"The Almighty G.o.d and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, will be gracious and merciful to thee, and will pardon all thy sins, for the sake of his dear Son Jesus Christ, who suffered and died for them. And in the name of this, our Lord Jesus Christ, by his command, and in virtue of his declaration, "Whose sins ye remit they am remitted," &c., _I p.r.o.nounce thee free and clear of all thy sins_, that they shall all be forgiven thee, as certainly and completely, as Jesus Christ by his sufferings and death merited the same, and in his gospel has commanded it to be preached to all the world. Receive, therefore, this consoling promise, which I have now made to thee in the name of the Lord Christ, let thy conscience be at rest, and do thou confidently believe, that thy sins are a.s.suredly forgiven thee, for Christ"s sake, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen."
2. The Plea affirms, that private confession may be useful as a means of bringing the, members of the church into personal interview with their pastor. The advantage of such interviews we freely admit; but they can be and are secured in our churches without this rite; and as it is confessedly dest.i.tute of Scripture authority, we have no right to invent a _new ordinance_ in Christ"s church for any purpose.
3. The Plea maintains that explanation of "the power of the Keys,"
which authorizes a minister to p.r.o.nounces absolution of sins, and appeals to Matth. xviii. 18, "Whatsoever ye shall bind one arth," [sic]
&c. But the previous context "tell it to the _church_" &c., clearly shows that it refers to church discipline, and signifies "whatever acts of discipline ye enact in regard to such an individual, I will ratify in heaven." But this has no bearing on private confession and absolution.
The other pa.s.sage from John, xx. 23, "Whosoever"s sins ye remit," &c., was uttered on a different occasion, after the Saviour"s resurrection; and either refers to a miraculous power bestowed on the apostles, to discern the condition of the heart, and to announce pardon to those whom they knew to be truly penitent and believing; or it confers on the ministry, in all ages, the power to announce _in general_ the conditions on which G.o.d will pardon sinners. But it contains no authority to uninspired ministers to apply these promises to individuals, the condition of whose hearts they cannot know, as is done in private absolution.
III. We therefore feel constrained to maintain the positions of the Platform on this subject also.
1. _That private confession and absolution were inculcated by the Augsburg Confession_, is so evident, that it cannot be successfully denied. Nor is this done only in the Abuses Corrected, as the Plea seems to suppose, p. 20. In Art. XI. of the Confession, we read: "In regard to confession, they teach, _that private absolution ought to be retained in the church;_ but that an enumeration of all our transgressions is not requisite to confession."
In the _Apology [Note 5] to the Confession_, Melancthon employs this language: "Wherefore it would be _impious_ to take away private absolution from the church." (Quare impium esset, &c.) _Luther_, in the Smalcald Articles, Art. VIII., says, confession and absolution ought _by no means_ be abolished in the church, &c., (Nequaquam in ecclesia confessio et absolutio abolenda est, &c.;) and he is speaking of _private_ confession.
The Romish alleged Refutation of the Augsburg Confession, on the above cited Art. XI., thus expresses its approbation: "This article (Art.
XI.) that private and special absolution should remain, and be preserved in the churches is _Catholic_. Yet two things must be required of them, (of the Reformers,) that both men and women should attend confession at least once a year, &c.; secondly, to confess all the sins you _can_ recollect." [Note 6]
_Dr. Plank_, in his celebrated and elaborate History of the Origin and Changes of the Protestant Doctrinal System, [Note 7] speaking of the negotiations between the Reformers and Papists during the Diet of Augsburg, says, "On the subject of the Confessional _there was an entire agreement_, for they (the Reformers) had declared that they regarded Confession as a very useful inst.i.tution, and had no idea of suffering it to fall, and also regarded it as good, that the people should be accustomed to confess their sins," viz., at the confessional.
_Siegel_, in his Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, [Note 8] after stating that Luther rejected _Auricular_ Confession, as a sacrament, and a means of oppressing the conscience, adds: "But, on the other hand, Luther was as unwilling as Melancthon, to have _private confession_ abolished, and the latter had, in his Loci Theologici, p.r.o.nounced private absolution to be as necessary as baptism." In regard to confession in the Lutheran Church of Germany, the fact is, that private confession, which the Reformers so earnestly recommended, is almost entirely abandoned and changed into a general (and public) confession, which may with more propriety be termed preparatory services to the Lord"s Supper."
Finally, we will add the testimony of only one more witness, _Prof.
Jacobson_, in the excellent _Theological Encyclopedia of Dr. Herzog_, now in progress of publication in Germany, who says, "Whilst the compulsory part of the inst.i.tution (private confession,) fell to the ground, each one was left to judge whether and how much he would confess. The inst.i.tution itself _was retained_, and _private confession_ especially recommended. The Augsburg Confession presupposes it (private confession,) _as the rule:_" Our custom is not to give the sacrament to those who have not first been confessed and absolved;" and the Smalcald articles [sic] teach that Confession and Absolution must by no means be allowed to be omitted in the church."
[Note 9]
After all this testimony, it may be regarded as incontestably established, that the former symbolical books of our church do teach _private confession_ and absolution, with some modifications, and hence, that the church in Sweden and Denmark _always rejected this part of the Augsburg Confession_, in practice, and that the entire church in Germany and the United States, which now use a _public_ confession, have made a similar departure from the teachings of the Augsburg Confession as well as of Luther, Melancthon and the other Lutheran reformers.
2. That _this rite of private confession, is unauthorized by any command of the Word of G.o.d, in so clear, that the Symbolical books themselves admit it_, and commend the rite merely on the ground of human expediency, and inferential scriptural reasoning. The same acknowledgment is made by the Plea of the Rev. Mr. Mann. In Art. XXVI.
of Augsburg Confession, being Topic V. of the Abuses Corrected, the confession says: "Confession is _not commanded in Scripture_, but has been inst.i.tuted _by the church_." [Note 10]
3. The rite of _private absolution_, on which the Reformers lay much stress, is in like manner dest.i.tute of scriptural authority, and most injurious to the interests of spiritual religion. The _omniscient_ Saviour could well say to the sick of the palsy, "Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee," Matt. ix. 2; for he knew the heart of man.
For the same reason he could say to Mary Magdalene, "Thy sins are forgiven." Luke vii. 48.
But, even the inspired apostles never in a single instance, either undertook to forgive sins themselves, or to announce the pardon of sin to any _individual personally_. It is therefore a solemn thing for ministers, unguided by inspiration, to a.s.sume greater power. To proclaim publicly and privately the willingness of G.o.d to pardon the impenitent, is an important and delighful [sic] part of the minister"s duty; but for uninspired men to inst.i.tute a special rite in the church, for the express purpose of announcing _pardon to individuals_, even when done conditionally, as the reformers maintained it always should be, is inevitably calculated to lead, especially the less intelligent, to believe their sins forgiven, at least in part, because the ministers announce the fact, and because they have professed penitence to him.
But this is wholly unauthorised in G.o.d"s Word. On the contrary:--
(_a_) The Scriptures throughout represent _G.o.d_, and _the Lamb of G.o.d_, as the only beings that can "forgive" and "take away" sin. Exod. x.x.xiv.
6, 7. The Lord pa.s.sed by before him and proclaimed, "The Lord G.o.d, merciful--_forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin_."
The blessed Saviour, in his memorable prayer, teaches us to address our supplication, not to the minister, but to our _heavenly Father_, "forgive us our sins," &c., Luke xi. 4. He says nothing, nor does any writer of the Old or New Testament _say a word_ about advising a resort to the priest or minister to obtain forgiveness of sins. The same truth is taught in a mult.i.tude of other pa.s.sages. We refer the reader to a few: Eph. iv. 32; Acts viii. 22; 1 John i. 9; Matth. ix. 6; Mark xi. 25; 1 Kings viii. 30; 2 Chron. vii. 14; Psalm lx.x.xvi. 5; Jerem. x.x.xi. 34; Dan. ix. 19.
(_b_) The very fact, that sin is committed essentially _against G.o.d_, is a violation of _his_ law, implies that no other being, not even an angel or archangel, much less a man, can forgive it, "Against thee, thee only have I sinned," said the Psalmist, "and done this evil in thy sight."
(_c_) The offers of pardon in G.o.d"s Word, are all _conditional_ and _general_, and these alone has the minister the right to proclaim, either to a congregation or to an individual. The implication of the promise to individuals is made by the Holy Spirit, working faith in the individual, or enabling him to trust in Christ. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with G.o.d," and this peace is the believer"s evidence, is the Testimony of the Spirit, that our sins are forgiven.
(_d_) The actual pardon of individuals by G.o.d, depends on their possessing the moral fitness required by him. It is based on their having performed the prescribed moral conditions sincerely, of which none but the Omniscient Jehovah can certainly judge; hence, even the declarative annunciation of pardon to individuals, is not only unauthorized but dangerous. Because, even if conditionally announced, the formality of the absolution, and the fact that the church has made a _special rite_ of it, are calculated to beget the idea, especially in the unintelligent, that the granting of absolutions by the minister, is proof of the genuineness of their faith, and reality of their pardon.
(_e_) Finally, the doctrine of ministerial absolution, or the supposed sin-forgiving power of the ministry, is inconsistent with the doctrine, that justification or pardon can be attained only by a living faith in Jesus Christ, a doctrine of cardinal importance in the eyes of the Reformers, and the one which Luther has styled the _articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae_, the doctrine with which the church must stand or fall." The Scriptures and also the Reformers, teach that pardon or justification can be obtained only through the merits of Christ, which merits must be apprehended by a living faith, which living faith can be found only in the regenerate or converted soul. Hence, as none but a regenerate sinner can exercise living faith, no other can be pardoned, whatever else he may do or possess. Now those who attend confession are either regenerate, or they are not. If they were regenerated or converted before they went to confession, they had faith, and were pardoned before; if they were unregenerate or unconverted, then neither their confession, nor the priest"s absolution, can confer pardon on them, because they have not a living faith, although they may be sincere and exercise some sorrow for their sins. On the other hand, if any amount of seriousness and penitence, short of true conversion or regeneration, could, through the confessional, or any other rite, confer pardon of sin; the line of distinction between converted and unconverted, between mere formalists and true Christians would be obliterated; we should have pardoned saints and pardoned sinners in the church, converted and unconverted heirs of the promise, believing and unbelieving subjects of justification, and the words of the Lord Jesus would prove a lie, "That, _unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven!_"-Def. Platform, p. 25.
On the subject of this rite, we regret to state, that a more careful study of the subject, as presented in the above results, will not permit us to speak as favorably of the practice of the Reformers, as we did in some of our former publications, twenty years ago, and even later. The positions above maintained, we think, cannot be successfully controverted, as our investigations of the original sources has been sufficiently extensive to dispel all doubt.
Note 1. See Koecher, p. 515.
Note 2. Funk"s Kirchenordnungen, pp. 189, 190.
Note 3. Mueller"s Symb. B., p. 364.
Note 4. Page 97.
Note 5. Mueller"s Symb. B., p. 185.
Note 6. Pleiffer, p. 534. [sic]
Note 7. Vol. iii. pt. 1, p. 125.
Note 8. Vol. i., pp. 199, 206.
Note 9. Vol. iv., p. 781.
Note 10. Lutheran Manual, p. 293.
CHAPTER VII.
DENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSt.i.tUTION AND OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN SABBATH.
The incalculable importance of the proper observation of the Christian Sabbath to the progress of the kingdom of Christ in general, and to the growth of piety in the heart of every Christian in particular, is a point on which, we are happy to state, there is no difference between the Plea and the Platform. Yet we cannot resist the conviction, that in our efforts to observe this day, not with the pharisaic formalities of the Jew, but with the conscientious spirituality of the Christian, the question whether in doing so, we are obeying an injunction of G.o.d, exhibited in the inspired example of his apostles, or are merely conforming to an uninspired regulation of the church, must be of great importance.
The lax views of the early reformers on this subject are so frequently met with in theological discussions, that we had not expected to find the position of the Platform disputed; but rather that the theory of the Reformers would be defended, as is done by writers of no mean name in Germany at the present day. The author of the Plea, however, takes a different view of the Confession, and affirms that this venerable doc.u.ment does not deny the divine inst.i.tution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath. "Luther and Melancthon (says he,) had received from the older church, the doctrine and practice of the Christian Sabbath, as a holy day, as a divine inst.i.tution and obligation, and they had not a word to say against this view of the Sabbath. But they had a great deal to say against the abuses, by which the bishops made the Sabbath a day of sin and dishonor to G.o.d and his church, instead of making it a day devoted to his glory," p. 28.
This opinion is different from that commonly entertained among the learned. A few authorities alone may suffice to sustain our statement.
_Dr Ruecker_, in his work on _The Lord"s Day_, in which he thoroughly examines the views of the church on this subject, in all the different ages of her history, fully confirms the position of the Definite Platform. He says, "_The Reformers do not recognize in the religious observance of Sunday an inst.i.tution resting on an immediate divine command;_ and the idea of a transfer of the Sabbatic law of the Old to the New Testament Sunday, is altogether strange to them, and is positively rejected by them, as in consistent with the gospel" (Die Reformatorem erkennen in der Sonntagsfeier _keine unmittelbar goettliche anordnung, &c._) Ruckert, von Tage des Herrn, p. 48.
And again, on p. 67, he affirms this more liberal view of the Lord"s Day, to be the more general one in Germany at the present time. "So far," says he, "as we know, the most important, living, theological writers, of the present day, entertain this so-called more liberal or lax view, (namely, that of Luther.)"
_Dr. Hengstenberg_, the well-known editor of the Evangelical Church Paper at Berlin, Prussia, and author of numerous learned and valuable works, uses the following language: "What Luther"s views were, on the law concerning the Sabbath, may easily be inferred from his views of the Old Testament law in general, and of the Decalogue in particular.
The distinction which became current after his day, between the moral and ceremonial law, according to which Christ abrogated only the latter, whilst the former is regarded as universal and binding on all ages, was distant from his views. He regards the whole law as an external, coercive letter, designed only for the Jews." "How _Luther_ regarded the Sabbath from this general view, is so clearly exhibited in his Larger Catechism, that the introduction of other pa.s.sages from his writings, is entirely superfluous." He then quotes the pa.s.sages which will be given in full in our next section, in which Luther declares the Sabbath to be designed only for the Jews, and that in its outward sense it does not concern Christians. (Darum, says Luther, gehet nun dies gebot nach dem groben Verstande uns Christen nichts an, &c.) Melancthon (continues Hengstenberg,) agreed with Luther, and this view was introduced into the Augsburg Confession." See Hengstenberg, ueber den Tag des Herrn, Berlin, 1852, pp. 108, 109, 110.
But the accuracy of the Platform will no longer be disputed, when even _Dr. Walter_, [sic; should be Walther] the leader of the old Lutheran Synod of Missouri, and editor of their periodical, a man of acknowledged theological learning and rigid advocate for the entire Augsburg Confession, bears testimony in favor of our position. In the March No.
of the Lehre und Wehre, p. 93, he thus expresses his views: "We cannot agree with him (the author, whom he is reviewing) in the views he expresses concerning the Sabbath. He a.s.serts that the Sabbath or Christian Sunday _is a divine inst.i.tution_, and that this is the doctrine of the Lutheran Symbols: That the Lutheran Church differs from the Calvinistic only in the mode of observing the Sabbath, the former advocating an evangelical, the latter, a legal method. _The contrary of this is clearly evident from Article XXVIII. of the Augsburg Confession_, and it would be _almost incomprehensible how the author could fail to perceive this_, were it not for his manifest desire to make the sanctification of the Sabbath as binding a duty as any other precept in the decalogue, and his apprehension that this could not be accomplished any other way, than by maintaining the divine appointment of the Sunday.
Once more, let us listen to the the [sic] testimony of that learned and impartial historian of our own country, _Dr. Murdock_, himself, though a native American, a highly respectable German scholar: "The XXVIII. Article of Augsburg Confession," says he, "teaches that as to Sundays and other holy days, and rites and forms of worship, bishops may and should appoint such as are convenient and suitable; and the people should observe them, NOT AS DIVINE ORDINANCES, but as conducive to good order and edification." Murdock"s Mosheim, Vol. iii., p. 53, Harper"s edition.
I. _What is the charge of the Definite Platform against the Augsburg Confession on this subject?_ It is, that
The Augsburg Confession "treats the Sabbath as a mere Jewish inst.i.tution, and supposes it to be totally revoked whilst the propriety of our retaining the Lord"s Day or Christian Sabbath as a day of religious worship, is supposed to rest only on the agreement of the churches for the convenience of general convocation.
II. What ground does the Plea take?