we perform that Religious Act is sinful But for a Minister having the Gift of Prayer ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayers composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper mean given him by God in order to the performance of such Religious Act and in the Omission of it to perform such Religious Act. Ergo The Major Proposition shineth so much in its own light that it was not to be denied but by affirming That it is lawful for us at the command of Men in an Act of Gods W rship to omit a mean given us of God for that end and to perform that Act in the use of other means under no sâ—ecial prescription from God which is to say it is lawful to allow Men to â—e wiser then God in directing the means of his Worship which certainly is a strange position 4. Yet our Answerer tho he will not in plain terms deny the Major p. 57. tells us That a mean given us of God if it be only capable of being used and not a necessary mean to be used may lawfully be omitted especially when there are several means What doth he mean by several means Several means given by God for that end that are Natural and Proper then it is most true But it lieth upon him to prove that God hath in this case prescribed several means But if he means several Humane means under no Divine Prescription it amounteth to no less then I said before the praeference of the Wisdom of Men to the Wisdom of God 5. What doth he mean by telling us A Divine mean may be omitted if it be not necessary to be used when the very drift of the Argument is to prove That it is necessary to be used because it is a Divine Mean and there is no other can lay claim to that Notion nor can be so Natural nor is so Proper Now this quite spoiles the retorting the Argument 6. But altho our Answerer thinks fit to nibble a little about the Major yet plainly discerning that was not to be denied by any Person of his Reputation in the World his whole force is spent about the Minor Proposition as to which he saith much which himself summeth up p. 57. 1. That an ability fitly to express our mind to God in Prayer is not the gift of Prayer nor any singular or peculiar gift of the Spirit of God 2. That it is neither a duty nor yet expedient that such abilities should be used and constantly used any further then is agreeable to the Rules of Edification and Order 7. Whatsoever our Answerer saith upon the first head which is very much one while confounding the Gift of prayer and the Grace of Prayer as one and the same thing another while telling us of an Extraordinary Gift of Prayer is so much from the purpose that our Author owns it as a digression p. 28. So as I am not concerned in any thing of that discourse further then to mend a Term in my Minor and make it to run thus But for a Minister having an Ability fitly to express his mind to God in Prayer to perform his Ministerial Acts in Prayer ordinarily by reading or reciting c. Nor was there any need at all thus to mend it but to save my self trouble of a Word-bait 8. But yet to vindicate my self from being as much out as to proper speaking as it seems to this Author I was in my Chronology of Gregory and Charles the great we will have a few words about the Gift of Prayer for I do suspect that this multitude of words is but to darken knowledge It shall go under the Title of a Digression in Reply to a Digression of the Answerers concerning the Gift of Prayer I hope the Reader will pardon my going out of my way seeing it is but to follow my Leader and to Vindicate my self from improper speaking that is not to this Learned Mans mind or Sentiment and who but Men of his Principles can speak Properly 9. He doth p. 40. acknowledge That there is an Ability in many Persons whereby they can express their Minds in some degrees fitly to God in Prayer But this he saith is not properly the Gift of Prayer but rather of Speech Here then is the Question The Scripture no where mentioning the Gift of Prayer whether an Ability to express our Minds fitly to God in Prayer may not properly be called the Gift of Prayer My opinion is That it may which I thus prove 10. By the same reason That an Ability to speak to Men to Edification and Exhortation and Comfort 1 Cor. 14.3 is in Scripture called the Gift of Prophecy 1 Cor. 13.2 1 Cor. 14.1 An Ability also fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer may be properly called the Gift of Prayer But such an Ability is in Scripture called the Gift of Prophecy as appeareth in the forementioned Texts If our Answerer can shew a disparity of Reason he may I cannot fancy any by the same reason that Abilities to Actions are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the same reason they may be and are properly called Gifts for what is the English of that Greek word but Powers or Abilities and it is past all contradition that what the Apostle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Powers 1 Cor. 12.29 He calls the Gifts of Healing in the very next words Have all the Gifts of Healing What tho these were Gifts given at an extraordinary time or in an extraordinary manner which indeed they were yet I appeal to any indifferently Learned Man to determine Whether this alters the Genus or only distributes the Species All Spiritual Abilities are Gifts but they are not all Saving Gifts or extraordinary Gifts And this is enough to vindicate my self from impropriety of Speech 11. But saith our Author p. 29. That is eminently and especially to be esteemed the Gift of Prayer which disposeth and inableth to the performance of the duty of Prayer very true Vindication p. 29. and is not this all I have contended for And therefore since Prayer is not so much a verbal thing as a pious address of the Heart Soul and Spirit to God the Supplies and Assistances of his Grace which kindle and excite pious Dispositions in seeking unto God with earnest and affectionate desires a lively Faith and the exercise of inward Devotion this is most properly his vouchsafing and bestowing the Gift of Prayer and our having and exercising them is our having and using the Gift of Prayer This now is well said as to Truth but not a tittle of it to the purpose Here is a manifest Transition from one kind to another That a Christian may in his heart Pray tho his Lips move not is out of doubt Hannah did so But can any Minister discharge his Ministerial Duty in Publick Prayer thus Nay can a private Christian in his Family or
Closet do it If not there is another kind of Prayer besides this and our Author knew well enough that it is that we are speaking of The Question is What is the Gift of Prayer relating to Vocal Prayer Our Answerer grants It is that which inableth and disposeth to the performance of the duty Now I appeal again to any one that understandeth sense Whether those things which the Answerer mentions inable any person to Vocal Prayer as it stands contradistinguished to meer heart Prayer which is that we are not at all speaking of It is manifest it is not for then no Vnbeliever no Wicked Man hath any Ability to pray and St. Paul had given very impertinent Counsel to the Sorcerer to Pray that the thoughts of his heart might be forgiven him which it seems he had no Gift no Ability to do for it is certain he had no Faith nor Pious Affections It might have been expected that he who Faults others for Impropriety of Speech should himself have spoken Ad idem at least i. e. to the thing in Question which whether he hath done or no I leave to any one who understands sense to judge The Author of the Book he answereth had often enough told him that he spake not concerning Heart Prayer but Vocal Prayer that Praying wherein in obedience to the command of God the voice is used to express the desires of the heart It is an easie thing to answer at this rate 12. For what he saith p. 31 32 33. in Answer to what the Author had spoken from Zech. 12.10 Rom. 8.26 to prove a Gift of Prayer to be a Divine Gift issueth in this Whether by the Spirit of Grace and Supplication and the Spirits helping our Infirmity in Pra er be to be understood as well the Spirits giving us an Ability fitly to express our minds to God in Prayer as furnishing us with Gracious Habits disposing us so to Pray as we may find favour with God It is our Answerers concern to affirm the latter onely But the Author is of another mind because he finds in Scripture Gifts that are not saving called Spiritual Gifts 1 Cor. 12.1 and 1 Cor. 14.1 and the Manifestations of the Spirit 1 Cor. 12.7 where are reckoned the Word of Wisdom the Word of Knowledg the Gifts of Healing Working of Miracles Prophecy Tongues some of which are by the same Apostle determined no saving gifts 1 Cor. 13.2 3. The Author is of the mind that all these are comprehended under the Promises of powring out of the Spirit mentioned in the Old Testament And tho an Ability to Pray be not mentioned in that 1 Cor. 12.7 yet he never thought to have met with any who regarded what he said who would have denied That it is a gift and a Spiritual gift nor doth yet believe it shut out of those Promises Zech. 12.10 Rom 8.26 tho not solely perhaps not Principally intended in them both which the Author grants to the Answerer if he can make any Market with them 13. Our Answerer is again at it p 34. As that Ability of Expression whereby a Man largely professeth the particular Doctrines of the Christian Faith is not properly the Gift of Faith of Believing so neither is the like Ability of expressing the matter of our Prayer to be accounted in any proper sense the Gift of Prayer Still we are upon the old fallacy and whatsoever I Answer our Answerer will avoid us by telling us he spake of meer Heart Praâ—er where no words are needful that is nothing to the point in Question Is Beleeving a Vocal Action think we Or is it a meer Action of the Heart and to say an Ability fitly to speak is that Gift were to own my self simple enough But I hope an Ability fitly to speak is the Gift of Confession of Faith with our Lipps Let our Author speak out and tell us If a Praying with our hearts be all the Prayers God requireth of Ministers in their publick Ministrations If it be not he saith nothing to the purpose for still the Gift of Prayer in that sense and I spake of another is an ability fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer 14. But he tells us This is but the Gift of Speaking Vtterance or Elocution p. 34. I have scarce patience for such Assertions Then every one who hath an Ability to speak utter or to speak out or Oratoriously hath the Gift of Prayer which is demonstrably false and contrary to the experience of every day 15. But at length our Answerer can find a Gift of Prayer and with the Spirit this he saith was that whereby Christians in the beginning of Christianity were inabled by the extraordinary Impulses and immediate Inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon their Minds so to Pray either in their own or other Languages that those Motions of their Hearts and inward Desires and also their Words and Expressions were the proper and extraordinary Works and Dictates of the Holy Ghost Admit this true what followeth Then an Ability to Pray is the Gift of Prayer only given to some in a more extraordinary to others in a more ordinary way I freely grant him all he saith if he doth not say or by this cunningly go about to perswade people that now no people have an Ability to express their Minds fitly to God in Prayer which he must not because he is so liberal as to grant the contrary p. 40. 16. But he saith these extraordinary Gifts were peculiar to the primitive times Who denys it But is there not a more ordinary Gift of Prayer still continuing and the only question is Whether this be omitted in the performance of the Act 17. He tells us p. 36. that those who had these extraordinary Gifts were to use them only so far as was consistent with the rules of Order Decency and Edification Who denieth this too But these Rules of Order and Decency were such as either Nature it self shewed or the Infallible Spirit by the Apostles directed let him prove any thing further if he can and if he understands no more it is freely granted 18. As to what he saith in Reply to what I answered to that which he objected from 1 Cor. 14. I know not what his Intentions were but his words are these Libertas Eccles p. 120. The Argument against the lawfulness of set Forms because they limit the use of Gifts needeth not much consideration since it is manifest that by the Will of God bounds and limits were set even to the use of extraordinary Gifts of Gods Spirit that the Church might be edified 1 Cor. 14.26 27 28 30 33. Could any one make this less than an Argument a majori ad minus affirmando if the greater Gifts might be Limited then the lesser may In my Answer I observed the fallacy might lurk under the term Limited and distinguished betwixt the Regular use and the Irregular abuse of Gifts and denied that consequence That because the
doth not Prayer as I told him p. 61. is in Scripture called a crying to God a wrestling with him a powring out of our Souls it must be with strong cries and groans Is there any such thing said of Reading the Scriptures Or of Singing Psalms Attention of our thoughts indeed is required in all so are such degrees of Fervor as are proper to those duties but what if God will require some degrees of Homage to be performed to him one way some another some in a way not capable of the like degrees of Attention and Fervour as others are such I take reading the Scriptures to be is it not enough for us to do that duty with such degrees of Attention and Fervour as he requires in that duty tho we do not do it with such degrees of Attention and Fervour as in that duty he hath not required Or shall it be concluded by any man of reason that the mean which God hath appointed by which we may serve him in one duty as in Reading the Scripture it is nothing but the use of our ability to read which is not by reason of the infirmity of our nature capable of such an attention of our thoughts which will wander if they have the least liberty may be used in another duty of another Species where God requires other degrees of Attention and Fervour or that the mean which he hath given us for that duty is not necessary but that duty also may lawfully be performed in the use of a mean which doth hinder such degrees of Attention and Fervour 19. This was the substance of one of my Answers tho a little further opened now what saith our Vindicator to this Truly little what he saith is p. 135. in these words and no more But what he saith That there are different workings of the Soul towards God in Singing and in Prayer I suppose he will upon further consideration discern to be an oversight since the Application to God for the same things require the same Pious Exercises of Mind whether it be in Prose or Meeter and it was another oversight that he declares me to know and confess what he thus asserts when I never declared any such thing but know the contrary As to the last Clause Reader judge see Libertas Eccles p. 123. Both in reading the Scriptures and in Prayer our hearts ought to be religiously moved towards God tho in somwhat a different manner Wherein have I wronged him here Neither see I reason to acknowledg the oversight let him prove if he can that we are obliged to Sing Psalms with an equal degree of Fervor of Spirit at all times as we are to Pray Though we may sing the Words of a Prayer yet it is more then I know that we are to make those words our Petitions or to address our Souls unto God for the same things which are the matter of the Psalm we Sing If I thought so I should hardly sing many of Davids Psalms having no occasion for the things he asked of God Nor do I think Singing is the Application of our Souls to God for obtaining Mercies but the Praedication of the Holy Name and Will of God and only to differ from Reading the Scripture as the first is done with the Modulation of the Voice the other not so which Modulation is required as having some force in it to excite several Affections either of Joy or Grief according to the matter sung Further in the same page he saith Tho there be different Acts of the Mind exercised in these duties yet that Consideration Reverence Faith Submission and other Gracious Dispositions which suit the special parts of Divine truth doth require as much seriousness diligence and care in reading the holy Scriptures But doth it require as much Fervour of Spirit and Affections That is the Question and the contrary was shewed by the Phrases wherein Prayer is in Scripture expressed but as to this not a word onely he had shewed before that a Form of Words in Prayer doth not hinder any Exercises of Piety therein What he hath formerly said I have formerly answered I leave the Judgment to any Intelligent Reader 20. I had further told him That the Scriptures are Divine Forms and reading them is a Divine Precept and the Forms we Sing Divine Songs and the Singing of a Congregation by a Form naturally necessary and the duty impossible to be performed but by a Form The Question was only stated about Humane Forms and in a Case where no such thing is necessary all the World will see the inconclusivenes of such Arguings I shall not trouble my self to answer such things further which nothing relate to the Question in issue which himself owned to be plainly and cleerly stated I wish I could say that on his side it had been as plainly and clearly Argued against CHAP. V. An Answer to what the Vindicator hath said in his Third Section of Chap. 3. concenring the General use or Impositions of Forms in the Primitive Church Some further things noted of the Canons of the Provincial Councels of Laodicea Carthage and Milevis Further Discourse upon the head of this Argument waved because the Argument it self if true concludeth nothing as to Lawfulness or Unlawfulness 1. I am now come to the Argumentum Palmarium of our Adversaries in this Question the pretended Practice of the Church for 1300 years Indeed I always looked upon the Practice of Men a very poor Argument where the Question was about the Lawfulness or Vnlawfulness of an Action And it is doubtless no Argument tho Ex Abundanti I did speak somthing as to that point and since at the request of some Friends have spoken much more in a Supplement to that Book I shall now say little but refer my Reader to my former Book and the Supplement to it 2. Our Author hath told us That it is not probable that such excellently Devout and Judicious Men as the 4th and 5th Century abounded with should not discern helps and hindrances of Devotion I told him it was possible Like one in Cathedra he tells me This is a rash and contumelious Expression What is That some particular Men may be mistaken in a particular point This is all can be made of my words and such a point too as is of a mutable Nature for I have shewed before That that may be an hindrance to Devotion to one which is not to another which is most certainly true Is this a contumely when David saith All Men are Liars and tho he spake it in haste yet it hath thus much truth in it that there are in all Men grains of Falshood and Error and Fability Did ever any modest and judicious man talk at this rate When our Articles tell us That the Churches of Jerusalem Alexandria Antioch and all Rome erred both in matters of Worship Ceremonies and Doctrine Artic. 1562. n. 19. may not we say it was possible that some Churches in the
generally very Learned Diligent and Sober Men. The good Lord put this thing into the Hearts of our Civil Magistrates 10. Hence it appeareth that what I said was no such Calumny as to be a Reflection on any one good man nor upon the Governours of our Church nor yet upon the Political Magistrate What makes our Adversary here in such a rage as for this twice to call me Devil once by craft p. 70. another time by Periphrasis p. 235. for we can understand the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that of The grand Accuser of the Brethren tho while he thinks not fit that Ministers in publick Services should use their Gift in Prayer he can yet think it fit to express his Charity by his two gifts of Tongues and Oratory Yet in thus abusing me he as much abuseth no mean persons of his own Brethren for he who wrote The Causes of the contempt of the Clergy and those who in their Sermons have complained of the Debauchery of the Clergy and they hâ—ve not been few have said as much possibly very much more then I have said I neither said that the main body of our Clergy were such nor yet that they were Learned Diligent and Sober Men I had no reason to say either because I do not know the tenth part of them but I know very many both of the one and of the other and amongst those that I know on either side those whom I know of the worser sort are most generally the greatest Zealots for Liturgies and greatest Railers against those that are of another mind I say most generally and the main body of them are so Tho there be some learned and sober men are warm enough too in this case and for the truth of this I appeal to the knowledge of all our English World 11. Certainly it had been more worthy of one who hath had the repute which our Vindicator hath had to have owned the thing which every eye seeth and declared his sad sense of it and acknowledge the defective Constitution of our Church having not had leisure and opportunity since our Reformation from Popery to provide against it and to have told us That altho the preparation of Ministers work for them had been or may be a Temptation to Men whose hearts are viciously inclined to indulge their Lusts yet a Liturgy is no necessary cause of this nor this a necessary consequent of a Liturgy This had been true modest and ingenious by what he hath here said he hath not exposed me but himself but if he had so spoke he had found me agreeing with him and saying the same thing p. 124. 12. As to the second Effect which I mentioned viz. The loss of Ministerial Gifts He dare not say That the totall disuse or general disuse of the Ministerial Gift of Prayer is not the next way to lose it But he tells us Blessed be God in our Church there 's no loss of any Abilities requisite for the due discharge of the Ministry No loss If he had said No want I should not have contradicted him But is there No loss Are there none or have there been none who before this tying themselves to Forms could have fitly expressed themselves to God in Prayer but now cannot without their Book Pray with a Sick Person or upon any Emergent occasion I appeal to the Experience of the World And as much as he in his next words and indeed all along in his Book contemns and slighteth an Ability fitly to express our minds to God in Prayer I believe there are thousands and ten thousands of Ministers and Consencious Christians that would not want it for all this Worlds good and perfer it to the knowledge of all Fathers and all Languages and take it to be one of the Best Gifts which every one who feareth God is obliged to Covet The Lord lay not to his charge his scorn and contempt of it I am afraid that when he and I shall appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ he will find it a graver thing then a Childish varying Phrases He hath read of words which the Holy Ghost teacheth 1 Cor. 2.13 Is he sure that none of the words which a Godly Minister or Christian powreth out from the Conceptions of his own heart first inflamed with the sense of his daily renewed Sins and Wants and Mercies are not words which the Holy Ghost teacheth It teacheth expressions in Sermons 1 Cor. 2.13 in Confessions before men and therefore our Saviour bids his Disciples take no thought before hand what to say for it shall be given you in that hour what you shall say Mar. 13.11 Luke 12.11 12. and Matth. 10.20 it is expresly said For it is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you May it not be the Spirit of our Father that speaketh in a good Christian praying from the conception of his own Heart Or in a Pious Minister praying for the people of God Especially considering that that Spirit is the Spirit of Supplications and Rom. 8.15 the Spirit of Adoption by which we cry Abba Father and v. 26. The Spirit that helpeth our Infirmities for we know not what to pray for as we ought but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered He can have no Plerophory that that Text restraineth the Operation of the Spirit there to Impressions upon the Affections The Spirit may as well speak in us in Prayer as which our Saviour asserteth Matth. 10.20 it spake in his Disciples in their Confessions which could be no otherwise then by prompting them what to say and so it is expounded Mark 13.11 Whatsoever shall be given you in that hour that speak ye They spake but yet the Spirit did so eminently influence their speech that Matth. 10.20 Christ saith It is not you that speak but the Spirit of your Father which sâ—eaketh in you The case standing thus I durst not for all this World have said This was nothing but a School-boys Varying Phrases which our Answerer hath often told us in his Book for fear all understanding Christians should have judged me Prophane and little understanding Communion with God in that duty What apprehensions or confidences others may have authorizing such expressions I know not but shall in secret mourn for 13. I had instanced in a thiâ—d Fruit or consequent of Liturgies universally imposed which I called a Flood of Iniquity I did mention some drops of that flood Bitter words in Pulpits and Sermons and Printed Books ungodly representations to Superiors of men of whom the World was not worthy suspensiâ—ns silencings of many godly Ministers Ruins of many eminent Ministers of Christ with their Families separations of Christians one from another Imprisonments of man to their undoing Revilings I might have aded Blasphemings of the Holy Spirit of God in his Operations much of which if not most had been prevented if Liturgies of Praâ—er had not
And that he Prayed in his Family The Non-conformists say They allow those may use Forms to guide their Mental Prayers who cannot Pray Vocally therefore Constantine did well to make a Form for such and tho Eusebius saith Constantine in his Family Prayed yet it cannot be proved it was by Forms not of Dâ—vine Institution Prayers were appointed but not Forms of Prayer He quotes a speech of Sozomen relating to this Century and a Phrase of Nazianzen which he maketh expository of Sozomen or Julian but the Non-conformists say Nazianzen was dead many years before that Sozomen wrote and so could not expound his words From the year 400 to the year 500. He quotes the general Council of Chalcedon 451 confirming the Canon of Laodicea 364 but the Nonconf say that the Canon of the Council of Laodicea as appears by the words ordered not Forms of Prayer only a Publick Ministry of Prayers Morning and Night He quotes Proclus also asserting Liturgies delivered by James and Clement Basil and Chrysostome The Nonconformists say the Vindicator himself rejects the Authority of Proclus for St. James and Clement and they may as well do it as to the other and that the pretended Writings of Proclus are of no Authority On the contrary the Nonconformists say That in this Century Sozomen saith there were no two Churches to be found which spake the same words in Prayer From the year 500 to 600 he quotes Justinians Novellae confirming the Canons of Chalcedon But the Nonconformists say They have proved that Council established no Forms He quoted indeed before this the Council of Milevis but the Nonconformists say It was a particular case of a particular Province infected notoriously with Pelagianism nor was that Canon by the Council of Chalcedon 451 taken into the Code After the year 600 the Noncon wil agree that Gregory by his Canon Law established Forms of Prayer as far as his Authority went but with so bad success that if Adrian the Pope 200 years after had not obtained of Charles the Great to protect his Canon by a Civil Sanction and by an horrible Persecution to inforce it it had never obtained amongst Christians But they say at this time the true Christians were fled into France the Vallies of Piedmont Alsatia and Bohemia where we read not that their Ministers generally prayed by Forms Now upon this Evidence let all the Consciencious and Intelligent World judge and bring in their Verdict as they please whether this Question can be determined against us by any valuable Practice of the Church in the purer primitive times and whether Our Reasons be not much more valuable to prove the Vnlawfulness Viz. 1. Because we that are Ministers cannot do it without omitting a mean God hath given us for the Action and using one under no special divine Prescription 2. Because in doing it we cannot pray with the like Attention and Intention of heart and Fervent affections 3. Because we judge words an Essential part of Vocal prayer and these or these words an Essential part of this or that Vocal Prayer 4. Because in an Act or Part of Worship where God hath left a liberty to Ministers or Christians other Men cannot determine them 5. Because in doing it we must grant a principle improveable to the total Suppression of Ministerial Gifts 6. Because the Holy Spirit hath or may have an influence on our words as well in Prayer as in Preaching or Confession and it ought not to be shut out unnecessarily 7. Because we cannot understand why the precepts for Prayer should be interpreted differently from the Precept for Preaching which was never by the Church expounded Go read another Mans Forms 8. Because it transforms Ministers from Ministers of Christ to meer Ministers of Men. 9. Because it makes the highest performances of Ministers to be such as ordinary people may do so as there were no need of such an order of persons 10. Because by Experience we see That many idolize Forms of Prayer and think there is no other right Praying to God which is an horrid Error not fit for us to give the least countenance to This is the Summ of all Let the Reader read and judge and we trust he will be so candid as to think we have something to say for our Dissent in this Cause The Conclusion IT is now Reader high time to have done drawing this Saw which will goe no further I remember in the Ancient Practice of the Canon Law after the Pars Rea or as we call him the Defendant had put in his Answer to the Promoters Libel so as there was Lis contestata as we call it Issue joined the Promoter or his Proctor took an Oath which they called Juramentum Calumniae and expressed in these terms Illud juretur quod lis tibi justa videtur Et si quaeretur verum non inficietur Nil promittetur nec falsa probatio detur Vt lis tradetur dilatio nulla petetur That is the Promoter was to swear That he believed he had just cause of action That being asked he would not deny the truth That he would promise no Bribe nor bring in any false Testimony nor without just cause delay any proceedings I have observed likewise some Writers of late interposing some Solemn Professions and Protestations amongst others our Vindicator saith thus p. 21. I do freely profess that besides what concerns the Laws of the Church and of the Realm that I account my self to have as plain Evidence from the Laws of God and the Constitution of the Christian Church that Schism and Vnnecessary Separation is a sin in the breach of Christian Unity as that Adultery is a sin in the breach of Wedlock And I account my self to be as certain that if ever there were an unwarrantable Separation from any known Church since the Apostles time the separation from the Church of England is such since our Church is truly as free from any just exception in its Constitution Doctrine and Worship as any other since that time either was or is A very large Assertion I shall only in like manner enter my Protestation 1. That I do believe all unnecessary Separation from any Church of which we are or have been Members is Sinful 2. I am equally certain That Seperation is necessary where Ministers or People cannot keep communion without sin or so far forth as they cannot do this 3. I have the same certainty That the practical judgment of Ministers or Peoples Consciences must as to their practice determine what is lawful and unlawful tho it be a fallible judgment and they are therefore bound to use the best means they can for information before they form it 4. I do in like sincerity profess That I have wilfully omitted no means of a true Information as to the Will of God in this Cause and I do truly believe it is not lawful for me as a Minister of Christ ordinarily to perform my Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer
Irregular use of Gifts might be restrained therefore the Regular use of them might I shall leave the Reader to judg of what I said and he hath here answered whether he hath taken off the least of my Answer Only adding That an Argument from the Power of the Apostles to the Power of any Superiours now till the Author hath proved those now impowred Possessed of the same Infallible Spirit and of the same Divine Right to make new Rules of Order for the Church is very inconclusive 19. In his 41 p. He tells us that This faculty of Expression in Prayer Vindication p. 41. is procured and enlarged by men who have a competent Natural freedom of Speech by use and exercise and advanced by various Methods I acknowledge saith he that in some an Affectionateness of Devotion doth contribute much thereto in others confident self conceit and an heated fancy and as I have read some particular Instances even Diabolical Contracts have promoted the same What he calls facility of Expression is the same with what I called an ability fitly to express our minds to God in Prayer and of this he speaks or he saith nothing to the purpose This he saith is procured and enlarged by use and exercise he saith true provided the Person hath first a due knowledge of God and of himself and of the Scriptures which till one hath acquired all Vse and Exercise is to no purpose This also must be supposed to Affectionateness of Devotion which he truly saith contributeth much thereto but how confident self conceit a meer heated fancy or Diabolical Contracts should do it which the Answerer it seems believeth he would never else have troubled us with a Romance are matters of wonderful subtil disquisition especially that How the Devil should help a Man if he would be so kind fitly to express his mind to God in Prayer I tremble while I mention such a thing as ever spoken by a Divine to help the already too much Atheistical and Blaphemous World with an Authority and that no less then Dr. Faulkners to say Godly Ministers do that by the Devil which they do by the assistance of the Holy Spirit of God The Answerers granting it may be will be warrant enough to harden hundreds in such Blasphemies How much Evil speaking soever I be charged with I hope I shall avoid that Evil speaking because of those Texts Mar. 3.28.29 and that Matth. 12.31 32. The Crime there was the Pharises asserting that what Christ did by the Spirit of God v. 28. Was done by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils The Doctor doth not indeed boldly assert such a thing but he hath so phrased what he saith that besides the Scurvy Innuendo in his words he plainly grants it nut be But surely the Devil fills none with the Knowledge of God or with Affectionate Devotion Now whether the Pharises guilt there were not an intituling the Devil to the Operations of the Blessed Spirit I leave to his serious thoughts Nor can I be so uncharitable even to the Pharises as to think that they in saying so Lied against the Holy Ghost speaking what they knew to be otherwise I do judge they thought as they spake which if they did I know no difference in the case but in the means of Conviction they had further then any can novv have that the People of God Praying in the use of their Spiritual Gifts Act by the Spirit because of the Miracles they saw wrought by Christ which indeed was a great means but the judgment of a true Miracle from the Phaenomenon of it in one of Satans lying Wonders mentioned 1 Thessa 2.9 is so difficult that I cannot see the heighth of their guilt lay there so much as in their speaking Evil with reference to the blessed Spirit in a thing which they knew not but had good Evidence to the contrary I pray God that it may not he laid to the charge of so Worthy a Person that by this unaccountable Suggestion He hath as David was charged in a case wherein the Holy Spirit was not so immediately concerned 2 Sam. 12.14 made the Enemies of God to Blaspheme That to Pray in the Spirit or with the Assistance of the Spirit is to perform the duty of Prayer with a pious mind as he tells us so many times over 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is what none denies but that this is the whole of it that it is not also with such words as the Spirit teacheth them to utter which Spirit is therefore called the Spirit of Supplication the Spirit of Adoption sent into our hearts by which a Child of God crieth Abba Father is what the Dr. neither hath proved nor ever can 20. He tells us p. 43. that he acknowledgeth a sober and due freedom of Expression to be a Gift of God in the same manner that the capacities of Mens Vnderstandings and all other Abilities of Mind and Body are Gods Gifts But it is plain this liberty of Expression is the product of the Natural Capacities Men receive from God which are improved in well disposed Persons by ordinary means under Gods Blessing c. Socinus in his Dialogue of Justification saith the same of Faith a Spiritual Gift of a more Salvifick Nature Faith saith he is such a Gift of God as God gives to all and a little before Hearing is the Gift of God c. I do not compare Faith and the Gift of Prayer I know Faith is a far more excellent gift But I believe he speaks as much truth with reference to Faith as our Answerer speaks as to an Ability to express our minds fitly to God in Prayer for Faith in the exercise is the exercise of the Natural Capacity of a Soul to put a confidence in a person or Assent to a Proposition which is evidenced to it to be truth and every man hath a Natural Power to Assent and Rely on proper Objects But to Assent to a Spiritual Truth above the Evidence of Sense and Reason to receive Christ and Rely on him for Life Eternal these are no Natural Capacities So to speak is but a Natural Capacity the generality of Men have a Natural Capacity to express their Minds by Speech but an Ability fitly to express our Minds to God in Prayer is no product of a meer Natural Capacity but of the Spirit of God having first enlightened the Soul with the knowledge of God 21. If he saith it is but such a Gift as Men may have and Perish eternally it is granted him but such were Prophecy the Mysteries of Knowledge Miraculous Faith Rom. 13.1 2. Yet I hope they were Spiritual gifts and not the meet products of Natural Capacities and different from such Natural Abilities as are necessary to make a Man perfect in Naturalibus and it is easie to prove that common gifts in the Service of God are of use and means to Spiritual Acts. I know none that ever called the Gift of Prayer a Spiritual saving Gift
certain what Petitions their Ministers will put up in Prayer nor doth God any where require it nor any right reason enforce it How doth it appear that all the Congregation of Israel were certain before-hand what Solomon would and did pray for 1 Kings 8.22 Or what Hezekiah would and did pray for 2 Chron. 30.18 or Jehosaphat 2 Chron. 20.5 or Ezra Ezra 9.5 It is wonderful these great Men could not see the necessity of this Device for promoving Peoples Devotion Nor doth any Reason shew it I know nothing any Man or Woman hath to do who is to joyn with another in Prayer but keeping his heart in Heaven as much as he can to attend to the words said or read by the Minister and making up a judgment on each Petition if he or she apprehendeth it to be according to the Will of God earnestly and believingly to desire it this they may as we l do upon hearing a Conceived as a Read Prayer For his Second Particular it is a May Be rising from Mens Lusts easy to be avoided without providing Forms which will as little secure the Devotion against other Lusts of a far more hainous Nature 3. The Third is non intelligible why People may not pray with one Accord whilst the Minister without a Form ministreth words to them especially if as our Answerer told us in the last Chap. Prayer be not so much a Verbal thing I am sure Prayer in the Congregation by the People is not a Verbal thing but meerly Mental For what he saith Fourthly it may be true where People study Starcht Prayers such as Dr. Featly reflects on in his Ancilla Pietatis but in no case else 5. For Impertinencies Inconvenient Expressions c. which we are so often told of I have heard more some within these 28 days from Ministers false reading the Forms then ever I heard from Conceived Prayers both proceed from a non attentive mind which I am sure Forms will not prevent but rather give Temptations to by allowing the thoughts more liberty to the contrary 11. I have nothing to do with what our Answerer saith p. 89 90 91 and 92. being not concerned to oppose his Vindication of himself from what I never charged him with But he hath three Observations which begin p. 91. which I must concern my self with The First is That Attention Intention and Fervency P. 91 92. is not the whole business needful to be minded and taken care of in the Publick Service of the Church but rightly ordered Matter due Expressions and Behaviour and here Forms have the advantage I answer not at all As to Behaviour a law may help that but sure a Form of Prayer cannot For the other Two things they are no more necessary to be taken care for as to Prayer then as to Preaching Then it seems all Ministers must Preach by Forms too or else the Church ought to take care that Ministers for Matter and Phrase speak fitly in the Peoples name to God but need take no care that Ministers speak fitly in Gods Name to the People 3. The care the Church ought to take should be That none be admitted as Ministers in it who are not able to do both and when all is done some Errors will be Another thing he saith that must be cared for is That Mens Devotion may be so as not to cross other Duties It is impossible it should for it would no longer be Devotion But what other duty will be hindred by Conceived Prayer That which he instanceth in is Preservation of Vnity and Obedience to Superiours But are these Duties when the business contended for is that this thing so far as the Persons concerned can judge and as they are ready to argue is not lawful And when they oppose the first and great Commandment To which the Second tho like to it I and to which both these relate is and ought to be subordinate 12. His Second Observation is That there may be a want of due Devotion Attention and Fervency in those that use Forms and yet this not proceed from the Form This is doubtless true if he meaneth solely and chiefly but what is this to the purpose when the business of the Argument is to prove that in him that ministreth a Form must necessarily hinder degrees of Attention and Fervency This observation is true or false as his answer to the Argument is good or bad which I leave to the Reader to judge from my reply to it 13 His Third observation p. 95. is That Publick Service ought to be so ordered as may fit the General Temper of the true Christian Spirit but must not be censured if it fit not with the Inclinations of all particular Persons Agreed therefore said the Author let it be so ordered that those who desire it may have a Minister to pray with and for them by a Form and others may have one that may pray with and for them from the Conceptions of his own Heart It is very like the True Christian Spirit may be found in the latter as much as in the former if that Spirit be a Spirit of Holiness and of the Fear of the Lord of Love to God and Communion with God as I think it is and believe most Christians are of my mind CHAP. IV. A Reply to the Vindicators Second Section of his Second Chapter concerning the judgment of other Divines What is in the Reasonable Account concerning the judgment of the Leiden Professors Dr. Ames the Divines of the Walachrian Classis further considered and vindicated Whether in Acts of External Worship there be any thing which hath in it an Intrinsecal Piety Religion or Devotion Antecedaneous to the Revealed Will of God Whether God requireth the same degree of Attention and Fervour in all Duties 1. THe Answerer begins his Second Section p. 98. with telling us That he proposed it as useful to try the Issue of the thing in question viz. Whether Forms of Prayer were any prejudice to Piety or Religion To consult the judgment of them who are least partial and yet able to make a true estimate and especially to consider the Evidences of Reason which may be produced He saith I agreed it But how take my words p. 44. Indeed it is very reasonable in this case That if the Proposition be not of that Nature with reference to several Persons that the experience of Christians be variable in the case it is reasonable that the Major part of pious and able should be taken into Judgment or rather Counsel But I further told him That we believe the Experience of Christians may be really different in this case some may find the use of their own Gifts more advantageous others may possibly find Forms more advantageous it depends much on the degree of the Gift each one hath received But every one is bound to use that lawful means which he bâ— experience findeth most conducive to himself to keep his thoughts attentive and
his affections fervent so as one may be undâ—r an obligation a divine obligation not to use Forms another for the present to use them So as I did not think this matter of a Superiours command because an Vniversal command here must necessarily trespass as to some upon a Divine Obligation which hath pre-obliged them to the contrary the command of Attention and Fervency in Prayer which they must not violate in obedience to any man as all Divines agree I think this is Sense and Divinity Now good Reader observe what our Answerer who hath so often told the World there is no weight no strength no truth in what I say replyeth to this 2. He tells us That He who seriously minds his duty must also have a conscientious regard toVnity Order and the Duty of due submission and the observing them are not the way to make him less devout and fervent That the Exercise of one duty will not hinder us in another That the Promises of Gods Grace and Presence are chiefly made to them who embrace Peace and Vnity I do very well know that there are Precepts for and Promises to Peace and Vnity and those that follow it and some of those Precepts which also direct us how to follow it as Heb. 12.14 Follow Peace with all Men and Holiness Rom. 12.18 If it be possible as much as lyeth in you live peaceably with all Men So that Vnity and Peace is no further our duty then it is consistent with Holiness which surely lyeth in the discharge of our Obligations to God No further then it is possible for us and as in us lyeth Now it is not Morally possible for us it lyeth not in us to be at Peace and in Vnity with them who will be in no Peace and Vnity with us unless we will consent to please them to quit what we verily believe is our Obligation to God viz. To Pray with the greatest attention of our thoughts and fervency of our Spirits Fathers and Authority of Men enough might be quoted in this case but that I fancy no such Ostentation There are Precepts also requiring order and due submission to Governours but they must both be expounded as the other Will any one then in his right reason urge us with Precepts to Vnity Order and Submission in a case where the question is Whether we can follow these Precepts with Holiness yea or no Whether they be morally possible or lie in us yea or no Or Whether before ever any such precepts of Men were we were not pre-obliged to the contrary by God 3. To as little purpose is his Text Matth. 5.23 24. brought for our Brother neither hath nor can have any thing against us tho he be offended at us if he be offended at us meerly because to be at Vnity with him or to please him we will not violate an Oblâ—gation which we believe was ever upon us from God Now that we have such an Obligation upon us this Argument was brought to prove Because we have an Oblition upon us to the greatest attention of thoughts and fervency of Spirit in Prayer and this we cannot discharge as we upon experience find by Praying by Forms But he promiseth us a discourse hereafter about Superiors power in this case To which time we shall adjourn this discourse only minding him that my instance of a command to Pray with our Eyes shut or open was not brought as a Comparison but as an Instance That there are some things indâ—fferent that are not the object of Superiors commands Yet we cannot but judge such a command as momentous as a command one while to pray standing up another while kneeling down what speaking evil of Dignities this is I cannot understand but I am sure in this and many other things as causelesly he pleaseth himself to speak evil of me which speaks him not very confident of the Validity of his own Answers It useth to be the policy of Commanders in an Army when they know they have beaten their Enemy to multiply their Adversaries Numbers and magnifie their Couragious Fighting but I see my Adversary is ruled by other Politicks 4. He comes in the next place p. 10. to tell us There can be no Publick Worship in any Church unless it be first determined to be either with or without a Form we desire no other determination then That it may be determined lawful for Ministers to Pray with or without a Form and thus this point is determined by the Churches of God in France and Holland It is determined in New England and Scotland that it shall be without a Form I ask not so much yet surely there is with this Doctors leave Publick Worship in all these places and therefore if his meaning be that there can be no Publick Worship unless one way be fixed of them two and the other destroyed he condemns all the Publick Worship of France and Holland where either of them is at liberty There is therefore no necessity for the determination of all Men in this case before there can be any Publick Worship of God no not by him that officiateth unless he means as to a Particular Act and therein he saith true but in the same Congregation Publick Worship may for ought I know be this day performed by one that useth no Form and to morrow by another who useth a Form not having Gifts or being nor confident he hath or being hindred by God at this or that time as to the use of them 5. At length he comes to the two Testimonies that of the Divines of Leyden and that of the Walachrian Classis which he had brought to prove that they judged it lawful for all Ministers in their Ministerial Acts of Prayer to use Forms of Prayer composed tho by Men not Divinely inspired tho he tells us p. 3. he laid no great stress on them yet because he chargeth me with not giving a true account of them and calls it an high degree of Carelesness and not Faithful dealing I must examine the matter again 1. He agrees as I said p. 46. of the Reasonable Account that the Walachrians professed to agree with Amesius and he agrees that Amesius was not for preferring Forms before conceived Prayer Well then where was the Errour I committed shewing my self careless and unfaithful He tells us that the Walachrians only declared their Agreement with Dr. Ames in that Question Whether Forms were lawful for Prayer and administring the Sacraments or those Churches that used them were guilty of Superstition and Will Worship and whether men might retain Communion with those Churches that used them In these words the Walachrians state the Question and that in the very place quoted in Dr. Faulconers Libertas Eccles p. 121. Considerat Cap. 7. qu. 2. The very first words in Answer to this Question are Nos in hac controversia faciles accedimus iis quae ab Amesio super hac Quaest scribuntur What saith ouâ— Answerer I acknowledge
and so may be under different Obligations of Divine Precepts in the case God not commanding those to whom he hath not given the best means to pray with the greatest Attention of thoughts and Intention of Mind and Fervor who are not able to do it but only to do it so far as they are able But in the mean time these precepts oblige all to their utmost Ability to do it And this is a full or at least a sufficient Answer to what our Vindicator saith in his long Vindication of his Argument from his 113 to his 129 page For not to multiply words to no purpose let men believe what they will whether the Form of Blessing was to be used as a Form and the Lords Prayer to be used as a Form yea or no. Great Authors are in both sides in the case It proveth no more then that Forms of Prayer are not in themselves so evil that God himself cannot prescribe and legitimate them which none but mad men will say they are or as this Author phraseth it that they are not in their own Nature hurtful and so hurtful as God cannot command the use of them which is a degree of badness which very few things have In the mean time they may be sinful enough as contrary to the Divine Will and that tho not to all Persons yet to some Persons which is all I contend for 15. And here I must crave pardon of my Reader for giving some instances of things which God by his command could not legitimate as to those persons to whom he gave the command Murther and Incest I admire how they slipt my pen tho our Vindicator who lasheth me sufficiently for much lesser Errors then this taketh no notice of it for tho it be true God cannot make Murther and Incest lawful yet that is but trifling because they will not be Murther or Incest when he hath commanded them But God by a Special command to particular persons may make those actions lawful which if any others did without such a special command they would be Murther and Incest and unlawful So it was lawful by vertue of Gods command to Abraham for him to think upon and design the killing of his Son to prepare means for it and go about it and also to have done it But I hope our Vindicator doth not think this would have been or is lawful for any other persons under the circumstance of no such special command and this will let the Reader see how little to the purpose the Vindicator speaks of this p. 116. I appeal to every man of Sense whether that instance was not good enough to prove That God by his command may make some things lawful which without such command to those particular persons had been unlawful and are unlawful as contrary to his Revealed Will as to any others who have no such command but his General Rule to the contrary What but the special Command of God to Magistrates makes it lawful for them to execute malefactors or by their Souldiers to kill men in just wars What but the special permission or license of God makes it lawful to kill men breaking open their houses or in their own defence The General Precept is Thou shalt not kill But this is abundantly enough to shew his poor Vindication of his first Argument founded on this Mistake That we say Forms of Prayer do in their own Nature hinder Piety 16. The truth is there are some things so intrinsically evil that God cannot make them lawful but these are very few nor are all men agreed in this for my own part I do agree with those who think there are Eternal Idaea's both of Good and Evil I know it is a Subtil Question but I cannot think that God can authorize a person to deny his Being or to Blaspheme himself God cannot deny himself nor expose his own Essential Glory But that God cannot make the same thing both lawful and unlawful the doing of which at all or in such or such a manner does meerly depend upon his Will is to me little better then Nonsense Now whether God would be worshipped or should be worshipped by Vocal Prayer or no certainly depends upon his Will and nothing but his Will and if it be his will that all Persons should do it with the utmost attention of thoughts and intention of mind and fervor of spirit they are able And if one person be not able to do it by forms prescribed by other men and another be best able to do it so it is plain that the Will of God in the case is different as to these two persons and to tell us that the first person may do it without prejudice to his piety in the action when all the piety of the action lyeth in Obedience to the Will of God sounds in my Ears very Atheologically and awkly to say no worse concerning it 17. This miserable arguing makes me quite weary of replying my hand is in and I shall go through but I think never to take up a pen again in this Case p. 129. the Vindicator comes to Vindicate his Second Argument which was from the lawfulness of Singing Psalms in Meeter and Reading the Scriptures We must put it into Form or the Reader will never see the force or weakness of it His Argument could be but this If the Scriptures may be read with utmost attention of thoughts and fervor of Spirit and Psalms may be sung and that in Meeter with the utmost intention of Spirit and attention of Thoughts and they yet be Forms and not the the dictates of our Hearts to our Lipps Then Prayers may be put up to God by Forms composed by other Men not divinely inspired with the utmost attention of our thoughts and intention and fervor of our spirits But. Ergo The summ of my Answer was a denial of the consequence My reasons were and are Because these were Duties of different species and the same Motions Affections and Degrees of Affection are not by God required of us in all Duties It is no Rule of Logick or Reason that whatsoever may be affirmed or denied of one Species may be affirmed of another for then we might conclude in Animals that an Horse can discourse because Man can It is as true in Actions in Religious Actions Worship here is the. Genus Reading the Scriptures Singing Psalms Praying Preaching c. are Species contained under Worship as the Genus We can neither affirm nor deny all things concerning one of these Species that we may affirm or deny of another This is evident now to all and might be justified in forty instances The Question therefore is Whether God requireth the same affections and the same degree of fervor of Spirit in Reading the Scriptures and Sing ng of Psalms that he doth require of us in Prayer If he doth not the Argument is fallacious because of the manifest Transition De Genere ad Genus 18. It is plain he
joyneth with him who Ministreth in Prayer For the Ministers reading a Form can be no part of External Worship because in it he is neither directed by the Light of Nature nor by the Will of God in Scripture It is only an help to himself or others or both to order himself and people by in their Mentall Prayers 7. Neither can I see how it can properly be called a Mean unless the Form be particularly by God directed of Mental Prayer For in reason the mean of meer internal adorotion must be an Ability so to adore which a man hath partly from Nature whence is his Ability to think and conceive partly from the influence of the Holy Spirit of Prayer and Supplication 8. His next Observation is as idle as his Reflection in that Paragraph founded upon it is impertinent it is this p. 179. That according to this Argument the conceptions and expressions of him who Prayeth without a Form are as much forbidden as the use of Forms is pretended to be because God hath not prescribed these Expressions I had told him that both the Light of Nature and the Will of God declared in his Word 1 Tim. 4.14 1 Pet. 4.10 Rom. 12. have shewed us That an ability fitly to express our minds that is our wants and desires to God in Prayer is the means which God hath prescribed for Vocal Prayer how well he hath disproved what I said let the Reader judge from my reply so that in further answer to this his Observation I shall but oppose another observation and commend it to my Reader viz. That he hath answered my Argument learnedly by begging the Question for this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 betwixt us 9. But yet because our Author hath no mind to treat of Means and to grant us that Means as well as Acts and Parts of Divine Worship must have a Divine Institution Let us take him at his own concession That parts of Worship must have such an Institution this he yieldeth in terminis p. 177. I say that words in Vocal Prayer are parts of Worship his friend Capellus he owns hath affirmed it That by keeping to the constant use of a Form men make it a proper part of Worship This he doth not like But why then in the very same case about Forms of Prayer doth he choke us with what Capellus hath said Vindicat. p. 167 173 201. It is a just Rule in Law That he who hath produced a Witness in the same cause for himself hath granted him a sufficient Witness and shall never be allowed to except against him as not such I hope if Capellus his Authority be valuable against us it is so for us 10. But I have another Argument to prove that Forms of Prayer Vniversally imposed are parts of Prayer proper parts of Prayer that is Vocal Prayer which alone is Ministerial Prayer For the parts of that religious Action are Two The one is Internal which lyeth in the Motions of the Heart and Affections The other is External which are Our words And these are the two Essential parts of Worship in that Prayer take away either of them and it is no Prayer that is no Ministerial Vocal Prayer And these or those words are essential parts of this or that Ministerial Vocal Prayer Now if Men without express direction from God may prescribe us words they may prescribe an Essential part of VVorship which our Vindicator justly denieth they may 11. His third Observation p. 182. is That in his Libertas Ecclesiastica 2. Sect. Chap. 1. He hath largely proved That it is a false and dangerous Position to say that nothing may be used or appointed in Gods Worship besides necessary Circumstances of humane Actions but what is appointed by God himself He addeth here That it is destructive to Publick VVorship and Religion For since God hath commanded us to pray but hath not in all Acts of Worship enjoyned our words or the performance of this duty with or without a Form it must needs according to this Position be done neither by a Form nor without because both by consequence are forbidden being not prescribed Then he telleth us That God hath not prescribed what sort of bread or wine should be used in the Supper of the Lord nor what Psalms should be sang To which I reply 12. I am not at leisure to reply to all he hath said in 72 pages of his Libertas Ecclesiast but I do not remember that he hath there said That Men may appoint Essential or integral parts of VVorship if he hath I am sure he hath denyed it here p. 177. Now I have both said and proved that words are an Essential part of Ministerial Vocal Prayer If there be no words used there can be no such thing therefore by our Answerers own concession words in this Prayer must be directed by the Light of Nature or by the VVill of God VVriten in his Word I have shewed that Gods VVill is revealed in the cause both in the Light of Nature which directeth us to express our own thoughts in our own words and by his VVill revealed commanding us to Minister our Gifts and according as we have received the Gâ—ft or Grace Neither do I remember that our Vindicator hath asserted That Men not divinely authorized and inspired for that end may appoint Means of VVorship I am sure in this Book he is very shy of it if he hath said any such thing elsewhere it is false and contrary to the Second Commandment For any appointments of other things in about or relating to the Worship of God we are not here disputing nor was the Question stated with reference to them 13. It is rashly if no worse said That there can be no Publick Worship or Religion according to that Position For it plainly inferreth That in the Churches of God in Scotland Holland France New England c. there is no Publick Religion or VVorship for it is certain that in all or most of them there are no Forms of Prayer Vniversally used or imposed tho there be in some of them some made and left at liberty to be used or not used 14. Whereas he saith That according to this Position there can be no Administration of the Sacraments because according to this Principle all Bread and VVine is forbidden to be used in that Ordinance because the particular kind of Bread and Wine is not prescribed It proceedeth upon this Hypothesis which is false That we say That nothing is left to our liberty in about or relating to the Worship of God because we say no Acts Parts or Means of VVorship are left to liberty We say that particular Phrases in Prayer and Preaching so the particular kinds of Bread and VVine to be used in the Lords Supper are left to liberty but yet words are not left to liberty Nor whether any Bread or Wine should be used are not left to liberty and where God hath left any thing to
and so far as man can judge mind what they are about with all Indication of Reverence and Godly fear Whether they be the Persons that talk or sleep out Sermons or that hear the word of God so far as men can judge with trembling Not that none but they do so my concern is not to discourse of others but for them Whether they generally be not a People against all Idols and Idolatry that dread to use the name of God idly or to swear by it or by any Creatures Prophanely Whether they be those that prophane the Sabbath by unnecessary Journyings or Labours or Recreation and do not ordinarily spend it in the publick and private Duties of Gods Worship For their behaviour towards men Are they generally the Sons and Daughters of this age that dare curse their Fathers and Mothers and reproach the Womb that bare them Are they Murtherers Thieves Adulterers Fornicators Perjured Persons Do they not generally make Conscience to Owe nothing to any but to love one another to deal justly with men I will not speak for every Individual Christ had a Judas in his Flock Nor do I reflect on any others I know there are many that are no Dissenters who are Pious towards God Righteous towards Men. I would only have these on both sides made one What have their worst Enemies to Object but disobedience to an Humane Law in matter of Divine Worship wherein they do in all sincerity profess they cannot do or omit the thing commanded or forbidden without sinning against God In the mean time your Honours see their bitterest Enemies can disobey Laws against Pluralities and Non-residents Others of them can disobey Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Cursing Adulteries c. and not see the beams in their own eyes tho they cannot but say these Laws are against things plainly and syllabically forbidden in the Word of God And indeed none lives on either side but violates some Humane Laws Nemo sine crimine vivit Optimus ille qui minimis urgetur said an Heathen Poet and truly without doubt 5. Nor most Honoured Patriots are the Arguments of those who are charged as disobedient as to this very point of Prayer invaluable nor can any mans confidences make them appear so to your Reasonable and Generous Souls It is not so evident as some Infallibles of our age would make it That the Holy Spirit of God hath not or may not have a special and immediate influence upon Pious Ministers Souls as to their words in Prayer as well as upon Gods Peoples words in Confession or Ministers words in Preaching both which the Scripture asserts which ought not to be excluded in that Prayer where words are to be used Nor is it certain that words are not an Essential Part of all Ministerial Prayer and these or these words an Essential part of this or that Prayer Nor that any Superior can direct an Essential Part of Gods Worship nor that in an Act of Worship where God hath left any thing to Ministers or Peoples Liberty that they may do this or that any Superiors can determine them to one part against the other Nor many things more in the following sheets which are inlarged upon Some parts of some of these Questions may appear clear to some the other part to others But this will conclude the things in themselves not to be plainly and clearly lawful Your Honours abhor an Infallible Judge boasted of by the Papists let it not be pretended to in the Tents of Protestants Nor one Infallible person suffered to triumph over others in the near concerns of Divine Worship In things necessary for all by a Divine Law we humbly allow it the Kings and your Honours duty to command us But if they appear not such upon plain evidence to our Superiors we beseech their Pardon if we say They cannot with any security to themselves from the Divine Law enjoyn them to or inforce them from those who judge them sinful in Divine Worship 6. And as it is not possible that any Divine Rule should be produced to make such a thing as this necessary to be brought into or continued in Publick Worship So these two last years have given abundant Evidence that it is not Expedient to tye all men to the use of them We are sure your Honours will grant from the Instances of the Songs of Thanksgiving Recorded in Scripture both those of Moses and Miriam and Deborah and David and from the Prayers in Scripture of Solomon David Jehosaphat Hezekiah Ezra c. That when Persons are under Signal Providences whether of Deliverances or Distress or in respect of some general Sin the Servants of God have not thought it sufficient in Publick Prayer To give thanks in general words for all Mercies and Preservations but to tell him of his particular wondrous works to recognize him the Author of this or that Salvation To confess and bewail those particular Sins if they be the Sins of the generality of the People To put up Petitions suited to those particular distresses the Church or State is in This is plain in all Scripture And where it is not done God is eminently restrained in his Glory our duty is eminently neglected We are sure God within these two years hath made England as remarkable a Stage of Provividence as ever any Nation in the World was made We have been in most eminent distresses and have had most eminent deliverances Both of them concerning the whole Nation and all that in the Nation can be dear to every good man The life of our Soveraign the life of our Religion The life of our Ancient Government The lives of several of our Noblemen multitudes of our Gentry and many thousands of our Commonalty Plots upon Plots have been discovered Uno Succiso Pullulat alter We have had to deal with an Hydra Now we humbly refer it to your Honours to judge what particular Homage either of Prayer or Praise God hath had relating to these distresses in all our particular Congregations And whether the limiting all Ministers to Old Forms of Prayer hath not been the cause of this High Omission The Practice of our Ministers satisfied as to Confirmity is two-fold Some take themselves obliged not only as all are in the Desk to add nothing to the Forms But in their Pulpits to keep to the Bidding of Prayer in the Canon or at least to Preface their Sermons with half a dozen lines taken out of some Collect and conclude them with either Gloria patri c. or that excellent Collect our Vindicator tells us of Grant we beseech Almighty God c. those and these are not a few could never put up one Prayer except upon 11 April 1679 for which were indeed good and particular Forms made for any deliverance nor yet offer up one Publick Thanksgiving Others there are who conceive that though the Statute gives them in the letter of it no further liberty yet the continual Practice of our Church
Prayer may be properly call'd the Gift of Vocal Prayer I affirm it The Vindicator denies it Chap. 1. 5 Quest Whether in Acts of external instituted Worship or any part of it any thing can be call'd Order or Decency Or be said to be Pious Religious Devout and for Edification antecedaneously or without respect to the Divine Will revealed in the Law of Nature or in Holy Writ I deny it The Vindicator affirms it Chap. 4 c. 6 Quest Whether considering the infirmity of our Nature a Person in Prayer can keep his thoughts as close to and have his affection as warm in the Duty reading a Form as in speaking from his own conceptions I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 75. 7 Quest Whether where God hath left Minister or People a liberty to use one or another mean in an Act of Worship but commanded all to serve him with the greatest fervor of spirit they can they be not by a Divine Precept obliged to use that means which upon experience they find most conducive to the attention of their thoughts or fervor of their spirits I affirm it 8 Quest Supposing Superiors should command Ministers and People in the Publick Worship or in their Families to pray by Forms onely which they appoint such a Command were lawful and obliging to them I deny it The Vindicator affirms pag. 193 c. 9 Quest Whether there be not equal reason for Superiors to command Ministers to perform their Ministerial Acts of Preaching by reading other mens Sermons as their Acts of Prayer by reading orbâ—rs Forms of Prayer I affirm The Vindicator denies 10 Quest Whether the Promises we have in Scripture of the influence and assistance of the Holy Spirit in Prayer may not or do not extend to words as well as pious and devout affections or our contending for a liberty as to words in Prayer he not a meer Contention for shewing our Parts and a varying of Phrases As to the first part I affirm as to the latter I deny The Vindicator affirms the latter 11 Quest Whether Prayer Preaching and Administring the Sacraments be not the main works and parts of a Gospel-Ministers ministration I affirm it The Vindicator denies it 12 Quest Whether if Ministers perform their Acts of Prayer and Preaching by prescribed Forms of others and administer the Sacraments by other Forms than Christ hath given them to use in the case they by it do not transform themselves from Ministers of Christ to meer Ministers of men The last hath not been touched and may make a new Argument in my Case I must confess the dread of it is not the least thing that aweth me The Russian Priests are brought to think they fulfil their Ministry by reading their Liturgy and in stead of Preaching reading an Homily out of Chrysostom But in these things whether they approve themselves indeed Ministers of Christ or meer Servants of Men may be considered The famous Ministry of England hath ever been judged another thing as soon Reader as thou canst fix thy answer to these Questions satisfactorily to thy own Conscience thou wilt be able to determine whether what I have said in the Reasonable Account c. or what Dr. Falkner hath said in his Vindication be of most weight and whose Positions are most extravagant false and erroneous Legat penes Lectorem sit Judicium THE INTRODUCTION The Vindicator's Title not proper to his Work nor justly proportioned to the Title or Matter of the Book he pretendeth to answer The Author of the Reasonable Account pretends to no Oracular infallibilities onely to Reason working on Scriptural Principles The design of his Book The Vindicator's false account of it in his Epistle Dedicatory His slighty apprehensions of it The Policy of that The Undertaking not so strange as the Vindicator would make it The reason why the Arguments may appear to have no weight to the Vindicator yet may not be so light The Vindicator's unkind reflection upon the Author for his want of skill in Chronology as to the times of Gregory the Great and Charles the Great shewed to be only produced for sport and to have nothing of charge in it but the Vindicator himself hath commited a greater Error about Gregory the Great making him to have died Fâ—fteen years before Platina saith he was Pope The Vindicator's declining Syllogistical Arguing The seasonableness of the coming out of the Reasonable Account through the intervention of Gods Providence tho the Author at the writing of it had no prospect of any such thing The Conclusion of the Answer to his Epistle Dedicatory and Introduction 1. THE Author hath intituled his Book A Vindication of Liturgies that is of what strictly taken none of any sound mind ever found fault with for a Liturgy it ought to be wrote Liturgy tho it be by vulgarer ror neglected fignifies nothing either according to the notation of the word coming from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Scriptural usage of it or the usage of it in the ancientest Writers in Philology or in ancient Ecclesiastical Writers without an addition to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the like but a Publick Service or Ministry but he by and by adds Shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms of Prayer Nor hath any that I know denied this It is onely the Lawfulness of an Vniversal Vse or Imposition of Set Forms and those too prescribed by other men and imposed on all men that is the matter in question which by the Title of his Book it seems the Author had no mind to vindicate 2. He goes on In answer to a late Book intituled A Reasonable Account why some pious Noncon Ministers judge it sinful for them to perform their Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others But how shall a Vindication of Liturgies shewing the Lawfulness Vsefulness and Antiquity of performing the Publick Worship of God by Set Forms ever answer that Book which meddles not with the Lawfulness of Liturgies but Forms of Prayer onely composed by those who do not use them and imposed on them Nor doth it say they are unlawful only shews the reasons of some persons why they cannot judge that it is lawful for them to use them 3. Neither the Author of that Book nor his Friends pretend to have the Propositions they delivered suggested to them by the Roman King's Goddess Aegeria nor yet whispered to them by Mahomets Pigeon nor yet impressed upon them as John of Leyden pretended at Munster that his were nor yet to have had them from the Possessor of any infallible Chair they pretend to no more than that Light which enlighteneth every man that comes into the World They think There is a Spirit in Man and the Almighty hath given him Vnderstanding that God hath given all men a Principle inabling men to dis-Course conclusions from Principles which we call Reason That these Principles are
may be avoided nor is there the least shadow of Reason for what he saith Yes saith he he speaks of ministring one to another now he that prayeth ministreth only to God He speaketh of Officers in the Church ministring now surely they in Prayer Minister not to God only but to the Church or else the Church and they pray diverse things 36. He comes to answer what I urged from Rom. 12.6 Having Gifts given according to the Grace given us whether prophecying let us prophecy according to the proportion of Faith or Ministry let us wait on our ministry or he that teacheth on Teaching or he that exhorteth on Exhortation He that giveth let him do it with Simplicity he that Ruleth with Diligence he that sheweth Mercy with Chearfulness As to this he only referreth to his former Answer to 1 Pet. 4.10 and tells us there is no mention of Prayer there but the other gifts which the Apostle meaneth are there named Let me a little enlarge on this Theme because it will give some light to that text 1 Tim. 4.14 The Apostle is plainly there speaking of the Whole Church Service which he distinguisheth into Prophecy and Ministry Ministry distinguisheth it into the Ministry of him that giveth or sheweth Mercy which is that of Deacons or Ruling under Prophecying he comprehendeth all other Acts of a Gospel Minister for though Prophets and Prophecying in the New Testament sometime signify persons or acts predicting things to come as it is used with reference to Agabus Acts 21. sometimes some Acts which were the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost as is in some places in 1 Cor. 12.13.14 yet it also signifies the Ordinary Ministry of all those who had something to do besides Ruling and shewing Mercy These we call Ministers tho the Apostle speaks otherwise in this Text to distinguish them from Deacons and meer Rulers and therefore calls their whole Ministration Prophecy That precept 1 Thess 5.20 Despise not Prophecying is not to be restrained to Praedictions or immediate Revelations but comprehends all Gospel Ministrations of the Ordinances of Christ tho expressed by one of the Eminentest among them which is Preaching the Gospel Now as to these the Apostle saith Having Gifts let us Minister Being in these Offices let us Minister 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the grace of God given to us that is according to that Ability which God hath given us I Appeal to any thinking Reader whether this bids not very fair for the true and plain sense of that Text which if it doth 1. Prayer is there spoken to included in the general term Prophecying tho no more particularly named then Baptizing or Giving the Lords Supper or Visiting the Sick c. 2. If that difficult Phrase 1 Tim. 4.14 be not to be understood By Prophecy that is by God who is the Author of Prophecy but To or for Prophecy according to Vatablus Piscator and Beza a very fair Sense may be put on that Text without restraining it most unreasonably to the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit 37. The Answerer saying no more to deliver these Texts out of my hands cometh p. 67 c. to except against my description of the Gift of Prayer for the publick Service of the Church as very defective especially in two things My Description was An Ability to express our Minds fitly to God in Prayer 1. He saith the Conception of the Ministers mind must be sober well ordered comprehensive suitable to the Nature of the Duty Is not all this comprehended in Fitly To what purpose so many words I never loved long Descriptions 2. He tells me the Minister is not to exâ—ress his mind his desires or wants but the Mind he should have said the wants of the whole Assembly I would gladly know how he should know the Wants and Regular desires of the whole Assembly but from the Scriptures and whether their ordinary wants be not his also For emergent wants how they who made Forms 100 Years ago could know the Wants and Desires of the several Assemblies of Christians at this day more than the Ministers now living and conversing with them and whether this be in the least probable if God or Christ who did know all things past present and to come did not draw those Forms I am not able to conceive 38. Another place he must except to that is p. 9 10. and put a Marginal Note upon it too that is this I said We thought it would be hard to find Nine or Ten thousand Schollars in England furnished with the Gift of Praying or Preaching in any tolerable manner Is not this one of their own Arguments for the necessity of Forms of Prayer I have read and heard it forty times from them I hope he will now be reconciled to me who have told him and do from my heart believe it that there are twice Ten thousand Persons in England who either are or might be Ministers who have the Gift of Prayer He might before have been Friends with me if he had pleased for I find I had told him so before Reasonable Account p. 154. CHAP. III. An Answer to what the Vindicator saith in his Third Chapter beginning at p. 73. Whether any can with equal Attention of his Mind read in a Book as speak the Conceptions of his own Heart Whether Ministers can by Forms Pray with equal Fervency and Devotion The contrary proved The People not so much concerned in it c. 1. THe Argument which our Answerer comes to answer in this Chapter was falsly Printed and I thank him for not imputing the Error of the Printer to me who saw not the Book till it was too late to Correct any thing in it I shall therefore transcribe and amend it here It lyeth thus To use such a mode in the ordinary performance of our duty in publick Solemn Prayer as either from the necessary workings of Humane Nature or otherwise upon experience we find either hindring the Attention of our own or others thoughts to the duty or the Intention 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 unlawful But for him who hath the Gift of Prayer I now expound that term by an Ability fitly to express his Mind to God in Prayer to perform his Ministerial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer by the Prescribed Forms of other Men not divinely inspired these words were left our is for him to use such a mode in those Acts of Worship as either from the Natural workings of Humanâ— Nature or from some other cause scarce â—voidable is upon experience found to hinder our own Attention and also the Attention of others thoughts to the duty and the intention and fervency of our own and others Spirits in the duty when in the mean time we have an Ability so to perform it as neither of them will at least to that degree
Question Whether Forms of Prayer in the publick Ministry may be universally used or imposed This is all which I can find in this Chapter of our Vindicator worth any notice as to the Question in hand for what is spoken as to other Rites Ceremonies and Gestures the lawfulness or unlawfulness of them it doth not concern our present purpose Let us first have done with this single Question and then we will if he pleaseth discourse other things in the mean time I intend not to swell a Book with Discourses De Omni Ente Besides it may be that by our close discourse upon this Question we shall be better prepared for others which in my mind are much lighter by understanding upon what principles we distinctly argue and first exposing the truth or falshood of them to the judgment of the World Our Vindicators Principles in this Chapter seem to be 1. That words in Vocal Ministerial Prayer are neither parts nor means in that Worship 2. That Superiors may determine whatever he judgeth God hath left at liberty in his Worship though the Inferior thinks they are not there left at liberty I am not of his mind CHAP. VII Containing a Reply to what the Vindicator hath said Chap. 5. p. 193 c. The Vindicator grants the Superior may tye up Ministers and People to Forms in the publick Congregation and in Families but not in Closets His reason why not in Closets holds as to Congregations and Families They have new Emergences daily The Evil of tying up all to Forms expressed exemplyfied in the neglect or omission of Praises to God for deliverance from the late Hellish Popish Plot and of Prayers for the perfecting of that Salvation The Vindicator saith nothing cogent to prove that Forms of Sermons ought not to be as Universally imposed and used as Forms of Prayer 1. THe Answerer p. 193 comes to my fourth Argument which I laid thus To agree a Principle which being agreed is of sufficient force to restrain the total exercise of the Gift of Prayer is sinful Reaso Account p. 93. But to agree it lawful for Ministers ordinarily in their Solemn Prayer to perform their Acts of Prayer by the prescribed Forms of other Men were to agree such a Principle Ergo. I supposed none would deny the first Proposition because it could not be denidâ— without allowing man to suppress the total exercise of a most eminent Gift of the Holy Spirit of God I proved the Second Proposition by an inductioâ— of the several kinds of Prayer and shewing That the Superior had as much Authority to command the use of Forms in the Pulpit as in the Deske in our Families as in either yea ' and in our Closets too and the Inferiors Obligation to Obedience would be as much concluded as to one place as another because it related to the Superiors Dominion and so far as that extended so far the Inferiours Obligation to Obedience must extend This was the sum of what I said what saith our Vindicator to all this 2. Will he deny the Major I find not a word in his whole Chapter that way But it is the Minor which his loose discourse seemeth to deny but before he doth it he must again be premising 1. That he hath before shewed that Mens Ability of Expression which is not properly the Gift of Prayer are not on other accounts necessary to be used unless where they be requisite for the better performing the Worship of God What he hath said about the Gift of Prayer I have answered and proved That an Ability fitly to express our minds to God in Prayer is properly the Gift of Prayer if we speak as we do of Vocal Ministerial Prayer For the other part of this sentence besides what I have further said before to prove them a Divine Natural Proper Mean I would again know of him whether every man as to his own practice must not be judge of his better performing the Woâ—â—hip of God if he must he hath said nothing 3. As to his premising that he hath before shewed the usefulness of set Forms in themselves for the Pablick Offices of Religious Worrship I have prâ—ved that as to Prayer they cannot be established 〈◊〉 without mans taking upon him to appoint one Essential part of VVorship in Vocal Prayer which himself denieth man a power to do I have also proved Gods Institution of another mean viz. our own Abilities 4. But he tells us That he not founding their lawfulness and expediences meerly upon obedience to Superiors can be no ways concerned to determine and enquire after the extent or boundaries of the Authority of our Governours in this thing But yet I hope we neither being able to see nor yield any such usefulness of them for all Ministers must enquire whether we be not obliged to the use of them from the meer command of Superiors and if in that thing they be not our Superiors that is have no power to command we can have no obligation upon us to obey nor are any of those great Topicks from an Obligation to Vnity and Submission to be used towards us for why should not those who are so Zealous for Forms as well unite with us as we with them especially considering that words in Vocal Prayer are an Essential part of Worship the Calves of our Lipps which must be creatures onely of Gods making If our Vindicator will only argue them lawful because they are useful we are not of that mind so let it be a Problematical Question but then let not us be railed at as Schismaticks and sinfully disobedient to Governours who judge them not lawful and so not the object of Superiors power 5. Besides in so tender a thing as Gods Worship every thing as we can fancy useful is not therefore lawful Indeed the usefulness of things in Gods Worship must be concluded from a preceeding Prescription of God No Act Part or Mean of Worship is useful which God hath not directed by the Light of Nature or in his Revealed Will. 6. As to what he tells me p. 194. n. 4. I answer That no good Christian can yield a Reverence to Superiors where he cannot save his Reverence to God in the first place and that he cannot do till he be satisfied that his Superior is his Superior in that case i. e. That God hath given him a power to command and to determine him in the case if it be the Will of God that another Mean should be used in that case by those that have it Or if it be the Will of God that as to any Act of Worship a mean should be left to his Peoples liberty as under the Law it was in case of the Turtle Doves or young Pigeons before named It is no Reverence to but a sinful flattering of Superiors to tell them by our Tongues Pens or Practice that they may appoint such means as God hath not appointed or that they may appoint and determine where it is
the Law The Vindicators dirt thrown on the Author wiped off himself rebuked for calling an Ability to express our selves fitly to God in Prayer a Varying of Phrases A fear suggested lest by it he should have vilified Gods Holy Spirit 4 New Arguments against the Universal Use or Imposition of Forms of Prayer 1. MY Seventh Argument was thus stated That Principle which levelleth the performance of the great and sacred Office of the Ministry to the capacity of the meanest of the People cannot be a true Principle But this Principle That it is lawful for a Minister of the Gospel ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Acts in Prayer by the prescribed Forms of others doth this Ergo. This I proved p. 121 122. I first presumed it would be granted that God had appointed an ordeâ— of Men in his Name to declare his Will unto his people and to intercede with God on their behalf 2. That he would not have done it if they had nothing to do but what any of the people might do 3. That any who could read well might read printed Forms 4. That it is not probable that God would have reserved Honour or Maintenance and by a Law established it for such a kind of Ministry What saith our Vindicator 2. He answereth by five Observations His first is That I have given a very defective description of the business of the Ministry Indeed I should have put in administring the Sacraments but let it be added and then I think I have a good Authority for it from the Commission given them Matth. 28.19 Go teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you and lo I am with you always to the end of the VVorld Here Teaching and Administring the Sacraments are made their great work for that both the Sacraments are there included is plain from the precept Do this in remembrance of me given them Chap. 26. We will also grant Prayer from the Apostles Authority 1 Tim. 2.3 3. He tells us p. 226. It must be their Exerciâ—â— of a special power of Office that is the doing the same things but in another notion as Officers but were we speaking of the Material or formal part of their VVorks we were speaking of what Ministers are to do not under what Nâ—tion Character or Capacity So I say take their Materiall Actions supposing such Forms lawful they have no more to do then the meanest of the people have a Natural power to do which is all I asserted 4. Who denies that these Acts done by persons called of God to do them in his Church are quite of another vertue and efficacy then as done by persons not so called of God but my Argument was That it is not probable or to us it appears not probable for the pretended demonstrations doubtlesses and certainties of others in such cases are no more then confidences That God would have instituted an Office for the doing of such Acts as the meanest people might do 5. He tells us p. 227 That his work is also to Preach but in the Argument Forms of Sermons were supposed as lawful as Forms of Prayer and I have largely answered what our Vindicator hath said to prove more need of the one then of the other For the other things he mentioneth dispensing Absolution and Remission guiding Mens Consciences directing and obliging men to observe due Rules and Exercises of Repentance convincing Adversaries watching over their Flocks By his leave if we either be guided by the practice of Christ or his Apostles considering them as things distinct from Preaching they are the least works of a Minister I am sure some of them are least attended Private satisfactions of Mens Consciences is the work of a Minister but no piece of his publick servie about which we were speaking nor what a private Christian may not do to his Ability Nor do I think that in those works a Minister doth any thing Authoritatively nor that his Counsels or advice will be found a jot more effectual then he can make it appear that what he saith is the Will of God 6. In his third Observation he tells us That when Litues rgi weâ—e laid aside in England many of the meanest of the people both of mean Abilities and of bad and erroneous principles were thought fit to be taken into the Ministry yet could Pray and Preach popular Sermons in my method and to great satisfaction What is this to the purpose comparisons are odious and it is too true that in the late times too many such persons Prayed and Preached in Publick but that there were more admitted into the Ministry then since will be very hard to prove I could tell him stories enough of my own personal knowledge to make him excuse those admissions into the Ministry which were in those times But then I should be exclaimed against by our Vindicator as a great Slanderer of the Church of England though I know if our Vindicator doth not that the Bishops cannot help it We desired to mourn for and to throw out in those times any sottish Persons that by their Hypocrisie in those times crept into the Ministry when they once appeared so we never called them the Brethren or our Brethren but look'd upon them as the Scabs and Deformity of the Church For their Abilities there was no defect of Tryal of them in any Presbyterian Ordinations that hath been amended since There were none then ordained but were examined of their skill in Greek and Latine and Hebrew if they had any otherwise they solemnly ingaged to study it in Church History a great part of the Body of Divinity none but were put to make a position in Divinity and then to defend it against the Arguments of several learned Men. Let us therefore hear no more of that 7. Our Vindicator p. 231 232 233 234 spends many words to prove that God did under the Law annex a great and honourable Revenue to those that were his Officers tho their work was none other then what other persons had a natural capacity to do But 1. How doth he prove that the Priests ordinary work was nothing else but to offer Incense and Sacrifices They were to Teach Micah 3.11 Their Lipps were to keep knowledge Mal. 3.6 They were to resolve Questions concerning the Law Hag. 2.11 But further let it be considered 1. That Gods Provision for the Priests was a Provision for a whole Tribe in Israel The Males of the Levites only at the first settlement as appears from Num. 3. were near 22000 Men besides Women and Children under a Month old they cannot reasonably be thought much less then 50000 Souls besides the Priests 2. It was not reasonable that their Maintenance should be less then was assigned to the other Tribes but more because they were taken off from other means of lively-hood 3. Their imployment took up their full time I
been imposed or not universally imposed Here now our Vindicator runs a division of 4 pages and when he hath said all he can he must needs say I have said what is truth But this is to charge a great deal of Evil on our Laws and Governours And may not a great deal of evil be the fruit of some humane Laws which when Governours see it is their duty to repeal such Laws tho they made them in the simplicity of their Hearts not foreseeing such effects and consequents of them 2. He saith they must be guilty unless they root out all Liturgies Is there a word by me spoken to that purpose See the contrary said by me p. 164. n. 4. Confusions Heresies Blasphemies came in when Liturgies were shut out But the question is Whether if Forms of Prayer had been admitted and not Forms of all Sermons it had been any proportionable means to have prevented them 14. For what he further inlargeth upon p. 239 240. I shall only tell him That not one of ten of those who are now against universally used or imposed Liturgies of Prayers had any concern in the things he mentioned as things done when Liturgies were shut out For my own part I appeared not as a man to the World till the year 1645 so could have no concern in imposing or perswading the imposing of the Covenant the Ejection Sequestring or Imprisoning any for refusal of it If I remember right I saw not London from 1645 twice till 1659. I never saw Olivers face never came near an Army I did very well know all the persons who are said to have wrote the Book called Smectymnuus and did know that they were all persons not short of our Vindicator for Learning Pity Ministerial Abilities and all which was good and much his Superiors in age and that there is no such words or sense of theirs expressed in the 83 and 84 p. of their Answer to the Remonstrance nor any where else that I know I am not bound to read over all that Answer because I am not bound to justifie every Phrase of theirs 15. For what our Vindicator seemeth to threaten p. 238. telling me of Exposing my self to outward Inconveniences by which I suppose he meaneth sufferings I must confess such a political consideration might have had and it may be had too much influence on me 15 or 16 years ago But having nothing capable to be impaired but my Name and Repute my Estate my Liberty and my Life and having experienced that notwithstanding all my Candor owning the Lawfulness of Forms in General the Lawfulness of People joyning in Prayer with those that use them in Devotion my self doing so very often not condemning any Ministers who judge it lawful and more expedient to use them only forbearing my self to do it because I judge it sinful for me and giving my reasons for judging it so yet because I think it my duty to Preach the Gospel and have sometimes done it I have not escaped the rude Tongues of some who are Zealots for it nor been able to enjoy my Estate and Liberty without a very considerable impairing by Imprisonment most malicious and vexatious Prosecution without any colour and pretence of Law I am much hardened against and prepared to answer such little Topicks and tho I yet think it my duty to use all lawful means to preserve my self yet I see reason to suspect I may have been mistaken as to the lawfulness of some of my prudentials and to be more confirmed in what our Saviour hath taught us Matth. 16.25 whosoever will save his life shall lose it and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall save it Yet I trust I shall be always careful not to suffer as a Murtherer or as a Thief or as an Evil doer or as a busie body in other mens matters Pet. 4.15 but as a Christian and not be ashamed but to glorifie God on this behalf 16. I shall conclude this Chapter with minding my Reader of a fable which Luther makes use of in his opposition to the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation There was a City saith he in which was a Law That none should come into their great Meetings that had any bodily imperfections If he did he was to pay a Fine It happened on a day one came in in whom those who were set to take care to the Execution of that Law discerned one imperfection they demand his Fine he denies and struggles with them till they had discerned four Imperfections he had and then stood upon four Fines Our Vindicators struggling with me to this degree and in this manner in this case putting me upon a more narrow inquiry into this matter hath helped me to two or three new Arguments which I before hardly thought of I will but propound them let who will improve or answer them I think I shall hardly take up a pen again in this cause having said much more then I judge answered or capable of a solid answer 1. To institute any part of Worship is not lawful for any Superiors But to institute words in Vocal Prayer is to institute a part of Divine Worship Ergo. 2. To determine in Acts of Worship what God hath left at liberty to his Ministers is unlawful But to determine Ministers what words Ministers shall use in publick Ministerial Prayer is to determine to them and that in an Act of Worship what God hath left at liberty Ergo. 3. To submit to the use of any thing in the Worship of God which God hath not by his precept made necessary and many in the present age make a meer Idol thinking and declaring by their words and actions that no other way of Prayer is acceptable to God is sinful But c. 4. To submit to such a method of Prayer as must necessarily shut out the immeditate Influence of Gods Spirit as to words in Prayer which may be and often is is sinful and unlawful But there may be and often is an influence of Gods Spirit upon Ministers even as to Words of Prayer and such a thing is probably promised and to tye our selves to Forms of Words prescribed by others manifestly shuts out such an influence or the use of it Ergo. But thus much shall be sufficient to reply to our Vindicator answering my Arguments Let me now inquire how happily he hath Vindicated his own or other mens from my Answers Chap 9. of the Reasonable Account CHAP. X. A Reply to the Vindicators 9 Chap. p. 241 c. The Vindicators Fortification of the 10 Arguments for Forms of Prayer before battered beaten down and himself proved to have alledged no reason in his five Reasons cogent for the general use and imposition of Forms 1. I took notice of Ten Arguments brought for such Forms of Prayer and such an use of them as I had been speaking about The first was because Forms are not by God forbidden p. 135 I told them They were
different Notions they may vary in their Prayers and Exhortations So they may in their Sermons before the Sacrament and what help for that 12. His last Reason was thus delivered That this may be an Evidence to other Churches in future times after what way we Worship God and that such a Church is in its measure a pure and incorrupt Church I answered where hath God required such an Evidence He tells me We need not any special command for every good thing Nor need every good thing be brought into Publick Worship and made a part of it I always took the recital of the Creed to be a good thing but no Part of Worship and thus himself answers what I next said That to this end Forms of Sermons are also needful on this Account I told him a publick Confession of Faith is a sufficient Testimony He tells us it is so as to our Doctrine but not as to our Worship Well let theâ— be then a Law made with all our heaâ—â—s That none in the publick Worship of God should do any other Act nor use any other mean but what God in his Word hath established We should think this Act as good an Act as ever was made And this would give a better Evidence to the World then Forms can how we Worship God And now I am come to an end of my long journey where I have not been tyred with the length of my way but for want of one Stile or Difficulty to give my hand or pen the least stop I am resolved without great reason to tread this path no more I see there is no end of Writing where Men will take a liberty to repeat what is said as they please and run Vagaries nothing concerning the matter in hand onely studying to divert the Reader from understanding the truth and how to expose those that will venture to contradict their Sentiments Let those who have a mind to talk at this rate talk on for all me and please themselves with the noises themselves make and with having the last word FINIS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A REVIEW Of the Third Section of the Third CHAPTER OF THE VINDICATION OF LITURGIES Beginning Vindicat. p. 136. 1. THose who are but meanly versed in this Controversie will easily understand that our Adversaries three great Topicks are Vnity Authority and Antiquity Themselves know as well as we and will sometimes confess that to argue from the Institution of God and Chriâ— to the Institutions of Men is very weak and the Pleas from Christs using the same words as we translate it from the Precepts for speaking the same thing and glorifying God with one Mouth from the command to Timothy That Intercessions and Prayers and Supplications should be made for all Men from Pauls order for bringing the Parchments from Troas are such as none of them would offer to bring in the Schools being fit only for a Countrey Auditory They also know that not one of their pretended Arguments from Reason will conclude either necessity or lawfulness but Vnity Obedience to Superiors and Antiquity are the three great Bulwarks from which they think to Batter us who are of another mind Indeed none of all these will conclude the general use of such Forms of Prayer as the Question speaks of either necessary or unlawful nor can have any force upon an Intelligent Soul till the point of Lawfulness be determined within it self for Peace is no further required of us then as it can be kept together with our Peace with God and who so perswades another by Sin to seperate himself from God that he may keep an Vnion with Men hath not learned his Doctrine from the Old or New Testament which commands us to follow Peace and Holiness which certainly lies in a first respect to Gods Commands and no further then as much as in us lyeth and as far as it is possible to have Peace with all Men which must certainly be interpreted not concerning our Natural but Moral Power nor are we to obey man but in Subordination to God and in my preceding Discourse I have I think made it appear That no man hath power to appoint an Essential part of Worship which in Vocal Prayer words must be nor when God hath prescribed One Mean in Worship to direct another nor yet when God hath commanded us to serve him with the utmost Attention and Fervency and consequently to use all means he hath given us in order to that end can any command of men limit us to a Mean which we upon experience find hinders our Attention and Fervency nor yet when he hath in any duty promised the influence of his Holy Spirit can Man command any such mode of performance of that duty as must necessarily shut it out which must be in the present case if any influence of the Holy Spirit upon our Words in Prayer be any part of his promise And for the Practice and Examples or Opinions of good and Holy Men it is impossible they should further lay hold upon our Consciences in this matter then to double our thoughts upon the matter in question to make us seriously to weigh on what grounds they Act our selves being as likely to be mistaken as they This made me pass over our Vindicators third Section of his Third Chapter wherein he laboureth to load us with the prejudice of the Constant Practice of the Church against our Opinion and Practice something slightly looking upon it but as loss of time and paper to reply to an Inconcludent Argument and seeing that the question being about Sin or Duty no Practice could conclude on either side 2. But yet as the most of Men so I my self have a great Reverence for things that can be made out to be Vniversal Traditions Of which nature I hardly know any thing not plainly revealed in Scripture except the observation of the Christian Sabbath and Infant Baptism neither of which stand upon that single foot much less do I think that there is any such thing to be pleaded for Ministers Vniversal porformance of their Ministerial Acts in Solemn Prayer by the prescribed Forms of other Men. Though therefore enough is said partly in the Reasonable Account partly in the Supplement to answer whatsoever hath been said of this nature yet having my pen yet in my hand I shall add a few lines to justifie what is before said against the Attaques upon it and to shew the weakness of what is brought a-new in the Vindication 3. Only because we are so apt to vary from the Question I desire the Reader would first consider what we do not deny and therefore needeth no proof 1. We deny not but from the beginning Publick Prayers Were made by the Minister and Congregation 2. We also believe That very early the use of the Lords Prayer was general in the publick Congregations tho we find none enjoyned it under Penalties 3. We do believe That even from the first there were
only further mentions Hymns and proveth the use of Hymns of Ecclesiastical composition from Pliny and Lucian no very competent Witnesses of the Christian Churches affairs The early use of the Lords Prayer is easily yielded him but it is a strange proof of a Form of Prayers composed by other Men and generally used or imposed to prove as p. 158 That they began in some Churches with the Lords Prayer and ended with the Hymns of many names which Mr. Gregory thought was the clause at the end of the Lords Prayer and he doth but guess it some other The Lords Prayer cometh not within our question be it a Form or not a Form 25. Whatsoever he saith à p. 160. ad p. 164. is rather ad pompam then ad pugnam it all referreth to the use of Forms of Prayers in the Jewish Church To it all I shall only add 2 things 1. It is very improbable and will appear so to every considerate Christian that we should have in Scripture a full account of the Jewish Church from its Cradle to its Tomb and so particular an Account of the way of Worship which God established amongst them from which they might not vary and they should have Forms of Prayers established for ordinary use and the Scripture not mention any thing of them we read in Scripture of other Books they had some of which are perished some preserved for our Instruction and Guidance We read of the Book of the Law many times but never of their Common Prayer Book nor of any person that used the 18 Prayers We read Nehemiah 8. That in a solemn day of Worship the whole Congregation met and called to Ezra for the Book of the Law he brings it they read in it from the Morning to Mid-day v. 1 2. After this we read of many Priests and Levites who read in the Book of the Law distinctly and gave the People the sense of it and made them to understand the reading thereof but we read not a word of their Book of Prayers either there or in any other part of Scripture We read in Luke that when our Saviour came into the Synagogue on the Sabbath day they brought him the Book of the Prophet Isaiah he read in it and preached out of it but neither there do we read of the Book of 18 Prayers brought forth I must confess that in ordinary cases it is not a good Argument That this or that thing was not in being or in use because there is no Sacred Record of the being or use of it But certainly concerning Gods Worship amongst the Jews it is a good Argument to prove there was no such thing established in their Worship because in the Holy Scriptures where we have the full story of that Church a full account of their Worship either by Moses or David so many charges to them not to add thereto nor to diminish there-from there is not any mention of a Book of publick Prayers which God directed for that Church we read only of a blessing which looketh like a Form tho some have been of another mind of Gods own directing tho we often read of the Book of the Law called for brought read in and often read of the Servants of God Praying publickly yet not the least mention is made of a Book or Forms by which they prayed Admit they had had Forms if God had prescribed them it had been out of our question who will freely allow God to prescribe his own Homage and Worship but to think that any of the Jews or the whole Sanhedrim had Authoriâ—y to make any for universal use when God gave such punctual directions both to Moses for the Service of the Taberncale and all things therein and to David for the Service of the Temple that it is expresly said Exod. 39.42 3. That the very structure of the Tabernacle was according to all that the Lord commanded Moses and Deut. 4.2 there is so express a command You shall not add to the word which I command you nor shall you diminish from it which is repeated Deut. 12.32 and David saith 1 Chron. 28.11 12 13 19. All this the Lord made me to understand in Writing by his hand upon me v. 12. the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit When we read of Nadab and Abihu being struck dead Levit. 10. for but using ordinary fire in a Sacrifice and of Vzzah being struck dead for but touching the Ark when it shook in the New Cart it being Gods prescript that that Family of the Levites should carry the Ark on their shoulders Num. 4.15 7 9. I say after all this for any to go about to prove that the Jews in their Worship had Forms of Prayer not prescribed of God which their Ministers were bound to use and of which is no mention in Scripture is an undertaking fit for none but those who think they can prove Quidlibet e quolibet nor to be believed by any but such as are very credulous Our Vindicator saith their very Sacrifices were Rites of Supplications and as to them they were limited and used no such Variety Rites of Supplication and Supplications are two things and these Rites were limited by God not by the Sanhedrim I hope nor were they without some variety in them For his instance 2 Chron. 29.30 It is said They praised God with the Words of David and Asaph the Seer Asaph was a Prophet David told us he ordered nothing but by the Spirit of God what he understood by the hand of the Lord in writing upon him For Joel 2.17 which he quoteth surely Joel was divinely inspired nor is that Prayer surely of length enough for a whole Office nor was it more then a general direction for matter to be inlarged in words as the Jewish Minister thought fit For what Dr. Lightfoot Dr. Outram Scaliger Buxtorf Ainsworth tell us they have had their Intilligence from the Rabbies the eldest of which of whom we have any Record was saith Alstedius after the world was 3380 years old The Hierusalem Talmud was finished by R. Jochanan 250 years after Christ the Babilonian Talmud not till 500. The most of the Writings of their Rabbins saith Alsted appeared not to the World till 1000 years after Christ Now how competent Witnesses these are whose Books also are as full of Fables as leaves of the practice of the Jewish Church before Christ or in its incorrupt state let any judge who are men of sense 2. But admit it were a thing capable of proof that the Jews in their incorrupt times and that by Gods command ordinarily used Forms of Prayer in their Worship and that such as were neither prescribed by God nor any Prophet or Penman of Holy Writ or that in and about and since Christs time they have used such Forms of Prayer ought this to guide the Practice of the Christian Church Or will it prove that the same thing is lawful in the Christian Church I
and I have troubled him with no more in any Argument But Latet anguis in herba I fear had our Vindicator tied up himself to Syllogisms he would hardly have been able to have crouded in this momentous Proposition The Author of the Reasonable Account did not know what time Gregory the Great or Charles the Great lived Nor got in this conclusion Ergo He was an ignorant man defective in learning very confident from whom no accuracy is to be expected But let him run his looser method for certainly Logick and Syllogistical arguing is the Palma contracta if he so discourseth that I can but understand whether he denys the Major or the Minor or the Conclusion onely it shall be enough for my purpose 15. For what follows I have said enough before to excuse me from any imputation as to the time of my Book coming out which was in 1679 about Mich. it was printed beyond Sea six moneths before I had no concern in it nor seen it since April 1677 when I gave it to a friend who begg'd it of me But so various are our Apprehensions that my opinion is it could never have come out in a more seasonable time when it is in the heart of our Rulers to unite all Protestants which I am sure cannot be while the Imposition of Forms of Prayer on all Ministers in their publick Ministerial Service in Prayer holds But may easily be by leaving such Forms to liberty I do very well know what a clamour some make for Imposed Forms and therefore think it is highly necessary we should tell them why we judge them as to our practice unlawful that our Rulers and People may judge whether we be such illiterate nonsensical irrational persons such strange undertakers and meer confident men as we are represented to the World to be Or whether these Clamours be meerly Crys of Interest like that of old Great is Diana of the Ephesians So I have done with our Vindicators Introduction Only desiring my Reader may know that I am not arguing Forms of Prayer now most generally used and imposed unlawful but justifying the Reasons which I have formerly given why we cannot judge them as to our practice lawful let them be in themselves what they shall be evinced to be If our Vindicator can quit himself of the Arguments I have brought I I have no more at present to say CHAP. I. An Answer to the Vindicators First Chapter concerning the stating of the Question 1. I Am beholden to the Learned Author for allowing me or any Noncon an ability to state a Question with sufficient plainness and clearness and shall requite him owning that he hath truly repeated my stateing of it a favour not ordinary in this age But his Observations deduced from my Concessions must not pass wholly unexamined 2. That our Prayers must be directed to God as he observeth needed not the attestation of two of the Fathers 2. That our general wants such as Pardon Sanctification Daily Bread c. I like not so well to say all our ordinary wants may be expressed in Forms I doubt not Nor 3. That a pious Soul not able to pray from his own Gifts may truly worship God mentally by reading a Form I doubt not but to make this true external worship I think will be required a command from God It is also true that one difference betwixt Praying with and without a Form is that in the former way the same words and methods are constantly used in the other not so But if by praying we mean the Action of a Man the main difference contended for is That he that prayeth in the use of his Gitfs doth the will of God whether the other doth so is the very Question 3. And so indeed the Answerer tells us only represents it something too invidiously for no man saith That God is pleased with our varying of phrases or altering our methods but we are sure God is pleased with our doing of his will in as little things as those are It certainly had been vain Philosophy under the Jewish Paedagogy to have argued that it was not probable that God saw any beauty or valuableness in the killing of a Beast for he was a Spirit and true Goodness Piety and Sincerity are the things which he delighted in Who knows not all this But he is pleased in obeying his will in the least things The Question therefore is What is Gods Will in the case To obey God is certainly better than Sacrifice and needs must be because all the value of a Sacrifice lay in the obedience testified by it If it be the will of God that his Ministers should serve him in the use of their own Gifts from whence must necessarily follow the altering of Phrases and Methods though there be no intrinsick value in these things yet they are better then all other Sacrifices 4. But our Author thinketh not this probable And why 1. Because our Saviour rebuked the vanity of them who think they shall be heard by their much speaking Mat. 6.7 And as a Remedy taught his Disciples that comprehensive Form of Prayer Austine from hence judged superfluity of words needless What he saith as to the Lords Prayer is elsewhere spoken to so did Hilary and it is a piece of Reverence injoyned by Solomon Eccl. 5.2 5. But what is all this but a wasting of Ink and Paper May not then a Minister pray in the use of his own Gifts unless he prayeth to an unreasonable length Must he needs use a superfluity of words or a multitude of words because he doth not use those words others have prepared for him Who seeth not these inconsequences 6. In the next place p. 14. he argues Because under the Law God did not require daily various changes of the real expressions of Religious Worship and Service but appointed them to be continually the same Num. 28 2 3. which maketh it more than probable that the variety of verbal expressions is not requisite to obtain his acceptance under the Gospel I do not wonder that our Author at first though of Learning enough to make them and answer Arguments in that Form declared his dislike of the use of Sylogisms for if such Arguments as this be put into those Forms they would be too much exposed Is there the same reason for the Service of God under the Gospel as under the Law because Typical Services prefiguring one Christ were invariable must therefore Spiritual Services under the Gospel be so too consider then why the Minister doth not always preach the same Sermons because the Jews were to offer Morning and Evening Sacrifices and we under the Gospel are also bound to pray in all parts of time must therefore the Will of God be that in all things else they should agree Is there the same reason for the performance of Acts of Worship after the plentiful effusion of the Spirit in the days of Pentecost as before Nay is our Author sure
that in the Jewish Worship they all used the same Prayers and Exhortations because they always killed the same specifical Beasts for Sacrifices In their very Sacrifices there was a great variety and they agreed in nothing but that they all were what God prescribed 7. What he saith in p. 15. is granted him nothing but the will of God is worth naming in the cause words in themselves are nor valuable but obedience is What makes then this trifling about the Opinions of Heathens the invaluableness of words in themselves the way of Worship under the Law c. What is all this to any purpose but to prepossess the unwary Reader 8. His next observation is That the Author doth not account himself certain of the truth of this Position What doth he mean by certain The Author is none of the Infallibles of our Age and hath more modesty than to dictate to all the World and pretend Demonstrations of a thing that it may be is not capable of it But he is morally certain certain as far as probable Arguments can make him But what then Therefore it appears not to him unlawful Will any weighed Divine in the World say That a thing is not unlawful to him that upon Arguments which to him appeareth highly probable appears unlawful Let the Author answer a Book called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wrote on this very Argument 9. The Author values not a rush whether the Answerer blames or not blames him for the thing some persons in this Age calls Separation He falls not by Mans Judgment There was in Apostacy which Luther gloryed in and there is a Separation which a good Christian may glory in 1 Cor. 6.17 The Question is Whether the Nonconf be guilty of a sinful Separation That Nonconf are guilty of that here is no Argument to prove but the Author accounting himself certain mentioned p. 21. which is a new Topick for I hope it is no Demonstration 10. The Vindicator p. 22. in the next place comes to tell us of considerable prejudices against the truth of my Assertion 1. That it is against the Opinion of the Church of England and the most famous Churches in the Primitive times But to the latter part of this he very honestly adds a Quod est Demonstrandum referring it to be afterwards proved And against the constitution of many eminent Churches abroad This he saith he before observed and I do not deny observe good Reader how I have not denyed it â—69p An imposed Liturgy unless in a particular Province for a time in a particular case such as was that of the spreading of Pelagianism we can not find And for a Liturgy to be proposed onely and left at liberty we know most Reformed Churches have such a one and we have before declared our judgements for the reasonableness of it It is true which I also said That the continuance of Liturgyes owes it self in a great measure to Churches not having Men enough able pray without Forms But what is this to the purpose of Universally Imposed Liturgies From this appeareth the exceeding vanity of what the Answerer addeth p. 23. The Author condemned none of the first Reformers of Sin nor hath reason to believe that all of them used any such thing if they had he condemneth them not 11. But the Author and those of his mind p. 23. are such pitiful men as determine in these weighty things according to their present humour For one while he saith Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument His words are these While we are disputing about what is lawful or unlawful Authority or Practice is a lamentable Argument They must be lamentable Divines that will say otherwise That the Practice of Men should determine to us the will of God Well But he saith in another place The Sensus piorum neither is nor ever was judged light by persons of sobriety and worth for the truth of a proposition especially a practical proposition not plainly determined in Holy Writ Is then the Authority and Practice of particular men that have the good hap to get into a Chair of Government in the Church and the Sensus piorum the same thing think we I beg the Answerers favour if I do not believe it but believe there must be to say no more the odds of 200 to one The Sensus piorum is the general sense of persons in such or such a place minding the things of God and regulating their lives in a conformity to his will I take this in practical matters to be a thousand times more probable Argument then some particular persons tho Governours Authority and Practice 12. But it seems I so stated my Question p. 24. as to overthrow the main foundation and the chief Arguments of my Discourse That indeed is great weakness But I pray how doth this appear to be any thing but a most false calumny I granted That Forms of Prayer by God commanded in Scripture must be used and other Scriptural Forms may be used as part of our Prayer yet I declare it sinful for such Ministers as can pray otherwise to pray by Forms From the duty of using their own Gifts And 2. From the hinderance of pious Disposition Attention or Fervency from the use of a Form of words in Prayer Do I so Judge good Reader The Minor of my first Argument is this But for a Minister having the gift of Prayer Reasonable Account p. 6. ordinarily to perform his Ministerial Act in Prayer by reading or reciting Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired is for him to omit a natural and proper means given him by God c. It is true in my Second Argument p. 23. all these words are by the Printers carelessness left out by Forms of Prayer composed by others confessedly not divinely inspired nor could I help it but a man of any ordinary candor would have supplied them from the state of the Question and from the preceding Argument which will make it appear that I never said that it was unlawful to perform our Ministerial Act in Prayer by Forms but by Forms composed by others who confessedly are not divinely inspired I never was so simple as not to allow God to dispense with his own Law upon which ground any Forms commanded by God must be lawful nor yet to think we might not use Scriptural phrases in any part of worship and yet use our own gifts at the same time time too 13. For to pray nothing else but using a Scriptural Form I believe we must have a special Command of God to make that lawful to us Besides I doubt not but the Answereâ— saw what I wrote p. 51. That there is a vast difference between the pure words of God for the which God both hath and ever will secure a Reverence in all Religious Souls and Forms composed by fallible men without any direction from God Let any Christian experience whether it be possible for