Questions on Chapter 5.
and Benefactor; here the Holy Spirit descends, not now “as a rushing, mighty wind,” in his miraculous powers, but as the reprover of sin, carrying conviction to the heart of the unbeliever, and as the promised Paraclete, comforting the mourner and causing the saints to rejoice “with joy unspeakable and full of glory;” and here, in an emphatic sense, “the Lord commands the blessing, even life forevermore.” From the commencement of the gospel till now, the truly pious have never forgotten the good “word of exhortation,” not to “forsake the assembling of themselves together;” and in these assemblies the divine benediction has fallen upon them “as the dew that descended on the mountains of Zion.”
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 5.
QUESTION 1. What scriptures enjoin the duty of prayer?
2. What is the nature of prayer?
3. What is the first element of acceptable prayer, and by what scriptures is this proved?
4. The second element, and by what scriptures is it proved?
5. What peculiarity should characterize our petitions when we pray for temporal mercies?
6. What scriptures prove that faith is essential to acceptable prayer?
7. In what sense must this faith be orthodox in theory?
8. What scriptures exhibit direct answers to prayer?
9. What scriptures contain promises of direct answers to prayer?
10. What farther element is embraced in evangelical faith?
11. What different kinds of prayer are specified?
12. What is implied in ejaculatory prayer, and by what scripture is it enjoined?
13. By whose example, and by what scriptures, is private prayer enjoined?
14. What objection has been offered to family prayer, and how is it answered?
15. How may the propriety of family prayer be proved from Scripture?
16. What scriptures enjoin the duty of public prayer?
CHAPTER 6. — PRAYER — FORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP.
AT least ever since the Lutheran Reformation, there has been much controversy in the Church, pro and con, as to the propriety of the use of liturgies in public worship. Seldom have any written upon this theme without being carried to a partisan extreme, on one side or the other. It is true that the advocates of liturgical worship have generally admitted the propriety of extemporaneous prayer, to a limited extent, under certain circumstances — and those opposed to liturgies, as the general rule, have admitted the propriety of using them, to a limited extent, on some special occasions; but still it must be manifest to the impartial observer, if any such can be found, that the disputants on both sides, after having made their admissions, have, as they advanced in the discussion, diverged farther and farther from them — the one party seeming to perceive nothing but evil in the use of liturgies, and the other party seeing only evil resulting from the general plan of extemporaneous prayers. A spirit of bigotry and intolerance has been exhibited on both sides. We are persuaded there is a medium ground on the subject, more consistent with Scripture and with the genius of Christianity than that which has been occupied by either class of the controvertists.
In the first place, it is neither consistent with Scripture, reason, nor Christian charity, to denounce all liturgical public worship as necessarily tending to dead formality and the destruction of vital piety in the Church; in the second place, it is neither consistent with Scripture, reason, nor Christian charity, to denounce the regular practice of extemporaneous prayer as necessarily tending to produce irreverence, disorder, insubordination, instability, heresy, and enthusiasm, in the Church. Some of these evils may be more likely to spring up in connection with the one plan of worship than the other, but neither plan will secure exemption from any of the evils in question; nor will it, necessarily, produce any of those evils. Whether the question be examined in the light of Scripture, antiquity, reason, common sense, or Christian charity it will appear that both methods of worship are right and proper; that the one is preferable on some accounts, and the other on other accounts; and that a judicious blending of the two is better than the exclusive use of either. I. We examine THE OLD TESTAMENT on this subject.
Here we perceive that the public worship of the Jews was neither wholly liturgical nor wholly extemporaneous — the two modes were blended.
1. In favor of a prescribed form of worship, it may be said that —
(1) Immediately after the passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea, they celebrated their wonderful deliverance in song, which must have been composed for the occasion, and set to music. Moses and the people sang together, and Miriam and her companions responded with the timbrel and the dance, using the chorus: “Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.”
(2) With the Jewish people, much of their public religious service was very minutely prescribed. The acts they were to perform, and the words they were to use, in various instances, were prearranged and definitely appointed. In the sixth chapter of Numbers, Aaron and his sons were informed what words they were to use in pronouncing a blessing upon the people: “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, … On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee and keep thee; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace,” At the expiation for uncertain murder, the elders were taught to say over the slain heifer a set form of words, thus: “Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people,” etc. Deuteronomy 21:7, 8.
(3) At the offering of the first-fruits, the Israelites were taught to return thanks to God in a set form of words, as prescribed in the twenty-sixth chapter of Deuteronomy.
(4) Just before his death, Moses taught the Israelites a song commemorative of God’s mercies, requiring them, and their seed after them, to use the same for religious service.
(5) The Jewish rabbis testify that their regular temple service consisted of three parts — viz., sacrifices, liturgical compositions, and psalms. The book of Psalms itself bears internal evidence that it consists, in part, of forms of prayer, of thanksgiving, and praise, for the public worship of God; and that certain Psalms were to be used on specific days, their very titles testify. In the twenty-ninth chapter of Second Chronicles, Hezekiah the king “commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the seer; and they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshiped.”
(6) Maimonides, a learned rabbi, says: “Ezra composed eighteen forms of prayer, which were enjoined by the great council, that every man might have them in his mouth and be perfect in them, and that thereby the prayers of the rude and ignorant might be as complete as those of a more eloquent tongue.” These prayers have all been translated by Dr. Prideaux, and are to be found in his “Connection of Scripture History.”
(7) That the synagogue-worship of the Jews was to a great extent liturgical, consisting mainly of forms of prayer and praise, reading the Scriptures and commenting upon the text, is a matter which, we believe, is not disputed. We therefore conclude that forms of prayer, to some extent, were divinely authorized in the public worship which God prescribed for the Jewish people.
2. Extemporaneous Worship.
(1) Where can we find the evidence that God interdicted, under the Old Testament economy, the use of extemporaneous prayer? Although that was peculiarly a dispensation of forms and ceremonies, types and symbols, as compared with the more spiritual worship of the new dispensation, yet, even then, where are prescribed the restrictive statutes? where are the pains and penalties, the disabilities, censures, or excommunications, to be incurred by all who dared to deviate from a prescribed rubric in the public service, either by introducing a psalm not specially designated, or praying extemporaneously (as Justin Martyr says the early Christians did) “according to their ability”?
(2) Again, have we not the most indubitable evidence that prophets and holy men of God, in those olden times, often prayed extemporaneously, both in their private and public services? When Elijah bowed in prayer to God, in the face of all Israel assembled to witness the contest between the true prophet of Jehovah and the false prophet of Baal, he offered up a public prayer that had never been heard before. When Solomon “kneeled down upon his knees,” and prayed in presence of the whole nation at the dedication of the temple, he offered up a prayer unknown to any prescribed liturgy. Our conclusion, therefore, from the Old Testament authority, is, that while a liturgical service was evidently sanctioned and to some extent adopted in the Jewish Church, yet there is no evidence that extemporaneous prayers were not allowed. On the contrary, there is clear proof that such prayers were frequently offered, not only in private, but in public assemblies.
II. We now pass to the examination of THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACHINGS ON THIS SUBJECT.
Many have supposed that there is no authority for forms of prayer in the New Testament; but this is certainly a wrong conclusion.
1. Were there no other allusion to this subject, it is evident that forms of prayer are right and proper, as appears from the following passage: One of the disciples said unto Jesus, “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” Here we see that John, the greatest of all the prophets, taught his disciples a form of prayer. Had this mode of worship been improper, under the gospel dispensation, this was the time and place for our Saviour to communicate that important fact? But did he do it? He did the very opposite. His words are: “When ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven,” etc — prescribing all explicit form — teaching them the very words to be used.
Because, according to one of the evangelists, our Saviour said, “After this manner therefore pray ye,” some have supposed that Christ did not intend to furnish a form, but merely an outline model of prayer. But this is interpreting Scripture, not according to its plain, unsophisticated import, but merely to uphold a theory. The truth is, he here furnished his disciples a form, according to the language of one evangelist, and a model, according to another. Both evangelists were right; for he gave both a form and a model. Hence, as he gave them a form, liturgical worship is right; and, as he gave a model, extemporaneous worship is right; so that we here have divine authority for both modes of worship, and consequently neither should be interdicted, but every worshiper should be left by the Church in all ages in the enjoyment of all that liberty in the possession of which he was left by our Lord himself.
Again, we have not only divine precept for forms of prayer, as just shown, but we have satisfactory evidence that this mode of worship was sanctioned by the example of our Lord and his apostles.
That the worship conducted in the Jewish temple and synagogues, at the time of Christ and his apostles, was mainly liturgical, will not be disputed. It is most evident that Christ and his apostles frequently participated in that service, Now, if they had considered that mode of worship improper, would they not have expressed their disapprobation? But He who drove out from the temple “the money-changers,” and so frequently and so pointedly reproved the scribes and Pharisees, and rulers of the Jews, for their hypocrisies and various perversions of the Mosaic law, never uttered the first word of censure in reference to the liturgy of the temple or the synagogues; nor is there to be found in the writings of the apostles any thing expressing disapprobation of that mode of worship.
Add to this the fact that our Saviour was a regular attendant on the Jewish services, that on all the great festival occasions he repaired to Jerusalem to worship, that Sabbath after Sabbath he filled his place in the synagogues, and that his watchful enemies, ever eager to find ground of accusation against him, never charged him with disrespect to the public services of religion. Now, if he had spoken against them, or refused to participate in them, on the ground that portions of those services were liturgical, would they have passed it by in silence? And if he regularly participated in them, without a single expression of disapprobation, did he not affix to that form of worship the seal of his approval? The hymn he sang at the institution of the Holy Supper, and his solemn exclamation on the cross, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” were both pre-composed forms taken from the Psalms.
The apostles were all brought up in the services of the Jewish religion; and, even after they had established the Christian Church, we find them, as well as many of the first Christians, continuing “daily with one accord in the temple.” Acts 2:46. St. Paul, after his conversion, “prayed in the temple,” as he had been accustomed to do; and, a quarter of a century after the crucifixion of our Lord, we find the same apostle going “up to Jerusalem to worship.” From all which we conclude that forms of prayer are authorized by the teachings and example of Christ and his apostles.
2. But we next inquire, What can be said, from the New Testament testimony, in favor of extemporaneous worship? Having seen from the example of Christ and his apostles, as also from the fact that our Saviour taught his disciples a form of prayer, that worship performed in a pre-composed liturgy is acceptable to God, are we therefore to conclude that extemporaneous worship, whether public or private, is either unauthorized or improper? Is there such contrariety between the two modes, that, if the one be authorized and proper, the other must necessarily be without authority and improper? Such has been the hasty conclusion and partisan position of too many. But is it scriptural? Suppose our Saviour did teach his disciples a form of prayer, does it thence follow that they are to be restricted to that, or any other, prearranged form?
Are there not numerous examples of acceptable prayer recorded in the New Testament, when no set form was used? Look at the poor publican, smiting upon his breast, and crying, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Was he only repeating what he had memorized from a prayer-book? Look at Peter, crying, “Lord, save me.” Look at the two blind men, crying, “Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.” Were all these, and numerous other such examples that might be given pre-composed prayers? Were they not rather the impromptu effusion of the heart? Our Saviour promised that the Father would “give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him;” but did he give them a prescribed form of words in which to offer the prayer? Again, in that longest of our Lord’s prayers upon record (John 17.), from what prearranged liturgy did he derive the form? In that prayer-meeting, held by a hundred and twenty disciples in an upper chamber at Jerusalem, they prayed without a prearranged form (Acts 1:14-24). When Paul instructed Timothy concerning the various classes of persons for whom prayers should be made, though manifestly referring to public worship in the Church, he never hinted that a set form of words should be used (1 Timothy 2.); and in all his remarks concerning the praying of men and women, with their heads covered or uncovered, he gives no intimation concerning a set formula of words. The whole context shows, not only that these prayers were public — in the Church — but that they were extemporaneous. Again, in his affecting farewell interview with the Ephesian elders, when Paul “kneeled down and prayed with them all,” no rational mind can believe that his prayer was taken from a liturgy. Now, we demand, Is it not undeniable, from the Scripture-view we have exhibited, that both liturgical and extemporaneous forms of worship are divinely authorized, and that, not only in reference to private devotion, but public service? And if so, what is the necessary inference — what is the conclusion, in view of Scripture, reason, expediency, Christian charity, common sense, and every consideration by which the Christian mind should be swayed — but that both modes are right and proper? A judicious combination of the two is better than the exclusive use of either. But a more important inference from the whole subject is, that as the Scriptures have sanctioned, both by precept and example, both plans of worship, without enjoining either to the exclusion of the other, leaving every Christian in the possession of perfect liberty on the subject, so no Church-authority, whether it be council, convention, conference, synod, or presbytery, may rightfully deprive Christians of that “liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free.”
There are attractions in the admirable liturgy of the Church of England which it were an offense against refined taste and genuine piety not to admit. And “our hearts should burn within us, and our kindling faith and swelling joy take wings on high, as, joining in the prayers and praises, the chants and songs, of the Church, we remember that we now worship God in many of the same words that once rung through the carved temple from the fired tongues of David and Isaiah, of Paul and John — in the same strains that were poured forth by the goodly fellowship of the prophets, by the glorious company of the apostles, by the noble army of martyrs, and by the holy apostolic Church throughout all the world.”
But much as that or any other liturgy may be admired, and great as may be its excellences, still it is not divinely enjoined; and for any merely human and uninspired body of men, by canon or edict, to render it binding upon the Church to conform to its rubrics, in all their minutia and to all the extent of that extended service, and that, too, to the exclusion of extemporaneous prayer, must be considered a usurpation of prerogative. It is separating extemporaneous worship from liturgical, which God hath joined together — it is “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” — it raises an insurmountable obstacle in the way of general Christian union. No Christian organization has the right, especially when claiming to be emphatically THE Church, and urging that all Christians ought to unite in their organization, to require, as an indispensable condition of the proposed fellowship, conformity to a canon which excludes from the general public worship of God either liturgical or extemporaneous prayer. To do so is, while pleading for union, to adopt most effectual measures to prevent it. How excellent a grace is charity! and how indispensable its largest exercise to the promotion of that Christian unity for which the Saviour so devoutly prayed! But in no part of religion is charity more essential than in connection with public worship. Here all classes — the clergy and the laity, the learned and the ignorant — should meet on a common level; hence, in this department especially, nothing should be made authoritatively binding in the Church except what is clearly placed on a similar footing in the Scriptures.
In matters depending on mere expediency, the Church may be allowed, in her ecclesiastical regulations, to enjoin many things for the sake of uniformity; but she has no proper authority to require, as an indispensable term of communion, what God has not required. This general principle may be violated, either by requiring more than God has required, or by prohibiting what God has allowed. Thus, for the Church to require, as a term of communion, that we offer our devotions in Latin, would be a usurpation, because it would be requiring more than God has required; but for the Church, as a term of communion, to prohibit prayer being offered in English, would be a usurpation, because it would be prohibiting what God has allowed. On the same principle of reasoning, for the Church, as a term of communion, to require that we regularly worship God in the public congregation in the liturgical form only, or exclusively in the extemporaneous form, would be a usurpation, because it would be requiring more than God has required; but for the Church to prohibit, as a term of communion, public worship in the liturgical form, or to prohibit it in the extemporaneous form, would be a usurpation, because it would be prohibiting what God has allowed.
If it be said, in reply to this reasoning, that the Church may require, as a condition of membership in connection with its own denominational organization, more than it would have a right to require as a term of Christian communion — to this we reply, that, by so doing, she admits that she is constituted on principles essentially different from those on which the original Church of Christ was founded, and that, in that respect, her constitution is unscriptural. Farther, whenever we admit that we require, as a condition of membership in our denominational organization, what we could not of right require as a term of Christian communion, we thereby effectually repudiate all claim to be THE Church of Christ, with whose denominational connection it is the duty of all Christians in the land to unite.
It matters not whether it be a particular mode of baptism or a particular form of public service which we require as an essential condition of full membership in our ecclesiastical organization — if it be more than we dare claim as an absolute term of Christian communion, the admission of this