American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 3

_The Preamble_.

On the subject of the preamble, we will add a few authorities for one or two of its positions, which we have heard called in question. On page 3, we read:--

"Subsequently, Luther and his coadjutors _still further changed_ their views on some subjects in that Confession, such as the ma.s.s." The truth of this position is demonstrated even by the extract from the Smalcald Articles, given on p. 22 of the Platform. In the Augsburg Confession, Melanchon [sic] says (and Luther approved of it): "It, is _unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the ma.s.s. For it is notorious that the _ma.s.s is celebrated among us_ with greater devotion and seriousness than by our opponents." But seven years later, in the Smalcald Articles, Luther employs this very different language, which was sanctioned by his coadjutors: "_The ma.s.s in the Papal church, must be the greatest and most terrible abomination_, since it is directly and strongly opposed to this chief article (of Justification through faith in Christ,)" &c. Here the contradiction in words is positive and unqualified. But we must recollect that the term ma.s.s here, as will be fully proved hereafter, does not signify the Papal ma.s.s in full. It is a well-known fact, and the Confession itself informs us, that the confessors had long before rejected _private and closet ma.s.ses_, and also had rejected the idea of the public ma.s.s being a _sacrifice_, or offering of Christ, for the sins of the living or the dead. But that the word ma.s.s cannot be regarded as merely synonymous with Lord's Supper, or communion, in this pa.s.sage, as it frequently is elsewhere, is clear from the context. For we are told that by proper and diligent instruction "in the design and proper mode of receiving the holy sacrament," "the people are attracted to the _communion and to the ma.s.s_," (zur communion _und_ mess gezogen wird;) clearly proving that by ma.s.s they here meant something else than communion, namely, the public ma.s.s, divested of its _sacrificial_ nature, and of its design to benefit any others than the communicants themselves; in short, regarding it, thus modified, as an admissible _preparation_ for the holy communion. This ma.s.s, which the Platform, _with great moderation_, styles merely "_Ceremonies_" of the ma.s.s," p.

21, they confessedly did subsequently also abandon, as they had done private and closet ma.s.ses before.

Again, if we may believe Luther himself, they certainly did a afterward change their ground in regard to the jurisdiction of the Pope and bishops. Hear his own language in 1533, three years later: "Hitherto we have always, and especially at the diet of Augsburg, very humbly offered to the Pope and bishops, that we would not destroy their ecclesiastical right and power, but that we would gladly be consecrated and governed by them, and _aid in maintaining their prerogatives and power_, if they would not force upon us articles too unchristian. But we have been unable to obtain this; on the contrary, they wish to force us away from the truth, to adopt their lies and abominations, or wish us put to death. If now, (as they are such hardened Pharaohs,) their authority and consecration should fare as their indulgences did, whose fault will it be?" He then proceeds to denounce the power and consecration which he had admitted at the time of the Augsburg Diet, and declares the church's entire independence of Rome for ordination.

[Note 1]

Again, the Preamble a.s.serts, "That the entire Lutheran Church of Germany has rejected the symbolical books _as a whole_, and also abandoned some of the doctrines of the Augsburg Confession, among others the far greater part of them, the doctrine of the _bodily_ presence of the Saviour in the eucharist."

The truth of these positions is well known to those acquainted with the churches in Germany generally. A few extracts from standard authorities may be pleasing to those not well informed on this subject.

Says _Koellner_, in 1837: "The theologians of more recent times have, as a body, departed from the rigid doctrinal system of the symbols, and let it be particularly noted, not only those who in the opposing parties are termed rationalists, but also those who, in ant.i.thesis to these, desire to be regarded as _champions for the doctrines of the church._ Accordingly, not only those who have been sufficiently denounced as heterodox, have abandoned the doctrines of the symbols, but also the so-called _orthodox_, such as _Doederlein, Morus, Michaelis_, the venerable _Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Schott, Schwartz, Augusti, Marheinecke_, as well as _Hahn, Oltshausen, Tholuk_, and _Hengstenberg_.

In like manner has the public _pledge to the symbols_ been greatly relaxed, and is _nowhere unconditional_; but in fidelity to the principles of Protestantism, and guarding it, the obligation is always expressed with the _explicit reservation_ of the supreme authority of the Scriptures, as is evident from an inspection of the pledges prescribed in the different Protestant countries." [Note 2] Again: "It may as well be confessed and openly avowed, for the good of the church, that, _there are but few theologians who still believe and teach the doctrines of the symbols_." [Note 3]

Professor _Schultz_, in his work on the Eucharist, [Note 4] in 1831, says: "If, in the most recent times, individuals have here and there arisen in the Lutheran Church itself, as defenders of Luther's views of the Lord's Supper, it must not be overlooked, that even they, sensibly feeling the difficulty of their undertaking, resort to all manner of subtle explanations and arbitrary additions, in order to explain away the objectionable aspects of this view."

Finally, listen to the testimony of _Dr. Hagenbach_, of Basel, one of the most distinguished orthodox divines of Europe: "_How few Lutherans_, in this rationalizing period, firmly _adhere to the doctrine of the bodily presence_ of Christ in the eucharist: and how few Reformed adhered consistently to the doctrine of unconditional election. If, therefore, the one, party relinquished the one, and the other party the other point (or dividing doctrine,) then the union between them was of course effected in the most natural way possible." [Note 5]

We close our observations on this topic with the impressive counsels of the venerable Dr. Knapp: [Note 6] "Speculations concerning the manner of the presence of the body and blood of Christ, have not the least influence upon the nature and efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian chiefly needs to know is the object and uses of this rite, and to act accordingly. Vide --145. He must there therefore believe from the heart that Christ died for him; that now, in his exalted state, he is still active in providing for his welfare; and that hence it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with feelings of the deepest reverence and most grateful love to G.o.d and to Christ. Upon this everything depends, and this makes the ordinance truly edifying and comforting in its influence. These benefits may be derived from this ordinance by all Christians; and to all who have true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have its proper effect in awakening attention to the great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful, divinely-appointed means of grace, whatever theory respecting it they may adopt--the Lutheran, the Reformed, or even the Roman Catholic transubstantiation, gross as this error is."

_The American Recension of the Augsburg Confession_.

The general principle, on which this Recension was constructed, is to present the doctrinal articles entire, without the change of a single word, merely omitting the several sentences generally regarded as erroneous, together with nearly the entire condemnatory clauses, and _adding nothing_ in their stead. All that the Recension contains is therefore the unadulterated Augsburg Confession, slightly abridged. The following list will show, that _almost the entire Confession is thus retained,_ a single article only being omitted, viz.: that on Private Confession and Absolution.

ART. I. _Of G.o.d:_ retained _entire_.

ART. II. _Of Natural Depravity:_ entire, except the omission of the words, "by baptism and the Holy Spirit." The condemnatory clause is also given, except the name " Pelagians and others, &c."

ART. III. _Of the Son of G.o.d and his Mediatorial Work:_ retained _entire_.

ART. IV. _Of Justification:_ retained _entire_.

ART. V. _Of the Ministerial Office:_ retained _entire_.

ART. VI. _Concerning New Obedience_ (or a Christian Life:) _entire_.

ART. VII. _Of the Church: entire_.

ART. VIII. _What the Church is: entire_, except the omission of the last two sentences.

ART. IX. _Concerning Baptism:_ according to the German copy. _entire_.

ART. X. _Of the Lord's Supper:_ omits the words "_body_ and _blood_"

and "_truly_," and the phrase "are dispensed_," &c.

ART. XI. _Of Confession:_ omitted, as private confession and absolution" [sic on punctuation] are confessedly not taught in Scripture.

ART. XII _Of Repentance (after Backsliding:) entire_, except the omission of "the church's granting _absolution_ to those manifesting repentance," and that faith is produced also "_by means absolution_."

ART. XIII. _Of the Use of the Sacraments. entire_.

ART. XIV. _Of Church Orders, (or the Ministry.) entire_.

ART. XV. _Of Religious Ceremonies. entire_.

ART. XVI. _Of Political Affairs;_ (excepting the word "imperial.") _entire_.

ART. XVII. _Of Christ's Return to Judgment. entire_.

ART. XVIII. _Of Free Will. entire_.

ART. XIX. _Of the Author of Sin. entire_.

ART. XX. _Of G.o.d's Works. entire_.

ART. XXI. _Of the Invocation of the Saints_, (except a reference to the authority of the Romish church, the canons and the fathers.) _entire_.

Note 1. See Luther's Works, Vol. XXI., p. 34, Leipsic ed. See this subject ably discussed in several articles in the Evangelical Lutheran, of December, 1835, by Dr. S. Sprecher, President of Wittenberg College, Ohio.

Note 2. Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 121.

Note 3. Idem. p. 148.

Note 4. P. 344.

Note 5. Hagenbach's Church History of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Vol. II., p. 358; also Hahn's Lehrbuch, 1828, p. 578.

Note 6. See Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr., page 513,1 (Glauben's Lehre, &c., 1827,) or German copy, Vol. II., p. 505.

CHAPTER V.

SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER, _or List of Symbolic Errors rejected by the great body of the churches belonging to the General Synod_.

Having now arrived at the second part of the Definite Synodical Platform, namely, that part which is not to be subscribed to by the members of Synod; but which is published as the view of the majority, from which individuals are allowed to dissent; we shall pursue the following order in regard to each topic:

1. We shall recapitulate, briefly, what the Platform does a.s.sert.

2. State the objections made to these positions by the plea of Rev.

Mr. Mann.

3. Examine these objections and vindicate what seems to be the truth.

And as the Rev. Mr. Mann confines himself to the alleged errors of the Augsburg Confession, we shall, with little exception, do the same.

CEREMONIES OF THE Ma.s.s.

1. As to _what the Platform teaches_ on this topic, there ought to be no difficulty; because,

_a_. On page 5 of the Platform, we find a definite list of the errors contained in the Augsburg Confession, viz.: