FORMS OF PRAYER
C24
FORMS OF PRAYER
known in the primitive Church." In proof of this I position, lie (with lord Kinj;) adduces Justin Martyr (t Kio) (translation by Seniisch, i, 72), and Tertullian (f 220) (Apoloff. ch. xxxix), who uses the phrase ire ])r(ri/ iLHthout a monitor, because from tlie heart (sine monitore, quia de pectore), and also the fact that the four earliest liturgies originated in the 4th centurj-. (2.) On the other hand, it is argued that the Jewish synagogue had its liturgy, to wliicli Christ and the apostles conformed ; that John Baptist taught his dis- ciples to pray, and that Christ gave a form to his fol- lov\-ers in answer to their request ; that if the four an- cient liturgies can only be traced to the 4th century, there are numerous passages in the fathers that imply their use in the apostolic age, and that fragments of them as far back as Clemens (A.D. 194) and Dionysius of Alexandria (247) are found ; that the passages from Justin and Tertullian, rightly interpreted, bear as strongly in fjxvor of liturgies as against them ; that the Apostolical Canons (q. v.) enjoin them ; and that, from the 4th century downwards, both the Eastern and "Western churches have uniformly used forms of pray- er (Hook ; Eden, s. v.). On the historical questions as. to tlie earh' use cf liturgies, see Liturgy.
III. From the Tendencies and Results of their Use. — (1.) Against forms, it is alleged that those adopted in one age are unsuitable to another ; that tlie perpetual repetition of the same praj'ers makes them wearisome, and destroys their signilicancj' ; that they must often Le unsuited to the occasion, to the sermon, and to the circumstances of the congregation ; and that their gen- eral tendency is, and always has been, to formalism and a mere outside v.orship, not of the heart, but of the lips.
(2.) For the use of forms, it is asserted that the forms in use are, like the Psalms, from which thej' are largely derived, adapted to the worship of the Church in all ages ; that forms are not as wearisome to a de- vout mind as extempore prayers of the same length ; that for special occasions special prayers can always be framed ; and that their tendenc}' has been proved, ill the histoiy of the Church, to be most salutar}'. It is further objected to extemporaneous praj-ers that (1) "it must be generally impossible that the whole con- gregation should j';/ft in a prayer the}' never had heard before, the instant it is uttered ; and totally impossible many distinct congregations should all be uniforn.h' emploj-ing the same extemporaneous prayer." (2) That free prayer gives too little scope to the congrega- tion ; nothing is left for them to do ; they arc, through- out, passive and receptive ; they hear the minister pray rather than join in public praj'er ; at best, they follow the minister rather than worship in praj-er. (3) That free prayer tends to degenerate into preaching or exhortation ; that the preacher can hardly fail to aim at edifying his congregation instead of being simply their mouthpiece in the act of worship, and so his pray- ers become homiletical instead of devotional. (4) That unpremeditated praj^ers are apt to depend on the im- pulse of the moment in the preacher, his state of health, etc., and may therefore lie eitlicr short and cold on the one hand, or long and diffusive on the other ; and that it is apt, therefore, to be personal ratlier than repre- sentative, if the prayer is the natural outflow of the minister's heart, wliich, on the theory, it ought to be.
A judicious writer in the Brit, and For. Evang. Rev. (Julj', 1857), after stating that there are onl}' three po- sitions possible on this question — (1) the use of forms, with the exclusion of free praj'er; (2) free prayer, ex- cluding all forms ; (3) the combination, in greater or lesser measure, of both — argues that the Keformers and fathers of Protestantism favored the third. '' In practice they stood precisel}' midwaj' between the two antagimist positions of modern times, and can be le- gitimately claimed as partisans by neither. They were the advocates neither of form nor of freedom, but of both. They at once sanctioned the use of liturgical