pretend that God hath any where commanded us to pray by Forms and no otherwise So that then publick praying by Forms is not the only instituted publick Prayer 2. Nor Secondly do they pretend that all the Prayers we at any time offer unto him should be first composed into a Form Then some conceived free Prayer in Publick is our Duty or at least lawful But this our Casuist pleadeth for That God hath injoined some Forms to be used and offered up in Prayer Tho together with those Forms we grant there might be and doubtless were other Prayers to be offered up unto him This he proves p. 7. and to p. 19. of the Second Part. He instanceth in the Form of Blessing mentioned Numb 6.23 24 25 26. the Directions for Prayer forthe Expiation of Murther Deut. 21.7 8. and for the Prayer to be used at their Payment of their Third Year's Tythe the Prayers mentioned in the Psalms delivered to Asaph 1 Chron. 16.7 used in Hezekiah's Time 2 Chron. 29.30 and by Ezra chap. 3.10 11. and the Lord's Prayer upon which he enlargeth from p. 8. to p. 19. To all which so much hath been already said that nothing need be added See Mr. Cotton about the Lawfulness of Set Forms the Reasonable Account and Supplement c. But all these are indeed no Proof The Reason is Because what was lawful for God himself and Christ and Holy Men inspired by God by a Prophetical Spirit and imploied by him as David was to set his Temple-service in Order 2. Chron. 28.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. must not be concluded lawful for others and what might be lawfully complied with upon such Direction and indeed Divine Institution must not be concluded lawful to be complied with upon no such Direction or Divine Institution The Three first Instances produced by our Author are Forms instituted by God immediately the other by David imploied by God and made by his Spirit to understand his Will and the Pattern of his Temple-service The Last by Christ himself sent to erect a new way of Worship Not therefore to enter into any further Disputes 1. Whether Christ intended the Lords Prayer for a Form of Words or only a Direction for Matter if as a Form of Words it doth not agree with it self Matth. 6. Luke 11. the Words differ much in those Two Places whether for a constant Use or temporary Use are Things many Words have been spent about and I see no help but Men must opine as they please in the Case Our Author thinks that only Luke 11. it was prescribed as a Form of Words and truly it is probable if it were at all so prescribed but then those Words For thine is the Kingdom the Power and the Glory for ever Amen are no part of the Lord's Prayer for they are not in Luke at all but I say all this signifieth nothing for from Christs or the Apostles Acts is no Conclusion to justifie other Mens Acts without other Warrant of Precept c. and to this Answer to these Instances our Author cometh p. 19. for what he saith of the Lord's Prayer let Men judge as they please I know no sober Dissenter but will say it is their Duty to make the Matter of that Prayer the Matter of their Prayers and that they may use the Phrase or entire Form if they understand it as well as other Words of Scripture And if our Brethren judged that we should use that and none else we should have no other Liturgy for the Desk nor other Prayers in the Pulpit The Difference therefore about that is not worth mentioning and a Dispute about spelling this or thys That which we insist upon is that though Christ had Authority to prescribe a Form yet none else hath any Our Author saith very true p. 13. 1. That this Answer allows the prescribing Forms of Prayer to have in them no intrinsick Evil no contrariety to the Eternal Rules and dictates of right Reason 2. That the prescribing of Forms under the New Testament is good and useful This is expressed too indefinitely For nothing will follow but only That Christ's prescribing a Form was good and useful if we extend it further it must be upon this Principle That others have the same Authority to direct means of Worship that Christ had Now this will ask a great many Words to prove Christ had undoubted Authority to institute Acts and Means of Worship for and in his Church But how doth it appear that others have His very Apostles commissionated by him to settle the first Gospel Churches neither claimed nor practised any such Power 3. Thirdly He saith This Answer must also allow that God's prescribing Forms of Prayer by inspired Persons by his Son he should have said for we under the Gospel find no Forms of Publick Prayer prescribed by other inspired Persons is so far forth a warrant for our Imitation as the thing it self is good useful and imitable by us If God doth such or such a Thing because it is good and useful to some End that is sufficient warrant for us to do the same provided we have the same Reason for to imitate God is our Duty c. Here now is a great Fallacy Forms of Prayer in themselves are neither Good nor Evil God or Christ have not prescribed us any Forms because they are good and useful but because he hath prescribed them therefore they are good and 't is our Duty to use them if such a Prescription can be proved as Forms or the prescribing Forms hath in it or them no intrinsick Evil so neither hath it any intrinsick Goodness or suitableness to the Eternal Dictates or Rules of right Reason as our Author expounded it p. 19. It is very true we are bound to imitate God in any thing which he hath done because it is good and useful but not in such things which are made good only by his Command and Institution God instituted Acts of Worship which but for his institution had had no goodness in them Such were Sacrifices under the Old Testament The Two Sacraments under the New he directed Forms as means for the Celebration of both Sacraments Will it therefore follow that we may imitate God in making New Sacraments and New Forms But saith our Author Our Governours have the same Reason that God had viz. because they are useful What Christ's Reason was we cannot inquire so far as the Evangelist acquaints us with it it was to gratifie the Disciples desiring him to teach them to pray Luke 11.1 Indeed it is probable that our Saviour would not have gratified them if he had not known it had been useful for them But he never imposed upon them either never to use any other Words in Prayer nor yet always to use these Nor doth our Saviours Direction refer more to the Church than to the Family and the Closet besides what might be useful for some and at some times might not be useful
Hours Here is nothing else evidenced against him yet this was the whole Proof as recited by the Author of Foxes and Firebrands But it may be we shall meet with something afterward more Effectual Let us therefore proceed with the Story The aforesaid Author tells us that after this the Queen caused Commin to be called in and told him that If he would receive Orders and become of the Church of England he might otherwise he must not be permitted to Pray and Preach among Her Subjects How improbable a Story this is may be understood by any that understand that according to our English Discipline none once ordained by the Church of Rome is to be reordained and it is not likely the Queen would have put him more upon a Reordination than a Rebaptization His fault apparently was a Preaching without License and so much is imported by the Queens next Words if ever they were Hers. You have usurped over the Power both of Church and of State in doing contrary to the Order that We our Council and Parliament have agreed on unanimously by and with the Consent of the whole Clergy of my Realm Commin as the Tale is told desires Time to give the Queen an Answer The Queen requires Bond for his Appearance pretending other Examinations to be taken and Questions to be propounded How Preaching without Licence and Praying Two Hours in an Inn came to be a Council-Board Case deserveth thinking-Mens Deliberation for here is nothing else either confessed by him or objected or proved against him but not coming to the Prayers and not receiving ' the Sacrament for both which the Statute and Ecclesiastical Law was plain enough and in Cases where the Law hath provided the Council-Board useth not to concern themselves 〈…〉 The upshot of the Story is that one Bland and Twenty others were Commin's Security for his Appearance again at the Council-Table 12 April 1567. When they did appear but were put off till the next Day When as the Tale is told Commin did not appear his Bail was sent for but they were discharged being bound only for his Appearance 12 April when he did appear Commin if we may believe the Author of Foxes and Firebrands went away that Evening April 12. The same Author tells us p. 12. That Commin coming from the Council told his Followers that Her Majesty and the Council had acquitted him and that he was warned of God to go beyond the Sea to instruct the Protestants there and that ere long he would return to his Flock with better Success He told them that Spiritual Prayer was the chief Testimony of a true Protestant and that the fett Form in England was but the Mass Translated So after he had with a Multitude of Tears like a Crocodile first prayed an Ex tempore Prayer the better to prey upon the poor deluded People he took his leave of them telling he had not one Farthing to support him in his Journey yet being Gods Cause he would undertake it out of Charity and he was assured that the Lord would raise him up Friends where ever he travelled This Speech set most of the People on Weeping especially the Women who requested their Husbands to contribute towards his Necessities and it was made appear after his escape out of England that they Collected for him 130 l. besides what the compassionate Sex bestowed upon him unknown to their Husbands All this now is either True or False if it be all a Forgery and of the same Batch that the Letter which came out a little before this Pamphlet from the Jesuit in Paris to his Correspondent in London shewing the most Effectual Way to ruine the Government and Protestant Religion complain'd of in Parliament March 21 st 78. which the House of Commons was informed one Dr. Nelson was the Forger of March 26. 1679. and upon it that Day ordered him into Custody and for which he had upon his Knees a Reprimand May 2. 1679. it signifies nothing If any think it was true he should do well to consider how the Author of Foxes and Firecrands should know it to be so It is a Passage 116 Years Old and not likely as any will say that ever saw any Minutes of the Council-Board to be all entred there or so taken by the Secretary Cecil as to be so whole in his Papers It was not the product of any judicial Examination few I think will be so credulous as to believe such Romances Let us yet go on with the Story in the latter Part of which if any where must be the Proof of Commin's being a Popish Priest The Author of the Book aforesaid tells us there was no further Account of Commin till the 14. Sept. which was just five Months and no more from Commins going away Then One Baker factor of Queen 〈◊〉 for him a Shipmaster arrived at Portsmouth and told we know not who that he had seen Commin in the Low Countries and that coming to unlade some Goods at Amsterdam one Martin Van Daval a Merchant of that City hearing him talk of the said Commin told him that this Faithful Commin had been lately at Rome and that the Pope Pius Quintus had put him in Prison but that Commin writing to the Pope that he had something of Importance to communicate to him the Pope sent for him the next Day and assoon as he saw him said Sir I have heard how you have set forth me and my Predecessors among your Hereticks in England by reviling my Person and railing at my Church To whom Commin replied I confess my Lips have uttered that which my Heart never Thought but your Holiness little thinks I have done you a most consid erable Service notwithstanding I have spoken so much against you To which the Pope returned How in the Name of Iesus Mary and all the Saints hast thou done so Sir said Commin I Preached against set Forms of Prayer and I called the English Prayers English Mass and have perswaded several to pray spiritually and Ex tempore and this hath so much taken with the People that the Church of England is become as odious to that fort of People whom I instructed as Mass is to the Church of England and this will be a stumbling block to that Church while it is a Church upon which the Pope commended him and gave him a Reward of Two Thousand Ducats for his good Service Qui Bavium non odit amet tua Carmina Maevi Let those whom a Romance or notorious Forgery will tickle be pleased with this most inartificial One which hath as many Brands of such a thing as it is almost possible a Story should have 1. First Here is but five Months allowed for one to go in to Rome be there taken Notice of Imprisoned in the Inquisition delivered to come back into Holland for a Merchant in Holland to be informed of all these Transactions to tell them to a Ship-master unloading Goods for him again
Reason can be said is that they were the Counterfeit and had the Semblance and Appearance of so good a thing But then Fourthly Let it be considered That the Devils and wicked Mens counterfeiting the Inspirations of the Spirit of God and the spiritual Prayers of good Men is so far from being an Argument against the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and against the spiritual Prayers of good Men influenced by the Holy Spirit of Prayer that it is rather an Argument for them Just as there having been so many false and counterfeit Miracles in the World is an Argument that there really have been true Miracles and as there having been so much counterfeit Coin in England is a good Argument that there hath been and there is in it true and good Coin For if there had never been any thing of that Nature true and good Devils and ill Men would never have been at the Pains to make their Counterfeits Fifthly Consider That what ever might be the Design of the Devil in being the Author of such counterfeit delusive Inspirations which to be sure was no good one and what ever also might be the Design of our Casuist in objecting against us such counterfeit delusive Inspirations yet certain it is that in Truth and Reality it is no Reproach to the Holy Spirit of God that he suffers the Devil and his Instruments to counterfeit his Holy Inspirations no more than it is a Reproach to Gods Holy Angels and faithful Ministers that Satan transforms himself into an Angel of Light and that Satans Ministers also are transformed into the Ministers of Righteousness 2 Cor. 11.14 15. Consider Sixthly That the right Use which Men fearing God should make of the Instances of Diabolical Inspirations before-mentioned is not to reject the true Influences of the Holy Spirit in Prayer for fear of being imposed upon by the counterfeit Inspirations of Satan that would be as wise a Course as to throw away all Money good and bad for fear of being cheated with counterfeit Coin but to be upon our Guard and to try the Spirits 1 Thes. 5. 19 20 21. 1 Iohn 4.1 examining the Motions of the Spirit within us by the sure Rule of Gods written Word which even Cardinal Bona confesses to be a sufficient Rule to try Spirits by Cum Scriptum sit inquit lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum lumen semitisi meis sit que sacra Scriptura sicut Apostolus 2 Tim. 3 16. Divinitus inspirata utilis ad docendam ad erudiendum in Iustitia ut perfectus sit homo dei ad omne opus bonum instructus suffciens apparatus ad spirituum Discretionem in eâ â—rocul dubio reperitur Bona de discretione spirituum Edit Paris 1673. Cap. 5. p. 54. Without doubt saith the Cardinal there is in the Scripture sufficient means to discern Spirits by And withal we ought to be very modest humble holy and charitable exercising our selves to have always a Conscience void of offence toward God and toward Men. And if we do so God who is faithful will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able 1 Cor. 10.13 The infinitely Good Wife and Faithful God will not suffer any of his Faithful People to be invincibly tempted by Satanical Delusions God by his Word and Providence always furnishes his People with Means to discern Divine from Satanical Inspirations and Enthusiasms Otherwise if we could not discern the one from the other Divine Inspirations would be of no use but might be a Trap and a Snare to the Best of God's People which were Blasphemy to assert and is contrary to the daily Pattern of the Church of England which continually prays That God would cleanse the Thoughts of their Hearts by the Inspiration of his Holy Spirit And let any sober intelligent Man read the Life of Hacket and his two Prophets as it was written and published by Dr. Cousms no Friend but an Enemy to Dissenters and he may see that their Pretended-Inspired Prayers had the Devil's Mark imprinted upon them in Capital Letters I will mention but one such Mark It was usual with them in their Prayers to call upon God to confound them to destroy and damn them if what they said was not true and they were not Men extraordinarily and immediately called of God to reform the Church as they pretended to be By this one Mark it is easie for any Man of Sense to see and judge that certainly they were Melancholly to a Degree of Madness or that they were deluded by the Devil or that they were both one and t'other So much is sufficient for an Answer to our Casuist his Instances of Men Diabolically inspired as he says which should indeed make Christians watchful against the Stratagems of the Enemy of God and Men but should never so far fright them out of their Wits as to make them reject the true genuine Influences and Inspirations of God's Holy Spirit who helps our Infirmities in Prayer Rom. 8.26 If my Style in handling this Argument appear to any too severe I must beg their Pardon if I want a little Patience to hear the more-than-probable Effects of the Operations of the Holy and Blessed Spirit traduced for Iesuitical Inventions and the Effects of the Vnclean Spirit in such Cases Difficile est Satyram non Scribere I have been large in this Argument because it is new and all I expect to find new in the Discourses I am Animadverting upon In the other Parts I believe fewer Words will serve the turn The First Case which our Casuist undertakes to speak to P. 3. and so to the 26th is 1. Case Whether Praying in a Form of Words do not stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer I must confess I have always thought it no inconsiderable Argument prevailing with me to judge it unlawful for me ministring in Prayer to use the prescribed Forms of others because by doing it I must necessarily exclude what Influence or Assistance the Holy Spirit may give me in the Performance of that Holy Duty It is true this is done as to all the People that join with him that ministreth but that is quite another Species of Prayer We know it is the Will of God that as we sometimes should minister to our selves and to others in the Duty of Prayer so at other times we should only pray by Communion or joining with another in Prayer This is evidently God's Will as appears by the constant Practice recorded in Holy Writ Now if it be the Will of God that we should sometimes pray only mentally whilst one only useth Words in Prayer and if it be lawful here to shut out the Spirit 's Influence upon our Words when we are to use no Words but only to join our Amen to him that useth them it will not therefore follow that we may do it when we are our selves to use Words as to which the Holy Spirit may influence us And this is all the Unlawfulness
those Phrases so culpable 2. Nor it may be upon a strict Enquiry will it be found that in Publick there is more Nonsense in free Prayers than some make by their careless reading Forms I do not think our Casuist who hath sometimes used and doth still sometimes in the Pulpit use free Prayer so Chargeable and I have Reason to think there are some Hundreds of Ministers in England of whom it may be full as Charitably presumed 2. For this Second Sign I know no Error can be in a Man's declaring his own Opinions in Prayer if they be true I know no Man who prayeth by Forms or otherwise but must declare some of his own Opinions If he means by Opinions his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singular Opinions which are false it will only prove that he did aliquid humanum pati and was not influenced as to those Words by the Spirit of Truth 3. For his Third which he calls a Plain Sign That that which gives them the Reputation of being so that is from the Spirit is not so much the Matter as the way and manner of expressing them What gives them the Reputation amongst weak People of coming from the Spirit is one thing what indeed makes them so is another thing That which makes them so with others indiscernable being the secret Work of the Spirit upon the Heart bringing Scripture to remembrance and exciting and inflaming the Affections which cause the Thoughts to form Words which are by the Affections thrust out of the Lips all this is now a thing indiscernable to an Hearer who can only probably and charitably judge from the expressed Affections by Sighs and Groans and proper Expressions I know none makes the Spirit 's Influence upon our Words to respect the Matter of Prayer further than bringing to the Mind of him that prayeth Matter before prepared in Scripture fitted for his Circumstances at this or that time All his other Discourse under this Head hath nothing in it of Argument but is only Defamatory of any other Prayer than by Forms so far as he is able to defame it and proceeds wholly upon a Mistake of the Principle for the Spirit 's Influence doth not only respect the way and manner of expressing but as I have said the very Matter of Prayer it self for this or that time bringing to a Christian's Remembrance the true Matter of Prayer and what at that time is proper for a Christian. Nor can I imagine with what Consistency to himself our Casuist makes this a plain Sign of conceived Prayers not being inspired That that which gives them Reputation to be so is not so much the Matter as the manner and way of expressing them when himself alloweth all along the Spirit 's Influence to excite pious and devout Affections which certainly do not respect the Matter but the manner and the way and manner of expressing our Prayers Our Casuist trifleth too much in making the only Difference between Forms and Conceived Prayers to be 1. That the one is in Set Words the other in Extemporary Words 2. In the Largeness of them and repeating the same things over and over again Before he had wasted his Paper in confuting such Fooleries he should have heard us asserting them here Qui capit ille facit 4. His Fourth plain Sign is That that extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be inspired doth apparently proceed from Natural Causes Which neither he nor an Angel of Heaven can know nor any but he who knows the Heart and what Hand strikes those Strings of the Affections from the touching of which those Sounds proceed 2. How unreasonable is this for him to say who will allow the Holy Spirit no Influence but upon our Affections exciting and inflaming them 3. Suppose they do proceed from natural Causes why may not the Holy Spirit set those natural Causes on work All which being most certain there needs nothing be said to the further vain Philosophy he useth upon this Head Whether it be true or false is not of a Pin value as to the Cause in hand It may be from natural Causes and yet too from a first Cause setting them on Work None will say but the Holy Spirit makes use of natural Causes for spiritual Effects In his 21. p. he comes to a Fourth Argument to prove That the Gift of Inspiration of Prayer as he odly phraseth it doth not continue is Because then conceived Prayers must be Infallible and of equal Authority with the Word of God We are very unhappy that in these Debates we either will not or cannot understand one another Do we plead for any more than the Spirits helping our weak Memories in bringing to remembrance what Things are contrary to the Divine Law for the Matter of Confession and of what God hath declared in his Word he will give to them that ask him upon such Terms as he hath declared his Will for Matter of Petition and the Divine Promises for Arguments to inforce our Petitions c. So that if the Word of God be infallible that which is so brought to remembrance must certainly be so too and surely the Scripture must be of the same Authority with it self If we mistake in the Applications we father not our Mistakes on the Holy Spirit but beg Pardon for them This being rightly understood I refer to any Intelligent Reader what strength there is in this Argument more than in those we heard before Our Casuist having thus far given us his Opinion against the Continuance of that Influence of the Spirit upon us in Prayer which he called extraordinary comes p. 22. to favour us with his Opinion Wherein the ordinary influences of the Spirit consist relating to the Duty of Prayer He tells us it is In exciting in us the Graces and proper Affections of Prayer Such as Shame and Sorrow in the Confession of Sins a Sense of our need of Mercy and an hope surely he should have added also an intense Desire of obtaining it in our Supplications for Pardon c. In all this we most freely agree with him saving only in the Restriction of the Spirits influence to this only Nor can we possibly understand how the Spirit should thus influence our Affections and not our Words which are and ought to be thrust out by those Affections We will suppose a Soul to be guilty of wandring Thoughts in the Duty of Prayer a guilt common to all Persons and the Spirit who in the Word hath accused and condemned this to bring this to a Souls remembrance when it is praying or about to Pray and to excite in the Soul a shame and sorrow for it and inward Desire and Hope of Pardon for them Can this Soul be thus far in this Particular be influenced and not influenced as to Words also expressive of this Desire and Hope Our Casuist further tells us p. 32. That Words and Expressions are of no other Account with
in our own Hearts must necessarily more affect us than Words formed by others and are always attended in pious Souls with more of all those Affections the Exercise of which God requires than it is almost possible foreign Words should A Man cannot pronounce another Man's Oration with so much natural Life Vigour and Fervency as one himself hath composed and which is so fitted to his own Thoughts Now what should he that ministreth in Prayer attend to but his Business and the Work he is about Which is as much to utter Words expressive of his inward Shame and Sorrow and Hope and Desire as to be ashamed and sorrowful and to desire and hope Our Author p. 38. confesseth what none can possibly deny That he who prayeth by a Form being released from attending to the Invention of his Matter and Words his Mind is more at leisure to wander and instead of attending as he ought more closely to the Acts of Devotion by imploying those Thoughts which in conceived Prayer he employeth in Invention in a closer Attention to the Acts of Devotion he may if he please permit them to rove abroad but if he doth the Fault is in himself not in the Form he prayeth by He makes an ill use of a good thing To all which I reply That whether our Thoughts divert in Prayer to other Objects by Consent or from their own natural Wildness not being sent upon any Errand from the Will it must be confessed our Duty to use all lawful Means to keep them at home and to use no Means that shall give them further Scope and Liberty of Diversion Our Reverend Author grants That the Mind is more at Liberty to wander when it prayeth by a Form which is Argument enough to oblige us if we have an Ability to pray by conceived Prayer Our Author herein differeth from us for he saith the Fault is in our selves if our Thoughts do wander not in the Form Those Words the Fault is in himself may be taken in a double Sense either 1. The Fault is in the Will of Man which willeth them to wander 2. Or the Fault is in the Infirmity of Humane Nature which is such as they will wander if they have a Scope and Liberty Our Author thinks the former for he saith he may if he please permit them to rove But may he also if he please keep them from wandering and roving I do not believe there is that Man or Woman upon the Earth that can in truth say so upon his own Experience nay I much question whether any can say so who adds to willing the use of this Means praying by a free and conceived Prayer tho' it must be granted that he shall do it much better that way than any other The Fault therefore is in our selves that is in the common Infirmity of Humane Nature its Averseness and Awkwardness to Spiritual Imployment and the Contemplation of Spiritual Objects and Exercise of it self upon them and tho' it be such a Fault as will hardly be perfectly corrected whilst we are in the Flesh yet it is such as we may use Means to correct and in a good measure actually correct and praying by a conceived Prayer by our Author 's own Confession is one Means by which it may be corrected for he acknowledgeth that when we use Forms our Mind hath a greater Scope and Liberty to wander So that if free and conceived Prayer be what God hath not forbidden it is what he hath commanded where he hath given an Ability to it as a Means in order to this great End in the obtaining of which lieth much of the Life and Soul of Prayer for the Affections of a roving wandering Heart will be cold enough Thoughts of an Object being necessary to the Workings of the Affections about it and previously necessary But saith our Author p. 39. To invent the Words and Matter of Prayer is not to pray but to study a Prayer and till our Brethren have proved that our inventing the Matter and Words is a part of our Duty of Prayer which is the Question in debate betwixt us we can by no Means grant that our Attention to it is attending to the Duty of Prayer The Matter of all Prayer is already invented for us and prescribed to us in Holy Writ This our Author hath often already told us and we have agreed it The only thing to be premeditated and done is 1. To consider what of that Mutter of Prayer allowed and directed in the Word is proper for us under our Circumstances at the Time when we Pray 2. To form Words in our Hearts by which our Lips shall express the Desires of our Souls The first is and will be every good Christian's Work before he cometh to minister in Prayer and the Matter may vary every Day according to the various Contingencies to Persons and Families occasioned through the Wisdom of him that governeth the World and the daily Breakin gs out of Sin and Corruption occasioned through that Fountain of Lust in Man's Heart But yet can never be so well done through the unfaithfulness and slipperiness of our Memories but there will be room left for a Dabitur in hora the Spirit of God in the very time of our Prayer to bring to our Minds some Violations of the Divine Law we did not think of and some Wants which we had forgot 2. The Second needs no study or deliberation our Thoughts in a moment form Words when they are sensible of Wants The Beggar studieth not for Words to ask for Bread no more doth the Malefactor for Words to ask for his Life That Words are apart of perfect Prayer and of all Prayer where one ministreth to others in Prayer must not be denied and an essential part too for without them he cannot so pray So as he whose Thoughts are imployed in forming of Words whether to express his own Premeditations or present Impressions or Monitions cannot certainly be denied to have his Thoughts imployed about his Work in Prayer Our Casuist goes on p. 39. and saith It is pretended that conceived Prayer is more apt to fix the Minister's Attention in Prayer because he utters his Words in conceived Prayer immediately from his Affections by reason of which his Thoughts have not that Scope to wander as when he reads them out of a Book To which he answereth That if he hath devout Affections he may utter his Words as immediately from his Affections in a Form as in a conceived Prayer and therefore this Pretence is insignificant There is no doubt of this nor do I know who hath made this Pretence But the Question is Whether a Man can have the same devout Affections attending a Form of Words composed by another as he may have attending Words flowing from his own Heart as a Bullet taken up from the Ground and thrown by a Man's Hand is never so hot as one shot out from a Gun and heated with the Fire there
First kindled So I do think Experience will demonstrate that no Form of Prayer made without the Man and taken up into the Lips will so affect the Soul as Words formed within it and then thrust out of the Lips Our Author in the next place comes to answer the Arguments for conceived Prayers most raising the Minister's Intention that is of Affection he saith They pretend That in praying by a Form the Minister's Affections follow his Words whereas in conceived Prayer his Words follow his Affections As to this he saith 1. That it is a very curious Distinction 2. That he is not able to apprehend either what Foundation there is for it or how it it applicable to the Matter The Distinction is used both by Dr. Ames in his Cases and by Mr. Calderwood in his Altare Damascenum Men both of Learning Reason and Piety If our Casuist cannot apprehend the Foundation of it our Charity to them will oblige us not presently to conclude that it hath none and our Charity to our Author obligeth us if we can to help his Apprehension When our Souls are imployed about any Object it first discovereth that Imployment by Thoughts upon it which produce the Motions of the Affections according to the apprehended Nature of the Object which the Thoughts are so imployed about if the Object be something to be beg'd or pleaded for of or from another The Soul is presently forming Words for the Tongue in the use of which they shall beg it Do not the Words here follow the Affections And are they not thrust out by them as a Bullet is driven out of a Gun by the Powder first fired beneath it and affecting it In praying by Forms it is not possible that the Heart should be sutably affected by any inward Motion of the Soul forming the Words for the Lips for they are already formed for them So that all the Affection that can possibly attend them must either be raised 1. From a serious Premeditation of the Matter of those Forms or 2. From Post-Thoughts or Reflections upon them when they are uttered If the latter only then what is said is true in the use of Forms The Affections follow the Words and have no Work either in the forming of them or sending them forth As to the former It must not be denied but we may be affected with the Premeditation of the Matter in any Form as well as an Orator may be affected with the Matter of a Speech which he is to utter before he uttereth it though the Speech he made not by himself but by another But I beseech this Reverend Author to consider as in the presence of God 1. Quotus quisque est How few there are or are like to be found in the World who being to Pray only by Reading Forms doth take any considerable Pains with their own Hearts every Time they use them to affect them praeviously with the Matter of those Forms which if one doth not it must be true that his Affections only follow his Words 2. Suppose we could find one of many that did so whether it would be possible for him to raise his Affections to that degree upon such prepared Forms as when his own Thoughts form the Words which he is to utter 3. Besides this it is hardly possibly to be sure not ordinary for Men and Women to be equally affected with Shame and Sorrow for past Sins as for Sins newly and lately committed or to be equally intense with Desires for ordinary and common wants as for such wants as presently pinch us and press hard upon us as to which Forms cannot serve unless they be renewed every Day but as to this we shall have occasion more to speak when we come to its proper Place This is enough said to make the Distinction plain and intelligible But then Secondly saith our Author Suppose it were true that in conceived Prayer the Words follow the Affections and in a Form the Affections the Words how doth it from hence follow that conceived Prayer doth more intend and heighten the Affections then Forms What Reason can there be assign'd why those Acts of inward Affections should not be as intense and vigorous as those that go before them Suppose that there can no Reason be given which yet I think may yet this follows that whereas the Grace of Prayer and the very Life and Soul of it as our Author somewhere speaketh lieth much in the Holy Affections that attend it If the Affections only follow the Words the Prayer being done when the Words are once uttered that Prayer is put up without any such Holy and inflamed Affections Nor sure is Shame and Sorrow two of the Affections mentioned by our Author so properly Consequents to as Concomitants of the Act of Prayer Our Author goes on p. 42. But then Secondly it is pretended that the Minister cannot so well express his devout Affections in other Mens Words as in his own To which he Answers That the Ministers business in Publick Prayer is not to express the degrees and heighths of his Affections or to acquaint God of the particular and extraordinary fervencies of his own Soul for in Publick he prayeth as the Commonmouth of the Congregation and therefore he ought not to express to God in the Name of the People any matter that is peculiar to himself c. This now is what I cannot possibly understand To express our particular Affections and fervency is one thing and to Pray for any particular Matter peculiar to himself is another thing yet certainly the first is the Ministers Duty and the latter his Liberty if not his Duty also Let a Man be praying in Publick or Private or Secret certainly he ought to do it with the most fervent intense and raised Affections which he can Let the Matter of his Prayer be what it will or can still Affection must be an adjunct to an acceptable Prayer and the more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more raised and setting the Soul on Work it is the better it is or else St. Iames was mistaken Iames 5.26 Nor is it true that a Minister in Publick Prayer ought to confess no Sins but what the whole Congregation is guilty of nor to put up Petitions for any wants but what are the common wants of the whole Congregation The common Practice both of the present Church and the Church in all Ages confuteth this If this were true in vain were the desires of any particular Person or Family in vain their Papers desiring the Prayers of the Minister and Congregation for them in vain are we in Scripture commanded to Pray one for another to make Supplications for all Saints Eph. 6.18 If our Brother Sin not unto Death to Pray for him 1 John 5.16 And certainly the Minister hath the same Liberty and Priviledge that the meanest of the People have I cannot therefore conceive what our Author means by this who surely hath a Hundred Times prayed for some
things for particular Persons and Families which have not been needful for nor the wants and desires of all the Persons in the Congregation for themselves and their Families Our Author yet proceeds and tells us Thirdly and Lastly It is also pretended that in the use of Forms the Ministers Soul is so ingaged in directing his Eye to read that it cannot be so intensely affected with that he prayeth for In Answer to which he saith He leaveth the Reader to judge whether the recollecting of the Matter of Prayer the disposing of it into a due Method inventing of proper Phrases to express it neither of which are Acts of Prayer as he pretends he hath shewed before must not much more busie his Soul than the directing of his Eye to read The Reply is easie The Matter of Prayer is already directed and needs no inventing only a considering what is applicable to present Circumstances which is a work previous to Prayer the disposing it into a due Method is another imaginary Thing Confession Supplication and Thanksgiving are the Three Parts of Prayer which is put before another is nothing material though every one will without any Study know it is rational to put Confession of Sin before Supplication for Pardon The inventing of proper Phrases is another thing as imaginary for they are already invented being Scriptural Phrases or formed with as little Study as the hungry Begger need take for Words by which to ask a bit of Bread But the Souls looking through the Eye upon the Book to see what is there Printed then recollecting what it sees and forming the Words first in the Mind then uttering them by the Lips is surely a greater Diversion Besides that the meditating of the Matter of Prayer then forming the Words in the Heart are both of them as proper Acts relating to Prayer as the killing the Sacrifice the cleansing of it the laying on the Altar were Acts relating to the Sacrifice and therefore lawful and the Priests Duty as well as the burning of it but of this I have before spoken Our Casuist proceeds p. 44. It is pretended That Forms of Prayer deaden Peoples Affections by a more direct and immediate Influence because they still express the Matter of Prayer in the same Words whereas the very newness and variety of Words in which conceived Prayers are expressed doth naturally awaken and entertain their Minds and keep them more fixed and intent For Answer whereunto he saith Let us consider upon what it is that this novelty and variety of Expression doth keep our Minds so fixed and intent upon Is it upon the Matter of Prayer doubtless no. For that is generally the same especially the matter of Publick Prayer and therefore if it were that fixt our Minds it would as well do it in the same as in new and varied Expressions But if it be nothing but the newness of the Phrase it is expressed in that fixeth their Minds there is nothing in it but a meer surprize and amusement of their Fancies which instead of fixing their Minds doth unfix them from the internal Acts of Prayer and divert its Attention from the Devotion to the Oratory of it c. 1. To make this Experiment let the Author comprize the Matter of all Sermons in Six or Twelve Sermons which it may be were not impossible or as some have done in Fifty Two Sermons and never Preach no other in Forty or Fifty Years Time to his People and by that Time he hath preached them five or six Times ask his People whether they do generally hear him with that Attention and Intention as if he cloathed that Matter with new Phrase I do not believe that one of five Hundred would say so 2. But Secondly The Matter of Prayer is principally Petitions or Arguments to inforce those Petitions admit the Petitions or the Matter of them be always the same are the Arguments also Doth there any Form comprehend all the Arguments to implead Petitions which the Scripture warranteth to use though it commandeth not us to use them all at the same time nor it may be are they all so proper for one and the same Time or for Persons under some Circumstances as others So that by our Authors leave there may be new Matter of Prayer to draw out Attention and Intention 3. Thirdly Suppose there were not doth not the Holy Scripture express the Matter of the same Petitions by different Phrases Why may we not express it by these Phrases as well as those And yet Peoples Attention and Intention be upon the Matter of the Prayer and if varying of Phrases will help to it and the Wisdom of the Holy Ghost knowing this hath canonized a variety of Phrase how any can be restrained the use of that variety which God hath left us I cannot tell 4. The gingling tickling Oratory of Prayer is a thing Nonconformists abhor as a puerile pedantick Thing not worth any Mans Attention or Intention But the asking the same Things in other Words and those such as the Holy Ghost hath taught us in Holy Writ or such as are proper and expressive is what deserveth a better Name Nonconformists are a kind of Men that think that Meat good enough that is wholesome and nourishing enough and those Cloaths fine enough that cover enough and are warm enough little regarding as to the former the Turneps cut into several Figures and laid about the sides of the Dish nor yet what the Laces and Fringes of their Cloaths are or whether they be of the Spanish or French Fashion The like Judgment they make too of Sermons and Prayers They judge those Sermons the best that most instruct and affect the most intelligible and Scriptural and those Prayers best where the Things which God hath given us a Liberty to ask are most intelligibly and plainly asked and urged by Arguments that are most scriptural but they know the Holy Scripture hath a variety of Phrases and all of Equal Authority and Dignity equally canonized and expect that he who is a Teacher should be mighty in the Scriptures and bring to their Ears and Tastes out of that Store-house things new and old and are apt to think that he that doth it not hath made but a little entry into that blessed Store-house That de facto Novelty in Phrase doth most affect cannot be denied that it is not sinful is as evident and it is as certain That the same Matter may more affect in a Novelty of Phrase then in an old Stile Our Reverend Author cometh in the Last Place to shew us the Advantage which People have for their Devotion from Forms to which conceived Prayers cannot pretend He instanceth in Six from p. 46. to p. 55. 1. The First is That People may address themselves to Prayer with greater Preparation 2. The Second is That in joining with them the People may Pray with more Understanding then they can well be conceived to do in extemporary Prayer 3. A
Third is That they may join with them with much more Faith and Assurance 4. A Fourth is That they have much less in them to divert the Affections of the People from the Matter of Prayer 5. A Fifth is That they are more secured as to the decency and Solemnity of their Publick Worship 6. The Last is That in joining with them the People are more secured of the Reality and Sincerity of their own Devotions To all which in General there are several Things may be said 1. That all this is to be said as much for Prayers by a prescribed Form in the Pulpit as in the Desk and if there be any thing in these as to Prayers in the one Place it holds as strongly as to Prayers in the other That People may address themselves to join in those Prayers with greater Preparation and Pray with more Understanding More Faith and Assurance have less to divert them from the Matter of Prayer be more secured as to the decency and order of Publick Worship and People be more secured of the reality and sincerity of their Devotions Nay these Arguments will run home to a Mans Family and hold as strongly there Nay most of them will ascend up into his Closet after him three or four of them will hold as strongly there So as they serve to destroy all conceived Prayers 2. It is an amazing thing that if these Things were necessary and indeed such real Advantages to Peoples Devotion neither Solomon nor Moses nor Asa nor Hezekiah nor the Levites mentioned Nehemiah 9 that prayed that long Prayer should think of this mighty Help to the Peoples Devotion and give out Copies of their Prayer there mentioned to all the Congregation that they also might have addressed themselves to God with more Preparation and have prayed with more Vnderstanding and with more Faith and Assurance and have had their Affections less diverted from the Matter of Prayer and have had the decency and solemnity of their Publick Service more secured and have been more secured of the reality and sincerity of their Devotions they were all things as necessary then as they are now yet we have no mention of any such thing but this it seems is a new discovery reserved to the later Times or rather a new device to uphold the Necessity of Forms 3. If the Wise God had seen these Things so necessary for so great Ends we certainly should not have been without an Institution or at least some Declaration of the Will of God in the Case but we find nothing of that in any Part of Holy Writ 4. All these Things will signifie nothing if it prove impossible that he who ministreth in Prayer unto others should by Forms unless drawn for every Time he ministreth confess the Sins or put up Supplications for the good Things he ought to confess or put up Supplications for but this will fall under our Debate when we come to consider what our Author hath said to the Fourth Case stated by him 5. It is not what we fancy and think we can prove by our Reason to be a more apposite mean for the performance of a Duty that indeed is so But the mean must have a Divine Institution if it be not so naturally A Papist will Discourse bravely for the usefulness of a Crucifix to be set in our Eye to put us in Mind of what Christ hath suffered for us to incourage us to hope in the Mercy of God through him but yet it is a mean to be abhorred not used to speak more particularly to our Authors Six Things 1. Nonconformists know that they are to Pray intelligibly and not in bumbasted non-intelligible Phrases to the meanest of the People So as there is no such need of Preparation to understand Words and Phrases which are ordinarily such as are understood assoon as heard They detest such kind of Language in Prayer as Dr. Featly reflects on where the Minister spake to Christ under the Name of the Dolphin of Heaven such kind of stuff indeed had need have Time allowed the Hearers to understand Nonconformists would have all Prayers in such a Phrase as needs no Companion to the Temple to expound which they judge of no great significancy because he is not like to be a Companion to one of an Hundred 2. For the same Reason they see little in our Authors second pretended Advantage of Forms 3. There is as little in his Third Thing for nothing can Advantage Faith and Assurance but a Knowledge that the thing ask'd is what God hath promised to give which a Form will not instruct him in that doth not otherwise know it and if he otherwise know it it is needless as to any such Thing However I know of none but alloweth the Use of Forms for Instruction which if Men will Use they may easily know by examining Scripture what God hath willed Men to ask 4. For the Fourth Thing Men in praying ought to take Care not only that their Affections be not separated from the Matter of Prayer but that their Thoughts may not be separated from the Words by which that Matter is expressed Nor can I understand how the Affections should attend the Matter expressed if the Thoughts be out of the way of expressing or of Words by which it is expressed I am sure he who prayeth by Forms gives his Thoughts more Liberty to leave both than he who prayed depectore by Words formed in his own Breast whether there be any Soul so pious that it will not take it I cannot tell It is probable that the Souls of the most Will I am sure my own would and if the Thoughts be once separated the Affections in the Course of Nature will not stay behind 5. As to the Fifth If our Author means no more by Decency and Solemnity then gravity and expressiveness and the absence of what usually Men will call Rudeness who understand any thing of Religion he is a lamentable Minister that cannot so Pray without a Form and indeed aptior ad stivam fitter for some other Imployment If he means delicate Words Curt and comprehensive Exprehensions it may be such Prayers will be found not wrote after any Scriptural Copy unless that of the Lords Prayer which we rather judge a directory of Matter than a Copy of Words and hath always been so judged by the Church extending it in all Practice and never judging that enough either for the Desk or Pulpit 6. It will pose any to understand how People should more by Forms than by free Expressions be secured as to the reality and sincerity of their Devotions considering that to Devotion in Prayer is required not only Intention and Fervor of Affection but Attention of Thoughts also and the latter cannot be without the former especially if Forms give a greater Liberty to the roving of Thoughts and the Heart of Man be so bad that not one of many but will take it Thus much come our Author's Six
pretended Advantages to Devotion from Forms of Prayer to There are two eminent ones that it must want 1. One obvious Means to keep the Thoughts of him that prayeth from wandering And this is true both as to him that ministreth in Prayer and those who only pray the Thoughts of both have apparently a further Liberty to rove whether they will take it or no. Let every one speak from his own Experience and if they do differ in their Experience let it be considered whether their natural Temper doth not make the difference which is not a thing eligible but natural and upon that account necessary If the Ministers Thoughts be not attent he must speak Nonsense if the Peoples Thoughts be not they must say Amen to they know not what 2. A Second Advantage they must want is the Confession of renewed Sins and begging Pardon of them the making known of renewing Wants and giving Thanks for new Mercies which whether they ought to be the Matter of Confession Petition or Thanksgiving in Publick Prayer will fall under our Consideration in speaking to the next Case 3. To these two must be added That those who in Publick pray by Forms are tied up to those particular Opinions which the Composers of these Forms have which indeed is not an Evil falls upon the People that do not minister who may with-hold their Amen but yet by their Presence will appear to do what they indeed do not but it will fall heavy upon those that minister by them We have a plentiful Instance of this in the Popish Missal where their Idolatrous Opinions are mixed with their Prayers viz. That of the Invocation of Saints the Application of their Merits to us as well as their Heretical Opinions of Purgatory and departed Saints Intercession for us and the Merits of our own Works All which indeed are upon the Reformation left out of our Liturgy but may be put in again whenever we have Superiors of that Faith It is true in conceived Prayers the People are exposed to the same Danger as to their Ears but not the Person that ministreth and the People have a Power to with-hold their Amen and to complain of such as are guilty of such Errors But there is no complaining of Forms by Publick Authority confirmed Our Casuist saith truly p. 55. and 56. That Experience the best Judge in this Case is pleaded on both sides Some say they can keep their Thoughts most attent and their Affections most intense in praying by Forms others say the quite contrary But I do not think that our Reverend Casuist directeth the best way for reconciling these Experiences by endeavouring to perswade them That the Fault must lie in their Prejudice or Temper For it may be the Fault lieth on the other side in their customary Practices and Vsage or a not right understanding their Duty in Prayer but judging that it only lies in their saying Amen whether their Thoughts be kept attent to the Words and Matter of Prayer and their Affections intense yea or no If so the Cure must be wrought on the other side If our Author by his many good Christians meaneth many such as have an Ability to express their own and others Wants to God in Prayer and exercise that Ability in a daily Prayer with their Families and in their Closets I do very much doubt whether many such will say so at least I have not met with many such do say so If he meaneth others that have not attained to this Ability or Practice he ought to distinguish between a metaphysical Goodness and a moral Goodness and again betwixt the Degrees of moral Goodness We desire to speak Wisdom to those that are perfect and to all to strive after Perfection forgetting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things that are behind and pressing on to those things that are before and this is that which we wish even every Soul 's spiritual Perfection This is enough to have spoken to our Casuist's Three Cases handled in his First Part we now proceed to his Second which begins with this Case Case 3. Whether the common Cases and Wants of Christians can be so well expressed in one constant Form as in a conceived Prayer The Author hath a little perplexed this Case by putting in the Word Common the Question had been well enough without it Nor hath he sufficiently explain'd what he means by Common Cases and Wants whether he understands it with reference to Time and by Common understands Constant or with reference to Persons in which Sense Cases and Wants cannot be called Common unless all propound or have them We cannot therefore well speak to what this Reverend Author saith as to this Case without putting a previous Question viz. Quest. What and whose Cases or Wants the Minister is bound to represent or make known to God in the publick Congregations or Meetings of Christians I find our Author in part determining this Question P. 2. p. 2. Publick Prayers saith he ought not to descend to particular Cases and Necessities because they are the Prayers of the whole Congregation and therefore ought to comprehend no more than what is more or less every Man's Case and Necessity I take this to be a false and mistaken Hypothesis and the Reason given for it because they are the Prayers of the Congregation to be utterly insufficient for surely the whole Congregation is concerned in the true Wants and Welfare of every Member that they may rejoice with those that rejoice and weep with them that weep Rom. 12.15 otherwise they are not kindly affectionated one to another according to v. 10. And this is the declared Will of God Eph. 6.18 that there should be made Supplications for all Saints yea for all Men 1 Tim. 2.2 How are these Texts think we to be understood That Supplications should be made for all Saints so far as their Wants are all the same and no further Or that Prayers should be made for all Men as to those things that are the Common Wants of all Men but no further I would fain see one good Reason for this or one Text of Scripture to prove it It is true we cannot confess the Sins of particular Persons unless we know them nor put up Petitions for a Supply of the Wants of particular Persons unless we know them and tho' we do know them yet some particular Sins or Wants are not fit to be made the Matter of publick Confessions or publick Petitions But it is as true there are a multitude of other Sins which are not the Sins of all but of some particular Persons in Congregations and many other Wants which likewise are not the Wants of all the Congregation but of some particular Persons in them which may well enough be confessed and Pardon begged for and which we may well enough beg a Supply of and these ought to be made the Matter of a publick Prayer either upon the Pastor's Knowledge of them tho' the Sinner
for all and at all Times 2. Our Reverend Author p. 25. comes to his Second Thing promised viz. to shew That supposing it were true that nothing were to be admitted in the Worship of God but what hath a Divine Institution it equally concludes against conceived Prayer as against Forms His Answer is because God hath no where instituted conceived Prayer i. e. That Men in Prayer should Pray by Words first formed in their own Hearts We need no Institution for what Nature it self dictateth in any religious Act. All Institution of that Nature must be corrective not directive Institution indeed often correcteth our corrupt and imperfect Nature and so it is in this business of Prayer God hath commanded us to Pray It is Written in the Law of Nature that there is a God that this Supream Being being the first Cause and the first Mover must be the Author of all Good Hence it directs us Prayer for the good Things we want and Praise for good Things received Prayer is a making known of our wants to God God hath given us Sense and Reason to tell us what those wants are a Power to Will and desire a supply of them to form Words to be uttered by our Lips as expressive of them to help us to the better Knowledge of our wants he hath given us his Word if in that he hath given us any Forms of Words to be ordinarily used in that Duty we are to use them Others he hath left at Liberty under the more general Laws and Directions of his Word What need any Institution of what Nature it self directeth and teacheth We have indeed Reason to look for an Institution if we will correct this natural Course of Mans Soul of expressing its desires by Words formed in our own Thoughts we have Reason to look for a supersedeas from a Divine Institution any Forms instituted by God himself make up such an Institution corrective of the natural Motions and Inclinations of our Souls Which is a sufficient Answer to what our Author saith p. 25 26. I cannot apprehend what can be called Vocal Prayer but what is such from a natural Course and Order or from a Divine Institution Scriptural Forms if given and enjoined for ordinary Use are doubtless so by Divine Institution what can be so in a natural Course or Order but those which we call free and conceived Prayers I am yet to learn For what our Author saith of the Iews use of Forms it hath been abundantly spoken too Particularly in the Answer to Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies p. 232 233 234. Chronologers Account that the Iews were carried into the Captivity of Babylon about the Year of the World 3350. and came out thence about the Year 3420. after 3630. we have little Account of them they being in a miserable distracted State till Pompey conquered them about 3888. and in like manner under the Romans to the coming of Christ about the Year of the World 3947 how they were in Christs Time the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles tells us About the sixty fifth Year of Christ they were utterly destroied Philo is by Chronologers computed to have lived about Twenty five Years before the final Ruine of Hierusalem but our Author quotes him proving nothing but that the Priests were want to offer Prayers with their Sacrifices so they might and yet use no Forms For the Samaritane Chronicle which p. 27. he tells us of which mentions a Book wrote in the Year of the World 4713. which contained the Songs and Prayers also used before the Sacrifices Those who will give it any Credit may but the Year of the World 4713. was 760. and odd Years after Christ that was the pretended Time for its first Appearance to the World for it could not be Printed till above 1500. Years after Christ and this Book must give an Account of the Affairs of the Iewish Church before the Year 3360. which was more than a Thousand Years before that for who will regard what the Iews did after they came under the Power first of the Grecians then of the Romans I Appeal now to any reasonable Man who will give Credit to any Manuscript that wrote more than a Thousand Years after should pretend to give us Account of what was done in Ezra's Time or before the Iews were Captivated by the Grecians and Romans for admit the Iews when Tributaries to the Grecians or Romans did use Forms it is no imitable President especially when the New Testament gives us the Story of the Church at least Seventy Years of the Time and saith nothing of it For our Authors Quotation out of Iosephus about the Essenes besides that it signifies little what a Particular Sect did and a Sect that sprang up too after Christ's Time of which the Scripture saith nothing I say besides this if our Author knoweth how to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 better than certain Prayers which they received from their Ancestors the Translator of Iosephus into English will help him who translates it They made certain Vows and Prayers after the Custom of their Country which they might do without Forms I am not of our Author's Mind That there was not a more urgent Occasion for an express Prohibition of any Rite or Usage of the Iewish Church than praying by a Form For I believe there was no Reason for it at all because there was no such thing in use and if there had been any such Rite I know no Reason why either Iohn the Baptist should teach his Disciples to pray or why Christ's Disciples should beg of him to prescribe them a Form It should seem they had Forms enough Our Author in the next place P. 2. p. 29 30 c. comes to answer those Places of Scripture which Dissenters produce to prove it their Duty to pray free and conceived Prayers The first he instanceth in p. 29. Zech. 12.20 I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Hierusalem the spirit of grace and supplications I shall say little as to what our Author speaketh as to this Text because I am not concerned in other Mens forming the Argument from it The Spirit of Grace and Supplications signifieth either our own Spirit and then the Promise concerneth the fuller Effusion of the Spirit of Grace under the Gospel giving unto God's People generally more Gifts for his Service especially for Prayer or else it must be understood of the Spirit of God which is called the Spirit of Supplications because it particularly helpeth our Infirmities in that Duty Now whether this Infirmity respecteth only our Affections or our Memory and Vnderstanding bringing to our Remembrance Matters contained in Holy Writ according to the Promise Iohn 14.26 is the Question betwixt us and our Casuist Let it be interpreted which way it will it is all one to us If of the Third Person in the Trinity we say he ought not to be shut out we must give him a
Advertisement THere is lately Published A Letter of Advice to the Churches of the Nonconformists in the English Nation Endeavouring their Satisfaction in that Point Who are the True Church of England And now in the Press Short Animadversions upon Dr. Calamy's Discourse in the Conformists Cases against Dissenters concerning a scrupulous Conscience An Examination of Dr. Hascard's Discourse concerning Satisfaction wherein it is inquired How well the Author of the said Discourse hath proved That it is not lawful for a Man to go from his Parish Church to Meetings that he might better Edifie AN ANSWER TO Dr. SCOT's CASES AGAINST Dissenters CONCERNING Forms of Prayer AND The Fallacy of the Story of Commin plainly Discovered LONDON Printed for A. Baldwin at the Oxford-Arms in Warwick-Lane 1700. AN ANSWER TO Dr. SCOT's CASES of CONSCIENCE ABOUT Forms of Prayer IN the Question relating to Forms of Prayer agitated of late Years betwixt Learned Divines of several Perswasions Three Things are considerable which are no light Prejudices against their Opinion who have been so Zealous for them 1. The Difficulty of bringing them to State the Question right or to speak closely to it when so stated 1. Whether Forms of Prayer be lawful yea or no 2. Whether supposing them lawful they may be lawfully imposed on Ministers of the Gospel 3. Whether supposing they may be lawfully imposed on by some they may be lawfully imposed universally on all Ministers and by all Ministers used in their Publick Ministration 4. Whether People may join with Ministers using them Are Four distinct Questions The first of which is that I know of denied by none The last by none or very few The Author of the Book called A Reasonable Account why some pious Nonconforming Ministers in England Iudge it sinful for them to perform their Ministerial Acts in Publick solemn Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others Chap. 1. Stated the Question thus Whether it be lawful for Ministers having the Gift of Prayer ordinarily to perform their Ministerial Acts in Solemn Stated Publick Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer composed by other Men confessedly not divinely and immediately inspired although by Superiours required so to do His Learned Answerer confesseth That he had Stated the Question with sufficient plainness and clearness Let that then be taken for the true Question for we are concerned in no other 2. A Second considerable Prejudice is That those who have pleaded the lawfulness of the Vse of Forms have laid a great deal of more stress upon the inartificial Arguments drawn from Authority and Antiquity as they have pretended than upon any artificial Arguments drawn from the intrinsick Nature of the Action whereas one Scriptural or Artificial Argument is worth a Thousand others and till the lawfulness of an Action be proved no Argument from Authority commanding or Antiquity or present Usage approving can come into any Consideration at all it being most certain that no Authority of Man can oblige us contrary to the Will of God neither ought any Examples of Men to be produced as Temptations to move us to any Thing of that Nature 3. A Third is Their extravagant Zeal to load the Opinions contrary to theirs with odious Prejudices and Imputations Three of these I have taken more special Notice of in this Case 1. The First is great Impertinence and Nonsense and Rudeness to say no worse that are sometimes mingled with extempore Prayers so our Casuist phraseth it Part 2. pag. 14. 2. The Possibility that fluency of Expression may be from Diabolical Inspiration P. 2. pag 13. This our Casuist also hits upon I do not remember any higher Authority for this than that of Ravilliac Redivivus Since the Notion mightily pleased Dr. Falkner in his Vindication of Liturgies p. 41. Ravilliac produced only the Instance of Major Weier to prove what he said our Casuist hath found more 3. The Third is That these conceived Prayers were first brought in by Iesuits This also our Casuist hits upon P. 2. pa. 59 60. For the First of these I do not think it worth the while to say any Thing to it the Knowledge of the contrary to so many Thousands in London for Twenty Years together whiles hardly any others were publickly used and the Experience of Two or Three and Twenty Years since whiles the Forms have been used in Publick Temples yet others also have been used in the hearing of many Thousands is so eminent a Confutation of this as nothing need be added to say nothing of what hath been already said that Forms for the Desk will not prevent this unless we have some for the Pulpit and that for Sermons as well as Prayers and for Families c. and that as large an Experience hath shewed that a wandring Mind in a Minister will expose Forms to the like Absurdity of which Instances enough might be given besides that it is no small Imputation upon those who are intrusted to send out faithful and able Preachers that they send out such as cannot Pray without Impertinency Nonsense and Rudeness or Worse But the two latter have in them so much of falshood if not something much worse that it is necessary to vindicate free conceived Prayer from such black and odious Imputations fit for nothing but to make some prophane Persons matter for Discourse over a Pot of Ale or Pint of Wine I will begin with the latter first P. 59. Part 2. as to which our Casuist faith P. 59. Par. 2. That we should do well to consider who it was that first introduced it that is praying by conceived Prayer into England and set it up in Opposition to our Liturgy For First There was one faithful Commin a Dominican Frier who in the Ninth of Elizabeth to seduce the People from the Church thereby to serve the Ends of Popery began to Pray Ex tempore with such wonderful Zeal and Fervor that he deluded a great many simple People for which he was afterwards amply Rewarded by the Pope Vid. Foxes and Firebrands p. 7. P. 17. After him one Thomas Heath a Iesuit pursued the same Method exclaiming against our Liturgy and crying up Spiritual or Ex tempore Prayers thereby to divide the People from our Publick Worship telling the Bishop of Rochester by whom he was examined That he had been Six Years in England labouring to refine the Protestants and to take off all Smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer †Of which see more in the Preface of the learned Treatise The unreasonableness of Separation beginning p. 11. And I hope when our Brethren have well considered who it is they join with and whose Cause they advance while they thus decry our Liturgy and Cry up their own Ex tempore Prayers in the Room of it they will at last see Cause to retract a mistake which none but the Church of Rome will have cause to thank them for The Learned Author quoted by our Casuist in
Infirmities for we know not what we should pray for as we ought He gives his Spirit to his People they are joined to the Lord and one Spirit and his Spirit dwells in them as we often read in Scripture He hath promised that his Spirit shall bring to remembrance the things we have heard of him Joh. 14.26 But it may be he will say There is no Promise of Assistance as to Words in Prayer What should be the Meaning of that There is no Promise indeed of the Holy Spirit standing by and dictating to us what Words to speak nor yet of the Spirit 's so possessing us as the Evil Spirit doth a Demoniack so as to lay our Soules asleep while he useth our Tongue But there are Promises of his teaching us to cry Abba Father of his bringing to our remembrance what the Scripture hath of his making Intercession for us c. These are enough for us and to prove all that ordinary Assistance as to Words in Prayer which we plead for Nor doth our Casuist say any thing of Force to perswade us That such Influence and Assistance of the Spirit is not within the Latitude of the Promises in saying That there are many good Christians who would never pretend to any such Inspiration but are some of them beholden to their own Recollection and Invention for the Matter and Words of their Prayer and others for want of a sufficient Quickness of Invention to be beholding to Forms of Prayer of other Mens Composure P. 6. Now there are no such Blessings of the New Covenant to which good Christians may have no Right and Title and of which they may never actually partake which is utterly to destroy the Nature of the Covenant c. That there are no Blessings of the New Covenant to which every true Believer hath no Right or Title or which they may never actually partake of is most freely granted But that there are some Blessings of the New Covenant which every good Christian doth enjoy tho' he lieth under other Apprehensions and which he may have a Ius Remotum a Right and Title to which pro hic nunc he doth not actually enjoy and some Blessings of the Covenant which a Christian might enjoy if indeed he did not by his voluntary Fault deprive himself of the Benefit of them and some Blessings which a young Christian doth not at present enjoy must be denied by no Considerate Divine For who ever saith it must deny both the Quickening and Consolatory Influences of the Holy Spirit and many more also indeed for the Promises relating to Iustification and Regeneration as every Believer hath a Right to them so he actually partakes of them as he shall do of Eternal Life But for those Branches of the Covenant which concern further Grace or Gifts the Case is otherwise Every good Christian hath a Right and Title to the Spirit of Adoption teaching him to cry Abba Father influencing him in the manner I have opened as to Words in Prayer But yet it is very possible 1. That by his own voluntary Fault he may shut out these Influences by tying himself up to Forms of Words 2. He may want them through his own Default in not studying the Scriptures and gaining a full Knowledge of them 3. He may deprive himself of them by wilful Sinnings which may make the Holy Spirit withdraw himself in those arbitrary Manifestations 4. He may have them and not know it but take them to be meer Humane and Natural Recollections to which the Holy Spirit hath assisted by bringing to remembrance what Christ hath said Our Casuist's Second Reason p. 7. is Because there is no need of any such immediate Inspiration This indeed were it true were a great Argument and would Prove what he said before That there are no Promises of any such Tendency But how will he prove this He saith 1. As to the Matter of Prayer it is sufficiently revealed in Scripture 2. He saith For Words if we have not Quickness enough of Fancy and Invention to express our Wants and Desires in our own Words we may readily supply that Defect by Forms of other Mens Composure which with very short Additions and Variations of our own we may easily adapt to all our particular Cases and Circumstances This is the Summ of what he saith P. 2. p. 8 9. If the Matter of Prayer be sufficiently revealed in Holy Writ there neither is nor ever was since the Apostles Time any need of any extraordinary Assistance of the Spirit to dictate that But admitting this which we freely grant is there yet no need of the Spirit to bring to remembrance the things we have had of Christ's Our particular Violations of the Divine Law our particular Wants or the Promises warranting us to beg a Supply To assert no need of the Spirit 's Help we must not only assert the Perfection of the Rule of Prayer but the Perfection of an Human Memory too which I suppose our Casuist will not 2. As to Words our Casuist talks as if he thought we pleaded for the Spirit 's dictating formed Words to us or made use of our Tongues to speak Words not formed in our own Hearts What else doth he mean by Words immediately inspired Alas we mean no such thing but only a bringing into our Thoughts the Matter of Scripture relating to Things forbidden commanded promised c. From which our Souls by a natural Power form Words and warming and heating our Affections which also contribute to them and then thrust them out at our Lips as the Psalmist speaks Psal. 39. 3. Now how it can be that Forms should not shut out this Assistance and Influence poseth me to understand 3. Our Casuist's Third Reason is p. 9. Because there is no certain Sign nor Testimony of it amongst us By Signs as he expounds himself p. 10. he means Miracles He gives his Pretended Reason for this Because without such Signs to distinguish it from false Pretences we were better be without Inspiration than with it because we shall be left under an unavoidable Necessity either of admitting all Inspirations which pretend to be Divine or of rejecting all that are truly so According to this rate of Arguing we must conclude nothing to be the Effect of the Spirit of God but what we can confirm to be so by working some Miracle Alas how should Christians if this had a Grain of Truth in it ever be able to satisfie themselves that they truly believe in Christ or love or fear God or exercised or had any Habit of Grace God indeed gave the Gift of Miracles to confirm new Doctrines or some Prophecies or Persons extraordinary Missions But did ever any Divine make Miracles necessary to confirm every Manifestation of the Spirit And why are they necessary for this more than any other Is it not Sign enough to him who believeth the Scriptures to be the Word and Revealed Will of God that the Inspiration is from
God than as they signifie the Graces and Affections of our Hearts without which he regards them no more then the whistling of the Wind. All this is very true but what then Therefore saith our Casuist since these Affections are the main of our Prayer and Words are nothing in his account in Comparison with them can any Man be so vain as to imagine that those Affections will be ever a whit the less acceptable to him because they are presented in a Form of Words and not in extemporary Effusions To which I Answer truly no. But admit that the Holy Spirit to Day or to Morrow bring to our Mind from Scripture some Particular Sins as Matter of Confession which are not mentioned unless generally in the Form we are to use and excites in us a shame and sorrow for them and an earnest Desire or Hope for the Pardon of them and the Christian hath no Words in his Form expressive of such Shame Sorrow Desire or Hope how acceptable do we think will this Prayer be unto God which is but half a Prayer For though the Motions of the Affections be a part of Prayer yet it is not all Prayer and scarcely any where in Holy Writ call'd by that Name at least not in one Place of Forty where Prayer is mentioned As for the Senses which our Casuist puts upon those Texts Gal. 4.6 Rom. 8.15 26. Iude v. 20. He should have done well to have proved what he Dictates that they concern not our Words in Prayer we are quite otherwise minded and think that the Spirit may influence us with Sighs and Groans that cannot be fully uttered as no great Passions can yet may be in a great measure uttered and so uttered as to let those that hear them know they are imperfectly uttered which is often discern'd though not by Non-sense yet by abruptures of Phrase and Expression and the incoherence of them also sometimes In the next Place our Casuist comes to explain stinting and limiting the Spirit Where first he quarrels at the Phrase as being not found in Scripture nor Antiquity he saith It is a Term of Art invented by us applied only to the present Controversie and this plainly argueth the Argument to be New I dare say the Author cannot find the Term of Natural Enthusiasms or Inspiration in Scripture nor yet the new invented Notion of Diabolical Inspiration of Men to the Duty of Prayer in any Antiquity Yet our Casuist maketh no scruple to use them both why may not we have the same Liberty Nor do we apply it meerly to the present Case we are every whit as much against Forms of Sermons And what matters it if the Argument be new provided it be an Argument and be strong But neither is it new it is a great while ago since the Apostle commanded the Thessalonians saying 1 Thess. 5.19 Quench not the Spirit Now if the Spirit Kindleth and inflameth the Affections and they influence the Thoughts to form suitable Words and then the Tongue cannot utter them because it is tied up to some certain Words and Syllables I think it is quenched so far as it is capable that is its Operations are quenched and made to die in the Heart Nor doth our Casuist perfectly express our meaning in this Phrase of Limiting the Spirit for we by it do not so much mean hindring the Spirit from affording us some Assistance which we might otherwise expect from it As That we hinder our selves from making a due and perfect use of that Assistance which the Holy Spirit is ready to give us both by bringing Things to remembrance which we have forgot and also exciting and inflaming our Affections For though they may yet burn within us yet in the use of Forms they cannot as they ought to make up a perfect Prayer burst out at our Lips we must not speak with our Tongues as David Psalm 39.3 And this indeed may provoke God to withdraw these Assistances from us And now in Opposition to our Casuists Conclusion I also conclude I have shewed at large that there is an ordinary Assistance which the Holy Spirit giveth to conscientious Christians about to Pray or in Prayer 1. By bringing to remembrance the Matter of Prayer recorded in Holy Writ proper for this or that Time of Prayer both for matter of Confession Supplication and Thanksgiving which through the frailty of our Memories we often do not at that Time think of 2. By exciting and inflaming Holy and Pious Affections suited to every Part of that Duty Now by keeping our selves to forms we shut out these Influences of the Holy Spirit either rejecting them or not being able because restrained by Forms to make use of them as to a perfect Prayer What our Casuist hath said or any one can say to disprove this I refer to any Reader indued but with common Sense to Judge So much in Answer to what our Casuist hath said as to the first Case stated by him The Second followeth Case 2. Whether the use of Publick Forms be not a sinful neglect of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer Our Casuist hath here very rightly stated our Case thus p. 26. By the Gift of Prayer they mean an Ability to express our Minds to God in Prayer or to offer up our Desires and Affectito him in Words befitting the Matter of them Which Ability say they is given by God to his Ministers as a mean for Publick Prayer and in order to their being the Mouths of the Congregation to God to represent to him the common Cases and Necessities of the People And therefore since God say they hath given us this Gift it may be justly questioned whether we may lawfully omit the use of it by using Publick Forms of other Mens Composure In speaking to his Case our Author premiseth two Things and then laieth down four Conclusions all which I shall candidly examine in their Order 1. That this Case concerneth the Clergy only not the Laity That is true so far as concerneth Publick Prayer in Churches This Argument will not indeed conclude it sinful for Christians to join in Prayer with such Ministers as use pious and good Forms What others may do I cannot tell 2. He premiseth That this is not the Case of the Clergy of the Church of England who though they stand obliged to the constant use of the Liturgy yet are not hereby restrained from the Exercise of their own Abilities in Publick Prayer in their Pulpits I shall say nothing to the Case of these or these Clergy-men There hath been enough said as to this by the Author of the Reasonable Account p. 12 and 13. I therefore come to his Conclusions 1. He saith That this Ability to express in our own Words the common Devotions of our Congregations to God is either Natural or Acquired We will grant this without more Words about it It is partly Natural speaking is so partly Acquired to speak fitly and properly to God in Prayer is
Acquired 2. He saith That this Natural or Acquired Gift is no where appropriated by God to Prayer but left common to other uses and purposes Whether in Words of Scripture it be any where by God so appropriated is not worth the disputing if from the Nature of the Ability Gift or thing it self it be so appropriated which that it is I think is clear enough from the Description of it given by our Casuist p. 26. where he hath these Words By the Gift of Prayer they mean an Ability to express our Minds to God in Prayer or to offer up our Desires and Affections to him in Words befitting the Matter of them Nor hath our Casuist before contradicted this Notion now how it is possible that an Ability fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer can relate to any thing but Prayer I cannot understand if he had indeed in stating the Question or explicating it have denied this Notion there might have been some colour for this Assertion but now to tell us as he doth p. 30. That the Gift of Prayer is nothing but a freedom of Elocution or Vtterance is very impertinent But this is fully answered in the Reasonable Account p. 10. and again in the Answer to Dr. Falkners Vindication of Liturgies p. 36 37. but to add yet a little further The Question is Whether an Ability fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer be a Gift differing from the Lawyers Ability to plead well at the Bar or a Mans Ability to Discourse pertinently in good Company or a Schollars Ability to Dispute well in the Schools Our Casuist saith plainly they are but one and the same Gift 1. By our Casuists Ratiocination those also must be the same Gift with the Gift of Preaching which admitted it must necessarily follow that he who is able to plead a Case well at a Bar or to Discourse well in Company must be able also to Preach a good Sermon and to express himself fitly to God in Prayer Which besides that it would justifie the Socinian in telling the World That they have been a long Time troubled with a needless sort of Men called Preachers or Ministers is most demonstrably false there being some Thousands in the World that can Discourse well in Company and many Lawyers that can Plead very well at a Bar and several Schollars that can Dispute in Mood and Figure that if they were put to it to Pray and Preach in a Pulpit few would think they had a Gift that is an Ability for either 2. According to this Notion all Gods Gifts as to external Action might be reduced to the Gift of Motion All spiritual Habits to the one Gift of the Spirit but the Apostle speaks after another Rate 1 Cor. 12.4 Now there are diversity of Gifts but the same Spirit And tells ver 8. To one is given by the Spirit the Word of Wisdom to another the Word of Knowledge by the same Spirit Ver. 10. To another Prophecy to another the Interpretation of Tongues All these now flow from the same Spirit and are all Species indeed of the Gift of Vtterance but if the Apostle understood himself they were divers Gifts and by his Authority we must crave leave to call them so 3. Besides What can make or argue a Diversity of Gifts if a Diversity of Knowledge as the Foundation of their Exercise and a Diversity of End will not And with what Sense can two Gifts be made the same when it is demonstrable that every one who hath the one of them hath not the other nor any thing like it Neither is that true which our Casuist tells us and I admire to read him asserting what is contrary to all Mens Experience for he saith We find that those who have this Gift viz. of Prayer have it not only while they are speaking in Prayer but when they are speaking on their Occasions and that ordinarily they can express themselves to Men with the same Readiness and Fluency in Conversation as they can express their Minds to God in Prayer Either he means all such or only some such If he speaks of all it is most evidently false How many have we known that want no Words or proper Expressions in Prayer that in Worldly Affairs cannot speak to any purpose If he meaneth it of some only he speaketh true but nothing to the purpose for the same Man might in the Apostles Times have the Word of Wisdom and the Word of Knowledge and Prophecy and Interpretation of Tongues The Apostles doubtless had them all yet the Apostle determines them Diversity of Gifts I Cor. 12. 4 8 9 10. 3. In the Third Place he tells us That this Gift of Utterance not being appropriated by God to Prayer may upon just Reasons be as lawfully omitted in Prayer as in any other Use or Purpose it is designed for Here our Casuist supposeth that the Gift of Prayer is nothing but the Gift of Vtterance which we have disproved under the former Head 2. That the Gift of Prayer is not appropriated to Prayer which we have also disproved so as this Conclusion falls by the Fall of the two Pillars on which it is built only I must not omit what our Casuist hath here said excellently p. 31. I do confess had God any where appropriated it to the End of Prayer those who have it were obliged to use it to that End and to omit it ordinarily by confining themselves to Forms of other Mens indicting would be to neglect a Means of Prayer of God's special Appointment and Institution for had he any where intimated to us that he gave it us purely to inable us to pray without respect to any other End we could not have omitted the Use of it without crossing his Intention and frustrated him of the only End for which he intended it Here our Casuist hath spoke our Heart only we think that if this appears from the Nature of the Gift which is such as it is impossible to use it any other way it is the same thing as if he had told it us in so many Words in Scripture or by an Angel from Heaven Let it now be left to any Man of Sense to judge whether we have not proved this and that from our Casuist's own Words p. 26. where he accepts the Question as stated by us as well as from the Nature of the Gift it self being not Vtterance tho' a Species of it a Gift exercised from a different Species of Knowledge than other Gifts are that fall under Vtterance as the Genus and to a quite different End and not found in Thousands who have Utterance good enough in other things 4. Our Casuist's last Conclusion upon this Case is That to rend our Desires to God in other Mens Words is as much a Means of Prayer as to speak them in our own for to speak in our own Words is no otherwise a Means of Publick Prayer than as it serves to express to God
the common Cases and Necessities of the Congregation and if these may be as well expressed in other Mens Words as in our own the End of Publick Prayer is as effectually served by the one as the other p. 32. 1. In the first place It is not yet agreed that Reading in Prayer is that sacred Action which the Scripture any where calls Prayer This hath been argued in the Reasonable Account Chap. 7. and what is there said hath been vindicated Chap. 7. of the Answer to Dr. Falkner's Vindication So as that Point lieth not yet cleared 2. When we speak of Means referring to Divine and Sacred Actions we vainly philosophize in our measuring true Means from the Proportion we judge they have to the End If God either in Nature or in his Revealed Will hath directed any Means it is most certain that Means is to be used now that he hath so hath been proved in the Reasonable Account p. 6 7. and what hath been there said hath also been vindicated from Dr. Falkner's Exceptions to it in the Answer to his Vindication of Liturgies p. 39. 62 63 64. When what is there said hath received a just Answer there will need more Words in this Argument It hath also been told our Adversaries in this Point That the speaking of Words first formed in our own Hearts is not only a Divine Mean but Natural and Proper there can be nothing more natural than for the Tongue to speak out of the abundance of the heart nothing more proper to express our Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formed in our Heads than by our own Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and certainly any Means Divine Natural and Proper ought to have the Preference of others It is a kind of Force upon the Soul to make the Tongue speak what is not formed in the Heart 3. It is true if Forms were to be made new for every Publick Prayer it were not impossible but that the End of Prayer might be as well obtained by the use of other Mens Words as his that ministreth otherwise it is not possible The invariable Wants of a Congregation are very few Pardon of Sin and further Sanctification and upholding Habits of Grace bestowed are so But how many more Have not all Congregations renewed Sins Wants and Mercies 4. But to make this Business short Till what hath been said to prove That the Gifts of him that ministreth in the Duty of Prayer are the Means which God hath directed and given the Minister for that use and the most natural and proper Means imaginable for the Performance of the Act be answered we vainly discourse of other Means unless any Person hath not obtained this This is enough to have said as to what our Casuist hath spoken upon his Second Case The Third Case which our Author speaks to is Case 3. Whether the Use of Publick Forms of Prayer doth not deaden the Devotion of Prayer That which our Author here calleth the Devotion of Prayer the Nonconformists call The Attention of our own or others Thoughts or the Intension and Fervency of our own or others Spirits Our Reverend Casuist granteth p. 34. If Forms are in themselves and not through our Fault and erroneous Prejudice less apt to quicken and raise Devotion than conceived Prayers it will be granted on all hands that this is a good Argument against them Here then is an Issue joined The Medium is granted to be good if true Our Author propounds in order to the Trial of the Issue to consider 1. What those Advantages are which conceived Prayers pretend to 2. Whether they are not for the most part fantastical and imaginary and whether so far forth as they are Real they are not much more peculiar to Forms 3. Whether besides those Common Advantages Publick Forms have not peculiar Advantages which conceived Prayers cannot pretend unto If our Author rightly enumerateth the Advantages pretended by the Nonconformists and makes it good that they are but imaginary and fantastical for the most part and that what of them is real is more peculiar to Forms which is his Second Task and that besides those common Advantages Forms have real Advantages peculiar to them we must yield he hath won this Game But let us examine what he saith Only it must first be observed that the Nonconformists have acknowledged the Truth of this Proposition variable And that may be the best Means to one both of Attention of Mind and Intention of Affections which to another is not so Reasonable Account p. 44. § 27. It very much depends upon Mens having or not having an Ability to express theirs and others Wants to God in Prayer and the Degree in which they have it Our Casuist thus enumerateth the pretended Advantages that are in free conceived Prayers 1. Our Minds are kept more attentive to our Business 2. That the Minister is more affected 3. That the Affections of the People are raised by the Performance of the Minister 4. That in conceived Prayers the Words follow the Affections whereas when a Man prayeth by Forms his Affections if any must follow his Words 5. That Words formed in our own Hearts are more expressive of our Affections than it is possible Words formed by others should be 6. That the Soul can better direct its Affections to God whilst it hath nothing else to do than when it hath a previous Work to direct the Eye to read right This is the Substance of what our Author saith Nonconformists say in Proof of their Proposition and indeed it is a good Summary of what hath been said on this Argument Whether they be meerly imaginary or real Advantages of conceived Prayer that is the Question Our Casuist ingenuously granteth p. 36. That by expressing a serious and devout Affection the Minister doth really advantage the Devotion of the Congregation Which is the Third of those Things before-mentioned The first pretended Advantage he saith p. 37. is That the very conceiving the Matter of his Prayer doth naturally more bind his Attention than the reading it out of a Form This is undeniable and granted by our Author But he goes on But I beseech you what doth it more bind his Attention to Is it to attend to the Words and Phrases If so then it is not to attend to the Acts of Prayer Or is it to attend to those Acts which are the proper Business of Prayer such as being ashamed of Sin and bewailing of it in Confession c. I answer It bindeth the Thoughts of a Man praying to his Business and to one principal Act of Prayer that is the uttering of the Desires of his Heart in fit Words This Answer of our Author depends upon this mistaken Hypothesis That the uttering of fit precatory Words without Lips is no part of Prayer whereas it is an essential part of perfect vocal Prayer And we scarcely read of any thing else called by the Name of Prayer in Holy Writ Which Words being first formed
doth not desire them or upon such Persons Desire It was in a publick Assembly and Prayer that Ezra confessed and bewailed the Sins of those that had married strange Wives Ezra 9.12 13 14. For v. 4. They were assembled all them that trembled at the words of the Lord God of Israel yet that Sin was not the common Sin of all the People Ezra 10. they are numbred and it appears they were but 100 Priests 17 Levites 6 1 Singer 3 Porters and 73 Israelites who may be called Laicks He who consulteth Ezra 1. will find the whole Number was v. 64. 42360. besides 7337 Servants the Priests alone were above 4000 v. 36 37 38 39. and these were but the first Companies came out So that it seems that excellent Scribe thought that in publick Prayers Confession was to be made of other Sins than what were the Sins of every Individual of the Congregation More Instances might be given but this is enough Besides that our Saviour's Prayer upon the Cross was publick enough Father forgive them for they know not what they do yet he knew that all there present were not guilty of crucifying him The like might be said of Stephen's Prayer Acts 7.60 So that this new Notion is quite contrary both to the Practice in the Old Testament and New 2. Secondly It must necessarily deprive all private Christians of the Benefit of publick Prayers in all their particular Distresses whether respecting their outward or inward Man and leaves them only to Family and Closet-Prayer of their Friends and to what Prayers they can make for themselves 3. It is directly contrary to the Apprehension of the Generality of Christians who have used to send to their Ministers to pray for them in the publick Congregation and to the Practice both of our Church and I believe all others 4. Whoso looks into Scripture will find that the Ministers of God never thought it enough in the Case to make general Confessions of Sin or general Requests for good things or to give Thanks for Mercies in general but have descended to particular Confessions of the particular Sin regnant or committed lately and to particular Petitions for specifical Mercies and to particular Mercies in their Thanksgivings 5. Our Author p. 5. of P. 2. hath given us a good Account of such things as are the common Wants of all Persons and at all Times viz. 1. Forgiveness of Sin Peace of Conscience the giving or preserving of it the Assistance of Divine Grace to deliver us from the Power of Sin and Satan and make us meet to be Partakers of the Saints in Light Redemption from Death and Hell Protection and Success in all our Honest Concerns and Vndertakings the Daily Supply of our Bodily Wants and Necessities and in general the Preservation and Direction of our Governours the Peace and Welfare of our Native Country the Prosperity of the Church the Propagation of the Gospel and the Success of its Ministers in the Work of the Lord. Our Reader must also remember how much our Author hath reflected upon conceived Prayers for having in them the same things over and over again Part. 2. p 17 18. as contrary to the Order of our Saviour who expresly forbids us vain Repetitions Matt. 6. 7 8. Now unless this be only Faulty in conceived Prayers not in Forms also and we ought in Publick only to pray for things which a whole Congregation in common wants and to confess Sins which a whole Congregation not some Persons only in it are guilty of one single Collect is enough Here are but eleven or twelve Lines made comprehensive of all this nor must any particular Confession of Sin be made but only in the general That we have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God for there are few Sins that every individual Person in a Congregation is guilty of 6. Supposing that none but the same Sins and those the Sins of the whole Congregation ought to be in publick Prayer confessed and none but the same good things and those such as are the Wants of the whole Congregation ought to be petitioned for yet neither are such Sins nor such Wants always the same much less such Mercies as refer to a whole Congregation God's Mercies to Congregations as well as Persons are new every Morning So as the same Forms will not serve 7. I therefore conclude That altho' this be the best Argument I know can be brought for the constant Use of a stated Form of Words in Prayer if it could be maintained yet the Hypothesis is in no degree true and the Argument built upon it must needs be very weak supposing what is far from Truth Prayer is the Communion of the Church wherein the Members of it are not only to confess their joint Sins but the particular Sins tho' not all the particular Sins of which some may not be sit for publick Notice of each Member or any Number of Members and to beg not only a Supply of such things as they all want but as any Member of their Body or Number of their Members are guilty of and known to be so or stand in need of This is enough to have spoken to the first thing said by our Author as to this first Case 2. He tells us Secondly That such Alterations of the common Cases of Christian Churches as could not be foreseen and provided for at the first Forming of their Liturgies may for the most part be provided for in new Forms To which I say 1. That this proceedeth upon the former Supposition That no Sins are to be confess'd in publick Prayers but such as are the common Sins of the Congregation no good things to be begg'd but such as all Persons in the Congregation want no Thanksgigivings to be made but for Mercies affecting the whole Congregation which is not true and contrary to all Reason and Practice as I have already shewed and therefore I need not here inlarge again on that Discourse But supposing what I have before proved That the more notorious and publickly-noticed Sins of any Member or Number of Members in Congregations such as Swearing Cursing Drunkenness noted Vncleanness c. are Matters of publick Confessions and the Wants of any Member or Number of Members in a Congregation known to the Minister and better part of the People are Matter of publick Petition and any noted Deliverance or Mercy bestowed on any Member or any Number of Members of a Congregation is also Matter of publick Thanksgiving These are so frequently renewing so often varying that our Casuist could hardly have said New Forms were likely to be made sufficient for them and proper to them Especially considering Publick Forms are not ordinarily made by the respective Ministers of Congregations who alone by watching over his Flock is like to know its State 2. Secondly There may be and ordinarily is so great a Variety in the State of particular Congregations as to Sins Wants and Mercies that it
is not reasonable to imagine that Forms enough should be made suited to each Congregation So as our Author must assert that no Sins ought to be confessed publickly but the Sins that are common to all Christians no Mercies to be begged but what all Christians need no Mercies to be given Thanks for but such as all Christians receive or at least all within the Compass of those Churches to whom those Forms are to extend or his Second Conclusion will not hold 3. His Third Conclusion is but for a Quousque viz. That supposing such Provision for extraordinary Cases cannot be made in the publick Forms yet that is no Argument why it should not be used so far forth as it comprehendeth the Main of the common Cases of the People This indeed is true against such an Use this Argument doth not conclude but it doth not follow but some others may 4. The last thing our Author saith That the Defect of such new Provision may be supplied by the Minister in a publick Prayer of his own May may be here understood as referring to Naturally or Legally Of the first there is no doubt for the second our Author saith no more than that our Church allows or at least permits Ministers so to do As to this I have spoken before and it may be if it be inquired into it will be found that within these Twenty Years it would neither be allowed nor permitted in some Diocess Besides that Permission is the same with Connivance or Indulgence which is a very uncertain thing until it be established by an Act of Parliament Besides that many Ministers will not allow themselves any such thing the Reason of which doubtless is because they have at least an Apprehension that no such thing is allowed by the Law Whether it be or no I shall not dispute Our Author proceedeth to his Fifth Case Case 5. Whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer in Scripture or pure Antiquity I dare say there is hardly one Dissenter of any Judgment that will not readily grant there is tho' some of them very much doubt whether there be any Warrant for Forms of Prayer to be universally imposed or used in Prayer By Warrant our Learned Author saith right must be meant some positive Command or allowed Example I cannot tell who it is that hath affirmed That nothing ought to be used in the Worship of God but what is commanded by him Whosoever hath so said hath spoken crudely and rashly and himself if he understand himself will at the next Breath grant That Pulpits and Pews Seats and Cushions and Habits of Cloaths not entailed to Worship only and many things more may be used in the Worship of God which God hath not particularly and in Specie commanded These things indeed Dissenters will say 1. That God may be worshipped by no Act but what himself hath directed because no other Act can be an Act of Obedience to him and where there is no Obedience there can be no Homage paid to God And here both Conformists and Nonconformists are I suppose fully agreed 2. That no Means by which any Act of Worship shall be performed may be used which God hath not directed either by the Light or Law of Nature or by a positive Institution in his Word Their Reason is Because the Law of God extendeth to the Means as well as to the Act nor hath God directed any Act of Worship or Homage to him but he hath also either by the Light or Law of Nature or by some part of his Revealed Will directed sufficient Means for the Performance of that Act which every obedient Christian is bound to observe use and prefer particularly as to Prayer they say the Act is directed both by the Light of Nature whence it is that the Heathens prayed and directed dies Supplicationem to the Divine Being and also by Scripture and his revealed Will which rectified the Light of Nature and hath taught us as to the Object that Prayer is to be directed to the Only True God and many things as to the manner of Performance viz. That it be directed to the Father in the Name of Christ and with the Spirit and for things only which are according to the revealed Will of God and under such Limitations as the Scripture hath directed 3. That even the Light of Nature as well as Scripture hath not only directed Men and Women to pray but to use Words in Prayer They are the Calves of our Lips the Homage of our Tongues unto God and whereas Prayer is the Expression of our Wants and Desires unto him who is able to supply them tho' God indeed understands the first Motions of our Souls in Desires yet these without Words are not what the Scripture ordinarily calls Prayer nor what Men have ordinarily called so 4. That God hath not directed the Words which we should use at all times tho' he hath directed some Words and Forms of Words which we may use but hath left us at Liberty to use what Words we please expressive of the Matter of Prayer directed in Holy Writ and this could be no otherwise the same Matter not serving us at all times and consequently not the same Words 5. That our Words are as the Philosopher expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inward and outward Our internal Words are our Thoughts our Hearts being our Shops wherein the Words of our Lips are first forged or formed Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh saith our Saviour While I was musing saith David Psal. 39.3 the fire burned then spake I with my tongue 6. That as we best know our own Wants so our own Hearts can best form Words by which our Lips shall express and utter them So as the forming of Words expressive of our own Wants and Desires in our own Hearts is the most natural and proper Means of Prayer and Divine because most Natural and not restrained by any par tof the Divine Rule 7. Lastly They think that nothing but a plain Divine Revelation of the Will of God as to the use of another Mean can excuse them from the use of a Mean that is proper and most natural for the End So as they think there must be something in Scripture either in a Command or something which hath the Force of a Command as universal Example hath which must justifie their ordinary use of Forms of Words not first formed in their own Hearts to express their Wants and Desires to God in Prayer This is all I think that Dissenters will say in this Case Let us now hear what our Reverend Casuist opposeth to this He will prove as he tells us P. 2. p. 6. 1. That supposing this were true yet it doth not conclude against Forms 2. That supposing it did conclude against the Use of Forms it equally concludes against conceived Prayer As to the First he saith 1. That they do not
Liberty so to bring to our Remembrance and thus this Text is reducible to the first Case propounded by our Author Or let it be interpreted as to the Spirit of a Man under the Gospel renewed and sanctified so it relates to our Author's Second Case and enough hath been spoken to each of them We ought not so to pray if we be able to do otherwise as to exclude the former nor yet so as to omit our own Gift which is the Effect of the Spirit which is all we contend for For all that our Author saith about the Word in the Hebrew used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether it sometimes signifie Prayer in the general signifieth nothing as to the Argument especially considering that if by the Terms of Praying and Prayer c. be thrice in Scripture signified meerly mental Prayer yet vocal Prayer is for those three times forty times understood and I believe it is not capable of Proof that meerly mental Prayer is thrice called Prayer For his next Texts 1 Cor. 1.5 2 Cor. 8.7 I know of none that hath pleaded that the Gift of Vtterance is to be restrained to Prayer for my own part I always thought it respected Preaching as well as Prayer but that it is to be understood and limited to extraordinary Gifts is what I cannot yield For what is the Gift of Utterance but an Ability to utter which certainly is applicable as well to the utterance of our Minds to God in Prayer as of God's Mind to us in the interpreting or applying of God's Will to us and let our Author prove the contrary if he can These extraordinary Gifts were certainly not so common as that of Vtterance which seems to have been the Portion of the whole Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1.5 And by 2 Cor. 8.7 it appeareth no more extraordinary than Faith Knowledge and Diligence with which it is ranked there and if Vtterance be no more than Ability to utter or a Freedom of Speech it is demonstrable that it was not as our Author saith peculiar to the primitive Ages of miraculous Gifts because we find by Experience that Multitudes have it now and that both as to Prayer and Preaching Vtterance is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 1.5 Eph. 6.19 Col. 4.3 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now Speech or a Freedom of Speech was no extraordinary miraculous Gift Acts 2.4 quoted by our Author is thus They were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues as the spirit gave them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to utter or speak It is also used v. 14. and Acts 26.25 I speak the words of truth and soberness for which Paul needed no extraordinary Gift By this Reply the Insufficiency of our Author's Answer to these Scriptures produced by Dissenters will appear But p. 33. he goeth on and saith But they object further That supposing God hath not given to all Christians the Gift of Prayer extempore yet to a great many he hath and therefore these at least he requires to pray by their Gifts not by a Form 1 Tim. 4.14 2 Tim. 1.6 1 Pet. 4.20 Rom. 12.6 It is very true that some Dissenters have quoted these Texts and see no Reason yet to quit them tho' they at first granted them ex abundanti not as needing them to to prove what is all that they do prove for even Nature it self teacheth Men and Women being able to do it to express the Wants and Desires of their Souls by Words formed in their own Hearts and tells us no Words are so natural and proper and what Nature teacheth we need no Institution for If any corrective Institution hath restrained us in the use of what is a natural proper Means to an Action it must be produced The Iews needed no positive Law requiring them to eat Flesh but it being the Will of God that to shew their Obedience to him they should forbear eating some kinds of Flesh there was need of an Institution corrective of what Nature otherwise taught them But yet what Nature it self teacheth may also be taught by Revelation as we have always thought this was by the Texts quoted which have not been brought to prove in Specie That those who have the Gift of Prayer ought to use it But that those who had any Gift serving them to the Performance of a Religious Act ought to use it in the Performance of that Act unless they be restrained by some corrective Institution that is by some Law of God declaring his Will for their Forbearance of the use of that Ability which the Declaration of his Will in his Word for the use of this or that Form of Words in Prayer we confess is This is the general Summ of what hath been said All that our Author saith as to these Texts is That by Gifts in those Texts is only to be meant Office What hath been said to this may be read in the Answer to Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies p. 62 63 64 65 66 67 68. Nothing of which our Author takes notice off 1. It is gratis dictum said and not proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in three Texts Office not Gift it being manifest that in many Texts it signifies Gift not Office Erâ—smus in all those Texts translates it Donum the Gift Dr. Fulk against Martin sath it is never taken in Scripture but for a free Gift or a Gift of his Grace The Vulgar Latin so translates it Erasmus notes that Ambrose so understood it 2. Rom. 12.6 saith Having then Gifts differing according to the Grace given to us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It may be it is the only Text where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can with any Pretence be translated Offices and not necessarily there See Rom. 5.15 chap. 6.23 Rom. 2.11 1 Cor. 12.4 9 28 30. chap. 11.7 Rom. 11.29 1 Cor. 1.11 1 Cor. 12.31 I think it is hardly used in any other Texts and in no Heathen Author So as we must have the Sense of it from Holy Writ Let any one peruse those Texts and judge whether contrary to the Sense of most Authors he can translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Office or Dignity For what our Author saith as to 1 Tim. 4.14 that the next Words which was given thee by Prophecy make it plain that this is the Sense of it the Reader may see in the aforementioned Answer to Dr. Falkner p. 63. what is said to it That is obscurum per obscurius Piscator Vatablus and Beza make the Sense That thou mayest Prophecy Three ancient Versions viz. the Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick read it with Prophecy Our Translators indeed and Vulgar Latin read it by Prophecy The Greek Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is translated with great Variety per propter prae ob post cum quoniam which gives Interpreters such a Liberty Because of or for Prophecy is a very good Interpretation and justifyable from Matth. 10.22 and chap. 13.21 58. But
saith our Author p. 37. suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signifie Abilities not Offices yet they must be exercised so far forth only as is consistent for Edification That is granted but it is not granted that our Author hath proved Part 1. Case 3. as he saith That the Use of Forms is more for Edification Let the Reader judge what hath been said in and replied to that Case Our Author comes p. 39. to his last Task to prove a Warrant in pure Antiquity for the Vse of Forms and here first he will answer what is objected to the contrary which he saith are but two or three doubtful Authorities There needed not so many for the Proof lieth upon the Affirmer's Part surely It is much to find two or three Authorities to prove a Negative but neither are they so blind and doubtful as our Author would make them That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth with all our might rather than as we are able that sine monitore signifieth without a Mummer or a Custos or a Corrector that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth an agreeing in Rites rather than agreeing in Words or Phrases are things impossible to be proved and therefore vainly attempted We lay no Stress upon these but look upon them as very good probable Proofs which may be I hope allowed where Demonstration is impossible See what is said as to these Quotations in the Supplement to the Reasonable Account p. 19 20. Let us rather see how our Author proveth That pure Antiquity did impose any such Forms The Author of the Answer to Dr. Falkner makes it appear p. 209 210. That it is a thing not capable of Proof and p. 207. That if it could be proved it signifies nothing the Practice of Men being no Argument to prove any thing lawful or unlawful But yet let us consider what our Casuist saith for we do indeed believe that there can be no Proof brought from Antiquity for near Six hundred Years after Christ. To prove 1. That Publick Prayers were made within that time Or 2. That the Lord's Prayer was frequently used in the Publick Congregation and Worship 3. Or That there were Rules and Orders made for Churches meeting together for Prayers in certain Places and at certain Times 4. Or That many good Men did from the first compose Forms of Words for the Instruction of the Weaker in the due Method and Matter of Prayer which some weaker People might arbitrarily use or let alone Is to prove nothing denied That which is to be proved That in the Times of purer Antiquity there were Forms of Prayer composed by the Governours of the Church and universally imposed on Ministers even upon those who had the Gift of Prayer and that the Christian People and Ministers did universally comply with such Vse Which as was said before is so far from having been by any proved that it is impossible to be proved for more then Three Hundred Years after Christ which were the Times of purest Antiquity Nor to give our Reverend Author his due doth he say more than it seemeth most probable p. 46. Now probable Things may appear to others not probable for otherwise they would commence into Demonstrations But let us examine upon what Grounds he saith it is most probable highly probable His first Ground is Because so far as we can find there never was any Dispute amongst Christians concerning the lawfulness of Praying by Forms Nor is there now for those who are not able to pray without it or who make Use of a Form of Divine Prescription 2. How should there be or what need was there of any Dispute about it till it came to be universally imposed 3. Who so knows how little Record we have that gives us Account of the Church for the first Three Hundred Years and by what Hands that little cometh to us will see no Reason to wonder at our having nothing on this Argument Immemorial Usage proves nothing in Divine Worship But he cometh in the next Place to Matter of Fact 1. He instanceth first in the Three Ancient Liturgies of Peter Mark and Iames which though he saith they have been all of them corrupted yet are doubtless as to the purer Part of them of great Antiquity and probably even from the Apostolical Age. There is enough said as to this in my Lord of Morneyes Book de missâ Cap. 2. And in the Reasonable Account p. 66 67. It is enough to say So Cap. 6. Liturgias has omnes falsi postulo saith the Learned Morney That it is not a Thing conceivable that if Mark or Peter or Iames or Andrew or any other Apostle had left any such Liturgies that either Basil or Chrysostome 300 or 310 Years after should as is pretended go to make new ones Nor that if either they or Basil or Chrysostome had made any then known or taken Notice of in the World that ever the Council of Melenis as is pretended should direct the making any for their Province and not only injoin the Use of them Nor considering that Peter James Andrew and Peter and Mark were all Apostolical and inspired Men would the Use of any other than theirs have been lawful 2. For our Authors Second Proof p. 49. about the Forms of Questions in Baptism it is quite another Thing And those who doubt of the lawfulness of Forms of Prayer to be universally and publickly used never doubted of the lawfulness of a Form of sound Words containing Matter of Doctrine 3. In all that our Author further saith upon this Argument I find nothing of Moment insisted on but what Dr. Falkner hath said either in his Libertas Ecclesiastica or in his Vindication of Liturgies and hath been largely answered in the Reasonable Account p. 66 67. Or in the Supplement to it wrote wholly upon this Argument Or in the Answer to Dr. Falkner's Vindication of Liturgies Cap. 3. Or in the Postscript to that Answer containing the Review of that Chapter There the Reader will find a full Answer to what is here said about the Councils of Laodicea and Milenis to his Argument from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constantine's Forms I shall not take the Pains to Write what is already written so plentifully on this Argument till I see something said to take off what hath been already said 4. Our Author saith true that after the Year Six Hundred when Gregory was come to be Pope or rather after the Year Eight Hundred when Charles the Great had by his Civil Authority enforced the Use of Gregory's Liturgies by Fire and Sword No other Prayers were admitted into the Publick Worship of what was then the Popish Church but what was in the Established Liturgy But what they did then in the Wilderness of the Vallies of Piedmont and Lucerne or other Places where the true Church fled we do not so well know but never
read of any Liturgy they carried along with them or used 5. For what our Author further saith about the Calvinistical and Lutherane Churches there is enough said in the aforemention'd Books to Answer it It lies upon him to prove that the Churches in France and Holland generally impose the Use of Forms in all Parts of Publick Worship If any do voluntarily Use any Forms which are prescribed and left to a free Use we have nothing to do to Condemn them though we be of another Mind I have indeed heard That in the Administration of the Sacraments and Marriages The Ministers of the Reformed Churches in France and Holland generally keep to Forms Marrying Persons is no Ministerial Act by any Institution of Christ. It is a great and weighty Action and possibly what is fittest to be done by such whose Office it is to Exhort and to Pray for People As for the Sacraments the Ministration of them is indeed a Ministerial Act. If we cannot satisfie our selves in that Ministration by tying our selves to prescribed Forms We hope it is not a Thing of that Nature but we may without any great Danger differ in it from Persons and Churches which we Honour In the mean Time the Churches of Scotland and New England have hitherto been of our Minds so that we are not wholly alone we differ from the Lutherane Churches in far greater Things than this and further yet from the Popish Synagogues But as I have often said admit all here said as to Antiquity or Practice of other Churches were true which manifestly is not it were but a presumptive no concluding Argument In the mean time 1. We many of us as we have said and it hath appear'd by our Practice do not judge it sinful though we do not judge it under all Circumstances eligible to join by Communion in Prayer with Ministers who use the prescribed Forms or any other whose Matter is not sinful to be assented to or begg'd of God So that all our Question is about the Ministerial Use. 2. Nor as to that do we judge our selves so infallible as to condemn any Ministers that are satisfied so to perform their Publick Ministerial Acts in Prayer We only say we cannot and offer our Reasons in Vindication of our selves For what our Author saith p. 59 60. about Iesuits and Romish Preists introducing conceived Prayers into Publick Use we hope enough hath been said in our first Chapter to make him alter his Mind Indeed Forms of Prayer were of general Use in the Popish Worship many Hundred Years before there was a Jesuite in the World But we do not believe them so much as Canonically injoined before Pope Gregories Time but first by him Nor universally practised tell Charles the Great 's Time which was Eight Hundred Years after Christ. Nor do we see the least Colour of Proof for any such Thing Our Author thinks fit to propound but to speak very little to a Sixth Case viz. Case 6. Whether it be lawful to comply with the Use of Publick Forms when they are imposed Our Author I hope means Publick Forms containing no Matter but what God hath given us leave to pray for 2. With a Liberty also to Vse others in the Pulpit for I observe our Author hath all along pleaded for that This supposed The Term complying referreth to Ministerial Vse or to a Popular Vse whose Work is only to say Amen in Heart and with Faith and due Affection desiring those Things of God As to the latter it is not in Question betwixt us We are so far agreed That such Use though possibly under all Circumstances not eligible yet is not sinful So as the only Question is of Ministerial Use. This our Author knows many of us Iudge not lawful we have given him our Reasons Our Author hath pretended to Answer them We have now shewed him that his Answers appear to us insufficient and bottomed upon Mistakes So as yet sub judice lis est and the Question is not as our Author States it Whether a lawful thing when imposed may be lawfully complied with But whether what some Persons judge lawful may be done by others who verily believe it unlawful Yet were the Question as our Author stateth it Whether a Thing in the Worship of God lawful that is apparently neither commanded nor forbidden in Gods Word may be lawfully complied with if commanded by Men. It could not be determined affirmatively without determining That it is in the Power of Man to determine Things in Gods Worship which he hath left to Peoples Liberty and consequently when God had given his People a Liberty for a Peace Offering to offer of the Herd or of the Flock either Male or Female Lev. 3.1 2 3 4 5 6. Or a Goat It was yet lawful for Asa or Iehosaphat or Hezekiah or Iosiah or the Iewish Sanhedrim to have by an Humane Law restrained them to offer none but Bullocks or Sheep or Goats or of them none but Males or none but Females which as we read not was ever attempted so the lawfulness of such a Restriction or Compliance with it may deserve serious Thoughts For what our Author saith That if the Imposition of Prayer in Publick by Forms may not be lawfully complied with then neither may the Imposition of Prayer ex tempore We say who asketh any such Thing For my own Part I think it would be unreasonable surely those who plead for Liberty in this Thing cannot Plead for Imposition any way and therefore what our Author saith here seemeth to me wholly Impertinent FINIS