John Knox’s Theology of Prayer

John Knox’s Theology of Prayer is continued from the previous page

D. Method of Prayer

Are the prayers in The Book of Common Order intended to be read in worship? Did Knox favor the use of forms of prayer? Before addressing this matter, it needs to be said that Knox is thought to have been an Anglican. Historians such as C. L. Warr and Gordon Donaldson advocate this view,[57] which might suggest that Knox was a supporter of the English Book of Common Prayer,[58] which contains prayers designed to be read in worship, and also that Knox practiced set forms of prayer. This assumption however, has been convincingly disproved in Reid’s article, “Knox’s Attitude to the English Reformation.” Reid argues on the basis of common sense that if “Knox had really favoured acceptance of the Anglican orders, confession and liturgy, one wonders why the Scots bothered preparing their own [i.e. The Form of Prayers and Ministration of the Sacraments] — but they did.”[59] However, Reid admits that “undoubtedly some individuals [i.e. followers of Knox] employed the second Book of Common Prayer in their services…, but this did not mean that they felt that they should employ the prayer book in the same manner as did the English church. It was a matter of freedom whether they used it or not.”[60] Reid further admits that in some point of time even Knox “advised his Berwick congregation to use the second Prayer Book [albeit on certain conditions] for the sake of peace, but at the same time under protest.”[61] James Stalker shares the same sentiment with Reid:

There is some evidence that the English Book of Common Order, issued in the reign of Edward VI, was occasionally employed in the earliest stages of the Reformation in Scotland; and there is nothing surprising in this taking place at a time when Knox himself was officiating as a minister of the Church of England.[62]

There is nothing surprising because at this time, as Reid explains, “Since the magistrates were truly Christians and the times were difficult and dangerous they [i.e. Knox and his supporters] should submit for the sake of peace.”[63] Thus, Reid comes to a conclusion that “despite his [i.e. Knox’s] dislike of the Book of Common Prayer, Knox would have conformed if he were living in England.”[64] But as David Laing observes concerning the occasional use of the Book of Common Prayer as the Reformation dawned in Scotland: “Such arrangements, however, were merely prospective, to suit the exigencies of the times; and if we admit that the English Liturgy was actually adopted, it could have only been to a partial extent, and no long of continuance.”[65]

Nevertheless, the fact that Knox advised his congregation in Berwick to utilize the Book of Common Prayer does not mean that he agreed with it; and therefore, the suggestion that Knox employed set forms of prayer from this Book can now be dismissed.

Did Knox use the prayers in The Book of Common Order as a form? To answer this, it must be remembered that unlike the Book of Common Prayer, “prescribed as a ritual which admitted of no change,” The Book of Common Order “was enjoyed to be used chiefly as a guide or directory.”[66] “Thus, in some of the rubrics, it is distinctly stated that ‘the minister was not expected to repeat these things, but he had the option, after closing his sermon, either to use these prayers, or to pray in the Spirit if God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath intreated of.’”[67]

It can be posited then that for Knox, the prayers in The Book of Common Order may be employed either as a form or as a script. But since this Book was primarily composed as a guide or directory, Knox would seem to recommend using these prayers not to dictate to people what to pray, but to direct or guide them how to pray. In fact, Laing asserts that there is no instance that “we find Knox himself using set forms of prayer.”[68] But since Knox sanctioned this Book, it is not wrong to suppose that Knox employed those prayers as a form. It is also to be noted that Knox did not like the idea of kneeling during prayer, and while receiving the Sacrament. He also avoided the frequent repetition of the Lord’s Prayer,[69] because he accentuated the work of the Holy Spirit in prayer, something neglected in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, and something that would be stressed even more in the writings of the Puritans.

E. The Holy Spirit in Prayer

In his Treatise on Prayer, Knox briefly talks about the Spirit’s role in prayer. He insists that without the Spirit of God, “there is no hope that we can desire anything according to God’s will,” because it is the Spirit who makes “intercession for us with unceasing groans (Rom. 8:26), which cannot be expressed with tongue.”[70] However, Knox explains that this does not mean “that the Holy Ghost does mourn or pray, but that he stirs up our minds, giving unto us a desire or boldness to pray, and causes us to mourn when we are extracted or pulled therefrom.”[71] In other words, for Knox, the Spirit’s role is not really to pray for us, but to assist us to pray. This implies that if we are able to pray it is because of the help of the Spirit who dwells in us. Thus for those who do not possess the Spirit, prayer is impossible. Again this goes back to Knox’s assertion that perfect prayer is an indication of true faith, or in this context, regeneration. Since the unregenerate do not have the Spirit they cannot pray, for it is the Spirit who aids us in our prayers. Yes, the unregenerate may be able to pray, but not to please God, who calls for the right or perfect prayer which is only possible through the work of the Spirit.

F. Christ in Prayer

Knox highlights the work of Christ in prayer. If the Spirit is our helper, Christ is our mediator. Knox presses that it is of necessity that we must have a mediator. First, because we are not in ourselves “worthy to compeer or appear in God’s presence, by reason” of our sin that so offends our God.[72] Thus God has given us his beloved Son to be a mediator between us and God, in whom if “we faithfully believe, we are so clad that we may with boldness compeer and appear before the throne of God’s mercy; doubting nothing but whatsoever we ask, by our Mediator, we shall obtain most assuredly that same.”[73]

Second, “without our Mediator…, we enter not into prayer; for the incalling of such as pray without Jesus Christ is not only in vain, but also they are odious and abominable before God.”[74] Knox remarks that just as in the Old Testament, where only the high priest could enter into the most Holy Place; “and as all sacrifices offered by any other than by priests only, provoked the wrath of God upon the sacrifice maker, so whoever does intend to enter into God’s presence, or to make prayers without Jesus Christ, shall find nothing but fearful judgment and horrible damnation.”[75] On this basis, Knox affirms that Turks and Jews, while they pray fervently to God, “their prayers are never pleasing unto God; neither honour they his holy Majesty in anything, because they acknowledge not Jesus Christ; for whoso honours not the Son, honours not the Father.”[76]

Third, the precept of God makes it indispensable that we have Jesus alone as our mediator. Knox says: “For as the law is a statute that we shall call upon God, and as the promise is made that he shall hear us, so are we commanded only to call by Jesus Christ, by whom alone we obtain our petitions; for in him alone are all the promises of God confirmed and complete.”[77] Here Knox’s precept-promise concept in prayer is observed again, showing how important it is in his theology of prayer. We must have Jesus as our only mediator because it is God’s command, and that by doing so there is a promise attached to it that God will hear us. Noticeable also here is Knox’s application of the Reformation solus Christus principle to prayer—that without Christ no one can come to God. As Knox further explains:

It is plain, that such as have called, or call presently upon God, by any other name than by Jesus Christ alone, do nothing regarding God’s will, but obstinately prevaricate, and do against his commandments. And, therefore, they obtain not their petitions, neither yet have entrance to his mercy. “For no one cometh to the Father,” says Jesus Christ, “but by me.” He is the right way; whoso declines from him errs, and goes wrong.[78]

Brian Golez Najapfour is a Master of Theology student at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. A member of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) and International John Bunyan Society (IJBS), he is originally from the Philippines.