I. Introduction
When 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, or is he telling them to just use this Prayer as a pattern, or perhaps both? Is the Lord’s Prayer a set form (an order of words to pray) or a pattern (a sample of prayer) or both? I will deal with these questions in this article, particularly focusing on how the Puritans understood those words of Jesus. In the first part of this treatise, I will briefly survey some works on the Lord’s Prayer from church fathers to Puritans, and in the second part, I will address my main objective—to see how the Puritans interpreted this Prayer insofar as the questions that I have mentioned are concerned. At the end, I will briefly state my personal perspective regarding this controversy, and give some practical implications of this study.
II. Panorama of the Lord’s Prayer from Church Fathers to Puritans
In his article, The Lord’s Prayer in the First Century, Simon J. Kistemaker observes: “Admittedly the evidence relating to the Lord’s prayer in the first centuries of the Christian era is sparse. Yet valuable background information may be gleaned from sources including Qumran, Judaism, and even Scripture itself. Source material from the early Church is very limited. Besides the evidence in the Didache and references in the writings of the apostolic fathers, virtually no information is available.”[1] However, as D. 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.”[2] Church father Tertullian, for example, wrote a tract called On Prayer[3] (circa A. D. 192), where he expounded the Lord’s Prayer. Origen’s On Prayer[4] (circa A. D. 233) also contains an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer. Likewise, Cyprian had a treatise On the Lord’s Prayer[5] (circa A. D. 252). And as it has been pointed out already, other church fathers touched on the Lord’s Prayer in their catechetical lectures, sermons, and commentaries of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.[6] Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas also devoted pages on this Prayer.[7] Similarly, the Reformers treated it in their writings. Luther elucidated it in his An Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer for the Simple Laymen[8] (1519), Personal Prayer Book[9] (1522), Large and Small Catechisms (1530), and A Simple Way to Pray[10] (1535). Calvin discussed it in his Institute of the Christian Religion[11], and gave comments on it in his Harmony of the Gospels.[12]
References to the Lord’s Prayer are also scattered in the writings of the Puritans. The Westminster Assembly’s Larger[13] and Shorter[14] Catechisms, which were composed by Westminster Divines, have sections on it. And some Puritan works on the Lord’s Prayer available today were products of an exposition of that Shorter Catechism. Thomas Watson’s The Lord’s Prayer[15] is an example of this. John Flavel also spelled it out in his An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism.[16] Similarly, William Fenner,[17] Richard Baker,[18] and Robert Hill[19] did treatises on it in the form of catechism. John Dod[20] and Lancelot Andrewes[21] had preached on it, and later their sermons were published. And 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, and Puritans. I will now go to my main mission in this paper—to analyze how the Puritans understood this Prayer. But again it is not my purpose to expound this Prayer; rather, my intention is just to know how these Puritans interpreted the Lord’s Prayer’s preface:[24] “After this manner therefore pray ye.”[25]
III. Puritan Perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer
Puritans were not united in their understanding of the Lord’s Prayer. Some would say that this Prayer is only a pattern or a model that needs not to be repeated. Others would claim that while it is a pattern, it is also a form, and thus can be recited as a prayer itself to God. Basically, there are three Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer.
A. 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] Here it is suggested 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 forms of prayer. 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] But it needs to be said that Baxter and Henry were not part of the Westminster Assembly. However, since most of the members of this Assembly were Presbyterians, 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.[29] Though, Edmund Calamy tells us that in the early eighteenth century, not all Presbyterians employed this Prayer in public worship:[30]
‘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.’[31]
The Larger Catechism further confirms our point 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.[32]
While the Larger Catechism does not explicitly proclaim that the Lord’s Prayer is 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.[33]
It now becomes clearer that the Westminster Divines understood the Lord’s Prayer as both a pattern and a form. The use of this Prayer as a form, though not commanded, is commended, and even recommended. However, aware of the danger of its use as a form, Puritan Divines[34] like John Flavel warns:
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.[35]
Flavel is convinced that the Lord’s Prayer is a pattern; however, he is not totally against its use as a form so long that it is not abused. This is also the position of Matthew Poole:
Not 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.[36]
Here two things can be detected. First, the Westminster Divines not only allow the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, but recommend it also. Second, other Puritan Divines, such as Flavel and Poole, while persuaded that this Prayer is a pattern, permit its use as a form, given that it is not abused. Nevertheless, what is important to know here is that some Puritans regarded the Lord’s Prayer not only as a pattern but also as a form.
B. The Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only
While some Puritans approved the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, others did not. John Bunyan, for example, argues:
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…[37]
So for Bunyan, the Lord’s Prayer is just a pattern given to instruct “his [Christ’s] people what rules they should observe in their prayers to God.”[38] Bunyan strongly rejects any forms of prayer. In fact, his treatise—I will pray with the spirit and with understanding also is an attack on the use of any set of prayer, especially the forms found in the Book of Common Prayer. Bunyan insists that prayer should be spontaneous from the heart. It is also worth mentioning that his total rejection of the use of any forms is a result of his pneumatological emphasis on prayer. For him to pray with these forms is to tie up the Holy Spirit to them:
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.[39]
Bunyan therefore disagrees with the Westminster Divines’ view on the Lord’s Prayer. In addition to his disagreement with the Westminster Divines, he also differs from the position of Flavel and Poole who tolerate the practice of this Prayer as a set form. Bunyan is convinced that this Prayer is only a pattern. William Fenner shares Bunyan’s sentiment, but he is not as strict as Bunyan as we can see later. 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.11.3. one way in one, Math.6.12. another way in the other, Luke 11.4.
Thirdly, who knowes this is all that Christ uttered, John.21.25. we see plainely Mathew sets down more, than Luke doth; it may be Christ spake more that 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.17.1.
Fiftly, our speciall sinnes and wants, doe require that we should pray more specially then so, 2 Kings.19.15.
Sixtly, we read of praying all night, we cannot think that the Lords prayer was said over and over againe and againe Luke.6.12. we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. 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.[40]
In Fenner’s sixth point it is noticeable that he does not strictly or completely prohibit the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Listen to him again:
we are to continue in prayer, what by going over and over the Lords prayer? No, Col.4.2. 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. [41]
Thus while Fenner does not concur with the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form, he does not see anything wrong if one concludes his prayer with it. Though he argues that ending our prayer with this Prayer is not necessary, and yet we may if we will; and then, he gives a supporting verse—Luke 11: 2: “When ye pray, say….” Citing this verse implies that Fenner takes the Lord’s Prayer in Luke as a form. This interpretation is also held by John Dod, who believes that the Lord’s Prayer is both a form and a pattern. But this is how he justifies his view:
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[42] 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.[43]
Dod then understands the Lord’s Prayer in two ways—in Luke it is a form, while in Matthew it is a pattern. So both Fenner and Dod take the Prayer in Luke as a form, an argument that Fenner himself uses to open the door for the use of the Lord’s Prayer as a form. Moreover, Fenner allows the utterance of this Prayer, because for him there is not anything against it. Then, he explains why: “Though it be Scripture, the same thing may be Scripture and the word of God, and yet the prayer of man, Psal.90.12.” His point is that we can pray this Prayer, and make it our own prayer. It is just like quoting other Bible verses in our prayer. But again as Fenner appeals: “neither is it necessary to conclude our prayers with this.”[44] 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.[45]
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 presupposes that Puritans who take the Lord’s Prayer as a pattern only, can be further narrowly categorized into two: one who is extreme (Bunyan), and other who is moderate (Fenner). The former will prohibit absolutely the use of the Prayer as a form, while the latter will make arguments against, but are tolerant.
C. The Lord’s Prayer as an exceptionally God-given form
One unique Puritan perspective on the Lord’s Prayer is that of John Owen, who like Bunyan, gave a strong pneumatological emphasis on prayer. In fact, 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 (1662). 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.”[46] 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.[47]
However, 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.[48]
So while Owen ardently repudiates the use of any set prayers, he sanctions, as an exception the use of the Lord’s Prayer (along with the Psalms or Prayers of David) as a form.
IV. Conclusion
So far we have looked at three primary Puritan perspectives on the Lord’s Prayer: (1) that it is both a pattern and a form, which the Westminster Divines hold;[49] (2) that it is only a pattern. But as we have noted, this second position can be further boiled down into two classifications: extreme (Bunyan) and moderate (Fenner); and (3) that it is an exceptionally God-given form, held uniquely by Owen.
These various views imply that the subject of prayer is important for the Puritans. This issue that we have been studying may appear insignificant for us, but for the Puritans it is crucial. It is vital for them because of their remarkable concern to fashion their prayer after the Bible. These different views are a result of their struggle to have a ‘perfect’ or scripturally based prayer. How sad it is that today prayer has become less important in the lives of many believers. Many are indifferent about the manner and matter of their prayers. But let us be challenged to really think about our prayers.
What view then do I hold? I personally uphold Fenner’s position. I believe that the Lord’s Prayer (both in Matthew and Luke) is to be taken as a pattern; however, like Fenner, I do not see anything wrong if one uses it as a form in prayer, given that it is not ritually abused. I will also suggest that our prayers ought to be indeed modeled after this Prayer. Doing so provides us two benefits, as Watson beautifully states:
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.’[50]
“Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1).
Bibliography
Andrews, Lancelot. The Morall Law Expounded, 1. Largely, 2. Learnedly, 3. Orthodoxl.
London: Printed for Sparke, Robert Milbourne, Richard Cotes, and Andrew Crooke, 1642.
Baker, Richard. Meditations and Disquisitions upon the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by Anne
Griffin.
Baxter, Richard. The Poor Man’s Family Book. London: Printed by R. W. for Nevill Simmons,
1674.
Bunyan, John. Prayer. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005.
Davies, Horton. The Worship of the Puritans. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997.
Dod, John. A Plaine and Familiar Exposition on the Lords Prayer. London: Printed by M. D.,
1635.
Flavel, John. The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6. Edinburg: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint
1997.
Fennor, William The Spirituall Mans Directory. London: Printed by T. F. for John Rothwell,
1651.
Henry, Matthew. A Method for Prayer. Edited by Ligon Duncan. Greenville, SC: Reformed
Academic Press, 1994.
________. Matthew Henry’s Commentary: Matthew to John. Vol. 5. Hendrickson
Publishers, Inc., 2003.
Hill, Robert. The Path-way to Prayer and Pietie. London: Printed by Richard Hodgkinsonne,
1641.
Kistemaker, Simon, J. “The Lord Prayer in the First Century,” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 21 (1978) : 323.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vo. 4. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967.
Poole, Matthew. Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: Matthew to Revelation. Vol.
3. Hendrickson Publishers.
Stuckwisch, D. Richard. “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.
Watson, Thomas. The Lord’s Prayer. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1972.
Westminster Confession of Faith. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publication, 2001.
[25] This is the preface found in Matthew 6:9, and I am aware that Luke has a different wording: “When ye pray, say.” Later we will find out 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, according him, this Prayer is both a patter and a form.
[29] Horton Davies, in his book—The Worship of the Puritans, gives a 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 Separatist 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.” See Horton Davies, The Worship of the Puritans (1948; reprint, Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1997), 99.
