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.]
V 1 The Liturgical Influence of Gregory the Great (A. L. Ramer)
V 9 The Function of the Minister in Divine Worship (E. F. Krauss)
V 21 A Laity Liturgically Well-Informed (A. B. Markley)
V 31 The Significance of Symbolism and Its Employment in the Service of the Church (G. J. Gongaware)
V 41 The Collects (S. A Bridges Stopp)
V 53 The Fundamental Principles of Divine Service (G. W. Mechling)
V 69 Regulations and Customs Pertaining to the Use of the Sacraments (I. M. Wallace)
V 85 Liturgical Accuracy and Spirituality (H. D. Spaeth)
THE LITURGICAL INFLUENCE OF GREGORY THE GREAT.
GREGORY the Great stands unique in his work on the Roman Mass and liturgical development in general. It would be a mistake to regard him as the author of the Mass or even any large portion of it. A rich and varied material had accumulated prior to his time. He took the liturgical material of his age and with a masterly skill recast it, giving it a fulness and stability which it has not lost unto this day. In order to estimate correctly his influence in the liturgical development, two facts must be born in mind; first, the stage to which Liturgies had developed at about the time that he was elected Pope, (590); and the development subsequent to his death during the seventh and eighth centuries until we come into possession of the earliest MSS of his Sacramentary and a century later until we find his Antiphonary.
There are extant three depositories, Sacramentaries, of the purely Roman Liturgy; the Leonine, (440-461); Gelasian, (496); Gregorian, (590-604). Pope Gelasius edited the Leonine Sacramentary and this suffered minor changes under the influence of the old Gallic Liturgy in France and Spain. Gregory took again the material of the Leonine and reduced the confusion of the variable formulae to a small and invariable number, as well as transposing, and adding material. We do not have the exact form in which it came from Gregory’s hand. The oldest MSS date only from the eighth century and hail not from Italian but from Western territory. This is accounted for by the troublesome times in Italy during this period. The interval from Gregory’s death to the close of the eighth century was fertile in liturgical development especially in the completion of the Church Year. There is a strong presumption that certain changes and modifications under Western influences, found their way into the Gregorian Sacramentary during this plastic stage. There are now five
Page 2
MSS of this Sacramentary extant dating from the eighth to the eleventh century edited by Pamel, Rocca, Menard, Gerbert and Muratori. These MSS agree in the main parts but differ in minor points as might be supposed allowing for the interval of time and the still present leaven of development. It is supposed that the oldest of these MSS is that published by Muratori and it is assigned to the second half of the eighth century. The Sacramentary as first published by Gregory contained no rubrics, only the prayers and the sequences of the Mass; no lessons, no antiphons. The editor of the Muratori MS added a breviary to the canon of the Mass by the aid of which we can have a correct knowledge of how the parts were rendered, at least at that time.
The forty homilies published by Gregory the Great give considerable information on the liturgical development of his age. The Church Year was then not yet developed, especially the second half, the period without festivals. A curious circumstance comes to light in the superscription of these homilies assigning them to those Sundays which in subsequent times had the lesson which the homily treated as its text. These superscriptions are the work of a later editor who failed to inform himself of the contents of the homily. Thus the nineteenth homily is assigned to Septuagesima Sunday as it treats the text Matt. 20:1-16. In point of fact this Sunday was not yet assigned in the Church Year in the time of Gregory. These homilies are, however, valuable in determining the Church Year as many of them mention in the text the time when they were preached. These lessons of Gregory are among the earliest that have come to us from this period.
The Antiphonary of Gregory contained the invitatories, responses, collects, all that was said or sung by the choir. But here again our earliest MS dates only from the ninth century. The Antiphonary comes to us a completed work. We have no means of tracing its development during its constructive stages such as we possess for the Sacramentary covering a period from the fifth to the ninth century. The Church Year is now completed. The Sundays after Epiphany and Whitsunday all have their appointments. Just how much of the Antiphonary is original with Gregory is hard to determine. That there was singing in the Mass before his time is self-evident; what was added after his time and ascribed to him we cannot determine. Berno Augi-
Page 3
ensis, (1045), calls Gregory the Great the ordinator libri Sacramentarium et Antiphonarium. His biographer John calls him “wiser than Solomon because of his antiphons.” Gregory is particularly known for his service in developing Plain Song (cantus firmus, choralis,) or the so-called Gregorian Chant. The singing that prevailed in the Church in his day was the Ambrosian Song, consisting of Greek melodies and ancient psalmody. In course of time the emotional element in the Greek melody developed into unsanctified worldly sentimentality. To counteract this tendency, Gregory introduced what is known as Plain Song
The characteristics of this “Gregorian Music” are such as to adapt it most fittingly to sacred purposes. It held its place all through the Middle Ages, was preserved in the Lutheran Service, and is now again becoming more and more popular in the Church. Gregory’s service to the cause of Church Music was commemorated during the Middle Ages by singing a hymn of praise in his honor before Mass on the first Sunday in Advent. Gregory established a singing school in Rome and this became a centre for antiphonal singing. The choir composed largely of clerical members became a necessary adjunct to the rendition of the Mass. It was arranged in two parts, one on each side of the altar. One side under the direction of a leader intoned while the other side sang the response.
Upon an examination of the Sacramentary of Gregory, we find that the old threefold division of the Mass with respect to the attendants is abolished. But the Mass divides itself into three separate acts. First, the acts of the Lessons; second, the Offertory; and third, the Canon of the Mass proper. The sermon is no longer an integral part of the Mass. The General Prayer following the sermon in the Apostolic Constitution is either lost or as some think finds expression in the Kyrie. There are only two Lessons, the Gospel and Epistle, and one Collect. The Ite, missa est, formerly at the close of the homiletical service is now transposed as the closing formula at the end of the Mass. With these general remarks we will now examine the several parts of the Mass.
The Mass began with the Introit, which set forth a particular grace for the Season. The Introit was followed by the Kyrie which was sung nine times, after which followed the Gloria in Excelsis, intoned by the priest and responded to by the choir from
Page 4
et in terra. This introductory Service is of special interest as it is of purely Roman origin. We have no Antiphonary which gives us the text of the Introits of this period. The position which the Kyrie occupies and its interchange with the Litany is worthy of note. The Kyrie Eleison was the response which the people made to the intercessory petitions in the Litany. Kliefoth advances the theory (III, 226), that the Litany was the later form of the General Prayer in the Apostolic Constitution following the sermon. During the sixth century the Litany was transposed to follow the singing of the Psalm in the Introit. It was, however, contrary to the proper liturgical conception to have a General Prayer at this place. Gregory took out of the Litany the Kyrie Eleison responses and assigned them to their present place in the Introit. This seems plausible, for on fast and vigil days the Litany is appointed instead of the Kyrie, when this and the Gloria in Excelsis are to be omitted. The Kyrie was intoned by the choir and the congregation responded with the Eleison. The Kyrie was repeated nine times. In the Apostolic Constitution and in the Greek Church the two words go together and are both spoken by the congregation. Gregory calls the Kyrie Vox deprecationis. He says after the congregation heard the word of grace announced in the Introit, the people cry for mercy. Upon this follows the Gloria in Excelsis, the hymn of praise of the angels. Before the time of Gregory it was not in common use. He appointed it for all Sunday and festival day masses when the bishop was celebrant and allowed it for the priests on Easter and the day of their consecration. When the Litany was used then the Gloria in Excelsis was to be omitted. Other hymns are not found in the Mass; these find their place in the Horae. Nine hymns are ascribed to Gregory. The best known among these is Rex Christe, factor omnium. After this introductory part follow the Act of the Lessons, the Offertory and the Canon of the Mass in the narrower sense. In the conclusion of the Canon of the Mass, the priest is directed to put a little of the bread in the chalice and then to slightly elevate it. This marks the beginning of the elevation of the chalice. The consecrated bread is broken before distribution in order to deal with the sacrifice of the Mass in imitation of a Lamb that was slain.
Although Gregory encouraged the practice of preaching, yet in his Sacramentary the sermon is not an integral part of the
Page 5
Mass. The Lessons have no longer a purpose and object of their own. The Word is offered to God in prayer and He is thanked for it, but the congregation no longer receives the Word and its explanation in the sermon. A similar displacement of the significance of the elements of the Lord’s Supper has taken place. The early Christian Church regarded the distribution and the reception of the elements as the chief thing in the sacrament. All the other acts were really only preparatory to the reception. Gregory’s sacrificial theory of the Mass placed the chief importance upon the offering up unto God the Body of Christ. It was immaterial whether there were communicants present to partake of the Body thus offered.
Gregory clearly teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. He says: Bonus pastor pro ovibus suis animam suam posuit, ut in sacramento nostro corpus suum et sanguinem verteret et oves, quas redemerat, carnis suae alimento satiaret.* “The Good Shepherd offered His life for the sheep, that He might change His Body and Blood in our sacrament and might satisfy the sheep whom He had redeemed, with the food of His flesh.” The offerings brought by the congregation were changed through the operation of the Mass into the Body and Blood of Christ. Another passage: Debemus quotidianas carnis et sanguinis hostias immolare. Haec namque illam nobis mortem unigeniti per mysterium reparat, qui pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacrae oblationis immolatur.† “We ought to offer the daily sacrifice of His flesh and blood. This sacrifice indeed alone saves the soul from eternal destruction which procures for us that death of the Only-begotten through the divine mystery who is offered for us anew (iterum) in this mystery of the sacred oblations.”
Footnote: * Kliefoth III, 195.
Footnote: † Ibid. III, 196.
Gregory’s doctrine of Purgatory found a practical support and mighty instrument in his theory of the Lord’s Supper. He says: Si culpae post mortem insolubiles non sunt, multum solet animas etiam post mortem sacra oblatio hostia salutaris ut hanc nonnumquam ipsae defunctorum animae expetere videantur.‡ “If sins are not atoned for after death it is wont that souls are greatly profited even after death by the sacred oblations of the saving sacrifice so that these souls
Footnote: ‡ Ibid. III, 196.
Page 6
of the dead sometimes appear to beg for this sacrifice.” Gregory had much to say of the miraculous power of the consecrated bread and even recounted cases where the dead appeared as phantoms begging that Mass might be said for the repose of their souls.
Assuming the figment of purgatory and forcing the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper to suit its exigencies, Gregory laid the foundation of one of the most gigantic errors with which mankind has ever been burdened. The steps in this ruinous system are easily taken. The chief importance in the Mass is its “imitation of a Lamb that was slain,” i. e. being offered up. If the reception is not essential then the presence of the congregation or the individuals for whom it is offered is not necessary. This was so advocated. This then made the third step possible,—the Mass is efficacious for the absent ones whether living or dead. All this was in accord with the hierarchical tendency rapidly developing under the master exponent of that system, Gregory the Great.
The immediate effect of these principles of worship was the withdrawal of the congregation from the active part of the responses which had become more difficult under the new system of antiphonal rendering. The choir supplanted the congregation. The Latin language was the universal language for the Mass but the Germanic people did not understand this foreign tongue and in course of time this became a dead language even in Rome, but still there was no change, nor was the need for one felt, because the congregation had really no share or part in its rendering. The Word of God had lost its intrinsic value in the esteem of the hierarchical system, it was now only of value as a contributing element in the sacrifice of the Mass.
The age of Gregory was particularly propitious for the development of Saints’ days, and the ora pro nobis among the people. Processions (Litanies) were common in the time of Gregory. April the 25th, St. Mark’s Day was called Litania Major. On this day processions were made out into the fields. After Gregory was elected Pope, a pestilence broke out in Rome. He preached a sermon on the theme de mortalitate, at the conclusion of which he called the people to form in a sevenfold procession, classified according to their station in life.
The influence of Gregory has been that of a strong deter-
Page 7
mined personality. He certainly did a remarkable work in editing and establishing the Roman Mass. He manifested in many parts good liturgical taste and judgment, but no doubt has done an irreparable injury to the cause of pure doctrine of the Word of God by distorting sacred truths from their foundation for the selfish purpose of building up the hierarchical power of the Roman Bishop.
A. L. RAMER.
Scranton, Pa.
Page 8
Page 9
THE FUNCTION OF THE MINISTER IN DIVINE WORSHIP.
EVERY good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17). According to this text we are indebted for every blessing, material and spiritual, to the grace of God. However, God does not directly and immediately minister unto us His bounties; but, indirectly and mediately through means and instruments. The refreshment and the energy which we secure through the medium of bread might in the exercise of the Divine power, have been transmitted directly to our bodies without means of bread, but this is not God’s ordained method. Doubtless if He saw fit, He might immediately and directly bring to our souls the higher blessings we enjoy in the Bread of Life; however, He in His Wisdom has seen fit to connect them with the Means of Grace—the Word and the Sacraments. These Means are simply Means of Grace, and can not administer themselves, in like manner as a piece of the finest and most skillful mechanism can not run of itself without the intervention of a human agent. For the administration of these Means of Grace, whereby God communicates His blessings to a people, He has called a ministry. God’s Word is always efficacious and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, whether meditated upon, or read; yet its solemn and authoritative use is associated with public worship, and its proper administration in such a service demands the services of a minister. Baptism can not ordinarily be administered without the intervention of a minister, and the Lord’s Supper always demands the presence of the administering agent. A proper conception of the Means of Grace involves the recognition of the necessity of
Page 10
public worship and of a ministry, even if this necessity were not plainly taught in the Sacred Scriptures.
It is evident that in Divine worship there are three elements, or factors:—God’s people, who are to be fed with Heavenly blessings in Christ; the minister, who is to administer these blessings in God’s appointed way; and the Means of Grace through and by which these blessings are brought near to the people and appropriated by them by faith. The function of the minister, then, is a very important and essential one, and worthy of our reverent consideration. Christ says:—(John 6:44) No man can come to Me, except the Father Which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. By means of the Sacrament of Baptism, administered ordinarily by the Pastor, and by the preaching of the Word, the worshiping congregation has been called into being and been made possible by the drawing power of the Holy Spirit exerted through the Means of Grace. In the Sacrament of the Altar Christ, through the agency of the minister, comes to every communicant and imparts to him His Body and Blood—a savor of life unto life to them that believe, but a savor of death unto death to the unbelieving and the impenitent. Through the Word of the minister, which is God’s Word, the precious blessing of Absolution is secured as surely as if God Himself spake it from Heaven. In the reading of the Word, God’s Will and Grace are authoritatively declared through the mouth of the minister, and in the sermon the Gospel is applied to the present needs and wants of God’s people.
This is, however, only one side of the minister’s function. God gives in the Means of Grace, and He gives through the agency and mediation of the minister, as shown above. However, where God’s grace is imparted, there a response always manifests itself. When God in the spring of the year gently caresses the seemingly dead earth with His zephyrs and softens it with His showers, it forthwith responds in a carpet of green and in a glory of bloom on shrub and tree. Likewise when God by His Means wakens a dead soul into life and makes it the recipient of Heavenly bounty, there naturally and necessarily follows a response in a service of prayer, praise and thanksgiving. These two elements, then, are found in every properly ordered Service. In certain parts of the Service God gives and bestows through the Means of Grace mediated by the minister. At these
Page 11
times the believing congregation is devoutly silent and receptive. Here the minister, as God’s agent and ambassador, speaks in the name of God and addresses the congregation. At other times in the Service, again, he is the representative and the mouth-piece of the congregation and directs his addresses not to the congregation, but to God. Here he in a measure fulfills the function of the Sheliach Tsibbur of the ancient synagogue service. We see, then, that the minister in attending to his specific functions in the worship of the Church stands in a representative capacity.—he is either the representative of God, speaking to His people, or the representative of the people speaking for them and in their name to God. In the singing of hymns he properly joins in the worship of the congregation as a member thereof. These two essential parts of the Service, called the sacramental and the sacrificial, dare not follow abruptly one after the other, but the good taste of the early Church has supplied us with chaste and Scriptural transitional passages by means of which there is an easy and natural progression from one part of the Service to the other. Naturally the minister, as the leader of the worship of the congregation, accords these parts of the Service their proper use, so that, like in nature, there may be no startling breaks in the worship of the Most High; but that there may be an agreeable and natural progression from the beginning of the Divine Service to its end.
With this statement of the function of the minister in public worship, this paper might end; yet we would all feel that a very important part of the discussion of this subject had been omitted. Just as in taking observations of the heavenly bodies the astronomer is compelled to take account of the “personal equation,” so in the consideration of the minister’s function in public worship, the bearing and the deportment of the minister demand a consideration, calling for more time than a positive statement of his function in Divine Service. Christ teaches us (Matt. 23:2):—The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. We are not held by any Donatistic views of the ministry, and we have learned long ago that God’s Means of Grace are always efficacious. Water is water, and refreshes, whether it comes through a pipe of lead or of gold. God’s Word, even if preached without any accompaniment of rhetorical grace, or to the detriment of the
Page 12
King’s English, is efficacious and powerful; yet who would not prefer to have the grace of the Gospel come to him with the embellishments of the graces of polite speech? The Sacrament of the Altar rightly administered is valid and efficacious, even if the nails of the administrator are in mourning and the proximity of his hands in presenting the sacred wafer brings unmistakable suggestions of the reeking atmosphere of the tobacconist’s shop or the environment of the livery-stable, as has been the experience of more than one patient sufferer; yet who would not rather have the Means of Grace administered to him by one who does not shock refined sensibilities and who does not accompany the presentation of the pure Word of God with the exhibition of an utter lack of good taste? The minister’s bearing and deportment, his “personal equation,” if you please, in every part of the Service may be so offensive as to detract from the usefulness of his functions in worship and demands a more detailed consideration.
It must be acknowledged that it is rather a delicate task to present this phase of the subject. To a person who does not possess the genuine liturgical spirit, some of the things that must be said in this connection would seem trifling and perhaps ridiculous. It were folly to discuss colors with one born blind, or to risk incurring the enmity of the deaf by entering upon a controversy with them upon the merits of a musical opus by one of the masters. Being sure, however, of a sympathetic hearer, and in the conviction that I am addressing only those of refined liturgical taste, I address myself to the congenial task of delineating, in as practical a way as possible, the manner in which a minister’s deportment and bearing in the conduct of Divine Service may detrimentally affect its usefulness, and the pleasure and profit derived from it.
The minister who is desirous of making the highest possible use of the Service of the Church for his people, must see to it that a number of things are attended to before he steps into the chancel to begin the sacred offices. The lessons must be hunted and clearly marked in the Bible on the Lectern so that there may be no awkward pause during the Service while the Pastor is searching for the place of the Lections. The pulpit Bible should be open at the proper place and all manuscripts and notes conveniently arranged. The service books, and everything else required should be so placed as to be at hand when needed. To
Page 13
defer this work until after the minister has come before his people to begin the Service, leaves the impression that he is not possessed with a sense of the importance of the Services of the House of God. To see a minister rush precipitately from one side of the chancel to the other, to be subjected to the ordeal of seeing him handle nervously the pages of Sacred Scripture, hunting the Lections, we know by frequent experience, is not edifying.
Not only need the attention of the officiating minister be directed to the chancel and what he needs in the sacred ministrations, but to his personal appearance as well. Anything striking and diverting in his appearance must be studiously avoided. We all know that a distinctive robe for the minister is adiaphoristic, a liturgy itself, in fact, yet we are all agreed that a chaste liturgical taste demands a distinctive badge of office. This fact is recognized even in the practice of congregations of culture and refinement in unliturgical denominations. It is not the province of this paper to define what are the strictly Lutheran vestments. Practices differ indifferent places, and we cheerfully accord to each one what he prefers. But having chosen a vestment, let him see that it is properly put on, and secured so as to run no risk of falling off, as has happened in more than one instance. Regard must also be had to proper fit. In a church near Philadelphia not many years ago a clergyman, approximating the stature of the son of Kish, preached a trial sermon in a robe, the property of the congregation, which had been made to fit the proportions of their former pastor who in size suggested Zacchaeus the publican. The effect was too ludicrous for even that devout congregation, a good sermon made no impression and an estimable man waited in vain for a call to a desirable congregation.
Let us suppose, then, that all necessary arrangements have been made, and the minister is ready to begin the Service. Precisely at the time appointed let him enter the chancel. His way entering into the presence of the congregation and the manner in which he moves from place to place in the chancel, are not without their effect upon the Service, and demand some consideration. Two extremes must be guarded against. He will not enter the chancel with swinging arms and in a rapid stride, nor will he make a cross-cut, and approach the altar from the side. On the other hand he will not by the painful slowness of his move-
Page 14
ments and his precise posturings give the suggestion of an automaton. Good taste demands a devout and reverent bearing in keeping with the character of the place. Any suggestion of affectation on the one hand or of levity on the other is detrimental.
The consideration of the minister’s walk naturally suggests other bodily movements which must not be passed over. Involuntary movements, which betoken nervousness, and are a waste of vitality, like fidgeting, are extremely exasperating to a person of refined sensibilities, and produce a detrimental effect upon even the uncultured, although they may not be able to tell the cause of their unfavorable impressions. Such movements plainly show a lack of self-control, and are fatal to personal magnetism. He who can not control himself cuts a sorry figure in trying to hold and influence a congregation in public discourse. Among such vicious involuntary movements we would enumerate thrashing the handkerchief, playing with the mustache, with a button, or a watch-charm, or walking up and down during the sermon. We have read the praises of peripatetic philosophers, but we can give our testimony as the result of more than one painful experience as a victim, that we never saw anything to recommend in a peripatetic minister.
Here, too, we must record our conviction that it is offensive to correct liturgical taste and conducive to the marring of a Service to have the minister move about in the chancel when the congregation is worshiping. When he is not addressing the congregation in the sacramental parts of the Services, or speaking to God in the sacrificial acts, let him join in the worship with the congregation of which he is a part. We have frequently seen ministers move from the center of the chancel to the Lectern while the congregation was singing the Amen after the Collect. It is a common thing to see a minister use the time during which the congregation sings the closing stanzas of the hymn before the sermon, in going into the pulpit and in getting into adjustment for the sermon. Let the minister retain his seat and let him worship to the end of the hymn and then let him deliberately proceed to the pulpit. If he needs private prayer before the sermon, let him teach his people that they need prayer as well to receive it properly.
Here, too, is the place to pillorize the trousers-pocket brigade. It is a sad commentary upon the condition of the litur-
Page 15
taste in our English Church to be compelled to treat a subject like this in a paper of this character. We should have spared you this if a Service had not been spoiled for us not many months ago by a performance of this character. One naturally associates the trousers-pocket gesture with the racy anecdotes of the mountebank and the hawker of cheap jewelry. When this attitude is assumed by a minister in Divine Worship, the effect is worse than that of the proverbial fly in the ointment. The only way to be sure that one’s hand will not furtively glide to its favorite repose in the trousers-pocket when ministering in the chancel, is never to let it rest there outside of that sacred place.
A vicious fault on the part of the ministering clergyman is practice of looking over the congregation during the singing the hymns and at other times when the minister is not speaking. It always makes the impression upon us that the pastor is taking a mental note of absentees or trying to feed his vanity in endeavoring to estimate the number of people to whom he is ministering. If he must ascertain who is present, and cannot do so unconsciously during the sermon, when he ought to look his people in the eyes; or if he must count noses, let him delegate this unbecoming work to some one else. Only let him bear in mind the disastrous experience of a greater than he who indulged a penchant for numbering the people. It is to be hoped that the progress of sound liturgical teaching will soon bring it to pass that our cultured congregations at least will insist that they see the pastor’s face only when he is addressing them.
Having passed in review some of the more flagrant faults of the officiating minister as far as they concern his bodily movements which always mar a Service more or less, let us pass to a consideration of the utterances of his mouth. In passing let us emphasize the fact for the purpose of vindicating the use of so much space in discussing this phase of the subject that what a person says with his body may cry out so loud that what he says with his lips may make no impression.
One of the most common faults of the minister in performing his functions in the chancel is the injection of the dramatic element, and the bringing in of the thread-bare devices of the cheap teacher of dramatic and elocutionary reading. Scripture is to be read intelligibly and with proper decorum and reverence. The fact must always be kept in mind that it is God’s Word, and that
the officiating minister is simply the agent through whom this Word is mediated to the people. He is not to read it in such a way as to show off obtrusively his elocutionary skill. The highest art is to conceal art. It is not considered good liturgical taste to look up from the page in reading Scripture. Let the Book be so adjusted as to afford an unobstructed view of the face of the reader, and let him read reverently and devoutly, with proper emphasis to bring out the meaning. Let him not fall into the unliturgical practice of commenting while he is reading Scripture. Let nothing but God’s Word be heard at this time, and let not man’s word and God’s be indiscriminately mixed up in such a way as to lead to an unpleasant perplexity on the part of the hearer as to what Scripture says or what is the extempore effusion of the reader. All explanation of Scripture comes properly in the sermon. Here a minister may comment to his heart’s content, if he has the ability to do it well; if not, the less the better.
Many of our ministers in reading the sacrificial parts of the Service have the ghastly habit of turning up their eyes toward the ceiling, doubtless to indicate to the people that what is said is intended for Him Who inhabiteth the Heavens. This trick we are justified in qualifying as ghastly, for we all know by experience that the spectacle of a person exposing the whites of his eyes is not a pleasing one. Since there is a desire manifested in this disagreeable practice to indicate the sacrificial parts of the Service, when God and not the people are addressed, why not in accordance with the pure practice of our Church where she has not been adversely influenced by coming in contact with other denominations, reintroduce the practice of indicating the sacrificial part of the Service by the minister’s attitude with reference to the altar, the center of the church? During prayer, the people face the altar. The minister is a member of the congregation as well as its minister. He is not praying at them, but they are praying through him as their mouth-piece and spokesman. He is not praying his private prayers, which are properly reserved for the privacy of his own room, but he is making audible their petitions at the throne of grace. His posture ought to emphasize this fact in a liturgical Service conducted with due regard to taste and the eternal fitness of things. True, there are but few of our English congregations far enough advanced in their ap-
Page 17
preciation of correct liturgical principles to adopt this eminently beautiful practice with edification. Then, too, it is reprehensible a congregation, and perhaps do violence to the welfare of immortal souls by throwing a stumbling-block in their way in the reintroduction of a practice, right and good in itself, but naturally regarded as strange and foreign to the genius of the Church by one whose horizon is bounded by the limits of the parish. Our people must be patiently taught to appreciate correct practices, and then they will demand their observance. To reintroduce them before they are ready to appreciate and enjoy them is not wise. A pastor stultifies himself by unnecessarily creating a disturbance by the introduction of an adiaphoron. Here as elsewhere patience must do her perfect work. The same may also be said of the eminently beautiful and church practice of intoning the Service. There is no more reason for a congregation to sing its responses than for a pastor to sing his parts of the Service. It seems one-sided and unnatural the minister to speak and the congregation to sing. Let both either speak or sing, but let each do the same thing. Only let it be done well. Only the best dare be tolerated in the House of God. Unless a minister is possessed of a sweet and flexible voice and understands music, let him not attempt the intonations. I would say the same of the congregation. If they are not willing to learn to sing the responses well, let them not sing them at all. One who is acquainted with the condition of our English Church knows full well that the general practice of intoning is impracticable on account of the wretched liturgical taste prevalent among us, and the lack of musical training among the overwhelming majority of our clergymen. The reintroduction into our churches of the beautiful practice of intoning, which is recommended by all the authorities on Liturgics who are entitled to a hearing, would solve many of the problems suggested in a consideration of the use by the minister of his voice in the Service of the Church, either to its making or marring.
Again, many a minister sins egregiously against good liturgical taste and feeling in conducting the prayers of the congregation. In many quarters the impression of many pious souls seems to be that the public prayers of the congregation are the minister’s prayers; and they, in their innocence of the first principles of congregational prayer, demand that the minister make
Page 18
“his own prayers.” They usually are his own prayers, too—his very, very own, considered from the standpoint of grammar, diction and arrangement. He prays at the people, preaches to them under the pretense of prayer, sometimes flatters them, interjects “Ohs,” and “Would thats” ad nauseam, often transgresses the second commandment by his battological repetitions of the Name Of God, introduced for the purpose of saying something while he is thinking of something else to say; and usually makes such an exhibition of wretched taste as almost to turn a person against extempore prayer. Then good, pious souls whom Satan uses to flatter their dear pastor, assure him with tears in their eyes, that his prayer was “so touching,” and did them so much good. We believe in extempore prayer properly conducted, and employed it when in the active ministry, but we always felt like turning to sack-cloth and ashes when assured that our prayer was touching and did good. A prayer that touches the people and treats them to the luxury of tears is no prayer, but an exhortation masquerading as an address to the throne of grace. It is a sham and an impertinence. The reason why there is so little genuine, public prayer in our English Churches, is because in the first place our people do not more generally practice private prayer. Private communion with God is a conditio sine qua non of public prayer. If people prayed more assiduously in private they would not be so eager to hear some one else make his private prayer in public, but they would come together to offer up at the throne of grace their common supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings. In order to do this in accordance with the proprieties which ought to obtain recognition in the House of God, they would make themselves familiar with the chaste and Scriptural forms of public prayer which have come down to us, hallowed and redolent with the worship of the saints of all ages. When there is occasion for extempore prayer their good taste and devotion would absolutely refuse to tolerate the crudity, the individualism, the gush, which characterize so much of what is called public prayer and disgrace our worship. They would demand that they be informed beforehand what is to be prayed for, and then they would insist that the petitions be formed in accordance with that which characterizes the pure prayers of the Church. They would demand what Schoeberlein loves to call the “lapidarstyl.”
Page 19
The last fault of the minister in public Service upon which we desire to dwell for a moment is the practice of changing arbitrarily the hallowed responses and formularies which have come down to us with so many precious associations, that the slightest change in their wording startles one, and mars the enjoyment and the profit which might otherwise be gotten out of the Service. A pertinent illustration is the unwarranted dilution of the Apostolic benediction from the simple and chaste form as it occurs on the sacred pages to something like the following: “The grace of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the infinite love of God, our Heavenly Father, and the communion and fellowship of the Holy Ghost be with you all now and forevermore.” When a man quotes Scripture, he ought, in due respect to the inspired Word, quote it correctly. Such arbitrary conduct which characterizes much of the Service as administered by some minters is inexplicable. We have heard the simple, direct, Scriptural sentences provided for the administration of the elements and dismissal of the communicants distorted beyond recognition. A man is not compelled to use the Service in its entirety, nor indeed any part of it. In fact, in some places, we would deem it advisable not to use any liturgy at all until the people had learned to appreciate the use of a common Service over against an individualistic one. However, what is used, let it be used as given in our formularies, or do not use it at all. A garbled use of a formula or of a Service is apt to be exasperating.
What surprises us still more is the fact that these brethren change these formulas, to change which lays one of open to the charge of vandalism, are often vehemently vociferous in their insistence not to make the slightest change in the rubrics, which have by no means the authority of the text of the Service itself, not having been agreed upon by the joint Committee entrusted with the preparation of the Service itself, and some of which, we fear, received their present form about thirty-five years ago in the attempt to adapt a liturgical form of Service to liturgical conditions existing at that time in certain parts of the Church.
In conclusion, what must be done to bring about such a condition of things in our English Churches, with which alone the writer claims an intimate acquaintance, and of the liturgical condition of which he is not in any ways proud, in order that our
Page 20
ministers may perform their functions in such a way as to contribute to the edification of our people? Our people love beautiful things and can be led to an appreciation of beautiful art-forms in worship as well as elsewhere. Our congregations are to be congratulated upon the patient endurance of much that is positively ugly and repulsive in worship. Where the ministry has no knowledge of the principles of worship, there you look in vain for an appreciation of beautiful art-forms among the people. Like priest, like people. Water cannot rise above its source. It rests with our theological seminaries to furnish the answer to this question. The principles of pure Liturgics must be thoroughly taught. But this is not all that is required. We learn far more through the eye than through the ear. The theoretical teaching of a Seminary upon the subject of Liturgics may be above the suspicion of a reproach, but if the daily Services of the students and the example of their professors constantly transgress these principles, nothing but disappointment can result. There must be here as elsewhere a beautiful and consistent union of theory and practice. Let it be our part, whether as teachers and pastors, or churchmen in the pew, to study that in all our ministrations and Services we so conduct ourselves that the injunction of the Apostle be honored:—(1 Cor. 14:40). Pavnta de; eujschmovnw" kai; kata; tavxin ginevsqw.
ELMER F. KRAUSS.
Chicago, Il.
Page 21
A LAITY LITURGICALLY WELL-INFORMED.
THE primary object of a Christian congregation, from the human side, is the worship of God and the edification and salvation of souls. Everything that pertains to and can assist in this object is relatively important. It is well that we have the most expressive form of architecture in church building, the most suggestive arrangement of nave and chancel, the most helpful fixtures for Sunday School work, and strive after the best style of Church Music and the most devout utterance of our public devotions.
There is, no doubt, a great awakening along this line in the Christian Church in general. This is especially true of our Evangelical Lutheran Church. Our ministers and pastors have taken up with loving hearts and devout souls the study of matters pertaining to the best expression of the devotions of the Church toward God and have given us many learned writings on the subject. We are grateful. But what benefit to our congregations if our pastors can learnedly discuss the influence of Gregory the Great on the ancient Liturgy, or tell what the Margrave of Brandenburg had to do with the placing of the Confession of Sin in our Lutheran Liturgies, unless there is some way of sharing both the enthusiasm and information with our congregations. What we need now, is not less information for our Pastors, but more enlightenment for our Laity. The present paper is written was the result of the experience of the writer or of other pastors and partly on the basis of all pedagogical principles.
I. METHODS OF INSTRUCTION
There are two main methods of instruction—the abstract and the concrete.
The abstract is that in which the theory precedes the practice. This method, as applied to Liturgics, would first explain
Page 22
the beauty, propriety, Scripturalness, and all the qualities and history of the purest and best forms of worship. It would show that all these things are to be found in our Common Service for Evangelical Lutheran congregations. Then should follow the practice. This is certainly the ideal method. Know a thing—then do it. While this method may be very applicable to younger pupils in school, where mind is still plastic and open to new impressions it has rarely been found best for older persons whose opinions are set like the cast steel in its mold and whose practice is in a rut as deep as the valleys of a river. A person may be informed but not enlightened. A questioner may be silenced yet not convinced. The abstract method seldom enlightens and convinces a congregation.
The concrete method is that in which practice precedes the theory. This method would introduce, use, enjoy that which is best and when it has been tasted then to bring the explanation and theory and all the history of the Liturgy in order that the users may be ready always to give a reason for the practice in which they engage as well as for the faith which is in them. This is perhaps the easier, and for the many, the more usual method. More things are learned and done by imitation and example than as the result of ratiocination. To be sure we meet here also the inertia of old practice, but we need not immediately answer the prejudices of a mistaken or ignorant mind. Wisely used, for young and for old this method would be the more likely to succeed in enlightening a congregation as to the best in worship.
The ideal method would be that in which the abstract and concrete, theory and practice, go hand in hand. That would require the ideal congregation, as well as the ideal pastor. Perhaps there are but few such. We must then endeavor to see how we may best enlighten our people as we find them.
II. THE PURPOSE OF SUCH AN EFFORT.
The purpose of enlightening our laity on liturgical matters is a very important and practical one. Ignorance is not the mother of devotion. Ignorance has quite another brood following her chief among which is prejudice. If our Lutheran Church and people are ever to occupy the position which God seems to indicate it is absolutely necessary that we cultivate a laity well-informed on all matters concerning the Church.
Page 23
Worship originates indeed as a wholly spiritual act. But to express itself it must use sight, sound, gesture, which are presented in words and music, building and furniture, posture and actions. This brings us immediately into the province of art, for art is the expression of spirit or principles. Now if worship is worth expression it is worthy of the best expression, i. e., of the most artistic. What is the best and truest expression, i. e., the most artistic, of the worshipful idea? What is true and what is false expression or art in worship? The question here is not the question of worship or no worship, but the liturgical question is altogether a question of the expression or art-form of public worship. That expression is not confined to what is called Liturgy in the narrower sense, as the form of an Order of Worship, but it embraces everything which conduces to the expression of the spirit of a Church, as architecture, music, methods of working and propagating itself, in short the whole method of realizing its life.
There may be three ways of arriving at the expression of worship. There are three clear types of worship, which have each had their time and place in our land and our Lutheran churches as there have been three distinct types of Church buildings expressive of the forms of liturgical worship. Each of these may still be seen, especially in the eastern part of Pennsylvania.
The first way we might designate as the congregational style. Each congregation is a law and a judge unto itself. When the minister comes the word is “we are accustomed to have our services conducted in such a way.” The people that can determine such a matter must necessarily be well-taught. They must know much of the mind of Christ, of biblical practice, of Church History and the most perfect expressions of art. Of all congregations such an one should be the most willing to receive fullest instruction on worship. They are generally the least willing. To this class belongs the first style of our church buildings, the high pulpit on its slender pillar, the altar almost in the middle of the church, with the pews arranged on three sides and often the high galleries. The minister stands behind the altar, speaking over the altar, the sacramental part very prominent.
Then follows the way of the “other denominations” and “sister churches.” The minister officiating for the day is the
Page 24
sole judge of what shall be the expression of the worshipping congregation. His feeling or indisposition shall, or in fact must, condition the whole form and matter of worship. The minister that is willing to do that must needs have great confidence in his own ability and the congregation much more. He must have exceeding personal information and ability always at the moment to be able to find both the most Scriptural and the most suitable art-form for the occasion, and the congregation should have even more, under such circumstances, that they may know that they are not misled. This form of liturgical worship exalts the personal and individualistic over the public and congregational. It has its architectural expression in the second style of church building found in our churches. The pulpit remains, but the altar is gone. A table takes its place. Or if something representing an altar remains, it is given the only space left for it,—the space immediately below and against the pulpit. The congregation has lost the sacramental in the exaltation of the sacrificial.
A third way is this, that the pastors and Church leaders who have both the ability to judge and the learning to comprehend as well as the sensibility to appreciate what should be the most Scriptural, most churchly and most artistic expression of public worship should present the same to the Church and its congregations. This from every point of view would be the most practical and common sense method of procedure. And that is exactly what our Lutheran Church has always done, from the first book of Luther down to the Common Service adopted by three of the general bodies in the United States. Such a method brings into co-ordination all the elements of the Church, the wisdom of the general bodies in preparing, the practical leadership of the pastor in introducing, and the intelligent participation of the congregation in using, the best possible form of worship. This restores again the two necessarily essential parts of every public worship, to wit, the sacramental and the sacrificial. This restored congregational worship has also again brought back a churchly, in many things also a restored, architecture. It is generally gothic. On entering the eye falls on, and the mind gratefully recognizes both a pulpit and an altar, a Church both of Word and Sacrament, in which both the subjective and objective have their place.
Such a history of our Church shows both what losses and ills
Page 25
came upon us because of a want of proper information, and again what advancement will follow when both clergy and laity are enlightened liturgically.
But we plead for a laity liturgically well-informed for the continued defense and upbuilding of our Church. If it was needed in years gone by and we suffered because we had it not, let us remember that in these intense and strenuous times we need it much more if we even expect to hold our own, and if we hope to advance, it is one of the absolute imperatives.
On what ground do we gather in and hold the allegiance of our members?
Once the chief argument and reason was “the Church of our fathers.” With most of us the reason we came into the Church is, we were born into it by our natural as well as by our spiritual birth. With many the only reason why they remain members is because their parents were such. There may come a time when some will forget the “fathers” or indeed become ashamed of them. Then the result will be they will forget and be ashamed of the “fathers’ ” Church. Of course on such a ground no Church could ever hope to become a missionary Church or expect to exert any influence beyond its own borders. Such are the arguments which are still being used in great measure when we ask an offering for Home Missions to gather in the thousands of “Lutherans” instead of the millions of “sinners.” Such are the reasons given when there is a question as to the Order of Services. What wonder that such arguments and reasons convinced no one except the person that used them, and that under them the Church continually declined. The lack was information.
Then the ground on which Church-allegiance, was asked advanced a large measure. It was then the “Church of the pure doctrine.” This claim was also preeminently true. Only, too the true doctrine was buried too deep in the heart. It never came forth. The world never saw it or heard it. Why it was true or how, could be shown by but few. Many never even knew the doctrine which they claimed to be true. Naturally came the conclusion that there is “no difference,” that we are “all the same.” Such a conclusion could only result from a want of information. But on these questions there was often no means of information to the laity, and when there was, the questions seemed too abstract to interest them very much. There was no
Page 26
concrete point on which our members could lay hold. The Baptists could rally around the fact of immersion, the Methodists around a mode of conversion, and all their members could grasp the practical point and give their reasons for it; but the Lutherans could only claim the abstract of “pure doctrine” without, as far as the laity was concerned, being able to give example or proof of their claim.
There is, however, one all-pervading, ever-obvious activity of the Church,—that is, its worship, its modes of working, its form of life. The very building in which it meets preaches. The manner of working declares a difference. The Order of Services bears constant testimony of our faith. Why such a style of church-building, why a chancel, why a pulpit, altar, lectern, baptismal font, why a clerical gown and liturgy, why infant baptism, catechetical instruction, confirmation? These are all questions that belong to the liturgical disciplines. They are practical, concrete questions. This includes the “fathers” and is based on “pure doctrine.”
It is along this line that we must seek to bring to our people the most permanent and all-pervasive instruction. When they shall have and use the best that Scripture, history and a consecrated art can give and when they can give the reason for such faith and use, then may we indeed expect to have our beloved Church enter upon her heritage and exert her influence far beyond her own borders.
III. WHAT THE PASTOR MAY DO.
The task and duty of informing the members of our congregations in this, as in most other Church affairs, devolves on the Pastor. Our people have often neither the time, nor the inclination, nor even the opportunity to inform themselves. The work is one which should be undertaken with zeal and in which there must be constant perseverance, for it can never be completed.
Permit the writer to indicate a few lines along which he has endeavored to work.
There is no more fruitful field for liturgical work in most congregations than that of Church music. The best place to begin is with the children of the Sunday School. It does very little good simply to declaim against the modern abomination of jingle-music for Church and Sunday School. Then again how often we are pained by the choir-music which is introduced simply and on-
Page 27
ly for the sake of entertaining and pleasing. Both Methodist layman and Papal head of the Roman Church declaim against the abuse of music in the sanctuary. The first writes in the New York Independent, “The greatest handicap of the Church is the false and harmful conceptions of the function of music in public worship. Music is appropriate and helpful in a service in so far as it is used by the members of the congregation to express their religious emotions. … As a means of entertainment it has no place at all in the distinctly religious meetings of the Church. … The concert room and the Christian sanctuary cannot be successfully combined under one management.”
The Pope of Rome has undertaken lately to inaugurate, certain reforms in ecclesiastical music in France by prohibiting exactly the same class of music, namely, the sentimental and operatic, of which the Methodist layman complains. Experience has shown that the only way to drive out the worse is to use the better. A child, and a person of unvitiated taste, will just as readily learn and sing a chorale as a waltz or two-step time, except that the latter, being the flippant repetition of a few-note theme and often of meaningless words, will not require as much mind or soul. Learn the worthy and noble and there will not be so much danger of the unworthy. The theoretical and practical may well be united for the congregation by the Pastor taking an augmented choir and using five or six hymns for a Vesper Choral Service. Let him precede the singing of each hymn and tune with a brief history and a few incidents and he will find that a new interest is connected with such a hymn. Four or five such services a year may very profitably be continued for years and afford the opportunity of saying many necessary things. The first and great commandment is to love God, so the highest object of Church music is to praise God. Dr. Stainer, who himself wrote much excellent Church music, says, “After all, the best tunes, and the ones we learn to love the most, are the ones our grandmothers loved.”
In the matter of congregational liturgical worship we come to the very heart of the subject before us. The writer believes that ordinarily, the practical use of the Liturgy must precede any extended theoretical instruction. The congregation must use, and use well, before it is in a condition to judge. Not knowing the better how is it in a condition to decide anything in regard to
Page 28
it? Here lies the difficulty. The congregation cannot judge rightly until it has used, and the Pastor cannot introduce a better Service until the congregation knows. Here again the Sunday School as the more malleable material is the better element to begin with. At the many and beloved festival seasons of our Church, the Sunday School can give the congregation a taste of a well-rendered liturgical Service. Often a temporary use may create a permanent love. As in one case the writer suggested that in a series of special sermons where sermon outlines and the Vesper Services were printed on the same sheet the congregation try the Vesper Service for three months and then if not satisfactory it would be possible to go back to the old (no) order. But when the three months were past, every one having found it possible to unite in the Service from the printed services, no one was willing to go back to the old. At the same place the Sunday School has been using for the last two years the music of the Gregorian Plain Song, and rendered it before the congregation at every festival occasion. It would be entirely feasible, if it were desirable, to introduce its use to the congregation.
Undoubtedly the introduction of liturgical worship should, when the congregation is fully settled in the use of it, and it is no longer a matter of dispute, be followed by full information on the principles, reasons, Scripturalness, etc., of such a Service. They should know the why and wherefore, not that they may necessarily enjoy it any more themselves, but that they may be able to give such reasons and arguments to others. Such information can only be given by the Pastor, either in his pastoral visitations or publicly in sermons, for it would seem almost impossible to reach the heart of the congregation through the printed page. He also is most interested in doing so. We may all feel the beauty of melody as it is carried by a single voice, touching our heart, but there is something in a harmonized chord that we can never get from a succession of notes, a melody. There is beauty, grace, blessing, in private devotion and prayer. In the worship of the congregation, where all states and conditions of men join there is not only an intensification of the individual’s devotion. It has a new quality. It has become the Communion of Saints.
In the matter of Church Architecture theory must precede practice; for when once a thought is put in stone and iron it is more apt to be permanent for at least fifty years. As we have
Page 29
already indicated, the doctrinal and liturgical history of our Church in America may be read in the three eras or general styles of church buildings. If Ruskin has defined architecture as frozen music, we may certainly be right when we say that Church Architecture is faith and life done in stone. Every church building expresses something. Some time ago in going through a church that cost almost a hundred thousand dollars, built in the Byzantine style of the round arch, after going through ladies’ parlor and gentlemen’s parlor, and kitchen and dining room and stage with curtains, coming at last to the amphitheater “auditorium” the long-suffering visitor exclaimed, “O, Church of the Holy Bake-oven!”. And it was no slander. The writer knows of a congregation which put a twenty thousand dollar addition to its old church building. A true churchly floor-plan was suggested by the Pastor and adopted by the congregation. Then that the prejudices of certain parties might be carried out the Pastor was excluded from the building committee and a committee appointed of which at least three members confessed that they had never been inside of any other Lutheran Church than their own old one. Those who know better have been compelled to apologize for conditions ever since. How can we expect our Church to have its proper influence until our members know what style of architecture is expressive of our faith and worship and why it is so? Why and where do we have an altar? Why we place baptismal fonts in our churches? What is the proper order of font, pulpit and altar, and why? These are the simplest and most fundamental questions, yet to many of our members are enigmas.
How much there is to learn by our laity concerning our methods of working? How many or rather, how few, can give the reasons why we do not, and cannot join the denominations in their methods and ways of working? Is it only narrowness, bigotry and arbitrary selfishness which moves our Pastors to occupy the position which they assume? If there is no reason, or if the reason is not known, which amounts to the same thing for the ignorant then it must be all that it seems. Pastors have good reasons for what they do. The people must know them if Pastors expect to hold them. How are our people to learn that the whole method and spirit of the popular revival meeting and system is foreign to our Lutheran Church? By pointing out that
Page 30
the revival system is based on an altogether different view from the Church system. The revival system at least belittles, if it does not directly contradict, the grace which the child receives in baptism, the ordinary blessings of God’s Word, the regular and orderly worship of God’s House, the sufficiency of the regularly called pastorate. In short, it is the direct opposite, not only in practice but much more in spirit, of our Lutheran faith and worship and the Lutheran pastor or layman who would take part in them thereby denies everything he once confessed. What member of the Church that is well-informed can fail to see that the whole Y. M. C. A. movement with its disparagement of sacrament and ministry is a movement on the same principles and lines as the monasticism of the Middle Ages and will surely at last undermine the Church and teachings of Christ.
Nor can we forget that the demand for special weeks of prayer and the numerous requests for sermons on special subjects are all directly opposed to the Church Year which lies at the very center of our worship. All these things lead directly away from the Church with its pure faith and holy practice. And our people instead of standing in the attitude of apology should know how to propose something better. Until they do we shall not be able to occupy our rightful position. We cannot unite with other bodies, but if we had knowledge enough of our own position, our faith, our practice we might easily be leaders. We need above all things intelligence, clear perceptions along these lines. There are individuals and congregations who are in the clear in regard to these things. They are to be congratulated. They are our leaders. But there are many who are yet only moving toward the light. Let us help them all we can.
The ideal Church or congregation is that in which God is worshipped in spirit and in truth, which expresses that spirit and truth in the purest art forms, and which does it intelligently.
A. B. MARKLEY.
Warren, Pa.
Page 31
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SYMBOLISM AND ITS EMPLOYMENT IN THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH.
“THE invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made.” This is symbolism. A symbol is something that, not being a portrait, stands for something else and serves either to represent it or to bring to mind one or more of its qualities; especially something so used to represent or suggest that which is not: capable of portraiture; as an idea, state, quality or action. The oak is the symbol of strength, the sword of slaughter, the trident of Neptune, white of purity.
That symbolism is very beautiful, useful and scriptural is freely admitted by most scholars. This subject, therefore, needs neither formal introduction nor any apology. It is in the front among present-day questions of churchliness and artistic beauty. It must be considered. A new conscience concerning the arrangement and ornamentation of churches is making its voice heard among thoughtful Christians. There is also a manifest awakening on the subject of the relation of Art, in its diversified forms, to the Church and her Services. This is a very significant tendency and should be encouraged by every lover of devout worship and true Art.
Symbolism is both a science and an art. As an historical science, it has a special field for investigation, which field has been indicated in the definition of the term, symbol. As an art, its province is to make practical application of these historical facts and principles to the Service and life of the Church. The origin of symbolism is very remote. Evidences of its existence are found in the earliest records of India and China, of Chaldaea, Assyria and Babylonia. In these ancient nations symbolism was always associated with the religious life of the people. We also
Page 32
find that symbolism was one of the most striking features of the Jewish religion. The Passover, The Cleansing of the Temple, The Feast of Tabernacles, The Morning and Evening Sacrifice, The Sabbatical Year, The Jubilee were, all, in the highest degree, figurative. The stones in the breastplate of the high priest have each a special signification. And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings. And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. (Exodus 28:17-21.) Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua and David are most remarkable types of Christ.
In like manner do we find in the New Testament authority for the principle and for the practice of symbolism. From the beginning the chief doctrines of Christianity were set forth in type and symbol. The Flood is used to typify Regeneration. The Ark is a type of the Church. The Manna and the Smitten Rock are emblematic of the Bread and the Wine in the Holy Eucharist. St. Paul symbolizes the enactments of the Law by the ox forbidden, while treading out the corn, to be muzzled. The Revelation of St. John the Divine is one long-continued symbolic poem of marvellous beauty and impressiveness.
But the strongest argument in behalf of the principle and practice contended for in this paper is found in the fact that Christ Himself employed the symbolic method in teaching the great truths concerning His spiritual kingdom. The phenomena of nature was the fruitful source from which He drew the most striking spiritual likenesses. When He said, “I am the Door,” “I am the Vine,” “I am the Way” He used the purest symbolism and thus is involved the well-known principle of pedagogic science, from the known to the unknown. It is to be noted also, that the train of thought, the every-day observances, and, above all, the religious ceremonies of the early Christians were highly figurative. Almost every great doctrine of the Christian system had been symbolized at a very early period. The Resurrection
Page 34
was set forth by the Phoenix rising renewed and purified from its ashes. The meritorious Passion of our Saviour was typified by the Pelican piercing her breast and feeding her young with her own life-blood. The blessed sacrament of the Lord’s Supper vas beautifully symbolized by the Grapes and the Wheatears. The Dove was the emblem of purity and innocence. The Hand was the symbol of the First Person of the Trinity. But the most favored of all symbols, the one best-understood and most-beloved was the Cross, the symbol of Christ, while the triangle and the trefoil were emblematic of the Godhead. The four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were represented respectively by a human figure, a lion, an ox and an eagle.
This symbolic material was introduced into the early patristic literature and it passed very rapidly from rhetorical decoration in Christian homilies to artistic decoration in architecture and painting. As a result we have in use to-day many beautiful and helpful symbols that were found originally in early Christian edifices, and places of worship, and, though the originals lack accuracy of drawing and artistic proportion when measured by present day standards, they set forth divine truth in a clear and impressive manner.
The Bible is an explicit revelation of God. There is also an implicit revelation of Him. It is found in Nature. “To Him who in love of Nature holds communion with her visible forms, She speaks a various language.” There is a symbolism in Nature. The doctrine of the Resurrection is powerfully set forth by the season of Spring. Winter and night typify sin and death. Among the flowers named from some extraordinary property or peculiarity of form which they possess we find the Herb Trinity, the Passion Flower, and the Lacrima Christi, while the phrases, Lily of the Valley and the Rose of Sharon, are suggestive rather of “Him Who was altogether lovely” than of particular species of flowers.
The Holy Sacraments are examples, in the highest degree, of this principle of symbolic teaching. Whilst it is true that divine grace is imparted with the earthly elements yet these elements are the visible symbols of that very precious spiritual gift. It is not to be concluded from these facts that Christianity and the Church are any the less real, visible and practical but rather they are the more real and practical because their teachings
Page 34
are not merely objective and material but subjective and anticipative of that which is eternal.
Three great doctrines of the Christian system, namely, The Holy Trinity, Regeneration and The Atonement, have been, symbolized in a most effective way. The first, by the architectural design and interior arrangement of churches as seen in the triple tower, triplicate windows, three-fold arches and the three-part arrangement and furnishing of the chancel. The doctrine of Regeneration is typified particularly by the octagonal form of the baptismal font for the reason given by Ambrose, namely, “as the old creation was completed in seven days, so the number next ensuing may well be significative of the new.” On some of the fonts of the early churches are sculptured three fishes intertwined in an equilateral triangle, typifying our regeneration in the three persons of the adorable Trinity. The fish is the emblem of the Christian from the fact that the letters of the Greek form of the name I-C-Q-U-S are interpreted “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the Saviour.”
The doctrine of the Atonement by Christ is symbolized by the cruciform, plan of churches as found even in the early Romanesque period and reaching its clearest expression in the glorious Gothic cathedrals. Thus in the very ground-plan of the buildings consecrated to Divine worship, “Christ and Him crucified” is preached to every thoughtful beholder. That which was once the by-word of pagans, the instrument of scorn and suffering, has become the symbol of hope, of glory, of joy and of eternal felicity for all who were embraced by the Saviour’s outstretched arms upon it.
It is not only Christianity that is symbolized, every religion is. Symbolism is thus shown to be an expression of a natural impulse in man, quite as innate as the religious idea itself. The religion of the Greeks and Romans, though pagan and false, was symbolic. The philosophers of the time of these nations’ highest intellectual development introduced symbolism into their philosophic systems in order to increase their efficiency. The Hindu religion is full of symbolism and many of the Hindu religious fables, derived from whatever source—whether from unwritten tradition or from contact with the Jews—possess this feature in large measure. One example will suffice, viz., Krishna suffering—Krishna triumphant. This divinity is represented by a human
Page 35
figure bound in the coils of a venomous serpent which fastened its teeth in its victim’s heel. The representation of Krishna triumphant shows the same figure crushing with his heel the head of the monster. Though the doctrine here symbolized has long been forgotten by those among whom the legend is sacred, it is founded, very evidently, upon the promise concerning the Seed of the woman and the serpent’s head. This is a striking instance of the fact that truth will live in symbols long after it has perished in other and more generally used forms. When the time shall have come for the conversion of all India to Christianity thousands will receive the truth the more willingly because they have had a representation of it, distorted, it is true, set before their eyes for so many centuries.
Symbolism is thus the true sign of the cross, hallowing the unholy. It is a good salt which, cast in, purifies the spring. Origen recognized in the Scriptures a three-fold sense,—the literal, the moral, the mystical and to this latter sense symbolism is closely related.
Among the many symbolic passages of Old Testament and of New Testament Scriptures the following are notable:
Isaiah 54:12, And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones.
Psalm 23:1, The Lord is my Shepherd. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures, He leadeth me beside the still waters.
John 10:11, I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.
Matthew 26:39, O My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.
The Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine is rich in symbolism but it is a remarkable fact that scarcely a single symbol is new. The figurative ideas of the Old Testament are borrowed and transfigured. They are intensified, massed and associated with new applications. The writer of this Apocalypse seems to feel that no symbol can be sacred enough for his use unless it has been hallowed by associations with the ancient prophecies. Here is a seven-fold vision, made up of visible emblems which are echoes from the prophecies of the past. There is reference here to the golden candlestick, seen by Zechariah; to the wheel within wheel, seen by Ezekiel; to the Slain Lamb, seen by Isaiah; to the burning mountain, seen by Jeremiah; to the
Page 36
sickle, seen by Joel. There is in this Revelation frequent use of the symbolism of