Absolution

(Missouri Synod, 1860; Brohm - not Walther -, on Absolution; no known published translation- 4/97 ; see Christian Dogmatics III, pgs 191, 208-211; Christliche Dogmatik III, 224-225, 246-248) 2022-12-28: DeepL translation, with several manual corrections.)

Tenth Synodical Report Of the General German Evang - Luth. Synod from Missouri, Ohio, and Other States from the year 1860.

---

St. Louis, Mo. Synodaldruckerei von Aug. Wiebusch u. Sohn. 1861.

---

(page 34)

Proceedings on the Doctrine of Absolution.

---

The most important subject of this year's proceedings, to which most of the time was devoted, was undoubtedly a paper on the intimate connection between the doctrine of absolution and that of justification. We leave this paper here unabridged and then link the Synod's discussion of it directly to it.

Report.

On the intimate connection of the doctrine of absolution with that of justification.

Although the doctrine of absolution has been repeatedly treated in our journals, at conferences and synods, so that there is hardly any obscurity about it, the relation of this doctrine to that of justification both needs and deserves a detailed discussion. The author believed that he had to solve the task set for him not by a voluminous treatise on this subject, which would leave little room for discussion, but by presenting a series of propositions in order to provide material and order for a free discussion of it. He takes the liberty 1) of repeating Luther's and the Lutheran Church's doctrine of absolution in short, clear lines, and 2) of calling attention to the intimate connection of this doctrine with that of justification.

I.

1. Absolution or absolution (Lossprechung) from sins is, according to Luther's teaching, the gospel, whether it is preached to many or to individuals.

Luther's writing to the council of Prague: "But binding or unbinding is nothing else than preaching the gospel and putting it into practice, so that the keys are nothing else than the ministry by which the Word is put into practice. Second opinion to the Nuremberg council: "So the gospel itself is a common absolution". Note: Luther also knows the general absolution, which is usually given after the sermon, and he does not reprove or reject it: but usually he understands by absolution the private absolution, which to him is nothing else than the gospel, told to an individual person, who thereby receives consolation for his confessed sin.

2. Private absolution is therefore not a power to forgive sins apart from or in addition to the gospel, but it is nothing other than the preaching of the gospel to the individual sinner.

Church Postille Easter Tuesday: "There is no other distinction here, without such a word, which is otherwise proclaimed in the preaching of the Gospel [Page 35] everywhere publicly and in general to everyone, the same is said in absolution to one or more who desire it, in particular".

3. the administrators and dispensers of absolution in the public ministry are the preachers of the gospel; but otherwise all Christians, because the whole church is the original holder of the keys; but he who forgives sin through their ministry is the triune God.

Church Postille Quasimodog. Now the pastor or preacher, as your pastor, or any Christian in such a case, is required and sent to comfort you. Therefore, although the power to forgive sins is God's alone, we should also know that he exercises such power over and through this outward ministry, to which Christ sends his apostles and commands them to proclaim forgiveness of sins in his name to all those who desire it. The same: If any man be troubled, let him go, or let him call his pastor or other good friend, and complain of his affliction, and seek of him counsel and comfort. And this is based on the fact that Christ says here, "Whose sins you remit, etc.". House Postil on the Day of Peter and Paul: "The Church, i.e. all Christians have such power and command that they should not let any sinner despair in sins, but comfort him and promise forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus". Note: In other passages, Luther restricts lay absolution to emergencies. Thus he says, among other things: "You also lie to such an extent that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and clergymen in such a way that they may also do the office as soon as they are not called; keep silent, as pious as you are, that I write next to it that no one should prevent himself from doing what is not called, unless it is the utmost necessity. (On the super-Christian etc. book of Emser.) — House Postil XIX. p. Trin. Other Christians, although they do not have the office, nevertheless, in case of need, they also have orders to comfort you when you are despondent because of your sins. — You should take comfort in these words as surely as if Christ himself spoke them personally from heaven. The apparent contradiction will be solved by the following passage from Church Postil Quasimodogeniti: “We all have the right to hear confessions, but no one should presume to practice them publicly, unless he is appointed to do so by the congregation. Secretly, however, I may well need it, as when my neighbor comes and says to me: Dear, I am troubled in my conscience, give me absolution, and I may do it freely. But secretly, I say, it must be done".

4. Absolution does not consist a) in a judicial judgment of the confessor, b) not in an empty proclamation or wish for the forgiveness of sins, but c) in a strong communication of the same.

Regarding a), Apology: "Absolution is not a new judgment to inquire into sins; for [page 36] God is the judge, who commanded the apostles not the office of judgment, but the execution of grace, to absolve those who desire it." [Article VI, 6] On b) and c), House Postil on XIX p Trin. If you desire your pastor to absolve you, and he says, "I, in God's stead, proclaim to you forgiveness of all your sins through Christ," etc. "But give thanks to God that He has given such power to forgive sin to man”. Note: Here Luther calls absolution a proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, but one that really communicates the forgiveness of sins.

5. The effect of absolution a) is not based on man's repentance, confession and satisfaction, b) but absolution demands faith, works and strengthens it, c) without faith it is of no use to man, d) although it is therefore not a false key.

To a. House Postil Quasimodog. “In the papacy it was preached that whoever desires forgiveness of sins should consider his sin and repent of it. Afterwards, forgiveness of sins was based on such repentance. Now it can happen that such a way is taken from the example of the ancients, who, just like us, do not want anyone to be absolved, because he confesses to be a sinner and admits that he is sorry for his sin. This is right and should be so. But to say that such repentance and sorrow deserve that sins should be forgiven because of it is wrong and unjust. For repentance is not merit, but sin, rightly felt in the heart, and the power and rule of sins. Forgiveness of sin and grace do not have to be built on this.” To b) House Postil Quasimodog. “It is faith alone that can grasp such a Word. And the heart alone is the right box for this, in which it can be closed, so that it is clear and certain that we must be justified by faith alone. There must be repentance and sorrow, for otherwise you cannot be heartily hostile to sins, nor will you ever heartily desire that they be forgiven you. But this is the right way, that thou find thyself where my word is, and hear the same, and receive it with faith, and thou shalt be delivered from sins.” House Postil Mariae Magdal. “Absolution is a divine word in which the sins of each one in particular are forgiven and absolved, thereby strengthening and moving faith.” On c) The Sacrament of Penance: "Where there is no faith, nothing helps, although Christ and God Himself would pronounce the judgment. For God cannot give it to anyone who does not want it. But he will not have it who does not believe that it is given to him, and does great dishonor to the Word of God.” To d) Of the keys: "But if you say, as the red spirits and sophists also do: yet many hear of the keys binding and loosening, yet do not turn to it and remain unbound [page 37] and unredeemed, therefore something else must be there than the Word and the keys — the spirit, spirit, spirit must do it. But do you think that he is not bound who does not believe the binding key? He shall know in his time that because of his unbelief the binding key was not in vain, nor did it fail. So also he that believeth not that he is loosed, and his sins forgiven, shall know it in time, how surely his sins are now forgiven him, and he would not believe it. St. Paul says Romans 3:3, Because of your unbelief God will not lack. So also now we do not speak of what the key does and gives. He who does not accept it has nothing, of course, but the key is not lacking. Many do not believe the gospel, but the gospel is not denied and therefore does not fail. A king therefore hath not lied, neither hath he feigned; but thou hast deceived, and it is thine own fault; the king hath surely given.” Note: The false key, clavis errans, is the papal error that not every absolution pronounced by the priest [Priester] is also absolved before God in heaven. This error is connected with the other error, since one makes absolution dependent on repentance and satisfaction and makes it a judicial finding of the priest. This makes the whole absolution shaky and uncertain. Luther does not want to know anything at all about a clavis conditionalis (a conditional key), which does not point us to God's Word, but to our repentance, although he has no hesitation in speaking of an absolutio conditionalis (an absolution conditional on faith) in his report to the Nuremberg council.

6. Private absolution does not impart forgiveness that is essentially different from or better than that which is imparted in the preaching of the gospel, nor is it necessary for the attainment of forgiveness in the way that forgiveness would not take place without it; nevertheless, it has its special value and benefit, because through it the individual is made more certain that the forgiveness of sins also belongs to him.

Second opinion to the council of Nuremberg: "Although we consider private absolution to be very Christian and comforting, and that it should be preserved in the church, we cannot and will not weigh down the consciences so severely, as if there should be no forgiveness of sin without private absolution alone.” On confession and the sacrament: "In confession you also have the advantage that the Word is placed on your person alone. For in the sermon, it is spread to the congregation, and even though it strikes you, you are not so sure of it; but here it can strike no one but you alone.”

7. Private confession is closely related to private absolution, which is nothing more than a request for absolution. It also has the benefit of giving the confessor the opportunity to interrogate the people, [page 38] to practice the sermon and the catechism, to protect them from unworthy use of the sacrament, to give all kinds of advice in difficult cases of conscience; finally, it is an exercise in self-humility. In sum, it is an exercise of the Law and the Gospel.

Letter to the Frankfurters: "For such confessions are not only for the purpose of telling sins, but also for the purpose of interrogating them as to whether they know the Lord's Prayer, faith, the Ten Commandments, and what the catechism gives. For we have well experienced how the rabble and the youth learn little from the sermon, if they are not particularly questioned and interrogated.” In the sermons against the iconoclasts: "There are many doubtful, erroneous things, in which a man alone is not well able, nor can he understand. When he is in such doubt and does not know where to go, he takes his brother to a place and holds up his present distress to him, laments his infirmities, his unbelief and his sin, and asks him for comfort and counsel.” In the Visitation Articles: "No one should be allowed to go to the sacrament unless he is interrogated by his pastor as to whether he is sent to the sacrament. For St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11 that he is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord who takes it unworthily. Now the Sacrament is not only dishonored by those who take it unworthily, but also by those who give it to the unworthy. For the common people run to the sacrament for the sake of habit and do not know why they should need it. Whoever does not know this should not be admitted to the Sacrament.” Of confession to Sickingen: "But that we willingly and gladly confess, the holy cross, i.e. the shame and dishonor that a man willingly exposes himself before another man and accuses and ridicules himself, should provoke us for the time being. This is a delicious piece of the holy cross. Oh, if we knew what punishment such willing shame would bring, and how gracious God makes it that man should so destroy and humiliate himself in his honor, we would dig confession out of the earth and fetch it a thousand miles away".

8. Confession is not commanded by God, yet it is highly useful. Therefore, it is not to be forced as a necessary thing, but where it is, it is to be preserved; where it has fallen into disrepair, it is to be restored by recommending and extolling its usefulness.

Church Postilla XIV p. Trin. “The papists do not like to prove from the New Testament that one should confess sin.”

II.

The doctrine of absolution and the doctrine of justification are in a precise interrelation. This is evident A. from the fact that the doctrine of justification is the foundation on which the doctrine of absolution is based, and the fountain, [page 39] from which it flows. Without justification absolution would be nothing. B. from the fact that through the pure Lutheran doctrine of absolution justification is not only explained, elucidated and glorified as a free, perfectly acquired gift of God's grace, which is received by faith alone, but also and especially that through private absolution the doctrine of justification is made quite comforting and enjoyable for the individual sinner; For in absolution, justification by grace is not given to the sinner as a distant gift to be attained only through long penitential struggles and preparations, but as a perfectly acquired gift brought to each individual through the Word of the Gospel. C. The close connection between the two doctrines becomes even clearer when we consider how the falsification of the doctrine of absolution either presupposes or entails the false doctrine of justification. This will become all the more clear to us if we demonstrate it with individual examples.

1. The papist doctrine of confession as an atonement for sin, of the necessary enumeration of all sins, the papist doctrine of absolution as a judicial act of the confessor, of the key to error, must inevitably rob the poor sinner of the consolation of justification, And again, the whole papist doctrine of absolution is the inevitable consequence of their false doctrine of justification as a grace acquired by merit de congruo and de condigno (by due and right entire merit).

2. The doctrine of the reformers of a decretum absolutum (an unconditional council) and a voluntas signi et beneplaciti (a revealed and a secret will of God) destroys, similar to the false key, the consolation of absolution, so that no man can be certain that through the absolution of the confessor his sins are forgiven before God in heaven; Furthermore, by declaring absolution to be an empty proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, they take away the proper means, the bridge and the footbridge, by which the grace of justification becomes our own; finally, they assign to faith an entirely false position, and make it into something that obtains justification by prayer and inward work, and do not let it be what it is, the hand that accepts the offered grace.

The Methodist rejection of absolution as a true communication of the forgiveness of sins is basically nothing other than a repetition of the Reformed heresy; in particular, the confusion of justification and sanctification, of forgiveness and its assurance in the heart, which is a basic feature of Methodism, must make absolution partly useless and partly deprive it of its comfort.

3. Pietism within the Lutheran Church did not establish a special doctrine of absolution; but by its unevangelical emphasis on the first part of the atonement, by its alarming classification of the states of the soul, by its warning against the improper appropriation of the forgiveness of sins, [page 40] also by the way in which it usually speaks of faith, presenting it more and more from the side of its heart-renewing power than from the side of taking and receiving, The doctrine of justification and faith is not insignificantly obscured, and consequently this unevangelical treatment of the doctrine of justification and faith must also obscure and diminish absolution and deprive it of its comforting power.

4. The doctrine of the Romanizing Lutherans of absolution as an exclusive ministerial prerogative of ordained pastors, whereby lay absolution retains little or no place and is declared to be only a consolatory pronouncement without real communication of the forgiveness of sins, grossly violates the doctrine of the immediate power of the Word and the sacraments, and, as much as there is in it, deprives the sinner of the fullness of consolation that lies in Luther's doctrine of absolution as a power given to the whole church and to each individual Christian to forgive sins.

---

After the whole of the above paper had been read out in context, each individual sentence of it, together with the evidence from Luther's writings and the symbols, was heard again and thoroughly discussed, and in this way the synod dealt with the first part of the paper, namely the first six sentences. Concerning the seventh and eighth sentences, it declared that they did not belong in this paper (therefore they were not discussed further), but decided that they should be printed in the synodal report. Unfortunately, there was no time left to discuss the second part.

First sentence: Absolution or absolution from sins is, according to Luther's teaching, the gospel, whether it is preached to many or to individuals.

After it had been remarked how extremely important this sentence is and how desirable it is that we all become quite clear and unanimous about the truth expressed in it, since in our time there is a truly Babylonian confusion about this very thing and there is certainly no lack of clarity among us on this point, First of all, it was said that when absolution is called the preaching of the Gospel, the holy sacraments are by no means excluded, but included, since the administration of the sacraments is also a visible preaching of the Gospel, which is why they are called the visible Word by the old Lutheran theologians. Then the question arose: whether the concept of absolution in the given definition was not too broad? — Whether every preaching of the Gospel is really absolution? — The answer was given: Every preaching of the gospel is indeed absolution; for such preaching is nothing else than the presentation and distribution of the forgiveness of sins that is present and included in the gospel, whether it be publicly, to the multitude, or especially, to the individual. [Page 41]

---

To the demand now made that, in defining the preaching of the gospel as absolution, the necessity of faith in the gospel should at the same time be emphasized, the following reply was made: Here, first of all, everything depends on recognizing that the great treasure of the gospel, the redemption effected through Christ for all men and the forgiveness of sins thereby acquired, is also offered to all men, according to Christ's command: "Preach the gospel to all creatures.” To all who hear it, whether they believe or not, the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed and offered. The preacher, when he preaches the gospel, always pronounces absolution, even to those who do not believe; for absolution is a divine act and does not depend on the faith or unbelief of men. The unbeliever, of course, rejects the absolution he received through the preaching of the gospel and therefore loses it. The objection was raised against this: According to God's Word, unbelieving sinners cannot and must not be forgiven their sins, but should and must retain them; since unbelievers are not forgiven their sins in the sermon, how can the preaching of the gospel always be absolution? — Answer: The fact of the redemption and reconciliation of the whole human race through Jesus Christ, and thus the forgiveness of all the sins of all men on the part of God, which the gospel proclaims, offers, and gives, can never become a falsehood through the unbelief of men, even if the unbeliever does not accept it, but rejects it and for that very reason alone is lost. Therefore, just as absolution from sins can be nothing other than the preaching of the gospel, be it public or special, so also every preaching of the gospel, be it by Word or sacrament, is always an absolution from all sins. Since it was clear from these repeatedly expressed concerns that the desired clarity and unity did not yet exist with regard to the first sentence, the synod felt compelled to discuss it further and more thoroughly. First of all, it was said: The fact that there is still no real unity among us seems to be due to the fact that some think of the gospel as a means of grace separate from the treasure of grace, as if a king were to send an embassy asking people to come to a certain place where a treasure was to be distributed, since the treasure was not with the embassy but had to be sought and fetched elsewhere; While it is true that the gospel contains the treasure of the forgiveness of sins, and that the proclamation of the gospel presents and communicates this treasure. The presentation does not depend on whether people believe or do not believe, no, the treasure is always there in the Word and is presented to all who hear it. The sun shines, even if all close their eyes and do not see its light. The example of the raising of the young man at Nain can be used to explain this. The word of Christ: "Young man, I say to you, arise!" was not an empty sound, not an empty proclamation, but it awakened hearing and life in the dead young man. Thus the gospel awakens [page 42] spiritual hearing, faith, and thus shares the treasure of forgiveness that it carries. This was followed by the following question, which arose in the synod: "We always pronounce and admit the sentence: Through the raising of Christ from the dead, God has absolved the whole world, i.e. cleansed it from sins; if, then, the world has long since been absolved and cleansed from sins, what is the absolution or preaching of the gospel in the church? Is it also a release [Losmachen], or merely a proclamation of the release that has already taken place?

Answer: The absolution of the whole world took place in God's heart at the moment when the redemption was accomplished through the Lord Christ, and because the redemption had already been accomplished before God from eternity, we can say that the absolution of the world was already in God's heart from eternity. But we do not have it yet. What is to be done now so that we may obtain it? God has not tied the attainment of absolution to anything that we have to do to earn it, but out of free grace He wants to give it to us and bestow it upon us. There is no other means to accept the gift than faith in Jesus Christ. But in order for us to accept absolution, God must bring it to us, and it is through the gospel that what is in God's heart is brought. So the preaching of the gospel brings us the absolution that is in God's heart, so that faith may accept it; this is in the words of the apostle: "How shall they believe, of whom they have not heard?” — Where the preaching of the gospel is preached, God Himself comes before the sinner and says: "I am reconciled, and hereby proclaim to you that all your sins are forgiven. Just as this would not be an empty proclamation, but a true communication of forgiveness, if God spoke directly to the sinner in this way, so the preaching and absolution of the preachers is nothing other than a proclamation of forgiveness, but such a proclamation that really brings and gives forgiveness. We can best make the matter clear to ourselves by means of an image. We human beings are all imprisoned by nature in a ghastly prison; Christ has broken down the gates of this prison; we do not know, see or feel it, but they have been broken down. And even if we saw it, we would not have the heart to go out, because we would have to fear that we would be seized on the spot and thrown back in again. But the Gospel is the blessed message of God to us: Go out, you are redeemed, you are pardoned, you are free! The Gospel is not a proclamation that we are to be redeemed and pardoned first, but that we are already redeemed and pardoned, and the absolution in the Gospel is nothing else but a repetition of the actual absolution that has already happened through the raising of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Here again it was asked: If the world is absolved by the resurrection of Christ, is it absolved again by the gospel? If one must say that the world is already absolved, [page 43] must one not also claim that the preaching of the gospel is only an announcement of absolution? To this was answered: It is not said, We shall be redeemed and reconciled once more; but what is once done is done for us. When the apostle says, "If one died for all, they all died," it is like this: If One is raised to life, they are all raised to life. As certainly as Christ died, and died for all men, so certainly does God look upon all men as having died for their sins. Christ's death, as death for all men, put away sin. If, on the other hand, Christ was also raised from the dead in the place of all men, then in Christ all men are declared righteous; for Christ, as the righteous one, did not need to be justified in his own person by being raised from the dead, but this was done for our sake, in whose place he died and rose again, and so in Christ all are justified. Reconciliation and justification have already taken place in God's judgment, but we do not have them yet. God has now chosen the Word to give it to us. We are not to earn it by our own works, but by faith. But if faith is to do this, the Word is necessary, because without the Word no faith is possible. The Word and, of course, the sacraments are therefore the means by which the treasure is communicated to us. If by a mere announcement of forgiveness this is understood, that one merely tells about it, then to the question whether the preaching of the Gospel is only an announcement of the absolutions, the answer must be no; but it is such an announcement, which at the same time gives what it announces. An example can make this clear. If a rich man had intended a great gift for someone, and someone told me about it, it would be of no use to me; but if I were in prison as a man condemned to death, and the king who had pardoned me sent his servant to me with the announcement of the pardon, I would really be pardoned. God has also pardoned us in Christ and has announced the pardon to me in the Gospel. Every creature has the right to say to me: You are redeemed and reconciled to God, your sin is forgiven you: therefore also Christ says: "Preach the gospel to every creature". The Lord could not have spoken more powerfully. Wherever creation reaches, this blessed message is to be proclaimed: man is redeemed and reconciled to God; whoever believes has what the message says, namely forgiveness of sins, life and blessedness. For further explanation also served this example: When the court has acquitted a prisoner, he is free in the courtroom, but as long as he does not know it, he is and remains a prisoner. When the court sends a messenger to him with the message: you are free, this message is not a mere story and empty proclamation, but a real communication of freedom. So also the gospel is not an empty proclamation of the redemption and forgiveness obtained through Christ, but such a proclamation, which really communicates and confers forgiveness. To the remark which follows here, that the forgiveness which takes place on God's side is communicated through the gospel, and thus, as [page 44] some old agendas say, the conscience is made "quiet," was added as an explanation: Think of God as a rich man, who issues an order on me for a million. If God has signed, the sum is my property; for the order is in my name. But the money order must be brought to me so that I know it and can be sure and happy about the gift. God has now signed by the resurrection of his Son; only I do not yet have the instruction. Therefore, the Lord Christ has appointed the preaching ministry, that is, made the order for the gospel to be preached, through which message the million gold florins will be brought to me. The Word of the gospel is an announcement of what God has long since done, therefore it brings the treasure of forgiveness; the issuer of the instruction has made the man rich, although he does not yet know it, through the proclamation he learns it, but the wealth is also given to him. Because the Church also uses the formula of absolution: "I proclaim forgiveness to you," many think that absolution is an empty proclamation. The formula: "I proclaim forgiveness to you," is quite correct, good and delicious, but since it could easily be understood in the sense of reformed false doctrine, we do not need it alone. Because the announcement is really forgiveness, therefore we say, "I forgive you your sins." The Word of Christ, Go ye into all the world, etc., is the same as that, Whose sins ye remit, etc.; in the latter Word it is only indicated what meaning, power, and effect the gospel has; not a new office besides and apart from the office of the gospel is thereby established, but only taught that the office of the gospel is nothing else than the office of the forgiveness of sins. One objection to the above arguments was expressed as follows: If I believe in Christ, I have forgiveness of sins, and therefore absolution can bring me nothing at all that I do not already have. Through Word and baptism forgiveness has been assigned to me, so I have it constantly and unchanged; therefore absolution can only be a reminder of what I already have. If I forget that, absolution tells me: Consider what you have. When Peter was walking on the sea, everything went well as long as he remembered Christ's Word: "Come here"; but when he forgot this word at the sight of the tempest and began to sink, Christ stretched out his hand to him so that he would not sink. The hand that pulled out Peter is the absolution that comforts us when the sun of grace of forgiveness, once granted, is covered with clouds of temptation. Absolution, then, is only the consolation against temptation, doubt and discouragement. On the other hand, it was recalled that the speaker undoubtedly understood absolution in the narrower sense; but we generally speak of the Gospel as absolution. It was further countered: What has just been said, if one takes the words as they are, is based on an erroneous conception. We do not put the grace we receive into our pockets as one puts a piece of bread into his pocket, so that one could say: What I have already put in cannot be given [page 45] to me again; no, the goods of grace are of quite a different character, being continually given and received. So long as we walk in faith, there is always a giving and receiving of them. Faith is nothing other than a taking; it follows that the goods of grace are always given, God gives them to faith again and again. It is true that in baptism I received forgiveness of sins, life and salvation, therefore I have them; but if God did not keep on giving, we would have nothing; my absolution consists in my giving, i.e. God gives through me. I cannot say: I have, therefore I can only be reminded of what I have; no, I must be given continually. But God gives to me by having his Word held out to me; faith takes hold of the Word and therefore receives what the Word contains. If I say, What I have, I have by faith in the Word, it does not follow that absolution can be nothing but a mere remembrance, but only this: Absolution gives me nothing more than what I already have. The Word always gives, faith always takes. The solution of the thought is: Faith is a continual taking of the treasures in the Word; therefore the Word must always be preached, and it cannot be preached enough to the people, they cannot be absolved enough, they cannot receive Holy Communion enough. We live here in faith, which must always take; in the vision of the future it will be different. What is written in Luke 7 about the great sinner also serves to understand this; the Lord Christ not only testifies and reminds us: "Many sins are forgiven her," but also gives her special absolution once again. When asked why, since the world was absolved 1800 years ago, one did not say that the sins of the world were forgiven, the answer was: If one were to say flatly and without explanation, "The sins of the world are forgiven," it would be misleading; many would understand it to mean that all people were converted, believed and went to heaven. However, if one says: On the part of God, the sins of the world are forgiven, then it is rightly spoken. But what does it help me if God says to me: I am your friend, and I think he is my enemy? God may be reconciled to us, but we are not reconciled to him, which is why the apostle says: "Be reconciled to God". God must give us the hand of reconciliation if we are to be reconciled with him; he has given it, he is reconciled with the world, but we only do not believe him and are therefore afraid of him; therefore he says through the gospel: You need not be afraid, I am reconciled to you, only believe, and all your sins will be forgiven. It is usually thought that the Word alone is a means of bringing about such a change in the heart that faith comes to life, and this faith is considered to be such a glorious work for the sake of which God pardons the sinner, but does not consider that faith in itself is an empty hand that can only be filled. One synod member remarked that the Gospel and absolution from sins were one and the same thing, that was clear to him; but if one preached only one [page 46] part of the Gospel, for example, the part about the resurrection of the dead, then one could not say that this was absolution. — To this one replied: "It makes no difference whether a part or the whole of the gospel is preached, it is always absolution. If one preaches thus in general about the resurrection of the dead, one is not preaching a gospel, for such preaching causes terror and horror among the ungodly; but if one preaches that believers will rise again, and indeed rise again to eternal life, this is a most glorious and comforting gospel. To justify the fact that even in the smallest part of the gospel there is absolution, the example was given of a man who was in trouble, who was suddenly snatched out of all fear and distress and mightily comforted by the saying: "God helps both man and beast. Finally, the following was said about the first sentence: It must not be confused what Christ has done and what has been done to Christ. His suffering, death and resurrection was not absolution, but his raising from the dead was. Our preaching and absolution is nothing different in terms of moral effect than what God did in Christ; the only difference is that God absolved the whole world by raising His Son, but we absolve only individuals, e.g. preachers absolve only their congregations. Christ was our substitute; he was punished, condemned and cursed for us, in him we. He was finally thrown into the debtor's prison of death in our place, but on the third day God let him out again and made him glorious. So little was Christ punished on the cross for his own person, so little was he himself a sinner; but we were punished in Him, in Him also we are justified. Through Christ's resurrection, God justified the whole world. If we all knew this, it would be enough; but since we do not know it, the treasure would remain unused if we did not learn it. Therefore God says, "What I have done shall be proclaimed. As certainly as the resurrection of Christ is a true absolution, so certainly is my absolution no mere narrative, but a real communication of forgiveness. Absolution is an act of God, which is valid until the end of the world. Our absolution is nothing other than a repetition of God's act in the resurrection of Christ. The Reformed, on the other hand, regard the Gospel as nothing more than a narrative of salvation, which has the moral power to put a man into a different frame of mind and, through the different frame of mind, into such a state in which he pleases God. For our salvation two things had to happen, 1) the forgiveness of sin had to be acquired, which Christ did; 2) in consequence of the perfection and validity of Christ's merit, the triune God had to forgive, which God has done and continues to do until the last day, but no longer in the same way as at the one-time raising of his Son, but through the preaching of the gospel.

Second sentence: Private absolution is therefore not a power to forgive sins [page 47] existing apart from or apart from the gospel, but it is nothing other than the preaching of the gospel to the individual sinner.

Since this second sentence follows inevitably from the first one, and was also discussed during the discussion of the latter, it was accepted without further discussion.

Third sentence: The administrators and dispensers of absolution in public office are the preachers of the Gospel; but otherwise all Christians, because the whole Church is the original holder of the keys; but He who forgives sin through their ministry is the Triune God.

The first thing to be said about this sentence is that all denominations believe that God forgives sins; that He forgives sins through men is believed by none but the Lutherans, except the Romans, who believe quite wrongly; many Lutherans believe that God forgives sins through the preachers, but not through the common Christians. We should all be quite clear about the fact that there is no absolution of sins on earth without the help of men. — Furthermore, we have been reminded that experience teaches that even those among the so-called Lutherans who still hold the doctrine that preachers can forgive sins, and that God forgives sin at all through men, and only through men, often do not believe it. Many seek forgiveness in the fact that something happens in a person's heart, on the basis of which the person finally hears the voice of the Holy Spirit in his heart: your sins are forgiven, you are a child of God! Such experiences are not the way to forgiveness of sins, but on the way to forgiveness one has such experiences. Where does it come from that a person has forgiveness of sins and is certain of it? — By building on such processes, experiences and feelings, one builds on a slippery foundation, even if they are worked by the Holy Spirit, because one can have them today and perhaps not tomorrow. Whoever builds the certainty of forgiveness on such inner processes, and comes into mortal distress, where he may no longer feel anything of it, goes away with misery. Therefore, we should know that forgiveness is always there, that Christ has acquired it and entrusted it as a treasure to his church, and that he does not want to distribute it in any other way than through the means of grace. If I now believe that it is also there for me, because I know that I have been baptized, I believe the promises of the Gospel, I have gone to Holy Communion and take comfort in the precious promise: this is my body, given for you, this is my blood, poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins, — if I stand thus, then I stand right. Everything else, on which one builds, is a foundation beside the right foundation, if one still has it at all; but how many may have left the right foundation! It remains eternally true that the forgiveness of sin is acquired through Christ alone, is distributed through the gospel alone, and is grasped through faith alone. What I feel in my heart through the action of the Holy Spirit are the fruits of forgiveness; even if I do not find them in myself, but believe the gospel, I still have forgiveness of sins. The question: If I pray the Lord's Prayer and believe, do I also have forgiveness of sins through people? — was answered to this effect: Yes, certainly! Because all the Word of God, also the Lord's Prayer, is imparted to us through men. If the apostles had not received the command to preach, we would not have the Word of God. The contrast to "only through men" is only this, that I do not want to be sure of forgiveness through secret voices and extraordinary inner feelings. God does not accept this, but says: "Open the Bible, read, listen to the gospel and believe, — this is the way; if you go the way and believe the Word, you will also, as soon as it pleases me, feel the testimony of the spirit; for this is a fruit that follows faith and forgiveness. The reason why many take offense at the doctrine that sins are forgiven through men is because they think that we believe that the preacher has received a special quality through ordination, so that when he only speaks the words, he communicates forgiveness through a secret power and, as it were, spirits away sin. But this opinion is based on gross misunderstanding; for this is not the doctrine of our church; it teaches rather thus: forgiveness is there and to be called out in all the world; the Word of grace, given to the church, is God's own Word; where it resounds, there resounds God's voice; as certainly as it is written in the Bible: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," and: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," so surely does God speak to us when he has these promises proclaimed to us; not in the character of the preacher, but in the Word lies the power to forgive sin, not because the preacher says so, but because it is God's Word, even if a boy said so, I have forgiveness of sins. In such teaching there is no trace of a miserable preacher's pride. — Many say: Yes, the Lutheran Church is beautiful, that cannot be denied; however, its doctrine of absolution is an appendage from the papacy. But God forbid! the Lutheran Church curses the papist heresy of absolution; her [the Lutheran Church’s] absolution is the sweet gospel, without which a true assurance of grace and forgiveness of sin is not possible. — When we say that we receive forgiveness only through men, we mean the same thing that Luther means when he so often says that we receive it through the bodily and oral word. It is therefore a matter of the bodily and oral word by which I want to obtain forgiveness of sins; if this is so, it does not matter whether I read it, or remember it in my thoughts, or hear it from the preacher, or even from a child, — it always proclaims and brings me forgiveness. — We also base our doctrine, among other things, on the precious word of the last Sunday Gospel (Dom. XIX p Trin.), "Who hath given such power [page 49] unto men." [Matt. 9:8] Why is this mentioned by the evangelist in particular, that the people praised God who had given such power to men? He wants to indicate that the Holy Spirit had worked in that people, who did not yet recognize Christ as the true God, this glorious knowledge that such power, namely to forgive sin, is given to men. As Christ forgave sins there, even after his humanity, so our sins are now forgiven by men. With regard to the common objection of many: "How can you presume to forgive my sin? You cannot know whether I am in God's grace! It was remarked that this objection comes from the fact that people believe that something must have happened in them first, on the basis of which they may take comfort in the forgiveness of sins, whereas experiences are first brought about by the forgiveness. According to the Scriptures, forgiveness belongs to all and should be granted to all, but not to sows and dogs, i.e. to those who, by their obvious godlessness and impenitence, show that they despise the treasure offered, just as sows trample on precious pearls and dogs attack one when something is offered to them. For the sake of some, to whom this language about this doctrine might still be somewhat foreign, it was added: When we say that forgiveness takes place through the word spoken by men, many think that we are enemies of inner experiences and base the whole of Christianity on the outward ceremonies of worship. To be sure, we teach: God wants to give forgiveness to all men, and has already done so by raising his Son from the dead; but we also teach at the same time: Whoever is to hear the gospel rightly must first have the law preached to him in all its severity and with all its terrors and horrors. Whoever is not crushed and shattered by the law will not be helped by absolution, and to give it to him would be to want to pour water into a vessel that is full. When we say that absolution is for every sinner, we do not mean that the heart, which is by nature rock-hard and demantharic, must not be crushed and shattered if absolution is to bear fruit; but we do say this: If the heart is crushed and shattered by the hammer of the law, there is nothing to proclaim to the sinner but: You poor sinner, come to the cross, Christ has atoned for your sins and blotted them out, believe it, they are all forgiven you; but not to call out to him: Pray, struggle and fight until you feel that you have forgiveness of sin, joy and peace. Only such broken hearts benefit from absolution, not because it does not belong to others, but because it is impossible to have faith without the previous effect of the law. — It was also pointed out that this sentence is of extraordinary importance, because it characterizes our dear Lutheran Church. The sects do not believe that the power to forgive sin is given to men; Romanizing parties limit this power to a privileged class of men; but our church alone teaches that God has given this power to the whole church, that every Christian may and should [page 50] proclaim the glorious gospel to others and cry out to them: You are reconciled, do not be afraid, only believe that your sins are forgiven! If we are rightly united in this, then our church will also remain in our part what it is, — the comforter of all the afflicted. Against the frequently made objection: The preacher himself is a sinful man, how will he forgive others sins? it was emphasized: 1), Christ has commanded that preachers and all Christians should preach the gospel, thus absolve, and 2), God's Word, which is the absolution spoken by men, remains God's Word even on sinful lips. One question was finally raised and answered, namely this: why Luther does not limit the absolution of Christians in general, like baptism, to the case of emergency, and why he again speaks in individual passages only of the case of emergency? The solution was the following: The two sacraments by their very nature have a public character; it is therefore in their nature that their administration is always public, whereas absolution is the Gospel, which all Christians as spiritual priests are called to proclaim at all times. The difference therefore lies in the nature of both. But when Luther restricts absolution here and there to emergencies, he is undoubtedly speaking of such an absolution, which has a certain public character.

Fourth sentence: Absolution does not consist in a judicial judgment of the confessor, not in an empty proclamation or wish for the forgiveness of sins, but in a strong communication of the same.

The explanation was given: That the Lutheran Church so often says that absolution is not a judicial sentence is due to the fact that the papists claim this. In order to justify their doctrine that every sin is to be revealed in auricular confession, and that the power of absolution depends on the fact that one has confessed purely, i.e. has told the confessor all one's sins, the Romans defend themselves by saying that every judge who wants to pass judgment must know the misdeed of the accused, and not only the factum (the deed), but also the circumstances that make the sin either greater or lesser. As little as a judge can pass a right judgment if he does not interrogate witnesses and does not determine the facts of the case exactly, so little can the priest pass a judgment in confession if all sins are not confessed to him with all circumstances. Lutherans, on the other hand, do not consider absolution to be a judgment of the confessor on the state of the soul, but because the same belongs to all men and the sinner is converted righteously only by accepting the gospel with true faith of heart, this comforting gospel is proclaimed to the poor sinner who repentantly confesses his sin, and he is thereby absolved, and thus absolution is God's execution of grace on the poor sinner. [Page 51] The rest of the sentence has already been discussed above.

Fifth sentence: The effect of absolution is not based on man's repentance, confession and satisfaction, but absolution demands faith, works and strengthens it, without faith it is of no use to man, although it is therefore not a false key.

About the first part of this sentence: "The effect of absolution is not based on man's repentance, confession and satisfaction," it was said: That is taught: No one can experience the consolation of absolution except he who is in right repentance, this is often misunderstood as if repentance were a meritorious condition of the power and fruit of absolution. Of course, true faith cannot take root in any heart that is still carnally secure and without repentance, but comfort cannot be based on the fact that one is repentant. Therefore, it is dangerous to preach in such a way that, instead of working repentance through one's preaching, one always only demands repentance; in this way, people get such ideas as if repentance were a meritorious condition of forgiveness. The second part of the sentence: "Absolution demands faith, works and strengthens it," was explained as follows: As self-evident as this seems to be, it is of such importance. Very many awakened people are offended by the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace, because they think that we believe that man can enter heaven by mere external means; for we say that baptism brings salvation, that absolution brings salvation, that Holy Communion brings salvation, thus making the use of these external means an opus operatum (i.e. we teach that the mere external use of the means of grace is meritorious for the attainment of salvation). But such people should consider that the accusation of opus operatum only affects the papists, who say: If only we do not put a stop to it, the use of baptism, absolution and communion will bring us salvation. We, on the other hand, say: It is not enough by far not to put up a bar (if we would be able to do that at all, not to put up a bar), but there must be much more, namely faith, if we want to use the means of grace salutary and be saved. But what more than faith should be necessary? Are not all the powers of living Christianity contained in faith? Of course, baptism and absolution and the Lord's Supper make us blessed, but only if we believe. Thus every objection is removed, as if we made the use of the means of grace an opus operatum. — When it is said that absolution demands, works, and strengthens faith, first of all by demanding is not to be understood a legal demanding, but the demanding of the gospel; it means so much: faith is necessary to enjoy the fruit of absolution. As for the whole sentence, it is nicely explained by the example of a rich man offering a gift to a poor man. By the offering the poor man is induced to stretch forth his hand, and by stretching it forth he at the same time receives the gift. [Page 52]

---

The third part of the thesis: "Without faith, absolution is of no use to man," was recognized as clear to all, and therefore the fourth part was immediately added: "Although it is therefore not a false key. The Synod thus pronounced itself on this: Although this last sentence has been explained many times in the paper, it is so important that we must not pass over it so quickly. The difference between the means of presentation (the Gospel) and the means of acceptance (faith) must be properly noted. The means of presentation is never lacking and can never be lacking. If we preachers all believed that we do not have a clavis errans (false key), we would be much more cheerful and confident in presenting to the people the exuberant comfort of the gospel in all its fullness. Although we do not believe in the principle of a false key, in practice we have many doubts as to whether we may offer the treasure of the gospel in all its fullness, which shows that we, having grown up under the influences of this time, still carry something of the faith of the false key in our hearts. One of the synod members confirmed this by his own example; he said that he had otherwise thought that if a man did not believe, absolution would pass over his head, as it were; but one must take Luther's word to heart: the sun that shines on a thief and robber and an honest man remains the same sun, and the gold in the hand of a wicked man remains the same gold. Here also belongs the word in the parable of the sower: "After that the devil comes and takes the word from their hearts". The same is true of the sacraments. The treasure is always given, but without faith it is not received. This is also a great comfort for the pastor, that he does not have to torture and worry about it, as Caspar Schade once did, that he does not give absolution to anyone unworthy; for if the preacher is sure that his absolution is not a false key, then the doubt falls away. — Thereupon it was further said: What is said about the false key is not only important for the preachers, but especially for the listeners. Why else do righteous Christians not come to confession with right desire and longing? Why do people have such great aversion to private confession? The main reason is that they think: If you know you are a Christian, you have forgiveness of sins, you may go; if, on the other hand, you do not know, you may not go, otherwise you could take absolution for judgment, indeed you would not receive absolution at all, but curse and damnation. If they knew and believed that every time the preacher says, "Your sins are forgiven," it is really so, that God really says yes and amen to it, that the Word really absolves from sins, that the key really closes, they would have much more desire for the great treasure. But they often think, "The key fits, but I would have to be a better door if it were not missing; but this is wrong, the key is never missing. As surely as God lives in heaven, I am absolved when the preacher absolves me; therefore, if I do not receive forgiveness, I should not say, "The key was missing," but, "I missed: I have failed. [I must not let the penitent knowledge that I am an evil-doer before God keep me from using the release key; for this key seeks out all the evil-doers who are bound, and it releases them. The preachers have the command from God to forgive the sins of the world, I belong to the world, so the sins should also be forgiven to me, so I should conclude, if I recognize myself as an evil-doer before God. God demands from me the acceptance of forgiveness, i.e. faith, and because without repentance no faith is possible, repentance, but I should not agonize over the degree of repentance. If I have so much repentance that I would like to have forgiveness, that is enough. God does not say repentance, but faith has forgiveness. I should not ask whether I have a certain degree of repentance, but whether I have faith, and if I find that I still lack faith, I should begin to believe. Do not torture yourself with the question whether you once had a time when you had extraordinary experiences in your soul; for you can have had wonderful experiences 30 years ago, or even have had them for many years, and now feel nothing of them. This is also important, for example, when comforting a sick person; I should not ask him: Have you ever experienced this and that? and if he says yes, call out to him: Now see, because you have experienced these things, be of good cheer and believe that you are a child of God; but I should ask him: Would you like to have the Lord Jesus and his grace? and if he says yes, proclaim to him the full comfort of the gospel. Two questions concerning this fourth piece of the present sentence were now still thrown into the Synod and answered. 1) We say: Absolution is never a false key, but offers forgiveness as often as it is spoken, and we all firmly believe this; but should it not be necessary to put a stop to this by an explicit declaration of the synod, so that this truth is not abused in the church?

Answer: It is still the case that it is much more necessary for us to recognize the truth thoroughly, so that we can preach it cheerfully and learn to present the great treasure of the gospel in all its fullness, than to be afraid of misuse, and we certainly need to be warned that we should put a stop to it where God has not put one. It is true that we must be warned against abuse, but we must be careful that when we have poured out the consolation of the gospel, we do not conceal it again by saying, "Yes, my dear, but now you must be of such and such a nature if you dare to accept the consolation. We must remember that we have no right to make conditions, and that the preacher who gives a conditional absolution, conditional on God's part, is cursed. — If we say that absolution is to be given to every man and is always valid, someone might well get the idea that no church discipline is necessary and that everyone who comes must always be admitted to absolution and the Lord's Supper; but this is by no means said. Although the whole world is to be absolved according to God's command, absolution [page 54] is not to be granted to those who tell us that they do not want to be absolved. But this is said to us by those who live unrepentantly in manifest sins or in public heresy. These are not absolved by us because otherwise we would misuse the name of God, which is forbidden to us in the second commandment. Even if such say that they want to be absolved, this is not true, for they do not want to be absolved from all sins, since they want to persist in individual willful sins or heresies.

Question 2: If the release key is always infallible, then the binding key must be just as infallible; but what about the false ban in which the binding key is misused? and in which case must the ban be regarded as a misuse of the power of the key?

Answer? The solution to this question is given so clearly in the Small Catechism that it cannot be given more clearly. The binding key is to be used for public and unrepentant sinners. The same is and always remains the binding key, wherever it is used; but if sin is kept from those to whom it may not be kept according to God's Word, this is an abuse of the binding key and a false ban. Regarding the ban, Matthew 18 gives us an unmistakable rule from Christ Himself, according to which we must proceed. It is not necessary to look into the heart, for there we judge and pass judgment on what is openly revealed, namely, public sin and impenitence, the latter being revealed precisely by the fact that the public sinner will not hear the congregation at the third stage of admonition. Here it must not be forgotten that the one worthy of the ban is always convicted in conscience that he is rightly excluded and considered a pagan and a tax collector.

Sixth sentence: Private absolution does not impart a substantially different or better forgiveness than in the preaching of the gospel, nor is it necessary for the attainment of forgiveness in the way that without it there would be no forgiveness; nevertheless, it has its special value and benefit, because through it the individual is made more certain that the forgiveness of sins also belongs to him.

The first point of this sentence, that in private absolution no essentially different and better forgiveness is imparted than in the preaching of the gospel, has already been explained in the first sentence; for if the gospel is essentially nothing other than absolution, then private absolution also imparts nothing essentially different than the preaching of the gospel. The relation of private absolution to general absolution through preaching is like a rich man throwing a mass of gold pieces among a crowd with the intention that each one should receive a gold piece; he who [page 55] takes it has it. But with private absolution it is like when the rich man's servant presses the gold piece into the hand of a timid person who does not dare to reach out. As here the individual has no better gold piece than the others, so also through the private absolution nothing different and better is given than through the sermon. It is a false distinction that is often made, that in the sermon the treasure of the forgiveness of sins is only proclaimed, or even offered, but in the private absolution it is shared. When Dr. Luther speaks of greater certainty of forgiveness in private absolution, he means nothing more than this: It is more difficult for the believer to acquire comfort in the general sermon than in private absolution. To the objection whether private absolution does not give a special consolation that the preaching of the gospel does not, he replied: How can anything give special consolation, since the Gospel is the fullness of all consolation? The sacraments are nothing else than a visible Word, their content is therefore completely the same as that of the Word. That God has ordained, in addition to the Word, the sacraments in which He deals with the individual, He has taken into account the condition of the believers; for because in the weakness of this life it becomes more difficult for the believer to appropriate consolation if it is proclaimed only in general to the multitude, therefore God, as Luther says, is not so meager, but has ordained that consolation be presented to the believer in all kinds of ways. In this we see God's wonderful condescension to the weakness of His believers; because He knows how difficult it is for them to grasp comfort in the general preaching, He has given private absolution, baptism and the Lord's Supper for the individuals, so that everyone knows that here I am the person with whom God speaks and acts. The question posed here, whether Christ had instituted private confession in the words: "Whose sins ye remit," etc., was definitely answered in the negative, as was also noted that in the passage, James 5:16: "Confess ye your sins one to another," from which the papists want to prove the divine institution of their auricular confession, there is only talk of the confession of mutual offenses and sins among Christians; but it was testified that in the words of Christ, John 20:23, private absolution was instituted. The latter was proved as follows: The Lord commanded that His people should be comforted with a certain consolation, that all should be saved, that the gospel should be preached to every creature; is the preaching of the gospel hereby commanded for all, as rather for the individual! Though the words, "Whose sins ye remit," etc., are nothing but a further explanation of Christ's command, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," and thus only a division of the treasures of the gospel, presented by preaching, yet it cannot be denied that the Lord specially commanded private absolution in them. This, indeed, is already in the general command, "Preach the gospel to every creature," but because we might easily think that it does not lie therein, the Lord has specially spoken it in the other word, as the more detailed [page 56] provision of that command. To the now repeated question, whether there is not a special comfort in the private absolution because of its special institution, the answer was: "Certainly one can say that there is a special comfort in it, if one does not mean that there is a special good in it; but the special comfort is that I know that here I receive forgiveness for my person. So private absolution is indeed a special institution of God, but it is not the case that in this special institution a special good is given to us, which would not lie in the general preaching of the gospel. It is best to say: "Private absolution can serve to make me more certain of the comfort of forgiveness; it is not a greater assurance than the publicly preached Word, but it can make me more certain, because it says: You, you are the man, you, your sins are forgiven; it therefore helps me something that the public preaching does not help me. To make this quite clear, the following simile served: A whole city has rebelled against its king, and all the inhabitants have been threatened that they are to be whipped, and that from the bottom up; but the king is merciful and lets pardon be proclaimed to the whole rebellious citizenry. Now there are some chief ringleaders (as true Christians always consider themselves chief ringleaders and the noblest of sinners with the apostle), who tremblingly and tremulously think: Who knows whether you are included in the pardon! Yes, if you had the pardon in your hands, each for his own person! If the king sent his messengers and said to each one: You, Hans, Peter, or whatever your name may be, are pardoned, that would undoubtedly make them quite sure of mercy and their hearts happy. In regard to the above debates, it was objected: If there is an essential difference between private absolution and the preaching of the Gospel, and if the one offers no other but quite the same good as the other, then one does not understand why private absolution is emphasized and praised so much; he would have to have no mind at all that could not accept and be comforted by public preaching just as well as by private absolution. — Against this was replied: Then one cannot understand why the Lord Christ instituted baptism and Holy Communion in addition to preaching; for there is no essential difference between these and preaching. Then we must also wonder that Christ, after His resurrection, says: "Tell it to His disciples and to Peter"; then we must also say: Peter had no sense, that he could not appropriate the consolation, since it was brought to the apostles in general, to which he belonged; but Peter thought: You are no longer an apostle, therefore the Lord let him bring consolation in particular. Our ancients say: "It is not this that causes the Christian concern, whether the world is redeemed, but whether he himself is redeemed, i.e. whether the general redemption also concerns him personally. We should fall on our knees and thank God that he has opened such a source of consolation for us; on our [page 57] knees we should slide to where we can find the consolation of private absolution. This is in no way meant to make people conscience-stricken, to urge and drive them to private confession, but it is only meant to be an encouragement for us preachers to offer them freshly and cheerfully the blessing that the gospel offers in all its fullness. By the way, we are not talking here about the ecclesiastical institute of private confession, for the Savior did not establish that confession must always precede the Lord's Supper, but we are now talking about private absolution itself, which we are to recognize in its glory. This would be wrong and wrong-headed if we wanted to try to force private confession on people; that would be putting the horses behind the cart. No, we want to start quite differently; we want to present the great glory of private absolution to them quite freshly and cheerfully, and then they will finally urge us to give them private absolution. Objection: However, it seems to follow from what has been said, and is also said here and there, that those who do not use private confession are reprehensible and are to be regarded as worse Christians than those who do use it. — Answer: Every time we have spoken of private confession, we have expressly cautioned against such nonsense. The more earnestly we pursue sanctification, the more we shall realize how difficult it is to grasp the consolation of forgiveness; then we shall gradually realize what a great blessedness it is that the promises of the gospel are not only proclaimed in general, but are also made available to us in particular through appointed ministers in private absolution: but it is a cursed and shameful abomination if one tries to force private confession on the congregations in such a way. If the doctrine, which is the subject of the lecture, will come to clarity, then what we desire will come of itself; therefore we should only practice the doctrine correctly. Many hypocrites go to private confession, and many righteous Christians go to general confession. That private confession is regarded so little is due to the lack of a proper understanding of this doctrine, that preachers have the power to forgive sins and that their word, because it is God's Word, is valid; this has not yet been properly grasped by the heart and has not yet come alive in the heart; people think: Well, I hear it every Sunday, believe it and experience the power of the Word in my heart; we do not firmly believe that we have forgiveness of sins only through the Word, not because of our heart condition, it is in all of us that we base our gloom on our heart condition, while it is only in the Word. Can there be anything more comforting than that God comes so close to us poor sinners in private absolution? That the congregations are still filled with so much reluctance to hear private confessions is also due to the fact that we preachers do not yet know how to preach the Gospel as we should. Certainly, the sweeter and more sweetly we understood to hold the gospel up to the people as a power of God, the more faith would be awakened; the more faith would be awakened, the more temptation would go; and the more temptation, the more desire for comfort [Page 58] would arise, and the more people would come to get comfort in private absolution. Our congregations, however, should not think that the time has now come when we want to cast the net over them because we so freshly and cheerfully advertise private absolution to them; no, but that we want to speak and preach about it so freshly and cheerfully should be done, partly because it belongs to the proclamation of the whole counsel of God, and partly so that when we are once dead, and our congregations finally come to the realization of the great treasure of private absolution, they will not be able to say: Our pastors have been afraid to offer us this treasure in this free republic. To the question: Is the private absolution a means of grace of the same rank as the sacraments? the Synod answered: Yes, but it is not coordinated to the Gospel, but subordinated, i.e. it is not something beside and apart from the Gospel, but it flows from it. The Smalcald Articles speak of five ways of "counsel and help against sin," 1. through preaching, 2. through baptism, 3. through the holy sacrament of the altar, 4. through the power of the keys, and 5. per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum (through mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren), and summarize these pieces under the heading: “From the Gospel.” The first point of the thesis was now unanimously agreed upon, and the second point was made, that private absolution is not necessary for the attainment of the forgiveness of sins in such a way, as if without it no forgiveness takes place. The sentence is a proof that the greatest caution should be exercised when explaining to people the difference between private absolution and general absolution. It should not be presented to them as if the same treasure is not given in the general absolution that is given in the private absolution. It is true that general confession does not have the advantages that private confession has, but one must not present the matter as if the same forgiveness is not obtained in general confession that is obtained in private confession. Even in general confession, as we use it before Holy Communion, there is in a certain sense a personal confession and a personal appropriation; for there is a certain number of Christians before one who confess their sins, desire mercy, and receive absolution; it is therefore, in the matter of personal appropriation, something more than the general sermon, and one must be careful in the sermon not to touch God's sanctuary. Even to speak disparagingly of the general confession is dangerous; I must not disparage the one in order to exalt the other; rather, let both remain in their high, glorious value. The third point of the sixth sentence, dealing with the special value and benefit of private absolution, was accepted without further ado, because it had already been discussed in the first point, and thus the proceedings on the doctrine of absolution were concluded for this time.

---