Proceedings concerning the Doctrine of Absolution

The most important subject of this year's proceedings, of which the meeting was devoted to most of the time, was unquestionably a presentation on the intimate connection between the doctrine of absolution to that of justification. We can here first follow this presentation unabridged, and then attach the negotiations of the Synod on the same directly to it. Presentation Concerning the intimate relationship of the doctrine of Absolution with that of Justification. Although the doctrine of absolution has been dealt with repeatedly in our journals, conferences and synods, so that probably hardly any darkness hangs over it, yet the relationship of this doctrine to that of justification would both require and deserve a detailed discussion. The speaker has thought to resolve the task set before him not through a voluminous essay on this subject, wherein little room would be left for discussion, but by establishing a set of propositions, in order to provide for free discussion over substance and arrangement. He allows himself first to repeat Luther's teaching and that of the Lutheran Church on Absolution in brief, clear strokes, and second, to draw attention to the intimate relationship of this doctrine with that of Justification. I. 1. Absolution of sins is, according to Luther's teaching, the Gospel, whether it

is proclaimed to many or to the individual.

Luther's letter to the Council at Prague: "To bind and to loose dearly is
nothing else than to proclaim and to apply the gospel.... the keys are an exercise of the [office] of the Word and belong to all Christians."1

Second Gutachten to the Council at Nrnberg (1533): "Thus the Gospel itself
is a general absolution."

Remark: Luther even knows the general absolution, that tends to be spoken among us after the sermon, and he does not criticize and reject it; but typically he
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (28). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1

means by absolution the private absolution, which to him is none other than the Gospel spoken to an individual person who thereby receives comfort over his known sins. 2. Private absolution is therefore not an extra or an addition to the existing

power of the Gospel to forgive sins. Private absolution is nothing else than the preaching of the Gospel to the individual sinner.

Luther: Church Postil for Easter Tuesday: "The only difference between the
two is this: in the preaching of the Gospel the Word is publicly preached in a general way, to all who are present; and in absolution this same Word is spoken especially and privately to one or more who so desire it." 3. The steward and dispenser of absolution in the public office are the

preachers of the Gospel; but otherwise all Christians, because the entire Church is the original holder of the Keys; however He who forgives sins through their ministry is the Triune God.

Luther: Church Postil for Quasimodogeniti: "Therefore your minister or

pastor as the one who cares for your soul (Seelsorger), or any other Christian in such a case is called for and sent to comfort you. Therefore, although the power to forgive sins is God's alone, we should still also know that He exercises and distributes such power through this external ministry, to which Christ calls His apostles and commands them that they should proclaim the forgiveness of sins in His Name to all those who desire it."

ibid: "Whomever is challenged, let him go or allow him his cure of souls or
else a good friend, to ask to him his need and desire for comfort and consolation lament from him. And it is grounded on the fact that Christ speaks here: Whose sins you forgive, etc."

House Postil on the Day of SS Peter and Paul: "The Church, i.e., all
Christians have such power and command that allow let no sinner to despair in sin, but comfort him and in the name of Jesus should promise the forgiveness of sins."

Remark: In other places, Luther confined lay absolution to an emergency. Thus he says e.g., "You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency."2 "Every Christian has the command, not only that he can, but should, say to you when you are troubled by your sin: Why are you troubled?... you ought to trust these words just as surely as
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 39: Luther's works, vol. 39 : Church and Ministry I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (174). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
2

though God were speaking to you personally from heaven...."3 The apparent contradiction is solved in the following passage from the Church postil for Quasimodogeniti: "True we all have this power; but no one shall presume to exercise it publicly, except the one who has been elected by the congregation to do so. But in private I may freely exercise it. For instance, if my neighbor comes and says: Friend, I am burdened in my conscience; speak the absolution to me; then I am free to do so, but I say it must be done privately."4 4. Absolution does not consist of (a.) a judicial judgment of the confessor, (b.)

of an empty proclamation or wishing of the forgiveness of sins, but (c.) of a powerful announcement of the forgiveness of sins.

(a.): Apology VI (German): "For absolution is the hard command to absolve and is not a new judgment to explore sin. For God is the judge who has the apostles not the office of judge, but the grace of execution committed to absolve those who desire it." (b. and c.): Luther's House Postil for Trinity XIX: "When you go to your parish pastor...asking that he absolve you...and he says to you, In the stead of God, I declare to you the forgiveness of all your sins, etc." "Therefore thank God...that He has given such power to forgive sins to men."5 Remark: Here Luther indeed 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. Absolution (b.) calls for faith, it works and strengthens faith. Absolution (c.) is of no use to mankind without faith, (d.) even though it is not a faulty key.

(a.): Luther's House Postil for Quasimodogeniti: "The papacy has duped the people in proclaiming that anyone desiring forgiveness of sin should sit down and reflect on them, and by this inner reflection generate out of oneself his own contrition and sorrow.... Now it may be that this practice was taken from the example of the early Christians, which the papists failed to understand correctly. For the first Christians refused to pronounce absolution unless the confessee professed to be a sinner and made it quite clear that he was genuinely sorry. Now this is well and good, indeed necessary. But to say that contrition and sorrow merit forgiveness of sins is false and wrong. Contrition by itself has no merit; it is sin itself and sin's true domain and overpowering impact on the heart, arousing terror

House Postil for Trinity XIX, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 7, pages 79-80. Church Postil for First Sunday after Easter (Second Sermon), Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 1, Part 2, page 376. 5 Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 7, page 84.
3 4

within us that death is about to consume us. They (papists) have called it a meritorious work and have based the forgiveness of sins on it."6 (b.) ibid: "Faith alone can take hold of this word, and the heart is the only legitimate vessel which may enclose it. Let this, therefore, stand purely and for sure: We must be justified by faith alone....7 Contrition and sorrow do have to be there, otherwise you cannot hate sin with all your heart or ever truly desire to be forgiven. But the right way is that you come unto me, where my Word is, hear it, and accept in faith its declaration of pardon for your sins."8 House Postil for St. Mary Magdalene: "Absolution is a divine word, in it the sins of every one in particular are forgiven and absolved, as a result faith is strengthened and stirred." (c.) Luther: On the Sacrament of Penance: "But where there is no faith, it does not matter, even though Christ and God Himself were speaking the verdict; for God cannot give it to anyone who does not want to have it. But whoever does not want it does not believe that it was given to him, and does a great dishonor to the Word of God." (d.) Luther: On the Keys: "But if you speak as the factious spirits and sophists do: 'After all, many hear of the binding and loosing of the keys, yet it makes no impression on them and they remain unbound and without being loosed. Hence, there must exist something else beside the Word and the keys. It is the spirit, the spirit, yes, the spirit that does it!' Do you believe he is not bound who does not believe in the key which binds? Indeed, he shall learn, in due time, that his unbelief did not make the binding vain, nor did it fail in its purpose. Even he who does not believe that he is free and his sins forgiven shall also learn, in due time, how assuredly his sins were forgiven, even though he did not believe it. St. Paul says in Rom. 3: 'Their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God.' We are not talking here either about peoples belief or disbelief regarding the efficacy of the keys. We realize that few believe. We are speaking of what the keys accomplish and give. He who does not accept what the keys give receives, of course, nothing. But this is not the keys fault. Many do not believe the gospel, but this does not mean that the gospel is not true or effective. A king gives you a castle. If you do not accept it, then it is not the kings fault, nor is he guilty of a lie. But you have deceived yourself and the fault is yours. The king certainly gave it."9 Remark: False key, wavering key, clavis errans10 is the papist error that not every spoken absolution by the priest is also absolved before God in heaven. This error corresponds with another error, as one makes absolution dependent upon contrition and satisfaction and puts them in a judicial knowledge of the priest. As a result the entire absolution is wavering and precarious. Luther wants absolutely
Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 6, Page 67. ibid, Page 71. 8 ibid, Pages 69-70. 9 Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (366367). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 10 "errant key."
6 7

nothing to do with a clavis conditionalis11, which is not based in God's Word, but on our contrition, although he bears no concern about an absolutio conditionalis12 in his opinion to the council at Nrnburg. 6. Through private absolution, there is indeed no significantly different or

better forgiveness announced, such as in the preaching of the Gospel. Private absolution is also not required to obtain forgiveness in such a way as if it took place without any forgiveness. Nevertheless private absolution still has its special usefulness and benefits, because through it the individual is certain that the forgiveness of sins is also for him.

Luther: Second opinion to the Council at Nrnberg: "Although we maintain

private absolution for very Christian and comforting reasons, and that it should be preserved in the Church, nevertheless we cannot and will not complain so hard to the conscience, as if it should be no forgiveness of sins, not through private absolution alone." Luther: On Confession and the Sacrament: "For in Confession as in the Lord's Supper you have the additional advantage that the Word is applied to your person alone. For in preaching it flies out into the whole congregation, and although it strikes you also, yet you are not so sure of it; but here it does not apply to anyone except to you."13 7. Private confession is closely related with private absolution, which is

nothing more than that one desires absolution. Next to this it also has the benefit that it gives the father confessor the opportunity to question people, to exercise preaching and the catechism, to guard them against unworthy use of the Sacrament, to give all sorts of counsel in difficult cases of conscience, and finally it is an exercise in self-humiliation. In sum, it is an exercise of Law and Gospel.

Luther: Letter to Frankfurt: "For such confession does not go on only for their recounting of sins, but also one should listen to them concerning whether or not they understand the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and whatever else the Catechism gives them. For we have come to know quite well how little the common crowd and the youth learn from the sermon, unless they are individually questioned or examined."14

"conditional key". "conditional absolution through faith". 13 Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 1, Part 2, page 199. 14 Concordia Journal, Volume 16, Number 4, page 343.
11 12

Eighth Invocavit Sermon in Wittenberg: "For there are many doubtful

matters which a man cannot resolve or find the answer to by himself, and so he takes his brother aside and tells him his trouble."15 Instruction for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony: "No one should be allowed to go to communion who has not been individually examined by his pastor to see if he is prepared to go to the holy sacrament. For Paul says in First Corinthians 11 that they are guilty of profaning the body and blood of Christ who receive it unworthily. Not only do they who receive it unworthily dishonor the sacrament, but also those who carelessly give it to the unworthy. For the common people run by custom to the sacrament and do not know why they should use the sacrament...Whoever does not know this should not be admitted to the Sacrament."16 Letter on Confession to Sickingen: "But that we willingly and gladly confess, the holy cross should provoke us for now, that is disgrace and shame, that man willingly exposed himself before different men and accused and scorned himself. This is a delightful part of the holy cross. Oh, if we knew what punishment such willing shame occurred, and how a merciful God makes it that man so destroyed and humbled himself to honor Him, we would dig up confession from the earth and would go over one thousand miles." 8. Confession is not commanded by God, but nevertheless is highly useful.

Therefore it is not to be compelled as necessary, but where it is used, it is to be preserved. Where it has fallen into disuse, it is to be recovered through recommending and praising its benefits.

Luther's Church Postil for Trinity XIV: "The Papists may not prove from the New Testament that one should confess sins."
II. The doctrine of absolution and the doctrine of justification are in a specific interrelationship. This is evident A. from that fact that the doctrine of justification is the foundation on which the doctrine of absolution is based and the fountain from which it flows. Absolution would be nonsense without justification. B. from that fact that through the pure Lutheran doctrine of absolution, justification not only is explained, clarified, and glorified as a free, fully acquired gift of the grace of God which is received by faith alone, but also and primarily that the doctrine of justification is made quite comforting and enjoyable to the individual sinner by private absolution; because in absolution we gain from Him justification
Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 51: Luther's works, vol. 51 : Sermons I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (98). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 16 Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 40: Luther's works, vol. 40 : Church and Ministry II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (296). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
15

by grace, not as one standing far away, only after lengthy penitential struggles and preparations, but as a fully acquired gift, appropriated by the Gospel's Word, brought close to each individual. C. The close connection between the two doctrine is more clearly illuminated when we contemplate how the corruption of the doctrine of absolution and false doctrine of justification either presupposes or entails. This will be all the more evident to us, if we prove it by individual examples. 1. The papist doctrine of confession, as a satisfaction for sin, of the necessary listing of all sins, the papist doctrine of absolution, as a judicial act of the confessor, of the faulty key, must necessarily deprive the consolation of justification from poor sinners, indeed annihilates justification itself, and in turn the entire doctrine of the papists of absolution is the inevitable result of their false doctrine of justification, as one through merit de congruo and de condigno acquired grace. 2. The doctrine of the Reformed of a decretum absolutum (an unconditional decree) and a voluntas signi et beneplaciti (a revealed and a hidden will of God), similar to the faulty key, negates the consolation of absolution, so that no one could be certain that he was forgiven of his sins before God in heaven through the absolution of the father confessor; the bridge and the triumph, whereby the grace of justification will be our property; finally they teach a completely incorrect position on faith and turn it into something that is achieved by prayer and inner working, and allow it not to be what it is, the hand which receives the proffered grace. The Methodist rejection of absolution, as a genuine message of forgiveness of sins, is basically nothing more than a repetition of the Reformed heresy, in particular the confusion of justification and sanctification, forgiveness and its assurance in the heart, which is a basic feature of Methodism, must make absolution partially unnecessary, partially depriving their consolation. 3. The Pietists inside the Lutheran Church have indeed made no particular doctrine of absolution; solely by its unevangelical emphasis on the first part of repentance, by its frightening classifying of mental states, through its warning about improper appropriation of the forgiveness of sins with the office of comfort in standing disparity, also through the way that it usually talks about faith, when it puts the doctrine of justification and by faith not slightly in the dark, puts the heart more and more on the part of its renewing power, on the part of taking and receiving, and therefore must obscure this unevangelical treating of the doctrine of justification and by faith even absolution, diminish and deprive it of its consoling power. 4. The doctrine of the romanizing Lutherans on absolution as an exclusive privilege of the Office of ordained pastors, whereby lay absolution retains little or no room and is explained only as a comforting consolation with no real message of forgiveness, is grossly contrary to the doctrine of the direct power of the Word and of the Sacraments. It withers, so much as it can, the abundance of comfort for the sinner, which in Luther's doctrine of absolution, as one from the entire Church and each individual are given power to forgive sins.

After the reading of the entire preceding presentation, each individual thesis was once again heard in context and thoroughly discussed together with evidence from Luther's writings and the Symbols. In fact, the synod dealt with the first part of the presentation, namely, the first six theses, in this way. Concerning the 7th and 8 theses, it was thus explained that they do not belong in this presentation (which is why they were also not discussed), however, it was decided that they should be published in the convention proceedings. Unfortunately, no time was left to discuss the second part. First Thesis: Absolution of sins is, according to Luther's teaching, the Gospel, whether it is proclaimed to many or to the individual.
After it had been observed how very important this thesis is and how desirable it is that we are all in quite clear and definite agreement about the truth in it, forasmuch as in our time a truly Babylonian confusion prevails particularly over it and certainly at this point also is not devoid of ambiguity among us, it was initially expressed that when absolution here is referred to as the preaching of the Gospel, so that the holy Sacraments are in no way from, but, included with, since the administration of the Sacraments are indeed one visible preaching of the Gospel, therefore they were called the visible Word by the old Lutheran theologians. Soon the question arose whether or not the concept of absolution in the definition give was too broad? Whether every preaching of the Gospel was truly an absolution? It was answered: Admittedly every preaching of the Gospel is an absolution; because such preaching is nothing other than administration and distribution of the existing and collected forgiveness of sins into the Gospel. This happens publicly, to a crowd, or particularly, to the individual. Concerning the claim now made, that from the definition of the preaching of the Gospel as an absolution the necessity of faith should be offered out at the same time, came the following reply: Everything comes to this for the time being, to recognize that the great treasure of the Gospel, the accomplished redemption by Christ to all men and through it the acquired forgiveness of sins, is also offered to all according to the command of Christ: "Preach the Gospel to all creatures." All who hear it, whether they believe or do not believe, are proclaimed and offered the forgiveness of sins. The preacher always speaks absolution when he proclaims the Gospel, even to those who do not believe; because absolution is a divine act and not dependent on faith or unbelief of people. For of course the unbeliever encounters the accomplished absolution to him also through the preaching of the Gospel itself and for that very reason is deprived of it. On the other hand, it was argued: According to God's Word one could and may not forgive the sin of the unbelieving sinner after all, but instead should and must retain them; since now the forgiveness of sins would not be given in preaching, how then could the preaching of the Gospel ever be absolution? Answer: The fact of the redemption and reconciliation of the entire human race by Jesus Christ, and thus the forgiveness of all sins of all people from God, which indeed the Gospel

precisely proclaims offers and gives, can nevermore become a falsehood through the unbelief of people, if even the unbeliever does not accept it, but repels from it and therefore also is lost for that very reason alone. How therefore absolution or absolution of sins can be nothing else than the preaching of the gospel, it done publicly or particularly, then also any preaching of the gospel, it done by word or sacrament, always an absolution from all sins. Therefore, as absolution or acquittal of sins can be nothing else than the preaching of the gospel, done publicly or particularly, then also any preaching of the gospel, done by word or sacrament, is always an absolution from all sins. Because it emerged from these repeatedly expressed concerns that the desired clarity and unity about the first thesis does not yet exist, the synod felt compelled to negotiate over it even further and more thoroughly. One here expressed first and foremost that there is still no proper unity among us. It appears to be that some think to separate the Gospel as means of grace from treasury of grace, namely something like this: as if a king would request through a message to come to a certain place where a treasure should be distributed, for there the treasure was not at the embassy, but must be sought elsewhere and retrieved; thus it is that the Gospel includes the treasury of grace of the forgiveness of sins in itself and the proclamation of the same proffers and imparts that treasure. The administering does not depend on whether people believe, no, the treasure is always there in his word and is administered to all who hear it. The sun shines whether or not everyone shuts their eyes and do not see its light. To illustrate, you can move here the example of the resurrection of the youth of Nain. The Word of Christ: "Young man, I say to you, stand up!" was not an empty sound, but awakened hearing and life in the dead youth. Thus the Gospel awakens spiritual hearing, faith, and thus imparts the treasury of forgiveness which it bears with it. Here now the following emerging question enjoined itself in the synod: the phrase is always pronounced and is known by us: Through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, God has absolved the whole world, i.e. loosed from sins; if according to this the world is already long since absolved and loosed from sins, what then is absolution or preaching of the Gospel in the Church? Is it also an unmooring, or merely a proclamation of unmooring that has already happened? Answer: The absolution of the entire world is done in God's heart in the moment when redemption was done by the Lord Christ, and because the salvation stands accomplished before God even from eternity, then one can say: Absolution was in God's heart even from eternity. But we do not yet have it. What now should happen in order that we obtain it? God has established the obtaining of absolution on nothing that we could do, and to earn it, but he wants to bestow it upon us by free grace. There is now no other way to receive the gift than faith in Jesus Christ. But so that absolution will be received by us, God has placed it in us and the bringing happens precisely through the gospel of what is in God's heart. The preaching of the Gospel also brings us the absolution that is in God's heart, so that faith receives it; this is in the Word of the apostle: "How should they believe, from which they have heard nothing?" Where the preaching of the Gospel is proclaimed,

there the good Lord Himself draws near to sinners and says: I am reconciled and proclaim to you hereby that all your sins are forgiven you. How then would that not be an empty proclamation of forgiveness, but a true message of forgiveness, if God were speaking so directly to sinners, so also the preaching and absolution of the minister is none other than a proclamation of forgiveness, but such a proclamation, that really brings and gives forgiveness. The best way we can make this thing clear to ourselves is through a picture. We men are all by nature trapped in an atrocious prison; Christ has broken the gates of this prison; we don't know, see, and feel it, but they are broken. And if we also saw it, we would also still not have the heart to go out, because we must fear that we would be taken away from the place and be thrown back. But the Gospel is the blessed message of God to us: Go forth, you are redeemed, you are pardoned, you are free! The Gospel is also not a proclamation that we are first redeemed and should be pardoned, but that we already are redeemed and pardoned, and absolution in the Gospel is none other than a

reiteration of the actual absolution that has already happened through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

This was once again asked: If the resurrection of Christ absolves the world, will it again be absolved by the Gospel? If one must say that the world is already absolved, must one not also maintain that the preaching of the gospel is merely an announcement of absolution? The answer to that was: One does not say we are once again redeemed and reconciled, but what happened once is appropriated to us. When the apostle says: "If one died for all, therefore all have died," then that is identical to this: One is resurrected to life, so they are raised to life. As surely as Christ has died, and died for all people, so surely God sees all people as dead for the sake of their sins. Christ's death has redeemed sins as death for all people. On the other hand, Christ is also raised in the stead of all people, thus all people are declared righteous in Christ; for Christ needed to be as the Righteous One for His person not by resurrection, but this has been done for our sake, He died and rose again in their place, and thus all are justified in Christ. Reconciliation and justification has already happened in God's court, but we do not have it yet. Because God has now chosen the Word to give it to us. Not by own works will we deserve it, but faith should grasp it. But faith should take this, therefore the Word is necessary, because without the Word no faith is possible. The Word and of course the Sacraments are therefore the means whereby the treasure will be administered to us. If this is understood to be a mere announcement of forgiveness that one simply tells, the question of whether the preaching of the Gospel is merely an announcement of absolution must be answered in the negative; it is such an announcement that at the same time gives what it preaches. An example can make this clear. When a rich man had determined a great gift for someone, and someone told me about it, then this would not benefit me; but if I would be like a man condemned to death in prison and the king, who would have pardoned me, his servant, sent to me with the announcement of pardons, then I would be really pardoned. So also God in Christ has pardoned me and allowed me to proclaim pardon in the Gospel. Every creature

has the right to tell me: You are redeemed and reconciled to God, your sin is forgiven you: therefore Christ also says: "Preach the gospel to all creation." The Lord could not speak more powerfully. Where only creation suffices, there this blessed message should be proclaimed: man is redeemed and reconciled with God; whoever believes has what the message says, namely, forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. This example was also used for further explanation: When the court has acquitted a prisoner, he is free in the courtroom, but so long as he does not know it, he is and remains a prisoner. Now, if the court sends a messenger to him with the message: you are free, then this message is no mere story and empty proclamation, but a real message of freedom. Hence the gospel is not an empty proclamation of the accomplished redemption and forgiveness acquired by Christ, but such a proclamation which really communicates and appropriates forgiveness. To the following remark that the forgiveness that takes place on you at God's side is given by the Gospel and thus, as many old agendas say, conscience will be made "calm", was added as an explanation: Imagine God as a rich man who issues to me a check for one million dollars. If God has signed it, then the sum is my property; because the statement is in my name. But the statement must be brought to me, so I know it, and the gift will be certain and joyful. God has now signed it in the resurrection of His Son; but I do not yet have the statement. Therefore Christ the Lord instituted the preaching office, i.e., made the arrangement that the Gospel may be proclaimed to me, through this message the million dollars is brought to me.

The Word of the Gospel is an announcement of what God has already done, therefore it brings the treasure of forgiveness; the issuer of the statement has made

the man rich, although he does not know it, he learns it through the proclamation, the abundance is also even allocated to him. Because the Church e.g. also used the formula of absolution: "I proclaim forgiveness to you," thus many think it would be an empty proclamation of absolution. The formula: "I proclaim forgiveness to you," is quite right, good, and precious, however, because it could be interpreted slightly in the sense of Reformed heresy, we do not require it alone. Since the announcement of forgiveness is real, we therefore say, "I forgive you your sins." The Word of Christ: Go out into all the world, etc.; is the same as this: Whose sins you forgive, etc.; in this latter word is only displayed what significance, power and impact the Gospel had, a new office alongside and outside the Office of the Gospel is not thus raised, but has only been taught that the ministry of the Gospel is nothing else than the office of the forgiveness of sins. One objection against the above discussions was expressed as follows: If I believe in Christ, have I forgiveness of sins, and therefore can the absolution bring to me nothing at all that already I do not have? Forgiveness is appropriated to me through Word and Baptism, thus I consistently and steadfastly have this; therefore absolution can be to me only a reminder of what I have. When I forget this, then speak the absolution to me: Remember what you have. When Peter walked on the sea, everything went well, as long as he remembered the Word of Christ: "Come here;" but as he forgot this word at the sight of impetuosity and began to sink, Christ reached out His hand to him, that he would not sink. The hand that pulled

out Peter is our absolution that comforts us when our Sun of Grace of the forgiveness that once happened is covered with clouds of temptation. Therefore, absolution is only consolation against temptation, doubt, and discouragement. On the other hand it was remembered, the speaker without a doubt understood absolution in the narrow sense; but we are speaking in general about the Gospel as an absolution. It was further answered: What you have just said, if one takes the words as they are, is probably based on a mistaken notion. The grace that we receive we do not put in our pocket as one puts a piece of bread in a basket, so that one could say: What I have already put in my pocket can no longer be given to me; no, the goodness of grace are of an entirely different character, they are constantly given and received. As long as we walk by faith, a give and take of these always takes place. Faith is nothing other than a receiving; from this it follows that the goodness of grace are always given, God continually gives them faith. It is true I have forgiveness of sins in baptism, received life and salvation, therefore I have it; however, if God does not continually give, we have nothing; my absolution consists in this, that I give, i.e., God gives through me. I cannot say: I have, therefore, I can only be reminded of what I have; no, it must be continually given to me. But God gives to me in this way, that He can hold His Word before me, faith seizes the Word and therefore receives what the Word does in itself. When I say: What I have, I have in faith in the Word, it does not follow: i.e. absolution can be nothing more than a mere reminder; but only this follows: absolution gives me nothing more than what I already have. The Word always gives, faith always receives. The solution to this reservation is: Faith is an ongoing receiving of the treasures in the Word; therefore the Word must always be preached and it cannot be preached enough to mankind, they cannot be absolved enough, not receive the Lord's Supper enough. Here we live in faith that must always receive; in seeing one day it will be different. For our understanding also serves what is written in Luke chapter seven about the great sinner; the Lord Christ not only witnesses and reminds, "Your many sins are forgiven," but also once again speaks a particular absolution. To the question of why one nevertheless does not say the world's sins were forgiven since the world was already absolved 1800 years ago was the answer: If you said: "The world's sins are forgiven" so absolutely and without explanation, it would be misleading, many would understand it namely in this way: that all men were converted, believed, and came into heaven. However, when one says, On the part of God the sins of the world are forgiven, there it is said well. But what help is it to me when God says to me: "I am your Friend," and I think: "He is my enemy?" God is indeed reconciled to us, but we are not with Him, so [Saint Paul] says: "Be reconciled to God." God must extend the Hand of Reconciliation to us if we should be reconciled to Him; this He has extended, He is reconciled to the world, but we just do not believe Him and therefore are afraid of Him, so He says through the Gospel: "You do not need to be afraid, I am reconciled to you, only believe, all your sins are forgiven you." One tends to think that the Word is only a means through which such a change would be worked in the heart, that a faith arises unto life, and this faith is

believed to be such a wonderful 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. A member of the Synod remarked: Gospel and absolution of sins is one and the same thing, that was clear to him; but if one preaches only one part of the Gospel, as for example the part of resurrection of the dead, we surely could not say that was absolution. One replied to that: It does not matter whether a part or the whole of the Gospel will be preached, it is always absolution. If one preaches in general about the resurrection of the dead, then one preaches no Gospel, because such a preaching works terror and horror in the ungodly, but when one preaches that the faithful rise, and indeed rise to eternal life, then this is an even more wonderful and glorious Gospel. To justify that absolution sticks even in the smallest morsel of the Gospel, the example of a controversy was cited, that by the saying, "God helps man and beast" at once was cunningly and powerfully comforted from all fear and distress. Finally, the following was spoken concerning the first thesis: What Christ has done and what has happened to Christ should not be confused. His life, death, and resurrection was no absolution, but rather His resurrection from the dead. Our preaching and absolution is the moral working according to nothing other than what God has done in Christ, the only difference is that God absolves the entire world through the resurrection of his Son, but we are only individuals, for example, preachers only absolve their congregations. Christ was our representative; He was punished for us, condemned and cursed, we in Him. He was cast in our place finally in the debtors' prison of death, however 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 He was a sinner Himself, however, we were punished in Him, in Him we are also justified. God spoke the entire world righteous through Christ's resurrection. If only we knew all this, then it would be enough; because we do not know it, however, the treasury would remain unused, if we do not come to know it. There God now speaks: "What I have done is to be proclaimed." As certain as the resurrection of Christ is a true absolution, so surely my absolution is not a mere story, but a genuine message of forgiveness. Absolution is an act of God that is valid until the end of the world. Our absolution is nothing else than a repetition of the act of God in the resurrection of Christ. The Reformed, on the other hand, view the Gospel as nothing more than a story of redemption, which has the moral force to enable a person in a different disposition and through the other disposition in such a state in which he pleases God. Two things had to happen for our salvation: 1. forgiveness of sins must be purchased, Christ has done that; 2. in consequence of the perfection and full force and effect of the merit of Christ, the Triune God must forgive, God has done that and continually still does it until the Last Day, but no more so, as in the unique resurrection of His Son, but through the proclaiming of the Gospel.

Second Thesis: Private absolution is therefore not an extra or an addition to the existing power of the Gospel to forgive sins. Private absolution is nothing else than the preaching of the Gospel to the individual sinner.
Since this second thesis necessarily follows from the first, this was already discussed in the meeting and was adopted without further discussion.

Third Thesis: The steward and dispenser of absolution in the public office are the preachers of the Gospel; but otherwise all Christians, because the entire Church is the original holder of the Keys; however He who forgives sins through their ministry is the triune God.
First of all, it was noticed about this thesis that God forgives sin, all denominations believe; that He forgives sins through men, next to Lutherans none believe except Romanists, but these quite wrongly; many Lutherans perhaps believe that God forgives sins through the preacher, but not through ordinary Christians. We should all be very clear about the fact that ordinarily on earth there is no absolution of sins without going through men. Furthermore, it was reminded that experience teaches that even those among the so-called Lutherans who still have the doctrine that preachers can forgive sins, and that God in general forgives sins through men, and only through men, often do not yet believe it. Many do seek forgiveness in the fact that something is going on in a man's heart, on the basis of what actions of the man finally hears the voice of the Holy Spirit in the heart: your sins are forgiven, you are a child of God! However, such experiences are not the way to the forgiveness of sins, but vice versa, one makes such experiences in the way of forgiveness. Why is it that a man has the forgiveness of sins and is certain of it? The fact that one builds on such processes, experiences and feelings, one builds on a slippery ground, even if the same are worked by the Holy Spirit, because one can have it today, and tomorrow perhaps no more. Whoever builds the certainty of forgiveness on such internal operations and is in agony, where he probably feels nothing more of it, that passes with woe. Therefore we should know that forgiveness is always there, and Christ has purchased it as a treasure entrusted to his Church, and this He wants to distribute in no other way than by the means of grace. When I believe now that it's there also for me, because I know I am baptized, I believe the promises of the Gospel, I went to Holy Communion and console myself with the delicious promise: this is My body given for you, this is My blood, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins, if I thus stand, I thus rightly stand. Everything else one builds after that is a foundation built next to the proper foundation, if one still has this at all; as many, however, have left the proper foundation! It remains eternally true, the forgiveness of sins is acquired through Christ alone, is distributed through the Gospel alone and received through faith alone. What I perceive in my heart through the working of the Holy Spirit are fruits of forgiveness; if I do not find this in me, but believe in the Gospel, then I still have forgiveness of sins.

The question: "When I pray and believe the Lord's Prayer have I there even forgiveness of sins through people?" was answered by saying: Yes, certainly, because every word of God, even the Lord's Prayer, is given to us by men. Had not the apostles received the command to preach, we would also not have the Word of God. The antithesis to this "only through men" is only this: that I would not be certain through secret voices and extraordinary inner feelings of forgiveness. God does not get involved because of this, but says, "Open the Bible, read, hear 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 witness of the Spirit, because this is a fruit that follows faith and forgiveness." The reason why many are irked at this doctrine, that sins are forgiven through men, is because they think we believe the preacher has received through ordination a particular character so that when he speaks the words he imparts forgiveness by a secret power and, as it were, conjure away sins. But this opinion is based on gross misunderstanding; because this is not the doctrine of our church; instead it teaches thus: Forgiveness is there and proclaimed in all the world; the Word of grace given to the Church is God's own Word; where it is heard, there God's voice is heard; as surely as it says in the Bible: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," and "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved," as surely as God speaks to us, when He allows these promises to be preached to us; not in the character of the preacher, but in the Word lies the power to forgive sins, not because of what the preacher says, but because of what God's Word is, when even a little boy says it, I have forgiveness of sins. In such a doctrine not a trace of a wretched pride of the preach is to be found. Many say, Yes, the Lutheran Church is beautiful, that's not to be denied, but your doctrine of absolution is an appendage of the papacy. God forbid! The Lutheran Church condemns the papistic heresy of absolution; her absolution is the sweet gospel, without which a proper assurance of grace and forgiveness of sin is not possible. When we say we receive forgiveness only through men, we want the same thing that Luther wants, when he speaks so often, we receive it through the physical and verbal Word. It is therefore a question that it is the physical and verbal word, whereby I will receive forgiveness of sins; when it is that, then it is regardless of whether I read it, or remember it in thoughts, or hear it from the preacher, or even from a child, it proclaims and always brings me forgiveness. We base our doctrine e.g. even on the precious Word of last Sunday's Gospel17: " He has given such authority to men." Why is this specifically mentioned by the Evangelist, that the people praised God, Who had given such authority to men? He wants to show that the Holy Spirit has worked in that people even this wonderful realization, that Christ was recognized not as true God, that such authority, namely to forgive sin, is given to men. As here Christ, even according to his humanity, has forgiven sin, so even now our sins are forgiven us through men. Regarding the normal objection of many: "How can you presume to forgive sin? You cannot know whether I stand in grace before God!" it was noted that objections come from the fact that people believe that there must be something
17

Trinity 19: Matthew 9:1-8.

acting in them, on the basis of which they may take comfort in the forgiveness of sins, while first experiences are still worked through forgiveness. According to Scripture, forgiveness belongs to all, i.e., to those who give recognition to manifest wickedness and impenitence, that they despise the proffered treasure, and the swine trample on precious pearls and one attacks a dog, when one proffers something to them. For the sake of some, for whom the language of this doctrine is probably still a little strange, was still added: When we say that forgiveness happens through the word that people speak, so many think we were in general enemies of inner experience and built the whole of Christianity on the external ceremonies of the Divine Service. Of course, we teach that God wants to give forgiveness to all people, it has also been done through the resurrection of His Son, but we also teach at the same time: Whoever shall hear rightly the Gospel, the Law must previously be preached to him in all its sharpness and with all its shudders and horrors. Whoever is not broken and shattered by the law, the absolution is of no avail to him and the same granted to him, would mean water poured into a vessel that is full. If we claim that absolution was there for every sinner, then that that is not to say that the by nature rock-hard and diamond-hard heart must be smashed and shattered if absolution is to bear fruit; instead we say this: When the heart is smashed and shattered by the hammer of the Law, then nothing but this is to be proclaimed to the sinner: "You poor sinner, crawl back to the cross, Christ has atoned for and redeemed your sins, only believe, they are all forgiven you"; but he does not call out: "Pray, struggle, and fight until you feel that you have forgiveness of sins, joy and peace." Only such a broken heart stands in good stead from absolution, but because it is impossible to have faith without any previous working of the Law. In this case it was also recalled that the present thesis 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 preferred class of men, but our church alone teaches that God has given this power to the whole Church, every Christian may and should proclaim to others the glorious Gospel and to call out to him: "You are reconciled, do not be afraid, only believe, your sins are forgiven you!" Let us be quite united in this, so our Church remains on our part what it is: the comforter of all the afflicted. Against the often-made objection, "The minister is himself a sinner, how then will he forgive others' sins?" it was emphasized: 1. Christ has commanded that preachers and all Christians proclaim the Gospel, i.e., should absolve, and, 2. God's Word, which is of course the spoken absolution from men, is God's Word even on sinful lips. A question was finally yet raised and answered, namely this: Why does Luther not usually limit the absolution of Christians in general to emergency use, as Baptism, and why does he still speak again in some places only of emergency use? The solution was as follows: The two Sacraments bear by their very nature a public character, it is therefore in the nature of them that their administration is always done in public, however, absolution is Gospel that all Christians are called

to proclaim as spiritual priests at any time. The distinction thus lies in the nature of both. But if, nevertheless, Luther limits absolution here and there to an emergency, he speaks without a doubt of one such absolution that has a certain public character.

Fourth Thesis: Absolution does not consist of a judicial judgment of the confessor, of an empty proclamation or wishing of the forgiveness of sins, but of a powerful announcement of the forgiveness of sins.
Concerning this, the explanation was given: That the Lutheran church expresses so often that absolution is not a judicial decision is because the Papists say so. Namely concerning their doctrine, that in auricular confession every sin shall be exposed, and that the power of absolution would depend on that one purely confessed, i.e., all his sins was told to the confessor, to be justified, the Romans thereby defend themselves, indeed any judge who wants to make a judgment of the evil act must know the defendant's wrongdoing, and indeed not merely the factum (the deed), but also the circumstances that make the sin either larger or smaller. As little as a judge can make a right judgment, if he does not interrogate witnesses and do not exactly determine the facts, as little the priest could make a judgment in confession if not all sins are confessed to him by all means. Lutherans, however, maintain absolution not as a judgment of the confessor of states of mind, but because it belongs to all people and the sinner will be made righteous only because he receives the Gospel with true faith of the heart, so this precious Gospel will be proclaimed to the poor sinner who penitently confesses his sins and he is absolved through it, and so absolution is the execution of the grace of God on poor sinners. The rest contained in the thesis has previously been discussed.

Fifth Thesis: The effect of absolution is not based on man's repentance, confession and satisfaction. Absolution calls for faith, it works and strengthens faith. Absolution is of no use to mankind without faith, even though it is not a faulty key.
Concerning the first part of this thesis: The effect of absolution is not based on man's repentance, confession and satisfaction, it was expressed: That it is taught: no one can know the consolation of absolution, except for whoever is in right repentance, this we so often misunderstood, as if repentance would be a meritorious condition of the power and fruit of absolution. Yes, of course, true faith is not rooted in any heart which is surely still carnal and without remorse, but the fact that one has remorse does not establish consolation. Therefore it is dangerous to preach thus: that one, instead of working repentance through his preaching, only calls for repentance; thus people come to such ideas as repentance would be the meritorious condition of forgiveness. The second part of the thesis: Absolution calls for faith, it works and strengthens faith, was explained as follows: As obvious as this seems to be, it is so

important. Very many awakened take offense at the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace, because they believe, we believe that man can go to heaven by mere external means; because we certainly say: Baptism saves, Absolution saves, the Lord's Supper saves, thus we make the use of these external means for 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 should still remember that the charge of opus operatum affects only the Papists, who say: If we do not stop this, then the use of Baptism, Absolution, and Communion saves. We say, however: It is still not enough to put a stop to this (if we were able to put a stop to it in the first place), but there is still much more, namely faith being there when we wholesomely use the means of grace and would be saved. But what should be more necessary than faith? Are not all living powers of Christianity included in faith? Of course, it is certain, Baptism, Absolution and Supper save us, but when we believe. So every concern is taken away as though we made use of the means of grace for opus operatum. When it is said that absolution demands, works, and strengthens faith, then it is first and foremost to be understood under request as no legalistic request, but the request of the Gospel; it is tantamount to saying that faith is required to enjoy the fruit of absolution. What pertains to the entire thesis, he thus nicely explained by the example of a rich man who bestows a gift on a poor man. Through the bestowal the poor man is so moved that he stretches out his hand, and as he reaches out, he also receives the gift. The third part of the thesis: Absolution is of no use to mankind without faith, was clearly recognized as clear by all, and because of that immediately the fourth part, even though it is not a faulty key, was taken up. The Synod spoke up about this: Although this last phrase in the essay is often explained, it's so important that we should not quickly pass over it. In this case one must rightly retain the difference between the means of administering (the Gospel) and the means of receiving (faith). The means of administering is never missing and never can be missing. If we preachers all believed that we have no clavis errans (faulty key), we would be much happier and confident to proffer to people the extravagant consolation of the Gospel in its fullness. Though, however, we do not believe the principle of a false key, we yet come to many doubts in practice as to whether we should proffer the treasury of the Gospel in its fullness, from which it follows that we, who grew up under the influences of this time, that we bear something from faith in our hearts as a faulty key. One from the synod confirms this by his own example, he had, he said, also meant otherwise, if one does not believe, thus absolution goes away from him, as it were, over his head; on the other hand, however, one must take to heart Luther's words: the sun that shines on a thief and a robber and an honest man remains the same sun, and gold in the hands of a scoundrel remains the same gold. Here also belongs the word in the parable of the sower: "Then the devil comes and takes away the Word from their hearts." The same also applies about the Sacraments. The treasure will always be given, but is not received without faith. This is also a great consolation for the pastor, that he, like Caspar Schade, does not need to torture and worry himself that he never

imparted absolution even to the unworthy; because if the preacher is certain that his absolution is no faulty key, then doubt drops. It was further expressed: What

has been said about the faulty key is not only important for the preacher, but especially for hearers. Why else would righteous Christians not come into confession
with proper desire and longing? Why does one have such a great aversion to private confession? The main reason is because they think: If you know you are a Christian, you have forgiveness of sins, you may go there, on the other hand, if you don't know, you may not go, otherwise you could take absolution for judgment on yourself, yes, you receive no absolution, but curse and damnation. If they knew and believed that every time that the preacher says: "You are forgiven your sins," it is really so. God truly says "Yes" and "Amen" to that, the Word truly redeems from sins, the Keys truly close, then they would have much more desire for the great treasure. They often think: You often think: "The Keys probably fit, but I must be a better door, if he should not fail mine;" but this is wrong, the Keys never fail. As God lives in heaven, so sure as I am absolved, when the preacher absolves me; therefore, if I do not attain forgiveness, I should not say: "The Keys have failed," but, "I have failed." I cannot let the penitential knowledge that I am a villain before God deter me from using the loosing Key; for this key searches and looses very clear scoundrels who are bound. The preacher has the command from God to forgive the sins of the world, I am one of the world, i.e., even my sins should be forgiven, thus I should conclude when I see myself as a villain before God. God requires acceptance of forgiveness from me, i.e., faith, and because faith is not possible without remorse, contrition, but concerning the degree of remorse, I will not mess with. If I have so much remorse that I willingly would like to have forgiveness, then it is enough. God does not say remorse has forgiveness, but faith has forgiveness. I should not question whether I have a certain degree of remorse, but whether I have faith, and when I realize that I still believe it is lacking, I should begin to believe. One does not torture himself with the question, whether one had ever had a time that one had made extraordinary experience in his soul; because one can make glorious experiences 30 years ago, yes, have always had the same even for many years and even now never feel them. This is also important, e.g., in the consolation of the sick; I do not want to ask that one: "Have you ever experienced this and that?" and when he says "Yes", call to him: "Now see, because you have experienced this, therefore be strong and believe that you are a child of God;" but I should say to that one: "Would you gladly like to have the Lord Jesus and His grace?" And when he says yes, proclaim to him the full consolation of the Gospel. Two questions regarding this fourth part of this present thesis were now thrown into the synod and answered: 1. We say: Absolution is never a faulty key, but proffers forgiveness whenever it is spoken and all firmly believe it; but should it not be necessary to clamp down on this through an explicit declaration of the synod, that this truth will not be misused in the Church? Answer: It is probably still with us in this way, that it is much more necessary to recognize the distinct truth even more thoroughly, so that we preach it quite cheerfully and learn to proffer the great treasure of the Gospel in all its

fullness, as to make us be afraid to abuse it, and it certainly requires the warning to us that we do not clamp down on something where God has not moved forward. It is indeed certain that we must be warned of abuse, but we yet indeed must beware that we, when we have distributed the consolation of the Gospel, not again thereby hedge in the same with restrictive clauses, that we say: Yes, my dear, but now you must be designed in such a way that when you want to dare it, to receive your consolation. We should no doubt remember that we have absolutely no right to make conditions, and that the preacher, who speaks a conditional, specifically conditional absolution on behalf of God, is cursed. If we say absolution should be spoken to everyone and is always valid, then someone could probably get the idea that no ecclesiastical discipline was necessary and everyone who comes to absolution and the Lord's Supper must be admitted; but this is by no means said. Although the world should be absolved by God's command, absolution still should not be granted to those who say to us they do not want to be absolved. But those who tell us this live in manifest unrepentant sin or in public heresy. These therefore will not be absolved by us, because otherwise we would misuse the Name of the Lord God, which is forbidden us in the Second Commandment. If such now say they wanted to be absolved after all, then this is not true; because they do not want to be absolved of all sins, because they indeed want to persist in willful individual sins or heresies. 2. If the loosing key is infallible, then the binding key must always be equally infallible; how does it now act with the false ban, wherein the binding key is misused? And in which case must the ban be considered as abuse of the power of the Keys? Answer: The solution to this question is so clearly given in the Small Catechism, that it cannot be given clearer. It is namely to use the binding key on public and unrepentant sins. It is now and always indeed remains the binding key where it will also be applied; but when one retains the sins of such, to them one may not retain them according to the Word of God, this is abuse of the binding key and false ban. An infallible rule is given to us by Christ Himself in the subject of the ban in Matthew chapter 18, according to which we must proceed. It does not need to see into the heart; for one shall judge and adjudicate over what is hidden from view, namely over public and unrepentant sin, precisely because the latter of which is obvious, that the public sinner will not hear the admonition of the congregation at the third stage. It has to be remember that the one worthy of the ban is always convicted in conscience that he rightly would be excluded and held as a heathen and Publican.

Sixth Thesis: Through private absolution, there is indeed no significantly different or better forgiveness announced, such as in the preaching of the Gospel. Private absolution is also not required to obtain forgiveness in such a way as if it took place without any forgiveness. Nevertheless private absolution still has its special usefulness and benefits, because through it the individual is certain that the forgiveness of sins is also for him.

The first point of this thesis, that no significantly other and better forgiveness will be announced than in the preaching of the Gospel, has been explained already in the first thesis; for if the Gospel is essentially nothing more than absolution, then private absolution also essentially communicates nothing else than the preaching of the Gospel. A metaphor can make clear the relationship of private absolution to general absolution in preaching. With general absolution through the sermon, it acts as if a rich man throws a mass of gold coins among a crowd with that intention that each should receive a piece of gold; whoever grabs it, has it. With private absolution, however, it is as if a servant of the rich man is a timid man who does not dare to grab the gold coin pressed into his hand. As the individual has no better piece of gold then the others, so also no other and better thing is given through private absolution as through preaching. It is a false distinction that is frequently made that the treasure of forgiveness of sins is only

proclaimed or even offered in preaching, but would be imparted in private absolution. When Dr. Luther speaks of greater certainty of forgiveness in private

absolution, he'll say no more than: It is difficult for the believer to appropriate the consolation in general preaching, as in private absolution. To the objection whether or not private absolution gives a special comfort that the preaching of the Gospel does not grant, it was replied: How can anything give a particular consolation since the Gospel is the fullness of all comfort? The sacraments are nothing else than a visible Word, therefore its content is quite the same as that of the Word. That God has yet ordained the sacraments next to the Word, wherein He acts with the individual, he has thus taken into account the condition of the faithful; namely because it is more difficult in the weakness of this life for the believer to appropriate consolation, if only He will proclaim to the crowd in general. Therefore, according to Luther, God is not so stingy, but has decreed that all sorts of ways of comfort is administered to the believer. So we see this as God's wonderful condescension to the weakness of His faithful; because He knows how hard it can be to apprehend consolation in general preaching, so He has given private absolution, baptism, and the Supper for the individual, so that everyone knows, here am I, the person with whom God speaks and acts. The question posed here, whether Christ has instituted private confession in the words, "If you forgive the sins of any" etc.?, was definitely answered with "No," as also noted that in James 5:16: "Confess your sins to one another," from which the Papists want to prove the divine institution of their auricular confession, the words were only among the Christians by the confession of mutual offenses and transgressions; but one witnessed that private absolution was instituted in the Words of Christ in John 20:23. This latter was proved as follows: The Lord has commanded that His people should be consoled with a certain amount of consolation, He wills that all be saved, the Gospel should be preached to all creatures, how much more for individuals! If also the words: "If you forgive the sins of any", etc., are none other than another explanation of the command of Christ: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creatures," and therefore only an

unfolding of the treasures of the Gospel proffered through preaching, then one can certainly not deny that the Lord has especially commanded private absolution in the same. The same, however, is already in the general command, "Preach the Gospel to every creature," but because we could easily think it does not lie in it, therefore the Lord has pronounced it particularly in another Word, as a more precise definition of that command. On the now repeated question, "Whether or not even because of the particular institution of private absolution also lies a particular comfort in it?" was the answer: However, one can say that a particular comfort lies in the fact that if only does not mean by that a particular good lies therein; but the particular consolation is that I know on my part I receive forgiveness here. So therefore private absolution is no doubt a particular institution of God, but it is not so that a particular good is given to us in this particular institution that would not lie in the general preaching of the Gospel. It is best to speak thus: Private

absolution can serve this purpose for me: I would be certain of the consolation of forgiveness, it is not a greater assurance than the publicly preached Word, But it can make me certain, because there it is said: You, you are the man, you, your sins are forgiven; therefore it helps me a little bit when public preaching does not help me. To make it quite clear the following metaphor was used as well: An entire city

has rebelled against their king and all the inhabitants are threatened, that they shall be broken on the wheel, indeed from the bottom up; but the king is gracious and allows pardon to be proclaimed to all the rebellious citizens. There are a few chief ringleaders (for there are always true Christians who hold themselves as chief ringleaders and the chief among sinners with the Apostles) who think trembling and shaking: Who knows whether you are included in the pardon! Yes, if you had any of his mercy to pardon in hand! Now when the king sent his messengers and would say to each one: Hans, Peter, or whatever your name, you are pardoned, they would still without a doubt be certain of grace and their hearts would be made merry. It was argued in regard to the discussions above: If there is no essential difference between private absolution and the preaching of the Gospel, and the one is not the other, but all administered the same goods as the other, then no one understands why private absolution is highlighted and praised so much; one would certainly have to have no understanding to accept public preaching as not as good and could not be as comforted as private absolution. The reply was: Then one cannot even understand why the Lord Christ has instituted even baptism and the Lord's Supper in addition to preaching, for between those acts and the sermon is also no significant difference. Then one must wonder, too, that Christ says after his resurrection: "Say to His disciples and Peter"; then consolation could not be dedicated, because he was brought to the Apostles in common, to which he belonged, but Peter thought: You're no more apostles, that's why the Lord allowed him in particular to bring comfort. Our old people say: Is this not what makes scruples for the Christian, whether the world was saved, but whether he had redeemed himself, that is, whether the general redemption concerns him. We should fall to our knees and thank God that He has opened such a source of comfort for us, we should then

slide to our knees, where we come to find the comfort of private absolution. This is now said in no way that one should urge and compel the consciences of people to private confession, but it should only be an encouragement for us preachers that we blithely offer to them the blessings that the Gospel is sufficient in all its fullness. Incidentally, here there is no mention about the ecclesiastical institution of private confession; because the Savior has not instituted it, that sins must always first be confessed before the Lord's Supper, but we speak now about private absolution in itself, we should rightly recognize this in its glory. It would be false and wrong if we wanted to try to antagonize private confession to people, this would put the cart in front of the horse. No, we want to do it differently; we want to introduce the great glory of private absolution quite blithely to them, then they will finally urge us to administer private absolution to them. Objection: It still seems to arise from the above remarks, it is probably even expressed here and there, that those who do not use private confession are reprehensible and said to be worse Christians than those who use it. Answer: We have always, as often we talk about private confession, lodged explicit care against such nonsense. The more seriously we pursue sanctification, the more we will know how hard it is to grasp the comfort of forgiveness; for as we will see little by little, what great happiness this is, that the promises of the Gospel are proclaimed not only in general, but to be appropriated in particular to us also by appointed servants in private absolution: it is a cursed and vicious abomination when one tries to force private confession upon congregations in this manner. If the doctrine that is treated in the essay properly will come to clarity, then what we desire will come of itself; therefore we should properly only urge the doctrine. Many hypocrites go to private confession, and many righteous Christians go to the general confession. The fact that private confession is considered so little lies the lack of the right 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 is not quite grasped by the heart and has not grown very likely in the heart, man thinks: Now certainly I hear it every Sunday, believe it well 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 the condition of our heart, it sticks in us all that we ground our consolation on our heart's condition while it still sticks only in the Word. Can there be anything more comforting than that God comes so close to us poor sinners in private absolution? The fact that congregations are still filled with so much distaste for private confession is because we preachers still do not understand how to preach the Gospel as we should. Certainly, the sweeter and lovelier we would understand the Gospel as the power of God to hold up before people, the more faith would be awakened; the more faith would be awakened, the more temptation there would be; and the more temptation, the more desire for consolation would arise and the more people would come to private absolution to get consolation. However, our congregations should not think that now the time has come that we want to throw the net over it, because we extol private absolution so blithely to them; no, but that we want to talk about and preach it so blithely should happen, on the one hand,

because it belongs to the proclaiming of the whole counsel of God, on the other hand, because of that, once we are dead, and our congregations finally come to the realization of the great treasure of private absolution, they cannot say: Our pastors, in this free Republic, are still afraid to offer us this treasure. On the question: "Is private absolution a means of grace of the same rank with the sacraments?" the synod answered: Yes, but it is not coordinated with the Gospel, but subordinated, i.e., it is not something next to and apart from the Gospel, but it flows from it. The Smalcald Articles speak of five ways of the "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. through the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren18 and summarize all these parts under the heading, "On the Gospel." One now assented the first point of the thesis unanimously, and undertook the second point, that private absolution would be necessary to obtain the forgiveness of sins not in such a way as if it took place without any forgiveness. To this end, it was observed: The thesis is a proof that the greatest caution should be applied when one illustrates to people the difference between private absolution and general absolution. One should not present it to them as if one would not be given the same treasure in general absolution that is given in private absolution. Also in the general confession, as customary among us before partaking in the Holy Supper, there is in a certain sense a personal confession and a personal appropriation; for one is there dealing with a definite number of Christians who confess their sins, desire grace, and receive absolution; in regard to the personal appropriation, therefore, this absolution is somewhat more than the public sermon, and one must be cautious in preaching of it not to impair God's holy thing. To speak slightingly of general confession is dangerous; I must not deprecate the one to make much of the other; rather let both be esteemed as of high, glorious value.19 The third point of the Sixth Thesis, acting on the particular importance and benefits of private absolution, was easily approvingly accepted, because it was already discussed in advance in the first point and with it the negotiation over the doctrine of absolution was adopted for the time being.

per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum (durch gegenseitige Unterredung und Trstung der Brder). 19 Much of this paragraph is translated in Pieper's Dogmatics, Volume 3, page 211.
18