American Lutheranism Vindicated Part 8

It denies the position, and affirms the contrary, as above stated, while it supposes the Confession to object not to the divine inst.i.tution and obligation of the Lord's Day, but to the corruptions which the Romish church had connected with it, and especially the idea that the observance of the Lord's Day was a meritorious work, which would secure our justification before G.o.d.

The observations of the Plea against the self-righteous abuse of the Sabbath are just and Christian, but do not affect the position of the Platform. The author also intersperses other useful practical remarks, which we have not have room to quote. The simple point of difference, of any moment, is that relating to the question whether our obligation to observe the Christian Sabbath rests on its appointment by G.o.d or by the church. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that this question remains, for the author of the Plea, at the close of his discussion, virtually acknowledges the point affirmed by the Platform, when he says: "The Augsburg Confession, notwithstanding her definite a.s.sertion that the Christian Sabbath rests on _no special dictate of the Word of G.o.d_, maintains that by necessity, and by right, the _church_ inst.i.tuted our Christian Sabbath, and we ought to keep it." P. 34. To this we shall confine our proof.

III. _We shall prove that the Augsburg Confession does deny the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day_.

In establishing this position, we shall first prove from the other writings of Luther and Melancthon, that they both rejected the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath or Lord's day; secondly, show from the Augsburg Confession itself, as well as the Apology to it, both written by Melancthon, that its divine appointment is there denied.

Let us listen to the _declarations of Luther_ on this subject. In his Commentary on the Pentateuch, speaking of the decalogue, he says: "Saint Paul and the entire New Testament have abolished the Sabbath of the Jews, in order that men may understand that the Sabbath concerns the Jews alone. It is therefore unnecesssary [sic] that the Gentiles should observe the Sabbath, although it was a great and rigid command among the Jews." [Note 1] "Among Christians, under the New Testament, every day is a holy day, and _all days are free_. Therefore, says Christ, the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. Matt. xii. 8.

Therefore Paul, at different places, admonishes the Christians, not to suffer themselves to be bound to any particular day. Ye observe days and months, and times and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. Gal. iv. 10, 11. And still more clearly in Colossians ii. 16, 17. Let no mint therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come." "But although the Sabbath is _now revoked_, and the consciences of men are free from it, it is nevertheless good and necessary that _some_ particular day of the week be observed, in order that the word of G.o.d may be dispensed on it, may be heard and learned; for not every one can attend to it every day.

Moreover, nature demands that both man and beast rest one day in the week, and abstain from labor. Hence, if any one desires to make a necessary command out of the Sabbath, as a work required of G.o.d, he must observe Sat.u.r.day and not Sunday, for Sat.u.r.day was enjoined upon the Jews, and not Sunday. But Christians have hitherto observed Sunday, and not Sat.u.r.day, because on that day Christ, arose. Now this is a certain evidence to us that the Sabbath, yea the entire Moses (Mosaic dispensation) no longer concerns us, else we would be under obligation to observe Sat.u.r.day. This is a great and strong proof that the Sabbath is revoked; for throughout the whole New Testament we find no place in which the observance of the Sabbath in enjoined upon Christians."

"But why (continues Luther,) is Sunday observed among Christians?

Although, _all days are free and one day is like another_, it is still necessary and good, yea, very necessary, that some one day be observed, _whether it be Sabbath, Sunday or any other day_. For G.o.d designs to lead the world decently, and govern it peaceably; therefore he gave six days for work, but on the seventh day, servants, hirelings, and laborers of every kind, yea, even horses and oxen and other laboring animals shall have rest, as this precept requires, in order that they may be refreshed by rest. And especially in order that those, who at other times have no leisure, may hear the preached word and thereby learn to know G.o.d. And for this reason, namely, of love and necessity, Sunday has been retained, not on account of the Mosaic precept, but for the sake of our necessities in order that we might rest and learn the word of G.o.d." [Note 2]

In his larger Catechism, Luther thus expresses himself. [Note 3]

"_This commandment, therefore, with respect to its outward and literal sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is wholly an external thing, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, confined to certain conditions, and places, which are all now left free through Christ_.

But in order that we may draw up for the uninformed, a Christian meaning of what G.o.d requires of us in this commandment, is is necessary to observe, that _we keep the Sabbath-day, not for the sake of intelligent and learned (gelehrten) Christians; for these have no need of it:_ but in the first place, on account, of physical reasons and necessities, which nature teaches and requires for the _common ma.s.s_ of people, _men-servants_ and _maid-servants_, who attend during the whole week to _their labor and employments_, so that they may also have a day set apart for _rest and refreshment (erquicken:_) in the second, mostly for the purpose of enabling us to take time and opportunity on these Sabbath-days, (since we cannot otherwise attain them,) to attend _to divine service_, so that we may a.s.semble ourselves to hear and treat of the Word of G.o.d, and then to praise him, to sing and pray to him.

"But this, I say, is not so confined to time, _as ii was among the Jews, that it must be precisely on this or that day; for one day is not better in itself than another, but it should be daily attended to;_ but since the ma.s.s of the people cannot attend to it, we should _reserve one day in the week, at least, for this purpose_. Inasmuch, however, as Sunday has been _set apart from of old_ for this purpose, we should therefore let it remain so, that the Sabbath may be observed with _uniformity_, and that no one create disorder through unnecessary innovation."

The above testimony of Luther is so distinct and decided, that he certainly would not have approved of the Augsburg Confession if Melancthon had introduced a different doctrine into it. But there was no difference of opinion on this point, between these two luminaries of the church.

2. _Melancthon_, in a letter addressed to Luther from Augsburg, dated July 27, 1530, thus speaks of the Christian Sabbath: "When St. Peter appoints the religious observance of Sunday, I regard this work (the observance of the day) _not as divine worship_, (Gottesdienst, cultus,) but as being attended by bodily advantage, (leiblichen Nutzen,) if the people a.s.semble together on a fixed day." [Note 4]

Again, in his _System of Divinity_, or _Loci Theologici_," [Note 5] we find the following unequivocal declaration: "We have, heard above that the Levitical _ceremonies_ are abolished. But the law concerning the Sabbath is a Levitical ceremony, and _St. Paul_ expressly says, Col. ii., Let no one judge you, if you do not observe the Sabbaths,"

(Niemend [sic] soll euch richten, so ihr die Sabbathe nicht haltet;) why then (it may be asked) do you insist so rigidly on this precept? Answer.

This precept in the words of Moses embraces two things, one _common_, that is necessary to the church at all times, and a _particular day_, which concerned only the government of Israel. The _common_ part (of this precept) is the proper public office (or duty) to preach and to observe the divine ceremonies, which G.o.d has at any time enjoyed. This _common_ precept binds all men; for this honor all rational creatures owe to G.o.d, to aid in sustaining the office of preacher, and Christian a.s.semblies, (public worship,) according to the condition and calling of each one, as shall be farther stated hereafter. _But the particular part, concerning the seventh day_, DOES NOT BIND US: therefore we hold meetings on the _first day and on any other days_ of the week, _as occasion offers_."

Such then being the views of the ill.u.s.trious reformers, one of whom penned the Augsburg Confession, and the other sanctioned it, we might naturally expect to find them expressed in the Confession itself, which a bare recital of a few pa.s.sages, will prove to be the case.

And, I. From the _Augsburg Confession_, Art. XXVIII.

"And what are we to believe concerning _Sunday_ (the Lord's day,) and other similar ordinances and ceremonies of the church? To this inquiry we reply, the bishops and clergy may make regulations, that order may be observed in the church, not with the view of thereby obtaining the grace of G.o.d, nor in order thus to make satisfaction for sins, nor to bind the consciences, to hold and regard this as a _necessary_ worship of G.o.d, or to believe that they would _commit sin_ if they _violated_ these regulations without offence to others. Thus St. Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. xi. 5,) has ordained that _women shall have their heads_ covered in the congregation; also, that ministers should not all speak at the same time in the congregation, but in an orderly manner, one after another.

"It is becoming in a Christian congregation to observe such order, for the sake of love and peace, and to obey the bishops and clergy in these cases, and to observe these regulations so far as not to give offence to one another, so that there may be no disorder or unbecoming conduct in the church. Nevertheless, the consciences of men must not be oppressed, by representing these things as _necessary to salvation_, or _teaching that they are guilty of sin, if they break these regulations without offence to others;_ for no one affirms that a woman commits sin who goes out with her head uncovered, without giving offence to the people. SUCH ALSO IS THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING SUNDAY, Easter, Whitsunday, and similar festivals and customs. For _those who suppose that the ordinance concerning Sunday_ instead of Sabbath, _is enacted as necessary, are greatly mistaken_. For the Holy Scripture has abolished the Sabbath, and teaches that all the ceremonies of the old law may be omitted, since the publication of the gospel. And yet, as it was necessary to appoint a certain day, in order that the people might know when they should a.s.semble, the _Christian church_, (not the apostles,) has up appointed Sunday (the Lord's day) for this purpose; and to this change she was the more inclined and willing, that the people might have an example of Christian _liberty_, and might know that _the observance of neither the Sabbath nor any other day is necessary_. There have been numerous erroneous disputations published, concerning the change of the law, the ceremonies of the New Testament, and the change of the Sabbath, which have all sprung from the false and erroneous opinion, that Christians must have such a mode of divine worship as is conformed to the Levitical or Jewish service, and that Christ enjoined it on the apostles and bishops, to invent new ceremonies, which should be necessary to salvation." [Note 6]

Here we are distinctly taught, (_a_) that the Jewish Sabbath is entirely abolished; (_b_) that no particular day was divinely appointed in its stead; (_c_) that those who suppose the ordinance concerning Sunday instead of Sabbath is enacted as necessary, "are greatly mistaken." (_d_) But that, as it was necessary to appoint a certain day for the, convocation of the people, "the _Christian church_ (not the apostles,) appointed Sunday."

II. Of similar import are the teachings of the _Apology to the Confession_, which also flowed from the pen of Melancthon.

_Apology to the Confession, Art. IV._

"But we maintain, that the harmony of the church is no more broken by variations in such _human ordinances_, than it is by variations in the natural length of the day in different places. Yet we like to see the _general ceremonies_ uniformly kept, for the sake of harmony and order, as in our churches, for instance, we retain (behalten) the _ma.s.s_, the _Lord's Day_, and _other great festivals_.

"And we approve, all _human ordinances_ which are good and useful, especially those which promote good external discipline among youth and the people generally. But the inquiry is not, shall human ordinances be observed on account of external discipline and tranquillity? [sic] The question is altogether different; it is, is the observance of such human ordinances a divine service by which G.o.d is reconciled; and that without such ordinances, no one can be righteous before G.o.d? This is the chief inquiry, and when this shall have been finally answered, it will be easy to judge whether the unity of the church requires uniformity in such ordinances." [Note 7]

Here again the Lord's day (_a_) is cla.s.sed in the category of _human_ ordinances, the observance of which is free, and may differ in different places.

(_b_) Yet uniformity in general ceremonies is pleasing, such as "the ma.s.s, the Lord's day, and other great festivals."

(_c_) It is cla.s.sed again with _human_ ordinances which promote good external discipline among the people.

And now having proved that the lax views of the Christian Sabbath, charged by the Platform on the Augsburg Confession, are attributed to it by the learned in Germany generally, that Luther and Melancthon teach them in their other writings: in view of all these evidences, we ask every impartial, conscientious reader, whether it is possible to doubt the accuracy of the positions maintained by the Platform on this subject--namely, that the Augsburg Confession treats the Sabbath, or religious observance of the _seventh_ day of the week, as a mere Jewish inst.i.tution, an inst.i.tution appointed of G.o.d for the Jews alone; whilst the propriety of retaining the _Lord's day_ or Christian Sabbath, as a day of religious observation and worship, in their judgment, rests on the appointment of the church, and the necessity of having some one day for the convenience of the people in a.s.sembling for public worship.

The act of keeping any one day _entirely_ for religious observance, they regard as ceremonial and temporary, and the moral or common part of the precept, as stated in our extract from Melancthon, they resolve into the general duty of preaching and hearing the gospel, and of sustaining public a.s.semblies for this purpose; that is, of bearing the expenses incident to the support of the ministry and the ordinances of G.o.d's house.

"Our American churches, on the contrary, as well as some few in Germany, believe in the divine inst.i.tution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, or Lord's day, convinced that the Old Testament Sabbath was not a mere Jewish inst.i.tution; but that it was appointed by G.o.d at the close of the creative week, when he rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and sanctified it, (Gen. ii. 2, 3,) that is, set it (namely, one whole day in seven,) apart for holy purposes, for reasons of universal and perpetual nature, Exod. xx. 11. Even in the re-enactment of it in the Mosaic rode, its original appointment is acknowledged, '_Remember_ the Sabbath day--because in six days G.o.d made heaven and earth--and rested on the _seventh; wherefore_ he, (_then_, in the beginning,) _blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it_.' Now this reason has no more reference to the Jews than to any other nation, and if it was sufficient to make the observance of the Sabbath obligatory on them, it must be equally so for all other nations before and after them.

'Since therefore the observance and sanctification of a portion of his time, is based on universal reasons in the nature of man, especially as a religious being, and the proportion of time was fixed at a _seventh_, by the example and precepts of the Creator in the beginning; the Sabbath or religious observance of one day in seven, must be universally obligatory, and the abrogation of the Mosaic ritual, can at most only repeal those ceremonial additions which that ritual made, and must leave the original Sabbath as it found it. Now whilst the apostles, and first Christians under the inspired guidance, for a season also attended worship on the Jewish Sabbath, they observed the day of the Lord's resurrection, the first day of the week, as their day of special religious convocations; and this _inspired example_ is obligatory on Christians in all ages. Still the essence of the inst.i.tution consists, not in the particular day of the week, though that is now fixed, but in the religious observance of one entire day in seven." [Note 8]

We do not, indeed, maintain that the conduct of the apostles was inspired on all occasions; but it seems just and necessary to maintain, that when engaged in the specific and appropriate duties of that office, for which they were inspired, they were as much under the guidance of the Spirit in their _actions_, as their words.

On the divine inst.i.tution and obligation of the Christian Sabbath, we refer the reader to an extended argument in its favor, in the author's Lutheran Manual, pp. 310-24.

Note 1. Luther's Works, Leipsic edit., Vol. iii., pp. 642, 643.

Note 2. Luther's Works, Vol. iii., p. 643.

Note 3. Symbolical Books, pp. 449, 450, corrected by the original.

Note 4. Niemeyer's Briefe Melanchthons, [sic] p. 50.

Note 5. Vol. iv., p. 113, of Koethe's edit.

Note 6. See Schmucker's Lutheran Manual, pp. 306, 307.

Note 7. See Symb. B. Newmarket, ed. 2d., corrected by the German, p. 223.

Note 8. See Definite Synodical Platform, p. 27.

CHAPTER VIII.

GENERAL NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS.

On this subject the author of the Plea does not pursue the order of the Platform, in which baptism and the eucharist are discussed separately; but he unites the two under the caption of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, and enters into some discussions of the sacraments in general, and then introduces remarks on each in particular. Whilst we deem a separate discussion of each sacrament necessary to its proper elucidation, there are certain general views common to them both, which may with propriety be considered in connexion. We, therefore, devote some pages to this purpose, under the head of the _General Nature of the Sacraments_, and reserve the discussion of each one individually to subsequent chapters. It would require an extended volume to discuss all the several aspects of this interesting and solemn subject glanced at by our author. He does not, however, present in definite lineaments the precise system, which he attributes to the Lutheran Symbols; and lest we should do him injustice in endeavoring to present his system in detail, in order to controvert it, we deem it more Christian and courteous to specify only a few items of his chapter, and occupy our s.p.a.ce chiefly in presenting and defending what we regard as the doctrine taught in the Word of G.o.d on this subject. This doctrine is also the theory that underlies the positions of the Definite Platform, and, we suppose, is a.s.sented to by its friends.

The Plea affirms, "The Lutheran doctrine maintains that the Sacraments have an _intrinsic value; but the Definite Platform seems to regard them as mere _signs_, which may have a tendency to _promote piety_, p. 35. On this point we think our author has not clearly presented the point of difference between the friends of the Platform and the Plea.

We not only admit, but strenuously affirm, that the sacraments have an important _intrinsic_ influence. The Platform thus describes it: "Baptism in adults is a means of making a profession of previous faith, or of being received into the visible church, as well as a _pledge_ and _condition_ of obtaining _those blessings purchased by Christ_, and offered to all who repent, believe in him and profess his name by baptism," p. 30. As to the question, whether this influence is intrinsic or not, it is not touched in the Platform; although we doubt not its adherents very generally hold the affirmative. But the real point of dispute is the _precise nature_ of the influence exerted by the sacraments. The symbols _seem_ to regard _forgiveness of sins_, that is, justification, as the _immediate_ effect of every worthy reception of these ordinances; whilst the friends of the Platform hold this influence to consist in their tendency to produce that _living faith_, resulting from regeneration, which is the _only condition of pardon_, and without the possession of which G.o.d has not promised to forgive the sins of any one, no matter what outward duties he may perform. For G.o.d will not forgive the sins of an unconverted sinner. The symbols do, indeed, often insist on the necessity of faith, yet they speak as though in those who do believe, it was the sacrament, and not their faith in the Redeemer, which secured the blessing. Nor do they in many pa.s.sages sufficiently discriminate, that it is not a mere historical or intellectual, but a living faith, a faith of the heart also, a faith that works by love and purifies the heart and overcomes the world, a faith that involves an entire surrender to the soul of G.o.d, which is required to the full efficacy of the sacraments.

The Plea affirms that the primitive church regarded the sacraments as "_mysteries_;" p. 37. But the author presents no evidence of this fact from G.o.d's word, or the _apostolic_ church; and the church of subsequent ages is no conclusive doctrinal authority for us as Protestants.

The Plea states: "He (G.o.d) is able to accomplish by the Holy Baptism, performed in the mysterious name of the ever adored Trinity, a work of regeneration in the heart of the little child." "The expression used in the Augsburg Confession, Art. II., is, regenerated by baptism and the Holy Ghost, (John iii. 5.) This doctrine, however, is not to be understood as if the new creation was fully completed by new generation.

It is complete so far as a _live seed_ is complete in itself. This does, by no means, exclude subsequent development brought about by favorable internal and external influences;" p. 36. "And Christ, the G.o.dman, is able to make us poor earthly creatures partakers of his celestial nature_, (2 Pet. i. 4,) in the most solemn rite of his church, (the eucharist,) which is therefore communion between Christ and man, in the fullest manner possible on earth;" p. 37. Here the respected author, by adopting the theory that _a living seed_ is implanted _by baptism_, (whether into the soul or body he does not specify,) and then that the G.o.dman Christ Jesus makes these baptized individuals _partakers of his CELESTIAL NATURE by the sacramental supper_, seems to favor something like that theory of concorporation, or a physical union between Christ and the believer, which is known in _various_ phases as Puseyism in England, and Nevinism in the German Reformed Church of this country, and which has spread a withering influence over the interests of practical piety wherever embraced. Yet we would by no means affirm that the Rev. Mr. Mann has embraced all the cardinal features of this system.

The objection that is fatal to it in our mind is, that we cannot find it in G.o.d's word. [Note 1]

We shall therefore proceed to ascertain the Scripture doctrine in regard to the influence of the sacraments in general. For the sake of brevity and perspicuity, we shall present it in a concatenation of propositions, that in the end will cover the whole ground, and conduct us safely to the surest biblical results.

_Scripture view of the Influence of the Sacraments_.