Prayer may be properly call'd the Gift of Vocal Prayer I affirm it The Vindicator denies it Chap. 1. 5 Quest Whether in Acts of external instituted Worship or any part of it any thing can be call'd Order or Decency Or be said to be Pious Religious Devout and for Edification antecedaneously or without respect to the Divine Will revealed in the Law of Nature or in Holy Writ I deny it The Vindicator affirms it Chap. 4 c. 6 Quest Whether considering the infirmity of our Nature a Person in Prayer can keep his thoughts as close to and have his affection as warm in the Duty reading a Form as in speaking from his own conceptions I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 75. 7 Quest Whether where God hath left Minister or People a liberty to use one or another mean in an Act of Worship but commanded all to serve him with the greatest fervor of spirit they can they be not by a Divine Precept obliged to use that means which upon experience they find most conducive to the attention of their thoughts or fervor of their spirits I affirm it 8 Quest Supposing Superiors should command Ministers and People in the Publick Worship or in their Families to pray by Forms onely which they appoint such a Command were lawful and obliging to them I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 193 c. 9 Quest Whether there be not equal reason for Superiors to command Ministers to perform their Ministerial Acts of Preaching by reading other mens Sermons as their Acts of Prayer by reading orbâ—rs Forms of Prayer I affirm The Vindicator denies 10 Quest Whether the Promises we have in Scripture of the influence and assistance of the Holy Spirit in Prayer may not or do not extend to words as well as pious and devout affections or our contending for a liberty as to words in Prayer he not a meer Contention for shewing our Parts and a varying of Phrases As to the first part I affirm as to the latter I deny The Vindicator affirms the latter 11 Quest Whether Prayer Preaching and Administring the Sacraments be not the main works and parts of a Gospel-Ministers ministration I affirm it The Vindicator denies it 12 Quest Whether if Ministers perform their Acts of Prayer and Preaching by prescribed Forms of others and administer the Sacraments by other Forms than Christ hath given them to use in the case they by it do not transform themselves from Ministers of Christ to meer Ministers of men The last hath not been touched and may make a new Argument in my Case I must confess the dread of it is not the least thing that aweth me The Russian Priests are brought to think they fulfil their Ministry by reading their Liturgy and in stead of Preaching reading an Homily out of Chrysostom But in these things whether they approve themselves indeed Ministers of Christ or meer Servants of Men may be considered The famous Ministry of England hath ever been judged another thing as soon Reader as thou canst fix thy answer to these Questions satisfactorily to thy own Conscience thou wilt be able to determine whether what I have said in the Reasonable Account c. or what Dr. Falkner hath said in his Vindication be of most weight and whose Positions are most extravagant false and erroneous Legat penes Lectorem sit Judicium THE INTRODUCTION The Vindicator's Title not proper to his Work nor justly proportioned to the Title or Matter of the Book he pretendeth to answer The Author of the Reasonable Account pretends to no Oracular infallibilities onely to Reason working on Scriptural Principles The design of his Book The Vindicator's false account of it in his Epistle Dedicatory His slighty apprehensions of it The Policy of that The Undertaking not so strange as the Vindicator would make it The reason why the Arguments may appear to have no weight to the Vindicator yet may not be so light The Vindicator's unkind reflection upon the Author for his want of skill in Chronology as to the times of Gregory the Great and Charles the Great shewed to be only produced for sport and to have nothing of charge in it but the Vindicator himself hath commited a greater Error about Gregory the Great making him to have died Fâ—fteen years before Platina saith he was Pope The Vindicator's declining Syllogistical Arguing The seasonableness of the coming out of the Reasonable Account through the intervention of Gods Providence tho the Author at the writing of it had no prospect of any such thing The Conclusion of the Answer to his Epistle Dedicatory and Introduction 1. THE Author hath intituled his Book A Vindication of Liturgies that is of what strictly taken none of any sound mind ever found fault with for a Liturgy it ought to be wrote Liturgy tho it be by vulgarer ror neglected fignifies nothing either according to the notation of the word coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Scriptural usage of it or the usage of it in the ancientest Writers in Philology or in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers without an addition to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the like but a Publick Service or Ministry but he by and by adds Shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms of Prayer Nor hath any that I know denied this It is onely the Lawfulness of an Vniversal Vse or Imposition of Set Forms and those too prescribed by other men and imposed on all men that is the matter in question which by the Title of his Book it seems the Author had no mind to vindicate 2. He goes on In answer to a late Book intituled A Reasonable Account why some pious Noncon Ministers judge it sinful for them to perform their Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others But how shall a Vindication of Liturgies shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms ever answer that Book which meddles not with the Lawfulness of Liturgies but Forms of Prayer onely composed by those who do not use them and imposed on them Nor doth it say they are unlawful only shews the reasons of some persons why they cannot judge that it is lawful for them to use them 3. Neither the Author of that Book nor his Friends pretend to have the Propositions they delivered suggested to them by the Roman King's Goddess Aegeria nor yet whispered to them by Mahomets Pigeon nor yet impressed upon them as John of Leyden pretended at Munster that his were nor yet to have had them from the Possessor of any infallible Chair they pretend to no more than that Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the World They think There is a Spirit in Man and the Almighty hath given him Vnderstanding that God hath given all men a Principle inabling men to dis-Course conclusions from Principles which we call Reason That these Principles are
liberty it ought not to be determined by Superiors because it was the VVill of God that his People should have liberty in the case and that liberty is a part of the Institution 15. In the Old Law where a strict Prescription of all Acts Parts and Means of VVorship can be modestly denyed by none yet in the burnt offering of Fowls Levit. 1.14 the people were left to liberty to bring either Turtle Doves or any other Young Pidgeons and in the Womans Purification Lev. 12.6 she had the like liberty I would gladly know now if our Vindicator or any sober man thinks that the Superiors in the Church or State of the Jews might have determined the Jews and by their commands enjoyned all the Jews to bring none but Turtle Doves Or none but Young Pigeons of another kind Or what president there is in Scripture of any Ecclesiastical or Civil power that ever arrogated and assumed such a liberty or declared that they judged such a thing lawful This I think sufficient to have spoken to what our Answerer saith as to the first Question 16. The Second Question was about the Superiors power of commanding in Religious Acts. A grave and weighty Question an Agreement in which will bring us to a present issue as to all our Religious differences Let us see what our Vindicator will grant in the case He tells us p. 185. That if any Inferior or any person whatsoever accounteth any thing to be forbidden proceeding upon any good and true grounds no such thing may be appointed being in it self evil whether the Superior think it not necessary or by a mistake thinks it necessary We thank him for this it is enough for us nor shall we need repeat any thing more he hath in this Chapter said I have onely this Question to ask Who as to the Inferiors Practice must judg whether the Inferiors judgment proceedeth upon just and true grounds Let us but have this point freely and clearly spoken to If he saith the Superior must judge all this is just nothing for those Superiors must be prodigiously wicked that shall command their Inferiours to do that which they judge the Inferiors upon good and true grounds judge unlawful This were for him to command things which he knew to be sinful 17. If he saith as he must do if he will maintain the Religion of Protestants That tho the Superior be the judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his commands so far as concerneth his own Act in commanding yet every Inferiour must judge of the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his Act in obeying and the truth and falshood of the grounds upon which he proceeds It is what we hold and agree in 18. But still the true Question remains upon supposition That the Superior and Inferiour differ in their Aprehensions of a thing the Superiour thinking upon such as he thinks good and true grounds that the thing is lawful The Inferior judging upon what he thinks true and good grounds that it is unlawful Whether the Superior can command his Inferiors such things in the VVorship of God Qu. which he judgeth not necessary from the Light of Nature or Revealed Will of God and the Inferior judgeth sinful and what he may not do So then there are two things we yield in the case 19. That as to things which are meerly Political and secular the Magistrate may command what he judgeth necessary or expedient for the ends of his Government of which things he hath no Judge save God alone Superior to him and the Inferiour must obey him where Gods Will doth not plainly controul and if it doth controul him he must patiently suffer the penalty for not doing them for his private Conscience is no Judge of these things further then as to his own practice whether they be contrary to the Rule of Gods Word or no. 20. That as to things of a more Spiritual Nature which concern the Worship of God the Magistrate is bound to command what he after diligent inquiry into the law of God judgeth necessary that is commanded by God in his Word and to forbid what he judgeth there forbidden and in these things the Inferiour is bound to obey If in these things he judgeth diversly from his Superiour he cannot do the things but must patiently suffer and the matter in difference must be by God determined at the last day where the Magistrate tho it then appears he was in a mistake may hope for Mercy because he did what he did in the integrity of his heart provided he neglected not due means for finding out of the Will of God nor in his Punishment for disobedience exceeded the Rules of Scripture and right Reason and Justice 21. But we do not think that in the Worship of God especially as to the Acts Parts or Means of it those being things of the truth or falshood of which the Will of God alone can determine and which he hath sufficiently determined in his Word The Superior without sin can command what himself doth not from the will of God judge necessary but he knoweth the Inferiour judgeth to be sinful 1. Because he hath no power in commanding things of this nature more then the Kings of Israel and Judah had who had no power to bind up all the Israelites to bring Turtle Doves when Gods prescription had left them at liberty either to bring them or young Pidgeons nor was ever any such power assumed by Magistrates under the ordinary Circumstances of Magistrates that is being no Prophets and divinely inspired as were David and Solomon who both were Pen-men of Scripture 2. Because such commands must necessarily be for Destruction not for Aedification and the Apostle declared he had no such power 2 Cor. 13.10 such commands must necessarily be against Charity tending to destroy Peoples Souls 22. But as to this our Vindicator tells us That real Charity providing for the good and profit of the Souls of Men is of far greater value then that which I call Charity gratifying and complying with men in their mistakes How properly this is spoken and how prettily the Question here begged let any ordinary Reader judge was not I arguing for the good and profit of Peoples Souls and Bodies too That which I call Charity is what the Apostle calls so Rom. 14.15 If thy Brother be grieved with thy Meat which thou mayest eat or let alone now walkest thou not charitably that is in eating and so giving him occasion to sin destroy not him with â—y meat for whom Christ dyed Can any Divine think that God in that Text hath not said to all Magistrates in the matters relating to my Worship make not him to sin by thy commands which thou mayest or mayest not as thou thinkest at thy pleasure give out for whom Christ dyed 23. I appeal now to all rational and intelligent persons whether the Vindicator or I have spoken here most sense and pertinencies as to the matter in
that in the Jewish Worship they all used the same Prayers and Exhortations because they always killed the same specifical Beasts for Sacrifices In their very Sacrifices there was a great variety and they agreed in nothing but that they all were what God prescribed 7. What he saith in p. 15. is granted him nothing but the will of God is worth naming in the cause words in themselves are nor valuable but obedience is What makes then this trifling about the Opinions of Heathens the invaluableness of words in themselves the way of Worship under the Law c. What is all this to any purpose but to prepossess the unwary Reader 8. His next observation is That the Author doth not account himself certain of the truth of this Position What doth he mean by certain The Author is none of the Infallibles of our Age and hath more modesty than to dictate to all the World and pretend Demonstrations of a thing that it may be is not capable of it But he is morally certain certain as far as probable Arguments can make him But what then Therefore it appears not to him unlawful Will any weighed Divine in the World say That a thing is not unlawful to him that upon Arguments which to him appeareth highly probable appears unlawful Let the Author answer a Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrote on this very Argument 9. The Author values not a rush whether the Answerer blames or not blames him for the thing some persons in this Age calls Separation He falls not by Mans Judgment There was in Apostacy which Luther gloryed in and there is a Separation which a good Christian may glory in 1 Cor. 6.17 The Question is Whether the Nonconf be guilty of a sinful Separation That Nonconf are guilty of that here is no Argument to prove but the Author accounting himself certain mentioned p. 21. which is a new Topick for I hope it is no Demonstration 10. The Vindicator p. 22. in the next place comes to tell us of considerable prejudices against the truth of my Assertion 1. That it is against the Opinion of the Church of England and the most famous Churches in the Primitive times But to the latter part of this he very honestly adds a Quod est Demonstrandum referring it to be afterwards proved And against the constitution of many eminent Churches abroad This he saith he before observed and I do not deny observe good Reader how I have not denyed it â—69p An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we can not find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most Reformed Churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgements for the reasonableness of it It is true which I also said That the continuance of Liturgyes owes it self in a great measure to Churches not having Men enough able pray without Forms But what is this to the purpose of Universally Imposed Liturgies From this appeareth the exceeding vanity of what the Answerer addeth p. 23. The Author condemned none of the first Reformers of Sin nor hath reason to believe that all of them used any such thing if they had he condemneth them not 11. But the Author and those of his mind p. 23. are such pitiful men as determine in these weighty things according to their present humour For one while he saith Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument His words are these While we are disputing about what is lawful or unlawful Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument They must be lamentable Divines that will say otherwise That the Practice of Men should determine to us the will of God Well But he saith in another place The Sensus piorum neither is nor ever was judged light by persons of sobriety and worth for the truth of a proposition especially a practical proposition not plainly determined in Holy Writ Is then the Authority and Practice of particular men that have the good hap to get into a Chair of Government in the Church and the Sensus piorum the same thing think we I beg the Answerers favour if I do not believe it but believe there must be to say no more the odds of 200 to one The Sensus piorum is the general sense of persons in such or such a place minding the things of God and regulating their lives in a conformity to his will I take this in practical matters to be a thousand times more probable Argument then some particular persons tho Governours Authority and Practice 12. But it seems I so stated my Question p. 24. as to overthrow the main foundation and the chief Arguments of my Discourse That indeed is great weakness But I pray how doth this appear to be any thing but a most false calumny I granted That Forms of Prayer by God commanded in Scripture must be used and other Scriptural Forms may be used as part of our Prayer yet I declare it sinful for such Ministers as can pray otherwise to pray by Forms From the duty of using their own Gifts And 2. From the hinderance of pious Disposition Attention or Fervency from the use of a Form of words in Prayer Do I so Judge good Reader The Minor of my first Argument is this But for a Minister having the gift of Prayer Reasonable Account p. 6. ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper means given him by God c. It is true in my Second Argument p. 23. all these words are by the Printers carelessness left out by Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired nor could I help it but a man of any ordinary candor would have supplied them from the state of the Question and from the preceding Argument which will make it appear that I never said that it was unlawful to perform our Ministerial Act in Prayer by Forms but by Forms composed by others who confessedly are not divinely inspired I never was so simple as not to allow God to dispense with his own Law upon which ground any Forms commanded by God must be lawful nor yet to think we might not use Scriptural phrases in any part of worship and yet use our own gifts at the same time time too 13. For to pray nothing else but using a Scriptural Form I believe we must have a special Command of God to make that lawful to us Besides I doubt not but the Answereâ— saw what I wrote p. 51. That there is a vast difference between the pure words of God for the which God both hath and ever will secure a Reverence in all Religious Souls and Forms composed by fallible men without any direction from God Let any Christian experience whether it be possible for
we perform that Religious Act is sinful But for a Minister having the Gift of Prayer ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayers composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper mean given him by God in order to the performance of such Religious Act and in the Omission of it to perform such Religious Act. Ergo The Major Proposition shineth so much in its own light that it was not to be denied but by affirming That it is lawful for us at the command of Men in an Act of Gods W rship to omit a mean given us of God for that end and to perform that Act in the use of other means under no sâ—ecial prescription from God which is to say it is lawful to allow Men to â—e wiser then God in directing the means of his Worship which certainly is a strange position 4. Yet our Answerer tho he will not in plain terms deny the Major p. 57. tells us That a mean given us of God if it be only capable of being used and not a necessary mean to be used may lawfully be omitted especially when there are several means What doth he mean by several means Several means given by God for that end that are Natural and Proper then it is most true But it lieth upon him to prove that God hath in this case prescribed several means But if he means several Humane means under no Divine Prescription it amounteth to no less then I said before the praeference of the Wisdom of Men to the Wisdom of God 5. What doth he mean by telling us A Divine mean may be omitted if it be not necessary to be used when the very drift of the Argument is to prove That it is necessary to be used because it is a Divine Mean and there is no other can lay claim to that Notion nor can be so Natural nor is so Proper Now this quite spoiles the retorting the Argument 6. But altho our Answerer thinks fit to nibble a little about the Major yet plainly discerning that was not to be denied by any Person of his Reputation in the World his whole force is spent about the Minor Proposition as to which he saith much which himself summeth up p. 57. 1. That an ability fitly to express our mind to God in Prayer is not the gift of Prayer nor any singular or peculiar gift of the Spirit of God 2. That it is neither a duty nor yet expedient that such abilities should be used and constantly used any further then is agreeable to the Rules of Edification and Order 7. Whatsoever our Answerer saith upon the first head which is very much one while confounding the Gift of prayer and the Grace of Prayer as one and the same thing another while telling us of an Extraordinary Gift of Prayer is so much from the purpose that our Author owns it as a digression p. 28. So as I am not concerned in any thing of that discourse further then to mend a Term in my Minor and make it to run thus But for a Minister having an Ability fitly to express his mind to God in Prayer to perform his Ministerial Acts in Prayer ordinarily by reading or reciting c. Nor was there any need at all thus to mend it but to save my self trouble of a Word-bait 8. But yet to vindicate my self from being as much out as to proper speaking as it seems to this Author I was in my Chronology of Gregory and Charles the great we will have a few words about the Gift of Prayer for I do suspect that this multitude of words is but to darken knowledge It shall go under the Title of a Digression in Reply to a Digression of the Answerers concerning the Gift of Prayer I hope the Reader will pardon my going out of my way seeing it is but to follow my Leader and to Vindicate my self from improper speaking that is not to this Learned Mans mind or Sentiment and who but Men of his Principles can speak Properly 9. He doth p. 40. acknowledge That there is an Ability in many Persons whereby they can express their Minds in some degrees fitly to God in Prayer But this he saith is not properly the Gift of Prayer but rather of Speech Here then is the Question The Scripture no where mentioning the Gift of Prayer whether an Ability to express our Minds fitly to God in Prayer may not properly be called the Gift of Prayer My opinion is That it may which I thus prove 10. By the same reason That an Ability to speak to Men to Edification and Exhortation and Comfort 1 Cor. 14.3 is in Scripture called the Gift of Prophecy 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.1 An Ability also fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer may be properly called the Gift of Prayer But such an Ability is in Scripture called the Gift of Prophecy as appeareth in the forementioned Texts If our Answerer can shew a disparity of Reason he may I cannot fancy any by the same reason that Abilities to Actions are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the same reason they may be and are properly called Gifts for what is the English of that Greek word but Powers or Abilities and it is past all contradition that what the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers 1 Cor. 12.29 He calls the Gifts of Healing in the very next words Have all the Gifts of Healing What tho these were Gifts given at an extraordinary time or in an extraordinary manner which indeed they were yet I appeal to any indifferently Learned Man to determine Whether this alters the Genus or only distributes the Species All Spiritual Abilities are Gifts but they are not all Saving Gifts or extraordinary Gifts And this is enough to vindicate my self from impropriety of Speech 11. But saith our Author p. 29. That is eminently and especially to be esteemed the Gift of Prayer which disposeth and inableth to the performance of the duty of Prayer very true Vindication p. 29. and is not this all I have contended for And therefore since Prayer is not so much a verbal thing as a pious address of the Heart Soul and Spirit to God the Supplies and Assistances of his Grace which kindle and excite pious Dispositions in seeking unto God with earnest and affectionate desires a lively Faith and the exercise of inward Devotion this is most properly his vouchsafing and bestowing the Gift of Prayer and our having and exercising them is our having and using the Gift of Prayer This now is well said as to Truth but not a tittle of it to the purpose Here is a manifest Transition from one kind to another That a Christian may in his heart Pray tho his Lips move not is out of doubt Hannah did so But can any Minister discharge his Ministerial Duty in Publick Prayer thus Nay can a private Christian in his Family or
not generally used nor by any Persons universally imposed on any considerable part of the Church till Pope Gregories time Anno 600 nor then more then Canonically till 200 years after this and am assured of this by Durandus a Papist and my Lord of Morney a learned Protestant yet whether this be true or false is not a farthing matter in the case and I have something else to do then disputing De lanâ caprinâ or whether it or that be the truest Orthography No understanding person that minds to keep the Protestant Religion as to Rites and Ceremonies will value any quotations at any rate as to Rituals which are out of Writers that lived at the distance of 300 years after Christ 8. In his next Section he doth not pretend to Answer any Argument of mine but only to reflect upon some passages which how justly let my Reader judge he calls Reviling and he hath if it be so indeed answered it with full measure pressed down and running over I am not concerned to Reply to him nor to the Authorities of Capelus all whose words were no Oracles as our Answerer himself also judgeth p. 180. CHAP. VI. A Reply to what the Vindicator saith in his 4 Chap. beginning p. 177. Whether in Vocal Prayer words be not an Essential part of the Worship which no Superiors can institute Whether things in Acts of Worship by Gods Institution left to liberty of Ministers or People may be determined by any but those to whom the liberty is left About the Power of Superiors to command in Divine things Whether he can command what he judgeth to be indifferent and the Inferiours judge Unlawful 1. OUR Vindicator in his 4 Chap. which beginneth in his 177 p. pretendeth to Answer the Authors third Argument which he had thus laid To use a Mean in an Act of Worship which God hath neither directed by the light of Nature nor by his Word prescribed no natural necessity compelling us so to do is sinful But for us or any of us to whom God hath given the Gift of Prayer ordinarily to perform our Ministerial Acts in Prayer Reasonable Account p. 71. by the prescribed Forms of other Men read or ricited were for us no natural necessity compelling us so to do in Acts of Worship to use means neither directed of God by the light of Nature nor yet by him in his Word prescribed Ergo. In proof of the Major I said 1. That Divine Worship is nothing else but an Homage performed to God upon account of his Excellency 2. That it belongs to God to appoint those Acts and Means by whom this Homage should be paid 3. That God hath determined by the light of Nature and his Word given us sufficiently both as to Acts and Means of this Homage 4. That he hath forbidden any other Means in the Second Commandment where under the Notion of Graven Images he forbids all Acts and Means of Publick Worship which himself hath not appointed and if this were not the sense of it it were impossible to reduce to that Commandment all the Precepts in Scripture as to External Worship and Adoration I also further referred to what Mr. Cotton hath said in this Case in his Advertisements upon a Discourse of Set Forms of Prayer p. 17. 18. c. In my further Discourse upon this Argument I was led in Answer to another into a discourse about The power of Superiors in Gods Worship to command what they judged indifferent but their Inferiors or Parties commanded judged sinful and unlawful 2. Possibly that discourse contained two Questions in Divinity upon which the main hinge of this Controversie lay viz. 1. Whether man can lawfully institute at his pleasure Parts or Means of Divine Worship 2. Whether Superiors can command Inferiours in Divine VVorship to do any thing which they the Superiors judge indifferent that is neither commanded nor forbidden by God but the Inferiours judge sinful upon Arguments which to them appear highly probable Let us but be agreed in these two things and we shall in this Controversie have little to contend about Our Vindicator who in the Section immediately preceding had spent 6 leaves in nothing but Reflections spends but 8 leaves about this Chapter which I doubt not but to shew him except he had spoken closer to the thing in question was much too little But what doth he say 3. He granteth p. 177. That all the parts of Divine VVorship must be such as the light of Nature or the Revealed VVill of God directeth Tho this be very true yet what is it to the purpose The Argument spake not of Parts but of Means of Divine Worship nor doth the second Commandment speak only of Parts but of Means Why doth he not either affirm or deny that the Means of External VVorship must be directed from God either by the light of Nature or Scripture But instead of this he runs to his usual way of Observations 4. He first observeth That this contradicteth what I had before said That Forms of Prayer may be lawfully used by some men and at sometimes what if it did contradict what I said before The Argument may be good enough notwithstanding Nemo omnibus horis sapit 2. But this is not so for we are discoursing of what is lawful or unlawful not as to what is meerly Mental Prayer but as to Ministerial Vocal Prayer which is the most perfect kind of Prayer I have told him that I believed that he who prayed by the Vse of Forms only prayeth in his Heart Now as to that Act Forms may be helps and so lawful to be used by those to whom God hath not given due means for Ministerial Prayer which must be Vocal where the heart inditeth a good Matter and the tongue the proper Secretary to the heart is as the Pen of a ready Writer Now supposing what our Answerer so zealously contends for that God prescribed Forms to the Jewish Ministers and that Christ Prescribed his Disciples Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily used Means as to Heart-Prayer are prescribed by God in his Word as to which kind of Prayer words are not necessary for it may be performed without words so as words are no parts of it 5. Forms not directed by God or Christ or any where in Holy Writ cannot be an External Homage to God or part of External Worship for our Author grants that Parts of Worship must be directed by Nature or Scripture now such Forms are not directed by Scripture I am sure they are not directed by Nature Besides if they were an External Worship or part of it they must be never omitted Now that Vocal Prayer is a part of External Worship distinct from what is meerly Mental cannot be denied for that Prayer which is meerly in the heart I am sure is not the Publik Worship of a Minister in the Congregation 6. Hence it followeth That he who prayeth by Forms only prayeth Mentally as all the People do who
the Law The Vindicators dirt thrown on the Author wiped off himself rebuked for calling an Ability to express our selves fitly to God in Prayer a Varying of Phrases A fear suggested lest by it he should have vilified Gods Holy Spirit 4 New Arguments against the Universal Use or Imposition of Forms of Prayer 1. MY Seventh Argument was thus stated That Principle which levelleth the performance of the great and sacred Office of the Ministry to the capacity of the meanest of the People cannot be a true Principle But this Principle That it is lawful for a Minister of the Gospel ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Acts in Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others doth this Ergo. This I proved p. 121 122. I first presumed it would be granted that God had appointed an ordeâ— of Men in his Name to declare his Will unto his people and to intercede with God on their behalf 2. That he would not have done it if they had nothing to do but what any of the people might do 3. That any who could read well might read printed Forms 4. That it is not probable that God would have reserved Honour or Maintenance and by a Law established it for such a kind of Ministry What saith our Vindicator 2. He answereth by five Observations His first is That I have given a very defective description of the business of the Ministry Indeed I should have put in administring the Sacraments but let it be added and then I think I have a good Authority for it from the Commission given them Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you and lo I am with you always to the end of the VVorld Here Teaching and Administring the Sacraments are made their great work for that both the Sacraments are there included is plain from the precept Do this in remembrance of me given them Chap. 26. We will also grant Prayer from the Apostles Authority 1 Tim. 2.3 3. He tells us p. 226. It must be their Exerciâ—â— of a special power of Office that is the doing the same things but in another notion as Officers but were we speaking of the Material or formal part of their VVorks we were speaking of what Ministers are to do not under what Nâ—tion Character or Capacity So I say take their Materiall Actions supposing such Forms lawful they have no more to do then the meanest of the people have a Natural power to do which is all I asserted 4. Who denies that these Acts done by persons called of God to do them in his Church are quite of another vertue and efficacy then as done by persons not so called of God but my Argument was That it is not probable or to us it appears not probable for the pretended demonstrations doubtlesses and certainties of others in such cases are no more then confidences That God would have instituted an Office for the doing of such Acts as the meanest people might do 5. He tells us p. 227 That his work is also to Preach but in the Argument Forms of Sermons were supposed as lawful as Forms of Prayer and I have largely answered what our Vindicator hath said to prove more need of the one then of the other For the other things he mentioneth dispensing Absolution and Remission guiding Mens Consciences directing and obliging men to observe due Rules and Exercises of Repentance convincing Adversaries watching over their Flocks By his leave if we either be guided by the practice of Christ or his Apostles considering them as things distinct from Preaching they are the least works of a Minister I am sure some of them are least attended Private satisfactions of Mens Consciences is the work of a Minister but no piece of his publick servie about which we were speaking nor what a private Christian may not do to his Ability Nor do I think that in those works a Minister doth any thing Authoritatively nor that his Counsels or advice will be found a jot more effectual then he can make it appear that what he saith is the Will of God 6. In his third Observation he tells us That when Litues rgi weâ—e laid aside in England many of the meanest of the people both of mean Abilities and of bad and erroneous principles were thought fit to be taken into the Ministry yet could Pray and Preach popular Sermons in my method and to great satisfaction What is this to the purpose comparisons are odious and it is too true that in the late times too many such persons Prayed and Preached in Publick but that there were more admitted into the Ministry then since will be very hard to prove I could tell him stories enough of my own personal knowledge to make him excuse those admissions into the Ministry which were in those times But then I should be exclaimed against by our Vindicator as a great Slanderer of the Church of England though I know if our Vindicator doth not that the Bishops cannot help it We desired to mourn for and to throw out in those times any sottish Persons that by their Hypocrisie in those times crept into the Ministry when they once appeared so we never called them the Brethren or our Brethren but look'd upon them as the Scabs and Deformity of the Church For their Abilities there was no defect of Tryal of them in any Presbyterian Ordinations that hath been amended since There were none then ordained but were examined of their skill in Greek and Latine and Hebrew if they had any otherwise they solemnly ingaged to study it in Church History a great part of the Body of Divinity none but were put to make a position in Divinity and then to defend it against the Arguments of several learned Men. Let us therefore hear no more of that 7. Our Vindicator p. 231 232 233 234 spends many words to prove that God did under the Law annex a great and honourable Revenue to those that were his Officers tho their work was none other then what other persons had a natural capacity to do But 1. How doth he prove that the Priests ordinary work was nothing else but to offer Incense and Sacrifices They were to Teach Micah 3.11 Their Lipps were to keep knowledge Mal. 3.6 They were to resolve Questions concerning the Law Hag. 2.11 But further let it be considered 1. That Gods Provision for the Priests was a Provision for a whole Tribe in Israel The Males of the Levites only at the first settlement as appears from Num. 3. were near 22000 Men besides Women and Children under a Month old they cannot reasonably be thought much less then 50000 Souls besides the Priests 2. It was not reasonable that their Maintenance should be less then was assigned to the other Tribes but more because they were taken off from other means of lively-hood 3. Their imployment took up their full time I
him to read any Book of mans making a thousand times with that Gift and holy Reverence and with so little taedium as he may so read the Books and Chapters of Holy Writ So as all he saith is just nothing to the purpose the Author at first restraining his Question to Forms composed by Men that are confessedly no part of Holy Writ For Forms that are part of Holy Writ they are throughout his Book excepted nor doth he any where conclude they hinder pious Dispositions or that they may not be used as part of the exercise of the Ministerial Gift But something must be said to expose Authors instead of answering him 14. In his 25 page to raise up a prejudice against the Author he very learnedly passeth from Prayer of one kind to Prayer of another kind and concludeth That because he sinneth not who joyneth with another ministring in Prayer when it is apparent by all Scripture that he is not to pray vocally but onely to pray in his heart Therefore he sinneth not who doth it ministring in Prayer when he is to pray vocally not mentally onely It is easie to raise such prejudices and for ordinary Readers to see through them 15. Our Authors last prejudice mentioned against the Authors Opinion That a great part and he thinks the greater part of the Nonconformists will not own his Notion I fear will appear an hasty prejudging the Nonconformists 16. Though the Answerer speaks warily in the case of the Commissioners appointed 1662 for he onely saith They made this no part of their Objections yet he would plainly suggest they who by the way except the Episcopal men were all Presbyterians were of another mind What to say for those who attended not the Commission I cannot tell but for those who appeared and daily met till they had wholly drawn up what they intended to propose to my Lords the Bishops I can tell The Bishops desired them to meet by themselves which they did at Mr. Calamy's House till they had agreed all which afterward they offered at the Savoy to the Bishops What they agreed in this point may be read in these words in their Seven General Proposals That the Gift of Prayer being one special qualification for the work of the Ministry bestowed by Christ in order to the Edification of his Church and to be exercised for the profit and benefit thereof according to its various and emergent necessities It is desired that there may be no such Imposition of the Liturgy as that the Exercise of that Gift be totally excluded in any part of Publick Worship 17. That Men may not please themselves with Dreams and think those last were meer completory words upon which no stress was laid I will assure them that that Proposal had never been agreed without them they being brought in by the Reverend Mr. Mat. Newcomb after as I remember three days spent in debates about that Proposal I do know but three Men of those who appeared and would declare their minds who would hear of any Liturgy Vniversally Imposed Those three indeed were great Men. The most Reverend Bishop Reinolds was one Mr. Calamy was another the third yet living I shall not name Mr. Calamy often urged That if forms of Prayer were lawful the Imposing of them did not make them unlawful It was answered If forms of Prayer were Vniversally lawful Imposing could not make them unlawful but it was denied That they were as to use in publick Devotion Vniversally lawful 18. The debate of the 19 General Proposals was the ordinary work of the Commissioners met together In the mean time they had according to the Instructions of their Commission committed the several Offices of the old Liturgy to several Brethren to be reviewed that they might see what exceptions were reasonable to be offered The drawing up a New Form was committed to another These in their Seasons were brought in and read But the far Major part of the Commissioners present having obtained the 7th Proposal and in that a perfect liberty of the use or not use of any were very incurious as to those things onely listned so far to them as to see there was nothing but what they might own This is the truth of that story so far as it passed before they came to give in what they agreed to receive the Bishops Answer and to make their Reply What was then done the Printed Account fully tells us 19. This is enough to have spoken to this Chapter of the Reverend Doctors only I must requite him with thanks for his Complement the good Milk wherewith he suckles me and tho he presently with an oblique stroak of his heel throws it down again yet I have such a value for it as in the following Chapters I shall endeavour to gather it up and if such a thing be possible for a Non-Con redeem my reputation from such an ugly imputation as the writing of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inconsistencies CHAP. II. An Answer to the Vindicators Second Chapter concerning the Gift of Prayer Whether the Gift of Prayer as to Vocal Prayer be properly an Ability to express our minds to God in Prayer or whether it be the same with the Grace given us to be used in Prayer or an Extraordinary Gift peculiarly relating to the Apostles and Christians in their Age 1. ALL this while methinks I have been in a Drapers Shop staring upon the lofty and Oblique Lights which I discerned in it and wondering wherefore â—o make up a judgment whether the Sun shined or no I must be put to a troublesome elevation of my Eye stretching my Nerves and contracting my Eye-lids till at last I discerned the Art and that a nearer and more direct light though it might have been possibly of more advantage to the buyer yet to the seller would have been less profitable giving his Customer a too near an advantage to judge of his Wares and the Arts used about them 2. I had thought that in the beginning of the former Chapter The Issue was joyned or as the Civilians speak we had had Litene contestatam The Question was stated The Opponent agreed it clearly and plainly staâ—ed The Arguments were brought What had an Answerer to do but to deny one or other Proposition or to distinguish of some Terms Twelve Pages since that have been spent and nothing of this done To what purpose is this prejudicating a Reader but to possess his mind one way before the cause is tryed and to raise his passion with strange stories before he be suffered to use his Reason to judge who hath the best cause upon hearing what each party can say But at length we shall it may be come to something which is to the purpose 3. The first Argument was stated thus To omit a mean for the performance of a Religious Act given us by God for the performance of it and being natural and proper Reasonable Account p. 5. at the command of man when