THE HISTORY of confession and absolution from the first to the sixteenth century AD, does not come within the scope of this study. Therefore, I shall have to pass it up, even though it had a bearing on what happened to confession and absolution in the Lutheran Church from the sixteenth century onward.
That Luther wanted private confession retained as a separate sacramental rite of the Church cannot be questioned. In his article, Of Confession, he says, "I will let no one take away private confession and would not exchange it for all the wealth of the world, for I know what strength and comfort it has given me."
In his eighth sermon against Carlstadt (1522), who had abolished private confession in Wittenberg during Luther's absence, Luther closed with the words, "I know the devil well. If you had known him as well as I, you would not have thrown private confession so quickly to the wind."
In his Babylonian Captivity of the Church Luther writes, "Of private confession, which is now observed, I am heartily in favor, even though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures; it is useful and necessary, nor would I have it abolished; nay, I rejoice that it exists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure without equal for distressed consciences."
Here already one sees the principle of Luther and Lutheranism which differs sharply from the principle of Carlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin, the Reformed and sectarian Protestants. The principle is: We retain the traditional teachings and practices of the Church except where these are in conflict with holy scriptures. The Reformed and sectarian principle is: We discard everything in the former Church and start a new Church; only those things that are in the Bible are to be taught and practiced. The Lutheran principle is evangelical, catholic, objective, scriptural, and promotes the peace and unity of the Church. The Reformed principle is biblicistic, legalistic, subjective, non-catholic, divisive, and leads to pietism and rationalism.
In 1533 Luther committed himself very emphatically in his Warning to Certain People in Frankfurt am Main. In it he says, "We keep this method that a penitent relates certain sins that bother him the most. Even if thousands and thousands of worlds belonged to me, I would lose everything rather than give up the smallest part of confession in the church. Yes, rather would I accept the Papal tyranny on Fasts, Celebrations, Vestments, Cities, Plates, and Hats and whatever I could bear without destruction of the faith than that confession should be taken from the Christians."1 So, rather than have one little part of private confession lost to the Church, Luther would prefer to endure the tyranny of the Pope as it expresses itself in fasts, etc.
Not only did Luther teach and preach and practice private confession, but he also provided a liturgical form for it in his Small Catechism. It was his deep pedagogical insight that induced him to prepare this "Brief Form of Confession," for, according to the title of the Fifth Chief Part of the Small Catechism, the unlearned should be taught to confess. Luther realized that the teaching of the principle of confession without providing a "Brief Form" would inevitably degenerate into ineffectual theorizing. In this judgment he was, of course, absolutely right. The 1943 Synodical (LC-MS) Catechism omited his "Brief Form of Confession."
The attitude of Luther toward the retention of private confession was also the attitude of the other Lutheran reformers. Melanchthon says in his first edition of the Loci, "Private absolution is thus as necessary as baptism," (Absoluti privata sic necessaria est ut baptismus) although later he somewhat modified his opinion on this point.
This attitude is also most clearly and most authoritatively expressed in the Symbols of the Lutheran Church--those confessions embodied in the Book of Concord to which every Lutheran pastor unqualifiedly subscribed when he was ordained to the holy ministry, and "solemnly promised" that he would perform the duties of his office in accordance with them. These confessions state over and over again that private confession is not to be abolished in the Lutheran Church, but is to be retained and used with highest reverence. So we read:
Augustana XI: "Of confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession the enumeration of all sins is not necessary." (The German is more forceful: "Von der Beichte wird also gelehrt, das man in der Kirche privatim absolutionem erhalten und nicht fallen lassen soll.")
Augustana XXV: "Confession2 in the churches is not abolished among us ... Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution as being the voice of God, and pronounced by God's command." Again, "Confession is of human right only (not commanded by scripture, but ordained by the Church). Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.
Apology XI: "Certainly most men in our churches use the Sacraments, Absolution, and the Lord's Supper frequently in the year ... These things are thus done both according to the gospel and according to the canons.
Apology VI: "For we also retain confession, especially on account of the absolution, as being the word of God which, by divine authority, the power of the keys pronounced upon individuals. Therefore it would be wicked to remove private absolution from the church. Neither do they understand what the remission of sins or the power of the keys is, if there are any who despise private absolution.It also mentions that no fixed time is set for all to make confession, since it would be impossible to hear and instruct the people then as diligently as it is done by Lutherans. Here the idea of separating it from the medieval canon that it had to be done before each communion is already indicated.
Apology XIII: "Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament."
Smalcald Articles III/VIII: "Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ (Himself) in the gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to he abolished in the Church . . . for since private absolution originated in the Office of Keys, it should not be despised (neglected), but greatly and highly esteemed (of the highest worth), as (also) all other offices of the Christian Church."
Small Catechism V: "But if you know of none at all (which, however, is scarcely possible), then mention none (no sins) in particular, but receive the forgiveness upon the general confession you make before God to the confessor."Note that the term "general confession" here does not mean what we call general confession, i.e., public confession, but it means a confession of sins without mentioning specific sins.
Here Luther gives a liturgical form for private confession.
Large Catechism V: "Therefore such people must learn that it is the highest art to know that our Sacrament does not depend upon our worthiness. For we are not baptized because we are worthy and holy, nor do we go to confession3 because we are pure and without sin, but contrary, because we are poor miserable men, and just because we are unworthy: unless it be someone who desires no grace and absolution nor intends to reform."Note that while the Large Catechism does not contain a separate chief part on confession, the historic institution of private confession and absolution is taken for granted.
The Lutheran doctrine of private confession and absolution grew out of a critical opposition to the corrupt doctrine and practice of penance as it existed in the Church of Rome at the time of the Reformation. This doctrine of Rome was officially formulated in the Council of Florence in 1439 and stated that the poenitentia (penance) consists in contritio, confessio, and satisfactio. But the opposition was not at first primarily to this doctrine, but to the shocking abuses in the practice of the Roman penitential system which developed in the Middle Ages. What these abuses were, anyone can learn by reading the article on the "False Penance of the Papists" in the Smalcald Articles (III/III.10-44).
But while the Lutheran doctrine developed in the heat of battle against the Roman doctrine and practice, it was not the creation of an opposite doctrine and practice. We must not imagine that Luther and the Lutheran reformers went about establishing a doctrine and practice of confession by arbitrarily creating something new and antithetical to the Roman. Unfortunately, there are ignorant and prejudiced people who regard the whole reformation of the 16th century from the viewpoint that Luther and his co-workers created a new church. When it dawns on these people that the Lutheran Church retained much that is also found in the Roman Church, then they take the attitude that these things must have been retained out of condescension and compromise and that they cannot be a part of the Lutheran Church today. But that, of course, is not true to the facts. At the time of the Reformation the Christian Church was in a state of corruption both in doctrine and practice, but the Church was still there. It had existed for 1500 years. It was not the task of the Lutheran reformers to build a new church, but on the one hand to cleanse what had become corrupt and on the other hand to retain what had not been corrupted. Here is a point that we today must see clearly if we want to understand Lutheran doctrine and the practice of private confession.
As stated above, the Roman doctrine of penance consisted, as defined in the Council of Florence, of contritio, confessio, and satisfactio. Of the satisfactio the Lutheran Church retained only the fact of the full satisfaction made by Christ and the need of a resolve by the penitent to amend his life. Both of these she referred to faith. The satisfaction of Christ is apprehended by faith and the amendment of life is the fruit of faith. At the same time, faith is not a work of man, but a gift of God. In regard to the contritio, this the Lutherans regarded not only as sorrow for sin, but also as faith in the forgiveness of sin for Christ's sake. And this had a direct bearing on the confessio. For sorrow and faith must drive a person to confession. But confession is not something that is done for its own sake; it is essentially a seeking for absolution. And absolution must be viewed from a correct standpoint of the doctrine of the means of grace. The result was that the Roman doctrine of penance became the Lutheran doctrine of confession and absolution.
The Roman poenitentia was a work of man. The Lutheran doctrine placed confession, which is the work of man, over against absolution, which is the work of God. This is the relation of one to the other. In his brief admonition to confession, Luther says, "Now mark well what I have said often, that confession consists of two parts. The first is our work and doing, that I lament my sins and desire comfort and renewal of my soul. The other is a work which God does, who absolves me from my sins through His Word spoken by the mouth of man. This is the most important and precious part, as it also makes it lovely and comforting. Up till now the confession has all been our work without going any farther than recognizing a good confession, and the other most important part was not recognized nor preached, quite as if it all were a good work with which to pay God. And whenever the confession not complete to the last detail, then absolution could not be effective nor sins forgiven." And in his Warning to Certain People in Frankfurt am Main, Luther wrote, "Therefore those who desire my council in this matter should understand me thus, that in confession are two parts: first, the enumeration of sins ... The other part of confession is the absolution which the priest speaks in God's place."
It is for this reason that the Lutheran Symbols maintain that the chief thing in confession is the absolution and that private confession is to be retained on account of the absolution.
Since the Lutheran Church regards the absolution to be the chief thing in private confession, she also accepts it as a sacrament. It is not a sacrament from the viewpoint of the confession. Confession is man's work. But the absolution is God's work. In the absolution is the essence of the Christian religion, namely, the dispensing of grace to man. Therefore, private confession is in reality, like holy baptism and holy communion, an external rite and sign of the whole gospel (externium ritus et signum totius evangelii). It contains the sacramental element of God's word. Indeed it was "ordained by Christ himself in the gospel." (Smalcald Articles III/VIII.1) And private absolution is practiced after the example of Christ himself. Therefore the Lutheran Church says in the Apology XI: "Certainly most men in our churches use the Sacraments, Absolution, and the Lord's Supper, frequently in the year"; and in Apology XIII: "Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly sacraments." (Sacraments are defined as "rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added." Apology XIII)
The Lutheran doctrine of private confession differs from the Roman doctrine of penance and especially from the Reformed doctrine of "general confession"4 in setting forth the right relationship that exists between the minister who speaks the absolution and God who bestows the absolution. According to the Lutheran doctrine there are not two subjects that forgive sins, but only one subject--God. The servant of the word only acts in an instrumental capacity. The power of the absolution lies in the word in which God himself is present. When the minister pronounces absolution it is effected by God who speaks in his word, yes, who is present in the word.
The Lutheran doctrine of confession distinguishes hetween general and private confession as well as between general and private absolution. General confession is a confession of sins in general without the mentioning of specific sins. Such a general confession may be made in public, as, for instance, in the congregation, or in private, as, for example, in private confession when no specific sins are mentioned. It is this latter kind of general confession in private that Luther speaks about when he says in A Brief Form of Confession: "But if you are conscious of none at all, which, however, is scarcely possible, then mention none in particular, but receive absolution upon the general confession5 which you make before God to the confessor." What we now term the general confession, as, for instance, in The Lutheran Hymnal, comes from the Reformed Church and was not accepted as a substitute for private confession by the Lutheran Church, as we shall see later. So general confession is the confession of sins without enumerating specific sins, and private confession, strictly speaking, is the naming of individual sins.
The distinction between private and general absolution is a little more involved. By private absolution is meant the administration of forgiveness to an individual in private confession. It means, "your sins are forgiven you." General absolution is the absolution offered and conveyed in the teaching and preaching of the gospel. Such teaching and preaching may be private or public. It may be done by ministers and laymen. It is effected whenever the gospel is accepted by faith. So private absolution is forgiveness conveyed specifically to an individual by the pastor. General absolution is the proclamation of the gospel in which forgiveness is offered to all who believe.6
Since the Lutheran doctrine of confession and absolution makes these distinctions, it clears up a number of questions:
First, can absolution be received only from a pastor? The Lutheran Church answers, "No." General absolution is offered and conveyed by the proclamation of the gospel. And the proclamation of the gospel is every Christian's duty and right. Therefore neither the general proclamation of the gospel nor the general absolution can be restricted to the pastor.
But there is a difference between general absolution and private absolution. General absolution may not be consciously sought or administered. It is different with private absolution. This is consciously sought and administered. And he who seeks it must seek it from the appointed steward of the mysteries of Cod. This is not something that can be included in the general proclamation of the gospel. Here we deal with the office of the keys as it applies specifically to the appointed servant of the word who has the office and responsibility of the care of souls. The situation here is the same as with the administration of holy baptism and holy communion. So, for example, the Braunschweigische Kirchenordnung of 1569 states, "Confession is to be maintained, so that private absolution be sought from the Lord Christ in the Word through true confession and faith and from Christ through the medium of the servant of the Word." Martin Chemnitz and John Gerhardt state similarly that absolution must be sought from the pastor.
Secondly, is private confession and absolution necessary for salvation? In answer to this question the Lutheran Church denies the Roman doctrine that it is necessary to confess every known sin in auricular confession in order to receive forgiveness. Such an enumeration of separate sins is not required by God. At the same time the Lutheran Church insists in its official confessions that there is a subjective and objective necessity for it which caused it to develop in the Church, and that it is not contrary to the scriptures, but rather in harmony with its doctrines, if it is practiced rightly.
First of all, there is a subjective or psychological necessity for it. Often one cannot find assurance without private confession. No one knew this better than Luther himself. He says in Of Confession:
"Even if everyone can confess his sins to God by himself alone and be reconciled to God in secret ... it is good that he take God by His Word and promise ( Matt. 16:19, And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; John 20:23, whoever's sins you remit, they are remitted to them; and whoever's sins you retain, they are retained) that he overcome his stubbornness and failure to confess in compliance with God's Word, so that he may come freely and boldly before God on the basis of his own truth and say, 'Now, dear God, I have confessed before you my sins to my confessor and in your name asked for grace; for you have promised, what is bound is bound and what is loosed is loosed, and your Father will grant what we unitedly desire: so I cling to your promise and do not doubt your truth; as my confessor has forgiven me in your name, so I am forgiven as we have desired.' See such a certainty no one can have who confesses to God alone ...Therefore I will let no one take away private confession, and would not exchange it for all the wealth in the world."But aside from this subjective reason for private confession, there are also objective reasons. It is for these reasons that we read in Apology XI: "It is good to urge the unexperienced that they confess specific sins, so that one can teach them properly," and in Smalcald Articles III/VIII: "Confession is not to be allowed to cease in the Church, especially not on account of dull consciences, also on account of the youth, that it will be heard and taught in the Christian doctrine." But primarily, the Lutheran Church sees the necessity of private confession not only in the indisputable needs which must drive a Christian to seek an administration of the word of grace specifically upon himself, but also in the very nature of the word of God and in the will of the Lord who set the example for it himself. Again and again our confessions state that private confession is to be retained on account of the absolution. In regard to the absolution so much is certain that it is the work of God, for it is the administration of his word.
So there is no question about the need of private confession and absolution. But the Lutheran Church does not say that it is necessary to salvation in the sense that forgiveness of sins cannot be obtained in any other way. For aside from the fact that forgiveness of sins is bestowed in holy baptism and holy communion, it is also offered and conveyed in a general way in the preaching of the gospel, and the possibility that a person may obtain the forgiveness of his sins from the preaching of the gospel must always be maintained. But the Lutheran Church can and does say that from its objective side private confession and absolution are required by the very nature of the gospel, which demands that it be concentrated upon the individual person and brought down to the sentence, "Your sins are forgiven you." Also from the subjective side private confession and absolution are necessary, not only on account of the particular sins which trouble an individual, but because of the need which is common to all men alike, for all are sinners. Thus Apology VI states, "Those who disregard private absolution neither understand what forgiveness of sin is nor what the power of the keys is." And so the Lutheran Church denies the sentence that without private absolution salvation is impossible. And yet private absolution is an ordinance which is not to be put aside unnecessarily, and if it is disregarded, may endanger one's salvation.
That is the Lutheran doctrine of confession and absolution. The Lutheran private confession and absolution differs from the Reformed general confession in this, that it advocates private, personal confession on account of the absolution. In the Reformed churches ministers are hired by the congregation and are not always understood as the mouthpieces and representatives of Christ. Therefore they also reject private confession. Instead of it they instituted a general confession at the beginning of the service as a preparation for worship and holy communion. But the Lutheran Church of the 16th century opposed this as strongly as it did the Roman system of penance. The Calenberg Kirchenordnung condemns, "the sacrament enthusiasts and certain others who in part despise absolution and in part reject it entirely." (die Sacrament schwaermer und etliche andere, welche die Absolution zum Teil verachten, zum Teil gar verwerfen.) Lutheran private confession and absolution also differs from the Roman auricular confession in this, that it is not made compulsory and does not require the enumeration of particular sins, for it rejects the medieval Roman notion that only those sins are forgiven which have been confessed.
Private confession and absolution was formerly a requirement in the Lutheran Church. Many of the old Lutheran Kirchenordnungen (KOO) have a chapter on the subject and go into great detail describing the procedure.
The procedure was as follows:
The minister, vested in cassock, surplice, and violet stole, sat in a clergy seat or the confessional chair at the communicants' rail or the rood screen. Thus confessions were made in the open church and yet in a place which afforded the necessary privacy to the individual making his confession. There is a notice of the dedication of such a confessional chair in Neuseidlitz (Erzgebirge) as late as 1719, 200 years after the Reformation.
Even in the Roman Catholic Church confessional booths were not in use before the Council of Trent. They were intorduced in northern Italy by St. Charles Barmeo, Archbishop of Milan (died 1584) and were prescribed by the First and Fourth councils of Milan (1565 and 1576). Up to this time movable seats were always used and the confessions were held in the open church at the choir (the entrance to the chancel) or at the choir screen.
The time for confession was Wednesdays and Fridays, the two station days, and Saturdays after vespers.
The individual making his confession would come up to the confessional chair, kneel before the minister, and then both the penitent and the minister would use a prescribed formula or rite of confession and absolution. The one most generally used was Luther's "Brief Form of Confession" given in the Small Catechism. This form was as follows:
Penitent: Reverend and dear Sir, I ask you to hear my confession and to pronounce forgiveness to me for God's sake.
I, a poor sinner, confess myself before God guilty of all sins; especially I confess before you that.... (Here he confesses those sins against God's command and his station which he knows and feels in his heart.) For all this I am sorry, and pray for grace; I want to do better. (Hereupon the confessor gives to the penitent such needful admonition or comfort as circumstances may require.)
Confessor: God be merciful to you and strengthen your faith.
R. Amen.
Do you believe that my forgiveness is God's forgiveness?
R. Yes, dear Sir.
(Then with the laying on of hands and the sign of the Cross:) As you believe, so be it done to you. And by the command of Our Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you your sins. In the Name of the + Father and of the + Son and of the + Holy Spirit.
R. Amen.
Depart in peace.Children and adults were taught this or another formula and learned it by heart. Many KOO direct that on weekday services the minister should teach the people the private confession formula. Thus the Verdensche KO says, "Before or after the sermon, the words of the Catechism in German plus a short form of confession shall be read to the people, so that the common man may learn how to confess his sins." The people were also taught that the Lutheran Church retained private confession because of the great benefit of holy absolution, which is the pardoning voice of God sounding from heaven. In the Lutheran Church no one is forced to confession, nor are penances imposed, for when our Lord upon the cross cried out, "It is finished," the complete payment for all sins had been made in full. Yet everyone is urged to make private confession in order that in holy absolution he may receive the individual, personal, and unconditional forgiveness of his sins, especially such particular sins against God's commandments as may weigh upon his heart and burden his conscience.
"But if anyone does not find himself burdened with such sins, he should not trouble himself or search for or invent other sins, and thereby make confession a torture, but mention one or two that he knows, thus; In particular, I confess that I once cursed; again, I once used improper words; I have once neglected this or that, etc. Let this suffice."
"But if you know of none at all (which, however, is scarcely possible), then mention none in particular upon the general (non-specific) confession which you make before God to the confessor." -Small Catechism.In the Lutheran Church confession and absolution formed an independent and separate church office. The whole Lutheran attitude to confession naturally called for such an independent office. Confession and absolution was not merely the proclamation of God's word, but the administration of the word to the individual. Therefore, it could not be a general confession such as we have today, nor a mere preparation for holy communion. Of course no one was allowed to go to holy communion unless he had made his confession at some time, just as no one was allowed to go to holy communion who was not baptized. But that does not mean, as so many people think today, that you had to go to confession every time you went to holy communion, or that confession was a preparatory rite for holy communion.7 As a matter of fact, such a practice would have been impractical and impossible, since Lutherans had the celebration of holy communion as the chief service of every Sunday and every feast day and urged every member to partake of it at every celebration. Therefore confessions were held throughout the year and people were admonished to make their confession throughout the year and not just at Easter time or when they wanted to partake of the blessed sacrament.
Since confession and absolution was regarded as an independent Church office, it had to be administered in the church and not in the parsonage or a church office or a private home, except in case of necessity. Nearly all KOO forbid the administration outside of church.
Furthermore, it was to be administered only to individuals, not to more than one at a time. Thus one KO says, "The pastors should hear each person and speak the absolution individually and not speak the absolution to a whole group at once."8 In the Calenberg KO it says, "The pastors shall absolve each individual after an act of confession according to the command and promise of Christ and not two, three or more at the same time."9
From the very beginning some Lutheran churches did institute a type of general confession, called Offene Schuld.10 But this was not like the general confession we have today. It did not take the place of private confession and was not a preparation for worship. It was incorporated in the service after the sermon. We find it mentioned in the Saxon Visitation Articles of 1533, the KO of Prussia (1535), and the Braunschweiger KO (1531). The last of these gives a liturgical formula which is really only a confession and does not contain an absolution.
But even this kind of general confession, Offene Schuld, caused trouble. For example, we have this interesting case of Nuerenberg in which Luther became involved. When Osiander and Brenz formulated the Ansbach-Nuerenberg KO in 1533, they did away with general confession or Offene Schuld which had become customary in the Nuerenberg service. Some people did not like this and took it up with the city council. Brenz then defended his action in a letter to the council. In this he stated that a general confession (Offene Schuld) nullifies the sermon, since the sermon in itself is a general absolution. It also devaluates the rite of private confession, since it makes private confession appear to be superfluous. Thus it confuses the office of the keys and puts the conscience of some people to sleep and makes other people uncertain. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, out of which comes absolution, is the application of the gospel of Christ. The gospel be preached to a general assembly and it can be applied to an individual. When it is preached to a general assembly, it works forgiveness according to the nature of such preaching. Then, if a general confession and absolution (Offene Schuld) follows the sermon, it results in the false and insane idea that the preaching of the gospel is not really a general application of the office of the keys. On the other hand, a general confession and absolution is not the application of the gospel to an individual. In this sense it is not true absolution at all. Nowhere do we read in scriptures that a mixed group of people in which, besides true Christians, there may be unbelievers, false-believers, impenitent, adulterers, fornicators, usurers, traitors, drunkards, murderers, and those who do not desire absolution, much less are determined to amend their sinful lives, can be absolved. The old church knew nothing like this. A general confession can either be only conditional, i.e., if you are truly penitent, or unconditional. In the first case it is no absolution, and in the second it is a lie and blasphemy. But private confession and absolution is the application of the gospel to an individual. Therefore, in addition to the sermon, which is in its own nature a general absolution, it is necessary to have private confession for the individual absolution of the sinner, especially when he is troubled about personal forgiveness. Our fathers called holy absolution the sacrament of penance, and this for a good reason. The very nature of a sacrament demands its administration, not to a group in general, but to individuals who desire it. It is improper to administer the sacrament of holy absolution to a whole group in which there are people who have given no evidence that they desire it or that they are penitent.
The city council argued the question, but could not agree. Then the matter was referred to Luther. Luther answered in a letter which was also signed by Bugenhagen, Jonas, Melanchthon, and Crusiger, dated Oct. 8, 1533.11 In it he stated that private confession and absolution should by all means be retained. But, besides the sermon, which is a general absolution, a general confession (Offene Schuld) may also be used in order to remind the hearers that they should each believe the gospel as the proclamation of the forgiveness of their sins.
That is the end of the Nuerenberg case. But even though Luther was willing to tolerate a general confession in addition to the sermon and the administration of private confession and absolution, Brenz was right. A general confession after the sermon is neither sermon nor absolution. Absolution in that case can only be conditional and therefore can really not be administered, but only announced. And any type of general confession in addition to the sermon is always an enemy of private confession. On the one hand, it is preferred by those ministers who are uncertain about whether they can really give absolution or can only announce it conditionally. For this very reason the Reformed Church created general confession and absolution, for it does not believe that the administration of absolution by the minister is effective. On the other hand, people who do not like to confess also prefer a general confession, for that makes it easy for them to let their consciences sleep. The subsequent history of private confession and absolution in the Lutheran Church will show that this is true and that Brenz was right.
To understand the exodus of private confession from the Lutheran Church, one must first realize that the doctrine and practice of the Reformed Church has from the very beginning had a tremendous influence on the Lutheran Church. General confession and absolution as we have it today comes from the Reformed Church. It did not originate in the Lutheran Church. The old Lutheran Church bitterly opposed it. And yet it crept in, especially in south and west Germany where the Reformed influence was strongest, and thus the seed of compromise and the eventual destruction of the Lutheran practice of private confession and absolution was sown.
Secondly, one must remember that between the 16th century and the second half of the 17th century came the Thirty Years War. The Lutheran Church was disrupted. Many Lutheran churches were without a pastor, not only for a few years, but for decades. Church orders, Church books, and Church furnishings were destroyed. Schools were closed. Religious education stopped. Morality sank to a low level. Think of what would happen in our country if Church and school would practically cease to function for thirty years. Under these conditions one can understand that the administration of private confession and absolution, which depends on the function of the office of the ministry, suffered tremendously.
It is surprising how soon after the Thirty Years War the church orders were again reprinted and put into practice. But the problem of restoration was great. This was especially true with confession and absolution. Private confession and the confessional chair were restored, but only the outward forms could be reestablished at first. This is the time which is called the period of dead orthodoxy. The Lutheran Church held on to orthodox doctrine, but so far as Christian faith and morality were concerned, much was lacking. This is not hard to understand when you consider the conditions of that time.
Two other factors contributed to the downfall of private confession. The first was the immediate association of private confession and absolution with holy communion. While the KOO expressly stated that people were to come to confession throughout the year, specific times were now prescribed for confession in connection with holy communion and feast days. This made private confession practically impossible, because a single pastor could not hear many confessions in a short time. Secondly, confession was used for the purpose of church discipline. It was made punitive instead of reconciliatory. For example, a woman who had an illegitimate child was forced to come before the congregation and beg for forgiveness before the minister would grant absolution. In that way a stigma was attached to the person who had confessed. The whole thing had become legalistic. The main part of confession was no longer the absolution. Consequently, people became afraid of confession and stayed away.
Out of these conditions arose a tendency of pietism. The first blow came from the theological school at Rostock. Theoyhilus Crossgebauer published an article in 1661 entitled, Waechterstimme Aus Dem Verwuesteten Zion, in which he stated that private confession and absolution is unscriptural and unnecessary, because those who go to confession are either penitent or impenitent. If they are penitent they already have forgiveness and if they are impenitent the absolution will do them no good.
After Grossgebauer's death, Philip Jacob Spener became the leader in the movement known as Pietism. He was pastor in Frankfurt and later professor of theology in the University at Halle. He inaugurated prayer meetings in the houses of people which devaluated the regular church, the sacraments, and the office of the ministry. His spirit was different from that of the 16th century Lutheran reformers. This was true also in regard to confession and absolution. They had said, "The entire character of confession exists primarily under the sufferance of Holy Absolution"12 Spener said, "The main task of the whole matter of confession serves primarily that the necessary examination of the communicants be promoted and that the father confessor may have an opportunity to deal confidently and necessarily with his penitents."13 The whole system of confession did not suit him. He had a tendency which differed sharply from the Lutheran reformers. His outlook was pietistic. Therefore he declared himself in favor of abolishing confession and absolution altogether and substituting something else which would suit his pietistic purposes.
That something else, first of all, was to do away with the confessional chair in the church. Spener proposed that everyone who wanted to partake of holy communion on Sunday should come to the pastor's study during the week before. This was to be done by everyone personally. Each person had to come to announce for holy communion. Thus Spener would compel the communicants to come to the pastor's study. There in the pastor's study, he claimed, opportunity would be had for a heart-to-heart talk. This was better than private confession and absolution according to Spener's pietistic ideas.
But, of course, the pastor's study is no place for private confession and absolution. The Lutheran KOO had rightly demanded that the pastor hear private confession and absolution only in the open church. They forbade him even to hold it in the sacristy or in the home of any member, except in case of severe sickness. Confession and absolution was regarded by Lutheranism as a sacred act of the Church, not merely a religious exercise. By instituting Communion announcements in the pastor's study, Spener showed not only a complete misunderstanding of what confession and absolution is, but he caused confession and absolution to fall into disuse in the Lutheran Church.
Spener did many other things that threw the Lutheran Church into confusion, caused the abolition of private confession and absolution, and deprived her of the means for the cure of souls. He told pastors to hold a confessional service for all who wanted to go to holy communion, in which they should give a confessional address, followed by a confession and absolution by all as a group. After this had first been done, then they could administer private confession and absolution. And thus he still retained private confession and absolution formally, since it was an office of the Church, but he added something which tended to do away with it altogether. For, since the new thing which was added was more convenient for the people and the pastors, the new soon displaced the old.
Again, he advocated that the choice of the confessor should be free. The KOO had bound their members to their parochial pastor on account of private confession and absolution. They did not allow the free choice of a different pastor as confessor, otherwise there could be no discipline. It also established the objectivity of confession and absolution and the means of grace which are not dependent on the worthiness or unworthiness of the pastor.
But Spener's ideas were altogether different. According to him everything depended on a right relationship between the penitent and confessor. These two must have confidence in each other, he claimed, or else the results will be no good. And since the parochial arrangement of churches was not of divine institution everyone should be given the liberty to choose the pastor he likes the best.
Here we see again Spener's un-Lutheran ideas. What is more, through such running after persons the real Person is often lost.
Spener also fought against the prescribed forms of confession. He wanted everyone to pour out his heart in his own words. The result was that the old prescribed church form of confession and absolution was lost. Since most people do not have the ability to confess in their own way, they did not confess at all. Through Spener's influence the Lutheran confession and absolution was gradually transformed into the Reformed so-called general confession and absolution, and church discipline was lost without a substitute.
The case of Johann Casper Schade serves as an example of what happened. Schade was pastor of St. Nicholas in Berlin and an ardent follower of Spener. He spoke and wrote against private confession and absolution, sometimes using harsh language. For instance, he used the phrase, "Beichttstuhl, Satanstuhl, Hoellenpfuhl." ("Confessors chair, Satans seat, pool of hell.") In his congregation he abolished private confession and absolution and instead preached a confessional sermon to those who came for confession and then pronounced a general absolution.
This action caused trouble in the Church and the matter was referred to the office of the Churfuerst. At the time the Churfuerst was in Prussia, but he appointed a commission to handle the case. This commission would have restored Lutheran private confession and absolution, but in the meantime the Churfuerst came back. He was inclined toward the Reformed Church and in a subtle way had already begun to unionize the Lutheran and Reformed elements in Berlin. As a result, Schade and those inclined to the Reformed Church wrote an article, entitled, Apostolischer Bericht und Untericht von Beichte und Abendmahl (Apostolic Report and Teaching about Confession and Communion.), in which they treated confession and holy communion in the same way as such free thinkers as Dippel, Edelmann, and their consorts did ten years later, when they rejected the office of the ministry, called confession and absolution "a Babylonian monstrosity and monster born of a foolish human mind,"14 and called holy communion a mere memorial feast. This had the backing of the elector, and so the Lutherans had to he satisfied with communion announcements and a general confession and absolution.
This case of Schade in Berlin is only a picture of what happened later in other places. Pietism sought freedom from private confession and absolution. Rationalism later attached itself to the freedom-seeking pietists. The leaders of the Church followed the trend, partly out of sympathy, partly out of fear.
At the beginning of the 18th century the denunciation of private confession and absolution by Lutheran sectarians was loud and vehement. Rosenbach called private confession and absolution, "an accursed idolatry and foolishness."15 Tuchtfeld called it: "Ordinances under which the souls of men are kept prisoner."16
What the pietists started was carried to its logical conclusion by the rationalists. To them absolution by the Word of God made no sense at all, because they rejected the inspiration of the scriptures and the power of the Word of God. For them forgiveness of sins was obtained through the resolution to live a better life.
At the end of the 18th century, one church edict after another abolished private confession and absolution and substituted general confession and absolution. (For example, the 27 November 1790 edict of Mechlenburg.) Matters became worse when catechisms, hymnbooks, and agendas were rationalized. The Wuerttemberg Liturgie of 1809 no longer gave the people an opportunity to learn the prescribed form of confession. Lutherans are in much the same position today. The 1943 Synodical (LC-MS) Catechism completely deleted the form provided by Luther for private confession.
This doctrinal and historical study now raises the question: Is the present practice of the Lutheran Church regarding confession and absolution satisfactory, and if not, what shall be done about it?
If Lutherans are satisfied with the status quo, they must not deceive themselves into believing that they have a confession and absolution in the Lutheran sense. The present general confession and absolution is fundamentally different from the confession and absolution which Luther had in mind and which is discussed and required in our Confessions. It is really nothing more than the sermon. It makes the appearance of a personal confession and absolution, but it really is only a declaration of a confession and an absolution of the grace of God in general to all who repent and believe the gospel.
It is here that the present practice is harmful. People are deceived. They think our general confession and absolution is the same or practically the same as private confession and absolution. Consequently, they are deprived of the benefits and blessings of private confession and absolution.
Then there are other considerations. The Lutheran Confessions say again and again that private confession and absolution is not to be abolished in the Church and to be allowed to come into disuse. How, then, can we be satisfied with the present practice which has substituted something else for private confession and absolution, and has allowed it to come into disuse? The kind of confession and absolution Lutherans now have is that of the Reformed Church. It implies Reformed and not Lutheran theology and practice. Can Lutherans condone such a situation? The confessional chair has gone out of the Lutheran churches and with it the special place for the individual cure of souls. Announcement for holy communion was substituted. But it is not an official act of the Church and is no longer practiced in most churches. In Lutheran practice the whole idea of confession and absolution has been tied up with the participation of the sacrament of holy communion, has discouraged frequent attendance at holy communion, and has misplaced the purpose of confession and absolution.
If, then, the Lutheran Church is not satisfied with the status quo, and it is difficult to see how she can be, what shall we do about it?
1. The Lutheran Church can restudy what God has revealed to her about the means of grace and what her Confessions state on the basis of the holy scriptures about private confession and absolution and its use in the Church.
2. She can do something about restoring the Lutheran practice of Private Confession and Absolution by solving some of the problems connected with its practice.
Many things can be done. Chaplain Delvin E. Ressel, in an article which appeared in the Lutheran Chaplain in 1949, makes the following suggestions:
Having properly taught Part V of the Small Catechism, and remembering what the other Confessions teach and enjoin on the same subject, the Lutheran pastor or chaplain will make such practical arrangements as to enable his spiritual children to derive maximum benefits from Holy Absolution. First he will announce regular time and place for the hearing of confessions. Then he will see that the ecclesiastical appointments are proper and inviting for private confession. Unless he makes these provisions, his teaching of confession will remain barren theorizing and the important Confessional principle of the renewal of the Baptismal covenant will lie fallow. Blessed Carl Ferdinand William Walther, in his Pastorale, directs that confessions be heard in the clergy seat next to the communicants' rail or the rood screen, thus being in the open church and yet affording the necessary privacy to the penitent. Blessed William Loehe has the following on the practical arrangement of the confessional; "In the nave, either against a pillar on the south side or at a corner of the wall usually separating the choir from the nave, about opposite the place where the pulpit can be placed, is the confessional, a necessary appointment, if private confession is practiced. Since private confession is the heaviest work of a pastor and also the most tiring physically, the pastor must be able to sit. The confessional, moreover, must be so placed as to be seen by all, yet not so as to permit anyone to hear the voice of the penitent." "Concerning the other arrangement of the confessional, it would be by far the most proper, if the penitent would kneel beside the pastor and speak into his ear through an opening in the confessional. So it was of old, and confession therefore received the innocent name, 'auricular confession.' Among us the blushing penitent is mostly required to look his father confessor in the face or to be looked in the face by him. Still, the position of the confessional chair in front of the confessional has at least the advantage that the absolution may be more conveniently spoken to the penitent with laying on of hands." One solution of this problem might be an arrangement whereby the penitent kneels on a prie-dieu, in the back desk of which a perforated board might then be lowered for the imposition of the priest's hand and the signing with the Holy Cross during holy absolution. The object of all these arrangement, in accordance with Confessional teaching and practice, is to make confession not a torture but a welcome opportunity to receive divine grace for one's self and one's own particular need. Of course, the most thorough instruction and the most adequate and inviting facilities will avail little if the pastor or chaplain neglects to cultivate the spirit of a true evangelical father confessor.It should be added that the pastor should be properly vested in surplice and violet stole in order to symbolize that he is administering the means of grace and is the mouthpiece of God in this official act of the Church. Furthermore, there should be a printed form of the confession at the place where the confessor kneels to say his confession. This form must be used with all reverence and sincerity. It must be taught to the catechumens and all members. In fact, they should be required to learn it by heart so that they can say it without the help of the printed form when they come for holy confession and absolution.
These externals are important if Lutheran private confession and absolution are to be restored in the Church. But they are not the important thing and will present no difficulty when the more important problems have been solved. Among these is the problem of reeducating and indoctrinating the clergy and laity. The Fifth Chief Part of Luther's Catechism must be emphasized. And first of all, something must be done to restore Luther's "Short Form for Confession" to our catechisms and other educational materials. Then there is the problem of overcoming the prejudice which has been built up against private confession and absolution. Traditions which go back hundreds of years, no matter how bad, cannot be corrected overnight.
Also the problem of getting united and concerted action throughout the Church is a most difficult one. It is not enough for one pastor to reintroduce private confession and absolution in his congregation. It must be done gradually throughout the Church. Otherwise when members move from one place to another, they will not find the opportunity to make use of this blessing. In one case a member of a congregation where private confession and absolution was practiced moved to another parish. After arriving there he went to the church for private confession and absolution only to find that there was no provision made for it and the pastor did not even know how to go about administering this solemn rite of the Church.
But if the position of the Lutheran Church as stated in our Confessions is right, then it will not be impossible to restore private confession and absolution. All that is needed is to give God the opportunity to accomplish it. Therefore Lutherans need to pray the following prayer:
"O God, you have given us the desire to please you, give us also the grace to do that which is well-pleasing in your sight; through Jesus Christ, Our Lord."
Solid Declaration XI. Of God's Eternal Election:
"For this reason also Christ causes the promise of the Gospel not only to be offered in general, but He seals it through the Sacraments which He attaches as seals of the promise, and thereby confirms it to every believer in particular.
"On this account, as the Augsburg Confession in Art. XXV says, we also retain private absolution, and teach that it is God's command that we believe such absolution, and should regard it as sure that, when we believe the word of absolution, we are truly reconciled to God as though "we had heard a voice from heaven, as the Apology explains this Article."Apology VI, Of Confession and Satisfaction:
"Perhaps some may also cite James 5:16: 'Confess your faults one to another.' But here the reference is not to confession that is to be made to the priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliation of brethren to each other. For it commands that the confession be mutual."Apology XXVIII (XIV):
"Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i.e., the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; he has also the powor of jurisdiction, i.e., the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve them if they are converted and seek absolution."February 1952 American Lutheran:
"The reintroduction of the individual confession was voted in Hannover by the Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Hannover, the large Lutheran church in Germany. Explaining its action, the synod recalled that 'Martin Luther did not abolish the confession as such, but turned only against an abuse of its practice and the confession as a compulsory act.'"
1 "Wir behalten diese Weise, dass ein Beichtkind erzehle etliche Suenden, die es am meisten druecken ... Wann tausend und aber tausend Welt mein waeren, so wolte ich alles lieber verlieren, dann ich der geringsten Stuecklein eines der Beichte aus der Kirche wolte kommen lassen. Ja, lieber solte mir sein der Papstthums Tyrannei vom Fasten, Feyren, Kleidern, Staedten, Flatten, Kappen, und was ich koennte ohne Versherung des Glaubens tragen, dann das die Beichte von den Christen solte genommen werden." WA 30III:566, 29-30 and 569, 6-11.
2 The term always means private confession and absolution.
3 Here confession is regarded a sacrament.
4 This is public confession.
5 Not naming individual sins, but still private confession.
6 James 5:16, cannot be used here. Apology VI, Of Confession and Satisfaction: "Perhaps some may also cite James 5:16: 'Confess your faults one to another.' But here the reference is not to confession that is to be made to the priests, but, in general, concerning the reconciliation of brethren to each other. For it commands that the confession be mutual."
7 This practice originated in the Middle-ages.
8 "Es sollen auch die Pastoren jede Person insonderheit verhoeren und die Absolution sprechen, und nicht einen Haufen zugleich eine gemeine Absolution sprechen."
9 "Es sollen aber die Pastoren einen Jeden nach getahner Beichte aus dem Befehl und der Zusage Christi insonderheit absolvieren, und nicht zwei, drei, oder mehr zugleich."
10 The Offene Schuld developed in the Middle Ages.
11 See WA Br 6:454-5; AE 50:75-7
12 "Des ganze Beichtwesen ist vornehmlich under heiligen Absolution willen da."
13 "Das Hauptwerk des ganzen Beichtwesen geht vornehmlich dahin, dass die noetige Pruefung der Communikanten recht befoerdert werde, und der Beichtfater eine bequeme Gelegenheit habe, mit seinen Beichtkindern notduerftig und vertraulig zu handeln."
14 "Ein babylonisches Monstrum and Ungehauer vom narrisehen Menschenhirne ersonnen."
15 "Eine verfluchte Abgoetterei und Gaukelei."
16 "Satzungen unter Welchen der Menschen Seele gefangen gehalten werden."
19 January 1997
This article was first presented as a conference paper in the California/Nevada District of the LCMS in October 1952 under the title, "The Exodus of the Practice of Private Confession from the Lutheran Church and Its Implications--A Doctrinal, Historical, and Critical Study." It appeared under a much abbreviated title in Una Sancta, XXII,1 (1965) and was published again, albeit in a drastically edited form, in Concordia Theological Quarterly, 56:4 (1992). The SR editors believe that this reprint of the earlier edition(s) more faithfully presents the author's original intent and argument.
