MEMOIRS OF THE LUTHERAN
LITURGICAL ASSOCIATION
Volumes
I-VII.
Published
by the Association Pittsburgh, Pa., 1906.
Copyright,
1906,
by
The
Lutheran Liturgical Association.
[These
volumes have been scanned and proofread, but may still contain errors. Original
pagination has been indicated throughout.]
III 1 The Administration of the Lord’s Supper in Different
Ages of the Church (G. S. Seaman)
III 9 The Liturgical History of Confirmation (C. T. Benze)
III 19 The Church and the Liturgy (C. M. Jacobs)
III 35 The Church Prayer (C. A. Miller)
III 47 The Value of Liturgical Study for Organists (G. C. Rees)
III 59 A General Survey of the Book of Common Prayer (S. A.
Bridges Stopp)
III 75 Means of Liturgical Reform (T. W. Kretschmann)
III 81 Liturgical Education of the Church’s Youth (R. E.
McDaniel)
III 89 The Sacrificial Idea in Christian Worship (G. F. Spieker)
III 101 The Place of Liturgy in the Church’s Thought, Life
and Art (J. A. W. Haas)
III 113 The Liturgical History of Baptism (H. S. Gilbert)
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
LORD’S SUPPER IN DIFFERENT AGES OF THE CHURCH.
THE institution of the Lord’s Supper is described by the synoptists and by St. Paul. The latter, who received the revelation from the Lord, gives the fullest account. We have therefore the firm historic basis of inspired Scripture for the account of the institution, whilst that which pertains to the subsequent history and the churchly development of its doctrine and forms of administration is shrouded in considerable obscurity.
It was on the night of the
betrayal, in the large upper room in Jerusalem, in the presence of the eleven
disciples, that the Lord instituted the Supper. It followed immediately upon
the paschal meal. The elements used were the unleavened bread and the wine upon
the table at the time. The apostles reclined about the table according to the
custom at meals. The Lord took the bread, gave thanks, brake it and distributed
to the disciples. As to its nature and use, He said, “Take, eat; this is
My Body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of Me.”
“After the same manner, also, when He had supped, He took the cup, and
when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; this
cup is the New Testament in My Blood, which is shed for you, and for many, for
the remission of sins; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of
Me.” Doubtless all the eleven ate and drank of it. Having further instructed
them that through such participation of the Body and Blood of the True
Passover, each believing communicant had a foretaste of that feast when he
should eat and drink with Him in the Father’s Kingdom, they sang a hymn
and went to the Mount of Olives. Great simplicity marked the administration of
the Lord’s Supper in the first Christian congregation in Jerusalem. The
services of the Church were homiletical or sacramental. The service of the Word
was of a popular and missionary character, and was
Page 2
even held in the temple or
in Jewish synagogues and usually in the morning. The sacramental services at
the first took place in the evening and usually in the close circle of the
Church alone, all others being dismissed. When the services were held in one
place the first part was the Missa Catechumenorum, the second, the Missa
Fidelium. In the fifth and sixth centuries, there appeared a growing tendency
to separate the services of the Word and of the Sacrament. The former, whose
forms were contained in the Breviary, became more and more the distinct type of
service for monastics. The sacramental, especially the eucharistic, whose forms
were embraced in the Missal, became the special service for the people, and
preaching the Word fell into disuse. The importance of the homiletic services
was recognized by the Reformers, and these were again restored to their proper
place.
From the earliest period,
probably in imitation of the paschal meal which preceded its institution, there
was combined with the Supper the “Agape” or Love Feast. The
Eucharist afforded the believers fellowship with their Lord; the Agapae were of
a social nature, showing the fraternity and fellowship among believers. Much
obscurity still hangs about this institution. But it is clear that the Agape
was closely associated with and combined in form with the Eucharist. In the
parent congregation at Jerusalem they had a community of goods, they assembled
daily in the temple and from house to house did eat their bread. They were a
new spiritual family. What more appropriate than to eat at a common table? At their
meetings the Word was read and prayers made. Oblations (offerings) of common
bread and wine were brought. After Thanksgiving and the Kiss of Peace, they
joyfully ate the common meal. When this was done the leader took the bread,
gave thanks, brake and gave, or assisted by the deacons, divided it and the cup
among the people.
The Agape is mentioned in Jude
12. But St. Paul already refers to it in I Cor. 11, and seeks to correct
certain abuses, as that “Each took before other,” (perhaps the rich
before the poor) or that of excess in eating and drinking, whereby they were in
danger of forgetting the Sacrament connected therewith. Paul did not propose to
abolish the Agape but to correct its abuse as he did in reference to the
homiletical services in the same congregation.
The whole service is sometimes
called the Eucharist, some-
Page 3
times the Agape. The Didache
includes the Agape in the description of the Lord’s Supper. The Epistle
of Ignatius shows that they win celebrated together if not combined in one
form. Probably the customcs differed in the several churches. Justin Martyr
(ob. 165) who gives the earliest description of the Lord’s Supper, makes
no mention of the Agape. He says, “On Sunday all gather in one place, the
memoirs of the Apostles are read, the president instructs and verbally exhorts
to the imitation of these good things. Then all arise together and pray. After
prayer bread and wine are brought, prayers and thanksgivings are offered, the
people responding Amen. There is a distribution and participation by all
present and a portion is sent to the absent. The offerings are taken and deposited
with the president who succors the orphans, widows, destitute, and strangers
among us.”
St. Paul’s rebuke of the
Corinthian Church implies that the social meal or Agape was combined with the
Eucharist. To avoid abuses, he teaches them to eat at home and to meet in the
church for the Divine Service and Sacrament. This rebuke, together with the
edict of Trajan against strange religions, prepared the way for the
subordination of the Agape. A further, step is observed in Justin who tells us
that the Sacrament was transferred to the Sunday morning service. The Agape was
continued as the evening social or charitable feast of Christians. At Alexandria
it was still connected with or followed the Eucharist in the third century. Its
final stages were reached when the Agapae were prohibited in the churches, and at last were altogether
suppressed by the second Trullan Council, A. D. 692. This was necessary
that the Lord’s Institution might retain its proper place and meaning.
We have a description of the
Lord’s Supper as administered in the third and fourth centuries:
“After the common homiletical service and dismissal of all but the
faithful, the deacons gather the oblations of bread and wine. One loaf is
selected as ‘hostia.’ Then follows the Kiss of Peace, the clergy
wash their hands, the bread and wine are placed on the altar, a subdeacon,
stands at each end with fan in hand to keep off the flies, the robed bishop and
priests approach. Then follows a long General Prayer and special supplications
for various estates and conditions, the thirty-fourth Psalm is sung, after
which, first the clergy, then the
Page 4
congregation receive the Sacrament.” The simple
primitive forms of administration gave way to various and divergent
enlargements called Liturgies, which, though often incorrectly, were ascribed
to Apostles or celebrated Church Fathers. There are many details which need to
be mentioned to complete the history.
Ancient paintings represent the
priest consecrating the elements laid upon the altar, by extending both hands
over them and doubtless using the words of institution.
Originally the Communion was
celebrated every day, then every Sunday. Later it was restricted to the three
great festivals and at the Lateran Council, 1215, the minimum was fixed at the
Easter Communion.
The people prepared themselves by
fasting, ablutions, dressing in clean clothes and the Kiss of Peace. In
earliest times the deacons distributed to the people, later the people approached
the altar, two by two, and received the elements standing (Apost. Const.).
Afterward the women, then the men, were excluded from the altar and choir and
the elements were handed to them over the rail which separated the choir from
the nave. In earlier periods the bread was received with the hand, then it was
put into the mouth in order to prevent the people from taking it home for
superstitious purposes. Kneeling does not occur till the twelfth century.
The Eastern Church continued the
use of leavened bread whilst the Western Church, referring to the circumstances
at the institution, began the use of unleavened bread in the ninth century. The
wine was commonly mixed with water with no distinction between red and white.
By heretical sects various substitutes
were used for wine, as water, milk, honey, unfermented grape juice. The
breaking of the bread in the consecration was the general custom and has been
retained by all except the Lutheran Church which rejects it as a protest
against the symbolizing tendency. Sometimes the bread was dipped into the wine,
and the Greek Church even drops the bread into the wine and offers it by means
of a spoon, to the communicants.
Since the third century children
were admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Cyprian approves of this custom and
implies that it was common. The Apostolic Constitutions and Augustine also
mention it.
The form of celebration developed
in the Greek Church differs from the Roman. It is more symbolical, representing
the Lord’s passion. Five loaves are laid on the altar. The priest selects
one, pierces it with a lance, while the deacon pours wine and water into the
cup. Amid solemn dirges, with lighted candles and burning incense, the elements
are borne through the church, and then back to the altar and placed like the
body of Christ in the tomb. A curtain is lowered before the altar, unseen, the
bishop, with an invocation of the Holy Ghost, consecrates the elements. When
the curtain is raised, the altar represents the tomb from which Christ is arisen.
While the choir sings a hymn of praise, the elements are distributed without
any special formula.
The Roman rite displays (if
possible) a still wider divergence from the original institution. The name
“oblation” or offering was indeed from the first applied to the
people’s gifts of bread and wine. When the idea of a Christian
priesthood, so earnestly advocated by Cyprian, came into vogue, the other
related idea of a sacrifice also appeared. The consecrated elements were
offered to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Gregory the Great,
(A. D. 590), saw a sacrificial victim in the bread on the altar. Masses
began to be offered for the dead, who could thus be delivered from purgatory,
and magical effects also were claimed. Thus the Eucharist was divided. The
congregational Communion began to be overshadowed by the sacrificial mass,
which was celebrated with more than apostolic frequency and often privately.
The thirteenth century brought radical changes. Transubstantiation was fixed in
the Lateran Council, 1215, as the doctrine of the Church. Thomas Aquinas taught
that the Sacrament is consummated in the act of consecration, according to the intention of
the priest, not in the Communion of believers. The man is a propitiatory
sacrifice whose benefits extend to the absent and to the dead. The Council of
Trent established these doctrines in all their baldness. So far as the
Eucharist is a sacrifice, it is the sole act of the priest, who is a mediator
between God and the congregation. The words of consecration are spoken in Latin
in an undertone and addressed to the elements. When the priest speaks the
words, “This is My Body,” he bows his knees and prays to the Christ
who is present in the host, and shows it to the people who may also adore it.
Likewise with the
Page 6
cup. This is the elevation and adoration of the host. The
priest then communicates and distributes to the people, if any are present.
Fear that the consecrated wine
might be spilt, afforded the pretext for withholding the cup from the laity at
the beginning of the thirteenth century, the real motive being a purpose to
elevate the priesthood. Even before this, we meet with the occasional use of
gold or silver tubes for taking the wine. The Communio sub unaque was further supported by the scholastic
invention of the doctrine of Concomitance.
The doctrine of the Lord’s
Supper decidedly affects its administration. Consequently in those branches of
the Protestant Church in which the Supper is viewed as only a memorial, little
importance attaches to the manner of its administration and the Sacrament
itself falls into neglect. There is a wide divergence of method between those
branches that are rooted in the past and the growths of recent days. Where the
spiritualizing tendencies are very marked, the objective means of grace are but
lightly esteemed. The Quakers have no sacraments, and many others are in danger
of losing theirs, even if their false doctrine had not already practically
destroyed them.
We will close with a brief
excursus upon the Essentials of a Proper Administration.
1. The presence of the
congregation which believes the Lord’s promise and is assembled in His
Name to do according to His appointment, is necessary for the consummation of
the Communion. The minister is but the organ of the congregation, which blesses
the elements and receives the Communion. The validity of the Sacrament does not
depend upon the intention of the ministrant, as Rome erroneously teaches, nor
upon the faith of the individual recipient, nor upon the exact and literal
repetition of the words of institution, but only upon this, that it is an act
of the Christian congregation, performed according to the intention and
appointment of Christ, in faith in His Word and for the purpose of its
institution. “No human work nor any declaration by the minister of the
Church can effect the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the
Sacrament, but only the omnipotent power and grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ.”
2. With reference to the
elements, bread and wine are essential according to the Lord’s
institution. Christ without doubt
Page 7
used the unleavened passover bread. The ancient Church,
however, used the common leavened bread. The kind of bread used, the breaking
of bread in the consecration, whether the wine is red or white, pure or mingled
with water, whether the elements are received by the hand or mouth, whether the
communicants stand, sit or kneel, are adiaphora.
3. The elements are to be used
only according to Christ’s appointment, that is, they are to be consecrated
and distributed. Augustine’s famous dictum,—Accedit verbum ad
elementum et fit sacramentum, is defective. This would make it a Sacrament, without its
distribution and for other uses than that of its institution. It needs to be
supplemented by the words of Luther and the Formula of Concord,—Nihil
habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum seu extra actionem
divinitus institutam. Requiritur consecratio seu verba institutionis,
distributio et sumptio. According to ancient custom the consecration is by the solemn
recitation of the verba testamenti. With this was combined the Lord’s Prayer as the
filial and fraternal petition for the sanctification of the congregation, but
it does not possess the nature nor has it the design of a consecratory prayer
and its proper place is after the Words of Institution.
While there is no sacrament and
no promise of Christ without the distribution, we must nevertheless, view the
consecration as an integral part of the act and of the command, “This
do.” By the explanatory addition “which we bless” (I Cor.
10:16), the Aposle gives special emphasis to the consecration through which the
cup is set apart to become the “Communion of the Blood of Christ.”
Hence we must regard it as an essential, and the words of institution should
never be omitted. The plural form shows what it is the act of the whole
congregation, which also indicates this participation and assent by its Amen.
By the consecration, the bread and wine are separated from the ordinary sphere
of natural gifts for bodily nourishment, and are transferred into the Service
of Christ for the application of the gifts of redemption.
“The true consecration,
“ says Gerhard, “does not alone consist in the recitation of those
four words, “Hoc est corpus meum,” but in this, that we do as Christ
did, that is, that we bless, distribute and receive the bread and wine as He
appointed.” This is the chief thing in the Sacrament. For it the other
acts are but a preparation. The giving and receiving are always neces-
Page 8
sary, while the mode of giving and receiving is left in
the sphere of the Church’s liberty.
Not so weighty, but still of
great importance is the formula of distribution. Here the aim must be, not only
to promote pious feelings in the heart, but to speak for Christ Who gives, and
in His Name to assure the penitent and believing communicant that to him belong
the full benefits of the broken Body and the shed Blood of his gracious Lord
and Savior. Here the Church should give unequivocal expression of its faith, as
the Oriental, Roman and Lutheran Churches do in the use of the ancient formula
of distribution, “The Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ, the cup of
life.”
G. S. SEAMAN.
Homestead, Pa.
Page 9
THE LITURGICAL HISTORY OF
CONFIRMATION.
JUST as the character of the works manifests the nature
of the faith which produces them, and as the objective factors of worship are
but the outward expression of the real life of devotion Itself, so also any
liturgical observance is ever the outgrowth or embodiment of a corresponding
doctrinal view. Therefore the history of any liturgy or part of it, is the
history of the doctrine out of which it has grown and which is its life and
spirit. To trace the liturgical history of Confirmation, is almost impossible
without tracing at the same time the views which the Church has held concerning
this rite.
The custom of Confirmation has
its beginnings in the early days of the Christian Church, and while many
outward conditions have changed since then, there is still much in the catechumenate
and subsequent Confirmation of the present day that is closely connected with
the customs of the first few centuries. It need hardly to be stated here that
in the early days, catechisation preceded baptism, as the accessions to the
church were principally through adults. It is this fact however, that accounts
for the catechetical observances of that period. In early Apostolic days, the
instruction was confined to that which was absolutely essential, and baptism,
whether of adults or of infants, represented full entrance and admission into
the Church of Christ, without any additional ceremonies. As the missionary
activities of the Church extended and Christianity came into contact with
Hellenic culture and Roman power, with philosophic thought and heretical
doctrine, adults of all descriptions entered the catechumenate, and these
needed both instruction and refutation by argument. During this period, which
Zöckler calls that of the Ancient Church, the catechumenate consisted of
two distinct periods: the actual catechumenate or period of instruction,
lasting about two years, and the period of immediate preparation by fasting and
prayer.
Page 10
During the former period the
aspirants for baptism were called kathcouvmenoi, catechumeni, or catechumens; during the latter, fwtizovmenoi, competentes, i. e. eligibles. A further
distinction was made as to their participation in the services of the church.
During the catechumenate (of the first stage) they were distinguished as ajkrowvmenoi, auditores, or hearers, and govnu klivnonte", genu flectentes, or kneelers, i. e. such as
had the privilege of joining in the prayers. While they were known as hearers,
they had only the privilege of listening to the sermon and were required to
withdraw before the acts of prayer and the administration of the Lord’s
Supper. There are still extant, the acts of consecration by which the hearers
were set aside as fellow-worshipers, genu flectentes, and were known specifically as
catechumens. Frequently the transition from the first stage to the second was
immediate, but separate acts of consecration were in use for the two stages, as
well as a special prayer for the genu flectentes after the dismissal of the audientes
from the public
services. In these acts of consecration or setting apart, we must find the
beginnings of the rite of Confirmation.
When the period of the genu
flectentia was
passed, i. e. after the two years of the catechumenate, the genu
flectentes were
set apart as competentes or eligibles, by a special act of prayer and benediction,
occurring directly after the sermon. The final stage, that of competentia, was passed in special
prayer-meetings in which according to the custom of the times, exorcism was
repeatedly practiced. The congregation was entitled to take part in these
meetings for prayer and as they usually occurred in the Quadragesima before
Easter, they were for all a time of earliest fasting and contrition, known as
the exomolovghsi", confessio, period of confession. This shows
us a grand feature of the life of the early Church, for the preparation for
baptism or ingrafting into the body of Christ, took place in the very midst of
the congregation and was accompanied by the devotional acts of all. This meant
especially much for the competentes, for while they could not take part in the celebration of
the Mass like those baptized (this was the period of liturgical growth and
establishment, consequently also of the Mass Service) they learned to look
forward to higher mysteries and higher honors. This gave them a gradual
participation in the liturgical acts of the worship and a special system of
prayers, while also their names were already entered
Page 11
upon the lists of the
congregation. The liturgical acts mentioned, took place during the period
directly before baptism and while they wore learning the formulated
“sums” of doctrine by heart, and occurred fit the public services
during the service of the Mass and they were called in from time to time, for
the participation in these liturgical acts. The acts themselves were called
“scrutinies”
and formed a beautiful to the periods of catechumenate passed through. The
first scrutiny was the signatio cruces or marking with the cross. By it they had once
been received as hearers. By it now they were reminded of the real import of
the Cristianou;"
poiei'sqa, the
becoming Christians. The second scrutiny was the laying on of hands and
corresponded to the second period of the catechumenate, the specific kathcoumevnou" poiei'sqa, becoming catechumens. Exorcism
and prayer accompanied these acts and in many of our Lutheran orders the same
prayers are still used for the same acts in baptism. The signing with the cross
signified the negative moment of renouncing the devil, etc., by removal from
heathenism, and the laying on of hands the positive moment, corresponding to
the rearing in the faith and bearing the promise of God’s mercy and
hearing of prayer. Corresponding to the two principal subjects of the
instruction the baptismal symbol, traditio symboli, and the Lord’s prayer, trad.
orationis dominicae,
were now formally and solemnly delivered to them. Then followed the scrutiny in
which an express deliverance of the key to the understanding of Scriptures was
made in a special act, officium quattuor evangeliorum or evangelistarum. Finally, in the last scrutiny
came the act of baptism itself hedged in with symbolico-liturgical acts. With
all this development of liturgical forms, the practices of the catechumenate
were far from being formal. The very fact of such a long catechumenate showed
that the Church was not eager for promiscuous reception of members and while
great stress was laid upon the foundation of a true Christian character,
individual freedom was guarded to such an extent that many catechumens deferred
their baptism until their time of death, for fear of the greater responsibility
devolving upon them in the datio nominis at the time of entering the competentia. Special emphasis was laid on the renuntiatio
before baptism
and in all the acts it is evident that the catechumenate denoted the training
of a real Christian life almost to the exclusion of the theoretico-dogmatical
Page 12
element, and that liturgical functions served to impress
this fact while they were the logical crown of the work of the stages preceding
them.
In the Middle Ages much of the
character of the catechumenate was lost, while the liturgical acts were
retained and developed. The soil was the Teutonic world with its individually
ethic propensities. The Church herself maintained herself on the basis of her
traditions. Infant baptism became almost universal. The task of missions among
uncivilized races, favored a catechumenate of masses, and compulsion, not free
choice, was often its characteristic. It was during this period that
Confirmation as such became a distinct and separate rite and was finally
declared to be a sacrament. As early as the time of Tertullian, baptism is
described as consisting of three parts, viz., baptism itself, anointing with
the holy oil, and the laying on of hands. The last act is said to bring down
the blessings of the Holy Ghost and consequently to be the culmination of the
whole act. The unity of the three moments (or acts) is dependent upon the
person of the bishop. As the hierarchical system was more developed, while the
administration of baptism was permitted to the lower clergy and others, the
laying on of hands was regarded as the special privilege and function of the
bishop. This gave to the laying on of hands a sort of sacramental character,
against which Jerome and Augustine inveighed in vain. The fact remained, that
the child which had been baptized, needed a still higher blessing, and this was
bestowed in Confirmation. In the time of Innocence I. we meet with a
distinction between the anointing at baptism and that at Confirmation. The
special importance gradually given to Confirmation was due to the hierarchical
interests of the clergy, and the episcopal act of Confirmation was finally
declared a sacrament at the synods of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439). This sacrament
is the second in order in the Roman Church. As to its object it is called
Confirmation, as to its success sigillum or consignatio (sealing), as to its matter chrisma
(anointing), as
to its form impositio manuum. It is accompanied by a host of formalities. As to its
effect it is said to bestow the Holy Ghost as an augmentum and firmitas justitiae, as an armor in the battle of
life, and in opposition to baptism as an entrance into the real activity of the
gratia gratum faciens. This sacrament is not strictly necessary; but as giving a character
it can not be repeated. The
Page 13
Greek Church considers Confirmation a sacrament as does
the Roman; but this is administered by any priest and immediately after
baptism, thus retaining ancient tradition and later development in unmitigated
contradiction.
Of all the ancient rites of the
Church none met with such opposition at the hands of the Reformers as that of
Confirmation. It was not only considered that there was too little Scriptural
authority for it, but what was more, there was so much unscriptural and even
superstitious ceremonial connected with it, that it was thrown overboard with
other Romish rites and institutions as being equally harmful. This being the
general view among the Reformers, very few Kirchenordnungen of the earlier
reconstruction period of the Reformation contain any provisions for its
observance. Later on a few KOO purified the rite from objectionable features
and retained it. While the Lutheran church hesitated between the objections to
the Romish style of Confirmation and the necessity of a regulation for the
admittance to the Lord’s Supper of only approved persons, they began to
see the practical utility as well as the churchly suitability of a pure rite of
Confirmation. During the subsequent times of the Interim, so many compromises
were made with Rome, that anything originating in this period was regarded with
suspicion by strict Lutherans. The disturbances of the Thirty Years’ War
interfered so largely with all education and also catechetical instruction,
that during this time nothing was done. When the Pietistic Movement brought
about a revival of religious activity, Confirmation too, received more
attention and gradually won its way in every land until it became an
institution dear to all Lutherans and held in honor, not as a divine institution,
but as a most efficient churchly rite.
Luther, as early as 1522, in his
sermon on Matrimony, in speaking of the Roman rite of Confirmation (Firmelung)
calls it an apish foolery and a play of lies. He concedes that we may confirm,
if we maintain the rite as a human ordinance. He proves from Titus 3:5, that
the Apostle does not recognize a sacrament of Confirmation, but that the Holy
Ghost is bestowed in baptism. Melanchthon refers to the examination of doctrine
made in olden times and says it was a custom most useful for the instruction of
men and for distinguishing between the evil and the pious. “After
this,” he says, “public prayer was made and
Page 14
the Apostles laid their hands upon them and thus the
manifest gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed. But now the rite of
Confirmation of the Bishops is an empty ceremony. But it would be useful that
an examination and confession of doctrine be made and public prayer for the confessors,
nor would this prayer be without avail.” The Augsburg Confession rejects
Confirmation as a sacrament by implication, the Apology and the Smalcald
Articles expressly. (Apol. Chap. 7, 6 and S. Art. App. Pt. II. 73.) At the
Ratisbon Colloquium, Melanchthon, Bucer and Pistorius proposed (1541)
“That Confirmation comprise reminding, admonition, prayer, blessing and
thanksgiving and be administered only to those of sufficient age, who had been
well instructed before their first approach to the Lord’s Supper. Thus
constituted, they could and would readily consent that it be retained, and also
allow the imposition of hands and the use of the sign of the cross in the
blessing, as both these were unobjectionable observances and might suggest in
any good thoughts.” In the Wittenberg Reformation (1545) prepared by
Melanchthon, assisted by Caspar Cruciger and George Major with Luther’s
approval, demand was made for a thus purified order of Confirmation and provision
made for its observance.
At the Augsburg Interim (1548)
Confirmation was declared a sacrament, its necessity conceded and the apostolic
institution of it and the right of bishops alone to administer it, were
maintained. To this the Lutherans objected vigorously and at last at the
Council of Trent, Lutheran Confirmation was condemned. Naturally the Lutheran
theologians defended themselves and among much written at that period, nothing
sets forth the Lutheran position so clearly as Martin Cliemnitz’
statements in his Examen Concilii Tridentini (Pt. 2 L. 3 De Confirmatione).
He declares
there that the Lutherans, after freeing the rite from all superstitions and
useless superstructure, insist on a thorough indoctrination of the catechumens
after which they are to be presented to the bishop and the Church. Then follows
first, the admonition concerning the efficacy of holy baptism and the sealing
of the promises therein by the entire Trinity, by which act was included a
renunciation of Satan, a profession of faith and a promise of obedience.
Second, by the catechumen himself, a personal public profession of this
doctrine and faith. Third, a thorough examination in doctrine. Fourth, an
admonition that this implies a
Page 15
dissent from all heathen, heretical, fanatical and unholy
opinions. Fifth a weighty exhortation to persevere in the baptismal covenant.
Sixth, public prayer, that God should be pleased by His Holy Spirit to govern,
preserve, and confirm them in this profession. To this prayer might be added
the imposition of hands, without any superstition. (Schmucker.)
The Catechism was adopted in all
Lutheran lands and churches. There was a diligent instruction of those admitted
for the first time to the Lord’s Supper and a careful examination of
their preparation, but a special act of Confirmation was left among the adiaphora
or matters in which evangelical liberty was allowed. By many Lutherans
Confirmation was not adopted, or, on account of interimistic and adiaphoristic
controversies, positively rejected. By others it was retained, or its
introduction desired, either because an ancient and wholesome usage, or in
order to differ as little as possible from the Catholic Church, or for the
maintenance of discipline. (Schmucker.)
As early as the 16th century we
meet three distinct views of Confirmation, which differ according as they view
the relative importance of the sacraments between which Confirmation logically
stands and which are the two biblical pillars of churchly instruction, and as
they view separately or emphasize specially the three essential and component
parts of Confirmation, viz., Examination, Profession and Vow, Prayer (intercession)
with imposition of hands. The first view is the catechetical. This is most closely connected
with the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace: Word and Sacraments. On the
basis of baptism, the child is to be brought by instruction and training to the
ability of giving a reason for the faith that is in it and when this end is
reached, it is to be examined in church, is to affirm, confess and promise what
the sponsors have done for it in baptism, and if it thus be proven prepared for
the Lord’s Supper, it is to be admitted to the same. Among the
representatives of this view there is never any mention made of a renewal of
the covenant of baptism, but only of a reminding of this covenant. Another
view, just as old, may be denoted as the sacramental one, in so far as it lays stress
on the third point in Confirmation: the prayer with the laying on of hands. It
looks upon this as an act that is sacramental, bestowing grace and salvation. It
appeals to Acts 8:17; 19:6; 2 Tim. 1:6. It arose in such German churches as
witnessed in their
Page 16
midst, especially in the beginning of the Reformation,
Swiss Reformed ideas and German Lutheran ideas in constant intermingling, and
in which beside the desire to apply grace and salvation to men by churchly
means, there was a secret distrust of the complete efficiency of infant
baptism. According to this view Confirmation is the completion of baptism. (Cf.
Kassel KO. 1539 where occurs for the first time the formula of benediction:
“Receive the Holy Ghost, protection and defence from all evil, etc.,
etc.”) A third view, in some instances approaching the sacramental view,
is called the church-disciplinary view. According to this special stress is laid not as in
the catechetical, on the examination, or as in the sacramental, on prayer and
imposition of hands, but on the profession of faith and the vow connected with
it. (Hessen-Kassel-Nassau.) This view looks upon the congregation of the
baptized merely as the congregation of the called, from which the congregation
of believers must be segregated. Thus Confirmation becomes the act by which a
Christian is received into the narrower circle or congregation privileged to
administer the power of the Church. This view depreciates baptism in favor of a
churchly ordinance of human election, and leads to a separation or disjunction
of the Church, which can not be admitted according to Art. VIII Conf. Augsb.
Schmucker, in his article The Rite of Confirmation (Lutheran Church Review, April 1883) gives a list of the
various KOO which either omit or reject Confirmation and those which adopt it
and make provision for it. To give these lists, which have the merit of
personal investigation by their author, would unduly swell the length of the
present article but the following summary which Schmucker quotes from Bachmann,
may perhaps be of interest, as presenting a brief geographical survey:
“The original Lutheran churches (gnesio-Lutheran), that
is, those of middle Germany distinctively, except Mansfield, know nothing of Confirmation
as a special rite; it is found only in northern, western and southwestern
Germany and there is not of universal acceptance. In Austria, in addition, it
is found standing alone through the personal influence of Chytraeus and with
much opposition from congregations and pastors. In North Germany it was carried
from Pomerania by Bugenhagen to Stralsund and from Brandenburg by the relation
of the reigning houses to Brunswick, where afterwards Chemnitz secured and
enlarged its preva-
Page 17
lence. From Brunswick it passed to Hoya (Hannover). In
the western countries it owed its acceptance partly to the Reformation of
Cologne, but preeminently to Hesse, which under the influence of Strasburg, and
especially of Francis Lambert, tended toward a Reformed type. Waldeck, Nassau
and Lower Saxony received their order of Confirmation from Hesse.”
(Bachmann).
“The efforts for the
restoration or introduction of Confirmation began here and there early in the
seventeenth century and increased in energy until in and after Spener’s
time, they so influenced the action of the Church as to effect its official
adoption in one land after another. Among its early advocates were Teleman
Heshusius, Aeg. Hunnius, Polycarp Lyser, Leonh. Hutter, Fred Baldwin, Jno.
Tarnow, Jno. Gerhard, Conn Dietrich, Geo. Calixtus, Theoph. Grossgebauer,
Martin Heinsius, and preeminently in practical efficiency, Jacob Spener.”
(Schmucker.)
It was Spener who after the
middle of the 17th century introduced Confirmation. He based his views on the
pietistic view of baptism, which in connection with 1 Peter 3:21 is regarded
more as a covenant between God and men, than a laver of regeneration, so that
infant baptism necessarily appeared incomplete and defective. The key-word now
became “renewal of the baptismal covenant” and this was to be accomplished
by means of conversion (piercing of the heart), for which the time of
Confirmation was deemed to be the most suitable time. The main stress was laid
on the vow, which was regarded as a sign of conversion and renewal of the
baptismal covenant. The universal practice was to appeal to the emotions of the
children and to work with all available means to bring about a conversion (Die
Bekehrung zum “Durchbruch” zu bringen).
Rationalism finally voided
Confirmation of its churchly contents. The renewal of the baptismal covenant
now became an actual covenant-pledging, which the child itself performed in
Confirmation. In a strange contrast to this inner voiding, the rationalistic
Confirmation appeared in very pretentious garb. The inner emptiness and
shallowness was concealed by outward pomp; the children were dressed up; they
were marched out in solemn procession, grouped theatrically and were made to
perform their vow to the covenant of virtue in the most touching manner. In
this form Confirmation found its way into most congregations and became a part
of their church life. But the influences of rational-
Page 18
ism upon Confirmation are seen also in another direction.
While it had been officially adopted in various parts of Germany from 1646 to
1724, its actual insertion into the system of church life was not completed
until the period of rationalism. In this period we find the regulations of age,
time of the year, etc.; in it also the connection between Confirmation,
catechisation and the public schools of Germany.
With the revival of religious
life in the nineteenth century, Confirmation too, has had the gain of material
advantages. Through this revival it received again its original import, and its
relation to the sacraments once scripturally and confessionally established,
has given its important parts correctly according to this relation. Still there
is not yet a uniform view of the full meaning of Confirmation. The original
three views of the 16th century have again found representatives, the
sacramental view is defended by Villmar, the church-disciplinary view by
Schleiermacher, Hoefling, von Hoffmann, Harnack, von Zezschwitz. The latter are
influenced by the desire to prevent an unworthy participation in the
Lord’s Supper, and to protect the church from violence by unbelieving
majorities.
This closes the outline of the
liturgical history of Confirmation. The writer of the article has endeavored to
trace the development of the rite in its details historically and in their
relation to the doctrines of the Lutheran Church. One feature still might
remain for inquiry, namely, the relation of Confirmation to the doctrines of
the sacraments, of catechization and of Christian life, and the successive
development of each detail bearing upon these relations, but that would unduly
increase the extent of the article and might best be made the subject of
further inquiry.
Authorities
consulted:—SCHMUCKER: Confirmation in the Lutheran Church; LUTHER: Liturgische Formulare;
SCHAEFER: Evangelisches Volkslexikon; HERZOG-PLITT: Real Encyclopedia; MEUSEL: Kirchliches
Handlexikon; PALMER’S
Katechetik; ZÖCKLER’S
Handbuch der theol. Wissenschaften; KURTZ’ Church History; etc., etc.
Chief
Authorities:—BACHMANN: Die Confirmation, etc.; KLIEFOTH: Bd. 3; W. CASPARI: Die evang.
Confirmation.
C. THEODORE BENZE.
Erie, Pa.
Page 19
THE CHURCH AND THE LITURGY.
THE subject indicated in the title of this
paper—The Church and the Liturgy—is so broad that there is need to
preface the discussion of the theme, with a few words of explanation and
definition.
There have been two great epochs
in the history of church doctrine, the formative—in which the
self-consciousness of the Church was developed from its rudimentary form in the
minds of the Apostolic Fathers and their immediate successors with the
elaborate corpora doctrinae of the later Middle Ages, and the reformative—in which the results of
the earlier period were tested and sifted, emerging finally in the three or
four types of dogmatic theology which are, in the main, the recognized
standards of the present day. Similarly the liturgical idea has had its two
epochs, the formative—during which the rudimentary liturgy, the earliest indications
of which are found in the Didache, grew into the elaborate ritual of the
Mediaeval Church, and the reformative—in which that liturgy—subjected to the same
criticism as its contemporary doctrine, was tested and proved, emerging finally
in the forms of worship used in the modern churches. This historical
parallelism is not without its significance. It is, in fact, more than mere
parallelism, for the two lines of development are closely related and the
general relation is one of cause and effect. Unconscious this relation may at
times have been, other than doctrinal considerations have certainly had their
influence in liturgical development and practice, but the underlying principles
of liturgical service, the decisive factors in moulding the Church’s
forms of worship have been neither artistic nor aesthetic but doctrinal, and
the mere circumstance that the greatest diversity in methods of conducting
public worship exists among those denominations which are most radically
different in dogmatical bias, furnishes convincing testimony to this fact.
Now the doctrines which have most
vitally affected the litur-
Page 20
gy are four, viz., the Word, the Sacraments, the Church,
and the Ministry; which fall into two groups, the first containing the
logically precedent but historically subsequent pair—the Word and the
Sacraments; the latter containing the logically subsequent but historically
precedent pair—the Church and the Ministry. It is with this latter group
that we shall attempt to deal, merely touching on the former when its importance
is too great, or its bearing on the subject too obvious to be disregarded. The
subject of this paper may, therefore, be more definitely stated
as—“The Doctrines of the Church and the Ministry in Relation to the
Liturgy.” That such a relation actually exists and is widely recognized
is shown by a practice current among the unthinking and theologically
ignorant—unfortunately also among some who should know better—I
mean the practice of using the term “High-church,” the significance
of which is essentially doctrinal, to denote a distinction in mere elaborations
of ritual observance. The true relation, however, is an historical relation and
must be treated as such. We shall therefore discuss our theme under the three
heads:—A. The Formative Epoch, B. The Reformative Epoch, C. The Outcome.
A. THE FORMATIVE EPOCH.
1. The Church.
a). It is doubtful whether in the
earliest times there existed any clear conception of a universal church.
Certain is it that for a long while there was no definitely stated doctrine of
the Church in our modern sense. The unit of church organization seems to have
been the individual Christian congregation, these congregations recognizing the
right of other similar congregations to the name Christian, but acknowledging,
after the death of the Apostles, no authority higher than that of their own
local officers. What the exact form of organization in these churches may have
been is yet to be determined and is a matter of small importance except as it
throws light on the development of the doctrine of the ministry. This much,
however, we do know: 1). In each congregation there were two classes of
ministers, the bishops or presbyters, terms used interchangeably in the New
Testament and earliest sub-apostolic writings as names for the
Page 21
officers of the congregation, and
deacons whose office was subordinate.*
*Footnote:
A full discussion of the ministry in the Early Church is to be found in
Lightfoot, Appendix to Comm. on Phil. to which cf. Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and Allen, Christian Institutions, Book I; Rothe, Anfaenge d. Christenthums, though old (1837) is still
valuable.
2). In course of time there arose
a distinction between the bishops and the presbyters, the name of Bishop being
applied to only one man among the presbyters of each congregation.
b). In the conflict with
Gnosticism the emphasis laid on purity of doctrine caused the first great
advance in the doctrine of the Church. Faith in the truth becoming the important
thing, all those who believed the truth as handed down from the Apostles were
to be considered members of the Church, and thus the way was opened for a
broader conception of church unity. At the same time the authority of the
Bishop was extended, for he was designated the officer of the congregation
whose special duty was to guard the pure doctrine of the Apostles. Thus a
beginning was made in the gradual advancement of the Bishop to the chief in the
congregation, over which he became pastor, and the subordination of the
presbyters to the secondary position of assistants.† So we find that
early in the 3rd century the ruling conception of the Church was “the
community of those who believe the truth,” the Bishops, in addition to
their pastoral office, standing as sponsors and guarantors of that
truth.‡
†Footnote: Cf. Hatch, in Dict. Chris. Ant. Art. Priest.
‡Footnote:
Cf. Seeburg, Dogmengeschichte, I.
133.
c). The next considerable change
in the idea of the Church was brought about by Callistus, Bishop of Rome
217-222, who asserted the right of interpreting and limiting the discipline of
the Church as he saw fit, thus making membership in the Church to depend
exclusively on the toleration of the Bishop, and the Church itself instead of
the holy people of God became known as the society ruled by the Bishop who was
now lord over life as well as over faith. It remained, however, for Cyprian
(†258) to carry this idea to its conclusion and it was his view that
proved deciding factor in moulding the old Catholic doctrine of the Church into
its final form. His doctrine may be briefly summarized as follows:—
The Bishop is the successor of
the Apostles§
§Footnote: The view of Irenaeus.
Page 22
2). According to Matt. 16:18, the
Church is therefore built upon the Bishop, who is both a priest and “a
judge in place of Christ.” As priest he conducts service and offers
sacrifice on the altar, and as judge decides on all questions of church
membership and reinstatement.
3). The Bishops form the collegium
episcopatus in
whose unity consists the unity of the church. In this collegium the Bishop of Rome holds the
highest place as he is successor of St. Peter.
4). Rebellion against the Bishop
is therefore rebellion against God. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Thus obedience to the Bishop, not
faith in Christ, is made the condition of membership in the Church, and the
Church itself becomes an institution founded on law instead of a community
based on faith. There needed only Augustin’s distinction between the
visible and invisible Church to silence critics and afford theological
justification, and the conversion of an Emperor to give an opportunity for the
advance of Rome and Constantinople, and the hierarchical system was ready for occupancy,
the “Catholic” doctrine of the Church was practically complete.
2. The Ministry.
The doctrine of the Ministry, as
we have seen, was closely connected with the development of the doctrine of the
Church, each step of that development being, in fact, the result of a preceding
advance in the conception of the Episcopate, but there is one important feature
on which we have barely touched. We have seen that Cyprian made much of the
idea that the Bishop was a priest. The sacerdotal idea was not new with him,
however. Clement of Rome had previously compared the Christian minister to the
Old Testament priest, and Origen and Tertullian had applied the term sacerdos
to Bishops and
Presbyters, but there is nothing to show that they regarded the clergy as a
separate class, and the original idea of the priesthood of all Christians still
maintained itself, preventing any sharp line of distinction between clergy and
laity. But Cyprian declared the Bishop to be a priest in a special sense. All
the ministerial functions, therefore, belonged of right to him, and without the
express authorization of a Bishop no one could hold office in the Church or perform
any official acts. Such authorization, however, was conferred in ordination,
by which men
were set apart for those duties, and ordi-
Page 23
nation thenceforth became the line of distinction between
clergy and laity, the clergy being thus constituted a separate class and
convenient analogy of the Levitical priesthood was used to legitimate this new
Christian order. From this time on the Christian minister was a “priest,”
and the doctrine invented by Augustin, of a character indelibilis, conveyed in ordination was later
used to give material ground for the distinction.*
Footnote:
* Cf. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte I.
420 ff. Hatch, Art. Ordination and
Priest, Dict. Christ. Ant.
3. Sacrifice.
The sacrificial is a necessary
corollary of the sacerdotal idea. The sacrificial conception contained in the
doctrine of universal Christian priesthood was of course eucharistic. The
Christian sacrifices were faith, obedience and righteousness, which attained
visible expression in prayer and charity. That there was from the first a
special sacrificial idea connected with the Lord’s Supper is undeniable.
The congregations brought to the Agape its “oblations” of bread and
wine—the offerings for charity were also included in the
oblations—and the bread and wine so offered were then used in the
Lord’s Supper, but the “sacrifice” was made by the
congregation as an expression of thanks, symbolic of the yielding to God of
heart and life commanded by St. Paul (Rom. 12:1). The idea of propitiatory
sacrifice found its first clear expression in Tertullian’s conception of
asceticism as an atoning sacrifice, but it remained for Cyprian’s doctrine
of the priesthood to give the Church a new sacrificial idea. If the priesthood
is a specific order it must offer a specific sacrifice. This sacrifice, which
the layman cannot offer, is the Mass, and the Mass is the Passio domini, even the sanguis Christi and hostia dominica. Though Cyprian, and even
Augustin, was not quite clear as to the real object in the sacrifice the
natural outcome was to regard every celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a
repetition of the sacrifice of Christ and to attach to it a full propitiatory
value.† When the doctrine of transubstantiation had been adopted to
justify this view the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass was essentially
complete.
Footnote:
† Cf. Harnack, DG. I. 422. Seeburg, DG. I. 153 ff. Real-Encyclopedie, Art. Messopfer, also Hoefling, Die Lehre d. aelt. Kirche u. Opfer,
Erlangen 1851.
Throughout this line of
development there runs one consistent idea. It was all a part of that process
of externalization
Page 24