Buchwald continues on p. 13:
"Luther's practice is also in harmony with this, as he describes it in the 'Brief Admonition to Confession' (Symbol. BB., ed. by Müller, p. 843, 32.): ‘When I admonish to confession, I do nothing else than that I admonish everyone to be a Christian. 1) If I bring you there, then I have also brought you to confession, etc.’” (Underlined by Buchwald)
What this is supposed to prove in favor of the notoriously dissolute practice of the Lord's Supper in the state church is hard to pin down. But a clearer proof lies in those words of Luther for our Free Church practice; for the words used on the occasion of personal registration, the 25th Art. of the Augsburg Conf. and the 15th article of the Apology of the same 2) has the very purpose of testing people to see whether they come to the Lord's Table as Christians and, if this is not yet the case, to make them such Christians.
—————
2) "Confession is not abolished by the preachers of this part. For we are in the habit of not administering the sacrament to those who have not been previously interrogated and absolved, non-nisi antea exploratis et absolutis." (p. 53. § 1.) "Apud nos utuntur coena Domini multi singulis Dominicis, sed prius instituti, explorati et absoluti. With us, however, the people need the holy sacrament willingly, unpressed, every Sunday, who are first interrogated whether they are instructed in Christian doctrine, know or understand anything in the Lord's Prayer, in faith, in the ten commandments." (p. 212. § 40.) Cf. p. 248. § 1. 259. § 49. [Trigl. 325]
But this is lacking in the state church with few exceptions; whether because the preachers believe that all their people are already <page 140> good Christians, or out of fear of man and laziness, let the gentlemen themselves say. May Deacon Buchwald therefore take to heart what Luther writes shortly before the words he quotes: "But if you will despise it and go so proudly unconfessed, we conclude that you are not a Christian and should not enjoy the sacrament (nec te ad usum sacramenti admittemus)." (op. cit. p. 843. § 29.)
On p. 13 of the pamphlet we read further:
"But the fact that we withhold a notoriously impenitent sinner from the Lord's Supper is also done at the risk that, 'if not legal action, then at least endless writing in the newspapers and a questioning in the state parliament would be the result'."
This almost sounds as if this is what is really done in the state church, whereas notoriously this is not even the case. Buchwald therefore rightly adds, as a precaution against being taken at his word:
"But the fact that we are perhaps (!) somewhat more broad-minded (Underline by Buchwald) in this than the Free Church" (should mean: have a broader conscience), "has its good reason in the fact that we, mindful of Matthew 7:3: 'Why do you see the mote in your brother's eye and are not aware of the beam in your own eye?' do not feel called to be judges over our neighbors. Here, however, we also stand fully and completely on the 'foundation of faith' of the symbolic books. 'God is the judge', says the Apology (M. 185. § 6-8.), who did not command the apostles to judge, but to execute grace, to absolve those who desire it, and they also absolve from sins that do not occur to us." —
What an exegesis of the Bible and what an interpretation of the Church's confession! What on earth does the Licentiate want to prove that the official judgment of a preacher on obvious sins is splinter judgment? Indeed a wonderful way to be completely relieved of the fatal office of punishment! Has our pamphleteer not read what Luther writes about Matthew 7:3 in his Church Postil? Did he not read there:
"Those who have the office of judging and condemning do not do wrong when they do so. … Therefore it does not rhyme at all to stretch this text as if the Lord were speaking of those who have the command to punish injustice, such as preachers" etc. (Erl. vol. 13, 81.)
The use of that passage of the Confessions (p. 185, § 5-8 [Ap 6, 5-8; Trigl. 281, 5-8]) is equally wrong. Does he not know that it is directed against the doctrine of the papists, that the penitent must recount all sins with all the circumstances, so that the priest, whom God has here appointed as judge, can prescribe the satisfactions necessary for the expiation of sins according to their quantity, magnitude and gravity? The <page 141> doctor could have seen this from the context in which his quotation stands, if he had, as is fair, paid attention to it. For the whole passage in question begins with the following words:
"But of the enumeration of sins we have said above in our Confession that we hold that it is not commanded by God. (Underlined in Müller's Book of Concord) For they say that a judge must first hear the things and infirmities before he pronounces judgment, so the sins must first be told, etc., but this is irrelevant. For absolution is not a command to absolve and is not a new judgment to investigate sin. For God is the judge"
and so on. (See above!) Thus nothing could be more foolish than to use this passage against the pastoral examination that precedes admission to Holy Communion, since the pastor neither demands a heartfelt counting of sins nor investigates secret sins himself, nor decides in any judicial way to what degree of performance the granting and power of absolution should be linked, depending on the findings. With regard to the person being examined, the examination is nothing more than a service of love that a pastor performs for his penitent so that the latter can comply with the apostle's admonition: "Try yourselves whether you are in the faith, examine yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless you are not able." 2 Cor. 13:5. But with regard to the examiner, it is a duty of love, without the fulfillment of which he makes himself partaker of the terrible sin of the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper of the souls entrusted to him. (1 Tim. 5:22.)
