with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters judge to be unlawful or at least not expedient and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer but this is needless because I have shewn in the foregoing Chapter that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship However for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers I. Then some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture I do not say that God's Word commands us to use none but Forms
very strange that had the Institution been temporary the Church of Christ for Fifteen hundred Years shou'd never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determin against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles But it is Objected yet farther that tho' Forms of God's appointing may and ought to be us'd yet Forms of Man's composure ought not and that we may as well appoint New Scripture for Public instruction because the inspir'd persons did so as we may appoint new Forms for Public worship because they did so But this objection also will be of no force if we consider Four things 1. That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms to be lawful in its own nature for otherwise God must have done that which is unlawful in its own nature Nay our Saviour's prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescrib'd before and that not only by God but by Men too For the Jews us'd several Forms of human composure in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving them that he prescrib'd a Form to his own Disciples which Form as Mr. Gregory has prov'd he collected out of the Jewish Forms in whose Books the several Parts and Clauses of it are Extant almost verbatim to this day And certainly had he disapprov'd their Forms as evil and sinful he wou'd never have Collected his own Prayer out of them Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms 't is plain either that he approv'd what is evil or that Forms are lawful 2. That this Objection must allow the prescribing of Public Forms to be not only lawful but also useful For otherwise God who alwaies Acts for wise Ends and Uses the most proper means wou'd never have prescrib'd any Forms And certainly what was once useful is useful still For 1. we are now dull and carnal enough to need Forms and 2. our Saviour has prescrib'd one to be us'd in all Ages which he wou'd not have done had it not been useful for the Gospel-state 3. That this Objection must also allow that God's prescribing Forms by Inspir'd Persons may be lawfully imitated by us provided we have the same reason for it And therefore Governours may prescribe Forms as long as Forms are useful 4. That tho' Governours may prescribe Forms after God's Example yet they may not prescribe them as Scripture or Divine Inspiration For as Spiritual Governours must take care to instruct the People after God's Example but are not obliged to do it by Inspir'd Persons so they may prescribe Forms of Prayer after God's Example but cannot pretend to do it by Inspiration They have God's Example for doing the Action but they cannot pretend to Inspiration in the doing of it without manifest falshood and presumtion And therefore tho' God's Example will warrant for the one yet it will not warrant them falsly to pretend to the other Thus then it appears that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture and that our Governours are Authoriz'd by God's Example to prescribe others when they judge them useful II. Therefore I am to prove that tho' no Forms were prescrib'd yet Forms are as lawful as conceiv'd or Extempore Prayers Certainly there is no command of God to pray Extempore and therefore Forms have a better claim to Divine Authority than they 'T is said indeed that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally we are commanded to Pray in our own Conceptions and words but this is a great mistake For certainly when God commanded Men to Pray by his own Forms they did pray Vocally tho' not in their own words And here let me take notice that Dissenters appropriate the Name of Prayer to Praying in their own words and call the using a Form not Prayer but Reading a Prayer But surely the Levites did really Pray when they us'd the Words of David and Asaph and so did the Primitive Christians when they said the Lord's Prayer and if so then a Form may be truly call'd a Vocal Prayer For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whether with or without a Form But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times God has declar'd in the New Testament that it is his Will we shou'd Pray by our own gift of utterance for the future Now methinks had it been the Will of God that we shou'd not Pray by Forms 't is very strange that in all the New Testament there shou'd be no express prohibition of it Especially since I have prov'd that the Jews had Forms and Philo de Victim p. 483. and the Modern Rabbins own the same they were also a People most tenacious of their customs and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms had our Lord design'd to exclude them out of his Worship Nay the Essenes who of all the Sects of the Jews did most readily embrace Christianity had certain Forms of Prayer as Josephus observes De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 783. Now when those that were most likely to receive the Christian Faith were so addicted to Forms can we imagine that had Christ intended they shou'd use them no longer he wou'd not have given them express warning of them But when instead of so doing he bids them say Our Father c. how cou'd they think but that he design'd they shou'd still use a Form as they did before Were not that his design 't is strange that he took no care to undeceive them But that I may fully prove that the Scripture does not command us to Pray without a Form I shall examine the reasons for which the Dissenters think it do's God say they has promis'd us an ability to utter our minds in Vocal Prayer and therefore to Pray by Forms of other Men's composure is contrary to his intention But I shall afterwards prove that this ability which they pretend is promis'd for the purpose of Vocal Prayer is a common gift which God has no more appropriated to Prayer than to any other end of utterance and elocution and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer is no more contrary to the intention of God than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion However because they urge some places of Scripture to prove that 't is design'd merely for Vocal Prayer I shall therefore consider them 1. They urge Zach. 12.10 I will pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplications The Hebrew word translated supplications do's alwaies say they denote Vocal Prayer and therefore pouring out the Spirit of supplications must imply communicating an ability to Pray Vocally To this I answer that the word is no
And that Christians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their public Worship is evident from the Names given to public Prayers for they are call'd the (n) Justin Apol. 2. Ignat. Epist ad Magn. Common-Prayer (o) Orig. cont Celf. l. 6. Constituted Prayers and (p) Cypr. de Laps serm 14. Solemn Prayers which last was the Title by which the Heathens distinguisht their (q) Vid. Ovid. de fast lib. 6. Stat. lib. 4. Senec. in Oedip. act 2. scen 2. public Forms of Prayer and consequently in the Language of that Age must signifie a public Form (r) De Spir. S. c. 27. 29. St. Basil fetches the Glory be to the Father c. from the tradition of the Apostles and cites it from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar and from Dionysius of Alexandria who was living in the year 200 and Clemens of Alexandria who was living in the year 160 sets down these words as the Christian Form of Praising God (ſ) Paedag. Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost So that this Form is older than the time of the Arians for they are sharply (t) Theod. Hist l. 2. c. 24. reprov'd by the Orthodox Fathers for the alteration of it And indeed a great part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns which must necessarily be compos'd into set Forms Tertull. Apol. cap. 2. and before him Lucian in Philop. and Justin Martyr also Epist ad Zen. Heren speak of their singing such Hymns They spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms saies Lucian and Pliny saies that early in the Morning 't was their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as God which Hymn was doubtless of human composure there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length as to take up a considerable part of their public Service Eusebius tells us that very early there were various Psalms and Odes compos'd by Christians concerning the Divinity of Christ (u) Euseb Hist lib. 5. and that Paulus Samosatenus was condemn'd for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ as being the composition of Men of late daies (w) ibid. Hist lib. 7. tho' in all probability those Hymns were compos'd within much less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age. But as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of it was earlier for it cou'd not be much above ten years after the death of St. John that Pliny gave this account of the Christians to Trajan and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of was us'd in the Age of the Apostles About the same time Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they us'd in their public Worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 beginning from the Father which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service (x) Lucian Philop. which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of Since therefore the Primitive Worship did in a great measure consist of Hymns which were Forms of Praise intermixt with Prayer and some of these of human composure this is an evident Testimony of the Primitive use of Forms And doubtless they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse cou'd not but think it lawful to pray by Form in prose Now that Praying in Meeter or compos'd Hymns was a very early practice in the Christian Church is evident from the Apostolical Constitutions where it is injoin'd Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another (y) Constitut Apost l. 2. cap. 5. which way of singing was so very ancient that Eusebius (z) Euseb Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 171. urges it as an Argument to prove the Essenes Christians because they sung by turns answering one another and how cou'd they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers unless they had constant Forms of Prayer But that they had such Responsals in Prayer is evident because when Julian for the credit of Gentilism wou'd needs dress it up (a) Soz. Hist l. 5. c. 15. after the Order of the Christian Worship one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was in their constituted Prayers that is not in having constituted Forms of Prayer for that the Heathen had before but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had that is as Nazianzen (b) Nazian Orat. 1. p. 102. explains it a Form of Prayer to be said in parts for this way of Praying in parts Nicephorus (c) Niceph l. 13. c. 8. derives from Ignatius who was a Scholar of the Apostles All which to me is a plain demonstration of the great Antiquity of Forms And that in Constantine's time the Church us'd public Forms of Prayer is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius (d) Euseb de Laud. Constant where he tells us of Constantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was We acknowledge thee O God alone c. (e) Id. de vit Constant c. 20. which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words But it 's objected that this Form was compos'd only for the use of his Soldiers who were a great part of them Heathens and that Constantine's composing it is a plain evidence that at that time there were no public Forms in the Church for if there had what need Constantine have compos'd one To which I answer That this Form indeed was compos'd only for his Heathen Soldiers for as for his Christian Soldiers the story tells us that he gave them liberty to go to Church (f) Ibid. c. 19. And therefore all that can be gather'd hence is that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Soldiers which is no great wonder for if they had it 's very unlikely that the Heathen Soldiers wou'd have us'd it But that they had Forms is evident because he calls the Prayers which Constantine us'd in his Court according to the manner of the Church of God (g) Ibid. c. 17. Authoriz'd Prayers which is the same Title which he (h) Ibid. c. 18. gave to that Form which he made for his Heathen Soldiers And therefore if by the Authoriz'd Prayers which he prescrib'd to his Soldiers he meant a Form of Prayers as 't is evident he did then by the Authoriz'd Prayers which he us'd in his Court after the manner of the Church he must mean a Form of Prayer also And since he had a Form of Prayer in his Court after the manner of the Church the Church must have a Form of Prayers too 'T is plain then that the three first Centuries had public Forms of Prayer after which not to insist upon the Liturgies of St. Basil St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose we have undeniable testimonies of the same See St. Chrysost 2. ad Corinth Homil. 18. St. Austin de Bapt. cont Donat. lib. 6. and Concil
Carth. 3. c. 12. Concil Milev c. 12. Justin Novel 137. Pref. 1 2 6. Nazian Orat. in Basil 20. saies St. Basil compos'd Orders and Forms of Prayer and St. Basil himself Epist 63. reciting the Manner of the public Service that was us'd in the Monastical Oratories of his Institution saies that nothing was done therein but what was consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God Nay the Council of Laodicea holden about the Year 364 expresly provides That the same Liturgy or Form of Prayers shou'd be alwaies us'd both Morning and Evening Can. 18. and this Canon is taken into the Collection of the Canons of the Catholic Church which Collection was establish'd in the General Council of Chalcedon in the Year 451 by which establishment the whole Christian Church was obliged to the use of Liturgies so far as the Authority of the General Council extends And then in the Year 541 these Canons were made Imperial Laws by Justinian Novel 131. c. 1. See Zonar and Balsam on can 18. See also Smectym Answ to the Remonst p. 7. Grand deb p. 11. and Concil Laod. c. 15 19. Thus for near 600 Years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer And from henceforth or a little after down to Mr. Calvin's time all are agreed that no Prayers but establish'd Liturgies were us'd Nay Calvin who Pray'd Extempore after his Lecture alwaies us'd a Form before Pref. ad Calv. Prael in Min. Proph. and he compos'd a Form for the Sunday-Service which was afterwards establish'd at Geneva Nay he saies for as much as concerns the Forms of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites I highly approve that it be determin'd so as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administration to vary from it Ep. 87. Nor is there any one Reform'd Church but what has some public Form of Prayer nor was the lawfulness of Forms ever call'd in question before Nay Mr. Ball Dr. Owen Mr. Baxter Mr. Norton and Mr. Tombes do (i) See Ball 's Trial Pref. c. 1 2 3 8. Baxter's Cure of Ch. Divis p. 175. Owen's Work of the Spirit in Prayer p. 220.222 235. Norton's Answer to Apollon c. 13. expresly own them to be lawful and this is said (k) Clark's Lives of 10 Divines p. 255. to be the tenent of all our Dissenting best and most judicious Divines It is very well known saies (l) Bradshaw's Life in Clark's Coll. in fol. p. 67. one that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way when they might have done otherwise if they had pleas'd in their Prayers before Sermons and we find Mr. Hildersham's Prayer before Sermon (m) See His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer Anno 1633· Printed This was so universally and constantly practis'd that Mr. Clark (n) Collect. of 10 Lives 4 to p. 38. tells us that the first Man who brought conceiv'd Prayer into use in those parts where he liv'd was Mr. Sam. Cook who died but in the Year 1649. Nay the chief Dissenting writers do not only assert but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms (o) See Ball 's Tri l. c. 2. Rogers's Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwelling with God p. 307. Egerton's Practice of Christianity c. 11. p. 691. Edit 5. from the nature use and ends of Prayer and charge the contrary opinion with Enthusiasm (p) Grave Confut Epist to the Reader Contin Morn Exerc. p. 1006. and Novelty (q) Priest Serm. on Joh. 1.16 They grant also 1. That Forms are not only lawful but that there are Footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament as Mr. Tombes and others have shew'd (r) Theodulia p. 221. Baxt. Cure p. 176. Ball 's Tryal p. 128 129. Grave confut p. 12 13. and Mr. Ainsworth that did otherwise argue against them do's confess (ſ) Annot. on Ex. 12.8 2. That they are very ancient in the Christian Church The Christian Churches of ancient Times for the space of this 1400 Years at least if not from the Apostles Time had their stinted Liturgies saith Mr. Ball (t) Tryal p. 96 106 111 138. p. 80. and (u) Tombes's Theodulia p. 222. they answer Objections to the contrary 3. That in the best reform'd nay in all reform'd Churches they are not only us'd and tolerated but also (w) Ball 's Tryal p. 108 c. Rogers's Treatises p. 224. Tombes's Theod. p. 234. useful and expedient 4. That those amongst us to whom the use of the Common-Prayer has been most burthensome have from time to time profest their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy as Mr. Ball assures us (x) Tryal p. 96 106 12. That they thought it altogether unlawful to separate from Churches for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies is not only frequently affirm'd by Mr. Ball (y) Resp ad Apol. c. 13. but little less even by Mr. Norton (z) Sacril desert p. 102. who saies It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches where such Forms in public Worship are in use neither do's it lie as a Duty on a Believer that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church And they give this reason for it that then they must separate from all Churches So Mr. Baxter (a) Defence part 2. p. 65. See Ball 's Tryal p. 131 Rogers's Tr. p. 224. Is it not a high degree of Pride to conclude that almost all Christ 's Churches in the World for these 13 hundred Years at least to this day have offer'd such worship unto God as that you are obliged to avoid it And that almost all the Catholic Church on Earth this day is below your Communion for using Forms And that even Calvin and the Presbyterians Cartwright Hildersham and the Old Non-Conformists were unworthy your Communion As for Praying Extempore 't was set up in England in opposition to our Liturgy For in the Ninth Year of Q. Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church and to serve the ends of Popery one Friar Comin began to Pray Extempore with such fervor that he deluded many and was amply rewarded for it by the Pope See Foxes and Firebrands p. 7 c. After him Tho. Heath did the same p. 17. See also Vnreason of sep pref p. 11 c. And I hope when the Dissenters have well consider'd whom they join with and whose cause they advance by decrying our Liturgy and extolling Extempore Prayers they will see cause to think better of Forms of Prayer Secondly I am now to answer the Dissenters Objections against Forms of Prayer 1. They pretend that the Use of public Forms do's deaden the Devotion of Prayer whereas I doubt not to make it appear that they do quicken Devotion much more then Extempore Prayers 'T is plain that Forms of Prayer do fix the Minister's attention more than Extempore Prayers For his matter and words being ready before him he has
also upon other occasions which proves that 't is not appropriated to Prayer 4. Since this gift of expressing our minds is not appropriated to Prayer it may be as lawfully omitted in Prayer as in any other purpose which 't is design'd for For if it be unlawful to omit the use of the gift of Elocution then he who has the gift may not lawfully use a Form in Petitioning his Prince or in a Court of Justice but if it be lawful to omit it in these cases as a Man sees occasion then it is equally lawful to omit it in Prayer In short if a Man has two gifts he may use which he pleases and since we have other means of Prayer none is obliged to use his ability to pray Extempore 5. Using a Form is as much a means of public Devotion as praying Extempore because the end of public Prayer is at least as effectually serv'd by a Form as by a conceiv'd Prayer Now since there are two means of Prayer and both cannot be us'd at the same time therefore one may be lawfully omitted and consequently the use of a Form which is one means is not a sinful neglect of the other 4. The last Objection is that the Common Cases and wants of Christians cannot be so well express'd in one constant Form as in conceiv'd Prayers because the circumstances of Men are infinitely variable and require sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings which the Minister cannot otherwise provide than by praying Extempore To this I answer 1. That the Common Cases and necessities of Christians are for the Main alwaies the same and therefore may be more fully comprehended in a Form than in an Extempore Prayer For public Prayers which are offer'd up in the Name of the whole Congregation ought not to descend to particular Cases but only to the Common Cases of all and what every one may truly and sincerely join with Now a Form will express them much better than an Extempore Prayer which is subject to many omissions 2. Forms can make as good provision for Extraordinary cases as Extempore Prayer For as for those that can be foreseen such as the want of rain fair weather c. there may be Forms compos'd for them afore-hand and as for others that cannot be fore-seen Forms may be provided when they happen and this has ever been done in our Church 3. If Forms must not be us'd because they do not alwaies reach Extraordinary Cases certainly Extempore Prayers ought not to be us'd because by reason of omissions they will not alwaies reach even Ordinary Cases In a word it appears that all Extraordinary Cases may be very well provided for by Forms but supposing it otherwise yet since it has been prov'd at large that the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion 't is unreasonable to spoil the Church of them and leave her to the mercy of Extempore effusions only for the sake of a few contingencies which may happen but very rarely if at all in a whole Age. III. I am now to prove in the last place that the imposition of Forms may be lawfully comply'd with and for this a very few words will suffice For since the use of public Forms is lawful in it self therefore it may be lawfully comply'd with because I have shewn in the Second Chapter that a Man may lawfully do a lawful thing when 't is injoin'd by Authority And now I hope it is evident to all impartial Readers that Forms of Prayer are not only lawful but expedient also CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd HAving justified Forms of Prayer in general my duty and method oblige me to justify that of the Church of England in particular I must confess I have alwaies thought the Liturgy of the Church of England to be such as wou'd rather have invited Protestants to our Communion than have kept them from it And I believe if the Dissenters wou'd seriously read over Dr. Beverege's Sermon concerning the Excellency and usefulness of the Common-Prayer they wou'd go near to be of the same mind But alas this very Liturgy is that which many persons are incens'd against It has been cry'd down as Idolatrous Popish Superstitious c. 'T is true we do not now so often hear those bitter exclamations of Rome and Babylon Baal and Dagon for the Common-Prayer is not now esteem'd such an abominable thing as some ignorant and heady Zealots were wont to count it but yet some Objections are still insisted upon to which I hope to return a fair answer 1. Then 't is Objected that the Confessions of sin in our Liturgy are too general and that there are many particular sins which ought to have been distinctly confess'd of which there is no mention But I desire the Objectors to consider that there is hardly any thing in public worship which requires more caution and prudence in the ordering of it than that confession of sin which is to be made by the whole Congregation 'T is hard to prevent its being either too general or too particular The reason is because such different persons must join in it and the sins of some are more numerous and grievous than the sins of others so that all persons cannot possibly make the same particular confession But I think our confessions viz. the daily one and that in the Communion-Office are so judiciously fram'd as to avoid both extreams and I am persuaded all persons may profitably use them However the confession of sin after the Minister has recited each of the Ten Commandments is as particular as can reasonably be desir'd and by this a Man may confess all his known offences in thought word or deed If a Man must not use a confession that is possible to be mended he must never confess at all and if a Form of confession were compos'd by the wisest Dissenters I suppose no more wou'd be pretended but that it might be profitably us'd Now this may be said of our Form and ought to end the dispute Indeed there are examples of Jeremiah Nehemiah c. confessing such sins as they were not guilty of but this was done upon solemn humiliation for those known and public Idolatries of the Nation which had brought God's heavy judgments upon them or for common and scandalous transgressions afterward They consider'd themselves as a part of the Community which had provok'd God and they bare a part in the Calamity and in the confession as if they had offended as greatly as their Country-men But I conceive there is a great deal of difference between those confessions upon such public humiliations and those that are fit for the Ordinary Service of the Church I may add that particular confessions are more properly the matter of private Devotion and if we did seriously practise strict examination and secret contrition in our Closets we shou'd then find our affections prepar'd to comply with those
AN ANSWER TO THE Dissenters Pleas FOR SEPARATION OR AN ABRIDGMENT OF THE LONDON CASES WHEREIN The Substance of those Books is digested into one Short and Plain Discourse CAMBRIDGE Printed at the University Press for Alexander Bosvile at the Sign of the Dial over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleet-street 1700. Imprimatur GUL. DAWES Procan HUMF GOWER SS Theol. pro D na Margareta Prof. GUL. SAYWELL Coll. Jes Praefect JA. JOHNSON Coll. Sid. S. Magist THE PREFACE THAT Collection of Cases and other Discourses which was lately written by the most Eminent of the Conforming Clergy to recover Dissenters to the Communion of the Church of England has met with such an Universal Approbation that I need not speak any thing in commendation of it Therefore I shall wave all discourse of that nature and only give a short account of this Abridgment The Collection it self being large and dear it was thought convenient to reduce it to a less Bulk and smaller Price that those Persons who have not either Money to buy or Time to peruse so big a Volume may reap the benefit of it upon easier terms This I presume will justify my Design if I have not fail'd in the prosecution of it I have us'd my best endeavours to avoid obscurity and all those other faults which are often charg'd upon Abridgments and I hope I may venture to say I have omitted nothing that is material tho' the Number of these sheets is not the Sixth part of those that contain the Original For the Learned Authours of the Collection do frequently glance and sometimes Discourse largely upon the same Subject so that by avoiding Repetitions and blending all the Substance together I have much lessen'd the Expence of Money and Time This and some other advantages arise from the Digestion into Chapters which cou'd not have been gain'd if I had made a distinct Abridgment of every single Discourse I hope I have fairly Represented the Sense of my Authours but if I have mistaken or injur'd it in any particular I am sorry for it and do heartily beg Pardon of Them and the Reader The 11 th and 12 th Chapters I am sure are exact for they have receiv'd the A. Bp. of York's own Corrections for which I am obliged to return his Grace my humblest Thanks Other parts I have submitted to the Censure of other worthy Persons to whose Judgment I shall ever pay the greatest Deference but I have reason to suspect my self for what I have receiv'd no Assistance in and therefore I desire the Reader to Correct me when he finds occasion I have follow'd not only my own Opinion but the Directions of several very judicious Persons in the omission of A. Bishop Tillotson's Discourse of Frequent Communion which is wholly foreign to the Design of the Collection The Quotations in the London Edit 1698. which I follow are very badly Printed and therefore if any mistakes of that Nature have crept into this Book I hope they will not be charg'd upon me Many of them appear'd false at first View and many I knew not what to make of but some of them I have ventur'd to Correct God Almighty grant that this weak endeavour may be of some Service at least towards the Cure of those Divisions which have endanger'd the Ruin of the Best Church in the World St. John's Coll. in Cambridge Octob. 2d 1699. Tho. Bennet A Catalogue of those Books the Substance of which is contain'd in this Abridgment 1. ARchbishop Tennison's Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 2. Archbishop Sharp's Discourse concerning Conscience In two parts 3. Bishop Grove's Persuasive to Communion with the Church of England 4. Bishop Patrick's Discourse of Profiting by Sermons 5. Bishop Fowler 's Resolution of this Case of Conscience whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawful to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. His Defence of the Resolution c. 7. Bishop Williams's Case of Lay-Communion with the Church of England 8. His Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God 9. His Vindication of the Case of Indifferent things c. 10. Dr. Hooper's Church of England free from the Imputation of Popery 11. Dr. Sherlock's Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 12. His Letter to Anonymus in Answer to his Three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 13. Dr. Hicks's Case of Infant-Baptism 14. Dr. Freeman's Case of Mixt-Communion 15. Dr. Hascard's Discourse about Edification 16. Dr. Calamy's Discourse about a Scrupulous Conscience 17. His Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving offence to Weak Brethren 18. Dr. Scott's Cases of Conscience resolv'd concerning the Lawfulness of joining with Forms of Prayer in Public Worship In two parts 19. Dr. Claget's Answer to the Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers c. 20. Dr. Resbury's Case of the Cross in Baptism 21. Dr. Cave's Serious Exhortation with some Important Advices relating to the late Cases about Conformity 22. Mr. Evans's Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament The CONTENTS THe Introduction containing an Argument for Union taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants pag. 1 CHAP. I. Of the Necessity of living in constant Communion with the Church of England pag. 15 CHAP. II. The use of Indifferent things in the Worship of God no objection against our Communion pag. 31 CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer pag. 48 CHAP. IV. Objections against our Morning and Evening Service and Litany Answer'd pag. 90 CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism pag. 103 CHAP. VI. Objections against our Form of Baptism and particularly that of the Sign of the Cross Answer'd pag. 126 CHAP. VII Objections against our Communion-Office and particularly that of Kneeling at the Sacrament Answer'd pag. 135 CHAP. VIII The Objection of our Symbolizing or Agreeing with the Church of Rome Answer'd pag. 171 CHAP. IX The Objection of Mixt-Communion Answer'd pag. 194 CHAP. X. The Pretences of Purer Ordinances and Better Edification among the Dissenters Answer'd pag. 210 CHAP. XI The Pretence of it's being against one's Conscience to join with the Church of England Answer'd pag. 228 CHAP. XII The Pretence of a doubting Conscience Answer'd pag. 249 CHAP. XIII The Pretence of a scrupulous Conscience Answer'd pag. 277 CHAP. XIV The Pretence of Scandal or giving Offence to Weak Brethren Answer'd pag. 292 The Conclusion containing an earnest Persuasive to Communion with the Establish'd Church of England pag. 309 THE INTRODUCTION Containing An ARGUMENT for UNION Taken from the true Interest of those Dissenters in ENGLAND who Profess and call themselves PROTESTANTS 'T IS plain that the ready way to overthrow a Church is first to divide it and that our Dissentions are Divisions properly so call'd How mortal these breaches may at last prove any
but I affirm that several Forms of Prayer are injoin'd in God's Word Thus Numb 6.23 c. the Priest is commanded to Pray for the People in this very Form of words The Lord bless thee c. And Deut. 21.7 8. the People are injoin'd to say Be merciful O Lord c. and 26.13 c. I have brought c. Look down from thy Holy c. David also by Divine inspiration appointed the Book of Psalms for the public service as appears by the Titles of many of them And tho' some of them have no Titles at all yet we find they were deliver'd by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving 1 Chron. 16.7 and accordingly Hezekiah commanded the Levites to make use of them 2 Chron. 29.30 This Liturgy also was renew'd by Ezra Ezr. 3.10 11. Besides our Saviour saies When ye Pray say Our Father c. in which he do's as plainly prescribe that very Form as 't is possible Nay had he said use this Form it cou'd not have been more expressive of his intention to impose it as a Form If it be said that the Lord's Prayer is not a Form but only a Pattern or Directory of Prayer because our Saviour Matt. 6.9 commanded his Disciples to Pray after this manner Our Father c. I answer 1. When the same matter is mention'd ambiguously in one Text and plainly in another then the doubtful or ambiguous Text must be determin'd by the plain one Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matt. 6.9 may be as well translated Pray in these words as Pray after this manner but I confess we cannot certainly know from that Text whether Christ commands us to use that very Form or one like it But then the words Luke 11.2 When ye Pray say Our Father c. are so express a command to use that very Form that nothing can be plainer and therefore the other Text must be determin'd by them 2. Our Saviour gave this Prayer not after the manner of a Directory but of a Form Had he design'd it for a Directory he wou'd have bidden them to call upon God for such and such things whereas he gives them a Form'd Prayer and bids them say it and we may reasonably suppose that he intended we shou'd use it as a Form since he gave it as such 3. Tho' the words in St. Matthew were only a Directory yet those in St. Luke are a Form of Prayer For the former were deliver'd in the Sermon upon the Mount in the second year after his Baptism but the latter upon another quite different occasion in the third year after it Therefore 't is probable that the Disciples understood those in St. Matthew only as a Directory and requested our Saviour afterwards to give them a Form For 4. the occasion of Christ's giving them this Prayer in St. Luke was their requesting him to Teach them to pray as John taught his Disciples For 't was the custom of the Jewish Doctors to Teach their Disciples a particular Form of Prayer and St. John had done the same and the Disciples desire that Christ wou'd do so too For neither St. John's nor our Saviour's Disciples cou'd be ignorant how to Pray but their request was that Christ wou'd give them his particular Form according to the Jewish custom and this Form he gave them which we call the Lord's Prayer But 't is objected that supposing our Saviour did prescribe it as a Form yet it was only for a time till they shou'd be more fully instructed and enabled to Pray by the coming of the Holy Spirit For say they before Christ's Ascension the Disciples had ask'd nothing in his Name Joh. 16.24 but all Prayers after Christ's Ascension were to be offer'd in his Name Joh. 14.13 14. 16.23 Now this Prayer has nothing of his Name in it and therefore was not design'd to be us'd after his Ascension and accordingly say they in all the New Testament we have not the least intimation of the Disciples using this Form But this objection is of no force if we consider the following particulars 1. That our Saviour has not given us the least intimation that he prescrib'd this Form only for a time and not for continual use And if we may pronounce Christ's Institution to be null without his Authority then Baptism and the Lord's Supper may be temporary prescriptions as well as the Lord's Prayer Whatever Christ has instituted without limitation of time do's alwaies oblige 2. That his not inserting his own Name into it is no Argument at all that he never intended it shou'd be us'd after his Ascension For to Pray in Christ's Name is to Pray in his Mediation depending upon his Merits and Intercession for the acceptance of our Prayers and therefore Prayers may be offer'd up in Christ's Name tho' we do not name him Thus without doubt the Disciples Pray'd in his Name Acts 4.24 tho' his Mediation is not mention'd 'T is true his Name is not expressed in the Lord's Prayer because when he gave it he was not yet Ascended and his Disciples were not to ask in his Name till after his Ascension but now that he is Ascended we can as well offer it in his Name as if it had been express'd in it Nay 't is so fram'd that now after his Ascension when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd we cannot offer it at all but in and thro' his Mediation For God is peculiarly our Father in and thro' Jesus Christ And therefore Christ's not inserting his own Name do's by no means prove that he did not design it for a standing Form 3. That tho' the Scriptures do not mention the Apostles and Disciples using the Lord's Prayer yet this is no argument either that they did not use it or that they did not believe themselves obliged to use it For we may as well conclude from the silence of Scripture that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost tho' Christ had commanded them so to do as we may conclude that they did not use the Lord's Prayer tho' Christ commanded them to say Our Father c. Especially if we consider that those who liv'd nearest the Apostolical Ages and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them where the Scripture is silent did alwaies use this Form in their Public Prayers and believe themselves obliged to do so Now that this Prayer was look't upon as a standing Form to be perpetually us'd appears from Tertull. de Orat. St. Cyprian de Orat. Dom. St. Cyril Cat. Myst 5. St. Jerom. in Pelag. l. 3. St. Austin Hom. 42.50 Epist 59. St. Chrysost de Simult St. Gregory Ep. lib. 7. cap. 6. And to be sure they who believ'd the Institution of it to be perpetually obliging cou'd not doubt but that it was constantly us'd in the Apostolic Age. And methinks 't is
more restrain'd to Vocal Prayer than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture 'T is true we read Psal 28.2 Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee but the voice of my supplication do's not necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For 't is a Hebraiâ—â— and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer For so Gen. 4.10 't is said The voice of thy Brother's blood cries c. Now the blood had no real voice to cry with but cry'd just as mental Prayer do's In other places the word signifies both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently Psal 86.6 6.9 or Prayer in general Jer. 31.9 But suppose the word were alwaies us'd for Vocal Prayer yet surely the Promise of pouring out the Spirit of supplications intends a much greater good than the gift of extempore utterance in Prayer of which bad Men may have a greater share than the most devout And what is that greater good but the gift of Heavenly affections in Prayer If it be urg'd that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father Gal. 4.6 and that we have receiv'd the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Rom. 8.15 and that these Texts prove us to be enabled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit and that therefore we ought not to Pray by Forms I answer 1. That if these words oblige us to cry Vocally to God by our own gifts then we are equally obliged in all our Vocal Prayers to cry to him in these words Abba Father because that is the cry which the Spirit enables us to make and the Text is every whit as express for one as for the other 2. I deny that crying here do's necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For how often do we find the word apply'd to things that have no Voice at all Thus the stones wou'd immediately cry out Luke 19.40 and the Labourers hire is said to cry to God James 5.4 And indeed crying to God has the same latitude with Prayer which includes both Vocal and Mental 3. Suppose that crying Abba Father by the Spirit signifies Vocal Prayer yet all that can be gather'd from it is only this that when we Pray Vocally we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to address our selves to God with assurance as to a merciful Father and this we may as well do in a Form as otherwise For if we never cry Abba Father by the spirit but when we word our own Prayers we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public Extempore Prayer than when we join with a public Form because we word our own Prayers in neither 'T is true the Scripture speaks of a gift of utterance which say they was given for Praying as well as Preaching but I answer that the gift of utterance was miraculous and particular to the Primitive Ages This gift saies Saint Chrysostom Hom. 24. ad Eph. c. 6. is that which Christ promis'd Mark 13.11 by which the Disciples spake without premeditation and what they spake was the inspir'd Word of God and this Gift no sober Dissenter will pretend to The Apostles began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance Act. 2.4 and the Dissenters may as well pretend to the gift of Tongues as that of Utterance they being both extraordinary But say they tho' all Men have not the Gift of Praying Extempore yet some have and therefore God requires such to Pray by their gift and not by a Form For he requires them not to neglect the gift 1 Tim. 4.14 but to stir up the gift 2 Tim. 1.6 and to Minister the gift 1 Pet. 4.10 and that having gifts c. Rom. 12.6 and if Men are obliged to exercise their gifts in general then they must exercise their gift of Praying Extempore in particular Now to these things I answer First That the gift bestow'd upon Timothy was the gift of Episcopal power which he is exhorted to exercise diligently For at the first plantation of the Gospel the Holy Ghost Pointed out the Men that were to be Bishops as the (f) Clem. 1 Epist ad Corinth Chrysost in Act. 13.2 Fathers testifie For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophesy 'T was given also with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and these two circumstances prove that the gift was not the gift of Prophesying but the gift of Episcopal Authority bestow'd upon him by imposition of hands at God's particular Appointment And now I pray how do's this Text prove that we must use a gift of Vocal Prayer in our own words As for 1 Pet. 4.10 Rom. 12.6 I Answer 1. That there can be nothing in them against Praying by a Form for then they wou'd make as much against using the Lord's Prayer as any other Form 2. That the design of those Texts is to stir Men up to diligence in the exercise of those several Offices viz. The Office of a Bishop a Priest a Deacon and a Rich Man For 't is plain that the word Gift do's oftentimes signifie an Office and tho' it may be said that the relief of the Poor is rather the exercise of an Ability than an Office yet I answer that 't is properly the exercise of an Office because the very having Ability do's as much put a Man into the Office of shewing mercy to the Poor as if God had appointed him to it by a solemn Ordination 3. Supposing that by these gifts were not meant Offices but only abilities yet we are obliged so to exercise them That all things may be done to Edification for so the Apostle declares that those extraordinary Gifts that were pour'd out in the Primitive Times were to be us'd 1 Cor. 14.2 6 19 40. as 't is particularly plain by the instance of the Gift of Tongues vers 23 26 28. Now if we are not to exercise our gifts but as they tend to Edification then we must not exercise the gift of Praying Extempore any farther than it tends to Edification And since Praying by a Form in Public Worship do's as I shall afterwards prove tend more to Edification than Praying Extempore therefore 't is plain that we ought to suspend the use of the gift of conceiv'd Prayer Thus I hope I have made it appear that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Scripture and that those Texts which are urg'd against the use of forms of Prayer do prove nothing against them and therefore I think I may safely affirm that the Scripture do's warrant Forms of Prayer I proceed now to shew that Antiquity do's the same This I shall do 1. by answering those Authorities which are objected by the Dissenters against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages 2. By proving that they were us'd in those Ages by a short Historical Account of the matter of Fact 1. Then 't is objected First that Justin Martyr saies Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Communion Pray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is say they according to his ability from whence they infer that in his daies the Ministers Pray'd by their own gifts and abilities To this I answer that the words do signify with all his might i. e. with his utmost fervency For the same words are spoken of the People in the same Book p. 60. who did not compose their own Prayer at the Eucharist and the same Phrase is us'd in the same sence by Nazianzen Orat. 3. 2 dly Because Tertullian in his Apology affirms that Christians did Pray without a Monitor or Prompter because they did Pray from their hearts they think he alludes to a custom of the Heathen who in their public worship had a Monitor to direct them in what words and to what God they were to Pray Now since the Christians Pray'd without a Monitor therefore say they they Pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in To which I answer 1. That without a Monitor cannot signify without any one to dictate a Form of words For in their public Prayers the Minister was the Mouth of the People and therefore whether he Pray'd by Form or extempore his words were a Form to the People Whatever therefore this obscure Phrase means 't is certain it cannot mean without a Form unless it means without a Minister too 2. It seems to me most probable that by without a Monitor is meant without any one to correct them when either the People repeated or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsly For (g) A. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 13. c. 21. Rosin Antiq. l. 3. c. 33. the Heathen Priests began their Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta and proceeded with the invocations of all the greater Deities by name Now that none of the greater God's might be pretermitted and (h) Plin. l. 28. c. 2. none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly recited or repeated (i) Liv l. 4. one Priest read out of a Ritual and another was appointed for a Public Monitor to oversee and correct such mistakes as might be made When therefore Tertullian saies We Pray without a Monitor his meaning is not that we Pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us whether out of a Book or Extempore but that we Pray without one to oversee to admonish the Priests or People when they dictate or repeat falsly Because saies he we Pray from our hearts that is either by joining our affections and desires with the Priest without repeating the words or by saying our Prayers by heart so that we need none to correct us For Tertullian affects to express the Greek and therefore 't is probable his de pectore or from the heart may be a translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to say by heart So that Tertullian's words do rather argue for the use of Forms than against them The Third and last testimony against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer is that of Socrates Scholasticus whose words Hist lib. 5. c. 22. they thus translate Every where and in all worships of Prayer there are not two to be found that speak the same words And therefore say they 't is very unlikely they shou'd Pray by Forms But we must observe that he had been speaking of the different ceremonies and customs of the chief Churches and then concludes Every where and among all worships of Prayer there are not two to be sound not that speak the same words but that agree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same thing Where by worships of Prayer he means rites of Prayer which the Churches differ'd in And how do's it follow that because they did not use the same rites and ceremonies of Prayer therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer For even now we see there are different rites and ceremonies of Prayer among those Churches which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer 2. Therefore I am to prove that Forms were us'd in the Primitive times by a short Historical account of the matter of fact 'T is probable that in the first Age there was a gift of Praying Extempore by immediate inspiration and while this gift continu'd perhaps there might be no other Form in public Worship but only that of the Lord's Prayer But 't is probable that upon the ceasing or abatement of it Forms were compos'd after the method of those inspir'd Prayers For 't is most likely that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer because so far as we can find there never was any dispute among Christians concerning the lawfulness of Praying by a Form For 't is strange that if Forms were an innovation such a remarkable and public innovation shou'd be introduc'd without the least contest or opposition For tho' some innovations did creep in yet every one of that public nature alwaies found powerful adversaries to withstand it But not to insist upon probabilities wee 'l enquire into matter of fact The Liturgies of Saint Peter St. Mark and St. James tho' corrupted by latter Ages yet are doubtless of great antiquity and probably even from the Apostles times For besides many things which have a strong relish of that Age that of St. James was of great authority in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time who wrote a Comment upon it even in his younger years and 't is declar'd by (k) Allat de Lit. Sti. Jac. Proclus and the (l) Concil Trull c. 32. Sixth general Council to be of St. James's own Composure and 't was probably receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem within 170 years after the Apostolical Age. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles seems highly probable For First all the Form Sursum corda is there and in St. Cyril's Comment and the same is in the Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and the Constitutions of Clemens which all agree are of great antiquity and St. Cyprian who was living within an 100 years after the Apostles (m) De Orat. Dom. mentions it as a Form then us'd and receiv'd and St. Austin tells us that Form is words deriv'd from the very age of the Apostles The same is asserted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular Hist lib. 18. c. 53. 'T is evident that from that Primitive Age there was a Form of questions and answers prescrib'd in Baptism from the questions and answers which Tertull. De Resur Carn St. Cypr. 76.80 Origen in Numer Hom. 5. speak of And if the Minister may be limited to a Form of question why not to a Form of Prayer there being as great a necessity to prescribe for the latter as for the former But that de facto there were Forms of Prayer as well as Questions and Answers us'd in Baptism Clemens's Constitutions affirm and some of the Prayers are there inserted l. 7.
nothing else to do but to attend his inward Devotion which is the life of Prayer whereas Praying Extempore forces him to attend to the Recollection of Matter and invention of expressions which must more or less divert him it being impossible to attend to several things as closely as he may to one 'T is true he that uses a Form may permit his thoughts to wander but then the sault is in the Man and not in the Form for he converts that which in it self helps Devotion into an occasion of indevotion He that Praies Extempore is more bound to attend to words but he that Praies by Form has better opportunities of attending to the proper business of Prayer viz. Contrition Sense of our Wants and dependence upon God c. And by being an example of these in his Prayer the Minister do's very much excite the Devotion of the People But 't is Objected that while his thoughts are imploy'd in inventing the matter and words of his Prayer they are well imploy'd because they are attending to the duty of Prayer tho' they be not so fixt upon the inward Devotion of it as they might be in the use of a Form To this I answer that to invent the matter and words of Prayer is not to Pray but to study a Prayer which cannot be prov'd to be a part of our duty But we believe that when we Pray Devoutly by a Form we discharge the whole duty of Prayer tho' we do not invent the matter and words our selves and till we see the contrary prov'd we shall always think so If it be said that Praying Extempore will not suffer the Minister's thoughts to wander I answer that if the Minister have Devout affections they will keep his thoughts from wandring when he Praies by Form as much as when he Praies Extempore but if he has not he cannot utter his words from his affections either way But 't is pretended that Praying Extempore do's heighten the Minister's affections more than a Form Because say they in reading a Form his affections follow his words and are rais'd and excited by them whereas in Praying Extempore his words follow his affections But why may not a Man who knows before hand what he is to Pray for be Devoutly affected with it before he expresses it in a Form as well as before he expresses it Extempore And why may not he that Praies Extempore be as little affected with what he Praies for before he has exprest it as he that uses a Form May not a Man's tongue run before his heart either way But suppose it true that in Extempore Prayer the words follow the affections and that in a Form the affections follow the words do's it follow that Praying Extempore heightens the affections more than a Form Why may not the affections viz. desire c. which follow the words be as great as those that go before Especially since our Dissenters say that expressive words do naturally quicken affections If it be said that the Minister cannot so well express his Devout affections in other Mens words as in his own I answer that he is the Mouth of the Congregation and that his business is not to express his own particular and extraordinary fervours as the common case of the Congregation but so to speak as every honest and ordinary Christian may join with him For 't is as bad for him to express such heights of Devotion as few or none of them are arriv'd to as to confess in their names such sins as few or none of them are guilty of Now the common sense of the Congregation may be as well express'd in another Man's words as in his own unless we suppose that Extempore words can more fitly express it than those that are premeditated which no sober Dissenter will affirm But say they the Minister's Soul is so busied in reading a Form that it cannot be so much affected as when he Praies Extempore Now I leave the Reader to judge whether being busied about the Matter Method and Expressions of Prayer do's not much more imploy the Ministers Soul than bare reading that is whether he that can read a Prayer without the least trouble cannot read a Prayer more easily than invent one However they tell us that Praying always in the same words do's cloy the Attention of the People whereas the newness and variety of conceiv'd Prayers do's naturally awaken their Minds and keep them more sixt and intent But I answer that the matter of public Prayer is and for the main will be the same and therefore if the matter fixt their minds 't wou'd as well do it in the same as in new expressions But if it be the Phrase that their minds are fixt on there is nothing in it but an amusement of their fancies which do's rather unfix them from the inward acts of Prayer and distract their Devotion Forms may be compos'd and pronounced as affectionately as Extempore Prayers and may as well excite the People's Devotion but novelty of method and expression do's as much deaden the Devotion of those that are fixt upon it as worldly business That seeming Devotion that is rais'd by the jingling of words is not Devotion but Mechanism for a Man may be strangely affected with the words of Prayer who has not the least spark of true Devotion to the matter of it but if the Mind do's affect the matter of Prayer for it self and not for the sake of the words I cannot imagin how new words shou'd any way advantage its Devotion unless they were to express new matter Thus it appears that even what is urg'd in behalf of Extempore Prayers do's plead much more for Forms but then there are sundry advantages peculiar to Forms which Extempore Prayers cannot pretend to For 1. People may consider the matter of a Form and endeavour to affect their minds with it before hand and so they may Pray with greater preparation 2. People may join in a Form with more understanding than in an Extempore Prayer wherein the Minister is forced to use such expressions as come first to hand and sometimes he is forced to use a hard word which half of the Congregation do not know because an easier do's not come to his mind besides many other inconveniencies which 't is impossible alwaies to avoid Now in composing public Forms more care will be taken that the words may be intelligible than there can be in Extempore Prayer And truly if the words be not intelligible the People's Prayer must be as much interrupted as if the Minister spake in an unknown tongue 3. Men may join in a Form with much more Faith and Hope of being heard than they can in Extempore Prayer For they may be satisfied before hand that the matter of a Form is good but they cannot be so satisfied of an Extempore Prayer considering that the Minister is many times a stranger and may be perhaps Erroneous Rash Ignorant c. And even those Ministers
whom they know may sometimes mistake their Passion for their Zeal and reake their Anger or their Faction in their Prayers or let drop an Errour before they are aware or express themselves so as an honest mind may not be able to join So that in joining with an Extempore Prayer a Man must judge what is said before he can consent to it and if he meet with a rub the Minister goes on in the mean time and the Man is left behind at a loss and perhaps confounded before he can join again and no sooner perhaps is he well fixt but he is troubled again with the same inconveniency all which is easily prevented by the use of Forms 4. Forms do not divert the affections of the People from the Matter of Prayer as Extempore Prayers do which disturb Devotion whenever the Minister hesitates or blunders or expresses himself improperly for then some will be pitying others contemning others carping c. And if he perform well some will admire his Phrase Judgment Readiness c. all which things do call off their minds from the Matter 5. The Decency and solemnity of public Worship which things are highly advantageous to the Devotion of the people are better secur'd by Forms than by Extempore Prayers where they depend wholly upon the Minister For if he happens to be a Man of a bad memory or apt to blunder or be dull c. then the Devotion of the Congregation may be turn'd into scorn and laughter and of this I have seen too many sad experiments But suppose him to be an able and Pious person yet he may be liable to indispositions of body dulness inadvertency c. with outward cares and accidents and if he be he must many times Pray confusedly or with broken indecent expressions and omit a great deal of the matter Sometimes he will be at a loss and be forced to use fulsome repetitions and how is it possible almost but that a great deal of flat and empty nonsence undigested conceptions and unadvis'd expressions shou'd escape from his lips before he is aware And this if he has a grain of modesty must put him into greater confusion and so amaze him that he will be hardly able to recover himself Now is it not a hard case that the Devotions of Five hundred or a thousand Persons must be disturb'd by one Man's disorders For they must either Pray after him or not Pray at all But all these evils are prevented by set public Forms 6. Those that join in a Form may be better secur'd of the reality and sincerity of their own Devotion For they knowing before-hand the expressions of the Form are not so much surpriz'd with the Phrases and therefore if they find themselves affected may more safely conclude 't is the Matter and not the words that moves them Whereas a Man that is tickled with the words of an Extempore Prayer may fancy himself to be very devout when he has nothing of true Devotion in him I might add more but I think these things are enough to convince an unprejudiced person that Forms of Prayer are so far from hindring that they very much help Devotion But if any Man shall still object that he finds by experience that Forms do actually deaden his Devotions because his affections are flat and heavy when he uses them but he is almost transported when he hears a Man Pray Extempore I beseech him to consider whether his experience be not founded in prejudice and whether his prejudice ought to prescribe to the whole Church 'T is certain other Men find by experience that joining with a Form do's help their Devotion so that here is experience against experience Now since two contrary experiences cannot proceed from the nature of the thing therefore one must proceed from the temper of the Man Now I have prov'd and many Men find by experience that Forms do help Devotion and therefore if he do's not find the same the fault must be in himself and I doubt not but if he will consider the matter impartially he will soon be of the same opinion For we have Scripture and Reason on our side but he is led by his passions which may be charm'd and flatter'd and will betray him into strong delusions 'T is plain 't is not the matter of the Extempore Prayer that affects him for that is the same as in a Form and if he be taken with the chiming of words 't is but a sensitive delight and he must not make a Division in the Church only to gratifie his fancy Besides I desire him strictly to examine his Conscience whether he has not often been as dull at a conceiv'd Prayer as at the public Forms If so then the person is to be blam'd and not the Form and he is guilty of a double iniquity who divides the Church without sufficient cause and charges his own formality upon a good and wholesome constitution 2. They pretend that Praying in a Form of Words do's stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer But before I answer this Objection it will be necessary to explain 1. What it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer 2. What is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer First Then what is it that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer I answer There are some things attributed to him which were Extraordinary and Temporary and others that were Ordinary fixt and standing The Extraordinary and Temporary were the immediate Inspiration of the matter of Prayer and an ability to express it in known or unknown Languages We read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises which for the matter of them were immediately inspir'd Thus Pray'd Hannah who as the Targum paraphrases it Pray'd by the Spirit of Prophesy that is by immediate Inspiration For Praying and Praising by immediate Inspiration are frequently call'd Prophesying 1 Sam. 10.5 Numb 11.25 1 Chron. 25.1 Luc. 1.67 for the matter of all those Prayers and Praises together with those in the Book of Psalms and sundry others recorded in Scripture was immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost But after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated 't is certain that not only the matter but the very Language of their Prayers was immediately Inspir'd This gift was peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity because the design of it was not only to enable the first planters of the Gospel to perform their office in the Languages of the several Nations they were sent to but also to be a sign from God as other Miracles were for the confirmation of the Gospel Tongues were for a sign to them that believe not 1 Cor. 14.22 and therefore since all Miracles were Extraordinary and after a time to cease certainly this Miraculous gift of Prayer was so too However because many Dissenters think it not an extraordinary but a Standing Gift which the Spirit will communicate to
all successive Ages of the World I desire them to consider 1. That there is no promise of such a gift by vertue of the New Covenant and therefore no reason to expect the continuance of it and 't is presumtion to promise our selves what God has not promis'd us For as for the Spirit of Supplications Zac. 12.10 't is plain that 't is the same with the Spirit of Grace or of inward Piety and devotion But that there is no such Promise in the New Covenant is evident from what is acknowledg'd on all hands viz. That there are many good Christians who cou'd never pretend to any such Inspiration For all good Christians have a Right to the blessings of the New Covenant and I am very confident 't wou'd be look'd upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm that a Man cannot be a good Christian who do's not Pray by immediate Inspiration but is alwaies fain to depend either on his own invention or a Form 2. That as there is no Promise so there is no need of any such immediate Inspiration 'T is true the Spirit will assist us in all necessary things wherein our duty and Spiritual Life are concern'd but 't is an unwarrantable presumtion to expect an immediate Inspiration in Prayer because there is no necessity of it For 1. As for the Matter of our Prayers the Holy Spirit has already sufficiently reveal'd it to us in the Gospel and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for as he can be suppos'd to do by any immediate Inspiration And therefore to suppose after all a necessity of immediate Inspiration is in effect to suppose that We have neither reason enough to understand the sense of plain Words nor memory enough to retain it But say the Dissenters We know not what to Pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered Rom. 8.26 and therefore we cannot in all cases know the Matter of our Prayers without immediate Inspiration But I answer that the words relate not to the matter but to the Manner of our Prayers What to Pray for as we ought we know not that is we know not how to Pray with that fervency and resignation which we ought unless the Spirit assist us 2. As for the words of Prayer there is no necessity they shou'd be immediately dictated to us since we may use Forms and those Forms with small additions may be adapted to all particular Cases and Circumstances 3. If Prayers are Inspir'd they are equal to Scripture and are infallible and the Word of God because whatever God inspires must needs be so But this I am sure no sober Dissenter will presume to say 4. There is no sign of this immediate Inspiration remaining among us Heretofore all Inspiration was attested by Miracles but the pretended Inspiration of Prayer has no Miracles to warrant it Whereas if the Inspiration be continu'd 't is requisite that proper signs shou'd be continu'd that so we may be able to distinguish that which is Divine from that which is Natural or Diabolical If it be said that the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them I answer that tho' the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish whether the Matter of the Inspiration be true or false yet it 's not sufficient to distinguish the Inspiration it self whether it be Divine or Natural or Diabolical For 1. 'T is certain a Man may Pray agreeably to Scripture by Natural Inspiration that is by a Natural or accidental fervency of temper as might be prov'd by many instances And in this case how shall he know by Scripture whether his present Inspiration be Natural or Divine 'T will be said perhaps that God Inspires good Men with fervency in Prayer and yet this fervency sometimes proceeds from temper of body and why do's not the want of a sign to distinguish conclude against the Inspiration of fervency as well as against the Inspiration of the Matter and Words of Prayer I answer that we have a Promise of the Spirit 's assistance for the fervency of our Prayers but not for the Matter or Words of them Besides we may easily distinguish whether the Inspiration of fervency be Natural or Divine by our own sense If it be accompany'd with a fixt and constant Devotion of Soul 't is Divine but if it be only a sudden fit and leaves us habitually indevout we have just reason to think it Natural But we cannot distinguish by Scripture between one and the other for both may be agreeable to Scripture And can it be imagin'd that had God meant to continue the gift of Inspiration to us he wou'd have left us thus in the dark concerning it without any certain sign to distinguish whether it be from his Spirit or from an ill-affected spleen or a fever 2. As for Diabolical Inspirations we have sundry instances such as Wier Hacket D. George and John Basilides Duke of Russia who had such gifts of Prayer as ravish'd the Auditors and in the opinion of the most impartial seem'd to exceed the power of Nature and made many think them immediately Inspir'd by God Now since by such Inspirations the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends by recommending false Teachers c. we may reasonably suppose he do's use that method And since he may Inspire Men with such Matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture we cannot by Scripture certainly distinguish between his Inspiration and that of the Spirit But surely 't is blasphemy to think that if God had continu'd this gift of Inspiration he wou'd leave us without a sign to distinguish it from that which is Diabolical And since there is no sign we have all the reason in the world to think the gift is ceas'd But farther we have not only no certain sign of the Divine Inspiration of conceiv'd Prayers but many very certain ones of the contrary I will instance in four 1. The great impertinence nonsence and rudeness to say no worse that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers and which we cannot attribute to the Holy Ghost without blasphemy 2. That they are so generally tinctur'd with the particular Opinions of those that offer them Whether this be not so I appeal to all the world and if it be so then surely they are not Inspir'd For either we must suppose this gift of Inspiration to be consin'd to one party which wou'd be to stint the Spirit with a witness or else we must blasphemously say the Spirit Inspires contradictions and indites contrary Prayers to Men of opposite Parties 3. Another plain sign that conceiv'd Prayers are not Inspir'd is that that which gives them the reputation of being so is not so much the Matter as the manner of expressing them As for the Matter I suppose the Dissenters will not deny but our Forms may equal at least if not excell their conceiv'd Prayers and therefore all the
difference must be in the Manner But are conceiv'd Prayers the more Inspir'd because the words are Extempore Did God continue the gift for no other end but that Men might ask those things Extempore which they might as well have asked in a Form Or are they more Inspired because they do generally more enlarge and express the same Matter over again in different words Was the Spirit continu'd only to vary phrases Our Saviour forbids us to use vain repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking and therefore these enlargements are so far from being signs of their immediate Inspiration that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with Christ they are generally signs of the contrary 4. That extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be Inspir'd ordinarily proceeds from natural causes viz. Natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper For 1. The Dissenters confess it comes upon them much oftner in their public than in their private Devotions And the reason is plain because the passions of the Congregation do so excite their affections and the reverence of an Auditory obliges them so much to wreck their inventions that their Spirits are many times transported into raptures 2. They are not so fluent in the beginning as when they have Pray'd a while the reason of which is this because the Spirits do not move so briskly till they are chafed and heated with Labour Then do they naturally raise the fancy and render the invention more copious and easy And certainly 't is unwarrantable to attribute that to Inspiration which do's so apparently proceed from natural causes Thus have I shewn what the extraordinary operations of the Spirit are and that they are not to be pretended to in these Times I proceed in the next place to shew very briefly what those ordinary operations are which he has Promis'd to continue to the end of the World They are therefore the proper graces and affections of Prayer such as shame sorrow hope c. But as for the expressions of Prayer they are of no account with God but as they signify to him the graces and affections of it Now can any Man imagin that those affections will be the less acceptable to God because they are presented in a Form and not Extempore Will a Father deny Bread to his Child because he askt it to day in the same words that he did yesterday Is God more taken with words than with affections Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words and continuing the Inspiration of affections prove the contrary Now that God do's continue the Inspiration of Devout affections in Prayer is manifest from Gal. 4.6 Jude 20. and Rom. 8.26 where the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with groans which cannot be utter'd that is with most flagrant affections For these words do not as some persons wou'd persuade us prove the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer because the Inspiration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered cannot mean the Inspiration of words but this Intercession of the Spirit signifies his exciting such affections as make our Prayers acceptable For as Christ who is our Advocate in Heaven enforces our Prayers with his own Intercessions so the Spirit who is our Advocate upon Earth begets those affections which render our Prayers prevalent And these are the standing and ordinary operations which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer Secondly Stinting or limiting the Spirit is a phrase that is never mention'd in Scripture or Antiquity and therefore 't is a very new objection against Forms of Prayer which I have shewn to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity However what the Dissenters mean by it is this viz. that by confining our selves to a Form of words we stint or limit that is restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceiv'd Prayer And now having explain'd the Two forgoing particulars the answer to this Objection will be very easy For if the Spirit be stinted or restrain'd by Forms of Prayer it must be either from Inspiring the words or from exciting the affections of Prayer But I have prov'd that Forms are so far from restraining the Devotion of Prayer that they do very much promote and improve it and as for the Words I have prov'd that since the first propagation of the Gospel the Spirit has withdrawn the immediate and Miraculous Inspiration of them And since that cannot be stinted which is not therefore the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer is not stinted by Forms 3. 'T is Objected that public Forms are a sinful neglect of the Ministerial gift of Prayer For the Dissenters say the gift of Prayer is an ability to express our minds in Prayer which God has given to Ministers as a means of public Devotion and therefore they may not omit the exercise of it by using Forms of other Mens Composure Now to this I answer 1. That supposing that 't is a fault in Ministers to omit the exercise of their ability yet the People are not to be charged with it God will not reject the People's Devotions because the Minister is to blame He only is accountable for that for the People do not join with him in his omission but in that which is acceptable to God 2. This gift of Prayer is either natural or acquir'd For certainly 't is not Inspir'd at Ordination because the Scripture do's not promise any such thing nor is there any experience of it Nay the Dissenting Ministers must own that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation as they were just after which shews that they had no new ability to Pray Inspir'd in their Ordination Now since this gift or ability is nothing more than a quickness of invention and speech which is either natural or acquir'd by art and practice therefore 't is no otherwise the gift of God than our natural strength or skill in History or the like All that God has Promis'd his Ministers is to concur with their honest endeavours as far as is necessary to the discharge of their Office and to suppose that this cannot be done without Praying Extempore is to take the Matter in question for granted 3. This freedom of utterance is never call'd the gift of Prayer in Scripture Praying in unknown Languages is once call'd a gift but Praying in our own Language is never call'd so Therefore 't is plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer but left in common to all other honest uses that it can be apply'd to and it may as well be call'd the Gift of Pleading at the Bar or of Disputing or Conversation as the gift of Prayer Accordingly we find that those who have this gift in Prayer have it
more general confessions of sin which we make with the whole Congregation And we shou'd then have less reason to complain that those confessions are too general and not apt to move us because this wou'd cure the deadness of our hearts which are commonly most to blame when we find fault with the Means that God has provided for us 2. The next Objection is the shortness of our Collects by reason of which 't is pretended that the Prayer is often suddenly broken off and then begun again and this is thought not so agreeable to the gravity wherewith this duty ought to be perform'd nor so likely a means of exciting Reverence and Devotion in the People as one continu'd Form of Prayer that might be as long as all those put together To this I answer 1. That the mere shortness of a Prayer is not to be blam'd since that wou'd disparage the Form which Christ taught his Disciples 2. That 't will be hard to prove that many of these short Prayers being offer'd up to God one immediately after another is either not so grave or not so edifying as one continu'd Form For the work of Praying is as much continu'd all the while as if there were but one continu'd Form because we pass from one Petition to another or from one matter of invocation to another as immediately as if the distinct Forms were all brought into the compass of one Nay the attention of the People is rather help'd by the frequency of saying Amen and their Godly disposition of mind which is the best thing in Prayer may be kept alive and more effectually secur'd by calling upon the Name of God and pleading the Merits of Christ so often as we do Besides the invocation of God somewhat often by his attributes maintains in our minds a reverent sense of his Majestic Presence which we all know is needful to make us pray as we ought and the frequency of mentioning Christ's Merits and Mediation strengthens our faith and assurance that we shall be heard 'T is also the peculiar Character of Christian Devotion and distinguishes us from the Papists in declaring our detestation of calling upon God in the Name of Saints or any other but that of Christ If it be said that we say Amen and break off our Prayers too often I reply that all wise and humble Men will submit themselves in that case to the judgment of their superiours 3. Some except against the repetition of the Lord's Prayer and of Glory be to the Father c. and of Lord have mercy upon us and the like because they think our Saviour forbids it by saying when ye pray use not vain repetitions But it appears by our Saviour's caution against vain repetitions that some repetitions are not vain and consequently not forbidden This must be suppos'd because he himself when in his Agony pray'd thrice in the same words Now Christ forbids the fault of the Heathens whose vain repetitions proceeded from an affectation of speaking much or from a belief that God wou'd not help them unless they repeated the same thing over in a tedious manner but the repetition of good Prayers is nothing like their practice Repetitions are not vain if two things be regarded 1. That the matter be very weighty and apt to move those pious affections which God is most pleas'd with in our Addresses to him and in this respect I dare say our repetitions are secur'd from vanity 2. That they be fram'd with judgment that they come in fitly and in due place and not too often And these rules are observ'd in our Liturgy for as none did ever blame the disposal of our repetitions so none can justly blame the sequency of them For our repetitions are very few but if our number be too great what shall we think of the 136 Psalm where His mercy endureth forever is repeated 26 times To conclude this matter I desire those who do not yet approve our repetition of the Lord's Prayer c. to consider whether it be so easy to spend the time it takes up more profitably than by joining in good earnest with the Congregation in these Prayers .. 4. Some persons dislike the Responsals of the Congregation and the People's saying the Confessions and the Lord's Prayer after the Minister and their alternate reciting the Psalms and Hymns and some petitions in the daily Service Now I beg these Men to consider what has been often said viz. that this way is apt to check a wandring Spirit to help attention and quicken a lively zeal in God's Service whilst we invite and provoke one another to pray and give thanks They say indeed that the Minister is appointed to be the mouth of the People in God's public Service but to this I answer 1. That granting the Minister to be appointed for the mouth of the People yet it must not be so interpreted as to make all Vocal Prayer and thanksgiving in Religious Assemblies unlawful to the People For then the People must not say Amen which is a short responsal to the Minister nor must they join in singing Psalms which oftentimes contain matter of Prayer 2. The Scripture do's not say that the Minister is the mouth of the People to God or that no Prayer must be offer'd up in Religious Assemblies otherwise than by the mouth of the Minister 'T is true the Minister is the mouth of the People in all those Prayers which he utters for them and because these are many more than what the People themselves utter he may be said to be their mouth to God comparatively but not absolutely 'T is true also that the Minister is appointed for the People in all public Services appertaining to God if this be understood for the most part or of all with little exception Some public Services are pronounced by him only and as for the rest 't is fit he shou'd ever utter most of them and that in those wherein the People have their part he shou'd ever go before and lead them and guide the whole performance which is all taken care for in our Liturgy Nay the Dissenters themselves do not utterly debar the People from all Vocal Prayer and Thanksgiving of their own in God's solemn Worship For they allow the People to sing Psalms and why then may they not bear a part in the Hymns and Psalms by alternate responses I cannot see why singing or not singing shou'd make such a difference 'T were better if they were every where sung because it is more sutable to the design of them than bare reciting is but if they be not sung the next use of them that is most agreeable to their nature and design is reciting them by answering in turns as the Custom is with us for this is much nearer to singing than the Minister's reciting all himself But say they the People's verse is in a manner lost to some of the Congregation since in the confus'd murmur of so many voices
3. Some are offended with our praying against Sudden Death But why shou'd we not by Sudden Death understand our being taken out of this World when we are not fit to die For sometimes a thing is said to be Sudden to us when we are not prepar'd for it And in this sence can any good Christian find fault with the Petition But suppose that by Sudden Death we mean what is commonly understood by it that is a Death of which a Man has not the least warning by Sickness are there not Reasons why even good Men may desire not to die suddenly May they not when they find themselves drawing towards their end by their good Instructions and Admonitions make Impressions upon their Friends Companions and Relations to the bettering of them May not their Counsels be then more effectual with them than ever they were before And is it not reasonable to believe they will be so As for themselves may not the warning they have of approaching Death be improv'd to make them more sit to die than they were in their perfect Health In a word he that thinks himself to have sufficiently perfected holiness in the fear of God and not to stand in need of those acts of Self-Examination Humiliation and Devotion by which Good Men improve the Warning of Death which Mortal Sickness or Extreme Age gives them let him suspend his Act and refuse to join with us when we pray God to deliver us from sudden death· 4. Some are offended that we pray to be deliver'd By the Mystery of Christ's Holy Incarnation c. By his Agony and bloody Sweat by his Cross and Passion c. And by the Coming of the Holy Ghost Some say this is Swearing others Conjuring and I know not what To these I answer that when we say By the Mystery of thy holy Incarnation and by thy Cross and Passion c. Good Lord deliver us we implore Christ who has already shew'd such inestimable goodness towards us by taking our Nature into his Divinity to Die upon the Cross to be Buried to Rise again to ascend into Heaven and there to intercede with the Father for us and by sending the Holy Ghost to qualifie the Apostles for their great Work of carrying the Word of Salvation into the World I say we implore him who hath already done such mighty things for our Salvation and we plead with him by that goodness which he has already given us such great demonstrations of by those Wonders of Mercy that he has wrought for us that he wou'd now go on to deliver us by his powerful Grace from those Evils which we pray against And this is so reasonable so devout and affectionate so humble and thankful a way of praying that I am sorry that any who call themselves Believers shou'd be so ignorant as not to understand it or so profane and unlike what they pretend to be as to deride it To conclude I must confess that of all the Prayers in our Liturgy that are of humane composition I shou'd be most unwilling to part with the Litany It seems to be what it was design'd to be A Form of Prayer apt to excite our most intense and fervent desires of God's Grace and Mercy The whole office is fram'd with respect both to matter and contrivance for the raising of the utmost Devotion of good Christians and for the warming of the coldest hearts by the heat of the Congregation And in such a disposition it is most fit to express our Charity by praying for others even all sorts of men as distinctly and particularly as public Prayers will bear CHAP. V. Of Infant-Baptism BEfore I proceed to the Vindication of our Office of Baptism I think it is proper to justify Infant-Baptism which is practis'd by us and dislik'd by some of the Dissenters And that my Discourse concerning Infant-Baptism may be the better understood I shall take the liberty of premising a few things 1. That the Original of the Jewish Church consider'd purely as a Church is to be dated from the Covenant which God made with Abraham but that of the Jewish Common-wealth from the delivery of the Law by Moses For that the Jewish Church and Common-wealth are distinct things is plain because the Apostle makes this distinction Rom. 4.13 Gal. 3.17 And therefore 2. The way to find out the Nature of the Jewish Church is to consider the Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham upon which the Jewish Church was founded Now 't is plain from Rom. 4. 9th to the 17th and 9.6 c. Gal. 3.5 c. that the Covenant made with Abraham was a Spiritual Covenant made with him as the Father of Believers and with his Posterity not as proceeding from him by Natural but by Spiritual Generation as heirs of his Faith Hence saies the Apostle in the name of the Christians We are the Circumcision which worship God in the Spirit and have no confidence in the Flesh Phil. 3.3 and it is one God which shall justify the Circumcision by Faith and the Vncircumcision thro' Faith Rom. 3.30 and if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's Seed and heirs according to the Promise Gal. 3.29 Nay 't will farther appear that this Covenant was made not with Abraham's Natural but his Spiritual Off-spring if we consider 3. That the initiatory Sacrament into it was Circumcision For the Covenant is call'd the Covenant of Circumcision Acts 7.8 and Circumcision on the other hand is call'd the Seal of the Righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 faith or faithful obedience being the condition of that Covenant which God requir'd of the Children of Abraham and which they promis'd to perform It also signify'd the Circumcision of the heart Deut. 10.16 and 30.6 Rom. 2.28 29. 4. As to the Persons to be admitted into the Covenant we have a very plain account at the institution of it Gen. 17. from whence it appears First that the Children of Heathens were to be circumcis'd See Exod. 12.48 49. which also proves that the Promise was made not to his Natural but to his Spiritual Children Hence in all Ages great numbers of Gentiles were admitted into the Jewish Church by Circumcision Secondly that persons of all Ages were to be Circumcis'd and that God was so far from excluding Children from Circumcision that he order'd that the Circumcision of them shou'd not be deferr'd beyond the 8th day God was pleas'd to be so gracious as to chuse the Children with their Parents and look upon them as holy upon their account This was ground enough for their Admission into the Church and for God to look upon them as Believers tho' they cou'd not make open profession of their faith The Faith and consent of the Father or the God-father and of the Congregation under which he was Circumcis'd was believ'd of Old by the Jews to be imputed to the Child as his own Faith and consent See Seld. De Jure lib. 2. c. 2. De Synedr lib. 1.
the Reading of the Lessons and hearing of the Sermon which too was only practis'd in some places for in others the People were not allow'd to sit at all in their Religious Assemblies Which Custom is still observ'd in most if not all the Eastern Churches at this day wherein there are no Seats erected or allow'd for the use of the People Now if the Apostles had Taught and Establish'd Sitting not only as convenient but as necessary to be us'd in order to worthy receiving the Lord's Supper 't is most strange and unaccountable 1. That there shou'd be such an early and universal revolt of the Primitive Church from the Doctrine and Constitutions of the Apostles 2. That so many Churches in distant Countries being perfectly Free and Independent one upon another shou'd unanimously conspire together to introduce a novel-custom contrary to the Apostolical Practice and Order and not only so but that 3. They shou'd censure the practice and injunctions of inspir'd Men as indecent and unfit to be follow'd and observ'd in the public Worship of God and all this without any Person 's taking notice or complaining or opposing either then or in the succeeding generations As for Standing in the time of Divine Service both at Prayers and at the Sacrament 't is so evident that the ancient Church did use it that I shall not endeavour to prove it and as for Kneeling 't is plain the Primitive Christians us'd that gesture also For tho' on Sundays and the Fifty daies between Easter and Whitsunday they observ'd Standing yet at other times they us'd the gesture of Kneeling at their public Devotions as appears from the authorities cited at the (m) Conc. 1. Nic. c. 20. Resp Quest inter Opera Just Mart. p. 468. Tertull. de Coron Mil. c. 3. Epiphan Expos fid Cath. p. 1105. Edit Par. St. Jer. Prol. com in Epist ad Eph. St. Aust Epist 119. ad Jan. c. 15. Tertull. de Orat. c. 3. bottom Now since they were wont in the first Ages of Christianity to receive the Holy Sacrament every day and since (n) See Tertull. Apol. c. 39. p. 47. St. Aust Epist 118. Const Apol. l. 2. c. 57. St. Chrysost Hom. 1. in c. 2. Ep. 1. ad Tim. St. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 5. Cave's Prim. Christ c. 11. St. Cyril Catech. Myst 5. St. Aust Resp ad Oros Quest 49. Tom. 4. p. 691. Basil 1541. Euseb Hist Eccles l. 6. c. 35. it was deliver'd and receiv'd with a Form of Prayer and that on those daies when they constantly Pray'd Kneeling and since it is probable that when they receiv'd the Sacrament they did not alter the Praying-posture of the day therefore I conclude that they receiv'd the Sacrament Kneeling upon those daies on which they Pray'd Kneeling For since Sitting was generally condemn'd as an indecent and irreverent gesture by the Primitive Church and since no Man in his Wits will say that Prostration or lying flat upon the ground was ever us'd in the act of receiving or ever fit to be so therefore the posture of receiving must be either standing or kneeling And from hence I gather that on their common and ordinary daies when there was no peculiar reason to invite or oblige them to Stand at the Sacrament in all likelihood they us'd Kneeling that is the ordinary posture They us'd one and the same posture viz. Standing both at their Prayers and at the Sacrament on the Lord's day and for Fifty daies after Easter contrary to what was usual at other times and why then shou'd any Man think they did not observe one and the same posture at all other times viz. that as at such times they did constantly Kneel at their Prayers so they did also constantly Kneel at the Sacrament which was given and receiv'd in a Prayer From the strength of these Premises I may promise my self thus much success that whosoever shall carefully weigh and peruse them with a teachable and unprejudiced mind shall find himself much more inclin'd to believe the Primitive Church us'd at some times to Kneel as we do at the Holy Communion than that they never did Kneel at all or that such a posture was never us'd or heard of but excluded from their Congregations as some great Advocates for Sitting have confidently proclaim'd it to the World But Secondly Suppose they never did Kneel as we do yet this is most certain that they receiv'd the Lord's Supper in an adoring posture which is the same thing and will sufficiently justify the present Practice of our Church as being agreeable to that of pure Antiquity For the proof of this numerous Testimonies both of Greek and Latin Fathers might be alledg'd but I will content my self and I hope the Reader too with a few of each sort which are so plain and express that he who will except against them will also with the same face and assurance except against the Whiteness of Snow and the Light of the Sun at Noon-day And first for the Greek Fathers let the Testimony of (o) St. Cyril Hierosol Mystag Catech. 5. versus finem Paris Edit p. 244. St. Cyril be heard than which nothing can be more plain and express to our purpose This holy Father in a place before cited gives Instructions to Communicants how to behave themselves when they approach the Lord's Table and that in the act of receiving both the Bread and the Wine At the receiving of the Cup he advises thus Approach saies he not rudely stretching forth thy hands but bowing thy self and in a posture of Worship and Adoration saying Amen To the same purpose (p) 24 Hom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 538. To. 9. Paris St. Chrysostom speaks in his Fourteenth Homily on the First Epistle to the Corinthians where he provokes and excites the Christians of his time to an awful and reverential deportment at the Holy Communion by the Example of the Wise Men who ador'd our Saviour in his Infancy after this manner This Body the Wise Men reverene'd even when it lay in the Manger and approaching thereunto worshipp'd it with fear and great trembling Let us therefore who are Citizens of Heaven imitate at least these Barbarians But thou seest this Body not in a Manger but on the Altar not held by a Woman but by the Priest c. Let us therefore stir up our selves and be horribly afraid and manifest a much greater Reverence than those Barbarians lest coming lightly and at a venture we heap fire on our Heads The same Father in another place expresly bids them to fall down and Communicate when the Table is made ready and the King himself there and in order to beget in their Minds great and awful Thoughts concerning that Holy and Mysterious Feast he further exhorts them (p) St. Chrys Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes in moral p. 1151. That when they saw the Chancel doors open then they shou'd suppose Heaven it self was unfolded from above and that the Angels
Jews were commanded to destroy Idols and the appurtenances of them Deut. 7.25 26. Is 20.22 because they were so prodigiously inclin'd to Idolatry yet surely the Dissenters will not say we must destroy all things that have been abus'd to superstitious uses for then we must destroy our Bells and Fonts and Churches Therefore as Mr. Calvin upon the Second Commandment saies We do not in the least scruple whether we may lawfully use those Temples Fonts and other Materials which have been heretofore abus'd to Idolatrous and Superstitious uses I acknowledge indeed that we ought to remove such things as seem to nourish Idolatry upon supposition that we our selves in opposing too evidently things in their own nature indifferent be not too superstitious It is equally superstitious to condemn things indifferent as unholy and to command them as if they were holy As for the example of Hezekiah's breaking in pieces the Brazen Serpent because the Children of Israel burnt Incense to it 2 Kings 18.4 it will not prove that whatsoever has been notoriously defil'd in Idolatrous or grosly Superstitious Services ought to be abolish'd and much less that the not abolishing some such things is a good ground for separation from the Church that neglects so to do For 1. The Brazen Serpent was not only defil'd but an Idol it self and that at the very time when it was destroy'd Nay it was worshipp'd by the generality of the People to those daies the Children of Israel did burn Incense unto it and there was little hope of their being reclaim'd while the Idol stood and moreover the use of it was ceas'd for which it was first erected Now without doubt Governours ought to take away those indifferent things which have been abus'd when the People are inclin'd to abuse them again at least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by any other means but then I deny that our Rites have been or are any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery Had Hezekiah suffer'd the Brazen Serpent still to stand no doubt private Persons who have no Authority to make public Reformations might lawfully have made use of it to put them in mind of and affect them with the wonderful mercy of God express'd by it to their Forefathers notwithstanding that many had formerly made an Idol of it and did so at that very time And much more might they have lawfully continu'd in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry nor do we read of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abus'd as it was by the generality 2. If Example were a good way of Arguing we find by Hezekiah's practice in other things he did not think it an indispensable Duty to abolish every thing that had been made use of to Idolatry if it did not prove an immediate snare at that time For as to the Temples which Solomon had erected for no other end but the Worship of false Gods 1 Kings 11.7 Hezekiah did not make it his business to destroy them as being in his time forlorn and neglected things of which no bad use was then made Altho' indeed King Josiah afterwards probably upon the increase of Idolatry and renew'd use of those places found it expedient to lay them wholly waste 2 Kings 23.13 Let not any says (d) De Vitand Superstitione Calvin think me so austere or bound up as to forbid a Christian without any exception to accommodate himself to the Papists in any Ceremony or Observance for it is not my purpose to condemn any thing but what is clearly evil and openly vicious III. I proceed now in the last place to shew that the Agreement between the Churches of England and Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawful This I shall evince in the chief particulars which our Dissenters take offence at First Then Episcopacy is so far from being an unlawful symbolizing with the Church of Rome that it is an Apostolical Institution and shall we allow the Pope so much power as to make that unlawful by his use which the Apostles and their Disciples have recommended to us by theirs Nay (e) Bez. Episcop du Moul. Past off Calv. Inst lib. 4. cap. 4. Sect. 2. Epist ad Reg. Pol. Beza P. du Moulin and Calvin grant that this was the Goverment of all Churches in the World from the Apostles times for about 1500 years together Nor do I know how the Dissenters will defend the Observation of the Lord's Day while they contend that Episcopacy cannot be concluded from the uninterrupted tradition of the Church from the Apostles times or how those that separate upon the account of Episcopacy can defend the lawfulness of Communicating with any Christian Church for about 1500 years together I shall add no more upon this point only I refer my Reader to Chillingworth's Institution of Episcopacy and Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of separation p. 244 c. Secondly Our symbolizing with the Church of Rome in having set Forms of Prayer is so far from being culpable that 't is highly commendable For herein we symbolize with the Primitive Church nor is any thing more expedient for the public Service of God as I have already shewn in the Third Chapter Now if the Papists nay if the Heathens us'd set Forms because it was the fittest way for the Service of God must we be forbidden to use them Because they did well are we therefore to do worse Thirdly Our Liturgy in particular do's not so much symbolize with the Roman Service as to cause a separation For tho' some Collects are taken out of the Mass-Book yet that is not enough to make them unlawful For then the Lord's Prayer the Psalms and a great part of the Scripture besides and the Creeds also must never be us'd I know it has been said that the Scriptures being of necessary use must be retain'd by us tho' the Church of Rome retains them but that there is not the same Reason for Forms which are not necessary and that in those we ought to go as far from that Church as we can But what reason is there for this For the danger that may happen to us in coming too near them lies in things wherein they do ill and not in things wherein they do well No Man can shew a good reason why those Passages in the Common-Prayer-Book which are to be found in the Mass-Book but which were us'd also by the Church before Romanism had corrupted it are not as much to be valu'd because they were once us'd by good Christians as to be run down because they have been since us'd by Superstitious and Idolatrous Men. If any Man wou'd set himself to expose the Mass-Book he wou'd I suppose lay hold upon nothing but the Corruptions that are in it and things that are obnoxious to just
according to it Thirdly therefore for the untying this great difficulty I say That the great thing to be attended to in this case of a Man's following a Mistaken Judgment is the faultiness or innocence of the mistake upon which he acts for according as this is so will his guilt in acting according to it be either greater or less or none at all If the mistake be such as an honest minded Man might make if he did his best to understand his duty and wanted means to know it better then we think him innocent and not properly guilty of any sin tho' the action is contrary to God's Law For no Man is obliged to do more than what is in his power to do and whatever a Man is not obliged to do it is no sin in him if he do it not Since he cou'd not understand better his mistake and acting according to his mistake are not sinful The only point is this whether the Man be to be blam'd for his erroneous Conscience or no. If the errour be not his own fault he doth not sin in acting according to it but if he had power and opportunities of informing his Conscience better and yet neglected so to do tho' it was his duty then the Man sins while he acts contrary to God's Law under the mistake and his sin is greater or less in proportion to his negligence Thus you see that God enables all Men to do their duty and that none lie under a necessity of sinning but those who wilfully embracing false Principles fall into sin whether they act according to their Conscience or against it Having now done with the Five Principles of my Discourse I proceed to my first intended business that is to speak to the Case of those that separate from the Communion of the Church of England upon this pretence That it is against their Conscience to join with us in it And that I may clear this point I shall do two things First I shall separate those who can plead Conscience for their Non-Conformity from those that cannot for a great many that pretend Conscience refuse Communion with us upon another Principle Secondly I shall enquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church First then that I may Distinguish the true Pretenders to Conscience from the false ones I shall lay down this proposition that no Man can justly plead Conscience for his separation from the Church of England or say that it is against his Conscience to join in Communion with it unless he is persuaded that he cannot Communicate with us without sinning against God in so doing For God's Law is the only Rule to judge whether an action be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent and Conscience is nothing else but a Man's judgment of an action whether it be a Duty or a Sin or indifferent by that Rule So that a Man cannot be bound in Conscience to do or forbear any action unless he is persuaded that God's Law has commanded or forbidden it and therefore no Man can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity unless he is persuaded that God's Law has forbidden him to join with us If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion directly sinful may notwithstanding think it his duty to join constantly with others for his greater Edification or the like cause I answer that my proposition still holds because he thinks that he is bound by God's Law to join with others which Law he must not break by leaving them to join with us Again If it be said that a Man who do's not think our Communion unlawful but only doubts of the lawfulness of it may justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity so long as his doubts remain I answer that if he thinks it a sin to do any thing with a doubting Conscience then he thinks that our Communion is forbidden by God so long as his doubts remain but if he do's not think it a sin to act with a doubting Conscience then it cannot go against his Conscience to join with us So that my proposition remains true that none can justly plead Conscience for Non-Conformity but those who think that they cannot join with us without sin Now since this proposition is so certainly true how many Men's pretences to Conscience for their separating from us are hereby cut off For First those that separate either because they have been disobliged by some Church-Man or to please a Relation or increase their Fortunes or procure or regain a Reputation or for any other worldly consideration cannot plead Conscience for separation Nor Secondly can those Lay-People who are resolv'd to hear their beloved Teachers in Conventicles since they cannot hear them in our Churches and who wou'd join with us if we wou'd suffer those Godly Men to Preach nor Thirdly those who dislike Forms of Prayer Ceremonies c. thinking them not convenient tho' they do not judge them to be sinful nor Fourthly those who separate upon the account of Edification or acquaintance with Persons of another persuasion or because many Godly Persons condemn our way all these I say cannot justly plead Conscience for their separation Because neither fancy nor example can be the Rule of any Man's Conscience but only the Law of God and therefore such Persons cannot justly plead Conscience because they do not think our Communion to be forbidden by God's Law Nor Fifthly can those plead Conscience for their separation who think that our Governours have encroach'd too much upon Christian Liberty and laid too much stress upon indifferent things for suppose the Governour 's be faulty in it yet the Conscience of the Subject is not concern'd so long as the things commanded do not interfere with any Law of God Nor Sixthly can those justly plead Conscience for their separation who can join with us sometimes both in Prayer and the Lord's Supper for if our Communion be sinful with what Conscience do they dare to join in it at all and if it be lawful once it is a duty alwaies But leaving these false pretenders I proceed to the case of those that can justly plead Conscience for their separation or who think it a sin to join with us for I shall consider the case of those that plead a doubting Conscience afterwards in a particular discourse Secondly therefore I shall inquire how far this Plea of Conscience when truly made will justify any Dissenter that continues in separation from the Church For there are many that say they wou'd join with us with all their hearts but they are really persuaded they cannot do it without sin For they think that it is against the command of Christ to use Forms of Prayer the Cross in Baptism kneeling at the Sacrament and the like And surely say they you wou'd not have us join in these practices which we verily believe to be sins They are so well satisfy'd in
men He that minds those Things most on which the Efficacy of his Prayers for Christ's sake do's Depend will not Need new Phrases every time to raise his Affections and the more a Man is concern'd about the Necessary Preparation for the Sacrament the less afraid will he be of offending God by Kneeling at it For he will find that True Religion consists in the Constant Practice of Holiness Righteousness and Charity which make a Man really Better and more Like to God 3. If Men were but really Willing to receive satisfaction this alone wou'd half conquer their Scruples but when they are fond of them and nourish them and will neither hear nor read what is to be said on the other side there can be but Little Hopes of recovering them to a Right Apprehension of things Wou'd they come once to distrust their own Judgments to suppose that they may perhaps be all this while mistaken wou'd they calmly and patiently hear faithfully and impartially consider what is said or written against them as eagerly seek for satisfaction as Men do for the cure of any Disease they are subject unto wou'd they I say thus diligently use all fit means and helps for the removal of their Scruples before they troubled the Church with them it wou'd not prove so very difficult a Task to convince and settle such teachable Minds When they have any Fear or Suspicion about their worldly concerns they presently repair to those who are best skill'd and most able to resolve them and in their judgment and determination they commonly acquiesce and satisfy themselves Has any Man a Scruple about his Estate whether it be firmly setled or he has a true legal Title to it The way he takes for satisfaction is to advise with Lawyers the most eminent for Knowledge and Honesty in their Profession If they agree in the same Opinion this is the greatest assurance he can have that it is right and safe Thus is it with one that doubts whether such a custom or practice be for his Health the opinion of known and experienc'd Physicians is the only proper means to determine him in such a Case The reason is the same here When any private Christian is troubled and perplex'd with Fears and Scruples that concern his Duty or the Worship of God he ought in the first place to have recourse to the public Guides and Ministers of Religion who are appointed by God and are best fitted to direct and conduct him I say to come to them not only to dispute with them and pertly to oppose them but with modesty to propound their doubts and meekly to receive Instruction humbly begging of God to open their Understandings that they may see and embrace the truth taking great care that no evil affection love of a Party or carnal Interest influence or byass their Judgments I do not by this desire Men to pin their Faith upon the Priest's Sleeve but only diligently to Attend to their Reasons and Arguments and to give some due Regard to their Authority For 't is not so Absurd as some may Imagine for the Common People to take upon Trust from their Lawful Teachers what they are not Competent Judges of themselves But the difficulty is how a private Christian shall govern himself when the very Ministers of Religion disagree By what Rule shall he chuse his Guide I answer 1. If a Man be tolerably able to Judge for himself let him impartially hear both sides and think it no Shame to Change his Mind when he sees good Reason for it Cou'd we thus prevail with the People diligently to examine the Merits of the cause our Church wou'd every day gain more Ground amongst all wise Men. For we care not how much Knowledge and Understanding our People have so they be but humble and modest with it nor do we desire Men to become our Proselytes any further than we give them good Scripture and Reason for it 2. As for those who are not capable of Judging they had better Depend on those Ministers who are Regularly and by the Laws of the Land set over them than on any other Teachers that they can chuse for themselves I speak now of these present Controversies about Forms and Ceremonies which are above the sphere of Common People not of such things as Concern the Salvation of all Men which are plain and evident to the Meanest Capacities When therefore in such Cases about which we cannot easily satisfy our selves we follow the Advice of the Authoriz'd Guides if they chance to Mislead us we have something to say for our selves our error is more Excusable as being occasion'd by those whose Judgment God commands us to respect but when we chuse Instructors according to our own Fancies if we then prove to be in the wrong and are betray'd into sin we may Thank our own Wantonness for it and are more severely Accountable for such mistakes Thus if a Sick Person shou'd miscarry under a Licens'd Physician he has this contentment that he us'd the wisest means for Recovery but if he will hearken only to Quacks and then grow worse and worse he must charge his own Folly as the Cause of his Ruin 4. We shou'd throughly consider what is the true Notion of Lawful and how it differs from what is Necessary and from what is Sinful That is necessary or our Duty which God has expresly commanded that is sinful which God has forbidden that is lawful which God has not by any Law obliging us either commanded or forbidden For Where there is no Law saith the Apostle there is no Transgression Rom. 4.15 There can be no Transgression but either omitting what the Law commands or doing what the Law forbids For instance If any Man can shew where Kneeling at the Sacrament is forbidden in Scripture and Sitting is requir'd where Praying by a Form is forbidden and Extempore Prayers are injoin'd then indeed the Dispute wou'd soon be at an end but if neither the one nor other can be found as most certainly they cannot then Kneeling at the Sacrament and reading Prayers out of a Book must be reckon'd amongst things lawful And then there is no need of scrupling them because they may be done without Sin Nay where they are requir'd by our Superiours it is our Duty to submit to them because it is our Duty to obey them in all lawful things This way of arguing is very plain and convincing and cannot be evaded but by giving another notion of lawful And therefore it is commonly said that nothing is lawful especially in the Worship of God which God himself has not prescrib'd and appointed or that has been abus'd to evil Purposes but having fully confuted these two Mistakes in the Second and Eighth Chapters I shall pass them over here 5. I desire those who Scruple to comply with our Church to consider that there never was nor ever will be any public Constitution that will be every way unexceptionable The
things perfectly indifferent is no indifferent thing and 't is infinite odds but if once they begin to change without necessity there will never be an end of changing But farther I desire you to consider that the most eminent even of your own Writers do flatly condemn your Separation from the Church of England For they acknowledge her to be a true Church and (b) See Burroughs 's Iren. p. 184. Vind. of Presb. Gov. Brinsly's Arraignm p. 16 31. Corbet 's Plea for Lay-Câ—m Newcomen 's Iren. Epist to the Read â—all's Tryal c. 7. Jeâ—uâ—baâ—l p. 28.30 Throughton's Apol. p. 107. Robinson of the Lawful of Hear p. ult hold that You are not to separate farther from a true Church than the things you separate for are unlawful or conceiv'd so to be that is they hold that you ought to go as far as you can and do what you lawfully may towards Communion with it They (c) See Tombes 's Theod. Answer to Pref. Sect. 23. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Brinsly 's Arraignm p. 50. Noyes 's Temple Meas p. 78. Owen 's Evangel Love p. 76. Cotton on the 1 Epist of John p. 156. Baxter's Cure dir 5. Vines on the Sacram. p. 239. Corbet 's Acc. of Sep. p. 103. Jerubbaâ—l p. 12. hold also that You are not to separate from a Church for unlawful things if the things accounted unlawful are not of so heinous a Nature as to unchurch a Church or are not impos'd as necessary Terms of Communion Nay they (d) See Brownists Confess art 36. Jenkin on Jude v. 19. Allen's Life p. 3. Engl. Remembrancer Serm. 4 14 16. Ball 's Tryal p. 74 c. 132 c. 159 c. 308. Platform of Discipl c. 14. sect 8. Hildersham on John Lect. 35 82. Brian 's Dwell with God p. 293 294. Bradshaw's Unreason of Sep. p. 103 104. Non-Conf no schismat p. 15. Cawdry 's Indep a great schism p. 192 195. Owen 's Evang. Love c. 3. Throughton 's Apol. p. 100. Vines on the Sacram. p. 242. Crofton's Hard way to Heaven p. 36. Noyes's Temp. Meas p. 78 89. Davenport's Reply p. 281. Cotton on 1 Epist of John p. 156. Calamy's Godly Man 's Ark Epist Ded. Allen 's Godly Man's Portion p. 122 127. Bâ—ins on Ephes 2.15 Contin Morn Exer. serm 16. Baxter's Cure dir 35. Def. of his Cure part 1. p. 47. part 2. p. 171. Burroughs 's Iren. c. 23. Morton 's Memorial p. 78 c. Blake's Vind. c. 31. Tombes's Theodul answer to Pref. Sect. 25. Conf. Savoy p. 12 13. Calamy's Door of Truth open'd p. 7. Corbet's N. C. Plea p. 6. Robinson 's Lawful of Hear p. 19 23. Nye's Case of great pres Use p. 10 16 18. produce several arguments to prove that Defects in Worship if not essential are no just reason for withdrawing from it 1. Because to break of Communion for such Defects wou'd be to look after a greater Perfection than this present state will admit of 2. Our Saviour and his Apostles did not separate from defective Churches 3. Christ doth still hold Communion with defective Churches and so ought we 4. To separate from such defective Churches wou'd destroy all Communion Nor 5. is it at all Warranted in scripture Nor 6. is it necessary because a Person may communicate in the Worship without partaking in those Corruptions Nay 7. they urge that 't is a duty to join with a defective Worship where we can have no better And as for our Injunctions in particular they (e) See Lett. Min. of Old-Engl p. 12 13. Bryan's Dwell with God p. 311. Troughton's Apol. c. 7. p. 68. Owen's Peace-Off p. 17. Misch of Impos Epist Ded. own them to be tolerable and what no Church is without more or less that they are not sufficient to hinder Communion and that they are but few Nay farther several of the old Non-Conformists zealously oppos'd Separation from the Church of England and join'd with it to their dying Day tho' they cou'd not conform as Ministers and several of the Modern Non-Conformists have written for Communion with it and have in print (f) See Baxter's Sacril Desert p. 75. Mr. J. Allen's Life p. 111. Collins's Doctr. of Schism p. 64. Lye's Reas Account c. Hickman's Bonas Vap. p. 113. Baxter's Plea for Peace p. 240. declar'd it to be their Duty and Practice But besides the Sentiments of your own Teachers there is greater Authority to be urged against you For in those things wherein you differ from us you are condemn'd by the Practice of the Whole Catholic Church for fifteen hundred Years together and surely this Consideration ought to prevail with Modest and Peaceable Men. This might afford a large field for Discourse but I shall only hint at a few Particulars 1. We desire you to produce an Instance of any setled Church that was without Episcopacy till Calvin's time The greatest Opposers of Episcopacy have been forced to grant that it obtain'd in the Church within a few Years after the Apostolic age and we are sure we can carry it higher even to the Apostles themselves There are but two Passages and both of them not till the latter end of the fourth Century that may seem to question Episcopal Authority That of (g) In Epist ad Tit. cap. 1. St. Jerom when improv'd to the utmost that it is capable of only intimates Episcopacy not to be of Apostolical Institution And very clear it is to those that are acquainted with St. Jerom's Writings that he often wrote in hast and did not always weigh things at the Beam and forgot at one time what he had said at another that many Expressions fell from him in the heat of Disputation according to the warmth and eagerness of his Temper and that he was particularly chased into this Assertion by the fierce opposition of the Deacons at Rome who began to Usurp upon and overtop the Presbyters which tempted him to magnify and extol their Place and Dignity as anciently equal to the Episcopal Office and as containing in it the common Rights and Privileges of Priesthood For at other times when he wrote with cooler thoughts about him he does plainly and frequently enough assert the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters and did himself constantly live in Communion with and Subjection to Bishops The other passage is that of Aerius who held indeed that a Bishop and a Presbyter differ'd nothing in Order Dignity or Power But he was led into this Error merely thro' Envy and Emulation being vext to see that his Companion Eustatbius had gotten the Bishoprick of Sebastia which himself had aim'd at This made him start aside and talk extravagantly but the Church immediately branded him for an Heretic and drove him and his Followers out of all Churches and from all Cities and Villages And Epiphanius who was his Cotemporary represents him as very little better than a Mad-man 2. We desire you to name any Church that did not constantly use Forms of
Prayer in public Worship but of this I have discours'd at large in the third Chapter 3. Shew us any Church that did not always observe festivals in Commemoration of Christ and his Saints 4. Name any one Church since the Apostles times that had not it's Rites and Ceremonies as many if not more in Number and as liable to Exception as those that we use Nay there are few things if any at all requir'd by us which were not in use in the best Ages of Christianity Nay farther I could easily (h) See Durel 's View of the Goverm c. and Spirit 's Cassend Anglic. p. 123 c. shew that most if not all the Usages of our Church are either practis'd in foreign Churches or at least allow'd of by the most Eminent and Learned Divines of the Reformation Consider also that Separation is the ready way to bring in Popery as Mr. Baxter (i) Defence p. 27 52. has prov'd The Church of England is the great Bulwark against Popery and therefore the Papists have us'd all possible Means to destroy it and particularly by Divisions They have attempted to pull it down by pretended Protestant hands and have made use of you to bring about their own designs In order hereunto they have upon all Occasions strenuously promoted the Separation and mixt themselves with you they have put on every Shape that they might the better follow the Common Outery against the Church as Popish and Antichristian spurring you on to call for a more pure and spiritual Way of Worship and to clamour for Liberty and Toleration as foreseeing that when they had subverted all Order and beaten you out of all sober Principles you must be necessitated at last to center in the Communion of the Romish Church This trade they began almost in the very infancy of the Reformation as appears by the (k) Foxes and Firebrands stories of Comin and Heath and no doubt they held on the same in succeeding Times as appears besides all other Instances by (l) See Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation Pref. p. 20 c. Bellarini's Letter concerning the best Way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon the Restoration of King Charles the II. For therein it was advis'd to foment Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops to asperse the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England and to represent it's Doctrine and Worship as coming too near the Church of Rome to second the factious in promoting an Indulgence and to endeavour that the Trade and Treasure of the Nation might be engross'd between themselves and other discontented Parties We know how restless and industrious the Romish Faction has ever been and the only visible security we have against the prevailing of it lies in the firm Union of Protestants And therefore I conjure you by all the kindness which you pretend for the Protestant Religion heartily to join in Communion with us For the Common Enemy waits all Opportunities and stands ready to enter at those breaches which you are Making You might condemn the Rashness of your own Counsels and lament it it may be when it wou'd be too late if you shou'd see Popery erected upon the ruins of that Church which you your selves had overthrown It wou'd be a sad addition to your Miseries if the Guilt and Shame of them too might be laid to your charge With what remorse wou'd you reflect upon it when the heat of your Passion was over if the Protestant Profession shou'd be farther endanger'd and the Agents of Rome get greater advantages daily by those Distractions which have been secretly managed by them but openly carried on and maintain'd by your selves With what face wou'd you look to see the Papists not only triumphing over you but mocking and deriding you for being so far impos'd upon by their Cunning as to be made the immediate instruments of your own Ruin Therefore I beseech you not to act as if you were prosecuting the Designs of the Conclave and proceed just as if you were govern'd by the Decrees of the pretended Infallible Chair You may be asham'd to look so much like Tools in the hands of the Jesuits when you suffer your selves to be guided by those Measures which they had taken and talk and do as they wou'd have you as if you were immediately inspir'd from Rome To these arguments I must add another which I hope will prevail with you viz. I cannot see how you can avoid being self-condemn'd if you continue in your Separation For certain it is that most of you have been at our Churches and receiv'd the Sacrament there and I am not willing to think that you acted against your Consciences or did it merely to secure a gainful Office or a place of Trust or to escape the Lash and Penalty of the Law These are Ends so very Vile and Sordid this is so horrible a Prostitution of the Holy Sacrament the most venerable Mystery of our Religion so deliberate a Way of sinning even in the most solemn act of Worship that I can hardly suspect any shou'd be guilty of it but Men of Profligate and Atheistical Minds But then why do's not the same Principle that brings you at one Time bring you at another Why can we never have your Company but when Punishment or Advantage prompts you to it We blame the Papists for dispensing with Oaths and receiving the Sacrament to serve a turn and to advance the Interest of their Cause but God forbid that so heavy a Charge shou'd ever lie at the Doors of Protestants and especially those who wou'd be thought most to abhor Popish practices and who wou'd take it ill to be accounted not to make as much if not more Conscience of their Waies than other Men. Now I beseech you to reason a little If our Communion be sinful why did you enter into it If it be lawful why do you forsake it Is it not that which the commands of Authority have ty'd upon you which Commands you are bound to submit to not only for Wrath but also for Conscience sake Are not the Peace and Unity of the Church things that ought greatly to sway with all Sober Humble and Considering Christians If it be possible saies the Apostle and as much as lies in you live peaceably with all men And shall Peace be broken only in the Church where it ought to be kept most intire And that by those who acknowledge it to be possible and within their Power Are you satisfy'd in your Conscience to join in Communion with us and will you not do it for the sake of the Church of God Will you refuse to do what is lawful and as the Case stands necessary in order to Peace only because Authority commands and has made it your Duty Let me intreat you as you love your dear Redeemer to do as much for the Peace of His Church as for a Vote or Office and to come to the Sacrament