# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 05 11_S125
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

[the new Prussian constitution came] so much in line with prior wishes that even the members of the Left were taken aback by it, and some could not hide that they felt thoroughly outdone by it. This constitution not only closely follows the fundamental rights deliberated at Frankfurt, but also declares that wherever the further deliberation and second reading of the fundamental rights should produce a discrepancy, the government, together with the next state assembly — to which the constitution is to be submitted for revision — shall establish agreement between the two. On some points it goes even further than the fundamental rights themselves: thus it grants the church complete freedom and does not even reserve to the state a confirmation of the election of church officers. Now joyful astonishment arose throughout the land; from every side, addresses of thanks for the constitution poured in to the king, even from places that shortly before had sent addresses of encouragement to the Left. But as for the refusal to pay taxes, that was now entirely over: General Wrangel, formerly much hated and reviled, is now the most popular man in Berlin, and Held, the erstwhile chief demagogue, agitator of the people and devourer of tyrants, now entertains the public in the very hall where the Rump Parliament last assembled, with a puppet show in which he makes it look ridiculous. Now, at the end of the old year and the beginning of the new, everyone is occupied with the elections in Prussia, which, however, on account of the unpolitic severity with which the government proceeds against the former members of the Left, appear likely to turn out more radical than one might otherwise have expected.

In Frankfurt, meanwhile, the fundamental rights have already been read a second time and passed with few amendments. The imperial constitution, too, has been debated up to its last and chief point, that of the head of the Empire. Shall there be an emperor? A hereditary emperor, or an elected one? Or no emperor at all, but rather a triumvirate? Or, for the time being, only an imperial administrator? Shall it be the King of Prussia, or the Emperor of Austria?*) These are the great and difficult questions, made still more difficult by the fact that Austria has so far not recognized the resolutions of the imperial assembly — indeed has declared rather plainly that it cannot for the present enter into the federal state. A chief stumbling block are paragraphs 2 and 3 of the imperial constitution, which provide that German lands united with non-German ones can belong to the German Empire only on condition that their non-German appendages remain joined to them henceforth only through personal union. This Austria cannot accept without giving up itself. And over this the whole imperial assembly is shaken together as in a sieve; all parties are at odds about it; the imperial minister Schmerling, being an Austrian, has resigned at the urging of his own friends,

*) This is at present Franz Joseph I, after his uncle, the former Emperor Ferdinand, and his father, Archduke Karl, abdicated in his favor. He is eighteen years old.

and Gagern is now Minister-President. He wishes to establish the unity of Germany without Austria, and to achieve the connection with Austria only by diplomatic means — though these are to be made as close as possible. If the imperial assembly does not agree with him on this, then his ministry, too, will at once come to an end. Everything is in suspense. The Christmas and New Year holidays give time for reflection. The knots are tied, the questions sharply posed; the year 1849 is to bring the resolution. God graciously grant it!

The Law.

As far as heaven is separated from earth, so far ought we to separate the law from conscience. For the law can do nothing else in the conscience than terrify, increase sin, and kill. Thus the kingdom of conscience belongs to grace alone, which sets before us Christ, who suffered for us. But the law must be referred to the body and the external members, that it may be a rule and standard of external duties. Luth. Opp. VI, 756.

A Testimony of Dr. Heinrich Müller Concerning the Power of Absolution.

Dr. Heinrich Müller, the author of the "Heavenly Kiss of Love," the "Spiritual Refreshment Hours," the "Cross-, Penitence-, and Prayer-School," the "Closing Chain," and the "Mirror of the Heart,"*) and of several other spiritually rich writings, still seems to stand in some regard among the Methodists and certain other people. At least the "Apologist" and the "American Messenger" have already shared several excerpts from his writings with their readers; the former has even once presented Heinrich Müller as a witness to the truth against the so-called Old Lutherans. We hope, therefore, that when we present the Methodist gentlemen with the testimony of such a man to the power of holy absolution, they will not so quickly reject it, but will consider it worthy of serious attention. At the very least, such a testimony ought to convince them that a man can be an enemy of all dead work-righteousness and all fleshly reliance on mere pure doctrine without living faith and a holy life, and can be a zealous Christian and enlightened teacher, and yet firmly hold to the biblical doctrine of the power of absolution and find comfort in it.

Heinrich Müller writes, namely, in his "Fountain of Tears and Comfort," a series

*) The book of this name is a postil in two parts: the first contains the sermons on the Gospels, and the other those on the Epistles, for all Sundays and festival days of the church year. This excellent book of sermons has recently been reprinted unchanged, and a fair number of copies have been sent to us for sale. Whoever wishes to have it may obtain it through the editors of the Lutheraner. Both parts, well bound in one volume, cost $2.50; a single part in paper covers, [illegible]. — The Editors.

of twenty vigorous and forceful meditations on the story of the great sinner (according to Luke 7:36ff.), as follows:

"'Who is this who even forgives sins?' So asked the Pharisees, because they held Christ to be a mere man. It seems they could bear reasonably well the general account of the forgiveness of sins; but that through the ministry of a man the application of the forgiveness of sins might occur — either in general to many believers, or in particular to this or that one who desired it — this they did not dare to believe. From this it is easy to judge how coldly and superficially they must have administered the office of the Spirit among the people. For they deny that through the office of reconciliation the promise of grace is to be so applied to believers that they can and should conclude from it, without fail, that their sin is forgiven them. They judged, therefore, no differently than that in the preaching of the word of the forgiveness of sins only something is generally recounted, without any power or cooperation of God. In such an opinion many still remain caught today, who for that reason also greatly belittle the office of the Spirit in their writings. The papal doctrine of doubt concerning grace comes very close to this pharisaical blasphemy. For if we are not made infallibly certain, through the preaching of reconciliation, of the forgiveness of our sins, what great regard need one have for it? If it is a word of God, it must carry the greater certainty. What men say can deceive, since all men are liars; but what God says is surely true, for God is the truth, and if he tells us the truth (even though through men), why do we not believe him?

"'Who is this who even forgives sin?' Because he was not a mere man, but at the same time God and man, he had the power to forgive sin, not only as a Son of God, but also as a Son of Man, since according to his human nature the omnipotence of God, which he possessed essentially as God, was personally communicated to him. Therefore he says elsewhere that the Son of Man has power to forgive sin. Not only did he — as Bellarmine and some of the Reformed would have it, in good pharisaic fashion — have, as a true man, the right to forgive sin, but also the divine capacity. He has the authority to do it, and has also had the power to do it; for if he had not only authority but also power to command the unclean spirits to depart (Luke 4:36), how should he not also, with equal power and authority, have been able to forgive sin? This we ought not to deny or blaspheme, but rather rejoice that in Christ we have such an almighty Lord, also according to the nature in which he is our flesh and blood. And this he clearly indicates,