THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER:
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
However, the Independents believed that even a directory was inconsistent with the liberty of the Holy Spirit.55 It was not easy to ensure harmony on these points, as Baillie made clear: 'one party purposing by the preface to turn the directory to a straight Liturgy, the other to make it so loose and free that it should serve for little use; but God helped us to get both these rocks eschewed.56
The debates of the Westminster Assembly have a relevance for us today, not least where the content of so-called 'open worship' and sometimes of pulpit prayers are concerned. Indeed, as I heard on one occasion, is it spiritual to thank God for 'sending the Holy Spirit to lick us into shape'? The framers of the Directory would never have called such undignified rubbish Spirit-directed prayer! As A. F. Mitchell makes clear: 'Nothing was further from their intentions than to encourage unpremeditated or purely extemporary effusions, or to represent any fluency in these as the stirring up of that gift which is given to all the children of God in some measure.'57 Even the Independent Philip Nye admitted there was a middle way between set forms and extemporary prayers when he said. 'I plead for neither, but for studied prayers.'58 Surely, as Nye argued, public prayers require no less preparation than sermons. If the 'open-your-mouth-wide-and-I-will-fill-it' policy is irresponsible where preaching is concerned, why should we imagine it is acceptable in the case of prayer? If notes and even written-out sermons in the case of Jonathan Edwards are admissible, then why not written-out prayers? And let us not forget that if the minister prays extempore, what he utters becomes a pulpit-prescribed form for the praying congregation!
Once the idea of prepared prayer is admitted, the objection to liturgical forms has to be treated with considerable reservation. Indeed, the Psalms may be regarded as liturgical documents, and did not the apostles weave part of Psalm 2 into their prayer in Acts 4: 24-30? The Puritans and others objected to imposed liturgies this being the major objection to the Prayer Book but they were not altogether opposed to the use of precomposed forms. John Owen granted this later, even though he argues for Christ's gift of prayer to ministers.59
Of course, as the preface to the Directory makes plain, the mere reading of fixed prayers could be a totally unspiritual exercise. That said, it is arguable that the Independents tended to be unnecessarily 'ultra'. They were understandably over-reacting to the mechanical abuse of an imposed liturgy. Indeed, had the Church of England adhered more closely to Calvin's policy of a simpler, more flexible liturgy (including set prayers) from the beginning, this over-reaction would have been avoided. As it was, the Independents helped produce a Directory which cut the Reformed Churches adrift from a tradition of discretionary liturgical worship.60 Our current free-for-all policy really dates from this time. But surely, may not fixed forms be freely chosen by spiritually minded men alongside their own premeditated prayers? The all important point is the state of the heart. A man may be as unspiritual in his proud opposition to a liturgy as one who slavishly follows it.
It was quite wrong to write the Prayer Book off completely, and later in the century, the Presbyterian Matthew Henry had occasion to rebuke the excessive criticism of it by another minister.61 One suggests that it would have been sufficient for the Assembly to have produced a much revised and modified Prayer Book giving greater prominence to preaching. In short, a kind of Reformed ASB, possibly along the lines of the Reformed Liturgy produced by Baxter for the Savoy Conference of 1661,62 but incorporating some of Cranmer's beautiful and spiritual prayers as options. Indeed, some of he anti-puritan hostility of the Restoration might have been reduced had such a course been followed. True, as the preface of the Directory states, the Prayer Book had become an idol to some, but Cranmer's prayers had helped create a genuine piety among many Englishmen. And who would question the theology and the unction of the prayer of humble access in the communion service:
We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:...'
Surely Cranmer still has something to teach us today about public prayer. As for the view that using set forms is somehow unspiritual, the charge is magisterially disproved by the eighteenth-century revival. While John Wesley clearly shared some Puritan misgivings about the Prayer Book, was he unspiritual when he declared that 'there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England.?'63 For those who would never be swayed by an Arminian, let us hear the Calvinist Whitefield's verdict on the worship of the Church of England: 'I have conscientiously defended her Homilies and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of her Liturgy'.64
ITS VIRTUES & VICES
OR
THE ALTERNATIVE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY OF PUBLIC
WORSHIP (1645) CONSIDERED
Being the substance of a paper first presented to the
1989 Westminster Conference in London
by Dr Alan C. Clifford
PART 11
The Practice of Prayer
If the prominence given to preaching distinguishes the Directory from the Prayer Book, so does its policy with regard to public prayer. While the divines retained a fixed liturgical framework, they did not prescribe set forms of prayer. Hence their recommendations were called a 'directory', i.e. the subject matter for prayer is set down for the minister's guidance in prayer. As we have noted earlier, the Directory was something of a compromise, judging by the preface. The ex-Anglicans were not totally opposed to the Prayer Book even when they lamented its exclusive imposition on ministers. The moderate Scots were not uncomfortable with their 'discretionary' liturgy, the Book of Common Order.
If the prominence given to preaching distinguishes the Directory from the Prayer Book, so does its policy with regard to public prayer. While the divines retained a fixed liturgical framework, they did not prescribe set forms of prayer. Hence their recommendations were called a 'directory', i.e. the subject matter for prayer is set down for the minister's guidance in prayer. As we have noted earlier, the Directory was something of a compromise, judging by the preface. The ex-Anglicans were not totally opposed to the Prayer Book even when they lamented its exclusive imposition on ministers. The moderate Scots were not uncomfortable with their 'discretionary' liturgy, the Book of Common Order.
However, the Independents believed that even a directory was inconsistent with the liberty of the Holy Spirit.55 It was not easy to ensure harmony on these points, as Baillie made clear: 'one party purposing by the preface to turn the directory to a straight Liturgy, the other to make it so loose and free that it should serve for little use; but God helped us to get both these rocks eschewed.56
The debates of the Westminster Assembly have a relevance for us today, not least where the content of so-called 'open worship' and sometimes of pulpit prayers are concerned. Indeed, as I heard on one occasion, is it spiritual to thank God for 'sending the Holy Spirit to lick us into shape'? The framers of the Directory would never have called such undignified rubbish Spirit-directed prayer! As A. F. Mitchell makes clear: 'Nothing was further from their intentions than to encourage unpremeditated or purely extemporary effusions, or to represent any fluency in these as the stirring up of that gift which is given to all the children of God in some measure.'57 Even the Independent Philip Nye admitted there was a middle way between set forms and extemporary prayers when he said. 'I plead for neither, but for studied prayers.'58 Surely, as Nye argued, public prayers require no less preparation than sermons. If the 'open-your-mouth-wide-and-I-will-fill-it' policy is irresponsible where preaching is concerned, why should we imagine it is acceptable in the case of prayer? If notes and even written-out sermons in the case of Jonathan Edwards are admissible, then why not written-out prayers? And let us not forget that if the minister prays extempore, what he utters becomes a pulpit-prescribed form for the praying congregation!
Once the idea of prepared prayer is admitted, the objection to liturgical forms has to be treated with considerable reservation. Indeed, the Psalms may be regarded as liturgical documents, and did not the apostles weave part of Psalm 2 into their prayer in Acts 4: 24-30? The Puritans and others objected to imposed liturgies this being the major objection to the Prayer Book but they were not altogether opposed to the use of precomposed forms. John Owen granted this later, even though he argues for Christ's gift of prayer to ministers.59
Of course, as the preface to the Directory makes plain, the mere reading of fixed prayers could be a totally unspiritual exercise. That said, it is arguable that the Independents tended to be unnecessarily 'ultra'. They were understandably over-reacting to the mechanical abuse of an imposed liturgy. Indeed, had the Church of England adhered more closely to Calvin's policy of a simpler, more flexible liturgy (including set prayers) from the beginning, this over-reaction would have been avoided. As it was, the Independents helped produce a Directory which cut the Reformed Churches adrift from a tradition of discretionary liturgical worship.60 Our current free-for-all policy really dates from this time. But surely, may not fixed forms be freely chosen by spiritually minded men alongside their own premeditated prayers? The all important point is the state of the heart. A man may be as unspiritual in his proud opposition to a liturgy as one who slavishly follows it.
It was quite wrong to write the Prayer Book off completely, and later in the century, the Presbyterian Matthew Henry had occasion to rebuke the excessive criticism of it by another minister.61 One suggests that it would have been sufficient for the Assembly to have produced a much revised and modified Prayer Book giving greater prominence to preaching. In short, a kind of Reformed ASB, possibly along the lines of the Reformed Liturgy produced by Baxter for the Savoy Conference of 1661,62 but incorporating some of Cranmer's beautiful and spiritual prayers as options. Indeed, some of he anti-puritan hostility of the Restoration might have been reduced had such a course been followed. True, as the preface of the Directory states, the Prayer Book had become an idol to some, but Cranmer's prayers had helped create a genuine piety among many Englishmen. And who would question the theology and the unction of the prayer of humble access in the communion service:
We do not presume to come to this thy table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy:...'
Surely Cranmer still has something to teach us today about public prayer. As for the view that using set forms is somehow unspiritual, the charge is magisterially disproved by the eighteenth-century revival. While John Wesley clearly shared some Puritan misgivings about the Prayer Book, was he unspiritual when he declared that 'there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England.?'63 For those who would never be swayed by an Arminian, let us hear the Calvinist Whitefield's verdict on the worship of the Church of England: 'I have conscientiously defended her Homilies and Articles, and, upon all occasions, have spoken well of her Liturgy'.64
If the views of an English Calvinistic Methodist are not enough, let us turn to a Welsh one. Dr. Eifion Evans reminds us, that a 'remarkable manifestation of God's power' occurred during the early period of Daniel Rowland's ministry at Liangeitho 'while he as reading the Anglican Prayer Book Litany'.65 Returning to England, even Augustus Toplady gloried in the fact that John Calvin had some influence on the 1552 Prayer Book.66 And who has not been blessed by Calvin's wonderful prayers at the conclusion of his expository lectures? These authorities are not cited to call in question the legitimate Puritan criticisms of the Prayer Book, but to warn against the dangers of superficial over-reaction.
