmanner of subtle explanations and arbitrary additions, in order to\nexplain away the objectionable aspects of this view.\"\n\nFinally, listen to the testimony of _Dr. Hagenbach_, of Basel, one of\nthe most distinguished orthodox divines of Europe: \"_How few Lutherans_,\nin this rationalizing period, firmly _adhere to the doctrine of the\nbodily presence_ of Christ in the eucharist: and how few Reformed\nadhered consistently to the doctrine of unconditional election. If,\ntherefore, the one, party relinquished the one, and the other party the\nother point (or dividing doctrine,) then the union between them was of\ncourse effected in the most natural way possible.\" [Note 5]\n\nWe close our observations on this topic with the impressive counsels of\nthe venerable Dr. Knapp: [Note 6] \"Speculations concerning the manner\nof the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the least\ninfluence upon the nature and efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What the\nChristian chiefly needs to know is the object and uses of this rite,\nand to act accordingly. Vide Sec.145. He must there therefore believe from\nthe heart that Christ died for him; that now, in his exalted state, he\nis still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomes\nhim to approach the Lord's table with feelings of the deepest reverence\nand most grateful love to God and to Christ. Upon this everything\ndepends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in\nits influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all\nChristians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance\nto have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths\nwhich it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace,\nwhatever theory respecting it they may adopt--the Lutheran, the Reformed,\nor even the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is.\"\n\n_The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession_.\n\nThe general principle, on which this Recension was constructed, is to\npresent the doctrinal articles entire, without the change of a single\nword, merely omitting the several sentences generally regarded as\nerroneous, together with nearly the entire condemnatory clauses, and\n_adding nothing_ in their stead. All that the Recension contains is\ntherefore the unadulterated Augsburg Confession, slightly abridged. The\nfollowing list will show, that _almost the entire Confession is thus\nretained,_ a single article only being omitted, viz.: that on Private\nConfession and Absolution.\n\nART. I. _Of God:_ retained _entire_.\n\nART. II. _Of Natural Depravity:_ entire, except the omission of the\nwords, \"by baptism and the Holy Spirit.\" The condemnatory clause is\nalso given, except the name \" Pelagians and others, &c.\"\n\nART. III. _Of the Son of God and his Mediatorial Work:_ retained\n_entire_.\n\nART. IV. _Of Justification:_ retained _entire_.\n\nART. V. _Of the Ministerial Office:_ retained _entire_.\n\nART. VI. _Concerning New Obedience_ (or a Christian Life:) _entire_.\n\nART. VII. _Of the Church: entire_.\n\nART. VIII. _What the Church is: entire_, except the omission of the\nlast two sentences.\n\nART. IX. _Concerning Baptism:_ according to the German copy. _entire_.\n\nART. X. _Of the Lord's Supper:_ omits the words \"_body_ and _blood_\"\nand \"_truly_,\" and the phrase \"are dispensed_,\" &c.\n\nART. XI. _Of Confession:_ omitted, as private confession and\nabsolution\" [sic on punctuation] are confessedly not taught\nin Scripture.\n\nART. XII _Of Repentance (after Backsliding:) entire_, except the\nomission of \"the church's granting _absolution_ to those manifesting\nrepentance,\" and that faith is produced also \"_by means absolution_.\"\n\nART. XIII. _Of the Use of the Sacraments. entire_.\n\nART. XIV. _Of Church Orders, (or the Ministry.) entire_.\n\nART. XV. _Of Religious Ceremonies. entire_.\n\nART. XVI. _Of Political Affairs;_ (excepting the word \"imperial.\")\n_entire_.\n\nART. XVII. _Of Christ's Return to Judgment. entire_.\n\nART. XVIII. _Of Free Will. entire_.\n\nART. XIX. _Of the Author of Sin. entire_.\n\nART. XX. _Of God's Works. entire_.\n\nART. XXI. _Of the Invocation of the Saints_, (except a reference to\nthe authority of the Romish church, the canons and the fathers.)\n_entire_.\n\nNote 1. See Luther's Works, Vol. XXI., p. 34, Leipsic ed. See this\nsubject ably discussed in several articles in the Evangelical Lutheran,\nof December, 1835, by Dr. S. Sprecher, President of Wittenberg\nCollege, Ohio.\n\nNote 2. Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 121.\n\nNote 3. Idem. p. 148.\n\nNote 4. P. 344.\n\nNote 5. Hagenbach's Church History of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth\nCenturies, Vol. II., p. 358; also Hahn's Lehrbuch, 1828, p. 578.\n\nNote 6. See Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr., page 513,1\n(Glauben's Lehre, &c., 1827,) or German copy, Vol. II., p. 505.\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\nSYNODICAL DISCLAIMER,\n_or List of Symbolic Errors rejected by the great body of the churches\nbelonging to the General Synod_.\n\nHaving now arrived at the second part of the Definite Synodical\nPlatform, namely, that part which is not to be subscribed to by the\nmembers of Synod; but which is published as the view of the majority,\nfrom which individuals are allowed to dissent; we shall pursue the\nfollowing order in regard to each topic:\n\n1. We shall recapitulate, briefly, what the Platform does assert.\n\n2. State the objections made to these positions by the plea of Rev.\nMr. Mann.\n\n3. Examine these objections and vindicate what seems to be the truth.\nAnd as the Rev. Mr. Mann confines himself to the alleged errors of the\nAugsburg Confession, we shall, with little exception, do the same.\n\nCEREMONIES OF THE MASS.\n\n1. As to _what the Platform teaches_ on this topic, there ought to be\nno difficulty; because,\n\n_a_. On page 5 of the Platform, we find a definite list of the errors\ncontained in the Augsburg Confession, viz.:\n\n1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the mass.\n\n2. Private Confession and Absolution.\n\n3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath.\n\n4. Baptismal Regeneration.\n\n5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the\nEucharist.\n\nHere it is evident that the charge is, that the Confession advocates\nthe _ceremonies_ of the mass, but _not the mass itself_, as has been\nalleged.\n\n_b_. In the same connexion it is stated, \"These are the _only_ errors\ncontained in the Augsburg Confession.\" But if these are the only errors\ncharged, then it follows that the error of inculcating the mass itself,\nor doctrine of the mass, is at all events _not charged in the\nPlatform_, if it is in words even contained in the Confession.\n\n_c_. The _caption_ in the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, is\nnot headed the _Mass_, as is the article of the Confession to which it\nrefers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform, _with great\nmoderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the mass.\n\n_d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude from\nmembership in Synods accepting the Platform, we find p. 15, the\nfollowing: \"Whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who\nbelieves in Exorcism, Private Confession and Absolution, or the\n_Ceremonies_ of the Mass.\" Here again _Ceremonies_ of the mass are\nstated, but if the Platform taught that the Mass itself is inculcated\nin the Confession, believers in the Mass would, _a fortiori_, have also\nbeen mentioned as excluded.\n\nWhat then is the meaning of the sentence on page 22 of the Platform,\n\"In refutation of the _tolerant views of the mass_ above expressed,\n&c?\" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the mass\nwhich the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in these\npassages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the mass,\nwhich constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, so\ncalled, although its nature had been changed by denying the\n_sacrificial_ character of the minister's act of self-communion, and\nits being performed for the benefit of _others_, either living or dead.\nWe think also, some objectionable parts of the ceremonial itself were\nchanged, although the Confession asserts that the addition of some\nGerman hymns, along with the Latin, was the only alteration made. Among\nthose objectionable parts retained, was _the elevation of the host_,\nof which Luther thus speaks, in his _Short Confession about the\nSacrament_ against the Fanatics,in 1544. [Note 1] \"It, happened about\ntwenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the mass\n(messe,) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (the\nmass) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessing\nor testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but ought and\nmust receive from him. At that time I was disposed to reject _the\nelevation of the host_, on account of the papists, who regard it, as a\nsacrifice, &c. But as our doctrine was at that time new and exceedingly\noffensive over the whole world, I had to proceed cautiously, and on\naccount of the weak, to yield many things, which I, at a later period,\nwould not do. I therefore suffered the elevation of the host, to\nremain, especially as it admits of a favorable, explanation, as I\nshowed in my little work '_De Captivitate Babylonica, &c._'\" The\nelevation of the host was still practised in Saxony generally in 1542,\n[Note 2] twelve years after the Confession was written, approving of\nthe ceremonies of the mass, of which this was one. This remnant of\npopery was, however, universally rejected soon after this period,\ncertainly before 1545, and in Wittenberg, in 1542.\n\n_Again_, what is the natural import of the phrase on page 21 of the\nPlatform: \"Accordingly the Lutheran church, in Europe and America, has\nunanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies.\" The passage\nitself specifies no time, when either was rejected, and neither says\nnor implies that both were rejected at the same time. The word\n\"accordingly\" refers to what preceded. The whole reads thus: \"Topic I.,\n_Ceremonies_ of the mass. The error taught on this subject by the\nAugsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on these\nceremonies of the mass) was rejected by the reformers themselves a few\nyears after the Confession was first published. Accordingly, the\nLutheran Church, both in Europe and America, has unanimously\nrepudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies.\" As the Augsburg\nConfession expressly teaches that private and closet masses had been\n_previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in the\nAugsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the public\nmass, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiated\nlong before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the mass and\nits ceremonies is that remnant of this rite, which, as proved above,\nhad not yet been rejected before 1530, the essential doctrine even of\nthe public mass having been rejected long before. Hence, the import of\nthis passage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet of\nAugsburg rejected the doctrine of the mass, as a sacrifice or a\nvicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected\n_private and closet masses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual of\nthe public mass, preceding communion: but even this latter also they\nrenounced soon after; and accordingly, the Lutheran church, every where\nin Europe and America, imitating their example, has repudiated alike\nthe mass and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned various\nqualifications, are taught in the passages cited from the Confession.\nHad we been writing for those unacquainted with the Augsburg\nConfession, the qualifications here referred to, might have been\nspecified.\n\n2. Our _next inquiry is, What objection does the Plea make to the\nrepresentations of the Platform on this subject?\n\nThe whole charge of our respected friend against the Platform is, that\nit misapprehends the _import of the word mass_ in the 24th Article, and\ntherefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioning\nthe ceremonies of the Romish mass. To support this charge he affirms,\nthat the word mass (or missa, mess,) was at the time of the Confession,\nin 1530, _in general use for the eucharist;_ and that in later years\nthe term mass, in this sense, was entirely given up by the Reformers,\npage 15 of Plea.\n\nThe charge is certainly a grave one, and if unfounded, a grievous\ninjustice is done to the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism.\nViewing it in this light, we were slow to admit its truth ourselves,\nuntil a pretty extensive acquaintance with the writings of the\nReformers compelled us to yield our conviction. Still we would have\ngreatly preferred to remain silent on the subject and throw the mantle\nof oblivion over this deformity of our symbolic mother; had not\nill-advised ultra-symbolists of late years carried on a crusade against\nall Lutherans who will not adopt the entire symbolic system. The charge\nin the Platform was advisedly made, after careful examination. Since\nthe charge has been denied, we have again extensively examined the\nwritings of the Reformers, and whilst it would afford us pleasure to\nwithdraw it, and acknowledge our error; our conviction has grown more\nfirm, and we shall be greatly surprised if the great majority of\nimpartial minds do not find the evidence of our position fully\nsatisfactory. At the same time, whilst we charge the Confession with\nfavoring merely the _ceremonies_ of the mass, other writers of the\nfirst respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language.\nThus _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History,\nspeaking of the Romish mass, says: \"_That Luther for some time tolerated\nit, and gave if a a German garb and afterwards abolished it, is\nnotorious_. [Note 3] And that impartial and highly respectable historian\nof our own country, Dr. Murdock, whose extended and valuable additions\nto the classic church history of Dr. Moshiem, abundantly prove his\nacquaintance with the subject; in giving a synopsis of the contents of\nthe Augsburg Confession, thus epitomises the 24th Article: \"_The\nProtestants are falsely taxed with abolishing the mass_. They only\npurified it; and discarded the idea of its being a work of merit, or\noffering for the sins of the living and the dead, which militates\nagainst the scriptural doctrine, that Christ's sacrifice is the only\nsin offering.\" [note 4]\n\nIn order that we may give this question an impartial and conscientious\ninvestigation, let us first inquire into the meaning of the word mass\namong the Papists, apart from the present dispute. \"_Mass_ (missa,\nMess,) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical\nHistory, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, which\n_preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, and\nespecially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebration\nof the eucharist, _mass_ (or missa, dismissed); because this service\ntook place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' was\ngradually corrupted into _mass_. But how did that mode of celebrating\nthis ordinance arise in the Romish Church, _which consisted in the\npriest's giving the sacrament to himself alone, connected with solemn\nturnings around, and moving about from place to place, and changes of\nattitude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which is\ntermed mass?_\" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romish\nmass here defined.\n\n_Siegel_, in his excellent Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical\nAntiquities, published at Leipsic, in 1837, in four volumes, presents\nan extended view of this subject, from which we will extract little\nmore than his definition of the mass. \"The mass, in the Roman Catholic\nsense of the term, belongs not to the centuries of Christian antiquity,\nbut to a later period.\" [Note 6] We take up the subject at the time\nwhen the Catholic doctrine of _transubstantiation_ was fully developed,\n(since the Lateran Council of 1215.) In conformity to this view of the\nsacrament, (the doctrine of transubstantiation,) _the idea of the mass\nwas so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest,\ndecorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unbloody\nsacrifice at the altar.\" [Note 7] The mass service is a commixture of\nScripture passages, long and short prayers, extracts from the gospels\nand epistles (pericopen,) liturgic forms, which are divided into\nseveral chief parts, designated by different names, Introitus,\nOffertorium, Canon missae,\" &c. [Note 8] This whole service amounts to\nsome fifteen or twenty octavo pages, including the directions for\ngenuflections, crossings, tergiversations, &c., occupying about an hour\nin the reading, the performance of which by the priest was termed\n\"reading mass,\" as the listening of the audience was called \"hearing\nmass.\"\n\nIn view of these authorities, we may take for granted, what we suppose\nno one will deny, that in the Romish Church, not only of the present\nday, but since several centuries before the Reformation, and,\ntherefore, in 1530, the most common and primary meaning of the word\n_mass_, was not Lord's Supper; but that long ceremonial, including the\nconsecration of the elements, elevation of the host, and self-communion\nof the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a sacrifice for the\nsins of the living and dead, _which preceded_ the distribution of the\nsacrament to the people.\n\n_Again_, it will be admitted, that whilst among Papists the above\nspecific meaning of the word mass was the most common one, that term\nwas also not unfrequently used by synecdoche, as a part of the whole,\nto designate the sacramental celebration in general: just as we use the\nword \"_preaching_\" which specifically signifies the delivery of a\nsermon, for the whole services of public worship in the phrase, \"will\nyou go to preaching to-day?\"\n\n_Finally_, it will be admitted, that the Reformers, having been\neducated as Papists, were trained up to this twofold use of the word\nmass, namely, specifically the extended services above described, which\n_preceded_ the communion, and sometimes informally the eucharist,\ncommunion or sacrament in general.\n\nThe question then seems definitely to be reduced to these two inquiries;\nfirst, _Did the Reformers retain this distinction in the use of the word\nmass at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employ\nthe word in its specific sense in the disputed passages of that\nConfession?\n\n_First Inquiry_.\n\nWe shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the word\nmass was observed by the Reformers at and before the time of the\nAugsburg Diet?\n\nI. And _first_ let us listen to _Luther_ himself. In 1523, the great\nReformer, 1, in his \"_Method of conducting Christian Mass_,\" addressed\nto Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of the\nRomish mass, as he thought wrong, he approved others, as explained by\nhimself, such as the, Introitus, the Kyrie eleison, the Collecta or\nprayer epistles, the Singing of the Gradual, a short sequens, the\nGospel, the Nicene Creed, and a number of other matters, including the\nelevation of the host, but not for worship, [Note 9] he proceeds to the\nnext part of the Treatise which is headed \"How to _administer the most\nholy sacrament to the people,\" [Note 10] and his first sentence is the\nfollowing: \"Let this much suffice to be said of the _Mass_, and service\nof the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which the\nholy _sacrament_ shall be administered to the people, for whose benefit\nespecially the Supper of our Lord was instituted.\" Here we clearly see\nthe distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ the\ncommunion which constitute the _Mass_, and the distribution of the\nelements to the people, which he terms holy _sacrament_. Then, after\nhaving discussed the subject of the communion, that it should be\nreceived in both kinds, &c., he adds, \"Let this suffice for the present\non the subject of the mass _and_ communion.\" [Note 11]\n\n2. In his _letter to Lazarus Spengler_, in 1528, Luther observes this\nsame distinction. \"In the first place,\" he remarks, \"it is unreasonable\nthat any one should be forced to receive the sacrament or to abstain\nfrom it.\" And he adds: \"All masses, at which there are _no\ncommunicants_\" (that is, at which the sacrament is not administered,)\n\"should absolutely be omitted.\" [Note 12] Here the administration of\nthe supper to the laity is termed _sacrament_, and that service\nperformed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by the\nsacrament or communion, and at others not, is called _mass_.\n\n3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George:\n\"First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ masses, &c. Be it known to\nyou that no minister can with good conscience perform mass alone, when\nthere are no communicants. Therefore here there is no room for further\ninquiry; either there must be communicants, or them should be no\nmass.\" [Note 13]\n\n4. Luther's \"_Confession of the Christian Doctrines, in XVII.\nArticles_,\" published in 1530. This is a very short Confession, each\narticle containing but three or four sentences, and the whole amounting\nto only three or four 8vo. pages. In Article X. he says: \"The\n_eucharist_ or _sacrament_ of the altar also consists of two parts,\nnamely that the true body and blood of Christ should verily be present\nin the bread and wine;\" and in Article XVI. he says: \"Above all other\nabominations, the _masses_, that have hitherto been regarded as a\n_sacrifice_ or _good work_, by which one designed to procure grace for\nthe other, are to be rejected.\" [Note 14] Here the distinction is not\nonly made between the mass and eucharist, but the doctrine of the mass\nas a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is also\ndenounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the mass as a\nsacrifice, and as vicarious, is strongly denounced in the Augsburg\nConfession, whilst the charge of having rejected the rite itself with\nthese and other modifications, is flatly denied, in these words: \"It is\n_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the\nmass,\" (Art. XXIV., p. 21 of the Platform,) a thing never charged\nagainst them in reference to the eucharist, for from the very beginning\nof the Reformation, they charged the Papists with having mutilated it,\nand claimed the restoration of the cup also to the laity.\n\n5. In a _letter_ of September 20, 1530, addressed _to Justus Jonas_, one\nof the theologians at the diet, Luther thus expresses himself: \"For,\nwhat else do our opponents, (the Papists,) presume to propose, than that\nthey shall not yield a hairsbreadth, but that we not only yield on the\nsubject of the canon, _the mass_, the _one kind_, (in the eucharist,)\ncelibacy, (of the clergy,) and jurisdiction (of the bishops); but shall\nalso admit that they have taught the truth, and acted properly in all\nthings, and were falsely accused by us.\" [Note 15] Here the mass is\nagain distinguished from the eucharist in one kind. He then adds: \"If we\nwill get at it (yielding to the Papists,) let us yield only the canon,\nand the closet masses; and either of these two is sufficient fully to\ndeny our doctrine and to confirm theirs.\" The _canon_ was that part of\nthe ritual of the mass which contained the forms of transubstantiation,\nwhich were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet masses are\nrejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against the\npublic mass, qualified as it is in the Confession.\n\n6. In his _Exhortation to the Sacrament_ of the body and blood of\nChrist, published in 1530, he says: \"If the Papists do, as usual,\nquibble at my language, and boast that I myself here make a sacrifice\nin the _sacrament_, although I have hitherto contended that the _mass_\nis no sacrifice; then you shall answer thus: I make _neither the mass\nnor the sacrament_ a sacrifice, (\"Ich mache _weder_ Messe _noch_\nSacrament zum opfer,\") but the remembrance of Christ,\" [Note 16] &c.\nHere the two are distinguished as clearly as language can discriminate\nbetween two separate objects, and even placed in antithesis to one\nanother: and let it be remembered, that all the examples are taken from\nworks published either before or in the very year in which the Augsburg\nConfession was written. A few years later, in 1534, in a letter to a\nfriend, in which he inveighs strongly against the closet masses and the\nperverted order or arrangements of the mass, (verkehrte ordnung der\nMesse,) and against the Romish mass in general: \"I wish, and would very\ngladly see and hear, that the two words mass and sacrament were\nconsidered by every one as being as far apart as light and darkness,\nyea, as the devil and God. For they (the Papists) must themselves\nconfess, that mass dues not signify the reception of the sacrament as\nChrist instituted it; but the reception of the sacrament they do, (and\nno thanks to them,) they _must_ call _communion. But that is called_\nMASS _which the priest alone performs at the altar, in which no common\nchristian or layman takes part_.\" All other christians do nothing more\nthan receive the sacrament, _and do not perform mass_. [Note 17]\nCertainly it must be evident that Luther did not regard the word mass as\nthe ordinary term for eucharist, but had a clear idea of the\ndistinction, and of the importance of observing it.\n\nII. Let us now adduce similar evidence from the writings of\n_Melancthon himself_, who wrote the Confession, to show that he also\nobserved the distinction between _mass_ and _eucharist_. This evidence\nwill be the stronger as all his letters quoted, were written from\nAugsburg itself, during the very time that he composed the Confession,\nand whilst it was under consideration in the Diet. [Note 18]\n\n1. In a letter to Luther, dated Augsburg, July 30, 1530, Melancthon\nsays: \"Zwingle has sent hither a printed Confession. His views of the\n_Eucharist_ (Abendmahl) he urge strongly. He wishes all bishops to be\nextirpated.\" Then after speaking of human traditions, he adds: \"In the\nmatter of the _mass_, (not eucharist, which he had just mentioned\nbefore,) and in the first discussion (Aufsatz, composition) of the\ndoctrinal articles I think I was cautions enough, but on the topics\nconcerning unwritten traditions, I was never rightly satisfied with\nmyself.\" [Note 19]\n\n2. In another letter to Luther, of August 6th, he says: \"At last, on\nAug. 3d, we heard the (Romish) Refutation (of the Augsburg Confession),\nand also the declaration of the emperor. His declaration was terrible\nenough, but the Refutation was composed in such a puerile manner, that\nwe could not but heartily congratulate each other. There is not a\nsingle composition of Faber, (the pensman of the Refutation,) however\nsilly it may be, that is not exceeded in silliness by this. On the\ndoctrine concern the two kinds, (in the Eucharist,) he adduced the\nhistory of the sons of Eli, who desired bread to eat; and wished to\nprove by it, that it becomes laymen to be satisfied with the mere bread\nin the _Eucharist_. His defence of the _Mass_ was very frosty.\" [Note\n20] Here we find the eucharist and the mass spoken of as separate\nthings, and the discussion of the one represented as silly, and that of\nthe other frosty.\n\n3. In a letter to Luther, dated August 22d, he thus writes: \"Yesterday\nwe closed the discussion, or rather the quarrel (Gezaenk) which has been\nconducted before the umpires. The third point was the question of merit,\n&c. Then he came to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist). Here he exerted\nhimself to the utmost to prove that _both_ kinds are not commanded. He\nmaintained that it was a matter of indifference whether one or both\nkinds are received, and and [sic] that if we would teach\nthis, he would cheerfully allow us both kinds. This I could not accede\nto; nevertheless, I excused those who had hitherto erroneously received\nbut one kind; for they cried out, the whole church is condemned by us.\nWhat think you of this? The command of Jesus refers to ministers and\nlaymen. Hence if it is our duty to receive the _sacrament_, we are also\nobligated to retain the form of the entire sacrament. If you also are\nof this opinion, then inform me of it distinctly. On the subject of the\n_mass_, vows and marriage, there was no discussions, only some\nconditions were proposed, which we, however, did not accept.\" [Note 21]\nHere again, the distinction between the sacrament and the mass is\nclearly made, and we are told that at the disputation before the\numpires, the former was debated and the latter not. Can anything be\nplainer, than that a distinction is here made between eucharist and\nmass?\n\n4. Under date of August 28, Melancthon thus writes to _Luther:_ \"They\n(the Papists,) wish us to admit, that neither those who administer but\none kind, nor those who receive it, are guilty of sin. We have, indeed,\nexonerated those from blame, who receive but one kind; but as to those\nwho administer but one,--there is the knot. The Synod of Basil conceded\nthe _whole sacrament_ to the Bohemians, on condition that they would\nacknowledge that it may, with propriety, be taken and received in one\nkind only. This confession they also wish to extort from us. _Eckius_\nsays he contends for this point, merely because the people cannot be\nretained in the discharge of duty, unless _we_ also release their\nconsciences in regard to the _sacrament_ (that is, unless the reformers\nwould admit, that its reception in one kind was also allowable). We\ntherefore desire to know your judgment on the case. As to the\napplication of _masses_, they are willing to postpone this till the\nmeeting of the synod (or council); and thus they intimate, that they\nwill not oppress us with the reception of their ungodly views on the\n_mass_ (Koethe's edition: mit der gottlosen Application der Messe, with\nthe ungodly application of the mass, _i.e._ to the living and dead).\nAnd yet they desire us to receive the _canon_ of the mass, (_i.e._ the\nmost objectionable part of the ritual of the mass, relating to the\ntransubstantiation of the bread and wine, its application to others,\n&c.,) but with a convenient and devout explanation.\" [Note 22] Here\nagain, the distinction between the mass and the sacrament is clearly\nseen.\n\n5. On Sept. 4th, he again writes to _Luther:_ \"I know that this long\nsilence must be very annoying to you, especially at this time, when we\nought to consult one another most frequently; but believe me, nothing\nis so much opposed to my wishes in the court, as this indifference in\ndispatching more frequent messengers to you, and yet I am unable to\ninduce them to do it. We have not yet received from our opponents the\nproposed conditions in reference to the _two kinds_ (in the eucharist),\nmarriage and _the_ mass.\" [Note 23] Here again, who does not see the\ndistinction?\n\n6. In a document, which Melancthon prepared for a friend of the\nchancellor of the bishop of Luettich, in which he states how far they\nyielded, and also the points in which they could not agree, we find the\nfollowing: \"_Of the two kinds_.--Here we excused those (the laity,) who\nreceive one kind alone (that is, merely the bread in the eucharist),\nfor as they do not distribute the sacraments, they have to receive the\nsacrament as it is given to them.\" [Note 24] \"_Of the mass_.--In regard\nto the mass we have already given our reply: namely, that our party\nretain the substantials (substantalia,) and principal parts of the\nmass, so far as the consecration is concerned, &c.\" [Note 25] \"_The\nmass is not_ a work which, when applied to others, merits grace for\nthem _ex opere operato;_ but according to the confession of the whole\nchurch, the _Lord's Supper is_ the sacrament, through which grace is\noffered to him that receives it, which grace he also really receives,\nbut not by the more external act, but through faith, when he is certain\nthat, in it., grace and pardon of sins are offered.\" [Note 26]\n\nIII. We will add a few short _extracts from other reformers_, written\nat the time of the Diet, to confirm our position that they also made a\ndistinction between the mass and the eucharist, and that by the former\nthey meant that performance of the priest alone at the altar, which\npreceded the communion.\n\n1. _Aurifaber_, who was a particular personal friend of Luther, and was\npresent at his death. In his account of the incidents of Luther and his\ndoctrines in the year 1530, speaking of the special committee which was\nappointed on the 16th of August, consisting of seven members on each\nside, he remarks: [Note 27] \"These assembled and took into\nconsideration the Augsburg Confession of the Protestant States,\ndeliberating on one article after another, and the first day agreed\nupon eleven articles. The second day they continued their negotiations\nand agreed toll [sic] to twenty-one articles. But on the\narticles concerning _the mass_, marriage of priests, _the Lord's\nSupper_, monastic vows and the jurisdiction of the bishops, &c., they\ncould not agree and remained at variance.\" Here the mass and the Lord's\nSupper are distinctly classed as different topics.\n\n2. _Spalatin_, one of the theologians who attended the Elector to\nAugsburg, in his narrative of what occurred during the diet, giving a\nbrief abstract of the contents of the Augsburg Confession, epitomises\nthe, Xth Article thus: Of the Holy _Sacrament of the true body and\nblood of Christ_ in the Sacrament of the altar; and the XXIV Article,\n\"of the _Mass_, how it is celebrated amongst us, and the reason why\ncloset masses have been rejected by us.\" Here again, who does not see\nthat the two are represented as distinct?\n\nIV. We shall close this cumulative mass of evidence for the\ndistinction between the terms mass and eucharist or Lord's supper, at\nthe time of the diet of Augsburg, by an extract from the professed\n_refutation of the Augsburg Confession_, prepared by the _papists_\nduring the diet; from which it will be evident, not only that they make\nthis distinction themselves, which no one denies, but that _they\nunderstood the Augsburg Condition as making it also_.\n\nIn their reply to Article XXIV. of the Confession, (or the III. of the\nAbuses Corrected) they state: \"For the _mass_ is celebrated, in order\nthat the _holy eucharist_ may be offered in memory of the passion of\nChrist.\" [Note 28] \"In those churches, (which apostatize in the latter\ntimes) _no more masses_ will be celebrated, _no more sacrament_\ndistributed, no more altars, nor images of the saints, &c.\" [Note 29]\nFinally, near the close of their pretended refutation of this Article\nof the Augsburg Confession, (XXIV.) the papist Refutation says, \"It is\ntherefore not rejected or regarded as wrong that the (Protestant)\nPrinces and cities (according to their Confession, Article XXIV.,)\ncelebrate one common (public) mass in their churches; if they only\nperformed it properly, according to the holy rule and canonical\nregulations, as all Catholics perform it. But that they (the\nProtestants, in their Confession) reject all _other_ masses, can\nneither be tolerated nor suffered by the christian faith and Catholic\nprofession, (that is, cannot be allowed by us, who profess the Roman\nCatholic faith.) [Note 30]\n\nHere then, in view of all this mass of evidence, we appeal to every\ncandid and conscientious reader, whether it is not impossible, fairly,\nto resist the conviction, that the Reformers did, at and before the\ndiet at Augsburg in 1530, ordinarily observe the distinction to which\nthey had been trained in the Romish church, between the words _mass_\nand _eucharist_, or _Lord's supper_, so that in all cases where\nprecision was necessary, and especially where both were spoken of, each\nwas called by its appropriate name? We say \"ordinarily,\" because we\nfreely admit that sometimes they did use the word mass in a more general\nsense, as a part for the whole, to include both the eucharist and the\nmass proper, just as we now use the term preaching for the whole of the\npublic service, in the inquiry, \"Will you go to preaching to day?\"\nwhilst in its proper meaning, preaching has reference only to the\nsermon. Our chain of argument is therefore not complete until we add\nanother link, and prove that the Reformers employed the word mass in\nits specific and proper signification, in the disputed passages of the\nAugsburg Confession, as they did in the numerous passages above cited,\nand as the Papists themselves understood them to do.\n\n_Second Inquiry_.\n\nLet us now, in _the second_ place, inquire, _Whether the Reformers\nemployed the word mass in its proper and specific meaning in the\ndisputed passages of the Augsburg Confession_.\n\nThe affirmative of this question is, we think, certain, from a variety\nof evidences.\n\n1. Because we find _two different articles of the Confession, the one\nwith mass (Messe) for its caption, and the other headed:_ OF THE HOLY\nSUPPER (vom Heiligen Abendmahl.) Now, if mass here signified Holy\nSupper, the probability is that one or the other term would have been\nused in both places. The design of captions prefixed to a chapter or\narticle, is to indicate the general contents of such article; and a\ndiversity of caption or title, naturally raises the presumption that\ndifferent subjects are discussed. The most natural method of deciding\nthis question concerning the meaning of the caption, is to inquire what,\nare the subjects discussed in each article. If the subjects discussed in\nboth articles are the same, then the captions are or ought to be\nsynonymous, and as the Lord's Supper never signifies mass in its\nspecific sense, it follows that mass would have to mean Lord's Supper.\nBut if different subjects are treated of in the two articles, then the\ncaptions, if appropriate, must mean different things. Now, it will not\nbe denied, that whilst the Article X., headed Lord's Supper, discusses\nmatter specifically relating to the eucharist, (namely the real presence\nof the body and blood of the Saviour in the Holy Supper;) the Article\nXXIV., headed the _Mass_, actually discusses what is specifically termed\nthe mass, namely, the ceremony and acts of the priest or minister\n_preceding_ the Lord's Supper. Thus, the article states, \"No perceptible\nchange was made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the\naddition of German hymns along with the Latin; but it is well known that\nthere are no other \"public ceremonies\" connected with the Lord's Supper\nin the Romish church, except those embraced in _the_ mass, specifically\nso called, and that the _Latin_ hymns were part of this mass, \"Masses\nare bought and sold at annual fairs, and the greater part of them (the\nmasses) in all the churches, were sold for money;\" but we have never\nheard that Romanists had to pay for receiving the communion, it is only\nfor a certain performance of the priest, called mass, that they pay the\npriest. These \"money masses and closet masses,\" are condemned; whilst no\nobjection is made to public mass, at which the sacrament is\nadministered; on the contrary, it is stated, that by proper instruction,\n\"the people are attracted to communion _and_ the mass.\" The question is\nreferred to \"whether a mass performed for a number of persons\ncollectively, was as efficacious as a separate mass for each\nindividual;\" but who ever heard of christians receiving one Lord's\nSupper collectively, for a number of other persons, or for an\nindividual? And if the thing is done by the priest, then it is what is\nspecifically called mass. So also, who ever heard of the Lord's Supper\nbeing received \"for the dead;\" but it is very common for the priest to\nsay _mass_ for the dead. Thus, might we add additional sentences from\nthis Article XXIV., which applied to the Lord's Supper, make no sense,\nbut are appropriately and historically true of the mass in its specific\nsense. Since then almost the whole article treats of the mass proper,\ndoes not common sense, as well as the legitimate principles of\ninterpretation, require us so to interpret the word mass in the caption\nand passages cited from this article? The same reason would apply to a\ncomparison of the caption of Article XXII., or I, of the Abuses\nCorrected, namely, \"Of Communion in both kinds,\" compared with the word\nmass; but we deem it unnecessary.\n\n2. That the word mass is here used in its appropriate sense, is evident,\n_because Melancthon himself, in translating the Latin original into\nGerman_, always renders the Latin term for mass (missa) by the German\nterm messe (mass); whereas if he had used the Latin term in its more\ngeneral sense in Article XXIV., he would at least sometimes have\ntranslated it eucharist, or Lord's Supper. But so far as we have\nexamined, the word mass (messe) is always employed in this article,\nwhere the German is a translation of the Latin. In one case at least we\nhave found the German and Latin Confessions pursue different trains of\nthought; so that though mass is found in the one, nothing corresponding\nis contained in the other. The same may be affirmed of all translations\ninto English that we have seen, whether made in this country or in\nGreat Britain. No translator, so far as our knowledge extends, has\nventured to render \"missa\" or \" messe,\" by Lord's Supper or eucharist;\nbut by the appropriate term \"_mass;_\" because they all felt that the\ncontext and scope of the Article demanded it.\n\n3. Another proof in Article XXIV. itself, that the word mass is used to\ndesignate that ceremonial, which preceded the distribution of the\nsacrament, is found in _the fact that both the word mass and sacrament\nare used together, with the copulative conjunction_ AND _connecting\nthem. a_. Thus, near the commencement of the article, we read: \"Our\npeople are instructed repeatedly, and with the utmost diligence,\nconcerning the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament;\nnamely, to comfort alarmed consciences; by which means the people are\nattracted to the _communion_ AND _the mass_,\" [Note 31] (dadurch das\nvolk zur communion _und_ Mess gezogen wird.) The Latin copy here has a\ndifferent train of remarks.\n\n_b_. Again, the following passage near the close of the Article: \"The\nancient canons also show that one of the priests performed the mass,\n_and_ administered the communion to the other priests and deacons.\"\n[Note 32] (Auch zeigen die alten canones an, dasz einer das Amt\ngehalten hat UND die andern Priester und Diakon communicirt.) _c_. Also\nthe passage preceding this: \"Our custom is, that on holy days, and also\nat other times, if communicants are present, _we hold mass_ AND _admit\nto communion_ such as desire it.\" (So wird diese Weise bei uns gehalten,\ndasz man an Feiertagen, auch sonst so communicanten da sind, mess haelt,\nund etliche so das begehren, communiciert. _Servatur_ apud nos _una\ncommunis missa_ singulis feriis, atque aliis etiam diebus, si qui\nsacramento velint uti, _ubi porrigitur sacramentum his qui petunt_.)\nHere, then, we find three passages in this very Article itself, in which\nthe mass is distinguished from the distribution of the supper, and the\ntwo things are connected by \"and,\" necessarily implying their diversity.\n\n4. That the words [sic] mass is used in its appropriate specific sense\nin this Article, and not as synonymous with Lord's Supper, or eucharist,\nas the Plea for the Augsburg Confession [Note 33] asserts, is proved by\nthe fact, that _if you substitute either of these words for it, many\npassages in the Article will not make sense_. We will present a few\nspecimens, which may be multiplied by any one who will take Article\nXXIV. of the Confession and read it, substituting either Lord's Supper\nor eucharist in place of the word mass.\n\n\"By which means the people are attracted to the communion and the\n_eucharist_, (the mass;\") which is equivalent to saying, they were\nattracted to the eucharist and the eucharist.\n\n\"An annual fair was made, at which _eucharists_ (masses) were bought\nand sold.\" This would be historically untrue.\n\n\"And the greater part of them (the _eucharists_) in all the churches,\nwere performed for money.\" To this the same remark applies.\n\n\"These money-_eucharists_ and closet _eucharists_ (masses,) have ceased\nin our churches:\" but the eucharist certainly had not ceased.\n\n\"Hence also arose the controversy, whether a _eucharist_ (mass)\nperformed for (not by) a number of persons collectively, was as\nefficacious as a separate _eucharist_ for each individual.\" This\nquestion applies only to the mass proper, and was never mooted about\nthe eucharist.\n\n\"The ancient canons also show, that one of the priests performed or\ncelebrated (halten, celebrare) _eucharist, and administered the\ncommunion to the other priests and deacons.\" [Note 34] This specimen,\nlike the first, would be purely tautological.\n\n5. That the word mass is used in Article XXIV., distinctively for the\nmass, is evident from the fact that the _Romanists so understood_ it,\nand in their answer to the Confession attempt to refute the Protestant\nrejection not of the Lord's Supper, but of the private _masses_, the\ncloset _masses_, and the sacrificial and vicarious nature of the _mass_\nin general whilst they applaud the retention of public mass by the\nReformers, if they would only celebrate it according to canonical\nregulations. We will cite a single passage, out of many that might be\nadduced:--\n\n\"It, is therefore not rejected, nor regarded as wrong, that the\n(Protestant) princes and cities (according to Article XXIV. of their\nConfession, on which they are commenting,) celebrate one common (or\npublic) mass in their churches; if they only performed it properly,\naccording to the holy rule and canonical regulations, as all Catholics\nperform it. But that they (the Protestants) reject all _other_ masses,\ncan neither be tolerated nor suffered by the Christian faith and\nCatholic profession;\" (that is, cannot be allowed by us who profess the\nRoman Catholic religion. [Note 35]) As this Romish Refutation is rarely\nmet with, we add the exact original: \"_Wird demnach nicht verworfen\nnoch fuer unrecht erkannt, dasz die Fuersten und Staedt halten ein\ngemeine Mess in der Kirchen, wann sie solche nur ordentlich und richtig\nnach der heiligen Richtschnur und canonischen Regel hielten und\nthaeten, we es alle Catholischen halten:  Dieweil sie aber alle andere\nMessen abschaffen, das kann der Christlich glaub und Catholische\nProfession und Bekaentnisz weder dulden noch leiden_.\"\n\n6. The same fact is confirmed still further by _the Apology to the\nAugsburg Confession_, written by Melancthon, in reply to the Romish\nRefutation, from which we have just presented an extract. From this it\nis evident that the Papists had correctly understood the Augsburg\nConfession as speaking of the mass properly so called; and that we have\ntherefore also not misunderstood or misrepresented it. Speaking of the\nvery part of the Refutation from which the above passage is cited,\nMelancthon says: \"In the first place, we must state, by way of\nintroduction, that we _do not abolish the mass_. For on every Sunday\nand Festival, _masses_, (Messen) (not Lord's Suppers) are held in our\nchurches, at which the _sacrament_ is administered to those who desire\nit.\" Here evidently mass and the sacrament are two things.\n\n\"Our opponents make a great talk (geschwaetz) about the _Latin_ mass,\nthat is about the Mass which, as is well known, was and is _read_ in\nLatin; but certainly they did not talk about the Latin Lord's Supper.\n\n\"But where do we find the Pharisaic, doctrine written, that the\n_hearing_ of the mass without understanding it, is, ex opere operato,\nmeritorious and saving?\" The term _hearing_ evidently refers to the\nmass, which was read; but what sense would there be in the phrase\n_hearing_ the Lord's Supper?\n\n\"That we do not celebrate private masses, but only a _public mass_\n(eine oeffentliche Messe,) when the people also commune, is not at all\ncontrary to the common (or general) Christian church.\" Here the\n_private_ masses are distinguished from the _public_ mass, and the fact\naffirmed, as clearly as language can convey the idea, that the\n_Reformers did retain and practice_ PUBLIC _mass on sacramental\noccasions_.\" [Note 36]  We might easily adduce a number of other\npassages from this book, but really it seems to be a work of\nsupererogation.\n\nTo this decided declaration of Melancthon, we might add his assertions\non other occasions. Let a single one suffice. In his letter to Margrave\nGeorge, of Brandenburg, on the _private_ mass, he uses this language:\n\"Finally, as your excellence wishes to know what we retain in our\nchurches of the ceremonies of the mass, I would inform your excellence,\nthat the mass is entirely abolished, _except when are persons present_\nwho wish to receive the Lord's Supper;\" [Note 37] that is, we have\nentirely abolished private masses; at which, as it is well known, no\none communed but the priest himself, but retain the _public mass_ at\ncommunion seasons.\n\n_Finally_, to make assurance doubly sure, we will add a similar\ntestimony from Luther himself, in a letter of Counsel to Lazarus\nSpengler, in 1528: \"In the _first place_, let all masses be absolutely\ndispensed with at which there are no communicants present; as they\nproperly ought to be set aside. Secondly, that in the two parish\nchurches (namely, in Nuerenberg, where Spongier resided,) one or two\nmasses should be held on Sabbath and holy days, according as there may\nbe many or few communicants.\" [Note 38]\n\nNow, in this passage, the word mass either means Lord's Supper in\ngeneral or mass in particular. It does not mean the former, because it\nwas something which Luther says had been performed _without any_\ncommunicants being present, but should not be performed hereafter,\nunless there were communicants. Again, he says, that on Sabbath or holy\ndays, when there are communicants present, this mass, which from its\nnature _could_ be and had been performed without communicants, should\nbe performed once or twice. But what sense is there in terming that the\nadministration of the Lord's Supper at which there are no communicants.\nOr in talking about administering one or two Lord's Suppers, as the\nnumber of communicants might be large or small? For ourselves, it is\nimpossible to doubt, that the mass proper is here intended, which was\noften celebrated by the minister alone, and which, at communion\nseasons, was the usual preparation for the communion.\n\n_And now, what is the result of our inquiry?_\n\nWe premised, as conceded by all, that as the word mass among the\nRomanists does now, so it did at the time of the the [sic]\nReformation, and several centuries before, specifically signify a\ncertain service of about an hour's length, consisting of a commixture\nof Scripture passages, long and short prayers, invocations, extracts\nfrom the gospels and epistles, liturgic forms, the forms of\nconsecration of the elements and transubstantiation of them into the\nSaviour's body and blood, with numerous crossings, genuflexions, the\nelevation of the host and especially the self-communion of the priest,\nas an offering of the body of Christ a bloodless sacrifice for the sins\nof the living or dead; all of which was read and done by the _priest\nhimself_ before the altar; and which preceded the sacramental\ncommunion of the congregation, and was the only preparation for the\ncommunion.\n\nWe also admitted, that then, as now, the word mass was sometimes used\nby the Romanists for the sacramental celebration in general, including\nthe mass proper.\n\nThirdly, we assumed as undenied, that the Reformers, having been born\nand educated in the Romish religion till their majority, were\naccustomed to this two-fold use of the term mass.\n\nWe then asserted that the Reformers continued the twofold use of the\nterm, and as its occasional use for the eucharist in general is not\ndisputed, we especially proved that they continued to observe the\ndistinction and to employ it in its _specific sense_, whenever the\nmass proper was spoken of.\n\nWe proved from various letters and other documents of _Luther_, written\nin the year of the Diet, that he makes the distinction and uses the\nterm mass for the above described mass proper.\n\nWe proved from various letters and other articles of _Melancthon_,\nwritten during the session of the Diet, that he employed it in this\nspecific sense.\n\nWe proved that the other Reformers used the word in this specific\nsense, such as Aurifaber, and Spalatin. And finally:\n\nWe proved that the _Romanists_ used it in this sense at the Diet, in\ntheir pretended Refutation of the Augsburg Confession.\n\nThere being no possible doubt of the Reformers using the word mass to\nmean the specific mass, in their other writings at that time; the, only\nremaining question was, whether Melancthon so used it in the disputed\npassages of the Article XXIV. of the Augsburg Confession.\n\nThat he did here employ it, in this specific sense, we proved by the\nfollowing facts: Because he made two different captions or headings for\ntwo different articles, and in the one headed \"Of the Lord's Supper,\"\nhe discusses that subject, and in the other headed \"The Mass,\" he\ndiscusses what is specifically termed mass.\n\nWe proved, that Melancthon and all other translators from the Latin or\nGerman copy, have translated these passages, messa, and _mass_, and not\nAbendmahl, or Lord's Supper, or Eucharist.\n\nWe have proved, that in this very Article XXIV., the mass and sacrament\nare spoken of in the same sentence as different things, being connected\ntogether by the word \"_and_.\"\n\nWe have proved, that if we substitute the Lord's Supper instead of mass\nin this Article, many of the passages will make nonsense.\n\nWe have proved, that the Romanists themselves in their Refutation of\nthe Augsburg Confession, understood this Article XXIV. as speaking of\nthe Mass proper, and censured it for rejecting private masses, _whilst\nit approved of it_ for retaining public masses.\n\n_Finally_, we have proved, that Melancthon, in replying to this Romish\nRefutation, does not charge them with having misunderstood the XXIV.\nArticle; but goes on to refute their arguments, implying that they had\nunderstood him correctly.\n\nIn view of all these facts it is impossible for us to doubt, that the\nword mass in the objected passages of the Article XXIV., signifies the\nmass in its specific sense, and not the Lord's Supper in general: and\nthat when the Reformers affirm in their Confession, that \"they are\nunjustly charged with having abolished the mass\" they meant that they\nretained the mass on sacramental occasions, with the limitations and\naltered explanations of the nature and application of it, specified in\ndifferent parts of the Confession; whilst they freely admitted, that\nthey had rejected private and closet, masses, and indeed all masses,\nexcept on occasions when the sacrament was administered to the people.\nWhat the Romanists considered as the essential doctrine of the mass,\nviz., its being a sacrifice of Christ, offered by the priest, and its\nbeing offered by him for others than himself, either living or dead,\nand its being performed at any other time, or for any other purpose\nthan as a preparative for Sacramental Communion, the Confession\nrejects, but the _outward_ rite itself, on public sacramental occasions,\nit professes to retain: and this being the only charge made in the\n_Platform_ on this subject, we appeal to every candid reader to decide,\nwhether it has not been fully established.\n\nWhether Melancthon and the princes had yielded more in this Confession\nthan Luther approved, and whether any of the alterations confessedly\nmade in the Confession after Luther had approved it, related to this\nArticle, is quite a different question, and cannot affect the meaning\nof the Article itself.  It is not improbable that such was the case;\nbut even the ritual, which Luther prepared in 1523, contained the\ngreater part of the Romish mass, such as the _Introitus_, the _Kyrie\nEleison_, the _Collecta_, or prayer and _epistles, Singing of the\nGradual_, a _Short Sequens_, the _Gospel_, the _Nicene Creed_, and a\nnumber of other matters, not excepting even the _elevation_ of the host,\nbut not for adoration, which latter he retained till [sic]\n_till twelve years after the Diet at Augsburg!_ Yet, even at that time,\nhe had rejected the greater part of the most objectionable portions of\nthe mass. Hence, as the Platform charges the Confession only with\nfavoring the _Ceremonies of the Mass_, the charge is not only sustained,\nbut falls short, of what we have established in the preceding pages: and\nall the vituperation aimed at us by different individuals, who have\nstudied the subject imperfectly, or not at all, we cheerfully forgive,\nconscious that the aim of all we have published on this subject has been\nthe prosperity of the church, and assured that it will be blessed by the\nMaster to this glorious end.\n\n_Reference to the author's former works containing representations_ of\nthis subject.\n\nIn view of these indisputable results of a careful investigation of the\noriginal sources, it may not be amiss to cast a glance at the\nrepresentations of this subject in our former publications during the\nlast quarter of a century, as we have frequently been charged, not\nindeed by the author of the Plea, but by superficial writers, with\nself-contradiction and misrepresentation. It would indeed have been in\nperfect unison with the habit of the best authors of Europe and America,\nto change our opinions as we extended our investigations, and freely to\nprofess such change. Nor should we feel any reluctance in following such\ndistinguished authorities, if we felt that our case required it. But in\nreperusing our former statements, we cannot see that they differ, in any\nmaterial point, from the results of our latest investigations above\ngiven.\n\nIn the Popular Theology, (page 406 of the seventh edition,) first\npublished in 1834, speaking of the article of the Augsburg Confession on\nthe Mass, we find the following:--\"On this subject, (the mass,) the\nlanguage of the Confession was less condemnatory, than that which they\nsoon after employed. In the Smalcald Articles, which were published\nseven years after this Confession, in 1537, Luther declares the Papal\nmass to be a most momentous and abominable corruption; because it\nmilitates directly and powerfully against the fundamental doctrine,\n(justification by faith in Jesus Christ.\") We then add several extracts\nfrom the Augsburg Confession, showing that the confessors rejected the\n_sacrificial_ and _vicarious_ nature of the mass, as well as other\nobjectionable features of it. Now here we find the same two positions\ntaken, which the preceding discussions of this chapter have established,\nnamely, that the Confession is less condemnatory than the later Smalcald\nArticles; that it favors the mass more, and speaks of it in milder\nlanguage than was employed at a subsequent period. As no one of any note\nat that day pretended to urge the adoption of the entire Augsburg\nConfession, much less of all the symbolical books, there was no\nnecessity of dilating on the objectionable features of the Confession,\nand we of course abstain from doing so. In this silence we would have\npersevered to this day, had not a new generation of European symbolists\nsince then sought refuge on our shores, and carried on aggressive\noperations, incessantly assailing the General Synod and her members, and\ncharging them with unfaithfulness to Confessions which they never\nadopted, except as to fundamentals; thus compelling us to expose these\nremnants of Romish error which they certainly do contain.\n\nWhen, we turn to our _History of the American Lutheran Church_,\npublished in 1852, we find on pages 240, 241, the following statement:--\n\"The mass, that is, _the name and some of the ceremonies_ of the Romish\nmass, were retained in the Augsburg Confession; although the errors in\ndoctrine, by which the Romish mass grew out of the Scripture doctrine\nof the Lord's Supper, were rejected in that as well as subsequent\nsymbols.\" \"Our churches,\" (says the Augsburg Confession, Art. XXIV.)\n\"are _unjustly_ charged with having rejected the mass, (messe.) For it\nis publicly known that the mass is celebrated amongst us with greater\ndevotion and earnestness, than amongst our opponents.\" \"Nor has there\nbeen any perceptible change made in the public ceremonies of the mass,\nexcept that at several places _German_ hymns are sung along with the\n_Latin_ ones.\" \"Our custom is on holy days (and at other times also, _if\nthere be communicants_) to _say mass_, (not to say a Lord's Supper,) and\nthose who desire it, receive the Lord's Supper.\" Subsequently, however,\ngreat changes were made in the public ceremonies attendant on the Lord's\nSupper, and Luther in his Smalcald Articles rejects the mass entirely,\nboth the name and accompanying ceremonies. And soon after the whole\nLutheran church followed him. Still, if the Augsburg Confession were\n_strictly binding on us_, we should be under the necessity of adopting\non sacramental occasions all the public ceremonies then and now usual in\nthe Romish Church in celebrating public mass.\" Here again we see the\nfollowing points, which were clearly proved above: 1. That the Augsburg\nConfession denies having rejected the mass. 2. That she does reject\nthose doctrinal errors which gave rise to the Romish mass. 3. That it\nwas their custom on public occasions (when persons were present who\ndesired to commune) to say a mass, and then administer the sacrament to\nthem. 4. That the Confession explicitly asserts that \"_no perceptible\nchange_\" had been made in the public ceremonies of the mass, except the\nintroduction of German hymns along with the Latin ones in several\nplaces. Hence the inference would necessarily follow, that if they had\nmade no perceptible change in the public ceremonies of the mass, we\ncould make none, if the Confession was _strictly binding_ on us: and as\nthe ceremonies of the Romish mass are the same now as then, the\nceremonies which the Confession prescribes are the same as those now\nobserved in the church, and if we obeyed the Confession, we should have\nto perform the same without any \"_perceptible_\" difference, except the\naddition of German hymns along with the Latin, which were at that time\nused in the Lutheran Church. These, Luther for sometime himself\ndefended, as it is certain he did the elevation of the host, (but not\nfor adoration,) till 1542, more than _twenty years_ after he commenced\nthe Reformation. Those who object to these statements confound the\nteachings of the Confession with the _subsequent practice of Luther and\nthe churches_; yea, it has appeared to us, in the course of our recent\nexaminations on these subjects, that the Augsburg Confession was not\neven up to the progress of reform attained by churches at that day, and\nthis may be one reason why Luther told Melancthon he had yielded too\nmuch to the Papists in the Confession. In our Lutheran Manual, we have\nsimply presented the article of the Confession in full, in\njuxtaposition with the Smalcald Article, treating of the same subject;\nand have done so without note or comment, except the remark, that the\nlatter refutes the tolerant views of the mass expressed in the former.\nWe can, therefore, see no inconsistency between what we have published\non this subject at distant intervals, certainly much less than might\nhave occurred to the most careful and conscientious writer, on a\nsubject so closely connected with the fluctuations of language.\nDoubtless, by taking detached portions of a paragraph apart from the\nlimitations connected with them, and falsely imputing sinister motives\nto almost every sentence, it in possible to make the most correct author\ncontradict himself and misrepresent his subject; but with such men,\nwhether their misrepresentations arise from deliberate design or\ninveterate general habit, we cannot consent to debate. The injury done\nis rather to the cause of Christ and of truth than ourselves, and we can\nwell afford to commit the case for adjudication to that Omniscient\nBeing, \"who judgeth righteously.\"\n\nNote 1. See Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxi, pp. 447, 448.\n\nNote 2. See Luther's letter to Prince George in his Works, Vol. xxi.,\np. 430.\n\nNote 3. Vol. iii., p. 114.\n\nNote 4. See Murdock, Edition of Moshiem's History, Vol. iii, page 53,\nHarper's edition.\n\nNote 5. Fuhrmann's Lexicon, Vol. iii., p. 3.\n\nNote 6. Siegel's Manual, Vol. iii., p. 362.\n\nNote 7. Ibid, p. 366.\n\nNote 8. Ibid, p. 375.\n\nNote 9. Luther's Works, Vol. xxii., p. 233-37.\n\nNote 10. Ibid, p. 237.\n\nNote 11. Ibid, p. 240.\n\nNote 12. Ibid. p. 338.\n\nNote 13. Luther's Works, Vol. xix., p. 666.\n\nNote 14. Ibid., Vol. xx., p. 3.\n\nNote 15. Luther's Works, Vol. xx., p. 195.\n\nNote 16. Ibid., p. 257.\n\nNote 17. Luther's Works, Vol. xxi., p. 63.\n\nNote 18. The edition from which all our translations of Melancthon's\nLetters are made is that of Niemeyer, published at Halle, in 1830,\nentitled Philip Melancthon in Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession.\n\nNote 19. Niemeyer's Melancthon, pp. 41-43.\n\nNote 20. Ibid., p. 56.\n\nNote 21. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 71.\n\nNote 22. Niemeyer's Melancthon, p. 76.\n\nNote 23. Niemeyer, p. 90, 91.\n\nNote 24. Koethe's Melancthon's Works, Vol. I., p. 263.\n\nNote 25. Ibid., p. 265.\n\nNote 26. Ibid., p. 267.\n\nNote 27. Luther's Works, Vol. XX., p. 199.\n\nNote 28. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, second edit., p. 1045.\n\nNote 29. Ibid. p. 1048.\n\nNote 30. Pfeiffer's Aug. Appel., second edit., p. 1050.\n\nNote 31. See the Lutheran Manual, p. 288, and Muller's Symb. Bucher,\np. 51.\n\nNote 32. See Lutheran Manual, p. 289.\n\nNote 33. Plea, &c., p. 15.\n\nNote 34. Lutheran Manual, pp. 288, 289, and Muller's Symb. pp. 51, 52,\n53.\n\nNote 35. Pfeiffer's Augapfel, 2d ed., p. 1045.\n\nNote 36. Mueller's Symb. Books, pp. 248, 249.\n\nNote 37. Koethe's Melancthon's Werke, Vol. i., p. 250.\n\nNote 38. Luther's Works, Leipsic ed., Vol. xxii., p. 338.\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\nOF PRIVATE CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.\n\nThis rite, in any sense of the term, that can be given to it in the\nAugsburg Confession and other former symbols of the Lutheran church,\nhas long since been abandoned throughout our church in Europe,\nexcepting in that small portion of German churches, known as Old\nLutherans, and among those foreigners in the west of our country, who\nconstitute the Missouri Synod. It is historically unjust to apply the\nterm _private_ confession to that public confession of sins, made by\nthe congregation collectively, as part of our preparatory exercises\non sacramental occasions, and usually a misnomer to apply the name\nprivate confession, to the habit of some of our German ministers,\n(termed Anmeldung,) of having all communicants call on them for\nconversation on their spiritual state, prior to sacramental communion.\nAlthough these customs both grew out of private confession properly so\ncalled, neither of them retains its essential elements.\n\nLet us first inquire _what does the Augsburg Confession mean by the\nphrase Private Confession_. Among the Romanists, _Auricular_\nConfession is that rite, in which every individual of both sexes must,\nat least once a year, appear before the priest at the confession box\nin the church or chapel, and confess in detail all the sins that he\ncan recollect; after which, the priest assigns the penitent some acts\nof penance, and on his promising to perform them, he then, as in the\nstead of God, professes to forgive him his sins. The Reformers, however,\ndistinctly rejected the necessity of the penitents enumerating his\nindividual sins, and the propriety of the minister's prescribing any\npenance to the penitent. They also distinctly made confession optional\nwith the penitent, and the absolution dependent on his faith; and this\npurified rite they termed _Private_ Confession, although in some parts\nof the church it was still called Auricular Confession (Ohrenbeicht).\n[Note 1] The manner in which this rite was performed in the Lutheran\nChurch, is thus described by _Funk_ in his work entitled\n\"Kirchenordnungen of the first century of the Lutheran Church in\nGermany,\" in which he presents the results of thirty of the _oldest_\nLutheran Formulas of Church Discipline and Worship. \"Absolution was\nreceived _privately_, by each one _individually, kneeling_ before the\n_confessional_, the confessor _imposing his hands_ at the time. Private\nconfession was given only _in the church_, in which the confessional\nwas so located _near the pulpit_, that _no other person could be near,\nor hear what was said_ by the penitent.\" [Note 2]\n\nBut\n\nI. What does the Platform teach in regard to _this Private Confession?_\nThe Platform teaches, 1. That it was retained by the Augsburg\nConfession and other symbolical books. 2. It is objected to by the\nPlatform, as unauthorized by the Word of God. 3. And thirdly, as being\ninconsistent with the fundamental doctrine of the Reformation, that\n_faith it the only condition_ of the justification or pardon of the\nsinner.\n\nII. What does the Plea object to these positions?\n\n1. That the impression might be made by the Platform, that the Lutheran\ndoctrine has some affinity to the Romish doctrine of Auricular\nConfession. But the Platform expressly states the rejection of\n_Auricular_ Confession by the Reformers, and their retention of what\nthey called private confession in its stead, the latter differing from\nthe former as above stated. The Plea next introduces a formula of\nabsolution, used in Wittenberg, in 1559, to show the harmlessness of the\nrite. But here, unfortunately, if we are not entirely mistaken, our\nfriend has overlooked the fact, that it is a formula for _public_, and\n_not private_ confession which he cites. This is certain from the\nlanguage throughout, being addressed \"_to all such as are here\npresent_,\" &c. It is well known that _private_ confession was rejected\nin the Lutheran Church in Denmark and Sweden in the beginning, as well\nas by different portions of Germany at an early day, and a public or\ngeneral confession adopted in its stead. In Luther's Short Directory\nfor Confession, &c., [[Note 3] tr. note: there is no note number in the\noriginal to go with the corresponding footnote, but this appears to be\nwhere it should go] we have his formula for _private_ or individual\nabsolution, which will convey to the reader a more correct idea of its\nform: After the directions for confession of sins; the\n\nConfessor says: \"_God be merciful to thee and strengthen thy faith.\nAmen_.\"\n\n\"_Dost thou believe that my remission of thy sins is God's remission?_\n\nAnswer of the penitent: \"_Yes, dear sir, I do_.\"\n\nThen the confessor says: \"_According to thy faith, so be it unto thee.\nAnd I, by command of our Lord Jesus  Christ, forgive thee thy sins, in\nthe name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen. Depart in\npeace_.\"\n\nAnother specimen of private absolution we find in the Kirchenordnung,\n[Note 4] or Church Directory of Count _Wolfgang_, of the Palatinate,\non the Rhine, &c., published in Nuernberg, 1557.\n\n\"The Almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be gracious\nand merciful to thee, and will pardon all thy sins, for the sake of his\ndear Son Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for them. And in the name\nof this, our Lord Jesus Christ, by his command, and in virtue of his\ndeclaration, 'Whose sins ye remit they am remitted,' &c., _I pronounce\nthee free and clear of all thy sins_, that they shall all be forgiven\nthee, as certainly and completely, as Jesus Christ by his sufferings and\ndeath merited the same, and in his gospel has commanded it to be\npreached to all the world. Receive, therefore, this consoling promise,\nwhich I have now made to thee in the name of the Lord Christ, let thy\nconscience be at rest, and do thou confidently believe, that thy sins\nare assuredly forgiven thee, for Christ's sake, in the name of the\nFather, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.\"\n\n2. The Plea affirms, that private confession may be useful as a means\nof bringing the, members of the church into personal interview with\ntheir pastor. The advantage of such interviews we freely admit; but\nthey can be and are secured in our churches without this rite; and as\nit is confessedly destitute of Scripture authority, we have no right to\ninvent a _new ordinance_ in Christ's church for any purpose.\n\n3. The Plea maintains that explanation of \"the power of the Keys,\"\nwhich authorizes a minister to pronounces absolution of sins, and\nappeals to Matth. xviii. 18, \"Whatsoever ye shall bind one arth,\" [sic]\n&c. But the previous context \"tell it to the _church_\" &c., clearly\nshows that it refers to church discipline, and signifies \"whatever acts\nof discipline ye enact in regard to such an individual, I will ratify in\nheaven.\" But this has no bearing on private confession and absolution.\nThe other passage from John, xx. 23, \"Whosoever's sins ye remit,\" &c.,\nwas uttered on a different occasion, after the Saviour's resurrection;\nand either refers to a miraculous power bestowed on the apostles, to\ndiscern the condition of the heart, and to announce pardon to those\nwhom they knew to be truly penitent and believing; or it confers on the\nministry, in all ages, the power to announce _in general_ the\nconditions on which God will pardon sinners. But it contains no\nauthority to uninspired ministers to apply these promises to\nindividuals, the condition of whose hearts they cannot know, as is done\nin private absolution.\n\nIII. We therefore feel constrained to maintain the positions of the\nPlatform on this subject also.\n\n1. _That private confession and absolution were inculcated by the\nAugsburg Confession_, is so evident, that it cannot be successfully\ndenied. Nor is this done only in the Abuses Corrected, as the Plea\nseems to suppose, p. 20. In Art. XI. of the Confession, we read: \"In\nregard to confession, they teach, _that private absolution ought to be\nretained in the church;_ but that an enumeration of all our\ntransgressions is not requisite to confession.\"\n\nIn the _Apology [Note 5] to the Confession_, Melancthon employs this\nlanguage: \"Wherefore it would be _impious_ to take away private\nabsolution from the church.\" (Quare impium esset, &c.) _Luther_, in the\nSmalcald Articles, Art. VIII., says, confession and absolution ought _by\nno means_ be abolished in the church, &c., (Nequaquam in ecclesia\nconfessio et absolutio abolenda est, &c.;) and he is speaking of\n_private_ confession.\n\nThe Romish alleged Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, on the above\ncited Art. XI., thus expresses its approbation: \"This article (Art.\nXI.) that private and special absolution should remain, and be\npreserved in the churches is _Catholic_. Yet two things must be required\nof them, (of the Reformers,) that both men and women should attend\nconfession at least once a year, &c.; secondly, to confess all the sins\nyou _can_ recollect.\" [Note 6]\n\n_Dr. Plank_, in his celebrated and elaborate History of the Origin and\nChanges of the Protestant Doctrinal System, [Note 7] speaking of the\nnegotiations between the Reformers and Papists during the Diet of\nAugsburg, says, \"On the subject of the Confessional _there was an entire\nagreement_, for they (the Reformers) had declared that they regarded\nConfession as a very useful institution, and had no idea of suffering it\nto fall, and also regarded it as good, that the people should be\naccustomed to confess their sins,\" viz., at the confessional.\n\n_Siegel_, in his Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities,\n[Note 8] after stating that Luther rejected _Auricular_ Confession, as a\nsacrament, and a means of oppressing the conscience, adds: \"But, on the\nother hand, Luther was as unwilling as Melancthon, to have _private\nconfession_ abolished, and the latter had, in his Loci Theologici,\npronounced private absolution to be as necessary as baptism.\" In regard\nto confession in the Lutheran Church of Germany, the fact is, that\nprivate confession, which the Reformers so earnestly recommended, is\nalmost entirely abandoned and changed into a general (and public)\nconfession, which may with more propriety be termed preparatory services\nto the Lord's Supper.\"\n\nFinally, we will add the testimony of only one more witness, _Prof.\nJacobson_, in the excellent _Theological Encyclopedia of Dr. Herzog_,\nnow in progress of publication in Germany, who says, \"Whilst the\ncompulsory part of the institution (private confession,) fell to the\nground, each one was left to judge whether and how much he would\nconfess. The institution itself _was retained_, and _private\nconfession_ especially recommended. The Augsburg Confession presupposes\nit (private confession,) _as the rule:_\" Our custom is not to give the\nsacrament to those who have not first been confessed and absolved;\" and\nthe Smalcald articles [sic] teach that Confession and\nAbsolution must by no means be allowed to be omitted in the church.\"\n[Note 9]\n\nAfter all this testimony, it may be regarded as incontestably\nestablished, that the former symbolical books of our church do teach\n_private confession_ and absolution, with some modifications, and\nhence, that the church in Sweden and Denmark _always rejected this part\nof the Augsburg Confession_, in practice, and that the entire church in\nGermany and the United States, which now use a _public_ confession,\nhave made a similar departure from the teachings of the Augsburg\nConfession as well as of Luther, Melancthon and the other Lutheran\nreformers.\n\n2. That _this rite of private confession, is unauthorized by any\ncommand of the Word of God, in so clear, that the Symbolical books\nthemselves admit it_, and commend the rite merely on the ground of\nhuman expediency, and inferential scriptural reasoning. The same\nacknowledgment is made by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann. In Art. XXVI.\nof Augsburg Confession, being Topic V. of the Abuses Corrected, the\nconfession says: \"Confession is _not commanded in Scripture_, but has\nbeen instituted _by the church_.\" [Note 10]\n\n3. The rite of _private absolution_, on which the Reformers lay much\nstress, is in like manner destitute of scriptural authority, and most\ninjurious to the interests of spiritual religion. The _omniscient_\nSaviour could well say to the sick of the palsy, \"Son, be of good cheer,\nthy sins be forgiven thee,\" Matt. ix. 2; for he knew the heart of man.\n\nFor the same reason he could say to Mary Magdalene, \"Thy sins are\nforgiven.\" Luke vii. 48.\n\nBut, even the inspired apostles never in a single instance, either\nundertook to forgive sins themselves, or to announce the pardon of sin\nto any _individual personally_. It is therefore a solemn thing for\nministers, unguided by inspiration, to assume greater power. To\nproclaim publicly and privately the willingness of God to pardon the\nimpenitent, is an important and delighful [sic] part of the minister's\nduty; but for uninspired men to institute a special rite in the church,\nfor the express purpose of announcing _pardon to individuals_, even when\ndone conditionally, as the reformers maintained it always should be, is\ninevitably calculated to lead, especially the less intelligent, to\nbelieve their sins forgiven, at least in part, because the ministers\nannounce the fact, and because they have professed penitence to him.\nBut this is wholly unauthorised in God's Word. On the contrary:--\n\n(_a_) The Scriptures throughout represent _God_, and _the Lamb of God_,\nas the only beings that can \"forgive\" and \"take away\" sin. Exod. xxxiv.\n6, 7. The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed, \"The Lord God,\nmerciful--_forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin_.\"\n\nThe blessed Saviour, in his memorable prayer, teaches us to address\nour supplication, not to the minister, but to our _heavenly Father_,\n\"forgive us our sins,\" &c., Luke xi. 4. He says nothing, nor does any\nwriter of the Old or New Testament _say a word_ about advising a resort\nto the priest or minister to obtain forgiveness of sins. The same truth\nis taught in a multitude of other passages. We refer the reader to a\nfew: Eph. iv. 32; Acts viii. 22; 1 John i. 9; Matth. ix. 6; Mark xi. 25;\n1 Kings viii. 30; 2 Chron. vii. 14; Psalm lxxxvi. 5; Jerem. xxxi. 34;\nDan. ix. 19.\n\n(_b_) The very fact, that sin is committed essentially _against God_,\nis a violation of _his_ law, implies that no other being, not even an\nangel or archangel, much less a man, can forgive it, \"Against thee,\nthee only have I sinned,\" said the Psalmist, \"and done this evil in\nthy sight.\"\n\n(_c_)  The offers of pardon in God's Word, are all _conditional_ and\n_general_, and these alone has the minister the right to proclaim,\neither to a congregation or to an individual. The implication of the\npromise to individuals is made by the Holy Spirit, working faith in the\nindividual, or enabling him to trust in Christ. \"Being justified by\nfaith, we have peace with God,\" and this peace is the believer's\nevidence, is the Testimony of the Spirit, that our sins are forgiven.\n\n(_d_) The actual pardon of individuals by God, depends on their\npossessing the moral fitness required by him. It is based on their\nhaving performed the prescribed moral conditions sincerely, of which\nnone but the Omniscient Jehovah can certainly judge; hence, even the\ndeclarative annunciation of pardon to individuals, is not only\nunauthorized but dangerous. Because, even if conditionally announced,\nthe formality of the absolution, and the fact that the church has made\na _special rite_ of it, are calculated to beget the idea, especially in\nthe unintelligent, that the granting of absolutions by the minister, is\nproof of the genuineness of their faith, and reality of their pardon.\n\n(_e_) Finally, the doctrine of ministerial absolution, or the supposed\nsin-forgiving power of the ministry, is inconsistent with the doctrine,\nthat justification or pardon can be attained only by a living faith in\nJesus Christ, a doctrine of cardinal importance in the eyes of the\nReformers, and the one which Luther has styled the _articulus stantis\nvel cadentis ecclesiae_, the doctrine with which the church must stand\nor fall.\" The Scriptures and also the Reformers, teach that pardon or\njustification can be obtained only through the merits of Christ, which\nmerits must be apprehended by a living faith, which living faith can be\nfound only in the regenerate or converted soul. Hence, as none but a\nregenerate sinner can exercise living faith, no other can be pardoned,\nwhatever else he may do or possess. Now those who attend confession are\neither regenerate, or they are not. If they were regenerated or\nconverted before they went to confession, they had faith, and were\npardoned before; if they were unregenerate or unconverted, then neither\ntheir confession, nor the priest's absolution, can confer pardon on\nthem, because they have not a living faith, although they may be\nsincere and exercise some sorrow for their sins. On the other hand, if\nany amount of seriousness and penitence, short of true conversion or\nregeneration, could, through the confessional, or any other rite,\nconfer pardon of sin; the line of distinction between converted and\nunconverted, between mere formalists and true Christians would be\nobliterated; we should have pardoned saints and pardoned sinners in the\nchurch, converted and unconverted heirs of the promise, believing and\nunbelieving subjects of justification, and the words of the Lord Jesus\nwould prove a lie, \"That, _unless a man be born again, he cannot enter\nthe kingdom of heaven!_\"-Def. Platform, p. 25.\n\nOn the subject of this rite, we regret to state, that a more careful\nstudy of the subject, as presented in the above results, will not\npermit us to speak as favorably of the practice of the Reformers, as we\ndid in some of our former publications, twenty years ago, and even\nlater. The positions above maintained, we think, cannot be successfully\ncontroverted, as our investigations of the original sources has been\nsufficiently extensive to dispel all doubt.\n\nNote 1. See Koecher, p. 515.\n\nNote 2. Funk's Kirchenordnungen, pp. 189, 190.\n\nNote 3. Mueller's Symb. B., p. 364.\n\nNote 4. Page 97.\n\nNote 5. Mueller's Symb. B., p. 185.\n\nNote 6. Pleiffer, p. 534. [sic]\n\nNote 7. Vol. iii. pt. 1, p. 125.\n\nNote 8. Vol. i., pp. 199, 206.\n\nNote 9. Vol. iv., p. 781.\n\nNote 10. Lutheran Manual, p. 293.\n\n\nCHAPTER  VII.\nDENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN SABBATH.\n\nThe incalculable importance of the proper observation of the Christian\nSabbath to the progress of the kingdom of Christ in general, and to\nthe growth of piety in the heart of every Christian in particular, is\na point on which, we are happy to state, there is no difference between\nthe Plea and the Platform. Yet we cannot resist the conviction, that in\nour efforts to observe this day, not with the pharisaic formalities of\nthe Jew, but with the conscientious spirituality of the Christian, the\nquestion whether in doing so, we are obeying an injunction of God,\nexhibited in the inspired example of his apostles, or are merely\nconforming to an uninspired regulation of the church, must be of great\nimportance.\n\nThe lax views of the early reformers on this subject are so frequently\nmet with in theological discussions, that we had not expected to find\nthe position of the Platform disputed; but rather that the theory of\nthe Reformers would be defended, as is done by writers of no mean name\nin Germany at the present day. The author of the Plea, however, takes a\ndifferent view of the Confession, and affirms that this venerable\ndocument does not deny the divine institution and obligation of the\nChristian Sabbath. \"Luther and Melancthon (says he,) had received from\nthe older church, the doctrine and practice of the Christian Sabbath,\nas a holy day, as a divine institution and obligation, and they had not\na word to say against this view of the Sabbath. But they had a great\ndeal to say against the abuses, by which the bishops made the Sabbath a\nday of sin and dishonor to God and his church, instead of making it a\nday devoted to his glory,\" p. 28.\n\nThis opinion is different from that commonly entertained among the\nlearned. A few authorities alone may suffice to sustain our statement.\n_Dr Ruecker_, in his work on _The Lord's Day_, in which he thoroughly\nexamines the views of the church on this subject, in all the different\nages of her history, fully confirms the position of the Definite\nPlatform. He says, \"_The Reformers do not recognize in the religious\nobservance of Sunday an institution resting on an immediate divine\ncommand;_ and the idea of a transfer of the Sabbatic law of the Old to\nthe New Testament Sunday, is altogether strange to them, and is\npositively rejected by them, as in consistent with the gospel\" (Die\nReformatorem erkennen in der Sonntagsfeier _keine unmittelbar\ngoettliche anordnung, &c._) Ruckert, von Tage des Herrn, p. 48.\n\nAnd again, on p. 67, he affirms this more liberal view of the Lord's\nDay, to be the more general one in Germany at the present time. \"So\nfar,\" says he, \"as we know, the most important, living, theological\nwriters, of the present day, entertain this so-called more liberal or\nlax view, (namely, that of Luther.)\"\n\n_Dr. Hengstenberg_, the well-known editor of the Evangelical Church\nPaper at Berlin, Prussia, and author of numerous learned and valuable\nworks, uses the following language: \"What Luther's views were, on the\nlaw concerning the Sabbath, may easily be inferred from his views of\nthe Old Testament law in general, and of the Decalogue in particular.\nThe distinction which became current after his day, between the moral\nand ceremonial law, according to which Christ abrogated only the\nlatter, whilst the former is regarded as universal and binding on all\nages, was distant from his views. He regards the whole law as an\nexternal, coercive letter, designed only for the Jews.\" \"How _Luther_\nregarded the Sabbath from this general view, is so clearly exhibited in\nhis Larger Catechism, that the introduction of other passages from his\nwritings, is entirely superfluous.\" He then quotes the passages which\nwill be given in full in our next section, in which Luther declares the\nSabbath to be designed only for the Jews, and that in its outward sense\nit does not concern Christians. (Darum, says Luther, gehet nun dies\ngebot nach dem groben Verstande uns Christen nichts an, &c.) Melancthon\n(continues Hengstenberg,) agreed with Luther, and this view was\nintroduced into the Augsburg Confession.\" See Hengstenberg, ueber den\nTag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 108, 109, 110.\n\nBut the accuracy of the Platform will no longer be disputed, when even\n_Dr. Walter_, [sic; should be Walther] the leader of the old Lutheran\nSynod of Missouri, and editor of their periodical, a man of acknowledged\ntheological learning and rigid advocate for the entire Augsburg\nConfession, bears testimony in favor of our position. In the March No.\nof the Lehre und Wehre, p. 93, he thus expresses his views: \"We cannot\nagree with him (the author, whom he is reviewing) in the views he\nexpresses concerning the Sabbath. He asserts that the Sabbath or\nChristian Sunday _is a divine institution_, and that this is the\ndoctrine of the Lutheran Symbols: That the Lutheran Church differs from\nthe Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the former\nadvocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method. _The contrary of\nthis is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. of the Augsburg\nConfession_, and it would be _almost incomprehensible how the author\ncould fail to perceive this_, were it not for his manifest desire to\nmake the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any other\nprecept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not be\naccomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointment\nof the Sunday.\n\nOnce more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of that\nlearned and impartial historian of our own country, _Dr. Murdock_,\nhimself, though a native American, a highly respectable German scholar:\n\"The XXVIII. Article of Augsburg Confession,\" says he, \"teaches that as\nto Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishops\nmay and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and the\npeople should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conducive\nto good order and edification.\"  Murdock's Mosheim, Vol. iii., p. 53,\nHarper's edition.\n\nI. _What is the charge of the Definite Platform against the Augsburg\nConfession on this subject?_ It is, that\n\nThe Augsburg Confession \"treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish\ninstitution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety\nof our retaining the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of\nreligious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the\nchurches for the convenience of general convocation.\n\nII. What ground does the Plea take?\n\nIt denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, while\nit supposes the Confession to object not to the divine institution and\nobligation of the Lord's Day, but to the corruptions which the Romish\nchurch had connected with it, and especially the idea that the\nobservance of the Lord's Day was a meritorious work, which would secure\nour justification before God.\n\nThe observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of the\nSabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of the\nPlatform. The author also intersperses other useful practical remarks,\nwhich we have not have room to quote. The simple point of difference,\nof any moment, is that relating to the question whether our obligation\nto observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by God or by\nthe church. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains,\nfor the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtually\nacknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says: \"The\nAugsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite assertion that the\nChristian Sabbath rests on _no special dictate of the Word of God_,\nmaintains that by necessity, and by right, the _church_ instituted our\nChristian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it.\" P. 34. To this we shall\nconfine our proof.\n\nIII. _We shall prove that the Augsburg Confession does deny the divine\nappointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day_.\n\nIn establishing this position, we shall first prove from the other\nwritings of Luther and Melancthon, that they both rejected the divine\nappointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day; secondly, show from\nthe Augsburg Confession itself, as well as the Apology to it, both\nwritten by Melancthon, that its divine appointment is there denied.\n\nLet us listen to the _declarations of Luther_ on this subject. In his\nCommentary on the Pentateuch, speaking of the decalogue, he says:\n\"Saint Paul and the entire New Testament have abolished the Sabbath of\nthe Jews, in order that men may understand that the Sabbath concerns\nthe Jews alone. It is therefore unnecesssary [sic] that the Gentiles\nshould observe the Sabbath, although it was a great and rigid command\namong the Jews.\" [Note 1] \"Among Christians, under the New Testament,\nevery day is a holy day, and _all days are free_. Therefore, says\nChrist, the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. Matt. xii. 8.\nTherefore Paul, at different places, admonishes the Christians, not to\nsuffer themselves to be bound to any particular day. Ye observe days and\nmonths, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed\nupon you labor in vain. Gal. iv. 10, 11. And still more clearly in\nColossians ii. 16, 17. Let no mint therefore judge you in meat or in\ndrink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbath\ndays: which are a shadow of things to come.\" \"But although the Sabbath\nis _now revoked_, and the consciences of men are free from it, it is\nnevertheless good and necessary that _some_ particular day of the week\nbe observed, in order that the word of God may be dispensed on it, may\nbe heard and learned; for not every one can attend to it every day.\nMoreover, nature demands that both man and beast rest one day in the\nweek, and abstain from labor. Hence, if any one desires to make a\nnecessary command out of the Sabbath, as a work required of God, he must\nobserve Saturday and not Sunday, for Saturday was enjoined upon the\nJews, and not Sunday. But Christians have hitherto observed Sunday, and\nnot Saturday, because on that day Christ, arose. Now this is a certain\nevidence to us that the Sabbath, yea the entire Moses (Mosaic\ndispensation) no longer concerns us, else we would be under obligation\nto observe Saturday. This is a great and strong proof that the Sabbath\nis revoked; for throughout the whole New Testament we find no place in\nwhich the observance of the Sabbath in enjoined upon Christians.\"\n\n\"But why (continues Luther,) is Sunday observed among Christians?\nAlthough, _all days are free and one day is like another_, it is still\nnecessary and good, yea, very necessary, that some one day be observed,\n_whether it be Sabbath, Sunday or any other day_. For God designs to\nlead the world decently, and govern it peaceably; therefore he gave six\ndays for work, but on the seventh day, servants, hirelings, and\nlaborers of every kind, yea, even horses and oxen and other laboring\nanimals shall have rest, as this precept requires, in order that they\nmay be refreshed by rest. And especially in order that those, who at\nother times have no leisure, may hear the preached word and thereby\nlearn to know God. And for this reason, namely, of love and necessity,\nSunday has been retained, not on account of the Mosaic precept, but for\nthe sake of our necessities in order that we might rest and learn the\nword of God.\" [Note 2]\n\nIn his larger Catechism, Luther thus expresses himself. [Note 3]\n\n\"_This commandment, therefore, with respect to its outward and literal\nsense, does not concern us Christians; for it is wholly an external\nthing, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, confined to certain\nconditions, and places, which are all now left free through Christ_.\nBut in order that we may draw up for the uninformed, a Christian\nmeaning of what God requires of us in this commandment, is is necessary\nto observe, that _we keep the Sabbath-day, not for the sake of\nintelligent and learned (gelehrten) Christians; for these have no need\nof it:_ but in the first place, on account, of physical reasons and\nnecessities, which nature teaches and requires for the _common mass_ of\npeople, _men-servants_ and _maid-servants_, who attend during the whole\nweek to _their labor and employments_, so that they may also have a day\nset apart for _rest and refreshment (erquicken:_) in the second, mostly\nfor the purpose of enabling us to take time and opportunity on these\nSabbath-days, (since we cannot otherwise attain them,) to attend _to\ndivine service_, so that we may assemble ourselves to hear and treat of\nthe Word of God, and then to praise him, to sing and pray to him.\n\n\"But this, I say, is not so confined to time, _as ii was among the Jews,\nthat it must be precisely on this or that day; for one day is not\nbetter in itself than another, but it should be daily attended to;_ but\nsince the mass of the people cannot attend to it, we should _reserve\none day in the week, at least, for this purpose_. Inasmuch, however, as\nSunday has been _set apart from of old_ for this purpose, we should\ntherefore let it remain so, that the Sabbath may be observed with\n_uniformity_, and that no one create disorder through unnecessary\ninnovation.\"\n\nThe above testimony of Luther is so distinct and decided, that he\ncertainly would not have approved of the Augsburg Confession if\nMelancthon had introduced a different doctrine into it. But there was\nno difference of opinion on this point, between these two luminaries of\nthe church.\n\n2. _Melancthon_, in a letter addressed to Luther from Augsburg, dated\nJuly 27, 1530, thus speaks of the Christian Sabbath: \"When St. Peter\nappoints the religious observance of Sunday, I regard this work (the\nobservance of the day) _not as divine worship_, (Gottesdienst, cultus,)\nbut as being attended by bodily advantage, (leiblichen Nutzen,) if the\npeople assemble together on a fixed day.\" [Note 4]\n\nAgain, in his _System of Divinity_, or _Loci Theologici_,\" [Note 5] we\nfind the following unequivocal declaration: \"We have, heard above that\nthe Levitical _ceremonies_ are abolished. But the law concerning the\nSabbath is a Levitical ceremony, and _St. Paul_ expressly says,\nCol. ii., Let no one judge you, if you do not observe the Sabbaths,\"\n(Niemend [sic] soll euch richten, so ihr die Sabbathe nicht haltet;) why\nthen (it may be asked) do you insist so rigidly on this precept? Answer.\nThis precept in the words of Moses embraces two things, one _common_,\nthat is necessary to the church at all times, and a _particular day_,\nwhich concerned only the government of Israel. The _common_ part (of\nthis precept) is the proper public office (or duty) to preach and to\nobserve the divine ceremonies, which God has at any time enjoyed. This\n_common_ precept binds all men; for this honor all rational creatures\nowe to God, to aid in sustaining the office of preacher, and Christian\nassemblies, (public worship,) according to the condition and calling of\neach one, as shall be farther stated hereafter. _But the particular\npart, concerning the seventh day_, DOES NOT BIND US: therefore we hold\nmeetings on the _first day and on any other days_ of the week, _as\noccasion offers_.\"\n\nSuch then being the views of the illustrious reformers, one of whom\npenned the Augsburg Confession, and the other sanctioned it, we might\nnaturally expect to find them expressed in the Confession itself, which\na bare recital of a few passages, will prove to be the case.\n\nAnd, I. From the _Augsburg Confession_, Art. XXVIII.\n\n\"And what are we to believe concerning _Sunday_  (the Lord's day,) and\nother similar ordinances and ceremonies of the church? To this inquiry\nwe reply, the bishops and clergy may make regulations, that order may be\nobserved in the church, not with the view of thereby obtaining the grace\nof God, nor in order thus to make satisfaction for sins, nor to bind the\nconsciences, to hold and regard this as a _necessary_ worship of God, or\nto believe that they would _commit sin_ if they _violated_ these\nregulations without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians\n(1 Cor. xi. 5,) has ordained that _women shall have their heads_ covered\nin the congregation; also, that ministers should not all speak at the\nsame time in the  congregation, but in an orderly manner, one after\nanother.\n\n\"It is becoming in a Christian congregation to observe such order, for\nthe sake of love and peace, and to obey the bishops and clergy in these\ncases, and to observe these regulations so far as not to give offence\nto one another, so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct\nin the church. Nevertheless, the consciences of men must not be\noppressed, by representing these things as _necessary to salvation_, or\n_teaching that they are guilty of sin, if they break these regulations\nwithout offence to others;_ for no one affirms that a woman commits sin\nwho goes out with her head uncovered, without giving offence to the\npeople. SUCH ALSO IS THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUNDAY, Easter,\nWhitsunday, and similar festivals and customs. For _those who suppose\nthat the ordinance concerning Sunday_ instead of Sabbath, _is enacted\nas necessary, are greatly mistaken_. For the Holy Scripture has\nabolished the Sabbath, and teaches that all the ceremonies of the old\nlaw may be omitted, since the publication of the gospel. And yet, as it\nwas necessary to appoint a certain day, in order that the people might\nknow when they should assemble, the _Christian church_, (not the\napostles,) has up appointed Sunday (the Lord's day) for this purpose;\nand to this change she was the more inclined and willing, that the\npeople might have an example of Christian _liberty_, and might know\nthat _the observance of neither the Sabbath nor any other day is\nnecessary_.  There have been numerous erroneous disputations published,\nconcerning the change of the law, the ceremonies of the New Testament,\nand the change of the Sabbath, which have all sprung from the false and\nerroneous opinion, that Christians must have such a mode of divine\nworship as is conformed to the Levitical or Jewish service, and that\nChrist enjoined it on the apostles and bishops, to invent new\nceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation.\" [Note 6]\n\nHere we are distinctly taught, (_a_) that the Jewish Sabbath is\nentirely abolished; (_b_) that no particular day was divinely appointed\nin its stead; (_c_) that those who suppose the ordinance concerning\nSunday instead of Sabbath is enacted as necessary, \"are greatly\nmistaken.\" (_d_) But that, as it was necessary to appoint a certain day\nfor the, convocation of the people, \"the _Christian church_ (not the\napostles,) appointed Sunday.\"\n\nII. Of similar import are the teachings of the _Apology to the\nConfession_, which also flowed from the pen of Melancthon.\n\n_Apology to the Confession, Art. IV._\n\n\"But we maintain, that the harmony of the church is no more broken by\nvariations in such _human ordinances_, than it is by variations in the\nnatural length of the day in different places. Yet we like to see the\n_general ceremonies_ uniformly kept, for the sake of harmony and order,\nas in our churches, for instance, we retain (behalten) the _mass_, the\n_Lord's Day_, and _other great festivals_.\n\n\"And we approve, all _human ordinances_ which are good and useful,\nespecially those which promote good external discipline among youth and\nthe people generally. But the inquiry is not, shall human ordinances be\nobserved on account of external discipline and tranquillity? [sic] The\nquestion is altogether different; it is, is the observance of such\nhuman ordinances a divine service by which God is reconciled; and that\nwithout such ordinances, no one can be righteous before God? This is\nthe chief inquiry, and when this shall have been finally answered, it\nwill be easy to judge whether the unity of the church requires\nuniformity in such ordinances.\" [Note 7]\n\nHere again the Lord's day (_a_) is classed in the category of _human_\nordinances, the observance of which is free, and may differ in\ndifferent places.\n\n(_b_) Yet uniformity in general ceremonies is pleasing, such as \"the\nmass, the Lord's day, and other great festivals.\"\n\n(_c_) It is classed again with _human_ ordinances which promote good\nexternal discipline among the people.\n\nAnd now having proved that the lax views of the Christian Sabbath,\ncharged by the Platform on the Augsburg Confession, are attributed to\nit by the learned in Germany generally, that Luther and Melancthon\nteach them in their other writings: in view of all these evidences, we\nask every impartial, conscientious reader, whether it is possible to\ndoubt the accuracy of the positions maintained by the Platform on this\nsubject--namely, that the Augsburg Confession treats the Sabbath, or\nreligious observance of the _seventh_ day of the week, as a mere\nJewish institution, an institution appointed of God for the Jews alone;\nwhilst the propriety of retaining the _Lord's day_ or Christian Sabbath,\nas a day of religious observation and worship, in their judgment, rests\non the appointment of the church, and the necessity of having some one\nday for the convenience of the people in assembling for public worship.\nThe act of keeping any one day _entirely_ for religious observance,\nthey regard as ceremonial and temporary, and the moral or common part\nof the precept, as stated in our extract from Melancthon, they resolve\ninto the general duty of preaching and hearing the gospel, and of\nsustaining public assemblies for this purpose; that is, of bearing the\nexpenses incident to the support of the ministry and the ordinances of\nGod's house.\n\n\"Our American churches, on the contrary, as well as some few in\nGermany, believe in the divine institution and obligation of the\nChristian Sabbath, or Lord's day, convinced that the Old Testament\nSabbath was not a mere Jewish institution; but that it was appointed by\nGod at the close of the creative week, when he rested on the seventh\nday, and blessed it, and sanctified it, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) that is, set\nit (namely, one whole day in seven,) apart for holy purposes, for\nreasons of universal and perpetual nature, Exod. xx. 11. Even in the\nre-enactment of it in the Mosaic rode, its original appointment is\nacknowledged, '_Remember_ the Sabbath day--because in six days God made\nheaven and earth--and rested on the _seventh; wherefore_ he, (_then_, in\nthe beginning,) _blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it_.' Now this\nreason has no more reference to the Jews than to any other nation, and\nif it was sufficient to make the observance of the Sabbath obligatory\non them, it must be equally so for all other nations before and after\nthem.\n\n'Since therefore the observance and sanctification of a portion of his\ntime, is based on universal reasons in the nature of man, especially as\na religious being, and the proportion of time was fixed at a _seventh_,\nby the example and precepts of the Creator in the beginning; the\nSabbath or religious observance of one day in seven, must be\nuniversally obligatory, and the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, can at\nmost only repeal those ceremonial additions which that ritual made, and\nmust leave the original Sabbath as it found it. Now whilst the apostles,\nand first Christians under the inspired guidance, for a season also\nattended worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they observed the day of the\nLord's resurrection, the first day of the week, as their day of special\nreligious convocations; and this _inspired example_ is obligatory on\nChristians in all ages. Still the essence of the institution consists,\nnot in the particular day of the week, though that is now fixed, but in\nthe religious observance of one entire day in seven.\" [Note 8]\n\nWe do not, indeed, maintain that the conduct of the apostles was\ninspired on all occasions; but it seems just and necessary to maintain,\nthat when engaged in the specific and appropriate duties of that\noffice, for which they were inspired, they were as much under the\nguidance of the Spirit in their _actions_, as their words.\n\nOn the divine institution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, we\nrefer the reader to an extended argument in its favor, in the author's\nLutheran Manual, pp. 310-24.\n\nNote 1. Luther's Works, Leipsic edit., Vol. iii., pp. 642, 643.\n\nNote 2. Luther's Works, Vol. iii., p. 643.\n\nNote 3. Symbolical Books, pp. 449, 450, corrected by the original.\n\nNote 4. Niemeyer's Briefe Melanchthons, [sic] p. 50.\n\nNote 5. Vol. iv., p. 113, of Koethe's edit.\n\nNote 6. See Schmucker's Lutheran Manual, pp. 306, 307.\n\nNote 7. See Symb. B. Newmarket, ed. 2d., corrected by the German,\np. 223.\n\nNote 8. See Definite Synodical Platform, p. 27.\n\n\nCHAPTER  VIII.\nGENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\nOn this subject the author of the Plea does not pursue the order of the\nPlatform, in which baptism and the eucharist are discussed separately;\nbut he unites the two under the caption of Baptismal Regeneration and\nthe Real Presence in the Eucharist, and enters into some discussions of\nthe sacraments in general, and then introduces remarks on each in\nparticular. Whilst we deem a separate discussion of each sacrament\nnecessary to its proper elucidation, there are certain general views\ncommon to them both, which may with propriety be considered in\nconnexion. We, therefore, devote some pages to this purpose, under the\nhead of the _General Nature of the Sacraments_, and reserve the\ndiscussion of each one individually to subsequent chapters. It would\nrequire an extended volume to discuss all the several aspects of this\ninteresting and solemn subject glanced at by our author. He does not,\nhowever, present in definite lineaments the precise system, which he\nattributes to the Lutheran Symbols; and lest we should do him injustice\nin endeavoring to present his system in detail, in order to controvert\nit, we deem it more Christian and courteous to specify only a few items\nof his chapter, and occupy our space chiefly in presenting and\ndefending what we regard as the doctrine taught in the Word of God on\nthis subject. This doctrine is also the theory that underlies the\npositions of the Definite Platform, and, we suppose, is assented to by\nits friends.\n\nThe Plea affirms, \"The Lutheran doctrine maintains that the Sacraments\nhave an _intrinsic value; but the Definite Platform seems to regard\nthem as mere _signs_, which may have a tendency to _promote piety_,\np. 35. On this point we think our author has not clearly presented the\npoint of difference between the friends of the Platform and the Plea.\nWe not only admit, but strenuously affirm, that the sacraments have an\nimportant _intrinsic_ influence. The Platform thus describes it:\n\"Baptism in adults is a means of making a profession of previous faith,\nor of being received into the visible church, as well as a _pledge_ and\n_condition_ of obtaining _those blessings purchased by Christ_, and\noffered to all who repent, believe in him and profess his name by\nbaptism,\" p. 30. As to the question, whether this influence is intrinsic\nor not, it is not touched in the Platform; although we doubt not its\nadherents very generally hold the affirmative. But the real point of\ndispute is the _precise nature_ of the influence exerted by the\nsacraments. The symbols _seem_ to regard _forgiveness of sins_, that is,\njustification, as the _immediate_ effect of every worthy reception of\nthese ordinances; whilst the friends of the Platform hold this influence\nto consist in their tendency to produce that _living faith_, resulting\nfrom regeneration, which is the _only condition of pardon_, and without\nthe possession of which God has not promised to forgive the sins of any\none, no matter what outward duties he may perform. For God will not\nforgive the sins of an unconverted sinner. The symbols do, indeed, often\ninsist on the necessity of faith, yet they speak as though in those who\ndo believe, it was the sacrament, and not their faith in the Redeemer,\nwhich secured the blessing. Nor do they in many passages sufficiently\ndiscriminate, that it is not a mere historical or intellectual, but a\nliving faith, a faith of the heart also, a faith that works by love and\npurifies the heart and overcomes the world, a faith that involves an\nentire surrender to the soul of God, which is required to the full\nefficacy of the sacraments.\n\nThe Plea affirms that the primitive church regarded the sacraments as\n\"_mysteries_;\" p. 37. But the author presents no evidence of this fact\nfrom God's word, or the _apostolic_ church; and the church of subsequent\nages is no conclusive doctrinal authority for us as Protestants.\n\nThe Plea states: \"He (God) is able to accomplish by the Holy Baptism,\nperformed in the mysterious name of the ever adored Trinity, a work of\nregeneration in the heart of the little child.\" \"The expression used in\nthe Augsburg Confession, Art. II., is, regenerated by baptism and the\nHoly Ghost, (John iii. 5.) This doctrine, however, is not to be\nunderstood as if the new creation was fully completed by new generation.\nIt is complete so far as a _live seed_ is complete in itself. This does,\nby no means, exclude subsequent development brought about by favorable\ninternal and external influences;\" p. 36. \"And Christ, the Godman, is\nable to make us poor earthly creatures partakers of his celestial\nnature_, (2 Pet. i. 4,) in the most solemn rite of his church, (the\neucharist,) which is therefore communion between Christ and man, in the\nfullest manner possible on earth;\" p. 37. Here the respected author, by\nadopting the theory that _a living seed_ is implanted _by baptism_,\n(whether into the soul or body he does not specify,) and then that the\nGodman Christ Jesus makes these baptized individuals _partakers of his\nCELESTIAL NATURE by the sacramental supper_, seems to favor something\nlike that theory of concorporation, or a physical union between Christ\nand the believer, which is known in _various_ phases as Puseyism in\nEngland, and Nevinism in the German Reformed Church of this country,\nand which has spread a withering influence over the interests of\npractical piety wherever embraced. Yet we would by no means affirm that\nthe Rev. Mr. Mann has embraced all the cardinal features of this system.\nThe objection that is fatal to it in our mind is, that we cannot find it\nin God's word. [Note 1]\n\nWe shall therefore proceed to ascertain the Scripture doctrine in regard\nto the influence of the sacraments in general. For the sake of brevity\nand perspicuity, we shall present it in a concatenation of propositions,\nthat in the end will cover the whole ground, and conduct us safely to\nthe surest biblical results.\n\n_Scripture view of the Influence of the Sacraments_.\n\nI. The plan of salvation, revealed in God's word, presupposes that, man\nis a _fallen creature, depraved in nature and practice_,--that all men\nare rebels against the righteous government of God, lying under his\nrighteous displeasure, and morally disqualified for heaven. And also,\nthat without holiness no man shall see the Lord! [Note 2] \"That which\nis born of the flesh, is flesh,\" is sinful, and except a man be _born\nagain_, he cannot see the kingdom of God.\" [Note 3] Consequently,\nwithout a new-birth, an entire moral renovation, in which the rebel\nlays down the arms of his rebellion, and the slave of sin is delivered\nfrom the dominion of his depraved habits, and becomes an obedient\nservant of Christ, loving holiness and delighting in the service of\nGod, it is impossible for him to obtain pardon or to be justifled.\n\nII. The _grand means_ by which the Holy Spirit effects this moral\nreformation, is _divine truth_, either oral, written or symbolic. \"Go\nye into all the world, says the Saviour, and _preach the gospel_ to\nevery creature; he that _believeth_ and is baptised, shall be saved,\nand he that _believeth_ not shall be damned.\" Here preaching the\n\"gospel,\" the truths of God's word, is placed _foremost_ in the list of\ninstrumentalities, and baptism is only appended as a rite to be\nperformed _after_ the Holy Spirit, through the preached word, has\nwrought faith in the hearer's soul. But faith  presupposes regeneration.\nHence, as truth is the instrumentality employed by the Holy Spirit in\nthe production of _regeneration_, and _faith_, as baptism is to be\nadded _after_ the great moral change, conversion has been effected in\nadults, it follows that the truth or word is the grand and principal\nmeans of grace, and not secondary to baptism.\n\nIn other passages the _mission of the apostles_ is characterized as a\nmission to _preach_, and baptism is not even named at all. Jesus\nordained the twelve, we are told, that they might be with him, and that\nhe might send them forth to _preach_, &c.; Mark iii. 14, 15. And Paul\neven thanks God, in his epistle to the Corinthians, [Note 4] that he\nhad baptized none of them save Crispus and Caius, and adds: \"For Christ\nsent me, _not to baptise_, but to _preach_ the gospel.\" Paul, therefore,\ncertainly regarded preaching as far more important than baptism. Of the\napostles, Luke informs us, they _daily_ in the temple and in every\nhouse, ceased not _to teach and preach_ Jesus Christ; Acts v. 41, 42.\nAnd in order to gain more time for their great work, they appointed\ndeacons to attend at tables, that they might give themselves\n\"continually to prayer and the _ministry of the Word_,\" but they say\nnothing of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Paul expressly tells the\nRomans (x. 13-15,) that faith comes by _hearing_ (not by baptism); and\nto the Corinthians he says, \"For in Christ, Jesus I have begotten you,\nthrough the _gospel_. 1 Cor. iv. 15. We are regenerated by the\nincorruptible \"_seed of the word_.\" [Note 5] We are sanctified by \"_the\ntruth_.\" In short, our call, [Note 6] our convictions, [Note 7]\nregeneration, our faith, our sanctification, [Note 8] our preservation\n[Note 9] and salvation, [Note 10] are all produced by the _word_ or\n_truth_, and it must be the grand means of grace. [Note 11]\n\nThis truth, contained in God's Word, is therefore fully adequate to the\nproduction of all the progressive changes, by which we pass from the\ncondition of the careless sinner to that of the advanced and sanctified\nbeliever.\n\nIII. The _stage of progress_ in this moral renovation which in\n_requisite_ before the returning sinner is _morally_ qualified for\npardon or justification, is that implied by a _living faith_. This\njustifying faith may be defined to be, \"that voluntary act of the\nilluminated and evangelically penitent sinner, by which he confides in\nthe mercy of God through Christ for salvation, on the terms offered in\nthe gospel.\" [Note 12] A more historical faith implies no such\npreparation, nor the more intellectual belief of the reality and truth\nof the statements of God's Word, whilst the heart is estranged from him;\nfor with such a faith the devils believe and tremble but remain devils\nstill. Nor does the state of the convicted, or penitent, or seeking, but\nyet unconverted sinners furnish such moral preparation to receive\npardon. Evidently nothing short of living faith will satisfy the\nrepresentations of God's Word and the nature of the case. Whenever the\nreturning sinner exercises the first act of this living faith, he is\njustified, that is, then God performs that judicial or forensic act, by\nwhich a believing sinner, in consideration of the merits of Christ, is\nreleased from the penalty of the divine law, and is declared to be\nentitled to heaven. [Note 13] In this state of justification the\nbeliever continues through life, unless he by voluntary transgression\nfalls from a state, of grace and becomes a backslider.\n\nIV. _The evidence of this pardon or justification, to the believer\nhimself, is within his own heart:_--\n\n(_a_) It is that peace of God, or sense of pardoned sin, wrought in the\nsoul by the Holy Spirit. \"Being justified by faith, we have _peace with\nGod_, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. v. 1.\n\n(_b_) \"_The love of God shed abroad in our hearts_ by the Holy Ghost\nwhich is given unto us. [Note 14]\n\n(_c_) It is the testimony of \"the Spirit bearing witness with our\nspirits that we are children of God.\" [Note 15] \"He that believeth hath\nthe witness in himself.\" [Note 16]\n\n(_d_) It is the _fruit of the Spirit_, exhibited in the believer's life,\n\"which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,\nmeekness, temperance.\" [Note 17]\n\n(_c_) It is \"being led by the Spirit of God,\" for then, says the\napostle,\" [sic on punctuation] they are the sons of God.\n[Note 18]\n\nAll these evidences presuppose or involve that great change of heart\nand life, termed by the Saviour new birth, by which the sinner becomes\nmorally qualified for that pardon, purchased by the blood of Christ,\nand appropriate to the believer by his faith. But no outward rites\n_necessarily_ imply such moral preparation, and hence they could not be\nthe conditions of justification, according to the analogy of God's\nWord.\n\nV. Hence the sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, are not the\n_immediate_ conditions or means of pardon or justification; _but they\nare means of grace, like the Word of God, and seals of grace to all\nworthy recipients_. They have _an intrinsic efficacy_ by virtue of the\ntruths symbolically represented by them, and an _additional specific\nefficacy_ in virtue of their peculiar nature, in connexion with the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken, convert and sanctify the soul.\nThe distinguished Lutheran divine, _Dr. Baumgarten_, speaking of adult\nreceivers of these ordinances, thus expresses his view: \"The sacraments\nstand in the same relation to these influences, (namely, those of\ncovenant grace,) as does the _Word of God_. Hence they are also called\nthe visible word of God, _verbum visible;_ because the _offer_ of their\nreformatory, changing and restoring influence is universal, and reaches\nevery recipient of these ordinances; but its actual communication and\nfull effect take place only in those, who permit themselves to be made\nsusceptible of it.\" [Note 19] In regard to children, however, he with\nequal propriety adds, that the blessings which baptism confers on them,\nare bestowed irrespectively of any action of their own.\n\nThese sacraments, however, do not necessarily prove the existence of any\nparticular progress in the work of conversion, or any definite state of\nmind, except, a general disposition to seek the Lord, which is implied\nin the willingness to attend on these ordinances. They cannot therefore\nbe the condition of pardon or justification.\n\nThese influences, like those of the truth, may be resisted, and depend\nfor their success on the disposition of the recipient; they do not act\n_ex opere operato_. The _special_ influence of the sacraments, so far as\nknown, is the same in kind_ as that of the truth.\n\n_That the sacraments are not_ IMMMEDIATE _conditions of pardon or\njustification_, is evident, from a multitude of considerations.\n\n1. If the sincere reception of the sacraments actually secures pardon\nor justification _per se, immediately_, without the intervening\ninstrumentality of a living faith, then faith is not the only condition\nof justification as the scriptures teach, but we are justified either\nby faith, or by the sacraments, and then there will be _three conditions\nof justification_, faith, baptism, and the Lord's Supper! For thousands\nreceive the eucharist sincerely, who are unregenerate, and have not a\nliving faith.\n\n2. Because no sinner is morally qualified for pardon, until he has been\nregenerated, and has consecrated himself to the service of God; but\nmultitudes receive the sacrament who are unregenerate, and who\ntherefore cannot be justified or pardoned, even by the sincere\nreception of the sacraments. Hence as the reception of the sacraments\nis no certain proof of pardon, it cannot be the immediate condition of\nit.\n\n3. The sacraments are not immediate conditions of justification or\npardon, because _previous faith_ is required in the recipients of each\nof them. \"He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved,\" [Note 20]\nsays the great Redeemer; \"but he that believeth not shall be damned.\"\nBut if some may be baptised who are destitute of faith, then the\nexistence of faith is not necessarily involved in baptism. And as\nbaptism without faith does not rescue the soul from damnation, it\nevidently cannot be the _immediate_ or certain condition of pardon; for\nif the immediate condition of a blessing is performed, that blessing\nmust be conferred. And since previous faith is required in baptism, and\nnone but the baptised are admitted to the Lord's Supper, it is evident\nthat faith is also required of communicants.\n\n4. That they are not _immediate_ conditions of pardon, is evident,\nbecause the same truths which the sacraments inculcate, do not when\ntaught orally or in God's word, invariably or necessarily secure the\npardon or justification of all attentive hearers. The result of the\nproper use of the truth preached or read, is invariably the spiritual\nadvancement of the sinner, whatever the stage of his progress may be.\nAnd such appears to be the operation of the sacraments. As it is absurd\nto affirm that each sermon preached, will convert or affect the pardon\nof every sinner who attentively hears it; so it were equally gratuitous\nto affirm the same of the sacraments. If the sinner had been on the\nverge of regeneration and faith _before_ he heard the sermon in\nquestion, and the hearing of that discourse completed the change, the\nresult might be affirmed of the last sermon which preceded his faith,\nbut not of its predecessors; and so also of the sacraments as means of\ngrace. Every sermon attentively heard will benefit all who thus hear it.\nBut whether it will produce conviction, or penitence, or faith, or a\nsense of pardoned sin, depends on the recipient's previous stage of\nprogress in the divine life.\n\n5. If the sacraments were possessed of a sin-forgiving power, in such a\nsense, as to be the _immediate_ conditions of pardon or justification,\nthen the sinner would be dependent for pardon on the sacraments, and on\nthe clergyman who administers them, and not immediately on the Spirit\nof God. But this would virtually be one of the most dangerous features\nof Puseyism and Romanism, by which the minister is thrust in between\nthe penitent, sinner and his God, and the priest is elevated to the\nposition of the dispenser of pardon, holding in his hand the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven. Now it is indeed flattering to the frail heart of the\nminister (for we are all mere men) to find himself elevated to such an\nexalted post, to stand (as the Papists say of their priest) in the place\nof God, and have his whole congregation _look to him_ for the pardon of\nsin, in private confession and the sacraments; and this may possibly be\none of the reasons why this Puseyite, semi-Romish system is more popular\nwith the clergy than with the laity. But Protestant ministers should\nnever forget, that the Saviour himself asserted it as his peculiar\ncharacteristic, \"that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive\nsin.\" Mark ii. 7.\n\n6.  That the sacraments are not the necessary or certain conditions of\npardon, is evident, also, from the fact, that some, as the thief upon\nthe cross, were saved without them after their institution, whilst\nothers who had partaken of them were lost, of which Judas and Simon\nMagus are examples.\n\n7. That the sacraments are not immediate conditions of pardon is\nfinally evident from the declaration of the apostle Peter, \"The like\nfigure whereunto baptism doth now save us; _not the putting away of the\nfilth of the flesh_, that is, _not the mere outward rite_ of applying\nthe water, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.\" [Note 21]\nthat is, the faithful performance of the duties to which our Christian\nprofession, made in baptism, obligated us, by keeping a conscience void\nof offence before God and man.\n\nFrom all this, it is very clear, that whilst the sacraments are divinely\nappointed as means and seals of grace, they operate like divine truth,\neither oral or written, by promoting that great change of heart, without\nwhich no man can see God: that where they are received with a living\nfaith, there is indeed pardon of sin or justification; but this pardon\nis the result of that living faith, the appointed condition of\njustification, and not of the sacraments, which can only tend to secure\npardon by promoting faith.\n\nThat these views of the mode of operation of the sacraments, are\nsustained by many of our ablest divines, is evinced by the following\nextracts from their works. _Dr. Mosheim_, one of the greatest ornaments\nof the Lutheran Church, expressly affirms, \"Those who possess _faith_\nhave the benefits of Christ sealed and confirmed to them. Let it\ntherefore be remarked, that _faith is necessary to the salutary fruit\nand effect of the sacraments_, though not required as necessary to their\nessence (namely, as valid outward ordinances.\") [Note 22] The\ndistinguished _Dr. Reinhard_ says, \"We attribute to the sacraments a\nreally beneficial influence in effecting our salvation, only in as far\nas they are used in accordance with their design. This is a necessary\ninference from the nature of a ceremony (or rite) in general, which can\nonly then be of any service, when it excites _those views and feelings_,\nwhich it is designed to produce.\" Here this illustrious divine evidently\nimplies that the sacraments exert their influence by promoting certain\nviews and feelings, and that these are the _immediate_ causes of the\nbeneficial results, such as pardon and salvation: consequently the\nsacraments are mediate, but not immediate conditions of pardon.\n\nOne extract more, taken from the \"Biblical Theology\" of the venerable\n_Dr. Knapp_, of Halle, edited by _Dr. Guericke_, may suffice: \"The power\nand influence of these several religious ordinances or sacraments, is\n_not physical_ and _mechanical_, and also _not magical_, or operating by\nenchantment (or charm.) Nor does the mere external rite exert any\ninfluence. On the contrary, they stand in the most intimate connexion\nwith the doctrines themselves, which they represent, and never exert any\ninfluence without them. Therefore they can by themselves exert no\ninfluence in the case of a person who has no knowledge and lively\nconviction of the doctrines which they represent. But the truths which\nare thereby represented to the senses, and are to be appropriated to\nourselves, operate precisely in the same way, or the Holy Spirit works\nthrough them on the hearts of men, in exactly the same way as these\ntruths are wont to act apart, (from the sacraments,) when they are\nheard, read or meditated on by any person; only, that in the case of\nthe sacraments, these truths are not communicated by words, but in a\ndifferent way presented to the senses. All that we have said (Part. I.,\nArt. 8) on the influences exerted by the Holy Spirit, through the word,\n(or divine doctrine,) and in the use of the divine doctrines on the\nhearts of men, is also applicable to this subject. For he operates in\na similar manner in these religious ordinances, through the divine\ndoctrines which are represented by them to the senses, and appropriated\nby ourselves. Against the abuse of such divinely appointed religious\nordinances, when their mere external performance is regarded as\nsufficient, (as in the case of the sacrifices,) even Moses and all the\nprophets, protest in the most emphatic manner.\" [Note 23]\n\nFrom all those considerations it is most evident, that although _baptism\nand the Lord's Supper are important, and influential, and divinely\nappointed ordinances; neither of them can be the immediate condition of\npardon or justification, because neither necessarily involves that state\nof moral qualification, which, the Scriptures require for pardon_,\nnamely, genuine conversion or regeneration, evinced by its immediate and\ninvariable result, a _living faith_.\n\nNote 1. For the information of such of our readers as prefer a\nskeleton of the Puseyite system of the sacraments, rather than wade\nthrough volumes of Semi-romish discussion, we annex its features:---\n\nI. That man is \"made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an\ninheritor of the kingdom of heaven,\" in and by holy Baptism.\n\nII. That man \"made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an\ninheritor of the kingdom of heaven,\" in and by holy Baptism, is renewed\nfrom time to time in holy Communion.\n\nIII. That a \"death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness\" is\ngiven to every adult, and every infant, in and by the outward visible\nsign or form in Baptism, \"water, in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nIV. That the gift may be received, in the case of adults, worthily or\nunworthily, but that it is always received.\n\nV. That the body and blood of Christ are given to every one who\nreceives the Sacramental Bread and Wine.\n\nVI. That the gift may be received worthily or unworthily, but that it\nis always received.\n\nThere is no mistaking the meaning of this. It is clear and explicit;\nbut wherein it differs from Romanism it would be difficult to tell.\n\nNote 2. Heb. xii. 14.\n\nNote 3. John iii. 6, 2.\n\nNote 4. 1 Cor. i. 14-17.\n\nNote 5. See also 1 Pet. i. 23. Luke viii. 4, 11, 15. Here the whole\nprocess of conversion is described, and the grand instrumentality is the\nword or seed, but not a syllable is said of baptism. Also James i. 18.\n\nNote 6. 2 Tim. ii. 14.\n\nNote 7. Jer. xxiii. 29.\n\nNote 8. John xvii. 17.\n\nNote 9. Psalm cxix. 11.\n\nNote 10. 1 Tim. 4.\n\nNote 11. Verbum Dei est medium salutis _efficacissimum_, quippe cujus\nvis non est tantum objectiva, sed etiam effectiva. Hollazii Theol. Dog.\nII. p. 452. See the writer's Elemental Contrast, pp. 26, 27.\n\nNote 12. Mark i. 15. _Repent_ ye and _believe_ the gospel. James ii.\n14-17 Even so _faith_, if it have not works is dead, being alone, &c.\n\nNote 13. Rom. v.1, 2; iii. 21, 22, 23. John iii. 18.\n\nNote 14. Rom. v. 5.\n\nNote 15. Rom. viii. 16.\n\nNote 16. 1 John v. 10.\n\nNote 17. Rom. viii. 15.\n\nNote 18. Gal. v. 22.\n\nNote 19. Dogmatik, Vol. iii., p. 285.\n\nNote 20. Mark xvi. 16. Acta ii. 37, 38: viii. 37, &c. Acts ix. 11. &c.\n\nNote 21. 1 Peter, iii. 21.\n\nNote 22. Elementa Theol. Dog., Vol. ii, p. 295. Qui fidem habent, illis\nbeneficia Christi obsignantur et confirmantur. Notandum ergo est, fidem\nquidem ad salutarem fructum et effectum sacramentorum, non autem ad\ncorum essentiam requiri.\n\nNote 23. Biblische Glaubenslehre von Dr. H. E. F. Knapp, Prop. Halle,\n1840, p. 292.\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\nBAPTISMAL REGENERATION.\n\nIn regard to this error, the author of the Plea, relieves us from the\nnecessity of proving that it is contained in the Symbolical books, by\nhimself not only acknowledging the fact, but also defending the\ndoctrine. For ourselves we do not think it taught as clearly in the\nAugsburg Confession, as most of the other errors touched on in the\nDefinite Platform. But although not inculcated as explicitly as the\nothers, the substance of the doctrine runs through the entire symbolic\nsystem, and therefore is justly chargeable on it. The name is not often\ndistinctly met with there, but the thing meets us on many occasions.\nThis seems evident even from the following few citations.\n\n_Proof that this doctrine was taught by the Lutheran Symbols and early\nLutheran divines.\n\nART. II. - _Augsburg Confession_\n\n\"Our churches teach that this innate disease and original sin, is truly\nsin, and condemneth all those under the eternal wrath of God, who are\n_not born again by Baptism and the Holy Spirit_.\"\n\n_Apology to Augsburg Confession_, p. 226.\n\n\"Our opponents also agree to the ninth article, in which we confess that\n_Baptism is necessary to salvation_, and that the baptism of infants is\nnot fruitless, but necessary and salutary.\n\n_Luther's Smaller Catechism_.\n\n\"_What does Baptism confer or benefit?_\n\n\"_Ans_.--It effects the _forgiveness of sins, delivers from death_ and\n_the devil_, and confers _everlasting salvation_ upon all who believe\nit, (not believe in Christ,) as the words and promise of God declare.\"\n\n\"_How can water effect such great things?_\n\n\"_Ans_.--Indeed it is not the water that has such effect, but the Word\nof God that is with and in the water, and the faith trusting such Word\nof God in the water. For without the Word of God the water is mere\nwater, hence no baptism; but with the Word of God it constitutes a\nbaptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a _washing of\nregeneration_, in the Holy Ghost.\"--_Symb. B_., p. 421.\n\n_Luther's Larger Catechism_.\n\n\"Every Christian, therefore, has enough to learn and practice in\nbaptism during his life; for he must ever exert himself to _maintain_ a\nfirm faith in _what it promises and brings_ him, namely, triumph over\nthe devil and death, the _remission of sins_, the grace of God, Christ\nwith all his works, and _the Holy Ghost with all his gifts_. In short,\nthe blessings of baptism are so great, that if feeble nature could but\ncomprehend them we might justly doubt their reality. For, imagine to\nyourself a physician, who possessed an art preventing persons from\ndying; or, even if they died, immediately restoring them to life so as\nto live eternally afterwards, how the world would rush and flock around\nhim with money, while the poor, prevented by the rich, could not\napproach him! And yet, here in _baptism_, every one has such a treasure,\nand medicine gratuitously brought to his door-a medicine which abolishes\ndeath, and preserves all men to eternal life_.\"--_P_. 525.\n\n_Luther's Larger Catechism_.\n\n\"It (baptism) is, therefore, very appropriately called food for the\nsoul, which flourishes and strengthens the new man; _for through baptism\nwe are born anew;_ but beside this, the old vicious nature in the flesh\nand blood nevertheless adheres to man, in which there are so many\nimpediments and obstacles, with which we are opposed as well by the\ndevil as by the world, so that we often become weary and faint, and\nsometimes stumble.\"--_Symb. B_., p. 533.\n\nIn the _Visitation Articles_, published fourteen years after the other\nsymbolical books for the purpose of explaining their true import, and\nthen made symbolic in Saxony:\n\nART. III.--_On Baptism_.\n\nSECT. II. \"By baptism as the _laver of regeneration_, and _the renewing\nof the Holy Ghost_, God saves us, and works in us such righteousness\nand purification from sins, that whosoever _perseveres_ in such\ncovenant, and reliance, _will not be lost_, but have eternal life.\"\n\nSECT. IV. \"Baptism is the bath (laver) of regeneration, _because in it\nwe are regenerated_, and sealed with the spirit of sonship and obtain\npardon.\"-_Mueller's Symb. Buecher_, pp. 848, 849.\n\nThat the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was taught by Luther, and\nthe prominent older divines of our church, is well known to those\nacquainted with their works.\n\n1. _Luther_, indeed, sometimes expressed the most extravagant ideas of\nbaptism, maintaining that the water in baptism, was pervaded by the\ndivine majesty, and was a (durch goettertes Wasser,) water penetrated\nthrough and through with God! [Note 1] He compares the water in baptism\nto heated iron, in which, though you see nought but iron, fire also is\ncontained, which represents the divine name and power pervading the\nwater. But we will not enter any further into his extravagant\nillustrations of the power of baptism. The result at which he arrives\nis thus expressed: \"Therefore, he (this omnipotent name or power of\nGod,) must also in baptism, make pure and holy, heavenly and divine\npersons, as we shall hereafter further see.\" (Darum musz er auch in der\nTaufe reine und heilige und eitel himmlishe, goettliche Menschen machen,\nwie wir hernach sehen werden.\") [Note 2]\n\nIn his sermon on Baptism, Luther thus describes the influence of this\nordinance:--\"The import of baptism is a blessed dying unto sin, and\nresurrection in the grace of God, that the old man that was conceived\nin sin, may arise and go forth _a new man_ born of grace. Thus St. Paul\nin, Tit. iii. 5, terms baptism a bath of _the new birth_, that in this\nbath men may be _born again_ and renewed. Thus also Christ, in John iii.\n3, says: Unless ye are born again of water and the Spirit (of grace), ye\ncannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven. For just as a child is born of\nits mother, and by this bodily birth is a sinful being and a _child of\nwrath;_ thus also is man taken and _born spiritually_ from the baptism,\nand by _this birth he is a child of grace and a justified person_. Thus\nare sins drowned in baptism, and thus does righteousness arise in the\nplace of sin.\" [Note 3]\n\n2. _Melancthon_, whilst he by no means indulges in the extravagant and\nunscriptural views of a change in the water employed in baptism, by the\nDeity's pervading it, &c., seems however in substance to have\nentertained views of the efficacy of this ordinance, amounting to\nbaptismal regeneration.\n\n\"The real use of baptism,\" (says he,) \"is taught by these two\nparticulars, the outward sign and the promise, 'he that believeth and\nis baptised shall be saved;' also the words which are used in baptism,\n'I baptise thee in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy\nGhost:' that is, through this outward sign (baptism) I, in the place of\nGod, _testify that you are reconciled to God, and accepted of him_, who\nis Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Father receives you for the sake of\nthe Son, and grants you the Holy Spirit, by which he will renew, make\nalive, comfort, and sanctify you.\" [Note 4]\n\nAnd, again, when discussing the subject, of pedobaptism, he thus\ndescribes his view:--\"In and by baptism the Holy Spirit is given to\nchildren, who operates in them according to their measure (masse) or\ncapacity, as he operated in John in the womb of Elizabeth. And although\nthere, is a difference between the old and the young, inasmuch as the\nold are attentive to the works, still the influences of the Holy Spirit\nare in both old and young a tendency toward God.\" [Note 5]\n\nThat this doctrine was also taught by the great majority of the most\ndistinguished older theologians of our church, is a point which requires\nno proof to those acquainted with those authors. As their works are\naccessible to comparatively few of our readers, we will annex a\nquotation from several of them, at the same time abbreviating them as\nmuch as is consistent with perspicuity. Thus, Dr. Hunnius, professor at\nWittenberg, and subsequently Superintendent at Luebeck, [Note 6] in his\nEpitome Credendorum, says:--\"The sacrament of baptism is a spiritual\naction, instituted and ordained by Christ, by the performance of which a\nman is baptised with water, in the name of the Father, and the Son and\nthe Holy Ghost; and by means of which he receives _forgiveness of sins_,\nis received into God's covenant of mercy, and is made partaker of the\nmerits of Christ, of _adoption_ and of _eternal salvation_.\" [Note 7]\nAgain, \"Baptism is not a sign of regeneration, that is to take place\nsome time after baptism had been administered to him. For as _baptism\ncauses regeneration_, it cannot be said to signify the same,\" &c. [Note\n8] And again, \"Nevertheless, we have seen it to be the will of God, that\nthey (children) should enter the kingdom of heaven, and it therefore\nbecomes indispensably necessary for them to be regenerated. But this\n_regeneration is brought about by no other means than by baptism_, which\nwe know to be the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy\nGhost,\" &c. [Note 9] The celebrated _Dr. Gerhard_ says, \"The holy\nTrinity is present with his grace (in baptism). The Father receives the\nbaptized person into favor; the Son bestows his righteousness upon him,\nand the Holy Spirit _regenerates_ and _renews him_,--produces faith,\n_regeneration_ and renovation, and seals the covenant of grace in the\nhearts of the baptized.\" [Note 10]\n\nAgain, \"Baptism is the first gateway of grace, the sacrament of\ninitiation: the Lord's Supper is the sacrament of confirmation; by\nbaptism we are _regenerated_, by the Holy Supper we are nourished and\nstrengthened to eternal life. As in nature so in grace, we are first\nborn and then fed, first generated and then we increase, (ix. 67.) _Dr.\nBuddeus_, one of the most distinguished theologians of the School of\nHalle, in his \"Theologia Dogmatica, [sic on punctuation] p.\n1127, says, \"The design of the baptism of infants is their\n_regeneration;_ in the case of adults, the confirmation and sealing of\nthat faith, which they should have before (the reception of the rite.\")\n\nSince therefore we have seen that the doctrine of baptismal\nregeneration was taught not only by the symbolical books, but also by\nLuther and Melancthon in their other writings, as well as by the\nleading divines of the first two centuries after the Reformation, who\nall received the symbolical books, and understood their import, we may\nregard the charge of the Platform as established beyond contradiction,\nthat this tenet was a part of Symbolic Lutheranism.\n\n_Influence of this Doctrine on the Pulpit_.\n\nNow the influence of this doctrine on the ministrations of the pulpit,\nis of the most deleterious nature. The word of God represents all\nmankind as by nature dead in trespasses and sins. Paul tells us that\n\"there is none righteous, no not one, for all have sinned and come short\nof the glory of God:\" and affirms that the carnal mind is enmity against\nGod. The faithful ambassador of Christ must therefore announce the\ncommand of God, \"that all men every where should repent: and that unless\nthey do repent, they shall all likewise perish. He must divide his\ncongregation into two classes, the friends and the enemies of God, those\nwho are for the Saviour and those who are against him: and he must\ninsist upon judging not by their profession, \"Lord, Lord, but by the\nquestion, whether they _do the will of our Father in heaven_.\" Thus when\nthe faithful servant of Christ represents all as unconverted, and\nexposed to the curse of the divine law, who do not give evidence of\nregeneration in their walk and conversation; careless sinners become\nalarmed and feel the necessity of fleeing from the wrath to come, by\nrepenting and turning to God, by seeking pardon and a new heart, and\nconsecrating all their powers of mind and body to the service of God.\n\nBut all this the believer in baptismal regeneration cannot consistenly\n[sic] do. Because 1. If we believe all our hearers _regenerated_, (for\nthey are generally all baptised) even those whose life presents not the\nleast evidence of piety, and many proofs to the contrary; we still\nmust believe them in some sense the children of God, as they are born\nagain! We cannot tell them that they are in the gall of bitterness and\nbonds of iniquity; because we profess to believe them regenerated--\ntherefore children of God in some sense.\n\n2. We cannot exhort the impenitent baptised, though apparently dead in\ntrespasses and sins, to pray for a _new heart_ and a new spirit; for\nthese, as regenerated persons, they have obtained.\n\n3. The minister who believes in baptismal regeneration, cannot with\nPaul proclaim, \"If any man be in Christ Jesus and is a new creature,\nold limits are passed away, behold all things have become new;\" for his\nungodly baptised hearers are all new creatures by baptism, and yet their\nold sinful habits _have not passed away_, and all things have not become\nnew to them.\n\n4. He cannot consistently preach, that those who have put on the new man\n(Ephes. iv. 24,) are created in righteousness and true holiness; for the\nmajority of those said to be regenerated, or to have put on the new man\nby baptism, continue in sin and are destitute of righteousness and trim\nholiness.\n\n5. He cannot, with the blessed Master, preach, \"by their fruits ye shall\nknow them; for here, on his theory, are regenerate souls bringing forth\nthe fruits of death, good (regenerate) trees bringing forth rotten\nfruits,\" which is as incredible as thorns producing grapes, and thistles\nyielding figs.\n\n6. The believer in baptismal regeneration cannot consistently preach,\nthat \"not every one who saith, \"Lord, Lord,\" shall enter into the\nkingdom of heaven, but only those who also do the will of our heavenly\nFather; for here are regenerate men who have the germ of eternal life in\nthem (by baptism) who do not the will of God. Now as these on his theory\nare regenerate men, the bible promises them salvation. But according to\nthe Saviour they shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.\n\nThe apostle James Inquires, [sic] \"What doth it profit, my\nbrethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Will his\n(dead) faith save, him?\" Or we may add, can his dead baptismal\nregeneration do it? As the apostle of the Gentiles declares, that\ncircumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping\nof the commandments of God: so as baptism occupies the place of\ncircumcision, baptism is nothing and the want of it nothing, unless\naccompanied with a sincere, universal and irrevocable purpose to keep\nthe commandments of God.\n\nIf any one responds, we do not mean regeneration in its proper sense,\nwhen we ascribe it to the influence of baptism; then do not deceive\nyourselves and others by employing the name, when you do not mean the\nthing. The Saviour uses it for an entire, and radical change, and we\nhave no right to use it for anything else.\n\nOr does any one say, by baptismal regeneration, we understand an\ninferior kind or degree of regeneration, the beginning of the change. If\nso, then do not mistake the beginning for the completion of this great\nspiritual renovation; nor ascribe to the one, the precious promises and\nspiritual benefits which belong only to the other.\n\nIn short, if the word regeneration, in connexion with baptism, be\nemployed to signify anything resembling its proper meaning, its\ninfluence on the preached gospel must be baneful; and just in proportion\nas we use it in a sense approximating to its legitimate import, does it\nobscure, confuse and derange the ideas of men as to the great and\nglorious plan of salvation in the gospel, which represent all men as\neither for or against Christ, and appeals to their works as decisive of\ntheir actual, spiritual character, as friends or as enemies of the\nRedeemer.\n\nSuch being the deleterious influence of this doctrine, it is important\nto show, that it finds no sanction from a just interpretation of the\nWord of God.\n\nBy baptismal regeneration is properly meant the doctrine that baptism\nis necessarily and invariably attended by spiritual regeneration; and\nthat such water baptism is essential to salvation.\n\nIn the case of all adults, the Scriptures represent _faith in Christ_ as\nthe necessary prerequisite to baptism, and baptism as a rite by which\nthose who had already consecrated themselves to Christ, or been\nconverted, made a public profession of the fact, received a pledge of\nthe divine favor, or of forgiveness of sins, and were admitted to\nmembership in the visible church. The same inspired records also teach,\nthat if men are destitute of this faith, if they believe not, they shall\nbe damned, notwithstanding their baptism. \"He that _believeth_ and is\nbaptized shall be saved, and he that _believeth_ not, shall be damned,\"\nMatt. xvi. 16. And Philip said to the eunuch, \"If thou _believest_ with\nall thy heart, thou mayest be baptized,\" Acts viii. 37. \"_Repent_ and be\nbaptized,\" Acts ii. 38; viii. 62; xviii. 8. Hence if baptism required\nprevious faith and repentance, or conversion in adults, and if, when\nthey were destitute of this faith or conversion, they were damned,\nnotwithstanding their baptism; it follows that baptism was not, and is\nnot, a converting ordinance in adults, and does not necessarily effect\nor secure their regeneration.\n\nNow that baptism cannot accomplish more in infants than in adults, is\nself-evident; hence if it is not a converting ordinance in adults, it\ncannot be in infants.\n\nThe effects of baptism on _infants are nowhere specified in Scripture;_\nhence we must suppose them to be same as in adults, so far as children\nare naturally capable of them. Of _regeneration_, in the proper sense of\nthe term, infants are incapable; for it consists in a radical change in\nour religious views of the divine character, law, &c.; a change in our\nreligious feelings, and in our religions purposes and habits of action;\nof none of which are children capable.\n\nAgain, as regeneration does not destroy but merely restrains the natural\ndepravity, or innate, sinful dispositions of the Christian, (for these\nstill remain in him after conversion,) it must consist mainly in a\nchange, of that _increased predisposition to sin arising from action, of\nthat preponderance of _sinful habits_ formed by voluntary indulgence of\nour natural depravity, after we have reached years of moral agency. But\ninfants have no such _increased_ predisposition, no _habits_ of sin\nprior to moral agency, consequently there can be no change of them, no\nregeneration in this meaning of the term. Hence, if baptism even did\neffect regeneration in adults, which we have proved not to be the case;\nstill it could have no such influence on infants, as they are _naturally\nincapable_ of the mental exercises involved in it. The child, on its\nfirst attainment of moral agency, has merely natural depravity, until by\nvoluntary indulgence in sin, it contracts personal guilt, and forms\nhabits of sinful action. If the child, by the grace of God and proper\nreligious instruction, continues to resist the solicitations of its\ndepraved nature, its continued obedience will form holy habits, and this\npreponderance of holy habits, when established, constitutes its\nregeneration. If the growing child, as its powers of moral agency are\ndeveloped, for any reason indulges its innate sinful propensities, it\nbecomes a confirmed sinner, and its subsequent regeneration, if it take\nplace, will be the more striking, as its change of habits must be\ngreater.\n\nBaptism in _adults_, is a means of making a public profession, of\nprevious faith, or of being received into the visible church, as well\nas a pledge and condition of obtaining those blessings purchased by\nChrist, and offered to all who repent, believe in him, and profess his\nname by baptism.\n\nBaptism in _infants_, is the pledge of the bestowment of those blessings\npurchased by Christ for all. \" As in Adam all die, even so in Christ\nshall all be made alive.\" And \"The promise is to you and your\n_children_,\" Acts ii. 39. These blessings are forgiveness of sins, or\nexemption from the penal consequences of natural depravity, (which would\nat least be exclusion from heaven on account of moral disqualification\nfor admission,) reception into the visible church of Christ, grace to\nhelp in every time of need, and special provision for the nurture and\nadmonition in the Lord, to which parents pledge themselves.\n\nThe language of the Saviour to Nicodemus, John iii. 6, \"_Unless a man be\nborn of water and the spirit_\" doubtless refers also to baptism, which\nhad been known to the Jews, and practiced by John the Baptist, before\nthe ministry of Christ, as a mode of _public reception_ of proselytes,\nwho were then said to be new born. Its import is to inform Nicodemus,\nthat he must _publicly_ profess the religion of Jesus by baptism, and\nalso be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, if he desired to enter the\nkingdom of heaven. Thus, also, the words, Acts xxii. 16, \"_Arise and be\nbaptized, and wash away thy sins_,\" were addressed to Paul _after_ he\nhad surrendered himself to Christ, and signifies: \"Arise, and publicly\nprofess Christ by baptism, and thus complete your dedication of\nyourself to his cause, the condition, on the sincere performance of\nwhich, God will for Christ's sake, pardon your sins.\"\n\nBaptismal regeneration, either in infants or adults, is therefore a\ndoctrine not taught in the Word of God, and fraught with much injury to\nthe souls of men, although inculcated in the former symbolical books.\nAt the same time, whilst the doctrine of baptismal regeneration\ncertainly did prevail in our European churches, and is taught in the\nformer symbolical books, it is proper to remark, that the greater part\nof the passages in the symbols relating to this subject, are explained\nby many in the present day, to signify no more than we above inculcate,\nand therefore a not teaching baptismal regeneration.\n\nNote 1. Luther's Works, Vol. xii., p. 339.\n\nNote 2. Ibid.\n\nNote 3. Ibid. Vol. xxii., p. 139.\n\nNote 4. Melanchthon's [sic] Works, Koethe's edit., Vol. iv., p. 234.\n\nNote 5. Ibid. pp. 251, 242.\n\nNote 6. Died in 1643.\n\nNote 7. Gottheil's Translation, p. 187.\n\nNote 8. Ibid. p. 188.\n\nNote 9. Ibid. p. 193.\n\nNote 10. Loc. Com. Vol. iv., p. 260.\n\n\nEXAMINATION  OF  THE  LUTHERAN SYMBOLS.\nCHAPTER X. THE LORD'S SUPPER.\n\nThat the doctrine of the _real presence_ of the body and blood of the\nSaviour in the eucharist, is taught in the symbolical books, is\nacknowledged by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann, and indeed generally\nadmitted, though variously stated and explained. It would therefore be\nunnecessary to quote those symbols in proof, were it not that many of\nour readers have not access to them elsewhere, and that the\ncompleteness of our representation, as well as the plan of our work\nrequire it. The following passages will suffice to explain this view:--\n\n_Augsburg Confession_, Art. X.\n\nOF THE LORD'S SUPPER.\n\n\"Concerning the holy Supper of the Lord, it is taught, that the _true\nbody and blood_ of Christ are truly present, under the form of bread\nand wine, in the Lord's Supper, and are there administered and\nreceived.\"--_Symb. Books_, p. 112.\n\n_Apology to the Confession_, Art. VII., VIII. (IV.)\n\n\"Our adversaries (the Romanists,) do not object to the tenth article\n(of the Augsburg Confession,) in which we confess that the _body and\nblood_ of Christ our Lord, are _truly present_ in the holy supper, and\nadministered and received with the visible elements, the bread and wine,\nas hitherto maintained in the (Romish) church, and as the Greek Canon\nshows.\"--_Symb. Books_, p. 227.\n\n_Smalcald_, Article VI.\n\n\"Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine\nin the Eucharist, are _the true body and blood_ of Christ, which are\nadministered and received, not only by pious, but also by impious\nChristians.\"--_Symb. Books_, p. 384.\n\n_Luther's Smaller Catechism_.\n\n\"_What is the Sacrament of the altar?_\n\n\"_Ans_.--It is the _true body and blood_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, with\nbread and wine, instituted by Christ himself, for us Christians to eat\nand drink.\"--_Symb. Books_, p. 124.\n\n_Form of Concord_, Pt. I., Art. VII.\n\n\"We teach that the _true body and blood_ of our Lord Jesus Christ, are\ntruly and essentially, or substantially, present in the Lord's Supper,\nadministered with the bread and wine, and _received with the lips by\nall_ those who use this sacrament, be they worthy or unworthy, good or\nevil, believing or unbelieving; being received by the believing unto\nconsolation and life, but by the unbelieving unto judgment.\"-_Symb.\nBooks_, p. 570.\n\n\"We believe, teach, and confess, that the words of the testament of\nChrist, are not to be understood otherwise than according to their\n_literal_ sense, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of\nChrist, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but on account of\ntheir sacramental union, _that the bread and wine_ ARE _truly the body\nand blood of Christ_.\" (Sondern dass es wahrhaftig um sacramentlicher\nEinigkeit willen der Leib und Blut Christi sei. Sed ut propter\nsacramentalem unionem panis et vinum _vere sint corpus et sanguis\nChristi_.)--_Idem_., p. 571.\n\n\"We believe, teach, and confess, that not only the truly believing and\nthe worthy, but also the unworthy and the unbelieving, _receive the\ntrue body and blood of Christ_.\"-Page 572.\n\n\"In addition to the above clear passages, incontestably teaching the\nreal presence, it deserves to be ever remembered, that only fourteen\nyears after the Form of Concord was published, when Duke Frederick\nWilliam, during the minority of Christian II., published the VISITATION\nARTICLES OF SAXONY, in 1594, in order to suppress the Melancthonian\ntendencies to reject this and other peculiarities of the symbols, the\nArticle on this subject which was framed by men confessedly adhering to\nthe old symbols, and designing to re-enunciate their true import, and\nwhich was enforced upon the whole church in Saxony as symbolic, gives\nthe most objectionable view of this doctrine, viz.: I. 'The pure\ndoctrine of our church is, that the words, '_Take and eat, this is my\nbody: drink, this is my blood_, are to be understood _simply and\naccording to the letter_.' II. That the body (which is received and\neaten,) is the _proper_ and _natural body_ (der rechte natuerliche Leib)\nof Christ, _which hung upon the cross;_ and the blood (which is drunk)\nis the _proper_ and _natural blood_ (das rechte natuerliche Blut) _which\nflowed from the side of Christ_.' Mueller's Symb. Books, p. 847. Now we\ncannot persuade ourselves, that this is the view of a single minister of\nthe General Synod, or of many out of it; and yet these are the views\nthat those are obligated to receive, who avow implicit allegiance to the\nformer symbolical books of our church in Europe. If any adopt the\nmodification received by many of our distinguished divines, such as\nReinhard Storr, Knapp, and others, they do not faithfully embrace the\nsymbolical doctrine, and cannot fairly profess to do so.\"\n\nIn regard to the arguments against this view of the _mode_ of the\nSaviour's presence, we shall merely add an enumeration of the principal,\nand refer the reader for a more full and detailed discussion of the\nsubject to Discourse IV. contained in our History of the American\nLutheran Church, pp. 120 to 154, 5th edition.\n\nThe Reformers justly rejected the Romish error, that the bread and wine\nwere transformed and transubstantiated into the body and blood of\nChrist. But they still adhered to the opinion, that the real body and\nblood of the Saviour are present at the Eucharist, in some mysterious\nway, and are received by the month of every communicant, worthy and\nunworthy. This view of the subject appears inconsistent with the Word\nof God, for various reasons:-\n\n(_a_) When Christ uttered the words, this (bread) is my body, his body\nwas not yet dead, but living and reclining, at their side at the table.\nIt was therefore certainly not received by them into their mouths. The\nlanguage must, therefore, have been figurative, such as Jesus was\naccustomed often to employ. Thus, when he said, \"I am the _door_\" John\nx. 9, he certainly does not mean a literal door, such as a door of wood\nor stone or brass or of any other material. He means that the\nacceptance of the atonement and mediation by the sinner is the\nappointed condition of salvation to him. Thus also when he says, \"I am\nthe _true vine_\" John xv. 1; or \"The field is the world,\" \"The seed is\nthe word,\" &c., he evidently is speaking figuratively and communicating\nimportant moral truth, by images drawn from physical nature, as is\nnaturally done by nearly all writers and speakers of all ages and in\nall languages.\n\n(_b_) The blessed Saviour himself exhorts us, \"Do this in remembrance of\nme;\" but we can remember only that which is past and absent. Hence when\nhe admonishes us to do this in remembrance of him, he teaches us, that\nhe is not personally or bodily present at the eucharistic celebration.\n\n(_c_) Paul also represents the design of this ordinance to be, \"To show\nor publish the _Lord's death_,\" until he comes. But the Lord's death\nupon the cross occurred about eighteen hundred and twenty years ago.\nTherefore, according to Paul, the object of the holy supper is to\ncommemorate a _past event_, and not a present person.\n\n(_d_) The doctrine of the real presence of the true body and blood of\nChrist, contradicts the clear and indisputable testimony of our senses,\nfor as the body and blood are to be received by the mouth of the\ncommunicant, they must be circumscribed by space, and the reception must\nbe a local and material one, which if it did occur at sacramental\noccasions, could be observed by the senses.\n\n(_e_) It contradicts the observation of all nations and all ages, that\nevery body or material substance must occupy a definite portion of\nspace, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time.\n\nFor these and other reasons the great mass of our ministers and\nchurches, connected with the General Synod, reject this doctrine, as\ninconsistent with the word of God. The disposition to reject this error,\nor at least to leave the mode of the Saviour's presence undecided, was\nmanifested by Melancthon himself, as is evident from his having stricken\nout the words which teach it from the Augsburg Confession, and from his\nhaving inserted others in their stead of a general nature, leaving room\nfor different opinions on this question. The same disposition prevailed\nextensively in Germany in the latter third of the sixteenth century.\nBut during the first quarter of the present century, the conviction that\nthe Reformers did not purge away the whole of the Romish error from this\ndoctrine, gained ground universally until the great mass of the whole\nLutheran Church, before the year 1817, had rejected the doctrine of the\nreal presence. During the last twenty years the doctrines and writings\nof the Reformation in general have been the subject of extensive study\nby the reviving church in Germany, and as is natural, a small portion\nof the churches have embraced the symbolic view of this doctrine in\nfull, and have become known as Old Lutherans, whilst others, both there\nand in this country, have embraced various modifications of it. But the\ngreat body of the ministers and churches regard the real presence of\nthe _body_ and _blood_ of the Saviour, in any proper sense, which the\nwords convey, as a misapprehension of the word of God.\n\n_The supposed special Sin-forgiving Power of the Lord's Supper_.\n\nOn this subject, important as it is, especially to the masses of the\nless educated, who are most liable to these erroneous views, but little\nneed be said in addition to the principles established on the subject\nof the sacraments in general. The word of God clearly inculcates the\ndoctrine, to which Luther and his coadjutors gave such prominence, that\nno one can be justified or pardoned except by a living faith in Christ,\nand such a faith is found only in the regenerate mind. And whenever the\nsinner exercises this living faith in Christ he is justified, that is,\nhis sins are pardoned, he is in a _state of justification_, and\ncontinues in it, until by deliberate, voluntary violation of God's law,\nhe falls from grace. Now, every communicant either possesses this faith,\nor he does not. If he does, he is justified or pardoned before he\ncommunes; if he is destitute of this faith, his communing cannot justify\nor pardon him; for man is justified by faith alone. Yet are there\nthousands of church members who afford no satisfactory evidence of\nregeneration, or of that faith which works by love, and purifies the\nheart, and overcomes the world; who, because they approach the\nsacramental table with seriousness and sincerity, and perhaps with some\nsorrow for their sins, believe that they obtain pardon for their\ntransgressions, and yet still continue in their unregenerate state. It\ncannot be said that the symbolical books clearly teach the above error,\nbut they are not sufficiently guarded, and are understood by many as\ninculcating the doctrine, that a sincere and devout participation of\nthe Lord's Supper secures the pardon of sin, even where satisfactory\nevidences of regeneration are wanting, the persons referred to\nmistaking a mere historical belief for a living faith. Hence, as the\n_Scripture nowhere connects the forgiveness of sins with the duty of\nsacramental communion_, any more than with the performance of any other\nprominent christian duty, it is not proper that we should do so. The\ndesign of the Holy Supper is to show forth the Lord's death, to profess\nthe name of the Redeemer before the world, to confirm the previous\nfaith of the communicant, to bring him into closest spiritual communion\nwith his blessed Saviour, and to secure his special spiritual blessing:\nbut not to bestow forgiveness of sins upon the unregenerate, however\nserious they may be. Against this dangerous error all should therefore\ncarefully guard, and ever remember the declaration of the Lord Jesus\nwhen he said, \"_Unless a man be born again_ (become a new creature in\nChrist Jesus) _he cannot see the kindom [sic] of God_.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\nEXORCISM.\n\nThis superstitious practice, which consists in a prescribed formula of\nadjuration, accompanied by various menacing demonstrations, by the use\nof which the priest professes to expel the evil spirits from an\nindividual, of whom they are supposed to have taken possession, was\npractised in the Romish Church, principally before the baptism of\ninfants. The rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in\nvarious parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe, for several centuries.\nIn the American Lutheran Church, it was never received by the fathers\nof our church, and is regarded as unscriptural and highly objectionable,\nunder the most favorable interpretation that can be given it.\n\nAs exorcism is not touched by the Augsburg Confession, it is also not\ndiscussed by the Rev. Mr. Mann, in his Plea. But as others have\nobjected to the Platform for representing it as in any degree a part of\nthe Symbolic system, we will adduce evidence enough to satisfy every\nimpartial and reasonable reader, that it was so regarded for several\ncenturies, by a considerable portion of the Lutheran Church in Europe;\nand that the assertion of the Platform, \"_that this rite was retained,\nwith an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church\nin Europe, for several centuries_,\" (p. 23,) is even more than\nsustained.\n\nAs our church, in common with the other state churches of Europe, is\ncontrolled by the civil government, the ministers and members of the\nchurch were never invited or permitted to deliberate and decide on the\nquestion what books they will receive as symbolical or binding. This\nwork the political rulers or princes determined for them, in\nconsultation with some leading divines. Still we may fairly regard those\nconfessional writings as symbolical, which have been prescribed by the\ngovernment, and received and _practiced_ on by the churches. Now, if the\n\"Taufbuechlein,\" \" Tract or Directory for Baptism,\" of Luther, _in which\nExorcism is commanded_, was thus prescribed and received [tr. note:\nthere is a space here which could be meant to contain the word \"by\"] two\nor three principalities or provinces of Europe, the position of the\nPlatform is vindicated; but the truth is, it was received by entire\nkingdoms and provinces, and retained in practice for centuries; so that\nthe Platform is more than sustained. Let us _first_ hear the testimony\nof the best authorities of Germany on the subject, and _then_ sum up\nthe results.\n\n(_a_) _Dr. Guericke, [Note 1] Professor of Theology at Halle, the author\nof a well-known Church History, testifies: \"Moreover, the Smaller\nCatechism (of Luther) contained, even in the oldest known German\nedition, (Wittenberg, 1529,) several forms of prayer, the Family\ndiretory [sic] or selection of Scripture passages on the\nduties of all orders and conditions of men, and the Directory for\nmarriage and _baptism, all of which supplementary tracts were also\nreceived into the_ FIRST _authentic edition of the German \"Book of\nConcord_.\" The baptismal directory was therefore received into the very\nfirst authentic edition of the symbolical books.\n\n(_b_) _Dr. Koellner_, Professor of Theology at Goettingen, in his\nexcellent \"Symbolik,\" p. 501, states: \"There was a Latin Directory for\nBaptism extant, (in the Romish church,) which Luther translated into\nGerman unaltered in 1523. It is found in Vol. II. of his works, Jena\nedition, pp. 248-252, and Vol. II. All, pp. 304-327. But in 1524 or 1526\nhe wrote the Baptismal Directory, and brought it into the form in which\nit was added to the Catechism. Thus it is found Vol. II. of Altenb. ed.\np. 227. It was therefore added to the Catechism by Luther himself, and\nat the earliest period (of the Reformation.) [Note 2] The directory for\nthe solemnization of matrimony was also added by Luther in the 2d\nedition. Both those Tracts were usually published together with the\nsmaller Catechism; and were also received into the Corpus Thuring. and\ninto _the first edition of the Book of Concord_, June, 1580.\"\n\nAgain, we see that this Directory for baptism in which exorcism is\nprescribed, was not only the production of Luther, but also added by\nhim to his Catechism, and introduced into the very first collection of\nthe symbolical book.\n\n(_c_) _Dr. Baumgarten Crusius_, Professor of Theology at Jena, in his\nHistory of Christian Doctrines, Vol. II. p. 322, thus testifies: \"By\nmeans of the religiously energetic language of Luther, _exorcism_ was\nintroduced among his party, and established itself amid much opposition,\n(amongst others from the Papists) in rigid opposition to Calvinism, and\nas is the case amongst us _at present_, (1846,) from attachment to\nancient, stern orthodoxy, and their idea of genuine Lutheranism, as well\nas from the superstitious belief of a magic influence over the kingdom\nof evil spirits.\"--\"The liturgic formula (for exorcism) retained in the\nLutheran church, was first zealously espoused by the populace, when the\nCrypto-Calvinists especially in Saxony, raised opposition to it; and\nsince then it has been regarded as a _criterion of Lutheranism_,\nalthough exorcism is not mentioned in the Saxon Articles of Visitation,\nand from an early period it was defended by the Lutheran theologians\nmerely as a free matter of indifference, with only a figurative\nmeaning.\" Here we find not only that exorcism has extensively prevailed\nin the Lutheran church of Germany, but that as late as 1846, it still\nwas adhered to by some in Saxony: and that for a long time after the\nrise of Crypto-Calvinism in the latter part of the sixteenth century,\nadherence to this rite was regarded as a _test_ of genuine Lutheranism.\nHow vain therefore the attempt to deny that it was regarded as a part of\nsymbolic Lutheranism in some parts of the church!\n\n(_d_.) _Dr. Augusti_, Professor of Theology at Bonn, and more recently\nat Berlin, the celebrated author of numerous works, bears the following\ntestimony: \"At the close of the sixteenth century the vindication of\nexorcism was considered a proof of _Lutheran orthodoxy_ in opposition to\nthe Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists. In the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies there was much contention for and against it; and even in the\n_nineteenth_ century its retention or rejection was not yet regarded as\na matter of indifference.\" p. 350.\n\n(_e_) In _Siegel's_ Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, (a\nlearned and excellent work in four volumes, published in Leipsic, 1836,)\nvol II. p. 64, 65, 67, we find the following testimony: \"Inasmuch as he\n(Luther) pronounced this rite not indeed as necessary, but yet as\n_highly useful_, in order to remind the people very impressively of the\npower of sin and the devil; it was not remarkable that the zealous\nadherents of Luther were also unwilling to abandon his views on this\nsubject. Hence we find that _in all countries in which the views and\nexample of Luther were rigidly adhered to, as in Saxony, Wuertemburg,\nHanover, Sweden, and other places_, a strong attachment to exorcism\nprevailed, which was often regarded _as the criterion of orthodoxy_.\"\n\"Some Lutherans cherished exorcism with a kind of _passionate\nfondness_.\" \"In the sixteenth century exorcism was alternately defended\nin one place and disapproved in another; and in the latter half of the\neighteenth, attention was again directed to the subject partly by\naccidental circumstances, and partly also by the great changes in the\ndepartment of theology. The result has been that exorcism has been\nentirely abolished in different individual towns; and in several\ncountries. This, for example, was the case in Regensburg in 1781, in\nHamburg in 1786, and since 1811, in all Sweden.\" \"In other Protestant\nLutheran Stales, it is still left to the choice of the parents, whether\nthey will have their children baptised with or without exorcism.\" \"The\nauthor (says Siegel) was himself placed in the unpleasant predicament\nin the year 1836,\" of having been requested to perform baptism with\nexorcism!!\n\n(_f_) _Dr. Sigismund J. Baumgarten_ of Halle, one of the most learned\nand profound divines that ever adorned the Lutheran church, who himself\npublished one of the best and the most extensively circulated editions\nof the symbolical books in 1747, not only inserts the Directory for\nBaptism (which inculcates exorcism) among the symbolical books, but on\np. 637 bears the following testimony: \"The Directory for solemnizing\nmarriage, as well as the following _Directory for Baptism_, are found in\nthe _oldest Corp. Doctrinae_, in the _Thuringian, Julian, Brandenburg_,\nand first DRESDEN EDITIONS, and also subsequently, in the Leipsic and\nReineccian,\" p. 637.\n\nFrom these historical testimonies the following points are clearly\nestablished:\n\n1. That the Directory for Baptism, in which _exorcism_ is prescribed,\nwas certainly received into the first and authentic edition of the\nGerman Book of Concord, or collection of symbolical books. This is\nattested by Drs. Guericke, Sig. Baumgarten, and Koellner. It was\nsubsequently republished in various other editions, down till the recent\neditions of Mueller, and also of Ludwig in our own country. In other\neditions [Note 3] it was omitted, because in some portions of Germany\nexorcism was rejected at an early day, as stated in the History of the\nAmerican Lutheran Church.\n\n2. It is proved that the _practice of exorcism_ was for a long time\nregarded as a _test of orthodoxy_ in many Lutheran territories of\nGermany. Attested by Drs. Augusti, Baumgarten Crusius and Siegel. In\nthese countries editions of the symbolical books containing the\nBaptismal Directory were in use, and the rite was regarded as\nsymbolical.\n\n3. The rite was received and practised throughout Sweden, the entire\nkingdom of Wuertemberg, Hanover, Saxony, &c., &c. Siegel and others.\n[sic]\n\n4. It is established incontestibly [sic] that the practice was continued\nfor centuries in some of these countries, and was but recently renounced\nby others. Siegel and others. [sic]\n\nWe may therefore well affirm, that the position of the Definite\nPlatform on this subject has been established beyond the possibility of\nserious doubt, namely, \"_That this rite was retained, with an altered\ninterpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe for\nseveral centuries_.\" p. 23.\n\nAs to making the symbolic character of a book depend on its being found\nin any particular number of editions or in them all, it is inadmissible,\nbecause, as Dr. Hase remarks, and the respected author of the Plea\nadmits, the Augsburg Confession is the only one of the Lutheran\nsymbolical books which has been universally received throughout the\nchurch. These editions, moreover, have been published, some by the civil\ngovernments, and others by private individuals; and the Lutheran church\nas such, has never been called on to decide which books are symbolic.\nThe practice of different portions of the church is different, therefore\nthe distinction must be made as to the extent to which each book was\nreceived; and as it is certain that exorcism was in some countries and\nperiods even regarded as a _distinctive test_ of orthodoxy, _then\nand there_, this rite must have been regarded as symbolic in the\nhighest degree.\n\nNote 1. Symbolik, p. 103, n. 2.\n\nNote 2. The original is: Also von Luther selbst und schon in den ersten\n_Zeugen_ von ihm dem Katechismus ange haengt.\" [sic on\npunctuation] _Zeugen_ here is evidently a typographical error for\nZeiten.\n\nNote 3. For particulars see the writer's History of the American\nLutheran Church, pp. 239-241.\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\nCONCLUDING REMARKS.\n\nWe have thus found the statements of the Definite Platform, as to the\ntenets taught in the Augsburg Confession and other Symbolical books,\nestablished by the most careful and conscientious investigation of the\noriginal sources. Such are the facts incontestibly [sic] proved. They\nare true, and will remain true, notwithstanding all the ill-advised\nefforts to hide them. The Augsburg Confession, and other symbols, do\nteach the tenets ascribed to them in the Platform, and, in the judgment\nof the great mass of American Lutherans, the Word of God rejects them,\nand inculcates the contrary. All the invective and vituperation, not of\nthe author of the Plea but of multitudes of old-Lutherans, &c., cannot\nchange the truth, for it is unchangeable and eternal; nor is it their\nduty to deny it, any more than it is ours.\n\nThe question then arises, what is our duty under these circumstances?\nWhat does God expect of us, in view of these facts, as men to whom the\ninterests and management of a portion of his church are confided? As men\nto whom he has given his inspired oracles, as the sure word of prophecy,\nto which we are to give heed? As men who love Luther and his\nfellow-laborers much, but desire to love Christ more?\n\nDoes our duty call on us to deny the truth, and say, these doctrines are\nnot taught in these books, when the most careful examination has assured\nus of the contrary? No honest man can affirm this.\n\nIs it honest or honorable to avow, unconditionally, creeds containing\nerrors, and then labor to gloss over or defend these errors, because\nthey are there? This would be to descend to the level of corrupt\npoliticians, who professedly defend every measure of their party,\nwhether right or wrong.\n\nIs it our duty to profess such creeds, then by arbitrary interpretations\nto explain away these errors, and thus endeavor to hide them from the\npublic view? This would be injustice to the memory of their authors, and\ncast reproach on the principles of the Reformation, the essence of which\nwas, that human errors must be rejected in favor of God's Word; and that\nthe standards or professed doctrines of the church, must in every age be\nconformed to her views of Scripture truth.\n\nIs it our duty, is it the Master's will, that we should try to believe\nthose tenets of a creed which the Scriptures condemn? This would be\ntreason to the Master, and be hearkening to the teachings of man rather\nthan of God! Yet how many are there from whose lips the phrase\nconfessional fidelity (Bekenntnisstreue,) is heard far oftener than\nfidelity to God's word (Bibeltreue)!\n\nIs it our duty to renounce the Augsburg Confession altogether? This\nwould be the case, _if its errors were fundamental_. But as they are few\nin number, and all relate to non-fundamental points, this does not\nnecessarily follow. As nineteen twentieths of the creed are sustained by\nScripture, and embody a rich and ample exhibition of divine truth, ten\ntimes as extended as that which was invested with normative authority in\nthe golden age, the first three centuries of the Christian church, and\nused as a term of Christian fellowship, we may well retain the creed,\nafter in some way disavowing its several errors. And the historical\nimportance of the document, as the type of a renovated Christianity,\nauthenticated by the blessing of Heaven, renders its retention\ndesirable, as far as it has approved itself to the conscience of the\nchurch, after the increasing philological, exegetical, and historical\nlight of three progressive centuries.\n\nThe position of those who maintain that _genuine Lutheranism_ demands\nperpetual adherence to everything contained in this Confession, yea, as\nsome affirm, to all the former symbolical books, is utterly untenable.\nIn the _first_ place, these brethren forget that the symbolic system,\n_i.e._, the practice of binding ministers to the so-called symbolical\nbooks, was _not_ adopted at the organization of the Lutheran Church,\n_nor at any time during Luther's life_, nor until more than half a\ncentury after the rise of Lutheranism, and more than a quarter of a\ncentury after the noble Luther had gone to his heavenly rest.\n_Symbolism is therefore no part of original Lutheranism_. The efforts of\nLuther to reform the Romish Church began in 1517--the first regular\norganization of Lutheran churches was not made until some time after his\nexcommunication by the Pope, in 1520. The first directory for Lutheran\nworship was published by Luther in 1523, in which, although private\nmasses and the idea of the mass being a sacrifice had been rejected, the\n_ceremonies_ of the mass, even the _elevation of the host_, (though not\nfor adoration) were retained; another improved one in 1526; and the\nAugsburg Confession was presented to the Diet in 1530; but the full\nsymbolic system contended for by some of our opponents, was not adopted\nuntil 1580, _after the Lutheran church had existed more than half a\ncentury!!_ That system, historically considered, is not, therefore,\nLutheran, but _Post_-Lutheran and _Ultra_-Lutheran, for it is after him\nin time, and goes beyond him at least in one point of doctrine, and far\nbeyond him in the abridgement [sic] of ministerial liberty of doctrinal\nprofession, and in exaction of uniformity on minor points. Again, these\nbrethren forget that Luther thought it his duty to _reform_ the church\nof his birth, and did _not leave it until driven out by the Pope_. The\nefforts of American Lutherans to reform and render more biblical the\necclesiastical framework of our church, is therefore, _truly Lutheran in\nprinciple_, indeed far more Lutheran, than to retain unaltered those\nsymbols, when we believe that the progress of Protestant light and\nbiblical investigation for three hundred years, has proved them to\ncontain important errors.\n\nThirdly, they forget that _Luther himself never saw, much less approved,\nthe most objectionable and stringent of these books_, the Form of\nConcord, the profession of which they would make essential to\nLutheranism.\n\nFourthly, they overlook the fact that _entire Lutheran kingdoms, such as\nDenmark and Sweden, from the beginning rejected some of these books_,\nand yet are everywhere acknowledged as Lutherans.\n\nFifthy, [sic] they forget that the _Form of Concord itself professes to\nregard Confessions of faith only an exhibitions of the manner_ in which\nChristians of _a particular age understand the Scriptures;_ implying\nthat they were not supposed even by the authors of the symbolic system\nthemselves to be unchangeable, although their incorporation with the\ncivil law of the land, closed the door against all subsequent\nimprovement.\n\nA revision of our symbolic standpoint, is therefore perfectly consistent\nwith primitive Lutheranism; and according to the Congregational or\nIndependent principles of Lutheran church government, advocated by\nLuther, and hitherto practiced on by our American church, as well as\navowed by the Constitution of the General Synod, each District Synod is\ncompetent to do this work for herself as long as she retains \"the\n_fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible as taught by our church.\"\n\nHow then can this important work be best accomplished, of releasing\nourselves on the one hand from the profession of the errors contained\nin the Confession, and on the other of avowing the unadulterated truths\nof God's word?\n\n1. Shall we _drop the practice of binding our ministers to any creed\nexcept the Bible_, and refer in unofficial ways to the _Augsburg\nConfession_, as in general a correct summary of our views of Bible\ntruth? This was the practice of the _fathers of our church in the Synod\nof Pennsylvania from the beginning of this century, till within two or\nthree years_. It was practiced by that body whilst it was controlled by\n_Drs. Helmuth, Schmidt, Muhlenberg_, of Lancaster, _Schaeffer_, of\nPhiladelphia, _Endress, Lochman, J. G. Schmucker, Geissenhainer_\nsubsequently of New York, _Muhlenberg_, of Reading, and the present\nvenerable Senior of the Ministerium, Rev. _Baetis_. This plan we always\nregarded as too lax, and preferred the distinct avowal of the Augsburg\nConfession as to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, and were\nourselves instrumental in introducing its qualified recognition into\nthe General Synod's Theological Seminary in 1825, and her Constitution\nfor District Synods in 1829. Still we have recently been denounced as\nunfaithful to the confession, by those unacquainted with the history of\nour church during the last five and thirty years.\n\n2. Shall we _adopt a new creed_, to supercede [sic] the venerable\nAugsburg Confession? This is unnecessary, because the points regarded as\nerroneous in it, are confessedly few and non-essential. When these are\nerased, the great mass of Christian truth remains intact, and not one\nof all the cardinal doctrines of the Reformation is affected.\n\n3. Shall we adopt and publish the entire Augsburg Confession, _with a\nlist annexed to it, of those points believed by the majority to be\nerroneous_, providing that they may be rejected by all who do not\nbelieve them? This would be a contradictory procedure, first to publish\nthe whole, and then to reject a portion of it as not symbolic or\nbinding. If these supposed errors are not to be received, why\nperpetuate their memory, and afford to the enemies of our venerable\nchurch, a constant supply of material to fight against us, and render\nthe church odious in the popular eye?\n\n4. Shall we remain satisfied with _the General Synod's doctrinal basis_,\nof absolute assent to the _Bible_, and agreement with the _Augsburg\nConfession_ as far as the _fundamentals_ of God's Word are concerned?\n\nThis pledge we always regarded as accordant with the principles of God's\nWord, and sufficient for the necessities of the church. Amid the recent\nprogress of more rigid symbolism, and symbolic sympathies, it has,\nhowever, been disparaged by some connected with the General Synod. We\nstill believe it sufficient, _provided all_ the Synods embraced in the\nGeneral Synod will adhere to it; and those who have recently adopted the\nentire symbolic system, will return to it. But if District Synods of\nsymbolic tendencies, will adopt the obligation to the mass of symbolic\nbooks; New School Lutherans are compelled, in self-defence, also to\ndefine their position more minutely, that the christian public may not\nhold them responsible for the errors of the former symbols, nor their\nsupposed adherence to them tend to give them currency. If, therefore,\nOld School Synods adhere to their recent pledge to all the symbolical\nbooks, we prefer the following course for other District Synods.\n\n5. The best plan by far in our judgment is to _retain the great body of\nthe Confession unaltered, and simply to omit the few sentences\ninculcating the disputed or erroneous topics_. The remainder is believed\nby all, and can be subscribed by all, whether they believe the omitted\ntopics or not.\n\nThis is precisely the thing done by the American Recension of the\nAugsburg Confession. _It's [sic] principle is to omit the\ndisputed points and, retain unaltered the remainder, on which we all\nagree_. On the three disputed points which alone are believed by any\namongst us, namely, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of the\nSaviour in the eucharist, and the denial of the divine appointment of\nthe Christian Sabbath, entire freedom is allowed. As to the others,\nprivate confession and absolution, the ceremonies of the mass, and\nexorcism, which was taught not in the Augsburg Confession, but in the\nAppendix to Luther's Smaller Catechism,--they are not received by any\none within the pale of the General Synod, and are so distinctly\nsemi-Romish that they are prohibited by the Platform. The adoption of\nthe name, _American Recension_, always notifies th reader of some\nrevision, and precluded the charge of an attempt to pass it off for the\nunaltered Confession of the sixteenth century.\n\nThe Synodical Disclaimer or List of these rejected errors, which is\nannexed to the Platform, can be dropped as soon as the churches are\nfully informed of the ground of our not receiving the other symbolical\nbooks, or if this be deemed unnecessary, it may be dropped at once. By\nthe adoption of either of the latter two methods, and especially of the\nlast, by the individual District Synods, they would present to the\nworld a clear profession of their faith, have a sufficient test for the\nadmission of members, and the rejection of heretics, and could\nharmoniously labor together for the furtherance of the gospel. We have\nthus in the fear of God and in the spirit of Christian love; but\nuninfluenced by the fear or favor of man, presented our deliberate\nconvictions on the subjects now agitating the church, after six and\nthirty years of study of the Bible, and experience in the ministry of\nour divine Master. And we close with the earnest prayer, that the Great\nHead of the Church, may employ these pages for the advancement of his\nglory, that he may conduct his beloved Zion onward in her march of\ndevelopment and progress, until she has attained her millennial\nfeatures, and her world-wide extension, and until \"the kingdoms of this\nworld are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, and he shall\nreign for ever and ever.\"\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\nDEFINITE PLATFORM;\nBEING THE\nDOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED,\nCONTAINED IN\nPART I.\nOF THE\nDEFINITE SYNODICAL PLATFORM,\nREFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING WORK, AND CONSTRUCTED\nIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE\nGENERAL SYNOD.\n\nPREFACE.\nAs the American Recension, contained in this Platform, adds not a single\nsentence to the Augsburg Confession, nor omits anything that has the\nleast pretension to be considered \"a fundamental doctrine of Scripture,\"\nit is perfectly consistent with the doctrinal test of the General Synod,\nas contained in her Formula of Government and Discipline, Chap. XVIII.,\nSec. 5, and XIX., Sec. 2. The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds are also universally\nreceived by our churches. Hence any District Synod, connected with the\nGeneral Synod, may, with perfect consistency, adopt this Platform.\n\nDOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED.\n\nWhereas it is the duty of the followers of Christ to profess his [sic]\nreligion before the world (Matt. x. 32), not only by their holy walk\nand conversation, but also by \"walking in the apostles' doctrines\"\n(1 Cor. xiv. 32), and bearing testimony \"to the faith once delivered to\nthe saints\" (Jude 3), Christians have, from the earlier ages, avowed\nsome brief summary of their doctrines or a Confession of their faith.\nSuch confessions, also called symbols, were the so-called Apostles'\nCreed, the Nicene Creed, &c., of the first four centuries after Christ.\n\nThus also did the Lutheran Reformers of the sixteenth century, when\ncited by the Emperor to appear before the Diet at Augsburg, present the\nConfession, bearing the name of that city, as an expose of their\nprincipal doctrines; in which they also professedly reject only the\n_greater part_ of the errors that had crept into the Romish Church.\n(See conclusion of the Abuses Corrected.)\n\nAgain, a quarter of a century after Luther's death, this and other\nwritings of Luther and Melancthon, together with another work which\nneither of them ever saw, the Form of Concord, were made binding on\nministers and churches, not by the church herself, acting of her own\nfree choice, but by the civil authorities of certain kingdoms and\nprincipalities, in consultation with some prominent theologians. The\nmajority of Lutheran kingdoms, however, rejected one or more of them,\nand the Augsburg Confession alone has been acknowledged by the entire\nLutheran Church. (Hutterus Red. p. 116, Sec. 50.)\n\nWhereas the entire Lutheran Church of Germany has rejected the binding\nauthority of the symbolical books as a whole, and also abandoned some\nof the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, and our fathers in this\ncountry more, [sic] than half century ago, ceased to require\na pledge to any of these books, whilst they still believed and in\nvarious ways avowed the great fundamental doctrines contained in them:\n\nAnd whereas the General Synod of the American Lutheran Church, about a\nquarter of a century ago, again introduced a qualified acknowledgment of\nthe Augsburg Confession, in the Constitution of her Theological\nSeminary, and in her Constitution for District Synods, at the ordination\nand licensure of ministers, without specifying tho doctrines to be\nomitted, except by the designation that they are not fundamental\ndoctrines of Scripture; and whereas a desire has extensively prevailed\namongst our ministers and churches, to have this basis expressed in a\nmore definite manner; and the General Synod has left this matter\noptional with each district Synod:\n\n_Therefore, Resolved_, That this Synod hereby avows its belief in the\nfollowing doctrinal Basis, namely, the so-called _Apostles' Creed_, the\n_Nicene Creed_, and _the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession_,\nas a more definite expression of the doctrinal pledge prescribed by the\nGeneral Synod's Constitution for District Synods, and as a correct\nexhibition of the Scripture doctrines discussed in it: and that we\nregard agreement among brethren on these subjects as a sufficient basis\nfor harmonious co-operation in the same church.\n\nDOCTRINAL BASIS OR CREED.\n\n_The Old and New Testaments the only Infallible Rule of Faith and\nPractice_\n\n1. \"We believe, teach, and confess, that the only rule and standard,\naccording to which all doctrines and teachers alike ought to be tried\nand judged, are the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments alone, as\nit is written, Psalm cxix. 105: 'Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a\nlight upon my path.' And St. Paul, Gal. i.8, says 'Though an angel from\nheaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached\nunto you, let him be accursed.'\n\n2. \"But all human writings and symbols, are not authorities like the\nHoly Scriptures; but they are only a testimony and explanation of our\nfaith, showing the manner in which at any time the Holy Scriptures were\nunderstood and explained by those who then lived, in respect to articles\nthat had been controverted in the church of God, and also the grounds on\nwhich doctrines that were opposed to the Holy Scriptures, had been\nrejected and condemned.\"--_Form of Concord, pp_. 551, 552.\n\nTHE APOSTLES' CREED\n\nI believe in God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth:\n\nAnd in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the\nHoly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was\ncrucified, dead and buried. -- The third day he rose from the dead, he\nascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father\nAlmighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.\n\nI believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy universal church; the communion\nof saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and\nthe life everlasting.\n\nTHE NICENO-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED.\n\nI believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,\nand of all things visible and invisible.\n\nAnd in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of\nhis Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of light, true God of\nthe true God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father,\nby whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came\ndown from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin\nMary, and was made man and was crucified also for us under Pontius\nPilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again,\naccording to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on\nthe right hand of the Father; and he shall come again with glory to\njudge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.\n\nAnd I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who\nproceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son\ntogether is worshipped [sic] and glorified, who spake by the prophets.\nAnd I believe in one holy universal and apostolic church. I acknowledge\none baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection\nof the dead and the life of the world to come.\n\nAMERICAN RECENSION OF THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION.\n\nARTICLE I. - OF GOD.\n\nOur churches with one accord teach, that the decree of the Council of\nNice, concerning the unity of the Divine essence, and concerning the\nthree persons, is true, and ought to be confidently believed, viz.: that\nthere is one Divine essence, which is called and is God, eternal,\nincorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom and goodness, the\nCreator and Preserver of all things visible and invisible; and yet, that\nthere are three persons, who are of the same essence and power, and are\nco-eternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the term\nperson they use in the same sense in which it is employed by\necclesiastical writers on this subject: to signify, not a part or\nquality of something else, but that which exists of itself.\n\nARTICLE II. - OF NATURAL DEPRAVITY.\n\nOur churches likewise teach, that since the fall of Adam, all men who\nare naturally engendered, are born with sin, that is, without the fear\nof God or confidence towards Him, and with sinful propensities: and that\nthis disease, or natural depravity, is really sin, and still causes\neternal death to those who are not born again. And they reject the\nopinion of those who, in order that they may detract from the glory of\nthe merits and benefits of Christ, allege that man may be justified\nbefore God by the powers of his own reason.\n\nARTICLE III. - OF THE SON OF GOD AND HIS MEDIATORIAL WORK.\n\nThey likewise teach, that the Word, that is, the Son of God, assumed\nhuman nature, in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that the two\nnatures, human and divine, inseparably united in one person, constitute\none Christ, who is true God and man, born of the Virgin Mary; who truly\nsuffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, that he might reconcile\nthe Father to us, and be a sacrifice not only for original sin, but\nalso for all the actual sins of men. Likewise that he descended into\nhell (the place of departed spirits), and truly arose on the third day;\nthen ascended to heaven, that he might sit at the right hand of the\nFather, might perpetually reign over all creatures, and might sanctify\nthose who believe in him, by sending into their hearts the Holy Spirit,\nwho governs, consoles, quickens, and defends them against the devil and\nthe power of sin. The same Christ will return again openly, that he may\njudge the living and the dead, &c., according to the Apostolic Creed.\n\nARTICLE IV. - OF JUSTIFICATION.\n\nThey in like manner teach, that men cannot be justified before God by\ntheir own strength, merits, or works; but that they are justified\ngratuitously for Christ's sake, through faith; when they believe, that\nthey are received into favor, and that their sins are remitted on\naccount of Christ, who made satisfaction for our transgressions by his\ndeath. This faith God imputes to us as righteousness. ROM. iii. 4\n\nARTICLE V. - OF THE MINISTERIAL OFFICE.\n\nIn order that we may obtain this faith, the ministerial office has been\ninstituted, whose members are to teach the gospel, and administer the\nsacraments. For through the instrumentality of the word and sacraments,\nas means of grace, the Holy Spirit is given, who, in his own time and\nplace (or more literally, when and where it pleases God), produces\nfaith in those who hear the gospel message, namely, that God, for\nChrist's sake, and not on account of any merit in us, justifies those\nwho believe that on account of Christ they are received into (the\ndivine) favor.\n\nARTICLE VI. - CONCERNING NEW OBEDIENCE (OR A CHRISTIAN LIFE).\n\nThey likewise teach, this faith must bring forth good fruits; and that\nit is our duty to perform those good works which God has commanded,\nbecause he has enjoined them, and not in the expectation of thereby\nmeriting justification before him. For, remission of sins and\njustification are secured by faith; as the declaration of Christ himself\nimplies: \"When ye shall have done all those things, say, we are\nunprofitable servants.\"\n\nThe same thing is taught by the ancient ecclesiastical writers: for\nAmbrose says, \"this has been ordained by God, that he who believes in\nChrist is saved without works, receiving remission of sins gratuitously\nthrough faith alone.\"\n\nARTICLE VII. - OF THE CHURCH.\n\nThey likewise teach, that there will always be one holy church. The\nchurch is the congregation of the saints, in which the gospel is\ncorrectly taught and the sacraments are properly administered. And for\nthe true unity of the church nothing more is required, than agreement\nconcerning the doctrines of the gospel, and the administration of the\nsacraments. Nor is it necessary, that the same human traditions, that\nis, rites and ceremonies instituted by men, should be everywhere\nobserved. As Paul says: \"One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of\nall,\" &c.\n\nARTICLE VIII. - WHAT THE CHURCH IS.\n\nAlthough the church is properly a congregation of saints and true\nbelievers; yet in the present life, many hypocrites and wicked men are\nmingled with them.\n\nARTICLE IX. - CONCERNING BAPTISM.\n\nConcerning baptism, our churches teach, that it is \"a necessary\nordinance,\" [Note 1] that it is a means of grace, and ought to be\nadministered also to children, who are thereby dedicated to God, and\nreceived into his favor.\n\nARTICLE X. - OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.\n\nIn regard to the Lord's Supper they teach that Christ is present with\nthe communicants in the Lord's Supper, \"under the emblems of bread and\nwine.\" [Note 2]\n\nARTICLE XI. - OF CONFESSION.\n\n[As Private Confession and Absolution, which are inculcated in this\nArticle, though in a modified form, have been universally rejected by\nthe American Lutheran Church, the omission of this Article is demanded\nby the principle on which the American Recension of the Augsburg\nConfession is constructed; namely, to omit the several portions, which\nare rejected by the great mass of our churches in this country, and to\nadd nothing in their stead.] [tr. note: bracketed in the original]\n\nARTICLE XII. - OF REPENTANCE (AFTER BACKSLIDING).\n\nConcerning repentance they teach, that those who have relapsed into sin\nafter baptism, may at any time obtain pardon, when they repent. But\nrepentance properly consists of two parts. The one is contrition, or\nbeing struck with terrors of conscience, on account of acknowledged sin.\nThe other is faith, which is produced by the gospel; which believes that\npardon for sin is bestowed for Christ's sake; which tranquilizes the\nconscience, and liberates it from fear. Such repentance must be\nsucceeded by good works as its fruits.\n\nARTICLE XIII. - OF THE USE OF THE SACRAMENTS.\n\nConcerning the use of the sacraments our churches teach, that they were\ninstituted not only as marks of a Christian profession amongst men; but\nrather as signs and evidences of the divine disposition towards us,\ntendered for the purpose of exciting and confirming the faith of those\nwho use them. Hence the sacraments ought to be received with faith in\nthe promises which are exhibited and proposed by them.\n\nThey therefore condemn the opinion of those who maintain, that the\nsacraments produce justification in their recipients as a matter of\ncourse, [Note 3] who do not teach that faith is necessary, in the\nreception of the sacraments, to the remission of sins.\n\nARTICLE XIV. - OF CHURCH ORDERS, (OR THE MINISTRY.)\n\nConcerning church orders they teach, that no person ought publicly to\nteach \"or preach,\" [Note 4] in the church, or to administer the\nsacraments, without a regular call.\n\nARTICLE XV. - OF RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES.\n\nConcerning ecclesiastical ceremonies they teach, that those ceremonies\nought to be observed, which can be attended to without sin, and which\npromote peace and good order in the church, such as certain holy-days,\nfestivals, &c. Concerning matters of this kind, however, men are\ncautioned, lest their consciences be burdened, as though such\nobservances were necessary to salvation. They are also admonished that\nhuman traditionary observances, instituted with a view to appease God,\nand to merit his favor, and make satisfaction for sins, are contrary to\nthe gospel and the doctrine of faith \"in Christ.\" [Note 5] Wherefore\nvows and traditionary observances concerning meats, days, &c.,\ninstituted to merit grace and make satisfaction for sins, are useless,\nand contrary to the gospel.\n\nARTICLE XVI. - OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS.\n\nIn regard to political affairs our churches teach that legitimate\npolitical enactments are good works of God; that it is lawful for\nChristians to hold civil offices, to pronounce judgment, and decide\ncases according to existing laws; to inflict just punishment, wage just\nwars, and serve in them; to make lawful contracts; hold property; to\nmake oath when required by the magistrate, to marry, and to be married.\n\nHence Christians ought necessarily to yield obedience to their civil\nofficers and laws; unless they should command something sinful; in\nwhich case it is a duty to obey God rather than man. Acts v. 29.\n\nARTICLE XVII. - OF CHRIST'S RETURN TO JUDGMENT.\n\nOur churches also teach, that at the end of the world, Christ will\nappear for judgment; that he will raise all the dead; that he will\nbestow upon the pious and elect eternal life and endless joys, but will\ncondemn wicked men and devils to be punished without end.\n\nARTICLE XVIII. - OF FREE WILL.\n\nConcerning free will our churches teach, that the human will possesses\nsome liberty for the performance of civil duties, and for the choice of\nthose things lying within the control of reason. But it does not possess\nthe power, without the influence of the Holy Spirit, of being just\nbefore God, or yielding spiritual obedience: for the natural man\nreceiveth not the things which are of the Spirit of God: but this is\naccomplished in the heart, when the Holy Spirit is received through the\nword.\n\nThe same is declared by Augustine in so many words: \"We confess that all\nmen have a free will, which possesses the judgment of reason, by which\nthey cannot indeed, without the divine aid, either begin or certainly\naccomplish what is becoming in things relating to God; but only in\n'outward' [Note 6] works of the present life, as well good as evil. In\ngood works, I say, which arise from our natural goodness, such as to\nchoose to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to choose to have a\nfriend, to have clothing, to build a house, to take a wife, to feed\ncattle, to learn various and useful arts, or to do any good thing\nrelative to this life; all which things, however, do not exist without\nthe divine government; yea, they exist and begin to be from Him and\nthrough Him. And in evil works (men have a free will), such as to choose\nto worship an idol, to will to commit murder,\" &c.\n\nIt is not possible by the mere powers of nature, without the aid of the\nHoly Spirit, to love God above all things, and to do his commands\naccording to their intrinsic design. For, although nature may be able,\nafter a certain manner, to perform external actions, such as to abstain\nfrom theft, from murder, &c., yet it cannot perform the inner motions,\nsuch as the fear of God, faith in God, chastity, patience, &c.\n\nARTICLE XIX. - OF THE AUTHOR OF SIN.\n\nOn this subject they teach, that, although God is  the Creator and\nPreserver of nature, the cause of sin must be sought in the depraved\nwill of the devil and of wicked men, which, when destitute of divine\naid, turns itself away from God: agreeably to the declaration of Christ,\n\"When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.\" - JOHN viii. 44.\n\nARTICLE XX. - OF GOOD WORKS.\n\nOur writers are falsely acccused [sic] of prohibiting good works. Their\npublications on the ten commandments, and other similar subjects, show,\nthat they gave good instructions concerning all the different stations\nand duties of life, and explained what course of conduct, in any\nparticular calling, is pleasing to God. Concerning these things,\npreachers formerly said very little, but urged the necessity of puerile\nand useless works, such as certain holy-days, fasts, brotherhoods,\npilgrimages, worship of saints, rosaries, monastic vows, &c. These\nuseless things, our adversaries, having been admonished, now unlearn,\nand no longer teach as formerly. Moreover, they now begin to make\nmention of faith, about which they formerly observed a marvellous [sic]\nsilence. They now teach, that we are not justified by works alone, but\njoin faith to works, and maintain that we are justified by faith and\nworks. This doctrine is more tolerable than their former belief, and is\ncalculated to impart more consolation to the mind. Inasmuch, then, as\nthe doctrine concerning faith, which should be regarded as a principal\none by the church, had so long been unknown; for all must confess, that\nconcerning the righteousness of faith, the most profound silence\nreigned in their sermons, and the doctrine concerning works alone was\ndiscussed in the churches; our divines have admonished the churches as\nfollows:-\n\nFirst, that our works cannot reconcile God, or merit the remission of\nsins, grace, and justification: but this we can attain only by faith,\nwhen we believe that we are received into favor, for Christ's sake, who\nalone is appointed our mediator and propitiatory sacrifice, by whom the\nFather can be reconciled. He, therefore, who expects to merit grace by\nhis works, casts contempt on the merits and grace of Christ, and is\nseeking the way to God, in his own strength, without the Saviour; who\nnevertheless has told us, \"I am the way, the truth, and the life.\" This\ndoctrine concerning faith, is incessantly inculcated by the Apostle Paul\n(Ephes. ii), \"Ye are saved by grace, through faith, and that not of\nyourselves; it is the gift of God,\" not of works, &c. And, lest any one\nshould cavil at our interpretation, and charge it with novelty, we state\nthat this whole matter is supported by the testimony of the fathers. For\nAugustine devotes many volumes to the defence of grace, and the\nrighteousness of faith, in opposition to the merit of good works. And\nAmbrosius, on the calling of he Gentiles, &c., inculcates the same\ndoctrine. For thus he says, concerning the calling of the Gentiles:\n\"Redemption by the blood of Christ is of little value, nor is the honor\nof human works subordinated to the mercy of God, if justification, which\nis of grace, is supposed to be merited by previous works, so as to be\nnot the gift of him that bestows it, but the reward of him that earned\nit.\" But, although this doctrine is despised by the inexperienced, the\nconsciences of the pious and timid find it a source of much consolation,\nfor they cannot attain peace of conscience in any works, but in faith\nalone, when they entertain the confident belief that, for Christ's sake,\nGod is reconciled to them. Thus Paul teaches us (Rom. v.), \"Being\njustified by faith, we have peace with God.\" This whole doctrine must be\nreferred to the conflict in the conscience of the alarmed sinner, nor\ncan it be otherwise understood. Hence the inexperienced and\nworldly-minded are much mistaken, who vainly imagine that the\nrighteousness of the Christian is nothing else than what in common life\nand in the language of philosophy is termed morality.\n\nFormerly, the consciences of men were harassed by the doctrine of works,\nnor did they hear any consolation from the gospel. Some conscience drove\ninto deserts, and into monasteries, hoping there to merit the divine\nfavor by a monastic life. Others invented different kinds of works, to\nmerit grace, and make satisfaction for their sins. There was therefore\nthe utmost necessity, that this doctrine concerning faith in Christ\nshould be inculcated anew; in order that timid minds might find\nconsolation, and know that justification and the remission of sins are\nobtained by faith in the Saviour. The people are also now instructed,\nthat faith does not signify a mere historical belief, such as wicked men\nand devils have; but that, in addition to a historical belief, it\nincludes an acquaintance with the consequences of the history, such as\nremission of sins, by grace through Christ, righteousness, &c., &c.\n\nNow, he who knows that the Father is reconciled to him through Christ,\npossesses a true acquaintance with God, confides in his providence, and\ncalls upon his name: and is therefore not without God, as are the\nGentiles. For the devil and wicked men cannot believe the article\nconcerning the remission of sins. But they hate God as an enemy, do not\ncall upon his name, nor expect any thing good at his hands. Augustine,\nin speaking of the word faith, admonishes the reader that in Scripture\nthis word does not signify mere knowledge, such as wicked men possess,\nbut that confidence or trust, by which alarmed sinners are comforted\nand lifted up. We, moreover, teach, that the performance of works is\nnecessary, because it is commanded of God, and not because we expect to\nmerit grace by them. Pardon of sins and grace are obtained only by\nfaith. And because the Holy Spirit is received by faith the heart of man\nis renovated, and new affections produced, that he may be able to\nperform good works. Accordingly, Ambrosius states, faith is the source\nof holy volitions and an upright life. For the faculties of man, unaided\nby the Holy Spirit, are replete with sinful propensities, and too feeble\nto perform works that are good in the sight of God. They are moreover\nunder the influence of Satan, who urges men to various sins, and impious\nopinions, and open crimes; as may be seen in the examples of the\nphilosophers who, though they endeavored to lead moral lives, failed to\naccomplish their designs, and were guilty of many notorious crimes. Such\nis the imbecility of man, when he undertakes to govern himself by his\nown strength, without faith and the Holy Spirit.\n\nFrom all this it is manifest, that our doctrine, instead of being\ncharged with prohibiting good works, ought much rather to be applauded,\nfor teaching the manner in which truly good works can be performed. For,\nwithout faith, human nature is incapable of performing the duties either\nof the first or second table. Without it, man does not call upon God,\nnor expect any thing from him, nor bear the cross: but seeks refuge\namongst men, and reposes on human aid. Hence, when faith and confidence\nin God are wanting, all evil desires and human schemes reign in the\nheart; wherefore Christ also says, \"without me ye can do nothing\" (John\nxv.); and the church responds, Without thy favor there is nothing good\nin man.\n\nARTICLE XXI. - OF THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.\n\nConcerning the invocation of saints our churches teach, that the saints\nought to be held in remembrance, in order that we may, each in his own\ncalling, imitate their faith and good works; that the emperor may\nimitate the example of David, in carrying on war to expel the Turks\nfrom our country; for both are kings. But the sacred volume does not\nteach us to invoke saints or to seek aid from them. For it proposes\nChrist to us us our only mediator, propitiation, high priest, and\nintercessor. On his name we are to call, and he promises, that he will\nhear our prayers, and highly approves of this worship, viz.: that he\nshould be called upon in every affliction (1 John ii.): \"If any one sin,\nwe have an advocate with the Father,\" &c.\n\nThis is about the substance of our doctrines, from which it is evident\nthat they contain nothing inconsistent with the Scriptures. Under these\ncircumstances, those certainly judge harshly, who would have us\nregarded as heretics. But the difference of opinion between us (and the\nRomanists) relates to certain abuses, which have crept into the (Romish)\nchurches without any good authority; in regard to which, if we do\ndiffer, the bishops ought to treat us with lenity, and tolerate us, on\naccount of the confession which we have just made.\n\nNote 1. German reading.\n\nNote 2. German reading.\n\nNote 3. Ex opere operato, from the mere outward performance of the act.\n\nNote 4. German reading.\n\nNote 5. German reading.\n\nNote 6. German copy.\n\n\nINDEX.\n\nAbsolution, form of, 99, 100.\nAdditions, no heterogeneous ones to be made to the divinely constituted\nchurch, 18.\nAlterations in Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, 54.\nAmerican, Lutheran, has no reference to place of birth, 9.\nAmerican Recension, Digest of, 61.\n--------- --------- originated from respect to Augsburg Confession, 44.\nAnecdote of the Leyden cobbler, 16.\n--------- of Melancthon's mother, 14.\nApology to Augsburg Confession, 25.\nApostles' Creed, when and by whom formed, 20.\nArnold on the diet at Augsburg, 55.\nAthanasian Creed adopted, 21.\nAugsburg Diet, Papists predominant at, 55.\n--------- --------- Melancthon's alarm at, 55.\n--------- --------- subscription to, not required in Luther's time, 22.\n--------- --------- itself a disclaimer of error, 30.\n--------- --------- practice of requiring assent to, rejected, by the\nfathers of Pennsylvania Synod fifty years ago, 39.\nAugsburg Confession, disadvantages under which it was prepared, 47.\n--------- --------- dissented from by Dr. Lochman, 39.\n--------- --------- parts of, omitted by him in his edition, 40.\n--------- --------- dissented from by many of our principal divines, 41,\n42.\nAurifaber's narrative of Augsburg Diet, 78.\n\nBachman, Dr., dissents from Symbolical books, 42.\nBaptism, its influence on adults, 143-144.\n--------- --------- infants, 144, 145, 146.\nBaptismal Regeneration, see Regeneration baptismal.\nBasel, Synod of, it conceded both kinds, 76.\nBible, Luther's deep sense of obligation to, 46.\n--------- true and infallible symbol, 41.\nBishops, Reformers willing again to submit to them, 58.\nBohemians claim eucharist entire, 76.\n\nCampegius, Letter of Melancthon to, 51.\nCanon of the mass, 73, 77.\nCeremonies of the mass, 64.\nChurch of Christ, importance of the, 17.\n--------- no essential additions to be made to her, 18.\nConfession, Dr. Plank on, 102.\n--------- private, unscriptural, 103.\n--------- how performed, 98-100.\nConcessions, Melancthon's, 54, 49.\n--------- of the Reformers to Papists, 49.\nConcluding remarks, 161-68.\nControversy, religious, sometimes necessary and useful, 13.\n--------- how it should be conducted, 16.\n--------- the present commenced by Old Lutherans, 8.\nCreed of the Council of Nice, 20.\nCreeds not commanded by the Bible, 19.\n--------- only inferential, 19.\n--------- human, all uninspired, 23.\n--------- not all changes in, to be deprecated, 45.\n--------- must be conformed to Bible truth in every age, 23, 29.\n\nDefinite Platform, its origin, 26.\n--------- --------- its authors not agitators, 26.\n--------- --------- not a new rejection of errors, 43.\n--------- --------- retains more of the Augsburg Confession than the\nGeneral Synod's Pledge, 15.\n--------- --------- adopted by several Synods, 15.\n--------- --------- misunderstood, 28.\n--------- --------- an unofficial proposal till adopted by Synods,--right\nto make it, 32.\n--------- --------- claimed no authority till adopted, 32.\nDenomination, a Christian bound not to defend, but to reject the errors\nof its symbols, 38.\nDepravity natural, a scriptural doctrine, 6, 7.\nDesign of this work, 3, 4.\nDisadvantages attending the preparation of Augsburg Confession, 48.\nDisclaimer, Synodical, 63.\nDoctrine, fundamental, list of, 5.\nDuty of a church to test her creed by Scripture, 23.\n--------- --------- to alter her creed if found erroneous, 29, 162-68.\n--------- --------- cannot be to deny the truth, 162.\n\nElevation of the host, long retained by Luther, 65.\nEndress, Dr., disavows parts of the Augsburg Confession, 41.\nEpiscopal Church in America changed her standards, 30.\nEucharist, the symbols on, 148, 149, 150.\n--------- real presence of Christ's body in, refuted, 151-52.\n--------- supposed sin-forgiving power of, not scriptural, 153-54.\nExorcism, altered interpretation of, 155.\n--------- long retained in some parts of the church, 155, &c.\n--------- Koellner, Guericke, other authorities, 156.\n--------- ascertained facts in the case, 160.\nFaber, his attempted refutation of Augsburg Confession, 76.\nFaith, a living, always required for pardon, 130.\nForgiveness of sin belongs to God alone, 104, &c.\nForm of Concord rejected by a large part of the Lutheran Church, 24.\n--------- --------- acknowledges the right of altering confessions, 38.\nFuhrman on the mass, 68.\nFundamental doctrine, what? 4.\nFunk on Private Confession, 98.\n\nGeneral Synod, liberality of her basis, 9.\nGolden age of the Christian church, 20.\nGospel, life of the, the true life of a church, 37.\n\nHagenbach, Dr., on bodily presence in the supper, 60.\nHazelius, Dr., on the Diet of Augsburg, 55.\n--------- Dr., dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42.\nHistory of American Lutheran Church, 93.\nHost, elevation of, long retained, 65.\n\nImprovement of erroneous creeds creditable to a church, 45.\nInvestigation the safeguard of religious truth, 14.\n\nJacobsen, Professor, on Confession, 102.\nJonas, Justus, Luther's Letter to, 54.\nJustification, faith and not the sacraments the immediate condition\nof, 130.\n\nKeys, power of, 100, 101.\nKnapp, Dr., not symbolic, 59.\n--------- on the eucharist, 60.\n--------- influence of the sacraments defined, 133.\nKoecher, Dr., views of the duty of a church to correct her\nconfession, 45.\n\nLarger Catechism of Luther rejected, 25.\nLatin hymns in the mass, 82.\nLife, the true, of the church, what? 37.\nLintner, Dr., dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42.\nLochman, Dr., omits large portions of the Augsburg Confession in his\nrecension, 40.\nLord's Supper, see Eucharist.\nLuther, the Protestant princes abstain from consulting him during the\nDiet at Augsburg, 50.\n--------- progressive reformer, 65.\n--------- his use of the word mass, 71, &c.\n--------- engaged in constant controversy, 14.\n--------- was originally pledged to the whole Romish system, 21.\n--------- enlightened by the study of Scripture, 21.\n--------- never signed any confession of faith, 22.\n--------- his defiance of papists, 54.\n--------- his letter to Lazarus Spengler, 71, to Hausmann, 71, to\nJonas, 72.\n--------- acknowledges the imperfection of the reformation, 35.\n--------- his oath of obedience to Papacy, 21.\n--------- his sense of obligation to the Bible, 46.\nLutheran Church, American, founded on Independent or Congregational,\nor Republican principles, 32, 33.\n\nMass, closet, early rejected, 65.\n--------- public, rejected after Augsburg diet, 66.\n--------- ceremonies of, retained by Augsburg Confession, 66, 68.\n--------- its nature, 69, 71.\n--------- reformers trained to its Papal use, 70.\n--------- the usus loquendi of the word, 71, 72, 81-90.\n--------- distinct from sacrament or Lord's Supper, 71, &c., 74.\n--------- Canon of, what, 73.\n--------- Luther's definition of, 74.\n--------- meaning, in the symbols, 81, &c., 90.\nMann, Rev., misapplies the word heretic, 26.\n--------- misapprehends the profession of the New School Lutherans, 33.\nMelancthon, his concessions to Popery, 53, 54.\n--------- Luther's rebuke for his concessions, 53, 54.\n--------- on the mass, 74-78.\n--------- Letters to Luther, 75, 76, 77, 48. [sic]\n--------- advice to his mother, 14.\n--------- did not regard the Augsburg Confession as perfect, 23.\n--------- ready to submit to Romish bishops again, 35.\n--------- describes his danger and depression at the Diet, 49.\n--------- complains about the indifference of the princes to consult\nLuther, 50.\n--------- his remarkable letter to Campegius, 51.\nMethodists, Episcopal, made extensive changes in the Thirty-nine\nArticles, 31.\nMiller, Dr. G. B., dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 42.\nMosheim, Dr., 68, 132.\nMurdock, Dr., on the mass, 68.\n\nNatural Depravity, a Scriptural doctrine, 6, 7.\n--------- --------- reality of it taught by the author, 6, 7.\nNew creed, advocated by some, 44.\n\nOur church, right or wrong, an unchristian motto, 38.\nObedience, offered to the Romish church by Melancthon, to obtain\npeace, 52.\n\nPardon or justification, faith the condition of, 130.\nPeculiarities of our church when scriptural, to be retained, 38.\nPlank, Dr., on confession, 102.\nPlatform, Definite, see Definite Platform.\nPolitical institutions less important than the church, 17.\nPopular Theology, reference to, 93.\nPresbyterians changed their confession, 31.\nPrivate confession, how performed, 98.\n--------- --------- rejected, 25.\nPublic confession substituted for private, 25.\nPuseyism, 131.\n--------- flatters the vanity of ministers, 131.\n\nQuestion, the true state of, 17.\n\nRationalism, unjustly charged on some American writers by Germans, 7, 8.\nRecension, American, digest of, 61.\nReformation, time of, at the diet, not favorable to the formation of a\nfull, impartial creed, 22, 47.\nReformers, progressive, 57, 58, 65.\n--------- fallible men, 35.\nRefutation, papal, of Augsburg Confession, 79.\n--------- distinguishes between mass and eucharist, 79.\nReinhard, Dr., not symbolic, 59, 132.\nReply to Rev. Mann's general observations, 22-24.\nResponsibility, fearful, of disseminating error in creeds, 34.\nRight of ministers to dissent from the Augsburg Confession conceded, 43.\nReformer's, the, if living would themselves reject these errors, 35.\n--------- were educated till adult age in all the superstitions\nof Rome, 37.\nRegeneration, baptismal, 135, &c.\n--------- --------- taught by the symbolical books, 135, 136, 137.\n--------- --------- taught by the Reformers, 138-140.\n--------- --------- taught by the early theologians, 140, &c.\nRegeneration, baptismal, influence of this doctrine on the\npulpit, 141, &c.\nRufinus' report on the origin of the Apostles' creed, 19.\nRomanists and Puseyites in error, 18.\n\nSabbath, views of the Reformers on, 107, 111, 112, &c.\n--------- Ruecker, Hengstenberg, Waler, on, 108, 109.\nSacraments, their relation to pardon or justification, 9.\nSchaeffer, Dr. F. C., dissents from the Augsburg Confession, 41.\nSchaff, Dr., an inadvertence corrected, 5, 6.\nSchultz, Dr., on German theology, 60.\nScriptures, why better understood more than three centuries ago, 36.\nSiegel, on history of the mass, 69; confession, 102.\nSin, pardon of, belongs to God, 104, &c.\nSmalcald Articles, more decided, 55.\n--------- --------- rejected by Sweden and Denmark, 25.\nSmaller Catechism of Luther, rejected in Sweden, 25.\nSpalatin, his abstract of Augsburg Confession, 79.\n--------- distinguishes between mass and Lord's Supper, 79.\nStandpoint of the American Lutheran Church, 35.\nStorr, Dr., 59.\nSymbolism, Post-Lutheran and Ultra-Lutheran, 164.\nSymbolic, what makes a book such, 160, 161.\nSymbols, departure of German theologians from, 59.\nSymbolic System, when introduced, 22.\n--------- --------- no part of original Lutheranism, 163.\nSymbol, the mother, of Protestantism retained, 44.\nSynods, General, doctrinal basis defended, 4.\n\nTheologians, German, unsymbolic, 59.\nTheological Seminary, liberality of her doctrinal basis, 9.\nTopics discussed in this work, 4.\nTruth fears not investigation, 44.\n\nUltra-Lutherans must unchurch the Lutherans of Luther's lifetime, 25.\n\nWar on the Platform by Old Lutherans, offensive and not defensive\nwar, 25.\nWestern Synods, the Platform primarily designed for them 27.\nWord of God, the inspired, complete, 18.\n--------- --------- the only creed used in the apostolic age, 18.\n\nZwingle's Confession, 75.\n\n\n[tr. note: after the index, the copy transcribed includes a 12 page\ncatalog of books available from the publisher T. Newton Kurtz,\nBaltimore, Maryland which, in accordance with Project Gutenberg\nguidelines, was not transcribed. The introductory statement, however,\nis transcribed below; the first 9 lines all appeared in different type\nfonts and sizes.]\n\nCATALOGUE\nOF\nSTANDARD LUTHERAN\nAND\nVALUABLE MISCELLANEOUS WORKS,\nPUBLISHED AND OFFERED FOR SALE BY\nT. NEWTON KURTZ,\nPUBLISHER, BOOKSELLER AND STATIONER,\nNO. 151 WEST PRATT STREET, BALTIMORE, MD.\n\nOrders for any of the Books in the following Catalogue (which can be\nsent per mail at the rate of one cent per oz. if pre paid), or for\nanything else in the BOOK and STATIONERY line, will be promptly\nattended to if addressed to T. NEWTON KURTZ, No. 151 PRATT STREET,\nBALTIMORE, MD.","title":"American Lutheranism vindicated : $b or, Examination of the Lutheran symbols on certain disputed topics, including a reply to the plea of Rev. W. J. Mann","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":56056}