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.