# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 02 22_S102
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

...must give an account to the Lord, and nothing more.

As for the ban [excommunication], it is resolved and carried out not by the pastor alone, but by the whole congregation: the sinner is excluded from the fellowship of the church and no longer regarded as a member of it. For whoever does not hear the congregation is to be held as a heathen and a tax collector, Matt. 18:17. The command goes out not to the bishops alone, but to the congregation: "Put away from yourselves that which is evil," 1 Cor. 5:9–13; even where the apostle, by extraordinary apostolic authority, excommunicates the incestuous man in the Corinthian congregation, because it had neglected to do so out of culpable indolence, he does it as one present in spirit in their assembly, 1 Cor. 5.

Confession, or the confessing of sins before the preacher, is, although we find no explicit ordinance of it in Scripture, a necessary, inseparable consequence of the power of the ministry to forgive sin. For absolution cannot be conceived without a preceding declaration of the desire for it; confession, however, is nothing other than the declaration of this penitent, grace-hungering desire. If God himself demands a confession of sins (1 John 1:7), even though our transgressions are known to the Searcher of Hearts without it, then such a confession must certainly be made to those who are not searchers of hearts, and who, if we are to obtain through their office the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, must recognize our desire and the state of our soul corresponding to that desire. The Savior, indeed, needed no such preceding confession; in his omniscience he saw into the depths of the heart of the paralytic; the mere drawing near of sinners and tax collectors to him was in itself a confession, that is, a testimony of the ardent desire for grace. Thus Zacchaeus indeed confessed to him in express words, but the sinful woman in the house of Simon confessed with her tears of repentance. On the other hand, we are told of the multitude of those who came to John the Baptist to obtain from him the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, that they confessed their sins to him (Mark 1:5). Perhaps this also belongs here, that the newly converted came to Ephesus and confessed their deeds, Acts 19:18.

Confession cannot be made obligatory upon anyone by the church through external compulsion. A Christian who experiences in his own life the alternation of joyful faith and weakness of faith will hold precious and use gratefully the ordinances of grace by which God wishes to help our weakness. For him, the feeling of conscience and the impulse of the Spirit will be a sufficient motive for seeking the blessing of the divine institution. External compulsion does not help here, and would also stunt, for honest souls, the evangelical freedom in the use of the divine institution of grace. If a Christian feels himself burdened by the weight of sin, if the appropriation of divine grace is difficult for him: the office of reconciliation must always be ready to grant him the comfort he seeks. A soul that hungers and thirsts after the righteousness that avails before God must be able to go to its pastor as often as it wishes; it may confess what it wishes, it may keep silent about what it wishes. Only let it examine itself, that it not abuse the divine benefit of grace, but use it for salvation and peace.

Absolution is an evangelical right of grace in the church, of which spiritual need must drive everyone to avail themselves. The Roman church has in many ways turned this into a legal command, a compulsory institution that tortures the conscience. It demands of the confessing person a specific enumeration of all mortal sins that he can remember, with all essential circumstances. But our church has rightly rejected this auricular confession, along with other human ordinances smuggled into the office of the keys. The members of the congregation have complete freedom to confess as they themselves judge the state of their souls requires. Those who are troubled in their conscience by this or that sin will of themselves feel the inner urge to pour out their heart before the pastor, in order to appropriate the comfort of forgiveness all the more confidently; and because they confess their sins to him as before God himself, he is bound to absolute confidentiality and may be induced by no worldly compulsion to break his seal of confession. But the pastor can desire nothing except the testimony of a penitent heart and a desire for forgiveness; nothing except that the soul confess its wretched state with remorse, place its trust in the one who atones for sin, and affirm its resolve to amend its life. His duty requires that, wherever the marks of true repentance are in any way visible, he deal as kindly and comfortingly with a soul desirous of salvation as is ever possible.

It is, to be sure, also not an entirely improper kind of confession when one person makes this confession in the name of all the rest; but if the individual is to appropriate the comfort of forgiveness in its full power, it is better that he confess his sins for himself alone and be absolved of them. The most imperfect kind of confession is the general confession, when the preacher reads a formula of confession in the name of the congregation and thereupon pronounces absolution.

Accordingly our church teaches that private confession should be retained and not abandoned (Augsburg Confession, Art. 11), for the sake of absolution, which is God's Word, whereby the power of the keys absolves us from sins; therefore it would be against God to do away with absolution in this manner (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. VI). Because the absolutio privata (private absolution) comes from the office of the keys, it should not be despised, but held in high honor and worth, like all the other offices of the Christian church (Smalcald Articles, Art. VIII).

(To be continued.)

The Ev. Luth. Tennessee Synod.

The report of the proceedings of this synod during its 27th session, held in Bühler's Church, Sullivan County, Tenn., from the 4th to the 7th of October 1847, lies before us both in English and in German. We gather from this that this synod consists of nineteen preachers and three deacons from the states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Alabama. Four preachers and three deacons were absent; thirty lay delegates were present.

Of the resolutions of this body we single out the following:

"Whereas the North Carolina Synod, at its last session, caused a correspondence to be opened with several of our members concerning a union of effort and resources between us and them; and whereas its introduction and resolution have regard to a remodeling of our fundamental constitution, and directly accuse us of being anti-Lutheran; and whereas they indicate a change on our part as a condition of their renewed recognition: But since we are disinclined to remodel our fundamental constitution, or to make any other change, whether in doctrine or church polity, until we are convinced of error. And since we believe that our doctrine and church government are founded on God's Word; and that any concession on our part would be dangerous to the highest welfare of the church and of the truth, therefore be it

Resolved, that we can consent to union with the said synod only on the basis of pure and unadulterated Evangelical Lutheranism — a union which we shall be heartily glad to establish as soon as possible; and that we have always been willing for such a union, as is evident from the repeated proposals we have made in order to bring about such a desired matter."

"Resolved, that we are glad to hear that the Christian Book of Concord will be half translated into English, and we hope that it will soon appear in print."

"Resolved, that the next session of the synod be held in Solomon's Church, near New Market, in Virginia; and that it begin on the Saturday before the first Sunday in October 1848."

It is gratifying that a memorial had been submitted to the synod and was well received, in which the writers "recommend to the synod that an effective plan be devised for translating and disseminating more of Dr. Luther's writings."

Most worthy of imitation is that the synod has added something edifying to its report,