# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1847 11 04_S34
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

On Private and General Confession.
(By Pastor Keyl.)

(Continuation.)
Proof that, in the best times of the Lutheran Church, general confession was customary neither alongside private confession, nor still less on its own.

The Symbolical Books do not mention this public absolution with a single syllable, as anyone can convince himself by direct inspection. It is true that in the Small Catechism the "common" confession is mentioned once, but by this is evidently meant only the ordinary general church confession which a single individual made before the confessor. Accordingly, to the question, "What do the Symbolical Books teach concerning general confession?" one must answer: they do not teach anything about it explicitly at all. But had they mentioned it with approval, they would thereby have contradicted both history and their own doctrine. History, because in the papal church, up to the time of the Reformation, only private confession was in use; now when the Lutherans, in Article 11 of the Augsburg Confession and elsewhere, declare that they by no means abandon this praiseworthy church custom but intend to continue holding to it in their churches, it was precisely by this that they could reject the charge of seeking innovations; but had they attempted to introduce into the church a practice as utterly unknown as general confession then was, the charge of seeking innovations could easily have been brought against them. The Symbolical Books, however, would also have contradicted their own doctrine; for they teach clearly that confession is retained on account of absolution, whereby the power of the keys looses each person individually from sins; that the preaching of the Gospel proclaims to each person individually; that each individual is to be examined, instructed, and comforted by the confessor (see the instructions on confession in the Small Catechism); and finally, that it is godless to abolish private absolution from the church. They would have contradicted this doctrine had they ascribed to general confession and absolution the same standing and the same worth as to private confession; consequently general confession cannot be justified from the Symbolical Books as an old custom of our church—nor can it be so justified from the writings of Dr. Luther, in which, although "public" confession is spoken of a few times, it is meant only in the sense of that confession which takes place before God in the Lord's Prayer and before our offended neighbor, as opposed to secret confession, or private confession before the confessor.

There is found, however, among the works of Dr. Luther, a document issued by him and his colleagues to the Council of Nuremberg, concerning common and particular absolution, from the year 1539, which seems to give complete certainty that he did indeed permit the use of public confession alongside private confession. Yet upon careful consideration of all the circumstances, it will become apparent that several weighty reasons stand against this assumption, a complete refutation of which can hardly be expected; but even granting that this were indeed accomplished, no conclusion could yet be drawn from this particular case for the whole Lutheran Church of every time and place. This shall now be clearly demonstrated with regard to the aforementioned document of Dr. Luther, but first the occasion and principal content of it shall be briefly presented.

In the year 1539 a disagreement had arisen among the Lutheran preachers over the fact that Andreas Osiander, for several reasons, refused to use public absolution as Wenceslaus Link and his other colleagues did, insisting instead on the exclusive use of private confession. At the Council's request, Dr. Luther, together with his colleagues, drew up a theological opinion in which he says the following: "Although we hold private absolution to be very Christian and comforting, and hold that it should be retained in the churches ... yet we can not and will not burden consciences so heavily as though there were no forgiveness of sins except through private absolution alone." To prove this, he cites the saints of the Old Testament, who held to the general promises of the Gospel, as those must also do who can have no preacher. He further teaches: "The Gospel itself is a general absolution, for it is a promise which all, and each one in particular, should lay hold of by God's command and mandate. Therefore we cannot forbid and condemn general absolution as unchristian, since it does serve to remind hearers that each one should lay hold of the Gospel, that it is an absolution and belongs to him also—just as your formula is framed as such a reminder." To the objection that absolution should not be spoken into the crowd, because among them there might be some for whom the key of binding was appropriate, Dr. Luther answers that the latter (the ban) applies only to public sins, whereas secret sins are generally bound through the preaching office. "Thus preaching binds all unbelievers, while at the same time giving forgiveness to all believers.... That the aforesaid absolution is also conditional is true just as it is of a general sermon and of every absolution as well. Both, general and private, have the condition of faith; for without faith it does not release, and is therefore not a false key." Finally Dr. Luther gives the counsel: "Osiander should not be compelled to use public absolution, as it is contrary to his conscience; but he too should, for the sake of peace, leave unmolested the other party who does use it, and remain likewise unmolested by them; and both parties should at the same time exhort the people to private absolution."

In this document, no mention whatever is made of confession, either private or general, but throughout it speaks only of absolution; nor is anything found in it about the sacrament or about communicants, but only about hearers. For this reason alone no conclusive proof can be drawn from it that general confession is meant. Nor can it be proven from it that Dr. Luther held public absolution to be just as good as private absolution; for the latter he declares to be "very Christian and comforting," and he wishes both parties to exhort the people to it; but of the former, the public kind, he says only that he cannot forbid and condemn it as unchristian. His main intention is evidently that consciences should not be burdened so heavily as though there were no forgiveness of sins except through private absolution alone—which was precisely what Osiander maintained. But here the issue is not a counsel of conscience for cases of emergency, but the maintenance of a church custom in use for centuries—not exceptions, but the rule itself. That Dr. Luther did not, in fact, advise the retention of public absolution forever is evident particularly from a letter to Osiander, in which he wishes it to be retained only so long as "until, after minds have again been calmed, a decision can be reached in this matter without offense to souls."

Besides these internal reasons there are also external ones that stand in the way of assuming that Dr. Luther, in that document, speaks in favor of general confession. He mentions, namely, a form of public absolution customary among the Nuremberg preachers; but no such form is to be found in the liturgy (Agende) then in use, from 1533, although it contains two formularies for private absolution. Instead, at the end of the exhortation to communicants before the Holy Supper there occurs a formal absolution given "once more," to which Dr. Luther's words may perhaps refer. Seckendorf holds that this dispute arose over an absolution given from the pulpit after the sermon; but no trace of such a custom is found anywhere in the entire Nuremberg church order. It is quite possible that that famous historian knew of some such particular form, or drew this more precise determination of the subject of the dispute from other documents. These and similar uncertainties prevent an adequate proof, on the basis of this document, that Dr. Luther had advised the retention of general confession.

But even granting that this could be demonstrated with the strongest force of proof with regard to the Nuremberg congregations, it by no means follows that this opinion should be regarded as a rule and standard for other Lutheran con-