Selected quad for the lemma: prayer_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
prayer_n grace_n spirit_n supplication_n 3,488 5 11.0650 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A27392 An answer to the dissenters pleas for separation, or, An abridgment of the London cases wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse. Bennet, Thomas, 1673-1728. 1700 (1700) Wing B1888; ESTC R16887 202,270 335

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

very strange that had the Institution been temporary the Church of Christ for Fifteen hundred Years shou'd never be wise enough to discover it and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determin against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages without the least warrant so to do either from our Saviour or his Apostles But it is Objected yet farther that tho' Forms of God's appointing may and ought to be us'd yet Forms of Man's composure ought not and that we may as well appoint New Scripture for Public instruction because the inspir'd persons did so as we may appoint new Forms for Public worship because they did so But this objection also will be of no force if we consider Four things 1. That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms to be lawful in its own nature for otherwise God must have done that which is unlawful in its own nature Nay our Saviour's prescribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms that were prescrib'd before and that not only by God but by Men too For the Jews us'd several Forms of human composure in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time yet he was so far from disapproving them that he prescrib'd a Form to his own Disciples which Form as Mr. Gregory has prov'd he collected out of the Jewish Forms in whose Books the several Parts and Clauses of it are Extant almost verbatim to this day And certainly had he disapprov'd their Forms as evil and sinful he wou'd never have Collected his own Prayer out of them Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms 't is plain either that he approv'd what is evil or that Forms are lawful 2. That this Objection must allow the prescribing of Public Forms to be not only lawful but also useful For otherwise God who alwaies Acts for wise Ends and Uses the most proper means wou'd never have prescrib'd any Forms And certainly what was once useful is useful still For 1. we are now dull and carnal enough to need Forms and 2. our Saviour has prescrib'd one to be us'd in all Ages which he wou'd not have done had it not been useful for the Gospel-state 3. That this Objection must also allow that God's prescribing Forms by Inspir'd Persons may be lawfully imitated by us provided we have the same reason for it And therefore Governours may prescribe Forms as long as Forms are useful 4. That tho' Governours may prescribe Forms after God's Example yet they may not prescribe them as Scripture or Divine Inspiration For as Spiritual Governours must take care to instruct the People after God's Example but are not obliged to do it by Inspir'd Persons so they may prescribe Forms of Prayer after God's Example but cannot pretend to do it by Inspiration They have God's Example for doing the Action but they cannot pretend to Inspiration in the doing of it without manifest falshood and presumtion And therefore tho' God's Example will warrant for the one yet it will not warrant them falsly to pretend to the other Thus then it appears that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture and that our Governours are Authoriz'd by God's Example to prescribe others when they judge them useful II. Therefore I am to prove that tho' no Forms were prescrib'd yet Forms are as lawful as conceiv'd or Extempore Prayers Certainly there is no command of God to pray Extempore and therefore Forms have a better claim to Divine Authority than they 'T is said indeed that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally we are commanded to Pray in our own Conceptions and words but this is a great mistake For certainly when God commanded Men to Pray by his own Forms they did pray Vocally tho' not in their own words And here let me take notice that Dissenters appropriate the Name of Prayer to Praying in their own words and call the using a Form not Prayer but Reading a Prayer But surely the Levites did really Pray when they us'd the Words of David and Asaph and so did the Primitive Christians when they said the Lord's Prayer and if so then a Form may be truly call'd a Vocal Prayer For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whether with or without a Form But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times God has declar'd in the New Testament that it is his Will we shou'd Pray by our own gift of utterance for the future Now methinks had it been the Will of God that we shou'd not Pray by Forms 't is very strange that in all the New Testament there shou'd be no express prohibition of it Especially since I have prov'd that the Jews had Forms and Philo de Victim p. 483. and the Modern Rabbins own the same they were also a People most tenacious of their customs and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms had our Lord design'd to exclude them out of his Worship Nay the Essenes who of all the Sects of the Jews did most readily embrace Christianity had certain Forms of Prayer as Josephus observes De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 783. Now when those that were most likely to receive the Christian Faith were so addicted to Forms can we imagine that had Christ intended they shou'd use them no longer he wou'd not have given them express warning of them But when instead of so doing he bids them say Our Father c. how cou'd they think but that he design'd they shou'd still use a Form as they did before Were not that his design 't is strange that he took no care to undeceive them But that I may fully prove that the Scripture does not command us to Pray without a Form I shall examine the reasons for which the Dissenters think it do's God say they has promis'd us an ability to utter our minds in Vocal Prayer and therefore to Pray by Forms of other Men's composure is contrary to his intention But I shall afterwards prove that this ability which they pretend is promis'd for the purpose of Vocal Prayer is a common gift which God has no more appropriated to Prayer than to any other end of utterance and elocution and that therefore to omit the using it in Prayer is no more contrary to the intention of God than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occasion However because they urge some places of Scripture to prove that 't is design'd merely for Vocal Prayer I shall therefore consider them 1. They urge Zach. 12.10 I will pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplications The Hebrew word translated supplications do's alwaies say they denote Vocal Prayer and therefore pouring out the Spirit of supplications must imply communicating an ability to Pray Vocally To this I answer that the word is no
more restrain'd to Vocal Prayer than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture 'T is true we read Psal 28.2 Hear the voice of my supplication when I cry unto thee but the voice of my supplication do's not necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For 't is a Hebrai●● and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer For so Gen. 4.10 't is said The voice of thy Brother's blood cries c. Now the blood had no real voice to cry with but cry'd just as mental Prayer do's In other places the word signifies both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently Psal 86.6 6.9 or Prayer in general Jer. 31.9 But suppose the word were alwaies us'd for Vocal Prayer yet surely the Promise of pouring out the Spirit of supplications intends a much greater good than the gift of extempore utterance in Prayer of which bad Men may have a greater share than the most devout And what is that greater good but the gift of Heavenly affections in Prayer If it be urg'd that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son crying Abba Father Gal. 4.6 and that we have receiv'd the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry Abba Father Rom. 8.15 and that these Texts prove us to be enabled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit and that therefore we ought not to Pray by Forms I answer 1. That if these words oblige us to cry Vocally to God by our own gifts then we are equally obliged in all our Vocal Prayers to cry to him in these words Abba Father because that is the cry which the Spirit enables us to make and the Text is every whit as express for one as for the other 2. I deny that crying here do's necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For how often do we find the word apply'd to things that have no Voice at all Thus the stones wou'd immediately cry out Luke 19.40 and the Labourers hire is said to cry to God James 5.4 And indeed crying to God has the same latitude with Prayer which includes both Vocal and Mental 3. Suppose that crying Abba Father by the Spirit signifies Vocal Prayer yet all that can be gather'd from it is only this that when we Pray Vocally we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to address our selves to God with assurance as to a merciful Father and this we may as well do in a Form as otherwise For if we never cry Abba Father by the spirit but when we word our own Prayers we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public Extempore Prayer than when we join with a public Form because we word our own Prayers in neither 'T is true the Scripture speaks of a gift of utterance which say they was given for Praying as well as Preaching but I answer that the gift of utterance was miraculous and particular to the Primitive Ages This gift saies Saint Chrysostom Hom. 24. ad Eph. c. 6. is that which Christ promis'd Mark 13.11 by which the Disciples spake without premeditation and what they spake was the inspir'd Word of God and this Gift no sober Dissenter will pretend to The Apostles began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance Act. 2.4 and the Dissenters may as well pretend to the gift of Tongues as that of Utterance they being both extraordinary But say they tho' all Men have not the Gift of Praying Extempore yet some have and therefore God requires such to Pray by their gift and not by a Form For he requires them not to neglect the gift 1 Tim. 4.14 but to stir up the gift 2 Tim. 1.6 and to Minister the gift 1 Pet. 4.10 and that having gifts c. Rom. 12.6 and if Men are obliged to exercise their gifts in general then they must exercise their gift of Praying Extempore in particular Now to these things I answer First That the gift bestow'd upon Timothy was the gift of Episcopal power which he is exhorted to exercise diligently For at the first plantation of the Gospel the Holy Ghost Pointed out the Men that were to be Bishops as the (f) Clem. 1 Epist ad Corinth Chrysost in Act. 13.2 Fathers testifie For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophesy 'T was given also with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery and these two circumstances prove that the gift was not the gift of Prophesying but the gift of Episcopal Authority bestow'd upon him by imposition of hands at God's particular Appointment And now I pray how do's this Text prove that we must use a gift of Vocal Prayer in our own words As for 1 Pet. 4.10 Rom. 12.6 I Answer 1. That there can be nothing in them against Praying by a Form for then they wou'd make as much against using the Lord's Prayer as any other Form 2. That the design of those Texts is to stir Men up to diligence in the exercise of those several Offices viz. The Office of a Bishop a Priest a Deacon and a Rich Man For 't is plain that the word Gift do's oftentimes signifie an Office and tho' it may be said that the relief of the Poor is rather the exercise of an Ability than an Office yet I answer that 't is properly the exercise of an Office because the very having Ability do's as much put a Man into the Office of shewing mercy to the Poor as if God had appointed him to it by a solemn Ordination 3. Supposing that by these gifts were not meant Offices but only abilities yet we are obliged so to exercise them That all things may be done to Edification for so the Apostle declares that those extraordinary Gifts that were pour'd out in the Primitive Times were to be us'd 1 Cor. 14.2 6 19 40. as 't is particularly plain by the instance of the Gift of Tongues vers 23 26 28. Now if we are not to exercise our gifts but as they tend to Edification then we must not exercise the gift of Praying Extempore any farther than it tends to Edification And since Praying by a Form in Public Worship do's as I shall afterwards prove tend more to Edification than Praying Extempore therefore 't is plain that we ought to suspend the use of the gift of conceiv'd Prayer Thus I hope I have made it appear that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Scripture and that those Texts which are urg'd against the use of forms of Prayer do prove nothing against them and therefore I think I may safely affirm that the Scripture do's warrant Forms of Prayer I proceed now to shew that Antiquity do's the same This I shall do 1. by answering those Authorities which are objected by the Dissenters against the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages 2. By proving that they were us'd in those Ages by a short Historical Account of the matter of Fact 1. Then 't is objected First that Justin Martyr saies Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Communion Pray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
difference must be in the Manner But are conceiv'd Prayers the more Inspir'd because the words are Extempore Did God continue the gift for no other end but that Men might ask those things Extempore which they might as well have asked in a Form Or are they more Inspired because they do generally more enlarge and express the same Matter over again in different words Was the Spirit continu'd only to vary phrases Our Saviour forbids us to use vain repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking we shall be heard for our much speaking and therefore these enlargements are so far from being signs of their immediate Inspiration that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with Christ they are generally signs of the contrary 4. That extraordinary manner and way of expressing them for which they are thought to be Inspir'd ordinarily proceeds from natural causes viz. Natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper For 1. The Dissenters confess it comes upon them much oftner in their public than in their private Devotions And the reason is plain because the passions of the Congregation do so excite their affections and the reverence of an Auditory obliges them so much to wreck their inventions that their Spirits are many times transported into raptures 2. They are not so fluent in the beginning as when they have Pray'd a while the reason of which is this because the Spirits do not move so briskly till they are chafed and heated with Labour Then do they naturally raise the fancy and render the invention more copious and easy And certainly 't is unwarrantable to attribute that to Inspiration which do's so apparently proceed from natural causes Thus have I shewn what the extraordinary operations of the Spirit are and that they are not to be pretended to in these Times I proceed in the next place to shew very briefly what those ordinary operations are which he has Promis'd to continue to the end of the World They are therefore the proper graces and affections of Prayer such as shame sorrow hope c. But as for the expressions of Prayer they are of no account with God but as they signify to him the graces and affections of it Now can any Man imagin that those affections will be the less acceptable to God because they are presented in a Form and not Extempore Will a Father deny Bread to his Child because he askt it to day in the same words that he did yesterday Is God more taken with words than with affections Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words and continuing the Inspiration of affections prove the contrary Now that God do's continue the Inspiration of Devout affections in Prayer is manifest from Gal. 4.6 Jude 20. and Rom. 8.26 where the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with groans which cannot be utter'd that is with most flagrant affections For these words do not as some persons wou'd persuade us prove the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer because the Inspiration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered cannot mean the Inspiration of words but this Intercession of the Spirit signifies his exciting such affections as make our Prayers acceptable For as Christ who is our Advocate in Heaven enforces our Prayers with his own Intercessions so the Spirit who is our Advocate upon Earth begets those affections which render our Prayers prevalent And these are the standing and ordinary operations which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer Secondly Stinting or limiting the Spirit is a phrase that is never mention'd in Scripture or Antiquity and therefore 't is a very new objection against Forms of Prayer which I have shewn to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity However what the Dissenters mean by it is this viz. that by confining our selves to a Form of words we stint or limit that is restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance which he ordinarily vouchsafes in conceiv'd Prayer And now having explain'd the Two forgoing particulars the answer to this Objection will be very easy For if the Spirit be stinted or restrain'd by Forms of Prayer it must be either from Inspiring the words or from exciting the affections of Prayer But I have prov'd that Forms are so far from restraining the Devotion of Prayer that they do very much promote and improve it and as for the Words I have prov'd that since the first propagation of the Gospel the Spirit has withdrawn the immediate and Miraculous Inspiration of them And since that cannot be stinted which is not therefore the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer is not stinted by Forms 3. 'T is Objected that public Forms are a sinful neglect of the Ministerial gift of Prayer For the Dissenters say the gift of Prayer is an ability to express our minds in Prayer which God has given to Ministers as a means of public Devotion and therefore they may not omit the exercise of it by using Forms of other Mens Composure Now to this I answer 1. That supposing that 't is a fault in Ministers to omit the exercise of their ability yet the People are not to be charged with it God will not reject the People's Devotions because the Minister is to blame He only is accountable for that for the People do not join with him in his omission but in that which is acceptable to God 2. This gift of Prayer is either natural or acquir'd For certainly 't is not Inspir'd at Ordination because the Scripture do's not promise any such thing nor is there any experience of it Nay the Dissenting Ministers must own that just before their Ordination they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation as they were just after which shews that they had no new ability to Pray Inspir'd in their Ordination Now since this gift or ability is nothing more than a quickness of invention and speech which is either natural or acquir'd by art and practice therefore 't is no otherwise the gift of God than our natural strength or skill in History or the like All that God has Promis'd his Ministers is to concur with their honest endeavours as far as is necessary to the discharge of their Office and to suppose that this cannot be done without Praying Extempore is to take the Matter in question for granted 3. This freedom of utterance is never call'd the gift of Prayer in Scripture Praying in unknown Languages is once call'd a gift but Praying in our own Language is never call'd so Therefore 't is plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer but left in common to all other honest uses that it can be apply'd to and it may as well be call'd the Gift of Pleading at the Bar or of Disputing or Conversation as the gift of Prayer Accordingly we find that those who have this gift in Prayer have it