# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1849 04 02_S125
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

125

former wishes, that even the members of the Left were dumbfounded by it, and some could not conceal that they had been thoroughly mortified by it. Not only does this constitution adhere closely to the Fundamental Rights deliberated upon at Frankfurt, but it also declares that wherever through the further deliberation and second reading of the Fundamental Rights a difference should arise, the government, in conjunction with the next Diet, to which the constitution is to be submitted for revision, shall have to establish agreement between the two and the Fundamental Rights. In some points it comes out even more decidedly than the Fundamental Rights; thus it grants the Church complete freedom and does not even reserve to the State a confirmation of the election of ministers of the Church. Then a joyful astonishment arose in the land; from all sides addresses of thanks for the constitution poured in to the King, even from places which shortly before had sent addresses of encouragement to the Left. But with the refusal of taxes it was now entirely over: General Wrangel, formerly so much hated and rejected, is now the most popular man in Berlin, and Held, the former arch-demagogue, rouser of the people and devourer of tyrants, now amuses the people, in the very same house where the Rump Parliament had last assembled, with a puppet show in which he makes that body ridiculous. Now, at the end of the old year and the beginning of the new, people in Prussia are occupied with the elections, which, however, on account of the unpolitic severity with which the government deals with the former members of the Left, seem likely to turn out more radical than one otherwise would have had cause to expect.

In Frankfurt, however, the Fundamental Rights have already been read for the second time and gone through with few alterations. The Imperial Constitution also has been deliberated up to the last and chief point, that concerning the head of the Empire. Whether an Emperor? whether a hereditary or an elected Emperor? whether no Emperor, but a triad? whether for the present always only an Imperial Regent? whether the King of Prussia or the Emperor of Austria?*) These are the great, difficult questions, which become still more difficult by the fact that Austria has hitherto not recognized the resolutions of the Imperial Assembly, indeed has declared quite openly that for the present it cannot enter into the Federal State. A chief stumbling-block are §§ 2 and 3 of the Imperial Constitution, which provide that German lands with which non-German ones are connected can belong to the German Empire only on the condition that their non-German appendages remain henceforth connected with them only by personal union. This Austria cannot do without giving itself up. And over this the whole Imperial Assembly is shaken together as in a sieve; all parties are thrown into confusion over it; the Imperial Minister Schmerling, as an Austrian, has resigned on the advice of his own friends, and Gagern is now Minister-President. He wishes to establish the unity of Germany without Austria and to bring about the connection with Austria only by way of diplomatic relations, which, to be sure, are to be as close as possible. If the Imperial Assembly does not agree with him in this, his ministry will likewise come to an end at once. Everything is in suspense. The Christmas and New Year recess gives time for reflection. The knots are tied, the questions sharply put; the year 1849 is to bring the solution. May God rule it graciously!

*) This is at present Francis Joseph I., after his uncle, the hitherto Emperor Ferdinand, and his father, Archduke Charles, have abdicated in his favor. He is 18 years old.

The Law.

As far as heaven is separated from earth, so far ought we to separate the Law from the conscience. For the Law can do nothing else in the conscience but terrify, increase sin, and kill. Thus the kingdom of the conscience belongs solely to grace, which sets Christ before us, who has suffered for us. But the Law must be assigned to the body and the outward members, that it may be a rule and plumb-line of outward duties. Luth. Opp. VI, 756.

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

Dr. Heinrich Müller, the author of the "himmlischen Liebeskusses," the "geistlichen Erquickstunden," the "Kreuz-, Buß- und Betschule," the "Schlußkette" and the "Herzensspiegels,"*) and of several other spiritual writings, appears still to stand in some esteem among the Methodists and certain other people. At least the "Apologet" and the "Amerikanische Botschafter" have already communicated to their readers several extracts from his writings; the former has even once produced Heinrich Müller as a witness of the truth against the so-called Old Lutherans. We hope, therefore, that the gentlemen Methodists, when we lay before them a testimony of such a man for the power of holy Absolution, will not so quickly reject it, but will deem it worthy of consideration. At least such a testimony ought to convince them that a man may be an enemy of all dead work-righteousness and of all carnal confidence in mere pure doctrine without living faith and holy life, and be a zealous Christian and an enlightened teacher, and yet hold fast the Biblical doctrine of the power of Absolution and comfort himself with it.

*) The book of this name is a postil in two parts, in the first of which are contained the sermons on the Gospels and in the other the sermons on the Epistles for all Sundays and festivals of the church year. This excellent book of sermons has recently been republished unchanged, and a considerable number of copies has been sent to us for sale. Whoever wishes to have it can obtain it through the Editors of the Lutheraner. Both parts, well bound in one volume, cost $2.50 Cts.; a single part, in paper covers, $1. The Editor.

Heinrich Müller writes, namely, in his "Thränen- und Trostquelle," a series of 20 juicy and powerful meditations on the history of the great sinner woman (according to Luke 7:36 ff.), as follows:

"Who is this that forgiveth sins also? So the Pharisees asked, because they held Christ to be a mere man. It seems they were able to endure tolerably well the general account of the forgiveness of sins; but that through the service of a man the application of the forgiveness of sins could take place, either in general to many believers, or in particular to one and another who desired it, this they did not dare to trust. From this it is easily to be gathered how coldly and superficially they must have administered the office of the Spirit among the people. For they deny that through the office of reconciliation the promise of grace shall be so appropriated to believers that they can and shall conclude from it infallibly that their sin is forgiven them. They judged, therefore, no otherwise than that in the preaching of the Word, concerning the forgiveness of sins, something is only told in general, without any power and cooperation of God. In such an opinion many still stick today, who on that account greatly belittle the office of the Spirit in their writings. The doctrine of Popery concerning doubt of grace comes very near to this Pharisaic blasphemy. For if by the preaching of the atonement we are not infallibly assured of the forgiveness of our sins, what great account is there to be made of it? If it is a Word of God, it must be in greater certainty. What men say may deceive, because all men are liars; but what God says, that is surely true, for God is the truth, and if He tells us (though through men) the truth, why do we not believe Him?

"Who is this that forgiveth sins also? Because He was not a mere man, but at once God and man, He had the power to forgive sins, not only as a Son of God, but also as a Son of man, especially as to Him, according to His human nature, the almighty power of God, which as God He had essentially, had been personally communicated. Therefore He says elsewhere that the Son of man hath power to forgive sins. Not only has He (as Bellarminus and some of the Reformed in true Pharisaic fashion would have it) as true man had the right to forgive sins, but also the divine ability. He has power to do it, has also had strength for it; for, if He had not only authority (empowerment) but also might to command the unclean spirits that they should come out (Luke 4:36), how should He not also with equal power and might have been able to forgive sin? This we ought not to deny nor blaspheme, but rather to rejoice that in Christ we have such an almighty Lord, also according to the nature in which He is our flesh and blood. And this He plainly intimates,