inspired words.
This is the simple and appropriate ceremony we call confirmation.
We claim for it no magical powers. It is not a sacrament. It adds
nothing to the sacrament of baptism, for that is complete in itself.
There is no conferring of Grace by the pastor's hands, but simply a
directing of the Church's prayers to the individual.

The confirming, strengthening and establishing of--the catechumen
in Grace, is effected primarily alone through Christ's own means of
Grace, viz.: the Word and the Sacraments. The Word has been applied to
mind and heart all along from tenderest childhood. It is now brought
home in the review and admonition of the pastor, amid specially solemn
surroundings. The previous administering of baptism, and the perpetual
efficacy of that sacrament, are now vividly recalled and impressed.
And this unusually impressive application of the power of Word and
Sacrament confirms and strengthens the divine life in the catechumen.
Thus the means of Grace do the confirming, or rather the Holy Spirit
through these means. Instrumentally also the pastor may be said to
confirm, since he, as Christ's ambassador or agent, applies His means
of Grace.

In still another, though inferior sense, the catechumen confirms.
He receives the offered means of Grace, assents to their truth and
efficacy, obtains divine virtue and strength through them, and with
this imparted strength lays hold on Christ, draws nearer to Him, is
united to Him as the branch to the vine, and thus confirms and
establishes the covenant and bond that unites him to his Saviour.

We do not claim for the rite of confirmation a "_thus saith the
Lord_." We do not claim that it possesses sacramental efficacy, or
that it is absolutely essential to salvation. We do claim, however,
that there is nothing unevangelical or anti-scriptural in this
ceremony. On the contrary, we believe it is in perfect harmony with
the whole tenor and spirit of the Gospel. If we cannot trace it to
apostolic usage, we can find it in all its essential features in the
pure age of the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles. In some
form or other it has been practiced in the Church ever since.

True, it has often been and is still grossly abused. It has often
been encumbered and entangled with error and superstition; and
therefore there have not been wanting radical purists who have not
only set it aside, but cried it down as Romish and heathenish. The
more sober and conservative churches have been content to purge it of
its error and superstition. In its purified form they prize it highly,
cherish its use, practice it, and find it attended by God's richest
blessing.

It is a significant fact also that some of those who were once
its most bitter opponents are gradually returning to its practice. We
find, for example, that certain Presbyterian churches confirm large
classes of catechumens every year.

Certain Methodist book concerns and publishing houses
also-publish confirmation certificates, from which we infer that some
of their churches also must practice this rite. Again, we find in
certain "pastors' record books," gotten up to suit all denominations,
columns for reporting the number of confirmations.

All churches must indeed have some kind of a ceremony for the
admission of the young among the communicants of the church. And there
certainly is no more befitting, beautiful and touching ceremony than
confirmation, as described above and practiced in the Lutheran Church.




CHAPTER XIII.

THE LORD'S SUPPER--PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

Our catechumen has now been confirmed. The pastor has given him,
in the name of the congregation, the right hand of fellowship, and
also publicly authorized him to join with the congregation in the
celebration of the Lord's Supper. For the first time, then, the young
Christian is to partake of this holy sacrament, in order that thereby
he may be still further strengthened and confirmed in the true faith.

This sacred institution, also, is a part of God's Way of
Salvation. It is one of the means of Grace appointed and ordained by
Christ. It "hath been instituted for the special comfort and
strengthening of those who humbly confess their sins and who hunger
and thirst after righteousness."

It is true that multitudes do not regard it as a means or channel
of Grace. To them it is only an ancient rite or ceremony, having no
special significance or blessing connected with it. It is at most a
symbol, a sign, or representation of something, entirely absent and in
no way connected with it. If there is any blessing at all attached to
it, it consists in the pious thoughts, the holy emotions and sacred
memories, which the communicant tries to bring to it and which are in
some way deepened by it. At best, it is a memorial of an absent
Saviour, and in some form a representation of His sufferings and
death.

Now if this were all that we could see in the Lord's Supper, we
would not regard it as a part of God's Way of Salvation. But our
Church sees much more in it. With her it is indeed an essential and
integral part of that Way. And since this is another of the few points
on which the Lutheran Church differs materially from many others, it
will be well for us to devote some space and time to its study.

Much has been written on this important subject. We may not have
anything new to add, but it is well often to recall and re-study the
old truths, so easily forgotten. Before we consider the nature of this
sacrament, we will make a few preliminary observations that will help
us to guard against false views, and to arrive at correct conclusions.

We observe first, the importance of bearing in mind the _source_
from which this institution has come. Who is its author? What is the
nature or character of its origin? Our views of any institution are
generally more or less influenced by thus considering its origin.
Whence then did the Church get this ordinance which she has ever so
conscientiously kept and devoutly celebrated? Did it emanate from the
wisdom of man? Did some zealous mystic or hermit invent it, because
forsooth he supposed it would be pleasant and profitable to have such
an ordinance in the Church? Or did some early Church Council institute
it, because those earnest fathers in their wisdom deemed it necessary
that the Church should have such a service? Can it, in short, be
traced to any _human_ origin? If so, then we can deal with it as with
any other human institution. We are then at liberty to reason and
speculate about it. We can apply to it the rules of human science and
learning. We can test it, measure it, sound it by philosophy, logic,
and the laws of the mind. Each one then has a right to his own opinion
about it. Each one can apply to it the favorite test of common sense,
and draw his own conclusions.

But now, we know that this is not a human institution. The Church
has received it from the hands of the Son of God. It was ordained by
Him who could say, "_All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
earth_," and, "_In whom dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead
bodily_;" who even before his birth in human form was called "_the
Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace_." When we
come to deal with an institution of His, we dare never expect to
fathom or test it by our poor, short-sighted and sin-blinded reason,
philosophy, science, or common sense. "_For my thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts._" Whenever, therefore, we
come to deal with anything that comes from His hands, it is no longer
of the earth, earthy, and is not subject to earthly laws and human
rules. His acts, His deeds, His words, belong to the realm of faith,
and not of reason. Reason must ever be taken captive and made to bow
before the heavenly things connected, with Him. Or shall we try to
reason out His human birth, His growth, His nature, His deeds? Shall
we reason out the feeding of the multitudes with those few barley
loaves and fishes? No; they came through His hands, and the power of
those hands we cannot comprehend. We cannot comprehend how that
afflicted woman could receive virtue, health and life, by touching the
hem of His garment--a mere fabric of cloth--or how the clay and
spittle from His hands could open the eyes of one born blind.

Whenever, therefore, we come to study this ordinance, let us ever
bear in mind its divine origin. It is _the Lord's_ Supper. This
precaution will be a safeguard against error, and a help to the truth.

We notice secondly the _time_ of institution. It was "_in
the night in which He was betrayed_." That awful night, when the
clouds of divine wrath were gathered over Him, and were ready to burst
upon Him; when the accumulated guilt of a sinful race was all to be
laid on Him, borne by Him as though it were His own, and its
punishment endured as though He had committed every sin. Then, when
the strokes of justice were about to fall, our blessed Saviour,
"_having loved His own, He loved them to the end_." He gathered
His little band of chosen ones about Him for the last time before His
crucifixion. He spoke to them His farewell words, uttered His
high-priestly prayer, instituted and administered to them this holy
sacrament. All the surroundings conspired to throw round it a halo of
heavenly mystery. Everything was calculated to impress that little
band that what He now ordained and made binding on the Church, till He
would come again, was something more than an empty sign or ceremony.
Thus the time, the circumstances, and all the surroundings of the
institution of this holy sacrament, prepare us in advance to believe
that there must be in it or connected with it some heavenly gift of
Grace that can be obtained nowhere else.

We notice thirdly the significant _term_ by which Jesus
designates this institution. When he administered the cup He said:
"This cup is the _New Testament_ in my blood." He calls it a
testament. A testament is a last _will_.

Jesus was about to go forth to die. Before he departed, He made
His will. He bequeathes to the Church an inheritance. The legacy that
He leaves is this sacrament. Before we undertake to study the words of
the institution, we wish to impress this thought. A will is the last
place where one would use ambiguous or figurative language. Every
maker or writer of a will strives to use the clearest and plainest
words possible. Every precaution is taken that there may be no
doubtful or difficult expression employed. The aim of the maker is to
make it so plain that only one meaning can be taken from it.

Neither is any one permitted to read into it any sense different
from the clear, plain, literal meaning of the words. Fanciful,
metaphorical, or far-fetched interpretations are never applied to the
words of a will. Much less is any one permitted to _change_ the
words by inserting or substituting other words than those used by the
maker. Christ's words of institution are the words of His last Will
and Testament.

We will consider the _nature_ of the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper in the next chapter.




CHAPTER XIV.

THE LORD'S SUPPER--CONTINUED.

In the former chapter we made some preliminary observations,
intended to be helpful, as guards against false conclusions, and as
guides to a correct understanding of the subject under consideration.
It is important that we always keep these in mind in our study of the
doctrine of the Lord's Supper; Let us ever keep before us therefore
the _Author_ or _Founder_ of this institution, the _time_ and
_circumstances_ of the institution, and its _testamentary_ character.

We are now ready to inquire further into the _nature_ and
_meaning_ of this holy ordinance. And in order to determine this
we desire to go directly to the law and to the testimony. We want to
know, first of all: what does the Word of God teach on the subject?

Before we proceed, however, to note and examine the passages of
Scripture bearing on the matter, let us recall what we said, as to the
interpretation of Scripture, in one of the chapters on the Sacrament
of Baptism. We there stated that our Church has certain plain and safe
principles of interpretation that are always to guide the searcher
after the truth of God's word, viz.:

1. "A passage of Scripture is always to be taken in its plain,
natural and literal sense, unless there is something in the text
itself, or in the context, that clearly indicates that it is meant to
be figurative."

2. "A passage is never to be torn from its connection, but it is
to be studied in connection with what goes before and follows after."

3. "Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture, the dark
passages are to be compared with the more clear, bearing on the same
subject."

4. "We can never be fully certain that a doctrine is Scriptural
until we have examined and compared all that the Word says on the
subject."

On these principles we wish to examine what the Word teaches as
to the nature of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We note first the
accounts of the institution as given by the three Evangelists,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Matthew xxvi. 26-28, we read, _"Jesus
took bread and blessed it and brake it, and gave it to the disciples
and said; 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and gave
thanks and gave it to, them saying: 'Drink ye all of it. For this is
My blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.'"_ With this the accounts in Mark xix. 22-24,
and in Luke xxii. 19, 20, substantially agree. There is a slight
variation of the words, but the substance is the same.

We notice only this difference: Luke adds the words, "_This do
in remembrance of Me_." On this point let us notice, in passing,
that St. Luke's was the last written of the three. The Gospels of
Matthew and Mark had been written and were read and used in the
churches several years before St. Luke's. And yet the two former do
not contain the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_." Now we
submit right here, if to _remember_ Christ were all that is in
this sacrament, or even the chief thing, why did those who wrote the
first Gospels, and knew that there were no others, leave out these
words? But we go on.

Almost thirty years after the time of the institution of this
sacrament, the great apostle of the Gentiles wrote a letter to the
Church at Corinth. That Church was made up of a mixed multitude--Jews
and Gentiles, freemen and slaves. Many of them were neither clear nor
sound on points of Christian doctrine and practice. In his fatherly
and affectionate letters to the members of this Church, Paul, among
other things, gives them instruction concerning this sacrament; and,
lest some of them might perhaps suppose that he is giving them merely
his own wisdom and speculation, he takes especial care to disavow
this: "_For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed,
took bread_," etc., giving in substance the same words of institution
as given by the Evangelists (1 Cor. xi. 23, 24, 25).

After thus giving them the words of institution, Paul goes on to
instruct them about worthy and unworthy communing. In these
instructions we cannot help but notice how he takes the real presence
of Christ's body and blood for granted all the way through. Notice his
language. Verse 27: _"Whosoever shall eat of this bread and drink of
this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord."_ Verse 29: _"For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord's body."_ Going back to chapter ten, verse sixteen, we
find the Apostle giving the doctrine of the Lord's Supper in a few
words thus: _"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ?"_

We have now noted all the passages that speak directly on this
subject. There are other strong passages that are often quoted in
defence of the doctrine of the real presence, and which we doubtless
have a right to use in corroboration of those above quoted. We refer
to John vi. 53-56: _"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ... for
my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him."_

As it is a disputed point, however, whether this passage refers
to the Lord's Supper or not, we are willing to waive it here. We are
content to take those passages quoted above, which every one
acknowledges as referring directly to our subject. These we would have
the reader carefully examine. Note particularly the language, the
words employed. In the four accounts given of the institution, three
by the Evangelists and one by Paul, we have the same clear, plain
words concerning the bread and wine--words of the last will and
testament of the Son of God, our Saviour--"_This is my body." "This is
my blood of the New Testament_;" or "_the New Testament in my blood_."
Note the language of Paul: _"Guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord." "Not discerning the Lord's body."_ The cup is called _the
communion of the blood_, and the bread, _the communion of the body_ of
Christ. The word communion is made up of two Latin words, _con_ and
_unio_, meaning union with, or connection with. The marginal reading
in our family Bibles, as well as in the revised version, is
"participation in." The plain English of the verse then is, the bread
is a participation in, or a connection with Christ's body, and the
wine with His blood.

We are now ready to take all these passages together, to compare
them one with another, and to ask, What do they teach? What is the
Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper? Is it transubstantiation? Is it
consubstantiation? Is it that the bread and wine are mere
representations or memorials of the absent body and blood of Christ?
Or do these passages teach "That the body and blood of Christ are
truly present under the form of bread and wine and are communicated to
those that eat in the Lord's Supper?" (Augsburg Confession, Art. X.)




CHAPTER XV.

THE LORD'S SUPPER--CONCLUDED.

We have quoted, noted, collected and compared the words of
Scripture that speak of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. We now
wish to ask and examine the question: What do these passages taken
together and compared with one another teach? Or, in other words, what
is the Bible doctrine of the Lord's Supper?

Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as held
and confessed by the Roman Catholic Church? If our investigation of
the teachings of the Holy Scriptures convinces us that they teach
Transubstantiation, we will be ready to believe and confess that
doctrine, no matter who else may believe or disbelieve it. What we
want to know, believe, teach and confess, is the _Bible
doctrine_.

What is Transubstantiation? The word means a change of substance.
The doctrine of the Romish Church is that after the consecration by
the priest, the bread in the sacrament is changed into the material
body of Christ, and the wine into His blood--so entirely changed in
substance and matter, that after the consecration there is no more
bread or wine there; what was bread has been converted into the flesh
of Christ, and what was wine has been converted into His blood. Is
this the doctrine of God's word? Does the Word anywhere tell us that
the bread and wine are thus changed? Does it call the bread flesh,
either before or after the consecration? Let us see. "Jesus took
_bread_." "I will not drink of the _fruit of the vine_." "The _bread_
which we break." "For as often as ye eat this _bread_ and drink this
cup." Such is the language of inspiration. Now we ask, if the Holy
Spirit desired that plain and unprejudiced readers should find the
doctrine of Transubstantiation in His words, why does He call the
earthly elements _bread_ and _wine_ before, during and after the
consecration Why does He not say, "as often as ye eat this flesh and
drink this blood?" Evidently because the bread is, and remains plain,
natural bread, and so with the wine. There is no change in the
component elements, in the nature, matter, or substance of either.
Transubstantiation is not the doctrine of God's word; neither was it
the doctrine of the early Church. It is one of the human inventions
and corruptions of the Church of Rome.

Do then these words of Scripture teach the doctrine of
Consubstantiation? There are persons who talk a great deal about
Consubstantiation, and yet they know not what it means. What is it? It
is a mingling or fusing together of two different elements or
substances, so that the two combine into a third. A familiar example,
often given, is the fusing or melting together of copper and zinc
until they unite and form brass. Applied to the sacrament of the
altar, the doctrine of Consubstantiation would teach that the flesh
and blood of Christ are physically or materially mingled and combined
with the bread and wine; so that what the communicant receives is
neither plain, real bread, nor real flesh, but a gross mixture of
the two.

Again we ask, is this the teaching of the Word? The very same
proofs that convince us that the divine Word does not teach
Transubstantiation, also convince us that it does not teach
Consubstantiation. The simple fact that the earthly elements are
called _bread_ and _the fruit of the vine_, before, during and after
consecration, satisfies us that they remain plain, simple bread and
wine, without physical change or admixture. Consubstantiation is not
the teaching of the Word; neither is it, nor has it ever been, the
teaching of the Lutheran Church. It often has been, and is still
called the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, but it is found in
none of her confessions. It was never taught by a single recognized
theologian of our Church. One and all, they have repudiated it and
repudiate it still. The question then is still unanswered What is the
doctrine of the divine Word?

There are many who have a ready and easy answer as to this
doctrine. They say it is only a Church ceremony, one of the old,
solemn rites by which Church members are distinguished from outsiders.
There is indeed no special significance or Grace connected with it.
There is really nothing in it but bread and wine. There is no presence
of Christ at all in this sacrament in any way different from His
general presence. The bread represents or signifies, is a sign, or
symbol, or emblem of Christ's body, and the wine of His blood. The
communicant receives nothing but bread and wine, and while he partakes
of these he remembers Christ's sufferings and death. Whatever special
benefit he is to derive from this sacrament he must first put into it,
by bringing to it pious thoughts, good feelings, deep emotions, tender
memories, and a faith that swings itself aloft and holds communion
with Christ far off in heaven.

This is about the current, popular view of this subject as held
and taught in nearly all the Protestant Churches of to-day, outside of
the Lutheran Church. As a natural consequence of this superficial
view, the whole matter is treated very lightly. There is little, if
any, solemn, searching preparation. In many places there is no formal
consecration of the elements. The table is thrown open to any one who
desires to commune. There are no regulations, no guards, no
disciplinary tests, connected with it. Even unbaptized persons, and
persons who have never made a public profession of faith, are often
permitted to commune. But we digress.

We return to the question: Is the view just noticed in harmony
with and based on the Word? Let us see. If there is nothing on the
altar but bread and wine, why does Christ say, "This is _My body ...
My blood_?" Why not say, This is bread, this is wine? If Christ wanted
us to understand that the bread and wine merely represent or are
emblems of His body and blood, why did He not say so? Did He not know
how to use language? Did He use dark or misleading words in His last
Will and Testament? Why does Paul, in speaking of worthy and unworthy
communing, speak of the body of Christ as present, as a matter of
course? Was he inspired to misunderstand Christ and lead plain readers
astray? If there is nothing more in the sacrament than to remember
Christ, why--as already noticed--did not the writers of the first two
Gospels put in the words, "_Do this in remembrance of Me_?" Or why did
not Christ plainly say, "Take, eat this bread, which represents My
body, in remembrance of Me?" Clearly, the doctrine in question is not
based on the words of Scripture. It cannot be supported by Scripture.
Neither do its defenders attempt to support it by the passages that
clearly speak of this sacrament. If they try to bring in any Scripture
proof, they quote passages that have nothing to do with the subject.
They draw their proofs and supports principally from reason and
philosophy.

Surely a doctrine that changes the words of the institution,
wrests and twists them out of their natural sense, and does violence
to all sound rules of interpretation that must bolster itself up by
the very same methods of interpretation that are used to disprove the
divinity of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the eternity of
future punishment, is not the doctrine of Christ.

We have not found the Bible doctrine in any of the views
examined. Can we find it? Let us see. We are satisfied, from our
examination of the passages that have to do with our subject, that
there must be earthly elements present in this sacrament. They are
bread and wine. They remain so, without physical change or admixture.
We also find from these passages that there is a real presence of
heavenly elements. These are the body and blood of Christ. Not indeed
that body as it was in its state of humiliation, when it was subject
to weakness, hunger, thirst, pain and death. But that glorified,
spiritual, resurrection body, in its state of exaltation, inseparably
joined with the Godhead, and by it rendered everywhere present. And
this body and divinity, we remark in passing, were already present,
though veiled, when the God-man walked this earth. Peter and James and
John caught a glimpse of it on the Mount of Transfiguration. It is of
this body, and blood, of which Peter says, 1 Peter i. 18, 19, that it
is _not a corruptible thing_, and of which the Apostle says, Heb. ix.
12, "_By his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place_" (that
is, into heaven), and of which Jesus spoke when He said, "_Take eat,
this is my body_ ... _this is my blood_."

Of this body and blood, the Scriptures affirm that they are
present in the sacrament. The passage which sets forth the _double_
presence, that of the earthly and heavenly elements, which indeed sums
up and states the Bible doctrine in a few words, is 1 Cor. x. 16.
There Paul affirms that the bread is the communion of Christ's _body_,
not of His Spirit or His influence. If the bread is the communion of,
participation in, or connection with His body, then bread _and_ body
must both be present. It takes two things to make a communion. They
must both be present. It would be absurd to speak of bread as a
communion of something in no way connected with it.

As we have already said, the plain sense of the words of this
passage is, that the bread is a connection with, or a participation in
Christ's body, and so with the wine; so much so that whoever partakes
of the one must, in some manner, also become a partaker of the other.
The bread, therefore, becomes the medium, the vehicle, the conveyance,
that carries to the communicant the body of Christ, and the wine
likewise His blood. And this, we repeat, without any gross material
transmutation or mixing together. The bread and wine are the earthen
vessels that carry the Heavenly treasures of Christ's body and blood,
even as the letters and words of the Scriptures convey to the reader
or hearer the Holy Spirit. This is the clear, plain, Bible doctrine of
the Lord's Supper. There is nothing gross, carnal, Capernaitish or
repulsive about it.

And exactly this is the teaching and doctrine of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church. Article X., Augsburg Confession, says, "Of the Lord's
Supper they teach that the true body and blood of Christ are truly
present, under the form of bread and wine, and are there communicated
to those that eat in the Lord's Supper." And Luther's Catechism says,
"The sacrament of the altar is the true body and blood of Jesus
Christ, under the bread and wine, given unto us Christians to eat and
drink, as it was instituted by Christ Himself."

We therefore find that on this point also our dear old Church is
built impregnably on the foundation of Christ and His Apostles. And
though she may here differ from all others, she cannot yield one jot
or tittle without proving false to her Lord and His truth. It is not
bigotry. It is not prejudice, that makes her cling so tenaciously to
this doctrine. She knows, as the great Reformer knew, that the very
foundations are at stake; that if she gives up on this point, and
changes the Scriptures to suit human reason, she will soon have to
give up other doctrines, and by and by the rock on which the Church is
built will be removed, and the gates of hell will prevail.

And further, if there is any risk of being mistaken--which she,
however, does not admit--she would rather run that risk, by taking her
Master at His word, than by changing His word. In childlike confidence
and trust, she would rather believe too much than not enough. She
would rather trust her dear Master too far than not far enough. And
therefore here she stands; she cannot do otherwise. May God help her!
Amen.

Others may still say, "This is a hard saying, who can bear it?
The idea of eating and drinking the body and blood of our Lord offends
us."

Well, it also offended the late Henry Ward Beecher, that his
salvation should depend on the literal shedding of the literal blood
of Jesus. This idea was repulsive to the great Brooklyn divine. But it
does not offend us. On the contrary, this same doctrine is to us the
very heart of the whole Gospel, and is therefore more precious than
life itself.

Neither does it offend us that the mother, whose pure and tender
love to her infant child is an emblem of the divine love to us poor
sinners, while she presses to her bosom that little one, soothes away
its frettings and sings away its sobbings, at the same time feeds and
nourishes that feeble life with her own physical life, giving it
literally her body and blood. This is no offense to us.

And why should it offend us that our dear loving Saviour comes so
close to us, leads us into His banqueting house, where His banner over
us is love, speaks to us words that are the out-breathings of the
yearning love of His divine heart, and, at the same time, feeds us
with His own spiritual and glorified body and blood, and thus makes us
partakers of the divine nature.

Instead of being offended, let us rather bow down, and worship,
and adore, and sing:

"Lord, at Thy table I behold
The wonders of Thy Grace;
But most of all admire that I
Should find a welcome place."

"I that am all defiled by sin;
A rebel to my God:
I that have crucified His Son
And trampled on His blood!"

"What strange surprising Grace is this
That such a soul has room;
My Saviour takes me by the hand.
And kindly bids me come!"




CHAPTER XVI.

THE PREPARATORY SERVICE; SOMETIMES CALLED
THE CONFESSIONAL SERVICE.

In our examination of the nature and meaning of the Lord's
Supper, we have found that it is indeed a most important and holy
Sacrament. It is in fact the most sacred of all the ordinances of the
Church on earth. There is nothing beyond it--nothing so heavenly, on
this side heaven, as this Feast. Nowhere else does the believer
approach so near to heaven as when he stands or kneels, as a
communicant at this altar, the Holy of Holies in the Church of Christ.

What a solemn act! To approach this altar, to participate in its
heavenly mysteries, to become a partaker of the glorified body and
blood of the Son of God! Surely no one who understands the import of
this Sacrament, will dare to approach hastily, thoughtlessly, or on
the impulse of the moment. Surely there must be forethought and
preparation. Our Church has realized this from the very beginning. She
has had, and still has, a special service for those who intend to
commune. Her preparatory service precedes her communion service. And
we can safely affirm, that no Church has so searching and suitable a
preparatory service as the Lutheran Church. Where this service is
properly conducted and entered into by pastor and people, it is not an
unimportant step in the Way of Salvation.

Our Church, in this particular also, is purely scriptural. Israel
of old had seasons of special preparation, previous to special
manifestations from God. There was a season of special preparation
before the giving of the Law; also before the receiving of the quails
and the manna from heaven. There were days of preparation before and
in connection with the great annual festivals, as well as in
connection with other great national and religious events. Our Lord,
Himself, observed a most solemn preparatory service with His disciples
before He instituted the Last Supper. He not only spoke very
comforting words to them, but He also plainly pointed out to them
their sins, _e.g._, their pride, their jealousy, their quarrels,
their coming defection, the fall of Peter and the treachery of Judas.
In harmony with all this, Paul directs: _"But let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup."_

And it is to aid and assist the communicant in this
self-examination that we have our preparatory service. Its great
object is to enable the communicant to realize his own sinfulness, to
deepen in him true penitence and longing for forgiveness, and also to
aid him in appropriating and rejoicing in the full and free
forgiveness of Christ. To this end we sing our penitential hymns,
plead for Grace to know ourselves, our sinfulness, and the fulness of
Christ's Grace, and hear such searching appeals from the pastor as
often pain and agonize the heart.

Then follows, on the part of the whole congregation, a united,
audible and public confession of sin, of sorrow because of it, of
earnest desire for forgiveness, of faith in Christ as the divine
Saviour, and of an earnest purpose to hate and avoid all sin in the
future. After this public confession in the presence of the pastor and
of one another, the same confession is repeated, on bended knees,
directly to God. This two-fold confession--first in the presence of
the pastor and of one another, and then directly to God--is followed
by the words of absolution from the pastor.

In pronouncing the absolution the minister uses the following, or
words to the same effect: "Almighty God, our heavenly Father, having
of His great mercy promised the forgiveness of sins to all those who
with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto Him, and having
authorized His ministers to declare the same, I pronounce, to all who
do truly repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and are
sincerely determined to amend their ways and lead a godly and pious
life, the entire forgiveness of all your sins, in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."

Then follow a few words in which he assures the impenitent and
hypocritical that their sins are not forgiven, but will certainly
bring upon them the fearful wrath of Almighty God, unless they
speedily repent, turn from their sins, and fly to the Lord Jesus
Christ for refuge and salvation. This is the closing part of the
preparatory service, which is called Confession and Absolution.

Some time ago we were asked, by a minister of another
denomination, why Lutherans retained and practiced Romish confession,
and forgiveness by the minister. We gave him our formula for
Confession and Absolution, and asked him to examine it and point out
to us wherein it was Romish or unscriptural. After examination he
handed it back, saying: "I cannot say that it is exactly unscriptural.
In fact, I can easily see how you can quote Scripture in its defense."

And so we can. In Matt. xvi. 19, Jesus says to Peter: _"I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shalt be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."_ In Matt. xviii. 18,
the Saviour gives the same power in the same words to all the
disciples as representatives of the Christian congregation. In John
xx. 21-23, He says again to the disciples: _"As my Father hath sent
me, even so send I you, ... whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained."_

What do these words of Christ mean? They must mean something.
They must be of some use. Our Lord certainly does confer some kind of
authority or power on His Church, which is His Bride. Does He hereby
give into her hand the keys of His kingdom, and authorize her to
dispense its treasures? Does she, through her ministry, employ these
keys, bring forth heavenly treasures, and distribute and withhold them
among the children of men? To the Church's ministers Christ says, Luke
x. 16; _"He that heareth you, heareth Me: and he that despiseth you,
despiseth me."_ One of these ministers, who certainly understood his
office and its prerogatives, speaking in the name of all true
ministers of Christ, says, 2 Cor. v. 20: _"Now then we are ambassadors
for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."_ If we would see how this
ambassador exercised his high authority in an individual case, he
tells us in 2 Cor. ii. 10: _"If I forgave anything, to whom I forgave
it for your sakes forgave I it, in the person of Christ."_

If now we take these passages together, we must admit that in
their plain literal sense; they do teach that Christ, the Head of the
Church, has _in some sense_ committed to His Church the power to
remit and retain sins, and that this power is exercised in the Church
through its ministry.

In what sense then has a minister power to remit sin? Certainly
not by any inherent virtue of his own, nor by any power originating in
his own person. In this sense only God can forgive sin, as all sin is
committed against Him. But God can _delegate_ that power to
another, and permit him to use it _in His name_. And this is all
the power any human being can have in this matter. It would indeed be
blasphemy for any man to claim that he had power in _himself_ to
forgive sins. If he can have any power at all, it must be
_Christ's_ power. He can only use it as a deputy, as an
ambassador, or as an agent. And this is exactly what the Word teaches.