Volume 68:2 April 2004 Table of Contents Get Out There With Some Godly Passion! Karl L. Barth ...................................................................... 99 The Real Presence of the Son Before Christ: Revisiting an Old Approach to Old Testament Christology Charles A. Gieschen ...................................................... 105 Does God "Repent" or Change His Mind? Walter A. Maier I11 .......................................................... 127 An Historical Study of the Dignus Est Agnus Canticle John W. Montgomery ..................................................... 145 Theological Observer .............................................................. 154 Clerical Collar - To Wear or Not to Wear? Carl F. H. Henry: A Evangelical to a Theologian Book Reviews .............................................................................. 157 Christian Contradictions: The Structure of Lutheran and Catholic Thought. By Daphne Hampson ............. William C. Weinrich First and Second Timothy and Titus. By Thomas C. Oden L. Dean HempeImann ................................................................ Genetic Testing and Sneening: Critical Engagement at t k Intersection ofFaith and Science. Edited by Roger A. Willer ................................................................................. J o h T. Pless The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. By Bruce M. Metzger ............................................. Cameron MacKenzie The American Paradox: Spiritual Hunger in an Age of Plenty. By David G. Myers .......................................... Grant A. Knepper Eschatology. By Hans Schwarz ................................... Matthew Rueger The Vision of the Pope: A Narrative - A Parable about Christian Identity in an Ecumenical Age. By Edmund Schlink Timothy Maschke ....................................................................... The Living Text of the Gospels. By D. C. Parker ............. David P. Scaer Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theolopj. By William A. Dembski ........................................... J o y A. Rinas God's Gift to You. By Gaylin R. Schmeling ............... Mark J. Buchhop Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. By David Zaret Cameron A. MacKenzie ............................................................. Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministnj of C. F. W. Walther. By August R. Suelflow ..................................... Grant A. Knepper Robert Grossefeste. By James McEvoy. ..................... Timothy Maschke Paul and the New Perspective: Second Thoughts on the Origzn of Paul's Gospel. By Seyoon Kim ............................. Peter J. Scaer The Power of God: Ahvaps in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology. By Michel Rene Barnes ................. Carl L. Beckwith Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Edited by James D. G. Dunn and John W. Rogerson ........................... Charles A. Gieschen 1 6 2 Kings. By Volkmar Fritz ............................... Walter A. Maier III h i t i c u s . Concordia Commentary. By John W. Kleinig. Chad L. Bird ................................................................................ Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics. By William H. Lazareth ......................... Cameron A. MacKenzie Our Suflking Savior: Exegetical Studies and Sermons for Ash Wednesday through Easter. By Christopher W. Mitchell. ...................................................................................Jim Bushur One Gospel from Two: Mark's Use of Matthezu and Luke. Edited by David B. Peabody, Lamar Cope, and Allan J. McNicol .............................................................................. Craig Miesner Deuteronomy: A Commentary. By Richard D. Nelson .............................................................. Andrew E. Steinmann Books Received ........................................................................... 192 An Historical Study of the "Dignus Est Agnus" Canticle John W. Montgomery Unlike such familiar canticles as the Magnificat and the Te Deum, the Dignus Est Agnus poses a challenging and perplexing historical problem. Detailed historical information, together with further bibliographical Ieads, may easily be found by anyone wishing to study the more well-known canticles (see, for example, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Grove's Dictionay of Music and Musicians, Julian's Dictionary of Hymnolopj). Such sources, however, yield no data whatsoever on the Dign~rs Est Agnlrs.1 Further checking reveals that Dignus is not used in the liturgies of the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Anglican Communi~ns .~ From the standpoint of the present-day liturgical situation, therefore, the Dignus Est Agnus is a peculiarly Lutheran canticle. But when we turn to Lutheran sources of information, we are again faced with a dearth of concrete data on this canticle. The 1917-1918 Common Service Book includes the text of the Dignus.3 The general rubrics inform us that in Matins and Vespers the Dignus is "proper during the Easter season and Ascension- tide" and "may also be used during the Trinity-season," and that this or another canticle or hymn of praise may be substituted for the Gloria in Excelsis in the service except on "Festival Days or when there is a Communion."4 "The Explanation of The Common Service," however, does not refer once to this canticle. The Lutheran Hymnal of the Synodical 'The Dignus also fails to appear in Herzog and Hauck's Realencyklopaedie (and its English abridgment, the New Schaff-Herzog); Meusel's Kirchlidzs Handlexikon; Die Relipon in Geechichte and Gegemuart; Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics; the Encyclopaedia Britrmnica. ZNote, for example, the absence of any reference to this canticle in Pierre Batiffol, His toy of Ronran B m i a y , translated from the third French edition, ed. Atwell M. Y. Baylay (London: Longmans and New York: Green, 1912), W. K. Lowther Clarke, ed., Liturgy and Worship: A Conipanion to the Prayer Books of the Anglican Colrrrlrunior~ (New York: MacMillan, 1932), or the Hyninnl of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Anreria (New York: Church Pension Fund, 1940,1943). The Dignus is the last of the twelve canticles, on page 215 in the Comnion Service Book of the Lutheran Church, authorized by the United Lutheran Church in America (Philadelphia: Board of Publication of the ULCA, 1917,1918). 'Conrnron Semice Book, 291-292. The Rev. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery is Emeritus Professor of Law and Humanities, University of Luton, England and Director, International Academy of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Human Rights, Strasbourg, France. Conference gives the text of the Digntis, but permits its use only in weekday Matins.5 The handbook to this hymnal deals only with the historical background of the hymns that are found in the hymnal, so again we are uncertain as to when or why the Dignus appeared in Lutheran liturgy.6 Luther D. Reed, in his classic The L u t h a n Liturgy, repeats the information given in the Common Service Book on the use of this canticle, and provides as further data on the canticle only the fact that neither the Roman Breviary nor the Common Service text of 1888 contains it (the impression is given that the Dignus was first added in the Comrnorl Semice Book of 1917).$ Strodach makes the tantalizing statement, "It is one of the later Canticles," but gives no authority for this assertion, nor any indication of what he means by "later."s Neither Horn, in Outlines of Liturgics, nor Alt, in Der Christliche Cultus, makes any reference to the Dignus Est A g n u ~ . ~ The same is true of R. Morris Smith, who claimed "to trace the origin and give a partial history of the various parts of these [the minor] services."lO Moreover, the liturgical volume in the Philadelphia edition of Luther's Works gives no indication that the Reformer was acquainted with the Dignus Est Agntis.ll An examination of Sehling revealed that the Digntis is not employed in the church orders of the Lutheran Church in the sixteenth SLutlwran Hymnal, authorized by the Synods Constituting the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1941), 122,34. T h e Handbook to the Lutheran Hynlnal, comp. W . G. Polack (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1942). TLuther D. Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy: A Study of the Conlnlon Seruice of the Lutheran Church in Anlerica (Philadelphia: MuNenburg Press, 1947), 381,413. Tau1 Zeller Strodach, A Manual on Worship, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1946), 276. 9Edward T. Horn, Outlines of Liturgrcs (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1910); Heinrich Alt, Der Christlidw Cultus, 2 volumes (Berlin: Miiller, 1851-1860). 'OR. Morris Smith, "The Sources of the Minor Services," Lutheran Liturgical Association: Memoirs, ed. Luther D. Reed (Pittsburgh: Lutheran Liturgical Association, 1906), 2:2:35- 56. "1 have checked all the references under "Matins" and "Vespers" in the index at the back of this volume. The heading "Dignus Est Agnus," needless to say, does not appear in the index. Under "Canticles" in the index one reads "see Benedictus; Nunc Dimittis; Magnificat; Te Deum." An Historical Study of the "Dignus Est Agnus" Canticle 147 century.12 A study of Section V of Horn's article on "The Lutheran Sources of the Common Service" confirmed Sehling's omission of references to the Dignus.l3 A check of various works by Wilhehn Lohe for some mention of the Dignus Est Agnus turned out to be a blind alley as we11.14 In the face of such an absence of information, is it possible for us to discover when and how and by whom the Dipius Est Aptus entered the liturgy of the Lutheran Church? Moreover, can we jushfy the continued use of this canticle or its variations in Lutheran worship? These two questions are integrally connected, for liturgical form is determined not only by scriptural content, but also by historical usage in the church, which is the body of Christ. The remainder of this paper will be devoted to answering these questions. The Entrance of the Dignus Est Agnus into Lutheran Liturgical Usage Etltrance into America~r Lutheran Liturgy As pointed out above, the Dignus Est Agnus is present in the Common Service Book (1917), but was not included in the Common Service of 1888.'; The first question we face, therefore, is why was it included in the former but not the latter? In a significant article in the Luthrran Chtrrch Review for July 1901, Luther D. Reed informs us that the General Council Church Book of 1900 "furnishes twelve Canticles, which are not given in the Standard edition, except as some of them appear in the various Services."lb Neither the United Synod of the South (which reprinted the Common Service exactly) nor the General Synod made a similar inclusion. This section of 'The only church order to mention canticles other than the four listed in the previous note is that of Pomerania (1535), which gives a total of ten canticles, none of which happens to be the Dignlis. Emil Sehling, Die evangel isd~en Kirchenordnungen des XVI. ]ahrl~underts (Leipzig: O.R. Reisland, 1902-1913). "Edward T. Horn, "The Lutheran Sources of the Common Service," Ll~thern?~ Qlr arterly 21 (1891): 239-268. l4Those responsible for the Common Service relied heavily on Lohe, who lived 1808- 1872. For a recent biography of Lohe, see David Ratke, Cotrfession arld Missiori, Word 11rlri Sacranlent: The Eccksial Theology of Wilhelni Lohe (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2001). IjThe Common Service was developed by a Joint Committee of the General Council, the General Synod, and the United Synod of the South-the bodies that merged to form the United Lutheran Church in America (ULCA) on November 14,1918. IsLuther D. Reed, "The Standard Manuscript of the Common Service and Variata Editions," Lutheran Church Revim 20 (1901): 469. See also 460,472. twelve canticles (which of course includes the Dignus Est Agnus) did not, however, appear in the General Council Church Book for the first time in 1900. The editions of the Church Book of 1868, 1875, 1891 and 1892 also contain the twelve canticles section (and therefore the Dignus). In these editions, the Dignus may be used only in Matins, in the (Morning) Service (as an alternative for the Gloria in Excelsis), or in the old "Evening Service" (which was later dropped from the hymnal entirely). The Vesper service permits only the Magn$cat or Nunc Dimittis. Who in the General Council was responsible for the addition of the Dignus to the Church Book, and why was the addition of this and other canticles made? Two quotations from article by Henry E. Jacobs in the Lritheran Chrirch Review offer suggestions toward an answer: The General Council Committee, in preparing the text of the edition of the Church Book published in 1892, after the death of Dr. Schrnucker [Oct. 15,18881, was persuaded in a few instances by several of its older members not to make changes in the text of 1868 until it was certain that the Common Service would actually have wide use in the other Bodies .... The prediction was even made in the discussion within the committee of the General Council, that there would not be over a half dozen English congregations in the General Council in which the Vesper Service would be introduced. A great change in the methods of the committee followed the death of Dr. Schmucker. The "copy" ready for the printer, which "fell from his hands" as he died, was never published in the form in which he had left it .... Dr. Seiss, as chairman of the editorial committee, applied his industrious energy and his acknowledged gdts as a writer, to a revision of parts of the book .... With his classmate, Dr. Schmucker, as his critic and counselor, the contributions of Dr. Seiss to the Church Book were of decided importance. But associated only with those who were less free to offer their objections, his influence has introduced into the issues of the Church Book since 1892 some elements that are individual rather than such as really were determined by the Church. This has been noticed above in the reference made to the variations of the Church Book of 1892 from the standard text of the Common An Historical Study of the "Dignus Est Agnus" Canticle 149 Service ... as a comparison with the original text, as determined by the committee, in the Kirchenbuch will show." The questions are, why the incorporation of the canticle and who is responsible for it? Again we quote Jacobs "It seems, therefore, as though the change from the liturgy of 1860 to the form in which it is found in the Church Book [of 18681 was determined principally by the influence of Dr. Krauth, while the chief agent in the preparation of the scheme of details, thus outlined, was always, and to the close of his life, Dr. Schmucker."ls Dr. Schmucker, moreover, became the leading light on the committee appointed in 1866 to prepare the Kirchenbuch (1877).19 "By his tact, he reconciled conflicting interests, and brought order out of confusion; and by his activity, at the same time, on both the English and German committees, gave assurance that the two books would harmonize."20 As we have already seen, the General Council Church Book published after Dr. Schmucker's death showed variations from the text of the Common Service on whose committee he had been a most influential member. The Kirchenbuch, which was completed under Dr. Schmucker's guidance, shows accurately the liturgy he would also have desired in the English Church Book (1891 and 1892)s The Kirchenbuch does not include the canticIe section. Moreover, there is no rubric permitting the use-either in the Service, the Matins, or the Vespers-of an alternative canticle section. CIearIy, then, Beale Schmucker was not the source for the inclusion of the Dignus." Who, then, was? It appears that Dr. Joseph Augustus Seiss (1823-1904) was chiefly responsible for the entrance of the Dignus Est Agnus into the Church Book (and therefore into the Common Senn'ce Book). 23 Three further 17Henry E. Jacobs, "The Making of the Church Book," Lutheran Chlrrch Review 31 (October 1912): 615,618619. IsJacobs, "Making of the Church Book," 612. IgKirchenbuch fur Evangelisch-Lutherisch Gerneinden. Hrsg. von der Allgemeinen Versammlung der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirche in Nord Amerika (Philadelphia: United Lutheran Publication House, 1877). mJacobs, "Making of the Church Book," 613. 21"The text found in the Kirchenbuch must be used as the standard to determine the ultimate decision of the General Council upon the recommendation of the committee under his [Dr. Schmucker's] guidance," Jacobs, "Making of a Church Book," 617. 5 e e Kirchenbuch 5,22,27; compare 276. a For biography of Seiss, see Lawrence R. Rast Jr., "Joseph A. Seiss and the Lutheran Church in America," Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 2003; Samuel R. Zeiser, "Joseph items of evidence support this claim. First, the "Additional Prayers" in the "Pulpit Edition" of the Church Book: To the individual efforts of Dr. Seiss, and not to the work of the Church Book Committee, the so-called "Pulpit Edition" of the Church Book and its "Additional Prayers" must be ascribed. At Erie, in 1897, the preparation of this edition was taken out of the hands of the Church Book Committee and given to the Board of Publication. With this authority an entire pamphlet of forty-four pages, which Dr. Seiss had compiled from various unknown sources and published a few years before, was bodily transferred to the Church Book without submission to the Church Book Committee or revision of any kind whatsoever by it or any of its members." Lf this could happen with numerous prayers, why should we doubt an innovation on Dr. Seiss's part with regard to a few canticles? Second, certain statements by Dr. Theodore E. Schmauk in his obituary notice for Dr. Seiss: It is the common impression that the General Council Church Book in its liturgical portions are almost entirely the work of Dr. B. M. Schmucker, and, in its hymnological portion, the work of Dr. Seiss. Almost the reverse is the case as far as Dr. Seiss is concerned .... It is quite true that ... improvements and alterations were made as a result of their [the Committee's] united consideration. But the moving mind and the formative hand were those of Dr. Seiss.... It will be remembered that when Dr. Schmucker died, nothing but the Morning Service and what belonged to it was complete .... Though we have never been able to give complete assent to all the principles of Dr. Seiss ... and, on important points we take the position of the Kirchen- buch, yet it is our firm belief that ... the present English Church Book of the General Council, which was the pioneer work in the field, owes much to Dr. Seiss in substance, and more in form, than to any other writer.25 Augustus Seiss: Popular Nineteenth-century Lutheran Pastor and Premillennialist," Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 2001. 24Jacobs, "Making of the Church Book," 619. Theodore E. Schrnauk, "The Death of Dr. Seiss," Lutlleran CIutrch Rmim 23 (July 1904): 619-622. An Historical Study of the "Dignus Est Agnus" Canticle 151 Finally, the Dignus Est Agn~rs is taken entirely from the Revelation of St. John, and Dr. Seiss was almost certainly the greatest Lutheran commentator on this Bible book during the nineteenth century. Thirty- thousand sets of his three volume Lectures on the Apocalypse had been published by 1917, and the work is still in print. Although chiliastic in point of view, this book is even today held in high esteem in many quarters. The writing of this book spanned fifteen years (18651880) of Dr. Seiss's Life, and would obviously have influenced him in areas other than the shictly e x p o s i t ~ r y . ~ ~ The Dignus Est Agnus and Continental Lutheran Liturgy We should also briefly face the probIem of a possibIy continental liturgical origin for the Dignus. It seems doubtful that American Lutherans -or even an individual American Lutheran - would have inhoduced this canticle into our liturgy without continental hadition favoring such action. Two possible continental origins suggest themselves, and we can only make cursory mention of them here. The first is the Western Breviary hadition. Clarke writes: "The Monastic Breviary, and the French diocesan Breviaries issued in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, are rich in canticles."27 But note that BatiffoI nowhere mentions the Dignus. The second origin is that of individual European Lutheran liturgists and church musicians of the Reformation period, such as Lukas Lossius (d. 1582) or Johann Spangenberg (d. 1550). Archer and Reed mention both of these men in their preface to The Psalter and Canticles Pointed for Chanting, which contains a musical setting for the Dignus.28 Wackernagel's bibliographic description of Lossius' four volume Psalmodia (Niirnberg, 1553 edition) indicates that the entire second book is devoted to "cantica veteris ecclesiae selects de praecipuis festis sanctorum Jesu Christi."*g %Where Dr. Seiss himself got the notion of introducing into the Church Book the Dignus (and, for that matter, the whole twelve canticle sections) is a question the answer to which we cannot attempt to give here. Rast argues that the incipient form of the Dignus Est Agnus appeared already in the hymnal that Seiss develbped for St. John congregation in Philadelphia in 1859, the Evangelical Psalnlist. See Rast, "Joseph Seiss," 154-159. Z'Clarke, Liturgy and Worship, 273. See also Reed, The Lutheran Liturgy, 381,354. ZHarry G. Archer and Luther D. Reed, eds., The Psalter and Canticles Pointed for Chanting (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897, ix, x. 2 9 ~ h $ ~ ~ Wackernagel, Bibliographic zur ~eschichte des deutschen Kirclterilieges i m XVI. jahrhundert (Frankfurt: Heyder und Zimmer, 1855), 253-254. Unfortunately, I have not had access to the works by Lossius or Spangenberg through which one might determine if these men were acquainted with the Dignus. It certainly seems more likely that the Lutherans who first introduced the Dignus in this country would have read Lossius than that they should have been influenced by Roman or Gallican Breviaries. Historical Justification for the Continued Use of the Dignus Est Agnus in Lutheran Worship Regardless of the somewhat individualistic manner in which the Dignus canticle entered the Common Service Book tradition, and in spite of the absence of this canticle from the 1888 text of the Common Service, I believe that sufficient historical evidence exists for its retention in succeeding Lutheran service books. I base this contention on four arguments. First, Rietschel considers that the very verses in the Apocalypse which make up the Dignus Est Agnus are in the nature of New Testament Psalms, and he associates these verses with the Magnificat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc Dirnittis passages.30 Weizsacker goes even farther, and states concerning these and a few other similar verses in the Apocalypse: "The separate short songs ... fit into one another like strophes of a complete ode."31 He says that they may be "traditional songs," and quotes the famous line from Pliny's letter to Trajan, "Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicers secum invicem."32 Thus from a liturgical standpoint the Dignus Est Agnus seems to have a precedent in very early church usage. Second, even if the Dignus were not used in the Lutheran Church during the early years of the Reformation, "the rubrical permission to use another Canticle or Hymn" for the Gloria in Excelsis in the Service "except on occasions when a full Service is desirable, accords with Lutheran usage" during the Reformation period.33 This being true, there has been a place in Lutheran liturgy ever since the Reformation for alternative canticles having the quality of the Dignus. Weorg Rietschel, Lehrbuch der Lihrpk, 2. neuberb. Aufl. von Paul Graff, 2 vols. (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1951 [Bd. I], 1952 [Bd. II]), 201. War1 von Weizsacker, The Apostolic Age oj the Christian Church, vol. 2, trans. from the second, rev. ed. by James Millar (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1895), 260. )ZWeiu;icker, The Apostolic Age, 262. Worn, "The Lutheran Sources of the Common Service," 251. An Historical Study of the "Dignus Est Agnus" Canticle 153 Third, even from the standpoint of the Common Service tradition the use of the Dignus can be defended. Reed may have written in 1901 concerning the Common Service of 1888, "every variation from the standard form is alike unpardonable," but even before this (in 1897) he had set the Dignus and other canticles to music in his PsaIter and Canticles.34 He refers to this work frequently, moreover, in his later publications.3j The Dignus Est Agnus, regardless of the rather arbitrary way it entered the Church Book liturgy, was here to stay. In 1917 the same Lutheran bodies that had approved the Common Service of 1888 (without the Dignl~s) placed their stamp of approval on the Common Service Book (which includes this canticle).36 Here we have an excellent example of the ongoing force of a Spirit-motivated tradition in its continual process of refining and perfecting. Finally, we note the tremendous value of having a canticle of Johannine authorship in Lutheran liturgy. Our Church has always had at the center of its theology the Lamb of God who shed his blood upon the Cross to save a fallen race; it is therefore only fitting that this sentiment should be expressed in canticle form for use in our services of worship. %"Reed, The Common Service and Variata Editions," 472 35See Archer and Reed, eds., The Choral Sewice Book (Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1901); Hany G. Archer and Luther D. Reed, eds., The Music of the Responses (Philadelphh General Council Publication Board, 1903); and Hany G. Archer and Luther D. Reed, eds., S e a m Vespers (Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1905). %ee Strodach, A Manual on Worship, 188.