MEMOIRS OF THE LUTHERAN LITURGICAL ASSOCIATION

Volumes I-VII. Published by the Association Pittsburgh, Pa., 1906.

Copyright, 1906, by The Lutheran Liturgical Association.

[These volumes have been scanned and proofread, but may still contain errors. Original pagination has been indicated throughout.]

Volume VI

VI 1 Contributive Influences Noted in the History and Structure of the Liturgy (W. A. Lambert)

VI 17 Remarks on Some of Our Liturgical Classics (E. T. Horn)

VI 23 Preaching and the Day (P. Z. Strodach)

VI 41 Christian Worship in the Apostolic Age (C. M. Jacobs)

VI 65 The Liturgical History of Confession and Absolution

VI 77 The Sacramental Idea in Christian Worship (A. Spaeth)

VI 89 Paraments of the Lord’s House (G. U. Wenner)

CONTRIBUTIVE INFLUENCES NOTED IN THE HISTORY AND STRUCTURE OF THE LITURGY.

ANY attempt to trace in a brief paper the influences which have contributed to the formation of our Common Service, and which left their mark upon it, must of necessity be imperfect. Influences are extremely subtle and might be discovered where, least expected, perhaps in an innocent rubric. Then too the influences are so varied in character that it becomes difficult to classify them: some belong to a school, some to an age, some to a person; some arise from doctrinal questions, others from practical or aesthetic needs. A further difficulty is met in the possibility that what might seem to be the working-out of an old influence may be an independent return to an old form.

Imperfect as the attempt may be, it may yet be of interest, and perhaps not without value. Our Common Service, it need hardly be mentioned here, is not a modern invention, but the result of a historic development. Into this development have entered many elements from the days of the Apostles—or even earlier—until the present day. Even now modifications in rubrics and rendering, if not in text, are suggested and made, the tracing of which to their sources is most interesting. In such a long period of development we cannot expect to find one direct line of evolution. In a certain sense of course the line is easily traced from the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions through the Roman Mass, Luther’s Formula Missae and Deutsche Messe, the Kirchenordnungen of the Sixteenth Century to the Common Service. But a glance at comparative tables such as are given in Köstlin’s Geschichte des christlichen Gottesdienstes will convince any one that these have not evolved one from the other without undergoing many modifications due to local, doctrinal or practical influences. Yet since there is a development of one from the other it would be marvellous indeed if traces were not left of the

Page 2

older as well as of the more recent influences. These traces are of interest as showing the connection of the most modern Service with the whole history of the Church: they are like the scars of battle and of age upon some historic building. They are also of value: by them we can estimate the meaning and importance of those features of the Service marked by them, their permanent value or relative indifference.

Like Christianity itself, Christian worship had two lines of preparation for itself in the ancient world, so that we must reckon with two pre-Christian influences, the Jewish and the Gentile. Of these the Jewish is naturally the more direct; yet in many points the two coincide so nearly that it is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to distinguish them. In modern times there has been a tendency to exaggerate both, in connection with the wider attempt to reduce Christianity either to a Jewish sect or to a Greek philosophy.

JEWISH INFLUENCES.

The Jewish influences may be distributed into two classes, those directly derived from the Old Testament Scriptures, and those due to the later Synagogue and Temple worship. To distinguish these is not an easy matter, for many features have been modified in passing through the Synagogue, yet are purely Old Testament contributions.

From the Old Testament comes first of all a group of words retained in their Hebrew form: Amen, Hallelujah, Hosanna.

The Amen has its liturgical use in the O. T., but entered the Christian Church from the Synagogue. “From I Cor. 14:16 it is seen that the use of the Amen as a response in benedictions came into the Christian congregation from the Synagogue, as also that the adoption of the word into Christian usage is connected with this.”* For Jew and Christian the Amen is the confirmation and appropriation of the prayer, expressing “the confidence of the hearers that the prayer will be heard.”† Of the Amen Ainsworth says: “The Hebrew word is used in the Greek, English and all other languages, to betoken unity of faith and spirit.”

Footnote: * Cremer, Woerterbuch.

Footnote: † Meyer, on I Cor. 14:16.

Page 3

The Hallelujah also has its liturgical origin in the O. T. evidenced by the retention of the Hebrew form in the LXX, and its occurrence in Rev. 19:1,6. It is first mentioned in Christian liturgies in the Lit. Basil and Chrysost.*

Footnote: * Rietschel, 366.

The Hosanna is usually derived from Ps. 118:25.† Hence Luther gives the form Hosianna which is found in the Kirchenbuch. The difficulty of deriving the shorter form from the longer, and the change of meaning from the “Save now” of the Psalm to the “Hail” of the N. T., has led Thayer to make the Strange suggestion that the Hosanna was not consciously borrowed from the Psalm, but is an independent form.‡ Drews however connects the liturgical use of the Hosanna with the singing of Psalm 118:25ff after the paschal meal of the Jews.§

Footnote: † So also Rietschel, 379 and Drews, PRE³ 11:552.

Footnote: ‡Hastings, BD, II: 418f.

Footnote: § PRE³ II: 552.

To the O. T. we further owe the Psalms, which appear in various forms in the Service: Versicles, Introits and entire Psalms. The liturgical use of the Psalms is derived from the Temple and Synagogue Services, although “there is no evidence that the entire Psalter was used in the public worship of the Jewish Church.”¶ As some of the Psalms are evidently written for responsive use we may trace a responsive Service to the O. T., (it certainly is found in the later Jewish Services), as also the participation of the laity in the Service can be traced at least to the Synagogue, in which the lessons were read by members of the congregation and the sermon could be preached by any one capable of edifying the people.

Footnote: ¶ Kirkpatrick, Psalms, XCIX.

The Sanctus we owe to Isaiah 6:3 and Psalm 118:26, but its liturgical use comes not from the Jews, but from the Greek Christians. The Sursum corda is referred by Brightman to Lam. 3:41, and the “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God” “reminds us of the prayer used by the Jews at meals, also at the Sabbath meals.”¶¶

Footnote: ¶¶ Rietschel, 379 Cf. 251 ff.

The Benediction (Num. 6:24-26) comes directly from the O. T., although it was used also in the Synagogue, even with the added peculiarity that “in the absence of a priest in the congre-

Page 4

gation, the Benediction was not bestowed, but implored by a member of the congregation.”*

Footnote: * Schuerer, Geschichte, II, 382.

Some additional details might be referred to Jewish influence. For example, the leader in prayer turns toward the sanctuary, his back to the people, but in blessing the priest faces the people; the attitude of prayer is standing.†

Footnote: † For the Jewish Service, cf. Schuerer, Geschichte, 27, and Edersheim, Life of Jesus, 1, 439ff.

One important point is open to much discussion: whether the institution of the Lord’s Supper is connected with the “Cup of Blessing” of the Passover, and so the Jewish influence be seen in that central feature of our Service. Köstlin so maintains with Keim and Seyerlein against Heinrici.‡ Bickell and Skene have even gone so far as to derive the entire liturgy of the later Eucharist from the Passover rite, an attempt characterized by Rietschel as “an artificial construction without every historical basis.”§

Footnote: ‡Geschichte, 12.

Footnote: §Liturgik, 234.

GREEK INFLUENCE.

Christianity had its origin among the Jews, hence we expect a long list of traces of Jewish influence in its worship. Both Jews and Christians were opposed to Heathenism and would not willingly adopt its forms. We need not be surprised, therefore, to find fewer traces of Greek influence, nor wonder that some of these are debated. But inasmuch as Christianity soon gained a foothold among Gentiles who were unacquainted with Jewish forms, and yet found among Gentile Christians expression of its life in similar forms, we may grant at least the possibility that in spite of the similarity the forms may have an independent origin.

To the Greek language, although it is the Greek of the N. T., we owe at least one expression which, retained in the Kirchenbuch, has fallen out of the Church Book,—the Kyrie.

Edwin Hatch, making perhaps a one-sided study of the influences of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church,¶ says that Greek Rhetoric “created the Christian sermon.” He refers, however, to the character of the sermon as an oration,

Footnote: ¶ Hibbert Lectures, 1888, p. 113.

Page 5

which has its proto-type as well in the methurgeman’s sermon of the Synagogue.*

Most of the Greek influences, those due to the Mysteries and Religious Associations, have been lost in our Service. Hatch finds a survival of them: “In the splendid ceremonial of Eastern and Western worship, in the blaze of lights, in the separation of the central point of the rite from common view, in the procession of torch-bearers chanting their sacred hymns,” but rightly says: “The tendency to an elaborate ceremonial which had produced the magnificence of those mysteries and cults, and which had combined with the love of a purer faith and the tendency towards fellowship, was based upon a tendency of human nature which was not crushed by Christianity” (p. 309). In the revival of such tendencies we need not see the influence of Greek Heathenism, human nature will explain them far better. We may say this also of the one trace left of the arcana disciplina, especially in German and Church of England Churches, the withdrawal of non-communicants before the Communion Service.

NEW TESTAMENT INFLUENCE.

The New Testament is by far the most important influence pervading the whole Service and modifying the elements received from earlier sources. It furnishes first of all the principles of worship, requiring that it be a worship in spirit and in truth.

From the N. T. we therefore derive that protest against formalism and lip-service which is constantly renewed and needs to be persistently emphasized in connection with even the most perfect liturgy. It may be worthy of note that the N. T. ascribes worship to a charism, so that it was directly a gift of God; and while it would be unreasonable to look for a renewal of the N. T. charisms in the N. T. form, it is most reasonable to expect for all times that those who are set apart to lead the worship should be not only specially prepared, but specially gifted as well.

The N. T. has provided the principles, and also the chief elements of the Service. The reading of Scripture,—of the use of the N. T. writings there is a trace—the singing of Psalms and spiritual songs, the sermon as a living message to men, above all the Lord’s Supper and Baptism as sacraments, the former especially as a part of the worship, are directly to be attributed to the

Footnote: * Cf. Edersheim.

Page 6

N. T. The Lord’s Prayer, the Nunc Dimittis, the Apostolic Benediction, the Kyrie, the Hosanna, the Hallelujah, the Lessons, the Words of Institution, the Agnus Dei, are all directly taken from the N. T., while some of the Introits, Responses and Sentences are at least in part so derived, and the Collects, the Declaration of Grace, the Gloria Patri, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Creed, and even the General Prayer, are based upon N. T. promises and expressions. So extensive is the influence of the N. T. that it can hardly be classed among contributive influences—it is practically the source of our Common Service.

GENTILE CHRISTIANS.

To the influence of Gentile Christians may be traced especially the time for worship—the Sunday, which among the Jewish Christians was celebrated alongside of the Jewish Sabbath, but among Gentile Christians was set in contrast to the Sabbath.

ANCIENT CHURCH.

The Church before the Middle Ages, known as the old Catholic Church, presents a transition period, from the simplicity of the Apostolic Age to the ceremonial richness of the later Catholic Church. It is marked by a growing emphasis upon the office of the minister, due to the claims of Montanism of a revived prophecy. The Bishop becomes a priest, the bearer of an Apostolic grace, the Service partakes of the nature of a sacrifice, and the Service of the Word is simply introductory to the Service of the Sacrament. In the mention of these points we note influences revived in modern liturgical movements. The restriction of absolution and benediction to the ordained minister, the insistence of some that the Service is incomplete without the Communion, the emphasis sometimes laid on the office and acts of the minister, point back to the Old Catholic Church, or may flow from similar opposition to modern Montanistic conceptions of a revived prophecy independent of the organized Church.

Among the elements of the Service derived from the Old Catholic Church we note the Preface to the Communion Service,* the Response, “The Lord be with you,” “And with thy spirit,” the Apostolic Benediction in connection with the sermon, the Sanctus, Gloria in Excelsis and Hosanna, the latter two as saluta-

Footnote: * Found in the Ethiopian Lit. and Apost. Const. VIII.

Page 7

tion of the invisibly present Lord, the sentence as the form of closing the Service, “Depart in peace,”* the General Prayer.†

Footnote: * Ethiopian Lit.

Footnote: † See the parallel with the General Prayer of the Morning Service in R. M. Smith, Sources, in MEMOIRS of the Lit. Assoc., I, p. 53.

To the early Church can also be traced the custom of standing during the reading of the Gospel,¶ the Response Deo Gratias after the Lesson,§ the responsive use of the Psalms between the Lessons¶¶ the custom of lighting lamps or candles during the reading of the Gospel,** and the Bidding Prayer.** In connection with this Bidding Prayer occurs the interjectional use of the Kyrie by the congregation, which has its parallel in the “Erhöre uns, lieber Herre Gott” of the Kirchenbuch.

Footnote: ‡ Apost. Const., II, 57.

Footnote: § Augustine, Sermo, 60. Rietschel, 299.

Footnote: ¶ Found in Tertullian, Apost. Const., II; Augustine; Rietschel, 366.

Footnote: ¶¶ Fourth Cent., Jerome, Rietschel, 139.

Footnote: **Apost. Const., VIII.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

In attempting to trace the influence of the Catholic Church, we meet with many complications. We must note first of all the general influence of Catholicism, then the particular influences, if such can be traced, of Greek and of Roman Catholicism; but each of these has again been influenced by mediaeval extra-ecclesiastical affairs and by heresies. The last would be of special interest, could the influences of heresies be traced in detail: we have already seen that the growth of the priestly and sacrificial View of worship was influenced by the Montanist revival of Prophecy; later extravagances and errors left similar impress up-on the Church.

It may be well first to note the general distinctive characteristic of Catholic worship, and look for traces of its influence in our modern Service. The specifically Catholic element is the “high and excessive estimation of the act of worship itself as such, the conception of the cultus as a service ordained in fixed, objective form by God, and therefore in an objective sense holy.”†† Wherever we find a tendency to legalism in the Liturgy or its use, or to the opus operatum idea of a service not in spirit and in truth, we have an out-cropping of the Catholic influence,

Footnote: †† Koestlin, 58.

Page 8

unless we prefer to lead this also back to its source in human nature. In our Liturgy such worship without the heart is well provided against, but in practice it will always break through, and needs special attention, especially because some perfectly correct and proper forms, e. g., the Baptismal Service, are in themselves liable to such misinterpretation.

To Catholicism is due the tendency to excessive symbolism, carried out with thoroughness in the Greek Church and connected with the separation of the active worship from the congregation. Connected with the opus operatum idea this finds its modern result in opposition to the Liturgy, a timidity of the people to take part in the worship, a tendency to see in worship the work of the minister, which has a meaning, but a meaning often but dimly understood. On the other hand it may produce services so elaborate and ceremonials so symbolic that the congregation cannot take part or is unable to appreciate the symbolism. The sacrificial view of worship, though not in the gross form of a bloodless sacrifice, but rather in the form of a meritorious value ascribed, to the sacrifices of prayer, praise and thanksgiving, has found large foothold in Protestantism. Even the silence of the Word of God is only partly overcome, for Protestant Churches have to some extent, by substituting orations and lectures for the preaching of the Word, fallen back into a new kind of Catholicism.

The distinction between the Greek and the Roman Catholic worship may be stated thus: The Greek Church sees in its worship a symbolic drama, which is meaningless without a congregation as spectators, although because of its intricacy meaningless also to the congregation: the Roman Church has in its worship a real drama, which needs no spectators.* Protestants are not apt to be tempted to return to the Roman real sacrifice without a congregation, but there is a growing temptation to multiply forms and symbols in the fashion of Greek Catholicism.

Footnote: * See Koestlin, 61 ff.

GREEK CHURCH.

To the Greek Church we owe the use of the Creed in the regular Service, introduced by Petrus Fullo, Bishop of Antioch (about 471) to combat Eutychianism, by Bishop Timotheus in Constantinople in 511. Again we note the influence of heresy.

Page 9

A similar influence is seen in the modification of the Gloria from the original “Glory to the Father in the Son and the Holy Spirit” to “Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and the addition “As it was in the beginning” etc., in the conflict with Arianism.*

Footnote: * Rietschel, 355.

To the Greek Church we owe the development of Church music. “It was especially the Antiochene Church that exerted a decisive influence upon the development of liturgical song. Here it is said that Ignatius (†116) already introduced responsive choirs, that form of holy song which Ambrose transplanted to the Occident.”† But antiphonal singing “existed already among the heathen in the arrangements of the Greek chorus. It was practiced with much elaboration of detail in the Psalmody of the Jews, as appears from the account which is given of the Egyptian Therapeuts. Its introduction into the Christian Church, therefore, was a matter of course almost from the beginning.”‡

Footnote: † Koestlin, 89.

Footnote: ‡ Lightfoot, Epistles of Ignatius, p. 31.

ROMAN CHURCH.

The strongest pre-Reformation influence traceable in the history of the Liturgy is that of the Roman Church, and naturally, so, for the Reformation grew up within the Roman Church, and inherited its Service as far as it could be used; and that Roman service was the ripe fruit of a liturgical development which bad absorbed much from the provincial liturgies it had superceded. Some of these provincial influences can still be traced, but many have been sacrificed to the uniformity of the Roman Church and can now be traced only to Rome.

Among the peculiarities of the Gallican Liturgy which have modern parallels, we may mention the self-communion of the priest (approved by Luther in the Formula Missae, else where disapproved by him),§ and the reception of the bread into the hand—which is found already in Cyrill of Jerusalem.¶ Special mention is made of the single cup, in distinction from the Arian usage which allowed the king a separate chalice.¶¶ “In Rome the receiving of the host with the hand was done away already

Footnote: § Cf. Daniel, Cod. Lit., II, 88n.

Footnote: ¶ Rietschel, 287.

Footnote: ¶¶ Ibid. 315f.

Page 10

in the middle of the sixth century. … The change in distribution was very probably influenced by the fear of the easier profanation of the elements.”*

Footnote: * Rietschel, 391 ff.

Roman influence is to be noted not only in various features derived from the Mass, but in the structure of the Liturgy itself. The threefold distinction of an introductory confessional Service, a Service centering in the Word, and a Service centering in the Sacrament, is clearly derived from the Mass, although each of these parts has undergone great modifications: the introductory Service is now congregational, in the Mass it belongs to the Priest; the Word Service reaches its climax not in the Gospel, but in the sermon. This in spite of the fact that the “Sermon is the application of the Word that is read,”† and that “a number of our Orders provide for this (the sermon) under the direction: ‘Explanation of the Gospel.’”‡ In theory the Word of the Gospel is still the climax, in practice the Sermon is that climax. Daniel§ referring to Luther’s suggestion that the Sermon precede the Mass, says: “It can rightly be said that the entire worship of our Church would have entered an entirely different way if this opinion of Luther had always and in all places been approved among all. For we should not have been entangled in that pernicious error according to which the Sermon forms not only the chief part of worship, but, that I may so say, the only.” The Sacrament is no longer an objective sacrifice, but a Communion.

Footnote: † Dr. Jacobs, “The Lutheran Liturgies” in Christian Worship, p. 167

Footnote: ‡ Dr. Jacobs, Lutheran Movement, P. 302.

Footnote: § Cod. Lit., p. 85 n.

The following elements of the Common Service are taken from the Roman Mass:

The Invocation, the Versicle (Ps. 121:2), the Confiteor (much modified), the Introit, the Gloria Patri in its use as a N. T. crown to the Psalms, the Kyrie as a separate prayer, the Collects, the Pericopes (with numerous changes), the Responses: Glory be to Thee and Praise be to Thee in connection with the Gospel. it is note-worthy that in the Communion Service proper the Common Service has returned back of the Mass and used forms long and widely used in the Christian Church or added newer forms grounded in or taken from Scripture. The Agnus

Page 11

Dei is found already in the Liturgy of St. James in connection with the breaking of the bread, was ordered to be used in the Mass by Pope Sergius (†701); the three-fold repetition can be traced to the twelfth century, with the miserere nobis also the third time; the dona nobis pacem, according to Innocent III was added to the third member of the Agnus in time of great tribulation, but may be connected with the older rite, in which the kiss of peace followed the Agnus Dei. *

Footnote: * Rietschel, 388.

THE REFORMATION.

The Reformation influence is seen primarily in a return to N. T. principles, and the rejection of the Catholic conception of an ex opere operato worship. Hence followed a recasting of the Liturgy into the older form of a congregational Service, its translation into the language of the people, and a modification of the various elements into conformity with Scripture. As the reformation of the Liturgy also fell to Luther, there are a few features traceable to his influence.

LUTHER.

Chief among these is the use of the Aaronitic Benediction, (Num. 6:24ff), which “until then had never been in ecclesiastical use except in a peculiar manner in the Mozarabic Liturgy.”† Daniel calls it: “Pulcrum sane ecclesiae Lutheranae, peculium et verum cultus divini incrementum.”‡ Of great importance also are the addition of the Church Hymn and the revival of the Sermon. The Hymn has its liturgical position in the Deutsche Messe as an opening Hymn. The Creed as a confession of the people and the singing of a Hymn in the intervals of the Distribution also come from Luther, while the Prayer of Thanksgiving after the Communion. is his composition. Beyond this Luther’s influence was far-reaching, since his liturgical writings developed principles rather than formulated liturgies, and these principles affected the form of other liturgies.

Footnote: † Ibid. 402.

Footnote: ‡ Cod. Lit., II, 89, n. 5.

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

In the Preface to our Common Service we have this statement: “The Rule prescribed by the three General Bodies afore.

Page 12

said, according to which those charged with the preparation of this Service were to be guided, and by which all questions arising were to be decided, was: ‘The Common Consent of the pure Lutheran Liturgies of the Sixteenth Century; and, where there is not an entire agreement, the Consent of the largest number of those of greatest weight.’” The consensus of the Sixteenth Century Liturgies is therefore the decisive or normative influence in the formation of our Common Service, through which all the older elements have been transmitted. But new elements have also been added by these Liturgies. For example, the rubric requiring the consecration of additional elements should they be required, the formula of distribution, the Nunc Dimittis after the distribution, (which does not belong to the consensus, however), etc.

The use of the Words of Institution as the means of consecration present an interesting history. The indispensableness of the Words of Institution Luther bases on Augustine’s saying: “accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum,” which Augustine applied to Baptism, and there not to the Words of Institution, but to the Gospel in general.* Luther’s first conception was that these words were a declaration to the congregation, a conception found in a number of the Sixteenth Century Liturgies, in the Form. Concord., Chemnitz and Gerhard.† But in the Form. Missae, 1523, and later, Luther conceives of the Words as a benediction or consecration, and as such they have come into the Common Service, just as they are in the Roman Mass. This has necessitated the rubric above mentioned, which the Roman Church, having no danger of exhausting the elements, did not need.

Footnote: * Drews, PRE 5:411, quoted in Rietschel, 301.

Footnote: † Rietschel, 433.

REFORMED CHURCH.

The influence of the Reformed Church has been felt in two ways, It is still in many places very evident in the lack of all liturgy, and an opposition to liturgical forms as savoring of Romanism. But the Reformed influence very early exerted itself upon the Liturgy itself. The Apostles’ Creed was substituted for the Nicene first by the Reformed Churches‡ and came into

Footnote: ‡ Zwingli, 1525, but also in Doeber’s Messordnung of the same year.

Page 13

modern liturgies as late as 1821.* “The reading of the Service in a colloquial tone was a species of mutilation and iconoclasm introduced by the Reformed type of theology, and quite on a par with its other vicious attacks upon Ecclesiastical Art.”†

Footnote: *Prussian Agende.

Footnote: † Archer and Reed, The Choral Service Book, p. xix.

To Reformed influence some might be tempted to ascribe the interpretation of the so-called Declaration of Grace as an Absolution, and the use of the General Absolution. But in view of the fact that the Declaration confessedly has the form of an Absolution, and in the Sixteenth Century Liturgies is called an Absolution, and is retained as such in Nürnberg, 1533 by Osiander who there rejects the “Offne Schuld” after the Sermon, there seems good reason to reconsider the matter. Osiander rejects the “Offne Schuld” on the ground that coming immediately after the Sermon it obscures the absolving character of the preached Gospel, The same objection will not hold against the Absolution at the opening of the Service nor against the General Absolution in a special Confessional Service. Or, if the objection be supposed valid, then equal objection could be raised against various repetitions in the Liturgy, in which the same blessing is repeated or the same confession made, as if the first were not valid. On the other hand if the objection to the General Absolution as such holds in one place it holds in all, and the Lutheran Church, which retains the Confession for the sake of the Absolution, has no Absolution in connection with the Confession.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

It would seem most natural that a German people in transferring their Liturgy to the English Language would be strongly influenced by a Church, once considered the English Lutheran Church, which has a Liturgy somewhat similar, and, as Dr. Jacobs has shown, largely derived from Lutheran sources. It is somewhat surprising therefore to find how limited is the influence of the English Book of Common Prayer, being limited virtually to the beautiful translations of the Collects, (where the same Collects occur), and some Collects of English origin.

A question of considerable obscurity will always be the determination of the extent to which the liturgically developed

Page 14

worship of the Episcopalian Church has influenced the revival of liturgical taste and customs in the American Lutheran Church.

PIETISM.

To the Pietism of Spener’s time may be ascribed the end of Private Absolution, although this might with equal correctness be ascribed to corrupt practices connected with the Private Absolution itself. With the cessation of Private Absolution the introduction of General Absolution became necessary. If the form adopted can be traced to Reformed sources, the idea, as we have seen, was found early in the Lutheran Church, and extends beyond it to the Middle Ages.

To Pietism may also be traced the large development of Free Prayer, substituted for the General Prayer, for which room is left in the rubrics of the Common Service only under the heading of “any other suitable Prayer,” which would rule out many “free Prayers.” If Luther thought it wise to prescribe the “Postille” for the preacher in the Deutsche Messe of 1526, “weil der geistreichen Prediger wenig sind,” we may certainly approve of the prescribed General Prayer on the ground that there are few “geistreiche Beter.”

RATIONALISM.

While there may be evidences of some influences of Rationalism left in our Liturgy, they must be so minute as to have escaped notice. The custom of singing a “Hauptlied” with direct bearing on the sermon—Predigtlied—dates from the Eighteenth Century, and may possibly have come from such influence. Except in a purely formal rendering of the Service, the only loophole for rationalistic influence now lies in the sermon,—and then it must be a sermon out of all harmony with its setting if it can be rationalistic.

AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH.

To the American Lutheran Church as represented in the three General Bodies must be ascribed the production of our Common Service in the English Language. But in preparing the Service no mere translation; nor even a compilation of Sixteenth Century Liturgies sufficed. There are elements which, appear in none of the latter. The Offertory (from Ps. 51:17-19 and Ps.

Page 15

51:10-12) is new, the suggestion being found in Schöberlein.* The arrangement of the parts of the Service might also reveal independent work on the part of the Committee, which could be discovered only by a detailed comparison with all the materials. The Common Service as a whole, especially in its English form, is due to an American influence, differing as it does from all German Liturgies, especially in the removal of local peculiarities: in its German form it bears as distinctive an American influence, extending even to the new translation of the Collects, made with special reference to their probable use with music.

Footnote: * R. M. SMITH, Sources, P. 52.

PRESENT DAY INFLUENCES.

Looking at the liturgical work of to-day we may roughly sum up the influences as follows: There are two forms of critical influence, one of which criticises to reject, the other to reform. A third tendency occupies itself with developing the Liturgy as it is by archaeological and historical study of it, and a revival of its musical and aesthetic rendering.

W. A. LAMBERT.

Saltsburg, Pa.

Page 16

Page 17

REMARKS ON SOME OF OUR LITURGICAL CLASSICS.

RECENT studies and discoveries have thrown light on the history of the Lutheran Service. Luther’s Formula Missae, of 1523, following his treatises of 1516-1523, was evoked by a demand for a revision of the Service. His criticisms on the Mass had been eagerly and widely accepted. In accordance with his teaching the idea that it was a propitiatory sacrifice was rejected, and the demand for a Service in the language of the people, in which fuller instruction in the Word of God should be given, was continually growing. Many had attempted translations of the prayers and offices of the Church, and among these have been preserved “Orders” for the use of those who felt themselves, or actually were, shut out from the Communion but desired to participate in it. Carlstadt had tried to put Luther’s principles into practice in 1521. Thomas Muenzer at Alstedt celebrated a German Mass and afterwards published it. Kantz at Nordlingen published the first “Evangelical Mass.” Almost of the same date as the Formula Missae, is Nigri’s German Mass at Strassburg, the startingpoint of the Strassburg type of Service. The principles of the Formula Missae were soon combined with Kantz’s work, as in the Pseudo-Bugenhagen of 1524, and Kantz’s with Nigri’s, and these again with the Formula Missae, at Nuremberg. All this is evidence of the widespread and insistent demand for a reformation of the Service and the provision of a German Mass. Luther’s Formula Missae, is therefore to be regarded as a compliance with it is demand. When it was published, Kantz’s and Nigri’s Masses were in existence. It professes to tell how the Service was at that time performed at Wittenberg. Nigri’s and Bucer’s principles were cotemporary with it. It is to be regarded then as in some sense a critique on what had already been undertaken, as well as on the old Mass; and reasons must be found

Page 18

why Luther did not accept and applaud the work already done. On the other hand, he ignored or rejected it.

We are not ready to admit Smend’s suggestion that Luther did not accept these attempts at reformation for something like vanity, or the desire to arrogate to himself a sole leadership. Smend himself shows that the Strassburg Orders ran a course of their own in spite of a subsequent influence of the Formula Missae. He is able to detect that influence in several easily distinguishable parts. The Nuremberg Service derived from them certain divergencies from the Strassburg type. This is enough to show that Luther was not wrong in scenting another spirit.

On one point Luther’s motive was clear. While he wished for a German Mass, he was afraid that his disciples would go too fast. He wished to retain as much of the old Service as he could in accordance with evangelical principles. He even did not wish to give up the use of the Latin tongue altogether, so far as it might be retained to edification. Bugenhagen shows some annoyance in the letter he wrote complaining of the Kantzian Mass that had been published under his name, because adherents of the forward movement called the Latin Service retained at Wittenberg with German Lections and Sermon no German Mass at all. Luther put a high value on the traditional music of the Service and could not think it possible to use it to literal prose translations. I do not think this ever has been done successfully in the German Churches. To translate a Service of Worship it is not enough to set down the meaning of sentences so that they shall be clear to an attentive mind. This is the fault of the majority of the versions of German Hymns which have been incorporated into our Church Book. It is interesting to note that Dr. Beale Schmucker felt the same hesitation in regard to the Matin and Vesper Services: he doubted whether they were possible without the traditional music and whether the traditional music could be set to any available translation. Every language has a genius of its own; and the genius of a language is the genius of the people whose utterance it is. It is not enough even to transfuse the thoughts into German words and idioms. No, the Word of God must be wrought into the German people and evoked from them again. And the new texts thus born, reproducing the substance of the old, but in a form as unlike the old Latin forms as the German worshipper is unlike the Latin, as

Page 19

Luther was unlike Aeneas Sylvius, as the Latin forms were unlike the Greek, must have a musical setting of their own. What would we Americans have done with the Lutheran Service if it had not been Englished for us by centuries of use? And Luther was not far wrong when he put the sacred texts into German rhymes as freely as the forty-sixth Psalm was rendered in Ein’ Feste Burg. Of course he missed the mark sometimes, as in Jesaia dem Propheten das geschah; but not often. His translations of the Collects show that he alone of the Germans can be ranked with Cranmer for liturgical sensitiveness and command of the language of devotion. Luther revolted from the harsh, inartistic wooden, impossible versions of the first attempts at a German Mass. Of some of the earliest attempts to put the material of worship into German Smend says, “The prayers breathe a glowing mysticism and a deep tremulous longing utters itself in the meditations. Nor is it seldom we perceive a play upon words and notions such as marks a very leisurely worshipper and is far from simplicity.” They speak of the Zarten Fronleichnam und Edlest Blut, of the Rosinfarbes Blut, of Christ. It is interesting to compare their prose versions of the Gloria in Excelsis which never found a place in German worship, and perhaps occasioned the readiness with which Luther adapted himself to the traditional permission to use or omit the Gloria in Excelsis at the will of the minister. Luther and Bugenhagen were impatient of the notion that it was wrong to have the Service in Latin. They were not willing to force upon the people a change that would be felt by every one, and would be offensive to sober people of good taste as well as to those attached to the old Order. At the centre, they also felt all the difficulties besetting their work more than their eager imitators could. Luther therefore would have “put the brakes” on the reform. But he was driven by it. And, finally, the German Mass showed the utmost he was able to accomplish in that time and the way he thought it ought to be done.

Another reason for the rejection of these immature essays at liturgical construction lay in a well-grounded distrust of their principles. Our first impulse on reading the Masses of Muenzer. is to admire the courage and taste shown and their evident respect for the ancient form. He was a respectable hymnist. We are told that the musical setting of the parts is not without mer-

Page 20

it. He shows considerable liturgical knowledge. Yet Luther is certainly to be pardoned for suspecting anything from Carlstadt’s or Muenzer’s hand. We do not know whether he ever gave to these concepts any attention. But lest we may condemn the great reformer for rejecting the work other men were doing, who were eager to work out principles for which he had contended, let us look at Muenzer’s Masses more closely.

Here we find traces of a pantheistic mysticism. For instance, in comment on the Sanctus Muenzer says: “We sing the Sanctus that we may know how a man should be prepared in order to receive the Supper without injury to his soul. He should and must know that God is in him; he must not imagine that He is a thousand miles away from him; but as Heaven and earth is full, full, of God, and as the Father continually begets the Son in us, and the Holy Ghost does nothing else than glorify the Crucified in us.” He seems to make the validity of the Sacrament depend on the faith of the participants…. In one place he says that only patient men are worthy of the