American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 12

It was therefore certainly not received by them into their mouths. The language must, therefore, have been figurative, such as Jesus was accustomed often to employ. Thus, when he said, "I am the _door_" John x. 9, he certainly does not mean a literal door, such as a door of wood or stone or bra.s.s or of any other material. He means that the acceptance of the atonement and mediation by the sinner is the appointed condition of salvation to him. Thus also when he says, "I am the _true vine_" John xv. 1; or "The field is the world," "The seed is the word," &c., he evidently is speaking figuratively and communicating important moral truth, by images drawn from physical nature, as is naturally done by nearly all writers and speakers of all ages and in all languages.

(_b_) The blessed Saviour himself exhorts us, "Do this in remembrance of me;" but we can remember only that which is past and absent. Hence when he admonishes us to do this in remembrance of him, he teaches us, that he is not personally or bodily present at the eucharistic celebration.

(_c_) Paul also represents the design of this ordinance to be, "To show or publish the _Lord's death_," until he comes. But the Lord's death upon the cross occurred about eighteen hundred and twenty years ago.

Therefore, according to Paul, the object of the holy supper is to commemorate a _past event_, and not a present person.

(_d_) The doctrine of the real presence of the true body and blood of Christ, contradicts the clear and indisputable testimony of our senses, for as the body and blood are to be received by the mouth of the communicant, they must be circ.u.mscribed by s.p.a.ce, and the reception must be a local and material one, which if it did occur at sacramental occasions, could be observed by the senses.

(_e_) It contradicts the observation of all nations and all ages, that every body or material substance must occupy a definite portion of s.p.a.ce, and cannot be at more than one place at the same time.

For these and other reasons the great ma.s.s of our ministers and churches, connected with the General Synod, reject this doctrine, as inconsistent with the word of G.o.d. The disposition to reject this error, or at least to leave the mode of the Saviour's presence undecided, was manifested by Melancthon himself, as is evident from his having stricken out the words which teach it from the Augsburg Confession, and from his having inserted others in their stead of a general nature, leaving room for different opinions on this question. The same disposition prevailed extensively in Germany in the latter third of the sixteenth century.

But during the first quarter of the present century, the conviction that the Reformers did not purge away the whole of the Romish error from this doctrine, gained ground universally until the great ma.s.s of the whole Lutheran Church, before the year 1817, had rejected the doctrine of the real presence. During the last twenty years the doctrines and writings of the Reformation in general have been the subject of extensive study by the reviving church in Germany, and as is natural, a small portion of the churches have embraced the symbolic view of this doctrine in full, and have become known as Old Lutherans, whilst others, both there and in this country, have embraced various modifications of it. But the great body of the ministers and churches regard the real presence of the _body_ and _blood_ of the Saviour, in any proper sense, which the words convey, as a misapprehension of the word of G.o.d.

_The supposed special Sin-forgiving Power of the Lord's Supper_.

On this subject, important as it is, especially to the ma.s.ses of the less educated, who are most liable to these erroneous views, but little need be said in addition to the principles established on the subject of the sacraments in general. The word of G.o.d clearly inculcates the doctrine, to which Luther and his coadjutors gave such prominence, that no one can be justified or pardoned except by a living faith in Christ, and such a faith is found only in the regenerate mind. And whenever the sinner exercises this living faith in Christ he is justified, that is, his sins are pardoned, he is in a _state of justification_, and continues in it, until by deliberate, voluntary violation of G.o.d's law, he falls from grace. Now, every communicant either possesses this faith, or he does not. If he does, he is justified or pardoned before he communes; if he is dest.i.tute of this faith, his communing cannot justify or pardon him; for man is justified by faith alone. Yet are there thousands of church members who afford no satisfactory evidence of regeneration, or of that faith which works by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes the world; who, because they approach the sacramental table with seriousness and sincerity, and perhaps with some sorrow for their sins, believe that they obtain pardon for their transgressions, and yet still continue in their unregenerate state. It cannot be said that the symbolical books clearly teach the above error, but they are not sufficiently guarded, and are understood by many as inculcating the doctrine, that a sincere and devout partic.i.p.ation of the Lord's Supper secures the pardon of sin, even where satisfactory evidences of regeneration are wanting, the persons referred to mistaking a mere historical belief for a living faith. Hence, as the _Scripture nowhere connects the forgiveness of sins with the duty of sacramental communion_, any more than with the performance of any other prominent christian duty, it is not proper that we should do so. The design of the Holy Supper is to show forth the Lord's death, to profess the name of the Redeemer before the world, to confirm the previous faith of the communicant, to bring him into closest spiritual communion with his blessed Saviour, and to secure his special spiritual blessing: but not to bestow forgiveness of sins upon the unregenerate, however serious they may be. Against this dangerous error all should therefore carefully guard, and ever remember the declaration of the Lord Jesus when he said, "_Unless a man be born again_ (become a new creature in Christ Jesus) _he cannot see the kindom [sic] of G.o.d_."

CHAPTER XI.

EXORCISM.

This superst.i.tious practice, which consists in a prescribed formula of adjuration, accompanied by various menacing demonstrations, by the use of which the priest professes to expel the evil spirits from an individual, of whom they are supposed to have taken possession, was practised in the Romish Church, princ.i.p.ally before the baptism of infants. The rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe, for several centuries.

In the American Lutheran Church, it was never received by the fathers of our church, and is regarded as unscriptural and highly objectionable, under the most favorable interpretation that can be given it.

As exorcism is not touched by the Augsburg Confession, it is also not discussed by the Rev. Mr. Mann, in his Plea. But as others have objected to the Platform for representing it as in any degree a part of the Symbolic system, we will adduce evidence enough to satisfy every impartial and reasonable reader, that it was so regarded for several centuries, by a considerable portion of the Lutheran Church in Europe; and that the a.s.sertion of the Platform, "_that this rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe, for several centuries_," (p. 23,) is even more than sustained.

As our church, in common with the other state churches of Europe, is controlled by the civil government, the ministers and members of the church were never invited or permitted to deliberate and decide on the question what books they will receive as symbolical or binding. This work the political rulers or princes determined for them, in consultation with some leading divines. Still we may fairly regard those confessional writings as symbolical, which have been prescribed by the government, and received and _practiced_ on by the churches. Now, if the "Taufbuechlein," " Tract or Directory for Baptism," of Luther, _in which Exorcism is commanded_, was thus prescribed and received [tr. note: there is a s.p.a.ce here which could be meant to contain the word "by"] two or three princ.i.p.alities or provinces of Europe, the position of the Platform is vindicated; but the truth is, it was received by entire kingdoms and provinces, and retained in practice for centuries; so that the Platform is more than sustained. Let us _first_ hear the testimony of the best authorities of Germany on the subject, and _then_ sum up the results.

(_a_) _Dr. Guericke, [Note 1] Professor of Theology at Halle, the author of a well-known Church History, testifies: "Moreover, the Smaller Catechism (of Luther) contained, even in the oldest known German edition, (Wittenberg, 1529,) several forms of prayer, the Family diretory [sic] or selection of Scripture pa.s.sages on the duties of all orders and conditions of men, and the Directory for marriage and _baptism, all of which supplementary tracts were also received into the_ FIRST _authentic edition of the German "Book of Concord_." The baptismal directory was therefore received into the very first authentic edition of the symbolical books.

(_b_) _Dr. Koellner_, Professor of Theology at Goettingen, in his excellent "Symbolik," p. 501, states: "There was a Latin Directory for Baptism extant, (in the Romish church,) which Luther translated into German unaltered in 1523. It is found in Vol. II. of his works, Jena edition, pp. 248-252, and Vol. II. All, pp. 304-327. But in 1524 or 1526 he wrote the Baptismal Directory, and brought it into the form in which it was added to the Catechism. Thus it is found Vol. II. of Altenb. ed.

p. 227. It was therefore added to the Catechism by Luther himself, and at the earliest period (of the Reformation.) [Note 2] The directory for the solemnization of matrimony was also added by Luther in the 2d edition. Both those Tracts were usually published together with the smaller Catechism; and were also received into the Corpus Thuring. and into _the first edition of the Book of Concord_, June, 1580."

Again, we see that this Directory for baptism in which exorcism is prescribed, was not only the production of Luther, but also added by him to his Catechism, and introduced into the very first collection of the symbolical book.

(_c_) _Dr. Baumgarten Crusius_, Professor of Theology at Jena, in his History of Christian Doctrines, Vol. II. p. 322, thus testifies: "By means of the religiously energetic language of Luther, _exorcism_ was introduced among his party, and established itself amid much opposition, (amongst others from the Papists) in rigid opposition to Calvinism, and as is the case amongst us _at present_, (1846,) from attachment to ancient, stern orthodoxy, and their idea of genuine Lutheranism, as well as from the superst.i.tious belief of a magic influence over the kingdom of evil spirits."--"The liturgic formula (for exorcism) retained in the Lutheran church, was first zealously espoused by the populace, when the Crypto-Calvinists especially in Saxony, raised opposition to it; and since then it has been regarded as a _criterion of Lutheranism_, although exorcism is not mentioned in the Saxon Articles of Visitation, and from an early period it was defended by the Lutheran theologians merely as a free matter of indifference, with only a figurative meaning." Here we find not only that exorcism has extensively prevailed in the Lutheran church of Germany, but that as late as 1846, it still was adhered to by some in Saxony: and that for a long time after the rise of Crypto-Calvinism in the latter part of the sixteenth century, adherence to this rite was regarded as a _test_ of genuine Lutheranism.

How vain therefore the attempt to deny that it was regarded as a part of symbolic Lutheranism in some parts of the church!

(_d_.) _Dr. Augusti_, Professor of Theology at Bonn, and more recently at Berlin, the celebrated author of numerous works, bears the following testimony: "At the close of the sixteenth century the vindication of exorcism was considered a proof of _Lutheran orthodoxy_ in opposition to the Reformed and Crypto-Calvinists. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was much contention for and against it; and even in the _nineteenth_ century its retention or rejection was not yet regarded as a matter of indifference." p. 350.

(_e_) In _Siegel's_ Manual of Christian Ecclesiastical Antiquities, (a learned and excellent work in four volumes, published in Leipsic, 1836,) vol II. p. 64, 65, 67, we find the following testimony: "Inasmuch as he (Luther) p.r.o.nounced this rite not indeed as necessary, but yet as _highly useful_, in order to remind the people very impressively of the power of sin and the devil; it was not remarkable that the zealous adherents of Luther were also unwilling to abandon his views on this subject. Hence we find that _in all countries in which the views and example of Luther were rigidly adhered to, as in Saxony, Wuertemburg, Hanover, Sweden, and other places_, a strong attachment to exorcism prevailed, which was often regarded _as the criterion of orthodoxy_."

"Some Lutherans cherished exorcism with a kind of _pa.s.sionate fondness_." "In the sixteenth century exorcism was alternately defended in one place and disapproved in another; and in the latter half of the eighteenth, attention was again directed to the subject partly by accidental circ.u.mstances, and partly also by the great changes in the department of theology. The result has been that exorcism has been entirely abolished in different individual towns; and in several countries. This, for example, was the case in Regensburg in 1781, in Hamburg in 1786, and since 1811, in all Sweden." "In other Protestant Lutheran Stales, it is still left to the choice of the parents, whether they will have their children baptised with or without exorcism." "The author (says Siegel) was himself placed in the unpleasant predicament in the year 1836," of having been requested to perform baptism with exorcism!!

(_f_) _Dr. Sigismund J. Baumgarten_ of Halle, one of the most learned and profound divines that ever adorned the Lutheran church, who himself published one of the best and the most extensively circulated editions of the symbolical books in 1747, not only inserts the Directory for Baptism (which inculcates exorcism) among the symbolical books, but on p. 637 bears the following testimony: "The Directory for solemnizing marriage, as well as the following _Directory for Baptism_, are found in the _oldest Corp. Doctrinae_, in the _Thuringian, Julian, Brandenburg_, and first DRESDEN EDITIONS, and also subsequently, in the Leipsic and Reineccian," p. 637.

From these historical testimonies the following points are clearly established:

1. That the Directory for Baptism, in which _exorcism_ is prescribed, was certainly received into the first and authentic edition of the German Book of Concord, or collection of symbolical books. This is attested by Drs. Guericke, Sig. Baumgarten, and Koellner. It was subsequently republished in various other editions, down till the recent editions of Mueller, and also of Ludwig in our own country. In other editions [Note 3] it was omitted, because in some portions of Germany exorcism was rejected at an early day, as stated in the History of the American Lutheran Church.

2. It is proved that the _practice of exorcism_ was for a long time regarded as a _test of orthodoxy_ in many Lutheran territories of Germany. Attested by Drs. Augusti, Baumgarten Crusius and Siegel. In these countries editions of the symbolical books containing the Baptismal Directory were in use, and the rite was regarded as symbolical.

3. The rite was received and practised throughout Sweden, the entire kingdom of Wuertemberg, Hanover, Saxony, &c., &c. Siegel and others.

[sic]

4. It is established incontestibly [sic] that the practice was continued for centuries in some of these countries, and was but recently renounced by others. Siegel and others. [sic]

We may therefore well affirm, that the position of the Definite Platform on this subject has been established beyond the possibility of serious doubt, namely, "_That this rite was retained, with an altered interpretation, in various parts of the Lutheran Church in Europe for several centuries_." p. 23.

As to making the symbolic character of a book depend on its being found in any particular number of editions or in them all, it is inadmissible, because, as Dr. Hase remarks, and the respected author of the Plea admits, the Augsburg Confession is the only one of the Lutheran symbolical books which has been universally received throughout the church. These editions, moreover, have been published, some by the civil governments, and others by private individuals; and the Lutheran church as such, has never been called on to decide which books are symbolic.

The practice of different portions of the church is different, therefore the distinction must be made as to the extent to which each book was received; and as it is certain that exorcism was in some countries and periods even regarded as a _distinctive test_ of orthodoxy, _then and there_, this rite must have been regarded as symbolic in the highest degree.

Note 1. Symbolik, p. 103, n. 2.

Note 2. The original is: Also von Luther selbst und schon in den ersten _Zeugen_ von ihm dem Katechismus ange haengt." [sic on punctuation] _Zeugen_ here is evidently a typographical error for Zeiten.

Note 3. For particulars see the writer's History of the American Lutheran Church, pp. 239-241.

CHAPTER XII.

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

We have thus found the statements of the Definite Platform, as to the tenets taught in the Augsburg Confession and other Symbolical books, established by the most careful and conscientious investigation of the original sources. Such are the facts incontestibly [sic] proved. They are true, and will remain true, notwithstanding all the ill-advised efforts to hide them. The Augsburg Confession, and other symbols, do teach the tenets ascribed to them in the Platform, and, in the judgment of the great ma.s.s of American Lutherans, the Word of G.o.d rejects them, and inculcates the contrary. All the invective and vituperation, not of the author of the Plea but of mult.i.tudes of old-Lutherans, &c., cannot change the truth, for it is unchangeable and eternal; nor is it their duty to deny it, any more than it is ours.

The question then arises, what is our duty under these circ.u.mstances?

What does G.o.d expect of us, in view of these facts, as men to whom the interests and management of a portion of his church are confided? As men to whom he has given his inspired oracles, as the sure word of prophecy, to which we are to give heed? As men who love Luther and his fellow-laborers much, but desire to love Christ more?

Does our duty call on us to deny the truth, and say, these doctrines are not taught in these books, when the most careful examination has a.s.sured us of the contrary? No honest man can affirm this.

Is it honest or honorable to avow, unconditionally, creeds containing errors, and then labor to gloss over or defend these errors, because they are there? This would be to descend to the level of corrupt politicians, who professedly defend every measure of their party, whether right or wrong.

Is it our duty to profess such creeds, then by arbitrary interpretations to explain away these errors, and thus endeavor to hide them from the public view? This would be injustice to the memory of their authors, and cast reproach on the principles of the Reformation, the essence of which was, that human errors must be rejected in favor of G.o.d's Word; and that the standards or professed doctrines of the church, must in every age be conformed to her views of Scripture truth.

Is it our duty, is it the Master's will, that we should try to believe those tenets of a creed which the Scriptures condemn? This would be treason to the Master, and be hearkening to the teachings of man rather than of G.o.d! Yet how many are there from whose lips the phrase confessional fidelity (Bekenntnisstreue,) is heard far oftener than fidelity to G.o.d's word (Bibeltreue)!

Is it our duty to renounce the Augsburg Confession altogether? This would be the case, _if its errors were fundamental_. But as they are few in number, and all relate to non-fundamental points, this does not necessarily follow. As nineteen twentieths of the creed are sustained by Scripture, and embody a rich and ample exhibition of divine truth, ten times as extended as that which was invested with normative authority in the golden age, the first three centuries of the Christian church, and used as a term of Christian fellowship, we may well retain the creed, after in some way disavowing its several errors. And the historical importance of the doc.u.ment, as the type of a renovated Christianity, authenticated by the blessing of Heaven, renders its retention desirable, as far as it has approved itself to the conscience of the church, after the increasing philological, exegetical, and historical light of three progressive centuries.

The position of those who maintain that _genuine Lutheranism_ demands perpetual adherence to everything contained in this Confession, yea, as some affirm, to all the former symbolical books, is utterly untenable.

In the _first_ place, these brethren forget that the symbolic system, _i.e._, the practice of binding ministers to the so-called symbolical books, was _not_ adopted at the organization of the Lutheran Church, _nor at any time during Luther's life_, nor until more than half a century after the rise of Lutheranism, and more than a quarter of a century after the n.o.ble Luther had gone to his heavenly rest.

_Symbolism is therefore no part of original Lutheranism_. The efforts of Luther to reform the Romish Church began in 1517--the first regular organization of Lutheran churches was not made until some time after his excommunication by the Pope, in 1520. The first directory for Lutheran worship was published by Luther in 1523, in which, although private ma.s.ses and the idea of the ma.s.s being a sacrifice had been rejected, the _ceremonies_ of the ma.s.s, even the _elevation of the host_, (though not for adoration) were retained; another improved one in 1526; and the Augsburg Confession was presented to the Diet in 1530; but the full symbolic system contended for by some of our opponents, was not adopted until 1580, _after the Lutheran church had existed more than half a century!!_ That system, historically considered, is not, therefore, Lutheran, but _Post_-Lutheran and _Ultra_-Lutheran, for it is after him in time, and goes beyond him at least in one point of doctrine, and far beyond him in the abridgement [sic] of ministerial liberty of doctrinal profession, and in exaction of uniformity on minor points. Again, these brethren forget that Luther thought it his duty to _reform_ the church of his birth, and did _not leave it until driven out by the Pope_. The efforts of American Lutherans to reform and render more biblical the ecclesiastical framework of our church, is therefore, _truly Lutheran in principle_, indeed far more Lutheran, than to retain unaltered those symbols, when we believe that the progress of Protestant light and biblical investigation for three hundred years, has proved them to contain important errors.

Thirdly, they forget that _Luther himself never saw, much less approved, the most objectionable and stringent of these books_, the Form of Concord, the profession of which they would make essential to Lutheranism.

Fourthly, they overlook the fact that _entire Lutheran kingdoms, such as Denmark and Sweden, from the beginning rejected some of these books_, and yet are everywhere acknowledged as Lutherans.

Fifthy, [sic] they forget that the _Form of Concord itself professes to regard Confessions of faith only an exhibitions of the manner_ in which Christians of _a particular age understand the Scriptures;_ implying that they were not supposed even by the authors of the symbolic system themselves to be unchangeable, although their incorporation with the civil law of the land, closed the door against all subsequent improvement.

A revision of our symbolic standpoint, is therefore perfectly consistent with primitive Lutheranism; and according to the Congregational or Independent principles of Lutheran church government, advocated by Luther, and hitherto practiced on by our American church, as well as avowed by the Const.i.tution of the General Synod, each District Synod is competent to do this work for herself as long as she retains "the _fundamental_ doctrines of the Bible as taught by our church."

How then can this important work be best accomplished, of releasing ourselves on the one hand from the profession of the errors contained in the Confession, and on the other of avowing the unadulterated truths of G.o.d's word?