Vindication of the revised liturgy, historical and theological

Front matter

fJass ^573 Book

VINDICATION fiV I S HI) LITURGY,

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

Introduction

The Request prefixed to this pamphlet sufficiently explains its occasion and object; while it is of a character also not only to justify, but even to demand and require its appearance. It is most true, that Dr. Bomberger's tract is "one-sided and unfair, and therefore calculated to do much harm in the Church.' 9 It was brought out hastily, just before the meeting of the late General Synod at Dayton, to serve a party purpose, and as part of a plan to pre-occupy the members of that body (particularly in the West), with a prejudice against the Revised Liturgy, which, it was hoped, might be sufficient to overwhelm and crush it before it could have a chance of coming before the people. It was, in this respect, like a political campaign document, let off on the eve of an election. for effect; and it is characterized throughout by the spirit of reckless misrepresentation we usually meet with, and expect to meet with, in publications of this sort. Its criticisms on the Liturgy itself do not amount to much. They are vague, indefinite, and loose ; turning, for the most part, on the use of invidious terms of reproach, and appeals to popular prejudice. But this is only a small part of its offence. By far the greater part of the tract is devoted to another object altogether. Under the pretence of giving a history of the Liturgy, it seeks to make capital against it by trying to show that it is a grand fraud, which has been practised upon the Church by the Committee intrusted with the work of its preparation.

INTRODUCTION.

In this view, it is an atrocious libel throughout upon the character of the Committee, as well as an insult to the Church at large, in whose service they have been working for so many years. All this was brought out clearly enough in the Synod at Dayton ; and the political bomb-shell went off there without much execution. But the matter deserves unquestionably a still more public exposure. The voice of so large a portion of our Eastern lay delegation in attendance at Dayton deserves to be heard. I proceed, therefore, to the task of vindicating the Liturgy from the wrong that is done to it in this tract, both historically and theologically. The personalities which this must involve, to a certain extent, I should have preferred having nothing to do with; but I do not see how they are to be avoided.

As just intimated, what I have to say will fall naturally into two general parts ; a defence of the Liturgy, or say rather of the movement leading to it, historically considered ; secondly, a defence of the Liturgy, considered in its actual theological character. For the second part, I will take the liberty of using an article I have written on this subject for the resuscitated Mercersburg Revieiv, f

Part I, Historical Vindication Of The New Liturgy

Worship, in the use of prescribed forms, is not a new thing in the Reformed Church. Liturgies, of some sort, have had place "within it from the beginning. They belonged to its church life in Europe, and they came over with the same church life to this country. At the same time, they were held to be a fair subject all along for change and improvement. No Liturgy was considered to be of perpetual force, even for the particular country or province in which it was used; much less for other countries. The liberty of primitive times here was practically asserted, as the proper liberty of the Protestant Church. ' The old Swiss Liturgies in this way changed. The old Liturgy of the Palatinate became antiquated, even in the Palatinate itself. There was a movement all along, in other words, towards the realization of something in worship, which it was felt had not been fully reached in existing forms. The grossly unliturgical tendencies of later times (Rationalistic in Germany, Methodistic in this country), belonged themselves to this movement. But they had no power to bring it to rest. They only served to urge it onward in its course, by deepening the sense of a want which they had no power to satisfy, and by causing it to be felt, that the true satisfaction for this want must be sought in some other way. Hence, among the "pious desires " of the Reformed Church in America, we find at work all along, very sensibly felt, the wish for a satisfactory Liturgy. The old Palatinate service was not satisfactory ; and none of the services brought over from Europe, during the last century, were satisfactory. At the same time, the deeper consciousness of the Church refused to settle into contentment with the modern innovation of totally free prayer. Such worship had, indeed, forced itself into use on all sides ; but the true genius of the Church, at bottom, resented it as something foreign and strange; and its voice was still heard, though in more or less smothered accents, calling out for a Liturgy that might be worthy of the name.

It was in response to this call, that the Mayer Liturgy, as it is called, made its appearance in 1837; the respectable work of a truly respectable man. But, as all know, it failed to satisfy the Church. Full opportunity was given for the trial of it. Nobody thought of opposing any bar to its use. No popular prejudice lay in its way; no outside jealousy stood ready to shout Ritualism in its face. But still it found almost no favor. Ministers and people consented in allowing it to fall well-nigh dead from the press. Why? "Because," says Dr.Bomberger, "it was unhappily not constructed after the pattern of our older Liturgies," and was "too much of an accommodation to the spirit of the times." That is, it did not please the times, because it went too much with the times, and refused to go full against them, as was done soon after, Dr. B. tells us, by the reactionary movement which was led off by the publication of the Anxious Bench in 1842. What the Doctor says, moreover, of its unhappy variation from our older Liturgies, is mere moonshine. No following of that pattern would have helped the matter a particle. There the older Liturgies were; it was an easy thing to bring any of them into use, if the wants of the Church could have been satisfied in that way. But they were not satisfactory; the Church was all the time feeling and reaching after something better; and the Mayer Liturgy proved a flat failure, just because it was not something better, but the same thing in fact — the continuation of a mode or manner of worship, which it was felt the life of the Church had outgrown, so as to need now a different style of worship altogether.

I well remember how Dr. Ranch used to speak of this Liturgy.

OF THE NEW LITURGY.

He had no patience with its external, mechanical character; especially after the various tinkerings it had to undergo before its final adoption. A Liturgy, he used to say, in his earnest, genial way, should be of one cast, a single creation, ruled throughout by the presence of one central idea; in this respect, like a poem, or other true work of art. But what had we here? Dead forms only, bound together in a dead way ; from which it was vain to expect, therefore, that the breath of life should be kindled in the devotions of the sanctuary. Such a Liturgy, he thought, could do the Church harm only, and not good.

Some years passed after this, before any serious movement was made toward getting out a better Liturgy. In the view of many, the matter was not held to be of any very great account. They were willing to abide by the system of free prayer, as it had place in the Presbyterian Church. That, I may say, was prevailingly my own position. I was not liturgical in those days, though not opposed to forms of prayer. But there was in the German Reformed Church somehow the power of a different spirit, that would not be kept down, but still cried, "Give us a Liturgy, whereby we may be able to worship God, like our fathers, with one mouth, as well as with one heart." Thus the Classis of East Pennsylvania urged the subject upon the attention of the Synod, which met at Lancaster in 1847; stating its dissatisfaction with the Mayer Liturgy, and asking that either the Old Palatinate Liturgy, or some other, should be adopted, and made of general use in its place. The whole subject was hereupon referred to the several Classes for their consideration. They reported favorably to the object the following year; and the Synod of Hagerstown accordingly (1848), after a long and earnest discussion, placed the matter in the hands of a special Committee (Dr. J. H. A. Bomberger, Chairman), with instructions to report at the next annual meeting of Synod. This report was presented to the Synod of Norristown in 1849, vindicating at large the use of liturgical forms, and recommending the appointment of a Committee to present at the next meeting of Synod a plan or schedule for a Liturgy, such as the wishes of the Church were supposed to require. The report was adopted; and & Liturgical Committee, as it came to be called afterwards, was constituted, for the purpose of carrying its recommendation into effect.

The Committee consisted of the following persons : Ministers, J. W. Nevin, Philip Schaff, Elias Heiner, B. C. Wolff, J. H. A. Bomberger, H. Harbaugh, J. F. Berg; Eiders, William Heyser, J. C. Bucher, Dr. C. Schaeffer, and G. C. Welker.

Here properly starts, at the Synod of Norristown in 1849, the particular Liturgical Movement, which, running through a series of seventeen years, has issued finally in the Revised Liturgy as it now stands, and the history of which Dr. Bomberger has contrived so strangely to fabricate into a wholesale slander, of the vilest sort, against the Committee by whom it has been produced.

Let no one imagine, however, that I propose to follow him in the details of his pretended historical argument, with the view of showing them untenable and false. That would be, indeed, both time and labor thrown away. He abounds in special pleading, and wastes page after page on points, that are, when all is done, of no account for the main issue in hand. He lays himself out largely to show that the Synod from time to time clearly and plainly had one object in view, while the Committee was just as clearly and plainly bent on carrying out another object; and it is wonderful what an amount of petty, quibbling interpretation he employs to make the case appear in this false light. There is a great parade of trying to bring out in this small way the sense of particular documents and facts, as though this must necessarily show historical veracity and candor. But who does not know, how easy it is to make this sort of exactness in particulars the medium of wholesale misrepresentation in regard to what is general ? This is just what Dr. Bomberger has done ; and what is required, therefore, is not a rectification of his historical positions and points in detail, but a broad exposition rather of the universal falsehood that runs through his tract. This can be done, happily, without much trouble.

A simple statement of the theory, on which the Doctor constructs what he calls his History of the Ritualistic Movement

OF THE NEW LITURGY.

in the German Reformed Church, is enough to overthrow, for any reflecting mind, the credit of the whole thing. It is too monstrously absurd for any sober belief. It bears the stamp of wholesale falsification on its very face.

The theory runs as follows: — The Synod of the German Reformed Church proposed to have a new Liturgy, and appointed a Committee of supposed reliable men (Dr. BombergerandDr. Berg among them), to bring out the work. The Synod had, at the same time, a very clear conception of what it wanted and wished in this movement, and took pains, from year to year, to make the Committee understand exactly the character of the service they were expected to perform. Strangely enough, however, this Committee seemed to be possessed, from the beginning, with a determination not to do the very thing they were charged to do in this solemn way. Nay, worse than this; it soon became only too evident, that the Committee had deliberately made up their mind (Drs. Berg and Bomberger still among them), to do the very opposite of the thing they were thus charged to do; that they had, in other words, conceived the plan of another order of worship, a liturgical service altogether different from what the Synod was thinking and resolving about, and now set themselves systematically to the task of bringing the Synod to accept their scheme, instead of its own. It was a bold purpose, assuredly ; but the men also were bold, who had it in hand ; their position in the Church gave them mighty advantage; and the event has shown that their policy was at once far reaching and profound. They knew it was in vain to think of carrying their point with the Synod openly and directly. So they went to work stealthily, and with circuitous management and stratagem, to accomplish their object; content to wait through years, if only they might be sure of reaching it in the end. With this view, it became necessary, first of all, to stave off action in regard to the Liturgy ; in order that time might be gained in this way for working the mind of the Church round, by skilful manipulation, to a new way of looking at the subject, and so room be made for palming off upon it at last what the Committee wished to give it, in place of what the Church itself wanted to have.

Such was the situation of things froni the very beginning of this Liturgical Movement; and here it is we have the key, which, properly applied, is sufficient to unlock the secret sense of all its historical intricacies, as regards both the Committee and the Synod. The history of the movement is simply the progress of a curious game between these two bodies — all simplicity on the one side, and all duplicity (diabolically astute) on the other — in which the Committee succeeds in out-witting and out-generalling the Synod through seventeen weary, mortal years; so as to bring things to the melancholy pass they have now reached in the Revised Liturgy. Whether the Committee acted, or refused to act, it all meant the same thing. Their one grand object throughout, was to baffle and defeat the wishes of the Synod; and this they did with a vengeance. Never, surely, was Government, political or religious, so impudently bamboozled before. The Synod had the power all in its own hands; might have had things at any time its own way; could have said whenever it pleased: "Gentlemen of the Liturgical Committee, you have been appointed to do the work we want, in the way we want, and not in any other way; and if you do not choose to do it in this way, go about your business ; we will appoint another Committee to do the work in your place." This the Synod could have said and done at any time; but just this the Synod never did say, and never would do. On the contrary, it persisted all along in holding this same refractory Committee to its task. Year after year, the Committee reported, according to Dr. Bomberger, that it was not doing what the Synod wanted; year after year, the Synod accepted the report, and continued the Committee in service — all the while reiterating, according to Dr. Bomberger, in spirit, at least, if not in form, its original instructions. No other Committee could serve its turn but this. No other, it was supposed, could produce a Liturgy to its satisfaction. In spite of all its miserable contumacy, tergiversation, and treasonable malpractice, no other was to be thought of for a moment as worthy of the same confidence. It must be either this Liturgical Committee or none. 0 marvellous Committee! No wonder there should.be to Dr. Bomberger's vision "a ser-

OF THE NEW LITURGY.

pent" in the Liturgy itself, when the magicians that produced it could exercise such basilisk enchantment over the senses of the venerable body they thus played fast and loose with, through a period of seventeen years.

The mere statement of such a theory as this, I repeat, is enough to cover it with confusion. It is outrageously preposterous. No man in his senses can believe it. Yet this is just what all comes to, in Dr. Bomberger's professed history of what he calls the ritualistic movement in the German Reformed Church. There is no true history in it. With all its talk about fairness and candor, documents and facts, it is nothing more than a caricature of history from beginning to end.

The movement inaugurated at Norristown in 1849, he says, contemplated no such Liturgy as we have now offered for our use. This is very true, and needs no argument whatever. The Committee was instructed to "examine the various Liturgies of the Reformed Churches, and other works published on this subject in later times, and specify, as far as this may be done, the particular forms that are believed to be needed, and furnish specimens also, such as may be regarded as called for in the circumstances of the Church in this country." All this, evidently, looks only to the conception of a book of forms for the pulpit; and falls far short of what the idea of a liturgical service has come to mean among us since that time. It is worthy of being noted, however, that even at this early stage of the movement, it was held that there should be no mere following of European examples in what was done, but a proper regard, also, to the circumstances of the Church in this country.

At the Synod of Martinsburg, the following year, 1850, the Liturgical Committee was heard from, as follows: "The Committee appointed to commence the preparation of a new Liturgy, respectfully report, that after such attention as they have been able to give to the subject, and in view of the general posture of the Church at the present time, they have not considered it expedient, as yet, to go forward with the work. Should it be felt necessary on the part of the Synod to bring out at once a new formulary for public use, it is believed that the most advisable course for the present would be to give a translation simply of the old Liturgy of the Palatinate ; although the Committee are, by no means, of the mind, that this would be the best ultimate form in which to provide for the great interest here in question. Altogether, it is felt, however, that other questions now before the Church need first to be settled, in order that it may become important really to bestow any full and final care on this question of a new Liturgy."

All this, certainly, looks innocent enough. The Committee felt that nothing they could make, in the way of compilation, out of the Palatinate Liturgy and others, would prove satisfactory ; and they gave this as a reason for their not having gone forward with the work assigned them; while they say, at the same time, that if Synod thought otherwise, and must have a formulary of the sort proposed without farther delay, then the Committee recommend simply the Old Palatinate Liturgy itself as the best present provision for the case.

But see, now, how Dr. Bomberger manages to look at so plain and simple a matter through his green, historical spectacles. Here, at the very outset, he tells us, we are met with that diplomatic duplicity, which is found to characterize the relations of the Committee to the Synod all along afterwards. He has the impudence to say, without a particle of proof, that " the real import of the reasons" assigned by the Committee, "for not at once proceeding with their work," was not what these seemed to mean at the time on their face. There was no honesty in their report. " The Synod had not asked the Committee to investigate anew the subject of ecclesiastical ritualism; to take into consideration the expediency or the advisableness of going forward with the preparation of suitable forms; to inquire into the present posture of the Church ; or to raise other similar side issues." What they did now, in doing nothing, was the beginning of their refractoriness, and ominous of trouble. "This was the first instance in the history of this liturgical movement, in which the Committee, through the influence of its leading members, set up its own opinions and wishes, in

OF THE NEW LITURGY.

opposition to those of the Synod and the Church; unhappily, it was not the last."

Is not this the sublimity of nonsense? Did not the Committee recommend the Palatinate Liturgy, if one must be had at once, as the best thing they felt themselves prepared to bring forward at that time? What was there, then, to hinder the Synod from adopting it, and urging the use of it upon the churches? The Committee stated frankly their own opinion, that this would not prove ultimately satisfactory; but the Synod was not bound, in any way, to have the same judgment. Why did it not go on, then, to have the Palatinate Liturgy translated and published? Plainly, because it thought, with the Committee, that the circumstances of the Church called for something different. No censure was passed on the Committee. They were continued in office and trust, as before.

One year after this, at the Synod of Lancaster, 1851, the Liturgical Committee again present themselves, and report no progress. They had not found the way open to do anything they could be satisfied with, in the work placed in their hands ; and they had come to despair very much of their being able to produce any Liturgy, that would prove generally and permanently satisfactory to the Church. This was especially my own feeling, I had not led the way at all in the movement; my heart was not in it with any special zeal; I was concerned with it only in obedience to the appointment of Synod; other interests appeared to me at the time to be of more serious account; and I had no faith in our being able to bring the work to any ultimate success. In these circumstances, I was not willing to stand charged with the responsibility of continuing Chairman of the Committee; and I asked the Synod, accordingly, to relieve me from this position; with the understanding that I would be willing to act with it still in a subordinate character. The request was granted, and Dr. Schaff was made Chairman in my place. The name of Prof. T. C. Porter, at the same time, was added to the Committee.

All this again looks innocent enough ; for common eyes, there would seem to be no mystery about it whatever. But only see once more, what becomes of it, when subjected to the disordered vision of Dr. Bomberger. I get no credit for giving up the leadership of the Committee; on the contrary, it seems to be regarded rather as a stroke of policy, which was designed to help on the general object of obstructing the work the Synod was vainly struggling to get done; although happily, in this case, it seems again, the Synod saw through the ruse, and waved it handsomely to the one side. "It was probably understood," we are told, "by most of the clergymen at least of the Synod, why Dr. Nevin had been unable to carry out the wishes of the Church in the work of the Liturgy, and why he desired to be relieved from all responsibility as Chairman of the Committee. But the Synod showed no disposition to modify its views, in order to accommodate them to his opinions in the case. Had there been any thought of departing from the purpose and principles at first laid down by tlTe Synod of Norristown, this would have been a fitting time to bring out such a thought. Instead, however, of betraying any tendency in this direction, the Synod held fast to its original design, accepted- Dr. -Nevin's resignation, appointed Dr. Schaff in his place, and impliedly, said: Now, brethren, we hope you will have no farther difficulty in pressing forward rapidly with the work, according to instructions previously given, but be able to report its early completion." How the plot thickens ! How the history becomes clear as mud!

The hypothesis is, that the Committee have joined hands to thwart the Synod in its design to have a certain kind of Liturgy. Dr. Schaff and myself are at the bottom of the conspiracy; we have conceived the idea of reaching, at last, another order of worship altogether, and are doing all we can, theologically, to bring about such a result; we have engaged the Committee to hold back the liturgical movement ; and my giving up the helm is only part of the play, intended to bring matters to a deadlock, and thus force the Synod to come into our views. The Synod has some dim sense, however, of the way things are going ; winks significantly at the last sly trick in particular ; places the rudder in the trustworthy hands of Dr. Schaff; leaves the impracticable Committee constituted, in all other respects,

OF THE NEW LITURGY.

as before ; and bids a hearty God-speed to their labors, with instruction to "report as soon as possible." Is not that rich?

Dr. Schaff now went to work in earnest, and set the rest of us to work also, in preparing forms. He had faith in the movement ; as for myself, I had, I confess, almost none. Still, I tried to do my share of service, and spent hours in what was found to be generally a tedious and irksome task. The work involved, necessarily, liturgical studies; and these brought with them a growing liturgical culture, which required an enlargement of the range, within which it was proposed, originally, to confine the course of the movement.

In the report of the Committee, made to the Synod of Baltimore in 1852, through Dr. Schaff, all this is brought fairly and fully into view. It gave a plan of such a Liturgy as was proposed ; set forth the principles on which it should be constructed, and offered some specimens of what it was expected to contain. In this report, the ground is taken distinctly, that the new Liturgy ought not to be shaped simply after modern models, reaching back no farther than the Reformation ; that among these later schemes of worship, " special reference ought to be had to the Old Palatinate and other Reformed Liturgies of the sixteenth century"; but that the general basis of the work should be " the liturgical worship of the Primitive Church, as far as this can be ascertained from the Holy Scriptures, the oldest ecclesiastical writers, and the Liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches of the third' and fourth centuries." Should the principles proposed be conscientiously and wisely carried out, the report, in conclusion, adds, "it is hoped that, by the blessing of God, a Liturgy might be produced at last, which will be a bond of union, both with the ancient Catholic Church and the Reformation, and yet be the product of the religious life of our denomination in its present state."

Dr. Bomberger troubles himself sorely with this famous Baltimore report. The Synod, he thinks, hardly knew what it was about, when it was induced to adopt it. " There was no time taken," he tells us, "to weigh its import. There was no dissection of its several parts, no discussion of its pregnant pro- 2 positions. With all the saving, modifying clauses, which we shall show it contains, it cannot be denied, that it proposes great departures from the original design and purpose of the Synod." This is a great confession, coming from Dr. Bomberger. But he tries bravely again to do away with its damaging effect ; by catching at all the "saving, modifying clauses " he can find in the case, and making use of them in the way of very small chicanery and special pleading, to show that after all the action of Synod here, does not mean as much as it seems to mean. Matters might have been worse. There is room for praise in what was done, as well as blame. The wisdom of the Synod shines beautifully through its folly; its unseemly haste is characterized, after all, by great caution. " It is very significant," our ecclesiastical Philadelphia lawyer tells us, "that its action is expressed in such cautious terms." " Hastily as this important report was disposed of, there is no such endorsement of its peculiar sentiments, no such committal even to the general basis and plan of liturgy now proposed, or to the proposed departures from the first purpose and aim of Synod in this whole movement, as should be considered sufficient to bind the Synod and the Church to all the details of the report, or to debar all modifications and objections which subsequent reflection might suggest." Precious crumbs of comfort for the chickens of the covenant, truly, in so hard a case! "It proves the wisdom of the body," it is added, a that it spoke with so much official reserve upon the subject. The report was simply adopted, without any expression on its merits." Only this, and nothing more; saving merely a resolution, bidding the Committee to go ahead with their work, and "to carry out the suggestions made at the close of their report." Only this; " even suppose the pound of flesh is rigorously exacted, and the Synod held relentlessly to the letter of the bond." Only this, 0 Shylock ; and nothing more.