A SERMON DELIVERED BY C. H. SPURGEON, AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON, ON LORD’S-DAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 16, 1883.
“For who has despised the day of small things?” Zechariah 4:10.
IT is a very great folly to despise “the day of small things,” for it is usually God’s way to begin His great works with small things. We see it every day, for the first dawn of light is but feeble, and yet by and by, it grows into the full noontide heat and glory. We know how the early spring comes with its buds of promise, but it takes some time before we get to the beauties of summer or the wealth of autumn. How tiny is the seed that is sown in the garden, yet out of it there comes the lovely flower! How small is the acorn, but how great is the oak that grows up from it! The stream commences with but a gentle rivulet, but it flows on till it becomes a brook, and soon a river—perhaps a mighty Amazon, before its course is run.
God begins with men in “the day of small things;” He began so with us. How little and how feeble were we when first we came upon the scene of action! He that is now a giant was once so feeble that he could not move from place to place except as he was carried in his mother’s arms. Let us, then, not despise “the day of small things,” as we see that God begins with little things in nature and among the sons and daughters of men. And I am sure that He does so in the great work of His Church. Long ago, He began to build a spiritual temple for His own habitation; but, at first, the stones of the foundation were hidden from the great mass of mankind. How little was known in the world at large concerning Abraham and his seed! How very, very slowly did the walls of that great temple rise! Even in the time of Zechariah, it was still “the day of small things” with the people of the Lord. Comparatively speaking, it is so still; for what is the Christian Church compared with the great mass of the heathen world and of those who reject the Savior? Our Lord’s method of spreading His truth among men was to begin with a handful of disciples in an upper room at Jerusalem, to fill them with His Spirit, and then to let them be scattered over the whole known world. This is usually God’s plan of working, in His Church, and also in individual believers. Of course, there are various degrees of ability and grace even among the Lord’s own people. One of the old Puritans said that some men are born with beards; and, certainly, there are some believers who, almost as soon as they are converted, seem to take great strides, and to make speedy advances, so that they soon become very useful, and are able even to teach things which others only learn after long years of experience. But, generally speaking, this is the order of the growth of grace in the heart, “First the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.” First, the truth is heard and felt, and the heart bleeds under conviction of guilt. By and by, another truth is discovered, and the wounded heart is bound up by faith in Christ. This faith grows to full assurance; there is a gradual conformity to the image of Christ, and that image becomes more and more clear till the man reaches the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ Jesus. But first there is the beginning which is small; and afterwards there is the latter end which shows a great increase. It is within our souls as it is in the world without; the day begins with the dawn, but the shining light “shines more and more unto the perfect day.”
Woe unto that man who despises “the day of small things” in the Church of Christ, or who despises “the day of smart things” in any individual believer, for it is God’s day, it is a day out of which great things will yet come; and therefore he that despises it really despises his Maker’s work, and despises the great and glorious things which are to come out of the small things which are at present apparent! I know some professing Christians who, I am afraid, despise “the day of small things” in little churches. There is gathered a small community of godly people; perhaps they are poor, and many of them illiterate; and some of you rich folk, who think yourselves wonderfully intelligent—though I am not always sure that you are—if you happen to settle down in that village, you say that you would like to attend the little chapel or mission room, but the minister puts his h’s in the wrong place, and his speech is ungrammatical, and of course that is very painful to your refined taste. Then the people are very poor, and you hardly think that the church is advancing at all, so to help it you leave it alone! “God forbid,” you say, “that we should despise the day of small things!” But you are very sorry that everything is on such a small scale. You say that you pity the poor people; but, instead of helping them, you lie quietly by, or you go off to a more fashionable place where you meet with some of your own class, and feel more at home. There, the h’s are put in properly, though the gospel is left out of the preaching; but the people who attend are such a “respectable” sort of folk that you feel it is quite the correct thing to worship with them. If any of you have any respect for yourselves while acting in such a way as that, I hope you will soon discover that there is really nothing “respectable” in that kind of respectability; I mean that there is nothing that should make a man respected when he gives up his convictions, and leaves his own true brethren for the sake of getting into a better class of society, and seeming to be of a superior order to the godly poor people to whom he might be of real service. To me, it seems that it should be your glory to join the poorest and weakest churches of your denomination, and wherever you go, to say, “This little cause is not as strong as I should like it to be; but, by the grace of God, I will make it more influential. At any rate, I wil1 throw in my weight to strengthen the weak things of Zion, and certainly I will not despise the day of small things” Where would have been our flourishing churches of today if our forefathers had disdained to sustain them while they were yet in their infancy? I thank God for the men who did not mind going down into back yards and up into haylofts that they might worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. I delight in those who were willing to stand on the village green, with the people sitting down on felled trees or logs to listen to them, and who were not afraid of being called fanatics, and of bearing all manner of reproach and scorn for Christ’s sake. But if you and I grow to be such great and grand people as some we have known, we must mind that the Lord does not take us down a notch or two, and that, perhaps, by a very painful process. He asks, as if in indignation, “Who has despised the day of small things?” and I believe that He is grieved with any of His servants when they fall into such a state of mind as that, and begin to despise His Church because she is despised by the world, and look down on His people as the high peaks of Bashan seemed to regard with contempt the lowly hill of Zion, and therefore the psalmist said to them, “Why leap you, you high hills? This is the hill which God desires to dwell in; yes, the Lord will dwell in it forever.”
My special objective at this time is to reprove those who despise the earlier and weaker works of grace in the soul. True, it is “the day of small things,” but it is a subject for rejoicing, and is not to be despised. First, I shall speak to proud professors who despise “the day of small things” in young beginners. Then I shall have a little talk with young beginners who despise “the day of small things” in themselves; and, thirdly, I shall speak of those who do not despise “the day of small things.” When this question is put to them, “Who has despised the day of small things?” they can answer, “Lord, you know that we have not done so; we have rejoiced in the small signs of grace in young beginners, and we hope to see great things grow out of them.”
I. First of all, THERE ARE SOME PROFESSING CHRISTIANS WHO DESPISE “THE DAY OF SMALL THINGS” IN OTHERS.
I am sure I do not know exactly at what point the day of grace begins in some people. There are some who, even before they fully receive the gospel, have some good thing in them. “Oh, no!” you say, “That cannot be.” Well, just think a moment. Before the sower went forth to sow, there was a certain part of the farm which was described as “honest and good ground.” There was another part that was like the highway, and another part covered with thorns or stones; but there was something which distinguished the “honest and good ground” from all the rest of the land. I do not say that it was then bringing forth any fruit to God’s glory, but I do say that God had, from a very early period—I do not know when—made that ground ready and fit to receive the seed. So I can believe that, before a man even hears the gospel at all, there may be an antecedent work of what I may almost call secondary grace—not saving grace, but a making ready of the heart for the reception of the saving grace of God.
In my own experience, I never quite know where I am to put my finger upon the beginning of God’s work in my soul. I can tell the very day and hour when I was converted, but I had many stirrings of conscience before that. I know that I was very effectually convinced of sin; but when the gracious work began, I cannot say. One of the first things that I recollect is lying awake at night because I had done something wrong to my mother; I do not know whether that was not the grace of God working in my heart even then, I think that it was. I am sure that it was, in some measure, the Lord graciously working within me, and making me ready for the more manifest work of His Spirit.
Now, dear friends, do not despise those little things, those preparation works; but, whenever you see them in children, or in adults, be thankful for them. Frequently, when I have been receiving members into the church, I have asked of a good woman, “Is your husband a Christian?” and the answer has often been, “Well, sir, he is a very good husband, but I am afraid that he is not a Christian.” Then I have inquired, “What does he do with himself on Sundays?” “Oh, sir, he is always at the Tabernacle! He has been attending the services for years, and he is very fond of you, sir. He will run home, and hurry over his tea so as to get to the prayer meeting on Monday; and on Thursday nights, he is never absent.” I have said, “My good woman, does your husband show such love to the Lord’s house and to the minister, and yet he is not converted?” “Yes,” she answers, “he is not converted, for sometimes he does what he knows is not right; still, his attendance upon the means of grace is a great check upon him. He is a dear good husband, much better than he used to be; but I am afraid he is not a Christian, and that he does not truly pray for pardon.” “Ah!” I say, “let us have a little prayer together about him, and let us firmly believe that we shall have him yet. If a man continues to come where we are constantly firing the gospel gun, one of the stray shots will hit him yet. Be sure that you encourage him to keep on coming, and mind that you are very kind to him, and help him all you can in finding the Savior, and we will yet rejoice together over him.” When moths fly very near the candle, sooner or later they will singe their wings; there is a great gospel candle burning here, and I do not doubt that some of these human moths will dash into the flame by and by; so I hope you will encourage them to come here again and again until they are blessedly caught so that they can never fly away. Such people as I have been describing have very curious whims and fancies; they will take offense at almost nothing at all, so we must tread very softly and tenderly, and not grieve any with who it is in this sense “the day of small things.”
I have known some come to Christ at last and trust Him, but it was with such a very little faith that I hardly know whether, in their case, it was faith born or unbelief dying. You remember the poor man who said to Christ, “Lord, I believe;” and then he felt as if he had gone a little too far with his declaration, for he drew back, and said, “Help You my unbelief.” And these poor halting souls are just in that state; I hope they do believe, but I am sure that they are very unbelieving. They begin to pray; but, oh, what strange prayer it is! Some of them repeat a form of prayer they learned a long while ago, which is quite inapplicable to their present case, but still they do mean to pray somehow. They want to pray, and though it can scarcely be called prayer, yet I expect that God accepts it as prayer, and graciously answers it. They have begun to repent; they have not a very clear view of what sin is, but they know that it is something they would like to get rid of. They are like Paul when he was at Melita; I am not sure that he understood much about snakes and their bites, but when a viper fastened itself onto his hand, he shook it off into the fire directly. So, these people could not define sin theologically, but they wish that they were clear of it, they long to be pardoned. It is “the day of small things” with them, and it is not to be despised. Ah! Dear friends, when a man tries to get away alone, that he may read his Bible, do not despise him. When a tear falls during a sermon, and he brushes it away, and wants to make you believe that there was something the matter with his nose, do not despise him even for that. I have seen that sort of thing happen many a time, and I have been pleased to notice it. We ought to delight in anything and everything that looks in the right direction, and never think of despising it.
Now I want to come direct to the important point—Why ought we not to despise these small things—these feeble beginnings? Especially when there is a little grace in any people, why must we not despise them?
Well, first, because in the Church of Christ, there always were and there always will be babes as well as men. Do not despise the babes; where are the men to come from if there are no babes? If it happens in God’s family as it does in most families, you will soon find that it will not do to despise the babes. How very grieved all loving parents are when their infants are despised! You may ignore the big son if you like, but do not despise the babes. So, with regard to Christ’s family, be sure to honor the little ones; take care of them, never stand in their way. When they want to come to Christ, allow them to come. It does not say “draw them,” for they are wanting to come; but get out of their way, and do not hinder them from coming. And whenever you meet with one who has lately been born of God, and who is tender of heart, do not despise him. As long as the family of Christ is to increase, there always must be babes, and babes must never be despised.
Again, dear friends, do not speak harshly to those who are newly born to God, for you were a babe once. Yes, yes; though you do not like to be reminded of it, you, great giant that you are now, were an infant once; and you with your deep experience, and your profound knowledge, you who think you can set everybody else right, why, once, you hardly knew that twice two made four! You had to begin at the very beginning just like others have had to do; so remember what you used to be, look back to the hole of the pit from where you were dug, and do not begin to despise others who are in the same condition in which you once were.
Remember, again, that the greatest saints in this world, or who ever were in this world, were babes in grace once. Whether it was Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, they all began with little grace and weak spiritual life at the first. Yes, there is not a bright spirit before the throne of God, who has washed his robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, but once was only an infant in spiritual things; and if the greatest were once so little, that is a good reason why we should never despise “the day of small things.”
Besides, dear friends, it should always check every tendency in this direction when we remember that God made and God loves the very least believer. You know, a silver sixpence is as really silver as a half-crown; and the Queen’s image on the one is as genuine as on the other. They are current coin of the realm; and I am sure you will not treat with scorn the little pieces of money. Then why should we despise the small coins in Christ’s treasury? When our dear young brothers and sisters are made of the same metal and stamped with the same image as we are, why should we despise them, though we happen to be, or think we are, of somewhat more weight and value in the Church of God than they are? Oh, do not despise the lowly violet that hides its head among the leaves! It is quite as much a flower of God’s making as the finest tulip that airs its beauty aloft, or the most brilliant standard rose that is before your eyes. God made the little things, and God loves them; and, as parents have a special love for their weak and little children, so has God a special favor towards the lambs of His flock, and He takes special care of the seedlings in His garden which have not yet come to the fullness of growth; therefore, do not despise them.
If you do, there is one sentence I would utter that ought to rebuke you very effectually. Your Master would not despise them if He were here. Christ has a quick eye to see little graces in His people; and when He sees them, He delights in them. A diamond is a diamond if it be ever so small; and Christ’s people are Christ’s people let them have never so little grace. Oh, if the Lord Jesus Christ would have carried that lamb in His bosom, why do you refuse to carry it? Why do you overwork it? Why should there be so often heard stinging words, and keen, cutting, sarcastic remarks about the feebleness of knowledge or the defects of practice, when, if there is but grace in the heart, you and I ought to rejoice to see it? I have often quoted to you the words of Jerome when he said that he loved Christ in Augustine, and he loved Augustine in Christ. So ought we to love the weakest believers—to love Christ in them, and to love them in Christ. May the Holy Spirit teach us to be like our Master in this respect as well as in all others!
I have finished this word of gentle rebuke when I add that, if you and I do despise “the day of small things,” the probability is that we shall have to smart for it. You remember that passage in Ezekiel where the Lord speaks of the fat cattle pushing the weak cattle with their horns and their shoulders; they were big bulls of Bashan, and they were always goring one and pushing against another, because they happened to be weak and sickly; and the Lord said that He would judge between cattle and cattle, and those that had been so headstrong, so proud, and so cruel, would have to smart for it. The day shall come, my proud brother, when you will be glad to sit at the feet of that young Christian you now despise; I have noticed that sort of thing many a time. It is a part of my pastoral observation that, when persons who were genuine Christians have been proudly lifted up, they have been made to go down very low till they have envied those they once despised, and said, “If we felt as sure of salvation as that dear young man that we judged so harshly, we would willingly enough change places with him, and take what we called his inexperience, and his lack of knowledge, if we could be just as simple in our confidence in Christ as he is.” Therefore, beloved, if you do not want to bring the rod upon your own back, despise not “the day of small things,” but be ready to cherish and comfort all in whom the work of grace has apparently begun even to the lightest extent.
II. Now, secondly, THERE ARE SOME WHO DESPISE “THE DAY OF SMALL THINGS” IN THEMSELVES.
They think that it is very humble to do so; I am not sure that it is; I think it is very foolish to do so.
There are some who despise “the day of small things” in themselves in this way; they pass by the small things. Suppose that a young man is impressed, under a sermon, with a sense of sin; a wise thing for him to do is to get home as quickly as he can, and cry, “Lord, I do not know whether this is true repentance; but, if it is not, make it so. Lord, I am half afraid that I am only a stony-ground hearer, and that this good seed will spring up for a little while, and then will wither; Lord, break my stony heart, and do it effectually.” Be very thankful, dear friends, if you have the faintest spiritual impressions; I know some men who would almost give their eyes if they could but feel anything, but they say that they sit and hear, and the only result is what Cowper said—
“If anything is felt, ’tis only pain
To find I cannot feel.”
So, if you have any spiritual feeling at all, do not despise it, but go to God with it, and pray that the work which seems to be begun in you may be carried on until it is complete; and that, if it is not begun, it may begin at once. When you feel, sometimes, in the assemblies of God’s house, a softening influence stealing over your spirit, or when, possibly, in the middle of your work—you do not know why—you suddenly feel very tender in heart—or, perhaps, walking down into the City early in the morning, before many people are astir, you feel a solemnity quite unusual to you—do not despise it. These little things may lead on to a blessed saving work; and I pray the Lord that you may take care of these dewdrops of grace. If there are but a few tiny drops, and if they are but cared for and valued, the Lord will yet look still more graciously upon you, and send you a copious shower of blessing. Do not despise anything that looks like grace in your heart. God help you to take it as a gardener at this time of the year takes the little slips and cuttings, and puts them in silver sand to make them grow, that he may have the flowering plants by and by. Use your cuttings, the little things that seem as if they could not have any life in them. God would have you plant them in favorable circumstances that they may grow to His praise and glory.
Some despise “the day of small things” in themselves because they do not think that any good can come of them. When I was preaching this morning [Sermon #1739, Volume 29—“Bankrupt Debtors Discharged”], I thought that, perhaps, some poor soul would take comfort to himself, and I said to a brother when I went outside, “I do like sometimes to have a subject which comes rolling up like a sea of grace,” because there are so many people who are like oysters in the riverbeds waiting for the tide to return. I did hope, this morning, that it was a flood tide, and that some of you would open your shells and that the blessed Word of God would come into your very souls. If you do that, it will come in. The oyster cannot make the sea roll up, but whenever he feels it rolling over him, he says, “Now is the time for me to open my shell,” and when you feel, “Now is the time for me to seek the Lord, now is the day of salvation, now is the high tide of grace,” you shall have the blessing. It is all around you, or else you would not have opened your shell. It is the very flood tide of grace that has made you feel what you do feel. Therefore, be glad, and do not despise it. It may seem a little thing to feel tender and solemn, but it is not so; it is often the beginning of a blessed work of grace, therefore value it highly.
Some I have known some to despise the blessing by resolutely resisting its entrance into their hearts. I can never forget some instances of this resistance that I have known. I was preaching once, in a certain city, and a gentleman who had been very kind to me was in the congregation, but I saw him get up in the middle of the sermon, and go out of the building. A brother, that was with me slipped out after the gentleman and said to him, “My dear sir, why did you come out?” He answered, “Mr. Spurgeon has got me in his hands; I am like an India rubber doll, and he can twist me into any shape that he likes. I am afraid that, if I had listened to him for another ten minutes, I would have been converted.” So off he went, deliberately stamping out, as far as he could, the spark of truth as it came toward him. He would not let the good seed grow; he invited the birds of the air to come and steal it away. Do not forget that, although the Lord graciously changes man’s will, and He has absolute power over the human will, and makes men willing in the day of His power, yet He never saves anybody against his will, and while the will stands out against God, and is unrenewed and unchanged, the man is still unsaved. It does seem to me a dreadful thing that people can come to the house of God without any desire to get a blessing, and there cover themselves up in armor of mail, to keep every arrow from getting anywhere near their hearts. That is one method of despising “the day of small things.”
I know some others who despise “the day of small things” because, if they get a little good in their hearts, they do not try to get more. If we did not expect a little child to ever grow, we would really be despising it, putting it down as a dwarf or a monstrosity. So, if the grace of God has come into your heart, you will do all in your power to make it to grow and increase, and thus prove that you do not despise it. I think I have said enough to show that, if any here have the slightest sign of the beginnings of grace, any glimmerings of the divine light, any first outlines of the image of Christ upon their heart, they must not despise them, but they should pray God to bless them, and bring them to maturity. If they do so, I will tell you what God will do; it is hinted at in the verse from which our text is taken: “For they shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.” They had begun to build, but it was such a poor paltry piece of work, and the wall was still so low, that they despised it; but when they saw the prince standing there, with the plummet in his hand, and saw stone after stone brought and laid in its place, and their great leader officiating as the chief architect, they said to one another, “See, the prince is there with the plummet in his hand; he is a man who never undertakes a task unless he goes through with it; so, depend upon it, the work will be completed.” In like manner, I can see that, although it may be very little grace that is in your heart, yet Christ has come with that grace, Christ is building in your heart, Christ is laying the foundation stone, the Prince of the kings of the earth, Christ Jesus, is there with His plummet; and He that has begun the good work in you will carry it on till it is perfected in Glory. Oh, what a blessing it is to look to Christ with the plummet in His hand, and say, “Great Master-builder, I will not despise these foundations because, as yet, they are scarcely seen above the soil, for I know that You, who have begun the good work, will carry it on, and perfectly perform all that You have promised. The temple will yet appear to Your praise where now there seems to be but a tiny heap of stones.”
That is the way to cure you of despising “the day of small things” in yourselves.
III. Now, my last point is this. THERE ARE SOME WHO NEVER DESPISE “THE DAY OF SMALL THINGS.”
I have time for only a few words on this part of my subject, but I wish them to be very tender words.
First, true pastors never despise “the day of small things.” Speaking for myself, I can say that I love to see in those of you who are unconverted any sign of serious thought, any intimation of a coming change, any token that you are turning unto the Lord; my heart is gladdened whenever I perceive it. Does anyone think that I despise it? Why, I pray to God continually to bring it to pass! Despise it? I look for it as the reward of my toil; if I did but know that I had awakened thought in any one of you, I would go home happy. If I did but hear that the Lord was bringing a score or two to Himself, I would gladly lie awake at night to bless His name for such a mercy as that. I do not care for the vastness of this congregation, but I do care for the individual souls in it, and I rejoice most of all over those who are saved out of it. What good is it simply to bring you here, and to have you sitting quietly while I talk to you? It is a waste of time and labor, unless it brings you to Christ; but if I know that any of you are brought to penitence and faith, I am sure that I do not despise it, for I value such blessings above the choicest gold.
And let me also tell you that your dear parents, your Christian wife, and your godly daughter, who persuaded you to come to this service, do not despise “the day of small things.” I have known some of our members do really extraordinary things in order to get people to come here in the hope that they might be converted. There was one who, after many attempts, at last induced a man to promise that he would come with him one day, so he went round to fetch him. “Oh, I cannot come!” said the man, “I am making a rabbit hutch.” “Well,” said the other, “I have one ready made that I will give you.” “But,” said the man, “I cannot come, I promised to go and see a man who has a pair of pigeons to sell.” My friend answered, “I have a pair of pigeons I will give to you if you will come with me.” It was all in vain; he might offer the man what he would, he could not get him. I hope that he has brought him by this time; if not, I know that he will stick to him till he does see him here; and I know another thing, that he will bring the friend to his own seat, and he will, if necessary, himself stand in the aisle, and pray for him all through the service. Well, now, if he gets his friend to hear the Word, and sees that he is impressed by it, you do not suppose that he will despise “the day of small things,” do you? On the contrary, he will be glad even for the slightest sign of the working of God’s Spirit in his friend’s heart.
Your godly mother, when she hears that you have been to the Tabernacle, will say, “Bless God for that!” If she finds that you have begun to pray, her heart will leap within her. A dear father, a minister of the gospel, writes to me, and says, “My son had never decided for God till he went to hear you at Exeter Hall, and during the evening sermon, he bowed his head, and gave himself up to the Lord; and now he is proposed as a member of my church. God bless you, sir!” It is always so with true Christians, they do not despise “the day of small things,” but they are glad when their children are brought to Christ; and it is just the same with all soul-winners, and I hope that many here are of that class. If they can spy anything like the tiniest gnat’s egg of grace, they feel so glad; and they watch you, and they say to one another, “Is that light that I can see there in the East?” And the other says, “I do not know; I am afraid it is not.” “Oh!” says the first friend, “but I think it is; does it not look a little grey just over there?” “No!” replies the other, “I am afraid that it is not morning light yet.” That is how some of us talk about you, we are often talking and praying about you, dear hearers, and we say to one another, “When will So-and-So come to the Savior?” There is a good man here, whom I pray for nearly every day, and I know that his wife does the same; he loves to come here, yet he is still an unsaved man; but, by the grace of God, he cannot remain where he is if prayer can stir him. We will pray him out of it, and bring him to the Savior; may the Lord grant that it may speedily be so!
There is one other Person who never despises “the day of small things,” and with Him I finish; and that is, our blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is so eager to see of the travail of His soul that if He spies in you even a desire after Him, He is pleased with it. Believe me; if you have but a spark of desire after Christ, He has a whole furnace of desire after you. Oh, that you would have Him as your Savior! He is free to every soul of you who will have Him; is it not put just so in His last invitation? “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Do not think that He excludes you; you may exclude yourself, but if there is in your heart any wish, any shadow of a wish, anything like a desire for Christ, you may come and welcome. Mercy’s gate is wide open; Christ invites you to His house, and to His heart. Oh, come unto Him and come now! “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” May His Divine Spirit lead you to believe on Him at this moment! To believe on Him, is to trust Him. Throw yourself on Him, sink or swim. Take Christ to be yours; have you done it? Then you are saved, for “he that believes on the Son has everlasting life.” His believing is the evidence that he is a saved man already. So, go your ways, and the Lord be with you; but, I charge every one of you, meet me in heaven! Amen.
EXPOSITION BY C. H. SPURGEON: ISAIAH 54:1-10.
Verse 1. Sing, O barren, you that did not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, you that did not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, says the LORD.
In this Western clime, we do not know all the misery which was felt by Eastern women who were childless; they were looked down upon and despised; yet here God bids them sing. And, dear friends, if you and I feel as if our hearts have become barren, so that we cannot think of God or raise our thoughts towards Him as we would desire; if we feel that we have become useless, and for that reason our spirit is greatly depressed, let us give heed to this sweet, this charming exhortation of Jehovah: “Sing, O barren soul; break forth into singing, and cry aloud,” for God can turn our barrenness into fruitfulness, and make us to rejoice exceedingly before Him. If we are now sighing and crying because we are not what we ought to be, or what we want to be, God can, in the richness of His grace, make us all that we desire. Therefore let us begin to be joyful even before the miracle of mercy is worked; let us have unbounded faith in God, and expect Him to bless us, even while we are in our lowest state.
2, 3. Enlarge the place of your tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of your habitations: spare not, lengthen your cords, and strengthen your stakes; for you shall break forth on the right hand and on the left; and your seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
This was good news for the poor Gentiles, who were so long spiritually barren, but whose seed was to spread all over the earth. This prophecy has been already fulfilled in a great measure, and the very wording of it is a direction to us if we desire to see the Church of God increased. Make ready for God’s blessing, you who are pining and groaning for greater things than these; God is about to bless you. Enlarge your tents; lengthen the cords, and strengthen the stakes; prepare for the coming blessing, for you are to have better and brighter days than you have ever known. Therefore be no more sad, but look forward with joyful anticipation to the good things in store for you.
4. Fear not; for you shall not be ashamed: neither be you confounded; for you shall not be put to shame: for you shall forget the shame of your youth, and shall not remember the reproach of your widowhood any more.
I am not going to interpret the passage in its strict connection, but to use it for our comfort and instruction. O you that are cast down, you poor trembling ones that would gladly be at one with God, but feel as if you cannot find Him, believe in the Lord your God, and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ, for there are glad times coming for you! All your former days of sadness shall be forgotten, and you shall have such joy and delight as you can hardly imagine at present.
5. For your Maker is your husband; the LORD of hosts is His name; and your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall He be called.
Oh, what a blessing that is! This is a wide-spread mercy: “The God of the whole earth shall He be called.” My soul, come and hide beneath the shadow of these earth-covering wings, for there is room for you beneath their welcome shelter; and, once there, you shall not be banished from that sacred spot, for it is written, “Him that comes to Me I will in no wise cast out.” “Your Maker is your husband,” united to you in eternal wedlock; therefore, be of good comfort.
6. For the LORD has called you as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when you were refused, says your God.
Poor rejected one, has the world cast you off? Do its sinful pleasures pall upon you now? Listen: “The Lord has called you.” You are divorced from the world that you may be forever united to Him.
7, 8. For a small moment have I forsaken you; but with great mercies will I gather you. In a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on you, says the LORD your Redeemer.
What words of comfort lie here to those of the Lord’s people who have fallen into spiritual darkness, and come upon evil days! God still remembers you; His wrath is but for a moment, and will swiftly pass away; but His age-enduring kindness which sweeps across the boundless eternity shall be with you forever.
9, 10. For this is as the waters of Noah unto Me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that 1 would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but My kindness shall not depart from you, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, says the LORD that has mercy on you.
Oh, for grace, oh, for the help of the Holy Spirit to lay hold upon these precious promises, and to feed on them!
HYMNS FROM “OUR OWN HYMN BOOK”—416, 602, 538.
PLEASE PRAY THE HOLY SPIRIT WILL USE THIS SERMON TO BRING MANY TO A SAVING KNOWLEDGE OF JESUS CHRIST.
Thursday 31 January 2019
A Theology Of Corporate Prayer: Preaching, Prayer Meetings, And You
By Ryan M. McGraw [1]
John 14:12-14 contains a manifesto that provides a theological foundation for the work of the church. This passage teaches that the primary concern of the church in every age should be to trust in the Lord to bless the preaching of the Word in response to fervent and corporate prayer. When we examine this text and then compare its teaching to the history recorded in the book of Acts, the following picture emerges: preaching is better than miracles, prayer precedes effective preaching, and corporate prayer has priority over private prayer in accomplishing the mission of the church. This passage not only provides a theological foundation for corporate prayer; it indicates that the corporate prayer of the church should revolve around the preaching of the gospel. In order to establish this point, we will consider the nature of the “greater works” and the means of accomplishing them.
“The Same Works And Greater Things”
How can Christ say that His church would perform greater works than His? He is unique in His two natures—God and man in one divine Person—and He is suited uniquely to redeem us. His work as our Redeemer is incapable of analogy or supplement in the life and work of the church. Yet in this passage, the Lord declared that the work of His apostles and His believing people would surpass the work of His earthly ministry in at least one respect.
This passage comes in the context of Jesus’ “farewell discourse” to His apostles. Much of what He said in John 14-17 applies to them exclusively. However, everything that He said to them has parallels in the ongoing work of the church. For example, while the apostles preached the Word of God with divinely inspired authority, ordinary ministers of the gospel must proclaim the apostolic Word with authority, albeit an authority that is not identical with that of the apostles (Titus 2:15; Rom. 10:14-17). The authority of the apostles resided in their teaching inspired Scripture, and the authority of ministers today resides in proclaiming the Word of God.
In chapter fourteen, Jesus comforted His disciples by telling them first, that He was about to depart in order to prepare a place for them in heaven (vv. 1-3); next, that He is the true means of access to the Father (vv. 4-7); and lastly, that, as God equal with the Father, He is the proper object of their faith (vv. 8-11). The greatest thing that the eleven feared at this stage was that Christ would leave them and all of their hopes and labors would be in vain. Here in verses 12-14, the climax of the introduction to His discourse, He comforted His apostles. His departure, far from halting their work, would extend and perfect it. They were like children who were about to be sent into the world to live on their own, and they feared the prospect. Naturally, they could not imagine continuing without their Master’s physical presence.
Faith In Christ
The first point of importance is that the work in view is performed only by those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The verb for “believing” occurs six times in the first fourteen verses of this chapter. Jesus is clearly making a point by this repetition. Faith in Christ is always the foundation of the work of the church. You cannot labor as a Christian until you believe in Christ for salvation. This is the point at which many go astray. Many view Christianity like the crowds regarded Jesus when they followed Him across the sea in John 6; they are more concerned to know how they can “work the works of God” (v. 28) than they are to trust in Christ. If you are more concerned about what you must do than with what Christ did for you, then Christ’s reply is as relevant to you as it was to His original audience: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29).
The Same Works That Christ Did
The work that Jesus spoke of in John 14:12 has two parts. The first part is unique to the apostles, while the second aspect is common to the church in every age. First, the apostles would do the same works that Jesus did (“the works that I do he shall do also”). These works are defined in verses 10 and 11 as the works that the Father gave to Jesus to perform. These works do not include His work of atonement or anything that is peculiar to His offices as our Redeemer; we can neither atone for our own sins nor for the sins of others. Rather, these works are what John in his gospel elsewhere calls “signs.” These signs were not simply miracles; they were miraculous acts of divine power that revealed great things about Christ in His person and work. So Jesus promises here that the ministry of miracles would continue with the apostles. In this respect, these men who believed in Him would do the same works that He had done.
“Greater Things”
The second aspect of the work of the church treated in the text is not limited to the apostles. This becomes clear when we consider what these works are. In the Greek text, the term works is not included in the second part of the verse. This is indicated by the use of italics in our English translation. The text reads more literally that the one who believes in Christ will do “greater things” than Jesus did. These greater things cannot refer to apostolic miracles; the apostles performed miracles like Jesus did, but His miracles surpassed theirs both in glory and in number. Miracles were part of the “signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) and they testified to apostolic authority (Heb. 2:1-4). Yet in the book of Acts, apostolic miracles, though important, are rare in comparison to those of Christ. As D. A. Carson notes, for Jesus, miracles were part of His everyday work. [2] The apostles performed miracles on occasion only. Moreover, the emphasis in the book of Acts falls more on apostolic preaching than it does on apostolic miracles.
The greater things are connected closely to prayer in the text. A similar pattern in the book of Acts sheds great light on the nature of these greater things. In John, the order of instruction is greater things and prayer; in Acts, the order of activity in the early church is prayer and preaching. Early in Acts, as the church met for corporate prayer (Acts 1:14 with 2:1), the Holy Spirit was poured out, enduing believers with “power from on high” (see Luke 24:49). The result was that when the apostles preached the gospel, three thousand souls were added to the church by baptism in one day (Acts 2:41). When Christ poured out the Holy Spirit from the Father in response to corporate prayer, He gathered more disciples in one day than He had in His entire earthly ministry.
This pattern continues throughout Acts. In chapter 4, the apostles preached and the number of disciples increased to five thousand (Acts 4:4). Later in the same chapter, Peter and John were released from prison under threats not to preach in the name of Jesus any longer (vv. 20-21). The first thing that they did was attend a corporate prayer meeting. Their primary requests were for boldness and to perform apostolic miracles (vv. 29-30). In answer to their prayers, the Lord physically shook the building, the apostles performed miracles, “and they spake the word of God with boldness” (v. 31). This points to the nature of the greater things that Jesus promised in John 14:12. The greater things consist in the Spirit-empowered preaching of the apostles resulting in the conversion of many sinners. By extension, this is not only true of apostolic preaching, but of all subsequent Spirit-empowered preaching.
In some respects, the Acts of the Apostles is misnamed. It should be called the Acts of Jesus Christ, through the Apostles, by the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ return to the Father is the ground for the works that are recorded there (“because I go to my Father”).
The resurrected and ascended Christ still works powerfully through the preaching of His Word. When an ordained minister preaches the Word of God faithfully, speaking His will and in His name, Paul goes so far as to say that people actually hear Christ speaking (Rom. 10:14-17). In true preaching, Christ is the true preacher. Just as the Father did His work through Christ (John 14:10), so Christ does His work through His church by the Spirit (vv. 13-14). The greater things that He does through His church—in fact, that greatest work that He gives to redeemed man—is preaching.
The Importance Of Preaching
This should drive us to a very high view of preaching. Christ is the unique Son of God. His words are the words of God, whereas the words of preachers today are fallible. However, the remarkable thing that we learn from this passage is that not only is preaching a greater work than doing miracles, but that the church’s preaching is designed by God to have a greater effect and greater power than Christ’s preaching during His earthly ministry. Is not the world we live in proof of this? We may live in a “day of small things” (Zech. 4:10), but consider what Christ has done already. Jesus’ earthly ministry ended with 120 disciples hiding in an upper room for fear of the Jews (Acts 1:15; John 20:19). Though small in comparison to the world’s population, at the present time there are thousands from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation who worship Christ as Lord. There are Christians in Uganda flocking to hear the Word preached. There are believers in countries such as Korea, to whom the West used to send missionaries, who now send missionaries to us. These and similar examples are greater than the miracles that Christ performed during His earthly ministry. This is not to say that the ministry of the church is greater than the ministry of Christ, but that the ministry of Christ through His church is greater and more effective for salvation than the ministry that He exercised while on earth.
Do you value the preaching of the Word? Do you recognize that Christ Himself pleads with you through His ministers? How many come to worship with low expectations. In a sense, sitting under a sermon is the most momentous thing that you will do in your life. Spirit-empowered preaching is greater than the miracles of Christ. Let us regard it as such.
The Means By Which The Church Accomplishes The “Greater Things”
In spite of the fact that Christ referred to the Spirit-filled preaching of His church as greater even than His miracles on earth, preaching has fallen on hard times. Sermons have become increasingly shorter, with less biblical content and in some cases sermons have been set aside altogether. However, if preaching has fallen on hard times, then corporate prayer has fallen into appalling neglect. In verses 13-14, our Lord teaches that prayer is the means by which His church shall accomplish greater things. While the promise “whatsoever you ask in my name” is extensive in its form, its application is here limited by the context. It is “whatsoever” you ask with respect to the promise of performing greater things through Spirit-empowered preaching. Prayer is in Jesus’ name because, just as with the greater things, true prayer is possible through faith in Christ only (v. 12). Prayer without faith in Christ does not reach the throne of God; it is like shooting an arrow at an impregnable fortress in an attempt to knock the wall down. Without faith in Christ, both the greater things and the means of performing them are destroyed. According to the text, the purpose of prayer for greater things in Christ’s name is to glorify God the Father. The Father is glorified by answering prayers in the name of Christ for the Holy Spirit to bless the preaching of the Word for the conversion of sinners. In order to stress the importance of expressing our faith in Christ through prayer, this promise is in its essence repeated in verse 14.
This brings us to the theological foundations for corporate prayer meetings. The book of Acts illustrates that it is not simply prayer that is in view, but corporate prayer. The plural Greek verbs used in John 14:13-14 hint at this as well. Jesus did not tell His apostles that they would do greater things when they prayed individually, but that He would answer when they prayed together (“when you all pray”). We have already seen that the pattern established in Acts is prayer followed by Spirit-filled preaching. However, every instance of this pattern involves a corporate prayer meeting. The plural verbs in verses 13-14 would not be so significant if we did not have an inspired record of the fact that the Holy Spirit consistently blessed the preached Word for the conversion of sinners in response to corporate prayer. In fact, the exclusive pattern in Acts is corporate prayer followed by powerful preaching. What Jesus has in view, then, is corporate prayer meetings in which the church asks the Father to perform greater things through preaching in Christ’s name and by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why Pierre Marcel wrote that, in this respect, the congregation is even more responsible for the sermon than the preacher is. [3] It is easy to view preaching as someone else’s responsibility because someone else is doing it. However, do we pray as we ought for the Holy Spirit to bless the preaching of the Word? Do we take the time to gather for corporate prayer? If we are willing to do so, then we have encouragement from Christ Himself that this is the very means He has appointed to bless the work of His church. In light of this, let us pray together with all the more encouragement and expectation as we look to the blessing of Christ upon the preached Word.
Practical Conclusions
This passage sets the basic agenda for the church. Her primary work is preaching, and the primary means of securing God’s blessing upon this work is corporate prayer. This does not undervalue the diversity in the body of Christ and the diversity of gifts among the members of that body, but it does bring the ultimate task of the church into sharp focus. At the end of the day, every local congregation should be characterized by two things above all others: corporate prayer and preaching. This text ought to make us search our hearts and ask several important questions concerning the place of prayer meetings.
First, note the priority of prayer over preaching. Spirit-filled preaching for the conversion of sinners is a greater work than the miracles of Jesus Christ, yet corporate prayer takes priority even over this work. This does not necessarily mean that prayer is more important than preaching, but that preaching is useless without prayer. This point is all the more striking when we consider how corporate prayer is currently one of the most neglected and undervalued duties and means of blessing upon the church. The absence of prayer meetings in many churches, as well as the low attendance at prayer meetings when they are held, indicate that the church has woefully misplaced its priorities. People often come to church to look for programs that will suit their family in particular. However, do we place the highest value upon the programs that God established for us? Is it not best to choose a church on the basis of the emphasis that it places upon preaching and prayer?
Second, many people say that God is able to work with or without our prayers, and that our prayers are no more effective in private than with other Christians. Unfortunately, this type of thinking often passes as Calvinism. What initially sounds like pious trust in the absolute sovereignty of God ironically sets aside the express teaching of Christ and the example of His apostles regarding corporate prayer. You do not have because you do not ask (James 4:2). Moreover, you must ask corporately, not independently. The New Testament teaching is that preaching without public prayer is virtually worthless. A good sermon without prayer and the presence of the Holy Spirit is like a powerful freight train that holds the potential to be very useful, yet all the while it sits on the tracks without fuel. What good is the train without its fuel? What good is a sermon without corporate prayer? This thinking creates a tension between the sovereign will of God and the use of means that God has appointed—a tension that does not exist in Scripture. William Perkins (1558-1602) noted helpfully that by this line of reasoning, we may as well neglect every means that God uses to preserve our earthly lives, since food and drink cannot profit us unless God blesses them. If we waited to eat food until we felt the blessing of God upon it, then we would all commit suicide. [4] Let us rest upon the command of God for public prayer and His promises to bless our prayer meetings rather than upon conclusions drawn by our flawed and foolish reasoning.
Third, corporate prayer must be a priority in our lives. Prayer meetings are often relegated to the lowest place on the list of church activities. If this attitude continues, our American churches will likely die a slow and painful death under emaciated preaching.
Do you view corporate prayer as Christ viewed it—as the means of performing the greater things that He spoke of? Without using His prescribed means, how can we expect to see His promised results? Churches that have no prayer meetings implicitly declare that they do not require the work of the Holy Spirit in their church. If your church holds a weekly prayer meeting, then prioritize it in your family. Many families do not attend prayer meetings because they have young children at home. However, children learn from our priorities. They may not understand much or be able to participate in prayer meetings, but families who prioritize and participate in prayer meetings are likely to instill the same attitude and practice in their children. Children who do not attend prayer meetings become adults who do not attend prayer meetings.
Fourth, the focus of corporate prayer must be on fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Christ not only gave us a mandate for corporate prayer, but He gave us the agenda for our prayer meetings as well. We must focus on the blessing of the Holy Spirit to exalt Christ through the preaching of the Word to the glory of the Father. In other words, we must pray for the greater things. This does not mean that we should neglect one another’s needs in corporate prayer meetings. But we must ask whether or not the overall tone of our prayer meetings matches Christ’s teaching in these verses. Are we praying most fervently and predominantly that the preaching of the gospel would bring sinners out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9)? Or are most of our prayers occupied with physical needs only? Even physical needs should be cast in our prayers in such a manner that the spiritual well-being of those for whom we pray comes first.
Fifth, we must confront ourselves with our unbelief in our prayer meetings. Prayer inherently involves faith (James 1:5-6). The public prayers of the church reflect the public faith of the church, since we must pray according to how we understand God’s will (1 John 5:14-15). How many people in our churches every week are in our midst in answer to someone else’s prayers? Do we not lack faith when we see daily evidences of greater things all around us, but we lose heart that God will continue to convert sinners in our churches? Believing prayers for conversions under faithful preaching is not a magical formula—the Lord works when, where, and how He pleases—but our hope rests upon the promise of Christ in verses 13-14. It is as though He anticipated our doubts when He twice repeated the promise that He will do what we ask. This is an important reminder that we are not to rest upon the strength of our corporate prayers, but upon the strength and the faithfulness of Christ. A fine line can exist between trusting in appointed means and trusting in the God who appointed them. Nevertheless, the promises of this text should yield much comfort and fruit in our prayer meetings. We may not see immediate results; someone once said that the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century was an answer to the prayers of the Puritans of the seventeenth century. In the “day of small things” in which we live, our greatest need is to revive our commitment to preaching and to corporate prayer. Upon Christ’s own Word and authority, He will infallibly answer the prayers of His church to perform greater things though Spirit-empowered preaching.
Notes
Verily, Verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.
—John 14:12-14Most Christians recognize that we live in what the prophet Zechariah called “the day of small things” (Zech. 4:10). Churches in the West are, by and large, shrinking. The current period of Western history is now referred to as the “post-Christian era.” In a growing climate of religious apathy in which the powers of darkness appear to triumph, how should the church respond? The basic answer to this question is the same as it has been in every age: instead of beginning with what we must do, we must start with what we must believe and what the Lord requires of us. Christian labor must be grounded in Christian faith. Doing great things in the name of Christ stems from faith and obedience, rather than from our best laid plans and endeavors.
John 14:12-14 contains a manifesto that provides a theological foundation for the work of the church. This passage teaches that the primary concern of the church in every age should be to trust in the Lord to bless the preaching of the Word in response to fervent and corporate prayer. When we examine this text and then compare its teaching to the history recorded in the book of Acts, the following picture emerges: preaching is better than miracles, prayer precedes effective preaching, and corporate prayer has priority over private prayer in accomplishing the mission of the church. This passage not only provides a theological foundation for corporate prayer; it indicates that the corporate prayer of the church should revolve around the preaching of the gospel. In order to establish this point, we will consider the nature of the “greater works” and the means of accomplishing them.
“The Same Works And Greater Things”
How can Christ say that His church would perform greater works than His? He is unique in His two natures—God and man in one divine Person—and He is suited uniquely to redeem us. His work as our Redeemer is incapable of analogy or supplement in the life and work of the church. Yet in this passage, the Lord declared that the work of His apostles and His believing people would surpass the work of His earthly ministry in at least one respect.
This passage comes in the context of Jesus’ “farewell discourse” to His apostles. Much of what He said in John 14-17 applies to them exclusively. However, everything that He said to them has parallels in the ongoing work of the church. For example, while the apostles preached the Word of God with divinely inspired authority, ordinary ministers of the gospel must proclaim the apostolic Word with authority, albeit an authority that is not identical with that of the apostles (Titus 2:15; Rom. 10:14-17). The authority of the apostles resided in their teaching inspired Scripture, and the authority of ministers today resides in proclaiming the Word of God.
In chapter fourteen, Jesus comforted His disciples by telling them first, that He was about to depart in order to prepare a place for them in heaven (vv. 1-3); next, that He is the true means of access to the Father (vv. 4-7); and lastly, that, as God equal with the Father, He is the proper object of their faith (vv. 8-11). The greatest thing that the eleven feared at this stage was that Christ would leave them and all of their hopes and labors would be in vain. Here in verses 12-14, the climax of the introduction to His discourse, He comforted His apostles. His departure, far from halting their work, would extend and perfect it. They were like children who were about to be sent into the world to live on their own, and they feared the prospect. Naturally, they could not imagine continuing without their Master’s physical presence.
Faith In Christ
The first point of importance is that the work in view is performed only by those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. The verb for “believing” occurs six times in the first fourteen verses of this chapter. Jesus is clearly making a point by this repetition. Faith in Christ is always the foundation of the work of the church. You cannot labor as a Christian until you believe in Christ for salvation. This is the point at which many go astray. Many view Christianity like the crowds regarded Jesus when they followed Him across the sea in John 6; they are more concerned to know how they can “work the works of God” (v. 28) than they are to trust in Christ. If you are more concerned about what you must do than with what Christ did for you, then Christ’s reply is as relevant to you as it was to His original audience: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (John 6:29).
The Same Works That Christ Did
The work that Jesus spoke of in John 14:12 has two parts. The first part is unique to the apostles, while the second aspect is common to the church in every age. First, the apostles would do the same works that Jesus did (“the works that I do he shall do also”). These works are defined in verses 10 and 11 as the works that the Father gave to Jesus to perform. These works do not include His work of atonement or anything that is peculiar to His offices as our Redeemer; we can neither atone for our own sins nor for the sins of others. Rather, these works are what John in his gospel elsewhere calls “signs.” These signs were not simply miracles; they were miraculous acts of divine power that revealed great things about Christ in His person and work. So Jesus promises here that the ministry of miracles would continue with the apostles. In this respect, these men who believed in Him would do the same works that He had done.
“Greater Things”
The second aspect of the work of the church treated in the text is not limited to the apostles. This becomes clear when we consider what these works are. In the Greek text, the term works is not included in the second part of the verse. This is indicated by the use of italics in our English translation. The text reads more literally that the one who believes in Christ will do “greater things” than Jesus did. These greater things cannot refer to apostolic miracles; the apostles performed miracles like Jesus did, but His miracles surpassed theirs both in glory and in number. Miracles were part of the “signs of an apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) and they testified to apostolic authority (Heb. 2:1-4). Yet in the book of Acts, apostolic miracles, though important, are rare in comparison to those of Christ. As D. A. Carson notes, for Jesus, miracles were part of His everyday work. [2] The apostles performed miracles on occasion only. Moreover, the emphasis in the book of Acts falls more on apostolic preaching than it does on apostolic miracles.
The greater things are connected closely to prayer in the text. A similar pattern in the book of Acts sheds great light on the nature of these greater things. In John, the order of instruction is greater things and prayer; in Acts, the order of activity in the early church is prayer and preaching. Early in Acts, as the church met for corporate prayer (Acts 1:14 with 2:1), the Holy Spirit was poured out, enduing believers with “power from on high” (see Luke 24:49). The result was that when the apostles preached the gospel, three thousand souls were added to the church by baptism in one day (Acts 2:41). When Christ poured out the Holy Spirit from the Father in response to corporate prayer, He gathered more disciples in one day than He had in His entire earthly ministry.
This pattern continues throughout Acts. In chapter 4, the apostles preached and the number of disciples increased to five thousand (Acts 4:4). Later in the same chapter, Peter and John were released from prison under threats not to preach in the name of Jesus any longer (vv. 20-21). The first thing that they did was attend a corporate prayer meeting. Their primary requests were for boldness and to perform apostolic miracles (vv. 29-30). In answer to their prayers, the Lord physically shook the building, the apostles performed miracles, “and they spake the word of God with boldness” (v. 31). This points to the nature of the greater things that Jesus promised in John 14:12. The greater things consist in the Spirit-empowered preaching of the apostles resulting in the conversion of many sinners. By extension, this is not only true of apostolic preaching, but of all subsequent Spirit-empowered preaching.
In some respects, the Acts of the Apostles is misnamed. It should be called the Acts of Jesus Christ, through the Apostles, by the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ return to the Father is the ground for the works that are recorded there (“because I go to my Father”).
The resurrected and ascended Christ still works powerfully through the preaching of His Word. When an ordained minister preaches the Word of God faithfully, speaking His will and in His name, Paul goes so far as to say that people actually hear Christ speaking (Rom. 10:14-17). In true preaching, Christ is the true preacher. Just as the Father did His work through Christ (John 14:10), so Christ does His work through His church by the Spirit (vv. 13-14). The greater things that He does through His church—in fact, that greatest work that He gives to redeemed man—is preaching.
The Importance Of Preaching
This should drive us to a very high view of preaching. Christ is the unique Son of God. His words are the words of God, whereas the words of preachers today are fallible. However, the remarkable thing that we learn from this passage is that not only is preaching a greater work than doing miracles, but that the church’s preaching is designed by God to have a greater effect and greater power than Christ’s preaching during His earthly ministry. Is not the world we live in proof of this? We may live in a “day of small things” (Zech. 4:10), but consider what Christ has done already. Jesus’ earthly ministry ended with 120 disciples hiding in an upper room for fear of the Jews (Acts 1:15; John 20:19). Though small in comparison to the world’s population, at the present time there are thousands from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation who worship Christ as Lord. There are Christians in Uganda flocking to hear the Word preached. There are believers in countries such as Korea, to whom the West used to send missionaries, who now send missionaries to us. These and similar examples are greater than the miracles that Christ performed during His earthly ministry. This is not to say that the ministry of the church is greater than the ministry of Christ, but that the ministry of Christ through His church is greater and more effective for salvation than the ministry that He exercised while on earth.
Do you value the preaching of the Word? Do you recognize that Christ Himself pleads with you through His ministers? How many come to worship with low expectations. In a sense, sitting under a sermon is the most momentous thing that you will do in your life. Spirit-empowered preaching is greater than the miracles of Christ. Let us regard it as such.
The Means By Which The Church Accomplishes The “Greater Things”
In spite of the fact that Christ referred to the Spirit-filled preaching of His church as greater even than His miracles on earth, preaching has fallen on hard times. Sermons have become increasingly shorter, with less biblical content and in some cases sermons have been set aside altogether. However, if preaching has fallen on hard times, then corporate prayer has fallen into appalling neglect. In verses 13-14, our Lord teaches that prayer is the means by which His church shall accomplish greater things. While the promise “whatsoever you ask in my name” is extensive in its form, its application is here limited by the context. It is “whatsoever” you ask with respect to the promise of performing greater things through Spirit-empowered preaching. Prayer is in Jesus’ name because, just as with the greater things, true prayer is possible through faith in Christ only (v. 12). Prayer without faith in Christ does not reach the throne of God; it is like shooting an arrow at an impregnable fortress in an attempt to knock the wall down. Without faith in Christ, both the greater things and the means of performing them are destroyed. According to the text, the purpose of prayer for greater things in Christ’s name is to glorify God the Father. The Father is glorified by answering prayers in the name of Christ for the Holy Spirit to bless the preaching of the Word for the conversion of sinners. In order to stress the importance of expressing our faith in Christ through prayer, this promise is in its essence repeated in verse 14.
This brings us to the theological foundations for corporate prayer meetings. The book of Acts illustrates that it is not simply prayer that is in view, but corporate prayer. The plural Greek verbs used in John 14:13-14 hint at this as well. Jesus did not tell His apostles that they would do greater things when they prayed individually, but that He would answer when they prayed together (“when you all pray”). We have already seen that the pattern established in Acts is prayer followed by Spirit-filled preaching. However, every instance of this pattern involves a corporate prayer meeting. The plural verbs in verses 13-14 would not be so significant if we did not have an inspired record of the fact that the Holy Spirit consistently blessed the preached Word for the conversion of sinners in response to corporate prayer. In fact, the exclusive pattern in Acts is corporate prayer followed by powerful preaching. What Jesus has in view, then, is corporate prayer meetings in which the church asks the Father to perform greater things through preaching in Christ’s name and by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why Pierre Marcel wrote that, in this respect, the congregation is even more responsible for the sermon than the preacher is. [3] It is easy to view preaching as someone else’s responsibility because someone else is doing it. However, do we pray as we ought for the Holy Spirit to bless the preaching of the Word? Do we take the time to gather for corporate prayer? If we are willing to do so, then we have encouragement from Christ Himself that this is the very means He has appointed to bless the work of His church. In light of this, let us pray together with all the more encouragement and expectation as we look to the blessing of Christ upon the preached Word.
Practical Conclusions
This passage sets the basic agenda for the church. Her primary work is preaching, and the primary means of securing God’s blessing upon this work is corporate prayer. This does not undervalue the diversity in the body of Christ and the diversity of gifts among the members of that body, but it does bring the ultimate task of the church into sharp focus. At the end of the day, every local congregation should be characterized by two things above all others: corporate prayer and preaching. This text ought to make us search our hearts and ask several important questions concerning the place of prayer meetings.
First, note the priority of prayer over preaching. Spirit-filled preaching for the conversion of sinners is a greater work than the miracles of Jesus Christ, yet corporate prayer takes priority even over this work. This does not necessarily mean that prayer is more important than preaching, but that preaching is useless without prayer. This point is all the more striking when we consider how corporate prayer is currently one of the most neglected and undervalued duties and means of blessing upon the church. The absence of prayer meetings in many churches, as well as the low attendance at prayer meetings when they are held, indicate that the church has woefully misplaced its priorities. People often come to church to look for programs that will suit their family in particular. However, do we place the highest value upon the programs that God established for us? Is it not best to choose a church on the basis of the emphasis that it places upon preaching and prayer?
Second, many people say that God is able to work with or without our prayers, and that our prayers are no more effective in private than with other Christians. Unfortunately, this type of thinking often passes as Calvinism. What initially sounds like pious trust in the absolute sovereignty of God ironically sets aside the express teaching of Christ and the example of His apostles regarding corporate prayer. You do not have because you do not ask (James 4:2). Moreover, you must ask corporately, not independently. The New Testament teaching is that preaching without public prayer is virtually worthless. A good sermon without prayer and the presence of the Holy Spirit is like a powerful freight train that holds the potential to be very useful, yet all the while it sits on the tracks without fuel. What good is the train without its fuel? What good is a sermon without corporate prayer? This thinking creates a tension between the sovereign will of God and the use of means that God has appointed—a tension that does not exist in Scripture. William Perkins (1558-1602) noted helpfully that by this line of reasoning, we may as well neglect every means that God uses to preserve our earthly lives, since food and drink cannot profit us unless God blesses them. If we waited to eat food until we felt the blessing of God upon it, then we would all commit suicide. [4] Let us rest upon the command of God for public prayer and His promises to bless our prayer meetings rather than upon conclusions drawn by our flawed and foolish reasoning.
Third, corporate prayer must be a priority in our lives. Prayer meetings are often relegated to the lowest place on the list of church activities. If this attitude continues, our American churches will likely die a slow and painful death under emaciated preaching.
Do you view corporate prayer as Christ viewed it—as the means of performing the greater things that He spoke of? Without using His prescribed means, how can we expect to see His promised results? Churches that have no prayer meetings implicitly declare that they do not require the work of the Holy Spirit in their church. If your church holds a weekly prayer meeting, then prioritize it in your family. Many families do not attend prayer meetings because they have young children at home. However, children learn from our priorities. They may not understand much or be able to participate in prayer meetings, but families who prioritize and participate in prayer meetings are likely to instill the same attitude and practice in their children. Children who do not attend prayer meetings become adults who do not attend prayer meetings.
Fourth, the focus of corporate prayer must be on fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). Christ not only gave us a mandate for corporate prayer, but He gave us the agenda for our prayer meetings as well. We must focus on the blessing of the Holy Spirit to exalt Christ through the preaching of the Word to the glory of the Father. In other words, we must pray for the greater things. This does not mean that we should neglect one another’s needs in corporate prayer meetings. But we must ask whether or not the overall tone of our prayer meetings matches Christ’s teaching in these verses. Are we praying most fervently and predominantly that the preaching of the gospel would bring sinners out of darkness into God’s marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9)? Or are most of our prayers occupied with physical needs only? Even physical needs should be cast in our prayers in such a manner that the spiritual well-being of those for whom we pray comes first.
Fifth, we must confront ourselves with our unbelief in our prayer meetings. Prayer inherently involves faith (James 1:5-6). The public prayers of the church reflect the public faith of the church, since we must pray according to how we understand God’s will (1 John 5:14-15). How many people in our churches every week are in our midst in answer to someone else’s prayers? Do we not lack faith when we see daily evidences of greater things all around us, but we lose heart that God will continue to convert sinners in our churches? Believing prayers for conversions under faithful preaching is not a magical formula—the Lord works when, where, and how He pleases—but our hope rests upon the promise of Christ in verses 13-14. It is as though He anticipated our doubts when He twice repeated the promise that He will do what we ask. This is an important reminder that we are not to rest upon the strength of our corporate prayers, but upon the strength and the faithfulness of Christ. A fine line can exist between trusting in appointed means and trusting in the God who appointed them. Nevertheless, the promises of this text should yield much comfort and fruit in our prayer meetings. We may not see immediate results; someone once said that the Great Awakening of the eighteenth century was an answer to the prayers of the Puritans of the seventeenth century. In the “day of small things” in which we live, our greatest need is to revive our commitment to preaching and to corporate prayer. Upon Christ’s own Word and authority, He will infallibly answer the prayers of His church to perform greater things though Spirit-empowered preaching.
Notes
- This article is adapted from a sermon the author preached. This sermon is available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=66111118488.
- D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), in loc.
- Pierre Ch. Marcel, The Relevance of Preaching, trans. Rob Roy McGregor, ed. William Childs Robinson (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963).
- William Perkins, An Instruction Against the Idolatry of the Last Times, And an Instruction Touching Religious or Divine Worship (Cambridge, 1601), 152.
“After This Manner Therefore Pray Ye”: Puritan Perspectives On The Lord’s Prayer
By Brian G. Najapfour
Panorama Of The Lord’s Prayer From Church Fathers To Puritans
A wealth of commentary on the Lord’s Prayer exists in the patristic period. Richard Stuckwisch says, “Treatises on the Our Father [i.e., the Lord’s Prayer]—whether in the form of catecheses, sermons, lectures, or written commentaries—are not uncommon in the history of the church, especially after the fourth century.” [1] Church father Tertullian, for example, wrote a tract called On Prayer [2] (c. AD 192), in which he expounded the Lord’s Prayer. Origen’s On Prayer [3] (c. AD 233) also contains an exposition of Our Father. Likewise, Cyprian had a treatise On the Lord’s Prayer [4] (c. AD 252). Other church fathers touched on the Lord’s Prayer in their catechetical lectures, sermons, and commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. [5] Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas also devoted pages to Pater Noster, [6] and the Reformers wrote often about this prayer. Luther elucidated it in his An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen [7] (1519), Personal Prayer Book [8] (1522), Large and Small Catechisms (1530), and A Simple Way to Pray [9] (1535). Calvin discussed it in his Institutes of the Christian Religion [10] and gave comments on it in his Harmony of the Gospels. [11]
References to the Lord’s Prayer are also scattered in the works of the Puritans. The Westminster Assembly’s Larger [12] and Shorter [13] Catechisms have sections on this prayer. In fact, some Puritan works on the Lord’s Prayer available today were products of an exposition of these sections in the Shorter Catechism. Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer [14] is an example of that work. John Flavel also spelled out the Lord’s Prayer in his An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism. [15] Likewise, William Fenner, [16] Richard Baker, [17] and Robert Hill [18] did treatises on this prayer in the form of catechism. John Dod, [19] Lancelot Andrews, [20] and Thomas Manton [21] preached on it, and later their sermons were published. Puritan commentators like Matthew Henry [22] and Matthew Poole [23] gave notes on it in their commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
This brief survey shows that the Lord’s Prayer was not ignored among church fathers, medieval theologians, Reformers, or Puritans. In what follows we shall see how the Puritans interpreted this prayer’s preface: [24] “After this manner therefore pray ye.” [25]
Puritan Perspectives On The Lord’s Prayer
The Puritans were not united in their understanding of Christ’s purpose behind the Lord’s Prayer. John Bunyan, for example, suggested that this prayer is only a pattern or a model that does not need to be repeated. Others claimed that while the prayer is a pattern, it is also a form, and thus can be recited word for word as a prayer to God. Basically, three Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer exist: (1) the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form; (2) the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only; and (3) the Lord’s Prayer as an exceptional God-given form.
The Lord’s Prayer As Both A Pattern And A Form
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?” Then it answers, “The whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer; but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer.” [26] The answer to the question suggests that the Lord’s Prayer is both a pattern (“special rule of direction”) and a form (“form of prayer”). It is important to note that not all Puritans were against the use of fixed prayers. Richard Baxter, for instance, published written prayers called Forms of Prayer and Praises, for the use of Ignorant Families that need them. [27] Similarly, Matthew Henry wrote “Some short Forms of Prayer, for the use of those who may not be able to collect for themselves out of the foregoing Materials.” [28] Baxter and Henry, however, were not part of the Westminster Assembly; most of its members were Presbyterian. Thus it is not a surprise that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form because, even if the Presbyterian divines believed this prayer to be a pattern, they used it as a form in their public worship. Edmund Calamy, though, tells us that in the early eighteenth century, not all Presbyterians employed this prayer in public worship: “Some ministers use the Lord’s Prayer constantly, others frequently, others seldom or never, as reckoning it rather given for a Directory, than to be used as a Form.” [29]
The Larger Catechism further confirms that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as not only a pattern, but also a form: “How is the Lord’s prayer to be used? The Lord’s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.” [30] While the Larger Catechism does not explicitly proclaim the Lord’s Prayer to be a form, it permits the use of this prayer as a prayer itself. This point is also seen in The Directory for the Public Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly: “And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.” [31]
Therefore, the Westminster divines understood the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form. Using it as a form, though not commanded, was recommended. However, aware of the danger of its use as a form, the Puritan divine John Flavel warns, [32] “That form of words may be lawfully used, but it is plain its intention was to regulate our petitions by it; and therefore they that use it in spells and charms, as the Papist; or those that think nothing is prayer, but that form of words, abuse Christ’s intention in it.” [33] Flavel is convinced that the Lord’s Prayer is a pattern but is not totally against its use as a form so long as it is not abused. This is also the position of Matthew Poole, who argued that we can pray “[n]ot always in these words [of the Lord’s Prayer], but always to this sense, and in this manner. None ever thought Christians obliged to use no other words than these in prayer, though none must deny the lawfulness of using those words which Christ hath sanctified.” [34] Thomas Boston echoes the same view: “The Lord’s prayer is given [to] us as a directory for prayer, a pattern and an example, by which we are to regulate our petitions, and make other prayers…. [But] [i]t may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other praying graces.” [35]
Here two things can be noted. First, the Westminster divines allow and recommend the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Second, other Puritan divines, such as Flavel and Poole, while persuaded that this prayer is a pattern, permit its use as a form, provided that it is not misused. Hence, we have seen that some Puritans regarded the Lord’s Prayer not only as a pattern but also as a form.
The Lord’s Prayer As A Pattern Only
While these Puritans approved the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, John Bunyan did not. Bunyan utilizes both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel to argue against the idea of the Lord’s Prayer as a form:
William Fenner shares Bunyan’s sentiment, but he is not as strict as Bunyan. Fenner gives six reasons why this prayer should not be taken as a set form:
The aforementioned interpretation is also held by John Dod, who believes that the Lord’s Prayer is both a form and a pattern. Dod justifies his view as follows:
The Lord’s Prayer As An Exceptional God-Given Form
One unique Puritan perspective on the Lord’s Prayer is that of John Owen, who, like Bunyan, had a strong pneumatological emphasis on prayer. Owen’s treatise The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (1682) is similar in nature to Bunyan’s I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also. Like Bunyan, Owen also defended the practice of free or extemporaneous prayers: “We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.” [47] Owen adds, “There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.” [48]
Nevertheless, Owen, who differs on this point from Bunyan, considers the Lord’s Prayer an exception. For him this prayer is a God-given form and therefore can be used by the church: “Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.” [49] So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set prayers, he sanctions as an exception the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form.
Conclusion
As observed, among the Puritans there are three primary perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer: (1) that it is both a pattern and a form, which the Westminster divines support; [50] (2) that it is only a pattern (which, as we have noted, can be further divided into two classifications: extreme [Bunyan] and moderate [Fenner]); and (3) that it is an exceptional God-given form, a view held uniquely by Owen. Davies, in his book, The Worship of the English Puritans, gives a helpful summary of the history of the controversy concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer: “The history of the discussion tends to show that the more radical Puritans and Separatists regarded the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern and held that it was not intended that it should be repeated. The Anglicans interpreted it as a literal command for the repetition of that particular prayer. The Presbyterians combined both views and therefore held themselves free to repeat it and to model their extemporary prayers on it.” [51]
These various views all underscore how important the subject of prayer was for the Puritans. The issue discussed in this paper may appear insignificant for some, but because of their remarkable concern to fashion their prayer after the Bible, the Puritans took the issue of the Lord’s Prayer very seriously. These different positions are a result of their struggle to have a precisely scripturally based prayer life. Sadly, prayer has become less important in the lives of many believers today; many are indifferent about the manner and matter of their prayers. We need the Puritans to guide us on how to pray—and to pray biblically.
I personally uphold Fenner’s position. I believe that the Lord’s Prayer is to be taken as a pattern; however I do not see any problems if we use it as a form in prayer, assuming that it is not abused. I also concur that our prayers ought to be indeed modeled after the Lord’s Prayer. Doing so provides us with the two benefits Watson so beautifully articulates:
Notes
Let us have a great esteem of the Lord’s prayer; let it be the model and pattern of all our prayers.
—Thomas WatsonWhen Jesus says, “After this manner therefore pray ye,” what does He mean? Is He telling His disciples to pray the exact words of the Lord’s Prayer, to use this prayer as a pattern, or perhaps both? In other words, is the Lord’s Prayer a set form (a set order of words to pray), a pattern (a sample of prayer), or both? This article, after briefly surveying some works on the Lord’s Prayer from patristic to Puritan periods, will deal with these questions, specifically focusing on how the Puritans understood Jesus’ words concerning how to pray.
Panorama Of The Lord’s Prayer From Church Fathers To Puritans
A wealth of commentary on the Lord’s Prayer exists in the patristic period. Richard Stuckwisch says, “Treatises on the Our Father [i.e., the Lord’s Prayer]—whether in the form of catecheses, sermons, lectures, or written commentaries—are not uncommon in the history of the church, especially after the fourth century.” [1] Church father Tertullian, for example, wrote a tract called On Prayer [2] (c. AD 192), in which he expounded the Lord’s Prayer. Origen’s On Prayer [3] (c. AD 233) also contains an exposition of Our Father. Likewise, Cyprian had a treatise On the Lord’s Prayer [4] (c. AD 252). Other church fathers touched on the Lord’s Prayer in their catechetical lectures, sermons, and commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. [5] Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas also devoted pages to Pater Noster, [6] and the Reformers wrote often about this prayer. Luther elucidated it in his An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen [7] (1519), Personal Prayer Book [8] (1522), Large and Small Catechisms (1530), and A Simple Way to Pray [9] (1535). Calvin discussed it in his Institutes of the Christian Religion [10] and gave comments on it in his Harmony of the Gospels. [11]
References to the Lord’s Prayer are also scattered in the works of the Puritans. The Westminster Assembly’s Larger [12] and Shorter [13] Catechisms have sections on this prayer. In fact, some Puritan works on the Lord’s Prayer available today were products of an exposition of these sections in the Shorter Catechism. Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer [14] is an example of that work. John Flavel also spelled out the Lord’s Prayer in his An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism. [15] Likewise, William Fenner, [16] Richard Baker, [17] and Robert Hill [18] did treatises on this prayer in the form of catechism. John Dod, [19] Lancelot Andrews, [20] and Thomas Manton [21] preached on it, and later their sermons were published. Puritan commentators like Matthew Henry [22] and Matthew Poole [23] gave notes on it in their commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
This brief survey shows that the Lord’s Prayer was not ignored among church fathers, medieval theologians, Reformers, or Puritans. In what follows we shall see how the Puritans interpreted this prayer’s preface: [24] “After this manner therefore pray ye.” [25]
Puritan Perspectives On The Lord’s Prayer
The Puritans were not united in their understanding of Christ’s purpose behind the Lord’s Prayer. John Bunyan, for example, suggested that this prayer is only a pattern or a model that does not need to be repeated. Others claimed that while the prayer is a pattern, it is also a form, and thus can be recited word for word as a prayer to God. Basically, three Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer exist: (1) the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form; (2) the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only; and (3) the Lord’s Prayer as an exceptional God-given form.
The Lord’s Prayer As Both A Pattern And A Form
The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, “What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?” Then it answers, “The whole word of God is of use to direct us in prayer; but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer.” [26] The answer to the question suggests that the Lord’s Prayer is both a pattern (“special rule of direction”) and a form (“form of prayer”). It is important to note that not all Puritans were against the use of fixed prayers. Richard Baxter, for instance, published written prayers called Forms of Prayer and Praises, for the use of Ignorant Families that need them. [27] Similarly, Matthew Henry wrote “Some short Forms of Prayer, for the use of those who may not be able to collect for themselves out of the foregoing Materials.” [28] Baxter and Henry, however, were not part of the Westminster Assembly; most of its members were Presbyterian. Thus it is not a surprise that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form because, even if the Presbyterian divines believed this prayer to be a pattern, they used it as a form in their public worship. Edmund Calamy, though, tells us that in the early eighteenth century, not all Presbyterians employed this prayer in public worship: “Some ministers use the Lord’s Prayer constantly, others frequently, others seldom or never, as reckoning it rather given for a Directory, than to be used as a Form.” [29]
The Larger Catechism further confirms that the Shorter Catechism regards the Lord’s Prayer as not only a pattern, but also a form: “How is the Lord’s prayer to be used? The Lord’s prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern, according to which we are to make other prayers; but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other graces necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer.” [30] While the Larger Catechism does not explicitly proclaim the Lord’s Prayer to be a form, it permits the use of this prayer as a prayer itself. This point is also seen in The Directory for the Public Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly: “And because the prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it also to be used in the prayers of the church.” [31]
Therefore, the Westminster divines understood the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form. Using it as a form, though not commanded, was recommended. However, aware of the danger of its use as a form, the Puritan divine John Flavel warns, [32] “That form of words may be lawfully used, but it is plain its intention was to regulate our petitions by it; and therefore they that use it in spells and charms, as the Papist; or those that think nothing is prayer, but that form of words, abuse Christ’s intention in it.” [33] Flavel is convinced that the Lord’s Prayer is a pattern but is not totally against its use as a form so long as it is not abused. This is also the position of Matthew Poole, who argued that we can pray “[n]ot always in these words [of the Lord’s Prayer], but always to this sense, and in this manner. None ever thought Christians obliged to use no other words than these in prayer, though none must deny the lawfulness of using those words which Christ hath sanctified.” [34] Thomas Boston echoes the same view: “The Lord’s prayer is given [to] us as a directory for prayer, a pattern and an example, by which we are to regulate our petitions, and make other prayers…. [But] [i]t may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, faith, reverence, and other praying graces.” [35]
Here two things can be noted. First, the Westminster divines allow and recommend the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Second, other Puritan divines, such as Flavel and Poole, while persuaded that this prayer is a pattern, permit its use as a form, provided that it is not misused. Hence, we have seen that some Puritans regarded the Lord’s Prayer not only as a pattern but also as a form.
The Lord’s Prayer As A Pattern Only
While these Puritans approved the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, John Bunyan did not. Bunyan utilizes both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel to argue against the idea of the Lord’s Prayer as a form:
As to that called a form, I cannot think that Christ intended it [the Lord’s Prayer] as a stinted form of prayer. He himself lays it down diversely, as is to be seen, if you compare Matt. 6 with Luke 11. Whereas, if he intended it as a set form, it would not have been so laid down, for a set form is so many words and no more. We do not find that the apostles ever observed it as such; neither did they admonish others to do so…. Christ by those words, ‘Our Father, &c.’, instructs his people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God. [36]For Bunyan, the Lord’s Prayer is just a pattern given to instruct Christ’s “people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God.” [37] He strongly rejects fixed prayers. In fact, his treatise, I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also (1662), is an attack on the use of any set forms of prayer, especially the forms found in the Book of Common Prayer. Bunyan insists that prayer should be spontaneous from the heart. His rejection of the use of written prayers is a result of his pneumatological emphasis on prayer. These forms thwart the Holy Spirit:
We ought to prompt one another to prayer, though we ought not to make forms of prayer for each other. To exhort to pray with Christian direction is one thing, and to make stinted forms for tying up the Spirit of God to them is another thing. The apostle gives Christians no form in which to pray, yet directs to prayer (Eph. 6.8; Rom. 15. 30-32). Let no man therefore conclude, that because we may give instructions and directions to pray, therefore it is lawful to make forms of prayer for each other. [38]Bunyan therefore disagrees with the Westminster divines’ view on the Lord’s Prayer, and he differs from the position of Flavel and Poole who tolerate the practice of this prayer as a set form. Bunyan is persuaded that this prayer is only a pattern. However, Richard Greaves, a leading Bunyan scholar, suggests that though Bunyan “did not explicitly prohibit use of the Lord’s prayer, he warned that supplicants who recite it without the requisite faith face condemnation, whereas those who pray with the Spirit and the understanding offer their groans, sighs, and petitions…. One word uttered in faith is better…than a thousand prayers read ‘in a formal, cold, lukewarm way,’ including recitations of the Lord’s prayer without living faith.” [39] Horton Davies remarks on the division present among differing Christian factions:
The Lord’s Prayer, it should be noticed, becomes the crux of the liturgical problem. Since both radicals and conservatives regarded it as the model prayer, it was all-important to determine whether it was intended as a set form of prayer or merely as a pattern to which prayers should conform. The Separatists, who dispensed entirely with all forms of prayer, maintained that the Lord’s Prayer was a pattern; the supporters of the Prayer Book, on the contrary, held that it was a liturgical formula and the charter of set forms of prayer. [40]Separatists such as Barrowists “would not even repeat the Lord’s Prayer, which they regarded as the perfect model of prayer.” [41] They “believed that all liturgical forms, the Lord’s Prayer included, were a hindrance to the operation of the Spirit of God.” [42] Basically, Bunyan would argue the same way, and thus sided with the Separatist Barrowists in this issue.
William Fenner shares Bunyan’s sentiment, but he is not as strict as Bunyan. Fenner gives six reasons why this prayer should not be taken as a set form:
- First, because the Apostles prayed in other words, and did more specialize their Petition, Act.1.24.
- Secondly, this prayer is diversly set downe by the Evangelists, one way in one, Math.6.11. another way in Luke, Luke. one way in one, Math.6.12. another way in the other, Luke.
- Thirdly, who knowes this is all that Christ uttered, John. we see plainely Mathew sets down more, than Luke doth; it may be Christ spake more than either hath expressed, Math.6.13.
- Fourthly, Christ himself did not use these very words ever, when he would pray Lazarus alive, he did not say the Lords prayer over the grave, Joh.11.41. when he would pray for his Apostles, he did not say the Lords prayer over them, John.
- Fifthly, our speciall sinnes and wants, doe require that we should pray more specially then so, 2.
- Sixthly, we read of praying all night, we cannot think that the Lords prayer was said over and over againe and againe Luke. we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col. neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this, Act.4.30. and yet we may if we will, Luke.11.2. neither is there any thing against it. No, though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of a man, Psal. 90.12. [43]
The aforementioned interpretation is also held by John Dod, who believes that the Lord’s Prayer is both a form and a pattern. Dod justifies his view as follows:
The Evangelist Mathew being to set down the holy Prayer, saith after this manner, Therefore pray you: but in Luke it is, when you pray, say. The difference betweene the Evangelists is thus reconciled, that St. Mathew makes it a forme or patterne according to which all our prayers and praises are to bee directed: and St. Luke proposes it as an excellent and heavenly prayer to be used by all Gods servants. Whence we learne that the Lord’s prayer, is both a forme and patterne to guide us in prayer, and a prayer itselfe. [44]Noticeably, Dod refers also to the prayer in Luke as a form, an interpretation that Fenner himself uses. Fenner explains that we can pray this prayer and make it our own. Praying in this manner is like quoting other Bible verses in our prayer. But again, as Fenner stresses, it is not “necessary to conclude our prayers with this prayer.” [45] Robert Hill puts it this way:
Is it necessary ever to repeat all this prayer? It is surely a good conclusio[n] for our ordinary course of praying both publikely and privatly, because those things which we cannot at such times crave, or give thanks for in particular, are all contained in this platforme: but that every petition should ever be used, it is not necessary. [46]Hence, while Fenner and Hill admit that nothing is wrong in the use of this prayer as a form, for them, to do so is not necessary. This fact presupposes that Puritans who take the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only can be further narrowly categorized into two groups: extreme (Bunyan), and moderate (Fenner). The former will prohibit the use of the prayer as a form, while the latter will make arguments against the use, but nonetheless remain tolerant.
The Lord’s Prayer As An Exceptional God-Given Form
One unique Puritan perspective on the Lord’s Prayer is that of John Owen, who, like Bunyan, had a strong pneumatological emphasis on prayer. Owen’s treatise The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer (1682) is similar in nature to Bunyan’s I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also. Like Bunyan, Owen also defended the practice of free or extemporaneous prayers: “We are expressly commanded to pray, but are nowhere commanded to make prayers for ourselves, much less for others.” [47] Owen adds, “There is assistance promised unto believers to enable them to pray according unto the will of God; there is no assistance promised to enable any to make prayers for others.” [48]
Nevertheless, Owen, who differs on this point from Bunyan, considers the Lord’s Prayer an exception. For him this prayer is a God-given form and therefore can be used by the church: “Whatever forms of prayer were given out unto the use of the church by divine authority and inspiration, as the Lord’s Prayer and the Psalms or Prayers of David, they are to have their everlasting use therein, according unto what they were designed unto.” [49] So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set prayers, he sanctions as an exception the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form.
Conclusion
As observed, among the Puritans there are three primary perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer: (1) that it is both a pattern and a form, which the Westminster divines support; [50] (2) that it is only a pattern (which, as we have noted, can be further divided into two classifications: extreme [Bunyan] and moderate [Fenner]); and (3) that it is an exceptional God-given form, a view held uniquely by Owen. Davies, in his book, The Worship of the English Puritans, gives a helpful summary of the history of the controversy concerning the use of the Lord’s Prayer: “The history of the discussion tends to show that the more radical Puritans and Separatists regarded the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern and held that it was not intended that it should be repeated. The Anglicans interpreted it as a literal command for the repetition of that particular prayer. The Presbyterians combined both views and therefore held themselves free to repeat it and to model their extemporary prayers on it.” [51]
These various views all underscore how important the subject of prayer was for the Puritans. The issue discussed in this paper may appear insignificant for some, but because of their remarkable concern to fashion their prayer after the Bible, the Puritans took the issue of the Lord’s Prayer very seriously. These different positions are a result of their struggle to have a precisely scripturally based prayer life. Sadly, prayer has become less important in the lives of many believers today; many are indifferent about the manner and matter of their prayers. We need the Puritans to guide us on how to pray—and to pray biblically.
I personally uphold Fenner’s position. I believe that the Lord’s Prayer is to be taken as a pattern; however I do not see any problems if we use it as a form in prayer, assuming that it is not abused. I also concur that our prayers ought to be indeed modeled after the Lord’s Prayer. Doing so provides us with the two benefits Watson so beautifully articulates:
Let us have a great esteem of the Lord’s prayer; let it be the model and pattern of all our prayers. There is a double benefit arising from framing our petitions suitably to this prayer. Hereby error in prayers is prevented. It is not easy to write wrong after this copy; we cannot easily err when we have our pattern before us. Hereby mercies requested are obtained; for the apostle assures us that God will hear us when we pray “according to his will.” I John v. 14. And sure we pray according to his will when we pray according to the pattern he has set us. So much for the introduction to the Lord’s prayer, “After this manner pray ye.” [52]“Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1).
Notes
- D. Richard Stuckwisch, “Principles of Christian Prayer from the Third Century: A Brief Look at Origen, Tertullian and Cyprian With Some Comments on Their Meaning for Today,” Worship 71 (1997): 2.
- Tertullian, “On Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 681-91.
- Origen, “On Prayer,” trans. Rowan A. Greer, in Origen: An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 81-170.
- Cyprian, “On the Lord’s Prayer,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 447-57.
- For a definitive list of extant patristic writings on the Lord’s Prayer, see Appendix of Robert L. Simpson, The Interpretation of Prayer in the Early Church (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965), 175-77.
- Thomas Aquinas, The Three Greatest Prayers: Commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and the Apostles’ Creed, trans. Laurence Shapcote (Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 1990).
- Martin Luther, “An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 1, vol. 42, ed. Martin O. Dietrich, trans. Martin H. Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), 19-81.
- Martin Luther, “Personal Prayer Book,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Martin H. Bertram (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 29-38.
- Martin Luther, “A Simple Way to Pray,” in Luther’s Works: Devotional Writings 2, vol. 43, ed. Gustav K. Wiencke, trans. Carl J. Schindler (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 187-211.
- John Calvin, Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.20.34-39.
- John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. A. W. Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 204-13.
- “The Larger Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), Questions & Answers 186-96 [hereafter LC Q & A 186-96].
- “The Shorter Catechism,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; Glasgow: Free Presbyterian, 2001), Questions & Answers 99-107 [hereafter SC Q & A 99-107].
- Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (1692; reprint, London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1972).
- John Flavel, “An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism,” in The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1997), 293-317.
- William Fenner, The Spirituall Mans Directory (London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell, 1651), 66-106.
- Richard Baker, Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by Anne Griffin, c. 1637).
- Robert Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie (London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne, 1641), 1-212.
- John Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer (London: Printed by M.D., 1635), 1-234.
- Lancelot Andrews, “Nineteen Sermons of His, upon Prayer in Generall, and upon the Lords Prayer in Particular,” in The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxly (London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642), 39-136.
- Thomas Manton, “A Practical Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” in The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 1 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1870), 1-254.
- Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John, vol. 5 (reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 59-62.
- Matthew Poole, Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation, vol. 3 (reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990), 27-28.
- The Larger and the Shorter Catechisms consider the preface to be “contained in these words, Our Father which art in heaven,” see LC Q & A 189 and SC Q & A 100. However, in this chapter, I employ the term “preface” to refer to “After this manner therefore pray ye.”
- This is the preface found in Matthew 6:9 (KJV), and I am aware that Luke has a different wording: “When ye pray, say.” Later we will find that John Dod interpreted the preface in Luke to mean that the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer is a form, while the Matthean version is a pattern. Therefore, this prayer would be both a pattern and a form.
- SC Q & A 99 (italics mine except for The Lord’s Prayer).
- Richard Baxter, The Poor Man’s Family Book (London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons, 1674), 346 ff.
- Matthew Henry, A Method for Prayer, ed. Ligon Duncan (Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic Press, 1994), 209-49.
- Cited in Horton Davies, The Worship of the Puritans (1948; reprint, Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 101.
- LC Q & A 187 (italics mine).
- “The Directory for the Public Worship of God,” in Westminster Confession of Faith (1646; reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001), 382.
- To avoid confusion, in this article, I use the term “Puritan divine” to refer to a Puritan who was not part of the Westminster Assembly.
- Flavel, “An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism,” 295.
- Poole, Commentary on the Holy Bible, 27.
- Thomas Boston, “Of the Rule Direction in Prayer,” in The Complete Works of The Late Rev. Thomas Boston (1853; reprint, Wheaton, Ill.: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1980), 558.
- John Bunyan, “I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also,” in Prayer (1662; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 46.
- Bunyan, “I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also,” 46.
- Bunyan, “I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also,” 44-45.
- Richard Greaves, Glimpses of Glory: John Bunyan and English Dissent (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2002), 155.
- Horton Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans (1948; reprint, Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 69.
- Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 81.
- Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 81.
- Fenner, The Spirituall Mans Directory, 67.
- Dod, A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer, 5.
- Fenner, The Spirituall Mans Directory, 67.
- Hill, The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie, 5.
- John Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, in The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1967), IV: 240 (italics his).
- Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, 240 (italics his).
- Owen, The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, 240 (italics his).
- Matthew Henry also affirms this view: “The Lord’s prayer being intended not only for a form of prayer itself, but a rule of direction, a plan or model in little, by which we may frame our prayers.” See Henry, A Method for Prayer, 189. Similarly, Thomas Manton states: Christ taught “his disciples to pray, not only as directing them what they should pray for [pattern], but putting a form of words into their mouths [form].” See Manton, “A Practical Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” 39.
- Davies, The Worship of the English Puritans, 99.
- Watson, The Lord’s Prayer, 2.
Princeton’s Pastor: A Reconsideration Of Old Princeton’s View Of The Christian Ministry
By Allen Stanton
As preparations for the bicentennial celebration of Princeton Seminary indicate, the influence of Princeton Seminary upon the Protestant church can hardly be exaggerated. [1] This has been sufficiently demonstrated from the resurgence in Princeton studies over the last three decades. [2] After all, no other institution trained more clergy in the nineteenth century than Princeton. [3] This clerical influence did not simply extend to Presbyterians; although Presbyterians founded the seminary, Princeton’s faculty also trained Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians. From its earliest years, Princeton boasted a broad ecumenical draw. [4] Princeton should be viewed as a significant influence upon nineteenth-century pastoral ministry. It should not be seen as the only voice, but a considerable voice nonetheless. Such influence should, if only for a better understanding of her substantial voice in the nineteenth century, warrant our attention to Princeton’s concept of pastoral ministry. By listening to the voices of the past, the twenty-first century church might likewise profit.
The Founding Of Princeton Seminary
The origins of Princeton stemmed from Presbyterian pastors lamenting the deficient education rampant among their co-laborers. Samuel Miller, a New York City pastor since 1792, grew concerned about educational insufficiency amid aggressive episcopacy. High church priests, led by John Henry Hobart, began proselytizing defenseless Presbyterians, whose pastors proved unable to defend their flock against Hobart’s charge that their ministry lacked the validating stamp of “apostolic succession.” [5] In 1805, Miller began intense correspondence with an influential Presbyterian named Ashbel Green proposing a seminary to remedy this deficiency. Green, the son of Presbyterian pastor Jacob Green, had been pastor of second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia since 1787, and by the turn of the century had earned a reputation as a Presbyterian churchman. [6]
As Miller continued to persuade Ashbel Green to his cause, he likewise began acquiring a reputation in the Presbyterian Church. In 1803, he published an intellectual history entitled A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century and, by 1805, had earned two honorary doctorates for his work. [7] In 1806, he was elected moderator of the General Assembly and straightaway began pushing his agenda for a seminary. After this assembly, Miller had fully persuaded Green to his objective. [8] They also recruited another reputable ally at this time, a Virginian preacher named Archibald Alexander. Alexander was licensed and ordained as an evangelist by Virginia presbytery around 1791, and from 1796-1807 served as president of Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. In 1807, having committed to Miller and Green’s agenda, Alexander preached a sermon on the floor of General Assembly calling for a seminary that would ensure an educated Presbyterian ministry. [9] The General Assembly finally approved of their objective in 1810, and assigned Miller, Green, and Alexander to develop a charter for the seminary. They did this in what became known simply as “the Plan.”
As we turn our attention to Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry, we will begin by looking at the charter of the seminary. Next, we will look at the elaboration of this view of the Christian ministry by Samuel Miller. Then, we will examine the charter’s plan of integrating and accomplishing its desired end, followed by some more particular applications by Samuel Miller.
The Plan Of The Seminary
The Plan of the seminary can best be captured in a few lines of its introduction:
Samuel Miller’s Elaboration Of Princeton’s View
Although Miller, Green, and Alexander collaborated on the Plan, Miller decisively shaped Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry for the simple reason that the Board of Trustees hired him, in 1813, as the first professor of church history and government. A significant aspect of his job description included teaching on the history of preaching, homiletics, delivery, public prayer, and interaction in the church courts. He also wrote extensively on the Presbyterian ministry. [12] Much attention has been given to Archibald Alexander’s contributions in regards to Princeton’s view of the ministry but often to the neglect of Miller, whose views played an equal if not greater role. [13] Alexander’s teaching responsibilities predominantly covered dogmatic and polemic theology. Although he certainly used the Sunday afternoon conferences and his classroom lectures as vehicles for expressing his ministerial ideas, the General Assembly specifically hired Miller to articulate the seminary’s concept of pastoral ministry—a logical choice, considering that Miller had pastored nearly twice as long as Alexander. [14] In essence, Miller expounded the Plan of the seminary to a greater degree than any other professor in the first two and a half decades of the seminary’s existence. We will consider three of his most important literary productions on this topic.
The Importance Of Gospel Ministry
Prior to the Winter Session of 1827, Miller presented an introductory lecture to the student body. The thesis of the lecture could be summarized in the following statement: “What the ministers are, the Church will always be.” [15] He divided his lecture into four heads: (1) the design of the office, (2) defense of these statements of Scripture on the subject, (3) the general support of this by society and, (4) by history. Lastly, Miller offered some applicatory principles. We will briefly address his arguments in turn.
Miller began by defining his understanding of the essence of pastoral ministry. He claimed that a society had hope of preserving the gospel only where both the Word of God and faithful expounders of that Word were present. Without faithful ministers, “we have no reason to expect either that sinners will be converted, or saints edified and comforted.” [16]
Miller then defended his statements about the ministry under two headings. First, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere promised that “faithful ministers shall be a great blessing.” To prove this from Scripture he appealed to three passages in particular: Jeremiah 3:15 and 23:4, and Isaiah 57:4, 6, 11. On the flipside, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere teach the “incalculable injury” that unfaithful ministers do to the church. Corrupt doctrine and practice almost without exception extend from the teachers of the church.
He continued by noting that not only is this the rule of the church but that nearly “every species of society” in every age confirms this principle. He argued that all heresies which have corrupted the church have in almost every case been introduced by churchmen. He stated: “No church was ever ruined, or essentially injured, but by her own ministers: or signally blessed, but through a revival of their zeal and fidelity.” [17] Miller then asked, “what may we infer from this?” He proposed ten things. First, we should infer “that the ministerial office is the most interesting, the most responsible, the most awful under heaven.” [18] This should provoke the ministerial candidate toward a healthy fear. How can one think of this weighty task and not tremble under it? The candidate should not enter upon the ministry lightly.
Second, we should consider the great degree to which a minister of the gospel must be qualified and how difficult is the attainment of those qualities.
Miller continued by arguing that the failure to understand the ministry in this way is a primary reason for the scarcity of good and profitable preaching.
These considerations, said Miller, clarify what kind of honor the ministers should attain for and what kind of spirit must be roused for the faithful service of these duties. He concluded his lecture with the following exhortation:
The Necessity Of Mature Preparatory Study
After the founding of the seminary and the first decade and a half of its operation, Presbyterian clergymen were still unhappy with its candidates’ level of education. In 1829, a committee of the General Assembly requested that Dr. Miller publish another introductory lecture that he delivered on the topic prior to the summer session in July of 1829 in hopes of promoting greater vigor in candidates’ preparatory study. This lecture was simply entitled The Importance of Mature Preparatory Study for the Ministry.
In this work, Miller spoke out against the presumptuousness of students who left the seminary before completing the regular three-year course of study. He summarized his intent in the following manner:
Second, he compelled his audience to consider the extent of information in which the minister must be familiar. He must know the biblical languages, history and antiquities, biblical criticism, interpretation, didactic and polemic theology, the various controversies of the church, as well as church history and church government. He must also be familiar with practical theology. He must know how to develop and deliver sermons and how to properly care for the flock entrusted to him. These things every candidate must know and they cannot do so without mature preparation.
Miller continued by arguing the unlikelihood of acquiring a sufficient educational foundation after the conclusion of his preparatory studies. The demands upon a young pastor are too intense to allow time for rigorous simultaneous study. Grandiose ambitions will more than likely be vain and empty intentions. In the end, he will simply exhaust himself and his influence as a preacher.
He argued further that preparatory study not only equips one mentally but spiritually as well. Mature and slow training tempers the general character of the candidate. It humbles a man who might have previously thought himself wise above his capacities. Seminary education forces him to ponder the great task to which he is called and produces in him a solemnity that might otherwise escape him. Seminary training is as much necessary for piety as for the intellect.
Miller then prompted his audience to consider the opinions and practices of the church throughout history. The Jews demanded their candidates be thoroughly trained before entering the service of the synagogue. The apostles studied three years with Jesus, and Paul also underwent intensive study under Gamaliel before he was charged as an apostle. The second to fourth centuries encouraged similar training, as did the European universities afterward. “If our fathers in all ages,” Miller challenged, deemed intense study necessary for the preparation for ministry, “shall we be arrogant enough to suppose that they were all wrong, and that we understand the subject better than they did?”25 “Rely on it,” Miller continued, “if you have not the same conviction now, you will, I doubt not, adopt them by and by; perhaps…when it is too late to profit by the conviction.” [26]
Lastly, Miller argued that the situation of this country demanded more able ministers than the past; this stemmed from the fact that the learnedness of Presbyterian clergy was at a “low ebb.” He lamented the loss of eminent men of the past such as Edwards, Burr, the Tennents, Blair, Davies and Finley, Witherspoon, Waddell, and Rodgers, and argued that the country demanded a larger supply “of truly able, pious, and well-trained ministers of the gospel,” akin to those eminent men. [27]
Yet Miller did not want his students to draw the wrong conclusion. He anticipated that many might respond, “If ministers are in such great demand, shouldn’t we stop wasting our time in the classroom and begin working in the harvest?” To this Miller responded:
The Particulars Of The Plan
Having seen the generalities of the Plan more clearly defined, we now return to it to see how the founders of the seminary provided for the accomplishment of cultivating piety and learning. In article five, the Plan delineated expectations for both the professors and for the students in this regard.
Upon graduation, the student must have been thoroughly equipped in all the areas previously mentioned. The Plan expected that this chiefly would be accomplished through professorial instruction, but it also allotted specific responsibility to the professors for the production of personal piety. The Plan divided these principles into four sections.
In section one, the Plan delineated between daily exercises and those particular to the Lord’s Day. In their daily habits, the Plan charged:
In closing, the Plan charged the professors to use all “the means in their power, to encourage, cherish, and promote devotion and personal piety among their pupils.” It was their responsibility not simply to instruct but to use both teaching and any other proper means to “foster true experimental religion, and unreserved devotedness to God.” [32]
Letters On Clerical Manners And Habits
The philosophy of ministry of the seminary, especially for Miller, did not simply consist of the endeavor of producing pious and learned preachers; it also sought to produce respectable clergy. In 1827, Miller penned a work entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits, teaching habits he thought most proper in a Presbyterian pastor. To be certain, the work is filled with idiosyncrasies to both Miller and to the nineteenth century, yet Miller nevertheless expressed a wonderful sensitivity and general knowledge of customs and habits. So he penned this extensive work in hopes of helping his students avoid foibles and faults that have sometimes made ministers appear defective and thereby hindered their ministerial effectiveness. He summarized his goal for the book in the following way:
He expounded dignity as “that happy mixture of gravity and elevation in human deportment, which evinces a mind habitually thoughtful, serious, and set on high things.” [34] One develops this characteristic, he argued, chiefly by the company with which one associates. Frivolous company necessarily impairs dignity.
Second, he defined gentleness as “that habitual mildness of disposition, and softness of manner, which carefully guard against everything, in speech or behavior, adapted unnecessarily to offend or to give uneasiness.” [35] This, he urged, as a fruit of the Spirit, should always be sought after. It is not, however, to be confused for cowardice; it simply “stands opposed to harshness and severity, to pride and arrogance, to violence and oppression.” [36]
The third general characteristic which must be present in the useful minister is condescension. A minister shares most of his time with the poor and destitute, the friendless, and the afflicted. In fact, this must be the case. Thus the preacher must be able to lay aside any hint of “haughtiness or superiority” and demonstrate to those who society might deem inferior that such a spirit does not reside in their minister. [37]
At this point, Miller gave a very practical exhortation for establishing a spirit of condescension. He wrote: “Go to their dwellings as a friend and a comforter. Listen with patient attention to their complaints and requests. Manifest, what you ought undoubtedly to feel, a readiness to serve them to the utmost of your power.” [38]
He continued, fourthly, by describing what he referred to as affability. “An affable man” Miller wrote, “is one who may be approached and accosted without embarrassment or difficulty; one who has a happy talent of conversing pleasantly and courteously, and of placing everyone in conversation with him perfectly at ease.” [39] Yet one must avoid the mistake of breaking down all barriers of mutual respect. To completely disavow respect for the office and work of the ministry undermines it completely. What Miller means by affability is simply the opposite of haughtiness and coldness. [40]
The fourth essential characteristic of clerical manners is reserve. Miller claimed that certain topics should not be spoken of by the pastor. Although he must be affable, his speech must not be utterly free and unrestrained.
For Miller, the purpose of the ministry can be basically summarized in a word: “usefulness.” Therefore, he must avoid foibles and practices that would limit his usefulness in gospel ministry. He must not only study the Bible but also the world. This does not mean conformity to the world, but “you must be acquainted with the actual world. You must see and study man as he is.” [43] If a man possesses the aforementioned general characteristics, he will ensure his greatest usefulness.
Miller proceeded by addressing all sorts of particulars, but the particulars are merely the application of these characteristics to all areas of the minister’s life: conversation, habits in the pulpit, conduct in the church judicatories, etc.
Conclusion
For the Princetonians, especially Samuel Miller, the ministry was the highest of all callings. As goes the minister, so goes the church. And because the ministry is so important, the candidate must enter it only after serious consideration and much diligent preparation. One must obtain adequate theological furniture before entering the pastoral ministry. But theological training without piety completely nullifies a pastor’s usefulness. For these reasons, in their view, the student must spend at least the full term of a regular course of study at the seminary and attend to his studies not only with great diligence but also with regular times—morning and evening—in prayer and meditation. So important were these daily practices that it was stated in the very charter of the seminary that if the student failed to satisfactorily attend to such disciplines, the professor had the authority to preclude his studies and remove him from the seminary.
Not only must the minister be theologically astute and eminently pious, he must also be respectable. He must be able to carry himself well in his community. He must know how to dress, speak, and relate in ways that are appropriate to local customs and in ways that will ensure his usefulness. The respectability of the ministry must be preserved by those who bear the office.
Where this concept of the ministry is in place, the candidate takes his seminary studies very seriously. He also works to cultivate and maintain practices that enforce his dependency upon the Lord and growth in grace. The seminary and its professors likewise view themselves as instrumental in cultivating both learnedness and piety in their students. They demonstrate this conviction by making a concentrated effort in the development of their students and in monitoring their progress in both doctrine and piety. During their time in the seminary, professors also take an interest in ridding their students of practices and habits which would inhibit their usefulness.
For some traditions, this understanding of the Christian ministry might sound familiar. Yet, I daresay, for many this sounds very foreign. Should this be the case? This was certainly a predominant manner of considering the Christian ministry, and the role of the seminary, in the nineteenth century, due to Princeton’s pervasive influence. That it has subsequently been dismissed and reformulated I hardly need to prove. Should we reconsider the thoughts of our forebears? As we celebrate the bicentennial anniversary of the founding of Princeton Seminary, we would indeed be remiss if we did not consider their view of the Christian ministry. After all, their chief purpose was to produce just that—Christian ministers, by God’s grace.
Notes
As preparations for the bicentennial celebration of Princeton Seminary indicate, the influence of Princeton Seminary upon the Protestant church can hardly be exaggerated. [1] This has been sufficiently demonstrated from the resurgence in Princeton studies over the last three decades. [2] After all, no other institution trained more clergy in the nineteenth century than Princeton. [3] This clerical influence did not simply extend to Presbyterians; although Presbyterians founded the seminary, Princeton’s faculty also trained Congregationalists, Baptists, Methodists, and Episcopalians. From its earliest years, Princeton boasted a broad ecumenical draw. [4] Princeton should be viewed as a significant influence upon nineteenth-century pastoral ministry. It should not be seen as the only voice, but a considerable voice nonetheless. Such influence should, if only for a better understanding of her substantial voice in the nineteenth century, warrant our attention to Princeton’s concept of pastoral ministry. By listening to the voices of the past, the twenty-first century church might likewise profit.
The Founding Of Princeton Seminary
The origins of Princeton stemmed from Presbyterian pastors lamenting the deficient education rampant among their co-laborers. Samuel Miller, a New York City pastor since 1792, grew concerned about educational insufficiency amid aggressive episcopacy. High church priests, led by John Henry Hobart, began proselytizing defenseless Presbyterians, whose pastors proved unable to defend their flock against Hobart’s charge that their ministry lacked the validating stamp of “apostolic succession.” [5] In 1805, Miller began intense correspondence with an influential Presbyterian named Ashbel Green proposing a seminary to remedy this deficiency. Green, the son of Presbyterian pastor Jacob Green, had been pastor of second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia since 1787, and by the turn of the century had earned a reputation as a Presbyterian churchman. [6]
As Miller continued to persuade Ashbel Green to his cause, he likewise began acquiring a reputation in the Presbyterian Church. In 1803, he published an intellectual history entitled A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century and, by 1805, had earned two honorary doctorates for his work. [7] In 1806, he was elected moderator of the General Assembly and straightaway began pushing his agenda for a seminary. After this assembly, Miller had fully persuaded Green to his objective. [8] They also recruited another reputable ally at this time, a Virginian preacher named Archibald Alexander. Alexander was licensed and ordained as an evangelist by Virginia presbytery around 1791, and from 1796-1807 served as president of Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. In 1807, having committed to Miller and Green’s agenda, Alexander preached a sermon on the floor of General Assembly calling for a seminary that would ensure an educated Presbyterian ministry. [9] The General Assembly finally approved of their objective in 1810, and assigned Miller, Green, and Alexander to develop a charter for the seminary. They did this in what became known simply as “the Plan.”
As we turn our attention to Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry, we will begin by looking at the charter of the seminary. Next, we will look at the elaboration of this view of the Christian ministry by Samuel Miller. Then, we will examine the charter’s plan of integrating and accomplishing its desired end, followed by some more particular applications by Samuel Miller.
The Plan Of The Seminary
The Plan of the seminary can best be captured in a few lines of its introduction:
Inasmuch as the obtaining of salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord, to the glory of the eternal God, is the chief object which claims the attention of man; and considering, that in the attainment of this object the dispensation of the Gospel is principally instrumental; it is manifestly of the highest importance, that the best means be used to ensure the faithful preaching of the Gospel, and the pure administration of all its ordinances. [10]According to the three founders of Princeton, the chief end of the ministry was the preservation of the gospel. In order to cultivate faithful preachers and defenders of the gospel, the Plan proposed a seminary that aimed to produce men able to rightly divide the word of truth but also men of true and fervent piety. They further explained this purpose in what followed:
To unite, in those who shall sustain the ministerial office, religion and literature; that piety of the heart which is the fruit only of the renewing and sanctifying grace of God, with solid learning; believing that religion without learning, or learning without religion, in the ministers of the Gospel, must ultimately prove injurious to the Church. [11]This captures the general emphasis of the purpose of the seminary. Yet, the Plan developed particular practices that should facilitate such an end. We will return to those particulars in time.
Samuel Miller’s Elaboration Of Princeton’s View
Although Miller, Green, and Alexander collaborated on the Plan, Miller decisively shaped Princeton’s idea of pastoral ministry for the simple reason that the Board of Trustees hired him, in 1813, as the first professor of church history and government. A significant aspect of his job description included teaching on the history of preaching, homiletics, delivery, public prayer, and interaction in the church courts. He also wrote extensively on the Presbyterian ministry. [12] Much attention has been given to Archibald Alexander’s contributions in regards to Princeton’s view of the ministry but often to the neglect of Miller, whose views played an equal if not greater role. [13] Alexander’s teaching responsibilities predominantly covered dogmatic and polemic theology. Although he certainly used the Sunday afternoon conferences and his classroom lectures as vehicles for expressing his ministerial ideas, the General Assembly specifically hired Miller to articulate the seminary’s concept of pastoral ministry—a logical choice, considering that Miller had pastored nearly twice as long as Alexander. [14] In essence, Miller expounded the Plan of the seminary to a greater degree than any other professor in the first two and a half decades of the seminary’s existence. We will consider three of his most important literary productions on this topic.
The Importance Of Gospel Ministry
Prior to the Winter Session of 1827, Miller presented an introductory lecture to the student body. The thesis of the lecture could be summarized in the following statement: “What the ministers are, the Church will always be.” [15] He divided his lecture into four heads: (1) the design of the office, (2) defense of these statements of Scripture on the subject, (3) the general support of this by society and, (4) by history. Lastly, Miller offered some applicatory principles. We will briefly address his arguments in turn.
Miller began by defining his understanding of the essence of pastoral ministry. He claimed that a society had hope of preserving the gospel only where both the Word of God and faithful expounders of that Word were present. Without faithful ministers, “we have no reason to expect either that sinners will be converted, or saints edified and comforted.” [16]
Miller then defended his statements about the ministry under two headings. First, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere promised that “faithful ministers shall be a great blessing.” To prove this from Scripture he appealed to three passages in particular: Jeremiah 3:15 and 23:4, and Isaiah 57:4, 6, 11. On the flipside, he claimed that the Scriptures everywhere teach the “incalculable injury” that unfaithful ministers do to the church. Corrupt doctrine and practice almost without exception extend from the teachers of the church.
He continued by noting that not only is this the rule of the church but that nearly “every species of society” in every age confirms this principle. He argued that all heresies which have corrupted the church have in almost every case been introduced by churchmen. He stated: “No church was ever ruined, or essentially injured, but by her own ministers: or signally blessed, but through a revival of their zeal and fidelity.” [17] Miller then asked, “what may we infer from this?” He proposed ten things. First, we should infer “that the ministerial office is the most interesting, the most responsible, the most awful under heaven.” [18] This should provoke the ministerial candidate toward a healthy fear. How can one think of this weighty task and not tremble under it? The candidate should not enter upon the ministry lightly.
Second, we should consider the great degree to which a minister of the gospel must be qualified and how difficult is the attainment of those qualities.
Surely such a man ought to have many qualifications which do not belong, and are not necessary to common Christians. What various, and extensive knowledge; especially, what familiar acquaintance with Scripture; what deep and ardent piety; what prudence; what knowledge of the world and the human heart; what command of his own spirit; what zeal; what patience; what capacity for labor; what diligence; what perseverance, and indispensable here! [19]Therefore, the candidate for ministry should not be too hasty to end his preparatory studies to enter pastoral duties. If this task is so high and demands so much, one must take extremely seriously his preparation. If he does not, his unfaithfulness is exceedingly great. Miller claimed that even pagan society recognizes the centrality of the pastoral ministry to the success of the church. As a result, these societies have always made the denigration of the character of the church’s ministers a “favorite method for attacking Christianity itself.” [20]
Miller continued by arguing that the failure to understand the ministry in this way is a primary reason for the scarcity of good and profitable preaching.
The true reason, then, why we have so little good and profitable preaching, is, that, among those who attempt to perform this service, there is so little deep, warm, heart-felt piety; and so little of that patient, indefatigable labor, to store the mind with knowledge, and to attain an easy, natural, forcible method of communicating it, which are within the reach of the most ordinary minds, supremely intent on doing good. [21]With these things in mind, Miller continued, the friends of piety will be much in prayer that God will provide such men of learning and piety to bless the church. Sheer numbers are of little value; what is necessary is men of the “proper stamp.” For “what advantage is it to any church to add to her ministry a drone, an ignoramus, or a learned formalist?” [22]
These considerations, said Miller, clarify what kind of honor the ministers should attain for and what kind of spirit must be roused for the faithful service of these duties. He concluded his lecture with the following exhortation:
May the Lord give you grace to ponder well in your hearts what you are about, and what is before you! May the Lord give you grace to consider seriously the furniture which you need for this mighty work; especially that deep, ardent, active piety, which lies at the foundation of all other useful furniture…. Resolve, that, if the Church be corrupted with error, agitated by controversy, or torn by schism, the sin shall not lie at your door. If her walls be broken down, by folly or wickedness, see that you be found in the breach, fighting and praying for her restoration. [23]For Miller and his associates, the gospel ministry is the highest of all callings and necessarily demands more from its candidates than any other occupation. Therefore one must not enter it lightly. He must be a man of great piety and be committed to learning the system of doctrine found in Scripture. He elaborated on the latter in 1829.
The Necessity Of Mature Preparatory Study
After the founding of the seminary and the first decade and a half of its operation, Presbyterian clergymen were still unhappy with its candidates’ level of education. In 1829, a committee of the General Assembly requested that Dr. Miller publish another introductory lecture that he delivered on the topic prior to the summer session in July of 1829 in hopes of promoting greater vigor in candidates’ preparatory study. This lecture was simply entitled The Importance of Mature Preparatory Study for the Ministry.
In this work, Miller spoke out against the presumptuousness of students who left the seminary before completing the regular three-year course of study. He summarized his intent in the following manner:
To impress upon the minds of those whom I address, that the preliminary studies of a candidate for the holy ministry ought to be as mature and complete as he can make them; and, of consequence, that nothing less than what is commonly styled a “regular course,” either here or elsewhere, under the direction of some approved teacher or teachers, ought to be considered as sufficient, by any theological student, who wishes to be, permanently, either acceptable or useful in the sacred office. [24]Miller attempted to drive home this impression with eight arguments. First, he contended, we must serve Christ with the best of our abilities. The person who enters the ministry without proper instruction in the Bible’s system of truth seldom proves useful to the church. Undoubtedly, the Spirit of God makes a man’s ministry effectual, yet, “as long as God’s kingdom is a kingdom of means,” a man thoroughly equipped will likely be more successful.
Second, he compelled his audience to consider the extent of information in which the minister must be familiar. He must know the biblical languages, history and antiquities, biblical criticism, interpretation, didactic and polemic theology, the various controversies of the church, as well as church history and church government. He must also be familiar with practical theology. He must know how to develop and deliver sermons and how to properly care for the flock entrusted to him. These things every candidate must know and they cannot do so without mature preparation.
Miller continued by arguing the unlikelihood of acquiring a sufficient educational foundation after the conclusion of his preparatory studies. The demands upon a young pastor are too intense to allow time for rigorous simultaneous study. Grandiose ambitions will more than likely be vain and empty intentions. In the end, he will simply exhaust himself and his influence as a preacher.
He argued further that preparatory study not only equips one mentally but spiritually as well. Mature and slow training tempers the general character of the candidate. It humbles a man who might have previously thought himself wise above his capacities. Seminary education forces him to ponder the great task to which he is called and produces in him a solemnity that might otherwise escape him. Seminary training is as much necessary for piety as for the intellect.
Miller then prompted his audience to consider the opinions and practices of the church throughout history. The Jews demanded their candidates be thoroughly trained before entering the service of the synagogue. The apostles studied three years with Jesus, and Paul also underwent intensive study under Gamaliel before he was charged as an apostle. The second to fourth centuries encouraged similar training, as did the European universities afterward. “If our fathers in all ages,” Miller challenged, deemed intense study necessary for the preparation for ministry, “shall we be arrogant enough to suppose that they were all wrong, and that we understand the subject better than they did?”25 “Rely on it,” Miller continued, “if you have not the same conviction now, you will, I doubt not, adopt them by and by; perhaps…when it is too late to profit by the conviction.” [26]
Lastly, Miller argued that the situation of this country demanded more able ministers than the past; this stemmed from the fact that the learnedness of Presbyterian clergy was at a “low ebb.” He lamented the loss of eminent men of the past such as Edwards, Burr, the Tennents, Blair, Davies and Finley, Witherspoon, Waddell, and Rodgers, and argued that the country demanded a larger supply “of truly able, pious, and well-trained ministers of the gospel,” akin to those eminent men. [27]
Yet Miller did not want his students to draw the wrong conclusion. He anticipated that many might respond, “If ministers are in such great demand, shouldn’t we stop wasting our time in the classroom and begin working in the harvest?” To this Miller responded:
There is indeed, the most pressing want of more laborers to go forth and feed the destitute and perishing millions in every part of our revolved world. But I will venture to say, there is a still greater want of well qualified laborers, in whom piety, wisdom, prudence, zeal, and learning are conspicuously united. One such man will really be likely to do more good—far more good—than fifty unqualified men, or men not furnished, in some measure, as public teachers ought to be. [28]In the mind of Miller and his Princetonian associates, the gospel ministry was the greatest of all callings, and the person who pursued it must undergo a time of mature preparation both intellectually and spiritually. The Plan provided a few particulars for the seminary in hopes of cultivating such growth during the student’s preparatory years.
The Particulars Of The Plan
Having seen the generalities of the Plan more clearly defined, we now return to it to see how the founders of the seminary provided for the accomplishment of cultivating piety and learning. In article five, the Plan delineated expectations for both the professors and for the students in this regard.
Upon graduation, the student must have been thoroughly equipped in all the areas previously mentioned. The Plan expected that this chiefly would be accomplished through professorial instruction, but it also allotted specific responsibility to the professors for the production of personal piety. The Plan divided these principles into four sections.
In section one, the Plan delineated between daily exercises and those particular to the Lord’s Day. In their daily habits, the Plan charged:
It is expected that every student in the Theological Seminary will spend a portion of time every morning and evening in devout meditation, and self-recollection and examination; in reading the holy Scriptures solely with a view to a personal and practical application of the passage read, to his own heart, character, and circumstances; and in humble fervent prayer, and praise to God in secret. [29]It continued with more specific instructions for the Sabbath. It asserted:
The whole of every Lord’s Day is to be devoted to devotional exercises, either of a social or secret kind. Intellectual pursuits, not immediately connected with devotion or the religion of the heart, are on that day to be forborne. The books to be read are to be of a practical nature. The conversations had with each other are to be chiefly on religious subjects. Associations for prayer and praise, and for religious conference, calculated to promote growth in grace, are also proper for this day; subject to such regulations as the professors and directors may see proper to prescribe. It is also wished and recommended, that each student should ordinarily set apart one day in a month for special prayer and self-examination in secret, accompanied with fasting. [30]It is interesting to note the professors’ role in this. During their time in seminary, the professors were in essence the pastors of their students as well as their professors. The Plan charged the professors not only to teach but also to take a vested interest in the development of character and piety of the seminary’s students. Therefore, the Plan granted much authority to the professors in evaluating the faithfulness of the students in these regards. If they deemed their progress unsatisfactory, the Plan permitted the professors to dismiss the students from the seminary if they “persist in a system of conduct not exemplary in regard to religion.” [31]
In closing, the Plan charged the professors to use all “the means in their power, to encourage, cherish, and promote devotion and personal piety among their pupils.” It was their responsibility not simply to instruct but to use both teaching and any other proper means to “foster true experimental religion, and unreserved devotedness to God.” [32]
Letters On Clerical Manners And Habits
The philosophy of ministry of the seminary, especially for Miller, did not simply consist of the endeavor of producing pious and learned preachers; it also sought to produce respectable clergy. In 1827, Miller penned a work entitled Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits, teaching habits he thought most proper in a Presbyterian pastor. To be certain, the work is filled with idiosyncrasies to both Miller and to the nineteenth century, yet Miller nevertheless expressed a wonderful sensitivity and general knowledge of customs and habits. So he penned this extensive work in hopes of helping his students avoid foibles and faults that have sometimes made ministers appear defective and thereby hindered their ministerial effectiveness. He summarized his goal for the book in the following way:
It is [a pastor’s] great business to win men to the love of truth and duty by moral means, and among others, by exhibiting in their own temper and lives, the meek, lowly, amiable, and benevolent spirit of religion which they inculcate…when I recollect how extremely important the first steps of a young minister are; at how early and inexperienced an age he frequently enters on his public work; how much depends on the character of his habits and manners when he is least sensible of the fact; and how completely he may prostrate his dignity, and foreclose his usefulness, by a few ridiculous foibles, or inadvertent habits, of the existence of which it would be sometimes difficult to convince him—I say, when I recollect all these things, I am astonished that candidates for the ministry think so little of the matter, and are so little concerned to form a style of manners, which may be conducive, at once, to their comfort and usefulness. [33]Miller began the basic exposition of this work by proposing a summary of general characteristics that must be present in the manners of clergy: dignity, gentleness, condescension, affability, reserve, and uniformity.
He expounded dignity as “that happy mixture of gravity and elevation in human deportment, which evinces a mind habitually thoughtful, serious, and set on high things.” [34] One develops this characteristic, he argued, chiefly by the company with which one associates. Frivolous company necessarily impairs dignity.
Second, he defined gentleness as “that habitual mildness of disposition, and softness of manner, which carefully guard against everything, in speech or behavior, adapted unnecessarily to offend or to give uneasiness.” [35] This, he urged, as a fruit of the Spirit, should always be sought after. It is not, however, to be confused for cowardice; it simply “stands opposed to harshness and severity, to pride and arrogance, to violence and oppression.” [36]
The third general characteristic which must be present in the useful minister is condescension. A minister shares most of his time with the poor and destitute, the friendless, and the afflicted. In fact, this must be the case. Thus the preacher must be able to lay aside any hint of “haughtiness or superiority” and demonstrate to those who society might deem inferior that such a spirit does not reside in their minister. [37]
At this point, Miller gave a very practical exhortation for establishing a spirit of condescension. He wrote: “Go to their dwellings as a friend and a comforter. Listen with patient attention to their complaints and requests. Manifest, what you ought undoubtedly to feel, a readiness to serve them to the utmost of your power.” [38]
He continued, fourthly, by describing what he referred to as affability. “An affable man” Miller wrote, “is one who may be approached and accosted without embarrassment or difficulty; one who has a happy talent of conversing pleasantly and courteously, and of placing everyone in conversation with him perfectly at ease.” [39] Yet one must avoid the mistake of breaking down all barriers of mutual respect. To completely disavow respect for the office and work of the ministry undermines it completely. What Miller means by affability is simply the opposite of haughtiness and coldness. [40]
The fourth essential characteristic of clerical manners is reserve. Miller claimed that certain topics should not be spoken of by the pastor. Although he must be affable, his speech must not be utterly free and unrestrained.
Private affairs of your neighbors; the characters, plans, and conduct of the absent; questions which implicate the principles and views of other religious denominations; the conflicts of party politicians; your own private concerns; the petty scandal of the neighborhood; what others have communicated to you, in reference to delicate subjects, whether under the injunction of secrecy or not; your opinions concerning the passing events and persons of the day, unless in very clear and special cases; on all these and similar subjects, if you are wise you will exercise much reserve; nay you will seldom allow yourself to converse at all, even when all around you are chattering about them. [41]The final quality which Miller deems necessary for clergy is uniformity. In other words, the minister must treat all of his people the same from day to day. He must not honor some more than others and treat some specially and others indifferently. The only remedy for avoiding this error is simply attention. He must pay careful attention to the way he treats and speaks to people. [42]
For Miller, the purpose of the ministry can be basically summarized in a word: “usefulness.” Therefore, he must avoid foibles and practices that would limit his usefulness in gospel ministry. He must not only study the Bible but also the world. This does not mean conformity to the world, but “you must be acquainted with the actual world. You must see and study man as he is.” [43] If a man possesses the aforementioned general characteristics, he will ensure his greatest usefulness.
Miller proceeded by addressing all sorts of particulars, but the particulars are merely the application of these characteristics to all areas of the minister’s life: conversation, habits in the pulpit, conduct in the church judicatories, etc.
Conclusion
For the Princetonians, especially Samuel Miller, the ministry was the highest of all callings. As goes the minister, so goes the church. And because the ministry is so important, the candidate must enter it only after serious consideration and much diligent preparation. One must obtain adequate theological furniture before entering the pastoral ministry. But theological training without piety completely nullifies a pastor’s usefulness. For these reasons, in their view, the student must spend at least the full term of a regular course of study at the seminary and attend to his studies not only with great diligence but also with regular times—morning and evening—in prayer and meditation. So important were these daily practices that it was stated in the very charter of the seminary that if the student failed to satisfactorily attend to such disciplines, the professor had the authority to preclude his studies and remove him from the seminary.
Not only must the minister be theologically astute and eminently pious, he must also be respectable. He must be able to carry himself well in his community. He must know how to dress, speak, and relate in ways that are appropriate to local customs and in ways that will ensure his usefulness. The respectability of the ministry must be preserved by those who bear the office.
Where this concept of the ministry is in place, the candidate takes his seminary studies very seriously. He also works to cultivate and maintain practices that enforce his dependency upon the Lord and growth in grace. The seminary and its professors likewise view themselves as instrumental in cultivating both learnedness and piety in their students. They demonstrate this conviction by making a concentrated effort in the development of their students and in monitoring their progress in both doctrine and piety. During their time in the seminary, professors also take an interest in ridding their students of practices and habits which would inhibit their usefulness.
For some traditions, this understanding of the Christian ministry might sound familiar. Yet, I daresay, for many this sounds very foreign. Should this be the case? This was certainly a predominant manner of considering the Christian ministry, and the role of the seminary, in the nineteenth century, due to Princeton’s pervasive influence. That it has subsequently been dismissed and reformulated I hardly need to prove. Should we reconsider the thoughts of our forebears? As we celebrate the bicentennial anniversary of the founding of Princeton Seminary, we would indeed be remiss if we did not consider their view of the Christian ministry. After all, their chief purpose was to produce just that—Christian ministers, by God’s grace.
Notes
- A number of titles have been released, or will soon be, in anticipation of this occasion: Paul C. Gutjahr, Charles Hodge: Guardian of American Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Paul Kjoss Heiseth, Right Reason and the Princeton Mind: An Unorthodox Proposal (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2010); Andrew Hoffecker, Charles Hodge: the Pride of Princeton (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2011); Gary Steward, Old Princeton: A Guided Tour of Its Leading Men and Their Writings (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, forthcoming); Fred G. Zaspel, The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010). Likewise, Evangelical Press is producing a series called “Bitesize Biographies” that will include several of the key figures of Princeton Seminary. One on B. B. Warfield is being completed by John Muether.
- Some of the most important contributions to this resurgence are: David B. Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994, 1997); Andrew Hoffecker, Piety and the Princeton Theologians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981); and Mark Noll, The Princeton Theology: 1812-1921 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). Noll has contributed a number of other works, many of which will be cited in this paper, but this is the most sweeping and comprehensive of his contributions.
- See Mark Noll, “The Founding of Princeton Seminary,” Westminster Theological Journal 42 (1979): 72-110. See also the introduction to The Princeton Theology, 11-48; and David Calhoun, Princeton Seminary, 1:28-30.
- See Peter Wallace and Mark Noll, “The Students of Princeton Seminary, 1812-1929: A Research Note,” American Presbyterians 72, 3 (1994): 203-15.
- For a more detailed treatment, see Allen Stanton, “The Theological Climate of the Early Nineteenth Century and the Founding of a Polemical Seminary at Princeton,” The Confessional Presbyterian 6 (2010): 22-30, 298. See also Samuel Miller Jr., The Life of Samuel Miller (Philadelphia: Claxton, Remsen, and Haffelfinger, 1869).
- Ashbel Green, The Life of Ashbel Green (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1849). William Buell Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1858), 3:473-79. For the influence of his father Jacob Green see Mark Noll, “Jacob Green’s Proposal for a Seminary,” Journal of Presbyterian History 58 (1980), 210-22.
- Samuel Miller, A Brief Retrospect of the Eighteenth Century. Part First; in two volumes, containing a sketch of the revolutions and improvements in science, arts, and literature during that period (New York: T. and J. Swords, 1803).
- Ashbel Green, The Life of Ashbel Green, 315.
- James W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander (New York: Charles Scribner, 1854), 314-15.
- Plan of the Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, located in Princeton, New-Jersey. Adopted by the General Assembly of 1811. 2nd Edition (Elizabethtown: Isaac A. Kollock, 1816), 3.
- The Plan, 4-5.
- To see a list of a large portion of Miller’s lectures, see the collection of his manuscripts as preserved in the Princeton Seminary Library by Douglas F. Denee at http://libweb.ptsem.edu/collections/ead/miller_samuel.html#a23.
- See, for example, James M. Garretson, Princeton and Preaching: Archibald Alexander and the Christian Ministry (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2005). See also Lefferts Loescher, Facing the Enlightenment and Pietism (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983).
- Miller pastored in New York City from 1793-1813, approximately twice the amount of Alexander’s two pastoral stints collectively (1791-96, 1807-12).
- Samuel Miller, The Importance of the Gospel Ministry: An Introductory Lecture Delivered at the Opening of the Winter Session of the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, November 9, 1827 (Princeton: Princeton Press, 1827), 8.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 9-10.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 30, 32.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 32.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 34.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 39.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 43.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 44.
- Miller, The Importance of Gospel Ministry, 50, 53.
- Samuel Miller, “The Importance of Mature Preparatory Study for the Ministry,” an introductory lecture delivered at the opening of the summer session of the seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, July 3, 1829 (Princeton Press, 1829), 6.
- Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 21.
- Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 22.
- Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 28.
- Miller, “The Importance of Mature Study,” 28.
- The Plan, 17.
- The Plan, 17.
- The Plan, 18.
- The Plan, 18.
- Samuel Miller, Letters on Clerical Manners and Habits: Addressed to a Student in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N.J. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1827), 22-23.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 28.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 28.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 34.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 36.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 36.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 38.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 40.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 41-42.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 44.
- Miller, Clerical Manners, 19.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)