THE LITURGICAL INFLUENCE OF THE LESSER REFORMERS. WHEN one studies the formative period of the doctrines and forms of worship that constitute the exclusive property of the Lutheran Church, he cannot fail to be impressed with the fact that so many influences were at work at the same time, that it is almost impossible to ascribe a greater or less effect to one cause or the other. While even the development of a doctrinal system depended on the workings of many and varied historical causes, it is found in the tracing of liturgical practices that they depend fully as much (if not more) upon the history of given conditions, as they do upon specific theories or decided views concerning their propriety. So powerful are the claims of the past, that they had to be considered and respected even in the formulating of ecclesiastical laws, and an examination of the Kirchenordnungen reveals numerous examples of the firm, stiff grasp in which the dead hand of the past clasped the issues of the present. Thus we find that exceptions from prescribed orders are made in favor of certain churches within the same sphere of jurisdiction, prescribing e. g. the robe in one church and permitting its disuse in another, ordering certain forms of Service for the whole district and exempting from it certain congregations in the same territory. Or, also we find the Reformers laying down certain rules in one Kirchenordnung and themselves departing widely from them in the composition of another. And to go further, we see instances of a complete change of view at certain periods of life, not only in the case of Luther, but notably so also in the case of Melanchthon and Brenz. Some of these changes of view were such truly speaking, others again, especially those of Melanchthon and Brenz, were enforced accommodations to existing conditions. These changes of view, according to the custom of the times, when men lived their intellectual life in the public gaze, as much as their outward life, were always promulgated, always published and always had a certain effect and made a distinct impression upon the views of the contemporaries. It was an age of argumentation and public discussion, the utmost consequence of the scholastic spirit; but withal, the fairest flower that sprung like a white water-lily from those dark and murky waters. Owing to these views promulgated, changed, reiterated, embodied in doctrines and made active in regulations, producing ecclesiastical laws through their ethical inspirations, and voicing the devotions of the believer through their religious aspirations, the different KOO took their origin in all Europe among Lutherans and Reformed alike. Those of the one side frequently had a reflex influence upon those of the other, frequently the Lutheran adopted the hue of Reformed, frequently the latter shone in the borrowed glories of the former. Sometimes one master-mind made a contribution which for the time was made use of and sought after as a treasure, and then it was lost and buried, either to remain forever unused among all the rummage in the storied attics of the past, or to be brought to light and use again, by the descendants who in the present age are inquiring into the possessions of their fathers. For these reasons it is almost impossible to give a true estimate of the influence of any given Reformer, if the problem be to state what effect he had upon the liturgical observances of the present day, though one might, with propriety, follow him through his works and discover what he advocated and for what he strove. The most abiding work of all these great ones of that great time was transmitted to us in the KOO, but even they have not yet been adequately treated, as Rietschel tells us, though much excellent work has so far been done upon them. Among these KOO we can find various types, some (and we deal here only with those that are Lutheran) correct in their doctrinal position, but conservative in their treatment of Roman forms; some genuinely Lutheran, based upon the Formula Missa (1523) and Lutheran in regard to doctrine and forms; some which are more radical in their treatment of forms of worship and mediate between the Lutheran type and the Reformed. Among the first type we find the Brandenburg KO prepared by Stratner and Buchholtzer, the Pfalz-Neuburg KO, 1543, the Austrian Agenda of Chytræus, 1571. The second type, called the Saxo-Lutheran, represented as stated, by the Formula Missæ, which became au thoritative for Prussia under Duke Albrecht, 1525; for the Electorate of Saxony, for all the KOO by Bugenhagen, viz., Brunswick 1528, Hamburg 1529, Minden and Göttingen 1530, Lübeck 1531, Saest 1532, Bremen 1534, Pommerania 1535; for that of Brandenburg-Nuremberg 1533 by Osiander and Brenz; for Hanover 1536 by Urbanus Regius; for Naumburg 1537; for the KO of Duke Henry of Saxony by Justus Jonas 1539; for Mecklenburg 1540 and 1552 by Aurifaber, Riebling, Melanchthon and later Chytræus; for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel 1543 and 1569 by Chemnitz and Andreæ; for Riga 1531; for Courland 1570; for the Hessian Agenda of 1566 and 1573 with the exception of the act of Communion. Of the third or mediating type the regulations at Strassburg, the Württemberg KOO among which less than the others that by Brenz for Schwäbisch-Hall 1526, the KO of Duke Ulrich 1536 and of Duke Christopher 1533; the Palatine KO 1554, the Badensian 1556, the Wormsian 1560.* Those among the above that have become most fundamental or basic for others are the Braunschweig KO of Bugenhagen and the Brandenburg-Nuremberg KO of Osiander. It is upon the consensus of the orders of the second type that the forms of Service of our Common Service are based, and it is with them and the men who produced them that the present inquiry is chiefly concerned. As has been indicated all of these KOO are partly based upon the Formula Missæ issued by Luther in 1523, partly derive their spirit and impetus from it and partly develop in the direction indicated by it. Thus even in this inquiry Luther's name deserves especial mention, for he is the Prometheus who brought the fire from Heaven and taught his knowledge to the sons of men. His giant form overtowers every other of the mighty men of the period of the Reformation, but beside him, near him, reaching toward him and approaching his stature in conspicuous measure are the persons of Melanchthon and Bugenhagen. How much the prophet of the Reformation was indebted to its grammarian and to its pastor will perhaps never be known; but he refers to them so constantly, and describes their labors and influence so lovingly, that one is compelled to ascribe to these two, Melanchthon and Bugenhagen, no mean share in the outcome of that momentous upheaval of the sixteenth century. It was a time of tearing down and of building up. Luther, the genius, For this classification see Zoeckler, Vol. IV, p. 456. |