Again, we are indebted to Robin Jordan at http://www.anglicansablaze.blogspot.com/ for his publication of Rev. Charles Simeon's Sermon Two on the Excellence of the Liturgy given at Cambridge University in 1811, at age 42. Simeon justly calls the 1662 Book of Common Prayer a "composition of unrivalled excellence." Of course, one must bring "devout affections" he observes, an objection to the non-conformists and dissenters. He argues that the book is "lawful, expedient and acceptable to God." He spends time defending the "use of forms," something that needs reiteration in our Gnostic age. Varied texts appear throughout Simeon's arguments that are inexpugnable, irrefutable, and ought end anyone's effort to dismiss "forms" as prayers. Anything calling itself "evangelical" needs to engage here. Simeon speaks of Moses, David, Asaph, Hezekiah, Ezra, and our Lord as using forms for divine worship. Those who "decry forms" use them--themselves. The Book of Common Prayer is "expedient" and possesses advantages on several fronts over what this scribe calls "free rollers." Some, like the Confessional Presbyterians and Reformed, offer their peculiar, if not petty, arguments arguments against the Book while trotting out a 33-chapter Confession (Westminster standards for one) and a 700-page hymn book. Very poor! We hesitate not to put this rebuff to the leaders at Ref21, White Horse Inn, Heidelbog and other Reformed and Presbyterian sites. We don't mention the Methodists, Baptists or other enthusiasts. At the Reformation, ignorance was widespread, like today. Simeon uses a tasty phrase, to wit, the Prayer Book is "equally expedient" for his day. That is, the BCP goes along way to teach doctrine, theology and piety. We would say it is "equally expedient" for these ignorant times. The "piety, affections and doctrines" of the Reformers were "preserved for us." Simeon calls attention to some exceptional or objectionable phrases, e.g. the Burial and Baptismal Offices. He proffers answers, although this scribe believes relief should be afforded at a few points; Dissenters had some legitimate criticisms; the 1689 Book of Comprehension should have embraced those noteworthy observations; herein the Church of England failed. Simeon concurs with that view--need for some emendations--while offering answers. We continue to object to Arminianism that the Church of England tolerated from William Laud forward; she erred in doctrine by failing to bring the biblical safeguards of Scriptures by way of confessional development. She's gone off the tracks in many other ways beyond Arminianism since then, including the Tractarian-Romewardizing. Of course, the modern USA BCP, the 1979 version, is Pelagian; a child schooled in the Reformation catechisms could see it if shown; yet, the children in leadership in the ACNA still use it. Another objection is answered by Simeon, to wit, the Prayer Book inclines and induces "formality." Well, of course, if one is dead in their sins and trespasses. That could be said about any form. The same objection obtains for any hymn or liturgy; Simeon observes that "Dissenters" realize that the use of favourite hymns does not necessarily entail or occasion formality. This sermon by Simeon is excellent minus a few points. We are thankful to Robin for posting this; he adds some editorial comments at the close of his post. Every non-liturgical reader needs to engage and be engaged by Simeon's arguments, inexpugnable arguments that no non-liturigical type can win. This book would go a long way to cure the Gnosticism and narcissism of these days. It needs to stand alongside our beloved Reformed Confessions.
The following sermon is the second of four sermons on the liturgy of the Church of England, which Charles Simeon preached before Cambridge University in 1811. I am publishing these sermons to celebrate Simeon’s birthday on September 24, 1759.Sermon II: The Vindication of the Liturgy
They have well said all that they have spoken: O that there were such a heart in them! Deuteronomy 5:28, 29
Wherever the word of God admits of a literal interpretation, its primary sense ought to be clearly stated, before any spiritual or mystical application be made of it: but when its literal meaning is ascertained, we must proceed to investigate its hidden import, which is frequently the more important. This has been done in relation to the passage before us; which primarily expresses an approbation of the request made by the Jews, that God would speak to them by the mediation of Moses, and not any longer by the terrific thunders of Mount Sinai; but covertly it conveyed an intimation, that we should all seek deliverance from the curse of the law through the mediation of that great Prophet, whom God raised up like unto Moses, even his Son Jesus Christ.
The farther use which we propose to make of this passage, is only in a way of accommodation; which however is abundantly sanctioned by the example of the Apostles; who not infrequently adopt the language of the Old Testament to convey their own ideas, even when it has no necessary connexion with their subject. Of course, the Liturgy of our Church was never in the contemplation of the Sacred Historian: yet, as in that we constantly address ourselves to God, and as it is a composition of unrivalled excellence, and needs only the exercise of our devout affections to render it a most acceptable service before God, we may well apply to it the commendation in our text; “They have well said all that they have spoken: O that there were such an heart in 'them !"
As in the course of the month two other occasions of prosecuting our subject will occur, we shall arrange our observations on the Liturgy, so as to vindicate its use--display its excellence--and commend to your attention one particular part, which we conceive to be eminently deserving notice in this place.
In the present Discourse we shall confine ourselves to the vindication of the Liturgy; first, Generally, as a service proper to be used; and then, Particularly, in reference to some objections which are urged against it.
Perhaps there never was any human composition more cavilled [= taken exception (at), carp, find fault] at, or less deserving such treatment, than our Liturgy. Nothing has been deemed too harsh to say of it. In order therefore to a general vindication of it, we propose to shew, that the use of it is lawful in itself--expedient for us--and acceptable to God.
It is lawful in itself.
The use of a form of prayer cannot be in itself wrong, for, if it had been, God would not have prescribed the use of forms to the Jewish nation. But God did prescribe them on several occasions. The words which the priest was to utter in blessing the people of Israel, are thus specified: u Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, 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 to shine upon thee and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace (Numbers 4: 23- 36)." In like manner, when a man that had been slain was found, inquisition was to be made for his blood; and the elders of the city that was nearest to the body, were to make a solemn affirmation before God that they knew not who the murderer was, and at the same time in a set form of prayer to deprecate the divine displeasure (Deuteronomy 21: 7, 8). At the offering of the first-fruits, both at the beginning and end of the service, there were forms of very considerable length, which every offerer was to utter before the Lord (Deuteronomy 26:3, 5-10, 13-15).
When David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom to the tent which he had pitched for it in Jerusalem, he composed a form of prayer and thanksgiving for the occasion, selected out of four different Psalms (Compare 1 Chronicles 16: 7-36 with Psalms 105: 1-15 and 96: 1-13. and 136: 1 and 106: 47, 48.), and put it into the hand of Asaph and his brethren for the use of the whole congregation. In all following ages the Psalms were used as forms of devotion: Hezekiah appointed them for that purpose when he restored the worship of God which had been suspended and superseded in the days of Ahaz (2 Chronicles 29: 30) as did Ezra also at the laying of the foundation of the second temple (Ezra 3: 10, 11). Nay, the Hymn which our blessed Lord sang with his disciples immediately after he had instituted his Supper, as the memorial of his death (Matthew 26: 30), was either taken from the Psalms, from 113th to 118th inclusive, or else was a particular form composed for that occasion. All this sufficiently shews that forms of devotion are not evil in themselves.
But some think, that though they were not evil under the Jewish dispensation, which consisted altogether of rites and carnal ordinances, they are evil under the more spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. This however cannot be; because our blessed Lord taught his disciples a form of prayer, and not only told them to pray after that manner, as one Evangelist mentions, but to use the very words, as another Evangelist declares. Indeed the word οὕτως [pronounced hü'-tōs], by which St. Matthew expresses it, is not of necessity to be confined to manner (Matthew 6: 9); it might be taken as referring to the very words: but, granting that he speaks of the manner only, and prescribes it as a model; yet St. Luke certainly requires us to use it as a form: " Jesus said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven (Luke 11: 2)." Accordingly we find, from the testimonies of some of the earliest and most eminent Fathers of the Church (Tertullian—Cyprian—Cyril—Jerome—Augustine—Chrysostom—Gregory. See Bennet's London Cases, p. 52), that it was constantly regarded and used in the Church as a form from the very times of the Apostles. As for the objection, that we do not read in the New Testament that it was so used, it is of no weight at all; for we are not told that the Apostles ever baptised persons in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but can we therefore doubt whether they did use this form of baptism? Assuredly not; and therefore the circumstance of such a use of the Lord's Prayer not being recorded, especially in so short a history as that of the Apostles, is no argument at all that it was not so used.
Nor was this the only form used in the apostolic age. Lucian, speaking of the first Christians, says, " They spend whole nights in singing of Psalms " and Pliny, in his famous Letter to Trajan, which was written not much above ten years after the death of John the Evangelist, says of them, “It is their manner to sing by turns a hymn to Christ as God. This latter, it should seem, was not a Psalm of David, but a hymn composed for the purpose: and it proves indisputably, that even in the apostolic age, forms of devotion were in use. If we come down to the times subsequent to the Apostles, we shall find Liturgies composed for the service of the different churches. The Liturgies of St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James, though they were corrupted in later ages, are certainly of high antiquity: that of St. James was of great authority in the Church in the days of Cyril, who in his younger years, at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, wrote a Comment upon it. And it were easy to trace the use of them from that time even to the present day. Shall it be said then, that the use of a pre-composed form of prayer is not lawful? Would God have given so many forms under the Jewish dispensation; and would our blessed Lord have given a form for the use of his Church and people, if it had not been lawful to use a form? But it is worthy of observation, that those who most loudly decry the use of forms, do themselves use forms, whenever they unite in public worship. What are hymns, but forms of prayer and praise? And if it be lawful to worship God in forms of verse, is it not equally so in forms of prose? We may say therefore, our adversaries themselves being judges, that the use of a form of prayer is lawful.
As for those passages of Scripture which are supposed to hold forth an expectation that under the Gospel we should have ability to pray without a form; for instance, that " God would give us a spirit of grace and of supplication," and that " the Spirit should help our infirmities and teach us what to pray for as we ought;" they do not warrant us to expect, that we shall be enabled to speak by inspiration, as the Apostles did, but that our hearts should be disposed for prayer, and be enabled to enjoy near and intimate communion with God in that holy exercise: but they may be fulfilled to us as much in the use of a pre-composed form, as in any extemporaneous effusions of our own: and it is certain, that persons may be very fluent in the expressions of prayer without the smallest spiritual influence upon their minds; and that they may, on the other hand, be very fervent in prayer, though the expressions be already provided to their hand: and consequently, the promised assistance of the Spirit is perfectly consistent with the use of prayers that have been pre-composed.
But the lawfulness of forms of prayer is in this day pretty generally conceded. Many however still question their expediency. We proceed therefore to shew next, that the use of the Liturgy is expedient for us.
Here let it not be supposed that I am about to condemn those who differ from us in judgment or in practice. The Legislature has liberally conceded to all the subjects of the realm a right of choice; and God forbid that any one should wish to abridge them of it, in a matter of such high concern as the worship of Almighty God. If any think themselves more edified by extempore prayer, we rejoice that their souls are benefited, though it be not precisely in our way; but still we cannot be insensible to the advantages which we enjoy; and much less can we concede to any that the use of a prescribed form of prayer is the smallest disadvantage.
We say then, that the Liturgy was of great use at the time it was made. At the commencement of the Reformation, the most lamentable ignorance prevailed throughout the land: and even those who from their office ought to have been well instructed in the Holy Scriptures, themselves needed to be taught what were the first principles of the oracles of God. If then the pious and venerable Reformers of our Church had not provided a suitable form of prayer, the people would still in many thousands of parishes have remained in utter darkness; but by the diffusion of this sacred light throughout the land, every part of the kingdom became in a good measure irradiate with scriptural knowledge, and with saving truth. The few who were enlightened, might indeed have scattered some partial rays around them; but their light would have been only as a meteor, that passes away and leaves no permanent effect. Moreover, if their zeal and knowledge and piety had been suffered to die with them, we should have in vain sought for compositions of equal excellence from any set of governors from that day to the present hour: but by conveying to posterity the impress of their own piety in stated forms of prayer, they have in them transmitted a measure of their own spirit, which like Elijah's mantle, has descended on multitudes who have succeeded them in their high office. It is not possible to form a correct estimate of the benefit which we at this day derive from having such a standard of piety in our hands; but we do not speak too strongly if we say, that the most enlightened amongst us, of whatever denomination they may be, owe much to the existence of our Liturgy; which has been, as it were, the pillar and ground of the truth in this kingdom, and has served as fuel to perpetuate the flame which the Lord himself, at the time of the Reformation, kindled upon our altars.
But we must go further, and say that the use of the Liturgy is equally expedient still. Of course, we must not be understood as speaking of private prayer in the closet; where though a young and inexperienced person may get help from written forms, it is desirable that every one should learn to express his own wants in his own language; because no written prayer can enter so minutely into his wants and feelings as he himself may do: but in public, we maintain, that the use of such a form as ours is still as expedient as ever. To lead the devotions of a congregation in extempore prayer is a work for which but few are qualified. An extensive knowledge of the Scriptures must be combined with fervent piety, in order to fit a person for such an undertaking; and I greatly mistake if there be found a humble person in the world, who, after engaging often in that arduous work, does not wish at times that he had a suitable form prepared for him. That the constant repetition of the same form does not so forcibly arrest the attention as new sentiments and expressions would do, must he confessed: but, on the other hand, the use of a well-composed form secures us against the dry, dull, tedious repetitions which are but too frequently the fruits of extemporaneous devotions. Only let any person be in a devout frame, and he will be far more likely to have his soul elevated to heaven by the Liturgy of the Established Church, than he will by the generality of prayers which he would hear in other places of worship: and, if any one complain that he cannot enter into the spirit of them, let him only examine his frame of mind when engaged in extemporaneous prayers, whether in public, or in his own family; and he will find, that his formality is not confined to the service of the Church, but is the sad fruit and consequence of his own weakness and corruption.
Here it may not be amiss to rectify the notions which are frequently entertained of spiritual edification. Many, if their imaginations are pleased, and their spirits elevated, are ready to think, that they have been greatly edified: and this error is at the root of that preference which they give to extempore prayer, and the indifference which they manifest towards the prayers of the Established Church. But real edification consists in humility of mind, and in being led to a more holy and consistent walk with God: and one atom of such a spirit is more valuable than all the animal fervour that ever was excited. It is with solid truths, and not with fluent words, that we are to be impressed; and if we can desire from our hearts the things which we pray for in our public-forms, we need never regret, that our fancy was not gratified, or our animal spirits raised by the delusive charms of novelty.
In what we have spoken on this subject it must be remembered, that we have spoken only in a way of vindication: the true, the exalted, and the proper ground for a Member and Minister of the Established Church, we have left for the present untouched, lest we should encroach upon that, which we hope to occupy on a future occasion. But it remains for us yet further to remark, that the use of our Liturgy is acceptable to God.
The words of our text are sufficient to shew us, that God does not look at fine words and fluent expressions, but at the heart. The Israelites had "well said all that they had spoken:" but whilst God acknowledged that, he added, "O that there were such an heart in them!" If there be humility and contrition in our supplications, it will make no difference with God whether they be extemporaneous or pre-composed. Can any one doubt whether, if we were to address our heavenly Father in the words which Christ himself has taught us, we should be accepted of him, provided we uttered the different petitions from our hearts? As little doubt then is there that in the use of the Liturgy also we shall be accepted, if only we draw nigh to God with our hearts as well as with our lips. The prayer of faith, whether with or without a form, shall never go forth in vain. And there are thousands at this day who can attest from their own experience, that they have often found God as present with them in the use of the public services of our Church, as ever they did in their secret chambers.
Thus we have endeavoured to vindicate the use of our Liturgy generally. We now come to vindicate it in reference to some particular objections that have been urged against it.
The objections may be comprised under two heads; namely, That there are exceptionable expressions in the Liturgy; and, That the use of it necessarily generates formality.
To notice all the expressions which captious [= given to carping, seizing on minor weak points, (of arguments)] men have cavilled [= taken exception (at), carp, find fault] at, would be a waste of time. But there are one or two which with tender minds have considerable weight, and have not only prevented many worthy men from entering into the church, but do at this hour press upon the consciences of many, who in all other things approve and admire the public formularies of our church. A great portion of this present assembly are educated with a view to the ministry in the establishment; and, if I may be able in any little measure to satisfy their minds, or to remove a stumbling-block out of their way, I shall think that I have made a good use of the opportunity which is thus afforded me. A more essential service I can scarcely render unto any of my younger brethren, or indeed to the Establishment itself, than by meeting fairly the difficulties which occur to their minds, and which are too often successfully urged by the enemies of our church, to the embarrassing of conscientious minds, and to the drawing away of many, who might have laboured comfortably and successfully in this part of our Lord's vineyard.
There is one circumstance in the formation of our Liturgy which is not sufficiently adverted [= to call attention in the course of speaking or writing: make reference —used with (to)] to. The persons who composed it were men of a truly Apostolic spirit; unhampered by party prejudices, they endeavoured to speak in all things precisely as the Scriptures speak: they did not indulge in speculations and metaphysical reasonings; nor did they presume to be wise above what is written: they laboured to speak the truth, the whole truth, in love: and they cultivated in the highest degree that candour, that simplicity, and that charity, which so eminently characterised all the Apostolic writings. Permit me to call your attention to this particular point, because it will satisfactorily account for those expressions which seem most objectionable; and will shew precisely in what view we may most conscientiously repeat the Ianguage they have used.
In our Burial Service we thank God for delivering our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, and express a sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, together with a hope also that our departed brother rests in Christ [1]. Of course, it often happens, that we are called to use these expressions over persons, who, there is reason to fear, have died in their sins; and then the question is, How we can with propriety use them? I answer, that, even according to the letter of the words, the use of them may be justified; because we speak not of his, but of the, resurrection to eternal life; and because, where we do not absolutely know that God has not pardoned a person, we may entertain some measure of hope that he has. But, taking the expressions more according to the spirit of them, they precisely accord with what we continually read in the Epistles of St. Paul. In the First Epistle to the Corinthian church, he says of them, "I thank my God always on your behalf, that in every thing ye are enriched by him in all utterance, and in all knowledge, even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that ye come behind in no gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet, does he instantly begin to condemn the same persons for their divisions and contentions; and afterwards tells them "that they were carnal, and walked, not as saints, but as men,” that is, as unconverted and ungodly men (1 Corinthians 1: 4-7. and 3: 3). In like manner, in his Epistle to the Philippians, after saying, " I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; being confident of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," he adds, " Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all (Philippians 1: 3-7):" Yet does he afterwards caution these very persons against strife, and vain-glory, and self-love; and tell them that he will send Timothy to them shortly, in order to make inquiries into their state, and to give him information respecting them: and he even mentions two byname, Euodias and Syntyche, whose notorious disagreements he was desirous to heal.
A multitude of other passages might be cited to the same effect; to shew that the Apostles, in a spirit of candour and of love, spoke in terms of commendation respecting all, when in strictness of speech they should have made some particular exceptions. And, if we at this day were called to use the same language under the very same, circumstances, it is probable that many would feel scruples respecting it, and especially, in thanking God for things, which, if pressed to the utmost meaning of the words, might not be strictly true. But surely, if the Apostles in a spirit of love and charity used such language, we may safely and properly do the same: and knowing in what manner, and with what views, they spake, we need not hesitate to deliver ourselves with the same spirit and in the same latitude, as they. [2]
In the baptismal Service we thank God for having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that, in the opinion of our Reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized person to grow up, and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the Divine image? [3] Had they asserted or countenanced any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this: so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look unto God for that total change both of heart and life, which, long since their days, has begun to be expressed by the term, regeneration. After thanking God for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, " that he, being dead unto sin and living unto righteousness may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin:" and then declaring that total change to be the necessary mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, " So that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom?" Is there I would ask, any person that can require more than this? Or does God in his word require more? There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject; the term, Regeneration, and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which however is represented as attendant on it: and in the other place it has a totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use, as the Scripture uses it: and the thing they require, as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern Divines have included in the term Regeneration: on the contrary they do, both there and throughout the whole Liturgy insist upon the necessity of a radical change both of heart and life. Here then, the only question is, not, whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification; but whether God does always accompany the sign with the thing signified? Here is certainly room for difference of opinion: but it cannot be positively decided in the negative; because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it in any instance whatever, except by the fruits that follow: and therefore in all fairness it may be considered only as a doubtful point: and, if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the holy Scriptures, they certainly do in a very remarkable way accord with the expressions in our Liturgy. St. Paul says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit:” and this he says of all the visible members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 10: 1- 4). Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, " They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was Christ."
Yet behold, in the very next verse he tells us, that "with many of them God was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 12: 13, 27)." In another place he speaks yet more strongly still: "As many of you, says he, as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (Galatians 3: 27):" Here we see what is meant by the expression “baptized into Christ;" it is precisely the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being " baptized unto Moses;" (the preposition εἰς [pronounced ās] is used in both places) it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism: and of them universally does the apostle say, “They have put on Christ." Now I ask, Have not the persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?
Again St Peter says, Repent and be baptized every on of you for the remission of sins; (Acts 2: 38, 39) and in another place, " Baptism doth now save us:" (1 Peter 3: 21) And speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who were unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, " He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins (2 Pet. 1: 9).” Does not this very strongly countenance the idea which our Reformers entertained, That the remission of our sins, as well as the regeneration of our souls, is an attendant on the baptismal rite? Perhaps it will be said, that the inspired Writers spake of persons who had been baptized at an adult age. But, if they did so in some places, they certainly did not in others; and, where they did not, they must have understood as comprehending all, whether infants or adults: and therefore the language of our Liturgy, which is not a whit stronger than theirs, may be both subscribed and used without any just occasion of offence.
Let me then speak the truth before God: Though I am no Arminian, I do think that the refinements of Calvin have done great harm in the church: they have driven multitudes from the plain, and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and have made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in their modes of expression; and I conceive that, the less addicted any person is to systematic accuracy, the more he will accord with the inspired writers, and the more he will approve of the views of our Reformers. I do not mean however to say, that a slight alteration in two or three instances would not be an improvement; since it would take off a burthen from many minds, and supersede the necessity of laboured explanations: but I do mean to say, that there is no such objection to these expressions as to deter any conscientious person from giving his unfeigned assent and consent to the Liturgy altogether, or from using the particular expressions which we have been endeavouring to explain.
The other objection is, that the use of a Liturgy necessarily generates formality.
We have before acknowledged that the repetition of a form is less likely to arrest the attention than that which is novel: but we by no means concede that it necessarily generates formality; on the contrary we affirm, that, if any person come to the service of the church with a truly spiritual mind, he will find in our Liturgy what is calculated to call forth the devoutest exercises of his mind far more than in any of the extemporaneous prayers which he would hear in other places.
We forbear to enter into a fuller elucidation of this point at present, because we should detain you too long, and we shall have a better opportunity of doing it in our next Discourse. But we would here intreat you all so far to bear this objection in your minds, as to cut off all occasion for it as much as possible, and, by the devout manner of your attendance on the services of the Church, to shew, that though you worship God with a form, you also worship him in spirit and in truth. Dissenters themselves know that the repetition of favourite hymns does not generate formality; and they may from thence learn that the repetition of our excellent Liturgy is not really open to that objection. But they will judge from what they see amongst us: If they see that the prayers are read amongst us without any devotion, and that those who hear them, are inattentive and irreverent during the service, they will not impute these evils to the true and proper cause, but to the Liturgy itself: and it is a fact that they do from this very circumstance derive great advantage for the weakening of men's attachment to the Established Church, and for the augmenting of their own societies, Surely then it becomes us who are annually sending forth so many ministers into every quarter of the land, to pay particular attention to this point. I am well aware that where such multitudes of young men are, it is not possible so to control the inconsiderateness of youth, as to suppress all levity, or to maintain that complete order that might be wished; but I know also that the ingenuousness of youth is open to conviction upon a subject like this, and that even the strictest discipline upon a point so interwoven with the honour of the Establishment and the eternal interests of their own souls, would, in a little time, meet with a more cordial concurrence than is generally imagined: it would commend itself to their consciences, and call forth, not only their present approbation, but their lasting gratitude: and if those who are in authority amongst us would lay this matter to heart, and devise means for the carrying it into full effect, more would be done for the upholding of the Establishment; than by ten thousand discourses in vindication of it: and verily, if but the smallest progress should be made in it, I should think that I had " not laboured in vain, or run in vain."
But let us not so think of the Establishment as to forget our own souls: for after all, the great question for the consideration of us all is, Whether we ourselves are accepted in the use of these prayers? And here, it is not outward reverence and decorum that will suffice; the heart must be engaged, as well as the lips. It will be to little purpose that God say respecting us, "They have well said all that they have spoken," unless he see his own wish also accomplished, " O that there were in them such an heart!" Indeed our prayers will be no more than a solemn mockery, if there be not a correspondence between the words of our lips and the feeling of our own souls: and his answer to us will be, like that to the Jews of old, “Ye hypocrites, in vain do you worship me." Let all of us then bring our devotions to this test, and look well to it, that, with "the form we have also the power of godliness.” We are too apt to rush into the Divine presence without any consciousness of the importance of the work in which we are going to be engaged, or any fear of his Majesty, whom we are going to address. If we would prevent formality in the house of God, we should endeavour to carry thither a devout spirit along with us, and guard against the very first incursion of vain thoughts and foolish imaginations. Let us then labour to attain such a sense of our own necessities and of God's unbounded goodness, as shall produce a fixedness of mind, whenever we draw nigh to God in prayer; and for this end, let us ask of God the gift of his Holy Spirit to help our infirmities: and let us never think that we have used the Liturgy to any good purpose, unless it bring into our bosoms an inward witness of its utility, and a reasonable evidence of our acceptance with God in the use of it.
End Notes:[1] The Burial Service in the Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the United States America, is altered in the parts here quoted. Instead of offering " thanks that it hath pleased God to deliver our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world;" the collect in the Burial Service of the American Liturgy, stands thus-- " We give the hearty thanks for the good examples of all those thy servants, who, having finished their course in faith do now rest from their labours." And the use of the collect is left at the discretion of the minister. Instead of the words “in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life…” the following are used in the Burial Service of the American church--“looking for the general resurrection at the last day, and the life of the world to come.” [Am. Ed.]
[2] To guard against a misapprehension of his meaning, the Author wishes these words to be distinctly noticed; because they contain the whole drift of his argument. He does not mean to say, that the Apostles ascribed salvation to the opus operatum, the outward act of baptism; or, that they intended to assert distinctly the salvation of every individual who had been baptized; but only that, in reference to these subjects, they did use a language very similar to that in our Liturgy, and that therefore our Reformers were justified, as we also are, in using the same.
[3] In proof of the correctness of this sentiment, it may be observed that the church evidently distinguishes between regeneration and renovation. She considers regeneration as that change of spiritual state or condition, which takes place in baptism; and renovation, as a change of heart and life, by the influences of the Holy Spirit. This change, Mr. Simeon describes as "a progressive renovation of the soul after the divine image."
The distinction between regeneration and renovation, is expressly noted in the collect for Christmas day: in which the church directs her members to pray, " Grant that we, being regenerated, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit."
The primitive fathers uniformly preserve this distinction, and call baptism the “laver of regeneration” The distinction is founded on scripture. The apostle in the epistle to Titus (ch. 3, ver.
5) speaks of " the washing of regeneration," evidently meaning baptism, and “the renewing of the Holy-Ghost.” Following scripture and primitive authority, the church therefore very properly applies the term regeneration to baptism; in which sacrament" that change takes place in our spiritual state or condition, which the term describes. Thus the baptismal offices, and the office of confirmation speak of every baptised person as "being regenerate." The catechism, in reference to baptism, declares, that "being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby" (by baptism) " made the children of grace." The baptised person is taught to profess, in the catechism, that in baptism, on the conditions of repentance and faith he was made " a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." And in the same admirable summary of Christian instruction, he is taught to “thank his heavenly Father who hath called him to this state of salvation.”
But, as Mr. Simeon justly maintains, the church enforces a change of heart and life as essential to securing the privileges of baptism. The baptised person, she teaches, must " die to sin, and rise again unto righteousness;" must crucify the old man and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;" and must “continually mortify all his evil and corrupt affections, and daily proceed in all virtue and Godliness of living;” in other words; he must be renewed by the Holy Spirit.
It is much to be lamented that many divines of the Church of England, have not attended to this distinction between regeneration and renovation; and apply the former term to that change of heart and life,which the reformers of the church, agreeably to Scripture and the primitive Fathers, denoted by the term, renovation. Mr. Simeon very properly observes, that " the total change of heart and life, long since the days of the reformers, began to be expressed by the term regeneration." [Am. Ed.]
The preceding notes were taken from The Excellency of the Liturgy in Four Discourses, published by Eastburn, Kirk and Company in 1813, as was the sermon. The American Prayer Book mentioned in these notes is the First American Prayer Book of 1789. The latter differs from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in a number of respects, most notably the Prayer of Consecration used in the Communion Office. The theory of baptism described by the the unidentified “Am. Ed.” of The Excellency of the Liturgy in Four Discourses in his commentary on the sermon originated with the “High Church Protestant theologian” Daniel Waterland. This theory established a long-lasting period of détente between Evangelicals and High Churchmen in the eighteenth century. The regeneration language of the Book of Common Prayer, however, became a major cause of controversy in the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the nineteenth century. In the United Kingdom this controversy resulted in the famous Gorham judgment and Bishop Philpott’s excommunication of the Church of England and in the United States it led to the formation of the Reformed Episcopal Church. For further discussion of the controversy surrounding the regeneration language of the Book of Common Prayer, including an explanation of Wantland’s theory of baptism, I refer the reader to S. Gregory Jones’ Baxter to Cummins: The Debate Over The Language of Baptismal Regeneration In The Book of Common Prayer, 1662 – 1873 on the Internet at: http://anglicanhistory.org/essays/jones.pdf
The picture shows the font of St. Mary the Virgin, Therfield, Hertfordshire, England in which I was baptized. The Prayer Book used at my baptism was the classic Anglican Prayer Book: The Book of Common Prayer of 1662.
No comments:
Post a Comment