Works, Book 1 · Discourse 1
DISCOURSE 1.
S. MATTHEW 6. 9.
foreign, &c. Thus therefore pray ye; Our Father, &c.
IT was well hoped, after the question about the lawfulness and fitness of a set Form of Prayer had been so long debated in our Church, that the Sect of those who opposed it had been ere this well-nigh extinguished: But experience tells us the contrary, that this Fancy is not only still living, but begins, as it were, to recover and get strength afresh. In which regard my Discourse at this time will not be unseasonable, if, taking my rise from these words of our Saviour, I acquaint you upon what grounds and example this practice of the Christian Church hath been established, and how frivolous and weak the Reasons are which some of late do bring against it.
To begin therefore; You see by the Text I have now read, that our Blessed Saviour delivered a set Form of Prayer unto his Disciples, and in so doing hath commended the use of a set Form of Prayer unto his Church: Thus therefore (saith he) pray ye; Our Father which art in Heaven, &c.
Is not this a set Form of Prayer? and did not our Saviour deliver it to be used by his Disciples? They tell us, No. For Thus, say they, in this place is not thus to be understood; but for, in this manner, to this effect or sense, or after this pattern; not in these words and syllables. To this I answer, It is true that this form of Prayer is a Pattern for us to make other Prayers by; but that this only should be the meaning of our Saviour's Thus, and not the rehearsal of the words themselves, I utterly deny: and I prove it out of the eleventh Chapter of S. Luke, where the same Prayer is again delivered in these words, O foreign, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven—that is, do it in haec verba. For what other phrase of Scripture is there to express such a meaning, if this be not? Besides, in this of S. Luke the occasion would be considered. It came to pass (saith he) as Iesus was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his Disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as Iohn also taught his Disciples. From whence it may not improbably be gathered, that this was the custom of the Doctors of Israel to deliver some certain Form of Prayer unto their Disciples, to use, as it were a badge and Symbolum of their Discipleship; at least Iohn Baptist had done so unto his Disciples: and thereupon our Saviour's Disciples besought him, that he also would give them in like manner some Form of his making, that they might also pray with their Master's spirit, as Iohn's Disciples did with theirs.Matth. 6. 9. For that either our Saviour's or Iohn's Disciples knew not how to pray till now, were ridiculous to imagine; they being both of them Iews, who had their certain set hours of prayer, which they constantly observed, as the third, sixth and ninth. It was therefore a Form of Prayer of their Master's making, which both Iohn is said to have given his Disciples, and our Saviour's Disciples besought him to give them.
For the fuller understanding whereof, I must tell you something more, and the rather, because it is not commonly taken notice of; and that is, That this delivery of the Lord's Prayer in S. Luke is not the same with that related by S. Matthew, but another, at another time, and upon another occasion: That of S. Matthew in that famous Sermon of Christ upon the Mount, whereof it is a part; that of S. Luke upon a special motion of the Disciples at a time when himself had done praying: That of S. Matthew in the second; that of S. Luke in the third year after his Baptism. Consider the Text of both, and you shall find it impossible to bring them into one and the same. Whence it follows, that the Disciples, when it was first uttered, understood not that their Master intended it for a Form of Prayer unto them, but for a pattern or example only, or, it may be, to instruct them in special in what manner to ask forgiveness of sins. For if they had thought he had given them a Form of Prayer then, they would never have asked him for one now. Wherefore our Saviour this second time utters himself more expresly, foreign, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven—Thus their inadvertency becomes our confirmation: For as Ioseph said to Pharaoh, *Gen. 41. 32.The dream is doubled unto Pharaoh, because the thing is established by God; so may we say here, the delivery of this Prayer was doubled unto the Disciples, that they and we might thereby know the more certainly that our Saviour intended and commended it for a set Form of Prayer unto his Church.
Thus much of that set Form of Prayer which our Saviour gave unto his Disciples, as a precedent and warrant to his Church to give the like Forms to her Disciples or members; a thing which from her infancy she used to do. But because her practice is called in question, as not warranted by Scripture, let us see what was the practice of the Church of the Old Testament, than whose example and use we can have no better rule to follow in the New.
First therefore, we find two set Forms of Prayer, or Invocation, appointed by God himself in the Law of Moses. One, the Form wherewith the Priests were to bless the people: Num. 6. 23, 24, 25, 26. On this wise, saith he, shall Aaron and his sons 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. Is not this a set Form of Prayer? For what is to bless, but to pray over or invocate God for another?
The second is the Form of profession and prayer to be used by him who had paid his Tithes every third year: Deut. 26. 13. O Lord God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, and fatherless, and unto the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy Commandments, nor have I forgotten them. 14. I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away thereof for an unclean use, &c. 15. Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the Land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest to our Fathers, a Land that floweth with milk and honey.
But what need we seek thus for scattered Forms, when we have a whole Book of them together? The Book of Psalms was the Iewish Liturgy, or the chief part of the Vocal service wherewith they worshipped God in the Temple. This is evident by the Titles of the Psalms themselves, which shew them to have been commended to the several Quires in the same, To Asaph, To the sons of Korah, To Ieduthun, and almost forty of them To the Magister Symphoniae the Prefect or Master of the Musick, in general. The like we are to conceive of those which have no Titles; as for example, of the 105 and 96 Psalms, which, though they have no such Inscription in the Psalmbook, yet we find 1 Chron. 16. 7. that they were delivered by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren for forms to thank the Lord. This a man would think were sufficient to take away all scruple in this point; especially when we our selves, and all the Reformed Churches, use to sing the same Psalms, not only as set Forms, but set in Metre that is after a humane composure. Are not the Psalms set Forms of Confession, of Prayer, and of Praising God? And in case there had been no Prayers amongst them, yet what reason could be given, why it should not be as lawful to pray unto God in a set Form, as to praise him in such a one?
What therefore do they say to this? Why, they tell us, that the Psalms are not sung in the Church unto God, but so rehearsed for instruction of the people only, namely, as the Chapters and Lessons are there read, and no otherwise. But if either we do, ought, or may sing the Psalms in the Church with the same end and purpose that the Church of the Old Testament did, (and it were absurd to say we might not,) this Exception will not subsist. For what is more certain than that the Church of Israel used the Psalms for Forms of praising and invocating God? What mean else those Forms, Cantemus Domino, Psallite Domino, Let us sing unto the Lord, and, Sing ye unto the Lord, and the like so frequent in them? But there are more direct and express testimonies. In 1 Chron. 25. 3. it is expresly said of Ieduthun and his sons, that their office was to prophesie with a Harp, to give thanks, and to praise the Lord. In the second of Chron. 30. 21. we read, that the Levites and the Priests praised the Lord day by day, singing with loud Instruments unto the Lord. And, as ye heard even now, out of 1 Chron. 16. David, at the time when he brought up the Ark unto Ierusalem, then first delivered the 105 and 96 Psalms into the hands of Asaph and his sons to confess or give thanks unto the Lord. And lastly, to leave no place for farther doubt, we read Ezra 3. 10, 11. that the Levites the sons of Asaph were set with Cymbals to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David King of Israel: and that they sung together by course, in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever. For this reason, the four and twenty Courses or Quires into which the Singers of the Temple were divided by King David to serve in their turns, consisted each of them of twelve, according to the number of the Tribes of Israel; that so every Tribe might have a mouth and voice to praise and to give thanks unto God for him in the Temple.
Thus we have seen what warrant topray and call upon God in a set Form hath from the practice of the Church of God in the Old Testament. And, if Reason may have place, in the publick service of God, where one is the mouth of many, there is none so proper and convenient. For how can the Minister be said properly to be the mouth of the Congregation in prayer unto God, when the Congregation is not first made acquainted and privy to what he is to tender unto God in their names? Which in a voluntary and extemporary form of Prayer they are not, nor well can be; I am sure neither so properly nor conveniently as in a set Form, which both they and the whole Church have agreed upon, and offer unto God at the same time, though in several places, in the self-same form and words. And this may be a second Reason, I mean from Uniformity: For how can the Church, being a Mystical Body, better testifie her unity before God, than in her uniformity in calling upon him? especially your Saviour telling us, that if but two or three shall agree together on earth, as touching any thing that they shall ask,Matth. 18. 19. it shall be done unto them of his Father which is in heaven. So prevailable with Almighty God is the power of Consent in Prayer.
LET us now, in the last place, see what Reasons they bring who contend altogether for voluntary Prayer, and would have no set Forms used.
First, they say, It is the ordinance of God, that the Church should be edified by the gifts of her Ministers as well in Praying as Preaching. Ergo, their Prayers should be extemporary or voluntary; because in reading a set Form of Prayer this gift cannot be shewn.
To this I answer, First, That there is not in this point the same reason for Prayer and for Preaching: for in Prayer (I mean publick) the Minister is the mouth of the Church unto God, and therefore it were convenient they should know what he puts up to God in their names; but in Preaching he is not so. Secondly, Why should not the Pastors and Ministers of the Church edifie the Church by their gift of Prayer, as well in composing a set Form of Prayer for her use by general agreement, as in uttering a voluntary or extemporary Prayer in a particular Congregation? Thirdly, Are not the members of the Church to be edified as well by the spirit of the Church, as the Church or some part thereof by the spirit of a member? But how can the Church edifie her members by her gift of Prayer, otherwise than by a set Form agreed upon by her consent? Fourthly, Ostentation of gifts is one thing, but Edification by them another. Ostentation of the gift of Prayer is indeed best shewn in a voluntary or extemporary Prayer; but the Church may be edified as well by a set Form. Yea such a Form in the publick service of God is more edificative than a voluntary: And that, both because the Congregation is first made acquainted therewith; and secondly, because they are better secured from being ingaged in ought that might be unfit to speak unto God, either for matter or manner, or such as they would not have given their consent to if they had been aware of it. For now that extraordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost, which was in the Primitive and Apostolical times, is long since ceased; and all men, to whom that office belongeth to speak to God for others, are not at all times discreet and well advised, when they speak to him at will and extempore, but subject to miscarriage. Lastly, I answer, That the Church is to be edified by the gift of her Ministers in voluntary Prayer, loco & tempore, in fit place and upon fit occasions, not in all places and upon all occasions. And thus much to this Objection.
But they object secondly, That the Spirit ought to be free and unlimited, and that therefore a Book or set Form of Prayer, which limits the Spirit in praying, is not to be tolerated or used.
To this I answer, It is false, that the acting of the Spirit in one Christian may not be limited or regulated by the spirit of another; especially, the spirit of a particular man in the publick worship, by the Spirit of the Church whereof he is a member. For doth not the Apostle tell us 1 Cor. 14. 29, 30. that even that extraordinary Spirit of prophecy, usual in his time, might be limited by the spirit of another Prophet? Let the Prophets, saith he, speak two or three, and let the other judge: If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. Is not this a limiting? He gives a reason v. 32. For the spirits of the Prophets, saith he, are subject to the Prophets. Besides, are not the spirits of the people as well limited and determined by a voluntary Prayer, when they joyn therein with their Minister, as they are by a set Form? True, the spirit of the Minister is then free; but theirs is not so, but tied and led by the spirit of the Minister as much as if he used a set Form. But to elude this, they tell us, that the Question is not of limiting the spirit of the people, but of the Minister only: For, as for the people, no more is required of them but to joyn with their Minister, and to testifie it by saying Amen; but the spirit of the Minister ought to be left free, and not to be limited. But where is this written, that the one may not be limited as well as the other? We heard the Apostle say even now, The spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets: If in prophesying, why not in praying? And what shew of Reason can be given, why the spirit of a particular Minister in the publick worship of the Church may not, yea ought not to be limited and regulated by the spirit of the Church Representative, as well as the spirit of a whole Congregation by the spirit of a particular Minister? For every particular Minister is as much subordinate to the spirit of the Church Representative, as the spirit of the Congregation is to his. So much for this Objection.
There remaineth yet a third, which may be answered in two or three words. No set Form of Prayer, say they, can serve for all occasions. What then? yet why may it not be used for all such occasions as it serves for? If any sudden and unexpected occasion happen, for which the Church cannot provide, the spirit of her Ministers is free: Who will forbid them to supply, in such a case, that by a voluntary and arbitrary form, which the Church could not provide for in a set Form? And this is what I intended to say of this Argument.