Two Christmas Prayers from James Hinton

“The mystery of his holy incarnation and nativity”:

Christmas Prayers from James Hinton

Edited by Chance Faulkner 

Prayer for Christmas Day 1[1]

Who will utter the memory of your great goodness, O Lord? How boundless was your mercy in sending us, on this day, your well-beloved Son to take our nature upon him, and to be made in the likeness of sinful flesh.[2]We rejoice that unto us a Child is born; that unto us a Son is given;[3] even Christ the Lord, the Son of David. And we will join the multitude of the heavenly host, in ascribing glory to you in the highest; peace on earth; goodwill toward men.[4]

Help us, O Lord, to employ this day in meditating on this great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the flesh,[5] which your holy angels desire to look into.[6] And as when you brought your first-begotten into the world, you commanded all the heavenly host to worship him; so help us also to give him the glory which is due to his name. O thou great and glorious Redeemer, who are Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace![7] We praise you; we bless you; we worship you. We give thanks to you, O Lamb of God, Emmanuel, God with us;[8] for you only are holy; you only are the Lord.

But chiefly, at this, we adore you for leaving the glory which you had with the Father before the world began.[9]We know your grace, O Lord Jesus Christ, that though you were rich, yet for our sake became poor, that we, through your poverty, might be made rich.[10] We beseech you, by the mystery of your holy incarnation and nativity, O Lord, deliver us. O Son of David, have mercy upon us. You who came that we might have life, and might have it more abundantly,[11] be gracious to us. You, who were called Jesus, that you might save your people from their sins,[12] save us, and help us, we humbly beseech you, O Lord.

Prayer for Christmas Day 2[13]

Fill our hearts with love to you for the unspeakable gift, which you did vouchsafe, at this time, to bestow upon a sinful world; and dispose us always most thankfully to receive the same. Let the same mind also be in us, which was in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, and thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, yet made himself of no reputation; and took upon him the form of a servant,[14] and was found in fashion as a man, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.[15]

We bless you for revealing to us that great mystery, which was hid from ages and generations, but is now made manifest to the sons of men.[16] We rejoice that unto us was born, as on this day, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.[17] Our souls do magnify the Lord, and our spirits rejoice in God our Saviour.[18] Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest![19] Blessed be you, the God of Israel, for visiting and redeeming your people, and raising up a horn of salvation for them; for performing the promise made to their fathers, and for remembering your holy covenant.[20] Praise be your name for sending forth, in the fulness of time, your only-begotten Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.[21]

Glory be to you, for causing your loving-kindness towards us to appear. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to your mercy, you have saved us.[22] O you who are, in Christ, reconciling the world to yourself, not imputing their trespasses to them, forgive us all our trespasses.[23] Through him who was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and came to seek and to save that which was lost, have mercy upon us.[24] By the mystery of his holy incarnation and nativity, O Lord, deliver us.

[1] James Hinton, The New Guide to Prayer; Or, Complete Order of Family Devotion (London: B. J. Holdsworth, 1824), 496­–497. Text modernized.

[2] Romans 8:3.

[3] Isaiah 9:6.

[4] Luke 2:14.

[5] 1 Timothy 3:16.

[6] 1 Peter 1:12.

[7] Isaiah 9:6.

[8] Matthew 1:23.

[9] John 17:5.

[10] 2 Corinthians 8:9.

[11] John 10:10.

[12] Matthew 1:21.

[13] Hinton, The New Guide to Prayer, 501.

[14] Philippians 2:6.

[15] Isaiah 53:3.

[16] Romans 8:19.

[17] Luke 2:11.

[18] Luke 1:47.

[19] Matthew 21:9.

[20] Luke 1:68.

[21] Galatians 4:4.

[22] Titus 3:5.

[23] 2 Corinthians 5:19.

[24] Romans 8:3.

ICYMI: Andrew Fuller, a loving father

This post is from a previous installment of our Director and Founder, Dr. Michael Azad A. G. Haykin, on his substack Historia Ecclesiastica. To read the article in full and for more by Dr. Haykin, follow the link below and sign up to receive his posts directly to your inbox.

---

Two years after the death of his first wife Sarah in 1792, Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) married Ann Coles (1763–1825), a pastor’s daughter. When Fuller’s mother, Philippa, heard of her son’s impending second marriage, she told him that she wished his “poor children well.”

“Have you any reason to fear the contrary?” her son asked her. Philippa Fuller admitted she didn’t, but she reckoned that she herself would “not have made a good step-mother.”

Fuller, ever the plain speaker, replied to his mother, “And so from thence you judge that others will be the same. For my part I am persuaded now that I should be a kind father to any family put under my care.”[1] Though rarely touched upon in Fuller studies, Andrew Fuller was indeed “a kind father,” as is well seen in his relationship to his son Robert (1782–1809), who was named after either Fuller’s own father or one of his brothers…

---

“A System” – Andrew Fuller’s Theological Method

During Andrew Fuller’s ministry, some critics of orthodoxy rejected the use of systematic theology, alleging that it stifled freedom and liberty. Yet Fuller contended systematic theology was a model of theology firmly rooted in God’s revelation in Scripture.[1]

In contrast to the trends of his day, Fuller preached a sermon before the Baptist Association meeting at St. Albans on June 1, 1796, in which he defended the necessity of systematic theology. He spoke of how the popular sentiments of the day viewed systematic theology as “the grand obstruction to free inquiry.”[2]

However, he countered such sentiments by showing that every discipline possesses a form of systematic organization and that religion should be treated no differently. Fuller proclaimed, “God, in all his works, has proceeded on system; there is beautiful connexion and harmony in every thing which he has wrought.”[3] He drew attention to the fact that it was natural for a reader of the Bible to organize passages in a coherent and logical way.

Not only is it natural, according to Fuller, but systematic theology is found within the Bible itself. He considered the usage of “first principles” in Hebrews and the language of “proportion of faith” as terms indicating that divine truth was organized in a systematic way.[4] As Paul Brewster summarizes Fuller’s method, Fuller desired a theological system that humbly submitted to the Scriptures in all points.[5]

While Fuller placed a premium on the authority of Scripture, he was no “mere biblicist” who rejected the role of creeds and confessions. [6] Fuller noted that some held that because no formal creed was found in the Bible, then creeds and confessions of faith should be rejected. Fuller repudiated this notion, saying that he did not “conceive that such an argument can hence be fairly derived” from Scripture.[7]

In another work, Fuller forcefully articulated the importance and validity of creedal subscription. He wrote:

The man who has no creed has no belief; which is the same thing as being an unbeliever; and he whose belief is not formed into a system has only a few loose, unconnected thoughts, without entering into the harmony and glory of the gospel. Every well-informed and consistent believer, therefore, must have a creed—a system which he supposes to contain the leading principles of Divine revelation.[8]

Fuller went on to state that the articles of faith are binding upon a community of believers and were subject to revision according to the standard of Scripture. Finally, Fuller maintained that creeds should never surpass the authority of the Scriptures; however, when creeds were a voluntary expression of what a church believed, they were to be honored and subscription to them appropriate.[9] In this way, Fuller demonstrated a balanced theological method that was rooted in the biblical text, but also took into account creeds and confessions of the Church.

[1] Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian, 39–40.

[2] Andrew Fuller, “The Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge of Divine Truth,” (The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, ed. Joseph Belcher (1845 ed.; repr. Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 1: 160). This standard collection of Fuller’s works will be henceforth referred to as Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller.

[3] Fuller, “The Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge of Divine Truth,” 1:165.

[4] Fuller, “The Nature and Importance of an Intimate Knowledge of Divine Truth,” 1:165–66.

[5] Brewster, Andrew Fuller: Model Pastor-Theologian, 40.

[6] D.R. Riker defines biblicism as “the rejection of everything that is not explicitly stated in the Bible, and the concomitant dismissal of all non-biblical witnesses (Fathers, creeds, Medieval doctors, councils, etc.).” D.R. Riker, A Catholic Reformed Theologian: Federalism and Baptism in the Thought of Benjamin Keach, 1640-1704, (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,) 4, fn 17. Some use the term “biblicism” or “biblicist” in a more positive manner in describing someone with a robust commitment to the authority of Scripture.

[7] Fuller, “The Manner in which Divine Truth is Communicated in the Holy Scriptures,” in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 3:537–38.

[8] Fuller, “Creeds and Subscriptions,” in Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, 3:449.

[9] Fuller, “Creeds and Subscriptions,” 3:450–51.

Christian Sunshine

I was recently asked to transcribe an old magazine article in which the author (identified only as J. R. N.) was apparently conducting a series of articles surveying his experience at various church gatherings at the end of the nineteenth century. This particular entry was dated April 5, 1895. It was a fascinating read for a variety of reasons, providing a glimpse into the life of a Canadian Baptist congregation in Toronto before the turn of the century.

One aspect of this article, however, jumped off the page at me—namely, the description of the minister, one Rev. B. D. Thomas. It was recorded that “his eyes have a glance that little children would not be afraid of” and “[h]e has humility that comes from contemplation of great things, and … his people [likely] find that he has a good deal of sunshine in his nature.”

My mind was immediately transported to the manner in which Augustine recounted the character of Bishop Ambrose in his classic Confessions. When Augustine first met Ambrose, Augustine had not yet become a Christian but was still on his long quest for truth. What was impressed upon Augustine concerning the bishop was less his doctrinal acumen, but simply that Ambrose was a man who was kind to him.

I can’t help but suspect that this was a similar quality detected regarding Rev. Thomas. Perhaps there was such a conspicuous accent of warmth and openness (maybe even a type of “hospitality”) in his person that it required only simple observation to discern.

Within our contemporary context, I wonder how much the importance of this trait has been lost—not only for Christians generally, but particularly for those aspiring to leadership roles: pastoral or otherwise.

The media ecosystem afforded by the internet has almost certainly heightened the neglect of this virtue in exchange for using disembodied opponents as digital punching bags. This is not to undermine the custodial necessity of the Church for the preservation of gospel truth, nor is it to discourage the utilization of more modern modes of communication to do so—nor does it naïvely ignore the reality that faithful custodianship will inevitably invite varying degrees of conflict.

But at the same time, contending for biblical fidelity in the midst of conflict or opposition also does not negate the necessary development of genuine “sunniness,” which ought to be the endeavor of all Christians.

As a closing remark, people who exude such radiance have likely done so by internalizing what Paul articulates 2 Timothy 2:24-25:

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth…”

Contra to Rev. Thomas, when a lack of gentleness is absent in our demeanor, it is rarely because we think so highly of God—but rather because we think too highly of ourselves.

Fuller’s Observations of Sandemanianism in Scotland and Ireland

On September 12, 1805, Andrew Fuller (1754–1815) wrote to William Ward (1769–1823) describing an encounter he had during a summer visit to Scotland earlier that year.

Dr. Charles Stuart (1746–1826), a companion of Fuller’s on such trips, accompanied Fuller through Scotland that summer. Stuart set up a meeting for their company with an old friend of his. Gathering for breakfast at an inn in Cupar, Fuller witnessed firsthand a theological system becoming prevalent in Scotland at the time: Sandemanianism. This meeting, arranged by Stuart, happened partly because, according to Fuller, Stuart himself identified with aspects of Sandemanianism.[1] Fuller wrote of his new acquaintance, unnamed in Fuller’s letter: “I perceived he was a violent Sandemanian.”[2]

Sandemanianism, named after Robert Sandeman (1718–1771), was birthed from a movement begun by Sandeman’s father-in-law, John Glas (1695–1773). Glas began a restorationist movement among Scottish Presbyterians, wherein he had become convinced of regenerate church membership. This led to his removal from serving as a Presbyterian and his becoming an Independent minister.[3]

Under Glas and later Sandeman, the movement practiced communalism among its members, held strictly to all biblical commands and practices, rejected all things which were not biblical commands, appointed a plurality of elders in every church, and held to an intellectualist view of faith.[4] The movement impacted many throughout Scotland, including the Scotch Baptists.[5]

Yet, it also made landfall in other places such as the United States and Ireland.

In Fuller’s letter to Ward, he referenced John Walker (1769–1833) as an example of the Sandemanian influence he was seeing in Scotland. The year before Fuller’s Scotland trip, Walker had departed from the Church of Ireland and fully embraced Sandemanianism.[6] When Fuller met Walker in 1804 in Ireland, he described him thus in his diary: “I found him, like most of the sect, calm, acute, versed in the Scripture, but void of feeling.”[7] Walker avoided praying in public and would have refused to pray with his family if any were unbelievers. Instead, he only prayed with a small group, or society, whom he knew were all believers.[8]

Sandemanians distinguished between moral institutions (like mercy ministry) and Christian institutions (prayer, praise, etc.). They were exclusive when it came to Christian practices.[9] Fuller stated his own approach,

When in a mixed assembly I express what I conceive to be the desires of Xns, & personate them. I also pray for the others. And as many as can find in their heart to unite with me, let them. If I were at the head of a family where all but myself were unbelievers, I w[oul]d pray with them, but it should be [sic] impersonally, making no use I mean of such terms as we pray thee, or I pray thee: but do, & give, & forgive &c.[10]

Fuller acknowledged this challenge, which was in part shared by those partial to Sandemanian views. One would not want to give an unbeliever the wrong impression about the nature of that person’s standing before the Lord. Nevertheless, for Fuller, excluding nonbelievers in the family from prayer was, in one sense, detrimental to Christian family life. He stated, “The consequence is all family worship is given up among the Sandemanians, or thereabouts.”[11]

Fuller’s approach to praying before unbelievers is in keeping with the Lord Jesus’s own practice, as in the raising of Lazarus (see John 11:41-42) or with Paul on his way to Rome giving thanks among those on the ship with him (see Acts 27:45).

Fuller elsewhere wrote, “Truth is the model and standard of true religion in the mind.—That doctrines, whether true or false, if really believed, become principles of action—that they are a mould into which the mind is cast, and from which it receives its impression—is evident both from Scripture and experience.”[12] This was true for both the Sandemanians and for Fuller, whose theological perspectives directly shaped their spiritual practices.

[1] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805. This was Fuller’s estimation of Stuart, that he was “still half a Sandemanian.”

[2] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805.

[3] Nathan A. Finn, “Overview of Sandemanianism,” in CWAFD, 9:1–3.

[4] Nathan A. Finn, “Overview of Sandemanianism,” in CWAFD, 9:4–5.

[5] Nathan A. Finn, “Overview of Sandemanianism,” in CWAFD, 9:3.

[6] Crawford Gribben, The Revival of Particular Baptist Life in Ireland, 1780–1840, ed. Michael A.G. Haykin (Louisville, KY: The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies, 2018), 16.

[7] Andrew Fuller, The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Vol. 1, Memoirs, Sermons, Etc, ed. Joseph Belcher (1845; Reprint, Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 83.

[8] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805.

[9] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805.

[10] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805.

[11] Andrew Fuller to William Ward, Sept 12, 1805.

[12] Andrew Fuller, “An Essay on Truth,” in The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, Vol. 3, Expositions—Miscellaneous, ed. Joseph Belcher (1845; repr., Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988), 528.

17th Century Baptists: The Purest Puritans

Protestantism was separated into the Lutheran and Reformed traditions from its beginning, the most visible difference manifesting itself in corporate worship.

Lutherans held to the normative principle, teaching that anything not forbidden in Scripture was appropriate in the worship of God. The Reformed taught that anything not found in Scripture by precept or example was forbidden in worship, which came to be known as the regulative principle. This became the dividing line between Puritans and the rest of the Church of England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

The Puritans were happy with the English Reformation in terms of doctrine, but thought it maintained far too much carryover from its Roman Catholic past when it came to the look, feel, and experience of worship. For the church establishment, these were indifferent matters.

To the Puritans, however, they were idolatry.

Thus, civil war ensued, both figurately in the Church of England starting in the 1550s and literally in the nation of England in the 1640s. Puritanism had exhausted itself as an ecclesiastical movement within the Church of England by 1662 when the “Great Ejection” saw the last of the Puritans pushed out of their pulpits and the established church altogether.

But there were offshoots who considered themselves part of the Puritan tradition and continued to apply the regulative principle in their churches—namely, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Particular Baptists. They wanted the legitimacy of the Puritan heritage, which is illustrated by the fact that the Congregationalists and Baptists adopted verbatim the Westminster Confession of Faith, the most Puritan of creeds, in their Savoy Declaration and The Second London Confession respectively. They only adjusted those elements of polity and administration of the sacraments, which were practiced in the context of the local church’s gathered worship.

It was regarding the latter that Baptists proved themselves to be the purest of the Puritans.

The Second London Confession on baptism, chapter 29, paragraph 2, reads, “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.” And paragraph 4, “Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.”[1]As we commonly speak of it today, this requires believer’s baptism by immersion.

While there is little by way of precept in the New Testament concerning the mode and subjects of baptism, an abundance of apostolic example is present. The only explicit examples of Baptism found in scripture are of believers by immersion, which is key when it comes to the regulative principle.

Theologizing, inference, and implication takes us back into the realm of the normative principle.

Dissenting denominations that emerged in the seventeenth century (and their evangelical heirs today) have a rich history of striving to apply the regulative principle to the structure of the church and practice of worship. The conviction that God has not left his people to guess how he is to be worshiped is one that would be extremely healthy to recapture and robustly apply.

[1] Available at www.the1689confession.com

The Flame of Friendship: Ryland and Toplady

For those who study Baptist history, a common theme is the importance of friendship. One such friendship was that of British Baptist pastor John Collett Ryland (1723–1792) and Augustus Toplady (1740–1778). Theirs was not a relationship of mere “iron sharpening iron,” but was a mutually enlivening flame, which serves as an example that can still stoke the embers of our hearts.

Ryland was known to be eccentric and even brash at times, but he was also a devoted, godly, and warm-hearted companion. The great James Hervey (1714–1758) once said to Ryland, “Your heart is made for friendship.”[1] We see this in his connection with Toplady.

These two men spent a great deal of time together in the final decade of Toplady’s life, and it appears that Toplady’s genius and social connections, when mingled with Ryland’s erudition and zeal, created quite an exhilarating friendship indeed. In July 1769, Toplady recorded these wonderful words from Ryland:

When a pump is dry, a pail of water, thrown into it, will fetch it up again. If your soul is in a dry, cold frame, get a lively Christian to tell you his experience: the fire will, probably, catch from his heart to yours.[2]

Ryland was such a lively Christian that he could fan into flame the declining embers of his associates. Fire imagery is often used of Ryland: an explosive temper, a warm kindness, a bright light in the pulpit, and a burning zeal for the Lord. Ryland leaned into this imagery often, for instance:

Zeal for God’s glory, revealed in the gospel, in an eternal grace which will endure as long as God exists: it will flame out in heaven in ten thousand splendors, and brighter than ten thousand suns. Not a lukewarm, drowsy, soul will be found in heaven to eternity: but all the happy throng will be like millions of the most brilliant, intellectual fires; all aspiring upwards towards the lofty throne of God; whilst God himself will return love for love through an eternal duration. We shall then have a composition of all the finest feelings of the mind, acting and re-acting on each other, to raise each to the most intense vigour and fire, streaming into God, and rolling back from God again, to increase the mighty flame.[3]

Even in written form, the passion in these words can hardly remain on the page (or screen) without “catching from his heart to yours.” For Ryland, and no less for us, the “mighty flame” of love to God is always meant to “roll back again” in love to one another.

[1] John Ryland, The Character of the Rev. James Hervey, M.A., Late Rector of Weston-Flavel, in Northamptonshire (London: W. Justins and R. Thomson, 1790), 12.

[2] The Posthumous Works of the Late Reverend Mr. A. M. Toplady (London: J. Mathews, G. Keith, R. Bishop, Hogg and Macgowan, and Murray, 1780), 50.

[3] John Ryland, Contemplations on the Beauties of Creation and on all the Principal Truths and Blessings of the Glorious Gospel; with the Sins and Graces of Professing Christians, vol. 1 (London: Edward and Charles Dilly and T. Vallance, 1777), 396–421.