American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 1

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

by Samuel Simon Schmucker.

TO THE READER.

The design of the following treatise, and the occasion which elicited it, are indicated both on the t.i.tle page and in the introduction of the work itself. Its primary object is not to discuss the obligation of Synods to adopt the doctrinal basis of the Platform. What we felt it a duty to the church to publish on that subject, we have presented in the Lutheran Observer. But the pamphlet of the Rev. Mann, ent.i.tled Plea for the Augsburg Confession, having called in question the accuracy of some of the interpretations of that Confession contained in the Definite Synodical Platform, and affirmed the Scriptural truth of some of the tenets there dissented from; it becomes a question of interest among us as Lutherans, which representation is correct. For the points disputed are those, on the ground of which the const.i.tutions of the General Synod and of her Seminary avow only a qualified a.s.sent to the Augsburg Confession. In hope of contributing to the prevalence of truth, and the interests of that kingdom of G.o.d which is based on it, the writer has carefully re-examined the original doc.u.ments, and herewith submits the results to the friends of the General Synod and her basis. Since these results as to the question, what do the symbols actually teach? are deduced impartially, as must be admitted, from the original symbolical books themselves, as ill.u.s.trated by the writings of Luther, Melancthon, and of the other Reformers of the same date; those who approve of those books should so far sustain our work: and those who reject these tenets, that is, the New School portion of the church, will not object to seeing a vindication of the reason why they and the General Synod avow only a qualified a.s.sent even to the Augsburg Confession, namely, because these errors are there taught.

_The topics here discussed,_ are all such as are left free to individual judgment, both by the Const.i.tution of the General Synod, and that of her Theological Seminary. Both explicitly bind to the Augsburg Confession, only so far as the _fundamental_ doctrines, not of that confession, but of the _Scriptures_ are concerned. A _fundamental_ doctrine of Scripture is one that, is regarded by the great body of evangelical Christians as essential to salvation, or essential to the system of Christianity; so that he who rejects it cannot be saved, neither be regarded as a believer in the system of Christian doctrine. The doctrinal peculiarities of no denomination, though often highly important, can therefore be regarded as _fundamental,_ without unchurching all other denominations and consigning them to perdition. The topics here discussed are, 1. Ceremonies of the Ma.s.s. 2. Private Confession and Absolution. 3. The Divine inst.i.tution of the Christian Sabbath. 4.

Nature of Sacramental Influence. 5. Baptismal Regeneration. 6. The nature of the Saviour's presence in the Lord's Supper; and, 7. Exorcism.

Now, not one of these is found in the list of fundamentals published by the Synod of Maryland, and by the great Evangelical Alliance of all the prominent Christian denominations a.s.sembled in London in 1846, consisting of more than a thousand ministers of Christ, delegated from nearly all parts of Europe and America. That list is found in the Lutheran Manual, and is the following:--

"1. The Divine inspiration, authority and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures. 2. The right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. 3. The unity of the G.o.dhead, and the Trinity of persons therein. 4. The utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall. 5. The incarnation of the Son of G.o.d, his work of atonement for sinners of mankind, and his mediatorial intercession and reign. 6. The justification of the sinner by faith alone. 7. The work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner. 8. The Divine inst.i.tution of Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; and 9. The immortality of the soul and the judgment of the world by our Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked." Not one of these are here discussed.

As to the _doctrines taught_ in this little volume, they are the same inculcated in our Popular Theology twenty-one years ago, and in our different works published since that time. And here it seems proper to avail ourselves of this public opportunity to correct an error committed by our esteemed friend, Dr. Schaff, of Mercersburg, in his recent work on the American churches, in which he represents us as denying the _reality,_ as well as the guilt of natural depravity. This is entirely a mistake. The reality of Natural Depravity is a doctrine so clearly taught in G.o.d's word, as well as by the history of the human race, that we have never even been tempted to doubt it. In the eighth edition of the Popular Theology, (p. 144,) which has recently left the press, our views on this subject are thus summed up:-- "The Augsburg Confession seems to combine, both these views, (_i.e._ both absence of holiness and predisposition to sin,) and the great body of Lutheran divines has regarded natural, or original, or innate depravity, as that disorder in the mental and bodily const.i.tution of man, which was introduced by the fall of Adam, is transmitted by natural generation from parent to child, and the result of which is, that all men who are naturally engendered, evince in their action want of holiness and a predisposition to sin. Without the admission of such a disorder in the human system, _no satisfactory reason can be a.s.signed for the universality of actual transgression_ amongst men." "Our own views on this disputed subject, maybe summed up in the following features: 1.

All mankind, in consequence of their descent from fallen Adam, _are born with a depraved nature,_ that is, their bodily and mental system is _so disordered, as_ in result of its operation _to evince a predisposition to sin._ 2. This natural depravity _disqualifies its subjects for heaven_. Because the action of depraved (disordered) faculties and powers, would not, even in heaven itself, be conformed to the divine law, and _could not be acceptable to G.o.d_ In our natural state, moreover, we have not the _qualifications requisite for the enjoyment of heaven_, having no spiritual appet.i.tes. But we cannot suppose that G.o.d would condemn us to positive and eternal misery merely on account of this depraved (disordered) nature; for we are in no sense the authors or causes of it; and a just G.o.d will not punish his creatures for acts which they did not perform;" (p. 147.) It is evident, therefore, that we do maintain _the reality_ of natural depravity inherited from our first parents, but _deny the imputation of it to us as personal guilt_. This correction, we doubt not, Dr. Schaff will make in the future editions of his work. Nor are we more chargeable with even the remotest tendency to rationalism, than the great ma.s.s of American and English theologians, including such men as Drs. Dwight, Mason, Woods and Alexander, who all distinguish things _above_ reason from those _contrary_ to it, and whilst they deny that revelation teaches any doctrine of the latter cla.s.s, admit and believe a number of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, Incarnation, &c., to be _above_ the comprehension of human reason. With them, moreover, we maintain, that in doctrines which lie within the grasp of human reason, it is proper and a duty to expect and to inculcate a harmony between the teachings of revelation and the dictates of reason, thus to exhibit and confirm the _intrinsic moral fitness and glory of those truths of revelation_. And it is these and similar things which a certain cla.s.s of German theologians of late are wont to style rationalizing tendencies.

As to the _necessity of this work;_ two little volumes have appeared, a.s.sailing some of the positions of the Definite Platform, and none in vindication of them. The New School must therefore receive credit for moderation. Those volumes were hailed with exultation by the four or five Old-School papers of our church, and all of them, even the Missionary, invite the continuance of the discussion in pamphlet form.

Those publications did not agitate the church, neither will this. That man must be ignorant of human nature, who does not perceive a vast difference between a controversy conducted in the newspapers of the church, and one confined to independent pamphlets or volumes. In the former case, the dispute is forced upon all who see the paper, and reaches fifty times as many persons, amongst whom may be many who, from prejudice, or want of sufficient intelligence, do not appreciate the importance of the discussion; in the latter, it reaches only those who desire to see it, and feel sufficient interest to purchase the volume.

Yet the Definite Platform, be it remembered, was not the cause but the result of Symbolic agitation, continual, progressive, and aggressive, in the several Old-School papers and periodicals, for eight or ten years past. As it evinced a spirit of resistance, they of course pounced down upon it, and labored hard for its destruction. But their continued discussion has brought to light such high-toned and intolerant grounds of opposition, that the church generally, we doubt not, will settle down, in a just appreciation of the case.

The course pursued by the ministers of the General Synod, has always been a liberal one. They have freely expressed their sentiments on these disputed topics, and cheerfully conceded to others the same liberty.

This principle pervades the Const.i.tution of the General Synod and of her Seminary. Even within the last few weeks, the Directors of the Seminary have listened to a vindication of the entire symbolic system, in the Inaugural of their German Theological Professor, and resolved to publish it, although it advocates some views rejected by the majority of the Board, and by the other members of the Faculty. After such a specimen of liberality, we may well hope that the propriety of any of the other Professors advocating the doctrines, which have from the beginning been taught in the inst.i.tution, will be conceded by all.

For the information of those foreign brethren who have recently taken part in our ministry, we deem it just to remark, that the term _American_ was employed in reference to our church, many years before the existence of the political party now designated by this name, and is used by us, not in distinction from those born in foreign lands, but to designate those peculiarities of doctrine, discipline, and wors.h.i.+p, which characterize the great ma.s.s of the churches of the General Synod, as the terms _Danish_ Lutheran, or _Swedish_ Lutheran, and _German_ Lutheran, indicate the peculiarities of our church in those countries.

Some of our best _American_ Lutherans are natives of foreign lands.

In conclusion, we repeat the a.s.surance, that it has been with deep regret that we have felt compelled, in defence of American, that is, New School Lutheranism, to exhibit what we regard the errors of the former symbols. But as the existence of these errors has of late years been perseveringly denied, and New School Lutherans have been incessantly reproached for not yielding an unqualified a.s.sent, to these books, necessity was laid on us; and the evil of the controversy, if any, lies at the door of the aggressors.

Praying that our Divine Master may bless this little volume to the advancement of his glory and the welfare of his church, we submit it to the friends of truth.

S. S. SCHMUCKER.

Gettysburg, April 23d, 1856.

EXAMINATION OF THE LUTHERAN SYMBOLS.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.

Religious controversy, though it often degenerates from that calm and dignified character, which it should ever sustain as a mutual search after truth, seems sometimes to be necessary and proper. It springs out of the nature of that moral evidence, never amounting to demonstration, by which religious doctrines are sustained, and from the fact, that whilst the word of G.o.d reveals what is necessary to salvation with entire distinctness, it leaves undecided, or to be deduced from clearer pa.s.sages of Scripture, many points which are both interesting and important, as well as naturally sought for by the const.i.tutional, systematizing tendencies of the human mind. Discussions on such topics of practical utility, are alike pleasing to G.o.d and beneficial to the church, if conducted in a Christian spirit, and if the parties have truth and not victory for their aim. Truth is the will of G.o.d, exhibited in the diversified creations of his hand, either physical, intellectual, or moral, and the revelations of his word, correctly apprehended by the human mind. Since truth, therefore, is of G.o.d, it need fear no investigation. The divinity that is in it, will secure its ultimate triumph. Though it may for a season be obscured, or crushed to earth by pa.s.sion, prejudice, or irresponsible authority, it will sooner or later a.s.sert its rights, and secure the homage of all upright minds.

No friend of truth should dread impartial investigation. If he has unconsciously imbibed erroneous opinions, he will thus be conducted to the truth; and if his views are correct, they will be confirmed by investigation. "Eternal vigilance has been styled the price of civil 'liberty;'" and to "search the Scriptures daily," to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good," is the grand safeguard of religious truth and ecclesiastical purity. No new enterprise of Christian benevolence has ever been achieved, no reformation of established inst.i.tutions or doctrines ever been accomplished in the church of Christ, without discussion and controversy either oral or written; because error when a.s.sailed by the truth, will always make more or less resistance. The life of the greatest moral hero of the sixteenth century, to whom Christianity is so hugely indebted, was almost entirely expended in controversial efforts; and even the mild and peace-loving Melancthon, though he advised his aged mother not to trouble herself about religious controversies, himself felt it his duty to devote much of his time, his learning, and his talents to the vindication of the truth against its enemies. [Note 1] We are commanded "earnestly to contend for the faith once, delivered to the saints," and by inference for those regulations, which tend to secure that faith. We are taught to pray for the unity of the disciples of Christ, "that they may be one as He and the Father are one," and consequently to oppose such regulations as tend to sever the bonds of union among G.o.d's people, and cause divisions in the household of Christ. Such means for defending the faith, are creeds which inculcate only those doctrines clearly taught in Scripture; such hindrances to union and apples of discord, are creeds embracing many minor points, not clearly decided in Scripture, on which true Christians differ, and which are not necessary for cordial co-operation among the children of G.o.d.

Within the last few months, a discussion on creeds has occupied the religious papers of our church in this country, the specific subjects of which were the merits of the "_Definite Synodical Platform_"

recently adopted by several of our Western Synods, and the import and scriptural truth of some portions of that venerable doc.u.ment, the _Augsburg Confession_. In these discussions we took part, in a series of articles over the initials of our name, in the Lutheran Observer, in vindication of the Definite Platform, which we hold to be a faithful and definite exhibition of the import of the _generic_ doctrinal pledge of the General Synod. That pledge includes, in connection with absolute a.s.sent to the Word of G.o.d, as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, the belief "that the fundamental doctrines of Scripture are taught in a manner substantially correct in the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession:" and the Platform is an unaltered copy of these articles of that confession, only omitting those parts, which we know by long acquaintance with American Lutherans, to be generally regarded by them not only as nonfundamental, but _erroneous_. The Definite Platform, therefore, retains _even more_ of the Augsburg Confession than the General Synod's pledge requires; for it contains some specifications of the Augsburg Confession, which though true, are not fundamental. The Platform is, therefore, more symbolic than the General Synod's doctrinal basis, though the contrary opinion has repeatedly been expressed, by those who have not carefully examined.

Had both parties in this discussion exhibited more christian comity, and abstained from personalities, levelling their logical artillery against opinions instead of the persons entertaining them; the effect upon the church would, we think, have been favorable, and unity of sentiment might have been promoted. That a different impression has been made on many minds is, doubtless, owing to the human infirmity and pa.s.sion that mingled in the contest. Which party exhibited the largest amount of this weakness, we will not undertake to decide, although we doubt not, that here as in most other cases, the judgment of the Leyden cobbler would be found correct, who was in the habit of attending the public Latin disputations of the university, and when asked whether he understood Latin, replied, "No, but I know who is wrong in the argument, by seeing _who gets angry first_." Nevertheless, christian truth has often been defended in a very unchristian way, and doubtless more depends on the natural temper and the manners of the disputants, as well as the extent to which divine grace enables them to subdue their pa.s.sions. The disposition occasionally evinced, to frown down discussion by invective and denunciation, is not only illogical, as it proves neither the affirmative nor negative of the disputed question; but in this free country, where we acknowledge no popes, and in the judgment of free Americans, who think for themselves, it must always reflect unfavorably on its authors.

The same topic, so closely connected with the prosperity of our beloved church, is to engage our attention on the present occasion, in reply to an interesting, christian, and gentlemanly pamphlet, from the pen of the _Rev. Mr. Mann_, of Philadelphia, who controverts some of the positions of the Definite Synodical Platform. It shall be my earnest effort to write in the same christian manner, and my prayer is that the Spirit of our Divine Master may direct my pen, that it may record "No line, which dying, I could wish to blot."

In order that our readers may follow, with advantage, the reasonings of this treatise, it is necessary that we should conduct them to the proper stand-point, from which the interesting and important subject before us should be examined. The same object, viewed from different positions, often presents a very different appearance; but contemplated from the same point of observation, by impartial observers of sound vision, it will, by the laws of our organization, appear the same to all. The questions before us relate to the meaning of certain doc.u.ments, which were adopted some centuries ago in a foreign land and foreign tongue, as a creed or test of members.h.i.+p in the church. A very brief glance at this church, the authority of human creeds, and the circ.u.mstances under which this one was published, will prepare us for the more satisfactory solution of the points in question.

The most important visible organization of the human family, is undoubtedly the church of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The political inst.i.tutions of the world, such as republics, kingdoms and empires, are inst.i.tuted to administer the temporal affairs of men; but the church of the divine Redeemer involves the never-dying interest of immortal souls. The former are established and conducted by the ordinary powers of men; the latter is heaven descended, and was founded by the incarnate Son of G.o.d, and his inspired Apostles. The former are sustained, as far as defensible, by the ordinary evidences of human wisdom, manifest in their adaptation to secure our material interests; the _divinity_ of the latter is established by the most stupendous miracles of Jesus and his Apostles, as well as by internal evidence of superhuman wisdom, goodness and knowledge, seen alike in the inst.i.tutions it embraces and the truths it inculcates.

These _inspired_ Apostles left a _written record of this divine inst.i.tution_, of the church with its ordinances, as well as of the doctrines and duties to be inculcated by its teachers. They also p.r.o.nounce this record to be _complete_, and threaten to blot out from the book of life, the names of those who add to or subtract from it.

Hence it is evident, that the church of this record is not as Romanists and Puseyites imagine, a mere seminal principle or germ, to which equally binding additions may be made by the church of every generation; but on the contrary, that the _church of the New Testament_ is the church in its most perfect and faultless form, _is the model church for all ages_, which in its development and adaptation to different countries and generations, must ever remain faithful to its primitive and inspired lineaments. This church, whilst administered by inspired men during the first century, must also have been more pure, than in its subsequent periods, when placed under uninspired and fallible teachers, and in corrupting contact with Pagan philosophy, as well as in debasing union with civil governments.

Now, in this apostolic age, this golden era of the church, we hear of no other creed than the word of G.o.d itself, which was regarded as sufficient. And certainly, if as Romanists, after the report of _Rufinus_, believed the Apostles had either written or employed this creed, the piety of that age would have enrolled it in the Scripture canon, and the early church have guarded it with special care. But there is not a word in the Old or New Testament authorizing or commanding the church of any future age to frame a creed in addition to the Bible, as a rule for admission into the church, or exclusion from it. The only scriptural ground for such a creed is inferential. We are instructed "earnestly to contend for the faith (doctrines) once delivered to the saints," and "not to bid G.o.d speed," to him who preaches another Gospel, or denies that Jesus is the Christ. In order to obey these injunctions we must demand, of applicants for church members.h.i.+p or ordination, their views of the prominent doctrines of the Bible, and judge whether they accord with ours. Or we may state to them our views of these topics, and require their a.s.sent. In either case, we have a creed, and for obvious reasons it is preferable for us to prepare a carefully written statement of Bible truth, so that it may be known, examined and improved by renewed comparison with G.o.d's word.

On the other hand, the Apostle commands us to "receive into our community the brother (him whom we regard as a true disciple of Christ,) who is weak in the faith, (imperfect in some of his views of the truth) but not for doubtful disputations;" not for the purpose of disputing with him on doubtful points. Moreover, the primitive disciples, of contiguous residence, were all united into one church by the Apostles, and the Savior enjoins it on _all_ his disciples to love one another, to "be one, as He and his Father are one." Therefore, it was then sinful to divide and separate true Christians from one another, and must be so at present, as a general rule. Now, as human creeds, when extended so as to embrace minor doctrines, on which good men differ, necessarily do divide, them, such creeds are inconsistent with the precepts of Christ. The result of these two principles, the duty to exclude fundamental errorists on the one hand, and the command not to separate, but to unite the true disciples of Christ on the other, by reciprocal limitation, affords us the rule, to employ a human creed specifying the cardinal truths of the Scriptures, but not to include in it minor doctrines, which would divide the great ma.s.s of true disciples of Christ; nor to introduce more specifications of government or modes of wors.h.i.+p, than are necessary to enable enlightened Christians to walk harmoniously together.

Accordingly, we find that such was the character of the earliest uninspired creed of the church, the only one that was extensively employed in the admission and exclusion of members during the first three centuries of her history. We allude, of course to the Apostles'

creed, so called, not because the Apostles were at first supposed to have written it, but because, it confessedly contained doctrines promulged by the Apostles. This creed, which was for along time circulated orally among the churches, embraces only fundamental doctrines, forms less than half a page in the Definite Synodical Platform, and is believed by all evangelical denominations at the present time. Here then we have the christian church in her _golden age_ of greatest purity, the first three centuries, relying on the word of G.o.d alone, with only this brief human creed.

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

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

It has often been affirmed by some, who have not examined the history of that eventful diet with particular care, that the Augsburg Confession was prepared under the most favorable circ.u.mstances for an impartial and full exhibition of all the views of the confessors, both of positive truth and papal errors. The contrary was, however, the case, as will be distinctly shown in the sequel. But we will first reply to the _General Observations_ of the Plea of our esteemed brother, the _Rev. Mr. Mann_. Let it be remembered, however, that whatever may be the import of this and other creeds, they have all been formed since the age of inspiration, they are all uninspired and therefore fallible.

Hence, it is equally the duty of the church, in every generation, to test her existing creed by the word of G.o.d, and to correct and improve it, if found unscriptural in any of its teachings, or if experience has taught that it is too brief or too extended, successfully to accomplish the legitimate purposes of such doc.u.ments. The idea of the infallibility of any human creed, or even its semi-inspiration, is philosophically unreasonable, and either a remnant of Romish superst.i.tion, or an amiable weakness of judgment. Melancthon himself did not regard his Confession as perfect, for he made sundry alterations in it in his successive editions. And even at Augsburg, after the confession had been sent to Luther, at Coburg, and returned with his approbation on the 16th of May, Melancthon, in a letter to him, dated six days later, (May 22,) employs the following language: "In the Apology, (which was the name first intended for the Augsburg Confession,) I daily make _many changes_. The section concerning '_Vows_,' which was too meagre, I have stricken out, and have treated the subject more fully. I am now doing the name with the section concerning '_The Keys_.' I wish you could have reviewed the doctrinal articles," (namely, as now amended,) "and then, if you found nothing defective in them, I would discuss the remaining articles as well as may be. _For, in Articles of faith, some change must be made, from time to time, and they must be adapted to the occasions." [Note 3] Here is anything else than the idea of the immaculate and unalterable nature of the Augsburg Confession for all after times.

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

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

Cap. 7.

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

CHAPTER II.

REPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA.

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

"We shall, in this short tract," says the author, "not speak of the objections, which in the Definite Platform are set forth against some errors, contained in some other symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, but we shall confine ourselves exclusively to the errors pointed out in the Augsburg Confession, the work of Luther and Melancthon themselves, and _the only one of our Confessions which was universally received as such, by the whole Lutheran Church in all parts of the world_," p. 4.

This concession is no less honorable to the reverend author, than the fact itself is important in the discussion of the subject before us. As the contrary has frequently been a.s.serted in this country, in the face of history, it seems proper to advert to its details. The facts in the case are the following:

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

_The Smalcald Articles_ were rejected by Sweden and Denmark.

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

_The Larger Catechism_ of Luther, in Sweden and Denmark.

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

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