# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 04 18_S131
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

far it was also extended to others is scarcely to be thoroughly demonstrated. The most probable thing, however, is that, in order to prevent disorder and the unbounded claims of those for whom private confession was chiefly meant to be retained — namely, young and poorly instructed people — it was probably granted only as an exception; yet it is known, for instance, of the former free imperial city of Ulm, that there the preachers went to the Sacrament without prior confession.

Furthermore it is a historical fact that there were, in and outside of Germany, many Lutheran congregations — indeed whole Lutheran lands, for example Hesse, Alsace, Holland — in which private confession had not been introduced, but which instead contented themselves with a general preparation and absolution, and were nevertheless considered good Evangelical Lutherans and were never accused of a breach of faith against their Church, and in particular against Articles 11 and 25 of the Augsburg Confession. To confirm what has just been said, I will cite only a couple of testimonies of tried and tested Lutheran teachers, which could easily be augmented with more.

v. Krackewitz, in his "Beichtstuhl," says, p. 32: "We know of no command and institution of God in our Lutheran congregations regarding private and auricular confession, but rather make use of it out of Christian liberty, only in such a way that we regard it as no necessary part of divine worship, and by no means condemn (reject) the congregations which otherwise agree with us at the foundation of doctrine on account of their having abolished private confession, as it is well known that it has not come into full use to this day in many prominent Lutheran congregations in Germany."

Grosche, in his defense of the Lutheran Church against G. Arnold, says, p. 630: "Hence the preparation for the Holy Supper is not the same in all evangelical churches, since in some places only a general confession and absolution precede it. That is also sufficient, where it is so introduced, and does not happen on the ground that it would be wrong to apply the merit of Christ to anyone individually (for his own person). Our theologians say that where private absolution has not been introduced as a church order before the use of the Holy Supper, but only general confession and absolution is customary, one should not quarrel over this, but rather let it rest, as the general doctrine of our Church concerning the ritibus adiaphoris (things indifferent) likewise requires."

Spener, Glaubenslehre, p. 512: "We have to note here that such a separate confession — that one, especially one who wishes to go to the Lord's Table, must confess his sins to a preacher — is no divine commandment, nor commanded in Scripture, since it was also not in use in the Christian Church for some hundreds of years; rather it is a free

131

thing indifferent, and we are bound to it no differently than to other human ordinances, which likewise must not bind the conscience, but are retained only for the sake of good order and for the sake of the benefit found in them. Therefore we have no cause to censure those churches which, although they hold the true doctrine, do not retain auricular or separate confession."

As a historical note it should further be mentioned that in the year 1706, in the old principality of East Frisia, the ordinance was made: "that private confession, as it has heretofore been customary, shall indeed also remain so in the future, and each one to whom it is pleasing may make use of it according to his Christian judgment; but whoever would have more inclination toward public confession and absolution shall henceforth have the liberty to make use of that instead." (More on this, see Heinsius, Kirchenhistorie, Bd. II, p. 1054.)

At the close of these excerpts I will only note further that I have sought thereby nothing more than to bring greater clarity to myself and others, that we may indeed with a good conscience, according as our condition requires, make use of general confession and absolution or of private confession, and rejoice and thank God that His holy Gospel, everywhere that we believe it through His grace, is a power to make us blessed — although, for the sake of our weakness, the voice of the Gospel in private absolution retains its high importance for raising up a poor, troubled, and comfortless conscience.

J. N.

(Submitted by Dr. Sihler.)

A German Unionist on Us Poor Lutherans.

About three years ago, or a little more, the cathedral-candidate Mr. Hengstenberg was sent to America by the Unionist state church, or more correctly, the Royal Prussian state church, to report on ecclesiastical conditions in America. He traveled through part of the United States, gathered more detailed information partly through his own observation and partly through other reports, and then, after his return home, had these appear in individual articles in the "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," which his brother, Professor Hengstenberg in Berlin, publishes.

In one of these he also deals with "the Lutheran dissenters," or separated Lutherans — for so he calls those who up to that time had not united into any particular ecclesiastical body (synods).

We intend in what follows not to examine his views throughout, but only to look somewhat more closely, for the sake of truth, at those which concern us, who at the time the author left America had still not joined together into any synod.

Mr. H. first names "the Lutherans from Saxony,"* who, although of sincere heart, yet of erring conscience and unclear discernment, followed the notorious Stephan to America ten years ago and settled in the valley of the Mississippi. Here now the writer confesses, in accordance with the truth, that in particular the pastors, after they had been disillusioned, "acknowledged their errors with sincere repentance" — which in fact the dear brothers have thoroughly and repeatedly done, both orally and in writing, without the least self-excuse or self-sparing.

1.) After Mr. H. further remarks that these brothers "led a quiet, withdrawn life for a time," he then adds that they have, however, more recently come forward, particularly in their periodical, the "Lutheraner," and indeed "in the manner of a sharp, hostile polemic, notable more for bitterness than for depth"; that they have contended against everything they consider unsound Lutheranism, against the Synod of Pennsylvania and, in particular, its Agenda published by Dr. Demme; further against the "evangelical society" (association) in their neighborhood, which looks toward union, and against the unionist tendency in general, wherever it can be discovered — all "on the basis of a bigoted, narrow-minded attachment to the letter of the Formula of Concord."

Against this, permit me to make the following remarks: as concerns first of all the prevailing tone of our periodical, we confidently venture to appeal to the judgment of every impartial reader, and to ask whether this tone is really sharp, bitter, and hostile? Personal, passionate, carnally provoked, confusing persons and matters together in an unbiblical, pietistic and methodistic manner — such it will not be found to be, God willing; but this we do not deny — although we would rather hold ourselves in a position of defense than proceed offensively — that where it concerns God, His honor, and the pure, only saving truth of His Word, and the confession and pure doctrine of the Lutheran Church wholly and entirely grounded thereon, the unfalsified faith of its confessors — that here, against error and lies, however small either may appear, we will wield no blunt weapons and engage in no mere fencing for show; for in the first place, the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, with which alone we intend to attack and overcome our opponents, is sharp and two-edged (against papists and enthusiasts) and no blunt rapier. In the second place, it is also our holy and earnest will, in the use of this weapon, to follow the example of the Lord Christ, His holy apostles, and all upright teachers of the Church. For as these

*) We must take the author's words from the "Lutheran Observer," where they are of course translated into English, since the "Evangelische Kirchenzeitung" is not at hand for us.