actually impossible to have the Lord's Supper at all, and even where the abuse has not gone so far, many partake unworthily. These are the conditions with which Paul has to deal. He attacks them by reminding his readers of the solemnity of the act in which they engage, and the serious consequences to themselves that result from unworthy participation. He does not attempt to prescribe any new mode of procedure, but his emphatic distinction between the Lord's Supper and all ordinary eating and drinking was a step toward the total separation of the common meal from the Communion which occurred almost a century later.*

As regards the rite itself it consisted apparently in two simple acts, the consecration of bread and wine and the reception of the consecrated elements. The consecration consisted, not in the repetition of the Words of Institution, but in the eucharistic prayer by which the elements were blessed (εὐχαριστία or εὐλογία) and set apart for their sacred use. So Christ had consecrated the bread and wine at the Institution and Paul speaks of the Communion as "the cup of blessing which we bless" (ch. x, 16). The order of consecration is uncertain. At the Institution it had been, first the bread and then the wine; I Cor. x, 16 f, seems to reverse the order and in the Didache the inverted order seems to be prescribed. It is quite certain that the consecratory prayer was, from the first, extempore, and offered by a prophet, for the oldest formal prayers that we have for this service are those of the Didache (ch. ix) and even there the right to pray "as they will" is still reserved to the prophets (ch. x, 7). It is to be noted, however, that these prayers of the Didache are the oldest prescribed forms of prayer which the Church possesses. Although the Words of Institution were not essential to the consecration, and although we cannot prove by direct evidence that they were even used before the time of Justin Martyr,† we are, nevertheless, perfectly safe in assuming that they had a place in the service and probably preceded the distribution. In fact the performance of an act which derived its meaning and its justification from the words of Christ would be quite inconceivable without invariable reference to the event which it commemorated and the command on which it was based.

* See ZAHN, RE3 Vol. I, pp. 234 ff.

+ The contention of DREWS (1. c.) and others that the usage cannot be proved from I Cor. xi, 23-25 is correct.

This practically exhausts our information. That there may have been preaching at this service, at least in the form of prophecy, is possible; that hymns were sung is probable from Matt. xxvi, 30 and Mark xiv, 27; that the Kiss of Peace* had a place in the rite is pure conjecture; that the Maranatha (I Cor. xvi, 22) is part of an old liturgical formula has the support of the Didache (ch. x, 6), which is also the earliest witness to the custom of confession of sin preceding the Communion (ch. xiv, 1).

This ends our survey of the customs of worship in the Apostolic Age. We have found that, along with elements that belonged exclusively to that first period, there were present all those other elements which we regard essential to Christian worship. Forms are not yet regarded as of any great importance, for it is the age of the charismata, but here and there we find influences at work that are sure to lead to formulation. A new period in the history of the liturgy was to come in with the second quarter of the second Century. Its outward signs were to be the delegation of the right of active participation to the officebearers, the separation of the Communion from the common meal, and the consolidation of the two meetings into one. Its inner meaning was to lie far deeper, in the new idea of the Church to which the second Century gave birth.

Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, Pa.

CHARLES M. JACOBS.

EXPLANATORY NOTE.

When the statements of pages 45 ff were read before the Liturgical Association they gave rise to considerable discussion and the question was raised of their bearing on the correctness of the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The points at issue are two, viz., 1). Is the death of Christ to be regarded as a sacrifice? 2). Is the Lord's Supper more than a memorial celebration?

In regard to the first point the testimony of Christ Himself as to the sacrificial value of His death is clear, and would be clear even though we had only the Words of Institution of the Lord's Supper. That Paul, in his * See V. SCHULTZE in RE3 Vol. VI, p. 274.

references to the atoning death of Christ, is developing and explaining the Master's own ideas, that the sacrificial conceptions of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation and Epistles of St. John are the elaboration of fundamental elements of the teaching of Christ Himself;-these things seem to the present writer unquestionable. The only question which he desires to raise concerns the view that was held of Christ's death among the very first disciples in Jerusalem. It has been pointed out that the references to Christ's death in the speeches of the earliest chapters of Acts never touch on its sacrificial aspect and Philip's use of the LIII Chapter of Isaiah points primarily to the Messianic office of Jesus. Moreover the fact that Jerusalem remained for a long while the seat of the party which insisted on the circumcision of converts and thereby betrayed its belief in the continued validity and necessity of the Old Covenant, points to a lack of understanding of the full meaning of Christ's atoning death at a time when Paul's convictions on this subject had become perfectly clear. If it be objected that the Apostles after the day of Pentecost could not any longer have failed to understand these things, we must remember that when Peter and Paul were together in Antioch Peter himself had not yet come to the full conviction that the Old Covenant had been done away.

As regards the second point, there can be no question that Christ iatended the Lord's Supper to be something more than a memorial meal. Just as little have we reason to doubt that Paul thought of it as involving a real presence of the Risen Saviour, and here again it is evident that Paul was the correct interpreter of Jesus. But the meaning of the Sacrament is so closely bound up with the meaning of the death of Christ that the one must in every case be explained by the other. This is not to say that the earlier view contradicts the later, on the contrary, the Pauline views of the Sacrament and of the Atonement were sure to develop out of the ante-Pauline conception. What concerns us here is only the historical fact that Paul was the first, in this as in so many other respects, to arrive at the correct interpretation of Christ's ideas. It is significant that in the later history of the Church the Pauline conception of Atonement was for a long time practically lost to view, though Paul's terminology was retained, and the meaning of Christ's life made to depend chiefly upon the fact of the Incarnation, while the Pauline idea of the Lord's Supper, embodied in the ritual of the Church, was gradually distorted under the influence of new ideas of the Church and the priestly office, into the belief that the Eucharist was the repetition of the sacrifice of Christ, and made the basis of the Roman doctrine of the Mass, to which the Pauline terminology, and especially the terminology of the Epistle to the Hebrews was then applied, and with the exception of the crude theory suggested by Irenæus, and elaborated by Origen, all attempts to formulate a doctrine of the Atonement are subsequent to the time of Cyprian, and rest upon more or less inadequate interpretations of Paul.

C. M. J.

THE LITURGICAL

HISTORY OF CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION.

ACCORDING to the declarations of all of our ancient Lutheran Church Orders, Confession consists of two parts. The one part treats of the deed of the Confessor who complains of his self-acknowledged sins and desires consolation and the renewal of his soul. The other treats of the work of God, Who through the Word, laid upon the lips of a fellow man, absolves and frees the penitent from his sins. Absolution is nothing else than the promise of the Gospel of God's Grace, and the forgiveness of sins, through faith, according to the will of Christ. This is indeed the essence and object of all preaching, although one point of difference must be noted. In the sermon the Gospel promise is general and is offered and appropriated to all believers. In the Absolution the same promise is specific, directly and personally applied to him who through and with the Word appeals for the

same.

Although the old Orders connect this service with the Lord's Supper, as a preparation to a worthy reception of the same it was yet treated as a distinct service and often spoken of aside of the Sacrament of the Altar and Holy Baptism. In modern times it has degenerated to a simple service preparatory to the Lord's Supper and nothing more. This undervaluing of so important a service is a direct undervaluing of our Lutheran Reformation, since it had its origin in the very cloister cell where Luther received the absolution and consolation for his soul from the aged monk. The Reformation was really a restoration of Confession and Absolution from the ashes of ever sinking degeneration.

The form which the Lutheran Church gives to Confession and Absolution at present resembles that of the beginning of the thirteenth century more than that which obtained in ancient

times. We also see it constantly drawn, more and more, into the inner life of the Church, especially during the Pietistic period and the time of territorial and rationalistic movements.

The service means an intensely personal transaction, which points out one of the principal faults of modern liturgical forms and practices. We are apt to deal with a cold form (Agende) instead of one person with another, the penitent with the minister. The liturgical form is simply a guide to both, so that nothing, either in the Confession or the Absolution be omitted.

Kliefoth divides the History of Confession and Absolution into five periods:

I. The Period of the New Testament.

II. That of the Ancient Church to St. Augustine.

III. From St. Augustine to the Reformation.

IV. The Period of the Reformation.

V. The Modern Period, beginning with Spener.

I.

Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians agree that the institution of Confession and Absolution did not occur in the New Testament period. It was not instituted by the Lord, nor His Apostles, but was a later development of the Church. But these theologians are also agreed that the essence of that which the Church developed appears in the New Testament, not simply as Word of God, Law and Gospel, but also as dealing in a concrete manner with the individual soul.

Jesus does not simply preach forgiveness at the repentant, but He really absolves them with clear and distinct words. He even absolved one sick of the palsy without a formal confession, since He knew what was in the man, and knew his thoughts. Nor does the forgiveness of sins on earth cease with the ascension of the Son of Man, but whilst the Lord commissioned the office of the ministry which He had hitherto fulfilled, to His disciples and they in turn to their successors, He also conferred upon them the power and duty to bind and to loose; which is the Office of the Keys, "As My Father hath sent Me so send I you." The Divine commission confers discriminating authority and power on the Apostles who are cautioned not to cast pearls before swine, etc., and assures them that all sins can be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost.