American Lutheranism vindicated

by S. S. Schmucker

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.