A Brief History of Dance in Worship

Christian dance has persisted throughout the history of the church, despite many official decrees against it. Christian churches that have incorporated dance and other stylized gestures in worship have benefited from a profound way of expressing their praise and enacting the gospel message. Dance as worship is one manifestation of the Spirit’s ongoing activity in the church.

The New Testament church was not born into a vacuum, but into a Jewish culture filled with heritage and saturated with rich traditions. T. W. Manson has commented: The first disciples were Jews by birth and upbringing, and it is a priori probable that they would bring into the new community some at least of the religious usages to which they had long been accustomed. (T. W. Manson, quoted in Ralph P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 19)

Christianity entered into a tradition of already existing patterns of worship, including music and dance, as found recorded in both the Bible and ancient writings.

King David danced exuberantly in God’s presence (2 Sam. 6), while Miriam the prophetess led the women to dance with tambourines in response to their mighty deliverance from the pursuing Egyptian army (Exod. 15). Women are seen dancing in Shiloh at a feast (Judg. 21:21–23) and before David as a response to his military victories (1 Sam. 29:5). Visual images show both the bride and the bridegroom dancing: he leaping in dance (Song 2:8) and she as two dancing companies or armies with banners (Song 6:13). The Psalter commands the dance (Ps. 149:3; Ps. 150:4).

Other writings provide accounts of dancing in Jewish history. The Mishna describes a major ceremony of Sukkot, the seventh and final feast of the Jewish sacred year celebrating God’s rains and the increase of crops. The ritual is called Nissuch Ha-Mayin, in Hebrew meaning the water drawing. “The water-drawing ceremony was a joyous occasion, replete with grand activity and high drama” (Mitch and Zhava Glaeser, The Fall Feasts of Israel [Chicago: Moody Press, 1987], 175). “Levitical priests, worshipers, liturgical flutists, trumpeters, and a crowd carrying lulax (branches) and etrog (fruit) celebrated together in a great display of symbolic activity and festival rejoicing” (Sukkah 5:1). It was probably the viewing of this ceremony to which Jesus makes reference in his great teaching on the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in John 7:37–39.

Another celebration, which occurred on the first night of the feast of Sukkot, was the illumination of the Temple. Enormous golden candlesticks were set up in the court of the women.

The mood was festive. Pious men, members of the Sanhedrin, and heads of the different religious schools would dance well into the night holding burning torches and singing songs of praise to God. (M. and Z. Glaeser, Fall Feasts of Israel, 182)

The Glaesers go on to report: “Not only did they play instruments with fervor, but the Levitical choir stood chanting and singing as the leaders of Israel danced” (M. and Z. Glaeser, Fall Feasts of Israel, 183).

Dr. Sam Sasser writes: Recognized Norwegian scholar Sigmund Mowinckel, in what is believed to be one of the best books written on the Psalms in Israel’s worship, and a standard text in most graduate schools and seminaries, notes in definition: “Together with song and music goes the dance, which is a common way of expressing the encounter with the body. The dance is a spontaneous human expression of the sense of rapture.… At a higher religious level it develops into an expression of the joy at the encounter with the Holy One, an act for the glory of God (2 Sam. 6:20ff). It behooves one to give such a visible and boisterous expression of the joy before Yahweh.” (Sam Sasser, The Priesthood of the Believer [Plano, Tex.: Fountain Gate Publishers], 111)

The church from A.D. 30 to A.D. 70 was undergoing transition. There was a separation from Temple worship, and those elements in the old covenant which would not be continued in the new covenant. The epistles and the book of Acts outline the forms and ceremonies of Judaic worship that would be eliminated in the church. Blood sacrifice (Heb. 9), Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7:11–28), the practice of circumcision (Acts 15:5, 28–29), and the keeping of new moons and Sabbaths (Col. 2:16–23) were to be discontinued. However, there is no commentary about discontinuing the use of musical instruments, singing, and dancing. Nowhere are these condemned or forbidden. On the contrary, the following Scriptures seem to indicate the continuing practice of inherited worship patterns (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19–20; Acts 15:13–16; 1 Cor. 5:13, 14:26).

It is noteworthy that historically the book of Psalms has been the basic hymnbook for the church and her worship patterns, as David Chilton describes: When the church sang the Psalms—not just little snatches of them, but comprehensively, through the whole Psalter—she was strong, healthy, aggressive, and could not be stopped. That’s why the devil has sought to keep us from singing the Psalms, to rob us of our inheritance. If we are to recapture the eschatology of dominion, we must reform the church; and a crucial aspect of that reformation should be a return to the singing of Psalms. (David Chilton, Paradise Restored [Tyler, Tex.: Reconstruction Press, 1985], 8-9)

Although Jewish tradition is replete with accounts of dancing, Ecclesiastes 3:1 and 4 states, “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven / A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.” The New Testament church was soon to experience seasons of mourning and weeping. Lamentations 5:15 says: “The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned to mourning.” Laughing and dancing would again find their season in the church as God brought times of restoration, healing, and revival. Jeremiah 31:4 promises, “Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt be adorned with thy tabrets, and shall go forth in the dances of them that make merry.”

Separation from Jewish heritage was not the only point of adaptation for the new church. Until the time of Constantine, a.d. 323, the church experienced extreme persecution at the hands of the Roman government. Christians were captured, used as human torches, compelled to fight in gladiatorial combat, and fed to lions in elaborate spectacles called Roman games. The games reflected the immoral decadence, monstrous abuses, unwieldy influence, and imperial sadism into which Rome had fallen. Incorporated into these games was the Roman dance, an art form borrowed from other cultures, mainly Greek, and consigned to slaves.

Christians had seen their friends and fathers martyred in amphitheaters where their agony was merely a prelude to, or an incident in, the shows. That the church Fathers would honestly have denied any desire to employ consciously a trace of taint from Roman spectacle we have no reason to doubt. Church history is full of the courageous and violent denunciations that the early Fathers launched against the shows.

As early as a.d. 300 a council at Elvera decided that no person in any way connected with circus or pantomime could be baptized. In 398, at the Council of Carthage, a rule was established excommunicating anyone who attended the theater on holy days (Lincoln Kirstein, Dance: A Short History of Classic Theatrical Dancing [Little Rock: Revival Press, 1982], 59-60).

Although church history of the first millennium finds the weight of evidence to be in opposition to dance, there are quotes from writings of the church fathers which indicate some trace of dancing remained in the Christian church.

  • “Of those in heaven and those on earth, a unison is made, one General Assembly, one single service of thanksgiving, one single transport of rejoicing, one joyous dance.” Chrysostom (a.d. 386)
  • “Everything is right when it springs from the fear of the Lord. Let’s dance as David did. Let’s not be ashamed to show adoration of God. Dance uplifts the body above the earth into the heavenlies. Dance bound up with faith is a testimony to the living grace of God. He who dances as David dances, dances in grace.” Ambrose (a.d. 390)
  • “To keep the sacred dances, discipline is most severe.” Augustine (a.d. 394)
  • “Could there be anything more blessed than to imitate on earth the dance of angels and saints? To join our voices in prayer and song to glorify the risen creator.” Bishop of Caesarea (a.d. 407)
  • “I see dance as a virtue in harmony with power from above.” Thodoret (a.d. 430)
  • “Dance as David danced.” Bishop of Milan (a.d. 600)
  • “Dance as David to true refreshment of The Ark which I consider to be the approach to God, the swift encircling steps in the manner of mystery.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus (a.d. 600) (all quoted from Debbie Roberts, Rejoice: A Biblical Study of the Dance [Little Rock: Revival Press, 1982], 39-40)

In his book on dance, Lincoln Kirstein records a few examples of dancing in Christian churches: The Abbot Meletius, an Englishman, upon the advice of the first Gregory, permitted dancing in his churches up to 604.… The Jesuit father Menestrier, whose history of dancing published in 1682 is full of valuable data about his own time as well as of curious earlier tales, tells of seeing in certain Parish churches the senior canon leading choirboys in a round dance during the singing of the psalm. The Parish Liturgy reads “Le chanoine ballera au premier psaume.” (“The canon will dance to the first psalm.”) (Kirstein, Dance, 63)

Continuing in this vein, Kirstein records three more examples: Scaliger said the first Roman bishops were called praesuls and they led a sacred “dance” around altars at festivals. Theodosius says that Christians of Antioch danced in church and in front of martyrs’ tombs. Los Seises, the dancing youths of the Cathedral of Seville, whose annual performance on the feasts of Corpus Christi and the Immaculate Conception was connected with the ancient Mozarabic rite, are often described as ritual dancers, though their dance was really an independent votive act, peculiar to the towns of Seville and Toledo. (Ibid.)

The writings of Augustine in the fourth century issue a complaint against dancing: It is preferable to till the soil and to dig ditches on the day of the Lord than to dance a choreic reigen. Oh, how times and manners change! What once was the business of lute players and shameless women only, namely to sing and to play, this is now considered an honor among Christian virgins and matrons who even engage masters in their art to teach them. (Walter Sorell, The Dance through the Ages [New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1967], 36)

On the one hand, condemned and on the other hand embraced, dance seems to have never completely disappeared from church history. Especially in the Mediterranean countries and the Orient, people never gave up dancing. Here, the clergy applied less coercive measures to restrain dance. However, taking the gospel to the north, the clergy had an uphill struggle to uproot the rituals and pagan rites.

With the Christian way of life taking root, the heathen quality was lost, but the people retained what they liked about the old way. How many things in which we still indulge nowadays have their roots in ancient pagan rituals, such as the idea of a June bridge, Halloween, or Yuletide! Or who would think today of the Maypole as a phallic symbol and of the dance around it as a fertility dance? (Ibid., 38)

Although dance was more often condemned by the millennium church than sanctioned, there were exceptions. As Alordyce Nicole writes, in his exhaustive work on the period, had this been actually enforced half of Christendom, including a section of the clergy, would have been out of communion with the church.… From East to West, in Constantinople, in Antioch, in Alexandria, in Rome, the mimic drama flourished, uniting together old pagans and new Christians in the one common enjoyment of pure secularism. (Kirstein, Dance, 60)

Because of the increase in heresy, the leaders desired more centralization of authority and a set pattern of doctrine. A series of traceable events, beyond the scope of this article, gave rise to priestly class and eventually the formation of the Roman Catholic church.

From the scriptural position of the priesthood of all believers there grew up a distinct priestly class.… The early leaders warned against falling from this idea, but soon a priestly class was developed and the priests began to do things for common Christians that, they were told, they could not do for themselves. This was not only a retrogression to Jewish days, but was also a compromise with paganism. If the ministers were to be priests they had to interpret the items of worship in such a way as to give themselves special functions and to justify their position.… Along with these developments was a general increase of ceremonialism. Simple services became ritualistic. (F. W. Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom [Delight, Ark.: Gospel Light Publishing House, 1961], 151)

Combining the practice of asceticism and the sharp cleavage between clergy and laity, this period finds little expression of dance in the church; and what can be found is in the ceremony and service of the priests. Hence, the rise of the Mass. The Mass is based on Christ’s passion. It is called Eucharist or Thanksgiving, since those celebrating give thanks for the bread and wine. The Mass continued to be arranged until it supported “an astonishing exuberance of minute detail, each tiny point related to a central truth of the religion” (Kirstein, Dance, 70).

The expression of one’s beliefs and feelings through movement is the very foundation of dance. Though the worship form of dance was removed from the people and repressed in the priesthood, the basic elements of dance found its expression in the Mass. It is the indirect contribution of the Mass with which we are occupied but even so, there were definite preordained movements and postures for the participants. However, we do not infer nor should we “easily assume that basilicas were sacred opera houses, or the Mass was a holy pantomime” (Ibid., 67). But dancing as a form of worship is not an isolated phenomenon or an ancient relic of our distant Hebraic ancestors. Therefore, we must understand the forms worship may take when it emerges as the dance.

  • Outside the walls of the church, people were still expressing religion in dance, although their belief was more a fear of death than faith in the living God that prompted Israel’s dance.
  • In no other epoch besides the late Middle Ages has the dance been more indicative of social phenomena. It reflected frightening aspects of the plague and the fear of death.
  • At Christian festivals people would suddenly begin to sing and dance in churchyards, disturbing divine service.
  • Hans Christian Anderson tells of little Karen who was cursed to dance without stopping and who could not find rest until the executioner cut off her feet. (Sorell, Dance through the Ages, 40, 42)

The church leaders tried to stamp out these obscene dances, which often began in the churchyard cemetery with people dancing around tombstones then moving through the town attracting more and more people as they went. This dance, also known as the dance macabre, reached a climax as the bubonic plague swept Europe in the fourteenth century. These dances of violent nature occurred everywhere. In Germany, they were called St. Vitus’ dance. In Italy, it was called tarantella and these dances indicated the tenor of life, particularly during the period of the plague (Ibid., 40).

The clergy maintained that the millennium would be the day of reckoning, Judgment Day. When the year 1000 passed without any visible changes, some of the fear subsided.

The Church remained powerful and the spirit of medievalism lingered on, even while man awakened to new inner freedom. From the crudeness of his carnal lust and mortal fear of it, he escaped into chivalry; checking his growing freedom, he forced himself into the straitjacket of ideal codes. (Sorell, Dance through the Ages, 39)

The fourteenth-century introduced more change for the world and the church with the beginning of the Renaissance, the great revival of art and learning in Europe in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries. The world was revolting to set the soul and body free.

Above all, Renaissance man had a visual mind, as his accomplishments in printing, sculpture, and architecture prove. The eye became used to seeing in patterns. And it was a geometric design that inspired the first attempts at ballet. (Ibid., 90)

The Renaissance, emphasizing the dignity of the human person, laid the foundation for independence of thought which eventually broke the grip of Catholic theology. A revitalized interest in the study of the Scriptures caused people to be aware that the New Testament church was vastly different from the church in existence in Western Europe.

The religious and moral corruptions now could be effectively combated because of the intellectual freedom which had been encouraged by the Renaissance. Men began to see in the Scripture that the claims of the clergy were unfounded, and with a new intellectual basis for their criticism, ideas of opposition to the hierarchy spread rapidly. (F. W. Mattox, Eternal Kingdom, 240)

The sixteenth-century began the Reformation. Notable leaders sought to eliminate the unscriptural doctrines and practices of the Catholic church and, through reforms, return the church to New Testament patterns. One of the first reformers was Martin Luther (1483–1546). Along with emphasizing justification by faith, Luther stressed the priesthood of all believers. This was a preeminent step to releasing the people to express their worship unto God, which would eventually release all the Davidic expressions of praise, including dance.

John Calvin (1509–1564) was a leader of the Reformation in Switzerland who laid down principles that have influenced a large part of the Protestant world today.

The church of Luther experienced and preached the ideal of renunciation of the world more strongly than the Reformed church, which desires to proclaim the glory of God in all areas of life. The Reformed Churches do not view this world as a vale of tears but as the vineyard of the Lord, which is to be cultivated. They do not shun the world, but meet it, accepting the danger of becoming secularized in order to magnify God’s name within it and by its means. Thus in the last analysis, they subject nothing to a judgment of absolute condemnation. Everything must and can serve to the glorification of God, even art. We may recall the thought of the Neo-Calvinist Abraham Kuyper. Basically, the art of the dance should also be capable of being incorporated into the service of God. (Gerardus Van Der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986], 51-52)

Writings on the Renaissance and Reformation periods are scattered with accounts of a revitalized interest in dance in the church. Giovanni Boelaccio of the fourteenth century mentioned the carole, a dance in a ring to singing voices, originally performed in May only, but whose popularity grew until the carole was sung and danced throughout the year.

Variations of the carole arose everywhere. The minnesingers in Germany called it Springtang and put into it a great many hops and small leaps.… The people identified the carole—today known only as a Christmas song—with religious images as they appear in many “Last Judgment” paintings of the early Renaissance which show angels in heaven enjoying a carole. (Sorell, Dance through the Ages, 41)

The varied artistic styles of the Renaissance reflect the concept of dancing in the heavens. The works of Leonardo da Vinci pictured the entire cosmic order as dancing. Dante, a famous writer, poet, moral philosopher, and political thinker of his day saw the dance of the saints in heaven.

When those bright suns so gloriously singing
Had circled three items ‘round about us turning,
Like stars which closely ‘round the pole go swinging,
They seemed like women who are not yet willing
To dance, but to the melody stand clinging
While the new rhythm mind and ear is filling.
(Van Der Leeuw, Religion, 30)

The works of Vondel reveal the same visual imagery:

… for the guests so merry
At the wedding, must not rest,
Since their dance is necessary.
Heaven holds no ghost nor quest
Who with holy dance and singing
Does not spend eternity.…
(Van Der Leeuw, Religion, 30)

Vondel also sees how the church dances with God:

As air through many organ pipes is guided
One spirit is to many tongues divided,
In equal time through a field of equal sound,
Where Church and God together dance the sound.
The angel hosts from heaven’s height descending
Dance deeply down, our sacrifice attending,
About Christ’s body on His altar-stone.…
(Van Der Leeuw, Religion, 30)

Apparently, the prevailing philosophy embraced dancing in heaven. “To die on earth as a martyr brings heavenly joy.… In Fra Angelico’s The Last Judgment, the virgins and martyrs dance the heavenly dance” (Van Der Leeuw, Religion, 68). Luther, describing heaven’s garden for his young song, portrays “a small beautiful meadow, which was arrayed for a dance. There hung lutes, pipes, trumpets, and beautiful silver cymbals” (Van Der Leeuw, Religion, 68). Although the church may have somewhat embraced the concept of dancing in heaven, the practice of dancing on earth was, for the most part, shunned if not declared anathema.

No longer under the heavy restraints of the church, Renaissance society was, therefore, dancing. Two opposite poles of dance developed in Europe between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries: the peasants, or the populace at large, stood for the earthiness and crude joy, while the nobility replaced the primary impulses with refinement and polish. “The court dance was subjected more and more to rules. Contributing to this development was, no doubt, the reliance of the nobility on professional entertainers” (Sorrel, Dance through the Ages, 45).

Further refinements and more popularity came to dance because of Catherine de Medici, a daughter of a great house in Italy who came to France to marry Henry II. “She brought with her a company of musicians and dancers from her native city of Florence to supervise her artistic presentations, and highly impressive they were” (John Martin, The Book of Dance [New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1963], 26). In 1581, with the expertise of Balthasar de Beaujoyeux (an Italian by birth though bearing a French name), Catherine de Medici produced what is considered the first ballet, Ballet Comigue de la Rein.

The populace was also dancing. Folk dances such as the egg dance, the country Thread-the-Needle, and ring-shaped or choral dances grew in popularity. Labyrinth dances signifying resurrection themes were popular in many parts of the world, sometimes even being incorporated into Christian holidays. At Easter, in the province of Twente, in Oatmarsum, the children danced or processed through the entire town in a serpentine motion singing a very old Easter song:

Hallelujah! The happy melody
Is now sung loud and prettily.
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

This dance is sluip-door-kruip-door in Dutch, Magdeburger in German, forandole in French, and the cramignon of Limburg. These also had two other names, taken from Biblical antiquity and the classics: Jericho and labyrinth.

From the Reformation period until the present, the church has experienced many spiritual awakenings or revivals, including the restoration of many New Testament truths. The energies of the clergy, theologians, and even whole denominations has been to embrace and preserve the truths that were being revealed. If the loss of truth or the embrace of heresy propelled the church into the dark ages (which is the prevailing philosophy of church historians), then the converse is also true. Embracing truth is responsible for returning the church to her calling, commission, and glory. Scripture compares truth to walls and salvation (Isa. 26:11; 60:18; Ps. 51:18). The rebuilding of truth is analogous to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem after captivity, defeat, and judgment (Ezra 9:9; Neh. 2:17; Isa. 26:1). In Israel of old, such restoration was the promised season of release, rejoicing, and dance (Jer. 31:1–13; Neh. 7:1; 12:27–30). Likewise, as the church has experienced reforming and rebuilding, rejoicing and dancing have accompanied each season of restoration. (Below you will find quotes from various revival periods and special religious sects that validate this view.)

A unique group called the Shakers was founded in England in 1747. The term Shaker came from the rapid up-and-down movement of their hands, mostly in their wrists. Shaking the hands with the palms turned upward as if to receive a blessing meant they were expressing the open petition, “Come, life Eternal.” Shaking of the hands with the palms turned downward to the floor was a symbolic motion that they were shaking out all that was carnal.

The Shakers believed that by keeping their inner and outer lives in perfect order they were reflecting the perfect order of God’s kingdom. The practicing Shaker was held accountable to his religion when he stepped out of bed, when he dressed, when he ate when he spoke, and when he worked. Worldly lusts were suppressed by rules: carnality was held at bay by a dress code that insured modesty, by a series of orders restricting the body’s movements and appetites, and by architectural designs that segregated the sexes. Unity was enforced by the requirements of obedience—the submission of the individual to the authority of God’s appointed leaders.

On Sundays the Shakers danced to the honor of God. Their worship—in vivid contrast to the restrained order of their weekday lives—was an exuberant spectacle that veered unpredictably through many hours of the day. Formal dances could at any time break off into spontaneous displays of whirling, weeping, and shaking. Scathing or uplifting sermons were delivered extemporaneously by the elders, or by individual worshipers who were suddenly seized by the power of God and compelled to speak. Throngs of spectators—“the world’s people”—packed the little meetinghouses to be entertained, shocked, or inspired. No one who witnessed Shaker worship, whether horrified or enraptured, ever forgot it.

The first ordered dance of the Shakers, the “Square Order Shuffle” was introduced by Joseph Meacham about 1785. In 1820 a variation was introduced, men and women shuffled forward and backward in a series of parallel lines, weaving, in imaginative designs, a fabric of union and love.

A 19th Century American engraving called “Shakers Dancing” can be seen at the Dance Collection, Performing Arts Research Center, The New York Public Library at Lincoln Center. (Amy Stechler Burns and Ken Burns, “The Shakers,” American History Illustrated [Summer 1988], 27)

During the early 1800s in the slave community, dance was an important part of their worship. A syncretism of African and conventional Western religious beliefs, the praise meeting in the quarters was unique in the United States. While whites might be carried away by religious frenzy at occasional “awakenings,” slaves had an even more intense emotional involvement with their God every week. In contrast to most white churches, a meeting in the quarters was the scene of perpetual motion and constant singing. Robert Anderson recalled that in meetings on his plantation there was much singing. He noted, “While singing these songs, the singers and the entire congregation kept time to the music by the swaying of their bodies, or by the patting of the foot or hand. Practically all of their songs were accompanied by a motion of some kind.” A black plantation preacher testified to the uniqueness of the religion in the quarters when he asserted: “The way in which we worshiped is almost indescribable. The singing was accompanied by a certain ecstasy of motion, clapping of hands, tossing of heads, which would continue without cessation about half an hour; one would lead off in a kind of recitative style, others joining in the chorus. The old house partook of the ecstasy; it rang with their jubilant shouts, and shook in all its joints (John W. Blassingame, The Slave Community [New York: Oxford, 1972]: 27). Two outstanding features of the slave community worship were the “ring shout” and the “juba.” H. G. Spaulding gave an excellent description of the “shout” on the Sea Islands in 1863:

After the praise meeting is over, there usually follows the very singular and impressive performance of the “Shout” or religious dance of the negroes. Three or four, standing still, clapping their hands and beating time with their feet, commence singing in unison one of the peculiar shout melodies, while the others walk round in a ring, in single file, joining also in the song. Soon those in the ring leave off their singing, the others keeping it up the while with increased vigor, and strike into the shout step, observing most accurate time with the music. This step is something halfway between a shuffle and a dance, as difficult for an uninitiated person to describe as to imitate. At the end of each stanza of the song the dancers stop short with a slight stamp on the last note, and then, putting the other foot forward, proceed through the next verse.… The shout is a simple outburst and manifestation of religious fervor—a “rejoicing in the Lord”—making a “joyful noise unto the God of their salvation.” (Blassingame, Slave Community, 65–66)

Accompanying their singing was the practice of the “patting juba.”

When slaves had no musical instruments they achieved a high degree of rhythmic complexity by clapping their hands. Solomon Northup, an accomplished slave musician, observed that in juba the clapping involved “striking the hands on the knees, then stroking the hands together, then stroking the right shoulder with one hand, the left with the other—all the while keeping time with the feet, and singing.… ” Often the rhythmic patterns used in juba were little short of amazing. After viewing a performance in Georgia in 1841, a traveler from Rhode Island observed that, while the slaves were patting juba, it was “really astonishing to witness the rapidity of their motions, their accurate time, and the precision of their music and dance.” (Ibid.)

The world was in a period of change. The Industrial Revolution followed the Reformation changing the character of life as people had known it. Likewise, the reformers continued to bring change to the church. The late 1800s produced a church concerned about holiness, some Christians even seeking a second work of grace called sanctification. Holiness evangelist, pastor, and church leader Ambrose Blackman Crumper, a licensed Methodist Episcopal preacher, was determined to establish the holiness message in his native state of North Carolina. “Everywhere he went, people shouted, danced before the Lord, and ‘fell under the Spirit’ when they received the second blessing.”

The Holiness movement spawned the great outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the turn of the century. Pentecostalism was born on Azusa Street, prompted in part by the Great Welsh Revival. Seekers of the baptism of the Holy Spirit would receive the gift of tongues. “Dancing in the spirit” was often a regular happening at their meetings. Dancing in the spirit is physical movement akin to dancing, presumably done while under the influence and control of the Holy Spirit. “Most older Pentecostal believers who have participated in spiritual revivals over a period of years have witnessed what is known as ‘dancing in the spirit’ ” (Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, eds., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 236). According to the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, various phrases applied to the dance movements observed in the Pentecostal believers included: holy roller, orgiastic worship, physical agitation, physically demonstrated praises, orgasmic worship, noisy and expressive worship, holy jumpers, and others.

Dancing is a phenomenon closely tied to the fresh encounters with God found in the message of sanctification, baptism of the Holy Spirit, or healing revivals. One famous woman healing evangelist, Maria Woodworth-Etter, whose meetings journal has many accounts of people dancing, had this to say on the subject:

David danced with all his might before the Lord. The word is full of dancing. Where dancing in the Bible is mentioned, it always signified victory for the Lord’s hosts. It was always done to glorify God. The Lord placed the spirit of power and love of the dance in the Church, and wherever the Scripture speaks of dancing it implies that they danced in inspiration, and were moved by the Spirit, and the Lord was always pleased and smiled His approval, but the devil stole it away and made capital of it. In these last days, when God is pouring out His Spirit in great cloudbursts and tidal waves from the floodgates of Heaven, and the great river of life is flooding our spirit and body, and baptizing us with fire and resurrection life, and divine energy, the Lord is doing His acts, His strange acts, and dancing in the Spirit and speaking in other tongues, and many other operations and gifts. The Holy Ghost is confirming the last message of the coming King, with great signs and wonders, and miracles. If you read carefully what the Scripture says about dancing, you will be surprised and will see that singing, music, and dancing has a humble and holy place in the Lord’s Church.… All the great company was blessed but Michael, and she was stricken with barrenness till the day of her death, so you see she sinned in making light of the power of God in the holy dance (just as some do today), and attributed it to the flesh or the devil. They always lost out, and many are in darkness till death. (Maria Woodworth-Etter, A Diary of Signs and Wonders [Tulsa: Harrison House, 1981], 524-525)

The Pentecostal revival was not limited to the United States, but spread quickly to the European continent, bringing with it the Holy Spirit’s gifts, anointing, and also the dance. Between the two world wars, a revival of Christian drama won wide popularity, especially in Germany.

I shall never forget seeing one of these bands of German young people as they produced a thrilling version of the Totentanz (Dance of Death) before a Chinese student-group in Peking. Being chiefly a dance, with music but no words, it spoke an international language; and the intensity of the emotion among these oriental and largely non-Christian observers aroused by this European and thoroughly Christian play was surprising and extraordinary. (Richard H. Ritter, The Arts of the Church [Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1947], 97-98)

From that time until the present day, dancing has been incorporated by many evangelistic groups. Currently, two outstanding examples are YWAM (Youth With A Mission), founded by Loren Cunningham, and Toymaker’s Dream by Impact Productions. The year 1948 hosted another outpouring of the Holy Spirit known as the Latter Rain Movement. With a strong emphasis on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, laying on of hands, and prophecy, this visitation, like earlier revivals, hosted manifestations of spiritual dancing. Rev. Charlotte Baker, a modern-day prophet and anointed teacher, comments on that outpouring in her book On Eagle’s Wings: “Dancing is not new to the Christian who is familiar with worship in the realm of Pentecostal churches. Since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the turn of the century, dancing in the Spirit has been a part of Pentecostal praise and worship.” However, a shift began to take place in the understanding of teachers such as Charlotte Baker. Although not doubting the validity of dancing while yielded to the Holy Spirit’s influence, she and others also believed dancing as a voluntary act is a true act of worship. She goes on to comment:

It must be noted, however, “dancing in the Spirit,” the term which has been so widely used throughout the years, is not found in God’s Word. Careful study of the Word reveals that the appropriate expression is dancing before the Lord. For example, David danced before the Lord with all his might at the time of the return of the Ark of the Covenant to Israel. “Dancing in the Spirit” suggests that the Holy Spirit takes hold of the Christian, causing him or her to enter into uncontrollable motions and contortions, all supposedly manifestations of the Spirit. “Dancing before the Lord” suggests the worshiper’s strength, training, and expertise as fully under the control of the dancer, who expresses worship and joy in actions and steps which bring pleasure to the heart of God. While it is true that the believer is admonished to “leap for joy,” it is also true that there are many Scriptures that indicate that intricate steps, marches, group dances, twirling, and twisting were part of the expression of the dance. There is a growing conviction among the people of God that He is most pleased when we offer to Him, as an act of worship, all of our ability whether it be in art, in the dance, or in any other creative expression with which the Lord has blessed us. Every activity of life is designed to become an act of worship. In the past five years, we have seen many gifted dancers come to Jesus for salvation and add to the Body of Christ a wonderful ability to express, in an excellent manner, their worship unto Him in dance. Just as there are those who have been given the ability to sing and to edify the Body through excellence in song, so are there those who have been given the ability to pour out to God a similar ministry through the dance. Room should be made within the worship structure of the Church for the full expression of each individual; such expression should always remain within the confines of the Word and under the leadership of the ministries. (Charlotte E. Baker, On Eagle’s Wings [Shippensburg, Pa.: Destiny Image Publishers, 1990], 101-102)

In the 1950s and 60s, a few churches pioneered new territory in choreographed dancing, pageants, dance troupes, and trained artists. Among these was The King’s Temple in Seattle, Washington, pastored by Rev. Charlotte Baker, a disciple of the late Reg. Layzell, and Living Waters Fellowship in Pasadena, California, pastored by Willard and Ione Glaeser.

By the early 1960s, the charismatic renewal movement was building momentum, sweeping people from every denomination into the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. An outstanding feature of the charismatic meetings was the importance placed on singing Psalms and other Scriptures. “The rise of singing psalms and Scripture songs, as well as the rebirth of dance in worship, in the charismatic movement is directly attributed to Old Testament examples” (Burgess and McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 689). Exuberance and freshness marked the worship services: “As in the early days of the Pentecostal revival, it is not unusual to find charismatic worshipers singing, shouting, clapping hands, leaping and even dancing before the Lord as they offer him sincere praise and thanksgiving” (Burgess and McGee, Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 693).

In 1978 God raised up four men—Rev. Larry Dempsey, Rev. Barry Griffing, Rev. Steve Griffing, and Rev. David Fisher—to begin a teaching worship conference called the International Worship Symposium. This worship seminar, along with one of its offshoots, and the International Feast of Tabernacles Celebration in Jerusalem have done much to encourage local assemblies to begin creative worship in the area of dance.

Dancing in churches currently ranges from simple folk style steps in which whole congregations participate, to traveling professional artists such as Ballet Magnificat. Liturgical dance, the name having been just recently coined to identify the style of dance, is becoming more common.

Practiced by liturgical artists, dance serves and functions as a conduit from the inner workings of the spirit to the outer expression of today’s worship.… dances for the liturgy change with the seasons: fall, winter, spring, and summer match advent, Christmas/Epiphany, Lent/Easter, and Pentecost. Becoming immersed in the cyclical process, a dancer discovers that he or she has become a student of religion. Dances are designed from personal reflections on the spirituality of the liturgical season. Scripture and prayer, mingled with the urgings of the dancer’s soul, and enriched by the experience of life, are shaped through the medium of dance. (Doug Adams and Diane Apostolos-Cappodona, eds., Dance as Religious Studies [New York: Crossroad, 1990], 153-154)

It appears that there is an inescapable link with restoration and rejoicing, with rebuilding and responding—“going forth in the dances of them that make merry” (Jer. 31:4). Indeed “to everything, there is a season.” The season of weeping over our spiritual captivity has come to an end, for He has “turned our mourning into dancing.”

Historical and Theological Perspectives on Acoustics for the Worship Space

One of the most important aspects of the worship space is its acoustical properties. This is so because of the importance of sounds in worship, the sound of verbal proclamation and musical prayer and praise.

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love Him, God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:9–10).

On a visit to the city of Meissen, Saxony, in early May of 1985, I was given an opportunity to tour the magnificent Gothic cathedral, the construction of which was begun in the year 1260 and largely completed late in the 15th century when the lower portions of the west towers were built by Arnold of Westfaha (Cf. Paul Liebe and Hermann Klemm, Meissen: Der Dom und seine Geschichte [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, n.d.], pp. 11–36). The woman who guided us through the cathedral began the tour by saying, “We would not build a building for the church like this today because we have a different understanding of the church.” What a church understands itself to be determines what kind of building it builds and, simultaneously, what kind of acoustical requirements it expects of its building.

Our guide in Meissen was giving simple expression to an observation by French sociologist Emile Durkhelm (1858–1917), who said, “A society is not simply the mass of individuals that comprise it, nor the territory it occupies, nor the things it uses, nor the movements it carries out, but above all it is the idea that it has of itself (Quoted by Leonardo Boff, Church: Charism and Power [New York: Crossroad, 1986], 41). The idea that the medieval church had of itself was that of “salvation institution,” a society whose leaders could confer salvation upon its individual members, provided that those members fulfilled the minimum conditions required for salvation (Cf. Avery Dulles, Models of the Church [Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1974], 31-39). Since the minimum conditions required for salvation consisted of participation in certain sacraments, the buildings constructed in the high Middle Ages were intended for the administration of baptism and the medieval Mass. Baptism was administered outside of the gathered congregation, usually with no more than family members and friends in attendance. No attention to acoustics was required for its administration.

Buildings were constructed chiefly for the administration of the medieval Mass, the main sacrament for the congregation assembled on Sundays and Holy Days. Although the mass was “said” or—on festive occasions—“sung,” it was meant to be primarily a visual event rather than an audible event. It was mean to be seen, not heard. Bard Thompson has described the “three conceptions” that attained prominence in the Middle Ages: (1) the Mass as an “epiphany” or God amongst men, which focused attention upon the reality of the eucharistic presence, upon the consecration at which it occurred, and upon the priest by whose action it was effected; (2) the Mass as a sacrifice offered unto God for the benefit of the living and the dead; and (3) the Mass as an allegorical drama of the whole economy of redemption (see Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church [Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1961], 48).

Even though the events were available to the eye, the Mass was directed toward God, not toward the congregation. The “drama” of Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross was once again offered to God by means of the “consecration,” which transformed the elements of bread and wine into Christ’s sacrificed body and shed blood. Because the consecrated bread, now Christ’s body, could be preserved in more or less elaborate tabernacles, the building became literally “the House of God.” The ever-burning lamp indicated the location of God, who was there, available for the prayers and devotions of the individual worshiper.

The Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century articulated a different understanding of the church with very significant implications for the spaces that such an understanding required. The Augsburg Confession defined the church as “the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel” (Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959], 32). The focus here was not on the leadership of the community but on the baptized people. They were regarded as visible, available to the eye when they gathered. Their gathering was identified as “church” by what took place when they gathered, namely, the proclamation of the Christian good news and the administration of the “holy sacraments” identified and defined by that Christian good news. The primary sacrament that took place in the gathering of the baptized people was the Holy Eucharist. But in the Christian gospel, as the Lutheran Reformation understood it, the Holy Eucharist was not directed toward God as a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice. It was directed toward the people as God’s good news to them that the great benefit of Christ’s sacrifice is for them. It was available to them here and now in the promise of Christ to be present as the One who was crucified for them, namely the promise to give them his body and blood under the forms of bread and wine for their forgiveness, life, and salvation.

Both proclamation and Eucharist were meant for the ear as well as for the eye. The buildings of the Christian community were no longer to be understood as houses for God. They were to be houses for the People of God, spaces in which they would be addressed by the Word of God and participate in a sacrament in which the presence of God was promised to them through bread and wine, which they were to eat and drink. Hence Luther could say that “the church is a Mundhaus, the place of the mouth and salutary speech, not a Federhaus, the domain of the scribe” (Cited by David Lotz, “The Proclamation of the World in Luther’s Thought,” Word and World 3:4 [Fall 1983]: 347). In Luther’s own words:

The gospel should really not be something written, but a spoken word that brought forth the Scriptures, as Christ and the apostles have done. This is why Christ himself did not write anything but only spoke. He called his teaching not Scripture but gospel, meaning good news or a proclamation that is spread not by pen but by word of mouth. (Martin Luther, “A Brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels,” Luther’s Works, American ed., vol. 35 [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960], 123)

In 1523 Luther directed that the words of Christ used in the Eucharist were “to be recited in the same tone of voice in which the Lord’s Prayer is sung at another place in the Canon; so that it will be possible for those standing by to hear” (“Formula Missae et Communionis of 1523,” in Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church, 112). “The Peace of the Lord” is “to be announced with face turned to the people, as the bishops were accustomed to do” (Ibid.). Three years later Luther wrote that “in the true Mass … of real Christians, the altar could not remain where it is and the priest would always face the people as doubtless Christ did in the Last Supper” (Ibid., 130–131).

Thus both proclamation and sacrament would now require church builders to take acoustics into account. The first space constructed under the influence of the Lutheran Reformation was the chapel for the castle of the Elector of Saxony at Torgau. It has a free-standing Table on a platform raised two steps above the floor, accessible to communicants on all four sides, and a prominent pulpit. (A photograph of the interior of the chapel is reproduced in Peter Manns, Martin Luther: An Illustrated Biography [New York: Crossroad, 1982], p. 200, plate no. 82.) Luther preached the sermon at the dedication of the chapel. In his sermon, he added prayer to the acoustical activity of the gathered people of God.

Therefore God very wisely arranged and appointed things, and instituted the holy sacrament to be administered in the congregation at a place where we can come together, pray, and give thanks to God.… And here the advantage is that when Christians thus come together their prayers are twice as strong as otherwise.… Prayer is nowhere so mighty and strong as when the whole multitude prays together. (Luther’s Works, American ed., vol. 51 [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959], 337-338)

It is impossible to claim that Protestants followed their own Reformation insights in understanding both church and liturgy so that this understanding determined the construction of buildings for worship. In fact, Protestants and Catholics alike were affected by a variety of influences upon buildings and worship, most of which were not especially attentive to the acoustical dimension of the Christian gospel.

However, attention to the eschatological horizon of the New Testament in recent decades has given Protestants and Catholics a new and increasingly convergent perspective on the Christian gospel, on ecclesiology, on worship, and Eucharist that has profoundly affected the approach to Christian architecture. I want to summarize briefly what I think that eschatological horizon is, what its effects have been, and what its implications are for Christian architecture and its acoustical dimension.

1. The witness of the New Testament is that the Christian gospel is profoundly eschatological. The proclamation of Jesus can be summarized by the Gospel of Mark: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). The witness of the earliest disciples proclaims that Jesus has been raised from the dead. Jesus is therefore the Messiah, and the messianic age has begun. Jesus’ resurrection is a radical revelation of the eschaton, the outcome of history. Because Jesus has been raised, he and no one else determines that outcome. The kingdom of God has begun and will finally triumph. Death no longer has the last word. The resurrection of Jesus affirms Jesus’ mission, proclaims his death as redemptive, and confers the eschatological Holy Spirit on the community of Jesus’ disciples.

2. The community of Jesus’ disciples is called to be a witness to the resurrection of Jesus, a witness to the breaking in of the kingdom of God. The event of Jesus’ resurrection, which calls the disciple community, also shapes what the community does when it gathers for worship.
a. The disciple community appropriates anew the Scriptures of Israel and the remembrance of Jesus as it listens to the reading and exposition of lessons from the canon of the Scriptures. The disciple community has its matrix in Israel and in the mission of Israel’s Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. It is marked by its attention to “apostolic teaching” (Acts 2:42).
b. The disciple community engages in prayer in the name of Jesus. The prayer formula given to the circle of Jesus’ disciples (Luke 11:1–4) means participation in Jesus’ mission. It is the foundation for all prayer in the community. Prayer in the name of Jesus means attention to the needs of the community for its mission of witness to the kingdom of God.
c. The disciple community celebrates in anticipation the banquet of the messianic age (Isa. 25:6–8). The meal of the community includes the following: first, the offering of bread and wine as symbolic of the offering of all the baptized to the purposes of the kingdom of God (Rom. 12:1–2); second, the thanksgiving of the community under the leadership of the presiding minister as the way in which the community receives the promise of Jesus to be present with his body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine; third, the eating and drinking through which the death of Jesus is proclaimed as shaping the community for its mission in and on behalf of the world as the body of Christ.
d. The disciple community sings the “new song” by which it celebrates the victory of God and anticipates the final eternal praise of God in the eschaton.

3. All of these elements, essential to the worship of the gathered community, require the ear to receive as well as the eye. The gathering of the community for attention to the Scriptures of Israel and the apostles, for prayer in the name of Jesus, for the eucharistic banquet of the messianic age, and for the new song of God’s victory is and is meant to be, visible, that is, available to the eye. It is meant to be seen in such a way that this gathering can be distinguished from other gatherings, that is, as a church rather than as a meeting of stockholders, a musical concert, an instructional class, and so on. But these visible activities have an audible dimension. Scriptures are meant to be read and expounded so that those present are addressed so that those who have ears to hear can hear. Prayers are said so that those present can assent with “amen” or can raise their own voices for the amen of others. The bread and cup are not just distributed for eating and drinking. That would not yet be the messianic banquet under the conditions of anticipation. Rather the bread and cup need to be taken up into the words of blessing and remembrance, thanksgiving and proclamation, by which bread and cup are audibly linked with the promises of Christ (Eric W. Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson, Lutheranism [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976], 83-84). The new songs are sung in such a way that the whole community is drawn into the praise and anticipation of eternity.

What had not, prior to Jesus’ resurrection, been disclosed to eye and ear and human heart has now been revealed through the eschatological Spirit. It is now available to the eye and ear and heart. What is made visible and audible can now be received in faith. It must be visible and audible for faith to occur, for “faith must have something to believe—something to which it may cling and upon which it may stand” (Martin Luther, “Large Catechism,” The Book of Concord, p. 440).

Hence architecture for Christian worship needs to create space in which speaking and hearing, addressing and responding, sharing a meal in the context of promissory eschatological words, and singing the new song can take place. We need attention to acoustics in such a way that no artificial amplification of the human voice is needed. Architects can be attentive to such requirements for Christian worship. Eliel Saarinen designed a building for Christ Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1951 in which the human voice could be heard by more than six hundred persons without amplification. Musical leadership was still required to come from a balcony in the rear, so only speaking leadership could be seen as well as heard. But Saarinen gave attention to hearing. The chapel of Trinity Lutheran Seminary in Columbus, Ohio, designed by McDonald, Cassell, and Bassett, Inc., and completed in 1983, allows the musical as well as the speaking leadership to be seen. Attention to acoustics is such that a congregation of six hundred can hear speaking without amplification. Singing the new song takes place in a space that the music critic of the Columbus Dispatch described as “like sitting inside a gigantic cello” because it has both resonance and clarity.

The church is called by its gospel, its liturgy, and its mission to give attention to acoustics in advance of constructing its buildings, not after the fact. For “what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him,” God has revealed to us through the Spirit.

Music of the Reformation

The reforms in music which attended the reform of worship in the Reformation ranged widely from the rejection of all instruments and the restriction of singing solely to the Psalms to the choral Eucharists of the Anglicans.

Christian Worship in the Reformation

During the Middle Ages, worship had developed into an elaborate ritual which evidenced serious distortions of apostolic standards, according to the Reformers, in both theology and practice. The following five developments were especially troubling to the Reformers.

(1) The Liturgy of the Word had little significance. Although provision was made for Scripture reading and a homily in the vernacular, a sermon was rarely heard since most local priests were too illiterate to be capable of preaching.

(2) Typical worshipers understood little of what was being said or sung since the service was in Latin. Their own vocal participation was almost nonexistent.

(3) The Eucharist was no longer a joyful action of the whole congregation; it had become the priestly function of the celebrant alone. The congregation’s devotion (mixed with superstition) was focused on the host (the bread) itself, on seeing the offering of the sacrifice, or on private prayers (e.g., the rosary).

(4) Each celebration of the Mass was regarded as a separate offering of the body and blood of Christ. The emphasis was limited to Christ’s death, with scant remembrance of his resurrection and second coming. Furthermore, the custom of offering votive masses for particular individuals and purposes became common.

(5) The Roman Canon was not a prayer of thanksgiving, but rather a long petition that voiced repeated pleas that God would receive the offering of the Mass, generating a spirit of fear lest it not be accepted. As a result, most of the congregation took Communion only once a year. On many occasions, only the officiating priests received the bread and the cup.

Our look at the worship of the Reformation churches will include a consideration of the German, English, and French-Swiss traditions. However, none of these was the first expression of rebellion against Rome. The Unitas Fratrum (United Brethren), which began under John Hus in Bohemia, had its own liturgical and musical expressions. However, the reforms that were begun in this movement were aborted because of the death of Hus, who was burned at the stake in 1415.

The Lutheran Reformation

Martin Luther’s quarrel with Rome had more to do with the sacerdotal interpretation of the Mass and the resultant abuses which accompanied it than with the structure of the liturgy itself. For him, the Communion service was a sacrament (God’s grace extended to man). A musician himself, he loved the great music and the Latin text which graced the mass. Consequently, in his first reformed liturgy—Formula missae et communionis (1523)—much of the historic mass outline remains. Luther (1483–1546) is remembered as the individual who gave the German people the Bible and the hymnbook in their own language in order to recover the doctrine of believer-priesthood. He also restored the sermon to its central place in the Liturgy of the Word. But in the Formula missae, only the hymns, Scripture readings, and sermons were in the vernacular; the rest continued to be in Latin. He achieved his theological purposes relating to the communion by removing many acts of the Liturgy. All that remained were the Preface and the Words of Institution.

The German Mass (Deutscher messe, 1526) was more drastic in its iconoclasm and may have been encouraged by some of Luther’s more radical associates. In it, many of the historic Latin songs were replaced by vernacular hymn versions set to German folksong melodies.

Throughout the sixteenth century, most Lutheran worship used a variant of the Western liturgy. The Formula missae was the norm for cathedrals and collegiate churches, and the German Mass was common in smaller towns and rural churches. Twentieth-century Lutherans tend to agree that Luther was excessively ruthless in the excisions made in the Communion service. Consequently, in recent service orders, they have recovered much of the pattern and texts of the third and fourth-century eucharistic prayers, while still retaining their Reformational and Lutheran theological emphasis.

We have already mentioned Luther’s love of the historic music of the church. In the Formula missae, the choir sang the traditional psalms, songs, and prayers in Latin to Gregorian chant or in polyphonic settings. They also functioned in leading the congregation in the new unaccompanied chorales. Later, they sang alternate stanzas of the chorales in four- and five-part settings by Johann Walther, published in 1524 in the Church Chorale Book. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the choir made significant new contributions to worship in the singing of motets, passions, and cantatas.

The treble parts of the choral music were sung by boys who were trained in the “Latin” (parochial and cathedral) schools. The lower parts were sung by Latin school “alumni” or by members of the Kantorei—a voluntary social-musical organization that placed its services at the disposal of the church. Where there was no choir, the congregation was led by a “cantor.” That title, meaning “chief singer,” was also given to a musical director of large churches such as J. S. Bach, whose career culminated with service to churches in Leipzig from 1723 to 1750.

Luther seems to have been indifferent to (and occasionally critical of) the organ in divine worship, as were most Roman Catholic leaders of that period. As in the Roman church, the organ gave “intonations” for the unaccompanied liturgical singing and also continued the alternatim practice in the chorales. The “intonation” for the congregational chorales developed into what we know as a “chorale prelude.” Later, as composing techniques moved toward homophonic styles with the melody in the soprano, the organ took over the responsibility of leading the congregation in the chorales.

Luther felt that the multiple services of the medieval offices had become an “intolerable burden.” Since monasteries had been abolished, he prescribed that only the most significant morning and evening “hours”—Matins and Vespers—would be observed daily in local churches. However, office worship never really caught on among Lutherans. The practice soon died out and has only recently been revived, with moderate success. For non-eucharistic worship, Luther’s followers have preferred a shortened Mass called an “ante-Communion,” which simply omits the Lord’s Supper observance from the regular liturgy.

The Reformation in England

The early impetus for the Reformation in England was more political than spiritual. This was partly evident in the fact that for years after Henry VIII broke with the pope (1534) and assumed himself the leadership of the English (Anglican) church, the Latin Roman Mass continued to be used without change. However, during the ensuing years, evangelical thought became more widespread and after Henry’s death in 1547, Archbishop Cranmer (1489–1556) set about to devise a truly reformed English liturgy.

The first Book of Common Prayer was released in 1549, the title (“common”) indicating that worship was now to be congregational. This vernacular Mass retained much of the form of the Roman rite, with drastic revision only in the Canon (eucharistic prayer), because of the rejection of the concepts of transubstantiation and sacrifice. A significant number of Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics) still express regret that this rite never became the norm for the Church of England. As was true in Lutheran Germany, popular opinion seemed to demand even more drastic revision, and three years later another prayer book was published. Much of the influence for the more radical trend came from the Calvinist movement in Strasbourg and Geneva.

In the Prayer Book of 1552, the word Mass was dropped as the title of the worship form, vestments were forbidden, and altars were replaced by Communion tables. The Agnus Dei, the Benedictus, and the Peace were all excised from the liturgy, and the Gloria in excelsis Deo was placed near the end of the service. Thus the beginning of the ritual became basically personal and penitential, losing the corporate expression of praise and thanksgiving. The introit, gradual, offertory song, and Communion song were replaced by congregational psalms in metrical versions and later by hymns. In comparison with the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” that Roman Catholics used c. 1500, the greatest difference lies in the very-much shortened eucharistic prayer.

During the brief reign of “Bloody Mary” (1553–1558), the Roman Catholic faith and worship were reinstated, and many Protestant leaders were burned at the stake or beheaded. Others fled to such European refuges as Frankfort and Geneva, where they came under the influence of John Calvin and John Knox. When they returned to their native country, they brought with them an even more radical revisionist attitude that eventually showed itself in the Puritan movement within the Church of England and the emerging of Nonconformist churches (Presbyterian, Independent, and Baptist). With the death of Mary, Queen Elizabeth I sought to heal the wounds of her broken country and to bring papists, traditionalists, and Puritans together. Under her leadership, the prayer book was revised in 1559. Some worship practices found in the 1549 version were restored, though the changes were slight. Vestments, for example, were once again permitted.

The Puritan movement gathered increasing momentum during the close of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century. In worship, its emphasis was on “scriptural simplicity”—no choral or instrumental music, no written liturgy, and no symbolism (vestment, liturgical movement, etc.), much after the pattern of John Calvin’s Geneva. Eventually, the group developed enough political strength to overthrow the king and set up a republic. In 1645 the Prayer Book was replaced by the Directory for the Plain Worship of God in the Three Kingdoms. For a brief period, the choral and instrumental worship of the church went into complete limbo.

In 1660 Charles II was placed on the throne. He immediately brought the prayer book back into use. Soon a new revision (1662) was brought out; it made no substantial changes in the old version, retaining basically the 1552 worship outline, and that book became the norm for the Church of England for the next 300 years. It remains basically the same today, though there is considerable sentiment for a thorough revision.

We have already noted Luther’s purpose pertaining to the continuance of the two “offices” Matins and Vespers as public, daily services of non-eucharistic worship. This practice was also adopted by Archbishop Cranmer for the English church, and liturgies for these services appeared in each of the prayer books mentioned above. As in the old Roman tradition, the emphasis was on the reading and singing of Scripture; the Psalter was to be sung through each month, the Old Testament read through each year, and the New Testament twice each year. In making this service completely “English,” the revisions of 1552 and 1662 had changed the titles of the services to “Morning Prayer” and “Evening Prayer,” placed a general confession and absolution (assurance of pardon) at the beginning, added the Jubilate Deo (Psalm 100) as a regular canticle plus an anthem, with four collects and a general thanksgiving as the prayers. In common practice, a sermon is also included, and this service has been for many Anglicans the “preferred” option for typical Sunday worship.

The 1549 Prayer Book had stressed the requirement that Communion was not to be celebrated unless communicants were present and participating, and specified that members in good standing would receive Communion at least three times a year. The 1552 prayer book indicated that “ante-Communion”—the same service but omitting the eucharistic prayer and Communion—would also be observed on Sundays and “holy days.” Because, like Lutherans, most Anglicans retained the medieval sense of awe and fear in receiving Communion, non-eucharistic services tended to be the most popular in Anglican worship until recent times.

We have already noted that congregational hymns became the norm of Protestant musical worship under Luther. In the early development of the English reformation church, this possibility was considered, and Bishop Myles Coverdale made an English translation of certain German and Latin hymns together with metrical versions of psalms and other liturgical material in a volume Goostly psalms and spiritual songs (1543), intended for use in private chapels and homes. But, eventually, the Lutheran example was rejected in favor of the Calvinist standard—metrical psalms. In 1549, a Thomas Sternhold, the robe-keeper to Henry VIII (Albert E. Bailey, The Gospel in Hymns [New York: Scribner, 1950], 7) published a small collection of nineteen psalms without music. By 1562, with the help of J. Hopkins, Sternhold completed the entire Psalter, which was named for its compilers. “Sternhold and Hopkins” remained in use (along with others) for more than two hundred years.

Psalm singing received added impetus during the exile of English Protestants in Geneva during the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots. There they produced a number of versions of the Anglo-Genevan Psalter, with tunes, beginning in 1556. This book was based on Sternhold and Hopkins with certain additions of texts (and especially tunes) from the French psalters of Calvin. In the early eighteenth century, English Nonconformists began to write and sing psalm paraphrases and “hymns of human composure,” beginning with Isaac Watts (1674–1748). But free hymns were not widely accepted in Anglicanism until well into the nineteenth century.

Particularly in the services of morning and evening prayer, the Psalms were regularly sung in prose version; this was also true of the Canticles (Benedictus, Te Deum, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis). For this purpose, in the seventeenth century a new “Anglican chant” was produced, based on small snatches of Gregorian melody and sung in four-part harmony.

Despite its rejection of Luther’s hymns, the English church followed the example of the Lutherans in adapting the choir to its new Protestant patterns, particularly in the “cathedral tradition.” From almost the beginning of Anglicanism, the choir was retained to lead the congregation, but also to sing alone, as in a Choral Eucharist. In the sixteenth century, the Tudor composers who had produced Latin masses (e.g., William Byrd, John Merbecke, Thomas Tallis, Richard Farrant) began to set portions of the new prayer book services. A complete “service” included music for Holy Communion as well as for the canticles of morning and evening prayer. Anglican services have been written by British (and other) composers in every generation. These services are not performed in their entirety in one service as is the Latin mass, but they are published together for liturgical use in larger Anglican (including Episcopalian) churches.

In addition, the Anglican heritage made a unique contribution to church music in the anthem—originally an English motet, whose name is derived from “antiphon.” So-called anthems existed before 1550, but they remained in disfavor until the Restoration. In the prayer book of 1662, they are acknowledged to be a regular part of worship in churches that boasted a choir.

In the English tradition, it may be said that provision is made for a wide variety of musical tastes. In the parish church, congregational singing is central even though a modest choir may in some instances be available to sing an anthem and to lead the hymns and chants. In the cathedral setting, certain services are essentially choral, with less congregational participation. These services give the opportunity for the very finest examples of choral art to be used.

Both Anglicans and Lutherans continued to observe the liturgical calendar with its festivals and holy days. In both the eucharistic services and the offices, the “Ordinary” remained fairly constant throughout the year. The “Propers” provided Scripture readings, prayers, responses, and “sermon emphases” which changed according to the season and the day involved.

Worship in the Calvinist Tradition

In Reformation times, the most severe reaction to traditional Roman Catholic worship came in the Calvinist tradition; for this reason, it is closely related to modern evangelical practice. But first, we must look briefly at some of John Calvin’s predecessors.

Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), whose reform leadership centered in Zurich, was more of a rationalist-humanist than Luther or Calvin, both of whom shared the medieval scholastic tradition. Consequently, Zwinglian worship tended to be more didactic than devotional. His typical morning service resembled the ancient Prone liturgy, consisting of Scripture reading (Epistle and Gospel), preaching, and a long prayer. In the first German liturgy of 1525, music was eliminated completely (although Zwingli himself was an accomplished musician); however, psalms and canticles were recited responsively. The Communion service was celebrated four times a year, with the congregation seated as for a family meal. The Eucharist service had no true eucharistic prayer and no prayer of intercession; it consisted of an exhortation, “Fencing of the Table,” the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer of “humble access,” words of institution, ministers’ Communion, Communion of the people, psalm, collect, Dismissal. According to Zwingli, the Eucharist was only “the congregation confessing its faith in obedience to our Lord’s command.”

Martin Bucer (1491–1551), a follower of Zwingli, developed quite a different tradition when he was put in charge of Reformed worship in Strasbourg in 1535. Prior to that time, the city had been dominated by Lutheranism. Consequently, Bucer’s liturgy of 1537 seems to combine Lutheran and Zwinglian elements. He retained the optional Kyrie and Gloria in Excelsis, though in time these were replaced by psalms or hymns. The Communion service included intercessions as well as a Prayer of Consecration.

When John Calvin (1509–1564) first preached and taught at Geneva, he evidently followed no set form of worship, and the service was entirely without music. When he was banished from Geneva in 1538, he went to be pastor of the French exiles in Strasbourg. He was quite impressed with Bucer’s German rite and, according to his own admission, “borrowed the greater part of it” for his own French liturgy of 1540. Later when he returned to Geneva, this liturgy was simplified slightly, becoming the Geneva rite of 1542 and the basis for Calvinist worship in all of Europe—Switzerland, France, Germany, Netherlands, and Scotland.

The medieval eucharistic vestments were discarded. (The traditional black cassock now worn by Presbyterian ministers is essentially a reminder that Calvin preached in his overcoat because the cathedral at Geneva was unheated!) Indeed, all the traditional Roman symbolism was stripped from the building. A Calvinist “processional” (particularly in Scotland) is headed by a deacon carrying the Bible into the sanctuary to place it on the pulpit. Calvin ignored the church calendar (except for the principal feast days) and with it the lectionary of readings. The Scripture was read-only to serve as a basis for the sermon.

Calvin’s ideas about the Eucharist were not radically different from those of Luther, though he rejected the idea of “consubstantiation.” He too saw the Eucharist as a sacrament and desired that it would be celebrated weekly as part of a full service of Word and Eucharist. But this was not to be, because many of the French Reformed leaders (including the magistrates at Geneva) had a more narrow view of Communion. Indeed, they restricted its observance to four times a year, despite Calvin’s persistent objections.

Calvin is most frequently criticized for his actions restricting music in worship. He discarded the choir and its literature completely, and Calvinist iconoclasts removed the organs from the formerly Catholic churches. As mentioned earlier, worship in Geneva had no singing at all, and Calvin complained about the resultant “cold tone” in the services. When he went to Strasbourg, he was pleased with the German Psalm versions he found in the congregations there, whereupon he set several Psalms himself in metrical French to tunes of Mattheus Greiter and Wolfgang Dachstein. These were included with his Strasbourg service book, The Form of Prayers and Manner of Ministering the Sacraments According to the Use of the Ancient Church (1640).

Later he commissioned the French court poet Clement Marot to set all the Psalms in meter, which resulted in the historic Genevan Psalter (1562). The Psalms were sung by the congregation in unison and without accompaniment. (Four-part settings of the Marot Psalms were composed by Sweelinck, Jannequin, and Goudimel, but they were heard only in the home and in educational circles.) Music editor for the volume was Louis Bourgeois (c. 1510–c. 1561), who adapted tunes from French and German secular sources and no doubt composed some himself.

This is not the place to debate Calvin’s decision for the Psalms and against hymns, in the light of his dictum “Only God’s Word is worthy to be used in God’s praise.” No doubt he was reacting strongly to the complex, verbose Roman liturgy, with its many “tropes” and “sequence” hymns. He did not have all the writings of the early church fathers at his disposal, from which he might have learned the significance of the New Testament “hymns and spiritual songs” (which in the early patristic period were not part of the biblical canon) and of the successors of those forms in the early church. The Calvinist tradition of singing Psalms was also inherited by the Anglican church and by early free churches in both England and America. It has persisted in some places to the present day.

Worship in the Free Church Tradition

In the closing years of the sixteenth century, the passion for religious reform was most intense in the most radical of the English Puritans. They are known historically as the Separatists since they intended to part company with the established Anglican church. When they did so, they were more iconoclastic than Calvin himself, reducing worship to something less than the essentials! They rejected all established liturgical forms. When they met together (in barns, in forests and fields, or in houses on back alleys, as such gatherings were forbidden by law), their services included only prayer and the exposition of Scripture. Prayer was always spontaneous; not even the Lord’s Prayer was used, since it was considered to be only a model for Christian improvising.

The early Separatists evidently had no music, but eventually, they began to sing unaccompanied metrical psalms. When it was possible for them to celebrate Communion, the appointed pastor broke the bread and delivered the cup, which was then passed to every member of the group while the leader repeated the words of 1 Corinthians 11:23–26. There is also a record that on such occasions an offering was received at the end of the service, by men who held their “hats in hand.”

The Separatists followed several traditions under a number of dynamic leaders, and eventually formed the churches known as Presbyterian, Independent (Congregational), and Baptist. Their negative attitude about earlier music is expressed in a quote from John Vicar in 1649, who was speaking as a convinced Puritan, but still an Anglican: … the most rare and strange alteration of things in the Cathedral Church of Westminster. Namely, that whereas there was wont to be heard nothing almost by Roaring-Boys, tooting and squeaking Organ Pipes, and the Cathedral catches of Moreley, and I know not what trash, now the Popish Altar is quite taken away, the bellowing organs are demolished and pull’d down; the treble or rather trouble and base singers, Chanters or Inchanters, driven out, and instead thereof, there is now a most blessed Orthodox Preaching Ministry, even every morning throughout the Week, and every Week throughout the year a Sermon Preached by the most learned grace and godly Ministers.

Anabaptists (“re-baptizers,” who insisted that baptism was only for adult believers) appeared both on the Continent and in Great Britain in the late sixteenth century. Records of a group in Holland in 1608 indicate that a typical service consisted of the following.

• Prayer
• Scripture (one or two chapters, with a running commentary on its meaning)
• Prayer
• Sermon (one hour, on a text)
• Spoken contributions by others present (as many as would)
• Prayer (led by the principal leader)
• Offering

It is not surprising that such a service often lasted as long as four hours. Sunday worship ran from about 8 a.m. to noon, and again from 2 p.m. to 5 or 6 p.m. (See Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, vol. 2 [Princeton: Princeton University, 1975], 89)

English Baptists were by no means of one mind theologically. They divided into General Baptists (more Arminian in theology), Calvinistic Baptists (John Bunyan belonged to this group), Seventh-day Baptists (who worshiped on Saturday), and Particular Baptist (radically Calvinist). For all of them, the typical worship consisted of the ministry of the Word (reading and exposition), extemporized prayer (lengthy—no collects) with a congregational “amen,” and possibly metrical psalms sung to open and to close the service.

There is evidence that in some churches the only music was sung by a single individual “who had a special gift.” John Bunyan once argued that open congregational singing could not fulfill the standard of Colossians 3:16 because some might participate who did not have “grace in the heart.” As late as 1690, Benjamin Keach (1640–1704) had difficulty persuading his own congregation to sing in unison. However, he did prevail, and it is said that he was the first to introduce hymns (in addition to psalms) to an English congregation. He wrote the first hymn to be sung at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper, “following the example of Christ and his disciples in the upper room.” Beyond this, we have little indication of how Baptists celebrated Communion, except, ironically, that it was a weekly occurrence.

Evangelicals are in large part the successors of the Separatist movement, and in many instances have inherited the anti-Romanist, anti-liturgical, and anti-aesthetic attitudes of their forebears. It may help one understand why these prejudices are so deeply ingrained to remember that our forefathers were moved by a strong spiritual commitment to evangelism. Furthermore, as dissenters, they endured constant persecution by the Puritan/Anglican regime (or the Lutheran or Calvinist) under which they lived. To disobey the law by leading in clandestine worship was to risk a heavy fine and lengthy imprisonment.

Summary

This article, along with the others that have preceded it, has traced our worship-practice roots, from New Testament times through 1600 years of the history of the Christian church, ending with the Reformation and finally, the emergence of free churches. The purpose has been to show our universal Christian heritage, as well as the unique tradition of each individual fellowship.

To be sure, there is a common, universal heritage. We have seen that material from Scripture was the basis of musical worship in all medieval services. We have also traced the evangelical emphasis on preaching from New Testament times and the early church fathers, through the medieval Prone, the reformed services of Luther and Calvin, and the worship of the Separatists. All Christians continue to experience a Liturgy of the Word and a Liturgy of the Eucharist, though most Reformed and free churches have perpetuated the medieval reluctance to participate in Communion on a frequent basis. Furthermore, particularly in the free-church tradition, occasional observance tends to give the impression that the Lord’s Supper is an appendage that is not central to full-orbed worship. Most evangelical scholars agree that the early church celebrated the Eucharist each Lord’s Day. It may be that the free churches should face up to the question as to whether or not, in this matter, they are living up to their claim to be the New Testament church.

All the changes brought by the Reformation were responses to the sincere desire to be more “evangelical.” Obviously, the reaction of the free (Separatist) bodies was the most radical, but it tended to be tempered (as in the matter of the use of music) within a few years. Nevertheless, some of the attitudes and practices which began at that time have haunted certain free church groups ever since. It is important that we distinguish true evangelical reform from blind iconoclasm. In recent years, many Christian groups have taken a new look at their heritage and have tended to reinterpret those reforms.

A Reformation Model of Worship: Anabaptist, Balthasar Hubmaier’s “A Form For Christ’s Supper” (1527)

The liturgy below is of an Anabaptist group in Waldshut. Unlike other Anabaptists, this community was not on the run, but settled in a place where the people enjoyed greater freedom of worship. These Anabaptists were also led by a minister who was a liturgical scholar.

Introduction

Balthasar Hubmaier (circa 1480–1528) was the most highly trained of Anabaptist theologians. He matriculated under Johannes Eck at the University of Freiburg and then assumed his mentor’s chair in biblical studies in 1510. In 1512 he followed Eck to the University of Ingolstadt where he earned a doctorate. In 1516 he became dean of the cathedral in Regensburg where he developed a reputation for fiery preaching. In 1521 he became the parish priest in Waldshut. Hubmaier’s interest in liturgy flourished in his years there. He refers to the ceremonial which he added to the Mass during that time. Waldshut lay in the Austrian-controlled territory of south Germany where mass movements in favor of local political and religious autonomy were afoot.

By 1523, Hubmaier had embraced the Reformation and was caught up in Zwingli’s reform initiatives at Zurich. His contributions to the Zurich Disputation of 1523 on worship and images show that he was by then an articulate participant in the radical movement. He and several younger thinkers, like Conrad Grebel, pushed the reform of the church beyond what Zwingli would sanction. But unlike the other Anabaptists, Hubmaier held that a believers’ church could still be a territorial church, publicly sanctioned and supported.

This fact is significant for the present discussion because it means that Hubmaier was creating liturgies for a church in which the majority of the population participated, though, according to his plan, only if they personally confessed Christ and accepted the responsibilities of membership. In addition to this service of the Lord’s Supper, Hubmaier also wrote a baptismal service and one for fraternal admonition. While the Anabaptist community at Waldshut was part of a new order trying to overthrow an old one, it was not a band of refugees worshiping on the run or at least on the sly. Nor were they, like most other Anabaptist congregations, made up of people whose intensely personal piety burst the framework of any formal structure of worship. It is probably that this difference in liturgical expression was due not only to the more settled character of Hubmaier’s churches but also to the fact that they were led by a liturgical scholar.

It is evident from “A Form for Christ’s Supper” that Hubmaier was aware of what he was doing and that is expressed the unusual political and theological commitments he had made. A fixed liturgical form is nicely woven together with an openness to charismatic expression. And repeated references to the inward disposition of the worshiper show the decisive significance the author attributed to the faith of the participant.

From references throughout Hubmaier’s writings at the time, it may be assumed that his service for the breaking of bread was created at Waldshut, though it was not published until he moved to Nicolsberg, Moravia to give his experiment of a territorial church of believers a second chance. Waldshut was located in the middle of the area where the Peasants War was fought. So, even though the Anabaptists were for a time officially tolerated, the population was constantly under threat by its worried Austrian overlords. Thus, the people must have come to church with a mixture of excitement and insecurity. On the one hand, the common people were really determining their own religious destiny; on the other hand, their radical experiment and the movement of which it was a part were viewed by the Austrian crown not only as heretical but also as seditious.

Hubmaier’s community was apocalyptic in that the intensity of faith asked for by Hubmaier knew no limits: Every baptized believer was asked to be faithful unto death. Just as Christ gave up his life for us, so we ought to give up ours for others in suffering love. That is the promise that makes the bread and wine into a true Lord’s Supper, according to Hubmaier. Though the circumstances, initially, were outwardly settled, Hubmaier (and perhaps those with whom he made common cause) knew that the experiment of the common folk went against everything the people on top stood for. He knew that wolves would soon come to prey on his sheep.

Radical peasant protests were in the air during Hubmaier’s years as an Anabaptist leader in Waldshut. So, people came to church to reenlist in the cause of Christ as the cause of the common person. The liturgy was theirs in two significant ways. Personally, each one was free to speak after the sermon as the Spirit gave utterance. Socially, the form of worship was determined locally by a pastor the people had chosen.

Text: The brethren and sisters who wish to hold the table of the Lord according to the institution of Christ, (Matt. 26:26ff.; Luke 22:19ff.; Mark 14:22ff.; 1 Cor. 11:23ff.), shall gather at a suitable place and time, so there may be no division, so that one does not come early and another late and that thereby evangelical teaching is neglected. Such the apostles desired when they asked Christ, “Master, where wilt thou that we prepare the Passover lamb?” Then he set for them a certain place. Paul writes, “When you come together … etc.,” (1 Cor. 11:20ff). Then they should prepare the table with ordinary bread and wine. Whether the cups are silver, wood, or pewter, makes no difference. But those who eat should be respectably dressed and should sit together in an orderly way without light talk and contention (1 Pet. 3:3; Eph. 4:29; Heb. 12).

Commentary: Hubmaier is in the process of socializing the people to their new worship life. At the beginning, and throughout the liturgy, there are admonitions about everything from promptness to the disposition of the heart which should accompany each part of the service. Hubmaier’s own commentary is woven together with rubrics and the text itself.

Since everyone should begin by accusing himself and confessing his sins and recognizing his guilt before God, it is not inappropriate that the priest, first of all, should fall on his knees with the church and with heart and mouth say the following words:

“Father we have sinned against heaven and against thee” (Luke 15:21). We are not worthy to be called thy children. But speak a word of consolation and our souls will be made whole. God be gracious to us sinners (Luke 19:1ff). May the almighty, eternal and gracious God have mercy on all our sins and forgive us graciously, and when he has forgiven us, lead us into eternal life without blemish or impurity, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Amen.

Commentary: Once the congregants are settled, the “priest” leads them in confessing their sins. He prays with them and together with the people asks God to “have mercy on all our sins.” Here it is not a priest offering absolution to a penitent congregation, but a fellow believer seeking absolution in their company. This was a revolutionary experience for sixteenth-century Christians.

Now let the priest sit down with the people and open his mouth, explaining the Scriptures concerning Christ (Luke 24:31), so that the eyes of those who are gathered together may be opened, which were still somewhat darkened or closed, so that they may recognize Christ, who was a man, a prophet, mighty in works and teaching before God and all people, and how the highest bishops among the priests and princes gave him over to condemnation to death, and how they crucified him, and how he has redeemed Israel, that is, all believers. The priest shall also rebuke those who are foolish and slow to believe all the things that Moses and the prophets have spoken, that he may kindle and make fervent and warm the hearts of those at the table, that they may be afire in fervent meditation of his bitter suffering and death in contemplation, love, and thanksgiving, so that the congregation with its whole heart, soul, and strength calls out to him.

Stay with us, O Christ! It is toward evening and the day is now far spent. Abide with us, O Jesus, abide with us. For where thou art not, there everything is darkness, night, and shadow, but thou are the true Sun, light, and shining brightness (John 8:12). He to whom thou doest light the way, cannot go astray.

On another day the servant of the Word may take the 10th or 11th chapter of Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, or the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, or 17th chapter of John. Or Matthew 3 or Luke 3 on changing one’s life, Sirach 2 on the fear of God, or something else according to the opportuneness of the time and persons. No one shall be coerced herein, but each should be left free to the judgment of his spirit. But there must be diligence so that the death of the Lord is earnestly proclaimed, so that the people have a picture of the boundless goodness of Christ, and the church may be instructed, edified, and led, in heartfelt, fervent, and fraternal love, so that on the last day we may stand before the judgment seat of Christ with the accounts of our stewardship (Luke 16:8), and shepherd and sheep may be held together.

Commentary: Next the Scriptures are opened to the people concerning Christ so “that they may be afire in fervent meditation of his bitter suffering … ” A puzzling comment concerning the procedure follows. What does the text mean when it says, “On another day the servant of the Word may take [another chapter]”? It might mean, in line with Mennonite tradition, that the first gathering is a preparatory service on the day before communion. It might also mean that on another Sunday a different set of suggested texts would be appropriate sources for the proclamation.

Text: Now that the death of Christ has been proclaimed, those who are present have the opportunity and the authority to ask, if at any point they should have some misunderstanding or some lack (1 Cor. 14:26ff); but not with frivolous, unprofitable, or argumentative chatter, nor concerning heavenly matters having to do with the omnipotence or the mystery of God or future things, which we have no need to know, but concerning proper, necessary, and Christian items, having to do with Christian faith and brotherly love. Then one to whom something is revealed should teach, and the former should be quiet without any argument and quarreling. For it is not customary to have conflict in the church. Let women keep silent in the congregation. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home, so that everything takes place in an orderly fashion (1 Cor. 11:14). After the sermon, anyone who lacks understanding may ask for it, and anyone who is given a revelation may teach it.

Commentary: Apparently, this freedom for spontaneous expression had been taken advantage of: People had turned to chatter, speculation, and quarreling; Hubmaier saw fit to warn them against this abuse of freedom. One can imagine the thrill, if not also the bewilderment, of being invited to speak in church as an individual with particular needs and insights when formerly only conformity had counted. It would not be hard to get carried away!

Text: Let the priest take up for himself the words of Paul (1 Cor. 11), and say:

Let every one test and examine himself, and let him thus eat of the bread and drink of the drink. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks judgment upon himself, as he does not discern the body of the Lord. And if we thus judge ourselves, we would not be condemned by the Lord.

Now such examination comprises the following: First, that one believes, (Matt. 26:26ff.; Mark 13:22ff.; Luke 22:19f.; 1 Cor. 11:24ff.), utterly and absolutely that Christ gave his body and shed his crimson blood for him on the cross in the power of his words, as he said: “This is my body, which is given for you, and this is my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of his sins.”

Second: Let a person test himself, whether he has a proper inward and fervent hunger for the bread which comes down from heaven, from which one truly lives, and thirst for the drink which flows into eternal life, to eat and drink both in the spirit, faith, and truth, as Christ teaches us in John 4; 6; and 7. If the spiritual eating and drinking do not first take place, then the outward breaking of bread, eating and drinking is a killing letter (2 Cor. 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:29), hypocrisy, and the kind of food and drink whereby one eats condemnation and drinks death, as Adam did with the forbidden fruit of the tree in Paradise (Gen. 3:6).

Third: Let one also confirm himself in gratitude, so as to be thankful in words and deeds toward God for the great, overabundant, and unspeakable love and goodness that he has shown him through his most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Rom. 8:32). Namely that he now gives praise and thanks from the heart to God. Further, that he be of an attitude and ready will to do for Christ his God and Lord in turn as he had done for him. But since Christ does not need our good deeds, is not hungry, is not thirsty, is not naked or in prison, but heaven and earth are his and all that is in them, therefore he points us toward our neighbor, first of all to the members of the household of faith, (Matt. 25:34ff.; Gal. 6:10; 1 Tim. 5), that we might fulfill the works of this our gratitude toward them physically and spiritually, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, consoling the prisoner, sheltering the needy. Then he will be ready to accept these works of mercy from us in such a way as if we had done them unto him. Yea, he will say at the last judgment, “I was hungry and you fed me. I was thirsty and you gave me drink. I was naked, in prison, and homeless, and you clothed me, visited me, and housed me” (Matt. 25). He says, “I, I, I, me, me, me.” From this, it is certain and sure that all the good that we do to the very least of his, that we do to Christ himself. Yea, he will not let a single drink of cool water go unrewarded (Matt. 10:42). If one is thus inclined toward his neighbor, he is now in the true fellowship of Christ, a member of his body, and a fellow member with all godly persons (Col. 1:4).

Fourth: So that the church might also be fully aware of a person’s attitude and will, one holds fellowship with her in the breaking of bread, thereby saying, testifying, and publicly assuring her, yea, making to her a sacrament or a sworn pledge and giving one’s hand on the commitment that one is willing henceforth to offer one’s body and to shed one’s blood thus for one’s fellow believers. This one does not out of human daring, like Peter (Matt. 26:33), but in the grace and power of the suffering and the bloodshed by our Lord Jesus Christ, his (i.e., meaning Peter’s) only Savior, of whose suffering and death the human being is now celebrating a living commemoration in the breaking of bread and the sharing of the chalice.

This is the true fellowship of saints (1 Cor. 10:16). It is not a fellowship for the reason that bread is broken, but rather the bread is broken because the fellowship has already taken place and has been concluded inwardly in the spirit since Christ has come into flesh (John 4:27). For not all who break bread are participants in the body and blood of Christ, which I can prove by the traitor Judas (Matt 26:25). But those who are partakers inwardly and of the spirit, the same may also worthily partake outwardly of this bread and wine.

A parable: We do not believe because we have been baptized in water, but we are baptized in water because we first believe. So David says: “I have believed, therefore I have spoken” (Ps. 116:10; Matt. 16:16; Acts 8:30). So every Christian speaks equally: “I have believed, therefore I have publicly confessed that Jesus is Christ, Son of the living God, and have thereafter had myself baptized according to the order of Christ, the high priest who lives in eternity.” Or: “I have fellowship with Christ and all his members (1 Cor. 10:16), therefore I break bread with all believers in Christ according to the institution of Christ.” Without this inner communion in the spirit and in truth, the outward breaking of bread is nothing but an Iscariotic and damnable hypocrisy. It is precisely to this fellowship and commitment of love that the Supper of Christ points, as a living memorial of his suffering and death for us, spiritually signified and pointed to by the breaking of bread, the pouring out of the wine, that each one should also sacrifice and pour out his flesh and blood for the other. Herein will people recognize that we are truly disciples of Christ (John 13; 14; 15; 16; 17). All of the words which Christ spoke about the Last Supper tend toward this. For just as water baptism is a public testimony of the Christian faith, so is the Supper a public testimony of Christian love. Now he who does not want to be baptized or to observe the Supper, he does not desire to believe in Christ to observe the Supper, he does not desire to believe in Christ nor to practice Christian love and does not desire to be a Christian. How much someone cares about the flesh and blood, that is about the suffering and death of Christ Jesus, about the shedding of his crimson blood, about the forgiveness of sins, about brotherly love and communion in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, yea the communion of the whole heavenly host and the universal Christian church outside of which there is no salvation, just this much he should care about the bread and the wine of God’s table. Not that here bread and wine are anything other than bread and wine; but according to the memorial and the significant mysteries for the sake of which Christ thus instituted it. If now one had no other word or Scripture, but only the correct understanding of water baptism and the Supper of Christ, one would have God and all his creatures, faith and love, the law, and all the prophets. So whoever makes a mockery of the Supper of Christ, the Son of Man will mock before God and his angels. So much for self-examination.

Commentary: It is interesting that the self-examination is not concerned with a long list of proscribed attitudes or behaviors (as might be expected from the rigor of the Pledge of Love we find later in the service) but with matters of the heart. Do I believe “utterly and absolutely” that Christ gave his body and blood for me? Do I hunger for that bread that comes down from heaven? Am I grateful for the fact that I am loved?

Since now these ceremonies and signs have to do completely and exclusively with fraternal love, and since one who loves his neighbor like himself is a rare bird, yea even an Indian phoenix on earth, who can sit at the supper table with a good conscience? Answer: One who has thus taken to heart and has thus shaped himself in mind and heart and senses inwardly that he truly and sincerely can say, “The love of God which he has shown to me through the sacrifice of his only-begotten and most-beloved Son for the payment my sins (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Rom. 8:32), of which I have heard and been certainly assured through his holy Word, has so moved, softened, and penetrated my spirit and soul that I am so minded and ready to offer my flesh and blood, furthermore so to rule over and so to master it, that it must obey me against its own will, and henceforth not take advantage of, deceive, injure, or harm my neighbor in any way in body, soul, honor, goods, wife, or child, but rather to go into the fire for him and die, as Paul also desired to be accursed for his brethren and Moses to be stricken out of the book of life for the sake of his people” (Rom. 9:3; Exod. 32:32). Such a person may with good conscience and worthiness sit at the Supper of Christ.

You say: “This is humanly impossible.” Answer: Certainly for the Adamic human nature. But all things are possible to the Christian (Mark 9:23), not as persons, but as believers, who are one with God and all creatures, and are (except for the flesh) free and independent of themselves. For God works such willing and doing in his believers (Phil. 2:14), through the inward anointing of his Holy Spirit, so that he stands in complete freedom to will and to do good or evil. The good one can do is through the anointing of God. The evil comes from one’s own innate nature and impulse, which evil will one can, however, master and tame through the grace given by God (Deut. 30:1ff.; Gen. 4:17; Rom. 10; Matt. 19; John 1:12).

It is not sufficient that sin be recognized through the law, nor that we know what is good or evil. We must bind the commandments on our hand, grasp them, and fulfill them in deeds (Deut. 6:8; Matt. 11:30; John 3). To do this is easy and a small thing to the believer, but to those who walk according to the flesh, all things are impossible. Yet the believing and newly born person under the gospel is still also [a person] under the law. He has just as many trials as before, or even more. He finds (however holy he may be) nothing good in his own flesh, just as Saint Paul laments the same with great seriousness regarding the conflict and the resistance of the flesh (Rom. 7:18). Nevertheless the believer rejoices and praises God that the trial is not and cannot be so great in him, but that the power of God in him, which he has received through the living Word which God has sent, is stronger and mightier (1 Cor. 10:13; Rom. 8:11). He also knows certainly that such resistances, evil desires, and sinful lusts of his flesh are not damning for him if he confesses the same to God, regrets them, and does not follow after them, but reigns and rules mightily over the restless devil of his flesh (1 Cor. 9:27), strangles, crucifies, and torments him without letup; holds in his rein, does not do his will, cares little that breaks his neck (Exod. 34:20). So every one who is a Christian acts and behaves so that he may worthily eat and drink at the table of the Lord.

Know thou further, righteous Christians, that to fulfill the law it is not enough to avoid sins and die to them. Yea, one must also do good to the neighbor, (Ps. 37). For Christ not only broke the bread, he also distributed it and gave it to his disciples. Yea, not only the bread, but also even his own flesh and blood. So we must not only speak the word of brotherly love, hear it, confess ourselves to be sinners, and abstain from sin, we must also fulfill it in deeds, as Scripture everywhere teaches us.

Forsake evil and do good (Ps. 37).

Brethren, work out your salvation (Phil. 2:12).

While we have time, let us do good, for the night comes when no man can work (Gal. 6:9).

Wilt thou enter into life, keep the commandments (Matt. 19:17).

For not those who hear the word are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be justified (Rom. 2:7).

Not all those who say to me, Lord, Lord, will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven, will enter into the kingdom of heaven, says Christ, and adds: Everyone who hears my words and does them, he shall be likened unto a wise man who built his house upon a rock. But everyone who hears my word and does it not shall be likened to a fool who built his house on sand (Matt. 7:21–27).

In sum: God requires of us the will, the word, and the works of brotherly love, and he will not let himself be paid off or dismissed with words (Matt. 15; Luke 8:21; Rom. 8:1; Luke 17; Isa. 64:5ff.; Col 2:10; Ps. 32:1f.; Rom. 4:5; 5; 7; 8). But what innate weaknesses and imperfections constantly are intermingled with our acts of commission and omission because of our flesh, God—thanks to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ—will not reckon to our eternal condemnation; for in Christ we have all attained perfection, and in him we are already blessed. What more do we lack?

Since now believers have inwardly surrendered themselves utterly to serve their fellow members in Christ at the cost of honor, goods, body, and life, yea even to offer their souls for them to the point of hell with the help of God; therefore, it is all the more needful sincerely to groan and pray to God that he may cause the faith of these new persons to grow; also that he may more deeply kindle in them the fire of brotherly love, so that in these two matters, signified by water baptism and the Lord’s Supper, they might continually grow, mature, and persevere unto the end.

Here shall now be held a time of common silence, so that each one who desires to approach the table of God can meditate upon the suffering of Christ and thus with Saint John rest on the breast of the Lord. After such silence, the “Our Father” shall be spoken publicly by the church, reverently, and with hearts desirous of grace as follows (Matt. 6:9ff.; Luke 11:2ff.):

Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed by thy name
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.
Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.
Amen.

Commentary: That part of the service must have evoked openness and tenderness in its hearers. Then comes the great “but.” Christ does not need our love expressed to him in a mystical way; he bids us love him in our neighbor. Only the one who desires to love Christ in the person of the neighbor is ready to meet him in the Supper. This is the gist of Hubmaier’s theology of worship and his belief about the Lord’s Supper. The fulfillment of the sacrament is to pour out one’s flesh and blood for the other. Without this pledge, it is all hypocrisy.

How might people have felt in the face of this challenge? Relieved that someone finally said that you can’t call yourself a Christian if you don’t put your money where your mouth is? Or crushed by the extremity of the challenge?

Appropriately for Hubmaier’s purposes, silence follows to allow intimate meditation on Christ. He describes the contemplation as resting on the breast of the Lord. Silence was so important to Hubmaier because it afforded worshipers an opportunity to internalize the words of the liturgy. This concern for the coincidence of outer words and inner commitment gained significance the further left one went on the Reformation spectrum. The radical reformers feared that in the mass, liturgy was more an expression of religious conformity than personal conviction. Hubmaier wanted to be existentially radical and liturgically conservative: He sought worshippers who know Christ and his way personally, yet he valued their collective expression in continuity with the tradition. The silence is broken by the most traditional of all Christian formulations, the Lord’s Prayer.

Text: Now the priest shall point out clearly and expressly that the bread is bread and the wine, wine and not flesh and blood, as has long been believed.

Commentary: Lest the people’s minds still harbor false teaching on the Eucharist, the priest is to instruct them “that the bread is bread.”

Text: Brothers and sisters, if you will to love God before, in, and above all things, in the power of his holy and living Word, serve him alone (Deut. 5; 6; Exod. 20), honor and adore him and henceforth sanctify his name, subject your carnal and sinful will to his divine will which he has worked in you by his living Word, in life and death, then let each say individually:

I will.

If you love your neighbor and serve him with deeds of brotherly love (Matt. 25; Eph. 6; Col. 3; Rom. 13:1; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.), lay down and shed for him your life and blood, be obedient to father, mother, and all authorities according to the will of God, and this in the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, who laid down and shed his flesh and blood for us, then let each say individually:

I will.

If you will practice fraternal admonition toward your brethren and sisters (Matt. 18:15ff.; Luke 5; Matt. 5:44; Rom. 12:10), make peace and unity among them, and reconcile yourselves with all those whom you have offended, abandon all envy, hate, and evil will toward everyone, willingly cease all action and behavior which causes harm, disadvantage, or offense to your neighbor, [if you will] also love your enemies and do good to them, and exclude according to the Rule of Christ (Matt. 18) all those who refuse to do so, then let each say individually:

I will.

If you desire publicly to confirm before the church this pledge of love which you have now made, through the Lord’s Supper of Christ, by eating bread and drinking wine, and to testify to it in the power of the living memorial of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ our Lord, then let each say individually:

I desire it in the power of God.

So eat and drink with one another in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May God himself accord to all of us the power and the strength that we may worthily carry it out and bring it to its saving conclusion according to his divine will. May the Lord impart to us his grace. Amen.

Commentary: So that their praise of God might be spiritually and theologically authentic, the worshipers are not asked to make a true moral response to the Supper in the Pledge of Love. It is a fine balancing act: the prayers are full of gratitude and grace, the exhortations full of challenges and demands. But after communion, the balance is lost. The liturgy becomes moralistic, filled with praise and warnings. The closing blessing is too concise to return the focus to Christ.

Text: The bishop takes the bread and with the church lifts his eyes to heaven, praises God, and says:

We praise and thank thee, Lord God, Creator of the Heavens and earth, for all thy goodness toward us. Especially hast thou so sincerely loved us that thou didst give thy most-beloved Son for us unto death so that each one who believes in him may not be lost but have eternal life (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9; Rom. 8:32). Be thou honored, praised, and magnified now, forever, always and eternally. Amen.

Now the priest takes the bread, breaks it, and offers it into the hands of those present, saying:

The Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was betrayed, took the bread, gave thanks, and broke it, and said: “Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in my memory.” Therefore, take and eat also, dear brothers and sisters, this bread in the memory of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he gave unto death for us.

Now when everyone has been fed, the priest likewise takes the cup with the wine and speaks with lifted eyes:

“God! Praise be to thee!”

and offers it into their hands saying:

Likewise the Lord took the vessel after the Supper and spoke: “This cup is a new testament in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.” Take therefore also the vessel and all drink from it in the memory of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for us for the forgiveness of our sins.

When they have all drunk, the priest says:

As often as you eat the bread and drink of the drink, you shall proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26).

Now the church is seated to hear the conclusion.

Commentary: How would the people have felt as they returned from church to everyday life? Some of them must have rejoiced in the fact that they were being made the subjects of their own destiny; they were assured that they—simple people who had had no say in their own lives—were the body of Christ, able to extend the incarnation into a hostile world. Others must have been overwhelmed by the expectations placed on them, fearing—as the liturgy warns in its words of dismissal—that a millstone might be tied around their neck.

Text: Most dearly beloved brethren and sisters in the Lord. As we now, by thus eating the bread and drinking the drink in memory of the suffering and shed blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins, have had fellowship one with another (1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12; Eph. 4:4; Col. 1:3; Eph. 1; 4; 5), and have all become one loaf and one body, and our Head is Christ, we should properly become conformed to our Head and as his members follow after him, love one another, do good, give counsel, and be helpful to one another, each offering up his flesh and blood for the other. Under our Head Christ we should all also live, speak, and act honorably and circumspectly, so that we give no offense or provocation to anyone (Matt. 18; Mark 9; Luke 17; 1 Cor. 8; Rom. 14). So that also those who are outside the church might not have reason to blaspheme our Head, our faith, and church, and to say: “Does your Head Christ teach you such an evil life? Is that your faith? Is that your baptism? Is that your Christian church, Supper, and gospel, that you should lead such an ungodly and shameful life in gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, dancing, usury, gossip, reviling, cursing, blasphemy, pride, avarice, envy, hate and wrath, unchastity, luxury, laziness, and frivolity? (Matt. 18:6). Woe, woe to him who gives offense! It would be better for him that a millstone should be hung around his neck and he should be cast into the depth of the sea. Let us rather take upon ourselves a righteous, honorable, and serious life, through which God our Father who is in heaven may be praised.

Since our brotherly love requires that one member of the body be also concerned for the other, therefore we have the earnest behest of Christ (Matt. 18:14ff.), that whenever henceforth a brother sees another erring or sinning, that he once and again should fraternally admonish him in brotherly love. Should he not be willing to reform nor to desist from his sin, he shall be reported to the church. The church shall then exhort him a third time. When this also does no good, she shall exclude him from her fellowship. Unless it should be the case that the sin is quite public and scandalous; then he should be admonished also publicly and before all, so that the others may fear (1 Cor. 5:1; 1 Tim. 5:20; Gal. 2:11).

Whereupon I pray and exhort you once more, most dearly beloved in Christ, that henceforth as table companions of Christ Jesus (Luke 22:15), you henceforth lead a Christian walk before God and before men. Be mindful of your baptismal commitment and of your pledge of love which you made to God and the church publicly and certainly not unwittingly when receiving the water and in breaking bread. See to it that you bear fruit worthy of the baptism and the Supper of Christ, that you may in the power of God satisfy your pledge, promise, sacrament, and sworn commitment (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). God sees it and knows your hearts. May our Lord Jesus Christ, ever and eternally praised, grant us the same. Amen.

Dear brothers and sisters, watch and pray lest you wander away and fall into temptation (Matt. 24:42; 25:15; Luke 16). You know neither the day nor the hour when the Lord is coming and will demand of you an accounting of your life. Therefore watch and pray. I commend you to God. May each of you say to himself, “Praise, praise, praise to the Lord eternally!”

Arise and go forth in the peace of Christ Jesus. The grace of God be with us all.

Amen.

Truth Is Unkillable: Hubmaier on the Lord’s Supper

To the noble Lord Buriano of Cornitz, my gracious sovereign.

Grace and peace in Christ, noble and Christian Lord.

The majority of people who stand by the gospel recognize that bread is bread and wine, wine in the Lord’s Supper, and not Christ (Acts 1:9; Mark 16:19; Heb. 1:3; 12:2; Matt. 22:44; Ps. 110). For the same ascended into heaven and is sitting at the right hand of God his Father, whence he will come again to judge the living and the dead. Precisely that is our foundation, according to which we must deduce and exposit all of the Scriptures having to do with eating and drinking. Thus Christ cannot be eaten or drunk by us otherwise than spiritually and in faith. So then he cannot be bodily the bread either but rather in the memorial which is held, as he himself and Paul explained these Scriptures (Luke 22; 1 Cor. 11). Whoever understands them otherwise does violence to the articles of our Christian faith. Yet the restless Satan has invented another intrigue to hold us in his snare. Namely, that such a Lord’s Supper should be established without a prior water baptism, something which again Scripture cannot suffer. When the three thousand men and Paul had been instructed in the Word and believed, only thereafter did they break bread with the brethren (Acts 2:41ff.; Acts 9). For as faith precedes love, so water baptism must precede the Lord’s Supper. So that Your Grace may know in what form the Lord’s Supper is celebrated in Nicolsburg, I have had it printed, for the praise of God, the honor of Your Grace, and the salvation of all believers in Christ, so that no one might think that we fear the light or that we are unable to give reasons for our teaching and actions. May Your Grace be commended to God and graciously accept from me this written token of respect, through my dear brother Jan Zeysinger,

Your Grace’s willing [servant]

Balthasar Huebmor [Hubmaier], etc.

Conclusion

The Reformation was a time in which drastic correctives were applied to conventional patterns of church life. Hubmaier was among those who did their utmost for people to know that Christ “died for all so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them” (2 Cor. 5:15). This double theme fills “A Form for Christ’s Supper.”

Some of its moralism derives from Hubmaier’s intense desire to retain but purify liturgical worship. For him to be satisfied with an order of service, it had to make the goal of the Christian life unequivocally clear. In doing this, Hubmaier was perhaps more extreme but of the same mind as other contemporary liturgical reformers such as Martin Bucer and Thomas Cranmer. One sees this similarity especially in the exhaustive exhortations to those preparing to come to the Lord’s Table. This comparison should remind us that while his gathering for the breaking of bread bears the marks of Hubmaier’s and Anabaptism’s distinctives, it also reflects the age in which he lived. For all of them, this preparation replaced the no less serious act of individual confession before a priest in the old church. Hubmaier was using liturgy to teach and persuade. It sounds as if this service was written for a congregation that was not yet as fully converted as its pastor thought it should be.

A large part of the lasting value of “A Form for Christ’s Supper” is its corrective, and therefore, incomplete state. The service exemplifies the tensions faced by anyone trying to hold together form and spirit, grace and works. Even though the commentary woven throughout the service shows how mightily the author strove to give forgiveness and obedience their due, the service fell into a kind of perfectionism, perhaps because the sacrament itself had become primarily a human act. Because of Hubmaier’s fear of sacramentalism, the validity of the ceremony depended on the intensity and purity of the human response. But Hubmaier’s service stands as a warning against every attempt to use liturgy to smooth out the rough demands of the Gospel; it invites us to grapple as he did to give voice to the whole counsel of God.

A Reformation Model of Worship: The Traditional Anglican Liturgy (1662)

The Reform of the liturgy in England began in 1540 under the leadership of Thomas Cranmer. The Book of Common Prayer was revised again in 1552, and a final revision was completed in 1662. The service below is from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Introduction

Soon after Henry VIII’s break with the papacy, efforts toward liturgical reform began to gain momentum in England. It was not until 1549, however, after Edward VI had ascended the throne, that the first comprehensive reformed liturgy was issued. The principles upon which this book was based were spelled out in the order called on in the old service books and in the Act of Uniformity for the first revision of The Book of Common Prayer. These documents state that the first Book of Common Prayer was (1) “grounded upon the Holy Scripture,” (2) “agreeable to the order of the primitive [i.e., early] church,” (3) designed to be unifying to the realm, and (4) intended for the edification of the people. Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was its chief architect. In compiling the book, he made use of various sources, including writings of early church fathers, English reformation formularies, German church orders, Quinones’s revised breviary, Eastern liturgies, Gallican rites, and various uses of the medieval Roman rite.

The 1549 book was not well received. It was too conservative for some, too radical for others, and too open to diverse interpretations to encourage uniformity. The Clerk’s Book, published that same year, contained some revisions. Marbeck’s [Merbeck’s] commissioned musical setting contained further changes. The rubrics were widely disregarded. It was too radical for the Devonshire rebels, for such bishops as Bonner, Thirlby, and Gardiner, and for priests who continued the use of old service books or who “counterfeited Masses.” On the other hand, it did not go far enough in its revisions to satisfy the Norfolk rebels, or continental reformers such as Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr who had come to England and had been given positions of prominence in the universities, or the Anabaptists, or some of the clergy and bishops such as Hooper and Knox.

The second Book of Common Prayer (1552) is sometimes spoken of as a radical plot foisted upon the people. It was, in fact, in many ways a compromise and an effort to arrive at a middle way or via media. With Mary’s accession to the throne and the restoration of Roman Catholicism and the medieval Sarum use in England, religious exiles carried the 1552 book to the continent where it was revised by the exiles in Frankfurt and Geneva. After the accession of Elizabeth, with the return of the exiles, pressure mounted for the establishment of a liturgy more closely akin to those of the continental reformers. However, the 1552 book was again imposed with only a few changes. When James VI of Scotland came to the throne as James I of England, he was confronted by Puritans with the Millenary Petition, which called for a number of changes in the rites and ceremonies of the church. The resultant Hampton Court Conference (1604) made few concessions. At the time of the Restoration, despite efforts of Puritans to force more radical change on the one hand and of Laudians (followers of Archbishop Laud, who attempted to force the return of high churchmanship and ritual catholicity on the nation) on the other, relatively few changes were made in the 1662 revision.

The Architectural Setting. The first Book of Common Prayer assumed a style of architecture in which the nave and chancel were divided by a screen. The congregation would occupy the nave for the daily offices and the Ante-Communion (the liturgy of the Word portion of the eucharistic rite) and, at the offertory, move into the chancel to place their alms in the “poore menes boxe.” Those who would receive Communion remained in the chancel, where the celebrant, “standing humbly afore the middes of the Altar,” would proceed with the rite. For the use of the nave for liturgies of the Word and the chancel for the liturgy of the sacrament, there was precedent among both Lutherans and Calvinists on the continent.

In Lent 1550, John Hooper, preaching before the court, expressed a wish that the magistrates “turn the altars into tables.” On St. Barnabas’s Day, June 11, a table was set up in place of the high altar at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, and that summer Bishop Ridley exhorted the clergy and wardens to set up an “honest table” in each church in the diocese. In November the council commanded each bishop to give orders that altars be taken down and tables set up instead. The tables were normally placed in the midst of the chancel with their long sides parallel to the north and south walls. The 1552 Book of Common Prayer consistently referred to it as a “table” or as “God’s board,” not once calling it an “altar.” The priest was to stand “at the north side” and the congregation to gather around. The Elizabethan settlement called for the table, with a cover of “silk, buckram or other such like,” to stand in the place of the old altar except when the communion is to be celebrated. These “carpets” varied in color; there was no attempt to follow a color sequence. Some more affluent churches had different frontals for festal and ordinary use, and some had black for use in Lent or on occasions of national mourning. For celebrations of the Eucharist, the table was to be covered with a fair linen cloth (reaching down almost to the floor on all four sides) and to stand in the midst of the chancel or in the body of the church if the chancel could not accommodate the communicants. In many places, the table stayed at all times in the midst of the chancel because of the inconvenience of moving it or because of theological considerations. In some churches seating for the communicants was provided on two, three, or all four sides of the chancel. A tablet containing the Decalogue was to be put up on the east wall over the table. Often the tablet(s) contained the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer as well. Altar rails came into use early in the seventeenth century. Originally the rails were not used for the administration of communion but for the protection of the costly hangings and to keep the table from being used as a desk, or as a repository for hats, or for other profane purposes. In some cases, the new rails surrounded the table in the midst of the chancel, but generally, they extended across the chancel to protect the altar when it was placed at the east end, either altar-wise or table-wise. Eventually, communicants would begin to kneel at the rails for the receiving of communion. In exceptional circumstances, candles were placed on the table, but normally nothing was placed on the table except the books, vessels, and elements necessary for a eucharistic celebration.

Fonts were typically made of stone, set near the door, and large enough for the immersion of infants, though those of puritan persuasion sometimes used a basin and substituted pouring or sprinkling for immersion.

Occupying an important position in the nave, typically against the north wall, was a triple-decked pulpit, which was often enhanced by hangings and by cushions for the books. On the lowest level was the desk for the clerk, a lay assistant who led the people in their responses and, if there was no choir, in the metrical psalms and hymns. Behind this, on a higher level, was the desk for the officiant, at which he read the daily offices and typically the Ante-Communion. On a yet higher level was the pulpit for the preaching of sermons. In some churches, a pew near the pulpit was designated as the “churching pew” for use at the rite then called “The Churching of Women,” more recently the “Thanksgiving of Women after Childbirth.”

In the churches of the period, the pews in the nave were generally arranged in such a way that most people faced the pulpit. In parish churches where there was a choir, it generally occupied a gallery in the west end or over the rood screen. Smaller churches often had instead a “singers’ pew,” typically in the west end. If we can judge by later practice, the congregation often turned to face the choir during psalms, hymns, or anthems.

The Vestments. The first Book of Common Prayer (1549) had designated that for the Eucharist the celebrant wear “a white Albe plain, with a vestement [chasuble] or Cope,” and that assisting priests or deacons were to wear “Albes with tunacles.” For other rites, the clergy were to wear a surplice. The use of a hood with the surplice was recommended for preaching and for general use by the clergy in cathedral or collegiate churches. A bishop, when celebrating the Eucharist or executing “any other publique minystracyon shall have upon hym, besyde his rochette, a Surples or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastorall staffe.” The 1550 ordination rites specified that a candidate for ordination as a deacon or priest be vested in a “a playne Albe,” and that a candidate for ordination as a bishop and the presenting bishops be vested in “Surples and Cope.” The ordination rites had been out only a day or two when Hooper, who was soon thereafter nominated to the bishopric at Gloucester, preached before the king denouncing the vestments.

In the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, a rubric preceding Morning Prayer dealt with vesture: “And here is to be noted, that the minister at the tyme of the Comunion and all other tymes in his ministracion, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a preest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice onely.” Exiles on the continent during Mary’s reign rejected the use of the surplice.

The 1559 revision replaced the 1552 rubric on vestments with one which reads: “And here is to be noted, that the Minister at the tyme of the comunion and at all other tymes in his ministracion, shall use such ornamentes in the church, as were in use by aucthoritie of parliament in the second yere of the reygne of king Edeard the VI.” The rubric was apparently designed to restore the use of eucharistic vestments, but it did not have that effect. Archbishop Parker’s “Advertisements” of 1566 simply ordered the use of a cope by the celebrant, the gospeller, and the epistoler at celebrations of the Eucharist in cathedral and collegiate churches, and of a surplice and hood at other services and for preaching. In other churches, the minister was to wear the surplice for all rites. These regulations were not universally followed. In many places a black gown was worn for preaching and often for presiding or assisting at the services.

Ceremonial Actions. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer prescribed little ceremonial. In the eucharistic prayer, the celebrant was to make signs of the cross over the bread and wine during the epiclesis and to take the bread and the cup in his hands at the Institution Narrative. Baptism included a signation, vesting with the “Crisome,” and an anointing. The marriage rite included the giving of a ring and specified a sign of the cross with each of the two blessings. Visitation of the Sick provided for an optional anointing. Though few ceremonial actions were required, the only rubric that explicitly forbade an old action was printed immediately after the Institution Narrative: “These wordes before rehersed are to be saied, turning still to the Altar, without any eleuacion or shewing the Sacrament to the people.” Among the “Notes” at the end of the book is one which reads, “As touching, kneeling, crossing, holding up handes, knocking upon the brest, and other gestures: they may be used or left as every mans deuocion serueth without blame.” Though some priests were accused of “counterfeiting Masse” rather than using the book in the way in which it was intended to be used, many found the retention of even these few required ceremonial actions objectionable.

The 1552 book dropped all indications for the use of the sign of the cross except for the signation in baptism, all directions for any manual acts in the eucharistic prayer, and all references to anointing. The 1549 book had not specified the posture for receiving Communion, and in some places people received while seated. The 1552 book specified kneeling as the posture, but explained in a rubric that this did not imply “anye reall and essencial presence there beeying of Christ’s naturall fleshe and bloude.” The 1559 revision dropped this rubric but retained the direction to kneel. The 1549 book had retained the use of wafers which were to be put in the communicants’ mouths by the priest. The 1552 book allowed use of bread “such, as is usuall to bee eaten at the Table wyth other meates,” and this was to be put into the communicants’ hands rather than their mouths. Provisions regarding ceremonial actions were not changed in the 1559 revision, but the Royal Injunctions published that year directed that “whensoever the name of Jesus shall be in any lesson, sermon, or otherwise in the church pronounced, that due reverence be made.”

Among the issues raised in the Millenary Petition presented to King James, April 1603, were the use of the signation in baptism and the ring in the marriage rite and bowing at the name of Jesus.

A committee appointed by the House of Lords in 1641 listed “innovations” that had arisen. These pointed to some of the changes in practice among those of the so-called Laudian school. Among the “innovations” were turning the table altar-wise and calling it an altar, bowing toward the table, putting candlesticks on it, compelling communicants to receive at the rails, turning east for the creed and prayers, offering of bread and wine by the hand of the churchwardens or others “before the consecration,” standing for the hymns (canticles) and the Gloria Patri, and carrying children from baptism to the table, “there to offer them up to God.”

The Music. There is evidence that in some places plainsong settings and polyphonic settings for the old Latin texts were adapted for the new English texts at the time of or even before the appearance of the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549. In The booke of Common praier noted [London, 1550] John Marbeck [Merbecke], organist at the royal chapel at Windsor, provided simple music, one note per syllable, partly adapted from plainsong and partly original, for almost all of the texts of the daily offices, the eucharistic rite, and the burial rites. When the 1552 revision appeared, Marbeck’s settings fell out of use because of changes in the texts. The rubrics of the 1552 book allowed for the singing of certain portions of the rites “in a plain tune after the manner of distinct reading.”

Clement Marot had produced metrical versions of psalms which were sung to popular tunes in the French court. This was imitated in England. Thomas Sternhold began to translate the Psalms, generally in “Ballad Metre” or “Common Metre.” Nineteen of these were published in 1547. After Sternold’s death, John Hopkins in 1549 published this collection with an additional eighteen metrical versions by Sternhold and seven of his own. There is no evidence, however, that these were used in liturgical services prior to the accession of Mary and the suppression of the Book of Common Prayer.

Congregations of English people in exile during the reign of Mary published revised and expanded versions of the Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, with tunes from German and French sources, including tunes now commonly known as psalm 42, old 100th, old 112th [vater unser], old 113th, old 124th, old 134th [st. michael], commandments, le cantique de simeon [nunc dimittis], and erhalt uns, herr, and with other tunes apparently never before published (for example, old 148th). These congregations in exile, following the examples of continental churches, began to make use of metrical versions of the Psalms and other liturgical texts in the services.

Elizabeth’s Royal Injunctions of 1559 allowed a hymn at the beginning and end of services. In 1562 The Whole Booke of Psalmes, collected into Englysh metre was first printed. This Psalter, which continued to be published into the nineteenth century, contained metrical versions of Sternhold and Hopkins or others of every psalm and of several Prayer Book texts (the Veni Creator, the canticles, the Lord’s Prayer, the Decalogue, the Athanasian and Apostles’ Creeds). It also contained several hymns, including two which were translations from German. From 1566 the title page described these metrical psalms and hymns as being allowed before and after sermons as well as before and after the daily offices. One of the hymns (124 lines in length) was for use at the time of the ministration of Communion.

During the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts, plainsong, anthems, and new polyphonic service music was used by choirs in cathedrals, royal chapels, college chapels, and a few parish churches with endowed choirs. The music in the typical parish church, however, was largely confined to the metrical psalms and hymns of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter. With a few tunes repeated, a proper tune was appointed for each text—sixty-seven tunes in the fullest edition (1570). In the typical parish church, the psalms and hymns were normally led by a clerk without the benefit of a choir or any instrument. They were apparently sung at a fast clip and with a pronounced rhythm, for they were derided by some as “Genevan jigs.”

Later in the reign of Elizabeth, the fashion turned toward slower singing and shorter tunes. Among tunes that are still in use, Windsor and Southwell were apparently first printed in Damon’s 1579 edition of the psalter. East’s (Est’s, Este’s) 1592 version introduced several new tunes, including Cheshire and Winchester old. Ravenscroft’s 1621 edition was the first to print with the texts of the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter some tunes from the Scottish psalters, including Dundee, martyrs, st. david’s, and york, as well as a tune from Archbishop Matthew Parker’s Psalter, the eighth tune [‘tallis’ canon]. Ravenscroft also introduced other tunes, including Bristol, Durham, Manchester, and old 104th.

The Rites. The prayer books called for Morning and Evening Prayer to be said daily by all priests and deacons. A minister in charge of a parish was to say them in the church or chapel, after having tolled a bell “that suche as be disposed maye come to heare Goddes worde, and to praie with hymn.” The attendance of all in the parish was expected on Sundays and major holy days. On Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Morning Prayer was followed by the Litany, and on Sundays and major holy days, by Ante-Communion, if not the whole of the eucharistic rite.

Early in the reign of Elizabeth, the singing of a metrical psalm or hymn was allowed before the beginning of Morning Prayer. The 1552 revision directed Morning Prayer to begin with a penitential section (for which there was precedent in Calvinistic liturgies), which consisted of a scriptural sentence and an exhortation calling to repentance, a general confession lined out by the minister (for which the congregation was to kneel), and a declaration of forgiveness to which the people were to respond “Amen.”

The elements which followed the opening penitential section were mostly derived from the old rites of Matins, Lauds, and Prime. The minister was to say “wyth a loude voyce” the shorter form of the Lord’s Prayer. A short series of versicles and responses which incorporated the Gloria Patri introduced the psalmody. Psalm 95 (Venite) was to be said or sung daily except on Easter Day itself when two brief anthems from the New Testament (Romans 6:9–11 and 1 Corinthians 15:20–22) were to be used instead. The Venite was to be followed by a selection from the Psalms. Proper psalms were appointed for Christmas Day, Easter Day, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday (Pentecost). The Prayer Book provided a table that divided the psalms between Morning and Evening Prayer over the period of a month. As opposed to the medieval systems, this meant that even those who came to church only on Sundays would be exposed to the whole psalter every seven months, but particular psalms might come up at very inappropriate times (Psalms 144–150 on Ash Wednesday or the First Sunday in Lent, for example, or Psalms 50–55 on a festal day such as Epiphany, Trinity Sunday, or All Saints).

In some places, the Psalms were sung to plainsong tones, sometimes with a fauxbourdon, from which Anglican chant evolved early in the seventeenth century. The Psalter was not bound with the early prayer books, and in most places, the Psalms appointed would have been read by the minister or the clerk, or the minister and the clerk would have alternated verse by verse (if we can judge by the printing of alternate verses in italics or in a different font in some of the Elizabethan special forms). Each psalm was followed by the Gloria Patri.

The Psalms were followed by the reading or singing “in a plain tune after the maner of distinct reading,” of a chapter from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. To assure that the Old Testament “except certain bokes and chapiters, whiche be least edifyeng” would be read once each year, the lectionary was arranged according to the civil calendar rather than the church year. Depending upon the date of Easter, post-resurrection material from John and Acts might be read in Lent, or the account of the Passion in Eastern season. A particularly weak point of the system was that those who attended church only on Sundays and Holy Days would often get lessons from the Old Testament which made little sense out of context. At the 1559 revision, proper Old Testament lessons were appointed for the Sundays and Holy Days, but proper New Testament lessons were provided for only three Sundays: Easter, Pentecost, and Trinity Sunday. The chapter from the Old Testament might be read by either the minister or the clerk; that from the New Testament was apparently normally read by the minister.

The chapter from the Old Testament was followed by the saying or singing of one or the other of two canticles, Te Deum or Benedicite omnia opera. Since the alternative canticle was from the Apocrypha its use was avoided by those of Puritan persuasion. The chapter from the New Testament was followed by either the Song of Zechariah (Benedictus) or Psalm 100 (Jubilate Deo). Those of Puritan persuasion favored the Jubilate Deo, believing that it was not proper for others to appropriate the singing of the Song of Zechariah (or the Songs of Mary or of Simeon, the first of the alternatives that followed the lessons at Evening Prayer). The appointed place for baptism was between the New Testament lesson and the canticle which followed.

On major feasts and on certain saints’ days, the Athanasian Creed would be said or sung immediately after the canticle following the second lesson. On most days, however, the canticle would be followed immediately by the Apostles’ Creed, which was to be said by all, standing. The creed was followed by the Kyrie and the short form of the Lord’s Prayer, said by all, kneeling. The minister was then to resume a standing position for versicles and responses and three collects, the collect of the day and two that were said daily throughout the year, a collect for peace and a collect for grace. Where there was a choir, an anthem often followed this third collect. In other places, a metrical psalm or hymn may have been sung.

On Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, Morning Prayer was followed by the Litany, said kneeling. This may have been followed by an anthem or a metrical psalm or hymn. This is the point in the Sunday morning service at which women would have been “churched” and couples would have been married.

Cranmer’s ideal was communion every Sunday and Holy Day, but he did not approve of a Eucharist at which only the priest received. There had to be a “good noumbere” to receive with the priest, “And yf there be not above twentie persons in the Parishe of discretion to receive the communion: Yet there shal be no Communion, excepte foure, or three at the least communicate wiyth the Prieste.” Persons not used to receiving more than once a year, and then typically from the reserved sacrament immediately after private confession, did not immediately embrace frequent communions. In many parishes, there was a celebration once a month or even less frequently, yet to keep the ideal of every Sunday communion before the people the Ante-communion was to be said every Sunday.

Text:

THE EUCHARISTIC RITE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 1662

[The Eucharist would be immediately preceded by Morning Prayer and Litany]

PSALM 100 [Tate and Brady] (Tune: old hundredth):

With one consent let all the earth
To God their cheerful voices raise;
Glad homage pay with awful mirth,
And sing before him songs of praise.
Convinc’d that he is God alone
From whom both we and all proceed;
We, whom he chooses for his own,
The flock that he vouchsafes to feed.
O enter then his temple gate,
Thence to his courts devoutly press,
And still your grateful hymns repeat,
And still his Name with praises bless.
For he’s the Lord, supremely good,
His mercy is for ever sure:
His truth, which always firmly stood,
To endless ages shall endure.

THE LORD’S PRAYER (Priest alone; the people kneeling):

Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
But deliver us from evil. Amen.

COLLECT (Priest):

Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Despite the fact that the prayer book directed that Ante-communion begin with the priest standing at the north side of the table, it seems typically to have been read from the same place as Morning Prayer. The priest alone said the short form of the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a prayer that later came to be known as the Collect for Purity, elements that had been part of the priest’s private preparation in late medieval rites and the 1549 prayer book.

THE DECALOGUE (Priest: the people, still kneeling, respond after each commandment):

God spake these words, and said; I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt have none other gods but me.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins to the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and show mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his Name in vain.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and allowed it.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long in the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt do no murder.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not steal.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not bear witness against thy neighbour.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Lord, have mercy upon us, and write all these thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.

PRAYER FOR THE RULER [one of two alternatives] (Priest):

Let us pray.

Almighty and everlasting God, we are taught by thy holy Word, that the hearts of Kings are in thy rule and governance, and that thou dost dispose and turn them as it seemeth best to thy godly wisdom: We humbly beseech thee so to dispose and govern the heart of (N.), thy servant, our King and Governour, that, in all his thoughts, words, and works, he may ever seek thy honour and glory, and study to persevere thy people committed to his charge, in wealth, peace, and godliness: Grant this, O merciful Father, for thy dear Son’s sake, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE COLLECT OF THE DAY [Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany] (Priest):

O God, who knowest us to be set in the midst of so many and great dangers, that by reason of the frailty of our nature we cannot always stand upright; Grant to us such strength and protection, as may support us in all dangers, and carry us through all temptations; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

THE EPISTLE (Priest):

The Epistle is written in the thirteenth Chapter of Romans beginning at the first Verse.

THE GOSPEL (Priest, the people standing):

The holy Gospel is written in the eighth Chapter of Saint Matthew, beginning at the twenty-third Verse.

THE NICENE CREED

Commentary: The ninefold Kyrie of Western medieval rites and the 1549 prayer book, from 1552 on, was replaced by the recitation by the priest of the Ten Commandments. For this the priest and people knelt. The people responded after the first nine, “Lord, haue mercye upon us, and encline our hearts to kepe this lawe,” and after the tenth, “Lord haue mercye upon us, and write al these thy lawes in our hearts, we beseche thee.” The priest then stood to say the collect of the day and one or the other of two prayers for the monarch. Cranmer had only slightly modified the Epistle and Gospel lectionary of the Sarum Missal. Both lessons were read by the priest, one immediately after the other, apparently typically from the middle level of the pulpit. The Gospel was followed immediately by the Nicene Creed. It was not until the 1662 revision that the people were directed to stand for the Gospel and creed.

Text:

HYMN

SERMON OR HOMILY

Psalm 117

Commentary: The Sternhold and Hopkins metrical psalter provided a forty-line hymn, “A Prayer to the Holy Ghost, To be sung before the Sermon.” Selections from the metrical psalms were probably often used instead. The Elizabethan Injunctions provided a bidding prayer for use before sermons. If there was no sermon, the priest was directed to read one of the official homilies. These homilies were written to promote and explain the changes in liturgy and theology that the Reformation had brought. The sermon was often followed by a metrical psalm.

Text:

ANNOUNCEMENT OF HOLY DAYS AND FASTING DAYS WITHIN THE FOLLOWING WEEK, AND OTHER AUTHORIZED ANNOUNCEMENTS.

OFFERINGS FOR THE POOR AND OTHER OFFERINGS [gathered by the Deacons, Churchwardens, or others and brought to the Priest who is to “present and place” them upon the holy Table; while the offerings are being received, the Priest reads sentences from the Scriptures]:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven [Matt. 5:16].

Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon the earth; where the rust and moth doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven; where neither rust nor moth doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal [Matt. 6:19–20].

Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do unto them; for this is the Law and the Prophets [Matt. 7:12].

Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven [Matt. 7:21].

Zaccheus stood forth, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have done any wrong to any man, I restore four-fold [Luke 19:8].

Who goeth a warfare at any time of his own cost? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [1 Cor. 9:7].

If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your worldly things? [1 Cor. 9:11].

THE PLACING UPON THE TABLE OF THE BREAD AND WINE BY THE PRIEST

Commentary: After the sermon the priest was to remind the people of the holy days and fasting days in the week following. The priest initiated the presentation of alms (and other offerings on occasion) by reading one or more of a series of scriptural sentences, most of which were exhortations to give to the poor or to support the ministers. Apparently in many places, the minister continued reading the sentences until the people had finished placing their offerings in plates held by the wardens or others, who stood near the entrance to the chancel which contained the poor box into which they would then deposit the offerings. In other places, however, after a sentence or two had been said, an anthem may have been sung or the metrical psalm or hymn that was allowed after the sermon. The 1549 prayer book had directed that the bread and wine be placed on the table at this point, and that direction was restored in 1662. The intervening prayer books said nothing about when this was to be done. The old practice may have continued in many places, but in most places apparently the bread and wine were placed on the altar by the clerk before the rite and covered with a second large linen table cloth, presenting an appearance which reminded people of some suppers prepared beforehand in private homes.

Text:

PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH (Priest):

Let us pray for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth.

Almighty and ever-living God, who by thy holy Apostle hast taught us to make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks, for all men; We humbly beseech thee most mercifully [to accept our alms and oblations] and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto thy Divine Majesty; beseeching thee to inspire continually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord: And grant, that all they that do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity, and godly love. We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governours; and specially thy Servant (N.), our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto his whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under him, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue. Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they may both by their life and doctrine set forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer thy holy Sacraments: And to all thy people give thy heavenly grace; and especially to this congregation here present; that, with meek heart and due reverence, they may hear, and receive thy holy Word; truly service thee in holiness and righteousness all the days of their life. And we most humbly beseech thee of thy goodness, O Lord, to comfort and succor all them, who in this transitory life are in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, or any other adversity. And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear; beseeching thee to give us grace so to follow their good examples, that with them we may be partakers of thy heavenly kingdom: grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ’s sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.

Commentary: After the offerings came a general intercession, partly derived from Latin and German sources, a prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church militant here in earth.” If there was to be no celebration of the Eucharist, the rite ended with one or more of five collects printed after the rite, and possibly a metrical psalm or hymn.

Text:

EXHORTATION (Priest).

Dearly beloved in the Lord, ye that mind to come to the holy Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, must consider how Saint Paul exhorteth all persons diligently to try and examine themselves, before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us;) so is the danger great, if we receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour; we eat and drink our own damnation, not considering the Lord’s Body; we kindle God’s wrath against us; we provoke him to plague us with diverse diseases, and sundry kinds of death. Judge therefore yourselves, brethren, that ye be not judged of the Lord; repent you truly for your sins past; have a lively and steadfast faith in Christ our Saviour; amend your lives, and be in perfect charity with all men; so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy mysteries. And above all things, ye must give most humble and hearty thanks to God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world by the death and passion of our Saviour Christ, both God and man; who did humble himself, even to the death upon the Cross, for us, miserable sinners, who lay in darkness and the shadow of death; that he might make us the children of God, and exalt us to everlasting life. And to the end that we should alway remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious blood-shedding he hath obtained to us; he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and for a continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort. To him therefore, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, let us give (as we are most bounden) continual thanks; submitting ourselves wholly to his holy will and pleasure, and studying to serve him in true holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. Amen.

Commentary: If there was to be a celebration of Communion, the priest was to say one or more of three lengthy exhortions. The first, the work of Peter Martyr, was for use if the people are “negligent to come to the holy Communion.” The second was designed for those with troubled consciences and points to the option of private confession. The third, always to be said, is a warning against unworthy reception of the sacrament. The last two exhortations, and the penitential order which follows, are largely dependent upon the Consultation, the German Church Order of Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne, the liturgical portion of which was prepared by Martin Bucer.

Text:

INVITATION (Priest):

Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make you humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

GENERAL CONFESSION [All kneel, and the General Confession is then said “in the name of all”]:

Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

ABSOLUTION (Priest, standing):

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all them that with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Hear what comfortable words our Saviour Christ saith unto all that truly turn to him.

Come unto me all that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you [Matt. 11:28].

So God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that all that believe in him should not perish, but have everlasting life [John 3:16].

Hear also what Saint Paul saith.

This is true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners [1 Tim. 1:15].

Hear also what Saint John saith.

If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins [1 John 2:1–2].

Commentary: The penitential section which followed the exhortation consisted of a bidding to confession, a general confession, an absolution, and four scriptural sentences which came to be known as the Comfortable Words. Apparently in many places from 1552, the clergy and people entered the chancel at the end of the bidding, “Drawe nere and take this holy Sacramente to youre comfort,” though in other places they may have entered the chancel at the time of the offering, as was directed in the first Book of Common Prayer. At the point at which those planning to receive communion entered the chancel, the others probably left the church. The communicants were instructed to kneel for the general confession, which was said by one of the communicants or by one of the ministers “in the name of all.” If we can judge by some eighteenth century manuals, the people remained kneeling for the absolution but then stood for the Comfortable Words.

Text:

Lift up your hearts;

Answer:     We lift them up unto the Lord.

Priest:     Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.

Answer:     It is meet and right so to do.

Priest:     It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God.

[Preface of Epiphany]

Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious Name; evermore praising thee, and saying, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of thy glory: Glory be to thee, O Lord most High. Amen.

Priest:     (kneeling) We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

THE PRAYER OF CONSECRATION (Priest, standing):

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again; Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood: who, in the same night that he was betrayed, [Here the Priest is to take the Paten into his hands] took Bread; and, when he had given thanks, [And here to break the Bread] he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take, eat, [And here to lay his hand upon all the Bread] this is my Body which is given for you: Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise after supper he [Here he is to take the Cup into his hand] took the Cup; and, when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for this [And here to lay his hand upon every vessel (be it Chalice or Flagon) in which there is any Wine to be consecrated] is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins: Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me. Amen.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENT (the people kneel to receive):

The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life, Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.

The Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s Blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.

(The Priest covers what remains with a linen cloth.)

HYMN

Commentary: The traditional sursum corda (the “Lift up your hearts”) dialogue introduced the Preface and Sanctus. Proper Prefaces were provided for insertion at Christmas, Easter, and Ascension [and from 1552, their octaves], for Whitsunday (Pentecost) [and from 1552, the six days following], and for Trinity Sunday. From 1552 the Preface was followed by a prayer later called the Prayer of Humble Access, which had served in the 1548 Order of the Communion and in the 1549 prayer book as a pre-Communion devotion. For this prayer, the priest was to kneel. There is no direction to this effect, but later practice would lead one to believe that the priest, when he stood back up, normally removed the second tablecloth which covered the elements which had been prepared. The form which followed, later referred to as the Prayer of Consecration, begins with a section with no precedent in historic eucharistic prayers but is dependent on Reformation formularies concerning the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross and the Eucharist as a “perpetuall memorye of that his precious death.” This was followed by a petition for worthy reception. Epicletic elements in the 1549 petition had been edited out in 1552. This petition led into the Institution Narrative. There were no directions in the prayer book concerning manual actions, but the priest probably continued to take the bread and the cup into his hands, as he had been directed to do in the 1549 book and would be directed to do in the 1662 book. If we can judge from altar practice, he probably broke the bread for distribution at the words “he brake it.” Late Western medieval eucharistic piety had been based on adoration of the sacrament at the Institution Narrative, which had come to be seen as the moment of consecration. The 1549 prayer book had attempted to substitute a piety centered in the communal receiving of the sacrament for a eucharistic piety centered in seeing the consecration of the sacrament. The 1552 and subsequent books placed the act of receiving right at what in the late middle ages had been the ultimate point of devotion. Through much of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the priest administered communion by moving among the people kneeling in the chancel. To each person he said a sentence of administration. From 1559 the sentence consisted of two parts. The first half of each sentence was the sentence of administration in the 1548 Order of the Communion and the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. It was a Lutheran amplification of an earlier form, “The body (bloud) of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geuen (shed) for thee, and be thankefull.” The second half expressed a reformed understanding of the real presence of Christ, stressing that it was “in your hearts” and not “with your teeth” that one feeds on Christ by faith. For the receiving of communion, the people were to kneel, though in some places they sat or stood instead. During the time of the ministration of communion, or after people had begun to receive at the rails as “tables” were moving to and from the rail, portions of “A Thanksgiving after the receiving of the Lord’s Supper” from the Sternhold and Hopkins psalter, or some other metrical hymn or psalm, may have been sung.

Text:

THE LORD’S PRAYER (the people repeating every petition after the priest):

Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, As it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; But deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, The power, and the glory, For ever and ever. Amen.

PRAYER [One of two alternatives] (Priest):

O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.

GLORIA IN EXCELSIS (Priest):

Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee, we glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.

O Lord, the only begotten Son Jesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.

For thou only art holy; thou only are the Lord; thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

THE BLESSING (Priest):

The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord: and the blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be amongst you and remain with you always. Amen.

[The people having departed, the clergy (assisted by others, if necessary) consume what remains without carrying it from the building.]

Commentary: After the people had received Communion, the priest was to line out the Lord’s Prayer (until 1662, the shorter form) with the people repeating each petition after him. He was then to say one or the other of two prayers. The first was an abridged form of the final paragraph of the 1549 eucharistic prayer, later commonly called the “self-oblation.” This form contained phrases from the Roman canon, the liturgy of St. Basil, Hermann’s Consultation, and a quotation from Romans 12:1. The second was a revised form of the fixed post-communion prayer of the 1549 book which replaced the proper post-communion prayers of the medieval rites, many of which contained theological sentiments unacceptable to Cranmer.

The rite concluded with the Gloria in Excelsis and the blessing. The Gloria in Excelsis was moved to this position in 1552, possibly because Calvinistic rites normally followed communion with a metrical psalm in imitation of the hymn sung after the Last Supper (Mark 14:26). Early Lutheran liturgical books concluded rites with blessings, and one dependent on Hermann’s Consultation was provided in the 1548 Order of the Communion and the Book of Common Prayer. After the blessing, a metrical psalm or hymn may have been sung.

Conclusion

The 1549 Book of Common Prayer did not specify what was to be done with elements that remained after the administration of communion except that (following some German Lutheran precedents) on the day of a celebration they might be used for the Communion of the Sick. The 1552 revision specified that “yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate [i.e., the person in charge of the cure] shal have it to hys owne use.” It was not until the 1662 revision that what remained was to be consumed by the priest and other communicants and not taken out of the church.

Through the authorization of this eucharistic liturgy, a basic pattern of Anglican worship was established in the mid-sixteenth century which would not be radically altered until the Victorian period.