MAILING LIST 
Home > About Us > Collaborators > Christian Reformed Church > Resources > Worship
THE LITURGY, OR THE PROGRAM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP
PROFESSOR S. VOLBEDA Th. D.
Introduction
At present we have no Synodically prescribed Liturgy or Program for Public Worship. Throughout the entire history of our church it was assumed, if not officially expressed that the Liturgy, or Program for Public Worship is, "a matter pertaining to the Churches of Synod in common" (art. 30 Ch. 0.), and hence clearly within the province of Synodical authority equally with such matters as the determination of the creedal Formularies and the enactment of the Church Order. The so-called Old Order of Worship had, it is true, not been officially adopted, but it had the sanction of time and usage. In 1916 the Synod took up the matter of Improvement of the Liturgy. Its labors in this direction resulted in the so-called New Order of worship of 1928. One of the motives for entering upon this liturgical task, in fact, the first motive in historical order, was the desideratum of a uniform liturgy. It was never questioned that the establishment of a uniform liturgy is the ecclesiastical prerogative of Synod until a liturgy was propounded that did not find favor with certain parties. When the Liturgical Committee in 1920 proposed the Order of Worship that was virtually identical with the one adopted in 1928 some churches urged liturgical congregationalism. It would seem that they did so, not because they had turned congregationalist in principle, but for the simple reason that the congregational or consistorial determination of the liturgy (vs. the Synodical) afforded easy escape from a liturgy that was not agreeable to them. When this proposed order of worship with emendations was adopted in l928 protest was registered by two classes (Hudson and Pacific), not on the score of the Synodical establishment of a liturgy, but of certain alleged objectionable features thereof. This circumstance already proves that the church, and even those who disapproved of the liturgy which the church had officially adopted, took the ground that the establishment of the liturgy is not a congregational privilege, but a Synodical prerogative.
This position is correct according to Art. 30 ult. of the Church Order. If there is anything that the several churches of a denomination have in common it is public worship, And if there is anything in which denominational unity assumes visible form and shape it is the solemn assemblies in which God's people meet with Him for purposes of praise to be rendered to Him and blessing to be received from Him. It is not necessary to argue the Scriptural, liturgical and ecclesiastical correctness of the traditional stand of our Church in this connection. We are now interested primarily in the historical fact that in 1930 the Synod saw fit to repudiate the position which the Church had hitherto taken with regard to this matter, both correctly and consistently. Art. 117, p. 187 reads: "It is not to be sustained upon the grounds of Scripture and Church Order that it lies within the jurisdiction of Synod to prescribe a specific order of worship and to enforce its introduction into the churches. Neither Scripture nor Church Order produce warrant for such an action." Upon the advice of its pre-advisory committee, Synod decided to recommend a Liturgy to the churches, but to leave its introduction ("instruction" p. 187 must obviously be "introduction") to the discretion of each local church. It is argued that it is "the right of the (local) consistories to consult the best interests of their churches with respect to the introduction of an Order of Worship." This right Synod intends to recognize. Synod further declares "that an open way is left for Synod to employ means to advise and educate our churches with a view to reaching as great a measure of uniformity as is possible and practicable." p. 187.
The change of position registered in the Acts of 1930, then, is this: that in matters liturgical Synod no longer exercises authority, but serves only in an advisory and consultative capacity. The newest Order of Worship comes recommended, but is not made mandatory upon the churches. "Synod (indeed) urges our consistories not to make any changes in their public worship other than those included in the Order adopted by Synod (i.e. as a Model or Example), and impresses upon them the fact that denominational unity and loyalty require that all the churches shall conform to whatever decisions touching this matter have been taken, unless they shall be proved to be contrary to God's Word; and further insists that consistories should refrain from introducing them by independent action, but make known their desires through the regular channels." (pp. 186-7). In the abstract the terms "urge" and "insist" may be interpreted in an authoritative sense. In fact the tenor of this statement is manifestly authoritative. But it is equally evident that the language employed must be understood in the light of the grounds adduced in its support as quoted above. The report of the pre-advisory committee leaves no room for doubt. It would seem that Synod put the note of authority into the statement just quoted from force of habit, in spite of its radically altered position in the matter itself. Be that as it may, we now have no Synodically established Liturgy. No church is obliged to adopt Synod's Model Liturgy; it may and should exercise its sovereign discretion. All that may morally be required is that consistories do not act arbitrarily in the adoption of the Synod's Model or in the introduction of a liturgy of their own choosing. The first thing to be done by them is the exercise of choice between the Old, the New and the Newest Order of Worship. The Synod's recommendation of the newest, or 1930 Liturgy naturally carries a measure of moral weight, it does not decide the issue. For if it did, the reference to the discretion of the consistory would be nugatory and farcical. Every consistory will, therefore, have to go into the matter and bring its knowledge of Scripture, its understanding of the principles of public worship, its acquaintance with the facts of liturgical history, to bear upon the problem in hand. For, surely, the program of public worship is a matter of transcendent importance, if only for the reason that public worship is the acme of religious life and the heart of ecclesiastical communion. One feels prompted to ask: how many consistories feel adequate to this task. If some do not trust to their own abilities, they must either take for granted that Synod's model is deserving of adoption, or rely upon the judgment of others, whether they be individuals or other consistories or possibly classes, as Synod seems to suggest(p. 187 supra). In either circumstance it would have been far better, if only for these practical reasons to yield to an authoritative enactment of Synod, than to give the lie to accredited discretion by relying servilely upon the gratuitous advice of others. But suppose a consistory deems itself able to reach a virtuous decision in the matter. Are we quite sure that any consistory, let us say the ablest among them all, is as competent as Synod, and the inter-Synodical and pre-advisory committees working under its auspices, in a matter like the present. Let it be observed that the discretionary liturgical powers of consistory are not now discussed from the standpoint of Reformed Church polity. If this were done, they would prove to be thoroughly unsound and incapable of defense. The argument now in progress is one merely of expediency. But this argument alone, as derived from sound common sense, is telling in its destructive effect upon the liturgical position of the Synod of 1930.
If, however, consistories have, by de facto ecclesiastical legislation, discretion in respect of the program of public worship in the absence of a synodically authoritative determination thereof, we as a class in Liturgics (i.e. the Theological science of Public Worship) certainly have the right, if not the duty, to seek for, and to determine upon, the liturgy that best answers to the Scriptural, Reformed and liturgical principles that are determinative of this supremely important department of religious and ecclesiastical life. This right we expect to exercise; this duty we are bent upon performing.
The method to be pursued is as follows: instead of taking our starting point in the relatively apriori and abstract liturgical principles governing the program and spirit of public worship, we shall take our clew from the historical liturgies of our church and select one of them as the basis for our discussion. For convenience' sake, we shall call them the 1857, 1928 and 1930 liturgies, respectively. We choose the middle one, historically speaking, the 1928 liturgy, as the groundwork for the study of the program of public worship. Our choice is governed by objective consideration no less than by subjective preference. The liturgy proved to be unsatisfactory in certain respects. In 1916 a committee was appointed by Synod, in response to an overture from Classis Illinois, to study the matter of the Liturgy in consideration of the fact that greater uniformity and improvement of the liturgy in the direction of greater laical participation in public worship were highly desirable. This committee, with change and addition of personnel as time went on, labored industriously, one synodical term excepted, for twelve years, in spite of serious discouragements. In 1928 the Order of Worship proposed by the Committee was adopted, in spite of the fact that many and serious objections had been raised against it, when it was first proposed to the Synod in 1920. If anything was evident it was this: that the 1857 liturgy now known as the Old order of worship was positively unsatisfactory. The Liturgical Committee had demonstrated more than once why it should be abolished. It may also be observed that De Gereformeerde Kerken van Nederland which also use our 1857 Liturgy, have been considering liturgical reform for several years, The 1857 liturgy, which harks back to the Dordt period of Dutch church history, is, omnium consensu, including the Synod of 1930 unsatisfactory, for reasons which will appear in the sequel. We can, therefore, safely pass the 1857 liturgy by except insofar as we shall have occasion to refer to it by way of comparison.
The 1930 liturgy is equally undeserving of being employed as the basis of our study of the program of public worship. To begin with, it has no ecclesiastical standing in the strict sense of the term, as the above recital of facts and quotation of the Act of 1930 shows, save insofar as, possibly, one or more consistories may have by this time, (Sept. 1930), adopted it officially for use in their congregations. Moreover, to the extent in which it is distinctive, the 1930 liturgy is the work of one Synod only, and is based not upon the report of an inter-synodical committee of one or more synodical terms standing, but of a pre-advisory committee appointed by the Synod of 1930 and reporting during this Synod's session. It is not implied, of course, that the members of this committee had not given thought to the matter previously. But it is patent that the Synod did not give the church an opportunity to scrutinize, and, if need be, criticize the proposed liturgy, before its adoption as a Model for the local churches and by way of official liturgical education of the church (Cf. Acts 1930, p. 187 infra). In distinction from this 1930 liturgy, conceived and born at one Synod, the 1928 liturgy was wrought upon for twelve years and was before the mind of the church from 1920-1928.
The latter fact indubitably constitutes a valid reason for making the l928 liturgy the ground work of our investigations. It may conceivably be argued that the rather unanimous and decisive repudiation of this liturgy by the Synod of 1930 discredits it so seriously that it forfeits the standing claimed for it. Now it is apparent that its repeal after two years of official status as the synodically established liturgy of the church can hardly be fully cleared of the charge of precipitancy. What has actually happened is by no means positive proof that it was the proper thing to do, even apart from the question whether the 1929 liturgy was burdened with inherent defects of an insufferable character, unless its anti-scriptural character was obtrusively self-evident. But the latter claim has not been made as far as the records are concerned. It almost goes without saying that in the absence of such unequivocal disqualification, respect for the Synodical Liturgical Committee and the Church is represented by the Synod of 1928 should have deterred the Synod of 1930 from casting the 1928 liturgy unceremoniously into the discard. It is true, the majority of classes (8 of 15) and several consistories and individuals clamored for its immediate repeal. But in view of thc fact that no pressure had as yet been brought to bear upon any consistory for failure to introduce the 1928 liturgy, and that the Synod of 1930 was manifestly not in a mood to do so, no injury would have been wrought of it, if the 1928 liturgy had been left in status quo for the ensuing Synodical term, 1930-32, and an opportunity had been given to the church to reflect upon its merits and to move calmly in the direction of its maintenance or rejection, as due and dispassionate consideration might eventually dictate. It is certainly not overstating the case to say that quite possibly the church of 1930 as meeting in Synod was not in a position to judge calmly and deliberately. Fact is, as stated, that opposition to the 1928 liturgy had become general and loud and insistent. It would be nothing strange if this circumstance affected Synod 1930 psychologically and impelled its mind in the direction of yielding to the somewhat clamorous demand of a goodly part of the church. At any rate, it was incumbent upon Synod to weigh the objections registered against the 1928 liturgy. The mere fact that many parties registered many objections does not prove that these objections were valid. Synod is not merely the representative of the church; it is also a body with own responsibilities and with own duties rooting therein.
For this reason it may not gratuitously assume that general and insistent opposition to the 1928 liturgy is right, but must, in independence of judgment, look into the objections urged against and into the merits of, the liturgy that is on trial. As a matter of fact, the Synod of 1930 devoted one half day to the liturgy. It was decided that no speaker should speak for more than 15 minutes at a time. The reading of two lengthy reports consumed a large part of the time actually devoted to the matter. The counselor of the pre-advisory committee, who had defended the 1928 liturgy at length before the committee unavailingly, declared on the floor of Synod that the arguments advanced against the l928 liturgy were demonstrably without any strength whatsoever. The challenge was not accepted in earnest by any of the opponents, of the l928 liturgy. Synod took no time and seemed to be in no mood to listen to an exhaustive defense of the 1928 liturgy commensurate with the exhaustive array of argument piled up against it in the agenda and unpublished communications. The speakers that arose on the floor of the Synod in favor of the 1928 liturgy necessarily had to confine themselves to general remarks. It is an incontrovertible fact that Synod did not hear one tenth of the arguments that could be marshaled in refutation of the charges that were brought against the 1928 liturgy and laid before the church several weeks prior to Synod. While the delegates could read these objections long before Synod convened, the defense of the 1928 liturgy was not as much as heard in the passing, save by the few members of the pre-advisory committee. This committee, indeed, listened patiently to the defense of the 1928 liturgy, as conducted by its counselor, though to the surprise of the latter the quite unanswerable refutation of the arguments levelled against the 1928 liturgy was neither met by any worthwhile attempt at rebuttal, nor as much as mentioned by the committee in the report to Synod.
In view of these circumstances, the abolition of the 1857 liturgy, the non-ecclesiastical standing of the 1930 liturgy, the hasty disposal on the part of Synod of the 1928 liturgy in spite of the fact that the 1928 liturgy was the fruit of the protracted labors of a confessedly (cf. p. 189 of 1930 Acts) fruitful committee and secured the authoritative approval of the Synod of 1928, it is nothing strange that we should build up our discussion of the program of worship around the 1928 liturgy.
This liturgy is constructed as follows; the program is divided into five general groups, each of which contains several items.
The groups are put in the following order:
I Introductory Service
II Service of Reconciliation
III Service of Gratitude
IV Service of the Word
V Closing Service
The several subordinate items are as follows:
I Introductory Service
Either:
A.
1. Votum
2. Salutation
3. Song
Or: B.
1. Song
2. Invocation or Votum
3. Salutation
II Service of Reconciliation
1. Reading of the Decalogue, and, if so desired, of its summary from Matt. 22:37-40
2. Confessional Prayer, or Penitential Psalm, or both
3. Proclamation of Pardon, or Absolution
4. Recitation of Apostles' Creed, preferably in unison
5. Song
III Service of Gratitude
1. General Prayer to be concluded with Our Father, in unison, if so desired.
2. Collection and Song (simultaneous)
3. Offertory Prayer (optional)
IV Service of the Word
1. Scripture prelection
2. Preaching
V Closing Service
1. Prayer
2. Song (with or) without Doxology
3. Benediction, with Doxology if omitted from V2
- - - - - - - - -
Preliminaries
These preliminaries are, as the etymology of the word suggests, extra-liturgical, i.e. they do not constitute a part of the program proper of public worship. They should not be confounded with what are erroneously often called the preliminaries of divine services, viz, the pre-sermonic elements of public worship. These elements are constitutive parts of the liturgy and, therefore, not preliminaries at all. Liturgically, they are on a footing of equality with the sermon. The preliminaries properly so called precede the formal opening of public worship. They are four or five in number, viz. 1. Consistorial pre-liturgical prayer, 2. Pre-Liturgical Procession. 3. Personal pre-liturgical prayer, 4. Organ voluntary and 5. announcements, if no bulletin is used or items are added orally to bulletin. The pre-liturgical congregational song service which some churches have introduced must also be considered.
I. Consistorial pre-liturgical prayer
a. Its origin is uncertain. Dutch church historians hold that it was not in vogue in the Dutch churches before the nineteenth century. Voetius, who treats the subject of Preces Ecclesiasticae exhaustively in his Politica Ecclesiastica (Vol. 1. pp. 481-515), does not as much as allude to it. Rutgers surmises that it came into use at the time of De Afscheiding and was introduced because the need of God's protection against popular and official interference with their religious meetings was keenly felt by the secessionists. When persecution ceased about 1842 the practice had become customary. It was generally continued but naturally adapted to another purpose. At present most of De Gereformeerde Kerken and Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken observe it, though not all. Very few Hervormde Kerken have introduced it.
Its propriety and usefulness have been widely discussed late years in the Netherlands. Some favor its abolition on the ground of superfluity, prayers for the minister and the assembling of the people of God for worship being made in the respective families before service, and by all the members, consistory members and membership, upon coming to church before public worship. While liturgical prayer itself also includes this particular petition. Those favoring abolition because they wish to avoid undue multiplication of prayers are slow, however, to advise discontinuance although they counsel, on grounds stated, against its introduction. The practice has not only become very general in Reformed circles in the Netherlands, but also has endeared itself greatly to other churches that have adopted it. It is needless to say not inherently wrong, though it may conceivably be construed as superfluous. Perhaps nothing has given so many occasions to opposition to this prayer as its degeneration in many instances into an anticipatory duplication of the minister's pastoral prayer and its abusive use in airing ones feeling toward the Minister. Others, however, favor its retention, not only on the ground of its being a tradition that has grown venerable, but also for the reason that it is eminently appropriate, if put to a good specific use. They argue that it need not be duplicatory at all and that its occasional abuse does not properly constitute ground for the abrogation of its proper use. The custom seems to be peculiar to the Dutch churches and the churches of Dutch extraction.
b. Its content and character should be such as to constitute its warrant. It is to be remembered that it is a consistorial prayer, not a personal prayer of the party leading in prayer. Now the consistory is a body; public worship is conducted under their auspices; they are responsible for its proper conduct. The minister officiates and not the elders, it is true, but he functions in his capacity as a member of that body, or, at least, as identified with them upon this particular occasion. Hence the eminent propriety of meeting as consistory before services and of passing into the church as a body. The prayer to be made should, therefore, present the needs of the consistory as the body authoritatively in charge of the services and responsible to God and to His people for the proper conduct of public worship. This purpose gives this particular prayer a specific content. The scope of this prayer then is wider than generally represented. Most writers conceive of it as an invocation of God's blessing upon the minister in his official capacity as liturgete, if not of preacher only. His needs need not be passed by. But the meeting is a consistory meeting and the prayer obviously concerns the consistory in its corporate capacity first and most of all. The minister's needs are remembered specifically in the personal pre-liturgical prayers of the minister himself, of the consistory members and of those attending upon divine worship, as well as in the general or pastoral prayer in public worship itself.
The pre-liturgical prayer of consistory should be marked as regards its character, by appropriateness and brevity in particular. Of course, all other qualities of good prayer in general should be in evidence. It is not superfluous to emphasize the appropriateness to a degree. In many instances these prayers are governed by no specific purpose what so over. Rambling is a rather common fault. If the subject matter is specific and by this token appropriate, there is little danger of running into prolixity, and undue length. It might not be amiss to explain to one's consistory upon some suitable occasion the principles underlying the pre-liturgical consistory meeting and the peculiar purpose and character of this prayer. If those engaging in it make mistakes habitually, a fellow elder (or deacon) had better correct him, instead of the minister, unless it be passed up until the beginning of the new year when the minister again explains for the benefit of newcomers what purpose this prayer is designed to serve. It is not advisable to take up this matter upon occasion of Censura Morum (art. 81, Ch. Order) as Dr. Keizer suggested (Geldersche Kerkbode).
c. Its frequency calls for remark. In some Dutch churches (in the Netherlands) and in all or nearly all of our churches pre-liturgical consistory meeting and prayer are held before every service. In some Netherland churches this prayer is offered only before the first service. Account is taken not so much of the number of the services, as of the fact that the Lord's Day is a unit and that public worship, though spread over several services, is spiritually singular and not plural. One congregation, one Sabbath, one convocation. Good liturgical logic is on the side of the latter practice, it would seem. In some Netherland churches post-liturgical thanksgiving prayers are observed either after every service, or after the last service only. Prof. Aalders (of the Free University) rightly holds that this is really superfluous, though, of course, not wrong per se.
d. Not all are agreed as to who should lead in pre-liturgical consistory prayer. It is generally taken for granted that the minister should not function in this capacity because, as is alleged, this prayer is concerned chiefly with his liturgical needs. However, if the object of this prayer is to invoke God's gracious help upon the consistory as consistory In discharging their duty with respect to public worship, as stated above, there is no valid reason why the minister should not lead in this prayer. That the minister is the presiding officer of consistory does not imply that he alone should perform this office. It is perfectly proper that the elders along with the minister conduct these devotionals in rotation. The deacons are not charged with responsibility for public worship, seeing they are not invested with the office of government. But in case they belong to the consistory, agreeably to art. 37 of the Church Order, and by virtue thereof are assistant elders (as ecclesiastical authorities in the Netherlands call them) it is entirely fitting that they too, in turn function as leaders in pre-liturgical consistory prayer. It may be added that all should take their turn without exception. Ability to lead in prayer on the part of office-bearers in the church may be taken for granted. Perhaps a prayer formulary might aid those who are youthful and inexperienced. This prayer not being in use before the nineteenth century, no formulary for it was prepared at the time our liturgical prayers were framed and adopted. But our times are not propitious, at least among ourselves, for the introduction of prayer formularies.
2. Pre-Liturgical Procession
Strictly speaking this procession is pre-liturgical, i.e. it is not itself a part of public worship. However, it leads up to public worship directly and as such is closely related to it. We have already discussed the propriety of meeting as a consistory previous to public worship. It would seem to follow that it is altogether appropriate that the consistory enter the sanctuary in a body. In the Netherlands practice in this regard is not uniform. In some churches the deacons and all the elders, except two or even one, repair to their seats individually at such time as they happen to arrive at the church. One or two elders meet with the minister for pre-liturgical and consistorial prayer. Upon conclusion of the latter, one of the elders leads the minister to the foot of the platform or pulpit, and, grasping and shaking the minister's hand, extends to him his wish that God may bless him in his pulpit labors. The second elder, if present, follows the minister and proceeds to "het voorlezersbankje" to announce the opening psalter number before or after the pronouncement of the Votum, and to read Scripture and the Decalogue or the Apostles' Creed. It may be remarked that the consistorial pre-liturgical prayer would seem to imply that the consistory should be present in a body and not merely by representation. In addition, the visible manifestation of the corporate unity of the consistory before the congregation, if not wholly lost insofar as the consistory members sit together, in reserved seats, is nevertheless somewhat impaired by the desultory entrance of its members. In other churches in the Netherlands the members of consistory, both deacons and elders assemble in the consistory room for pre-liturgical prayer, and then proceed to their seats in the church. The minister and one or two elders remaining behind until the set time has come, in the fashion already described. Needless to say this procedure, too, does not do full justice to the exhibition of the corporate unity with which the consistory is invested. As to the practice of "opleiding", as the elder's escort of the minister to the pulpit is styled, it is intended to bring out symbolically the important fact that the minister is to conduct public worship under the auspices of the consistory and not on his own account as a free lance. The elder represents the consistory, and the function devolves upon the several elders by rotation. The action is an innocent and harmless one, but it can hardly be construed as necessary. The very fact that the minister is attended by the consistory as he enters the sanctuary to perform his liturgical task is proof sufficient that he has its sanction for the labors upon which he is entering. Moreover, the precedence of the elder in the liturgical procession is not symbolically in harmony with the circumstance that the minister is the head of the consistory, ordinarily, in the case of a regular incumbent, and in ecclesiastical principle in the case of a guest liturgete. Moreover, the wish expressed at the foot of the pulpit in name of the consistory by the "opleider" is plainly superfluous, if the minister's needs have been remembered in pre-liturgical consistorial prayer. In some churches in the Netherlands it is customary for the consistory to enter the auditorium in full numbers, the representative elder leading the van, tho elders and deacons, respectively, following in order of seniority.
Just a word may at this juncture be said regarding the matter of sitting together as a consistory. This practice is very general, if not unexceptional in the Netherlands. Our churches are of Dutch ecclesiastical derivation and have brought Dutch ecclesiastical and liturgical traditions to America. The last mentioned mode of liturgical procession is still very common among us, barring, in many instances at least, the "opleiding" feature. Similarly, we have retained rather generally until recent times the seating en bloc of the consistory, Lately some consistories of our English-speaking churches have abandoned this immemorial practice of the church of our ancestors. One of the pleas upon which the new practice is based is the desire, if not the need, with a view to the care of small children, of sitting with the family. Now it would hardly be correct to call all the liturgical practices of our Reformed Fathers principles. From the nature of the case several liturgical actions are symbolical and symbolism can hardly be construed as a categorical imperative, at least a particular symbolism. Yet after all has been said, it remains true that the liturgical procession and the separate and en bloc seating of consistory was not arbitrary and without a definite reason. It is nothing unusual for corporations to enter in a body upon certain occasions, if they sustain a close and direct relation to the specific purpose of the meeting, e.g. funerals. Consistory is a body indeed, and as such distinct from the mass of the membership. They are a distinct corporation not only during the week when they engage in the government of the church, but also on the Lord's Day. For, as stated above, they call the congregation to worship, speaking ecclesiastically; they make provision for the liturgical needs of the congregation, they are responsible for the orderly and edifying progress of public worship. These indubitable facts, the liturgical procession and the sitting together, were designed to render visible and to impress upon the mind of the worshipping congregation. It would hardly be correct to say that we of today are no longer in need of this visual instruction. When consistory members come into the church and seat themselves desultorily, the only opportunity to manifest their corporate unity and to impress the congregation with the existence of a consistory in a concrete and tangible fashion is lost. That being the case, the minister is likely to begin to feel as if he is conducting the meeting after the fashion of a lecturer who is filling a speaking engagement and the people readily fall in line with such a dominocratic tendency, if the minister alone fills the whole orbit of ecclesiastical and liturgical services, the deacons excepted as long as they pass the collection plates. It is not impossible that the spirit back of the discontinuance of the tradition of the Netherland Reformed Churches is the democratic tendency, so strong and so current in our age and day, of levelling all distinctions as much as possible
3. Personal pre-liturgical prayer
Personal pre-liturgical prayer is a commendable custom. It is not obligatory either ecclesiastically or morally. Failure to practice it is not censurable, neither does it constitute proof of spiritual delinquency. If one should contend that he has already prayed to God at home for His blessing upon divine worship and avow that he does not feel the need of repeating this prayer in God's House before the service begins, he could not rightly be charged with negligence and be made the object of reproof. Only in the event he should condemn the custom would he act unwarrantably. For, though he might conceivably put the construction of needless repetition of prayer upon it, it is not necessarily a mere, that is, vain repetition. First of all, in the personal prayer sent up to God at arising in the morning of the Lord's Day, God's blessing upon the Day as a whole and its devotional observance is invoked, not exclusive of, it is true, of public worship, but neither confined thereto. Again, in prayer at family worship before repairing to God's house, regard is taken of the Sabbath in general, that is, its observance in private devotions as well as in public celebration. Besides, family prayers, as pronounced representatively by the head of the family, should be, from the nature of the case, general rather than specifically personal. Yet it hardly required mention that the liturgical observance of the Lord's Day, in distinction from its personal and family celebration, fittingly receives special attention in prayer, not only on the part of the assembly corporately in liturgical prayer, but also on the part of every participant in public worship individually. For it goes without saying that public worship, upon occasion of which God visits a special blessing upon His people through the divinely ordained means of grace, and His people bring Him a special sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise, is the summit of religious life on earth and the heyday of the recurrent weekly cycle. In public worship God and His people come together and fellowship in a very special sense and manner. Heaven for the nonce descends on earth, or, better still, earth rises to heaven. The tides of eternity rise and flood the plains of time. The supreme importance of the occasion would seem to suggest to every worshipper that upon entering the place where God is wont to meet with His people and will presently appear representatively to welcome them, he should in prayer remove his shoes from his feet, since his feet are standing here on holy ground.
The same practice may also be urged from a negative consideration. There are various circumstances that are quite often attendant upon divine worship and that may easily prove distracting to the worshipper. Family turmoil incidental to preparation for public worship; scenes met with on the way to God's House; the sight of people either in or out of the church may have a chilling effect upon the prospective worshipper's devotional fervor. And, last, but not least, the devil, as the adage has it, builds his chapel wherever God establishes His temple. The arch-enemy of God and implacably bitter foe of His people certainly bends every nerve to rob God of the praises of His people and to intercept the blessings intended by God for His saints. He well knows that if public worship on the first day of the week fails of its purpose, spiritual progress during the week days has been effectually impeded. The devil hardly fears anything more than Sunday services charged with the highly spiritual dynamic of the working of God's Spirit in the hearts of His saints met for worship. A prayer for the reception of the fullest measure of God's Sabbatic grace and against the hostile forces bent upon cheating him out of what God has in store for him, and God out of the sacrifice brought to His courts, is, to say the least, very far from being out of order. It is, on the contrary, most seemly, if not positively necessary. In conclusion it may be remarked, that a very personal prayer is eminently fitting, since every believer participates individually and personally in public and common worship, as it is called in distinction from private and personal worship. No two worshippers are exactly alike, have precisely the same needs, perform their part of the liturgical service in quite the same way, though they have, of course, many things in common and in a sense strive toward a common goal. And the appropriate occasion for this personal prayer, preparatory to the liturgical prayers uttered representatively by the officiating liturgete, would seem to be the time of arrival at the House of prayer.
Membership, consistory, and the minister should alike engage in this pre-liturgical personal prayer. Children should be taught at an early age what public worship means and how one should conduct himself in the House of God. On the basis of this liturgical instruction, it can, no doubt, be made plain that prayer to God behooves us when God is about to meet with us. In this connection it may, too, be remarked that the time spent in God's House pre-liturgically should not be utilized for conversation, but for solemn reflection upon the day, its significance, its proper celebration and particularly the impending meeting of God with His people. Conversation is distracting to those engaging in it and the dull hum of conversation constitutes a positive nuisance for the worshipper who is attuning his soul to the praise of his God. Though less offensive and hurtful, preoccupation with the entrance, seating, and apparel, etc. of other worshippers, is far from commendable. A certain style of architecture constitutes a great temptation to this faulty pre-liturgical behaviour.
The consistory members should not neglect this prayer. Their needs in this respect do not differ from those of the ordinary members. If anything, they have greater need of it than others, for every one of them is charged personally as well as the consistory as a whole, corporately, with a very grave responsibility in respect of the proper conduct of public worship. The pre-liturgical consistorial prayer has reference to the latter matter, but it puts the emphasis on the corporate responsibility, not on the personal duty. But apart from this, it does not meet the other needs of the elder or deacon as a Christian worshipper. Some consistories still observe the custom, imported, like many other liturgical practices, from the Netherlands, of praying in a standing posture. There is no reason why they should be prohibited from doing so. In fact, as a matter of fitting symbolism, it is far better to pray standing than sitting. There are only two appropriate prayer postures: standing and kneeling. Our pew facilities are really prohibitive of genuflection; in some instances they render even standing in prayer rather difficult, if not impossible. But sitting betokens neither lofty respect for the majesty of God such as is symbolically expressed in standing, nor the humble obeisance suggested by the kneeling attitude of the body.
But if the membership remain seated during prayer, both before and during liturgical services, the standing position of the consistory suggests that their posture has reference to their official position. This, however, is not the case. Their personal pre-liturgical prayer is not official. For this reason they had better conform to the practice of the membership, unless we can introduce a standing posture in prayer as a general practice. But history proves that our people move very slowly in the direction of liturgical changes, and are not particularly enamored of the ideal of liturgical symbolism.
The minister, too, engages in personal pre-liturgical prayer. Some liturgetes pray at the foot of the platform in a standing position, others pray on the platform in a sitting posture. Now it is clear that the first practice deserves preference. The platform is official ground. Whatever is done on the pulpit is official performance, either by way of representing God in the a parte Dei elements of public worship or by way of representing the congregation in the a parte ecclesiae elements thereof. The personal and the official should be carefully distinguished not only in thought inwardly, but also in physical respect outwardly. Hence the propriety of conducting one's personal prayer as a liturgete at the foot of the pulpit. Circumstances, of course, require that the minister pray in a standing posture at the foot of the platform.
Before dismissing the subject, attention may be called to a suggestion made in the Netherlands, to the effect that all alike, membership, consistory, and minister, engage in the personal pre-liturgical prayer simultaneously, when the minister reaches the base of the platform. One of the reasons urged in favor of this practice is that personal prayer is often rendered exceedingly difficult by the turmoil incidental to the filing of the people into the pews and the buzz of conversation, not to mention the playing of the voluntary. The difficulty referred to is by no means illusory. Nevertheless the practice suggested is not as commendable as it might seem at first thought. To begin with, the psychological moment for engaging in this personal prayer would seem to be none other than the moment of entering God's House and taking one's place in the auditorium. Besides, the disturbance complained of can be materially reduced, if proper measures are taken by way of quiet ushering, politeness on the part of those wishing to enter a pew in which a worshipper is seated and engaged in personal prayer. And last, not least, the simultaneous bowing of heads in personal prayer apart from the difficulty of a simultaneous conclusion, bears too great a resemblance to liturgical, i.e. congregational prayer, the only difference being the Quaker-like silence.
4. The Organ Voluntary
The Organ Voluntary serves an indubitably useful purpose, if governed, in respect of selection and execution, by the idea of worship. The circumstances incidental to the assembling of the congregation for worship are not conducive to the preparation for worship that is so essential to proper participation in these holy offices. They are calculated to set at nought the exercises of mind and heart gone through at home with a view to creating the spirit of worship. Should the latter have been neglected, the danger is so much the greater that the people will not be prepared to meet their God when He appears in their midst, liturgically speaking, and graciously greets His people through His official representative.
The circumstances referred to hardly need mention and it is certainly not necessary to demonstrate their disturbing and distracting influence. Those entering the sanctuary seat themselves sporadically, instead of filling up the pews in regular order. Their entrance and seating cannot fail to catch the eye of those already present. If those seen coming in are acquaintances their appearance will inevitably set various trains of thought in motion; it is not altogether unlikely that the sight of some gives rise to unpleasant thoughts. If they are strangers curiosity is naturally aroused. It is not implied that the emotions stirred by the sight of friends and dear ones are necessarily promotive of the proper liturgical attitude. The point made is that pre-occupation with our fellow-men, other than necessary for joining with them in acts of worship, is an impediment to the spirit of eager expectancy with which we ought to anticipate God's approach in worship, to His people, and hail His appearance when in divine salutation He extends His merciful welcome to them, If we should fail to recognize the pertinence of this remark, it is clue, no doubt, to failure on our part to realize the awful solemnity marking God's advent to His people. God is surely the gracious Father of his people, the whole fact of worship, as assembling with God, attests this blessed truth; apart from grace and mercy God places an infinite moral distance between Himself, the Holy One of Israel, and sinners. But, however true it is that God has become the loving and tender Father of believers, he is antecedently, in respect alike of logical order and empirical sequence, their Sovereign Lord, clothed with unspeakable majesty and august in the dazzling glory of His transcendent holiness. Cf. Isa. 6:1-8; Ps. 29:9; Hab. 2:20. Now the fact that we have been reconciled to God through the death of His Son and have been justified through faith in His Name, far from reducing our awe of God, has rather heightened our reverence for His glorious greatness. Moreover, though justified as perfectly, as freely, we are in respect Of sanctification exceedingly imperfect, indeed; and feel that the very first thing to do after the introductory part of the service, is to confess our sins humbly and penitently after God has promulgated His law as the exclusive basis of fellowship with Him.
Now it goes without saying that spiritual readiness to wait upon a God of such majestic grace and gracious majesty is incompatible with the intense exercise of the ordinary social instinct. Public opinion in our country has it that high socialability is not only consistent with divine worship, but its natural and proper concomitant. It is plausibly argued that public worship is common or social worship, and that on this account both the pre- and the post- liturgical situation allows of, if it does not call for, the observance of social amenities. Now it may be observed that a plea for an anti-, or even for an unsocial spirit upon occasions of public worship would utterly be without warrant. Individualism is never in order, but in public worship it would certainly be wholly out of place. In fact, it should be granted that a selfish disregard, if only negative in character, of our fellow-believers when God's people appear before Him peculiarly in their corporate capacity, destroys the very rationale of public, in distinction from private worship apart from the objection that a selfish spirit is incongruous even with the genius of private worship.
But the sociability commended by public opinion and widely practiced in our land, can hardly be called positively liturgical and distinctly religious fellowship. If it answered to the description of Ps. 66:16-20; Jer. 31:34, and Ps. 34:3, there might be little reason to find fault with the custom in discussion, except insofar as one might believe that just before and after worship is not the best time for this intrinsically excellent religious practice. In defense of this latter position it may be plausibly contended that supreme pre-occupation with the special presence of God and with the duties to be personally, though not individually, performed and the blessing to be so received, is hardly consistent psychologically with a relatively high degree of social intercourse. But this consideration apart, it is doubtful whether those protagonizing the customary social prelude and postlude of public worship are prepared to grant that these conversations should necessarily turn on matters related directly to the public occasion observed. But it requires little imagination to conceive of these communings as tending toward a decided obscuration of the sacred character of the Day in general and of the special occasion in particular, if not kept within the limits of the things of eternity and heaven, agreeably to the genius of the day. For it is very obvious, indeed, that the liturgical observance of the major part of the day proceeds upon the assumption that the purpose of the day lies specifically in the shift of emphasis from the cosmic and natural interests of life to the supernatural, celestial and eternal values that are associated with the world to come. This purpose should properly govern the spirit in which the day is observed; and this spirit manifestly precludes indulgence in the social amenities that belong to the workaday life before and after Sabbatic public worship.
Returning from this little digression to the subject in hand, viz. the distracting circumstances attendant upon gathering in the House of God and the need of their neutralization, if they cannot be cancelled, it may be remarked that much may be done to reduce their measure. The worshipper already present can engage in reading the Bible or Psalter, and in connection therewith dwell in devotional meditation upon the elements of the liturgy, or the text of the sermon if announced, after having engaged in personal pre-liturgical prayer. He can, if he so desires, withdraw attention from such turmoil and bustle as happens to prevail within his sight or his hearing. Being lost in contemplation of the Magnalis Dei is an art that is practised far too little today, sad to say; but it is not at all impossible to acquire it, if one be bent upon learning its secret.
The worshipper may be materially aided in achieving his purpose of preparing for public worship pre-liturgically, by a few simple remedies such as the following: First of all, worshippers should habituate themselves to as quiet and inaudible a progress to their pews as possible. No unnecessary speaking should be indulged in; if necessary, it should be done in hushed tones. Good carpeting in aisles and, if possible over the whole floor, should be put in. The architecture of the church-building, and particularly the arrangement of the so-called auditorium, should be an aid instead of a hindrance to the mental and spiritual concentration and contemplation of the worshipper. An assembly room built on the order of a square, or well-nigh so, is not so conducive to the purpose specified especially if the seats be arranged in amphitheatre style as one of oblong form. If seats are placed semi-circularly their occupants are obtruded upon the sight of those seated opposite them. This arrangement is obviously ill-suited to the relative privacy that the occasion requires. In an auditorium longer than wide there is no call and occasion for this objectionable feature. Every congregation contemplating the erection of a church-building, should make sure that the style of architecture is not only in good taste generally, but both symbolically and pragmatically suited to the specific purpose to be served. It has not always been borne in mind that there is a wide difference architecturally between a lyceum or lecture ball and a place of worship. It is oft forgotten that, though the latter should by all means be an auditorium ("gehoorzaal") it should be more than that. Its architectural arrangement should breathe the spirit of a temple and inspire those entering its doors with the sentiments gathering about a sanctuary. Every feature should somehow impress one symbolically with the dominant presence of God.
The ways and means of inducing pre-liturgical quiet and decorum mentioned above are of a somewhat negative character, though not necessarily and entirely so. They were contemplated as exercising a restraining and neutralizing influence upon the interference with the pre-liturgical devotions of the worshippers incidental to the occupation of the sanctuary by the congregation. It is apparent, however, that such measures as religious reading and meditation before services and the architectural design of the place of meeting do not only actually affect the worshipper positively in the direction of preparing him for public worship, but were designed to do so, be it on the part of the worshipper personally, or on the part of the congregation that built the place of worship.
Special measures have been devised to aid in the important work of preparing the stage inwardly for the fruitful conduct of public worship. In the Dutch churches (Netherlands) pre-liturgical Scripture prelection was in vogue at one time; at another time singing was introduced; both were intended to reduce the audience that grew noisier as it waxed larger, to quiet and decorum. These practices are certainly far from commendable, however well intended. It is plainly out of keeping with the dignity of the Word of God, whether read or sung, to be used as a pacifier for a restless throng. Furthermore, these measures were exceedingly unpedagogical. An audience that has come to worship God ought not to be treated like children in a nursery. They should be made to see that noisiness, exhibitions of curiosity, producing a drone, and the like are wholly out of order in such a place and upon such an occasion.
The Organ Voluntary (or the piano solo) that has been introduced very generally in our churches serves the same purpose, but in a far better way. It should be observed first of all that it does not have its purpose in itself like the elements of public worship, such as prayer, song, preaching, etc. Its purpose here is purely instrumental. In distinction from the use of the organ or piano in accompaniment of congregational singing, the pre-liturgical, and for that matter, the post-liturgical voluntary is not an auxiliary to a particular item of worship. It is employed to occupy the minds of those present and those entering and leaving the auditorium and to repress the exercise of individuality that constitutes a source of annoyance to those bent upon devotion. The choice of instrumental music as the means of accomplishing this end is based upon considerations that commend themselves at once to our reason. Music belongs to the sphere of art and, hence, appeals to man's emotional nature; possibly more so than any other art. The feelings which music stirs are, generally speaking, less capable of being intellectually sublimated and ethically interpreted than those engendered by the other arts. Music, no doubt, owes its almost universal popularity to this fact. Vocal music would be calculated to centre the attention of the audience upon the person singing, and proportionately diminish the emotional appeal of the music rendered, particularly in view of the fact that the audience is a popular one. The emotional undertone produced by music does not stand in the way of the inculcation of the truths of revelation i.e. of the Gospel, which forms the heart and center of Christian worship, for musical delight as remarked, is slow to crystallize into definite mental representations. At the same time, it renders the mind peculiarly susceptible of noetic impressions. It imparts a certain aptitude for the consideration of ideas when presented, a kind of mental appetite, while it also possesses qualities that from their very nature stimulate to action. Now it is well-known that worship, as a distinct phase of religious life, is, psychologically, predominately emotional. On that score it differs from mental and manual work religiously performed. Mental work engages the intellectual capacities of the soul primarily, while manual labor calls into action its volitional capabilities principally. Worship moves specifically in the sphere of the emotions. Music is intrinsically suited to stir and stimulate the liturgical susceptibilities of the soul and to create an atmosphere of worship.
It will do this best, if it answers to several conditions. To begin with, neither the organ nor the organist should be made particularly conspicuous. The organ should not be made the background of the pulpit, but preferably be located at the rear of the church in an elevated organ loft. Physically and symbolically an organ built in the apse (pulpit niche) cannot fail to eclipse the preacher who represents the Word of God and in the a parte Dei elements of worship represents God Himself. If it must be located there, let it be as inconspicuous as possible. The current style is going in this direction fortunately. If the organ and organist are not present to view, the music will seem to descend as out of the very Heavens of God. Localizing the source of music, as far as the sight of the instrument and the performer is concerned, has a deterent effect upon the Sursum corda spirit that the peals of the noble instrument is designed to foster.
The music played should be suited to the purpose in hand. Not all music is adapted to pre-liturgical purposes. It should not be stirring, exciting, wild; it would vitiate its effect if it drew attention to itself, or to the performer. To serve its purpose best, it must be psychologically conducive to the cultivation of a calm, restful, devout spirit. The worshipper must be so affected that his thoughts involuntarily ascend on high to God and linger in those Heavenly courts. The strains should not fill his consciousness, but play in the fringe of his conscious mind. The music should be well rendered. There is no singing to hide instrumental defects. Faulty playing would draw attention to the music and defeat the very purpose for which the Voluntary is played, viz. lifting the soul of the worshipper to the other world, to the things of eternity and of God. It may be observed in this connection that both art and worship have for their primary canon the categorical imperative of perfection; they are absolute in their demands. Bad, bungling art is not only no art, it is horrible and ugly; instead of delighting it wounds the aesthetic susceptibilities of the soul. The genius of religion in general and of worship in particular is aptly formulated in the words of Jesus (Matt. 5:48) "Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." It is well to remember that the liturgete should be punctilious to the point of meticulousness. The spirit of correctness and decorum should possess all concerned. Even the janitor should be dignified in his demeanor as he performs his Sunday duties upon occasion of public worship.
The playing should begin not later than ten minutes before the services begin. If the auditorium is not too small to contain the congregation, most worshippers will arrive during this time. The voluntary should not be continued after the consistory and minister enter the auditorium. The cessation of playing involuntarily directs attention to the entrance of the ecclesiastical authorities and of "the man of God" who is to lead them in their devotions and to usher them into the very presence of God. Perfect silence for a brief space of time is well adopted to bring the congregation to a clear realization of the momentous character of the exercises presently to be performed. Worship should not fail to make a full use of the psychology of attention.
5. Announcements, if not made by printed bulletin, should be made preferably before the opening of the meeting, that is previous to the pronouncement of the Votum. The minister should make no announcement, except by order of consistory. He should prepare the announcements in advance and submit them for approval to the consistory just before prayer and entrance into the church. The announcements should be both brief and well-phrased; it is best not to trust to the gift of extemporaneous speech, at least if the matter concerned requires caution and precision. Indiscretions committed in announcements are a bad prelude for good liturgical work. The subject-matter of announcements also calls for remark. The church is not a publishing agency of which all worthy causes may avail themselves, at least not today. There was a time when the man in the pulpit was the only vocal organ of society and the pulpit was practically the only Bulletin-board. But that situation now belongs to the past well-nigh everywhere. It may not be easy to draw a hard and fast line. But a good general rule to go by is, that only matters that are themselves ecclesiastical in their nature or that concern the life and work of the church more or less directly, should be admitted for Sunday publication. Strictness is better in this connection than laxity. Matters that are involved in unsettled controversy are not desirable material for announcements. If consistory is not agreed as to the propriety of the announcement, consideration should be postponed and the announcement suspended. It is spiritually dangerous to carry the atmosphere of dissent and debate into the House of God. In the event Bulletins are used the incorporation or exclusion of materials must be determined upon toward the close of the week. The matter can not very well be submitted to the whole consistory, in view of the fact that many matters are brought up just before the Bulletin goes to press. Consistory should settle upon some general policy governing the matter of Bulletin material, and appoint a standing committee, to which dubious matters may be referred for decision by the consistorial publication committee, be it the secretary of the consistory or the minister. If the Bulletin is to contain only formal notices, analogously to oral announcements, the secretary may well edit it. But the occasion which a Bulletin offers for literary pastoral work should not be neglected. For this kind of work the minister is naturally best qualified. Ordinarily a page should be conserved for material of this kind. A passage from Scripture, a stanza from the Psalter, or Hymnal and a carefully chosen or well prepared paragraph of devotional literature will serve the purpose acceptably. Of course, the program may be varied from time to time. In addition, the Bulletin should contain the Directory of the Church, the schedule of catechism classes and society meetings, the Special Order of Worship including the text on Lord's Day, printed in full if possible, to be used in preaching and the Psalter or Hymnal numbers. If the consistory does not publish a Bulletin, the schedule of catechism classes and society meetings should be posted in large and clear type in the Bulletin Board suspended upon the exterior front wall of the church. The advantages of a printed Bulletin are so manifest, that they hardly need mention. Attention may be directed to one advantage that bears directly upon the liturgical success of the service. If announcements are orally made a heavy demand may have to be made upon the memory of the parishioner. The determination to remember what was said may hamper the full abandon to the program of worship that is essential to perfect participation. In the case of a printed Bulletin all matters that are not of immediate concern may be forthwith dismissed from the mind. The use of Bulletins obviates the need of Auditorium Bulletin boards. Bulletins should by all means be gotten out neatly. A picture of the church building is a desideratum. Enough copies should be printed to supply every worshipper over sixteen years of age.
- - - - - - -
Pre Liturgical Congregational Song Service
Before passing from the Preliminaries of Public Worship to the Liturgy itself, it is necessary to discuss a feature that has lately been introduced into some of our churches, viz. the pre-liturgical congregational song service. It is prefixed to the evening service only. It is pre-liturgical for it immediately precedes public worship, and is held in the auditoriums where, upon its close, public worship is conducted. It is congregational, at least in intent, for it is not specially organized like the program of a choral society; it is not held under the auspices of a particular organization, and as remarked, it is staged in the auditorium of the church building.
This innovation is open to several objections. To begin with, the resort to extra-liturgical song on the part of the congregation on the Lord's Day in immediate conjunction with regular public worship, proceeds upon the assumption that the liturgical service either does not properly allow of song service, or, if it rightly comprehends the service of praise, does not give sufficient scope to this element of worship. Now the first assumption, if basic to the new practice, is so obviously erroneous that it may be summarily dismissed. The churches which introduced this song service include song in their program of worship, even in the services to which they prefix it. The alternate assumption, viz. that the element of praise does not come to its own in the regular liturgy, is either not correct, or, if correct, does not shut us up to the remedy applied. As to the implied complaint, there is no divine law requiring a given measure of praise, nor is there a manifest liturgical principle governing the exact proportion of praise proper to public worship. The only restriction that the nature and genius of public worship places upon the volume of praise is that no public worship is complete without the publication of the Word of God. The Church cannot properly meet with God and bar Him from, speaking to His people. For the rest, the circumstances, taking the term in a wide sense, determine the particular measure of song in divine services. The volume of praise may vary conceivably among different peoples; negro Christians might be expected to indulge in psalmodic effusions to a greater degree than the sturdy Scotchman or the stolid Dutchman. Even the same church might apply crescendo and diminuendo alternately, either according to a set rule, or according to circumstances. For instance, if so desired, praise might proponderate in the evening service, while the morning service is governed more largely by the didactic element. In case of special occasions, such as the termination of war, or the discontinuance of a grievous epidemic, or the celebration of an anniversary, say golden, of the church, there would be nothing inherently improper in allowing the praise element to preponderate in divine service. As a matter of fact, we have provision in our Church Order (Art. 66) for services in which the element of Prayer predominates. As observed above, the Word of God may never be lacking. Prayer would very naturally not be omitted.
The churches that adopted pre-liturgical congregational singing, should have enriched the praise element of their evening public worship by incorporation of a larger measure of song into the liturgy, organically, instead of appending a special song service to the service, mechanically. But there are still other objections. The song service was no doubt introduced to afford the congregation opportunity for the joining of hearts and voices in praise unto God. At the same time, it cannot help becoming a preparation for public worship, for it is held in the auditorium and immediately precedes divine services. But can it serve as such acceptably? Hardly! First of all, it is not at all certain that the proper orderliness can prevail. Attendance cannot be required. The song service is outside the program of public worship and it begins before the regular time set for public worship. Worshippers may come in during the progress of the song service; it is their right. But they cannot possibly escape disturbing the meeting, unless those attending the song service occupy the front part of the church. This, however, is really an infringement of the rights of the other members. It also goes without saying that the circumstances are hardly suitable for the personal pre-liturgical prayer in which those entering during the song service seek to engage, not to mention the cultivation of devotion which they wish to exercise antecedently to public worship. It may also be possibly urged that such a song service is not really a preparation for public worship; it is materially, though not formally, a part of public worship. As such it would seem itself to be in need of preparation. Furthermore, it is not suited to the purpose of preparation, though it is compelled to render that service in spite of itself, for the reason that it is out of line with the psychology of worship. The latter certainly required that the soul quietly wait on God when the time of His gracious advent approaches. But a song service surely is not a season of quiet, awesome waiting upon the Lord and who would expect an earthly king to enter while those seeking an audience with Him are bursting forth in song!
Again, the practice under discussion cannot be very helpful to fine liturgical discrimination. There is a difference between liturgical and non-liturgical singing. In the first instance song is addressed to God who has met with His people to receive their praises; it is a sacrifice of praise laid upon the altar raised to Him in His temple; it is sustained by the spirit of dedication. In the second instance (non-liturgical) song serves an entirely different immediate purpose, though, of course, like all that the Christian does, it is done, if done in faith, to the glory of God. It is primarily a means either of self-expression, or of mutual entertainment, or of both. This distinction should be observed in the interest of liturgical consciousness and clarity. There is too little liturgical sense abroad. It is the plain tendency of our times to efface distinctions, to equate differences and to reduce all things whatsoever to essential sameness. This bias of the modern mind also accounts for failure, if not aversion, to distinguish between ecclesiastical worship and private devotions, and between the elements of worship in and out of the official framework of a liturgical gathering. It is gratuitously assumed that singing is simply singing, as prayer is simply prayer, and speaking God's Word is simply speaking God's Word no matter when, where, by whom and under what circumstances.
Now the pre-liturgical congregational singing is extra-liturgical, or non-liturgical. But immediately afterward the congregation engages in liturgical song. Bringing the two so closely together and under outward circumstances so much alike, is fraught with the undeniable danger of confirming the people in their impression that it is all the same.
Another objection may be urged, viz. the lack of proper organization and what is involved therein. Though, no doubt, done with the consent of consistory, it is nevertheless not done under the auspices of consistory. Now the gathering is a meeting in a sense; it must have at least some rudimentary organization: a leader is simply indispensable. Our Reformed Church Polity and ecclesiastical practice recognize only two kinds of congregational meetings; meetings for worship and meetings for ecclesiastical business. Both are held under consistorial auspices. A congregational meeting with no more warrant than mere consistorial consent (that is, a negative warrant: we do not object and prohibit) is ecclesiastically an anomaly. If consistory should be present to the last member, that would not remedy matters, for consistory would not be present in its official corporate capacity, unless it deigned to function in the capacity of the officers of a singing class. But this latter accommodation would clearly be devoid of ecclesiastical status; in other words, they would not be a consistory when conducting a choral society, even though the membership be co-extensive with the congregation, for the simple reason that the constitution of the church contains no provision for such consistorial activities.
The lack of proper organization may be gathered from the fact that these pre-liturgical congregational meetings are not based upon a constitution duly ratified by the members, and approved by the consistory. They are in consequence not restricted to specified activities. The congregation in its new capacity of a choral society, has no officers, none having been duly appointed by the society. Yet the meetings are held regularly. Another feature, too, betrays the loose organization of these congregational meetings: they are neither opened nor concluded with prayer. Those sponsoring the innovation would presumably say that this is unnecessary since public worship follows immediately upon the conclusion of the song service. But this explanation would clearly show that it advocates incline toward the view that in effect, if not formally, the song service is a part of the evening worship, and that the prayer of the latter holds good for the former. It is apparent, however, that such a line of reasoning tends toward the obliteration of the line of demarcation setting off liturgical from non-liturgical programs and activities.
I. The Introductory Service.
The Introductory Service, as it is called, comprises three numbers: Votum, Salutation and Song. The name of this first group of numbers is subject to misunderstanding. It is, strictly speaking, not introductory to worship, but itself a part of worship, barring, perhaps, the Votum. "Opening Service" would be a better designation. This name, too, is purely formal, like "Introductory Service"; it is difficult to find a name that covers the diverse elements comprehended in this group. The term service, applied, to all the major sections of the liturgy is not unobjectionable, as was pointed out elsewhere. The character of this first group of liturgical numbers will be best understood by studying them severally.
A. The Votum
1. The Name is of Latin derivation (voveo vovere vovi votum) meaning to promise, vow, devote and also, to wish, desire. Literally, Votum signifies the thing dedicated or desired. Technically the term bears the first of these two meanings; it puts worship in the light of a sacrifice brought and dedicated to God, the performance of a vow made to God while absent from His courts. The term has a distinctly religious connotation and peculiarly liturgical implications, for sacrifices are rendered unto God and are brought to His temple.
The term is burdened with two objections, in spite of its beautiful suggestiveness. First of all, worship is a mutual affair; God receives and meets His people; both are active, not only the saints, but also the Lord, their God. Votum, however, leaves God's activities entirely out of account despite the fact that God takes precedence in all things in worship; we meet at His behest, in His name, on His Day, in His house, round about His word, to His honor. "Votum" puts man unduly in the foreground. It may be said in extenuation that practically all the names given to what is known as public worship are as one-sided as "Votum." Service, worship, Godsdienstoefening, eeredienst, cultus, LATREIA, all these names leave God's participation out of account. Yet the Liturgy (1928) contains six elements a parte Dei; moreover, God is the first and the last to act: Salutation and Benediction are acts of God. Now it should be observed that it is natural that in speaking of worship we should approach the matter from the human point of view. Again, man's part in worship is obligatory in view of the sovereign rights of God, while God's acts in worship are done in unbeholden goodness; this would seem to accentuate man's contributions to worship. As long as we do not possess a name for worship that is comprehensive of the two phases of the transaction, the weakness of the term Votum should not be stressed, though it should of course, neither be denied. — The other objection to which the term Votum is open is that, as a past participle, it connotes result rather than action. The liturgical act called Votum, however, is not the thing devoted, consecrated; it is the act of dedicating, devoting what is to follow to God as a spiritual sacrifice. If the idea of consecration (Toewijding) must be retained as basic to this particular exercise (Votum), dedication would be better suited to the purpose. As to the legitimacy of the notion of consecration, public worship is not itself the thing consecrated, as the term Votum seems to imply, but it is the solemn and set occasion upon which the people of God consecrate themselves and the fruits of their weekly labors (cf. the collection) to the Lord. Public Worship, then, does not need dedication, itself is, on its formal side, an act of consecration, as far as God's people, as one of the two parties engaged in worship, are concerned. In conclusion the Votum as a liturgical act, performed by the officiant, should not be confounded with the formulary employed. The latter had better been called the Votive or Dedicatory Formulary. "Votum" can then be retained for the liturgical act as such.
2. The Purpose of the Votum has been variously construed. It is neither a Call to worship, nor a Prayer, nor an Optation, as different liturgicians suggest.
a. It is not a Call to Worship; that service is rendered in a sense by the ringing of the church-bell some time (one-half or (and) one quarter of an hour) before the beginning of worship. The use of bells to peal forth the call to worship goes back to the fifth century, Gregory of Tours (France) who died 599 A.D. is credited with the introduction of ecclesiastical use of bells. Before his days, use was made of a trumpet and other portable instruments to summon the people to the House of God, In the west the use of church-bells was very general by the year 800 A.D.; during the course of the ninth century they were widely introduced in the East. It was realized that a high elevation of the bells promoted their carrying power; belfries were accordingly built. In Italy these belfries were quite generally built beside the church and are known as campaniles (from campana, bell, because they were made in the Italian province of Campagne). A few campaniles are found in Germany and the Netherlands. Under the influence of Zwingli the Swiss churches were averse to bell-ringing in connection with worship from reaction against Roman Catholic superstitious practices linked up with the use of bells. Gradually these prejudices wore off. Even the Puritans did not object, in spite of their anti-symbolical bias in matters of liturgy. Today the absence of a bell is due to lack of means alone; it is universally recognized that the gentle pealing of a church-bell suspended from a lofty tower, is like the descent from heaven of seraphic summons to meet heaven's King and to meditate upon the things that are above. Just before the Votum is pronounced brief tolling is eminently suited to fix the minds of the worshippers upon the program of worship presently to be set into operation.
The Votum is not the call to worship, strictly speaking, no call to worship is necessary, for the arrival of the Lord's Day as the specific season of worship, constitutes the call to worship. Bell-ringing is only the symbolical expression of the language of the day. In a sense the church needs no other call to worship than the dawning of the Dies Dominica, insofar as a call to worship may imply that it is a judicial summons like a call to arms. God's people realize that Worship is a festive occasion, a season of refreshing rest, a foretaste of the bliss of the better land; their hearts are eager to repair to God's House, as the Psalms clearly show. The Christian worshipper that is at all true to his name is relatively more in need of grace to be submissive when participation in worship must be foregone, than of a call to urge him to avail himself of the opportunity to appear before God. Pss. 27, 42, 43, 63, 84, 122. Of course, not every member of the church answers to this ideal mentality; nor does even the Christian of greatest spirituality always measure up to this standard. But, surely, we are not warranted in construing the idea of worship and its presupposition upon the basis of the weaknesses and faults of God's people. Their faith and God's truth, not their indwelling sin and perversions of the truth, are the bases of liturgical determination. Besides, we have presumed all along that the worshippers have been occupied with the call to worship during the pre-liturgical period, and have been insistent upon such conditions in the sanctuary as are conducive to spiritual preparation for worship. Finally, when the Votum is pronounced worship is to begin forthwith; it presupposes that the call to worship has already been heard and answered.
b. The Votum is not a Prayer. Some liturgicians have so defined it. The Official liturgy of "De Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland," (Editie Rutgers) calls it, "Bede by den Aanvang van de Samenkomst der gemeente," although Rutgers declares that this caption itself does not belong to the official text of the liturgy. It should be borne in mind that the Dordt liturgy (so called for the sake of convenience) contained no Salutation. In this respect the Dutch liturgy copied Calvin who conceived of and used our Votum as the first item of worship and construed it as a prayer, or, at least as an optation. Now the very language employed in the traditional formulary, Ps. l24:8 clearly proves that it is, exegetically, a declaration of fact, a profession of faith, a testimony to God's covenant faithfulness, but not a prayer: it speaks of God in the third person, the words are not addressed, prayer-like to God. Grammatically, not exegetically, the passage can be construed as an Optation i.e. a solemn wish with reference to God. The original reads: our help in the Name of Jehovah, etc.; no copula is used. The copula supplied may be in the subjunctive or optative mood e.g. May our help be, etc. Cf. the Dutch version in general use (not used in the official version which has: "Onze hulpe is," etc.) "Onze hulpe zy," or "Onze hulpe sta." But on this construction the dedicatory or Votive formulary is not a prayer.
Nor should the Votum be a Prayer. The Votum is the very first number on the liturgical program. Now it is a sound liturgical principle, that when God graciously permits His people to meet Him, their mighty Maker and sovereign Lord clothed with majesty and with power, and mercifully receives them in audience upon the occasion of public worship, He takes precedence and addresses His people before they speak to Him. The inversion of this order really constitutes laesa majestatis, though, of course, not so intended. The Votum is neither an optation, i.e. a pious wish solemnly expressed upon a public occasion. As remarked above, the context of Ps. 124:8, whence the traditional and customary Votive formulary is derived does not support this construction exegetically. The official Dutch version which makes the auxiliary verb indicative commends itself. Now the interpretation of the Formulary employed is logically determined by the specific purpose with which the act is performed and not by the sense that can be attached to the words in the abstract. But it would be difficult to conceive of a liturgical reason why God's people should not only take precedence of God by testifying to His truth and their faith in Him before God has officially received them in audience, but also set out with the utterance of a mere wish not directed to God in prayerlike fashion, but representatively expressed by the officiant as a general effusion.
c. The Votum is a Parliamentary act in its purpose and nature; as such it is not liturgical in the strictest sense, but pre-liturgical i.e. prior to, and preparatory for, public worship. Of course, it is manifest that an act so closely related to public worship should be itself quasi-liturgical. Hence the Formulary to be used — of which more below — must be consonant with the occasion. This fact, however, should not obscure the fact that the Votum is introductory in purpose and character. The purpose that the Votum is designed to serve may be viewed from a formal and from a material aspect. In formal respect the Votum is the act of the officiant, or liturgete, whereby he calls the meeting to order. Before the Votum is pronounced, the people present are a crowd, concourse, or multitude, i.e. an unorganized mass of individuals. Organically, these individuals are a unit insofar as they are severally and jointly, as a local group of believers, incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ. Institutionally, too, they are coherent, for they all sustain relation of membership in the local church. But parliamentarily, i.e. as regards the orderly constitution of a public meeting, and liturgically they are not organized into a unit, a corporation, a body, a meeting. This state the Votum is designed to effectuate; by it the mass of individuals are constituted an assembly. There is need of this liturgical incorporation, since the worship in which those present purpose to engage is not private, but public, not personal, but corporate, not individual, but common. The mere fact that those worshipping are gathered in one place, does not render their offices public and common, though it is, of course, an indispensable condition of public and common worship. But not only is organization necessary with a view to the subjective realization of the ideal of public worship. Objectively, too, organization is requisite. For without organization none can act representatively for all others; yet this is imperatively necessary since, from the nature of the case, all could not under the circumstance act for themselves, except it be in silence after Quaker Fashion.
d. In material respect the Votum is the Announcement that God has met with His people to receive their homage and sacrifice and to bestow upon them the blessing of His presence, grace, and word. It will be recalled that royalty has always employed heralds to announce their advent and presence. This belongs to kingly dignity and majesty. Christ had a herald, foretold by prophets, and appearing in the person of John the Baptist, despite the fact that in the days of His flesh He was "a man of sorrows." God does not Himself announce His presence, but engages the services of His duly appointed servants to announce His advent in the midst of His people. The entrance of God to meet, not His children severally, but His people corporately, is contingent upon their liturgical organization into a meeting, and it coincides therewith. The Votum by which the meeting is organized opens the door, liturgically speaking, through which the Father of the heavenly family, the King of the people, the God of the worshippers enters the sacred precincts where His votaries stand with discalced (Ex. 3:5) feet.
It follows from these representations that the pronouncement of the Votum is not an act of the congregation performed representatively through the officiant. Lit. Com. Acts 1920, p. 185. Banner July 5, 1929 Med. by Rev. Ghysels on the Benediction and. its meaning. Ouderlingen Blad Aug. 1924 p. 327, Jan. '26, p. 534, Feb. 1930 p. 1121. To begin with, prior to this announcement the congregation is not liturgically organized and hence incapable, technically, of the act contemplated. Furthermore, it follows from the material implications of the Dedicatory Act called Votum, that the people, even if they were organized and could act representatively, cannot logically announce God's presence to themselves. Such an act requires that a representative of God, taken from among God's people, serve in this capacity. Viewing the Votum, then, from its material side, it is an Actus a parte Dei. However, it may also be construed as an Actus a parte ecclesiae, insofar as it is, on its formal score, the calling of the meeting or worshippers to order, and the people of God have the God-given right to meet in organized fashion to worship God. Yet it is better not to stress this feature, for the simple reason that the material aspects of the Votum, should, from the nature of the case, preponderate. On this score the officiant represents God and not the people. Besides, the presidency of the officiant is not derived from the choice of those gathering for worship, hic et nunc, but from the office which he holds in the church as an ecclesiastical organization. Appointment to this office is the prerogative of the people, exercised in their use of ecclesiastical suffrage, but the power, or authority, inherent in the office is derived from Christ, the King of the church. Aalders, then, and others are not warranted in saying that in the Votum the congregation speaks by mouth of the liturgete.
3. The Formulary used in the Votum also calls for discussion. The need of a Formulary is quite apparent. The Votum is manifestly a very solemn act, notably on its material side. Its formulation should not be left to individual choice and the inspiration of the moment. To do so would be to expose it to the very real danger of arbitrariness if not worse. Nothing is so incompatible with religious sensibilities and liturgical decorum as haphazardness and fitfulness and resultant incalculableness. A halting, stumbling bungling performance of the Dedicatory Act or Votum and particularly infelicitous phraseology would prove destructive of true edification and would almost constitute an outrage upon the divine majesty as well as an insult to a congregation.
Different Formularies have been suggested. Calvin borrowed Ps. 124:8 from the Roman Mass, where it is used along with other Formularies, in the Introductory Act. The Dutch churches adopted it at the Dordt Synod of 1574. Others have given preference to the Formulary: "Our beginning is in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". This too, is borrowed from the Introduction to the Roman Mass. Others have suggested the sober Formulary: "Let us worship". Suggestions may be multiplied beyond count, for needless to say there is no divine command requiring the use of any one Formulary, and it is patent that there are many possibilities that come within range of propriety. A choice must, of course, be made, tho, obviously, it cannot very well be an absolute choice; It can only be preferential. Dutch liturgicians are partial to Ps. 124:8, which reads: "Our help is in the Name of the Lord who made heaven and earth". Now this Formulary derives support from several considerations. It has the sanction of age. Calvin employed it. The Dutch Synod of 1574 (Dordt) adopted it for votum purposes. It is brief and solemn. Its thought is rich and suggestive. Dr. A. Kuyper, Sr. gives the following commentary on this Formulary in "Onze Eeredienst", p. 188:9: "De Naam des Heeren beduidt hier dan de volle openbaring van Goddelijke majesteit en genade, gelijk die in het verleden, zoo in daden als in woorden, tot stand kwam. En wel die openbaring niet genomen als eene confessie of afschaduwing maar als de reeële macht en majesteit zelve, waardoor en waarin God zich geopenbaard heeft. Die macht, die mogendheid, die majesteit, gelijk Gods yolk die kent, en waaraan Gods volk zijn redding, zijn verlossing, en zijn opkomst als Gemeente te danken heeft en waarin tevens de waarborg ligt voor zijn doorkomen door het leven, en voor zijn ingang in de eeuwige zaligheid, dat is de Naam des Heeren, waarin onze hulpe stond, staat, en staan zal, En anders is or geene. — En nu is het plechtig, is het vol van warmen inhoud is het aansluiting aan het verleden en aan de toekomet bei, zoo do vergadering der geloovigen met de bekentenis van de verlossonde mogenheid die er in den heere HEERE is, geopend wordt. —- Ook met het bijvoogsel: die Hemel en aarde gemaakt heeft. Hierin toch ligt: (1) de aansluiting aan het gewone leven dat we in de wereld leiden. Ook dat leven is Gods, want Hij is het die niet alleen de kerken uitleidde, maar ook hemel en aarde schiep. Er ligt ten (2) in de geestelijke band der Gemeente op aarde aan de Gemeente daarboven en aan de engelen Gods. Want 'hemel' is geestelijk, niet aardsch, wijst op het rijke geestelijke leven daarboven, onder de volmaakt rechtvaardigen en de vele duizenden engolen. Er ligt ten (3) in de verklaring van God's almogendheid. Hij die hemel en aarde schiep is machtiger dan alle macht, die zich uit heel de schepping tegenover Hem zou willem opmaken. En er ligt ten (4) in de teruggang op de schepping zelve, en alzoo de zoo diep Schriftrurlijke en echt Gereformeerde verbinding van het verlossingswerk met het scheppingswerk, en daarmee de verwerping van alle dualisme en spiritualisme". (Kuyper underscore)
Kuyper believes that "de keuze ten deze door onzer oudste Synoden gedaan behoort dan ook thans nog to worden beaamd. De eerste formula (Ps. 124:8) is verre verkieslijk". Ibidem, p. 188. Yet, this Formulary is open to certain objections. It does not strike the note of worship and adoration which is so supremely characteristic of the occasion, and which one would expect in what is the introduction to a service of honor and praise rendered to Him who is all glorious. Ps. 124:8 takes account, by actual language and by contexual atmosphere of man's need rather than God's due. Hence some writers have considered it a prayer (Geesink Van's Heeren Ordinantien II (I) p. 212). This Formulary, then, clearly lacks the requisite doxological character which the occasion suggests. Furthermore, it makes the notion of help prominent and thereby suggests labor that is arduous and even struggle that is strenuous. But the occasion is one of rest and festive relaxation; it is the Sabbath on which God's people meet for worship. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between the season celebrated and the language used in inaugurating its observance. It is not denied, of course, that we need God's help in worshipping Him. But labor and strife which arc incidental to the work-days of the week and are directly suggested by the prominence of the idea of help in this Formulary, are manifestly not typical of the day of rest and the festive season of worship and praise. Ps. 124:8, in consequence, lacks liturgical distinctiveness. Neither does it carry any direct suggestion of redemption. It is true that the Psalm as a whole breathes the spirit of salvation; but the eighth verse only is recited and this verse does not intimate the sense of relief that the unread Psalm expresses. It will not do to reply that help implies salvation, for God's people needed His help before sin paralyzed them and they will need it when in His heavenly temple they praise Him forever. Need of help is not distinctive of the occasion, and it certainly is not particularly distinctive. A review of the doxologies of Scripture will show that the idea of redemption is prominent in most, if not all, of them.
The other Formulary suggested, viz. "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", as it occurs in the Introduction of the Mass Formulary, or "Our beginning is in the Name" etc. as some Protestant liturgies have it, is marked by great dignity and solemnity. It is purely formal; it does not suggest the nature of the transaction introduced, neither mistakenly nor correctly. It is brief and it gives prominence to the trinitarian basis of Christian worship, though it is not borrowed from the letter of Scripture. It is, perhaps, preferable to Ps. 124:8 for the reasons implied in the objections urged above against the latter Formulary. The form first mentioned, viz. :In the Name" etc. deserves preference above the second, viz. "Our beginning is in the Name" etc., because the beginning not only, but the entire program of worship is to be executed in the Name of the Triune God.
The Formulary: "Let us Worship", though not incorrect, is somewhat sober and matter-of-fact, or business-like. If at all possible, the liturgy, and its Formularies in particular, should be marked by a certain spiritual richness and artistic fulness, in harmony with the occasion. For it goes without saying, that public worship, according to its idea, gathers up into itself the wealth of our life in this world and anticipates the enjoyment of our heavenly treasures. Religion is never fuller, deeper, richer, sweeter, more blessed and fruitful than when we ascend the Mount of the Lord and stand in His Holy Place. (Ps. 24:3). The extreme sobriety, bordering upon somberness, of the reactionary Puritans and their followers in the Netherlands does not do full justice to the "Beauty of Holiness" that the Old Testament temple-worship typified and the apocalyptic vision of St. John suggests. Kuyper (Onze Eeredienst p. 179) rightly speaks of "de eenzijdig spiritualistische tegenzin tegen alle formuleering van den dienst" which "uit de geschriften van deze Engelsche Prosbyterianen (Puritans) er ook bij ons inkwam, en zulks niet tegenstaande er hier to lande niet het minste gevaar voor Puseisme (Ritualism) bestond". (I underscore).
In conclusion reference may be made to a dedicatory Formulary that would seem to serve the purpose admirably, viz. Ps. 95:6,7: "(Oh) Come let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before Jehovah our maker; for He is our God and we are the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand." It is not brief, indeed but neither is it of undue length. It may even be construed as a virtue that it is not very brief. For, if a Formulary is to come home to the audience and leave a definite and incisive impression, it should certainly not be too brief. This Formulary, solemnly pronounced with omission of the interjection, Oh — which is, by the way, not required by the original (BO'U) — cannot fail to be exceedingly helpful in producing a deep and strong sense of the presence of the Lord, our God, agreeably to the material purpose of the Votum, discussed above. Its tenor is manifestly liturgical. In addition, it is in the nature of an appeal to the heart of the worshipper; he is invited to render obeisance to God. The idea of homage is emphatic and prominent in the passage; worship, bow down, and kneel are the terms used. This feature renders it exceptionally suitable to the occasion; it strikes the right keynote. It has the merit, too, of identifying the object of worship with God as creator, and thereby rooting the duty of worship in God's Sovereignty over us by virtue of the fact that He is "our Maker". It then goes on to declare the relation which the worshippers sustain to Him, in terms of the covenant-promise. Grounding worship in the covenant of grace in this way, the passage puts the whole transaction in the glorious light of God's redemptive love and faithfulness. The remaining thought, expressed parallelistically, elaborates the covenantal implications of the worship proposed; it emphasizes the duty of allegiance: we are His people ("His pasture" and His hand"), and the blessing of His care ("pasture") and keeping ("hand"). Worship is here made to rest upon (note the conjunction: for) the double foundation of God's sovereignty and Grace (Creation and Covenant) and is represented as fraught with the double blessing of providing care and protecting power.
The Dedicatory Formulary should not be concluded with Amen. The official Dutch Votum adds it and Aalders favors its use on the ground that it is fitting to express our faith in what we have declared, by the solemn confirmation of Amen. Now there can be no doubt that a solemn declaration such as the Votum, whatever formulary is used, should be made in faith, and, hence, in the spirit of Amen. But there are several considerations that counsel against its addition. First of all, the Votum as a parliamentary act is not performed representatively either of the congregation or of God. It is the act of the minister in his capacity of presiding officer. It would seem a bit irrelevant to attach so solemn and distinctively liturgical a formula as Amen to the personal statement of the chairman of the meeting. Secondly, calling the meeting to order is not, strictly speaking, a liturgical act, whereas Amen, as already observed in another connection of thought, is distinctively liturgical in character. The indiscriminate use of Amen is far from commendable, even if unattended with any lack of reverence, because it tends to cheapen holy things. Thirdly, it would seem that the Dedicatory, or Opening statement made warrants the employment of Amen in view of its religious content. It should be remembered, however, that the specific purpose of the formulary used does not lie in the truth expressed, e.g., Ps. 124:8, but in the parliamentary use to which it is put. It is perfectly clear that a meeting called for the purpose of public worship is most appropriately called to order with a typically religious formulary. Yet it goes without saying that a formulary such as: the meeting is called to order, would be neither technically inappropriate nor religiously unbecoming. But then it is apparent too, that the addition of Amen is really out of order, if not a veritable incongruity.
Whatever formulary is used, care should be taken to pronounce it with faultless verbal exactitude, with a degree of solemnity, slowly and deliberately after perfect quiet has been established. The people should habituate themselves to reach church not much later than five minutes before the time of opening, for reasons discussed above. Late-comers should not be ushered to their seats after the minister prepares to pronounce the Votum, but wait until the prelude to the first song number is being played.
4. The proper Posture to be assumed by the congregation is the standing position. In the Netherlands the people generally remain seated as is customary among us, too. In ordinary meetings it is entirely proper to remain seated during the call to order. But in public worship the call to order is at the same time, as we have seen, the Announcement of the Entrance and Presence of God. It hardly requires argument to impress upon us the utter propriety, if not the holy duty, of rising to our feet when the king of Glory comes in (Ps. 24:7). There is also an accessory reason why the congregation should receive the call to order, in a standing position. The Salutation is extended immediately upon the conclusion of the Votum. There is no reason why God should not greet and welcome His people as soon as His presence has been officially announced. The congregation, needless to say, should be on their feet when God's: Peace be with you, descends upon them. But if they must still rise after the Votum has been concluded, the perfect silence and composure requisite for the reception of God's greeting, is absent, or a pause of some duration must intervene before the salutation is pronounced. If account be taken of the custom of standing to sing, it appears that the congregation fitly rises when the minister arises to pronounce the Votum and remains standing through the first three numbers of the program: Votum, Salutation and Song. Incidentally, the standing posture for a few minutes, after a period of quiet contemplation and before the service of reconciliation, serves a very useful, psychological purpose.
B. The Salutation ("Zegengroet", "Vredegroet" in Dutch.)
1. The Salutation should be prefaced with a Preamble, or introduction. In this respect it is no exception to the rule. It is a sound liturgical principle that the several items of the program of public worship be announced in a manner suitable to their character, respectively. The general basis of the usefulness of liturgical preambles is psychological. Organic life permits no sharp and abrupt transitions; marital life is organic in character, and, hence, craves connecting links which prepare the mind for the next item in the series of operations. This general need is accentuated by the fact that the people's part in public worship is, to a large extent, not particularly active. Owing to this situation the mind is liable to lapse into a state of lassitude and inattention, from which the announcement of the following number of the liturgical program is calculated to arouse them. The preamble also serves to direct their thought, in a stimulative way to what is presently to engage their attention, and, conceivably, to open up to them its meaning and significance.
There is a particular reason for introducing those elements of public worship that are intrinsically and specifically acts on God's part (actus a parte Dei) in distinction from acts on the part of the church (actus a parte ecclesiae). God does not perform His acts in person, but through a representative. Now the church, too, acts through its representative; yet there is a difference, worthy of note, between the two instances of representative action. The people do only some things through their representative, the officiant; other parts of their contribution to worship the congregation itself performs, e.g. song, offering, and conceivably recital of the creed in unison and joint utterance of prayer. God does all from first to last through His representative. Again, the congregation and God both are present but with a difference. The congregation is physically present, God is present only after a spiritual fashion. Yet public worship though its roots do, indeed, lie imbeddod in the soil of spirituality, is a physical thing as far as its liturgical character is concerned; it moves throughout on a physical plane, witness building, accessories, sound and light and heat, the elements of the Sacraments, etc. Manifestly God's presence cannot be construed in terms of physical realities. Personally He does not participate in the liturgical program, in the sense of the physical implications which the term clearly carries. Besides, Christ after whom we call our worship Christian worship, in distinction from the worship of the false religions, and who sustains a most vital and essential relation to public worship, is not theanthropically present. His humanity is not ubiquitous as Roman Catholics and Lutherans teach, but is absent from earth in the interval between His ascension and Parousia. God and Christ, then, though very really present whenever and wherever the saints meet in God's Name, are present only in a spiritual manner, but not after a liturgical and physical fashion. This appears, in a marked way, in the fact that God is spoken of throughout in the third person and that the officiant never identifies himself by the use of the plural with God for whom he speaks. The congregation is not told: "Peace I leave with you. My peace I give unto you." (John 14:27a) but: "Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." As is apparent, the officiant ranges himself on the side of the church by speaking of God as "our Father," even when he is unmistakably representing God. A certain manner and measure of distance and absence of God from the congregation when meeting for public worship, is plainly implied in the biblical formularies for Salutation and Benediction used. This is also true of Preaching, in which the keynote runs: "Thus saith the Lord." If the preacher uses the plural at all, he aligns himself with God's people and not with the people's God, unless he pompously employs the plural of majesty.
The Preamble chosen must be suited to the particular item of the liturgy introduced. Customarily the preamble of the salutation does not announce the salutation, but is, in effect, a term of address. The Salutation follows immediately upon the Votum, which, as was explained above, is, on the material side, the Announcement of God's entrance and presence. It is only natural that God should not only be the first to speak, but also start out with extending a loving welcome to the people of His grace. Hence there is no real need of informing the people in advance of what God expects to say and do at this juncture. But it is eminently proper that the privileged recipients of this heavenly greeting be addressed in the particular capacity that qualifies them for the reception of the divine welcome. Incidentally this term of address reminds all present that the blessed boon of fellowship and favor with the most High God is bestowed only upon those answering to the description employed, and that this Peace divine descends upon them only in the measure in which they consciously and by dint of spiritual effort realize the implications of the Vocative employed. Unbelievers are indirectly reminded that they have no part with the people of God and do not share in the blessings of God's gracious covenant, as long as they persist in their infidelity toward God. At the same time, God's true children can only be most delightfully affected, when, even before the glad welcome of their Father rings in their ears and hearts, they are publicly acknowledged and recognized, as the undoubted beneficiaries of God's precious love.
The people of God are variously addressed in Scripture. It will have been observed that God honors the work of His grace in the hearts of His people in a way that is marked by a striking absence of reservation. When He so denominates and designates them, He views them as they are, not in themselves, but in Christ. He gives them glorious names and employs terms of endearment in addressing them, in order to encourage them and gladden their hearts. Because, if there is ever a time that the Lord wishes His people to be joyful and happy, it is the occasion upon which they appear for worship in His courts. He has promised to make them joyful in His House of Prayer. (Isa. 56:7).
A selection must necessarily be made. The appellation employed must be both brief and comprehensive. Perhaps there is none better than: Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ. No term of address, certainly, could be more comprehensive and inclusive than: Beloved. It is understood that those so addressed are contemplated, in this connection, as the objects, not of the officiants', but of God's love; for the Salutation is an actus a parte Dei, and the officiant is now the representative of God, not of the people and least of all is he here speaking for himself. The term Beloved is indicative of the most fundamental moral relation that God sustains to His people, and connotative of all that He has done to establish this blessed relation between Himself and them, since their fall in sin. Certainly no intelligence can be so supremely gratifying to the hearts of the believers as the assurance, given them by this term of address, that God holds them dear in His saving love. In sovereign divine love their whole salvation took its rise; in the eternal and perfect enjoyment and praise of this self-same love the absolute fulness of this salvation is summed up.
No objection should be raised on the score of the fact that the appellation puts the individual aspect in the foreground, rather than the social and corporate. Love is the efflorescence of true religion, while corporate character and social interrelations belong to the groundwork in which individuality is anchored and grounded. The flowers and fruits of the trees of God's redeemed Eden grew, not on the tree as the comprehensive unity of the organism, but on the boughs and twigs of the tree, as the individualizations of its corporate life. Analogously, God loves the Body of Christ, His Church, His people, but the full, rich realization of the purposes of His love towards them, is attained when each saint thinks and speaks of God in Christ as did Paul who wrote: "Who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal. 2:20), of John who doxologized "Him who loved us (note the plural) and washed us from our sins in His blood" (Rev. 1:5b).
At the same time the term of address commended, does justice to the distinctively Christian construction that Scripture puts upon the redeeming and beatific love of God for poor, miserable sinners such as we are by nature. By adding: in the Lord Jesus Christ, three qualifications are predicated of God's love for His saints. First of all, it is declared that this love has its requisite adequate ground, not in their righteousness, but in the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, God's Son, that is, in God's own work and achievement. Secondly, it is intimated that He loves them only insofar as they are members of the mystical body of His theanthropic Son. His love, indeed, terminates upon them as individual children of Himself and members of Christ, but His love is mediated by the union which they sustain through regenerate life and saving faith, to Christ the Head and through Him to the constituent members of His body. Or to put it in John's words: "Every one that loveth him that begot, loveth him also that is begotten of Him" (John 5:1b). Thirdly, the love of God relates them to God's Son, not only as the anointed (Christ) Saviour (Jesus), but also as their "Lord" and King. None may claim the love of God, but those whose faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour inspires them with a burning zeal for His glorious cause and undying loyalty to the person of Jesus Christ, their divine Lord.
2. The liturgical purpose that the Salutation is designed to serve is that of Greeting and Welcome, as already intimated above. This liturgical act obviously proceeds upon the supposition, that worship brings God and His people together after a period of absence from each other. The separation which terminates upon the occasion of worship, manifestly cannot be either the metaphysical distance between the infinite Creator and the finite creature, for this gulf is incapable of being bridged from the nature of the case or the spiritual distance between the Holy and Righteous God and the guilty and polluted sinner, for this distance has been removed by the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit for the believers and in his heart. The first separateness must forever remain wholly undiminished, the second can in principle never return.
The absence that makes way for presence when God and His people come together on occasion of public worship, is the absolute postulate neither of the nature of God and man, respectively, nor of the judicial and moral relation which they reciprocally sustain, but is based upon the religious economy which God has been pleased to establish in the world of man, at least for the dispensation of time, and possibly for the life to come as well. God not only made man, but also the world, which forms his habitat and to which he is organically related in respect of his corporeal nature. This world was endowed with rich potentialities which were intended to be translated into actualities by the cultural labors of man. There is a correspondence between mankind and his home and workshop: both are constructed on the principle of growth, development, maturing, in the course of which process these potentialities are converted into actualities, these possibilities are changed into realities. The teleology of this organic process lies in the presentation by man, God's gardener, of His world, and of its fruits to Him, the divine and heavenly husbandman. Man's consecration to the cultural cosmic purposes of God yields the rich harvest of the sacrifice of praise and honor and glory, that is to be laid upon God's altar in His temple (Rev. 21:24, 26).
This world-purpose governs the spiritual structure of chronology. The hexaëmeron (six work-days) is the season of labor and consecration, while the Sabbath is the season of dedication and sacrifice. One day of the week is God's day, not as if the other days were not His, for the consecrated labor of the six work-days is service rendered unto Him in His world with a purpose that lies in Him; but it is the day in which the weekly cycle comes to fruition and blossoms into the fulfilment of God's plan with the world. The Sabbath is the fulness of the weekly measure of time. Corresponding to this spiritual chronology is the spiritual cosmology, according to which "the heavens are the heavens of Jehovah, but the earth hath He given to the children of men." (Ps. 115:16). Viewed from the angle of sovereignty Heaven is God's throne (Isa. 66:1); it is His temple when regarded in the light of God's spiritual relation to man and his earthly home and field of labor. The sacrifice that God expects on His altar in the temple of Heaven is the rightful due of the heavenly King on His throne. Worshipping in God's temple is bowing before His throne.
Man's life then, is divided between work and worship: he works on the six work-days, he worships on the Lord's Day; he works on earth, he worships in heaven (cf. Formulary for Lord's Supper, first paragraph after prayer). There is not only a negative relation between work and worship, viz., that he ceases to work when he worships and ceases to worship when he works; there is also a positive relation, viz., he works in order that he may be able to worship rightly, for, like the Israelites of old, we may not come empty-handed when we appear before God upon the solemn occasion of worship (Ex. 23:15; 34:20; Deut. 16:16).
In the light of the spiritual economy rapidly sketched above, the liturgical fact of God's meeting with His people after a period of absence can readily be understood. Ontologically God not only is omnipresent through His divine immanence, as a matter of fact, but must be ubiquitous, for the reason that the continual existence of man and his world is absolutely dependent upon the almighty and ever operative presence of God. But the manifestation of God, spiritually and liturgically, of course, and not physically, though never wholly lacking and nowhere utterly absent is so specifically different, in respect alike of kind and degree on work days and on the Sabbath, on earth and in heaven respectively, that, comparatively speaking, God is absent from His people when during the six work-days they till the fields of God's earth, and present with them, when, on His Day they present themselves before Him in His holy temple.
The liturgical distinction of the hexaëmeron and the Sabbath on the one hand and the earth and heaven on the other hand, constitutes the basis for which God has been sovereignly pleased to erect the fabric of the religious life of men. Religion is to serve and worship God, alternately; it includes both, no more, no less, The atmosphere in which the life of religion is to be lived in work and worship alike is spirituality, which is the mystical in-being of God in man and man's in God. This mystical habitation of God and man reciprocally which constitutes spirituality, is grounded, in its turn, in the metaphysical immanence of God in the works of His hands. The spiritual union of God and His people which is constant and invariable, in virtue of the eternal quality of regenerate life, must not be confounded with the liturgical alternation of God's absence from and presence with, His people. Every day is not only suited to the exercise of spiritual union but, more than that, calls for it imperatively; yet there in only one Dies Liturgica, that is, the Dies Dominica. Every place wellnigh, if not altogether, may witness the lifting up of the Soul to God in spiritual fellowship; yet there is only one Bethel, one Domus Dominica, Locus Liturgicus, corresponding to the one liturgical season. The Sabbath, as the Dies Liturgica, is an ordinance of creation and, hence, is an integral part of the constitutional order of God's universe. Similarly Heaven is the Locus Liturgicus according to the architecture of the World of God. It is not bold speculation to surmise that in the event Adam had sustained the probationary test of Paradise, he and his posterity would have worshipped in Heaven as often as the liturgical season, the Sabbatic Day, returned. The fall made it necessary to change the latter feature in particular, as it also occasioned a change in the Dies Liturgica, after the rendition of the sacrifice of the Cross, that is, the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week. Among Israel the Temple, which was a shadow of heaven as a place of worship, was an earthly substitute for the sanctuary above. Yet it reflected the glory of the heavenly temple in a measure, among other things, in the fact that it was the one and only place where God recorded His Name and came to His people and blessed them, (Ex. 20:24. Cf. Orr, Problem of the O.T. p. 503f.). In the N.T. a change came about, as Jesus declared (John 4:21) agreeably to the replacement of the Particularism of Israel by the Universalism of the Gospel dispensation, "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18:20). But even so the N.T. people of God are not at a disadvantage as compared with the O.T. saints. The idea of a single place of worship, which was, as we have seen, a reflection of the one celestial Bethel, and which seems to have been lost in the multiplication of earthly sanctuaries, is retained, indeed. For, according to the full-orbed universality of the N.T. dispensation, the people of God transcend the earthly limitations of their respective places of worship and wend their way through the skies on wings of faith from every country and clime, to the Sanctuary in glory above where Christ is ministering as the High Priest of His people ever since His ascension from Olivet. The trend of things, and particularly of worship, is heavenward, now that the spiritual dispensation of the N.T. has been inaugurated. It is fully as correct to say that on Christ's day, the Dies Dominica, His people mount to heaven to meet Him, as to represent Him as descending to earth to appear in their midst. God's people, it should not be forgotten, lead the life of eternity in the midst of time and the life of heaven on earth, in principle. On Sunday, in particular, they are in a measure and after a fashion at home with the Lord.
The Salutation, then, is the Greeting which God extends to His people, when they gather in His House at the time appointed for worship, and the Welcome which He addresses to them when they appear in His courts with sacrifices of worship and praise. This Greeting and Welcome serves a double purpose: it puts the divine stamp of legitimacy and propriety upon their presence in the palace of the King, and it creates the atmosphere of congeniality. It should be remembered that the basic relation that man sustains to God is that of God's creature who is infinitely inferior to Him in every respect and on this account can not properly lay claim to any rights before God and can not properly refuse any claim that his sovereign Creator and Lord may see fit to make upon him. It is not man's natural right to enter into the presence and house of God unbidden. The company and fellowship of God is a privilege freely granted; a gracious gift freely bestowed, but not a right that man holds in his own name.
This truth is accentuated when we recall that those passing through the portals of the Lord's palace on the day of worship are not only by nature sinners: guilty and filthy, but also still very far distant, indeed, from the perfection which the heavenly Father enjoins upon His children (Matt. 5:48) in spite of their adoption. If it would be unwarranted intrusion, if a holy angel entered the presence of God on his own account, how much more must it be considered an impudent impertinence, if men of impure hearts and unclean lips appear unbidden in the presence of the thrice Holy One of Israel. (cf. Isa. 6:5). Now it is true, that God has called men who are guilty and corrupt to Himself through the Gospel, and in the Gospel assures them of His gracious will to save them from their sin and to restore them to His favor and fellowship, so that the promise of the Gospel when countersigned by its believing recipient constitutes the official card of admission to God's presence. Yet even so, the love of God is in no manner or degree an abdication of God as Sovereign, nor an abrogation of His divine majesty and prerogatives. God, indeed, desires and sanctions loving intimacy, but he abhors and frowns upon the bold and brazen familiarity that springs from lack of due respect for the divine greatness and glory. Entrance into God's presence, whether in private worship on the basis of spiritual union with God, or in public worship on the basis of His liturgical ordinances, should never be made in the spirit of "Dropping in", but of an audience with the Most High, the Eternal being, who inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15) and dwells in an unapproachable light (I Tim. 6:16). It is evident, therefore, that the right-minded worshipper will feel the need of his recognition as a lawful entrant and will crave the holding out to him of the golden sceptre of the King of kings, in order that he may touch its top (Esther 5:2). When God expressly greets and welcomes them in the Salutation, His people rest assured that they have, indeed found favor in His sight upon this occasion, too.
The Salutation also creates an atmosphere of congeniality. The Lord not only gives His people the right to enter into His presence by greeting and welcoming them, He also expresses thereby the delight He takes in His people and in their company. There is hardly a richer satisfaction than the assurance that our person and presence are precious and sweet to our associates. If God, the Lord, clearly reveals, as He does in the Salutation, that we are dear to Him and that our fellowship gives Him joy, our happiness must become supreme, in consideration of the august character of our host. That we, dependent creatures that we are should crave and enjoy the fellowship of Him who is "altogether lovely" (Song of Solomon 5:16) is nothing strange, indeed. But that He who is not served by men's hands as though He needed anything (Acts 17:25) should profess to reap delight from intercourse with His creatures, is sound reason for astonishment and a source of rich gratification alike. The experience of God's cordial welcome is at the bottom of such exclamations as are recorded in Pss. 84, 27, 23. It has made the House of God the Home of the Saints. It is worthy of observation that Christ calls the object of men's worship "Father" in the classical passage on N.T. worship, John 4:23. The congenial spirit that the Salutation breathes is the expression of a father's cordiality, tenderness and affection for His sons and daughters. In the passage referred to Christ even refers to the yearning of the great heart of God for His true worshippers and the deep solicitude of his loving spirit for their souls' satisfaction "For the Father (notice the name used. of God twice in immediate succession) seeketh (DZEETEI) such to worship Him, or to be His worshippers. This spirit of heartiness and deep-souled affection on God's part is in perfect consonance with, and entirely preparatory for the joy and gladness with which God purposes to fill the hearts of those who appear in His courts in truth.
3. The Salutation Formulary is supplied directly by Scripture, notably by the epistolary salutations of St. Paul and other N.T. writers. It is not contended that the use of these or other Biblical Salutatory formularies is obligatory, so that either their omission from public worship or their substitution by formularies of ecclesiastical phrasing would be a violation of divine law. The introduction of this number on the liturgical program is left to the discretionary power of the N.T. church, in pursuance of the liberty wherewith Christ has set it free from the liturgical ordinances which God had authoritatively imposed upon His people in the theocratic regime. Scripture certainly requires that prayer, preaching together with the administration of the Sacraments, song and offerings shall be included in public worship. But the rounding out of these essentials into a full-orbed liturgical program is optional as regards its particular mode, though it is necessary from a practical point of view. The only conditions imposed, from the nature of the case, are that the framework into which the biblical essentials of public worship are built shall not antagonize or even obscure those essentials, and that it must constitute a constructive contribution to the edification of the church of God employing it.
The biblical salutation that at once suggests itself as the logical formulary for the divine welcome of public worship is that contained in Rom. 1:7: "Grace be to you and peace, from God, our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." This greeting occurs, with slight variation or no change at all, besides Rom. 1:7 in I Cor., II Cor., Gal., Eph., Phillipp., Coloss., I Thess., II Thess., Philom., I Tim., II Tim., Tit., II Pet., and II John. The form used in Rom. 1:7 is employed verbatim in I and II Cor., Eph., I and II Thess., and Philemon. An Analysis of all the salutatory material available shows that James has only: Greeting (CHAIREIN); that Jude has: mercy to you, and peace and love be multiplied; that I Peter has: grace unto you and peace be multiplied; and that Revelation relates grace and. peace to the Trinity elaborately designated. It also shows that four benefits are specified, viz., grace, peace, mercy and love, of which "grace and peace" occur in fifteen salutations, either alone (in twelve) or in combination with "mercy" (in three), of which "mercy" occurs in four, while "love" occurs in only one. It shows furthermore, that with exception of four (I Thess., Jas., I Peter and Jude) all the salutations relate the blessings mentioned to God as their source. It is significant that only one salutation derives these blessings from the expressed Trinity, in all other cases where the origin or source is mentioned the unity of God is put forward instead of the trinity with the addition of the Mediatorial agency of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the case of II Peter only are those bounties represented as mediated by an additional factor viz., knowledge of, etc. The prepositions used are APO (in twelve) and PARA (in one: II John). The Galatian Salutation which is in the class of Rom. 1:7 adds the possessive pronoun "our" to "Lord" instead of to "father", as do the rest. In Titus the Lord Jesus Christ is further qualified as "Our Saviour", while II John does not call Jesus Christ "Lord", but adds: "The Son of the Father", and qualifies the entire salutation by the phrase: "in truth and love."
The Salutation of Rom. 1:7 which, as we have seen, is the usual Pauline greeting is admirably suited to the purpose in hand. It is "a blending of the ordinary Greek and Hebrew modes of salutation" and therefore is representative of the Old and New Testament dispensations and beautifully ecumenical in spirit. James had used the customary Greek greeting CHAIREIN (Cf. Acts 23:26) as did the Jerusalem conference (Acts 15:23). St. Paul seems to have been bent upon conserving the rich thought of SHALOOM (EIREENEE). The Greek CHAIREIN, which is an elliptical expression for CHAIREIN (infinitive) LEGOO SOI, and means as much as: May joy be your portion, had degenerated into a formalistic inanity. Possibly St. Pau1 substituted CHARIS for CHAIREIN in order to make his greeting as impressive for his readers as it was sincerely meant and solemnly put in writing. The thought of rejoicing was not at all foreign to his mind, or repugnant to his sentiments as appears from Phil. 3:1; 4:1, 4. By a master stroke the Apostle to the Gentiles gave a religious tone and coloring to what at best was a neutral formula of greeting and at worst was a wholly empty form, by substituting CHARIS for CHAIREIN. By the use of the same stem the original signification was retained while the form CHARIS, the technical word for the redemptive exercise of God's saving love in Christ, puts true joy in the light of a gift of God graciously bestowed upon the undeserving sinner. In all probability the signification of the term CHARIS, as used in the Pauline salutation is not to be construed dogmatically, as if the apostle meant to say: may salvation as the fruit of grace be bestowed upon you. The fundamental meaning remained namely, that of joy and rejoicing,
Peace, too, the Hebrew SHALOON as used by the author of the epistle in his greeting should not be dogmatically interpreted. It is the greeting of the Shemitic world. Peace is expressive of the same sentiment as joy, but its mode is different from that of rejoicing. Both joy and peace are the reactions of the soul to a satisfied condition and contented state of mind. But whereas joy takes an outward direction and has distinctly social implications (Cf. Ps. 34:2, 3), peace takes an inward course and is deeply individual and personal in its tenor. It is deeply significant that the boon of peace figures so prominently in the Pauline inventory of the redemptive values of Christianity. A mere glance at the Concordance sub voce peace will satisfy us that St. Paul was deeply impressed by the pacifying, satisfying, gratifying quality that salvation through Christ possessed in so marked a degree. He must have considered that he could not afford to miss the beautiful and delightful idea which the customary greeting of his kinsfolk expressed. By combining it with CHARIS — the latter word suggested God's gracious love for sinners — he skillfully intimates that the peace spoken of in the greeting is the gift of God's love, the gift of Him who is Himself "the Lord of Peace and gives peace always by all means" (II Thess. 3:16). When St. Paul, then greets his readers with his customary salutation: Grace be to you, and peace, he expresses the same sentiment as those voiced in Rom. 15:13: "Now the God of all hope fill you (note the idea of satisfaction) with all joy and peace in believing."
The salutatory grace and peace which St. Paul wishes for his readers is represented as deriving "from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The idea of course is clearly indicated in the consistent use, on the part of St. Paul, of the proposition APO. This proposition denotes in distinction from its synonyms EX and PAPA (II John 3), that grace and peace have their starting point in, are sent on their errand of good-will by, "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," in such a way that they travel from them to us. This divine origin of joy and peace was already intimated in the delicately contrived substitution of CHARIS for CHAIREIN, as observed above. The author felt the need of stating expressly and fully what CHARIS merely implied. He thereby raised the greeting from the moral and conventual plane upon which it ordinarily moved, to the spiritual and religious level that suited his present apostolic purpose.
The approach of this qualification of origin is not trinitarian as is that of the Johannine greeting in Revelation 1:5. It arrests attention that of all the fourteen instances in which the source of joy and peace are indicated only one should be fashioned trinitarily. Possibly the explanation of the fact may be found in the circumstance that joy and peace are in the nature of spiritual ultimates, ripened fruits, final conditions, in which the trinitarian distinction does not stand out so prominently as in the redemptive purposes and processes that are productive of the states of joy and peace. It is a matter of fairly general consensus of opinion that "God our Father" in the Pauline salutations, is not the first person of the blessed Trinity, as distinguished from the other persons of the godhead, but God as distinguished from all creatures. This is brought out also by the addition: "Our Father", which connoted God's creatorhood and the divine, versus human, origin of religious satisfaction and blessedness. The phrase reminds one of the term of address in the Lord's Prayer, where it obviously can have reference only to the godhead as such, and not to the first person of the Trinity in particular. It also recalls St. Paul's language in Eph. 4:6 where he speaks of "The One God and Father of all. Who is above all and through all and in you all." The Pauline Salutation is, therefore, not open to the objection raised against it, that it ignores the Holy Spirit. The trinitarian existence of "God our Father" is even implied in St. Paul's derivation of "Grace and Peace" in second order from "our Lord Jesus Christ." The writer certainly does not mean to refer particularly to the second person of the Trinity, as such, though, of course, Christ is the second person of the Trinity as a matter of fact. His manifest purpose is to emphasize the mediation of the Grace and Peace, which take their rise in God who is our Father, through the work, in the fellowship and upon the intercession, of Him who is the divinely appointed Saviour of the world and who would have us spend our joy and peace in His service. The reason for not mentioning the Holy Spirit's work specifically as well as that of Christ, is, that in the economy of salvation the Holy Spirit so identifies Himself with Christ as the Head of the Mystical Body, that by implication He is included in "The Lord Jesus Christ."
The Lord Jesus Christ, it will be observed, is related to the Grace and Peace of the Salutation in the same way as God our Father, for the preposition APO governs both. It is not implied, however, that the relation of both is fundamentally the same; APO is not the same as EK. The latter (EK) means "from within" and is applied distinctively to God in I Cor. 8:6 as the fontal origin of all things; in this passage all things are said to be through (DIA) the Lord Jesus Christ. But APO denotes origination in a general way e.g. both fontal and mediatorial, and hence, is applicable to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ alike.
We have no proof that the early church employed a Salutation, either that of the epistles of the N.T. or one of its own making, in its public worship. In the absence of anything like a complete liturgy in the N.T., the churches of the apostolic and later ages were relatively free in ordering their public worship as they saw fit, provided the essential elements were not omitted, or set at nought. But it would hardly create surprise, if it should be discovered that the epistolary salutations of the N.T. were put to liturgical use at an early date. Meanwhile it should not be overlooked that there is a real difference between the epistolary greetings of' the N.T. and our liturgical salutation: the former are expressions of fraternal good-will, be it that they are somewhat officially colored; the latter is in principle a divine benediction; the former is, in effect, a wish or, at best a prayer, (both LEGOO and EUCHETAI were supplied in mind); the latter is, in effect, a real bestowal like the Aaronitic blessing, which the priests were instructed to pronounce upon the people, when they "Put Jehovah's Name upon the children of Israel." The reality of the covenant benison appears from what Jehovah added: "and I will bless them," that is, when you carry out my behest (Numbers 6:22-27).) The subjunctive mood employed in the Salutation when used liturgically, is used in a hortatory, or semi-imperative fashion: it is the will of God that grace and peace, indeed, descend upon those designated in the term of address. Though the implication of the subjunctive mood be futuristic, it is the sense of the hortatory subjunctive that the order issued is executed immediately. It is understood that the beneficiaries of this gracious greeting of their covenant God respond to it in a lively exercise of true faith and by faith enter into the joy of their Lord and appropriate His peace.
a. In conclusion attention may be directed to several matters of a practical nature. To begin with, must the Salutation be concluded with Amen? In the Reformed churches of the Netherlands it is customary to add it, though it is not prescribed. In fact, the official liturgy of these churches makes no provision for a Salutation; it copied Calvin who used the Votum but did not introduce the Salutation. Voetius, the Reformed Canonist of the 17th century, informs us that in his days many ministers departed from the official Dordt liturgy by discarding the Votum and substituting the Salutation. The official liturgy requires that the Votum and the Benediction be concluded with Amen. This suggests that if the Salutation be used, it too be thus concluded. For the benediction and the Salutation are both greetings: the latter being the greeting of welcome, the former that of farewell. If Amen be opposite in the one case, it would seen to be in the other also.
We have seen, however, that adding Amen to the Votum is not commendable. Neither is it good practice to conclude the Salutation with this liturgical term. The word Amen is a Verbum solenne and is used in a threefold way; it is either adjuratory or precatory of attestory. Jesus used it in the adjuratory case upon several occasions. It will be observed that it is placed at the head of the sentence when so used and is translated by "verily". In many instances it is repeated. When so used it approaches an adjuration: Cf. the Latin "profocto" which Cicero uses and which signifies pro facto, and is an emphatic "indeed", "certainly", somewhat in the sense of the popular "absolutely" of our day, viz., Amen (Amen) I say unto you! (John 3:3). It is worthy of remark that none but Jesus is reported as using Amen in this manner; His apostles did not copy Him, though He appears to have made frequent use of it. In consideration of this fact, the word might have appropriately been left untranslated; its technical character would then have suggested itself at once. In Rev. 1:18 and 3:14 it is not translated; in both passages it is used by Jesus: in 3:14 our Lord designates Himself HO AMEEN, while in 1:18 (in some MSS. in the best MSS. the word does not occur) it has the force of an expletive though placed in the middle, instead of at the head of the statement. The attestory use of the term bases upon O.T. usage (Deut. 27:15; Ps. 106:48). In I Cor. 14:16 it is intimated that the people say Amen at the conclusion of the prayer publicly rendered by one of the brethren. According to some MSS. the Lord's Prayer is concluded with Amen. Doxologies are often concluded with Amen; the one found in Rev. 7:12 has Amen both at the beginning and at the end. When used confirmatorily it is the expression of the faith of those so responding, in what either they themselves or others have declared, whether in prayer or otherwise. From Jer. 28:6 it appears that the people attested their faith in what the prophets in Israel said, by saying Amen. The prophet Jeremiah adds an interpretation of the word: "the Lord do so and perform thy words which thou hast prophesied." This use of Amen is analogous to the customary conclusion of the sermon, with this difference that the people uttered it at that time, whereas now the preacher pronounces it. The Heidelberg Catechism beautifully expounds our precatory Amen in its last answer (129). We read: "Amen signifies, it shall truly and certainly be: for my prayer is more assuredly heard of God than I feel in my heart that I desire all these things of Him."
It is obvious that God should not be represented as using the attestory Amen in the greeting of welcome and farewell that He addresses to His people, nor, indeed, upon any other occasion. As to his use of the adjuratory Amen, it would, in the abstract, not be unworthy of God, to use such a term, as Heb. 6:17 shows and the O.T., "As the Lord liveth", proves. The writer to the Hebrews declares that "God being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of His council, interposed (EMESITEUSEN) with an oath, that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who, have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us, might have a strong encouragement." There are, however, several reasons why it should not be added to the Salutation. First of all, the O.T. divine adjurations and Jesus' Amen, tho oft repeated, were used upon special occasions, and by no means as a matter of routine and formal recurrence. It would hardly seem appropriate to use it when God's people meet him customarily, and there is no need of emphatic asseveration to impress upon them the reliability of His declarations, From the nature of the case, oaths and statements approaching them, are exceptional; to put them in regular use would be to destroy their effect. It seems to be implied in their use on God's and Christ's part that those to whom they are directed are either God's people who are struggling with great difficulty to believe what is said, or unbelieving men who are disposed lightly to dismiss the divine word. Neither of the two situations obtains in the given case. Second, Jesus who uses the very word AMEEN, regularly puts it at the beginning, e.g., AMEEN GAR LEGOO HUMIN (Matt. 5:18) or AMEEN, AMEEN, LEGOO SOI. (John 3:3). The principle on which this location of the word is based is, that the minds of His hearers were not prepared, and in some instances not at all disposed, to receive the truth propounded. The Amen is intended to remove the obstruction and, hence, is uttered before the thought itself is stated. To put such an Amen — and the precatory Amen would plainly be out of place in God's Salutation to His people — at the end of the divine greeting would hardly yield good sense. Lastly, it is not advisable to introduce both the divine and the human use of Amen into the liturgy, unless there be urgent reason, because its double use, i.e. on God's part and on our part, tends to confound the respective meanings of the term. Its use at the conclusion of the sermon may need some explanation at this juncture. The sermon is liturgically an Actus a parte Dei, indeed. But the Amen with which it closes is ideally the people's attestation and ratification of what God has declared in His word and its administration, after the fashion of Israel's Amen to the promulgation of the blessing, and curse upon Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, respectively, at Moses' command. In actual practice the minister pronounces this attestory Amen. Two constructions may be put upon his use of the term: either he represents the people, when so pronouncing, or he thereby expresses, after concluding his sermon, that he vouches for the Scriptural character of what he has said, seeing he has undertaken to interpret God's word and to apply it. There would seem to be occasion, if not need, for such a voucher, in view of the fact that the preacher presumes to speak with authority, when expounding and applying the Scriptures. Whichever of these two views be held, in either case it is a human, and not a divine, attestation.
b. It is customary among us that only ordained ministers pronounce the Salutation. We need not now discuss the ecclesiastical question why unordained men are barred from using it. However, the question has been asked whether the latter can properly use the salutatory material in a precatory form by way of invocation. The query is analogous to whether the benediction may be used in such a way by those not ordained. Aalders recommends the latter practice, and may be expected to have no objections against the precatory use of the salutation. Now it is plain that there is no reason, in the abstract, why grace and peace may not be invoked upon God's people by an unordained ministrant. Yet the question at once suggests itself, why precisely those things should be prayed for regularly at this time and not in the general prayer that is rendered half-way the service, The only plausible reply is, that the use of this material in a prayer taking the place of the salutation, serves as an approximation to the regular salutation. It should be observed, however, that in this way we got, not a salutation in any real sense, but only, and at most, a semblance thereof. For what makes the salutation formulary a greeting is not the thought first of all, but the idea of the hortatory subjunctive employed, viz. that God wills us to be joyful and have peace, and in pursuance of His gracious good-pleasure actually bestows His joy upon His people and grants them His peace. There is then a real and distinct difference between a divine salutation and a human prayer; and there would seem to be no warrant for a performance which can never serve as a substitute for the salutation and yet deliberately seeks to leave this impression. The practice which Aalders recommends appears to be lacking in respect of the sincerity that constitutes an absolute prerequisite of worship in spirit and truth.
The pronouncement of the Salutation is customarily attended with the so-called imposition of hands. There is no ecclesiastical rule prescribing the latter feature; in fact, the decision of the synod of 1930 to leave matters liturgical to the determination of the local consistories or congregations, leaves legal room for its abolition, should those in charge decide thereupon. For said Synod would by implication insist at most that worship be conducted, and that it include the liturgical elements prescribed in Scripture and exclude everything contrary thereto. Now it can not be shown that Scripture requires the raising of the hands upon extending God's greeting to His people; not even the latter exercise itself is enjoined upon the minister by the Word of God, though, as we have seen, the espitolary salutations suggest that it at least may have been apostolic practice. But the imposition of hands is nowhere hinted at. Those, who in the discussions gathering about the propriety of the absolution, sought to enforce their objection against it by pointing to the absence of apostolic precept and example, and who based upon the principle that all is contrabande in public worship that is not made mandatory by Scripture, should in simple consistency feel obliged to abrogate the custom of the raising of hands, if not of the salutation itself. Happily they are not consistent, for this custom is beautifully appropriate. And it is a safe assumption that our people would protest vigorously, if it were proposed to discontinue it. It is doubtful, indeed, whether even those among them who have religious scruples against the absolution, could be prevailed upon to pay the price of consistency and part willingly, not to say joyfully, with a custom that has no proper warrant, on their own standpoint. Their sentiments would presumably forbid bringing this sacrifice to consistency.
We stand face to face here with the whole problem of liturgical symbolism, for the raising of the hands in conveying God's greeting and welcome to the Christian church is the symbolical embellishment of a spiritual act. It is the first instance of liturgical symbolism, if the architectural symbolism of the place of worship be excepted. Manifestly the symbolism of the liturgy itself take precedence over that of the physical setting of the liturgy. It is obvious that we cannot now treat this problem anything like exhaustively. Suffice it to draw attention to it and remark upon it briefly.
We may begin by observing that liturgical symbolism is involved in serious controversy since the Reformation. Prior to the sixteenth century it was very generally in vogue. It took its rise in the Old Testament, was reduced considerably in volume upon the termination of theocratic worship, waxed after the Apostolic age and by the beginning of the disruption of the Western church had grown to very large proportions. Protestantism protested against the Romish church on the score of religious life, Christian doctrine, ecclesiastical polity and government, and public worship. The Reformation was protestant all along the line, The ecclesiastical organization is an organism: corruption entering will unfailingly affect all its parts, if tine be given and the process be not halted, History supplied these two conditions: the Romish church had its own way upwards of a thousand years. When in God's gracious Providence Protestantism succeeded in establishing itself, after many attempts at reformation, notably during the fifteenth century, had proved abortive, a very definite and pronounced anti-Romish attitude and mentality was engendered, according to the law of reaction. The Anabaptists are the classical example of reactionary extremism: they did not hesitate to throw the child away with its bath-water. Their fanatical reactionarism ran the whole gamut of ecclesiastical life: practically the whole Romish heritage was, in their esteem, ex diabolo. The Lutherans and the Reformed groups were much more balanced. In the field of public worship the Lutherans were quite conservative; the Swiss and the Reformed churches of France and Holland broke more radically with Roman Catholic liturgicism. This is true as regards both the doctrine underlying the liturgy and the liturgical program based thereon. The heart of Roman Catholic worship is the Mass and the core of the Mass is the theory of the Real Presence achieved through the transubstantiatory powers of the hierarchy whereby bread and wine are transmitted into the very body and blood of Christ. Now Luther taught consubstantiatlon, i.e., the theory that the humanity of our Lord is really present in, with and under the sacramental elements, with the plain implication of Christ's ubiquity no less than the transsubstantiation theory of Rome. He accordingly was content to retain several liturgical features that are typical of Romish worship. His retention of the altar in public worship is symptomatic of his attitude. The Reformed acknowledged a real presence, not Zwingli, it is true, but Calvin and the churches that followed his lead throughout Western Europe, but they recognized only a spiritual presence of our Lord upon occasion of public worship, i.e. the presence of His "godhead, majesty, grace and spirit" (Heid. Cat. Q. and A. 47). Their construction of the real sacramental presence of Christ was attended with a severely condemnatory attitude toward liturgical symbolism. Not only the decisive repudiation of the altar, but their pronounced opposition to the use of musical instruments in public worship is an index of their sentiments in the matter of the aesthetic setting of public worship. It would seem that, to their mind, the purely spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion and in public worship generally postulated the reduction of the physical accompaniments of worship to the smallest possible minimum. In the course of time, however, they gradually receded from this extreme position. This resilience might have gone to greater lengths, if the Puritan movement had not prejudiced the Reformed churches against the aesthetic setting of public worship in particular and liturgical development in general. Puritanism was, in its earliest stages, a reaction, sound and legitimate, against the half-way position in matters liturgical which the English branch of the Reformation occupied in subserviency to the wishes of the crown. The civil magistrate had originally engineered the reformation and had arrogated to himself supreme authority over the church. When Edward VI came to the throne, liturgical development moved in the direction of greater distinction from Romish ritualism, but when after Mary's reign of blood and terror, 1553-1558, Elizabeth received the crown, liturgical conservatism became dominant and an enforced approximation to Romish liturgical practices became the order of the day. A section of the English church that had been under the influence of the continental leaders of Reformed Protestantism during their exile in the reigns of Henry VIII and Mary protested against what they deemed and termed popish ceremonies and remnants of popery, and revolted against conformity thereto under the terms of the so-called Elizabethan Settlement of 1559 and following years. No doubt, the coercion, and worse, practised upon them induced a temper of mind on their part that led them by psychological rebound from exaggerative and ritualistically inspired symbolism to aversion in principle to all symbolism whatsoever. They were confirmed in their abhorrence of liturgical aestheticism by early Reformed liturgical simplicity and the N.T. abrogation of O.T. ceremonialism. Public worship in the New England meeting-house of the seventeenth and eighteenth century is an excellent illustration of the liturgical ideals of the Puritans. Simplicity is hardly the correct term of description: soberness running into somberness would be more adequate. The barrenness of the interior of the church-building fitly expressed the abstraction from the natural setting of worship which the Puritans strove to achieve and in turn was instrumental in inducing the spirit of anti-symbolism. The element of truth embodied in the Puritan position, their theological industry, and fecundity, the molestation and persecution to which they were subjected, their heroism as exhibited in expatriation, and last not least, their stern morality and fine spirituality, gave wings to their spirit and carried their influence to other branches of the Reformed family, particularly the churches of the Netherlands. Their works, which were eminently practical, were soon translated and eagerly and widely read in the Low Lands. During the seventeenth century Puritanism deeply influenced Dutch religious life and even its theology in the direction of ascetic piety. Dr. R. Bronkema has pointed out in his doctoral thesis that there is a perceptible difference between the Puritan and the Calvinist species of Reformed Protestantism. The former is not altogether free from an anabaptistic bias, which appears also in their intense aversion to the framing of the spiritual realities of public worship in aesthetic forms. The genius of the latter is free from all dualistic taint and takes the statement of our Confession (art. 2) serious, that is, that the physical "universe, created, preserved and governed by God, is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to contemplate the invisible things of God, namely, His power and divinity, as the Apostle Paul saith, Rom. 1:20". It was firmly persuaded that all things are ours, if we are of Christ, and was bent upon reducing the doctrinal maxim to practical use.
The principle and warrant for liturgical symbolism, such as the raising of the hands over the congregation in salutation and benediction, etc. lies in a series of three facts. First of all, God made both the physical universe and the world of spirits, and made both the instruments of His glory, though, of course, each was designed to serve this purpose of its Maker in its own way. They are essentially distinct and yet sustain a mutual relation of correspondence and adaptation. They do not stand in juxtaposition, free from mutual antagonism, negatively, but they inter-penetrate and inter-act, positively. This is true — and this brings us to the second of our trio of facts — in particular of man who in distinction of the pure spirits called angels, is dual, i.e., both material and spiritual in his nature. Even the angels are measurably adapted to contact with the physical, as their operations, both good and bad, in the physical world prove, though they do not sustain organic relation to matter, like man. The creation of man after the image of God involved his dual nature with a view to his vice-regency of the earth, with which his formation in the likeness of his Maker is linked up very directly by Scripture in Gen. 1:26-28. In man the physical or material is the basis of his spirit's operations, and, conversely, the spiritual employs the material organism as the agency of its expression and self-realization. When matter is thus surcharged and transfused with spirit, it is transfigured and glorified, as the beatific state of the Incarnate Son of God demonstrates. Here lies the foundation for the world of art. Now man, being dually constituted, does not assume an attitude of acquiescence to corporeality in himself and in the world round about him, he constitutionally craves the full utilization of his material nature and is not really and fully happy unless the physical part of his organism, which, as Paul assures us, he loves (Eph. 5:29), receives satisfaction, according to its peculiar order and nature. Hence the appeal which art has for all normally minded people. Now, surely, the fundamental law of man's being — and this brings us to the last of our trio of facts — is not suspended in the province of religious life and more particularly in the department thereof that we denominate worship. For religion is absolutely comprehensive in its scope and reach: it embraces the whole life of man and both heaven and earth. It is vital to man's proper use of his body, his material possessions, his earthly habitation. The radical disturbance of his religious relations to God entailed not only spiritual, but also physical death. Worship as the acme of religious life does not deny its fundamentally religious character dualistically by repudiating and spurning the material as the basis and vehicle of the spiritual. Reference need but be made to the liturgical satisfaction which proper ecclesiastical architecture yields to the worshipping spirit and the divine ordinance of the sacraments in pursuance of which water, bread and wine are employed not only in signifying — here we are on aesthetic ground — but also in sealing the grace promised us by God.
Now it should also be observed that the employment of symbolism in worship is fraught with danger. It is, of course, not at all implied that the danger is inherent in symbolism itself. Hence the repudiation of symbolism on its own score is unwarranted and should be discountenanced, for one extreme invites another. The danger attendant upon the use of symbolism lies in those using it, not in the thing used. Sinful man is prone to invert the normal order of the material and spiritual: God who is the author of both willed that the material, which He rendered inferior, should serve the spiritual, which He accordingly constituted superior in respect of character and capacity. Sin has made man prone to invert this divine order of material and spiritual in a revolutionary fashion. Paul calls sin SARKS, flesh, and declares that sin makes a man SARKIKOS (—INOS), fleshly. It is not an easy matter to understand why sin should produce such a tendency: itself is a thing of the spirit, nevertheless it leads men to exalt matter over spirit. But the fact is as incontestable as it is mysterious. The sinner will cherish his body and almost idolize it, when he neglects and wrongs and injures his soul; he prefers the material things of earth above the treasures of the world of mind; he practices idolatry, instead of worshipping God in spirit and truth. This, then, being the inveterate bent of the sinful heart, it is only natural that in worship no less than in other domains of life, man should carry the perfectly legitimate appreciation and utilization of the material to the excessive length of materialism; he perverts the virtue of sensuousness into the vice of sensualism. One need only to have a passing acquaintance with life and human experience, to be convinced that liturgical symbolism of a highly elaborate character and profuse in measure, constitutes nothing short of a temptation to make the material and external expression of worship an end in itself, and thereby to nullify its instrumental and ancillary purpose and character. It would be the height of unwisdom to be doctrinaire on this subject, and to argue that the material is not inherently evil and was designed to serve a useful and wholesome purpose, that the abuse of a good thing does not justify its disuse, and that people had better be on their guard against materialistic enslavement, etc. For wisdom, which takes account of the stubborn fact of man's weakness and perverseness, is no less a principle of godliness and righteousness than the knowledge of the truth. Knowledge of the truth is like the sun that illuminates the landscape rolled out in rapturous panorama before us: wisdom of life points out the particular path that leads most safely and expeditiously to our actual destination. The danger under discussion is the greater because liturgical symbolism is not merely physical, it is the physical as art has idealized and glorified it. Art and worship both affect the emotions powerfully not only, but both induce a condition of soul that is marked by a degree of mystical ineffableness. Unless the spirit of the worshipper is deeply impressed with the presence of God and actually communes with Him, there is a possibility of mistaking aesthetic sensations for the pulsations of religious life. People who have developed cultural refinement and artistic tastes are peculiarly susceptible to this dangerous delusion. For this reason, too, exuberant liturgical symbolism jeopardizes true, spiritual worship.
But if liturgical symbolism be employed in a sane and properly balanced proportion, it is not only free from reasonable objection, but it may measurably help to bring home to the mind of the worshipper the spiritual value and liturgical significance of the act of worship performed. It should be borne in mind that the raising of the hands in salutation and benediction is not the only liturgical symbolism of which we make use. In prayer we fold our hands and close our eyes, and in preaching the minister interprets the thoughts he expresses by the gestures he makes. If the architect has reckoned with the purpose to which the church-building is devoted, he has adapted the architecture of the edifice to the exercise of worship. Even the apparel of the worshippers and the garb of the minister, should be in harmony, after the fashon of appropriate symbolism, with the solemnity of the occasion, Surely, we can not escape expressing things spiritual in things material. God, whom we worship is a spirit, indeed; and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. But the worshippers themselves are men and women of flesh and blood and are akin to the world of matter by that token. When they worship they leave behind neither their bodies, nor the material world that is the corollary of their material existence.
The raising of the hands (Lev. 9:22; Luke 24:50) in salutation is symbolical of two things, viz. of the divine and heavenly origin of the grace and peace announced, and of the actual bestowal of these blessings upon the congregation. The elevation of the hands suggests that the Father, who greets His people, dwells in Heaven, as Jesus taught us in the pattern prayer, and that Christ, through whose instrumentality the grace and peace of the Father are imparted unto the saints, has taken up His abode in the heavenly places. The raising of the hands on the part of the minister is the signal for the people to lift up their hearts to God and His Christ in the spirit of sursum corda. The position of the hands, extended forward and open, palm downward, betokens the descent from God in Christ of the realities of blessedness denominated "grace and peace". The salutation, let it be remembered, is not a mere wish and expression of good-will; it is the actual impartation, to those truly qualifying, of veritable blessings.
It has already been remarked that the only fitting posture on the part of the people is the standing position. One may not seat himself until he has been welcomed and thereby invited to settle himself in the house of his host, for a season of fellowship. While the salutation is pronounced the congregation may well raise their eyes to heaven whence the blessing of gracious welcome descends. This is better than fixing one's gaze upon the officiating minister. For the very imposition of hands seems to say, that not from himself, but from God on high, whose accredited ambassador he is, the glad welcome issues, as His people throng His courts. The standing position and uplifted face, it will be recognized are liturgical symbolism no less than the raising of the hands; their conjunction completes the symbolical cycle.
C. The Post-Salutation Song
Song is one of the essential elements of public worship by universal consent. Worship is deeply emotional and song is preeminently the expression of the emotional life of the soul. We are told that song in worship is at a discount among the Reformed people of the Netherlands at the present time. It is alleged that many do not sing at all, while others sing without any animation whatsoever. No explanation is offered as to the cause of lack of interest in the praise-element of worship. The defect may spring from one or more of several sources. It may be due to atrophy of the emotional life, or it may root in the national temperament. It may also be attributable to intellectual preoccupation with the sermon. It is to be hoped that the complaint about the absence of zeal for song in public worship is exaggerated and that general conditions are better than reported. In America there is a danger of over-indulgence in song, generally speaking; the didactic element of public worship is not properly appreciated in many churches, as appears from the brevity of the sermon and its appeal to the emotions and the will rather than the intellect. In our own circles there is neither a lack of interest in song, nor a distaste for sermons that constitute a challenge to the thinking powers of the congregation. May this beautiful balance ever be preserved. For it is obvious that emotional life must base upon solid thought, if it is to escape degenerating into vapidness and inanity; conversely, thought-action of the mind is the better for its alliance with a degree of emotional excitation. Sermon and song should be mutually helpful, and together create the atmosphere that is conducive to the best liturgical effects. The laws of psychic life would seem to ascribe priority to thought content; the emotional exercise of the soul springs from the apprehension and contemplation of ideas. For this reason it is unpsychological to make song the opening number of public worship, as is sometimes done. In the order that we are following the Votum and the Salutation, as the initial and initiatory liturgical exercises, provide the mind with food for thought. Reflection, particularly upon the Salutation, is calculated to set in motion the emotional life of the soul and to pave the way for a true outburst of joyous praise, such as the post-salutation song is intended to be.
We shall not now enter upon an exhaustive discussion of the liturgical significance of song and the place of song in the liturgy. The adequate treatment of the subject would require that attention be directed not only to song in general, but also to its psychology; its accompaniment, including a discussion of the instrument to be used and the propriety of its use, the musician and his technical and other qualifications; its congregational exercise and such related matters as choir-singing pre-centorially or independently and solo-work; its sources, whether exclusively Psalmodic or both Psalmodic and Hymnodic; and the history of liturgical song from the Apostolic age to the present time.
The element of song in the liturgy is recurrent like prayer, in distinction from the other elements. It would be a mistake, however, to think that recurrence is synonomous with mere repetition. Every song number properly serves a specific and definite purpose; its particular character is determined by its sequential setting. The Psychological law of the primacy of the intellect suggests that song as the expression of emotional experience, is responsive in character. The nature of the particular response is manifestly determined by that which elicits it. The salutation produces a different reaction in song than the law, the creed, the general prayer, or the sermon. Though song is, obviously, not called forth anticipatorily by the element of worship immediately or more remotely following it, we may well expect it to influence its sequel in a general way, by reason of the emotional atmosphere which it creates. If the next item of worship happens to be an actus a parte Dei, as is the case in the reading of the law after the post-salutation song, both the liturgete and the congregation will naturally be affected by the rise of the emotional level induced by antecedent song: the liturgete will be the better able to perform that service in true liturgical spirit, and the congregation to respond to it, for the exhilirative effect of song and its musical accompaniment. And if the next number on the program of worship be an actus a parte ecclesiae, as in the case of the general prayer after the post-creedal song, the stimulative effect of Psalmody and Music may be even more strong, because it is fully as direct. Thought and will-action are likely to be more brisk and intense, if exercised while the soul's affections are stirred and play upon the mind.
The post-salutation song is the first instance of the principle of alternation in worship: in the Salutation God has spoken, in song following upon it the congregation responds appropriately to God's gracious greeting. The basis for the principle of alternation, of course, is the congressive and bilateral character of worship. In worship God and His people meet, through Christ's mediation, for communion in the Holy Spirit. Primacy, indeed, rests with God, but man, notably the New Testament Christian who through Pentecost has attained to spiritual majority, too is active in the fellowship of worship. It is natural to presume that when God has spoken, man should make reply and thereby sustain the reciprocity upon which worship is based in the New Testament Church, according to Protestant liturgies. The logical motif of the principle of divine and human alternation is reinforced by considerations of psychology and art, respectively. The logical reaction of reply to what God has said is unquestionably primary, agreeably to the laws of the mind and consonantly with the primacy of faith in the complex of spiritual life. Faith is the attestory Amen of the regenerate heart to the revelation of God as mediated in worship through the actus a parte Dei. But an act of faith unfailingly exudes, as it were, an emotional atmosphere in which it is at once wrapped up and with which it is at once suffused; faith is light but it also generates heat and develops power, because it works by love (Gal. 5:6). When through faith the soul of the worshipper is emotionally affected by the Word of God, it craves expression. Not to speak would have a suppressing effect upon the faith that has stirred the soul in its mystic depths and would by so much throttle the very life from which the response of faith springs. Scripture says in II Cor. 4:13, where Paul quotes Ps. 116:10, "as it is written: I have believed, therefore (DIO) have I spoken, we also believe, therefore (DIO) too, do we speak." When God speaks to us in public worship, the feeling which His presence and address induces prompts us to speak in reply no less than what God says in particular elicits our attestation by an act of inward faith. In thus responding to the actus a parte Dei in thought, born from faith, and uttered under the stimulus of the emotion of love, the worshipper obeys the aesthetic law of rhythm which God has implanted in the soul and which corresponds to the law of rhythmic sequence wrought into the constitution of the cosmos by Its Maker, the Father of glory. The operation of this natural law of rhythm in the spiritual realm of worship is a beautiful instance of the mutual adaption of the natural and the supernatural, of earth and heaven, of time and eternity, of matter and spirit, of work in God's world and worship in God's house.
A glance at the 1928 order of worship will show that this principle of alternation has been carried out in this reformatory liturgy only in a general and loose way. In one instance we have five or six actus a parte Dei in immediate succession, viz. after the Absolution which is an actus a parte Dei, there follow a) the recitation of the Apostolic Creed, b) the post-creedal song, c) the general prayer, d) the dedicatory song, e) simultaneously the collection, and f) the offertory prayer, if the congregation desires to use it. The Reading of the Law is followed by Confessional Prayer to which the Congregation may add the Penitential Psalm, if it so desires, i.e. two actus a parte ecclesiae following upon an actus a parte Dei. The same occurs at the close of the service; the sermon, which is an actus a parte Dei, is followed by Prayer and Song (with or without the Doxology). The reverse takes place after the collection and song: two actus a parte Dei follow in immediate succession upon an actus a parte ecclesiae. It is a debatable question technically, whether the alternation should be maintained strictly, i.e. every other item being an actus a parte Dei and an actus ecclesiae, respectively, as in the beginning of the Liturgy, where we have Salutation (actus a parte Dei), post-salutation song (actus a parte ecclesiae), reading of the law (actus parte de Dei) and Confessional Prayer or Penitential Psalm (actus a parte ecclesiae). But if, as in one instance in the 1928 Liturgy, five or six actus a parte ecclesiae follow in unbroken succession, the rhythmic movement of alternate divine and human action has been seriously interrupted, indeed.
Perhaps we cannot altogether escape a numerical disproportion such as we have at several points. Human participation in worship is more diversified as regards form than divine liturgical action. God only speaks, whether in Salutation, Promulgation of the Law, Pronouncement of the Benediction, Declaration of His Word and Preaching of the Gospel. But man expresses his mind both by word and song, and, in addition, performs a certain action, viz. the forwarding of material gifts in the service of consecration, or the collection, so-called. Now song may perhaps be considered to be of secondary rank liturgically, in a certain sense. It is not implied that it may properly be omitted. The faculty of song which is so eminently suited to the jubilant expression of man's joyful response to God's favor and blessings, should certainly not be ignored in the highest exercises of religious life. As remarked above, worship is instinct psychologically with deep and strong emotion, and song is the richest organ for the manifestation of feeling. But the emotional element is not primary in the life of the soul; the intellect takes first rank and the word spoken in distinction from the word sung, is its peculiar crystallization. Song, then, may be regarded as supplementary to, or even complementary of, the word spoken. e.g., Confession of sin uttered in prayer may be repeated in the singing of a Penitential Psalm, in order to express the emotional reaction to the consciousness of sin and guilt that is published in the spoken word of prayer. Similarly the songs following upon the general and the post-sermonic prayers, respectively, may be supplementary in purpose and function. If this construction be accepted, prayer and song are to be considered as one liturgical item, at least in spirit if not in respect of enumeration. In this way the disproportion is reduced in a measure. As regards the immediate succession of Scripture prelection and preaching, if the two items be considered as fundamentally one actus a parte Dei, consonantly with the indisputably close connection between the two, the principle of alternation comes to its own better than at first appeared. We cannot pursue the subject at greater length in this connection. Liturgical sequence is a vast subject; its adequate treatment here would play havoc with the continuity of our discussion of the liturgy.
Every song number on the program of worship serves its own purpose, as remarked above. When God has greeted His people and welcomed them, they must needs return praise to Him for the blessed privilege of worship and the spiritual benefits they expect to derive from it, and to publish their great joy in God and their thankfulness to Him for all His grace. In a communication to Synod 1922 anent Public Worship, Classis Illinois called this song "the Gloria". The Liturgical Committee, in its report to Synod 1920, judges that "this psalm should express joy at meeting God in His sanctuary and that Pss. 15, 23, 24, 84, 95 and others are especially appropriate", while in their report to the Synod of 1928 they say that "this psalm should dwell on the duty to worship God, or on the delight of dwelling in God's courts." Without a doubt, the element of adoration must be prominent in this song number. It is the first actus a parte ecclesiae and the proper occasion to proclaim the worth of Him whom they have come to worship. Adoration is the acknowledgment of God's worth, in the spirit of humble joy and joyful humility. It breathes the spirit of reverence, but goes beyond a mere cherishing of the sentiment of high regard for God; it is an act, rooting deeply, of course, in supreme esteem of God, but it cannot be satisfied with thinking on God, however appreciatorily. To adore God is to own that He is, in our esteem, God in the sense of all that the name represents to our minds on the basis of revelation in His relation to us; to acknowledge our relation to Him, as postulated by His infinite greatness and majesty and to testify that it is our deepest satisfaction that both relations are in fact what they are declared to be. The whole soul is exercised in adoring God: the understanding sees Him as being absolutely supreme, not only superior by comparison, but in infinite perfection, the will ratifies the fact and sets the stamp of its unconditional approval upon it; subjective registration and attestation thereof, in emotions of intensest satisfaction. Perhaps the most central and typical feature of adoration is the loving recognition of God's sovereignty in deeply humble obeisance, such as is symbolically expressed by bowing and prostration before God in the spirit of the line of a well-known hymn, "Thou art God and Thou alone, Everlasting is Thy throne." It Is quite apparent that this Song of Adoration, as it might well be called technically, is inspired first of all by God's own personal and intrinsic worth, though obviously the experience of the favor of that great and glorious God and of the abundant goodness of His House, has put the spirit of happy thankfulness into the heart of the adoring worshipper of God. Yet it is not God's relation to us primarily, to which the act of adoration has reference. Faith, through which alone the soul can sense and grow aware of the infinite exaltation of God and will to have it so, is fundamentally and essentially an apprehension of what God is in Himself, insofar as He has been pleased to reveal Himself. It is precisely this discovery of faith by the light of revelation that supplies the rational basis for the moral act of trust and reliance on God in which the act of faith is completed. Adoration, therefore, is an act of faith in its deepest and intensest sense, and for that reason the root of worship and the heart of religious life. For in the last analysis, God made all things unto Himself, as Scripture teaches; His final and real purpose in creating the world and redeeming His people, His object in revealing Himself in nature and in grace, is not divided between Himself and Man, the lion's share going to Him and His self-satisfaction being superior in quality to the gratification afforded man; in a very real and true sense God seeks only Himself and in His infinite goodness is sovereignly pleased to employ His creatures in the realization of this purpose, and by so employing them renders them unspeakably blessed. This exalted truth the believing soul glimpses through faith, and from it derives the inspiration to adore and worship God as the absolute sovereign in His being and therefore in His world. For this very reason there is nothing that fills the heart with so great a happiness, as precisely the adoration of God. Never does man so fully and comprehensively answer to God's purpose with him as when he humbly bows in obeisance before God's throne and in firm conviction willingly makes the greatest affirmation in the universe of thought: "the Lord is God, the Lord is God." Adoration, on this account is the diapason of the entire symphony of worship; in true worship it sustains every act of man, inspires it with liturgical life and constitutes its spiritual value. Where it is absent worship degenerates into formalism and becomes spurious and a despicable sham.
The post-salutation song, then, strikes the keynote of worship on man's part, as does the Salutation on God's part. The joy and peace of the grace of God in Christ which God bestows upon His people in the Salutation is the intensest, fullest, richest, satisfaction to which they can fall heir; likewise, the heart-felt grateful, enthusiastic adoration with which they respond to His beneficent greeting, is the supreme sacrifice and in principle the full award to God of the honor due unto His Name. It is not implied that this responsive act of loving and ardent adoration must necessarily be expressed in song. It might conceivably be exercised in a Declaration of Adoration, uttered representatively by the liturgete, or, preferably, by the congregation in unison with him. It has been suggested that the Amen with which the Salutation is by some concluded, is the response of the congregation to the welcome extended. Now such an Amen would indeed be an utterance of their faith in attestation of the truth of God's benediction and an expression of their reliance upon it. But it would, manifestly, not constitute an act of Adoration, or an ascription to God, doxologically, of honor and praise and power and glory, such as the post-salutation song or Song of Adoration is designed to be, and the Salutation properly calls for. It is best, therefore, to omit Amen from the Salutation, as counseled above; for otherwise we would get two responses of a different character: one an attestation of what God said, the other a declaration of what the congregation feels. If song follows an actus a parte ecclesiae it is supplementary and confirmatory of what goes before, which it, then would not be in this case. If song, not responding to the Amen but thematically independent, should be added to the hypothetical post-salutation Amen, the principle of alternation would be suspended, for we should then have two actus a parte ecclesiae of a disparate character in direct succession.
The question remains, whether This Response of Adoration to God's Welcome of Love should, preferably, be expressed by Declaration or by Song, that is, if not executed by both word and song. There would be no objection on principle to the third alternative mentioned; in fact, much might be said in favor of employing both. To begin with, we have more than one instance in the 1928 Liturgy of the use of both the word spoken and the word sung to execute a single liturgical act. The (optional) response to the Reading of the Law of God in confessional prayer and in penitential Psalm is an instance of the twofold utterance of supplication. When in response to the Absolution the congregation both recites its faith and sings thereof, we have a twofold expression of conviction. When the congregation sings while it performs the service of consecration ("collection") a twofold mode of devotion is employed. Now, if there is sufficient reason to give prayer, faith and devotion double expression, that is, by the word incarnating thought and the song embodying feeling, there would seem to be abundant reason for giving utterance to the Adoration of God in both the word spoken and the Word sung. If ever the soul of the saved sinner is stirred to its deepest depths, and crowded with supremely engrossing thought, and moved with passionate desire to express itself, it is when, after a fashion, a vision of the thrice-holy One of Israel bursts upon the gaze of God's people met in His courts, and the music of celestial symphonies falls upon their eager ears, as "out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined forth, and our God cometh and doth not keep silence." (Isa. 6:1-3; Ps. 50, 2, 3a). What would be more natural, not to say, imperative, than to voice the note of adoration with which the heart of the worshipping saint swells first of all in the spoken word uttered with a degree of animation (cf. the verb QARA used in Isa. 6:34 of the utterance of the Seraphs worshipping God in His temple) and then in the word sung, after the example of the angels, who at the Announcement of the Nativity sang a heavenly anthem after they had proclaimed the birth of the Christ. If the Salutation and the Sacrifice of Adoration strike the keynote of the whole liturgical performance, as we have seen, the latter should, by all means, be rendered as fully vocal as possible. The 1928 Liturgy, however, has not made provision for the declaratory expression of the sentiment of Homage and Adoration. Possibly the explanation of this omission must be looked for in a practical direction. If a Declaration of Adoration, in distinction from a Song of Homage, is to be employed, it could only receive full justice in congregational response in unison with the liturgete. The Liturgical Committee that composed and proposed this Order of Worship no doubt sensed the present distaste of our people for liturgical elaborateness, particularly after the current of cold criticism that arose, when in 1920 they came forward with their first proposal of liturgical reformation. It will have been observed that all unisons incorporated in the 1928 Liturgy have been made optional and that they have not yet succeeded in capturing the love of our ecclesiastical public. In spite of the fact that laical or popular participation is the plain implication both of the Pentocostal era of the Kingdom of God and the Protestant position of the New Testament church, and was the cherished ideal of our church during the progress of its liturgical discussions leading up to the 1928 Liturgy, our people do not appear to be enamored of its consistent practice.
This being the situation in prosaic fact, preference should be given, not from principle, indeed, but for reason of expediency, to the Song of Adoration, because the glorious principle of laical participation here, from the nature of the case, comes to its own. However little sympathy our people may generally feel for full-fledged participation in public worship, they are not yet prepared to have their singing done for them representatively. Independent choir-singing and solo-work are not in favor with the bulk of our people. They love congregational singing and instinctively feel that its undiminished maintenance is a matter, not of fancy, but of sound liturgical principle. If the special liturgical act of Adoration — indistinction, obviously, from the general spirit of Adoration, which, needless, to say, should inform the whole liturgical service — were to be performed under the present circumstances, it would be done representatively by the liturgete, just as he pronounces the people's attestory Amen at the conclusion of the sermon. Even if he did thus bring to expression, representatively, the people's Sacrifice of Adoration in a rather full statement, it would doubtless fail to impress the people as coming from their hearts and lips, just as they very generally fail to feel that the sermonic Amen is spoken in their name. Hence, it is fortunately our practice, if there is a response to the Salutation at all, to embody it in congregational Song and not to publish it in a formulary pronounced by the liturgete.
Song is peculiarly appropriate on its own account to serve as the medium of response in meeting God's appearance among His people in the glory of His sovereign grace with adoring and worshipful acclaim. For it should be remembered that, though God is the Lofty One in Purest Holiness and most inexorable righteousness, He nevertheless admits His people to His house and fellowships with them in worship, in virtue of His saving love and redeeming grace in Christ. Jesus emphasized God's Fatherhood in His classical pronouncement upon the character of N.T. worship. The connotation of Fatherhood, no doubt, is authoritative claim to obedience and honor (Mal. 1:6a), but its denotation is tender solicitude and watchful care over the children of His love. The response to the Salutation accordingly should be in substance, indeed, an expression, of reverence and awe as the congregation contemplates God's absolute claim to Adoration, but in spirit it should no less be the expression of great happiness and triumphant joy. The Old Testament contains many indications that God expects His people to "come before His presence with singing and to serve Him with gladness," (Ps. 100:2) Surely, if, in the era of promises and shadows it was seemly that his people should "come before God's presence to make a joyful noice unto Him with psalms" (Ps. 95:2) it must be eminently proper, to be sure, in the dispensation of fulfilment and realities to sing Jehovah's praise with exultation. Did not our Redeemer repeatedly speak of the fulness of the joy of His disciples in Himself (cf. John 15:11; 16:24; 17:13) when the ominous shadows of the cruel cross were already falling athwart His path.
Song is inspired preëminently by joyfulness. It may, it is true, become the expression of sorrow and even be made a vehicle of didactic thought. But its characteristic function is to render gladness vocal. Song is not song in truth, unless it be the translation of the emotional state of the soul into language wedded to correspondent sound. Didacticism and song, though not absolutely exclusive mutually, are but slightly adapted to each other, much as prayer and argumentative thought have very little affinity. Sorrow, like joy, is intrinsically a psychic condition on the emotional order. Like joy, too, it may, or may not, crave expression. There is a serene joy that is satisfied with beaming quietly from the countenance and would prefer to go unpublished. Then, too, there is exultant joy that expands and grows to full proportions through the exponent of crystallization in language and embodiment in vocal rendition. Likewise, sorrow may be of the kind that eschews publicity, it cannot prevent the eye from growing dim, but it carefully refrains from issuing in tearful profusion. Then, again, sorrow may deepen into grief and anguish, and rise to the climax of vehement distress; it then seeks relief in words, if not in cries that will not down, and that tend to mitigate the sufferings of the soul and are therefore exceedingly welcome. The joy and sorrow of the quiet kind are perfectly content to remain behind the scenes of open life; exuberant happiness and poignant grief do, indeed, relish, if they do not struggle for, utterance, but with a difference that is far from insignificant and negligible. Joy of this description is capable of natural expression and real utterance equally by the spoken word and the word sung, and both a like are promotive of the joy expressed. Grief of heart, that is, intense sorrow of soul, can vent itself in speech and thereby suffer no check, but the vehicle of song has a suppressing effect upon the emotion itself. There is a very apparent reason for the latter fact. Song in the active sense is poetry wedded to music, whether vocal alone or vocal fused with instrumental accompaniment; in other words: song is the exercise of art. Now art as the human creation of a world of beauty, is fundamentally the exercise of a happy soul and its product is therefore a joy forever. It could not create joy in those beholding it, if it were not born of a soul stirred by delight as it gives birth to incarnations of glory. It will now be plain why grief and art are not affinities. Hell, as the abode of those who weep and gnash their teeth, has no room for art, for the prerequisite of its enjoyment is lacking in the place of outer darkness, viz., the light that is the medium of its revelations. Heaven, on the contrary, will receive, we are told, all the glory of the nations of the earth and their kings (Rev. 21:24, 26) and heaven's own glories will blaze with untold brightness in the splendour of the great Day whose sun will never set.
The Song of Adoration, then, is properly a song, too, of Joy. God Whom we adore is the Father, not only of grace, but also of glory. In worship He appears particularly in the beauty of His Holiness and the glory of His grace in Christ. In fact, in worship we experience the enjoyment of God's truth and goodness and beauty, all of which are interrelated. Truth is the basis of goodness and beauty; goodness is an essential quality of truth and beauty; beauty is the efflorescence of truth and goodness. And the delightful result of the mergence of these three foundational values of spiritual life is well calculated to instill sweetest joy into the heart of all who obey the glad summons to worship and experience the descent of God's grace and peace when they lift up their hearts to Him in His house.
We have now reached the close of the Introductory Service. In a strict sense only the Votum is introductory in character; when through it the liturgical meeting has been called to order, worship proper begins, for in the Salutation and the Song of Adoration, the keynote of all that is to follow on God's part and on the part of the congregation, is struck. Yet the two liturgical elements mentioned are the prerequisite and prelude of worship, as compared with the rest of the liturgical program. If one may so say, only after the gracious greeting of welcome has been extended by the heavenly host and His earthly guests have with glad acclaim accepted it, does the door of the King's palace close and the King Himself leads us into His chambers, where "we will be glad and rejoice in Him" and "remember His love more than wine" and the upright celebrate the love-feast of their Lord. (Song of Solomon, 1:4).
D. The Alternative Introductory Service. According to Acts of Synod 1928, p. 55, the items of this alternative Introductory Service are: 1. Psalm; 2. Invocation or Votum; 3. Salutation, in the order in which they are here given. Synod instructed the standing Liturgical Committee (Acts 1928, p. 61) "to prepare a brief Directory of worship (Synod italicizes) for the convenience of ministers and congregations, and to publish the same ... in the Dutch, English and German languages." This Directory of Worship was duly published in November 1928 in English and Dutch. In a Preface the Committee states: "Our consistories will observe that in preparing this directory we have faithfully (the writer underscores) followed the Synodically adopted Order of Worship." Fact is, however, that the Committee saw fit to make two changes in the Introductory Service, without either acknowledging them in the Preface, as they did the change from Absolution to Assurance of Pardon, or explaining why they made the changes mentioned. The first change they introduced was the reversal of the order in which the two alternative Introductory services is given in the official Acts of the Synod (Acts 1928, p, 5~5). The Order there given, with which the order proposed by the Liturgical Committee in its Report to Synod 1928 (Agenda 1928, Part I pp. 96, 97, 108) coincides, is A. Votum, Salutation, Psalm; B. Psalm, Invocation or Votum (this second alternative was not proposed by the Liturgical Committee) Salutation, The second alternative (Psalm, Invocation, Salutation) was given in the Report of the Liturgical Committee to the Synod of 1920, when it came out with its first Proposed New Order of Worship, as the preference of three members of the Committee, viz., Prof. Heyns, Rev. L. Trap and Rev. H. J. Kuiper, who, it is declared in a note, "object to the use of the Votum." The Alternative Introductory Service is not included in the Order of Worship which the Committee proposes, but is mentioned in a note, in which the three members mentioned above "present" it with the consent of the other members. In the Report to the Synod of 1928, the Committee put the two alternates on a par, except insofar as the preferential alternate of the three members aforesaid was placed second in order. In this order Synod 1928 left them, when it adopted the Proposal of the Committee.
The second change that the Committee introduced when it published the Directory of Worship, is the omission of the second alternative of the second item of the second alternative, Introductory Service, viz., the Votum, which the Synod, departing from the proposal of the Committee, had added to the Invocation. The Committee had sponsored the preference of Prof. Heyns and the Revs. L. Trap and H. J. Kuiper in its 1928 Report, and agreeably to the proposal of these three members, had included only the Invocation. It is not reported why Synod added the alternative of the Votum to the Invocation. Presumably it did so from the consideration that, possibly, some might prefer the second alternative Introductory Service, without being prepared to drop the Votum altogether. Even so Synod gave priority to the Invocation; thereby suggesting that this second alternative Introductory Service embodied the ideal of those who "object to the Votum", and hinting that such as wish to use the Votum, had better use the first Alternative Introductory Service, where alone the Votum occupies its natural and logical place.
If the reversal and omission, discovered in the Directory of Worship, are not the result of carelessness on the part of the Committee that published it at Synod's behest — and this hypothesis is, indeed, burdened with great improbability — they would seem to indicate that those responsible for the publication of the Directory of Worship have taken unwarranted liberties with a Synodical decision, whatever motives may have impelled them to do so. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that the order in which alternatives are given may properly be presumed to reflect the relative grade and value of these alternatives in the estimation of those propounding them. It is equally certain that the order in which alternatives are presented by those in authority has a subtly suggestive influence upon those who either can not, or do not judge of the propriety and value of the alternatives proposed. In nine out of ten cases the first alternative will be adopted. Even in the event we should personally prefer the order: Psalm, Invocation or Votum, Salutation — which does not happen to be the case — it would incontrovertibly be incumbent upon us to represent the other alternative as the Synod's preference, before proceeding to state and motivate our own choice. We are so fortunate, however, as to be in agreement with the position of Synod, as appears from the foregoing discussion of the Introductory Service.
Synod, indeed, allowed the use of the other alternative Introductory Service and so far forth gave it its sanction. But it would not be correct to conclude from these premises, that Synod considered both to be on a par intrinsically. The members of the Liturgical Committee that consented to the inclusion of the order: Votum, Salutation, Song and even to its receiving first mention in their report to Synod 1928, certainly did not mean to say thereby, that in their opinion the two alternatives were of equal liturgical worth. Motives of a practical nature, such as expediency and accommodation, alone moved them to make a concession that violated their liturgical convictions. Likewise Synod did not necessarily mean to say, by adopting an alternative Introductory Service, that the one is just as good and no better than the other, as their mechanical juxta-position might suggest. In fact, the order of the two alternatives adopted, if not — as is most unlikely — established unthinkingly, is a clear intimation of the Synod's preferential choice. The most that may be said is, that Synod did not consider the second, alternative contrabande on Scriptural principle and hence, undeserving of toleration. Just as Prof. Heyns and the Revs. L. Trap and H. J. Kuiper consent to bear ecclesiastically with those who use the Votum to whose use "they object," and kindly agree to disagree, so, too, Synod is not of a mind to prohibit those who prefer the second alternative Introductory Service from using it.
In appraising the liturgical value of the second alternative Introductory Service, it is not the question, whether the elements of which it is constituted are legitimate in themselves. There can be no doubt that Song, Prayer and Salutation are all properly liturgical elements. Neither need we inquire particularly whether these several elements are all in order in an Introductory Service. The Salutation and the Psalm are, of course, not even under a cloud; it might conceivably be argued that the absence of prayer from the other Introductory Service rules it out of order in this connection. To this it might be replied that the response of the congregation to the Salutation by way of prayer, though not adopted in the Introductory Service recommended, is far from being inadmissible. The matter requiring attention specifically is the fitness of this Introductory Service for the purpose contemplated; subsidiary to this is the liturgical propriety of the sequence of its respective items, as a basis for its technical evaluation.
The general purpose which an Introductory Service is designed to serve, at once calls attention to the fate that has befallen the Votum in this alternative. It is not only made optional, so that it may properly be omitted, but it is made second choice, if considered at all; not to say that, if used at all as an opening exercise it is so located that it is an anachronism, and reduces the preceding psalm to a liturgical absurdity, if not worse. To omit it altogether proceeds upon one or both of two suppositions. Through misapprehension concerning its distinctive nature and purpose, as the parliamentary act of calling the liturgical meeting to order, it may mistakenly be viewed as lacking good reason and therefore uncalled for. Through misunderstanding respecting the specific liturgical nature and purpose of Song, the latter may erroneously be regarded as a fitting opening exercise upon the occasion in hand, and as rendering the Votum superfluous. In case the Votum is retained and left in its assigned place, either its true meaning and specific purpose are misunderstood and its motif thereby destroyed, or it is manifestly out of place as a foolish duplication of the opening song number; unless, worse still, it proceeds upon the assumption that the opening psalm is extra-liturgical, and, hence, does not serve as the opening number of the program of worship. But on this view the song-number should, of course, not have been included in the Introductory Service at all. However one revolve the matter, the impression is simply unavoidable that the Votum is permitted to stand, and only as optional at that, by sufferance consented to reluctantly.
We recall that three members of the Liturgical Committee were reported as "objecting to the use of the Votum" in 1920 (Acts 1920 p. 19). Their dissent from the rest of the Committee on the score of the Votum, and the grounds upon which it was based, have been recorded in a Note to the Report of the Committee to Synod. We find that their objection to the Votum is seemingly based in large part upon the particular Formulary that the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands use and that the Committee recommended to Synod, viz. Ps. l24:8. This Formulary, the dissenting committee members contend, "does not naturally suggest the thought supposed to be declared when this Votum is pronounced," viz., that "God is in the midst of His people with His power and grace and that the services have begun" and is therefore "ambiguous," contrary to ideal liturgical forms. In a word, the Votum Formulary, viz. Ps. 124:8, is not self-explanatory, it is alleged, and does not answer to the canon, that the liturgy "should contain nothing which is mysterious and incomprehensible to those who participate in them, lest it be impossible for them to worship the Lord "'in spirit and in truth'". They further declare, that "to begin the service with a short declaration of thirteen words only" is less aesthetic, on account of abruptness, than beginning with a psalm.
Upon analysis it appears that the objection of the minority of the committee does not concern the Votum as such, but a particular Formulary advocated or used. From their specific complaints it may be gathered, that a Formulary, stating expressly what its definite liturgical function is and longer than Ps. 124:8, would be acceptable to them, assuming that the objectors are consistent. It is rightly to be feared, however, that they would choose to be inconsistent and to oppose the use of a Votum i.e. a declaratory opening statement. For, be it observed, they do not object to the benediction formularies recommended in the Report, viz., 2 Cor. 13:13 and Numbers 6:24-26, neither of which expressly states that it is intended to serve as a farewell greeting, which is, in fact, its distinctive liturgical function. Nor do they hesitate to recommend the use of psalm-singing as the opening number of public worship, though, of course, no psalm expressly declares, however distantly, that by this token the meeting is formally opened and constituted a formal public assembly. It looks very much as if the minority does not recognize the need, if they do not doubt the propriety, of a formal declaratory opening statement. The reasons advanced in favor of such a statement when the Votum was discussed, need not now be repeated. It is, however, a source of regret that, if those "objecting to the use of the Votum" really objected to the Votum as such, as well as to the particularly Formulary contemplated, they did not expressly so declare, instead of arguing merely against the Formulary of the Votum recommended by the Committee,
We shall not inquire into the liturgical propriety of making a song number the initial element of public worship. In registering their objections against the first alternative Introductory Service, the three dissenting members of the committee motivate their substitution of a psalm for the Votum by appealing to aesthetics. "It is more aesthetic," they say, "to begin the service with a psalm than with a short declaration of thirteen words only." Here the greater length of a psalm seems to cut a swath with them. In another connection, in the same note, they define this opening psalm as "a call to worship and an expression of longing for Jehovah's courts." In the Directory of Worship published 1928 the Committee speaks of a "Psalm calling to Worship" while in the Dutch version of the same item they say "Psalmgezang strekkend ter opwekking van de rechte stemming." Strange to say, the post-salutation song in the other Introductory Service, the song which we have called the Song of Adoration, is also introduced in the Directory of Worship by the committee as a "Psalm calling to worship," and "Psalmgezang, strekkend ter opwekking van do rechte stemmimg." If in place anywhere, the psalm as described by the Directory of Worship would seem to be in order at the head, rather than at the close of the Introductory Service, for, to put it mildly, it is somewhat disconcerting to find that a psalm should have to be sung, after God has already welcomed His people, with the express purpose of calling them to worship and putting them in the proper mood and frame of mind for worship.
The three men protagonizing the second alternative Introductory Service motivate their choice of a psalm as the opening number of the liturgy particularly by styling the psalm "a call to worship and the expression of longing for God's courts." This constitutes their real argument. The aesthetic argument is miserably weak, at least as it stands; for if a Votum Formulary of approximately equal length were used, it would automatically lose its force. But the other argument, too, is lamentably frail, particularly in the way in which it is advanced. For if it is a call to worship that is wanted, and an expression of longing for God's courts the Votum Formulary can, if so desired, be drawn up in such a way that it suits this purpose. What those substituting a psalm for the Votum really want to say, is that Song is more suitable than a Declaration, for the purpose of opening public worship. That is the thesis they would be under necessity to defend, if they were to combat the Votum in a serious fashion.
Let us, then, look into the merits of this position. Upon close examination of this notion, it appears to be subject to at least three objections. First of all, the opening of a formal meeting is specifically the task of the presiding officer. Now it is true that many meetings are opened without the use of a Declaration to the effect that the meeting stands organized, and that the first overt act is a song-number. It is a mistake, however, to think that the announcement of a song number and its rendition by the assembly, is the opening act. The mounting of the platform, or if the presiding officer of the meeting has been on the platform some time before the beginning of the meeting, then his arising to announce a song number, or to lead in prayer, is virtually and in effect the parliamentary act of opening the meeting. Thereupon the meeting, thus constituted a formal assembly, is called upon to engage in song, or to pray as the chairman leads them, or to attend to the reading of a part of Scripture. So, too, the giving out of a psalm or hymn and its rendition by the congregation in public worship, presupposes that the meeting has been, parliamentarily speaking, opened. The act of the liturgete of rising to begin his ministrations, is the dramatic signal, in distinction from the spoken word, that is declarative of the constitution of the liturgical assembly. The protagonists of the psalm as the opening number of public worship, are laboring under a patent misapprehension.
The second objection is based upon the obvious fact, that song, as preeminently emotional in its tenor, in distinction from the spoken word which is preponderantly intellectual in its tone, is never primary, but always secondary: it is, in its peculiar nature and import, responsive to, and reflective of, ideas previously addressed to the mind in whatever fashion. It cannot be argued that the psalm is a response to the dramatic opening of the meeting spoken of above. For the parliamentary act constitutive of the meeting as an assembly, does not call for any other response than the orderly execution of such injunctions as are issued by the chairman, throughout the whole session of the assembly. In the first alternative Introductory Service the first congregational response is made after, and to, the Salutation. The Votum has no formal mutual implications: it is solitary. Song, then, is not suited psychologically to the purpose to which some mistakenly put it when they make it the opening number of public worship.
The last objection, and by no means the least, is derived from the prerogative of God to be the first one to speak when His people have congregated in His courts at His gracious and sovereign invitation. This is so manifestly and omnium consonse the postulate of the divine majesty, that it can only create surprise that liturgicians have not taken account of this liturgical canon more consistently. Upon even slight reflection, it must appear perfectly obvious, that it is exceedingly improper on religious principles in general and on liturgical principles in particular, to take precedence of God upon occasion of a formal meeting with God such as public worship confessedly is. As was pointed out when the Salutation was discussed, it is God's inalienable and holy right to be the first and the last in public worship, as He is throughout in nature and in grace. In public, that is, formal worship, Gods people give formal expression to this principle of true piety and reverence by engaging in no actus liturgicus on their part, until God has beckoned them to speak through an actus liturgicus on His part.
Beginning public worship with song, then, appears to be a practice lacking proper warrant, while the notion that song is constitutive of the assembly is plainly an error. It should be added that the Votum, too, would be out of place as the beginning of public worship if, as some understand it, (our Liturgical Committee too, seemingly, cf. Afts 1920 p. 187, where they call the Votum an Actus a parte ecclesiae) the Votum were truly an Actus a parte ecclesiae. But it is not such, properly understood: it is, as was shown above when the Votum was discussed, an act of the presiding officer, or liturgete, alone, and therefore, strictly speaking, a pre-liturgical act which does not at all violate the principle of divine precedence.
We now come to the Invocation, which is a special feature of the second Alternative Introductory Service. Synod, as we have seen, gave the church the right of choice between the Invocation and the Votum, contrary to the Liturgical committee which had prepared the Invocation only, and which unwarrantedly omitted the option from the Directory of Worship which it published in pursuance of the mandate of Synod of 1928. It is difficult to understand, why those advocating the second alternative Introductory Service did not reverse the Order of Initial Song and Prayer. If the two must follow in immediate succession, it would be far better to give priority to prayer, and to constitute song a response to prayer. If this had been done, the objection that two different items of worship viz., exultation in worship (song) and Petition (prayer) in immediate succession, violate the principle of alternation, might have been obviated, But now this objection tells against the Invocation with full force. For the minority of the Committee of 1920 explains the Invocation to be "a brief petition for the Lord's blessing upon the services." These men do not seem to feel the liturgical disparateness of a "Psalm calling to worship and expressing longing for God's courts" and a Prayer that is characteristically petitionary, as appears conclusively from their remark that the psalm with which the services begin, "culminates in the Invocation." We find, then, that they not only take undue precedence of God by anticipating His greeting of welcome with raising a song, but proceed to ignore God's prerogative of precedence a second time, by passing from Praise to Prayer before God is given an opportunity, humanly speaking, — and be it said in all reverence — to speak to them. The whole procedure leaves the unpleasant impression of liturgical forwardness, though, of course, it is not meant to be this. We should not forget that modesty is a beautiful virtue, and that it should be liturgically expressed in public worship no less than embodied practically in religious life.
In conclusion it may be observed that there is no logical room for the Salutation after Song and Prayer. The only manner in which to put a reasonable construction upon this location of the Salutation, is to consider the preceding Song and Prayer, pre-, that is, extra- liturgical. That, however, does not comport at all with the ideas of the authors of this alternative Introductory Service, and is therefore bad exegesis. But then we are shut up to the alternative of declaring, that the insertion of the Salutation where we find it, borders upon the absurd. For we are asked to believe, that it is really the only right procedure to break forth in song and to pour out our hearts in petition for blessings before God has extended His gracious and sovereign welcome to us, and by that token admitted us to His House. For we are not permitted to view Praise and Prayer as having been engaged in outside the gate of the sanctuary. It would certainly be better style to omit the Salutation altogether, and to proceed upon the assumption, that the divine welcome is a matter of course, in consideration of our covenant status and the call to worship which cones to us in God's word and through the return of the Sabbatic season in God's providence.
The second alternative Introductory Service then, has not established a claim to favor and commendation. It is liturgically inferior to the first. It is open to several serious objections. It is regrettable that it took its rise within the Liturgical Committee itself. If a minority of this Committee had not projected this faulty Introductory Service it would, perhaps, never have been constituted an official alternative Introductory Service by Synod. The sorry thing is not only that it is not suited to its purpose, but also that it embodies principles which insidiously work their way into the public mind and are likely to play havoc with sound liturgical principles as respects other parts of the program of worship. The latter consideration in particular led us to this somewhat detailed examination of the second Alternative Introductory Service.
II. The Service of Reconciliation.
We have come to the second structural unit of the liturgy. So far nothing has yet been done in the way of active liturgical fellowship. The people of God have presented themselves, as it were, at the door of God's House; they have been greeted and welcomed by Him and admitted to His courts and have responded to their gracious reception with a psalm of adoration and praise. The time has now come for God and the saints to enter upon communion. What shall the first act of fellowship be? And what specific purpose must the next group of liturgical items serve? Surely, there can be nothing arbitrary and haphazard about the sequence of worship in general or the initial act of worship in particular. Both the substance and the order of the liturgy are determined by the fundamental facts of religious life. Of these fellowship, communion, intercourse of God with His people is the central and dominant principle. The question now arises: are the people of God fully prepared for the close, intimate fellowship with their God for which the occasion plainly calls? Can it be that they must first wash their hands before they sit down to meat with their Lord?
At this juncture we remember that God's people have just returned from a week of work in God's world. We recall that their religious life is arranged on the principle of the alternation of work and worship. They serve their Father six days of the week in the cultivation of the material and spiritual world which He made and which is their work-shop. On the Sabbath they return to their Father's House, in order that they may commune with Him and lay the fruits of their labor upon His altar, in the spirit of loving consecration, by means of worship to the praise of His Name and the joy of their souls. When this season of fellowship has been spent, they once more return to the scenes of their labors. When the recurrence of the Sabbath brings the call to worship, they repair to their Father's House anew.
Are they ready for fellowship with God immediately upon entering His holy presence? Hardly! During the period of work in the world they have not walked in holiness and righteosness before God in a perfect way; they have not served Him without fault in the work of their hands; and they have not kept themselves unspotted from the wickedness which is in the world. Sin dwells in them still, and the world yet lies in the wicked one. They are not free from transgression; they have not escaped the pollution that is in the world; defiled and guilty they stand before God now that they have come into His courts. They have neither lived in perfection according to the commands of God, nor fully redeemed their solemn pledges of obedience and fealty, made to God when they confessed His Name.
Let us convince ourselves that they are, indeed, unfit for fellowship with their God in the condition in which they enter His House. They have failed to continue the public worship of God which they ceased to render when the Sabbath was spent in the private worship in their hearts and at their hearths, to which they are called. In many respects they have lived and labored and spoken as if the world were theirs instead of their Father's; at times they actually prostituted it to purposes directly contrary to those of its Maker and Lord. Often they forgot that the world is but their workshop and not the home of their souls; and, in consequence, they failed to long for the Father's House and to yearn for their Father's company. Nor have they always made the most of their opportunities to make the world productive of the glory of their God and constituted it the medium of His praise.
Moreover, soon after returning from their last visit with their heavenly Father, they allowed the spirit of the wicked world of sin and unbelief to enter their hearts and control their life in a measure. They became contaminated with the unholiness of this present evil age. Worldliness marked both their spirit and. their conduct; they not only were quite satisfied to live apart from God, but they also allied themselves with the forces of unrighteousness. They did not testify faithfully of their Father, nor did they maintain His rights over against those who seek to dispossess God of His world and its fruits. They fellowshipped with the enemies of God and of His Christ, and virtually denied their heavenly citizenship. They yielded to worldly principles of thought and action; and in their faithlessness followed worldly practices and methods. In a word, they denied their Lord oftentimes by implication and sometimes in express terms of thought, word and deed.
It is obvious that a people laden thus with iniquity, cannot enter upon worship without being reconciled to God thru the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, that cleanseth from all sin. In principle the famous passage from the first chapter of Isaiah (verses 10-18) applies. "Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah; I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more vain oblations unto me; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies — I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto no; I am weary of bearing them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yes, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood, wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widows. Come now, and let us reason together, saith Jehovah; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool".
Holiness is the spirit of worship, because the Lord, our God, is the Holy One of Israel. "He is too pure of eyes to behold iniquity". The need of repentance and confession of sin and of the reassurance of God's forgiving love, before God's people can properly worship Him, is also very evident from Isaiah, chap. 6. The prophet saw "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the temple", while the seraphim declared His holiness as they covered their own holy faces with two of their six wings, and pronounced the whole earth to be full of His glory. Meanwhile the foundations of the threshold shook at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then Isaiah said: "Woe is me, for I an undone, because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts". Thereupon one of the seraphim flew "unto the prophet, with a live coal in his hand which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: and he touched my mouth with it, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin forgiven".
It is not implied that the fact of the sinfulness of heart and life of the people of God necessarily bars them from His House. They are His people, indeed. They are the Father's children, the followers of Jesus and the recipients of the Holy Spirit. They are the Lord's people in respect alike of the objective status given them by God in His sovereign good-pleasure and the subjective condition of regenerate life that lends them a spiritual character. They are wholly justified, but not yet entirely sanctified; the new man is born in their heart, but the old man has not yet fully died. Like St. Paul they must mournfully confess: "for that which I do I know not: for not what I would that do I practice; but what I hate that I do ..... For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. For the good which I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practice". (Rom. 7:l5, 18, 19). In spite of all their failings and shortcomings, they delight in the law of God after the inward man and with the mind they, indeed, serve the law of God, tho they cannot deny that there is also a different law in their members, warring against the law of their mind and bringing them into captivity under the law of sin which is in their members, in virtue of which they serve the law of sin with their flesh. (Rom. 7:22, 25).
Being God's people, indeed, tho far from being perfect either inwardly or outwardly, they answered the call to worship that the return of God's Sabbath issued. And God Himself greeted them in His love, welcomed them cordially, and graciously admitted them to His House and even to His heart. Truly, their sins have not suspended the work of grace that God wrought in their hearts, and have not led God to cancel their standing as His people. Unchanging is the love of God; undying is the life of the Spirit implanted in the believer's heart.
But it does not follow that the sinfulness and sins of the worshipping people of God are of no account and are ignored, as if they were not hard, stubborn, undeniable facts. The cordial greeting and loving welcome extended to them are reassuring, indeed, but they do not of themselves destroy the moral effect of their sinful life. Only pardon, sought, given and accepted, can do that. Their admission to God's House, in spite of their guilty condition, was based upon their objective standing in Christ, their surety and their Head. But actual fellowship with them on the part of their Holy Father, is possible only on condition that they penitently renounce the sins that have made a separation between them and their God and humbly seek His gracious pardon thru faith in the Son of God whose blood cleanseth from all sin. It should be remembered that "the firm foundation of God standeth, having this seal: the Lord knoweth them that are His: and, Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness". (2 Tim. 2:19)
It appears, then, that God cannot, consistently with His absolute holiness, enter upon terms of intimacy with His own, unless they put a moral distance between themselves and the sins of which they are guilty and receive the grace of His pardon agreeably to His promises. It may be asked, however, whether the worshippers have not satisfied these conditions by personal and private confession of sins at home before they meet as a congregation in God's House. No doubt, they must have recalled when still at home, that the Father seeks only true worshippers and that only those can so qualify who worship Him "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:23, 24). It is no doubt the duty of God's people to confess their sins daily and under normal spiritual conditions they seek God's pardon at the close of every day. In fact, private worship, inclusive of humble confession of sin, is a necessary and fruitful preparation for the proper observance of public worship. But it does not render public worship superfluous, either on the score of its general character, or of the special feature of confession of sins. It should be remembered that public worship is corporate and common worship. Believers are, it is true, individually children of God; each one of them is personally born again, incorporated in Christ, led by the Holy Spirit. Yet they are no less jointly the one people of God, the one body of Christ, the one temple of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the corporate aspects of redemption are both primary and ultimate; God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and when He redeems us personally he translates us into the Kingdom of His dear Son. The personal life of the believer ultimates in the corporate life of the church of God. The personal salvation of the believer can, in fact, only be fully realized, if it be integrated in the communal life of the Body of Christ, as it is centralized in the Holy Spirit from whom it takes its origin and by whom it is sustained.
Hence the need of expressing this corporate relation and embodying the corporate life in ecclesiastical organization and liturgical, i.e. public, corporate, worship. The church must worship God, the people must adore their King, the body of Christ must appear in God's courts. It is not sufficient that the individual saints render Him worship severally. The body is more and other than the sum total of its members. The aggregate worship of all the saints severally is not the full need of praise due unto God. Likewise the totality of the confessions of sin of all the respective members of the church is not entirely equal to the Confiteor of the body of Christ in its corporate capacity. The same consideration may be urged for another reason. The entire creation of God was originally an organic whole. Sin, indeed played havoc with the unity of the cosmos, but God is summing up (ANAKEPHA-LAIESTHAI, Eph. 1:10) all things in Christ, the Mediator of creation and redemption alike. It will be noted that the organic centre (KEPHALEE) of all things in heaven and on earth is none other than He, who is the Head of the church and in whom all believers are incorporated, even our Lord Jesus Christ. This points to the fact that redeemed humanity as corporately one in Christ, has been constituted the representative of the whole universe of God, and has been invested with the responsibility that is the corollary of this representative capacity. This corporate responsibility applies in two directions: the church of God must spiritualize and render vocal in moral tones the praises of the world's Creator and Redeemer as they await expression everywhere; it, too, must render articulate the sighs of sorrow and the groans of grief that escape from the whole creation. For, as St. Paul says (Rom. 8:20) "The creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it". Only the church as a body can properly exercise this representative function and discharge this corporate responsibility.
It is necessary, therefore, that the church as such seek pardon at God's hands and receive the forgiveness of all its sins, in the way of heartfelt penitence and, implicit faith in the word of the Gospel. If the church is truly contrite, and if God lays His hand of benediction upon its head, saying: be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee, the obstacles that interposed themselves between the people of God and the God of His people are removed; and fellowship, sweet, intimate, blessed, can unite the hearts of the Holy One of Israel and the people that He made for His own possession.
- - - - - - - -
We have now discovered the motif for the second structural unit of the liturgy. It is distinctly Christian, and it is due to this service of Reconciliation, as it has been called, that the liturgy of 1928 breathes a typically and genuinely Christian spirit from the very first. For it is distinctly, that is, Scripturally, Christian to base worship upon the redeeming grace of God in Christ as it constitutes those who in time past were no people, the people of God, and bestows mercy upon those who aforetime had not obtained mercy (1 Pet. 2:10). Liturgically this is exemplified in a beautiful manner in the glad welcome that God extends to His people in spite of their pollution and guilt. This feature of Christian worship is a direct contradiction of the principle of abject and craven fear that informs all species of pagan worship. But it is equally characteristic of Christian worship, that it does not magnify the grace of God at the expense of His holiness, but insists upon the confession of their sins on the part of God's people, even after their admission to the temple of God, as a condition of the performance of acceptable worship. This element of Christian worship is raised to a prominence commensurate with its spiritual significance, in the second group of our liturgy. This feature of our worship gives the lie to the Pelagian principle of self-righteousness that is basic to the spirit of modernistic worship. The understanding, appreciation and maintenance of the sound and vital religious principle embodied in the Service of Reconciliation, is calculated to impart a healthy and vigorous tone to the public worship of our people; and it will contribute appreciably to the preservation of vital Christianity among us. This will be oven more evident when we shall have studied the several elements that jointly constitute the Service of Reconciliation.
- - - - - - - -
Before taking up the discussion of the respective elements of this liturgical reconciliation, account must be taken, if only for historical reasons, of the objections that have been raised against both the term "Reconciliation" and the construction of that for which the term stands, into a separate and special department of the liturgy. It is contended that the fact of redemption upon which the whole fact of Christian worship bases, precludes anything properly called Reconciliation; and that what has been so styled, is not in fact reconciliation at all. It is further submitted that the confession and pardon of sin, as the staple of this service of reconciliation so-called, receive full justice, if they be incorporated in the general prayer and the sermon, respectively. In replying to these objections it will appear that they lack real strength. Incidentally the discussion will serve to throw into bold relief the fine liturgical virtue of the impugned Service of Reconciliation.
To begin with, strenuous objection has been registered against the nomenclature, "Service of Reconciliation". It is contended that God's people are reconciled with God "once for all", and that "Christian life does not consist of a series of repeated reconciliations with God". Appeal is made to Dr. A. Kuyper, Sr. and Dr. H. Bavinck, in support of the view that reconciliation is a punctiliar fact and not an experience that is worked out in a series of acts of confession of sin and believing appropriation of the full and free pardon that the Gospel offers to penitent sinners. In fairness to those that raise the objection cited, it should be observed that they do not deny that God's children must daily confess their sins and thru faith lay hold of the forgiveness which God proffers. They unhesitatingly admit these truths. What they deny is that such a transaction, i.e. the Christian's repeated confession of his sins to God and God's repeated pardon of the sins of the believer, constitutes a part of the redemptive fact and experience that the Scriptures call reconciliation (KATALLAGEE). As stated, they opine that reconciliation is an act that takes place at one time, is then a "fait accompli", "een voldongen feit", a finished, complete, established fact. What happens later, when sins are confessed and pardon is extended and accepted, is not a part or parcel of the reconciliation in any conceivable sense, whatever it may be. In their judgment the Reconciliation must be confined to the first establishment of mutual peace between God and the penitent, confessing and believing sinner. If this view concerning the punctiliar character of reconciliation, be correct, the term "Service of Reconciliation" is a misnomer and should not be employed. For surely, if the view underlying the objection against the term be sound, the application of the term to recurrent confession of sin and bestowal and acceptance of pardon, would seem to imply that God's children repeatedly fall from grace, and that the foundations for redemption must be laid anew from day to day. Certainly, such a soteriology is neither Scriptural, nor calculated to promote spiritual stability, strength and assurance.
The objection under discussion plainly takes its rise in failure to distinguish properly between the two reconciliations of which Scripture speaks in 2 Cor. 5:18-21. St. Paul declares in vs. 18, that God reconciled us unto Himself thru Christ. In Rom. 5:10 the same author explains the words "thru Christ" of 2 Cor. 5:18 by saying, that "we were reconciled to God thru the death of His son". In II Cor. 5:19 the statement of God's reconciliation of His children unto Himself is repeated with a slight variation of language. A significant explanatory addition is made in the words: "not reckoning unto them their trespasses". The verb used and translated reconcile (KATALLASSEIN) means to change, i.e. to become an ALLOS, an other than one formerly was in respect of a specified relation. God's reconciliation of His people unto Himself thru Christ i.e. thru the death of His Son, obviously means: the changed relation that God sustains to them on the strength of the satisfaction which Christ rendered to the retributive justice of God, by paying in His death the penalty of their sins. Thru this KATALLAGEE (reconciliation) God is no longer at enmity with those for whom Christ died, but at peace. It has made Him an ALLOS, an other than the angry, hostile, avenging God which our unatoned sins caused Him to be, namely, the God of all peace.
Since God has reconciled the world to Himself in Christ and maintains this attitude of peace permanently as the language of vs. 19 (EEN KATALLASSOON -- was reconciling) implies, He has instituted "the ministry of reconciliation" (DIAK0NIA TEES KATALLAGEES) and charged those entrusted with it to proclaim "the Word of reconciliation" (LOGOS TEES KATALLAGEES). This word of reconciliation is the glad tidings that God has laid aside His anger; and the ministry of reconciliation is the publication of God's invitation to men to be reconciled on their part to Him, that is, to abandon their enmity to Him and to reciprocate the peace which He established and preaches to those that are far off and to those that are nigh (Eph. 3:17). Sinners are besought by those who are ambassadors on behalf of Christ and thru whom God as it were entreats men, to be reconciled to God. This reconciliation or being reconciled of man to God in the way of faith in Christ, in Whom, and for the sake of Whose atoning death, God assumes an attitude of benevolence and peace toward those deserving of His righteous wrath, is to be sharply differentiated from god's act of ceasing from wrath and enmity. The latter does not render the former unnecessary, no more than the former would be possible without the latter. Hence the urgency of the Gospel ministry and the solicitude of Christ's ambassadors, which Paul voices in vs. 20 of 2 Cor. 5. The reconciliation of man to God to which ministers of reconciliation exhort men, is an act which men are obliged to perform. Hence the imperative: Be ye reconciled to God. This is also plain from Matt. 5:24 where the offending party is bidden to go his way and be reconciled to his offended brother. The act whereby man puts himself in the way of being reconciled to God is faith. But this faith in Christ is not the direct medium of participation in the peace that God established when He reconciled the world unto Himself in Christ and that He causes to be preached far and wide. Faith in Christ leads first of all to justification, as St. Paul teaches in Rom. 5:1, "having been justified by faith we have peace with God," viz. the peace that reciprocates the peace of God's own heart toward us.
We have, then, two reconciliations, that is, one on God's part and one on man's part. These two should obviously be no more confounded than the two parties whom they severally bring into a relation of peace. Scripture indicates the difference between the two by saying, that God reconciles (KATALASSOON, KATALAKSAS, active voice) us unto Himself and that man is reconciled (KATALIAGEETE, passive voice) to God. Again, God reconciles us unto Himself thru Christ's death, we are reconciled to God by faith in the Christ that died for us. Again, God's reconciling us unto Himself is the inexorable condition, the legal foundation and spiritual source, of our being reconciled to Him. It is true that one peace results from these two reconciliations, but the mutual character of the one complete peace is plain proof that it is the confluence of two streams of life, that of God in first order and that of man in second order.
Now the first of these two reconciliations, viz. that of God, is manifestly an established fact, as appears from the circumstance that it was effected by the death of Christ on the cross. Calvary fully accomplished its end and neither could nor need be repeated. "For the death that He died, He died unto sin once, EPHAPAKS, (Rom. 6:10a). To say that God's reconciliation is repeated, is to imply that Christ's death is repeated; and to say this is to lapse into the error of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass. It has been argued with appeal to Dr. A. Kuyper, that the people of God are a reconciled church ("verzoende gemeente") and that this fact constitutes proof that reconciliation as an established fact can not, and may not in intent, be repeated in the so-called Service of Reconciliation. Rom. 5:10, 11 is quoted as confirmation of this judgment. But upon inspection it becomes clear that in this passage St. Paul has reference to what he in 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 calls God's reconciling the world unto Himself in Christ, in distinction from the moral and spiritual act of the penitent and believing sinner whereby he is reconciled to God, that is, on his part actively and voluntarily enters into the relation of reconciliation with God, in response to the word of reconciliation: Be ye reconciled to the God who reconciled the world unto Himself thru the death of His Son. Only thru neglect of this obvious and essential distinction can an argument be forged out of Kuyper's statement and St. Paul's words against the term Service of Reconciliation as applied to the weekly confession of sin and grant of pardon in holy worship.
We come now to the second of the two reconciliations: Man's being reconciled to God thru faith in Christ. The reason why faith leads to the sinner's reconciliation with God, is, that it is by faith that we are justified. God justifies the believing sinner. This justification consists of the forgiveness of sins and the grant of title to eternal life. Now it is God that exercises the act of justification and He bases His act, in respect of its legal ground and righteous character, on the death of Christ and on His resurrection to which His death by necessity of justice led. In other words, the atoning and. vicarious death of Christ at once instrumentally effected the reconciliation of God, so that He could in strict righteousness assume and maintain an attitude of peace to the world in spite of men's sins, and laid the ground for the adequacy of faith on the part of the penitent sinner as the means of being reconciled to God. St. Paul, therefore, links up the justifying act of God very closely with His reconciling the world unto Himself by saying in 2 Cor. 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing unto them their transgressions". There is, then, a close connection between God's relation of reconciliation to the world and His justifying those who believe in Him, thru whom this relation of reconciliation was established, even Christ. God can be at peace with His people because His righteousness has received satisfaction thru atonement. For this reason justification is the tie that binds God's reconciliation and man's reconciliation together. The former leads to the latter thru atonement that supplies the basis for justification, the latter springs from the former thru faith which is at once the fruit of justification and the means of its subjective realization. Reformed theologians have, as Dr. Bavinck informs us (Geref. Dogm. IV, 230 ff) often used the terms justification and reconciliation interchangeably in reference to the believer. Calvin is reported to have said (cf. MacMillan, The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, p. 27) "There is none of us but must acknowledge that after the general confession some striking promise of Scripture should follow whereby sinners (he means to say: such as we all are, hence our general confession) might be raised to the hopes of pardon and reconciliation". He is reconciled to God thru faith in the Christ who made atonement for his sins, because this faith, whereby he makes his peace with God and reciprocates God's peace with him, is reckoned unto him for righteousness and so qualifies him for sustaining the relation of peace with a holy and righteous God.
In determining whether we have the right to call the weekly confession of sin and grant of pardon "reconciliation", or not, it is necessary to inquire into the relation that justification, which as we found is often identified by Reformed theologians with reconciliation, on Scriptural grounds, bears to time. It may not be amiss to quote Dr. Bavinck (Geref. Dogm. IV, 224). Says Bavinck: "Deze belijdenis (i.e. of daily sins and even of sins committed long ago, long forgotten, but now recalled) deze belijdenis is ..... geen voorwarde der vergeving; maar wie zijn zonde waarlijk kent, belijdt ze van zelf en voelt daartegenover te sterker behoefte aan den troost der vergeving. Daarom blijft het gebed om vergeving den geloovige dagelijks noodig. Maar hij bidt dan niet in twijfel en wanhoop, hij bidt niet alsof hij nu geen kind Gods meer ware en de eeuwige verdoemenis weer to wachten hadde, doch hij bidt uit en in het geloof, als een kind, tot zijn Vader die in de hemelen is, en zegt amen op zijn gebed. En dit bidden is niet alleen eene behoefte, maar het is ook noodig; want de rechvaardigmaking bestaat niet in eene transcendente vrijspraak van den zondaar by God in foro coeli, maar zij is een actus transiens, die door den Heiligen Geest ingedragen wordt in het bewustzijn van den geloovige en in deze eenheid in de Schrift den naam van rechtvaardigmaking_draagt. Belijdenis en gebed is daarom de weg waarlangs God dit bewustzijn der vergeving in den geloovige weer opwekt en versterkt. Onder de zonde gaat het schuil; het geloof als habitus blijft wel, maar het kan zich niet meer uiten in daden. Opdat dit geloof weer opleve, opdat de Geest Gods weer luide en krachtig met onze geest getuige dat wij kinderen Gods zijn, daartoe is na de zonde weer verootmoediging, belijdenis, bede om vergeving noodzakelijk. Als wij volkomen in het geloof stonden zouden wij nooit twijfelen aan de vergeving onzer zonden, aan ons kindschap, aan de toekomstige erfenis ..... Doch volkomen in het geloof te staan, zou alleen mogelijk zijn, indien wij ook boven de zonde verheven waren. Wijl dit niet zoo is en de zonde altijd weer twijfel medebrengt, daarom blijft bekeering en belijdenis het middel, waardoor God ons wederom tot Zijne gemeenschap brengt en van zijne gunst verzekert."
The burden of this somewhat lengthy quotation of a glorious truth beautifully stated and of the discussion preceding it in Bavinck is, that "de vergeving, welke een deel der rechtvaardigmaking is, is niets minder dan de volkomen kwijtscheiding van alle schuld en van alle straf der zonde, en niet alleen van de verledene en tegenwoordige, maar ook van de toekomstige zonden"; that Antinomians abuse this doctrine of the advance pardon of sins; that some Reformed theologians have, for this reason, mistakenly confined justification to past and present sins; and that the comprehensive, inclusive, character of justification, as the forgiveness of all sins, past, present and future, based as it is on the finished atoning work of Christ, does not alter the fact that, as he puts it, justification is not a transcendental acquittal of the sinner by God in the forum of heaven, but an "actus transiens" communicated thru the Holy Spirit to the consciousness of the believer successively, progressively, as time goes on, and as he believingly realizes day by day the need of the pardon of his daily sins and seeks this pardon at God's throne of grace,
If, then, the terms reconciliation and justification (man's being reconciled to God and his being justified by God) are often used interchangeably by Reformed theologians, and if, as Bavinck avows, justification is an act of God exercised successively in time (actus transiens) in the sense in which the Synodical Committee for the Reform of Public Worship also used the term Reconciliation, viz., "a renewal of the consciousness of reconciliation (i.e. forgiveness of sins, i.e. justification) of which God's people are ever again in need". (Agendum 1930, Part I, p. 55) then, to be sure, the objection to the use of the term: Service of Reconciliation, lacks foundation in Scripture and Reformed theology, and can, therefore, not be sustained. The only sense in which we cannot properly speak of the repetition of Reconciliation, is the establishment on God's part of the attitude of friendship and peace toward a sinful and guilty world thru the atoning and vicarious death which He in sovereign grace inflicted upon His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ. That was done once for all, and was a truly punctiliar fact, in distinction from a historic process carried forward in serial succession. But insofar as God in the act of justification reckons not unto His people their trespasses, on the strength of the death of His Son, and His people thru justifying faith reciprocate the peace of God (Rom. 5:1) and thereby are reconciled to God on their part, Reconciliation is a matter of daily occurrence on the part of the believer individually and of Sabbatic recurrence on the part of the church in its corporate capacity. The ministry of reconciliation is ecclesiastical as well as missionary. God's people must daily and weekly be reconciled to God no lees than those outside the church should be reconciled to God for the first time in their life. There is not the slightest inkling in 2 Cor. 5:20 that St. Paul has only missionary preaching in mind. He obviously means to say that the Corinthian Christians were by him besought to be reconciled to God as those who owed this to God as a daily duty.
A. The Reading of the Law and its Summary. The heart of the Service of Reconciliation is the Confession of sin, and its counterpart is the Proclamation of Pardon. These two items constitute the rationale of this service. The reading of the Law is preparatory to the confession of sin and the recital of the Creed and the Psalm of Peace are a response to the proclamation of pardon. In discussing the reading of the Law we shall have to take account of the purpose of this item of the service, which its immediate sequel: the confession of sin, suggests in an indubitable manner.
It may be remarked, in a general way, that every item of public worship should both embody a definite liturgical idea, and sustain a definite relation to its liturgical context, agreeably to the thought which it expresses. The mere fact that, say, "the law is holy and just and good" (Rom. 7:12) does not warrant its inclusion here or elsewhere in the program of public worship. Worship itself is a reasonable or rational service (LOGIKEE LATREIA, Rom. 12:1). And Christ tells us, that, since God is (a) Spirit, those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4:24). In order to be spiritual, worship must be rational. Rational and spiritual worship, then, is intelligible, and calls for intelligent participation in its several exercises. Now one of the marks of rational character is that there be an orderly progress of ideas and logical movement of thought. A series of perfectly unrelated ideas and their appropriate expression or embodiment, would not properly be called rational or spiritual, no matter how inherently excellent the ideas concerned might admittedly be. In the sphere of religion we are not confronted with a jumble of thoughts or facts. God's works in creation and redemption are all built upon the principle of system, and His revelation is characterized by a marvellous solidarity of all the truths that enter into its substance.
In the Order of Worship which the 1928 Liturgy was designed to supersede and which today still obtains in many churches, the reading of the Law manifestly stands by itself. It does not connect with the foregoing item of worship, whatever that may be; nor does it link up with the Scripture prelection which ordinarily follows it. The only purpose which it can conceivably serve there in such a way, is to recall to the mind of the worshipper, in the passing, that the God, whom he worships, has a will and has made it known. The liturgy does not suggest just what use he is to make of this intelligence at this time. The arbitrariness with which it is introduced hic et nunc seems to warrant a corresponding arbitrariness on his part in construing it liturgically and spiritually. One worshipper may, if he sees fit, put it to this use, another worshipper may with equal propriety employ it differently, if he so pleases. The same worshipper may utilize the Law, as it is abruptly interjected into the liturgy, differently at different times to suit his varying moods.
Fundamentally the law of God is adapted to a twofold use in the Christian Church, Its publication may serve to acquaint God's people with, and to remind them of, the rule according to which they are in duty bound to order their inward and outward life. This is the original, normal, and final purpose that the promulgation of the will of God is intended to serve. The external promulgation of God's law, whether by the living voice or by tables of stone and the printed page which may be read, intimates that an abnormal situation has arisen. Originally the law of God was written only on the tables of the heart. When this inscription was effaced by sin, or, at least, was obscured, external publication became necessary. In principle the original condition has returned in the Christian church; after death this original condition will be reestablished in perfection, as regards the individual; after the resurrection, as respects the people of God as a whole. Meanwhile the rehabilitation of the law of God as the immanent law of the soul needs the external publication of God's commandments as a norm to certify to the law-loving soul, what is the good and perfect and acceptable will of God, and as a stimulus to prompt the "new man" in the Christian to vigorous action, in the face of the opposition of the "old man" in his heart to God's law,
This leads us to the second use that the revealed will of God is intended to serve. The sinfulness that renders the external promulgation of God's law necessary in order that the Christian may be certain as to what God wills him to do and may be urged to do it, makes it equally necessary that he be made to see how widely and where he has departed from the path of God's commandments, and that he be reduced to contrite confession of his sins and humble prayer for forgiveness. St. Paul teaches us that "by the law is the knowledge of sin". (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). The law has been compared to a mirror in which man may see himself exactly as he is in respect of his relation to God's will. Likeness in heart and life is righteousness, difference is sin,
Now there is a difference of opinion regarding the specific capacity in which the law of God should function in the liturgy. In Reformed circles there is unanimity of opinion respecting the propriety of reducing the Law to liturgical service. Oosterley, in a work on the relation of Jewish and early Christian worship, is of the opinion that the latter made no use of the law in public worship. The Roman mass has not included it, despite the fact that it has incorporated a large measure of Scripture material in an excellent fashion. There is no certainty respecting the origin of the liturgical use of the Law, beyond the knowledge that it originated in the Swiss churches soon after the beginning of the Reformation. Kuyper mistakenly credits Calvin with the paternity of the custom. Fact is that the reading of the Law was included in the Liturgy of Bern of 1529. Farel, Calvin's predecessor at Geneva, adopted the Bern Liturgy with slight modifications as early as 1533, if not before that time. At Strassburg the Law was used in public worship long before Calvin became the pastor of its church of French refugees in 1538. Tho Calvin did not introduce the reading of the Law, he neither objected to the practice, as appears from the fact that he conformed to Farel's Genevan Liturgy 1536-1538, and incorporated it into the Liturgy that he used in his Strassburg church agreeably to the general Strassburg practice. It is somewhat surprising that he discontinued its use after returning to Geneva. He certainly did not object to it on principle. He, no doubt, instinctively realized that such use was perfectly in harmony with the juridical genius of his theology and his forensic construction of religion as service of, and communion with, a God whose absolute Sovereignty is the keystone of the world, both as originally created and as subsequently redeemed, That discontinuance did not necessarily imply condemnation, can be gathered from the fact that he dropped the absolution upon returning to Geneva in 1541, tho he did so reluctantly and later regretted that he had yielded to prejudice in the matter. It should be borne in mind that there is no hard and fast liturgical rule in Scripture, and that Calvin on this account was not as unyielding in matters of public worship as he was in the field of dogma and ecclesiastical polity. In the latter there was no choice since God had clearly revealed His truth and plainly laid down the law for the organization and government of the church. Possibly Calvin might have been more insistent upon retaining the liturgical use of the law, if he had conceived of it as the Teacher of sin rather than the Rule of life. When still at Geneva, 1536-1538, he followed Farel's practice of reading the Law before the confessional prayer. But at Strassburg he reversed the order, thereby intimating that he intended the law to be considered the rule of life. Perhaps he thought, after returning to Geneva in 1541 that preaching could serve this purpose sufficiently, particularly, since, in his opinion, it should be marked by a pronounced ethical emphasis: we must know the truth in order that we may do it. Luke 6:48, 49.
But, tho agreed that the Law should be used in public worship, the leaders were not unanimous as regards the particular purpose which it should be made to serve or the specific place which it should occupy in the sequence of the liturgy. The difference of opinion corresponds to the dual use which the law serves in Christian life in general, as sketched above. The twofold location of the law in the sequence of the Liturgy seems to bear no relation to the difference of opinion regarding its specific function. This difference of opinion may be illustrated by historical reference to Geneva 1533-1538 and Strassburg 1524 on. Incidentally the aforementioned disconnection between the purpose and place of the law in public worship will also appear. Farel conceived the liturgical function of the law to be that of a mirror showing the worshipper his failures and sins. Accordingly he made its reading introductory to the confession of sin. But he placed both the reading of the law and the confession of sin which it elicited, after the sermon, i.e. at the close of the service. At Strassburg the law was construed liturgically as a rule of life and was made to follow the confession of sin and absolution. But here the law (sung, not read) and its antecedents preceded the sermon, i.e., they were placed at the beginning of the service. The facts of liturgical history demonstrate that those agreeing with Farel in using the law as a teacher of sin did not necessarily share his view regarding its location in the liturgy. Most of them, if not all, have put the law and confession of sin as its sequel, at the beginning instead of the close of the service. It is likewise a matter of record that those agreeing with the Strassburg churches in construing the law to be, liturgically, a rule of life are not all of the opinion that it should be placed at the beginning of the service. Kruyff suggests that the law be read at the close of the service as the rule of inter-Sabbatic life and Kuyper explicitly favors this practice. It should not be concluded, of course, from the historical variety of liturgical views regarding the subject in hand, that there are no laws of liturgical logic governing the relation of the specific purpose which the law is to serve in public worship to the specific place which it should occupy in the sequence of the Liturgy. Students of public worship have not succeeded in every instance in discovering these laws.
It seems to have been a liturgical axiom to this day that the law must serve either as a teacher of sin or as a rule of life in public worship, but cannot serve in both capacities. Practically all liturgicians have been governed by this gratuitous assumption. Those declaring in favor of the Rule-of-life construction argued, as does, e.g. Kuyper, that there is no room in the worship of the congregation of believers for the services of the law as a tutor to bring us unto Christ. Those pronouncing for the Teacher-of-sin function of the law in public worship contend that the saints of God are still sinners and stand in need of the knowledge and acknowledgment of sin which, as St. Paul teaches, the law produces in God's people. But it does not seem to occur to them that God's sinful people are saints, indeed, who need and love the law as a rule of life. As soon as the spiritual dualism embodied in the church militant is brought to mind, it becomes evident that there is room for both functions of the law in public worship. In fact, there is need of the one as well as of the other function of the Law, when God's people meet with their God in His courts. Believers are both saints and sinners because they are neither perfect saints nor sinners pure and simple. Insofar as the believer is a saint the law relates to him in its capacity of a rule of life; and insofar as the believer is a sinner the law relates to him in its capacity of a teacher of sin. It is manifestly a defective view of the Christian as he engages in public worship, that underlies the either-or position of liturgicians respecting the liturgical use of the law. When the believer emerges from the sinful world and passes over the threshold of God's House, he is guilty and polluted and consequently needs the law to reveal to him the distance between his actual life and the perfect life that God demands. When he is ready to return to the world to resume his labors in God's kingdom and to pass out of God's House he needs the law no less to hold up before him the divine standard of obedience and its implied warning against the danger of sin. It follows, then, that both parties to the issue were both right and wrong. Those insisting upon employing the law in public worship as a teacher of sin were entirely right in this respect, but they certainly erred in failing to see that there is an equally urgent call for the law as a rule of life. Those demanding that the law be employed as a rule of life in public worship were right, indeed, on this score, but they doubtless erred in failing to recognize that there is an equally urgent call for the law as a teacher of sin.
Another mistake both parties alike have made is that of construing the functions of the law as teacher of sin and rule of life, respectively, as wholly disjunctive and exclusive. Now the two specified liturgical uses of the law are certainly distinguishable. As a teacher of sin the law instructs us, i.e. it addresses itself to the mind immediately; as a rule of life it commands and prohibits, i.e., it addresses itself to the will and the conscience directly. But these two functions arc not necessarily mutually exclusive because they are capable of psychological and logical distinction. As a matter of fact, they are psychologically as inseparable as they are distinguishable. When the law teaches the mind it cannot fail to affect the will at the same time, tho less directly. Conversely, when it exhorts the will, it must needs touch the intellect. For tho the soul has various powers, itself is one and indivisible: whatever affects the soul sets all its powers into operation more or less. Logically, too, the two functions of the law are not continents apart. Then the law teaches believers their sinfulness and sins, this instruction bases upon the assumption that it is the rule of their life; in fact, the knowledge of sin which the law imparts is in the nature of a conclusion drawn from a comparison of what the law requires as a rule of life and the facts of our actual life. Conversely, when the law issues its commandments and implied prohibitions, it inevitably suggests the comparison just stated and cannot fail to disclose to the imperfect saint his sinful shortcomings. This close union, if not identity, of the two functions on the law is grounded precisely in the fact of the indwelling sin of the saints. This situation may be illustrated by reference to the relation that the law sustains to sinners who are not saints and to saints who are not sinners, respectively. Now it is undeniably that, absolutely speaking, God's law is a rule of life for all His moral creatures and remains such independently of their attitude toward it and their corresponding conduct. Relatively speaking, however, the law is a teacher of sin only to unregenerate sinners: in them is nothing but the life of sin, springing from the law of sin that dominates them, apart from the restraining influences of common grace; there is no spiritual life in their hearts to which the divine rule of life could appeal and apply. Again, the law is a rule of life only, to just men made perfect: in them is nothing but the life of holiness and righteousness, springing from the law of the spirit of life; there is no sin in their hearts or life for the law as a teacher of sin to discover and expose. Practically and concretely, the either-or position regarding the two respective functions of the law is in order only in the case of those who are not marked by moral dualism. But the congregation that worships God on earth — its worship alone is the subject of liturgical study — consists of people that are neither unsaved, nor perfectly saved. A Liturgy devised for such a constituency must needs reckon with its dualistic character (cf. Rom. 7:15-23). And the law in particular, as a constitutive element of the liturgy, must properly take into account the fundamental fact of Christian life on earth, that the believer's heart is an arena in which the old man and the new man, as St. Paul styles them in striking realism, are engaged in a fierce battle for supremacy. To introduce the law only as a teacher of sin would be tantamount to ignoring the new man in the believer. Conversely, to introduce the law only as a rule of life would virtually be ignoring the old man in the Christian. The truth of Scripture and the facts of Christian life alike require that the law exercise both its functions in the solemn assembly.
The conclusion, then, to which we are irresistibly led is that the two characteristic functions of the law cannot be mutually disjoined as long as the church militant has not yet become the church triumphant. It does not follow, however, that the two functions should not be distinguished liturgically. Despite the fact that the teacher-of-sin function of the law is based upon its rule-of-life function and its rule-of-life function naturally suggests, under the given circumstances, the exercise of its teacher-of-sin function, it would betray bad judgment to make the law serve in both capacities at the same time, that is, to include only one readind of the law in the liturgy. In fact, deference to logic forbids it not only, but liturgical intuition refuses to sanction it. It is felt instinctively that the recital of the law at a given juncture in the liturgy should, and, as a matter of fact, does, serve one definite purpose. Those who hold that the law should serve in its teacher-of-sin capacity seek out a place for it in the sequence of the liturgy that suits this function, and, consistently with their position put it immediately before the confession of sin. No worshipper can fail to sense the service which the law renders when inserted here. On the contrary, those who believe that there is no call for the teacher-of-sin function in public worship and declare for its mere rule-of-life function naturally introduce it after the confession of sin has been made and the pardon of sin has been proclaimed, as did the Strassburg churches. In case a separate confession of sin is omitted and the proclamation of pardon as a separate liturgical act is disowned, the law may be introduced, anywhere. It is plain that the law must be construed as a rule of life if its immediate sequel is anything else than a confession of sin. The law itself, then, may be one and its respective functions may be closely related. But it cannot properly be made to serve two really distinct purposes at the same time.
The law clearly must exercise both its functions in public worship; it plainly cannot exercise them simultaneously. When should it function in one capacity and when in the other? Or, we may ask, which function should the law exercise first? This matter cannot be settled arbitarily, nor even in the abstract, that is, apart from actual and concrete circumstances. If regard be had abstractly to the law itself as the expression of God's sovereign will, it may be argued that the rule-of-life function of the law takes precedence over its teacher-of-sin function. Originally, ideally, and normally the law of God is the rule of man's life and nothing more. Tho it is intrinsically capable of exposing sin, this potential capacity would not be called into exercise if there were no sin to be brought to light. Its teacher-of-sin function is contingent upon the rise of sin in the world; its rule-of-life function is independent of circumstances. Time was when the law did not teach the knowledge of sin and time will once more be when it shall not reveal iniquity any more. But this objective and abstract consideration should not be made determinative of the question before us. The law as the promulgation of God's holy will has no purpose in itself; it is but the means to an end. It is designed to serve man who is a moral creature and as such subject to the will of his sovereign God. Man's condition, then, rightly determines the specific capacity in which the law is to operate in any given case. If man is perfect, that condition suggests that the rule-of-life function of the law should be exercised; if man is reprobate, as the lost in the day of judgment, that situation indicates that the teacher-, or revealer-of-sin function is in order; if men are both sinful and godly, both functions of the law are called for. Man's condition is the determinative factor. The question, then, is: which condition preponderates in the liturgical assembly upon the admission of God's people to His House and their departure from the Lord's Temple, respectively.
Before taking up the matter immediately before us, it will be well to remind ourselves of the general relation of the law of God and public worship. Work and worship are the two provinces of religious life. Both are related to God, but each of them is related to Him in its own way. In their work in God's world believers act in the capacity of His servants, while in their worship of God they act the part of children who commune with their heavenly Father in His House. Needless to say, these distinctions should not be taken as absolute: the servant is a child of God and God's children are truly His servants. Yet the first relationship preponderates in the one sphere, and the second in the other. In the sphere of work in which the believer appears particularly in the role of a servant performing the will of his Master in discharge of the duty of obedience, the law of God applies specifically, At every turn in the world the believer must ask: what wouldst Thou have me do, Lord, seeing the world's business is not his, but his lord's. The law of God is the answer to this question. Hence God's law is his vademecum as he goes about his work and along his way. Work for God and the law of God are therefore corollaries.
In the sphere of worship the servant of God is not emancipated, indeed. Here, too, he remains subordinate to God, A child is no less a subordinate than a servant, the sonship carries with it privileges and rights which a mere servant does not possess. The servants of God are children who serve their God and Father at one time, but lay down their work at another time, in order that they may enjoy their Father's presence and love and fellowship at His hearth when He takes them unto Himself in Sabbatic rest, that is, when they engage in worship. Adoration is the essence of worship, but this adoration is the exercise of loving fellowship raised to its highest pitch. Adoration is not offered at a distance, it is laid by the worshipper upon the golden altar in the sanctuary. Adoration is not a cold word falling from perfunctory lips, but the sacrifice of the warm heart throbbing with intensest love. It is the fragrance of the incense of consuming love as it rises from a heart lost in passionate affection for God and ineffable longing for divine communion. But it is quite apparent that this life of love and fond fellowship is not written in the key of law and statutes and ordinances, as is the life of labor in the kingdom. Truly, the child that indulges in sweet communion with his Father in the spirit of purest love, would not wax anarchical and assert independence. He loves his Father as being his Lord, just as he serves his God as being his Father. Even the sentiment of love is anchored in the duty of obedience. But after all has been said the fact remains that when the love for God rises to the sublime height of personal fellowship with God as is the case in worship truly so called, the law of God is not present to the mind, at least not in its statutory sense. For love is the fulfillment of law. In love as properly exercised in adoring communion, law loses its mandatory character, because it is spiritually transmuted into that life whose very breath is transcendent and exultant praise of God's sovereign majesty and matchless glory. Worship and law are therefore not corollaries as are work and law.
Hence there is no room for law in the scheme of perfect worship. However, the worship with which the science of liturgics is concerned and for which a liturgy is devised, is not that of Paradise lost, nor that of Paradise regained. It is the worship of just men not yet made perfect. The fact of sin is still present and the factor of sin is still operative; and that not only in the life of work in the world, but also in the life of worship in the House of the Lord. The de facto situation is as follows: when God's people return from their work in the world, they are both guilty and polluted by reason of the sins they committed since they left God's House. This guilt and pollution they carry into God's courts. Hence the need of penitence, confession and pardon. But even after pardon has been sought and granted, the believer is afflicted with indwelling sin, which crouches at the door and prepares to assert itself again. Experience, sad and sorry, teaches us that ofttimes sin is active in, and sometimes victorious over, God's people long before they leave the sanctuary of the Lord. At any rate, the presence of sin, dormant if not active, but sure to resume operations in the believer's heart and life upon his departure from God's courts, if not before, renders it imperatively necessary that the worshipper be armed against its encroaches and assaults before he leaves his heavenly Father. It is very evident, in conclusion, that the infiltration of sin into the Christian's worship of God and its entrance into the holy precincts of the temple of God call for the promulgation of the law of God, wherever sin makes its appearance there the law of God that exposes, resists and condemns it, is entirely in order and ought to be welcomed as an effective barrier against its progress. For among God's people — and it is they who congregate for worship — the law both leads to the acknowledgment of sin and deters from sin thru the solemn warnings which it extends.
Sin done before coming to worship and sin likely to be done after worship is concluded, render it necessary that the law of God be included in the liturgy. And the sinful, i.e. guilty and polluted, condition in which God's people enter the House of worship point to the teacher-of-sin function of the law as being the first in order. The worshippers must realize their unfitness for fellowship with God as they enter into the presence of Him who is too pure of eyes to behold iniquity. They should not conclude from their welcome and admission (salutation) that their sins are disregarded. God opened the door of His House to them on the strength of their standing in Christ. But He cannot commune with them until they have cleansed themselves morally by heartfelt penitence and humble confession of their sin. Nor can they really fellowship with Him until they have put a distance between themselves and their sins inversely proportionate to the intimacy with God which worship demands. Holiness is the law of God's House (Ps. 93:5b), Believers are priests of the Holy One of Israel thru Christ who made them to be priests unto His God and Father (Rev. 1:6). In virtue of this priesthood bestowed upon them by grace they enter into the Holy of Holies where God dwells. But God has once for all laid down the rule that "He will be sanctified in them that come nigh Him and will be glorified before all the people" (Lev. 10:3). Our Lord reproduced this law of the sanctuary in His sixth beatitude: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
As observed above, the law is a liturgical necessity only because of sin. Its purpose, then, lies not in itself, but in the knowledge and acknowledgment of sin which it produces in the hearts of sinful saints that have entered the sanctuary to worship God, and in reminding the worshipper that is ready to return to his work in the world of his several duties and warning him against the temptations confronting him everywhere, to sin against God. If penitence could be induced by other means and confession of sin be elicited in another way, the law might be omitted from the service of reconciliation. In fact, in more than one Liturgy the law is not read before the confession of sin. In some of these Liturgies an exhortation to confession is used as a preparation for this solemn act of penitence. In the Liturgies in which no special confession of sin is included, the penitential element is incorporated in the general prayer. But when placed here the worshipping congregation is not prepared for it by any special act. For it is not customary to introduce general prayer by an elaborate preamble. The question now arises, whether sinful saints can be expected to realize their guilty state and contaminated condition and their consequent need of "pardon and reconciliation" (Calvin's words in quotation-marks) of themselves, or must be made to recognize the situation obtaining.
The answer is not far to seek. It may be suggested that the worshipper, seeing he is a saint as well as a sinner, does not need the instrumental help of the law to see and confess his sins. But the question at once suggests itself, why the worshipper, seeing he is a saint, sinned at all, and why he would not sin by failing to be penitent and to confess his sin, seeing he did the sin that makes penitence and confession necessary. It should be borne in mind that indwelling sinfulness, allied with the machinations of the evil one and the temptations of the world, account sufficiently for the saint's lapse into sin. And sin committed has a hardening effect upon the heart which issues in blindness of the eye of the mind and perverseness of the will.
Now the general principle upon which redemption in every one of the three stages of its realization, viz., inauguration, progress and consummation, proceeds, is that God is the first and the last in the absolute sense of the language. When St. Paul exhorted the Philippians to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling", he added "for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phillpp. 2:12b, 13). Repentance and fruits worthy of repentance are the work of God, who by the mouth of Hosea (14:8b) declared "From me is thy fruit found". Christ uttered the same truth in His solemn declaration that apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5b). The Philippians are comforted with the apostolic assurance "that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And the Ephesians are told that whatever "good works" they may have performed "God afore prepared, that we should walk in them". The only conclusion that we can legitimately draw from those clear and explicit premises of Scripture truth is, that not only in initial penitence and conversion but also in the recurrent penitence and. confession of sanctification it is God who, as St. Paul put it classically, works in us (ENERGOON EN HUMIN) both to will and to work.
It is not a matter of doctrinal fastidiousness to emphasize this truth, as prominent in Scripture as it is noble of character. Neither is it evidence of morbid scrupulosity that this grand and weighty truth is brought to specific and formal expression in the Liturgy. It is a commonplace to say that Arminianism is widely prevalent in the Christian church. And this heresy is, fundamentally, the repudiation of the truth of God's primacy and finality in the sphere of redemption. One of our Standards, the glorious Canons of Dordt, is an explicit refutation of the falsehood that goes by Arminius' name, and a peerless defense of the truth of God which the notorious Leiden professor contradicted with such sad consequences. By using the law as a teacher of sin as a means to prepare the worshipping church for confession, of sin, the Reformed doctrine of the divine primacy and man's absolute need of God at all times unto all things, receives beautiful liturgical expression, and the congregation is continually fortified against the subtle intrusion into their minds of the heresy of man's redemptive self-determination. One need but remember the strong powers of indoctrination inherent in liturgical exercises, to appreciate the educational significance of reminding the congregation week after week of the fact and truth, that if they are truly penitent and humbly confess their sins before engaging in loving fellowship with God, these fruits are found from our God, to quote Hosea's language.
We conclude, then, that, liturgically as well as otherwise God himself must lead His people to penitence and induce them to confess their sins. What instrument shall His Spirit, whose office in the divine economy it is to operate upon the heart, employ in producing the desired state of heart and mind? It may, conceivably, be replied that no instrument is necessary since God is present when His people appear in His courts. Did not He meet them at His door in gracious welcome (salutation) and admit them to His inner chamber? And did not His people look upon Him as they responded to His kindly greeting in the Psalm of adoration that they sang to the praise of His glorious Name? Reference may be made to the vision of the High and Holy One that was granted to Isaiah (6:1-7). The sight of "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up" and of the smoke with which the House was filled; and the impression which the Trishagion (Holy, Holy, Holy is Jehovah of hosts) of the seraphim and the vibration of the foundations of the threshold, made upon the prophet, filled the man of God with consternation. The distress that convulsed him as he moans: woe is me!, had its underlying cause in his iniquity and sin (vss. 5, 7) and the realization of his plight of standing as an unclean man, tho on the eve of his prophetic call, in the presence of a God, the dazzling brightness of whose holiness had led even sinless seraphim to cover their faces. The vision and its concomitants were but the occasion and the means of overwhelming him with the feeling of being undone. Isaiah himself explains the situation fully by saying: "Woe is me, for I am undone ..... for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts". Is the vision of God in worship then, not sufficient to reduce the sinful saint to penitent confusion of face and shame of heart, it may be asked. And if so, is not the recital of the sin-revealing law of God wholly superfluous?
But it hardly needs more than mere mention that the Isaianic vision was exceptional and does not constitute the general rule. If every believer were privileged while still on earth to see what Isaiah saw and to enjoy its happy sequel, viz., the purification of his unclean lips by the touch of his mouth with a live coal fresh from the altar of God, surely, the reading of the law could be dispensed with and no proclamation of pardon would be necessary at all. It should be remembered, however, that Isaiah's vision and its accompaniments were a matter of special revelation and not of general spiritual enlightenment., Moreover, the vision was the occasion of Isaiah's call to the prophetic ministry as vss. 8 and 9 clearly show. The vision is very instructive, indeed. The general principles upon which it is based apply to all true, spiritual temple-service. But, as remarked, the details, e.g. the participation of the seraphs, are clearly not earthly but heavenly. Apart from the purpose of revelation that motivated the granting of the vision, there are, at least, two reasons why God does not grant an immediate and direct vision of His transcendent majesty and resplendent holiness to His earthly worshippers, even tho they be New Testament worshippers and worship Him, indeed, in spirit and in truth. There is certainly an infinite spiritual distance between the vile unregenerate, unjustified and unsanctified sinner who is not in Christ, and the Holy God who is angry with sinners every day. In comparison with such uncircumcised Philistines, God's people who have been brought nigh by the blood of the cross stand before His face, indeed! As compared with the saints of the Old Testament the believers of the New Testament are privileged to enter the Holy of Holies to which the saints of the dispensation of shadows had no access, the High-priest excepted. But even believers of the Pentecostal era "see in a mirror darkly" and not face to face and consequently know only in part (1 Cor. 13:12). They, indeed, "behold the glory of the Lord" (the glorious Lord, or the Lord in His glory), but only thru the intermediary of a mirror (2 Cor. 3:18). God's people are even now incapable, in respect both of spiritual aptitude and physical endurance of looking on the full brightness of His holiness and majesty without disastrous results, on the supposition that He should let His ineffable glory irradiate without restriction. But precisely this God does not do for the reason intimated. He veils Himself when admitting His earthly saints into His presence. Even Christ, who said of Himself to Philip (John 14:9) "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" has gone to heaven and will not be seen again "until the times of the restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21). And not only are we not able to endure the full effulgence of the divine majesty, we are also unworthy of this beatific vision. Christ has, indeed, earned this inestimable privilege for us and it will be granted us without fail in time to come. But it is a sacred law of the kingdom of God that there must be a correspondence between what moral creatures, such as men and angels, are spiritually and what they receive and may enjoy. The principle is clearly enunciated in Rev. 3:4: ".... a few names in Sardis that did not defile their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy." It may be added that God renders them worthy, not they themselves. But this does not change the fact that even so God accomplishes His purpose thru their own cooperation inspired by Himself. The saints are privileged to see God in the measure in which they purify themselves even as He is pure (I John 3:3).
The time for seeing God is not yet here, "We know that if He shall be manifested, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is" (I John 3:2).
The saints on earth, then, are not blessed with the beatific vision. It should not be inferred that they lack all vision of God whatsoever. God causes His countenance to shine upon His people when they pray "Hide not Thy face from me" and are able to declare: "When Thou saidst: Seek ye My face, my heart said unto Thee: Thy face will I seek". (Ps. 27:8, 9a). But this mystical experience, so ineffable because it is ephemeral and supremely transcendental while it lasts, is not strong and pervasive enough to render the use of an external instrument and external approach superfluous. As long as God's people are on earth the spiritual instincts, wrought into the fabric of their hearts by regeneration, are ordinarily called into exercise by influences operating from without the soul, particularly those emanating from the Word of God. The Holy Spirit is the link that binds the regenerate heart and the Word of God together. He arouses the susceptibilities of the new born life and charges the Word of God with power divine. Lydia, the purple merchant of Thyatira, is the classical example. God opened her heart, St. Paul informs us, Acts 16:14, to give heed unto the things spoken by the great apostle.
The Holy Spirit therefore employs an instrument to stir the sinful saints that come to worship to penitence and confession. This instrument is the Word of God spoken by God thru His Son Jesus Christ and Christ's commissioners, both before and after the Incarnation and faithfully reduced to record in the Holy Scriptures. This Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and it is declared to be "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12). It may be observed in this connection that all the mental content of public worship is drawn from this source. In fact, the warrant for worship itself, the knowledge of Him whom we worship, the subject-matter of prayer and praise, the message that is heralded., the greeting extended and the benediction given, the Sacraments administered, the pardon granted and so too the law promulgated -- all alike are taken from the rich store-house of God's own special revelation. In this situation lies the reason and justification for calling the entire program of public worship and not merely the preaching proper, ministry of the Word. Since Holy Scripture is both the charter of public worship and the exclusive source of its subject-matter, preaching of the Word is both essential to public worship and its centre and pivot.
The law of God is the part of God's revealed Word that is peculiarly fitted to reveal to men the knowledge of their sins. In Rom. 3:20 we are told that the EPIGNOOSIS, i.e., the knowledge intellectually and the acknowledgment morally, of sin is by (DIA, by means of, instrumentally) law (NOMOU without the article, as a statement of generic truth: it is not accidental that a certain, definite law exposes wrong-doing, but it is of the very nature of law as such to uncover wickedness when the facts in the case are seen in its light). In Rom. 7:7 the sacred author declares that he had not known (EGNOON, apprehended the true character of) sin, had it not been for the law (DIA NOMOU). He does not go on to say just how law in general or the law of God in particular exercises this function. From Biblical description of sin as ANOMIA, lawlessness (the alpha privans is eo ipso an alpha contrareitatis, since ignoring (alpha privans) a law which means to be obeyed is itself a violation of the law) helps us to understand the process of discovery. It is not necessary to enlarge upon this matter here, since it was rather fully discussed above when the teacher-of-sin function of the law was explained. It may suffice to recall that the knowledge of sin is a judgment of comparison. We compare ourselves as self-examination exhibits us, with the demands our sovereign God makes upon us in His law, and discover that we are lacking in whatever measure it may be in conformity to God's standard. Our life appears to be incommensurate (A-NOMIA) with that standard. We find ourselves wanting in righteousness, in the righteousness that God justly demands and we rightly owe Him.
This brings us directly to the problem that was touched upon in the section dealing with the Service of Reconciliation as a whole. God's people are in Christ. On the strength of this fact they were welcomed and admitted to the sanctuary. God reconciled them unto Himself thru the death of His Son, and they accepted the Word of reconciliation officially preached unto them by faith, and thus entered on their part into the relation of peace which God had established on His account. Both parties are reconciled: God has peace with them and they have peace with Him. The faith whereby they accepted the Word of reconciliation was reckoned unto them for righteousness. And the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of God, not their own (Rom. 10:3; Philipp. 3:9) or, to put it in the words of the second passage: the righteousness which is thru faith in Christ (DIA PISTEOOS CHRISTOU) the righteousness which is of God (EK THEOU) by faith (EPI TA PISTEI). Of those who by justificatory faith in Christ were justified it is said, Rom. 8:1, that there is no condemnation (KATAKRIMA), which is the negative implication of the positive datum of peace.
The crux of the matter at once appears if we ask: how can the law reveal unrighteousness in the case of those who, having been justified by faith, have peace with God thru our Lord Jesus Christ. We shall do well to begin by saying that the righteousness of Christ freely imputed unto them by God in the way of faith and more than once called the righteousness of God, cannot possibly fail to measure up fully to the absolute standard of the law of God. If the quality and measure of that righteousness had been concerned, it would have been little short of an inanity, if not worse, to institute an examination into its adequacy. Insofar as we are clothed with the seamless robe of Christ's righteousness we are not under the law, but under grace. For the law's demands have been fully and permanently met thru the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Under this consideration there is no room in Christian worship for the law as a teacher and condemner of sin. When He who "is of purer eyes than to behold evil and can not look on perverseness", views His people as they are in Christ, their surety and redeemer, He does "not behold iniquity in Jacob neither does he see perverseness in Israel" (Hab 1:13; Numbers 23:21) as Balaam puts it in the blessing that he eloquently tho reluctantly pronounced. upon God's ancient convenant nation. It is well that believers should clearly see that they are out of the reach of the law and forever free from its criminal jurisdiction. This liberty wherewith Christ has made us free was the boast of St. Paul and the theme of his song of salvation. It is the Jachin of his soteriology. When this glorious truth was in danger of adulteration, he rose in the panoply of his might to defend it, not holding his life dear if only that blessed gospel might be preserved. unimpaired and undimished. It is necessary to dwell upon this aspect of the law and to realize clearly that our salvation is in no measure or manner tied up with the law and its categorical imperatives. Otherwise the repeated recitation of the law, impressive by reason of its solemnity, might impress us as a New Testament echo of the ominous thunders of Sinai, and in consequence create within us both a spirit of bondage and a resolve to save ourselves by the works of the law. One of the arguments of those who oppose the teacher-of-sin function of the law in public worship is precisely the charge that it savors of Sinai and tends either to discourage souls weary of sin or deludes them into believing that righteousness is of the law. And it is well-known that present-day Fundamentalists consider any and all deference to the law on the part of Christians as a lamentable lapse into Judaeism. But, surely, nothing could be farther from the intents and purposes of those who in earlier and later times wished to employ the law liturgically as a means of inducing confession, than recrudesence of the mischievous errors which the apostle to the Gentiles fought relentlessly. Fortunately this unfortunate construction need not be put upon the teacher-of-sin function of the law in public worship. But in view of this deplorable misapprehension, it is imperatively necessary to demonstrate that we who in Christ are really and fully free from the law, are no less surely and completely under the law, tho, of course, not in the identical sense.
It may be observed antecedently to the discussion of the matter in hand, that hardly anything can be more surprising than the denial of the truth that we are still in some sense or other under the law after we have been freed from the curse of the law, on the part of those who believe in the sovereignty and immutability of God and in the unalterable creature-condition and subject-status of man. The truth they deny ought to be deemed axiomatic by all who boast of loyalty to Scripture. And this a priori of unalterable and unceasing amenableness to the Law of an absolutely sovereign God should have impressed them with the necessity of finding the solution of the seeming discrepancy of simultaneous freedom from the Law and subjection to the Law instead of cutting the Gordian knot by ruling one of the terms of the problem out of court in a purely arbitrary fashion. If they had sought a solution they could have found it.
We can profitably take our starting point in the Pauline exhortation to work (KATERGADZESTHAI) our own salvation (Philipp. 2:12). It need not be argued that it never occurred to St. Paul to construe the salvation Christ wrought, in terms of Arminian cooperation with God in the work of redemption. It may also be assumed that he did not consider it derogatory to Christ's work and prejudicial to His honor that man should work out his own salvation. In Paul's mind Christ's work and our own are so related that there is not as much as the faintest trace of antagonism or exclusivism between them. Nobody believed more firmly than he in the sinner's absolute need of Christ and his complete deliverance thru Christ. He was firmly persuaded that apart from Christ the believer can do nothing. But he was equally sure that the branch must bear fruit no less than be in the vine, if it is to escape destruction by fire. And it must yield fruit, not in spite of its incorporation in the vine, but very definitely because it is organically united with the vine.
Justification, that is, God's judicial declaration that we are free from guilt and entitled to eternal life, bases upon the imputation to believers of the righteousness which Christ achieved thru His life and death, and confers upon them the status of just men. It does not render them righteous in respect of personal attitude and life, tho it lays the foundation for this subjective transformation. This latter result is brought about by sanctification which God effects thru the Holy Spirit in those whom He has pronounced righteous forensically and has regenerated accordingly. Sanctification of the justified and regenerated is the necessary and certain sequel of justification. In fact, justification is in a sense a means unto the end of sanctification no less than it is its legal ground. Man is a moral agent and on this account must enter into the state God confers upon him in justification by an act of his own will, having been spiritually enabled to do this by regeneration. This is done by the act of faith. Hence we are justified by faith, that is, the fact of justification is registered in the believer's mind and receives his seal when he embraces Christ thru faith. But it goes without saying that no one would on his own account and thru an act of his will accept the free gift of the status of a righteous man conferred upon him as a guilty sinner, if he did not adopt the ideal of a righteous life as the subjective counterpart of his righteous state and standing. The selfsame faith by which he was justified, accordingly becomes the source, inspiration and motive power of newness of life, so that he begins to "live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world". The process whereby a man previously godless, both as to state objectively and condition subjectively, grows holy in respect of his moral and spiritual nature and righteous in respect of his inward actions and outward behaviour, is called sanctification. The term emphasizes the holy nature of the believer, but the scope of the experience so styled includes the acts of the will no less than the spiritual quality of the heart.
Now sanctification is specifically God's work, that is, the work of the Holy Spirit who worketh in us "both to will and to do". But, as the language of St. Paul just quoted plainly shows, sanctification is God's way of making it possible for us to work out (KATERGADZESTHAI) our own salvation. Justification leads to sanctification and sanctification leads unerringly and unfailingly to the believer's conscious, resolute, persevering and withal loving and devoted realization, on his own part thru faith, of God's purpose with him in his life and God's world. This is what Scripture calls fruit-bearing; and the fruits borne are the good works he performs. These good works, our Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day XXXIII tells us, spring from the spiritual source of faith, their objective is the glorification of God and their standard is the Law of God. This law is the same instrument that once condemned him as a guilty sinner and demanded his death as its just penalty. But Christ, the believer's surety, satisfied. the Law's demands, both obedience to be rendered and expiation to be made, by his righteous life and atoning death, God imputed Christ's righteousness to the believer in justification, The believer accepted it in faith. And the Holy Spirit thru sanctification makes the righteousness of Christ a source of holiness of heart and righteousness of life in those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, if Christ's righteousness was intrinsically a satisfaction of the demands of the Law, no beneficiary of that righteousness can even plausibly repudiate that Law. By accepting the Christ-wrought righteousness of the Law by faith, he by that token "consents unto the Law that it is good", as did St. Paul and joins him in saying that "the Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous and good" (Rom. 7:16b, 12).
In public worship the Law, whether as a teacher of sin or as a rule of life, speaks to those who are justified before God thru faith in Christ. And Christ satisfied the Law so fully that His infinite righteousness is more than adequate for all the sins which believers may in their spiritual weakness commit against the Law. When the Law exercises its teacher-of-sin function in public worship it does, indeed, convict of transgression, but it can not and does not condemn the sinner to death. For Christ's righteousness which the penitent believer appropriates anew by faith, when convicted by the law of sin and thereby brought to a knowledge and acknowledgment of sin, absolutely sustains the believer's state and standing in God's court as a just man and when embraced in faith cancels the debt of guilt incurred by violation of the Law. Again, when the Law exercises its rule-of-life function in public worship it does, indeed, declare that the man who doeth these things shall live, but the believer recognizes that thru Christ and in Him he lives before he begins to do God's law and now undertakes to carry out the injunctions of the Law from gratitude for the life bestowed upon him in boundless grace, and from the realization that this grace-wrought life can only flourish to the honor of God who gave it, in the atmosphere of grateful obedience and obedient gratitude. The Law, then, is by no means out of place in the circle of the redeemed; it belongs there; it is perfectly at home among them; it renders them a distinct service. And God's people welcome the Law; they appreciate it and are thankful to it for helping them to honor their blessed justification by a sanctified life of holiness and righteousness in the sight of God and men.
In this connection we are dealing more particularly with the teacher-of-sin function of the Law. The comprehensive aspect of the Law as serving two purposes and not merely one, was briefly discussed above, because the question whether the Law as such should at all find a place in the public worship of the redeemed people of God was the previous question. We may now dismiss the rule-of-life aspect of the Law as employed liturgically for this must come up at a later juncture. When that is reached it will not be necessary to deal with the Antinomian denunciation of the Law both as a teacher of sin and as a rule of life.
Before passing on to the form which the Law may most advantageously assume as it seeks to render the delinquent people of God penitent for their sins and spiritually susceptible of divine pardon, we must pause to take account of the patent fact that the worshipping congregation is not an absolutely homogeneous group. Its staple consists of the sinful saints of whom mention has repeatedly been made in the foregoing. For this reason our determination of the place of the Law in public worship as well as the meaning of the salutation and song of adoration was governed throughout by the consideration of their status and condition. The corporate character of public worship is grounded in the fact that the worshipping congregation as such is the body of Christ organically and the people of God officially; they are properly addressed as Beloved in the Lord Jesus Christ; and to them is truly extended the gracious greeting of God in the salutation.
But it does not follow from this official character of the corporation that all the persons constituting the aggregation of people present severally and personally answer fully or even partly to the terms descriptive of the corporation as such. In all or nearly all liturgical gatherings, notably in times of outward peace and exemption from religious persecution, there are such as are sinners indeed, but not saints as well. Those belonging in this category either may or may not have official membership in the church. The corporate worship of the church is public and not private. Two reasons may be assigned. First of all, the worship which the church of God renders Him is His due as the God of heaven and earth and the sovereign of all man. From the very nature of the case the Temple of such a God is a public place and the worship rendered Him there a public ceremony. The nature of earthly sovereignty lends a public character to the business of the government and the state. On an infinitely higher scale the business of the King of kings and Lord of lords — and the corporate worship of His people is the acme of the business of this Potentate of potentates — is distinctly and pronouncedly public. The church has generally recognized the inherently and intrinsically public character of the corporate worship of the Most High. Only when danger counselled exclusiveness, as in time of persecution were the doors of the sanctuary closed against all that did not know the pass-word. Ordinarily all are welcome to attend Christian worship, whether they be Jew, Mohammedan, pagan or apostate.
There is a second reason why, as a general rule, nobody is barred from attendance upon the public worship of the church. The open door of the sanctuary is symbolical of the missionary invitation that the church extends to all non-Christians to enter in and hear the Gospel of salvation. There was a time when Christians constituted but a small part of the population. Every local congregation was a missionary church. Then came a time when, nominally at least, the whole population had been christianized and inscribed on the registers of the church. When this situation obtained mission fields were deemed to be far away in foreign lands. Long since, however, the original conditions returned. Christians truly so called have become a part only of the entire population; they are fast becoming a minority, Most true churches in the land are increasingly resembling oases and are rapidly being confronted with a gigantic missionary task. If the church addresses itself to this obvious duty in faithfulness to its Lord, a welcome sign will be hung above the gateway of every church and missionaries working these circumambient fields will direct inquirers and awakened souls to the solemn assemblies of the saints of God.
The sinners who are not saints and yet attend public worship occasionally or more or less regularly, are not confined to people of missionary description. In nearly all, if not in all, churches there are men and women of whom St. Paul could not say: ye were washed, ye were sanctified, ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). Some of these do not pretend to be among those who "have believed to the saving of their souls", tho they are of covenant birth and training. The church has failed to dismiss them from its fellowship thru discipline. They are, anomolously, missionary objects with ecclesiastical status. The Christian church at large is fearfully full of such dead timber. But others hypocritically pose as believers while being in their hearts and lives still alienated from the life of God and shamelessly conscious of the despicable role they play on holy ground. They are not detected because they have the form of godliness and thru abominable trickery succeed in hiding their lack of the power of godliness from the people of God and their leaders. God's people have been warned of the presence of such wolves in sheep's clothing, tho ofttimes their identity does not appear for a long time. It is quite apparent that the church must reckon in its worship with the possible presence of those who are uncircumcised of heart, whether they are missionary objects or members of the ecclesiastical organization. The question fairly obtrudes itself upon us: how is the reading of the law related to people of this description.
In answering this question we shall do well to recall that ideally worship and Law are not corollaries and that only the fact of sin renders it necessary to introduce the Law into worship. Unconverted and impenitent adults, whether church-members or not, are representatives of sin unbroken, of sin that defies the sovereign God of heaven and earth in a double manner: firstly by trampling God's ordinances under foot, and secondly by despising the riches of God's goodness. It would seem eminently proper that the righteousness of God be declared unto them at the very outset by the promulgation of the Law of the Lord. There is nothing unevangelical in putting the Law of God in the foreground. Knowledge of sin and acknowledgment of its guilt are the presupposition of interest and faith in a Christ who died as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. And it is precisely the Law that is peculiarly and efficiently instrumental in imparting that needed knowledge of sin and in making men willing to acknowledge its guilt. Tho the Law is not functioning in quite the same way before and after Christ, it is in a sense a tutor to Christ in the New Testament no less than in the Old Testament. Seeing the covenant of grace is one and the same in the two successive dispensations and God neither revokes His Law at any time nor saves otherwise than by His grace at any time, there naturally was much grace in the Old Testament and there manifestly is much Law in the New Testament dispensation. Perhaps the missionary value of the Law in the New Testament dispensation has been greatly underestimated owing to a variety of factors. Without a doubt, the Administration of the Word of God in the church of God should differ from the preaching of the Gospel in the missionary field. Yet the church, however much it be based upon covenant principles, should not fail to include the missionary note in its worship, particularly in the preaching, but also in such an item of worship as the Recital of the holy Law of God. Of course, the primary purpose of this element of worship lies in the stirring up of believing penitence in the hearts of the sinful saints of God. But incidentally it may well serve in addition as the Great Declaration of the Rights of God to such as have never yet begun to tremble at the awful justice of a God who is a consuming fire and the Avenger of His honor.
There is still another class of attendants upon divine worship who do not themselves participate in worship in the sense in which the sinful saints of whom we have been speaking all along, exercise this function. This class, however, differs very widely indeed from the impenitent adults discussed above. The latter do not choose to render God homage: those missionarily interested at least have not yet openly and publicly declared for God, and those still in the church in spite of their impenitence and unbelief, whether hypocrites or adult non-confessing members, are covenant-breakers and in consequence neither can nor do worship God in spirit and in truth. But the class of attendants now referred to are potential worshippers who presumably are instinct with the spiritual life that constitutes the prerequisite of true worship, but whose spiritual life has not yet blossomed into conscious devotion to God and consecration to the service of His praise. Their liturgical potentialities are not yet actualized, because their natural development has not progressed sufficiently. They are the children of the people of God. Their birth from Christian parents gives them covenant status and their covenant status constituted warrant for their incorporation into the church by baptism. Their church-membership and their presumptive possession of spiritual life after a potential manner, render it necessary that they too appear before the face of the Lord when their parents present themselves for worship before God in Zion. For worship is intrinsically a festive occasion; and upon this occasion God would have old and young, parents and children, assemble in His courts. In the various spheres of work in God's world during the six days of the week there may be reason for dividing into more than one camp. But on the Lord's Day when the festive board is spread and the time for joy has come, worship must be corporate in distinction from individual. The whole body of Christ as far as present in any given locality must enter into God's presence with joyful acclaim.
It was an unerring instinct that led the church of God thru all the ages in acting upon the principle expressed by Moses in his challenge to Pharaoh (Gen. 10:9) "And Moses said (after Pharaoh had asked: "but who are they that shall go?") "We will go with our young and with our old; with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto Jehovah". The Lord had plainly said to Pharaoh in His first charge by the mouth of Moses: "Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness". Moses correctly interpreted God's command to Pharaoh to imply that the feast of the people of God should be attended by their children. In the second half of the nineteenth century Sabbatic children's services began to be held in Germany and elsewhere. Today the so-called Junior Church is quite popular in our land and is in vogue in many circles. This movement bases upon bad psychology and pedagogy and conflicts with Scriptural principles of public worship. In God's courts his people should say in effect: "Behold I and the children whom God hath given me" Heb. 2:13). As they take their children with them to the high festivities of their God, they recall that Christ Himself, when defending "the children crying in the temple: Hosanna to the Son of David" against the unholy indignation of the chief priests and scribes, quoted the beautiful Old Testament (Ps. 8:2) passage: "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou perfected praise". As soon as children can be made to observe a fair measure of quiet and decorum, they should be taken into the sanctuary. Little children in particular may not be able to take an active part in worship, but this does not warrant the assumption that they cannot be wrought upon by the Holy Spirit after a mystical fashion. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of the body of Christ and as such He works in the hearts of all the members of the body, none excepted, tho, naturally, agreeably to the stage of natural development attained.
When we speak of our covenant youth in connection with public worship, we do not confine our attention to infants or very young children. All covenant children who have not yet reached maturity and, in consequence, have not yet made public confession of faith are contemplated. At the present stage of the discussion of the Liturgy the question arises: what relation does the Recital of the Law as a teacher of sin bear to them in particular. In dealing with our covenant youth we must consistently reckon with two facts pertaining to them. First of all, it should never be forgotten that they are presumptive heirs of the grace of God in Christ. If this truth be neglected they are wrongfully deemed and treated as missionary objects and are consequently not labored with pastorally as Jesus' lambs, But neither should the fact be ignored, secondly, that they have not yet, as far as the church is aware, by an act of mind and heart owned and ratified the covenant of grace which God raised up with them, in the way of sincere sorrow over sin and believing trust in Jesus Christ and wholehearted surrender of their life to God, If those whom we have styled sinful saints and who constitute the staple of the liturgical constituency are still far removed from the ideal of spiritual perfection, unconverted and non-believing covenant children are surely even more distant than they from the divinely ordained goal of life. However, the passage of covenant children from the stage of potential spiritual life to deliberate conversion and actual faith is ordinarily not abrupt and precipitate, but developmental and gradual, consonantly with the imperceptible unfolding of life itself in nature and grace. In some children of the covenant the seed sown in their hearts by the Holy Spirit germinates at an early age, while in others regenerate life unfolds in the adolescence period. Normally the former of the two takes place. But even in the latter event the principles of the life of God exercise a measurable influence over the soul, which is none the less real for failing to pass thru the prism of consciousness and to bear the stamp of the person's own will. There is at least, as a general rule, a certain degree of susceptibility to the mystical atmosphere in which a truly worshipping congregation is wrapped and the Word of God as coming to expression in public worship in divers ways.
On this undeniable basis of fact it may be assumed that the Law of God does not fail to reach the children of the church in a way and in a measure when it is promulgated in public worship. This hope may be cherished particularly if the recital of the Law is executed in the solemn, impressive manner that its purpose dictates and the spirit of worship is regnant in the home from which the children hail, both before and after congregating in God's House. The influence of catechesis, too, may be expected to render the child receptive of the influences which emanate from the Law of God as published in the assembly of the saints. Even mass psychology and the suggestibility with which it is pregnant may be counted on as contributing its quota to the salutary impact of the Law of God upon the soul of the child in public worship. Obviously the first service which the Law renders the spiritually unconscious or semi-conscious children of the covenant is that of revealing to them in the measure of their progressive capacity their failings and shortcomings, their sin and guilt, their desert of punishment and unworthiness of any of God's numerous favors. It should not be forgotten that the confession of sin and the proclamation of pardon too will aid materially in bringing home to the child more or less the purpose with which the Law is promulgated,
- - - - - - - -
It is now in order to study the form which the law must take as it seeks to render the delinquent child of the Lord penitent and receptive for the pardon of its heavenly Father. Two forms readily suggest themselves to our mind. We think first of all of the Decalogue as recorded in Ex. 20:1-17, and as repeated with variations in Deut. 5:6-21. We also recall Jesus' Summary and interpretative construction of God's law which He gave in reply to a question put to him by a lawyer, according to Matthew 22:35-40. It is not implied that the Scripture contains no other indications of God's will. In fact, the Bible is sprinkled with divine ordinances and statutes, the Old Testament not only but the New Testament as well. However, all the commandments found scattered over the pages of Holy Writ are repetitions of the law of the Decalogue and specifications of general legal principles laid down in the Ten Commandments. Christ's version of the Law too is reproduced in several passages of Scripture. But nothing essentially new is added. Even our system of Christian ethics is but the elaboration of the multitudinous minutiae which are implicit in the Decalogue; it is to a large extent concerned with the application of the fundamental principles of God's Law to the highly variagated relations and situations of life as these arise in the course of human experience, both personal and social. It is manifest that the church cannot conveniently use a system of ethics in her liturgy, if for no other reason than its unavoidable bulkiness. It would not serve its specific purpose if it were not explicit and did not serve the broad principles of the Decalogue into its widespread ramifications. Now, our church possesses something approaching an official ethical pronunciamento in the exposition of the ten commandments continued in the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord's Day 34-44). But even this excellent compendium of Christian ethics is far too lengthy for liturgical purpose. If God had not Himself provided us with a Compendium of His Law in Holy Writ, we should be under necessity to draw up something in the nature of a Breviary, however imperfect it would inevitably be. But, in point of fact, Scripture does supply us with such a necessary compendiary statement of the will of the Lord. We may add that is incapable of improvement at our hands, however much it may be our privilege and duty to digest the substance of God's Law and reconstruct it theologically and ecclesiastically in terms of our own thought. There is a second reason why we should God's own Breviary. In such supremely solemn activities as those allocated to God in the Service of Reconciliation, it is obviously the better course to let God speak in His own words (ipsissima Dei Verba), if there be, as is the case, a formulary of directly divine composition that suits the purpose perfectly such as the Mosaic Decalogue and our Lord's epitome of it, respectively.
We have, then, two inspired Compendia of God's Law: The Mosaic Decalogue and its Messianic interpretation. We are face to face with the question: are we to use both or shall we use only one of the two? If we decide for the latter, we must not only choose between the two, but also give our reasons for choosing as we do. It may be observed that, the both are compendiary versions of God's Law, they are far from being mere duplicates. Both are, each in its own way, complete statements of the sovereign will of our Creator and Ruler. All God's commandments, those governing our natural life no less than those applying to our spiritual life, are germinally and virtually contained equally in both. They are, therefore, not mutually exclusive, the each serves the purpose of an epitome of God's will as the basic of human conduct in a way different from that of the other. In fact, they differ so widely that using both in immediate succession, as the 1928 Liturgy left the church free to do, would by no means be tantamount to repetition.
Working with these two divinely inspired Compendia of God's Holy Law, we have four alternatives, from which to choose, viz., a. The Decalogue alone; b. The Decalogue plus the summary of Matt. 22:37-40; c. The Summary alone; and d. The Summary plus the Decalogue. As is manifest the second and the fourth are identical save in the matter of sequence. However, the difference is not altogether negligible.
Before making a choice from these four possibilities we should note particularly that our decision in the matter is to be governed fundamentally by the question: which of these forms serves the obvious purpose of the reading of the Law best? A subsidiary question is: shall we also use the Law in public worship specifically as a rule of life? If the latter query be answered in the affirmative and, in consequence, the Law figure twice in the Liturgy, it would seem inadvisable to use the same version of the Law in both instances. Now there is good reason for insisting upon the liturgical service of the Law as a Rule of Life. As God's people pass from work in God's world, performed during the six work-days of the week to worship in God's House on the Lord's Day, they must needs be reminded of their shortcomings and failures in the past performance of their task in God's Kingdom. This service the Law renders at the very outset of worship in its capacity of Teacher of Sin. And what is more natural than they be reminded of the duties that lie ahead and the responsibilities awaiting them, before they return to their task in life and the world? For after all, despite the real difference between work and worship, which it is well clearly to understand and firmly to maintain, the whole Christian life is set in the framework of the Law of God, as the Calvinistic tenet of the absolute sovereignty of God suggests and Reformed Theology emphasizes to a degree. We need not now be concerned particularly with the specific place which the Law as a Rule of Life should occupy in the scheme of public worship. Here it may suffice to say that the beginning is not the logical place for it, in spite of the fact that the "Model" Liturgy of 1930 puts it there. For not only should the law obviously serve as a Teacher of Sin at that junction, seeing it is designed to prepare God's guilty children for the penitent confession of their sin, but it should. equally manifestly not appear in the role of a Rule of Life when work, to which it has primary reference, has just made place for worship. When worship is at the point of yielding once more to work, it is plainly the logical time to let the Law speak as the divine monitor of man.
If, then, we should twice employ the services of the Law in public worship, it would clearly be inadvisable to use both the Decalogue and the Summary in either instance, if only in order to avoid lengthening the duration of public worship unnecessarily. This rules out two of the alternatives recited above. The question before us finally comes down to this: Which form of the Law is best suited to the Teacher of Sin function which the Law properly exercises at the beginning of worship, particularly at the beginning of the Service of Reconciliation; and what form best fits the Rule of Life function at the conclusion of the Liturgy. Tho we are not now dealing expressly with the latter of these liturgical functions of the Law, it is necessary to consider it in the present connection because our choice of form for the Teacher of Sin function is based on comparison and is, therefore, preferential and not absolute.
The Summary and the Interpretation of God's Law as given by our Blessed Lord in Matt. 22:37-40 would seem to be best adapted to the service which the Law is to render at the beginning of public worship. In looking back, at the opening of the liturgy, to the immediate past, with the view to the discovery of our faults and failures and the apprehension of our guilt, it is not so necessary, comparatively speaking, to see our sin in its several specifications, as to view it in its distinctive and fundamental character. Now the Decalogue, however compendiary it be, manifestly itemizes sin, as the very name Decalogue (Ten Words) Ex. 34:28, literally, ten words, implies. If, then, the Decalogue be read, we are, indeed, reminded of our several transgressions, that is, of our particular sins (plural); but we are not likely to be impressed equally with the fact, that by sinning we have acted flagrantly contrary to the Law-fulfilling principle of the love we owe to God. When we stand face to face with a plurality of precepts and realize that we have disregarded each one of them, we are liable to get no farther than the divine Law of which they are severally specifications. But when it dawns on us that we have trampled on God's love by shamefully failing to reciprocate in love to Him, we are more likely to feel keenly that we have fearfully wronged God Himself and not merely violated His statuary Law. And it is precisely this comprehensive duty of love to our Heavenly Father, that is brought home to our hearts and consciences when we repair to His hospitable House on His day and, after being most cordially welcomed by Him, enter into His blessed presence. The Synod of 1928, no doubt, realized this, as its recommendation to add Jesus' Summary to Moses' Decalogue seams to suggest. The Synod surely did not intend the addition to be a duplication pure and simple, a repetition without point; it was most certainly designed to be, agreeably to its own intrinsic character, on interpretation of the Decalogue, going before, and was unmistakeably inspired by the purpose of bringing home to the mind of the sinful saint the sad fact, that his misconduct and delinquencies were in the last analysis a disconcerting exposure of his lamentable lack of perfect love. The conclusion fairly thrust upon the spiritual worshipper by the recital of the Summary, can hardly fail to be this, that his cardinal fault was not so much the neglect of some specific act or the perpetration of some definite evil deed, but rather the inexcusable absence from his heart of pure and passionate love unto God.
The Synod of 1928 did not make provision for the liturgical use of the law as a Rule of Life. It was therefore free to use the Decalogue as well as the Summary in the Service of Reconciliation. It may be remarked that no harm is done by using the Decalogue in this connection, particularly if the Summary too be used and be made to follow the Decalogue. In that instance the Summary emphasizing the organic and fundamental law of love, is the last word, and leaves the worshipper not only with a sense of guilt as a transgressor of the law of God, but creates within his sorrowing soul poignant pain of penitence that should pierce his heart when as a child of God he has failed to return His great and beneficient love. If the Synod of 1928 had given the law as a Rule of Life a place in the Liturgy, it would in all probability have employed the Decalogue for that purpose. At any rate, that would have been the proper form of the Law to use in that connection. It may be noted that the Heidelberg Catechism quotes Jesus' Summary of the Law in the answer to the question (for, Lord's Day 2): "What doth the Law of God (whence man may know his misery: Question and answer 3); require of thee"; while in the section of the Law as the Rule of a grateful life the Decalogue is expounded, commandment by commandment (Lord's Day 34-44). Indeed, the Decalogue is admirably adapted to the purpose of serving as the program of Christian life which God's people are expected to carry out in their work-a-day world. When the saints have been deeply impressed at the beginning of the service with the organic, comprehensive, fundamental quality, viz. love to God and to man, respectively, that gives obedience to God's Law its spiritual, or religious, character, and have worshipped God in the spirit of love, they are prepared to return to their respective spheres of labor, there to obey the several, yea all the commandments of God from love unto Him. At this juncture a program is necessary such as the Decalogue supplies. A Christian has not only a task to perform in general, he is charged with the discharge of diverse and numerous duties, agreeably to the various relationships he sustains to God and his fellowmen, both believers and unbelievers. The Decalogue doubtless is better calculated to impress us with the diversified round of duties devolving upon us in the world, than the Summary. Conversely, the Summary is better suited to the purpose of reducing our hearts to sorrow over sin as lack of love for our heavenly Father, than the Decalogue.
The Summary of the Law which is our preferential choice as the form of the law as Teacher of Sin in the Service of Reconciliation is quite brief. It consists of only fifty-nine words. Greater length would have been no objection, but neither is its relative brevity an obstacle. The Decalogue numbers three-hundred eleven words; it is more than five times as long as the Summary. If we consider that the Service of Reconciliation tho not the Opening Service, is really but an introduction to the service of Gratitude and the Service of the Word, which together constitute the essentials of public worship, viz., Prayer, Praise, Offering, and Administration of the Word, we begin to appreciate that brevity is hardly a fault. And be it remembered that the Service of Reconciliation, which is, strictly speaking, but the preparation for worship, the removal of hindrance to worship, consists of five items. The whole Service of Reconciliation should not require much more than ten minutes. If the Opening Service be concluded in five minutes; the Service of Reconciliation in ten minutes; the Service of Gratitude in 15 minutes; the Service of the Word in forty-five to fifty minutes; and the Closing Service in ten minutes, the entire program can be carried out in one hour and twenty-five to thirty minutes. It is apparent that the Reading of the Law ought to consume little more than a minute. This is small time to be sure; but it will suffice provided the officiant performs his task decorously and impressively and the congregation is trained to a reverent and spiritual quiet.
The Reading of the Law, like all other items of worship barring the votum, should be fitly introduced by way of an appropriate preamble. It is well to make this preamble, or introduction, full and explicit, in accordance with the psychological and paedegogical purpose of directing the mind of the worshippers to the next act of worship, and thereby both instructing them in, or reminding them of, its liturgical and spiritual significance, and preparing them for its intelligent and reverent performance. This preamble should virtually introduce the whole Service of Reconciliation in so far as the Reading of the Law inaugurates the logic of its movement. It would not be amiss to state briefly and in well-chosen words, preferably in a formulary established ecclesiastically, that God's people should first of all be reconciled to God, in order that their sin may not hinder them in truly communing with their Holy Father; and that God to that end promulgates His law of Life, in order that His people may see and confess their sin before Him, and in the way of sincere penitence may obtain the full and free pardon of His grace thru faith in Christ Jesus.
If a preamble of this or a better description be solemnly read after a brief but impressive pause at the conclusion of the Psalm of Adoration, the proper atmosphere will be created for the effective recital of the Summary. If the Summary itself be read deliberately and with as much natural expression as possible, after its purpose has been clearly stated in the preamble, the brevity of the passage will not stand in the way of its effectiveness. Apart from the consideration of time there is no objection against adding a choice passage or two from Scripture, that is, in which the equation of a life of love with obedience to the Law is clearly set forth; e.g. such statements of Paul as that "Love is the fulfilment of the Law" (Rom. 13:10), and that the Christian should "Walk in love" (Eph. 5:2), and those of Jesus and John His apostle, in which they define the commandments of God in terms of love, (John 14:15; 15:10; 1 John 14:21; 1 John 5:3).
B. The Penitential Prayer and The Penitential Psalm.
The Reading of the Law is an actus a parte Dei which calls for a responsive actus a parte ecclesiae. It is not an end in itself and, hence, cannot terminate upon itself; it is an integral part of a larger whole to which it forms a necessary introduction. It is well to bear in mind that worship as such does not postulate the publication of the law. It goes without saying, of course, that man is always and everywhere subject to the will of God, and that neither worship nor work should be what Paul styles ETHELOTHREESKELA in Col. 2:23. It may even be added that the spirit of self-will and lawlessness is nowhere more out of place and offensive than in worship. But if worship be properly distinguished from work, it will be apparent that the work in which God's people engage in the inter-sabbatic period naturally suggests that it be closely paralleled with a study of the Law of God as the norm of man's world activities. In this work of the Lord in which they should ever abound. (1 Cor. 15:58) the children of God appear particularly in the capacity of servants of the Lord, who continually ask their Master what He would have them do. In distinction from work which is specifically the performance of a task assigned them and hence peculiarly the discharge of a duty enjoined upon them, worship is rather the enjoyable exercise of an inestimable privilege. True, the appreciation and. exercise of this rich privilege is a bounden duty; its contempt and even its neglect is a sin, indeed. Yet the enjoyment of the privilege of home-coming and fellowship with their Heavenly Father is radically different in psychological respect from the laborious execution of God's world-program. In the sphere of work demand is made primarily upon the mind and will; in the realm of art which in a general way belongs to the category of work, the emotions play a comparatively large role, to be sure. But, art apart, the world's work calls into exercise particularly the understanding mind and the motive power of the will. It is otherwise in the province of worship; here mind and will are, indeed, not negligible; in fact, the human soul is not built on a compartment-plan, but the very genius of worship, viz. adoration and preoccupation with the exquisitely sweet delights of His ineffable love, suggest that liturgical activities are far more typically emotional than characteristically cognitive and conative. Now it is obvious that states of feeling are not as subject to rules and regulations as are activities of the mind and will. Hence worship, unlike work, is a matter of inspiration far more than regulation, of inward spontaneous adjustment than outward studied application. If it were not for the imperfections of the saints on earth, the law of God would not have to be brought to their consciousness upon occasion of worship. If God's people were perfect, the Law of God would not be in need of external promulgation on tables of stone, or the printed page, or by the spoken word; it would then be a perfectly ruling reality in their hearts. Yet even so, their labors in the world of God would require reflection upon the will of God from time to time as new relations arose, new circumstances developed and new duties were assigned. But this inevitable law-consciousness would under perfect conditions be absent when in worship the soul would experience rapturous joy in the adoring contemplation of the infinite excellencies of the triune God, blessed forever and ever. There is in perfect worship of God an abandon that has no parallel in life; Christian, that is, scriptural, mysticism, is another way of expressing the same fact of entrancing blessedness. If, as we have found, the Law was introduced into the Liturgy by the Reformers and was left there by the Reformed Churches, whether as Teacher of Sin or as Rule of Life, or both, this inclusion can be justified and defended only if it be based on the assumption of the sinfulness of the worshipping saints. And if this assumption be correct, as of course, it is, then the Reading of the Law must have its liturgical purpose in the abatement and elimination of this sorry sinfulness of God's people. It serve this purpose in two ways, as was pointed out above: as Teacher of Sin it exercises an enlightening function at the beginning of worship by teaching the worshippers their sinfulness; as Rule of Life it exercises an admonitory function at the close of the worship of the day by reminding them of the duties awaiting them next day in the world. It manifestly cannot stand in grand isolation in worship, as if it were a natural and normal element of worship. If it is to be included in the repertoire of worship at all, it must occupy a purely ancillary position; it must help overcome sin and destroy its power. This it does in the service of Reconciliation by inducing penitence and contrition thru the impartation of the knowledge of sin. In the covenant of Grace the Law not merely conveys a theoretically correct knowledge of sin, but also leads men to realize that they themselves are sinners. This acknowledgment of personal sinfulness and guiltiness as well as a correct apprehension of what constitutes sin and guilt, is the foundation of the second item of the service of Reconciliation, viz., confession of sin, or, as it will henceforth be styled, the Penitential Prayer. We must now address ourselves to the consideration of this congregational response to God's promulgation of His Holy will.
- - - - - - - -
There is no serious difference of opinion of Reformed circles regarding the propriety of Reading the Law in public worship. Even the Synod of 1930 counsels the churches under its care to retain this feature of the 1857 Liturgy. The only disagreement emerging here concerns the specific function which it is to serve in the Liturgy. However, this difference of opinion is not negligible. If the Law be construed as the Rule of Life, and placed in the early part of worship, as is the case In the 1930 Liturgy, a Penitential Prayer would not be a logical sequel, nor would be, of course, a Penitential Psalm, or Hymn. Be it observed in this connection, that the Synod of 1930 decided that "(Confession of Sin or Penitential Psalm (or both)"' be changed to "'Psalm of Penitence or Devotion"' (Acts 1930, p.185), while cards entitled "Hang Me Up", and intended for use in "Home and Consistory Room" (and sent out with the Acta), give the following version: "Psalm of Consecration and Devotion", of this item. The card refers to Acta 1930, p. 168 where the Order of Worship as proposed by the Committee on Bills and Overtures, is given as reported, and is said to be "accepted for information". It is not altogether clear why those charged (by Synod or themselves?) with sending out the cards, should have substituted the proposed but not adopted reading for the adopted reading of this item. Be that as it may, it is not difficult to see that if the Law be viewed only as a Rule of Life, or Standard of Gratitude, according to the idea of the committee that proposed the 1930 Liturgy, there is no logical room for a "Psalm of Penitence" in immediate succession to the Reading of the Law. The item "Psalm of Penitence" or "Devotion" is hybridical, as it stands. Conversely, if the Law be construed as the Teacher of Sin, when placed in the early part of worship, a "Psalm of Consecration or Devotion" is plainly out of place. It is clear that by putting the Rule of Life construction of the Law as read in the early part of service, the ax is laid of the root of the whole Service of Reconciliation; and the principle of public that Penitence and Pardon must pave the way for worship proper, is by implication denied.
As was plainly intimated above, opinion is sharply divided about the question, whether a separate and independent Penitential Prayer with or without addition of a Penitential Psalm or Hymn, should be included in the Liturgy. The 1857 Liturgy did not have it; the 1928 Liturgy incorporated it; the 1930 Liturgy dropped it. It has become clear that the adoption and rejection, respectively, of a Penitential number at this pass in the Liturgy is governed by the answer given to the question, whether God's people can enter upon worship in spite of their sinful condition, on the strength of their righteous state, or must be restored to God's fellowship thru reconciliation in the way of penitence and pardon, their status as justified people of God notwithstanding. The view of the matter, that has Scripture support and the sanction of the Christian conscience, has been set forth at some length in the discussion of the Service of Reconciliation in general, introductory to our study of its component elements. The gist of this view is first, that the Christian's state, forensically, is determined by justification and that his condition morally and spiritually, is governed by Sanctification; second, that justification is an act of God that is performed once for all, while sanctification is an act of God carried out progressively in the course of time; third, that worship, being fellowship with God, the Holy One, requires not only a righteous state but also a sanctified condition; and fourth and last, that estrangement from God and defilement with sin may be removed by our Confession and God's pardon of sin. If this view be correct, as even those who refuse to acknowledge it as a sound liturgical principle, indirectly admit, there can be no doubt that the Penitential Prayer is not only eminently in order, but imperatively necessary, as the indispensable prelude to the worship of God in Spirit and in Truth.
It is worthy of note that the Christian church has always stood committed to the liturgical principle underlying the Service of Reconciliation in general and the Penitential Prayer in particular; the early Church was deeply impressed with the need of confessing sin before entering upon worship proper; the Mediaeval Church never receded from this position; and the Reformation was in full agreement with this venerable tradition. As respects the ancient Church, Basil, one of the three great Capadocians, tells us in one of his letters that the early Christians "In all churches, immediately upon their entering into the house of prayer, made confession of their sins to God, with much sorrow, concern, and tears, every man pronouncing his own confession with his own mouth". At an early date it was felt that the officiating clergyman too should confess his sin before undertaking to lead the people in their devotions. In the course of time the personal confession of people and minister were united in the corporate confession of the congregation. The principle informing both practices was the clear realization, that when God's people repair to His courts, they come as guilty sinners, and that they cannot enter into the august presence of the Holy One of Israel unless and until they have humbly and penitently confessed their sin and guilt to Him in the confidence of faith that He will forgive them (Ps. 65:1-4). The Roman Catholic worship of the Middle Ages grew pompous and cold, but it did not renounce the ancient tradition that only he shall "ascend into the hill of Jehovah and stand in His Holy Place, who hath clean hands and a pure heart" (Ps. 24:3, 4a). Protestantism, as the Reformation of the sixteenth century has been called significantly, protested against a large part of Rome's doctrine, polity, and worship. But it saw no good reason for repudiating the Confiteor (confession of sin) of the Roman Mass, however horrible they deemed the constructive principle of the Mass as a whole to be. Both major branches of the Reformation took this attitude toward the traditional principle and place of the Penitential Prayer in the worship of the church. It is noteworthy that the Reformed churches placed a higher estimate on this feature of worship than the Lutheran churches, in spite of the well-known fact that the former were far more consistently reformatory in their attitude toward Romish aberrations than the latter. When Calvin came to Geneva in 1536 he unhesitatingly employed the liturgy which Farel had borrowed from Berne and had introduced in 1533 and which contained a confession of sin. In Strassburg, where Calvin labored 1538-1541, Schwarz had purified the Mass in 1527, but retained the Penitential Prayer. The Geneva reformer again willingly conformed to this practice, introducing it into the newly organized church of French refuges which he served in the gospel. Upon his return to Geneva in 1541, he continued the use of the confession of sin. In the Reformed Churches of the Palatinate (Germany), France, Holland, Scotland, and in the refugee Dutch churches of England and Germany, Calvin's example was followed without scruple. In 1556, four years before the birth of the Scottisch Reformed church, Knox wrote to his Protestant friends in Scotland: "When ye convene or come together, your beginning should be confession of your offenses", and, "Like as your assemblies (for worship) ought to begin with confession....." The view here expressed was common opinion in Reformed churches and never challanged. When it fell into abeyance in the Netherlands and certain parts of Scotland in the 17th century, this was due in Scotland to opposition to formulary prayers owing to reaction against English ceremonialism; and in the Netherlands to a decline of liturgical sense along with a general decadence of spiritual life, Present day Reformed theologians in the Netherlands, as Prof. Biesterveld, the Dr. A. Kuyper, Sr., and the Prof. Aalders of the Free University, as well as several American and English writers on worship, bewail the loss worship has sustained in the discontinuance of a liturgical element that is both Scripturally warranted and historically ecumenical, and that has unqualified attestation of the spiritual instincts of the regenerate and sanctified heart. This feature of worship and the religious need of the soul of which it is expressive, is beautifully symbolized by the water-basin which it was customary to place in the vestibule of churches in ancient times, and which appear to have been in use in non-christian religions as well. The purification preparatory to worship which heathens and Mediaeval Christians were content to perform by purely symbolical action mechanically, the Reformed churches were bent upon performing spiritually, that is, not less but far more really and effectually. That the symbol has been discarded is not to be deemed a serious loss; that the thing symbolized has been disowned and rejected is cause for sincere regret.
As to the Reformed church of the Netherlands, to which we are closely related and in whose life and labors we are, in consequence, particularly interested, this ancestral church still possesses as a part of its official "Liturgie" what are styled "Eene Algemeene Belijdenis der Zondon en Gebed Voor de Predikatie" and "Eene openlijke Belijdenis der Zonden en Korter Formulier des Gebeds voor de Predikatie". The second part of this title should not be misunderstood. It might impress one as if the Dutch church meant to include the Confession of Sin in the so-called "Long", or General Prayer, which today is rendered before the sermon. But originally the General Prayer was made after the sermon and was termed "Een Gebed Voor Allen Nood der Christenheid om gebruikt to worden....na de predikatie" (Intercessory Prayer, such as our present pro-sermon prayer is to a large extent) and is included along with "Eene Algemeene Belijdenis Der Zonden en Gebed Voor De Predikatie" in the "Liturgie" aforementioned, Those respective prayers as well as the others included in the "Liturgie", have fallen into disuse, and in actual practice the Intercessory Prayer referred to has been compounded with the pre-sermonic prayer. This actual situation, however, does not change the fact that thie "Liturgie" still has official standing in the Reformed church of the Netherlands. The Christian Reformed Church of America included this collection of prayers in the Ecclesiastical furniture that it inherited from the mother-church, but like the latter failed to use it. When the Standard of the Church, the set of Formularies for liturgical use, and the church order were translated, the collection of prayers were overlooked. Those prayers were indeed, published in the Dutch Psalter imported from the Netherlands, but were lacking in the English Psalter published in 1927. In 1928 Classic Illinois overtured Synod to provide for the inclusion in the Psalter (the English Manual of Praise is obviously meant) of the aforementioned collection of prayers, "lest our people and church lose these prayers". Synod acceded to this request. in 1932 the Committee ad hoc reported out a translation which the Committee on Bills and Overtures (styled Pre-advisory Committee among us) proposed to adopt, and which Synod decided to adopt with the qualification that it be revised before it be published in the church's Manual of Praise. Our church, then, has repeated the anomolous situation of the Reformed church of the Netherlands, that is, of officially retaining a liturgy which in practice and effect it repudiates.
For both churches not only do not use their official Penitential Prayer as prescribed by their own acknowledged liturgy, but when in 1920 and 1928, respectively, these churches were advised by competent committees of their own express appointment to reestablish the Penitential Prayer in actual practice, the Reformed church in the Netherlands saw fit to reject the recommendation of its eminently competent committee; and our church repealed the entire Service of Reconciliation, the Penitential Prayer included, after only two years of official recognition, contrary to the reasoned counsel of its Liturgical Committee on Liturgical Reform and of the Professor of Liturgics at our Seminary. It may be of interest to know that the Dutch Committee on Liturgical Reform counted two professors of Liturgics, Proff. Aalders and Hoekstra among its members, and that the American Committee ad hoc had as one of its members Prof. Heyns who taught Liturgies at Calvin Seminary for twenty-four years (1902-1926). We cannot pause to inquire into the unwillingness of the people and some of their ministerial and presbyterial leaders to accept the guidance of counsel whose competence in the field of Liturgics cannot reasonably be denied and to whose judgment they are generally willing to defer. Perhaps it may suffice at this juncture to say, that those of the Reformed persuasion have been rather deeply instinct with aversion to everything but extreme simplicity in the matter of forms and rites in worship, since the days of Puritanism's quarrel with English ceremonialism in the late 16th and in the 17th centuries. And it may be added, that presumably the rank and file of Reformed people are not yet aware, that the divine providence has made the study of matters of worship and a deep desire on the part of practically the whole Christian church to enrich its worship and to gain more spiritual benefit from it, the manifest order of the day.
It now is necessary to take account of the objection raised against the rehabilitation of the Penitential Prayer, both here and across the sea. We may take our starting-point in the fact, that the objectors aver not to have any scruples regarding confession of sin in public worship, Perhaps full justice requires that they be credited with the definite and decisive conviction that confession of sin is a necessary and essential element of public worship. For they submit, that a General Prayer omitting Confession of Sin would by that token be fundamentally defective. But they declare to be unalterably opposed on ground of principle to the creation of the penitential element of the present-day General Prayer into a special and independent item of liturgy. Ostensibly their main objection is the shift of location of the Confession of Sin from the General Prayer to an own and independent place in the early part of the liturgy and the allegably involved impoverishment and mutilation of the General Prayer thereby. Without declaring so expressly, their argument would seem to leave the impression that a separate and special Confession of Sin with no addition of other material is inherently open to no valid objection. It may safely be assumed that they, indeed, are of this opinion. At any rate, it is quite inconceivable that they should hold to the contrary view. Their seemingly main objection is not the only obstacle that blocks their way to acceptance of the impugned Penitential Prayer, nor is it their real and fundamental grievance against it. Incidentally they declare against the use of an ecclesiastical and authoritatively prescribed formulation of the Penitential Prayer, in the interest, they submit, of liturgical liberty and the adoption of the prayer to the needs of a given church at a given time. Needless to say, this objection need not be taken seriously. The Synodical adoption of the 1928 Liturgy did not carry with it the compulsory use of a set formulary for this prayer. And the question, whether this prayer should be free or not, does not go to the heart of the matter, viz. that a Penitential Prayer should be offered immediately after the formal opening of public worship; not what particular phraseology should be employed. The basic objection to the Penitential Prayer on the part of those responsible for the repeal of the 1928 Liturgy and the involved rescinding of the Penitential Prayer, is neither the latter's subtraction from the General Prayer, nor the possible use of an ecclesiastically prescribed formulation, but the organic relation that this Penitential Prayer manifestly sustains to the Service of Reconciliation. In the 1928 Liturgy this prayer is an integral and essential part of a larger unit, that is, the liturgical clearing away of the obstacle to fellowship with God in Worship, which the past sins of God's people have interposed. Such needed removal of barriers imperatively requires pardon, but pardon requires with equal imperativeness that confession of sin be humbly and contritely made. This Confession of Sin is the Jachin of the Service of Reconciliation, as the Proclamation of Pardon is its Boaz (1 Kings 7:21). In itself the Penitential Prayer is quite innocent, of course; even if the General Prayer without it be not complete, as alleged, the duplication of confession of sin would be open to practical objections only. Even a set Formulary for this prayer could hardly be deemed a fundamental objection against it, in view of the patent fact that our church uses set prayer-formularies without challange. But its direct and express service in the 1928 Liturgy to the impugned Service of Reconciliation renders it supremely obnoxious to those who fail to see the need and usefulness and comfort of this part of public worship. It is not necessary to repeat the vindication of the Service of Reconciliation with which the discussion of its constituent elements was prefaced above. The seriatim consideration of these several liturgical items will no doubt confirm us in the conclusion reached at an earlier stage, that is, that the Service of Reconciliation can well stand on its merits and lends no support whatsoever to the objections which are marshalled against the Penitential Prayer and the Proclamation of Pardon.
- - - - - -
It is now in order to examine these specific objections urged against the Penitential Prayer. Its opponents contend that the General Prayer (traditionally but most unfortunately called the Long Prayer) is a. mutilated and b. impoverished by eliminating from it the Penitential section. The objection correctly proceeds upon the assumption that if the Confession of Sin be erected into a separate and independent prayer and be placed in the Service of Reconciliation, it is not to be repeated in the General Prayer in the Service of Gratitude. There is no need of duplication, and the practical argument of time, if no other consideration, would count against it. But it is a perfectly mistaken notion that "geen christelijk gebed denkbaar is zonder deze belijdenis van zonden en zonder een smeeken om vergiffonis van zonden" (Agendum II 1930, pg. 43). And if the objection under discussion implies, as it seems to do, that the use of a separate and independent Penitential Prayer in the Service of Reconciliation precludes all mention whatsoever of penitence and plea for pardon and every vestige of the spirit of penitence in the General Prayer, it is rooted in misunderstanding. For, as to the latter error, it is obvious that the spirit of penitence will naturally pervade every sincere prayer as it rises from a truly Christian heart. And if the spirit of penitence be present, it would be passing strange if it did not come to any expression at all. It should then not be insinuated that the advocates of a separate Penitential Prayer insist upon a rigid exclusion of the very breath of contrition and longing for forgiving love from the General Prayer. Nothing is farther removed from their minds and purposes than such an unnatural and unspiritual compartment-system. What they protagonize is that, in deference to the use of a special Penitential Prayer in the early part of worship, the governing and characteristic spirit of the General Prayer be marked by the note of the joy of faith rather than by that of sorrow over sin, seeing this prayer is made to God after His people have expressly confessed their sin to Him and He has expressly published His pardon of their guilt. It is obvious that the church of Christ should not repeat its express Penitential Prayer after God has unmistakeably proclaimed His pardon in response to their pies. for mercy, and themselves have responded to the absolution granted them, in the recital of their faith and the rendition of the Psalm of Peace. But it is equally obvious that there is never a time in this life when God's people do not realize the perfect propriety and feel the spiritual urge to cherish the humble and contrite spirit and a penitential frame of mind, upon entering into the presence of the Lord God thrice holy.
The fundamental error upon which the mistaken notions arc based is the gratuitous denial of the right of the private Christian and the corporate church to devote prayer at a given time to a particular matter of religious life, to the exclusion generally of other spiritual business. This unwarranted assumption forgets that, inasmuch as we may come to God upon all occasions and under all circumstances, the nature of the occasion and the character of circumstances obtaining at the time, determine, in the nature of the case, the subject-matter
and the dominant spirit of the particular prayer directed unto God. The denial of this self-evident truth also flies into the face of the universal practice of the Christian church. On Prayer Day the prevailing tone of prayer is petitionary; on penitential occasions it is confessional; on Thanksgiving Day it is Eucharistic (EUXARISTEIN, to give thanks, Phil. 1:3; Col. 1:3); on festive occasions it is jubilant. Scripture itself affords abundant evidence that all prayers need not necessarily engage in explicit and express confession of Sin. Moreover, if the opinion expressed in the above quotation from an overture from one of our Classes (Agenda II, 1930 pg. 43) were correct, there should be no prayer in the Liturgy, whether free or prescribed lacking the element of penitent confession. Yet it is patent fact that very few invocational and post-sermonic prayers contain this allegably indispensible element and it is equally manifest that these non-penitential prayers do not strike worshippers as being fundamentally and essentially defective on that account. If the opinion referred to had not been sponsored by a classis, it would perhaps have been unnecessary to engage in a serious refutation of an obviously untenable notion.
The omission of the Confession of Sin from the General Prayer, then, does not mutilate it, unless the occasion of this prayer and, hence, its subject matter and corresponding spirit call for it specifically or no other provision has been made for it. But provision is made for it, as we have seen; and the liturgical setting of this prayer does not require Confession of Sin, for inherent reasons. The specific character of the General Prayer is a combination of Petition and Intercession, as the name which it carries in the "Liturgy" of our ancestral church, plainly shows. It is there styled: "Een Gebed Voor Allen nood der Christenheid;" to this name its contents correspond. It may be remarked in passing, that this prayer was originally post-sermonic after Calvin's fashion. This is doubtless its proper place. If located there the pre-sermonic prayer can appropriately be utilized for invoking God's gracious aid for the minister in preaching and for the congregation in attending to God's Word, and for supplicating God for His abiding benediction upon the ministry of the Gospel in the interest of the glory of God's name and the advancement of His Kingdom. If justice is to be done these several matters, the pre-sermonic ought not to be freighted with many other interests. The centre of gravity in the pre-sermonic prayer on the plan stated, is plainly in the interest of God, while the heart of the General, i.e. Petitionary and Intercessory, Prayer manifestly beats in the welfare of man, that is, of the church in particular and mankind in general. For these very reasons the latter prayer should occupy second and not first place, as may easily be gathered from the order in which the two sets of petitions are arranged in the prayer which our Lord taught us to pray. The 1928 Liturgy which forms the basis of our discussion did not propose to shift the General Prayer from the pre-sermonic place, to which later practice mistakenly assigned it, to its logical place after the ministry of the Word. In the place it occupies at present, it must needs include the subject matter that properly belongs to the pre-sermonic prayer; and if it is also to be comprehensive of Petition and Intercession, and, in addition, is to contain the Confession of Sin, it must necessarily take on altogether disproportionate length, contrary to good psychology and sound liturgical balance. However, apart from the advisability of returning to the practice of Calvin and our fathers in the matter of the location of the General Prayer, it is evident that the pre-sermonic prayer, whether specific or general, looks forward to the sermon for which it prepares the way, and does not logically call for Confession of Sin, unless one should desire to press the point that the confession of sin is always in order and. reduce the matter to absurdity by requiring that each and every prayer include a Confession of Sin as its opening section.
Omitting the Confession of Sin from the General Prayer neither mutilates nor impoverishes it. It would seem to be implied in the impoverishment-argument brought forward against a separate Penitential Prayer, that the General Prayer is but moderately supplied with material and needs the Confession of Sin for full measure. But the facts in the case do not so say. This prayer takes up 1. the customary invocation which is the case of a General Prayer should not be too brief; 2. the ascription of glory to God with which a General Prayer should surely conclude; 3. thanksgiving for the blessing of Reconciliation and for all the bounties of God's love; 4. petition for the satisfaction of the needs of the congregation; 5. intercession for all the people of God on earth and for mankind in general; 6. supplication for God's blessing upon the ministry of the Word to be exercised presently. This enumeration brings us to a total of six (6) divers subjects to be comprehended in the General Prayer; each one of them is warrantably and necessarily included. If the Confession of Sin, which is not among these six items of thought, be added, the prayer becomes unduly heavy and inordinately long. This situation would certainly result if the Confession of Sin should be proportionate in substance, emphasis and length to the spiritual significance, which it admittedly possesses. The danger of unduly long prayers is not a phantom, as history teaches as the popular name of this prayer, "Long Prayer", attests. If the Scylla of excessive length be avoided, the prayer is bound to be stranded on the Charybdis of unjustifiable impoverishment thru elimination of one or more of the constituent elements of this prayer.
The argument of the ample and diversified material is not the only refutation of the charge that the General Prayer is impoverished if the Confession of Sin be left out. There is another argument that may be effectually turned against the wrong view combated; it is double barreled: psychological and paedagogical. The psychological argument is to the effect, that it is not advisable to include Penitence in any extended measure and intense degree, as is necessary in a Confession of Sin that is designed to be more than a casual mention of the matter, and Praise, such as the General Prayer should properly contain in a generous measure, in one and the same prayer. The reason is not far to seek. The impugned combination involves a striking change of sharply contrasted moods in rapid succession, which it is exceedingly difficult to compass, and which, for this reason, easily leads to psychological insincerity, i.e. the absence of the mood that is consonant with the thought intellectually embraced and expressed in language. Full truthfulness requires the blending of mind and mood, the unison of ideation and emotional reaction. If Confession of Sin be incorporated in the General Prayer, good order would require that it follow immediately upon the Invocation (the part in which, at the very beginning of prayer, God is addressed). And good order would likewise require that Confession of Sin should be succeeded immediately by Praise inspired by the blissful consciousness of the forgiveness of sin confessed. But there is, as observed, a very sharp contrast between the moods of Penitence and Praise, respectively. Praise and Petition or Intercession are not so widely apart psychologically as regards their respective emotional undertone. Happy praise and mournful penitence, however, are at opposite poles in respect of their corresponding affective states. A rapid alternation of these exercises, therefore, is quite impossible psychologically. Every minister of the Gospel knows by experience how exceedingly difficult it is to pass straight from the sadness of a funeral to the joy of wedding festivities, and vice versa. Yet in these circumstances some measure of time, at least, elapses. But in a prayer no respite could fittingly be introduced. And the difficulty, be it observed, would burden the worshipping congregation no less, possibly even more, than the officiating clergyman.
The psychological argument is reinforced by paedagogical considerations. Penitence and Confession, unlike Praise, Petition and Intercession, cannot terminate upon themselves. We need no definite act or word from God as response to our praise of Him, or to our petition addressed to Him, or to our intercession laid before His throne. He receives our praise forthwith upon its presentation to Him in the name of Christ, and thereby brings the movement to its conclusion. He hears our petitions and intercessions and answers them at a later occasion, when worship has long ceased, in the arrangements and disposition of His providence. But we cannot confess our sin and immediately proceed to the order of the day. Unconfessed sin stands in the way of fellowship with God, but confessed sins that have not been forgiven also bar the progress of worship. The penitent and confessing soul cannot come to rest and cannot engage in joyful praise of God and confident petition and hopeful intercession, unless and until it be reassured by the bestowal of the pardon needed and implored. It is no reply to say, that the penitent believer may dismiss the matter of his sin and its contrite acknowledgment, in consideration of the Scriptural truth, that "there is forgiveness with God in order that He may be feared" (Ps. 130:4). What he needs and craves is the reassuring word, falling as from the very lips of God: "thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace". It should meanwhile be borne in mind, that we are moving on the plain of worship, and that, true to liturgical style, such elements as are postulated should be definitely expressed and not merely implied. Even those who are unalterably opposed to the Service of Reconciliation in general and the Absolution in particular, realize and admit that worship would not be complete without the proclamation (nota bene: proclamation, and not merely the recollection of the availability) of pardon. For in the "Model" Liturgy of 1930 we read: "10. Sermon (including Declaration of Pardon)." They grant that a declaration of pardon is, liturgically, the needful corollary of the Confession of Sin.
But the Proclamation of Pardon is an Actus a parte Dei, while the General Prayer in which the "Model" Liturgy of 1930 would incorporate the Confession of Sin, is, of course, an Actus a parte Ecclesiae. Obviously the requisite declaration of pardon cannot be interjected into the prayer between the conclusion of the Confession of Sin and the beginning of the Praise of God's name. In the Service of Reconciliation the Confession of Sin is a separate prayer, containing no other material; immediately upon its conclusion, or upon the conclusion of the Penitential Psalm, the separate and independent proclamation of pardon follows in satisfaction of the spiritual need that came to expression in the Confession of Sin. If the Service of Reconciliation be rejected, the declaration of pardon must be postponed until the ministry of the Word has been inaugurated. Meanwhile the post-confession parts of the General Prayer have been executed; the congregation has been engaged in song, and offering, and has listened to the Scripture prelection. Needless to say, the distance between the correlative elements of Confession of Sin and Proclamation of Pardon and the interim preoccupation with other matters, is poorly calculated to lend Scriptural satisfaction to the worshipper and to do justice to the genius of worship.
- - - - - - -
Still another objection has been raised against the Penitence of Prayer, viz., that it fosters formalism. When this charge is preferred it is usually implied that the Penitential Prayer is ecclesiastically formulated and that the use of this Formulary is mandatory upon the liturgete. It is apparent, however, that those urging this objection would do so also in the event this prayer should be a so-called free, i.e., extemporaneous, prayer. Those opposing this prayer, it should be recalled, are implacably opposed to the whole Service of Reconciliation, on the ground that the worshipping church are God's people and that they are therefore thru justifying faith in such a state of righteousness as precludes the need of recurrent reconciliation. In order to strengthen their position they stigmatize a separate Penitential Prayer as formalistic. They profess not to object to Confession of Sin as such, but only to its erection into a separate and independent liturgical act before, and apart from, the General Prayer. Similarly they wish to go on record as favoring, if not out-right demanding a declaration of pardon, but they set themselves like a flint against a separate and independent liturgical act of absolution before and apart from, the Ministry of the Word. But it is palpable inconsistency to repudiate the idea of recurrent reconciliation on the ground of the righteous state of unbelievers, and admit in the same breath that Confession of Sin is necessary and that the declaration of pardon is essential to full-orbed worship.
Now it seems very much indeed as if the opponents of the Service of Reconciliation use the charge of formalism as a smoke-screen to hide the rather glaring contradiction in which they involve themselves, by answering Yes and No at the same time to the question: is the church constantly in need of pardon despite the patent fact that believers are thru faith righteous before God? If the scarlet letter of formalism can be successfully burned into the brow of the Service of Reconciliation, or stamped, at least upon its principal constitutive elements, viz., the Confession of Sin and the Proclamation of Pardon, a ruinous prejudice can easily be stirred up against this part of the 1928 Liturgy. For, certainly, no one can be found who would be prepared to countenance and sponsor the vice of formalism. Feeling as they manifestly do, that opposition to the aforementioned essentials of the Service of Reconciliation would scarcely commend itself to sound judgment and an impartial mind. They seize upon the circumstance that these elements of the 1928 Order of Worship are raised to a liturgically independent position, and presume to make it the basis of a charge of formalism. If that charge could be satisfactorily proven, the Confession of Sin would in deference to manifest propriety have to be included in the General Prayer, while the Proclamation of Pardon as a separate liturgical item, would likewise have to be abandoned and incorporated into the sermon. For it may be submitted without fear of contradiction that Formalism is positively taboo among us all, whatever may be our attitude toward the Liturgy of 1928.
However, the charge laid at the door of the separate Penitential Prayer and the Proclamation of Pardon is not capable of reasonable substantiation, as will appear when we inquire into the nature of Formalism and examine the facts of the case in hand in the light of the proper definition of this vice. Now much of what was said in the attempt to attach the odious stigma of Formalism to the Penitential Prayer and the Proclamation of Pardon, plainly proceed upon the mistaken assumption that the compulsory use of specific forms in public worship constitutes formalism. The assumption is not expressly avowed, indeed, but it unmistakeably underlies the contention set up that the impugned elements of the 1928 Liturgy demonstrate the presence of formalism. But, surely, the Reformed churches have never stood committed to the view, that forms in their authoritative use in public worship is contraband, not even by implication; they have never assumed a condemnatory attitude to the use of forms as such. Even the Puritans have not permitted their liturgical purism to carry them to this length in their implacable hostility to Anglican Ceremonialism. The Reformed churches of the Netherlands have never evinced an Anabaptistic bias against the use of forms in worship. Their lineal descendant, the Christian Reformed Church of America, too has never refused to acknowledge the propriety and implied permissibility of using forms in the public worship of the church. The church of God of all ages and lands has gone on record as believing that the worship in spirit and in truth, which Jesus signalized as the worship of the New Testament church, is not to be understood as an utterly formless service of adoration rendered to God. It could not well do otherwise. It is a law grounded in creation itself and sustained in providence, that inward and spiritual realities need and crave outward embodiment as a medium of expression and influence; the solo requirement being, that the form employed be congenial to the spirit and essence of the spiritual reality and qualify as its medium, by dint of adaptation and adequacy. Should those qualifications be absent from the forms utilized, the latter would hinder and hamper instead of aiding and serving the inward reality that chose them for its habitation. But the circumstance that in certain concrete instances the adopted form harmed and hurt the soul dwelling in it, constitutes no warrant to condemn forms on their own account. This is a truism that applies as truly to matters liturgical as to all other domains of life and work.
If the grievance be, not that forms are actually employed, but that their use is made mandatory upon the churches and their officiating liturgetes, the charge of formalism should be dropped and the indictment drawn up in correct language. It is, indeed,, a debatable question whether a definite Order of Worship should be prescribed or left optional. But it is as clear as sunshine in Egypt, that neither the use of forms and worship in general, nor their compulsory use in particular constitutes formalism in the generally accepted sense of this well known term. It is not altogether unlikely that the grievance cherished against the principal elements of the Service of Reconciliation is the addition of forms to those occurring in the 1857 Liturgy long in vogue among us. If the objectors to the Service of Reconciliation are persuaded that, in the case of the 1928 Liturgy, forms are multiplied beyond reasonable need, they should in fairness drop the charge of formalism. For in that instance the problem confronting us is one of measure and not of principle; of quantity, (more or less), not of quality (right or wrong). No doubt, excess of form as well as bad forms are possible; and both are evils that should be shunned. But if either of these two observations be meant, it should by all means be stated unequivocally; it only tends to confusion, to style these specific evils formalism. Meanwhile it should be observed that the 1928 Liturgy is not burdened with an excess of form or with forms that are ill suited to the spiritual realities of worship which they are designed to serve. Undue multiplication of liturgical items has been, indeed, laid to its charge. Now it will be generally admitted that there is no fixed rule governing the precise number of forms permissible in public worship. Doubtless, discretion is the only principle that can claim jurisdiction in this field; wisdom takes account of general circumstances such as the time allotted to worship ordinarily, and similar practical matters. The percentage of increase of forms in the 1928 Liturgy over that of 1857 is so slight as to be quite negligible. As regards bad form, it has not been charged against the liturgical items under discussion as far as the records are concerned. The items themselves are under indictment, but nobody appears to have contended that their form specifically was incongruous with their essence and spirit.
It remains to ascertain whether the liturgical changes registered in the 1928 Order of Worship are properly designated formalism. What is formalism? To begin with formalism has a distinctly subjective connotation; it has no reference whatsoever to the forms themselves, objectively considered, be it their character or their number; neither bad, or bungling forms, nor all the forms of the world put together and their total multiplied beyond count, constitutes formalism. A Liturgy can therefore not properly be said to instance formalism, however much reasonable objection may be registered against its de facto forms on the score of quality and quantity. Formalism, instead of being an attribute of forms, is an attitude toward forms, assumed by men and based on their estimate thereof. It is specifically a matter of appreciation of forms and a use of them governed by the definite appraisal put upon them. More particularly formalism is a faulty evaluation of the work and function of forms and a correspondingly wrong attitude toward, and use of, them. More particularly still, it is an exaggerative estimate of the purpose and function of forms, involving a concomitant depreciatory attitude toward, if not decided disregard of, their content. It is a species of one-sidedness that may go in the direction either of over estimating the value of forms, or of under rating their significance; in all probability it springs from a constitutional inability to take a full-orbed view of matters, rather than being an antecedently deliberate and wilful disregard of the material aspects of a thing in the interest of its formal aspects. In some minds this lack of comprehension and balance will lead to a minimizing of forms, as if forms were beneath the self-sufficiency and dignity of the abstract idea; while in other minds it tends to such an engrossment with the embodiment of an idea and its manifestation, that the idea which is embodied and the thing which is manifested, are first lost out of sight, then discredited if recalled at all, and ultimately categorically denied or erroneously identified with the forms enfolding it. In the event formalism does not become as acute as sketched above, its moderation must be attributed to the countervailing influence of common sense. Consistent formalism does not rest content until the substance of a thing is lost in the unbalanced contemplation of its form and the form has usurped the place of the substance. The genuine formalist in worship is of the opinion that repairing to God's house is itself meeting God; that folding one's hands and closing one's eyes in prayer is prayer itself; that looking at the preacher and listening to his word is faith itself in the Word of God; that eating of the bread and drinking of the wine at the Lord's Supper is communion itself with the Lord, etc. He is at the opposite extreme of him who believes that worship in spirit and in truth does not need, and should even spurn, the physical accompaniments and accoutrements of liturgical services which are deemed by sanctified common sense to be the necessary and useful forms of spirit and of truth.
This somewhat detailed and extended analysis was needful because the charge of formalism was repeatedly hurled at the 1928 Liturgy in a somewhat thoughtless, if not glibe and flippant, fashion, not only in our country but in the Netherlands as well. The complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the term makes it possible to bear with those who clamorously attacked the 1928 Liturgy. For its opponents manifestly did not mean to say that its proponents and advocates were content to feed on husks and hulls emptied of all pith and kernel, as the charge of advocating formalism, strictly speaking, implies. However, the term formalism was used; and as long as the bubble of misunderstanding is not pricked, it does gross injustice to men who are as far removed from abetting formalism as east is distant from west, and farther still. What those preferring the charge of formalism meant doubtless was, that the Confession of Sin and the Proclamation of Pardon should have been satisfied with the traditional form which they had in the General Prayer and the sermon, respectively and that the new form given them in the Service of Reconciliation, i.e., their erection unto separate and independent liturgical items, was unnecessary, and so far forth objectionable. But it will have become perfectly clear that they blundered egregiously in calling what was merely the exchange of one form for another, formalism. Even if it be granted for argument's sake, that the substitutionary forms are comparatively inferior or positively objectionable, there would be no room for the imputation of formalism. Since both parties agree that worship is not complete without confession of sin and declaration of pardon, and neither of the two is concerned to deny that these liturgical elements must needs assume some form or other if they are to receive external expression, the most that can be said is, that they differ in formal respect; materially they are agreed. But whence the right to call one party to this formal difference, that is, a difference as to choice of forms, formalists, if both parties exercise and assert choice? Preference as such of one form above the other is not formalism; if it were, both parties would be formalists; since it is not, neither of the two parties should be so designated. Nor can the opponents of the Service of Reconciliation repudiate interest in the form of the confession of sin and the declaration of pardon, and contend that they are concerned only with the matter of these liturgical items. If this were possible, they might submit that those sponsoring the Service of Reconciliation set store by forms, and then construe such interest in forms as formalism, tho at the cost of misapplication of this term. But this course is not open to them. If they are to conserve these liturgical elements at all, as they propose to do in the General Prayer and the Sermon, respectively, they cannot avoid giving them some form; if left without any form whatsoever, they would simply cease to be, liturgically speaking. But if they too are interested in forms of confession of sin and declaration of pardon from inescapable necessity, and if interest in forms be formalism, then to be sure, they too are formalists, However, if they can be interested in those forms without being liable to the charge of formalism, those choosing other forms than they, cannot rightly be charged with this odious fault on that account. It is to be hoped that the appreciation and use of forms and even the choice of imperfect forms and the needless multiplication of forms, will no longer be confounded with formalism. It may help those addicted to this practice in desisting therefrom, to consider that this "terminological inexactitude", as it may be styled euphemistically, not only wrongs others, but may also prove to be a dangerous boomerang.
The charge of formalism was based not only on the erection of the Confession of Sin and the Proclamation of Pardon into separate and independent liturgical elements but also on the obligatory use of set forms of those items. Coming from those who are perfectly conversant with the fact that the Reformed churches of the Netherlands, South Africa, and America not only employ prescribed forms, but are also impatient of their disregard (cf. the Vanderwerp case of Classis Pella of some years ago), such an objection easily assumes the aspect of a prize puzzle. The objection amounts at most to a question of more or less; but one formulary more or less is certainly not a matter of principle, nor occasion for qualms of conscience. The familiar fact that our church has never objected to formulary prayers, but has followed the church of our Dutch fathers of earlier and later times in using them and enforcing their use, renders it unnecessary to digress and conduct a reasoned defense of this immemorial practice. It is not implied that this custom of long standing is not a debatable subject. It is well-known that the so-called Presbyterian churches are disinclined to the compulsory use of prescribed forms. But apart from the fact that these churches base their preference and liturgical freedom upon other grounds than avoidance of formalism, the member of our church who objects to prescribed formularies for the Confession of Sin and the Proclamation of Pardon runs into glaring inconsistency. If the idea be dropped that the compulsory use of formularies for prayer and other items of worship is per se inadmissible, the question may indeed be raised whether we should have more prescribed formularies than we originally possessed. It is interesting to note in this connection, that the Netherlands Reformed church and its South African and American descendants have wisely avoided the extremes into which other churches have run in regard to ecclesiastically prepared and enjoined prayers in public worship. They have recognized the rights of extemporaneous prayer in the interest of the freedom of the liturgete, and of prescribed formularies for prayer in the interest of the needs of the congregation. For reasons of proper balance they have included both types in their liturgical repertoire, the originally formulary prayers prepondorated, at least in the sentiments of the church, if not in actual practice, as the official "Liturgie" of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands proves.
In conclusion it should be observed that there is the less reason for complaint on this score since the Synod of 1928 did not prescribe a formulary prayer for the Confession of Sin. It was no doubt the sense of the Committee for Liturgical Reform that the formulation of this prayer should not be left to the freedom of the liturgete; but this position was not expressly adopted by the Synod. However, in the "Directory of Worship" which said Committee published at the behest of Synod in November 192, three formulary prayers for the Confession of Sin were gratuitously submitted instead of one. This feature suggested a measure of liberty rather than rigid uniformity and inflexible sameness. We are, therefore, prepared to conclude, that if Synodical prescription of a definite formulary for the Penitential prayer would not have constituted warrant for the charge of formalism, the liberty which Synod actually gave the churches in the matter truly does not leave room for as much as the semblance of such a charge.
We have now disposed of the ostensible objections raised against the Penitential Prayer. As observed above, the real gravamen against this element of the 1928 Liturgy is derived from the connection which it sustains with the impugned Service of Reconciliation. But the objection launched against this unit of the 1928 Liturgy, viz., that it by implication denies the righteous state of believers before God, not only betrays misunderstanding, but it is also thoroly out of consonance with the avowed conviction of those who ardently urge it, namely, that Confession of sin and declaration of pardon are nothing less than essentials of worship. It may, then, be taken for granted that the path has been cleared for the constructive consideration of the Penitential Prayer. In so far as the refutation of errors regarding this prayer has given occasion for the exposition of some of its aspects, the latter need not be enlarged upon in the sequel.
* * * * * * *