Deuteronomy 5:28-29

The LORD heard you when you spoke to me and the LORD said to me: “I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good. Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!”

Wherever the Word of God admits of a literal interpretation, its primary sense ought to be clearly stated, before any spiritual or mystical application is made of it. But when its literal meaning is ascertained, we must proceed to investigate its hidden import, which is frequently the more important. This has been done in relation to the passage before us; which primarily expresses an approbation of the request made by the Jews, that God would speak to them by the mediation of Moses, and not any longer by the terrific thunders of Mount Sinai; but covertly it conveyed an intimation, that we should all seek deliverance from the curse of the Law through the mediation of that great Prophet, whom God raised up like unto Moses, even his Son Jesus Christ!

The further use which we propose to make of this passage, is only in a way of accommodation; which however is abundantly sanctioned by the example of the Apostles; who frequently adopt the language of the Old Testament to convey their own ideas, even when it has no necessary connection with their subject.

Of course, the Liturgy of our Church was never in the contemplation of the sacred historian; yet, as in that we constantly address ourselves to God, and as it is a composition of unrivaled excellence, and needs only the exercise of our devout affections to render it a most acceptable service before God, we may well apply to it the commendation in our text, “Everything they said was good. Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!”

As in the course of the month two other occasions of prosecuting our subject will occur, we shall arrange our observations on the Liturgy, so as to vindicate its use, display its excellence, and commend to your attention one particular part, which we conceive to be eminently deserving notice in this place.

In the present discourse we shall confine ourselves to the vindication of the Anglican Liturgy:

first, Generally, as a service proper to be used;

then, Particularly, in reference to some objections which are urged against it.

Perhaps there never was any human composition more caviled at, or less deserving such treatment, than our Liturgy. Nothing has been deemed too harsh to say of it. In order therefore to a general vindication of it, we propose to show that the use of it is:

lawful in itself,

expedient for us,

and acceptable to God.

It is lawful in itself.

The use of a form of prayer cannot be in itself wrong; for, if it had been, God would not have prescribed the use of forms to the Jewish nation. But God did prescribe them on several occasions.

The words which the priest was to utter in blessing the people of Israel, are thus specified, “Speak unto Aaron, and unto his sons, saying, in this way you shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless you, and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace, Numbers 6:23-26.”

In like manner, when a man that had been slain was found, inquisition was to be made for his blood; and the elders of the city that was nearest to the body, were to make a solemn affirmation before God, that they knew not who the murderer was, and at the same time in a set form of prayer to deprecate the divine displeasure, Deuteronomy 21:7-8.

At the offering of the first-fruits, both at the beginning and end of the service, there were forms of very considerable length, which every offerer was to utter before the Lord, Deuteronomy 26:3; Deuteronomy 26:5-10; Deuteronomy 26:13-15.

When David brought up the ark from the house of Obed-edom to the tent which he had pitched for it in Jerusalem, he composed a form of prayer and thanksgiving for the occasion, selected out of four different Psalms. Compare 1 Chronicles 16:7-36 with Psalm 105:1-15; Psalm 96:1-13; Psalm 136:1; Psalm 106:47-48. And he put it into the hand of Asaph and his brethren for the use of the whole congregation. In all following ages, the Psalms were used as forms of devotion; Hezekiah appointed them for that purpose when he restored the worship of God, which had been suspended and superseded in the days of Ahaz, 2 Chronicles 29:30; as did Ezra also at the laying of the foundation of the second temple, Ezra 3:10-11. Nay, the hymn which our blessed Lord sang with his disciples immediately after he had instituted his supper as the memorial of his death, Matthew 26:30, was either taken from the Psalms, from 113th to 118th inclusive, or else was a particular form composed for that occasion. All this sufficiently shows that forms of devotion are not evil in themselves.

But some think, that though they were not evil under the Jewish dispensation, which consisted altogether of rites and carnal ordinances, they are evil under the more spiritual dispensation of the Gospel. This however cannot be; because our blessed Lord taught his disciples a form of prayer, and not only told them to pray after that manner, as one Evangelist mentions, but to use the very words, as another Evangelist declares. Indeed the word ï ôùò, by which Matthew expresses it, is not of necessity to be confined to manner, Matthew 6:9; it might be taken as referring to the very words. But, granting that he speaks of the manner only, and prescribes it as a model; yet Luke certainly requires us to use it as a form, “Jesus said unto them, When you pray, say, Our Father in Heaven, Luke 11:2.”

Accordingly we find, from the testimonies of some of the earliest and most eminent Fathers of the Church Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gregory—that it was constantly regarded and used in the Church as a form from the very times of the Apostles. As for the objection, that we do not read in the New Testament that it was so used, it is of no weight at all; for we are not told that the Apostles ever baptized people in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; but can we therefore doubt whether they did use this form of baptism? Assuredly not; and therefore the circumstance of such a use of the Lord’s Prayer not being recorded, especially in so short a history as that of the Apostles, is no argument at all that it was not so used.

Nor was this the only form used in the apostolic age. Lucian, speaking of the first Christians, says, “They spend whole nights in singing of Psalms;” and Pliny, in his famous Letter to Trajan, which was written not much above ten years after the death of John the Evangelist, says of them, “It is their manner to sing by turns a hymn to Christ as God.” This latter, it should seem, was not a Psalm of David, but a hymn composed for the purpose; and it proves indisputably, that even in the apostolic age, forms of devotion were in use.

If we come down to the times subsequent to the Apostles, we shall find Liturgies composed for the service of the different Churches. The Liturgies of Peter, Mark, and James, though they were corrupted in later ages, are certainly of high antiquity; that of James was of great authority in the Church, in the days of Cyril, who, in his younger years, at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century, wrote a Commentary upon it. And it were easy to trace the use of them from that time even to the present day.

Shall it be said, then, that the use of a pre-composed form of prayer is not lawful? Would God have given so many forms under the Jewish dispensation, and would our blessed Lord have given a form for the use of his Church and people, if it had not been lawful to use a form? But it is worthy of observation, that those who most loudly decry the use of forms, do themselves use forms, whenever they unite in public worship. What are hymns, but forms of prayer and praise? Ad if it is lawful to worship God in forms of verse, is it not equally so in forms of prose? We may say therefore, our adversaries themselves being judges, that the use of a form of prayer is lawful.

As for those passages of Scripture which are supposed to hold forth an expectation that under the Gospel we should have ability to pray without a form; for instance, that “God would give us a spirit of grace and of supplication,” and that “the Spirit should help our infirmities, and teach us what to pray for as we ought;” they do not warrant us to expect, that we shall be enabled to speak by inspiration, as the Apostles did, but that our hearts should be disposed for prayer, and be enabled to enjoy near and intimate communion with God in that holy exercise; but they may be fulfilled to us as much in the use of a pre-composed form, as in any extemporaneous effusions of our own; and it is certain, that people may be very fluent in the expressions of prayer without the smallest spiritual influence upon their minds; and that they may, on the other hand, be very fervent in prayer, though the expressions be already provided to their hand; and consequently, the promised assistance of the Spirit is perfectly consistent with the use of prayers that have been pre-composed.

But the lawfulness of forms of prayer is in this day pretty generally conceded. Many however still question their expediency. We proceed therefore to show next, that the use of the Liturgy is expedient for us.

Here let it not be supposed that I am about to condemn those who differ from us in judgment or in practice. If any think themselves more edified by extempore prayer, we rejoice that their souls are benefitted, though it be not precisely in our way; but still we cannot be insensible to the advantages which we enjoy; and much less can we concede to any, that the use of a prescribed form of prayer is the smallest disadvantage.

We say, then, that the Liturgy was of great use at the time it was made. At the commencement of the Reformation, the most lamentable ignorance prevailed throughout the land; and even those who from their office ought to have been well instructed in the Holy Scriptures, themselves needed to be taught what were the first principles of the oracles of God. If then the pious and venerable Reformers of our Church had not provided a suitable form of prayer, the people would still in many thousands of parishes have remained in utter darkness; but by the diffusion of this sacred light throughout the land, every part of the kingdom became in a good measure irradiated with scriptural knowledge, and with saving truth. The few who were enlightened, might indeed have scattered some partial rays around them; but their light would have been only as a meteor, that passes away and leaves no permanent effect. Moreover, if their zeal and knowledge and piety had been allowed to die with them, we would have in vain sought for compositions of equal excellence from any set of governors, from that day to the present hour; but by conveying to posterity the impress of their own piety in stated forms of prayer, they have in them transmitted a measure of their own spirit, which, like Elijah’s mantle, has descended on multitudes who have succeeded them in their high office.

It is not possible to form a correct estimate of the benefit which we at this day derive from having such a standard of piety in our hands; but we do not speak too strongly if we say, that the most enlightened among us, of whatever denomination they may be, owe much to the existence of our Liturgy; which has been, as it were, the pillar and ground of the truth in this kingdom, and has served as fuel to perpetuate the flame, which the Lord himself, at the time of the Reformation, kindled upon our altars.

But we must go further, and say, that the use of the Liturgy is equally expedient still. Of course, we must not be understood as speaking of private prayer in the closet; where, though a young and inexperienced person may get help from written forms, it is desirable that every one should learn to express his own needs in his own language; because no written prayer can enter so minutely into his wants and feelings as he himself may do; but, in public, we maintain that the use of such a form as ours is still as expedient as ever.

To lead the devotions of a congregation in extempore prayer is a work for which but few are qualified. An extensive knowledge of the Scriptures must be combined with fervent piety, in order to fit a person for such an undertaking; and I greatly mistake, if there be found a humble person in the world, who, after engaging often in that arduous work, does not wish at times that he had a suitable form prepared for him.

That the constant repetition of the same form does not so forcibly arrest the attention as new opinions and expressions would do, must be confessed; but, on the other hand, the use of a well-composed form secures us against the dry, dull, tedious repetitions which are but too frequently the fruits of extemporaneous devotions. Only let any person be in a devout frame, and he will be far more likely to have his soul elevated to Heaven by the Liturgy of the Established Church, than he will by the generality of prayers which he would hear in other places of worship; and, if anyone complains that he cannot enter into the spirit of them, let him only examine his frame of mind when engaged in extemporaneous prayers, whether in public, or in his own family; and he will find, that his formality is not confined to the service of the Church, but is the sad fruit and consequence of his own weakness and corruption.

Here it may not be amiss to rectify the notions which are frequently entertained of spiritual edification. Many, if their imaginations are pleased, and their spirits elevated, are ready to think, that they have been greatly edified; and this error is at the root of that preference which they give to extempore prayer, and the indifference which they manifest towards the prayers of the Established Church.

But real edification consists in humility of mind, and in being led to a more holy and consistent walk with God; and one atom of such a spirit is more valuable than all the animal fervor that ever was excited. It is with solid truths, and not with fluent words, that we are to be impressed; and if we can desire from our hearts the things which we pray for in our public forms, we need never regret, that our imagination was not gratified, or our animal spirits raised, by the delusive charms of novelty.

In what we have spoken on this subject, it must be remembered that we have spoken only in a way of vindication; the true, the exalted, and the proper ground for a member and minister of the Established Church, we have left for the present untouched, lest we should encroach upon that which we hope to occupy on a future occasion. But it remains for us yet further to remark, that the use of our Liturgy is acceptable to God.

The words of our text are sufficient to show us that God does not look at fine words and fluent expressions, but at the heart. The Israelites had “well said all that they had spoken;” but while God acknowledged that, he added, “O that there were such a heart in them!” If there are humility and contrition in our supplications, it will make no difference with God, whether they be extemporaneous or pre-composed. Can anyone doubt whether, it we were to address our heavenly Father in the words which Christ himself has taught us, we should be accepted by him, provided we uttered the different petitions from our hearts? As little doubt then is there that in the use of the Liturgy also we shall be accepted, if only we draw near to God with our hearts as well as with our lips. The prayer of faith, whether with or without a form, shall never go forth in vain. And there are thousands at this day who can attest from their own experience, that they have often found God as present with them in the use of the public services of our Church, as ever they have in their secret chambers.

Thus we have endeavored to vindicate the use of our Liturgy generally.

We now come to vindicate it in reference to some particular objections that have been urged against it.

The objections may be comprised under two heads:

1. That there are exceptionable expressions in the Liturgy.

To notice all the expressions which captious men have caviled at, would be a waste of time. But there are one or two, which, with tender minds, have considerable weight, and have not only prevented many worthy men from entering into the Church, but do at this hour press upon the consciences of many, who in all other things approve and admire the public formularies of our Church. A great portion of this present assembly are educating with a view to the ministry in the Established Church; and, if I may be able in any little measure to satisfy their minds, or to remove a stumbling-block out of their way, I shall think that I have made a good use of the opportunity which is thus afforded me.

A more essential service I can scarcely render unto any of my younger brethren, or indeed to the Establishment itself, than by meeting fairly the difficulties which occur to their minds, and which are too often successfully urged by the enemies of our Church, to the embarrassing of conscientious minds, and to the drawing away of many, who might have labored comfortably and successfully in this part of our Lord’s vineyard.

There is one circumstance in the formation of our Liturgy, which is not sufficiently adverted to. The people who composed it were men of a truly apostolic spirit; unfettered by party prejudices, they endeavored to speak in all things precisely as the Scriptures speak; they did not indulge in speculations and metaphysical reasonings; nor did they presume to be wise above what is written; they labored to speak the truth, the whole truth, in love; and they cultivated in the highest degree that candor, that simplicity, and that charity, which so eminently characterize all the apostolic writings.

Permit me to call your attention particularly to this point, because it will satisfactorily account for those expressions which seem most objectionable; and will show precisely in what view we may most conscientiously repeat the language they have used.

In our Burial Service, we thank God for delivering our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, and express a sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life, together with a hope also that our departed brother rests in Christ. Of course, it often happens, that we are called to use these expressions over people who, there is reason to fear, have died in their sins; and then the question is: How can we with propriety use them? I answer, that, even according to the letter of the words, the use of them may be justified; because we speak not of his, but of the, resurrection to eternal life; and because, where we do not absolutely know that God has not pardoned a person, we may entertain some measure of hope that he has.

But, taking the expressions more according to the spirit of them, they precisely accord with what we continually read in the epistles of Paul. In the First Epistle to the Corinthian Church, he says of them, “I thank my God always on your behalf, that in everything you are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you; so that you come behind in no gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet, does he instantly begin to condemn the same people, for their divisions and contentions; and afterwards tells them, “that they were carnal, and walked, not as saints, but as men,” that is, as unconverted and ungodly men, 1 Corinthians 1:4-7; 1 Corinthians 3:3.

In like manner, in his Epistle to the Philippians, after saying, “I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, for your fellowship in the Gospel from the first day until now; being confident of this very thing, that he who has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” he adds, “Even as it is fit for me to think this of you all, Philippians 1:3-7.” Yet does he afterwards caution these very people against strife, and vain-glory, and self-love; and tell them, that he will send Timothy to them shortly, in order to make inquiries into their state, and to give him information respecting them; and he even mentions two by name, Euodias and Syntyche, whose notorious disagreements he was desirous to heal.

A multitude of other passages might be cited to the same effect; to show that the Apostles, in a spirit of candor and of love, spoke in terms of commendation respecting all, when in strictness of speech they should have made some particular exceptions.

And, if we at this day were called to use the same language under the very same circumstances, it is probable that many would feel scruples respecting it, and especially, in thanking God for things, which, if pressed to the utmost meaning of the words, might not be strictly true.

But surely, if the Apostles in a spirit of love and charity used such language, we may safely and properly do the same; and knowing in what manner, and with what views, they spoke, we need not hesitate to deliver ourselves with the same spirit, and in the same latitude, as they.

To guard against a misapprehension of his meaning, the author wishes these words to be distinctly noticed; because they contain the whole drift of his argument. He does not mean to say, that the Apostles ascribed salvation to the opus operatum, the outward act of baptism; or, that they intended to assert distinctly the salvation of every individual who had been baptized; but only that, in reference to these subjects, they did use a language very similar to that in our Liturgy, and that therefore our Reformers were justified, as we also are, in using the same.

In the Baptismal Service, we thank God for having regenerated the baptized infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from hence it appears that, in the opinion of our Reformers, regeneration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense did they hold this sentiment? Did they maintain that there was no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized person to grow up, and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his soul after the divine image? Had they asserted or countenanced any such doctrine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened person to concur with them.

But nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their opinions than such an idea as this; so far from harboring such a thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us to look unto God for that total change both of heart and life, which, long since their days, has begun to be expressed by the term Regeneration.

After thanking God for regenerating the infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray, “that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin;” and then declaring that total change to be the necessary means of his obtaining salvation, we add, “So that finally, with the residue of your holy Church, he may be an inheritor of your everlasting kingdom.” Is there, I would ask, any person that can require more than this? or does God in his Word require more?

There are two things to be noticed in reference to this subject; the term, Regeneration, and the thing. The term occurs but twice in the Scriptures; in one place it refers to baptism, and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Spirit; which however is represented as attendant on it; and in the other place it has a totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now the term they use, as the Scripture uses it; and the thing they require, as strongly as any person can require it. They do not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be saved without experiencing all that modern divines have included in the term Regeneration; on the contrary, they do, both there and throughout the whole Liturgy, insist upon the necessity of a radical change both of heart and life. Here, then, the only question is, not, whether a baptized person can be saved by that ordinance without sanctification; but, whether God does always accompany the sign with the thing signified?

Here is certainly room for difference of opinion; but it cannot be positively decided in the negative; because we cannot know, or even judge, respecting it, in any instance whatever, except by the fruits that follow; and therefore in all fairness it may be considered only as a doubtful point; and, if we appeal, as we ought to do, to the Holy Scriptures, they certainly do in a very remarkable way accord with the expressions in our Liturgy. Paul says, “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit;” and this he says of all the visible members of Christ’s body 1 Corinthians 12:13-27.

Again, speaking of the whole nation of Israel, infants as well as adults, he says, “They were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.” Yet behold, in the very next verse he tells us, that “with many of them God was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.”

In another place he speaks yet more strongly still, “As many of you,” says he, “as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, Galatians 3:27.” Here we see what is meant by the expression “baptized into Christ;” it is precisely the same expression as that before mentioned, of the Israelites being “baptized unto Moses;” (the preposition å ò is used in both places;) it includes all that had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism; and of them universally does the Apostle say, “They have put on Christ.” Now I ask, Have not the people who scruple the use of that prayer in the Baptismal Service, equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions?

Again, Peter says, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38-39;” and in another place, “Baptism does now save us, 1 Peter 3:21.” And speaking elsewhere of baptized people who were unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, “He has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins, 2 Peter 1:9.” Does not this very strongly countenance the idea which our Reformers entertained, That the remission of our sins, as well as the regeneration of our souls, is an attendant on the baptismal rite? Perhaps it will be said, that the inspired writers spoke of people who had been baptized at an adult age. But, if they did so in some places, they certainly did not in others; and, where they did not, they must be understood as comprehending all, whether infants or adults; and therefore the language of our Liturgy, which is not a whit stronger than theirs, may be both subscribed and used without any just occasion of offence.

Let me then speak the truth before God. Though I am no Arminian, I do think that the refinements of Calvin have done great harm in the Church; they have driven multitudes from the plain and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and have made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in their modes of expression; and I conceive that, the less addicted any person is to systematic accuracy, the more he will accord with the inspired writers, and the more he will approve of the views of our Reformers. I do not mean however to say, that a slight alteration in two or three instances would not be an improvement; since it would take off a burden from many minds, and supersede the necessity of labored explanations; but I do mean to say, that there is no such objection to these expressions as to deter any conscientious person from giving his sincere assent and consent to the Liturgy altogether, or from using the particular expressions which we have been endeavoring to explain.

2. The other objection is, That the use of a Liturgy necessarily generates formality.

We have before acknowledged that the repetition of a form is less likely to arrest the attention, than that which is novel; but we by no means concede that it necessarily generates formality; on the contrary, we affirm that if any person comes to the service of the Church with a truly spiritual mind, he will find in our Liturgy what is calculated to call forth the devoutest exercises of his mind, far more than in any of the extemporaneous prayers which he would hear in other places.

We forbear to enter into a fuller elucidation of this point at present, because we should detain you too long; and we shall have a better opportunity of doing it in our next discourse. But we would here entreat you all so far to bear this objection in your minds, as to cut off all occasion for it as much as possible, and, by the devout manner of your attendance on the services of the Church, to show, that though you worship God with a form, you also worship him in spirit and in truth.

Dissenters themselves know that the repetition of favorite hymns does not generate formality; and they may from thence learn, that the repetition of our excellent Liturgy is not really open to that objection. But they will judge from what they see among us; if they see that the prayers are read among us without any devotion, and that those who hear them are inattentive and irreverent during the service, they will not impute these evils to the true and proper cause, but to the Liturgy itself; and it is a fact, that they do from this very circumstance derive great advantage for the weakening of men’s attachment to the Established Church, and for the augmenting of their own societies.

Surely then it befits us, who are annually sending forth so many ministers into every quarter of the land, to pay particular attention to this point. I am well aware, that where such multitudes of young men are, it is not possible so to control the inconsiderateness of youth, as to suppress all levity, or to maintain that complete order that might be wished; but I know also, that the ingenuousness of youth is open to conviction upon a subject like this, and that even the strictest discipline upon a point so interwoven with the honor of the Establishment and the eternal interests of their own souls, would, in a little time, meet with a more cordial concurrence than is generally imagined; it would commend itself to their consciences, and call forth, not only their present approbation, but their lasting gratitude. If those who are in authority among us would lay this matter to heart, and devise means for the carrying it into full effect, more would be done for the upholding of the Establishment, than by ten thousand discourses in vindication of it; and truly, if but the smallest progress should be made in it, I would think that I had “not labored in vain, or run in vain.”

But let us not so think of the Establishment as to forget our own souls; for, after all, the great question for the consideration of us all is, Whether we ourselves are accepted in the use of these prayers? And here, it is not outward reverence and decorum that will suffice; the heart must be engaged, as well as the lips. It will be to little purpose that God should say, respecting us, “They have well said all that they have spoken,” unless he sees his own wish also accomplished, “O that there were in them such a heart!” Indeed our prayers will be no more than a solemn mockery, if there be not a correspondence between the words of our lips and the feeling of our own souls; and his answer to us will be, like that to the Jews of old, “You hypocrites, in vain do you worship me.” Let all of us then bring our devotions to this test, and look well to it, that, with “the form, we have also the power of godliness.” We are too apt to rush into the divine presence without any consciousness of the importance of the work in which we are going to be engaged, or any fear of His majesty, whom we are going to address. If we would prevent formality in the house of God, we should endeavor to carry there a devout spirit along with us, and guard against the very first incursion of vain thoughts and foolish imaginations. Let us then labor to attain such a sense of our own necessities, and of God’s unbounded goodness, as shall produce a fixedness of mind, whenever we draw near to God in prayer; and for this end, let us ask of God the gift of his Holy Spirit to help our infirmities; and let us never think that we have used the Liturgy to any good purpose, unless it brings into our bosoms an inward witness of its utility, and a reasonable evidence of our acceptance with God in the use of it.

Charles Simeon (1759-1836)