Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	believe_v	church_n	interpretation_n	3,657	5	10.5181	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A33973	A reasonable account why some pious, nonconforming ministers in England judge it sinful for them to perform their ministerial acts, in publick, solemn prayer by the prescribed forms of others wherein several of their arguments are modestly propounded, opended and justified against pretended answers given to them, either by Ireneus Freeman, or Mr. Falconer, in his book entituled Liberitas ecclesiastica, or others : the strength also of the several arguments brought by them, for the lawfulness of forms to be used universally by ministers, in their publick ministrations, is fairly tried.	Collinges, John, 1623-1690.; Freeman, Ireneus.; Falkner, William, d. 1682. Libertas ecclesiastica.	1679 (1679)	Wing C5330; ESTC R14423	97,441	180

could speak with diverse tongues never regarded to have what they said interpreted from whence nothing could proceed for Edification while many understood nothing of what was said and manifest Confusion several persons gabling diverse things at the same time To the avoiding of which the Apostle directeth 1 That they should not speak together but successively by course 2 To avoid undue lengths That not above Two or Three at most should speak at the same time 3 That if any should speak an unknown language some one should interpret That what was spoken might be understood by all This is all the Apostle saith Is there any Noncon that will not most freely grant all this 1 That Two or Three ministers should not pray and preach together to the same auditory and if any will be so disorderly the superior ought to restrain them that there be no Confusion 2 That if ministers will protract their discourses to unreasonable lengths they may be restrained 3 That if any be so vain as because he can speak Latine French Dutch or any other language not generally known to his poeple he will pray preach in such language The superiors shall forbid it that by authority of this scripture But surely our Reverend Brother is so much of a scholar a Divine as to conclude That because superiors may thus far restrain the notorious evident abuse of gifts therefore they may as they please limit the use of them yea forbid the use of them ordinarily in the performance of those Acts to which they relate If indeed he could have proved That the Apostle had sent them a Manuscript of his own and we know he had parchments of Prophesies Doctrines Psalms Revelations and commanded them that when they Prophesied taught sang they should ordinarily use them none but them This had come nearer the business yet not home to it till the same Infallibility could be asserted for present superiors as for the blessed Apostle as well as the same constitution of God for them to direct in all matters of worship and Ecclesiastical order which none can deny the Apostles to have been possessed of Yet the Apostle knew the mind of his master too well to send them books to pray preach by but onely directeth them to such an use of those Gifts with which God had blessed them as might be without what all men would cry out off as confused clamorous disorderly and unreasonable because the generality of hearers not understanding them could not possibly get any good or advantage from them Our Reverend Brothers Argument must lie thus If the Apostle Paul might in the Church of Corinth direct that none might speak in anVnknown tongue nor Two or Three gabble together nor any though he were able minister in a language which the people understood not and the Corinthians were bound to obey Then the Church or Churches of the present age may command all their ministers when they pray for three parts of four of their time so spent to spend it in praying omitting any use of their own gifts by reading or reciting the prescribed forms of prayers which they shall send them And those ministers are bound to do accordingly We leave our Reverend Brother upon second thoughts to judge of the validity of this consequence and do believe that it will not justify it self to his own private thoughts we cannot we profess reconcile it to any degree of Reason Here is a manifest arguing from things of one kind to things of another and that quite different It being one thing to restrain the abuse of gifts another thing to restrain the use and that not as to order of time and so as to make the use of them still established even in every individual act intelligible and of use to the church but so as it shall be onely denied or Suppressed as to the far greater Number of those individual acts wherein they should be used The upshot therefore of this argument is Those of our Brethren who will answer this argument must bring us some Medium which will conclude That it is lawful for ministers of the gospel having a spiritual gift given them of God as a proper mean to help them in the performance of their Ministerial acts in solemn publick prayer yet at the command of superiors ordinarily to perform those acts omitting the use of such means and using the prescribed forms of others Which we can by no means agree to 1 Because of the force of the scriptures before mentioned 2 Because we think we should allow men wiser then God if we should in practice prefer a mean of mere human invention before one that is Divine and therefore more proper and we are sure more natural § 8 We meet with no more pretended direct answers to our argument We are aware of the indeavours of some to reduce it to absurdity with what success we shall very shortly examine They tell us that admitting this Principle 1 All those Eminent Divines would be condemned who have used or do before their Sermons use a form of their own composure The vanity of this will appear from our stating the Question 2 He who preacheth must preach ex tempore This is as idle as the other we argue not for praying ex tempore but onely in the use of our own gifts which certainly excludes not previous meditation men may use what of that they please 3 We must not use the Lords prayer Let any one read our question see if it concludes against any such thing 4 The ministers also must make hymns and people must not sing by forms As if we had not scriptural forms to which we are tied in singing composed by men divinely inspired We think Apochryphal Anthems to be sang in publick worship no more lawful then Liturgical forms of Prayer Nor can it be proved that Hymn-making or singing is an ordinary ministerial act Nor that God hath to any promised the gift of Psalm or Hymn-making but it is certain he hath promised the Spirit of prayer Zech. 12. 10. Rom. 8. 26. 5 Nor do they speak any thing more to the purpose who tell us that according to our Principle None must join with others in prayer for the speakers prayer is a form to him The Question is not about him who barely prayeth who hath nothing to do but to exercise his grace but about him who is in prayer to minister unto others 6 We have met with some who have indeavored to encumber this argument with another absurdity telling us that according to this Principle Every minister who is able to interpret the Hebrew of the old Testament the Greek in the new is bound to read the scripture according to his own interpretation and not the translation received in the Church where he ministreth And indeed of any thing we ever heard objected this cometh nearest an argument to bring our Principle to an absurdity But yet we think it

is not sufficient For not to dispute whether Publick Reading of the scriptures be though a good work and fit to be used in the Congregation as Moses was read in the Synagogue strictly a ministerial act we never read Christ saying to his Ministers Go read so as for ought we know The scriptures may in the publick Congregation be read by inferiour officers as is very ordinary in other Reformed Churches we say not to insist upon this which yet were a foundation not to be shaken we take that Principle which if we remember right we have some where read in M r. Capel to be a true Principle That God never yet had a church in any place of the world but he at the first planting of it and so after as there was occasion stirred up the Rulers to employ some in making a true version of the scripture which persons so employed God hath upon experience been found constantly so to asist That they have not erred or mistaken in any point of Doctrine necessarily to be known believed and that it is his will that particular ministers members in such churches in their ordinary use reading of the scriptures should use such version or the version of some other church which they may find more exact perfect This is so fully proved by experience the frequent use which both Christ his Apostles made of the Septuagint version though as full of mistakes as any other if compared with the Hebrew that nothing is to be said against it nor need any more be said in answer to this objection The sum of what is said is this That to interpret the body of scripture to be read to people is no private ministerial act or gift nor is any single minister fit to be trusted with it nor to enter a dissent to the ordinary version used either in the church of which he is a member or some other orthodox church as to a particular text but with great modesty and upon weighty grounds § 9 We think enough said to justify our argument against all answers we have met with and those who are so ready upon all occasions to send us for satisfaction to Mr. Hooker D r. Sanderson should do well to tell us in what Page of either of their works this argument is answered for we can in neither of them find an answer to it Our adversaries may also see that we do not neglect to inquire into all their writings for satisfaction Though it be our misfortune to find them rarely speaking to the true question but first making to themselves a man of straw then pelting him with arguments and immoral language § 10 Hence also appears to our weaker Brethren an obvious reason why some of us can at a pinch hear other ministers pray in the use of such pescribed forms though our selves cannot use them When we join in prayers with others we have nothing to do provided the petitions we hear be according to the will of God but to say Amen exercising our faith c. But if we be our selves to Minister in prayer either we are mistaken which we must first be convinced of or besides the exercise of Grace God requireth also we should use Our Gifts being the mean he hath given us for those acts Whether he who ministreth acquitteth himself to God or no Viderit ipse it is nothing to us let him look to that Nor can there be any thing of scruple in the hearing of ministers praying by the forms of others provided the matter of them be good and according to the will of God Unless some should scruple it as encouraging a minister in that which they judge sinful But why may not we think That he who doth use them doth it in an humble distrust of his own abilities thinks at least that he doth agere optimum do his best Why must we think our selves infallible We dare not judge those who we think have the gift of prayer but think not fit to use it in their ordinary service because their superiors command the omission of it but as we do not judge them so we dare not practice after their copy Whether it be sin in them we freely leave to Gods determination we are sure it would be sin to us As we believe so we speak sowe must act but shall freely listen to what any of our Brethren can say to the taking away of the appearing Probability both of this argument or any other we shall bring In the mean time we would not be crowed over as such dunces who have nothing to say but are hardned with Prejudice blinded with passion biassed by false Principles c. See Dr. Asheton's Ded. Ep. Nor as meerly peevish Grubstreet Divines c. which with abundance more of such brutish stuf another useth Till these confident men have let the world know That they have given a sufficient answer like scholars to what we say and that they are good at something else besides reviling we are not careful to answer them CHAP. III. The second argument The terms opened What is meant by Attention Intention Fervency Both propositions proved M r. Freemans answer considered What M r. Falconer hath said in answer to this argument proved in sufficient The Judgment of the Leyden Professors and the Walachrian classis not duely opposed to this Argument M r. Falconers three reasons why forms should not hinder devotion answered § 1 WE proceed to a second Argument which we thus state To use such a mode in the ordinary performance of our duty in solemn publick prayer as either from the necessary workings of human nature or otherwise upon experience we find either hindring the Attention of our own or others thoughts to the duty or the Intention and Fervency of our own or others Spirits in the performance of the duty when we can so perform it as neither of them will be to that degree hindred is Vnlawful But for him who hath the Gift of prayer ordinarily to perform his ministerial Acts in publick solemn prayer is for him to use such a mode in those Acts of worship as either from the Natural workings of human nature or from some other cause scarce avoidable is upon experience found to hinder his own Attention and also the Attention of others thoughts to the duty and the Intention Fervency of his own others spirits in the duty when in the mean time he hath a natural ability so to perform it as neither of them will at least to that degree be hindred Ergo This we conceive to be what by Mr. Falconer is represented as a second Objection under the terms That it is disadvantageous to devotion We shall with what candor becomes us towards a person of Mr. Falconers worth candor consider both what he saith in answer And also ex abundanti what we find to have been said to less purpose by any others And examine whether what

Palmanum Argumentum Let but the Indifferent Reader See and Judge of what was answered though it may reasonably be presumed considering the Learning and interest of their opponents that they omitted nothing which could with any truth or modesty be spoken in the case All they say is this That there were ancient Liturgies in the church is evident St. Chrysostoms St. Basils and others And the Greeks tell us of St. James's much older then they And though we find not in all ages whole Liturgies yet it is certain there were such in the oldest times by those parts which are extant Sursum Corda Gloria Patri Benedicite Hymnus veré Cherubinus Veré dignum est justum c. Dominus Vobiscum cum Spiritu tuo With diverse others Though those which are extant may be interpolated yet such things as are found in them all consistent to primitive and Catholick Doctrine may well be presumed to have been from the first especially since we find no original of those Liturgies from general councils For answer to this We shall refer our reader to the Answer of the Noncon commissioners p. 76. Of the account of their proceedings printed 1661. § 48 To bring this point to an issue There was a book published 1662. called Asober and temperate discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer where chap. 3. 4. The Reader may at Large see what we judge of the Original of Liturgies when our Reverend Brother or any for him hath given a strict reply to those two chapters then we shall think they have more to say for their Antiquity then we have yet seen In the mean time we do believe That Gregory the great usually said to be the worst of all the Popes that went before him under the Protection of Charles the great was the father of all those that dwell in these tents and this eight hundred or a thousand years after Christ An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we cannot find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most reformed churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgment for the reasonableness of it he who thinks such an Eminent man as Gregorius Magnus would do nothing which should disadvantage true Devotion hath not we think attentively either read his story or considered the Acts of the Governing-part of the church in his time § 49 We are not so uncharitably disposed as not to think there were many eminently good and judicious men in the fourth and fifth Century who were able to judge what was of true advantage or disadvantage to devotion But this is that which we say That the same things are not at all times nor yet to all persons advantages either to publick or private Devotion We have already granted forms of prayer advantages to the devotion of particular persons who being to minister before others have not attained the gift of prayer i. e. an ability in that duty fitly to express themselves 2 To the general devotion of a church when her ministers are very many of them tainted with errors in Doctrine which was the cause of the Milivitan Canon We do know that in the fourth Century there was An Arnobius A Lactantius An Athanasius Ambrose Chrysostom Augustin Hierom and very many others but we also know there was an Arius and Pelagius and that their herecies were of desperate consequence and had over spread a great part of the church yea had tainted a very great part of the ministry of it now it will not follow That because set forms were advantages to devotion in such a time and in such parts of the church for a time therefore they will be Universally so Nor do we think that either in the fourth or fifth Century There was generally such knowledge as in the later ages of the church nor is it proved That in those ages set forms were generally imposed The Question is Whether set forms be advantages or hinderances of devotion to such whom God hath blessed with the gift of prayer and to such churches who have such ministers and are not so tainted with erroneous opinions in the fundamentals of Religion And thus we think we have fully answered whatsoever Mr. Falconer hath offered in answer to this Argument But because our strict design is not to answer M r. Falconer but to shew we have probable Arguments inducing us to believe That what ever it be to others It would be sinful for us ordinarily to perform our ministerial Acts in Prayer by reading or reciting the prescribed forms of others We will yet proceed to add some further Arguments inductive of such a persuasion in us still professing That we do not judge our selves infallible nor condemn any of our Brethren who are of another mind in the case onely as we our selves apprehend and believe so we speak so we act and not out of any factious humour as we are rashy judged CHAP. IV. The Third Argument propounded Both propositions in it proved The second commandment forbiddeth all means of worship not directed in Scripture M r. Freemans answer considered What the Noncon grant His instances answered Bishop Jewels opinion and Bishop Davenants against blind obedience The Difference between circumstances and Ceremonies what circumstances are in the power of man Why Forms of Prayer may not be commanded as well as Time and place Acts rites and means in worship must appear reasonable in themselves to him who conscientiously obeyeth § I WE thus state our Third Argument To use a mean in an Act of worship which God hath neither by the light of nature directed nor in his word prescribed no natural necessity compelling us so to do is sinful But for us or any of us to whom God hath given the gift of prayer ordinarily in prayer to perform our ministerial acts by the prescribed forms of others read or recited were for us no natural necessity compelling in Acts of worship to use means neither of God directed by the light of nature nor by him in his word prescribed Ergo. The proof of the major proposition depends upon these hypotheses 1 That divine worship is nothing else but an homage done unto God in consideration of his excellency In this we think all are agreed 2 That it belongs to God alone to prescribe both the Acts and Means of this homage which certainly is the most reasonable thing in the world That God should tell us what homage he will have at our hands and how performed God hath as much right to appoint the way of his worship as to be worshipped saith Dr. Ashton himself in his Case of persecution p. 45. 3 God having determined our Acts of worship hath likewise in his word and by the light of Nature given us sufficient direction as to the means Which if it be true it certainly must be impious

to neglect or despise it and to omit it and use others directed by man would be an implicit owning the wisdom of man as paramount to and excelling the wisdom of God 4 God hath also as we conceive expresly in his word forbidden the use of any other mean in his worship then what either nature sheweth us and directeth us as necessary as we cannot speak a prayer without the use of our tongue or what he hath prescribed in his word The first of these needeth no proof § 2 To prove the Second we need say no more then this That it is evident That the use of a mean in worship which ought not to be used quite altereth the nature of the worship and of true maketh it false To pray to God is an act of true worship but if a man in prayer set an image before him as a mean of worship it makes it idolatry So as in worship none can pretend a right to prescribe a mean but he that hath also a right to prescribe the act § 3 For the proof of the third hypothesis we desire but an instance of any Act of worship for which we cannot shew a sufficient mean either by the Light of nature or Scripture directed As to what is the matter of our present debate both the Light of nature sheweth our own invention a sufficient mean and Scripture commands us to minister as we have received the gift § 4 But for the last which we think will be most stumbled at we shall onely mention the second commandment The sense of which we say is this Thou shalt worship in no other way by no other mean or religious rites then what I have prescribed The term Graven image is undoubtedly a Generical term figuratively put to signify not onely that but any other mean that hath no more of divine institution then that hath And if this be not the sense of it it will be impossible to reduce all the precepts in Scripture relating to the manner of external worship to the second precept in the Decalogue To spare saying over again what hath already been said in justification of this we refer our Reader to a book of Mr. Cottons called Advertisements upon a discourse of set forms of Prayer p. 17 18 19 20 c. § 5 The minor proposition standeth firm until our Brethren have shewed us where God hath prescribed any such mean But here again our old Adversary M r. Freeman cometh across us and tells us There is a general command for forms of prayer when they are imposed for we are enjoined in Scripture to obey our Rulers in such things as Gods word doth not forbid and such things are forms To which we answer 1 That we can find no precept in Scripture in the terms mentioned by him 2 The same argument will prove that it is the duty of Priests in popish countries in baptism to use salt oyl spittle and cream Rulers require it where hath Gods word expressly forbidden the use of them 3 We do not know what he meaneth by not forbidden There is an explicit and an implicit forbidding God by determining the Acts of his worship and directing sufficient means for the performance of them hath we say consequentially forbidden any other means to be used § 6 But he telleth us that Both in words and deeds we grant That a particular command or example is not necessary we suppose he means to justify any acts or the use of any mean in the stated worship of God or else he saith nothing to the matter in question For we sing Hopkins and Sternholds Psalms for which is no particular command 2 We anoint not with oyl though St. James doth command it Because we meet with this so often we who take our selves to be ready to give account of our faith to every one that asketh us shall once for all tell him what we believe and hold in this great point § 7 We believe the Holy Scripture to be a full and perfect rule as of Doctrine so of worship both as to the Acts and Means of it with no other help then the light of nature directing the application of some common circumstances either necessary to all human actions as time and place are and some common actions and signs signifying no more in sacred then in civil actions and this either from nature or the general guise and custom of the countries wherein the worship is performed 2 Hence both we and all Protestants deny a power to any man to institute New ordinances of worship for which there is in Gods word no particular precept or example either of Christ or his Apostles And certainly worship being nothing else But an homage done unto God in consideration of his excellency It is every whit as reasonable That God should direct both the Acts and Means and Rites of his worship As that an Earthly Potentate should direct his subjects or servants the manner of their addresses to him or the habits they should appear before him in Gods word especially declaring against will worship 3 Hence we judge All Acts religious Rites and Means of worship prohibited by God which either in express terms or by first consequences from some Scriptural Propositions are not in the word of God prescribed or Commanded But natural Reason assuring us That as all human actions must have some circumstances So Religious worship being a human action must have some appendant circumstances either such as are necessary to all human actions of which number are time or place or necessary for actions of that nature So we judge it as reasonable That a bell or a Trumpet should call people to worship God as scholers living in several colledges to a Convocation or Towns men living scattered up and down the town to a townhouse or Assembly We take Pulpits and Pewes Churches to be as reasonable as that in the Sessions the Judge should have a Cushion and a Taller-seat or the Major in a Guildhal or that the Commoners or Aldermen being to sit two or three hours all that time should not be put to stand but have seats pewes In this sense it is true that D r. Ashton in his case of persecution hath told us 48 after 40 before him These circumstances must be and are not determined in Scripture We do yeild our superiours a great power in determining these Circumstances of Religious duties as they are human actions without which they are neither at all to be performed or with no Conveniency Nay further There are some Circumstances necessary upon the account of Decency the not observing of which would make the action appear either from the light of nature or from the guise and custom of the country irreverently brutishly and indecently performed If any will come naked or half naked or shoulder-naked into a religious assembly or pray to God with his hat on we believe superiours may as well restrain them as they may restrain one

But then saith a Reverend person for a child or scholar to use a form which is prescribed by his Father or Master would be unlawful Let us turn it into a form What is not unlawful for a child or scholar we will add to advantage the argument or save our selves labour of more words or a private person that hath not attained to the gift of prayer or such whom the church is enforced to use in publick ministrations for want of persons better qualified to do in prayer That is not unlawful for ministers to do ordinarily to whom God hath given the gift But to pray by the prescribed forms of others ordinarily in private or publick is not unlawful for children or grown persons or such ministers Ergo. The Assumption is granted but the Proposition is unquestionably false sincerity is accepted not according to what a man hath not but according to what he hath We do believe many an honest hearted minister in the beginning of reformation who never preached nor yet was able to do it was accepted of God in reading good Homilies But we do not think That any who were able to preach otherwise was also accepted We trust He that hath ten talents must improve them all though it had been enough for him that had but one if he had not laid it up in a napkin but improved that for his masters glory and advantage This Argument therefore onely proveth That forms of prayer are not in themselves unlawful to be used not that they may not be so to some persons whose circumstances vary Our question is onely about Ministers to whom God hath given the gift or who onely want it through their own default or negligence § 8 But Sixthly A great Doctor and that in a publick Sermon as well as diverse others in their printed discourses tell us That there is a command for Prescribed forms of prayer to be used in the church under the gospel 1 Tim. 2. 1 2. 1 Cor. 10. 13. A text urged weakly enough by the author of the book called Pulpit conceptions Popular deceptions and Mr. Falconer p. 109. tells us That many have thought that the Apostle had a special eye to the composure of such forms of prayer agreable to what the Baptist and our Saviour prescribed to their disciples in commanding Timothy the Governour of the church That amongst the things which concerned his behaviour in the church of God Ch. 3. 15. First of all prayers intercessions supplications and giving of thanks should be made for all men c. For this he quotes Dr. Hammond in loc And addeth Though the phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may either signify That prayers be put up to God or that they be composed in this place it may well intend both c. It is enough for us that our Reverend Brother justly alloweth That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers be made doth not necessarily signify That church Governours should make Liturgies for all Ministers from whence it followeth That this text will afford no cogent argument for such an institution Nor will any other text give relief in the cause coming in as an auxiliary to this It is indeed a plain command for Timothy in his publick ministry himself to pray and to enjoin all inferiour ministers to do the like but we have produced other and those plainer texts enough directing ministers how to perform their ministerial acts by ministring their gift according to the grace given Stiring up not neglecting their gift c. And because our reverend Brother is a little critical with the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we shall onely tell him that he knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Poet comes from it and we know him so much a scholar as he would judge him but a miserable poet That should onely read or recite copies of verses composed by others If indeed prayers intercessions supplications giving of thanks could not be made for all men unless superiors prescribed or ministers used the prescribed forms of others there were something in this text But it is an observable vanity that when men are possessed of some singular notion hard to be made out they fancy every verse almost in Scripture to be for their purpose The Doctor saw the word Prayers here and he fancieth it must be a Liturgy or Prayer-book Just like another who meeting in the epistle of Peter with a phrase of Offering up Spiritual Sacrifices to God runs away with as much confidence of a new 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Liturgy though there be not a word for it near the text Yea and in his heat runs down the Puritans arguments in his way like durt But with this discretion That though it is like he saw some better forces of theirs standing by then any which he tried his skill upon yet he thought fit rather to pursue the chase of the left wing of Pigmies then to stand to hazard a battel with some other men of war that faced him all the while § 9 The Author of the Pulpit conceptions hath he thinks found out some other express Scripture 1 Cor. 1. 10. That you all speak the same thing Rom. 15. 6. That you may with one mind and one mouth glorify God And he is hugely confident That the first mentioned text is not to be forced into a contrary interpretation Ridiculous Is there in that text a word concerning Prayer Is that the Theme the Apostle is there treating of Were the Divisions for a Remedy as to which he gives this advice about Prayer It not the Apostle both to the Corinthians and Romans giving Catholick directions And will not then this Argument prove that not onely Liturgies But the same Liturgies verbatim must be used in all churches to the end of the world But let us turn this into an argument That the Doctor may see we will deny him no just advantage which his learning may have upon us more then we are aware of Those who are to speak the same thing and are with one mouth to glorify God may lawfully or must use set forms of Prayer But Christians are to speak the same thing and with one mouth to glorify God Ergo. The Major is to be proved and when he hath proved it let him consider whether the same argument will not prove That in all families and closets also the same form must not be used And whether such another learned Topick will not prove That all ministers must use the same syllables words and sentences in preaching Yea and in all their more private religious discourses Certainly sober persons ever thought that by these expressions the Apostle intended onely an unity in the matter and substance of Religion not in words and syllables expressing their conceptions about it either to God or men But to do the D r. right he lays his Argument from these texts in a little different form we will not conceil it from our Readers Valeat quantum

forms of prayer for all because some ministers or that go for ministers can do nothing in prayer without might with less guilt and reproach to our church cure that disease destroy that necessity which is but a Chimera made by their own fancies § 19 The Reverend Author of Libertas Ecclesiastica p. 98. c. hath given us Four or Five farther Reasons as he calls them for forms of prayer which in the last place we will consider He saith Hereby a fit true right and well ordered way of worship in addresses to God may be best secured to the church in the publick service of God that neither God nor his worship may be dishonoured There being many easily discernable ways of considerable miscarriage in the pubiick offices of the church even by those who err not in the Doctrines of Religion To which we answer 1 That alone is a fit true right and well ordred worship which God hath instituted Worship is his Homage and there 's all the reason in the world he should prescribe to his own Homage 2 That God in the Church should be truly fitly rightly and in due order worshipped is reasonable but that it should aforehand be secured That he should be so worshipped by ministers who are but men and may err is not possible Nor will forms secure it which ministers may if they will be careless and many have done it read falsely and disorderly enough There is therefore no security to be had in the case caution may be used The Rulers may say to Archippus Take heed to thy ministry 3 We do think That for twenty years together The worship of God was truly fitly rightly and in a well ordered manner performed in hundreds of congregations in England where no forms of prayer were used in the eye of all sober reasonable men better then where they were used we therefore see nothing here but a flourish of words § 20 His Second reason is That needful comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of our selves and others with fit thanksgivings may not in the publick supplications of the church be omitted which considering men as they are can no other way be so well or at all assured To which we answer Pudet haec opprobria nobis dici potuisse c. Let it be spoken to the shame of the church of God in England and it shall be for a lamentation in it if in a church whose territories are so large there cannot be found persons enough sufficient without others prescriptions to them to put up full and comprehensive petitions not onely for common and ordinary but for emergent and extraordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of any persons with fit thanksgivings But Secondly If there be not men enough to do this yet certainly there are some and very many ministers of all persuasions that can do it what need therefore is there farther Then that such Forms be composed extant and left at liberty Must those be restrained that are able to perform their duty because there are others that either cannot or will not set themselves to the due performance of it Besides That this Argument holds stronger for forms of Sermons too to be imposed For those who know how in preaching to reveil to people the whole counsel of God most certainly know how to put up full and comprehensive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual Outward wants of themselves and others § 21 Mr. Falconers Third Reason is That the Affections and hearts of pious and Religious men may be more devout and better united in their presenting their Services to God where they may consider beforehand what particular prayers and thanksgivings they are to offer up and come the more ready and prepared to join in them This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind sucked in by prejudice or swallowed down by carelesness To which we answer that in this pretended reason we can see nothing but words Are not we to ask of God for our selves or others all good things under such limitations as his word directeth submitting our petitions for temporary things to the will and wisdom of God Needs there any more when we come to prayer then a general composure of our Spirits to seek God for all good things we or others stand in need of If not what needs such a particular foreknowledge of the words and phrases to be used in asking If the minister transgresseth his Rule and asks what is not according to the will of God and that he may do by reading forms falsely may not people withold their Amen The Affections and hearts of all good people though the publick prayers be not by prescribed forms are united 1 As to the duty They all say to God Thy face will wee seek 2. As to the matter of the duty To Confess all sin Original Actual To beg of God whatsoever they or other stand in need of which God hath promised to give For the particular phrases There is no such need of a foreknowledge nor will it at all as we we have proved before promove but rather hinder devotion and affection § 22 His Fourth Reason is That such difficult parts of church-offices as Baptism and the Supper of the Lord the matter of which requireth great consideration That they may be aright and clearly expressed as both Conformists and many Nonconformists acknowledge is evident by the many disputes about them by men neither of mean parts nor dangerous designs may by a considerate care in the composing of a form be so framed That men of greatest understandings may with readiest assent entertain them and that they may be sufficiently vindicated against the the boldest opposers We do confess that we have met with some of our Brethren who lay some stress on this But we are no more taken with meer words from Noncon then from other men And we cannot understand What there is in the Administration of the Sacraments that makes Forms of Prayer c. necessary For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper where if any where it seemes most necessary What is there in that Administration more then 1 The Sanctification or Consecration of the elements 2 The Distribution of them and words used in the distribution 3 The Application of the General acts of the ministerial office Prayer and Exhortation to that particular action For the first the Apostle hath taught us that Sanctification or Consecration is by the word Prayer The word is nothing but the words of Institution which are in Scripture The Reading of which declares Christs separation of those elements for that use and our separation of them in his name for and during that time for that ordinance For other words and forms of consecration we know no need of them no warrant for them and believe them of ill original and consequence Now any one that can read a form can read the

Scripture For the distribution of them It is no further work then every hand can do what words to use Our Saviour hath set down from which we know no need to vary In using of them can be no errour in deviating from them indeed there may For the Application of Exhortation Prayer to that act surely he that can Pray and Preach can do that The like is to be said of the other Sacrament so that a Righteous law that all should keep to the Scriptural-institution is enough we think in that case And wonder at their fancies That think of such a special need of a form in those cases believing no pretence of necessity but what depends upon a fancy of a reasonableness to add to the Divine institution in the case of which we cannot be convinced For God-fathers and God-mothers and Forms of questions to be propounded to them we understand neither necessity nor use of them much less any particular Forms of words besides those the Scripture gives us for Consecration or to be used in the Distribution of the elements in the Supper The points in dispute can this way come into no dispute that we know nor any error infused into poeple It is mens varying from the Institution in this case which alone hath given advantage to the Envious one to sow tares If any minister having the elements of bread and wine before him shall read I The words of Institution as delivered by the Evangelists or the Apostle Paul Then solemnly praying to God First That as he had instituted that ordinance for the remembrance of Christ The shewing forth of his death The communion of his body and bloud c. So he would at that time bless it to those ends c. Pardoning his peoples want of preparation and accepting them in their desires to honour him in his own institutions c. Or to that purpose Then giving the bread repeating onely our Saviours words with but a small and that necessary change Take eat This is the body of Christ in stead of my body which was broken for you And after the cup repeating onely Christs words This cup is the new Testament in the bloud of Christ c. We would fain know if this man concluding all with a prayer hymn of thanksgiving had not duly administred the Sacrament of the Lords Supper If he had what need is there of forms of words in this case other then what the holy Scriptures have given us For as to the Prayer before and after as we conceive him a pitiful minister and very unfit to be trusted with that office which often calleth him to pray upon particular emergent occasions for which a form cannot be made ready if he cannot without it apply his petitions to the particular business in hand viz. The administration of the Sacrament So if he distrusteth himself he may compose himself a form of prayer fitted for that purpose For the administration of that ordinance is seldom or never so sudden as to surprice a minister So for the other Sacrament Will any one dare to say That a lawful minister having water before him who shall first beg of God To own and bless his own institution To wash away the sin of the person to be baptized with his own bloud And to grant that it may be born again of water and the Spirit c. Or to the like purpose And then having had a previous knowledge That the parent is a believer i. e. one who either hath a true faith or maketh profession of such true faith shall take water and pour or sprinkle it upon the childs face or dip the person in it saying J. Baptize thee in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is not truly Baptized A prayer and thanksgiving usually concludes the Action But what need here of a form more then the Scripture hath furnished us with or directed us to May one minister say J. Baptize thee c. Another Let this person be Baptized c. A third Be thou Baptized c For our parts we think the difference not so much as to require a prescribed form to reconcile and should not doubt but the person were truly Baptized under any of those variations of words Water being poured or sprinkled on it and the action declared to be in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost We conclude as we said before That we can see nothing in either Sacrament but the inventions of men superadding to the institutions of the gospel diverse rites and actions of which Christ never spake which makes any pretence for a need of Forms in the administration of them There being nothing to be done in them that requireth any special ability comparable to that which Preaching Praying according to the various states of the church and the particular cases of souls in it doth require § 23 Mr. Falconers Fift Reason is thus by himself expressed To be an evidence to other churches and future times after what way and manner we worship God and that both the matter and expression of our service to him is sound and pious in our general and common worship And this may be a full Testimony That such a church receiving the true faith and expressing a right way of worship is both a true and in its measure a pure and incorrupt church We answer 1 Where hath God required the leaving any such Testimony 2 If he had forms of prayer had not been sufficient without forms of Sermons too 3 While we declare our selves Christians and that we worship God according to his word we leave a sufficient Testimony that we are a true church of God 4 A confession of faith publickly owned subscribed unto by all ministers which we never opposed doth far better effect this which may be done without making a new act or mode of worship § 24 Mr. Falconer at last comes to this argument from example which yet he doth not lay so much stress upon as to aver They evince a necessity of Forms but he thinks the countenance the lawfulness and expediency of them For what he saith about the Lords prayer it is answered by us before In short It reacheth not the case There can be no conclusion from Christs power to the power of ordinary Governors now in the church Or from the lawfulness of Christs disciples using a Form of prayer dictated by Christ himself in that time before his ascension and the effusion of the Holy Ghost to the lawfulness of ministers in after ages using a bundle of forms neither composed by Christ nor by his Apostles Besides the probabilities we have before offered that even then when it was first given it was not intended for a form of words nor do we ever read of it after so used but as a more general direction for the ordinary matter of our prayers § 25 As to what Mr. Falconer saith further of Scripturalforms it hath had its answer from