The Project Gutenberg EBook of American Lutheranism Vindicated; or,
Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics, by Samuel Simon Schmucker

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: American Lutheranism Vindicated; or, Examination of the Lutheran Symbols, on Certain Disputed Topics
       Including a Reply to the Plea of Rev. W. J. Mann

Author: Samuel Simon Schmucker

Release Date: April 2, 2006 [EBook #18107]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AMERICAN LUTHERANISM ***




Produced by Rev. Kurt A. T. Bodling, presently at the State
Library of Pennsylvania





AMERICAN LUTHERANISM VINDICATED; OR, EXAMINATION OF THE
LUTHERAN SYMBOLS,
on
CERTAIN DISPUTED TOPICS:
INCLUDING A REPLY
TO THE PLEA OF Rev. W. J. MANN.
BY
S. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D.,
Professor of Christian Theology in the Theological
Seminary of General Synod at Gettysburg, Pa.

Earnestly contend for the faith, once delivered to the saints. JUDE 3.

BALTIMORE:
PUBLISHED BY T. NEWTON KURTZ,
No. 151 WEST PRATT STREET.
1856

Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1856,
BY S. S. SCHMUCKER,
IN THE CLERK'S OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES,
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE CHARLES, NO. 9 SANSOM ST., PHILA.
PRINTED BY C. SHERMAN & SON.


TO THE READER.
The design of the following treatise, and the occasion which elicited
it, are indicated both on the title 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, entitled 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 constitutions of the General
Synod and of her Seminary avow only a qualified assent to the Augsburg
Confession. In hope of contributing to the prevalence of truth, and the
interests of that kingdom of God which is based on it, the writer has
carefully re-examined the original documents, 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 illustrated 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 assent 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 Constitution 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 Mass. 2. Private Confession and
Absolution. 3. The Divine institution 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 assembled 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 Godhead, 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 God, 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 institution 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 God'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 constitution 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 assigned 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 God_ In our natural state,
moreover, we have not the _qualifications requisite for the enjoyment
of heaven_, having no spiritual appetites. But we cannot suppose that
God 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 God 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 mass 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
class, 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 class of German theologians of late are wont to style
rationalizing tendencies.

As to the _necessity of this work;_ two little volumes have appeared,
assailing 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 Constitution 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 institution, 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 worship,
which characterize the great mass 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 assurance, 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 assent, 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.


CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.....13
Religious Controversy. Plea of Rev. Mann. Apostolic Church. Authority
of Creeds. Apostles' Creed. Augsburg Confession-altered by Melancthon.

CHAPTER II.
REPLY TO THE GENERAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE PLEA.....24
Augsburg Confession the only universal symbol of the Lutheran Church.
Definite Platform liberal. The Episcopalians, Presbyterians and
Methodists, altered their European Creeds in this country. Creeds
subordinate, to Scripture. Progressive light of Scripture. Human
creeds fallible. Drs. Lochman, Endress, F. C. Schaeffer, Hazelius,
Bachman, &c. Origin of the Definite Synodical Platform. Dr. Kocher on
Creeds.

CHAPTER III.
DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED.....47
Diet of Augsburg. Alarm of Melancthon-his complaints to Luther-his
letters to Camerarius, remarkable letter to Campegius. Luther checks
Melancthon's Concessions.

CHAPTER IV.
POSITIONS OF THE DEFINITE SYNODICAL PLATFORM ESTABLISHED.....57
The Reformers progressive. Rigid Symbolic System rejected in Germany.
Reinhard, Knapp, Storr, Olshausen, Tholuk, Hengstenberg, &c. Analysis
of the American Recension of the Augsburg Confession, it is almost the
entire Augsburg Confession.

CHAPTER V.
SYNODICAL DISCLAIMER.....63
Luther on the Elevation of the Host. Ceremonies of the Mass. Drs.
Murdock, Fuhrman. Import of the term Mass among Romanists, and amongst
the Reformers whilst in the Romish Church. Testimony of Luther in his
Treatise on the Mass, in his letters to Spangler, to Duke George, in
the Short Confession, letter to Justus Jonas, &c. Testimony of
Melancthon, in his letter to Luther during the Diet. Testimony of other
Reformers, Aurifaber, Spalatin. Testimony of the Romish Refutation of
the Augsburg Confession. Internal evidence from the Augsburg Confession
itself. Separate captions and articles for Mass and the Lord's Supper.
The two kept distinct in Melancthon's translation; if you exchange the
words the articles make nonsense. The Romanists understood the
Confession to mean mass proper. Melancthon in the Apology to the
Confession so understands it. Refutation of the proofs. Reference to
the author's former works, the Popular Theology, the History of the
American Lutheran Church.

CHAPTER VI.
PRIVATE CONFESISONAND ABSOLUTION.....97
Import of the phrase. Dr. Funck's early Lutheran Directories for
Worship. Formularies for private Confession and Absolution, Luther's,
that of Wolfgang, &c., in 1557. Proof that this rite is inculcated in
the Augsburg Confession. Siegel, Prof. Jacobsen. Augsburg Confession
admits the want of Scripture authority for it. God alone can forgive
sin.

CHAPTER VII.
DENIAL OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND OBLIGATION OF THE CHRISTIAN
SABBATH.....107
Proofs of the Charge, Drs. Rucker, Hengstenberg, Walter, Murdock.
Ground taken by the Plea. The same opinion taught by Luther in his
Commentary, Larger Catechism, &c., and by Melancthon, in Loci
Communes, or system of Divinity, &c., in Augsburg Confession, and in
his Apology to it.

CHAPTER VIII.
GENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTAL INFLUENCE.....121
Doctrine of the Plea-not fully developed. Scriptural view of
Sacramental Influence. Man a sinner by nature and practice, Divine
truth the grand instrumentality of the Spirit in our spiritual
renovation. The stage of progress in this renovation, morally requisite
for pardon, is that of living faith, or entire surrender to God.
Evidence of this pardon or justification, is internal; peace, love, joy,
testimony of the Spirit, fruits of the Spirit, and not any outward
rite-Sacraments therefore only mediate and not immediate conditions of
pardon-proofs, Mosheim, Reinhard, Knapp.

CHAPTER IX.
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.....135
Is taught in Symbolical books and by the Reformers and early
Theologians, Hunnius, Gerhard, Buddeus. Influence of this doctrine on
the pulpit-proofs against it.

CHAPTER X.
THE LORD'S SUPPER.....148
Extracts from the Symbols. Arguments. Supposed Sin-forgiving Power of
the Eucharist.

CHAPTER XI.....155
EXORCISM.
Altered interpretation of this rite. Proofs that it was regarded as
symbolic and was practised in different parts of the Lutheran Church.
Testimony of Drs. Guericke, Koellner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Augusti,
Siegel, Sigismund, Baumgarten. At some periods regarded as a test of
orthodoxy.

CHAPTER XII.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.....161
What is our duty under these circumstances? Erroneous reasonings of
the rigid Lutherans. Four different remedies considered--the true one.

APPENDIX.....169


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 God reveals what is necessary to salvation with
entire distinctness, it leaves undecided, or to be deduced from clearer
passages of Scripture, many points which are both interesting and
important, as well as naturally sought for by the constitutional,
systematizing tendencies of the human mind. Discussions on such topics
of practical utility, are alike pleasing to God 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 God,
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 God, 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 passion, prejudice, or irresponsible authority, it will sooner
or later assert 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
institutions or doctrines ever been accomplished in the church of
Christ, without discussion and controversy either oral or written;
because error when assailed 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 God'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 God.

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 document, 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
assent to the Word of God, 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 passion 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 passions. 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
documents, which were adopted some centuries ago in a foreign land and
foreign tongue, as a creed or test of membership in the church. A very
brief glance at this church, the authority of human creeds, and the
circumstances 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 institutions of the world, such as republics, kingdoms and
empires, are instituted 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 God, 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
institutions it embraces and the truths it inculcates.

These _inspired_ Apostles left a _written record of this divine
institution_, of the church with its ordinances, as well as of the
doctrines and duties to be inculcated by its teachers. They also
pronounce 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 God 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 God 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
membership 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 assent. 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 God'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 mass of true disciples
of Christ; nor to introduce more specifications of government or modes
of worship, 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 God 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 multitudinous rites and
ceremonies introduced into the popish worship, 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 superstitious
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 passages according to the most impartial and just
principle of exegesis, is one principal 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 circumstances 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 God, 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 documents. The idea of the
infallibility of any human creed, or even its semi-inspiration, is
philosophically unreasonable, and either a remnant of Romish
superstition, 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 superstition. "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 damnatas, 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 constitute 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 asserted 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 mass 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 class the author
of the Plea, who is evidently a Lutheran of the more enlightened and
liberal class.

The author of the Plea represents "the Augsburg Confession, as the
_unexceptionable_ password of the adherents of the Lutheran Church for
three centuries." The idea designed probably is, that the _great mass_
of doctrines taught in this confession has been thus received. For it
is a historical fact, that cannot be contested, that private confession,
which is enjoined in the eleventh, twenty-fifth and twenty-eighth
Articles of the Augsburg Confession, and was retained by Luther,
Melancthon and their churches, was from the begining [sic] rejected by
the _entire Lutheran Church in Sweden and Denmark_, as well as other
places, and a public confession of the whole church, such as is now
employed in Germany and this country, introduced in its stead. See
Siegel's Handbuch, Vol. I., p. 200.

"Of course the accusation against the Augsburg Confession, involves an
exhibition of Luther and Melancthon, those pillars of the Reformation,
as teaching _heretical doctrines_, which are not in accordance with the
word of God." p. 4. This language we regard as not entirely correct.
Those errors alone are, in correct English, usually termed "heretical,"
which are of fundamental importance, and deny some doctrine that is
necessary to salvation. That this is neither affirmed or implied by the
Platform, must, we think, be admitted by all. But that both Luther and
Melancthon did entertain some erroneous views in 1530, some of which
are taught in the Augsburg Confession, namely, those specified in the
Platform, is affirmed by the great body of our American Lutheran
Church.

"The errors are not, on the side of the Augsburg Confession, but on the
side of those _who agitate our Lutheran Church_ with the introduction
of a fatherless and motherless child, the Definite Platform." To this
we reply, the Platform was publicly adopted by three or four Synods in
the West, within a few weeks after its publication. As to its
authorship, we never denied having prepared it, at the urgent request
of some of those brethren, on the plan agreed on by them, and some
Eastern brethren of the very first respectability. It was carefully
revised by ourselves and Dr. B. Kurtz, and we have not yet found a
single one of its positions refuted. That the request was made and
complied with, will not be regarded as discreditable to either party by
impartial judges, after the smoke of battle shall have disappeared, and
the vision of men again be unobstructed. As to the friends of the
Platform being agitators of the church, we regard the supposition as
erroneous. The Platform was designed to be adopted by those Western
Synods, as it has been, publicly, but without controversy, as other
Synods had done before with their symbolic platforms. But enemies of
the Platform raised the alarm, and agitated the church with threatened
dangers. That the friends of the assailed instrument should stand up in
its vindication, was an indispensable act of self-defence, to which no
impartial man will object.

"We shall endeavor to maintain in this controversy, a dignified and
Christian spirit, as becomes this holy subject, and those who,
differing in some points, know one Master and one service. People on
earth will always differ in their opinions. The truth will gain by
giving free scope to investigation, and by the illustration of the
different sides of the same question." This position is true, and
creditable alike to the head and the heart of the author. Church
government and doctrine are topics of primary importance to the
prosperity of the kingdom of the Redeemer, and no reason can be
assigned why they cannot be debated to the edification of the church,
except the human frailty of disputants. Had these subjects been
discussed in our religious papers with calmness, and in a Christian
spirit, they would have been alike instructive and edifying both to
ministers and laity. The discussion would have infused into laymen a
deeper interest for the welfare of the church, and a larger liberality
in the support of her institutions. Are we not commanded to prove all
things, and hold fast that which is good; and to be always ready to
give to him that asked us a reason for the hope that is in us? But let
us not despond; God will overrule even these controversies to the good
of his church. _Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit._

"The Synods adopting this Platform are expected to make it a principle
_not to receive into their membership any one who will not subscribe
this Definite Platform_," (meaning the whole pamphlet,) p. 6. On this
subject the Platform was entirely misapprehended, by the readers not
reflecting that the third resolution, on p. 6, must be construed in
connection with the two immediately preceding and numerically connected
with it. Resolutions first and second declare the "doctrinal Platform"
to consist of the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American
Recension of the Augsburg Confession, together with the General Synod's
Formula of Government and Discipline. And the third resolution adds, no
one shall be received into this Synod who will not subscribe "_this_
Platform," namely, the one just defined. This American Recension or
Revision of the Augsburg Confession, contains, _unaltered_, the
doctrinal articles of that Confession, except, that a few sentences are
omitted, and _nothing added in their stead_. Now, if it be admitted that
when an enumeration of the parts of a whole is professedly and
explicitly made, any thing not included in that enumeration is excluded,
then certainly, as the first two resolutions enumerated specifically
the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the American Recension of the
Augsburg Confession, as the  parts constituting the Platform to which
assent was required, it follows that the list of Symbolic Errors
rejected, which is not named at all, and which formed a separate part of
the pamphlet, is excluded. But the misapprehension evidently arose from
the fact, that after the term _doctrinal platform_ had been used in the
work, to designate the doctrinal and disciplinarian basis contained in
the first part of it, the name _Definite Synodical Platform_ was
selected for the whole pamphlet, and the distinction not kept up with
sufficient prominence before the mind of the reader. This is remedied in
the second edition, by employing the phrase _Doctrinal Basis or Creed_
for the first, and "_Synodical Disclaimer_, or List of Symbolical
Errors" for the second part. Moreover it is expressly stated, on p. 5,
that "whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who believes in
Exorcism, Private Confession, and Absolution, or the Ceremonies of the
Mass," (not one of which is practiced, so far us we know, by a single
minister connected with the General Synod), the Platform "grants
liberty in regard to all the other topics, omitted from the Augsburg
Confession in the American Recension of it." For it adds, "We are
willing, as heretofore, to admit ministers who receive these views,
provided they regard them as _non-essential_" (that is, as
_non-fundamental_, not, as has been asserted by others, as of minor or
of little importance), "and are willing to co-operate in peace with
those who reject them." To the List of Errors rejected no one is
required to subscribe, and it is published by the Synod as a disclaimer
of these errors, which are often imputed to us, but which are rejected
by the great body of the American Lutheran Church. The Platform cannot,
therefore, with truth, be said to exclude old-Lutherans, unless they
are so rigid as to regard their own views on these disputed points as
essential, and are unwilling to co-operate in _peace_ with their
brethren: and in that case it is certainly preferable for all parties,
that they should organize a Synod for themselves.

Says the author of the Plea, p. 6: "Suppose some Episcopal ministers
having arrived at the conviction that some of their church canons were
wrong," "would it be regarded as anything else than a most _astounding
presumption_, for such men to dare to change the character of the church
canons and denounce some of them as errors, and at the same time to
maintain that _they themselves are the true representatives of the
Episcopal Church_, and can _unchurch_ others?" Here are three
positions, all of which we regard as erroneous. In the _first_ place,
it is not presumptuous, but a Christian duty, when ministers of a
church are firmly convinced, that the avowed standards of their church
contain some tenets contrary to the word of God, publicly to disavow
them, that their influence may not aid in sustaining error; and if the
majority of a synod participate in this opinion, it is their duty to
change their standards into conformity with God's word. The Augsburg
Confession itself was such, a disclaimer of Romish errors, and avowal
of the truth: and if it was the duty of the ministry in the sixteenth
century to make their public  profession conform to their belief of
Scripture truth, it is equally the duty of every other age. But
although their case involves the _principle_ objected to by the _Plea_,
the following cases are more exactly analogous. The Episcopal ministry
and laity did, after the American Revolution, change their doctrine,
that the king is the head of the church and adopted the opinion that no
civil officer, as such, has any office in the church. They accordingly
rejected from their creed Article XXI., and also excluded from their
liturgy and forms of prayer, all allusion to the king as the head or
governor of the church. Listen to the testimony of the _Episcopal_
ministers of Maryland, in 1783, soon after the acknowledgment of the
independence of this country. They passed a number of resolutions, of
which the fourth reads thus: "That as it is the _right_, so it will be
the _duty_ of the Episcopal Church, when duly organized, constituted,
and represented in a Synod or Convention of the different orders of her
ministers and people, to revise her liturgy, forms of prayer and of
public worship, in order to adapt the same _to the late Revolution_,
and OTHER LOCAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF AMERICA," [Note 1] &c.

Our _Presbyterian_ brethren also changed their Confession of Faith, and
adapted it to their belief. Hear the testimony of _Dr. Hodge_, in his
Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United
States: [Note 2] the Synod then "took into consideration the twentieth
chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the third paragraph of
the twenty-third chapter, and the first paragraph of the thirty-first
chapter; and having made some alterations, agreed that the said
paragraphs, as now altered, be printed for consideration, together with
a draught of a plan of government and discipline." They were
subsequently adopted.

In like manner did our _Methodist Episcopal_ brethren deal with the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Episcopal Church, which they had avowed
from the days of Wesley. They not only rejected the recognition of the
king as the head of the church, but also entirely omitted Article
XVII., which is supposed by many to inculcate Calvinism, together with
several others; and materially altered Articles I., II., VI., IX.,
XXVI., and XXXIV. If, then, it be competent for these several Synods,
or Conferences, to change the Westminster Confession and Thirty-nine
Articles, which were prepared far more deliberately, and with much less
restraint, and had become equally venerable by age, without any one
pretending to deny their authority, or to pronounce the measure
"presumptuous," why may not the Synod of Wittenberg, and other similar
bodies, correct the Augsburg Confession, by the omission of several
tenets, believed not only by her members, but by the great body of
American Lutherans, to be unscriptural? Now the Definite Platform was
prepared at the request of the leading members of those Western Synods,
according to a plan previously agreed on among them and others, for the
express purpose of being proposed for discussion, correction, and
_adoption by these Synods;_ and, until so acted on, was a mere
unofficial proposal, _such as any friends of the church have a right to
make_. And who can dispute their right, or the right of any Synod, to
adopt a Confession of Faith for herself, when the Constitution of the
General Synod originally conceded this power specifically to each
Synod, and still does so, in Article III., Section 3, by requiring them
only to adhere to the _fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible, as taught
by our church? Is not a Lutheran Synod possessed of as much power as an
Episcopal or Methodist convention? And although an individual
necessarily drew up the document, it was prepared according to the plan
decided on by about twenty brethren, and claimed no authority until
acted on by Synod. The Definite Platform could never, _with truth_, be
regarded as the work of a few individuals. Its inception was the result
of a consultation of a large number of influential brethren, especially
of the West, who had been convinced by the aggressions of surrounding
symbolists, that a decided, but also a more _definite_ stand on the
ground of the General Synod, was necessary in self-defence. It was
prepared and published at their request, not as an official document,
but as a draft of such a basis as they had agreed on. It was presented
to them, and taken up for consideration by their several Synods; and
the unanimity with which they adopted it is conclusive proof that it
was prepared according to the stipulated principles. By denying the
right of the several Synods of Ohio, and of any other Synod, to improve
or decide on their own doctrinal basis, within the fundamentals of
Scripture as taught in the Augsburg Confession, the enemies of the
Platform _renounce the principles of the General Synod_, which
expressly allows this right; and they also renounce the original and
universally acknowledged Independent or Congregational principles of
Lutheran Church Government, avowed by Luther, Melancthon, and all the
leading divines of our church, one part of which is the right and
obligation to form our own views of Scripture truth, and to avow them
to the world.

No individual can justly pronounce the Platform an invasion of his
rights; for it has never even been proposed by _its friends_ to any
Synod other than those at the request of whose members it was prepared;
and should it, at any time hereafter, be presented, it will possess no
authority unless conferred on it by Synodical action, in which each
minister has a right to participate. The war that has been and is still
waged against the Platform, by old Lutheran Synods, and papers, to whom
it was never proposed for adoption, is wholly offensive; and whilst we
do not deny the right of any Synod to take it up by way of counsel, the
intolerant and aggressive principles avowed by Old School papers, is a
direct assault on the rights of American or New School Lutherans, which
cannot in the end fail to unite them in measures of self-defence.

_Secondly_, the Plea is mistaken, in supposing that the friends of the
Platform profess to be the true representatives of the Lutheran Church
in the _symbolic_ sense of the term: for have they not reiterated, in a
score of publications, for five and twenty years past, that they do not
hold all the views of the former symbols; and does not the Platform
itself explicitly disclaim any such idea, by publicly protesting
against the errors of those books?

_Thirdly_, the idea of our "unchurching others," is openly disclaimed
by the Platform, as was proved above.

Again, says the Plea: "Those who undertake to change the doctrinal
basis of a church, take upon themselves an awful responsibility," p. 7.
True; but there is an equally awful responsibility resting on those
who, favored by Providence with the increased light of three centuries,
continue to avow in their creed, and thus lead multitudes to embrace
the superstitious and truly dangerous errors, which remain in these
documents issued in the earlier and immature stages of the Reformation,
and some of them under circumstances unpropitious to a free expression
of views of Scripture doctrine. If these errors constituted the essence
of Lutheranism, we ought to forsake the church; but as they do not, we
are under sacred obligation to expunge them from our creed, so that we
may not aid in their perpetuation.

"From this renewed church (of the Reformation) as from a new heart, of
mankind, new and fresh and vigorous blood flows in an uninterrupted
stream through mighty arteries, into the whole world." p. 7. Or rather,
we would say, this fresh and vigorous blood flows not from the church,
much less from the errors which she retained in her symbols, but from
that amount, of _God's truth_, which constitutes the great mass of her
confession. The separation of these errors, instead of impairing the
efficiency of the church, will greatly multiply her energies, and pave
the way for new and enlarged conquests over the world.

"Let any one examine the theological mastership, which this learned
and honored disciple of Christ (Melancthon) exhibited in his Apology
for the Augsburg Confession--and he will be convinced of the folly of
those, who presume to think, that he, or his mighty coadjutor,
(Luther,) might be materially benefited by the dogmatical and exegetical
instructions of the theological professors and authors of the present
times." p. 7.8. This all sounds well enough in the abstract, and we
ourselves have frequently and with equal sincerity, praised these great
reformers. But after all, they were fallible men. This same Melancthon,
in this same Apology for the Augsburg Confession, regards Private
Confession and Absolutism [sic] as the third _sacrament_. At
the Diet of Augsburg, he was willing to yield to Romish bishops the
dangerous powers which they formerly had exercised over the churches,
and when he saw danger thicken around him, he positively wrote to
Luther, inquiring whether they might not, yield to the papists in the
matter of _private and closet masses_, as will be seen in the sequel!
Besides, these modern "professors, authors," and, we will add, pastors,
do not propose to improve the Confession by any light of their own; but
by the progressive light, which the Providence of God has vouchsafed to
the prayers, the philological and exegetical studies of three centuries.
This light we receive with gratitude to God, and cannot for a moment
doubt, that if these noble servants of Christ were now living, they
would be amongst its most grateful recipients. They both continued
through life to study the word of God, and to profess their improved
views without the least hesitation. So far was Melancthon himself from
regarding any of his works perfect, that he continued  deliberately to
make improvements, even in this same Augsburg Confession, after the
storms of papal persecution had subsided, till the end of his life. And
we might easily fill pages with the declarations of Luther, avowing his
sense of the imperfections of his publications, and of the work of
Reformation in his day.

"We believe," says the Plea, "that they (Luther and Melancthon) are no
more than guides to the fountain of truth, to the gospel; and whenever
we find that they lead us off from the Word of God, we are bound not to
hesitate in our decided deviation from their views." p. 8. This is
precisely the noble, enlightened, and christian stand point of the
American Lutheran Church. In principle, the respected author of the
Plea, does not differ from us. It is only in its application to
particular cases, that we may occasionally not coincide.

"The state of theology and religion of an age, does not at all depend
upon the progress of general science and social life." p. 10. From this
sentiment and the train of observation in reference to it on the same
page, we do not dissent. But no American Lutheran appeals to _this_
spirit of the age, exhibited in the progress of the physical sciences,
as proofs of any advance in theology. The sciences to which we refer as
media of increasing life, are those on which the proper interpretation
of the sacred volume depends, philology, archaeology, hermeneutics, &e.,
and certainly our brother cannot dissent from this position, he will not
maintain, that no progress has been made, in the knowledge of the
original languages of Scripture by continued studies of scores of the
ablest  philologians the world has ever seen, especially during the last
half century. He will not deny, that the exploring labors of travellers
[sic] to the lands of holy writ, the increased study of the manners and
customs and institutions of the nations inhabiting them, have
illustrated some portions of the sacred volume. Nor will he affirm the
utter fruitlessness of all the prayerful efforts of men of God, during
the last three centuries, to understand the general principles of
languge, [sic] the different significations of words, (the literal, the
tropical, the typical, the allegorical, &c.,) and the proper rules for
the interpretation of the Sacred Record. He is too well acquainted with
the literary fame of Germany and the writings of that galaxy of
theological luminaries, that has reflected so much glory on the land of
the Reformation, not to admit that many parts of the Sacred Record are
better understood at present, than they were three centuries ago. But
the principal difficulty which prevented the full and clear appreciation
of divine truth in the earlier Reformers, was the fact that _they were
educated till adult age, [Note 3] in all the superstitious rites and
ceremonies of the Romish Church_, and we all know that it is impossible
entirely to emancipate ourselves from the prejudices of early education.
Under these circumstances the marvel is, not that they retained a few
papal views and practices, but that they accomplished as much as they
did, in unlearning the errors of their early education.

"If all Christianity were to take its first start to-day;-to-morrow
already interpretations and confessions would spring up like mushrooms
in a hot-bed." p. 11. This idea is expressed rather too strongly for
the claims of history; as it is certain that during the golden era of
Christianity, the first three centuries, no other creeds were employed
by the churches generally, than the so-called Apostles' and the Nicene
Creeds. It is chiefly since the period of the Reformation, that the
church of the Redeemer has been cut up into so many denominations,
professing different and some of them very extended creeds.

"Every denomination has an individual life, and the law of
self-preservation ought, to teach her, that she is throwing herself
away, if she, is not determined to stand by her banners and to defend
her position." p. 11. Whatever definition we may adopt of the
indefinite and cloudy term "_life_" in this passage, our reply is, the
life of every Christian church ought to be the _life of the Gospel_,
and the life of the church as established and conducted by the inspired
apostles. Every thing in the life of any church inconsistent with this,
must be wrong. It is true, since the formation of the different
Protestant denominations, each one of them has a different creed, and
is characterized by some peculiarities of government or worship, and if
these peculiarities are intended by the "peculiar life" of a
denomination, we judge it would be equally wrong for the members of any
church, to lay it down as a rule in every case to defend them. It would
bear some resemblance to the corrupt, political motto, so justly
denounced by all good men: _Our Country right or wrong_. Had Luther
adopted this rule, it would have required him to defend all the errors
of Rome, which had been fully sanctioned by that church. But his
judgment taught him differently, and he gradually rejected every one of
those elements of the peculiar _life_ of Romanism, which he found
hostile to the life of the [sic] God's word. But if it be replied,
that by "peculiar life" is intended those peculiarities of our
church, which are accordant with the Gospel; we fully assent to the
position. This is precisely the principle, on which we endeavor to act.
_We defend and retain every peculiarity of the church of our fathers,
which we find taught in the word of God, or consistent with its spirit_;
whilst we deem it a privilege and duty to labor at the improvement of
our church and her ecclesiastical framework or platform, by removing
from it every thing which, after a life of prayerful study, we are
persuaded is offensive to God, because opposed to His word. Even the
Form of Concord affirms the principle for which we here contend, by
representing creeds as exhibitions of the sense in which _Christians of
a particular age_ understood the Bible; and never, until the duty of the
church in every age to conform her standards to the word of God, is
conceded; can she as a whole become more united, more pure and
scriptural, and the kingdom of Christ be extended throughout the earth.

The Plea objects to what it styles "the officious manner in which some
persons raise alarm throughout the church, promulgate their intention
to change the Augsburg Confession, and act in such a manner as if their
views in regard to the so-called errors of the Augsburg Confession were
absolutely above all possibility of error." p. 13. This objection is
probably based on a want of acquaintance with the history of our church
in this country, if it is designed to refer particularly to the
Definite Platform; which would be excuseable in our brother, as his
residence amongst us is comparatively of recent date. But the truth is,
that the rejection of the custom of requiring assent to the Augsburg
Confession by the fathers in the Pennsylvania Synod _fifty years ago_,
is proof enough of their dissatisfaction with that document. Nor did
they hesitate distinctly to declare their dissent from some of its
tenets. This was done not only privately, but also in their occasional
publications. As to private confession and absolution, _they never
adopted that practice in this country;_ but from the beginning
employed a _public_ and _general_ confession, preparatory to the Lord's
Supper, as our church in Sweden and Denmark did in the days of the
Reformation. As to the _ceremonies_ of the public mass, they were
rejected by our church universally, some years after the diet of
Augsburg, as private and closet masses had been before. The General
Synod, at the adoption of her constitution in 1820, freely expressed
her dissatisfaction in the public discussions, with some parts of the
Augsburg Confession, and inserted a clause in her constitution, giving
_power both to the General Synod and to each District Synod to form a
new Confession of Faith_, for their own use. _Dr. Lochman_, one of the
most active, pious, and respected divines of our church, in his
Catechism, published in 1822, states it as one of "_the leading
principles_ of our church, [sic on quotation marks] "that
the Holy Scriptures and _not human authority_, are the only source
whence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate to
faith or practice." "That Christians are accountable to God alone for
their religious principles," and says not a word about adherence to the
Augsburg Confession, as one of the principles of our church.

He also published an edition of the Augsburg Confession, in his work,
entitled Doctrine and Discipline of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in
which _he made more omissions than are found in the American
Recension;_ and yet no one found fault with him for doing so. That the
reader may judge of the extent of these omissions, we specify them: In

Art. I. he omitted the definition of _person_, in the Trinity.

Art. II. omits the condemnatory clause.

Art. III. omits the epithet _pure_, in reference to the Virgin Mary,
and the reference to the so called "Apostles' Creed."

Art. IV. omits the closing sentence, that God will regard this faith as
righteousness.

Art. V. omits the condemnatory clause, and part of another sentence.

Art. VI. omits the word "_true_" in reference to the unity of the
church.

Art. VIII. omits the condemnatory clause concerning the _Donatists_.

Art. IX. omits the name _Anabaptists_.

Art. X. omits the condemnatory clause.

Art. XII. omits "absolution" and part of the condemnatory clause.

Art. XVII. omits the condemnatory clause.

Art. XVIII. omits the name of Augustine's work, Hypognosticon, and
about _ten lines at the close_.

Art. XIX. omits the _last sentence_.

Art. XX. omits different portions of this long article, amounting to
one-half of the whole.

Art. XXI. omits all that is said on war, and the Turks, &c., and the
entire concluding paragraph, amounting to half a page 12mo.

Yet this work was circulated throughout the church, and we never heard
a single word of objection, although the notes appended to it are far
from being symbolic.

Rev. J. A. Probst, in his work on the Reunion of the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches, published in 1826, speaking of this country, and
especially the Synod of Pennsylvania, of which he was a member, says,
"Zwingle's more liberal, rational, and scriptural view of this doctrine,
(election) as well as of the _Lord's Supper, has become the prevailing
one among the Lutheran and Reformed_," p. 74. The same fact, the
rejection of some of the articles of the Augsburg Confession, is taught
in some publications in 1827, by _Dr. Endress_, one of our most
respected and learned ministers; and is confirmed by the language of the
resolution passed by the Synod of Pennsylvania in 1823, on the subject
of union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches in this country,
between which bodies they affirm a _unity of doctrinal views_. This
dissent, was publicly avowed by Dr. _F. C. Schaeffer_, of New York, who,
in  his edition of Luther's Catechism, published in 1820, omitted the
word "_real_ or _true_" in reference to the Saviour's body in the
eucharist, (p. 21,) and in his Address at the Laying of the Corner-stone
of St. Matthew's Church, thus expresses himself. "We rejoice with
thanksgiving before the Lord, because he has given us _our great
symbolical book, the bible_. This is preferable to all the "books" and
"_confessions" of men_. According to a fundamental principle of the
Lutherans, we depend not merely on the irrigating streamlets that
originate in the fountain to which we have access, but we rather drink
from that fountain itself. The study and proper interpretation of the
sacred writings, accompanied by the use of all outward helps which
God's providence has furnished, and aided by fervent prayer in the
acceptable name of Jesus Christ the Mediator, is mainly inculcated in
the Evangelical Lutheran Church." p. 10.

This same dissent from the symbols, was also publicly avowed by _Dr.
Hazelius_, who in his Annotations on the Augsburg Confession,
published in 1841, says, "The opinions now entertained in the Lutheran
church, as to the nature of the sacrament of the _Lord's Supper_,
differ in no material point from those entertained by the other
protestant churches on the subject." p. 21. This dissent in
non-fundamentals from the Augsburg Confession, is also avowed by _Dr.
Bachman_, in his Discourse on the Doctrines and Discipline of the
Lutheran Church, published in 1837, and sanctioned by his Synod: also
by _Dr. Lintner_, in his preface to the Augsburg Confession, in 1837,
pp. 3, 4; by _Dr. Krauth_, in his Sketch of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in the United Slates, for Buck's Theological Dictionary, in
1830; in which he says the doctrines of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
are _substantially_ those of the Augsburg Confession," [sic on
quotation mark!] implying dissent from that creed in some
non-essentials; and recently his own dissent in an article in the
Lutheran Observer, and the Evangelical Review of July, 1850. _Dr. G. B.
Miller_ published his dissent from the Confession on some of its
representations of baptism, (baptismal regeneration, as he contends,)
and the _real presence_ in the Eucharist, in his Sermon before the
Ministerium of New York, in 1831.

The same dissent was freely expressed by _Dr. Baugher_, in his Report
on the "Doctrines and Usages of the Synod of Maryland," in which he
thus describes his position and that of this Synod:

"ON REGENERATION.--We believe that the Scriptures teach that
regeneration is the act of God, the Holy Ghost, by which, through the
truth, the sinner is persuaded to abandon his sins and submit to God,
on the terms made known in the gospel. This change, we are taught, is
radical and is essential to present peace and eternal happiness.
Consequently, it is possible, and is the privilege of the regenerated
person to know and rejoice in the change produced in him."

"OF THE SACRAMENTS.--We believe that the Scriptures teach, that there
are but two sacraments, viz.: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in each
of which, truths essential to salvation are symbolically represented.
We do not believe that they exert any influence '_ex opere operato_,'
but only through the faith of the believer. _Neither do the Scriptures
warrant the belief, that Christ is present in the Lord's Supper in any
other than a spiritual manner_."

"OF THE SYMBOLICAL BOOKS.--Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechisms, the
Formula Concordiae, Augsburg Confession, Apology, and Smalkald
Articles are called in Germany the Symbolical Books of the church. We
regard them as good and useful exhibitions of truth, but do not receive
them as binding on the conscience, except so far as they agree with the
Word of God."

To this catalogue we might add the names of many others, who have
avowed the same position of dissent from this venerable symbol, long
before the Definite Platform was thought of. No one in former times
presumed to deny the right of our ministers and synods expressing this
dissent, and proposing to form a new creed, if they deem it requisite.
To call the dissenting position of the _Definite Platform_ a new one,
is therefore a historical error; and to attempt to cast odium on it by
the charge of officiousness, is also an act of injustice. The same
charge would equally lie against the greater part of our best
ministers during the last half century, _and against the founders of
the General Synod themselves_.

With this occasional disclaimer of these errors, American Lutherans
have hitherto been satisfied, nor would the question of officially
adopting a new creed have been raised at this time, had not the
Ultra-Lutherans of our land, of late become animated by a new zeal to
disseminate their symbolic errors, and to denounce as not Lutherans,
all who do not receive them. When the adoption of a new creed was thus
forced upon them, a number of the brethren advocated the formation of
one entirely new; but others believing it best to retain the venerable
mother symbol of Protestantism, as far as we could regard her
teachings as Scriptural, proposed the omission of the few disputed
points, and the adoption of the residue unaltered, thus retaining
nearly the whole of the doctrinal articles. The suggestion was
adopted, as being more respectful to the venerable symbol of our
church, we were urged to prepare the work for the consideration of
some of the Western Synods; and thus the American Recension of the
Augsburg Confession originated from respect for that creed, rather
than the want of it. The talk about sacrilege, &c., would sound more
natural among Romanists than Protestants; and the idea of deception
is utterly unfounded, because the very name adopted, "American
Recension," is a constant notification to the reader of some change.
Neither one or the other charge was ever made against the Methodist
Episcopal Church, for making four times as many changes in the
Thirty-nine Articles. As to respect for the Confession, we see but
little difference between several methods proposed amongst American
Lutherans; to adopt the Confession as to the fundamentals of Scripture
doctrine, leaving all free to  reject the non-fundamentals; or to
publish the symbol, with a list appended of some of its articles,
which may be rejected; or to omit those same articles, leaving them
free, and adopting all the residue unconditionally. On neither of
these three plans does the _matter_ of the Confession remain intact,
even if the letter does; for in _all_, certain parts of it divested
of binding authority, and left to the judgment of each individual.
The American Recension is nothing more than a revised edition of the
Confession, in which those parts are omitted that had already been
divested of binding authority, and thus been superseded by subsequent
ecclesiastical legislation.

And is it not creditable to any church, when she finds some tenets of
her creed in conflict with the Scriptures, and calculated to circulate
error, to reform and improve it? We should suppose that every
enlightened and reflecting theologian, and still more every intelligent
layman, would concur in the sentiments of that devoted friend and
defender of the Lutheran Church, _Dr. Koecher_, of Jena, in 1759, who,
discussing the charge that our church had changed her doctrines, says,
"It avails nothing merely to charge a church with having made changes
in her Creed; we must direct our attention to the subject or doctrine
itself, and inquire whether it is true or false. Because, _not every
alteration in matters of faith is inadmissible and censurable_.
Suppose a church to perceive that a doctrinal error has crept into her
creed, and to correct it by the exclusion of the error; does she not
merit our approbation, much rather that our censure or abuse? Suppose
that the Lutherans did formerly believe in transubstantiation (as has
been charged,) but in the course of time rejected this doctrine,
because they found it militate against divine truth; suppose the
earlier Lutheran divines did approve of the doctrine of unconditional
election, and limited grace of God, whilst our later theologians had
renounced them, because they are in conflict with the teachings of
God's word:--we say, suppose this had been the case, though it was not;
their procedure would not be improper, and their doctrinal change
would merit our approbation and praise, rather than censure." How much
more christian and manly are these views, than the position which,
though not avowed, is acted on by many, that the members of a church
should never attempt to improve her symbols; but, as a matter of
course, defend any doctrine taught by them, because it is there
inculcated. What is this else than practically to elevate Luther,
Melancthon, Zwingli, Calvin, or Wesley, above Christ? What is it else,
than prefering [sic] to be Lutherans rather than Christians, if we are
not ever ready to renounce anything Lutheran, if found not to be
Christian? How can the church of Christ continue to develope [sic]
herself in accordance with the divine purposes and plan, unless every
part of the church is kept in constant contact with the Bible, and is
ever willing to improve and conform its entire framework to the
increased light of God's word and Providence? It was Luther's deep
sense of obligation to the Bible, as paramount to all human authority,
which enabled him and his Spartan band of coadjutors, under God, to
reform the church of Germany from so many Romish errors, and nothing
short of the same noble principle can conduct the church safely in her
high and holy mission of converting the world. Whilst, therefore, we
love Luther much, let us, my brethren, ever love Christ more. And
whilst we respect the soul-stirring productions of the illustrious
reformers, let that respect never induce us to sanction any errors
contained in them, or bias our minds against the free and full
reception of the revelations of God's holy Word!

Note 1. Colton's Genius of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the
United States, &c., p. 151.

Note 2. Vol. ii., p. 498.

Note 3. Luther was a faithful papist until he was upwards of _thirty
years_ did, when he began to protest against the errors of Rome.


CHAPTER  III.
DISADVANTAGES UNDER WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION WAS PREPARED.

In forming an idea of the estimate which should be placed on the
Augsburg Confession, as an expression of the results attained by the
biblical studies of Luther, Melancthon and their associates, at the
date of the diet in 1530; much depends on the question, whether the
circumstances under which it was prepared, and the design for which it
was intended, were favorable to a free and full exhibition of their
views. The affirmative of this question has often been declared in this
country; but the contrary is incontestably established by authentic
history, as well as by the declarations of the Reformers themselves.
The diet, it will be remembered, was appointed by the Emperor of
Germany, Charles V., for the purpose of settling the controversies
between the Pope and the Protestant princes of his empire, as well as
for other political purposes. The place selected was the City of
_Augsburg_, in Bavaria, about two hundred English miles from
Wittenberg, and about ninety miles from Coburg, where Luther was left
by the Elector during the diet. [Note 1] The Pope had long been urging
the emperor to adopt violent measures for the suppression of the
Protestants. He fondly anticipated that a deathblow would now be given
to the Protestant cause, and with which party the emperor would side
was not fully known, although, being a Romanist, little favor could be
expected by the Confessors. The Confession was composed by Melancthon
out of the Torgau Articles, at Augsburg, where he and the Elector John,
with his retinue, arrived on the 2d of May. On the 10th of May, it was
sent to Luther, at Coburg, for his revision, and he returned it with
his approbation on the 16th, remarking, "I have read Philip's Apology
(the Confession,) and am very well (_fast_ wohl, an obsolete meaning of
the term "fast,") pleased with it. I know nothing to improve or alter
at it; nor would it be suitable, as I cannot tread so softly and
lightly." [Note 2] As the emperor did not arrive until about a month
later, Melancthon continued to make various alterations, to render the
Confession more acceptable to the Romanists; for the fears of the
Protestants were greatly excited, as will appear by the following
extracts from Melancthon's own letters, penned at this eventful period.

In a letter to _Luther_, dated Augsburg, June 15th, Melancthon says,
"On the day before Corpus Christi festival, at 8 o'clock, P. M., the
emperor arrived at Augsburg. From the imperial court, it appears, we
have nothing to expect; for the sole object which _Campegius_ seeks to
accomplish, is that we should be suppressed _by force_. Nor is there
any one in the emperor's entire court, who is milder than he himself."
[Note 3] This was indeed a gloomy prospect, for they were entirely at
the mercy of their emperor. He could reenact the scenes of the previous
century, and send them, like Huss and Jerome, to the dungeon and the
stake.

On the 26th of June, the day after the public presentation of the
Confession, he again addresses _Luther:_ "We live here in the _most
lamentable anxiety and incessant tears_. To this a new source of
consternation has been added today, after we had read the letter of
_Vitus_ (Dietrich, Luther's friend,) in which he states that you are so
much offended at us, that you are unwilling even to read our letters.
My father, I will not increase my sufferings by words, but I merely beg
you to consider, where and _in what danger we are_, where we can have
nothing to tranquilize us except your consolations. Streams of sophists
and monks collect here daily, to inflame the hatred of the emperor
against us. But the friends, if we could formerly number them amongst
our (party,) are no longer with us. Alone and despised, we are here
_contending against endless dangers_. Our Vindication (the Confession)
has been presented to the emperor, and I herewith send it to you for
perusal. (If it had not been altered after Luther had seen and approved
it, it would have been superfluous to send him another copy.) In my
judgment, it is strong enough; for you will here perceive the monks
depicted sufficiently. Now, it appears to me, that before our enemies
reply, we must determine, _what we will yield to them_ in reference to
the 'eucharist in both kinds,' what touching matrimony (_celibacy_ of
priests,) and what in regard to 'CLOSET MASSES.' In [sic] appears
they are determined in no case to yield the last two." [Note 4]

In a letter to _Camerarius_, [Note 5] he thus describes his condition:
"My spirit is _filled with lamentable anxiety_, not for the sake of our
cause, but on account of the indifference of our associates. Be not
concerned about me, for I commit myself to God. But _something
remarkable disturbs us_, which I can only tell you personally." [Note 6]

To _Luther_, he writers [sic] on the 27th of June, "I cannot
describe how deeply I was distressed, on reading in the letter of
_Vitus_, (or Dietrich, a favorite of Luther, who remained with him at
Coburg, as his associate,) that you are irreconciliably [sic] offended,
because I do not write with sufficient frequency." "The condition of our
affairs here is still such, that we spend the _greater part of our time
in tears_. We have written very often, as we can prove." From this and
other passages in Melancthon's letters, as well as from his complaints,
that he could not induce [Note 7] the _Protestant princes_ to send
messengers regularly to Luther, Niemeyer regards it as evident, that
Luther's displeasure arose in part from the fact, that the princes felt
disposed, at this important juncture, to act without either his
knowledge, counsel, or co-operation, probably under the impression,
that, they could more easily effect a reconciliation, if the intrepid,
firm and hated Luther were kept out of view.

But to proceed with Melancthon's letter. "Our Confession (he says,) has
been presented to the emperor, and I have sent you a copy. I entreated
you (in my former letter) to inform me, how far we might _yield to our
opponents_, if it is practicable. It is true, as you know, we have
already consulted on these subjects; but they are always adjusted in a
different manner on the field of battle (sie geben sich im Schlachtfeld
allezeit anders,) from what they are when previously made the subjects
of discussion. I presume the greatest conflict will occur in regard to
_private masses_. But as yet I have no certain information." [Note 8]

In another letter to Luther, dated Aug. 6, he says: "The Landgrave
proceeds with great moderation, and has openly told me, that in order
to preserve peace, _he would submit to still more severe conditions_,
provided they could be accepted without bringing reproach on the
gospel."

During the pendency of these negotiations, Melancthon made repeated
efforts by letter to conciliate influential individuals of the papal
party. Among these is his letter to _Cardinal Campegius, the apostolic
legate, of July 6th, which reflects no little light on the state of his
mind. This intense anxiety to gain the imperial favor for the
Protestant cause, could not fail strongly to tempt him to make the
Confession as palatable as possible to the Romanists, by yielding
nearly everything that he did not regard as essential. Hear the letter:

"_Most Reverend Sir:_--As many good men applaud the very great
moderation exhibited by your Eminence, amid your honors and elevation,
I am induced to cherish the hope, that your Eminence will receive my
letter with favor. Verily it was a true saying which Plato uttered,
that nothing more desirable, or better, or more divine, can happen to
men, than when wisdom is associated with power in government. Hence,
when the intelligence arrived, that your Eminence was sent to this Diet,
as judge in the pending religious controversy, many good men
congratulated Germany, that the investigation of these most important
affairs was confided to a man, who transcended others not merely by his
high (official) dignity, but also much more by his wisdom; for even
heretofore the fame of your Eminence's wisdom him resounded through all
Germany. Now, as I believed, that with this wisdom your Eminence would
greatly abhor violent measures, I was thereby induced to write to your
Eminence, that it might be made known to you, that we also long only
for peace and concord, and reject no condition for the restoration of
peace."

"We have _no doctrine different from that of the Romish Church_, (wir
haben keinen von der Roemischen Kirche verschiedenen Lehrsatz,) yea, we
have restrained many who wished to disseminate pernicious doctrines, as
may be proved by public testimonies. [Note 9] _We are prepared to obey
the Romish Church, if, with that mildness which she has always
manifested toward all men, she will only overlook and yield, some
little_, (einiges Wenige,) _which we could not now alter if we would_."
[Note 10] Let not your Eminence believe our enemies, who wickedly
pervert our writings, and falsely impute to us anything which can
inflame the general hatred against us. We reverently _pledge obedience
[Note 11] to the authority of the Roman Pontif_, [sic] and to the entire
organization of the (Verfassung) of the [sic on repetition]
church, only let not the Pope of Rome reject us. Many feel assured,
that if your Eminence were better acquainted with our cause and views,
you would not approve of these violent counsels. For no other reason do
we incur greater hostility in Germany, than because we defend the
doctrines of the Romish [Note 12] Church with the utmost steadfastness.
This fidelity, if the Lord will, we will show to the Romish Church
_until our last breath_. There is indeed some _small_ difference in
usages, which seems to be unfavorable to union. But the ecclesiastical
laws themselves declare, that the unity of the church may continue even
amid such diversity of customs." [Note 13]

Is it possible that any impartial man, after reading this letter can
suppose the circumstances of this diet to have been favorable to a free
and full expression of the points of dissent, between the Protestants
and Papists, even at that day? During the entire six weeks that
Melancthon was at Augsburg, before the arrival of the Emperor, his mind
was in this agitated and alarmed condition. According to his own
account he continued daily to make changes in the Confession, _after_
it had been submitted to Luther. No wonder, therefore, that Luther,
responding to Melancthon's inquiry, "what more they could yield to the
Romanists," makes this rather dissatisfied reply, under date June 29:
"_Your Apology_ (the Augsburg Confession, as altered by Melancthon.
after Luther had sanctioned it on the 15th of May, and it had been
presented to tho diet on the 25th of June,) _I have received, and
wonder what you mean, when you desire to know, what and how much, may
be yielded to the papists. As far as I am concerned, TOO MUCH HAS
ALREADY BEEN YIELDED TO THEM IN THE APOLOGY (Confession)." [Note 14]
Here it in evident that the various changes, made by Melancthon between
the 15th of May and 25th of June, led Luther to affirm what American
Lutherans now maintain, that _he had yielded too much to the papists in
the Augsburg Confession_. "I daily altered and recast the greater part
of it, (says Melancthon himself,) and would [Note 15] have altered still
more if our counsellors [sic] had allowed it." And so much greater was
his dissatisfaction at the still more important concessions, [Note 16]
which Melancthon and his associates were willing to make, in their
negotiations after the Confession had been delivered, that, in a letter
of Sept. 20, to _Justus Jonas_, one of the principal Protestant
theologians at the Diet, he gives vent to his feelings in the following
remarkable language: "I almost burst with anger and displeasure, (Ich
boerste schier fuer Zorn und Widerwillen,) and I beg you only to cut
short the matter, cease to negotiate with them (the Papists,) any
longer, and come home. They have the Confession. They have the gospel.
If they are willing to yield to it, then it is well. If they are
unwilling, they may go. If war comes out of it, let it come. We have
entreated and done enough. The Lord has prepared them as victims for the
slaughter, that he may reward them according to their works. But us, his
people, he will deliver, even if we were sitting in the fiery furnace at
Babylon." [Note 17] Thus have we heard abundant evidence from the lips
of Melancthon and Luther themselves, that the circumstances under which
the Augsburg Confession was composed, in eight days, before its
submission for Luther's sanction, and the increasing pressure under
which Melancthon afterwards made numerous changes in it, during five
weeks before its presentation to the Diet, were far from being favorable
to a full and free exhibition of the deliberate views of the Reformers
even at that date, and fully account for some of the remnants of
Romanism still found in that confession, whose import we are now to
examine. The declaration of that elaborate historian _Arnold_, is
therefore only too true; "_Melancthon had prepared the Confession amid
great fear and trembling, and in many things accommodated himself to
the Papists_." (Nun hatte dieselbe Melancthon zuvor in grossen Zittern
und Angsten aufgesetzet, und sich in vielen nach den Papisten
bequemet." [Note 18]

Of similar import is the judgment of _Dr. Hazelius." [sic on
quotation mark] [Note 19] In reference to the article of Baptism, says
he, we have first to remind the reader of the sentiments expressed by
the Confessors, in the preface to this (the Augsburg) Confession,
declaring there, and in various passages of their other writings, that
_it was their object_, not only to couch the sentiments and doctrines
they professed, in language the least offensive to their opponents,
but also to GIVE WAY AS FAR AS CONSCIENCE WOULD PERMIT. This being
premised, we shall endeavor to discover the meaning of the Reformers in
regard to the article of baptism from some of those portions of their
writings, where they had not cause to be so circumspect and careful of
not giving offence to the Roman party, as they had in the delivery of
the Augsburg Confession."

Nor is it at all surprising, that, as Luther's views of the evils of the
mass were so much clearer even at this period, he should, after seven
years more time for study, and in times of peace and security, express
his abhorrence of this Romish error in such strong terms as we meet in
the Smalcald Articles. Indeed, it was this undecided character of the
Augsburg Confession on some points, which led the Elector, who, in other
respects valued it highly, to have this new Confession prepared by
Luther for the Council, which Pope Paul III. [sic] had
convoked, to meet at Mantua, in 1537, for the purpose of settling these
religious disputes. Because, says Koellner, "the Augsburg Confession
had been prepared with the view to give the _least possible offence to
the opponents_. But now, the Evangelical party, being stronger, were not
only able to avow the points of difference more openly; but they were
also determined to do so; and for such negotiations a different form
(from that of the Augsburg Confession) was of course requisite. Finally,
the transactions at Augsburg, during the reciprocal efforts at
reconciliation, and especially through the great mildness and yielding
disposition of Melancthon, had in regard to many doctrines, obliterated
the clear and real point of difference, so that in many of them the
_opponents affirmed, there was no longer any difference at all_."
Koellner's Symbolik, Vol. I., p. 441.

Note 1. The reason why he was left, was because the civil authorities
of Augsburg excepted him in the safe passport, which they sent to the
Elector, under date of April 30. See Koellner, Vol. I., p. 172.

Note 2. "Ich habe M. Philipsen's Apologie ueberlesen, die gefaellt mir
fast wohl, und weisz nichts daran zu bessern, noch zu aendern, wuerde
sich auch nicht schicken: denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten
kann."

Note 3. We mention here once for that all our extracts from
Melancthon's Letters are translated from _C. Niemeyer's_ work, entitled
_Philip Melancthon_ im Jahre der Augsburgischen Confession, Halle, 1830.

Note 4. Niemeyer, pp. 26, 27.

Note 5. At that time Professor of Greek and Latin Literature in the
Gymnasium of Nurenberg.

Note 6. Niemeyer, p. 28.

Note 7. Niemeyer, p. 78. "Ich kann es bei Hofe nicht erlangen, dasz von
heir [sic] ein bestimmter Bote an Luther geschickt wird."

Note 8. Page 30.

Note 9. Dogma nullum habemus diversum a Romana Ecclesia.

Note 10. Here Niemeyer also gives the Latin: "Parati sumus, obedire
ecclesiae Romanae, modo ut illa pro sua dementia, qua semper ergo omnes
homines usa est, pauca quaedam vel dissimulet, vel relaxet, quae jam ne
quidem, si velimus, mutare queamus.

Note 11. Ad haec Romani Pontificis auctoritatem et universam politiam
ecclesiasticam, reverenter colimus, modo non abjiciat nos Romanus
Pontifex.

Note 12. Here, says Niemeyer, Melancthon probably means the Romish
church as she ought to be, and not as she was.

Note 13. Page 32.

Note 14. Eure Apologia habe ich empfangen, und nimmt mich wunder was
ihr meynet, dasz ihr begehrt zu wissen, was und wie viel man den
paepstlichen soll nachgeben. _Fuer meine person ist ihnen allzuviel
nachgegeben in der Apologia (Confession)_. Luther's Werke, B. XX.,
p. 185, Leipsic Edit.

Note 15. See his letter to Camerarius, dated June 26, 1530. "Ich
veraenderte und gosz das meiste taeglich um, und wuerde noch mehreres
geaedert [sic] haben, wenn es unsere Raethe erlaubt
hatten." Niemeyer, p. 28.

Note 16. Melancthon had agreed to the restoration of the power of the
bishops, and evidently, as seen by his letter to Luther, of June 26,
if Luther had not objected, he would have made some retractions on the
celibacy of the clergy, the communion in both kinds and even the
private and closet masses. The Protestants did admit that the saints
pray for us in heaven, and that commemorative festivals might be kept
to pray God to accept the intercession of these saints; but by no
means that our prayers should be addressed to the saints themselves.
Niemeyer, p. 87.

Note 17. Luther's Works, Vol. XX, p. 196.

Note 18. Gottfried Arnold's Unpartheische Kirchen und Ketzer Historien,
Vol. I., p. 809, edit. 2d of 1740.

Note 19. Doctrine and Discipline of the Synod of South Carolina, pp.
18, 19, published in 1841.


CHAPTER IV.
CUMULATIVE PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF THE SEVERAL POSITIONS OF THE DEFINITE
SYNODICAL PLATFORM.

_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 mass." 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
mass. For it is notorious that the _mass 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 mass
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 mass here, as will be fully proved hereafter,
does not signify the Papal mass in full. It is a well-known fact, and
the Confession itself informs us, that the confessors had long before
rejected _private and closet masses_, and also had rejected the idea of
the public mass being a _sacrifice_, or offering of Christ, for the
sins of the living or the dead. But that the word mass cannot be
regarded as merely synonymous with Lord's Supper, or communion, in this
passage, 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 mass_," (zur communion _und_ mess gezogen
wird;) clearly proving that by mass they here meant something else than
communion, namely, the public mass, 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 mass, which the Platform,
_with great moderation_, styles merely "_Ceremonies_" of the mass," p.
21, they confessedly did subsequently also abandon, as they had done
private and closet masses 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 asserts, "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 antithesis 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 God 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 God:_ 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 God 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 God'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 assert.

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 MASS.

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.:

1. The approval of the _ceremonies_ of the mass.

2. Private Confession and Absolution.

3. Denial of the Divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath.

4. Baptismal Regeneration.

5. The real presence of the body and blood of the Saviour in the
Eucharist.

Here it is evident that the charge is, that the Confession advocates
the _ceremonies_ of the mass, but _not the mass itself_, as has been
alleged.

_b_. In the same connexion it is stated, "These are the _only_ errors
contained in the Augsburg Confession." But if these are the only errors
charged, then it follows that the error of inculcating the mass itself,
or doctrine of the mass, is at all events _not charged in the
Platform_, if it is in words even contained in the Confession.

_c_. The _caption_ in the list of errors on page 21 of the Platform, is
not headed the _Mass_, as is the article of the Confession to which it
refers; but what the Confession calls mass, the Platform, _with great
moderation_, styles _Ceremonies_ of the mass.

_d_. In the list of errors, the profession of which should exclude from
membership in Synods accepting the Platform, we find p. 15, the
following: "Whilst we will not admit into our Synod any one who
believes in Exorcism, Private Confession and Absolution, or the
_Ceremonies_ of the Mass." Here again _Ceremonies_ of the mass are
stated, but if the Platform taught that the Mass itself is inculcated
in the Confession, believers in the Mass would, _a fortiori_, have also
been mentioned as excluded.

What then is the meaning of the sentence on page 22 of the Platform,
"In refutation of the _tolerant views of the mass_ above expressed,
&c?" Why, of course we should suppose it meant those views of the mass
which the Platform charges against the Confession, as taught in these
passages, namely, retaining and approving the _ceremonial_ of the mass,
which constituted by far the greater part of the public mass, so
called, although its nature had been changed by denying the
_sacrificial_ character of the minister's act of self-communion, and
its being performed for the benefit of _others_, either living or dead.
We think also, some objectionable parts of the ceremonial itself were
changed, although the Confession asserts that the addition of some
German hymns, along with the Latin, was the only alteration made. Among
those objectionable parts retained, was _the elevation of the host_,
of which Luther thus speaks, in his _Short Confession about the
Sacrament_ against the Fanatics,in 1544. [Note 1] "It, happened about
twenty or twenty-two years ago, when I began to condemn the mass
(messe,) and wrote severely against the papists, to show that it (the
mass) was not a sacrifice, nor a work of ours, but a gift and blessing
or testament of God, which we could not offer to God, but ought and
must receive from him. At that time I was disposed to reject _the
elevation of the host_, on account of the papists, who regard it, as a
sacrifice, &c. But as our doctrine was at that time new and exceedingly
offensive over the whole world, I had to proceed cautiously, and on
account of the weak, to yield many things, which I, at a later period,
would not do. I therefore suffered the elevation of the host, to
remain, especially as it admits of a favorable, explanation, as I
showed in my little work '_De Captivitate Babylonica, &c._'" The
elevation of the host was still practised in Saxony generally in 1542,
[Note 2] twelve years after the Confession was written, approving of
the ceremonies of the mass, of which this was one. This remnant of
popery was, however, universally rejected soon after this period,
certainly before 1545, and in Wittenberg, in 1542.

_Again_, what is the natural import of the phrase on page 21 of the
Platform: "Accordingly the Lutheran church, in Europe and America, has
unanimously repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." The passage
itself specifies no time, when either was rejected, and neither says
nor implies that both were rejected at the same time. The word
"accordingly" refers to what preceded. The whole reads thus: "Topic I.,
_Ceremonies_ of the mass. The error taught on this subject by the
Augsburg Confession and Apology to it (namely, the error on these
ceremonies of the mass) was rejected by the reformers themselves a few
years after the Confession was first published. Accordingly, the
Lutheran Church, both in Europe and America, has unanimously
repudiated alike the mass and its ceremonies." As the Augsburg
Confession expressly teaches that private and closet masses had been
_previously_ rejected, and the Platform says the _only_ error in the
Augsburg Confession on this subject is the _ceremonies_ of the public
mass, its sacrificial and vicarious nature having also been repudiated
long before, it follows, that the thing here spoken of as the mass and
its ceremonies is that remnant of this rite, which, as proved above,
had not yet been rejected before 1530, the essential doctrine even of
the public mass having been rejected long before. Hence, the import of
this passage is: that whilst the reformers had long before the Diet of
Augsburg rejected the doctrine of the mass, as a sacrifice or a
vicarious service for the benefit of others, and had wholly rejected
_private and closet masses;_ they retained the ceremonies or ritual of
the public mass, preceding communion: but even this latter also they
renounced soon after; and accordingly, the Lutheran church, every where
in Europe and America, imitating their example, has repudiated alike
the mass and its ceremonies, which with the above-mentioned various
qualifications, are taught in the passages cited from the Confession.
Had we been writing for those unacquainted with the Augsburg
Confession, the qualifications here referred to, might have been
specified.

2. Our _next inquiry is, What objection does the Plea make to the
representations of the Platform on this subject?

The whole charge of our respected friend against the Platform is, that
it misapprehends the _import of the word mass_ in the 24th Article, and
therefore misrepresents the Confession, in charging it with sanctioning
the ceremonies of the Romish mass. To support this charge he affirms,
that the word mass (or missa, mess,) was at the time of the Confession,
in 1530, _in general use for the eucharist;_ and that in later years
the term mass, in this sense, was entirely given up by the Reformers,
page 15 of Plea.

The charge is certainly a grave one, and if unfounded, a grievous
injustice is done to the venerable mother symbol of Protestantism.
Viewing it in this light, we were slow to admit its truth ourselves,
until a pretty extensive acquaintance with the writings of the
Reformers compelled us to yield our conviction. Still we would have
greatly preferred to remain silent on the subject and throw the mantle
of oblivion over this deformity of our symbolic mother; had not
ill-advised ultra-symbolists of late years carried on a crusade against
all Lutherans who will not adopt the entire symbolic system. The charge
in the Platform was advisedly made, after careful examination. Since
the charge has been denied, we have again extensively examined the
writings of the Reformers, and whilst it would afford us pleasure to
withdraw it, and acknowledge our error; our conviction has grown more
firm, and we shall be greatly surprised if the great majority of
impartial minds do not find the evidence of our position fully
satisfactory. At the same time, whilst we charge the Confession with
favoring merely the _ceremonies_ of the mass, other writers of the
first respectability, have expressed the charge in stronger language.
Thus _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical History,
speaking of the Romish mass, says: "_That Luther for some time tolerated
it, and gave if a a German garb and afterwards abolished it, is
notorious_. [Note 3] And that impartial and highly respectable historian
of our own country, Dr. Murdock, whose extended and valuable additions
to the classic church history of Dr. Moshiem, abundantly prove his
acquaintance with the subject; in giving a synopsis of the contents of
the Augsburg Confession, thus epitomises the 24th Article: "_The
Protestants are falsely taxed with abolishing the mass_. They only
purified it; and discarded the idea of its being a work of merit, or
offering for the sins of the living and the dead, which militates
against the scriptural doctrine, that Christ's sacrifice is the only
sin offering." [note 4]

In order that we may give this question an impartial and conscientious
investigation, let us first inquire into the meaning of the word mass
among the Papists, apart from the present dispute. "_Mass_ (missa,
Mess,) says _Fuhrmann_, in his Lexicon of Religious and Ecclesiastical
History, [Note 5] at first signified that worship of God, which
_preceded_ the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Subsequently, and
especially in the fifth century, ministers termed the public celebration
of the eucharist, _mass_ (or missa, dismissed); because this service
took place after the catechumens were dismissed. This word 'missa' was
gradually corrupted into _mass_. But how did that mode of celebrating
this ordinance arise in the Romish Church, _which consisted in the
priest's giving the sacrament to himself alone, connected with solemn
turnings around, and moving about from place to place, and changes of
attitude, resembling in some degree a theatrical exhibition, which is
termed mass?_" He then proceeds to explain the history of the Romish
mass here defined.

_Siegel_, in his excellent Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical
Antiquities, published at Leipsic, in 1837, in four volumes, presents
an extended view of this subject, from which we will extract little
more than his definition of the mass. "The mass, in the Roman Catholic
sense of the term, belongs not to the centuries of Christian antiquity,
but to a later period." [Note 6] We take up the subject at the time
when the Catholic doctrine of _transubstantiation_ was fully developed,
(since the Lateran Council of 1215.) In conformity to this view of the
sacrament, (the doctrine of transubstantiation,) _the idea of the mass
was so developed, as to signify that solemn act of the priest,
decorated with many ceremonies, by which he offers the unbloody
sacrifice at the altar." [Note 7] The mass service is a commixture of
Scripture passages, long and short prayers, extracts from the gospels
and epistles (pericopen,) liturgic forms, which are divided into
several chief parts, designated by different names, Introitus,
Offertorium, Canon missae," &c. [Note 8] This whole service amounts to
some fifteen or twenty octavo pages, including the directions for
genuflections, crossings, tergiversations, &c., occupying about an hour
in the reading, the performance of which by the priest was termed
"reading mass," as the listening of the audience was called "hearing
mass."

In view of these authorities, we may take for granted, what we suppose
no one will deny, that in the Romish Church, not only of the present
day, but since several centuries before the Reformation, and,
therefore, in 1530, the most common and primary meaning of the word
_mass_, was not Lord's Supper; but that long ceremonial, including the
consecration of the elements, elevation of the host, and self-communion
of the priest, as an offering of the body of Christ a sacrifice for the
sins of the living and dead, _which preceded_ the distribution of the
sacrament to the people.

_Again_, it will be admitted, that whilst among Papists the above
specific meaning of the word mass was the most common one, that term
was also not unfrequently used by synecdoche, as a part of the whole,
to designate the sacramental celebration in general: just as we use the
word "_preaching_" which specifically signifies the delivery of a
sermon, for the whole services of public worship in the phrase, "will
you go to preaching to-day?"

_Finally_, it will be admitted, that the Reformers, having been
educated as Papists, were trained up to this twofold use of the word
mass, namely, specifically the extended services above described, which
_preceded_ the communion, and sometimes informally the eucharist,
communion or sacrament in general.

The question then seems definitely to be reduced to these two inquiries;
first, _Did the Reformers retain this distinction in the use of the word
mass at the time of the Diet at Augsburg; and, secondly, did they employ
the word in its specific sense in the disputed passages of that
Confession?

_First Inquiry_.

We shall _first_ inquire whether this distinction in the use of the word
mass was observed by the Reformers at and before the time of the
Augsburg Diet?

I. And _first_ let us listen to _Luther_ himself. In 1523, the great
Reformer, 1, in his "_Method of conducting Christian Mass_," addressed
to Rev. Nicolas Hausman, after having rejected such portions of the
Romish mass, as he thought wrong, he approved others, as explained by
himself, such as the, Introitus, the Kyrie eleison, the Collecta or
prayer epistles, the Singing of the Gradual, a short sequens, the
Gospel, the Nicene Creed, and a number of other matters, including the
elevation of the host, but not for worship, [Note 9] he proceeds to the
next part of the Treatise which is headed "How to _administer the most
holy sacrament to the people," [Note 10] and his first sentence is the
following: "Let this much suffice to be said of the _Mass_, and service
of the minister; we will now proceed to treat of the manner in which the
holy _sacrament_ shall be administered to the people, for whose benefit
especially the Supper of our Lord was instituted." Here we clearly see
the distinction between the performances of the priest _before_ the
communion which constitute the _Mass_, and the distribution of the
elements to the people, which he terms holy _sacrament_. Then, after
having discussed the subject of the communion, that it should be
received in both kinds, &c., he adds, "Let this suffice for the present
on the subject of the mass _and_ communion." [Note 11]

2. In his _letter to Lazarus Spengler_, in 1528, Luther observes this
same distinction. "In the first place," he remarks, "it is unreasonable
that any one should be forced to receive the sacrament or to abstain
from it." And he adds: "All masses, at which there are _no
communicants_" (that is, at which the sacrament is not administered,)
"should absolutely be omitted." [Note 12] Here the administration of
the supper to the laity is termed _sacrament_, and that service
performed by the minister, which was sometimes succeeded by the
sacrament or communion, and at others not, is called _mass_.

3. _The Counsel of Luther and Pomeranius_, in 1528, to Duke George:
"First, as you inquire concerning _parish_ masses, &c. Be it known to
you that no minister can with good conscience perform mass alone, when
there are no communicants. Therefore here there is no room for further
inquiry; either there must be communicants, or them should be no
mass." [Note 13]

4. Luther's "_Confession of the Christian Doctrines, in XVII.
Articles_," published in 1530. This is a very short Confession, each
article containing but three or four sentences, and the whole amounting
to only three or four 8vo. pages. In Article X. he says: "The
_eucharist_ or _sacrament_ of the altar also consists of two parts,
namely that the true body and blood of Christ should verily be present
in the bread and wine;" and in Article XVI. he says: "Above all other
abominations, the _masses_, that have hitherto been regarded as a
_sacrifice_ or _good work_, by which one designed to procure grace for
the other, are to be rejected." [Note 14] Here the distinction is not
only made between the mass and eucharist, but the doctrine of the mass
as a sacrifice of Christ offered by the priest for others, is also
denounced. It will also be recollected that this view of the mass as a
sacrifice, and as vicarious, is strongly denounced in the Augsburg
Confession, whilst the charge of having rejected the rite itself with
these and other modifications, is flatly denied, in these words: "It is
_unjustly_ charged against our churches, that they have abolished the
mass," (Art. XXIV., p. 21 of the Platform,) a thing never charged
against them in reference to the eucharist, for from the very beginning
of the Reformation, they charged the Papists with having mutilated it,
and claimed the restoration of the cup also to the laity.

5. In a _letter_ of September 20, 1530, addressed _to Justus Jonas_, one
of the theologians at the diet, Luther thus expresses himself: "For,
what else do our opponents, (the Papists,) presume to propose, than that
they shall not yield a hairsbreadth, but that we not only yield on the
subject of the canon, _the mass_, the _one kind_, (in the eucharist,)
celibacy, (of the clergy,) and jurisdiction (of the bishops); but shall
also admit that they have taught the truth, and acted properly in all
things, and were falsely accused by us." [Note 15] Here the mass is
again distinguished from the eucharist in one kind. He then adds: "If we
will get at it (yielding to the Papists,) let us yield only the canon,
and the closet masses; and either of these two is sufficient fully to
deny our doctrine and to confirm theirs." The _canon_ was that part of
the ritual of the mass which contained the forms of transubstantiation,
which were positively rejected by the reformers, the closet masses are
rejected in the Augsburg Confession; but Luther says nothing against the
public mass, qualified as it is in