It is of the utmost significance that Martin Luther [1] practically from the very beginning [2] to the very end [3] of his career as Reformer of the Christian Church stressed the importance of two precious treasures of Christendom. The treasures I refer to are the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers and the art of music. Both have become a part of our great heritage, both exalt and inspire us as children of God and as beneficiaries of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled.

Curiously enough, these two treasures are closely related to each other, the style, character, and spirit of the one having been determined in no small measure by the other. Strangely enough, both have been sadly ignored repeatedly in various eras of the Christian Church, and their efficacy and import have been and still are, woefully underestimated within our own Lutheran Church.

Although Luther was the first since Apostolic times [4] to hold high the banner of the doctrine of the universal priesthood and pointed to its import and efficacy in some of the most critical periods of his eventful life and in some of his most famous writings,[5] the glories of this doctrine did not receive due stress from most Lutheran theologians of later eras. In his Examen Concilii Tridentini,[6] Martin Chemnitz did little more than state that all Christians are members of the New Testament priesthood, and Johann Gerhard, in his Loci Theologici, did no more than state rather incidentally that Christians, as a royal priesthood, should offer up sacrifices to God, pray, give thanks, help the poor, mortify the flesh, and be willing to live and die as martyrs. I certainly do not wish to belittle these duties of the Christian, but I do wish to call your attention to the fact that these men did not point out the glories of royal priesthood as did Martin Luther, who consistently used this doctrine to call the attention of God’s children to the blessedness of their high calling and to the glory of their estate.

Most dogmaticians followed in the footsteps of Chemnitz and Gerhard. Though the glories of the universal priesthood were given due prominence occasionally in Lutheran devotional literature of the 17th century, some of which was quite schwärmerisch, our scholars in the main had very little to say about it. One exception was Johann Konrad Dannhauer, the teacher of Philipp Jakob Spener. He linked up the Office of the Keys with the doctrine of the universal priesthood,[7] as Luther had done, and also in other ways presented the doctrine as Martin Luther had done. But to Spener especially must be given due credit for having rekindled interest in this precious doctrine of the universal priesthood, and we are happy to note that eminent theologians like Abraham Calov and J. G. Baier quoted from Spener’s writings on this doctrine and approved of their content. Spener set forth his views concerning the universal priesthood in his famous Pia Desideria of 1675; the second desiderium treated in this opus bore the title Wiederaufrichtung und die fleissige Uebung des geistlichen Priestertums. Not content with this one presentation of the doctrine in question, Spener, in 1677, published another treatment of this theme, bearing the simple title Das geistliche Priestertum. Like a true Pietist, Spener at times sentimentalizes this great doctrine, and for this reason his discourses and writings lack the strength and virility of Luther’s treatment, who lost no opportunity to call attention to the splendor and grandeur of this doctrine.

The next great figure within the Lutheran Church who put great emphasis on the doctrine of the universal priesthood was our own Dr. C. F. W. Walther. In his sermons and writings, notably in his great classics Kirche und Amt and Die rechte Gestalt einer vom Staate unabhängigen evangelischlutherischen Ortsgemeinde, Walther, influenced strongly by Luther, presented the doctrine with the same fervor and spirit that had characterized the interpretation and presentation of the great Reformer. It is interesting to note in this connection that the doctrine of the universal priesthood was the first prize possession our forefathers had to fight for and defend in the backwoods of Perry County, Missouri, about a hundred years ago; and some years later, encountering difficulties with the Buffalo Synod, they were again obliged to enter the arena of ecclesiastical combat in the interest of this doctrine.

You are undoubtedly aware of the fact that there is a movement afoot in Protestant circles today to get away from liberal theology and to return to the fundamentals of the Christian religion. Only God knows to what extent this movement will approach sound Lutheranism, but I should like to mention that this movement was initiated and is being advanced largely by Protestant theologians of note who are studying carefully the writings of Martin Luther. Through the course of many years James Moffatt was seen daily in the balcony of the library of Union Theological Seminary of New York reading the Weimar edition of Luther’s works. In class, Dr. Moffatt used to stress three points repeatedly: first, Luther was not hasty and impulsive, but a deliberate person; second, Luther knew the meaning and importance of the grace of God in Christ Jesus; third, Luther consistently held up before his followers the glories of their royal priesthood. Incidentally, I once heard Dr. Moffatt give a most wonderful illustration of the workings of the doctrine of the universal priesthood to a class of which I was a member: While a student at the University of Edinburgh, James Moffatt came to realize that he was drifting away from the Christian faith. He was troubled about this and knew not what to do. For some reason, however, he began to crave the companionship of a fellow student who was not at all brilliant, whose personality was not particularly attractive, and with whom he had never associated before. Moffatt, for some reason unknown to himself, confided in this young man and confessed to him his problem. Through the words and remarks of this young man the Christian faith of Moffatt was steadily strengthened, and he did not become an apostate. The royal priesthood was at work; the Holy Spirit singled out this young man, who seemingly had no special gifts of intellect or personality, and let him function as the priest to whom young Moffatt confessed his frailty and temptations.

Only recently I read a book, published in 1944, in which I found the following statements: "A second principle of classical Protestantism" [the first had been "the principle of unmerited and unmediated grace, the doctrine of justification by faith"] "is the priesthood of all believers, with its corollary, the right and duty of private judgment in matters of religious faith. This was the new dignity and liberty of the Christian man which Luther extolled and all the reformers defended. For all the variety of church organizations in Protestantism, there is in them all a steady refusal to separate clergy from laity save in function. The Protestant cleric is ‘minister,’ ‘preacher,’ ‘rector,’ of a congregation rather than its ‘priest.’—This puts a direct responsibility on every Christian to wrestle with Scripture and theology, to be able to explain and defend the faith that is in him."[8]

This doctrine is part of our precious heritage, it has helped make the Lutheran Church great, just as the music of our Church, which is largely an outgrowth of this doctrine, has helped make the Lutheran Church a great and a rich Church. It is strange indeed that this grand doctrine is not more popular in our circles today than it is; that it is relegated by many to the realm of forgotten theory and is not used to elevate the spiritual and cultural standards of our Church as it was done by Martin Luther and C. F. W. Walther.

_______

The doctrine of the universal priesthood existed already in the days of the Old Testament and was taught in Old Testament Scriptures. Ex. 19:5–6 we read: "Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed and keep My covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine; and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation."

These words were addressed to all believers in Israel and not to the Levitical priesthood only. This priesthood existed already in the days of the Patriarchs, at a time when there was not as yet a Levitical priesthood. As priests, all true Israelites were to give instruction to their children [9] and sacrifice the paschal lamb.[10] This priesthood was a gift of God, not something one could work for and merit, for we read: "I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift."[11]

However, the royal as well as the Levitical priests of the Old Testament were only a shadow of things to come. Viewed from the New Testament, they were prophetic and symbolic and pointed to the real priesthood as we have it in the New Testament with Christ as the High Priest and our only Master. In Old Testament times it was none other than the Prophet Isaiah who foretold that the doctrine of the universal priesthood would not bud forth into full bloom until the days of the New Testament, when he said: "But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the ministers of our God."[12] It is well to recall at this point that in the Old Testament Scriptures the word "priesthood" invariably referred to the Levitical priesthood, and when we speak of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, we usually think of a specific teaching of the New Testament.

The locus classicus of the New Testament Scriptures for the doctrine of the universal priesthood is, of course, 1 Pet. 2:9, where we read: "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." An examination of the original version of this passage reveals the fact that the Apostle Peter is using terms and expressions found in the Old Testament Scriptures, and that he is using not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation, the Septuagint. Kittel says: "According to all knowledge available today, the word occurs only in the Septuagint and in literature which is based on the LXX. Thus we find this expression used in the description of what transpired on Mount Sinai, Ex. 19:6, where the Greek version reads: . . ."[13] The original Hebrew text reads: Concerning the expression , "kingdom of priests," we again quote Kittel: "The expression ‘kingdom of priests’ may be traced back to an epoch in which it may well have implied that all Israelites are priests; they constitute a kingdom which consists of priests."[14] Peter undoubtedly seeks to emphasize that what had been said of God’s chosen people in Old Testament times applies with still greater force to the Christians of the New Testament. "Ye are a chosen generation" points back to Is. 43:20–21; "a royal priesthood" to Ex. 19:6; "an holy nation" and "a peculiar people" (the latter, translated literally, "a people for God’s own possession") to Ex. 19:5–6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Mal. 3:17 (LXX), etc., and the words "to show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" may be traced back to Is. 43:21.

It is interesting to note that the Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as of the New use the expression "royal priesthood," not "universal priesthood" (königliches Priestertum—allgemeines Priestertum). While "royal priesthood" is a term which dignifies and exalts the office, calling attention to its relationship with the King of Kings, the term "universal priesthood" is commonly used to bring out the fact that all believers, whether of the Old Testament or the New, are priests. Luther said, in his famous Aufruf an den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation, written in 1520, to improve the state of Christian society in Germany: "It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests, and monks are to be called the ‘spiritual estate’; princes, lords, artisans, and farmers, the ‘temporal estate.’ That is indeed a fine bit of lying and hypocrisy. Yet no one should be frightened by it; and for this reason, viz., that all Christians are truly of the ‘spiritual estate,’ and there is among them no difference at all but that of office, as Paul says 1 Cor. 12: We are all one body, yet every member has his own work, whereby it serves every other, all because we have one Baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all alike Christians; for Baptism, Gospel, and faith alone make us ‘spiritual’ and a Christian people. But that a pope or a bishop anoints, confers, tonsures, ordains, consecrates, or prescribes dress unlike that of the laity,—this may make hypocrites and graven images (blockheads), but it never makes a Christian or ‘spiritual’ man. Through Baptism all of us are consecrated to the priesthood. . . . That is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution, which would be impossible unless we were all priests.—From all this it follows that there is really no difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, ‘spirituals’ and ‘temporals,’ as they call them, except that of office and work, but not of ‘estate’; for they are all of the same estate—true priests, bishops and popes—though they are not all engaged in the same work, just as all priests and monks have not the same work.—Those who are now called ‘spiritual’—priests, bishops or popes—are neither different from other Christians nor superior to them, except that they are charged with the administration of the Word of God and the Sacraments, which is their work and office."[15]

Let us hear some more quotations from Luther, since he referred to the doctrine of the universal priesthood so often. In his famous writing Von der babylonischen Gefangenschaft, he says: "Therefore (1 Pet. 2:9) we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from 1 Cor. 4: ‘Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.’"[16] In his Treatise on Christian Liberty, Luther remarked: "Not only are we the freest of kings, we are also priests forever, which is far more excellent than being kings, because as priests we are worthy to appear before God to pray for others and to teach one another the things of God. For these are the functions of the priests and cannot be granted to any unbeliever. Thus Christ has obtained for us, if we believe on Him, that we are not only His brethren, coheirs and fellow kings with Him, but also fellow priests with Him, who may boldly come into the presence of God in the spirit of faith and cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ pray for one another, and do all things which we see done and prefigured in the outward and visible works of priests.—Who, then, can comprehend the lofty dignity of the Christian? Through his kingly power he rules over all things, death, life, and sin, and through his priestly glory is all powerful with God, because God does the things which he asks and desires, as it is written, ‘He will fulfill the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them.’ To this glory man attains, surely not by any works of his, but by faith alone.—You will ask, if all who are in the Church are priests, how do those whom we now call priests differ from laymen? I answer: Injustice is done those words, ‘priest,’ ‘cleric,’ ‘spiritual,’ ‘ecclesiastic,’ when they are transferred from all other Christians to those few who are now by a mischievous usage called ‘ecclesiastics.’ For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them, except that it gives the name ‘ministers,’ ‘servants,’ ‘stewards,’ to those who are now proudly called popes, bishops, and lords and who should by the ministry of the Word serve others and teach them the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For although we are all equally priests, yet we cannot all publicly minister and teach, nor ought we if we could."[17]

In his interpretation of Is. 60:18, of the year 1544, we read: "The altar is Christ; the priests, however, are those who teach the Gospel. These slaughter and kill everything whereof the world boasts, likewise all carnal wisdom and justice.—As a result, we all, each and every one of us, are priests, for we daily mortify our old Adam, as is stated Rom. 12:1.[18] In his interpretation of Hosea 4:6, given in 1530, Luther remarked: "He is truly a priest, who possesses the correct knowledge and understanding of God and a sound comprehension of the Scriptures."[19] One of Luther’s strongest statements was made in his Treatise on the New Testament of 1520, where he said: "Thus it becomes clear that it is not the priest alone who offers the sacrifice of the mass, but every one’s faith, which is the true priestly office, through which Christ is offered as a sacrifice to God. This office the priest, with the outward ceremonies of the mass, simply represents. Each and all are, therefore, equally spiritual priests before God.—For faith must do everything. It alone is the true priestly office and permits no one else to take its place. Therefore all Christians are priests: the men, priests, the women, priestesses, be they young or old, masters or servants, mistresses or maids, learned or unlearned. Here there is no difference, unless faith be unequal."[20]

In his interpretation of Psalm 110, given in 1539, Luther said: "These are the proper and sanctified adornments and priestly vestments which are pleasing and precious in the sight of God, with which we honor and praise Him: to preach and confess the Gospel, to praise and thank God for His grace, and to lead and bring others into the Kingdom of Christ. This can be done only by Christians, who are true and holy priests before God and whose adornments are quite different from those of the Levitical priests, who adorned themselves outwardly with gold, precious gems, and silk; they are likewise consecrated and anointed differently than are the bogies and bishops of the pope, who with their ointments and unguents seek to set themselves apart as priests, who seek to deceive men and who live unholy and godless lives. But Christians must be holy priests at all times and must adorn themselves with adornments which are holy. They are consecrated as priests, not by ordinary and sinful men, but by Christ the High Priest.—Christ must dwell in the hearts of those who desire to be priests, and Christ must clothe them with adornments and clerical robes. The adornments and the pomp, the headwear, the staff, in fact, all vestments and adornments with which the pope’s bogies seek to make a fine show are of no great avail to the true priests of God."[21]

I shall adduce one more quotation. Luther refuted the claims of Emser, who disputed Luther’s interpretation of 1 Pet. 2:9 and tried to defend the Roman Catholic teaching of a twofold priesthood, by saying, in part: "The Scriptures make us all priests alike, as I have said, but the churchly priesthood which is now universally distinguished from the laity and alone called a priesthood, in the Scriptures is called ministerium, servitus, dispensatio, episcopatus, presbyterium, and at no place sacerdotium or spiritualis.—God and His Scriptures know nothing of bishops as we now have them. These things are all a result of man-made laws and ordinances, and through long usage have taken such hold on us that we imagine the spiritual estate is founded on the Scriptures, although it is twice as worldly as the world itself, because it calls itself and pretends to be spiritual, but there is no truth in its claim. I called this priesthood churchly because it grew out of the Church’s organization and is not founded in the Scriptures. For it was the custom years ago, and ought to be yet, that in every Christian community, since all were spiritual priests, one, the oldest or most learned and most pious, was elected to be their servant, officer, guardian, watchman, in the Gospel and the Sacraments, even as the mayor of a city is elected from the whole body of its citizens. If tonsures, consecrations, ointments, vestments, made priests and bishops, then Christ and His apostles were never priests or bishops."[22]

It is true that after ca. 1530 Luther did not refer so often to the doctrine of the universal priesthood as he had in the 1520’s. He stressed this doctrine shortly after the beginning of his career as Reformer, and, it is important to note, he stressed it in the very years in which he wrote his great liturgical writings and was most active in helping to establish the musical standards of his Church. Although late in life he referred to the doctrine of the universal priesthood less often and was at that time less active in the fields of liturgics and church music, we must not conclude that his interest in this doctrine as well as in liturgics and church music had dwindled or even abated. On the contrary, when he did refer to the doctrine of the universal priesthood later in his career, he was just as emphatic in setting forth its verities and its glory as he was interested in the liturgies and music of his Church. One reason why he may not have referred to the universal priesthood more often lay, perhaps, in the fact that certain people had taken undue advantage of this teaching, had failed to understand and conform to its implications and spirit, and had converted liberty into license. We need but think of the devastation wrought through the Bauernkriege, the activities of die himmlischen Propheten, and the harm done in general by those interested in iconoclastic pursuits. Let us not forget either that in his Deutsche Messe of 1526 he refers to the fact that many of his followers are not as yet mature enough for the Gottesdienstordnung he had prepared and proposed and must first be instructed further before being exposed to the beauties and doctrinal glory of a fine liturgy. I should like to read to you a quotation from the German version of Dr. Peter Madsen’s monograph on the universal priesthood. Dr. Madsen says: "In der Bestimmung des Begriffs ‘geistliches Priestertum’ bleibt er (Luther) JEDERZEIT SICH SELBER GLEICH. Beständig hält er an dem für seine Auffassung entscheidenden Satz fest, dass der, dem das Amt übertragen worden, in aller Namen handle. Beständig bezeichnet der Königs- und Priestertumsname eines Christen höchste Ehre und grössten Reichtum. Die Entwickelung des Königsbegriffs hat stets die gleiche Fülle, wie sie sich in jener Beschreibung zeigt, die er in der Schrift ‘Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen’ von demselben gegeben hat. Die Hoheit der priesterlichen Stellung gewinnt in den folgenden Jahren einen NOCH STAERKEREN AUSDRUCK als in den früheren. Zu 2 Mos. (Walch 3, 1317): ‘Welcher das Wort Gottes hat, der ist ein Priester, und wer ihn höret, höret Gott selber. Also ist Priester und König sein nichts anders, denn den Glauben und den Heiligen Geist haben, die Gnade Gottes den andern zu predigen und vor Gott zu treten in einem guten Vertrauen, als ein Kind zum Vater.’"[23]

To repeat, for the sake of emphasis: There are, in a sense, no lay people in the Church; all are priests, royal priests, and all have become priests through faith in Jesus Christ at the time of their Baptism. This means that we, unlike the children of God of the Old Testament, have free access to God, and our Mediator is not a Levitical priest or even a Lutheran pastor, but the Man Christ Jesus, through whom we are able to approach God directly, without further mediation or intervention. 1 Tim. 2:5. Kittel says: "Indem mit dem Wortlaut von Ex. 19:6 Ernst gemacht wird, ist gewisslich daran gedacht, dass die Gemeinde als Priesterschar ‘unmittelbar zu Gott’ ist. Nur dass diese Wahrheit, die in Ex. 19 wie ein erstaunlicher Blitz aufleuchtet, hier (1 Pet. 2:9) als Erfüllung durch Christus der heidenchristlichen Gemeinde zugesprochen wird. Steht sonst der Priester dem Volk gegenüber, so wird hier das ganze neue Volk Gottes zur Priestergemeinschaft."[24] In spiritual matters we need not bow to human authority, men may not impose upon us as doctrines the commandments of men,[25] and it is for each and every one of us to test and try every spirit to see if it is of God.[26] Permit me to quote Luther again, this time in German: "Lieber, was waren St. Petrus und alle Päbste mit ihren Pfaffen für Priester, so Christus nicht selbst der Hohepriester ware und bliebe? Ich wollte St. Petrum (viel weniger den Pabst zu Rom) nicht ansehen, so ich Christum nicht selber hätte und einen andern an seine Statt sollte zum Priester haben. Aber also soll der Pabst als ein rechter Widerchrist Christum mit seinem Priestertum hinwegwerfen, die Schrift Lügen strafen und den Heiligen Geist ins Maul schlagen; darnach ein eigen Priestertum aufwerfen, davon Christus nach der Schrift nichts weiss. Darum sollen wir Christen solches festhalten und wissen, dass Christus sein Priestertum noch nie weggeworfen noch das Amt niedergelegt oder andern gegeben hat, sondern ist und bleibt der rechte Priester vor Gott, so daselbst mit uns redet, für uns opfert und betet ewiglich, und weder St. Petrus noch einiger Mensch auf Erden also Priester ist, als habe Christus aufgehört oder ihm übergeben, an seiner Statt Priester zu sein.—Nun aber ist er es allein und muss allein sein, der uns durch sein eigen Priestertum zu Gott bringt und uns dasselbige auch mitteilt. Und wie wir alle der Kraft seines Priesteramts zu unserm Trost und Heil geniessen, also dass nicht allein St. Petrus oder die Apostel noch Pabst und Bischöfe desselben teilhaftig werden, sondern alle, die da selig werden sollen, also teilt er auch denselben Namen allen Christen mit, dass, wie sie durch ihn Gottes Kinder und Erben heissen (Gal. 3:26; 4:7), also auch nach ihm Priester heissen, und also ein jeglicher getaufter Christ sowohl ein Priester ist und heissen soll als St. Petrus oder Paulus. Denn dass St. Petrus ein Priester ist, das ist er daher, dass er an Christum gläubig worden ist, wie ich auch bin. Also sind wir alle (wie ich gesagt habe) Priesters Kinder in der Taufe worden—-. Darum, so gemein der Name Christen und Gottes Kind ist (nämlich aller, die an Christum glauben), so gemein sollte auch sein und verstanden werden der Name Priester. Denn wir haben ja alle zugleich und ingemein einerlei Taufe, Evangelium, einerlei Gnade und Erbe des Himmelreichs, einerlei Heiligen Geist, einigen Gott Vater und Herrn Christum (Eph. 4:4–6) und sind in ihm alle eines; wie er sagt Johannes am 17., V.22, und St. Paulus Gal. 3:28: ‘Ihr seid alle Einer in Christo Jesu’ usw."[27] I shall add a quotation, rendered into English by C. M. Jacobs, which is clear as well as striking: "A cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade, and yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops, and everyone by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every other, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily and spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the body serve one another."[28]

Since the Holy Scriptures are for us the main source of knowledge and inspiration, let us hear a few more passages which, like 1 Pet. 2:9, might be regarded as sedes doctrinae of this wonderful doctrine. We find these in one of the most glorious books of the Bible, the Revelation of St. John the Divine. There we read in the fifth and sixth verses of the first chapter: "Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood and hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." Chapter five, verses nine and ten, we read: "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we shall reign on the earth." Chapter twenty, verse 6: "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection; on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

Note the triumphant and exultant tone of each of these passages. Is it not strange that we Lutherans do not make more of this doctrine, especially in view of the fact that Luther and Walther saw its glory and let shine its light and spread its rays in their sermons, their writings, their counsels, and their exhortations, in short, in all their activities in the interest of God’s kingdom? True, the doctrine of the universal priesthood is not the cardinal doctrine of the Christian religion, but it is most intimately related to the cardinal doctrine of the Christian religion and is a grand doctrine which has done much good within the ranks of Lutheranism. It is so direct and immediate a fruit of the doctrine of justification through faith in Jesus Christ that St. John finds himself constrained, under guidance of God’s Holy Spirit, to speak of it and the redemption through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ in the same breath.[29] Of course, the doctrine of the universal priesthood will hardly appeal to those who are not of an humble and democratic spirit; it will not appeal to those who believe the Church should be hierarchical, who lust for power, glory, prestige, and honor. In other words, it is not a doctrine that feeds and nourishes our ego and our vanity, which puffs up and inflates. We have but one Master, one High Priest, and He is Jesus Christ. Let us recall that Luther wanted the clergy called, not priests, but Diener (servants); I am sure that Luther would have wholeheartedly approved of our use of the word pastor (shepherd). The doctrine of the universal priesthood lifts all Christians up to the same level, lends dignity to their office as Christians, and makes of the Church a very democratic institution. The democratic character of genuine and true Lutheranism is definitely a product of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, which prompts all those who are imbued with its spirit to regard with disdain all hierarchical and High-Church tendencies.

Here, of course, Lutheranism differs radically from Catholicism. The Roman Catholic Church is professedly hierarchical in character, as is also the Eastern Orthodox Church. I shall again quote Madsen: "This doctrine of the universal priesthood is one of those great nodes where the doctrinal and theological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism become most prominently and clearly apparent. Catholicism refuses to recognize the fact that all Christians stand on a par in the presence of God. It has created for itself a mediatorial state which has been granted authority by God Himself, so they claim, to carry on His work; this consists in offering expiatory sacrifices to God as a continuation of the high-priestly sacrifice of Christ and in assuming infallible authority in matters of doctrine and faith as a perpetuation of the prophetic office of Christ. Grace and truth are thus put into the hands of the clergy, and only through the communication of the clergy can the laity have a share in these blessings. Grace may be obtained only through the sacrificial acts and absolution of the clergy.—Indeed, the mediatorial position of the Roman Catholic clergy is accorded greater prominence and importance than was granted the Levitical priesthood in the days of the Old Testament. In Old Testament times the priesthood was bound unconditionally by Holy Scripture; thus the Levitical priesthood was not permitted to add to the revelations of Holy Scripture. In addition, the priesthood of the Old Testament was kept in its proper channels by the prophets, who, when necessary, did not hesitate to threaten and even punish the priesthood, which was obliged to bow before these messengers of God. It remained for the Catholic clergy to develop the first real hierarchy among the children of God; its priests are the sole bearers of the Spirit of God who have been called upon to continue and take over the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit according to the needs of the times. The exclusive and exalted character of this mediatorial position can hardly be exaggerated; it is put above judgments and criticisms of men, it is made indispensable for all who would be saved."[30]

Catholicism professes to believe in a universal priesthood, but regards this priesthood as being of only a figurative character.[31] Catholicism argues that the spiritual sacrifices of Christians can be only prayers and the term "royal" (regale, ) can have but a metaphysical meaning for the Christians.[32] The Catholic Encyclopedia says expressly: "In the New Testament, bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood, while the presbyters are simple priests."[33]

The great sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Church is the Mass, and the words "priesthood" and "sacrifice" are reciprocal terms.[34] The Council of Trent emphasized the intimate connection between the sacrifice of Mass and the priesthood when it maintained: "Sacrifice and priesthood are by divine ordinance so inseparable that they are found together under all laws. Since, therefore, in the New Testament the Catholic Church has received from the Lord’s institution the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist, it must also be admitted that in the Church there is a new, visible, and external priesthood into which the older priesthood has changed."[35] This same Council decreed: "If anyone affirm that all Christians indiscriminately are priests of the New Testament or that they are all mutually endowed with equal spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is an army set in array.[36] According to Roman Catholic teaching, the chief function of a priest is to serve as interpreter and mediator between God and man."[37]

While we need hardly give further consideration to the Roman Catholic conception of the priesthood at the present time, I should like to call attention to the fact that the Roman Catholic teachings concerning the priesthood have determined in very large measure the nature, the character, and the spirit of Roman Catholic church music and Roman Catholic liturgics. As beautiful and effective as it is in the services and churches for which it was intended, much Roman Catholic and Russian church music does not fit into a Lutheran service of worship any more than a chorale might fit into a Roman Catholic Mass or into the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is due almost entirely to the fact that the services of the Catholic churches recognize a hierarchy, whereas the services of the Lutheran Church recognize the universal priesthood.[38]

Before closing this section of my paper, permit me to add a few words concerning the Anglican conception of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, since the Anglican Church is a liturgical church body and since Anglican church music very often finds its way into the Lutheran church service.

The Anglicans retained tile designation sacerdotes (priests) for their clergy in the authorized version of their Thirty-nine Articles. This has prompted the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia to remark: "The Catholic clergy alone are entitled to the designation ‘priests,’ since they alone have a true and real sacrifice to offer, the holy Mass. Consequently, Anglicans who reject the sacrifice of the Mass are inconsistent when they refer to their clergy as ‘priests.’ The preachers of Germany quite logically disclaim the title with a certain indignation."[39]

Although the Anglicans do not officially in any way reject the doctrine of the universal priesthood, yet we do find that the spirit and nature of this doctrine as conceived by Martin Luther did not play as important a part in shaping her policies and determining the character of her liturgies and church music as it did in the Lutheran Church. While Anglican congregations do illustrate their belief in the universal priesthood through the singing of hymns (usually three in a service), they do not participate in the presentation of the liturgical music. The liturgical parts, whether proper (seasonal) or fixed, are sung, as a rule, by choirs; liturgical hymns are quite unknown to Anglican worshipers. A large percentage of English hymns popular today were written not by Anglicans, but by English Dissenters of the 19th century who were dissatisfied with the spirit, work, and cold formalism of Anglican priests and High-Church men. Those who joined the Oxford Movement in the 19th century were interested profoundly in liturgical services of the Roman Catholic Church as well as in ancient Greek and Latin hymns, which were beautifully and classically translated into English, but which also lacked the simplicity of the hymns of the Dissenters and of our Lutheran chorales. Here we find, I believe, a practical and functional aberration from the doctrine of the universal priesthood. The intellectual, linguistic, and cultural limitations of the common man were not taken into serious consideration, and thoughts were expressed and metaphors used which were too distant for the average worshiper. These practices definitely pointed to hierarchical tendencies which ignore the shortcomings of the common man and woman. The Anglican liturgies, particularly when presented in the manner in which they are presented in churches with High-Church leanings, do not breathe the spirit of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, and hymn singing has never enjoyed the popularity in Anglican circles that it has among the Dissenters of England and among us Lutherans.

We have already indicated that the doctrine of the universal priesthood, like all other teachings of the Scriptures, is not inert, inactive, lifeless, impracticable. We are all agreed, I am sure, that those who cry out: "Deeds, not creeds!" know not what they say; they understand not the dogmas of the Scriptures. Did not Paul write to Timothy: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"?[40]

When Luther began to stress the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers, he turned on a current which not only activated, but even revolutionized church and society. We read in the Introduction to his Small Catechism that a visitation had forced him to the conclusion that the people live "like the poor brutes and irrational swine." Chapter X of Preserved Smith’s The Age of the Reformation substantiates what Luther had said, and I am sure that Dr. Schwiebert of Valparaiso University, whose authority in the field of Reformation history we respect and honor, could tell us much about the conditions among the common people of Luther’s day that would make us gasp. And yet Luther said to these same people: "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.[41]—All men alike are consecrated priests and bishops."[42] This seems paradoxical, yes incredible. And yet Luther never changed his mind on this point. He often became thoroughly discouraged when he viewed conditions among his followers; their vulgarity and ignorance often appalled him. But he did not lose hope. He knew that in this doctrine of the universal priesthood, since it is intimately related to the doctrines of justification and sanctification, there lay a power and a constructive force which would change the hearts and habits of men and eventually bring about a complete metamorphosis, though he, in his lifetime, might not see it to any appreciable extent. Luther’s position required a strong faith, particularly since a very large percentage of the clergy was unfit for its work according to later standards, but Luther’s faith in the power of the Word was mighty and vital. That Luther was right, we know today.

Luther was aware of the fact that the doctrine of the universal priesthood was a force and a power which should express itself continuously in every phase of life and worship. At the time of Pentecost in the year 1523, a year before the appearance of the Achtliederbuch and of Walther’s Geistliches Gesangbüchlein, Luther’s Formula missae et communionis pro ecclesia Wittenbergensi [43] was published. Only three years later, in 1526, appeared his Deutsche Messe und Ordnung Gottesdiensts, zu Wittenberg fürgenommen.[44] The publication of these two works is for us of the utmost importance. The Lutheran Church was destined to become a liturgical Church; that was taken for granted. Luther’s democratic spirit, which was a product of his belief in the doctrine of the universal priesthood, did not induce him to ignore liturgical practice, order, sequence, and beauty. He did not permit the ignorance of the people to induce him to adopt standards for services of worship which were on a rather low level. For Luther their priesthood, not their cultural and spiritual poverty, was the determining factor. Although the Formula Missae called for a sermon in the vernacular, the service as a whole was conducted in Latin. The people had been accustomed to this, and Luther and Walther had not as yet been able to make a hymnal available. When Luther, in 1526, published his Deutsche Messe, he insisted that the publication of this mass did not bind his followers to its adoption and use. The Lutheran Church was not to be or become an hierarchical church like the Church of Rome, which insists that the Latin language be used throughout the world. The Lutheran Church was not to demand liturgical uniformity; each congregation was to be autonomous just as all Christians are priests. Though Gregorian music was used by most Lutherans, it was not adopted as the official music of the Church. Parishes could use it if they so chose, but if they preferred another type of chant settings, they were at liberty to make the change. The Lutheran Church was not to become a legalistic institution, and Luther’s Deutsche Messe was prepared for those who desire to use it "wie, wo, wann und wie lange es die Sachen schicken und fordern."[45] This mass was adopted generally by the followers of Luther, usually, however, with slight modifications and changes. The standards in the various parishes and committees were not everywhere equally high or low. We find this state of things reflected in the liturgies of Luther’s day as well as in those of later years.[46]

The doctrine of the universal priesthood asserted itself also in another way. Luther, in his Deutsche Messe, made provision for the singing of four hymns by the congregation. This was a most unusual innovation, though it is known that members of the Roman Catholic clergy had at times and in certain places permitted the laity to sing religious folksongs during the service of Mass. The step taken by Luther may, nevertheless, be regarded as a real innovation; it ultimately deprived the chant of its pre-eminence in the Lutheran service and made hymn singing the most important musical portion of the service. Hymn singing was intimately linked with liturgical portions of the service and not infrequently substituted for them. Thus we know that "Christe, du Lamm Gottes" took the place of the Latin Agnus Dei; "Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott" became the Credo; "All Ehr’ und Lob soll Gottes sein" and "Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr’" were sung as the Gloria in Excelsis; "Nun bitten wir den Heil’gen Geist" was converted from a religious folksong into a church hymn and used either with the graduale or substituted for it. Several other similar changes were made.

What was at the bottom of all this? Did Luther dislike Gregorian chant? Was it really necessary for him to prepare his Deutsche Messe and introduce the changes? Bearing in mind Luther’s regard for the doctrine of the universal priesthood and bearing in mind, likewise, that he stressed this doctrine time and time again, in the 1520’s particularly, it is not difficult to answer these questions. The plain truth is that Luther wanted the people to be as active as possible in the services of worship. They were not to be mere onlookers and spectators. In the Roman Catholic Church the performance of the service of worship is entirely in the hands of the clergy and the choir; a Roman Catholic Mass has been and may well be performed without any worshipers present at all. This is part of the objective character of the Roman Mass. Luther wanted worshipers not only to be present, but also to be active in the service, and the best way to keep them active, he held, was through the singing of hymns and through participation in the performance of the liturgy proper.[47] His Formula Missae was to be used after 1526 where Latin was understood and where parishes might prefer a Latin liturgy; it was used chiefly in churches connected with schools, in order that students might establish their knowledge of Latin and be able to worship through the medium of this language. On one occasion Luther even remarked that if it were possible, he would like to see services conducted in Greek and Hebrew.[48] With regard to Latin, let us not forget that though this language is today archaic, in Luther’s day it is was used quite widely; lectures were delivered at universities in the Latin language, governments used it to negotiate with one another, books were usually written in Latin, etc. After all, is it not often said today that every well-educated person should have a reading and speaking knowledge of at least two languages? Luther knew, however, that the common people ordinarily use one language only. His Deutsche Messe was prepared for Hans and Liesel, who understand no Latin. We repeat, one of the great beauties of the doctrine of the universal priesthood is that it is concerned about the welfare of all Christians and not of only a few.

The claim that Luther brought liturgical disorder into the Lutheran Church is not true. It is likewise untrue that Luther had little or no liturgical sense. Luther’s policies, practices, and interests are often misunderstood and misconstrued by those who either do not know or fail to bear in mind that Luther was motivated greatly by the doctrine of the universal priesthood. A close examination of his Formula Missae and of his Deutsche Messe reveals that both were delineated from the Roman Mass, and a careful perusal of the liturgies used in various Lutheran churches after Luther’s day will soon prove that basically they are the same and the variations which one finds are rarely of great moment. Luther’s policy granted not only wholesome freedom to his followers, but it also encouraged them to be creative. His policy, based, let us not forget, on the doctrine of the universal priesthood, ultimately gave to the Lutheran Church a musical and liturgical heritage second to none. Luther did not make the tragic mistake Calvin and Zwingli made, who rendered their followers musically sterile and impotent. Luther did not make the mistake of Rome when it issued decrees at the Council of Trent which her many composers of later years ignored, and when the Roman Catholic Church endorsed the Romantic Palestrina Renaissance, which was spurred on by F. X. Witt and his Cäcilienverein as well as by A. F. J. Thibaut in the first half of the 19th century, a movement which sought to establish an artificial and archaic tone of church music and which discouraged initiative and enterprise among Roman Catholic composers in the fields of church music and liturgics. There is indeed a great difference between a Church which is hierarchical and one which believes firmly in the doctrine of the universal priesthood and takes cognizance of the workings and implications of this great doctrine of the Holy Scriptures.

Much has been written about the significant developments which took place between 1523 and 1526. Friedrich Blume says: "Recognition of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, which steadily became more prominent and potent among the followers of Luther, political considerations which were prompted by revolutionary outbursts of the iconoclasts and fanatics, pedagogical considerations, and a strong inclination towards freedom in matters of ceremony: all served as driving forces which urged Luther to proceed from the Formula of 1523 to the Deutsche Messe of 1526."[49] Arnold Schering remarks: "We all know that Luther performed an act of great consequences when he opened the mouths and loosed the tongues of congregations which had long been mute in services of worship and enabled them to sing hymns; thus the singing of chorales became an essential feature of the Lutheran services of worship. Luther’s act was momentous not only because the congregation became prominently active in its services of worship and was taken out of its isolation and put into the very midst of a living and active circuit of liturgical activity, but above everything also because through this act a complete metamorphosis of all other types of worship-music took place. The chorale became the core and center of Lutheran church music; it was sung by all and created a new type of traditional church music for the Lutheran Church. The chorale functioned like a leaven, it found its way into practically all forms and types of Lutheran church music, and accommodated itself to the needs of the Lutheran service."[50]

Permit me to read you one more quotation; I shall read this in its original German version: "Luther kam dem Volksverlangen entgegen, welches längst in vielen Bemühungen und Versuchen offenbar geworden war. Seine Veränderungen der gottesdienstlichen Formen erscheinen zunächst keineswegs umfassender und grundstürzender Art; aber indem die neue Form dem Verlangen nach Einführung der deutschen Sprache und des Gemeindegesanges gerecht wird, verändert sie die von der Kirche geheiligten Anschauungen über das Wesen des Gottesdienstes. ‘Die Priesterkirche wird wieder zur Gemeindekirche.’ Durch die Abschaffung des vom Priester vollzogenen Opfers des Leibes und Blutes Christi (offertorium) erhält der Gottesdienst seine ursprüngliche Aufgabe zurück, durch die Wortverkündigung im Gesang, Lektion, Bekenntnis, Gebet und Predigt das Reich Gottes zu bauen."[51]

It was not only Luther’s deep-rooted love for music, but especially also his profound belief in the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers which prompted him to establish practices, policies, and usages which ultimately won for the Lutheran Church the reputation as the "Singing Church." Luther knew that the average person likes to sing, particularly when he is a member of a group or congregation, and he knew from personal experience that one can easily comfort and strengthen himself spiritually through the medium of sacred song. Luther’s insistence on the use of sacred song won for him many adherents, and the words of the Jesuit Konzenius are well known, when he said: "Hymni Lutheri animos plures quam scripta et declamationes occiderunt."[52]

When we consider Lutheran church music, we think first of all of the chorale, the congregational hymn of the Lutheran Church. It was through the singing of chorales that the Lutheran Church has acquired its reputation as the "Singing Church," and upon the basis of its chorales the Lutheran Church has built her great musical heritage. We have already substantiated the truthfulness of Wilhelm Stahl’s remark: "Die Entstehung des evangelischen Chorals hängt somit aufs engste zusammen mit der Entwickelung der evangelischen Liturgie,"[53] and we have shown that the doctrine of the universal priesthood prompted Luther to make the singing of chorales a constituent part of his Deutsche Messe. But the influence of this doctrine extends even further.

It was simple enough for Luther to recommend that hymns be sung regularly by congregations, but where were these hymns to come from? Let us examine this problem briefly and ascertain whether or not this, too, links up with the doctrine of the universal priesthood.

The first source of these chorales was Gregorian music.[54] Hymns like "Allein Gott in der Höh’ sei Ehr’," "Komm, Heiliger Geist, Herre Gott," "Komm, Gott Schöpfer, Heiliger Geist," "Kyrie, Gott Vater in Ewigkeit," and not a few others may easily be traced back directly to Gregorian chant. However, Luther and other Lutheran hymn writers realized fully that congregations would hardly be able to sing melismatic chant music with its free rhythms and sparse accents. Luther regarded music as an art; and yet, he was far more interested in putting music into the hands of Hans and Liesel as a means of worship rather than as an art. Strangely enough, by assuming this approach Luther created art of a high caliber—he gave to the world a type of music which is artistic, partly because it is natural, at times even naive and unpolished, certainly not artificial. He simplified even the chants which were to be sung by the clergy, since he believed that the average clergyman would not be able to sing florid Gregorian chant well. The result was that Luther and others accommodated themselves to the limitations of the people by simplifying this music and changing its character. Kümmerle says very strikingly: "The Lutheran Church was obliged to create a new type of church music which conformed to the spirit of Lutheranism and Lutheran worship; the foundation of this music is the Lutheran chorale with its folk-songlike character. Due credit must be given Martin Luther, whose genius and perspicacity prompted him to introduce the chorale into his services and the services of his many followers."[55] The music was written and arranged strophically, its accents were made more pronounced and occurred at regular and more frequent intervals, the rhythms were made less subtle and more simple, and the melismatic element was changed to the syllabic. These simplifications and accommodations were made for the sake of the common man, the doctrine of the universal priesthood was in action, a new type of church music came into being. Luther did not go to the extremes that the Pietists and others went to later; he did not oversimplify; [56] in his Grosser Glaube he even retained much of the melismatic element, and he did not reject music simply because it had been used by the Roman Catholics. Hymns were still sung with a certain amount of free rhythm, and measure bars were not as numerous as they are in hymns today. The fact remains that Gregorian music was converted into hymns and simplified that Hans, Liesel, and other members of the royal priesthood might be able to sing them and really love them.

A second source of our chorales were the religious folk songs sung by the people in the days prior to the days of the Reformation. Some of the grandest hymns of our Church were written long before Martin Luther ever saw the light of day, i.e., between the 13th and 15th centuries. I need but call your attention to such hymns as "Gott der Vater, wohn’ uns bei," "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist," "Christ ist erstanden," and not a few more. Had Luther, Walther, and others not converted these religious folk songs into Lutheran chorales, they would undoubtedly be lost to us today. By adopting them, the Lutheran Church has made them her own, and they are today regarded also by non-Lutherans as Lutheran chorales, just as thousands of people living in America today are regarded as Americans and have a right to call themselves Americans, though they were born in foreign lands.[57] Religious folk song was as popular in the 16th century as it is today; Luther knew this and used what was fit to use. Texts were changed where this was necessary, and doctrinal aberrations were carefully deleted.

However, not only religious folk songs were adopted and converted into hymns; the same was done with secular folk music. While this seems strange to many, it is well to recall that in Luther’s day no distinction was made between sacred and secular music as far as the music itself was concerned. Ca. 1500 it was believed that a tune or a melody itself is absolute, devoid of specific or suggestive content; in other words, a melody per se was regarded as neither sacred nor secular. When Luther denounced "die fleischlichen Buhllieder" in his musico-historically famous Foreword to the Geistliches Gesangbüchlein of 1524, he had in mind the texts, not the tunes of these songs. Luther carefully avoided going to the extremes some of the early Church Fathers had gone to. Augustine, for example, had adjured Christians not to turn their hearts to certain musical instruments, believing these instruments to be inherently corrupt and carnal. Luther, on the other hand, did not denounce the use of the pipe organ in the church service, as did some of his contemporaries, who insisted that the organ suggests worldliness simply because many organists played dances and other types of unecclesiastical music upon the organ. Luther disagreed with Augustine also in another way, for Augustine had scruples of conscience at times because he felt he had been more interested in lovely music than in its sacred texts. Luther, on the other hand, remarked in one of his Tischreden: "I have very little use for those who, like the fanatics, despise music. For music is a gift of God, not of man. It drives away the devil and makes people happy; it enables us to forget wrath, unchastity, conceit, and other evils. After theology, I assign to music the highest and most prominent place of distinction and honor. Music reigns in days of peace."[58]

It is interesting to note that in the 16th century no fewer than 174 Kontrafakturen (secular songs converted into church hymns) were used in Lutheran circles of Germany; many of these, plus 114 more, found their way into Reformed services of worship.[59] In connection with this practice, Luther simply asked: "Why should such beautiful tunes be used only by the devil?"[60] We today distinguish between sacred and secular music and argue that so many good hymn tunes are extant that it is no longer necessary to use secular tunes like Finlandia and Londonderry Air in church services, since they suggest thoughts foreign to a service of worship. Luther was of a different opinion, partly because he lived when he did, partly because there was in his day a scarcity of available good hymns, which made it necessary for him and others to adopt such tunes. Again, however, we find the doctrine of the universal priesthood in action; Luther thought of the common man and a wholesome type of music the common man loved. He set the standards for a democratic Church, not for one that was hierarchical. He wanted all worshipers to take an active part in the presentation of music in the church service; this meant, then, that the music had to be volkstümlich and simple, not melismatic, florid, involved. Difficult music might be sung by Lutheran church choirs willing to take the time to rehearse it and capable of singing it; hymns sung by the congregation must be simple and folk-songlike in character.

A third source were the hymns of the Bohemian Brethren [61] and, later, hymns from the Huguenot Psalter.[62] These were hymns of a fine type: simple, singable, fit for use in a service of worship, and loved by the people. Why they were adopted by the Lutheran Church is not hard to understand; they breathed the spirit of the Lutheran chorale; they were ideal for the royal priesthood.

The fourth and final source were original hymns written within Lutheran circles by Luther and others. Luther’s words are familiar: "Ich bin willens, deutsche Psalmen fürs Volk zu machen, das ist, geistliche Lieder, dass das Wort Gottes auch durch den Gesang unter den Leuten bleibe."[63] Note the words: "fürs Volk—unter den Leuten" Luther is concerned about the laity of the Church; the doctrine of the universal priesthood is at work.

"Sing unto the Lord a new song" sang the Psalmist.[64] Luther carried out this instruction. So did his followers. And what a wonderful beginning did they not make with the very first hymn of the Achtliederbuch of 1524, "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein," a simple chorale version of the Gospel. Does that word g’mein not remind us of allgemeines Priestertum? This hymn, let us not forget, is by Luther, and here we have another master stroke by the great Reformer. As great as they are otherwise, the chief weakness of all pre-Reformation hymns is that they contain too little Gospel. The first chorale of our Church not only contained Gospel; it was the Gospel itself set to verse to be sung by the royal priesthood: Here was the new song, here was the response of Christendom to the words of the Psalmist: "Sing unto the Lord a new song." It is no wonder that Kümmerle says the following: "Mit ihm (i.e., dem Liede ‘Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein’) beginnt ‘als mit dem durchschlagenden Grundton das sogenannte "Achtliederbuch," die Urgestalt des deutschen Kirchengesangbuchs’; es ist ‘die erste Stimme deutschen Kirchengesangs, die mit Blitzgewalt durch alle deutsche Lande fuhr, ein Preis des ewigen göttlichen Ratschlusses der Erlösung des Menschengeschlechts und des Evangeliums, der Freiheit.’ ‘Gewaltige Kraft, kindliche Einfalt und innige Tiefe sind die hervortretenden Charakterzüge dieses Liedes.’"[65]

The Achtliederbuch was, it is true, not a Lutheran hymnal, but rather a collection of five-part music for choirs. However, it is interesting to note that all selections in this precious little volume, which was edited by some humble anonymous person, were Choräle, four by Luther, three by Speratus, and one by an anonymous author. Already in 1523, the year in which Luther’s Formula Missae appeared and a year before the first collection of Lutheran church music was published, hymns were printed on fly leafs, including "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g’mein"; "Es ist das Heil uns kommen her," "Es woll’ uns Gott genädig sein," and "Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ." Langbecker [66] informs us that no fewer than 106 hymns were thus distributed among the common people and tacked to the doors of the churches for the purpose of spreading the Gospel among the people through the medium of the chorale. The royal priesthood was active; it did not wait until the first hymnal was published.

Chorale melodies were scarce in Luther’s day. The Church had more hymn texts than hymn tunes. However, from its very beginning it was customary to fit various hymn texts to one hymn tune. The Lutheran Church, as you know, follows this practice even in our 20th century. Only this past spring was I distressed when I read the following remarks in an article bearing the title "Ecumenical Trends in Hymnody": "Finally, we regret the too-frequent ‘polygamous’ practices followed in arrangement of words and tunes. For example, the grand, well-known chorale ‘Wie schön leuchtet’ is forced to mate with seven different sets of words.—To your reviewer, this simply does not make sense.—It is hymnological polygamy, and we don’t like it. This practice is used with about thirty well-known tunes and chorales which have been wedded to a given set of words, at least in popular thinking, for generations. We are not so poverty-stricken musically that this practice is necessary." With this I disagree, and I hope, brethren, that you will disagree with me. I say this not only because this practice has a good historical basis, but also because it helps to hold up before us the beauty of our hymn tunes, enables us to sing our best and most substantial tunes often but with different texts, makes it possible for the people to sing often the chorale tunes they love, and finally it recalls to our minds again the doctrine of the universal priesthood which seeks to simplify problems for the Church in the interest of the worshiper. It would be regrettable indeed if the singing of the tune "Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern" were restricted to the season of Epiphany and "Wachet auf" to the Advent season. It is self-evident that the spirit of a hymn tune must agree with the message and nature of the hymn text. I believe we must admit that the editors of our Hymnal were discreet in this respect, though many will naturally not always agree with the choice of hymn tune that was made. The average American hymnal contains altogether too many tunes; that is one reason why the average Protestant is acquainted with only a very few hymns.

I hope you will not mind this slight digression when I call attention to another fault the writer of the article finds with our Hymnal. He says in the same article: "The make-up is both ecumenical and cosmopolitan. Besides the usual types, we find hymns of Hebrew, Danish, Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, Dutch, Bohemian, and Polish sources. Yet we are not satisfied. No Protestant church has such a polyglot constituency from Europe, so why should not an American Lutheran hymnal include at least a token inclusion of hymns from Latvia, Esthonia, Lithuania, Hungary, and Iceland as well as those already mentioned? We regret that the Synodical Conference hymnal was not the first to do it." However, since when does it add to the intrinsic value of a Lutheran hymnal to include hymns from as many nations under the sun as possible? Are such cosmopolitan considerations really concerned about the royal priesthood, or are they not perhaps a testimonium paupertatis? I believe the same question might be put concerning some of the ecumenical tendencies of our day. Some evidently think in our day that by sectarianizing the musical taste of our people we are showing consideration for those who have been won over from sectarianism to Lutheranism and are thus showing regard for the doctrine of the universal priesthood; however, let us not forget that the doctrine of the universal priesthood was given us to establish and strengthen us, not to thin us out and weaken us. Just as there are times when physicians will not permit us to eat certain foods for the sake of building up our strength and saving our lives, so are there times when the doctrine of the royal priesthood will deny us what many would like, so as to strengthen us from within and grant health to our Church. Let us recall at this time the fact that our chorales, by and large, come from the very ranks of the Church’s members; they grew out of the soil, so to speak; they were an expression of the people themselves, not a type of music imposed upon them by those in higher places. Hence their ruggedness, wholesomeness, vigor, simplicity, and straightforward character. They are folk music in the highest and best sense of the word.

The forces of evil have attempted time and again to rob the Church of this heritage; these forces know what is good and salutary and try also in our own day to persuade us to discard our heritage and adopt what is alien. It has always been thus; the Church has always been obliged to battle against the forces of evil and ignorance in order to retain her great heritage in various fields. We must expect this also in the field of music. Many Pietists of the 17th and 18th centuries sought to dispose of many great chorales of the Lutheran Church and substituted hymns which they believed to be better. What was the result? They introduced hymns of a highly emotional and sentimental type. They threw out the fine choral music of Vulpius, Hassler, Praetorius, Schuetz, and other Lutheran masters and insisted that choirs sing nothing more advanced and less melodious than the cantiones sacrae, geistliche Lieder. There is nothing wrong with singing the geistliche Lieder of Johann Wolfgang Franck and other master composers of this type of music. We, too, advocate that more geistliche Lieder of the 17th and 18th centuries be sung in our church services by our choirs. They are one of the finest types of choral music we have. However, the Pietists made the serious mistake of ignoring the other types of fine choral music which belong to the great heritage of our Church; strangely enough, their whole approach to church music made them so sterile that they themselves were not able to write the very type of choral music they advocated to the exclusion of everything else and had to content themselves with the cantiones sacrae written by the so-called orthodox branch of the Lutheran Church. Luther had already warned against going to such extremes. When on one occasion several pastors complained to him that their choirmasters had their choirs sing music of a complex character, which the common people are not always able to understand, Luther replied: "What of it? Do the people understand everything you say in your sermons? Do we understand everything the Holy Spirit says in the Holy Scriptures? And yet does this mean that you should stop preaching and that the people should cease reading the Scriptures?" Luther was not an extremist, nor was he an iconoclast; he was a great believer in the doctrine of the universal priesthood, he sympathized very much with the common man and advocated the use of much music which the common man could sing and would enjoy, and yet Luther never advocated that choirs cease singing the great works of the masters. There are many who do not understand Luther’s position; it is much easier to understand the position of an extremist, but surely a man of understanding and insight will follow not the extremist, but rather Martin Luther, the restorer of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers.

The fanaticism of the Pietists helped bring on the era of rationalism, with which it actually had some points in common. However, rationalism soon disposed of the hymns of the Pietists and substituted its own rationalistic hymns, which were another extreme type, a type which was even worse than the hymns of the Pietists, since it contained no Gospel at all. When, in the 19th century, there began a great reaction against rationalism, and out of this reaction came men like Walther, Fürbringer, Stöckhardt, Crämer, Bünger, and others, the great chorales came back stronger than ever. It could not be otherwise; these men were too much interested in the fundamentals of sound Lutheranism to permit themselves to be taken into camp by something less worthy and less great.

The history of the Church shows that you may judge its eras by the music used and fostered; just as an era of decline will not want or even know what is best, so will an era of spiritual strength and fortitude resort to the use of those very gifts which build up from within and make strong. Our chorales are gifts of this type; we must retain them and perpetuate their use, for they are an expression and product of the doctrine of the royal priesthood. This cannot, I honestly believe, be said of certain High-Church tendencies rampant in the Christian Church today.

Already in Luther’s day the chorale became the cantus firmus of the Lutheran Church, just as Gregorian chant had been the cantus firmus of Roman Catholic church music. Through its use of the chorale as cantus firmus, Lutheran church music soon distinguished itself from other types of church music and developed an individuality of its own. "Im Choral laufen die einzelnen Strahlen der gottesdienstlichen Feier zusammen, vom Choral strömt die Energie wieder aus in die übrigen beteiligten Musikformen," says Arnold Schering.[67] Though used at first largely in the tenor, the cantus firmus was soon shifted to the upper voice so as to make it easier for the average worshiper to distinguish it from the other voices. This change proved to be a boon, for it improved congregational singing in the Lutheran Church. People were no longer obliged to search out the cantus firmus, for when used in the upper voice, it was as easily distinguishable in the 16th century as it is for us today. The Church and its composers were concerned about the royal priesthood.[68] The same concern became manifest in the range of chorale melodies, which rarely exceeded an octave.[69] When in the first half of the 18th century Bach harmonized these chorales, he was very much concerned about letting all voices sing melodies instead of having the lower voices do no more than support the sopranos. As a result, we find these chorale harmonizations a wonderful manifestation of the workings of the doctrine of the universal priesthood, which puts all men and women on the same plane as priests. Bach did not merely subordinate the altos, tenors, and basses to the sopranos, but gave each voice its due share of recognition. This explains why choirs love to sing these chorales; there is nothing uninteresting in what any voice does, since all sing melodies. Whether Bach was thinking specifically of the doctrine of the universal priesthood or not, we do not know; but have we not all learned that we often obey fundamental laws and certain policies of procedure without being fully conscious of this? The doctrine of the universal priesthood not infrequently functions similarly among us Lutherans. Let us think, too, of the implications found in a fugue, where, for example, the sopranos sing a chorale as cantus firmus while the lower voices sing a three- or four-voice fugue, as we find it in Johann Christoph Bach’s motet "Ich lasse dich nicht."

The Latin language was used in the Lutheran Church to a great extent through the 16th century; as time went on, however, it was dropped more and more and gave way to the language of the people, though it was still used at times in choral music written in the first half of the 18th century. In fact, we today insist that our services of worship be understood in their entirety by the worshipers, and if a choral selection is sung in Latin, a translation is usually provided. Bach wrote his great choral music for the church service in the language of the people. His monumental Mass in B Minor is sacred music, but not church music, nor was it written for the church service. It is interesting to note that Bach’s setting of the Magnificat was not written according to Hoyle. Although the text of this canticle of the liturgy was known to worshipers in Bach’s day in Latin as well as in German, Bach inserted four sections which are not part of the Magnificat proper at all, but which were in some way known to the people of Leipzig; one of these was a fugal chorus based on the chorale "Vom Himmel hoch." This was not only a concession to the linguistic shortcomings of the royal priesthood, but also proof of the Leipzig cantor’s concern for this priesthood.

Similar concessions were made by Bach in his Passions according to St. Matthew and St. John. Although Schütz had already used a Lutheran chorale [70] in his setting of The Seven Words, Bach stressed it to such a degree in his Passions that his practice must be regarded as a departure from the old custom. While it is often hard for the common man to listen to these great and difficult settings of the Passion, yet he is afforded frequent relief through the interspersion of familiar chorales. The same might be said of the great cantatas of Bach and other Lutheran masters. The chorale, used as cantus firmus, was the familiar strain which the common man, unable to grasp and enjoy the contrapuntal complexities of these works, was able to follow and cherish. At times this cantus firmus was sung by voices, at other times it was played by a musical instrument, as in Bach’s Actus Tragicus, the cantata "Gottes Zeit ist die allerbeste Zeit," where the opening phrase of the chorale "Ich hab’ mein Sach’ Gott heimgestellt" is heard in the clear tones of the flute, while other instruments and the sopranos present related music, but not the chorale.

Think of the hundreds of precious motets written by our Lutheran masters. Some of these are very simple or of only moderate difficulty; others are very difficult. But in many of them the chorale plays a most essential part, serving as the cantus firmus and again enabling the common man to follow and enjoy them. We all, I am certain, know of motets which are based either entirely or almost entirely on the chorale. I need but refer you to Bach’s "Jesu, meine Freude" and Brahms’ "Es ist das Heil uns kommen her."

I must, of course, call attention also to the thousands of chorale preludes which have been written by our Lutheran composers. You all know the importance of these works. You are all aware of the fact that every reputable organist, whether he be a Lutheran or not, must have chorale preludes, fantasies, and variations in his repertoire. Let us appreciate the fact that not only the chorale preludes of Bach, but also those of our other Lutheran masters are being played a great deal today. These chorale preludes have rightly been called tone poems; but they are really much more: they are a means of worship, instrumental confessions of our faith, proofs of the belief of our masters in the doctrine of the universal priesthood, for were they not written to create an atmosphere of worship, to guide the worshiper and prepare him for what was to follow? Let those who would dispute this consider the Alternatimspraxis of the Lutheran Church of the 17th century, where the congregation would sing one stanza, the choir the next, and the organist play the third without being joined either by congregation or choir. The organist would then play a variation or a brief fantasy based on that particular stanza, while the congregation would follow the texts in its hymnals. The chorale variations of Scheidt, Walther, Böhm, and others were frequently written for such use and were not mere exhibitions of the composer’s contrapuntal skill, but an expression of his faith in the message of the hymn text. In this connection it is well to recall that a church organist is a royal priest, and when he serves as organist in a service, he is not to set himself apart as a virtuoso, a show-off, or, if you will, as a kind of musical priest; neither, however, is he to cater to the bad tastes of those who would have him ignore churchly standards of worship. The good church organist is not a hireling. He is to carry out his work as a member of the royal priesthood; he is a part of the congregation with which he worships God; he is no more, but also no less. The same applies with equal force, of course, to the choirmaster and to the members of the church choir.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that we must regard the great musical heritage of the Lutheran Church not only as a precious gift of God, but also as a manifestation of Lutheranism’s belief in the doctrine of the universal priesthood. This precious doctrine has exerted a tremendous influence in determining the nature of our Lutheran liturgies and the styles, character, spirit, and content of Lutheran church music. There have been periods in the Church’s history when very little was said from the pulpits and in the literature of the Lutheran Church concerning this precious doctrine. Fortunately, it was then still perpetuated and presented through the medium of the music of our Church. Our heritage has thus rendered a most valuable service to the Kingdom of God. May our music always serve that purpose; may it ever be and remain a testimony of our faith in the universal and royal priesthood of all believers in Christ Jesus our Savior!

Note: Circumstances did not always permit the author to work with the St. Louis edition of Luther’s works. Hence slight variations will be found in the quotations taken from Luther’s works. W. E. B.

1 "Auf dem Erfahrungswege geschah es, dass das Verhältnis des geistlichen Priestertums zu Gott dem Reformator unserer Kirche in einer solchen Weise aufging, dass zu allen Zeiten das, was er erlebt hat, ein Typus für die Einführung eines Menschen in die Tiefen dieses priesterlichen Verhältnisses sein und bleiben wird. Seine Entwickelung in dieser Beziehung fällt mit seiner Entwickelung zum Reformator zusammen; denn das geistliche Priestertum wurde und musste mit Notwendigkeit werden zu seinem Stützpunkt in dem grossen reformatorischen Kampf." "Das geistliche Priestertum der Christen." Dr. Peter Madsen. In autorisierter Uebersetzung von E. Schumacher. Druck und Verlag C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, 1882, p. 50.
2 Already in 1519, in a letter written to Spalatin on December 18, Luther pointed out, on the basis of 1 Pet. 2:9, that all Christians are priests and that the clergy is to be distinguished from the laity through the public proclamation of the Word (preaching) and the administration of the Sacraments.
3 Cf. Das Papsttum zu Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet, published in 1545, one year before Luther’s death.
4 Even Augustine, whom Luther followed a great deal, referred to the doctrine very seldom and passed up several very good opportunities to refer to this doctrine in his De Civitate Dei.
5 E.g., An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation, Von der babylonischen Gefangenschaft der Kirche, Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, Vom Missbrauch der Messe, and many more.
6 In view of the fact that the Council of Trent came out strongly against this doctrine and that we have here a fundamental difference between Lutheranism and Catholicism, one wonders why this profound theologian, unlike Martinus Primus, did not make more of the excellency of this doctrine. From the following we see that he did point out that the sacrifice of Mass is not, according to Scripture, to be required of the royal priesthood, but otherwise his remarks are rather simple and bare, quite unlike the statements of Luther concerning this doctrine. Chemnitz says: "Praeterea vero Scriptura Novi Testamenti mentionem facit etiam regalis et sancti sacerdotii 1 Pet. 2 et Apoc. 1, 5 et 20. Christus fecit nos reges et sacerdotes in solis enim illis quattuor locis, praeter unicum Christi sacerdotium, mentio fit sacerdotii regalis in Novo Testamento. Illi vero loci non de solis presbyteris, sed in genere de omnibus fidelibus loquuntur, quibus certe pontificii, missificationes suas nullo modo communes facient. Et hostias, quae in illo Novi Testamenti sacerdotio offeruntur, Scriptura diserte describit, quod sint spirituales, et quales sint, expresse et nominatim enumerat, sicut in principio huius disputationis, testimonia illa Scripturae annotavimus, Rom. 12 et 15, Phil. 2 et 4, Hebr. 5 et 12, 1. Pet. 2. Nulla autem ibi mentio fit sacrificii Missae." Examen Concillii Tridentini per Martinum Chemnicum. Ed. Preuss. Sumtibus Gust. Schlawitz, Berolini, 1861, De Missa Pontifica, p. 393.
7 Catechismusmilch, dritter Teil.
8 The Vitality of the Christian Tradition. Edited by George F. Thomas. Harper and Bros., New York; 1944. Chapter 5, The Reformation and Classical Protestantism. By Albert C. Outler, pp. 139–140.
9 Deut. 4:9–10; 6:7, 20 ff.; etc.
10 Ex. 12.
11 Num.18.7.
12 Is. 61:6.
13 Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Gerhard Kittel. Verlag von W. Kohlhamner, Stuttgart, 1938, dritter Band, p. 249. Translated by W. E. B.
14 Ibid.; translated by W. E. B.
15 St. Louis edition of Luther’s Works, (Walch), Vol. X, 270. Cf. footnote No. 71. Translation from Works of Martin Luther. Holman edition. Vol. II, pp. 66–69.
16 Ibid., Vol. XIX:114 and 118. Holman ed., II, p. 279.
17 Ibid., XIX:998–999; Holman ed., Vol. II, pp. 323–326.
18 Ibid., VI:779. Translated by W. E. B.
19 Ibid.,1044. Translated by W. E. B.
20 Ibid., X:1584. Holman ed., I, p. 316.
21 Ibid., V:996. Translated by W. E. B.
22 Ibid., XVIII:1282. Holman ed., III, pp. 321–324.
23 Op. cit., pp. 134–135.
24 Op. cit., p. 249.
25 Matt. 15:9.
26 1 John 4:1.
27 St. Louis ed. of Luther’s works, Interpretation of Psalm 110. V:1035–1036.
28 Ibid., X:273; Holman ed., II, p. 69.
29 Rev. 5:9–10.
30 Op. cit., pp. 64–65. Translated freely by W. E. B.
31 Cf. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Various editors and contributors. Published by Appleton, New York. Has imprimatur. Vol. XII, "Priesthood," pp. 414–415.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent. Translated by The Rev. J. Waterworth. Published by C. Dolman, London, 1848, Sessions XXIII, p. 172, chap. IV.
37 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Vol. IX, "Priesthood," A. Hauck, pp. 251–253. Original wording: "Interpres ac mediator Dei et hominum, quae, sacerdotis functio existimanda est." Catholic Catechism, pars II, cap. VII, qu. 23.
38 In a spirit of fairness it is well to state, however, that much music was written, notably in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, in which the styles of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran composers converged to such an extent that it is difficult to ascertain whether the music was written by a Lutheran or a Roman Catholic. One need but examine some of the compositions by Gallus (Handl), Lechner, Antonio Scandello, Hans Leo Hassler, Michael Praetorius, Kuhnau, Buxtehude, and others. We refer particularly to settings of the Passion and of the Mass (including the Missa Brevis; cf. the Missa Brevis of Buxtehude, published by Music Press of New York, edited by Paul Boepple).
39 Op. cit., p. 415.
40 1 Tim. 3:16.
41 1 Pet. 2:9.
42 Cf. footnote 28.
43 St. Louis ed. of Luther’s Works, Vol. X:221–225.
44 Ibid., 226–257.
45 Ibid., 226.
46 Cf. the various Kirchenordnungen of the 16th century; also Der lutherische Gottesdienst des 16. Jahrhunderts. Von Dr. Leonhardt Fendt. Verlag von Ernst Reinhardt, München, 1923, p. 82 ff.
47 We do not mean to imply hereby that the singing of hymns is not to be regarded as part of the performance of the liturgy. Lutheran liturgies distinguish themselves from those of the Roman Catholic Church through the omission of error and the singing of hymns.
48 "Und wenn ich’s vermöchte und die griechische und hebräische Sprache wäre uns so gemein als die lateinische und hätte so viel feiner Musica und Gesangs, als die lateinische hat, so sollte man einen Sonntag um den andern in allen vier Sprachen, deutsch, lateinisch, griechisch und hebräisch Messe halten, singen und lesen." St. Louis ed., X:228.
49 Die evangelische Kirchenmusik. Dr. Friedrich Blume. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion, Potsdam, 1931, p. 29. Translated by W.E.B.
50 Evangelischer Gottesdienst und kirchliche Kunst. Vorträge der Tagung in Halle, 23. bis 26. Juni, 1924. Kap. III: Die musikalische Ausgestaltung des evangelischen Gottesdienstes, von Prof. Dr. Arnold Schering, Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, Halle, 1924, pp. 26–27. Translated by W. E. B.
51 Geschichte der evangelischen Kirchenmusik in Deutschland. Johann Daniel von der Heydt, Trowitzsch & Sohn, Berlin, 1926, p. 36.
52 "The hymns of Luther have killed (damned) more souls than his writings and sermons." Cf. Geschichte des Kirchenlieds und Kirchengesangs der christlichen, insbesondere der deutschen evangelischen Kirche. Eduard Emil Koch. Chr. Belserschen Buchhandlung, Stuttgart, 1852, Hauptteil, I. Band, p. 83.
53 Geschichtliche Entwickelung der evangelischen Kirchenmusik. W. Stahl. Max Hesse’s Verlag, Berlin, 1920, p.15.
54 Some regard Ambrosian music as the first source. While it is true that the texts of several chorales (e.g., "Nun komm’ der Heiden Heiland") have been traced back to Ambrose, the tunes of these hymns were not delineated from Ambrosian chant.
55 Encyklopaedie der evangelischen Kirchenmusik. S. Kümmerle. Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, 1888, Vol. I, p. 748. Translated by W. E. B.
56 E.g., hymns were not written or sung isometrically, i.e., all notes were not given the same value. Cf. Old Hundredth in the Common Service Book of The United Lutheran Church in America (No. 492) and in most sectarian hymnals.
57 This does not imply, of' course, that all hymns found in Lutheran hymnals are to be regarded as chorales. The style, spirit, and character of many distinguishes them from the chorale, and besides, e.g., in the case of the English hymns, they are still used and claimed by the Churches and denominations for which they were written. The Roman Catholic Church can hardly claim the chorales of the pre-Reformation era, because they were never adopted by the Church of Rome, but were written as religious folk songs, and the first Church to adopt and make great use of them was the Lutheran Church.
58 St. Louis ed. of Luther’s Works, XXII:1541. Translated by W. E. B.
59 Cf. Blume, op. cit., p.14.
60 Luther’s exact words were: "Der Teufel brauche nicht alle schönen Melodien für sich allein zu besitzen"—the devil need not possess all beautiful melodies solely for his own use. Cf. Blume, op. cit., p. 12.
61 E.g., Johann Huss’ "Jesus Christus nostra Salus"—"Jesus Christus, unser Heiland."
62 E.g., "Freu dich sehr, o meine Seele."
63 Brief an Spalatin, 1524. St. Louis ed. of Luther’s Works, XXIa:582.
64 Psalm 96:1.
65 Op. cit., p. 394.
66 Gesangblätter aus dem 16. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1838.
67 Op. cit., p. 27.
68 The custom of putting the cantus firmus into the upper voice was not initiated by Lutheran composers. This had been done previously in the music of the followers of Calvin and Zwingli. It is often claimed that Lucas Osiander introduced this practice into the Lutheran Church; this is not true. It had been introduced already before Osiander took steps to establish the practice.
69 The same is to be said in favor of Gregorian chant.
70 "Da Jesus an dem Kreuze stund."

From The Musical Heritage of the Church, Volume II (Valparaiso, Ind.: Valparaiso University, 1946). Reprinted by permission of Valparaiso University.

For personal use only.