ST. CATHARINES CONCORDIA - Brock University

Thomas M. Wingcr: AUGSBUKG CONFESSION IV 6( V
Christ has won it on the cross, it is true. But he has not distributed
or given it on the cross. He has not won it in the Supper or
Sacramcnt. But there he has distributed and given it through the
Word, as also in the Gospel, where it is preached [pedigt].. . . If
now I desire to have my sins forgivcn, I must not run to the cross,
for I do not find it distributed there. Nor must l hold to the suffering
of Christ in knowledge or remembrance, as Dr Karlstadt trifles,
for T will not find it there cither. But [I must hold] to the Sacrament
or the Gospel. where I find the Word, which dislributes, delivers,
offers, and gives 10 me such forgivcness which was won on the
43
cross.
This analysis can now be applied to AC IV and V. First, it shows Luther pointing
to what is exkernal. Thur AC TV directs faith to its external object, and AC V leads
one to an external mcans for obtaining that faith. Secondly, the distinction between
Christ's acquisition of salvation, arid its delivery to the individual, suggests the same
distinction in AC IV and V: AC IV dcscribcs the nature of justifying faith and the
salvation won by its object, Christ; AC V describes how such Faith is ohtaincd by thc
individual.
THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY MINISTRY
If the stress in AC V lies on the Means of Grace for the acquisition of faith, why
does it speak first of thc instit~ition of "dns Pr.edigarnt [the beaching Ol'fice]",
"ministerium docendi evangelii etpol-rigendi sacmrncnti [the Ministry of tcaching the
Gospel and handing out the Sacr.aments]"? Is the titlc given to AC V, "Vorn Predigmmt;
DP minisfe~io ecclesinstico", really "misleading" as is so oSten asserted'! 44
Such an assertion separates the Means of Grace Prom the Office of the Ministry.
A question which pith the Means against thc Officc is wrongly put. Thus Eugene Klug
poscs the false alternatives of a "high church" "episcupal" interpretation of AC V,
and a "functional'; "Means of Grace" reading4? Klug opts for thc latter based on his
CVA 18:203~~-204~=A~ 40:211- 14.
See The Book of Conco~~l, cd. I'heodore Tappelt (Philadelpl~ia: Furiress, 1959) 31 n. 4: "This title would bc
m~slcading it it were not obse~ved (as the text ufthe arlicle makes clear) that the Reformers thought of 'thc office
of the mmistry' in other than clerical tarnis." Tappert has not done justice to the corresponding nntc in HK,S SS
11. 1, which, by the exprcssiun 'nicht klerikal', merely denies any hierarchicalism. The reterences BKS cites
show llial Luther thought of the Predigtiimt :IS parallel to thc othcr dwinely ~nstitnted orde~s: nlmiage and
govamment. The Ministry is not a "hlgher order", but lt ic an nrdct, an otfice. Tappert 27 11.2 notes tIraL~11c tillts
were added "in and after 1533"; cf. BKS 50. 'l his would 1-efel to the ocluvo edition of the German AC
(Wittenberg. 1533). Cf. CR 26:723. Printcdundcr hlelanchthon's superrisiun, thia litle must be a Fair assessment
of its contcntq.
Eugene F. Klug. ".4~1gshnrg V. Intent and Meaniug ol Lbe Confessors on 'Ministry'", Concordia Journal 17.1
(Jan. 1991): 30.31. Klug argues that AC V u~usl be speaking of a "broad" use of rmrzisteri~mz, clsc thc. 'valid~ty"
of the Meaus uf Grace would depend on llwr being done by clergy. "Validity" is a Law question, and as such
misses the point. The Gospel qucation asks whether or not God has givcn the Office ot the Minist~ y to adnli~lisler
the Means of Grace for our benefit.