THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 1)

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

PART 1

Introduction

Had this Westminster Conference been commissioned by Her Majesty's Government to reform British Christendom, some of us would doubtless relish the opportunity. Others would hasten back to their pastorates, utterly intimidated by the sheer scale of the task. For the boldest spirits among us, the charge of Erastianism notwithstanding, the prospect of sending the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Durham and a few more prelates to the Tower  even if they didn't lose their heads  would be doubtless irresistible. The thought of not only disestablishing but abolishing the Church of England (as the Puritans did in 1643) in favour of a more biblical institution would excite our most fervent expectations. However, would a hypothetical Westminster Assembly of the 1990s have even a fraction of the success of its seventeenth-century forerunner? Probably not, for the ecclesiastical situation we face today is infinitely more confused and intractable than that faced by the Westminster divines. Even if our proposals were to pass through Parliament and receive the Royal Assent, the current confusion of British evangelicalism would hardly ensure their acceptance in the country. At least seventeenth-century evangelicals were convinced of the need for continuing reform and there was little doubt in their minds that the criteria of reform were to be determined exclusively by Holy Scripture.

It would appear that in some respects, current confusion in the realm of worship is more difficult to cure than more theoretical theological differences. While it is ultimately true that faulty theology lies behind faulty practice, not all those who have abandoned traditional Reformed worship have rejected Reformed theology, at least notionally. What a former FIEC president has recently written in his church magazine gives us a measure of the problem:

Within the service of worship we are also trying to proclaim God's truth, and here too there is room for variety. The sermon as we think of it, is a relatively modem invention. There is room for all kinds of ways of reading the Scriptures, and also, I believe, for testimonies, interviews, and drama. We have to distinguish very honestly between what dishonours God, and what annoys our sensibilities.1

And all this in a magazine which happily, in the same issue, quotes  as a SOP for traditionalists? from Matthew Henry and Thomas Watson! Without pursuing our subject in pure academic and historical isolation, we may surely ask if the Westminster divines can help us nearly three hundred and fifty years on? At least they might help us to understand our confusion a little more clearly!

The Regulative Principle and Its Limits
The famous Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, together with their Independent and Particular Baptist derivatives, are well known throughout the international Reformed constituency. The Directory of Public Worship is less well known although it was the first document to be produced by the Assembly of Divines. That it ever commanded agreement is truly remarkable, for unlike the drafting of the Confession of Faith, the Directory's passage in committee and debate was often stormy.2 For the most part, differences of opinion concerned matters which the Scriptures shed no specific light on, a fact which serves to underline the difficult task before us, namely, that 'the speaker is asked to consider to what extent the Directory — as a replacement for the Book of Common Prayer — advanced the cause of the reformation of worship and to evaluate critically its biblical basis.' The task is made no easier when one learns, in the words of Dr. Horton Davies, that the Directory was in fact 'a compromise between the three parties, the English Presbyterians, the Scottish Presbyterians and the Independents.'3

An evaluation of the Confession of Faith would have been easier to make: the subject matter in question is all contained in the Bible. But apart from certain leading principles, adopting the 'regulative principle' found the various parties at considerable odds where the Directory of Worship was concerned. It is easy to discern from the Scriptures that preaching, scripture reading. prayers and the singing of God's praise are the main elements of Christian worship and that the two divinely instituted symbolic ordinances are baptism and the Lord's Supper. Undergirding this is the New Testament stress that all worship should be both 'orderly' and 'spiritual'. But concerning the precise form of sermons and prayers', the structure of a service of worship, the number of psalms (and/or hymns) to be sung, the frequency of the Lord's Supper, the conduct of marriages and funerals, such matters are not determined in the New Testament. In short, what exactly does it mean to be biblical in the details as well as the principles of worship?

The Westminster divines soon realized that their attachment to the regulative principle did not solve all their problems. It was relatively easy to detect the unbiblical elements in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP), but not so easy to replace them by valid alternatives. Hence the Preface states that in laying 'aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly used in the worship of God ... our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance; and other things we have endeavoured to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God'. Whereas these criteria were sufficient to ban the sacerdotal and superstitious overtones of the BCP — and still are sufficient to ban drama and dance as well as women preachers and priests of either sex, areas of potential disagreement still remained. This is hardly surprising, for three distinct outlooks faced one another in the Assembly. The English Presbyterians were ex-Anglican Puritans, who, in their 'nonconformity' had been used to 'reformed' editions of the BCP. The Scottish Commissioners had used the Book of Common Order, the so-called 'Knox's Liturgy', which reflected the forms of Calvin's Genevan liturgy. These two groups both accepted the validity of liturgical worship. And then there were the 'proto-charismatic' Independents who were opposed to any kind of service book. Such was the rather ominous lament of Robert Baillie, one of the Scottish Commissioners: "While we were sweetly debating on these things, in came Mr. Goodwin, who
incontinent assayed to turn all upside down, to reason against all directories... I hope God will not permit him to go on to lead a faction for renting of the kirk."4

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (PART 2)

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

PART 2

The History and Development of Worship
To make a comprehensive and objective evaluation of the Directory requires a pre- as well as post-Westminster perspective. We who are used to so-called non-liturgical orders of service have inherited a largely Directory-based state of affairs, i.e. the usual hymn (or psalm)-free prayer-sermon sandwich. Such a 'simple' service is not without some vestige of order even when it remains unpublished. Even anti-formal charismatic fellowships cannot dispense with some kind of structure; they seem to opt for 'praise and chorus-time, prophecy and tongues-time, dance and drama-time and a sermon if there's any time left'. One caricatures  not maliciously, I trust  to make a point! That said, few are aware that the Westminster Directory largely terminated a Reformed tradition of liturgical worship, at least in the Anglo-Scottish tradition. However, a case may be made that liturgical worship is ultimately derived from New Testament times, and that when the reformers inherited corrupted forms of worship, they reformed and simplified them without discarding them entirely. The close contact between the early church and the synagogue very probably influenced Christian worship at an early stage. Accordingly, Professor John M. Barkley writes:

The early Christians naturally made use of the synagogue forms of worship in their own meetings. Synagogue worship consisted in reading from the Old Testament (Law and Prophets) with exposition, praise and prayer. These four elements continued in Christian worship, but they were permeated with a new meaning and spirit. Praise and prayer were 'in the name of Christ'. and to the Old Testament readings were added gradually readings from the Epistles and Gospels.5

For those persuaded by the Jonathan Edwards thesis,6 the Apostle Paul clearly envisaged a time when the presence of the revelatory gifts would cease (1 Cor. 13: 8, 13), and even when they were intended to function in worship, he ruled decisively in favour of 'decency' and 'order' (1 Cor. 14: 40). On this key text, Calvin writes:

The Lord allows us freedom in regard to outward rites, in order that we may not think that his worship is confined to those things. At the same time, however, he has not allowed us unlimited and unbridled liberty, but has, so to speak, put railings round about it; or at any rate he has restricted the freedom, which he has given us, in such a way that it is only from his Word that we can make up our minds about what is right... Furthermore, we may easily infer from this, that the Church's laws are not to be regarded as mere human traditions, seeing that they are based on this general injunction, and clearly give the impression of being approved, as it were, from the mouth of Christ himself.'7

In urging 'decency' and 'order' on the Corinthians, Paul probably had the order of the synagogue in view. Specific evidence of synagogue influences may be noted in the letters to the seven churches, addressed as they were to the 'angel' or messenger of each church. In his comment on Rev. 2:1, Philip Doddridge  without questioning the plurality of elders at Ephesus  makes three useful and relevant points:

That there was one pastor, who presided in each of these churches, is indeed evident from the expression here used; but that he was a diocesan bishop, or had several congregations of Christians under his care, can by no means be proved... Many have shown from ancient Jewish writings, that there was an officer in the synagogue who had the name of angel. See Vitringa, de Synagogue. Vet. Jib. 3, p. ii. c. 3. And Dr. Lightfoot adds, that from his office of overlooking the reader of the law, he was called episcopus….8

Justin Martyr, writing about 155 AD. provides an account of Christian worship in which synagogue and
Christian features appear. The service is conducted by the 'president', and preaching precedes the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.9 With the advent of spiritual apostasy, ritualism began to assert itself. As Professor Brilioth points out, in the medieval Western Church specially, worship was 'overshadowed by the offering of the sacrifice'.10 A priestly emphasis became prominent in the time of Cyprian (d. 258). He worked out a detailed parallelism between the worshipping Christian community and Old Testament Israel. The title sacerdos (Latin for 'priest') as applied to the presiding presbyter/bishop and the doctrine of Apostolic succession was affirmed.11 The Eucharist was now regarded as a sacrifice and the focal point of worship.'12 It is surely significant that in the writings of Cyprian there is no reference13 to the Epistle to the Hebrews with its stress on the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ and his exclusive priesthood.

With the passage of time, error proliferated. The doctrine of transubstantiation was a ninth century invention of the monk Radbertus,14 and the promulgation of the theory by the fourth Lateran Council (1215)15 elevated the sacrament of the altar to idolatrous heights.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 3)

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

PART 3

Calvin and Cranmer: The Character and Priorities of Worship
Such was the situation inherited by the Protestant Reformers. In their concern to restore preaching to its apostolic and spiritual importance, the Reformers cleansed worship of all superstitious and idolatrous overtones. Nowhere was this policy carried out more consistently and thoroughly than in Geneva; and Calvin's concern for purity of worship in England is especially seen in his lengthy letter to the Duke of Somerset.16 The great priority was the restoration of preaching: 'And the utmost care should be taken, that so far as possible you should have good trumpets, which shall sound into the very depths of the heart.' This letter was written in October 1548, a year before Cranmer's first Prayer Book appeared. We should note that Calvin recognized the need for 'a certain written form' for a catechism, the administration of the sacraments and the public prayers, 'for the sake of supplementing the ignorance and deficiencies of some, as the better to manifest the conformity and agreement between all the churches' and 'to take away all ground of pretense for bringing in any eccentricity or newfangled doctrine'. All this is consistent with Calvin's liturgical provisions in his Les Forme des Prières published in Geneva in 1542.17

While Cranmer's 1549 Prayer Book was a decided disappointment to many, the 1552 book was a more faithful expression of Reformed worship. Indeed, it represents the high water mark of Reformed Anglicanism  or the low water mark if one is an Anglo-Catholic! Even the 1662 Prayer Book has more affinities with the Elizabethan book of 1559 which, in fact, reverted to the 1549 in certain important details. The 1559 reintroduced the 1549's doubtful and ambiguous wording in the delivery of the sacraments to the communicants,18 and it removed the famous 'black rubric', a typically Cranmerian compromise between John Knox's belief that communicants should sit at the Lord's Supper and any idolatrous overtones in the kneeling of communicants.'19 Also, the 1559 deleted the 1552 Litany's reference to 'they tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities'.20 Cranmer would have regarded these changes as retrogressive and ominous, a point which history arguably confirms. For those tempted to think that such details are of minor importance, the history of theology confirms too frequently the theory that oaks of falsehood grow from acorns of error.

While Calvin expressed his doubts about the residual Romanism of the Anglican liturgy21 and the slow pace of the English Reformation22 we should recognize the incipient Puritanism of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. Did not Cranmer establish a puritan precedent by using the word 'minister' more frequently than 'priest' in the 1552 Order for Morning Prayer, and introducing it into the Communion service?23 In fact, Puritan editions of the Prayer Book, appearing from 1578 onwards, applied these measures more consistently.24 And had not Cranmer recognized as early as 1540 that the New Testament assumes an identity between bishops and presbyters, and that the people, rather than princes, elected overseers in the church?25 The logic of these observations leads inexorably to Puritanism. Thus there seems to be some evidence that, for all his caution, Cranmer was moving in this direction. His understanding was never static and, had both he and England's Josiah, King Edward VI, lived, the English Reformation would have gone beyond the 'half-way house' Elizabethan settlement. One wonders what might have happened if Cranmer's projected Reformed ecumenical synod had taken place with John Calvin in attendance at Lambeth!26 Furthermore, what might Cranmer's close friendship with the proto-Puritan John Hooper have produced had both men survived the Marian persecutions?27 Speculations apart, the evidence cited above suggests that if the 1552 Prayer Book does not lead directly to the Westminster Directory of Public Worship, its author would arguably have been more at home with the abortive 1689 Prayer Book proposals28 than the anti-puritan 1662 Prayer Book.29 He would doubtless have shared the view that when John Calvin's achievement was celebrated at the Church of the Holy Trinity, Geneva, on Reformation Sunday, 1986, it was altogether inappropriate to use the 1662 Prayer Book. 

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 4)

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

PART 4

Puritan Worship: the Westminster Directory

To return to the Directory itself, the in-built ambiguities of Elizabethan Anglicanism, the constant threat of Romanism and the Romanizing measures of Archbishop Laud form the immediate backdrop to the Westminster Assembly. With political Puritanism in the ascendance, the scene was setto complete the English Reformation. With respect to a replacement for the BCP, various options were open to the Assembly as it commenced its work on 24 May 1644. These included the various Puritan editions of the BCP and other similar substitutes,30 together with an abridgment of Calvin's Form of Prayers for the Church and its Knoxian derivative, The Book of Common Order.31 However, the Assembly preferred to issue a work of its own composition.32

If the text of the Directory tends to obscure differences over alternative preferences, the Preface justifies the replacement of the BCP in no uncertain terms. While its virtues are not ignored, it had become an 'offense' to many of the godly at home and abroad. 'For, not to speak of urging the reading of all the prayers, which very greatly increased the burden of it, the many unprofitable and burdensome ceremonies', e.g. wearing the surplice, the sign of the cross at baptism, confirmation, bowing at the name of Jesus, etc., 'have occasioned much mischief' by troubling the consciences 'of many godly ministers and people'. Many good Christians have been 'kept from the Lord's Table' and 'able and faithful ministers' have been debarred from their ministry. The bishops had virtually insisted that use of the BCP was the only acceptable way of worshipping God. Preaching had been 'jostled out as unnecessary, or at best as far inferior' to the reading of the service. In short, the Prayer Book had become 'no better than an idol by many ignorant and superstitious people'. Accordingly, the 'Papists boasted that the book was a compliance with them in a great part of their service; and so were not a little confirmed in their superstition and idolatry, expecting rather our return to them, than endeavouring the reformation of themselves'. Furthermore, exclusive use of the BCP had promoted 'an idle and unedifying ministry', which contented itself with reading 'set forms' composed by others 'without putting
forth themselves to exercise the gift of prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants whom he calls to that office'. These were the 'weighty considerations' which led the Assembly to 'lay aside the former Liturgy'.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 5)

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

PART 5

A Liturgy for Life

Before we focus particular attention on the public worship of the Lord's Day, it should he remembered that 'worship' embraced the whole of life in the minds of our forefathers. God was to be acknowledged, loved and obeyed in all the experiences and decisions of daily life. Accordingly, the BCP  in keeping with centuries of Christian tradition  made provision for the great and momentous occasions in life from the womb to the tomb. What we immediately think of as 'worship' was a special instance of communal Lord's Day worship, where the Lord is pleased to 'command the blessing' (Ps.133: 3). Thus against a background of common Sabbath desecration, even in less secular times, the Directory supplied practical spiritual guidance on 'the sanctification of the Lord's Day'. While this concern was justified, it was recognized that in the vast majority of English parishes, then as now, the only certain contact people had with the church was through 'hatchings, matchings and despatchings'. 

Here the Directory is so unlike the Prayer Book in dealing with the problems posed by nominalism in a territorial conception of the church. Taking matters in reverse order, concerning the burial of the dead, 

'When any person departeth this life, let the dead body, upon the day of burial, be decently attended from the house to the place appointed for public burial, and there immediately interred, without any ceremony'. Because of superstitious abuse, readings, prayers and singing 'are to be 'laid aside'. At most, the minister  if he is present  is only to encourage the mourners to engage in suitable meditations.
The pressure to eulogize over the doubtful virtues of the irreligious is thus removed. The minister is also delivered from perjuring himself. No longer does he have to say beside the graves of the ungodly 'Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great mercy to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed….' However, one wonders if the Directory's blanket solution goes a little too far. May not a graveside oration comfort the relatives of one who is a 'dear departed brother/sister'? The question of funeral sermons was hotly debated, the Scots objecting to what the English wished to retain.33 One notes with interest that Knox's Liturgy left it an open question, permitting  where Calvin's Genevan service book had enjoined  that the minister go to the church and make 'some comfortable exhortation ... touching death and the resurrection'.34 With reference to human mortality, the Directory reminds ministers of the pastoral and evangelistic opportunities of sick visitation: 'He is to admonish' the people 'in time of health, to prepare for death; and, for that purpose, they are often to confer with their minister about the estate of their souls; and in time of sickness, to desire his advice and help ... before their strength and understanding fail them'.

On the 'solemnization of marriage', the Directory states categorically that 'marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind'. While the XXXIX Articles deny that 'matrimony' is a sacrament of the gospel' (Art. XXV), to this day there remains a somewhat mystical regard for church weddings; so this directive is no less necessary in some quarters. Yet because the Scriptures give directions to Christians about marriage 'in the Lord', the Assembly judged it 'expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word'. Thus the idea of a strictly secular marriage was ruled out. Few may quarrel with this appeal to expediency, a criterion generally anathema to the Puritan mind. At the same time, none can object on scriptural grounds to a purely civil ceremony. Indeed, the Bible provides no specific guidance either way. Despite the impact of his presence at the marriage at Cana, the Lord Christ was no more than a guest. He didn't even bless the marriage as the Prayer Book almost implies. Among the Jews, marriage was at one time a merely civil ceremony; not until the later Middle Ages did the presence of a Rabbi become obligatory at Jewish weddings.35 Even in post-apostolic Christian times, marriage was a private ceremony. Only with the advent of sacramentalism were marriages blessed at special services, i.e. the eucharist.36 That said, there is no violation of principle in the Assembly's ruling provided stress is placed on the need for life-long marital commitment and fidelity under the Lordship of Christ rather than on some mystical, sacramental blessing conveyed by a priest or minister. Unlike the Genevan church,37 the Assembly advised that weddings should not take place on Lord's Day. 

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 6)

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

PART 6

The Sacrament of Baptism
This brings us to the administration of the sacraments. Every member of the Westminster Assembly was committed to the Reformed doctrine of covenant baptism. Like all the sixteenth century Reformers, they did not consider that infant baptism was an unscriptural relic of Roman Catholicism. Unlike the BCP, but in harmony with the continental Reformed churches, the Directory places infant baptism in a covenant context when it declares:

That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before ...

Time forbids an in-depth discussion of the subject of baptism. Suffice it to say that the Westminster divines believed they had a strong biblical case for rejecting the Baptist position. The present lecturer, after man years of years of thought, is now inclined to think that the Waldensians, the Reformers, the Huguenots, the Pilgrim Fathers, the Puritans, and the Covenanters had it right after all! 

While seventeenth-century Baptists argued their case chiefly from a partial, New Testament view of the
evidence, they were naturally confirmed in their antipaedobaptism by the abuses of the Reformed. But the Westminster Assembly was no less concerned to root these out, while taking care not to throw out the covenant baby with the superstitious font-water. However, while the Assembly clearly rejected the Prayer Book's language of baptismal regeneration  the Directory states that 'the inward grace of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered' a highly questionable statement is made: '...all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized'. Now does federal or covenant holiness necessarily imply actual grace? Is it not a red rag to a
Baptist bull to say 'they are Christians'? Surely the statement is neither true nor necessary. One notes that this unfortunate expression of the Directory finds no parallel in Calvin's form of administering baptism.38 Observing the circumcision analogy, even the Apostle Paul denied that someone was a (true) Jew in the sight of God without evidence of the circumcision of the heart (see Rom. 2: 28, 29). As surely as the prophets preached the necessity of heart circumcision to those circumcised in the flesh, so preachers must urge the necessity of the new birth upon the baptized children of believers. They are not to be told they are Christians without a credible, personal profession of faith. Let it also be said that the danger of nominalism no more invalidates the lawfulness of infant baptism than a similar state of affairs in the Old Testament invalidated divinely-commanded circumcision. Neither should Baptists give the impression that paedobaptists are the only ones plagued by hypocritical nominals. Both schools, in the absence of godly discipline, may be confronted by the same problem in church life. Indeed, are there not unregenerate members of Baptist churches? Comparing the current Rome-ward drift of the ecumenical Baptist Union with the traditionally faithful paedobaptist Free Church of Scotland suggests that Baptist ultra-Puritanism is no sure guarantee of doctrinal and ecclesiological purity. Is it not significant that if one drew up a list of faithful preachers and theologians from the last 450 years, Baptists would be a decided minority? While we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of dividing over baptism, these points must be made in the interests of truth. Equally it should be said that Presbyterians have not opposed believer's baptism as Baptists have opposed infant baptism. In a missionary context  such as the period of the Acts of the Apostles  Presbyterians would expect to baptize believers but not without their children. While the evidence is not entirely conclusive, the covenant view makes better sense of NT household baptisms than the individualist Baptist view does. The Directory's failure to provide for a missionary context reflects the general lack of missionary awareness during the Puritan
period. Interestingly, the 1662 BCP added a service of baptism for those of 'Riper Years' to meet the need caused by the neglect of the sacrament during the Commonwealth and by the beginnings of missionary work in the colonies.39

The divines were clearly opposed to an undisciplined, indiscriminate administration of infant baptism of the kind Anglicanism had encouraged. In other words, the sacrament made no sense unless at least one parent was a true believer; and in stressing the responsibility of the father, the Directory abolishes the idea of godparents. Furthermore, infant baptism is not to be 'administered in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, where the people may most conveniently see and hear; and not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed'.

This raises the question of the mode of baptism. While the Prayer Book allows for 'dipping', and no absolute prejudice against immersion was entertained by Calvin40 and the other reformers, the Directory ruled in favour of 'pouring or sprinkling of the water on the face of the child, without adding any other ceremony'. The etymology of baptizo surely justifies this position. The 'baptism of the Spirit' was an 'outpouring' (Acts 1: 5; 2: 17) rather than an 'immersion'; Israel's 'baptism unto Moses' simply meant an identification of the people with their leader, when they were neither immersed nor sprinkled. Their baptism was entirely dry, for not a drop of water fell on them! (1 Cor. 10: 2); as for the alleged immersionism of Romans 6, the notion of a watery grave is more applicable to God's enemies than his friends if the flood and the drowning of the Egyptians are anything to go by. As one may be perfectly clean after a bath or a shower,' so ceremonial washing is adequately signified by sprinkling (see Numbers 8: 7). Indeed, the quantity of water is quite irrelevant. Even the Apostle Peter seems to warn against attaching too much importance to the sign of baptism (1 Pet. 3: 21), a danger which faces Roman Catholics and Baptists alike. The essential thing which must always unite Bible-believing Christians  especially at the Lord's Table  is the reality of regeneration and a living, obedient faith in Christ.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 7)

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

PART 7

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
This brings us to the subject of the Lord's Supper. The Directory states that it is 'frequently to be celebrated', without determining just how frequently. In terms familiar to most of us, the Assembly decided that it should be celebrated 'after the morning sermon' or, as is suggested elsewhere, after the final psalm. This practice has been criticized for treating the Lord's Supper as a mere appendage, a thought reinforced by the relative infrequency of celebration in the Scottish tradition. This practice reflects the view of Zwingli rather than Calvin, who actually desired a weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper,41 incorporated into the Lord's Day morning service rather than merely tacked on the end. In this respect, the Independents were closer to Calvin's wishes than the Scots were. 

Unlike the Prayer Book with its ceremony of episcopal confirmation, the Directory says

nothing about the admission of catechized young people to the Lord's Table. In this respect also, Anglo-Scottish Presbyterianism went beyond the Continental Reformed churches. While admittance to the Lord's Table before the congregation by the minister and kirk session with the right hand of fellowship became the norm,42 even Calvin argued for a simple form of confirmation with laying on of hands by the pastor.43 However, a general exhortation is to be made at every celebration. The minister fences the table by warning 'all such as are ignorant, scandalous, profane, or that live in any sin or offense against their knowledge or conscience, that they presume not to come to that holy table'.

While the Westminster divines were agreed on the theology of the Lord's Supper, the seemingly innocuous statement that 'communicants may orderly sit about' or 'at' the table hides the fact that violent disagreement occurred over the question of 'posture'. Baillie complained that 'The Independents and others keeped us long three weeks upon one point alone, the communicating at a table'.44 Heated discussion of a merely circumstantial aspect of the sacrament of unity, as Dr. Robert Paul writes, 'almost tore the Assembly apart and occupied all the time until a compromise was reached'.45 Three kinds of practice were argued for. The ex-Anglican Puritans had been used to kneeling at the Lord's Table (in the spirit of the 'black rubric', i.e. no adoration of the elements was intended); the Scots believed that communicants should come up to the table  in separate groups if numbers demanded it  and sit about it; whereas the Independents insisted that communicants should receive the elements sitting in their pews!

Extremist misrepresentation of one another's position produced a loss of perspective. It was surely sufficient to stress, negatively, that the place of remembrance was not an altar of sacrifice, and positively, that the act of receiving the elements was the significantly symbolic act. As for kneeling or sitting, either at the table or in one's pew, the first disciples received the elements in a reclining posture. Such a circumstance could hardly be repeated in a large congregation, even assuming that the procedure was either necessary or desirable. While Charles Herle argued that the Scots practice tended to fragment the congregation into groups, and Edmund Calamy replied that the unity of the congregation is in the unity of consecration,46 it arguably maximizes the sense of unity if all receive the elements sitting in their pews. Goodwin was surely right in this, that 'Christ doth not put the honour in that sitting at table, but that he serves them'.47 Once it was realized that the regulative principle could be taken a little too far, the result was a rather Anglican kind of agreed statement permitting all three procedures!

The radical simplicity of the Directory's Lord's Supper is in stark contrast to the Prayer Book. Gone are the rehearsing of the Ten Commandments (with responses), the Nicene Creed and the comfortable words. One notes with interest that in Calvin's Geneva (where 'coming forward with reverence and in order' to kneel at the Lord's Table was not viewed with suspicion)48 the administration of the Lord's Supper included the Lord's Prayer (in paraphrase form) and the Apostle's Creed.  

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 8)

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

PART 8

The Public Worship of the Lord's Day

A combination of radical simplicity and reverent spirituality characterizes the Directory's recommendations for the worship of the Lord's Day. The order of service is as follows:

Call to worship
Prayer for grace and enlightenment
Scripture reading:
OT chapter
NT chapter
Metrical Psalm
Prayer of confession and intercession
Preaching of the Word
Prayer of thanksgiving and petition
Lord's Prayer
Metrical Psalm
Benediction 

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 9)

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

PART 9

The Pastor and the People

The Directory urges that the people prepare their hearts before assembling for worship, and that they meet 'not irreverently, but in a grave and seeming manner, taking their seats or places without adoration. or bowing themselves towards one place or another'. If the divines were anxious to discourage idolatrous genuflections in worship, they were equally concerned to prevent casual familiarity. Hence there were to be no 'private whisperings, conferences, salutations, or doing reverence to any person present, or coming in'. Likewise, there should be no 'gazing, sleeping, and other indecent behaviour, which may disturb the minister or people' in 'the service of God'.

The Scriptures are only to be read by 'pastors and teachers', and occasionally by ministerial students. Thus the office of reader, tracing its ancestry from an earlier Reformed tradition back to the synagogue,49 was  with doubtful necessity  laid aside. Indeed, do the Scriptures support the Directory at this point? Unlike the Prayer Book lectionary, readings from the Apocrypha are forbidden, but 'all the canonical books' are to 'read over in order, that the people may be better acquainted with the whole body of the scriptures'. Occasionally, part of what is read may be expounded, after the reading, for clarification. However, 'regard is always to be had unto the time' so that the rest of the service, and especially the preaching is not 'rendered tedious'.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 10)

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

PART 10

The Priority of Preaching

Thus the major concern of the Assembly was to restore preaching to a place of prominence in public worship. Here one detects the great difference in priorities between Anglican and Puritan worship. Not that the Anglican Reformers had neglected the great necessity of preaching, at least in principle. Indeed it had been Cranmer's intention that after Morning prayer, the Litany and Ante-communion, a 'sermon or homily' should be preached. The excellent Books of Homilies50 were intended as a basis for the reformation of preaching. However, as the Prayer Book became more established, the sheer length of the liturgy left little or no time for a sermon. Practice rather than intention thus justifies Dr. Kenneth Brownell's observation that 'Anglican worship is primarily priestly' whereas 'Reformed worship is primarily prophetic'.51 The truth is that Anglican worship was only semi-reformed. and under the iron hand of Queen Elizabeth, who disliked Puritans AND preaching,52 the prophetic features of the English Reformation became smothered by more priestly elements. Thus, in the spirit of Calvin's letter to the Duke of Somerset, the Westminster Assembly was determined to ensure that 'good trumpets' would have plenty of time to preach. Accordingly, the Directory declares that 'Preaching of the word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed. that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.'

Whatever our former FIEC president means by saying that the sermon is a 'relatively modern invention', we have the Puritans to thank for reasserting its importance. When the centrality of preaching is attacked by those ostensibly in the Puritan tradition, it is high time to remember our roots. For all that is best and most enduring in the history of evangelicalism has been due to the God-honoured, Spirit-anointed preaching of Christ and him crucified. We must not be ignorant of Satan's devices. He is always opposed to preaching. The introduction of drama and dance among so-called evangelicals gives him  as well as others  great pleasure, for the gap between truth-obscuring 'dramatic worship' and the truth-corrupting theatricalism of the Mass is no great chasm! 

One trusts it is not necessary in this conference to labour these points. But, for us to be self-critical for a moment, a thorough study of the Directory's excellent pronouncements on preaching would not only complete a preacher's education; it would help us to avoid the sometimes valid criticism one hears about modem Reformed preaching. For instance, the preacher should not simply dish up dull, undiluted systematic theology. Truth must be made to live. After all, doesn't the prince of darkness prefer dull, dark sermons too? So 'illustrations, of what kind soever, ought to be full of light'. More generally, the Westminster divines were clearly aware that mere orthodoxy of sentiment, soundness of education, competence in knowledge, correctness of pulpit utterance and dignity of gesture are not enough. True, as John Caiger made clear in his helpful exposition53 of the Directory's teaching on preaching, Puritan preaching was intellectual, biblical, theological, pastoral, and spiritual. And what ensures this balanced character of true preaching? The preacher's own personal walk with God. According to the Directory, he must have 'his senses and heart exercised in (the holy scriptures) above the common sort of believers; and by the illumination of God's Spirit, and other gifts of edification, which (together with reading and studying of the word) he ought still to seek by prayer, and an humble heart'. Without this priority, sermons will be little more than arid dissertations and preaching nothing but unspiritual oratory. And if preaching is to be the highlight of Reformed worship, powerless preaching is all the excuse our detractors need to go elsewhere and do something different! May we heed the words of the greatest preacher Puritanism ever produced, Richard Baxter: 'Nothing is more indecent than a dead preacher, speaking to dead hearers the living truths of the living God'.54

To be practical, the Westminster divines didn't expect that every preacher should conform to a rigid Puritan equivalent of the Anglican stereotype with his sanctimonious grin and parsonic voice! They weren't out to crush individuality. As surely as Cranmer's style was not Calvin's, so Bunyan was not to ape Baxter, nor was Goodwin to duplicate Gouge. So, the Directory's 'method is not prescribed as necessary for every man...but only recommended, as being found by experience to be very blessed of God'. But whatever our homilectic method, our ministry should be 'Painful' rather than negligent, 'Plain' for all to understand, 'Faithful' in seeking Christ's honour alone, 'Wise' in the use of reproof, without personal passion or bitterness, 'Grave', so as not to make preaching appear contemptible  there must be no attempt to entertain  and 'Loving' or 'affectionate', that our hearers may see our only concern is 'to do them good'. Lastly, he who teaches others must be seen to be 'taught of God, and persuaded in his own heart, that all that he teacheth is the truth of Christ; and walking before his flock, as an example to them in it; earnestly, both in private and public, recommending his labours to the blessing of God, and watchfully looking to himself, and the flock whereof the Lord hath made him an overseer'. If preaching was in need of reformation according to these criteria 350 years ago, God forbid that we should say anything less today!

=========================================================================

May I draw your attention to this website where you will discover something about John Calvin's evangelistic preaching.  He was primarily a preacher of the Gospel, and you will get a flavour of Calvin's evangelistic preaching when you buy this book.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 11)

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

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. 

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.

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (PART 12)

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

PART 12

The Privilege of Praise

To the Westminster reformers, public worship consisted of proclamation, prayer, and praise. Thus the Directory concludes: 'And because singing of psalms is of all other the most proper ordinance for expressing joy and thanksgiving, ... It is the duty of Christians to praise God publickly, by singing of psalms together in the congregation, and also privately in the family.' Time and propriety forbid a lengthy discussion of the exclusive psalmody versus hymns debate. This was simply not an issue for the Westminster Assembly, and the era of English hymnody had hardly dawned. However, the hymns of Watts and Wesley made their impact on exclusive psalm-singers during the following century throughout the English-speaking world. In the United States, the 1788 Presbyterian Directory enjoined the singing of 'psalms and hymns'. Forty years earlier, Jonathan Edwards had reacted to the new fashion with moderation. After preaching away from home, he found that his Northampton congregation had been using Watts' hymns to the exclusion of the Psalter. He 'disliked not their making some use of the hymns; but did not like their setting aside the Psalms.'67 However, this moderation is not enough for Michael Bushell whose reactionary tour de force in favour of exclusive psalmody nonetheless deserves the attention of chorus and hymn singers alike!68 

Certainly psalm singing deserves a much higher profile in modern worship. After all, are the psalms not the heritage of New Testament children of the covenant?

However, one wonders if Bushell has not overstated his case. It is simply not that obvious that the Apostle excludes the possibility of post-apostolic hymns in Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. Without denying that the 'word of Christ' is found in the psalms, surely New Testament Christians are expected to sing the 'word of Christ' in the language of fulfillment as well as prophecy. It seems strange that our understanding, preaching, and praying may be expressed in NT language when our praise should remain in OT language. This may be illustrated from Calvin who was no exclusive psalm singer69 even if he did not write that beautiful hymn attributed to him.70 The Reformer says 'As for public prayers, there are two kinds: the one consists simply of speech, the other of song'.71 Now if spoken prayers may use NT language, why should sung prayers be confined to OT language? Is the praise of Christians to be no different from the Jews? And is the issue to be settled by a tune? Bushell argues that 'uninspired praises', i.e. hymns not found in the Bible, have no place in Christian worship. But this could imply the most rigid kind of liturgical worship, with all our prayers and sermons taken verbatim from the Bible, for what Christian could be content with uninspired worship at any point in the service? It is surely sufficient to ensure that every part of worship is consistent with scripture truth rather than a verbatim copy of it. If the psalms, unlike our sermons, are 'untouched by human hands', where does that leave the Anglo-Scottish Psalter which, in the words of Sir Richard Terry, 'groans under the weight of the monotonous 'Ballad Metre', i.e. 8.6.8.6.72 Did the Holy Spirit reveal them to David and Asaph in such a straitjacket, sometimes producing embarrassing if not amusing results? The regulative principle could overthrow the entire Presbyterian tradition of metrical psalms in favour of the Anglican chant! The answer is, of course, that literary form is a thing indifferent, and that it is the divinely-inspired truth-content that makes them acceptable. Quite! And is it not an insult to the Holy Spirit to describe a hymn which is orthodox and full of Christ 'uninspired'?

This is not to supplement scripture, but to acknowledge that a hymn may reflect revelation as in a or. Just as the Westminster Directory was concerned that preaching and praying should faithfully reflect the Word of God, so hymns fulfilling the same requirement may surely be admitted. Consistent with Calvin's actual position, later Presbyterians like Charles Hodge73 and Albert Barnes74 endorse the use-of post-apostolic hymns. As for modern choruses, our forefathers would probably say that some of them are useful teaching aids for very young children. But for adults, they can only be the effusions of immature Christians reared on superficial preaching. Where there is a healthy appetite for the Reformed Faith, nothing less than the psalms and hymns of the Reformed Faith will be suitable vehicles of praise.

It is unfortunate that English-speaking psalm-singers usually end up pleading for one rather unpoetic, seventeenth-century version of the Psalms. This is not to forget some glorious and justly famous individual psalms, nor do I wish to appear ungracious in my remarks. But there are other versions which could convince those brought up on the eloquence and energy of Watts and Wesley that psalms should not be so neglected. The Anglo-Genevan Psalter,75 with its tasteful translations of Marot's and Beza's paraphrases, employing varied metres and set to the majestic and glorious tunes of Greiter and Bourgeois, meets this requirement. Here are the psalms which inspired the heroic-Huguenots in their sufferings for Christ. There was nothing drab about Reformed worship at the beginning, judging by the experience of a student passing through Strasbourg in 1545 where Calvin had published his first psalter just six years before:

You would never believe what a happy thing it is and what peace of conscience one experiences in being where the Word of God is purely proclaimed and the sacraments purely administered. Also when one hears the fine Psalms sung and the marvellous works of the Lord... At the beginning when I heard the singing I could scarcely keep myself from weeping with joy. You would not hear one voice drowning another. Everybody holds a book of music in his hand. Every man and woman alike praises the Lord.76

THE ANGLICAN BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: ITS VIRTUES & VICES (Part 13)

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

 PART 13

Conclusion: Worship in Spirit and Truth

I would like to conclude on this note of joy in true worship. After all, the psalmist declared 'In your presence is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures for evermore' (Ps. 16: 11). One wonders if this was always the dominant note during the seventeenth century. True, there were great theologians, mighty preachers, and occasional revivals. But there were also  to use the subtitle of Richard Baxter's Catholick Theologie (1675)  the 'dogmatical word-warriors', whose bitter disputings and ultra-orthodox contendings tended to drown the note of praise. Alas, the Puritans duplicated their confessions and their energies. It was a century which ended on the low notes of heresy, fragmentation, deadness, and secularism. And all this despite the faithful though formal attempts of the Puritans to complete the English Reformation. Do we not feel burdened by these things today? Do we not yearn for those seasons of revival and refreshment which would cure many  if not all  of our present ills? We dare not think that the mere reformation of worship will guarantee worship itself, any more than reformation itself automatically brings revival. There must be an earnest pleading with God and a humble dependence on the Holy Spirit.

Unlike the Westminster divines whose prescribed services  including solemn fasts and public thanksgivings  were quite formal, the Methodists of the next century restored the less formal love-feasts referred to in 2 Peter 2: 13 and Jude 12, and known in the early church. Thomas Manton77 doubted whether they had any permanent place in the fellowship of the church whereas Calvin is happy just to acknowledge that these 'frugal' and 'restrained' gatherings were 'feasts which the faithful held among themselves, to witness to their brotherly concord.'78 During the early days of the evangelical revival, something very remarkable occurred at a Methodist love-feast. As if to prove that God only meets with those who seek him with a whole heart, whatever forms they use, John Wesley recorded in his Journal for Monday, January 1, 1739:

Mr. Hall, Kinchin, Ingham, Whitefield, Hutchins, and my brother Charles, were present at our love-feast in Fetter Lane, with about sixty of our brethren. About three in the morning, as we were continuing instant in prayer, the power of God came mightily upon us, insomuch that many cried out for exceeding joy, and many fell to the ground. As soon as we were recovered a little from that awe and amazement at the presence of his Majesty, we broke out with one voice, 'We praise thee, O God; we acknowledge thee to be the Lord.'79

May the Lord in his infinite mercy so visit us again in our day. Let us pray:

Grant, Almighty God, that we may ever be attentive to that rule which has been prescribed to us by thee in the Law, as well as in the Prophets and in the Gospel, so that we may constantly abide in thy precepts, and be wholly dependent on the words of thy mouth, and never turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, but glorify thy name, as thou hast commanded us, by offering to thee a true, sincere, and spiritual worship. Grant also that we may truly and from the heart turn to thee, and offer ourselves to thee as a sacrifice, that thou mayest govern us according to thy will, and so rule all our affections by thy Spirit, that we may through the whole of our life strive to glorify thy name, until having at length finished all our struggles, we reach that blessed rest, which has been obtained for us by the blood of thy only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus so Christ.
Amen.80

NB: The Reformed Liturgy of Norwich Reformed Church (prepared by the author)
is offered as an alternative to both the BCP and the WDPW. This may be seen on
the NRC website at www.nrchurch.co.nr.

Westminister Theology Tolerates Non-Gospel Ministers

I was brought up within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and was well into my teens, possibly 19, when we had our first evangelical minister.  So for all those years, and for many prior to that, there was no Gospel ministry in my church.  I know that an unregenerate sinner cannot hear the Gospel in a saving way even where it is preached, but in my case there just was no Gospel.

But, and here's the important point, our ministers all subscribed the Westminster Confession of Faith, and they appear to have believed - if they even believed in being saved at all - that God would save sinners in His own way and time.  So Gospel preaching was not even necessary.

All of these ministers without exception were held in high esteem as presbyters, and one of them was even in one of his sermons preparing the congregation for his election as Moderator.  They were in good, full and regular standing with the church; yet they did not preach the Gospel. 

How can this be?  Well they all subscribed, that is, under-signed, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) as the confession of their faith, and so long as they did that, there was no problem within the church.  What I am saying is that WCF theology and especially its soteriology does not require Gospel preaching to be done in any particular congregation.  If a minister does preach the biblical Gospel then that's a bonus; but it is not required.  If it was, then the church would take whatever steps are necessary to remove those ministers who do not preach the biblical Gospel and open the way for true evangelicals to occupy the pulpits instead.

I find it difficult to believe that the soteriology of WCF is not detrimental to Gospel work within the churches. When churches do not only tolerate but defend and protect non-Gospel preaching ministers - and elders and other communicant church members who oppose the Gospel - what does that say about the destructive impact of WCF soteriology on those churches?

If, or since, this is the case, surely it is not before time that evangelical theologians take a serious look at WCF soteriology, which teaches that Christ died only for the elect, and come up with a more biblical expression of what the Gospel really is.

Any views?

Dry Scholasticism

"What is an Evangelical?" by Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.  Banner of Truth Trust: Edinburgh, 1992.

While we thank God for the great work of Christ in the past, e.g, the Reformation and other minor reformations, not even this work was complete because the reformation of the church according to the Word of God is or ought to be an ongoing task (semper reformanda).  The Second Law of Thermodynamics will see to it that reformation is needed constantly.  This is why we must not be "slaves to them", he says, referring to what the Lord has done in the past.

"This is the way to develop a kind of scholasticism and an arid intellectualism," wrote the Doctor (p.36).  These twin evils grow out of exaggerated adoration for past achievements, and not least in confession writing.  He continues, "It is as important to define the evangelical as being against a form of Protestantism or even reformed scholasticism, as it is that we should define the evangelical by contrast with those who are heterodox in their practice and their belief, " (p.34).

So DMLJ was not impressed with scholasticism because he could see clearly the results of such an approach to theology.  Reformed scholasticism is particularly malignant because it hides the Gospel by claiming to be Gospel-centred.  It is a distraction that the church could do well enough without.  Look how it has been used to hide the Gospel from a lost and perishing world.  Look how it has caused needless controversy between brethren.  Look how it has masqueraded as scholarly.  Look how it has confused the common people. 


Reformed scholasticism has a lot to answer for because despite claiming to be in submission to the Word of God, it actually forms a Procrustean bed for the Gospel; and ministers then tailor their preaching content to fit into this cramped bed - to the spiritual and eternal detriment of those they are trying to reach for Christ. 

The Church and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

One thing that church history teaches us is that nothing remains static in the life of the church.  There is always change and development, and, as happens in nature and in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, left to its own everything tends towards decay and degeneration.  The same happens within the life of the church.  Here we see the results of sin and the fall on mankind.  Sin is degenerative, so this is the tendency within the church's life.

Few see this, of course.  The many, on the other hand, believe that "every day and in every way we are getting better and better."  Because the churches have more 'evangelical' ministers today, things are on the up.  But right from NT times, the apostles had to warn the churches of heresies and false doctrine propagated by false prophets.  Paul warned about wolves coming in sheep's clothing.  He spoke about false prophets from among their own number coming in to lead the people away from Christ and the Gospel.  That warning still stands, but the churches do not listen or believe what Paul was saying.  They actually welcome and embrace and protect false prophets within their ranks.  There is pride in what is called a 'broad church.'

But, and here's the vital point, the changes introduced by the false prophets masquerading as 'evangelicals' are so subtle that none but the most alert recognise what is happening.  At one time, services of worship were conducted in a reverent and dignified way, and solemnity marked all that was done.  This was true even in non-christian congregations.  There was a gravitas about what was being done, and everybody accepted this as right and proper.

But today, evangelicals have been at the forefront of subtly introducing changes into church worship that no one dared to question it.  It was being done by evangelicals so it must be OK.  And church members and elders simply went along with it.  The message is still the same even though we have changed the method of presenting that message.  We still preach the Gospel, but our dependence is more on powerpoint than on God the Holy Spirit.  We still sing the old worship songs and hymns and psalms, but we prefer the new one with their heavy drum beat, loud pounding of the piano, and tunes that are all but impossible to sing.  That's not to mention the theology that is taught through these (often) terrible songs.  But we still preach the Gospel.

Then there is the almost endless singing that goes on - to such an extent that worshippers become intoxicated with singing that they are no longer able to hear the message - if there is one.  There is also the terrible practice in some evangelical churches of singing the Psalms at such a slow pace that it can take up to ten minutes to sing Ps.23.  It's terrible.  And I often wonder what the Lord thinks of such deadly singing, for it hardly brings any glory to Him.

Yes, we may have introduced drama as a means of presenting the Gospel, but the Gospel is still being preached.  And we like to hear personal stories, testimonies they're called, and these last about 25 minutes so that the time for preaching is reduced; but there has been no change in what we stand for - the Gospel.

The litany could go on much longer, but I think you get the point.  You might be asking where this approach to Christian things emanated from, and you'd be right to ask.  Within the last 150 years, we have seen subtle theological changes that have come in from Germany where matters deemed to be circumferential have been tampered with, thus introducing theological rot into theological thinking.  Scholars denied the historicity of OT narratives, but emphasised the importance of the message that they obtain.  It's the message that is crucial and as long as you have the message, it matters little if the story that contains the message is factual.

And men fell for that lie!  Theological students who were being trained for the Christian ministry were contaminated by this garbage, and then spread it through their congregations with the result that what was left of a faith was based, not on historical fact but on an educated man's opinions.  Slowly this trend continued, and those promoting it assured the church that they were evangelicals.  But alas, the results are clear to be seen.  The church was started on a slippery downward trend, and no one saw what was happening.  But we still preach the Gospel.

Things are happening within the church; but are they good things that are happening?  Are deeper Christians, more spiritual people, being produced by today's church?  Where are the truly godly men and women that we read about in books?  Where are the men and women of conviction who once shook the world?  Where are the men who despised the world for the sake of knowing Jesus?  Where are they?  The Tozers, Ryles, McCheynes, Lloyd-Jones, Edwards, Calamys, Davenants, Baxters, Calvins, Luthers, Latimer's, Ridleys, Cranmers.

The church has created the conditions in which such men cannot be produced. thing.  If God has withdrawn from the church, then the spiritual equivalent of the Second Law of Thermodynamics will work itself out, and the church will tend towards its own disintergration. 

And woe betide those who did that very evil thing!

Excellent content, but little application.

One of the saddest spectacles is surely listening to a preacher who knows the truth of the Gospel but fails to 'drive it home' to those listening to him.  Excellent content, but little application.  Hearing the most serious of sermons yet leaving wondering who it was for.

Preachers need to study how to apply what they preach to their hearers.  Perhaps they need to study how to apply it to their own hearts first, and then application to others will come much more easily.  But unapplied ointment will do a wounded hand no good!  Paint that sits in its tin will not decorate the wall - it has to be applied.  Speaking in the second person plural will never strike a hearer that what the preacher is preaching is meant for them.

But experienced preachers know well that it is the application of a message to the hearers consciences that does the greatest good to them and bring the greatest trouble to the messenger.

Fancy going to your doctor for results of tests for him to say, I'm sorry; we have cancer."  Or to be stopped by a policeman who comes to your open window to tell you, "We have been speeding, haven't we?"  That is just plain silly - and it is not preaching, whatever else men might say it is.