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
upon that single Term tho many of them indure hardship enough But this is a trick used to perswade our Rulers that that is a point of difference betwixt very few Dissenters and them whereas they know the contrary and as to our Brethren of the Congregational Perswasion and the Anabaptists they cannot but know that there is not a man of them judgeth Forms of Prayer generally used or imposed lawful and I dare assure him that of the Presbyterians there is not one of forty so judgeth them 7. But I am more concerned to inquire whether there be nothing in my Book of any great wâ—ight c. I have observed in Shoâ—s that the judgment of the Weight of Wares hath much depended upon the Scales and Weights used and the hand of him that pretends to set the Ballance even an Vnrighâ—â—â—â—â—â—s Thumb and Finger often makes a Commodity appear light which hath weight enough I must therefore crave leave to examine the Scales and Weights by which our Vindicator hath taken his Measures and see whether some unlucky Thumb and Finger of Prejudice or Passion hath not caused my Ware to be prenounced so l ght and intreat my Reader to weigh it over again in the Ballance of the Sanctuary with the Sealed Weights of Scripture and Right Reason and then to pass a deliberate Judgment and shall onely tell our Vindicator that it was no good Logick to put the ergo before the Premises he should first have shewed the Weakness and Lightness of them and have left these expressions for his Conclusion others and those learned Men are not all of his mind and because he is so confident upon me let it rest to justify their Weight and further to prove that he hath been so far from proving any Antiquity for any general use or Impositions of Forms of Prayers to be used by all Ministers in their publick Ministrations for 600 years after Christ that it is a thing not proveable and which no wise and learned man can undertakeÌ„ the proof of only Aliquid dicendum in nihil dicant and what is wanting in just matter must be made up with many and big words 8. He saith right That the design of his former Book is made void by my undertaking if what I say be true which I very well knew Es frustra fit perplura c. be the particular Forms used in our Church as good as they will it is nothing to us who would never have entred the Ministry if we had not thought we had and been judged by those who set us apart to the work to have had some ability to Pray as well as Preach and having so judg it Sinful not to perform our Ministerial Acts in the use of that gift 9. The Author of the Reasonable Account c. did not set his name not desiring that his Arguments should derive any Repute or Disrepute from him What matters it whether the Author be a wise Man or a Fool the question is What his Arguments in the Case are Saepe etiam tolitor est opportuno locutor But he chargeth me deeply when he says p. 3. That it is observable that when I write concerning the Ancient Practice of the Church after the Apostles times or any thing written in those days it is generally done so loosely and somtimes with such wonderful extravagancy as may surprize an intelligent Reader with some kind of Admiration Says he so Wherein He will give but one instance which he saith is in my 68 69 pages speaking of the Original of Liturgies I say We do believe that Gregory the Great under the Protection of Charles the Great was the Father of all those that dwell in these Tents and that 800 or a 1000 years after Christ My words in that place are these To bring this point to an Issue there was a Book published 1662 called A sober and temperate Discourse concerning the Interest of words in Prayer The Reader may there at large see what we judg concerning the Original of Liturgies when our Reverend Brother or any for him shall have given a strict Reply to the 3. and 4. Chapters in that Book we shall think they have more to say for their Antiquity then we have yet seen In the mean time we do believe that Gregory the Great usually said to be the worst of all Popes that went before him under the Protection of Charles the Great was the Father of all those who dwell in these Tents and that 800 or 1000 years after Christ He leaves out the first part and the reference to the other Book The truth is it was too Elliptically expressed towards a Person that sought an occasion to Carp and Reflect which that our Vindicator did too much appears from his taking notice of what was p. 68 69. of a book which had not above 180. pages in it or thereabouts In the 4 p. of his Answer and then again in p. 138. of his Answer in both which places he makes sport with it at such a rate as were unpardonable but that it was just about Prevarication time at Cambridge and indeed it was a thing fitter to make sport for boys then men who understand any thing of Sense and have any judgment 10. He comes upon it with a Firstly Secondly Thirdly then makes Application suitably which he pursueth p. 138. and amplifies with a Rabbinical Story and shuts up his Reflection with a very pretty Jest His words are these To speak of Gregory the great 800 or 1000 years after Christ is far enough from truth when he dyed about the year 1604 and Secondly that Gregory the great should be under the Protection of Charles the great is impossible when he was dead about 200 years before Charles the great began his Reign And 3ly It is altogether as inaccountable that Liturgies had their Original either in the time of Gregory or Charles the great when they were in use many 100 years before them both Quod est demonstrandum Then he comes to Application This mistake concerning these Persons whose Names are so famous in History that a Man of ordinary reading could not be unacquainted with them is as if any person should presume to give account of the Church of the Israelites and should assert that the offering of Sacrifices under the Mosaicai Law had its beginning in the days of Eli the Priest in the Reign of K. Jehosophat 600 or 800 years after the Israelites came out of Egypt This is a great piece of ignorance and error That 's the first use Surely it is a strange confidence for any person to vent such things and to write positively what he no better understandeth The Author therefore of the Reasonable Account is an ignorant confident person That is the 2d use p. 138. Therefore we must not reasonably expect any accuracy in the right computation of the time of the birth and first production of Liturgies from him who talks so loosly and falsly about the Age in
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
not generally used nor by any Persons universally imposed on any considerable part of the Church till Pope Gregories time Anno 600 nor then more then Canonically till 200 years after this and am assured of this by Durandus a Papist and my Lord of Morney a learned Protestant yet whether this be true or false is not a farthing matter in the case and I have something else to do then disputing De lanâ caprinâ or whether it or that be the truest Orthography No understanding person that minds to keep the Protestant Religion as to Rites and Ceremonies will value any quotations at any rate as to Rituals which are out of Writers that lived at the distance of 300 years after Christ 8. In his next Section he doth not pretend to Answer any Argument of mine but only to reflect upon some passages which how justly let my Reader judge he calls Reviling and he hath if it be so indeed answered it with full measure pressed down and running over I am not concerned to Reply to him nor to the Authorities of Capelus all whose words were no Oracles as our Answerer himself also judgeth p. 180. CHAP. VI. A Reply to what the Vindicator saith in his 4 Chap. beginning p. 177. Whether in Vocal Prayer words be not an Essential part of the Worship which no Superiors can institute Whether things in Acts of Worship by Gods Institution left to liberty of Ministers or People may be determined by any but those to whom the liberty is left About the Power of Superiors to command in Divine things Whether he can command what he judgeth to be indifferent and the Inferiours judge Unlawful 1. OUR Vindicator in his 4 Chap. which beginneth in his 177 p. pretendeth to Answer the Authors third Argument which he had thus laid To use a Mean in an Act of Worship which God hath neither directed by the light of Nature nor by his Word prescribed no natural necessity compelling us so to do is sinful But for us or any of us to whom God hath given the Gift of Prayer ordinarily to perform our Ministerial Acts in Prayer Reasonable Account p. 71. by the prescribed Forms of other Men read or ricited were for us no natural necessity compelling us so to do in Acts of Worship to use means neither directed of God by the light of Nature nor yet by him in his Word prescribed Ergo. In proof of the Major I said 1. That Divine Worship is nothing else but an Homage performed to God upon account of his Excellency 2. That it belongs to God to appoint those Acts and Means by whom this Homage should be paid 3. That God hath determined by the light of Nature and his Word given us sufficiently both as to Acts and Means of this Homage 4. That he hath forbidden any other Means in the Second Commandment where under the Notion of Graven Images he forbids all Acts and Means of Publick Worship which himself hath not appointed and if this were not the sense of it it were impossible to reduce to that Commandment all the Precepts in Scripture as to External Worship and Adoration I also further referred to what Mr. Cotton hath said in this Case in his Advertisements upon a Discourse of Set Forms of Prayer p. 17. 18. c. In my further Discourse upon this Argument I was led in Answer to another into a discourse about The power of Superiors in Gods Worship to command what they judged indifferent but their Inferiors or Parties commanded judged sinful and unlawful 2. Possibly that discourse contained two Questions in Divinity upon which the main hinge of this Controversie lay viz. 1. Whether man can lawfully institute at his pleasure Parts or Means of Divine Worship 2. Whether Superiors can command Inferiours in Divine VVorship to do any thing which they the Superiors judge indifferent that is neither commanded nor forbidden by God but the Inferiours judge sinful upon Arguments which to them appear highly probable Let us but be agreed in these two things and we shall in this Controversie have little to contend about Our Vindicator who in the Section immediately preceding had spent 6 leaves in nothing but Reflections spends but 8 leaves about this Chapter which I doubt not but to shew him except he had spoken closer to the thing in question was much too little But what doth he say 3. He granteth p. 177. That all the parts of Divine VVorship must be such as the light of Nature or the Revealed VVill of God directeth Tho this be very true yet what is it to the purpose The Argument spake not of Parts but of Means of Divine Worship nor doth the second Commandment speak only of Parts but of Means Why doth he not either affirm or deny that the Means of External VVorship must be directed from God either by the light of Nature or Scripture But instead of this he runs to his usual way of Observations 4. He first observeth That this contradicteth what I had before said That Forms of Prayer may be lawfully used by some men and at sometimes what if it did contradict what I said before The Argument may be good enough notwithstanding Nemo omnibus horis sapit 2. But this is not so for we are discoursing of what is lawful or unlawful not as to what is meerly Mental Prayer but as to Ministerial Vocal Prayer which is the most perfect kind of Prayer I have told him that I believed that he who prayed by the Vse of Forms only prayeth in his Heart Now as to that Act Forms may be helps and so lawful to be used by those to whom God hath not given due means for Ministerial Prayer which must be Vocal where the heart inditeth a good Matter and the tongue the proper Secretary to the heart is as the Pen of a ready Writer Now supposing what our Answerer so zealously contends for that God prescribed Forms to the Jewish Ministers and that Christ Prescribed his Disciples Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily used Means as to Heart-Prayer are prescribed by God in his Word as to which kind of Prayer words are not necessary for it may be performed without words so as words are no parts of it 5. Forms not directed by God or Christ or any where in Holy Writ cannot be an External Homage to God or part of External Worship for our Author grants that Parts of Worship must be directed by Nature or Scripture now such Forms are not directed by Scripture I am sure they are not directed by Nature Besides if they were an External Worship or part of it they must be never omitted Now that Vocal Prayer is a part of External Worship distinct from what is meerly Mental cannot be denied for that Prayer which is meerly in the heart I am sure is not the Publik Worship of a Minister in the Congregation 6. Hence it followeth That he who prayeth by Forms only prayeth Mentally as all the People do who
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
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
Nestorius were condemned shall have the Authority of a Law for we receive the Decrees of the aforesaid Holy Councils as Holy Scripture and observe their Canons as Laws This Constitution was made about 541. 9. But we are yet inquiring what Ecclesiastical Sanction Forms of Prayer to be Vniversally used by Ministers had by the Council of Chalcedon I observe first that the Canons of the Council of Milevis are not in the Code so not confirm d at all by it The Canon of the Council of Laodicea indeed is Let us then hear that Canon as Justellus hath it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is We ordain That the same Liturgy of Prayers should be made every where both at Nine of the Clock and at Evenings Thus much we agree was confirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451. 10. But what is this to the purpose It should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the same Forms of Prayers that indeed would have been something Here s nothing but an idle playing with a modern usage of the Term Liturgy which indeed we here in England of late years have appropriated to Forms of words to be publickly used in Prayer and it may be the Church of Rome before us but alas the word signifieth no such thing In regard the stress of several Arguments from Antiquity lieth upon this poor word I will once for all disabuse my Reader as to the true sense of it I will do it from a great Authority that of Melancthon and all the Saxon Divines who agreed in writing their Apology for their Confession tendred to the Emperour Charles the 5th at Ausburgh 1530 which was answered by the Popish Divines Eccius c. Eccius and his Associates had catch'd hold of this word and contended that the Mass was a Sacrifice because it is by the Ancients called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Liturgy Melancthon in that Apology printed 1535 in the beginning of the Chapter De Vocabulis Missae thus answereth The word Liturgy signifieth only a Publick Ministry and doth fitly sute what we hold That one Minister should in the Sacrament consecrate the Elements The meaning of the word Liturgy and give the Body and Blood of Christ to the people as one Minister preacheth and offereth the Gospel to all the People according to that of Paul Let a man so judge of us as Stewards of the Mysteries of God and again We are Embassadors of Christ so the term Liturgy excellently agreeth to the Ministry For the word is an old word used to express publick civil Ministries The Grecians used it to express any publick Taxes Burdens or Tributes the Charges of setting out Navies c. as may appear from the Oration of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Oration is wholly spent about publick Offices and Immunities from them where he saith That some unworthy men finding themselves priviledged In civil Authors studied 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to decline publick Liturgies that is Services So they spake amongst the Romans as appeareth by the Rescript of the Emperour Pertinax F. de Jure immunitatis Tho saith he the number of Children doth not free Men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from all Liturgies that is publick Services And the Commentator on Demosthenes saith Liturgy signifies a kind of Tribute to defray the charges of publick Plays Navies Schools and such things as the publick stock was concerned in And saith he it is plain from the diphthong 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it that it is not derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth Prayers from whence the word Litany is derived but from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth publick Goods Thence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to take care of publick things and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth such an Officer Thus far they From this account of the civil usage of the word it may easily be in Scripture gathered In Scripture what it signifies in sacred things and proved from Holy Writ It is used Luk. 1.23 to signifie all Zacharies publick Service in the Temple We there translate it truly Ministration It is used to express Pauls publick Service to the Church in suffering 2 Phil. 17. Surely that Text is not to be translated If I be offered upon the Forms of Prayer of your Faith but as we do upon the service of your Faith So the Apostle speaking of Distributions to the poor he calls it the Administration of this Liturgy we translate it Service so Phil. 2.30 to supply your lack of service to me Gr. Liturgy he speaks of Timoth's coming to him Heb. 8.6 Christ saith the Apostle obtained a more excellent Liturgy we rightly translate it Ministry Heb. 9.21 all the Vessells of the Liturgy that is of the Jewish Ministry it cannot be of the Jewish Forms of Prayer The Canon of the Council of Laodicea confirmed as being part of the Code by the 1 Canon of the Council of Chalcedon decrees That the same Liturgy that is publick Ministry of Prayers should be performed at Nine in the Morning and in the Evenings which I hope might be without Forms of words of which it speaketh nothing 11. But he tells us the next Canon in Justellus proves they understood Forms of words in Prayer I answer that is not so the next Canon indeed directs an Order of the publick Ministry viz. That after the Ministers Sermons they should pray a part with the Catechumeni then with the Penitents after this thrice with the Believers once silently twice speaking out c. but in that Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not used nor any words like it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers and Oblations But Zonaras and Balsamon so interpret the Canon I doubt it not but the one lived 600 the other 700 years after that Canon was made and either of them in ages when Popery had prevailed 4 or 500 years and they knew no other publick Prayers but by Forms I doubt not but in that age 100 more would have so interpreted it to make it justifie their Practice but what is this to the purpose So many now where they meet with the Terms Liturgy Prayers Offices Litanies presently dream of a proof for Forms of Prayer which none of those words are restrained to Thus we see there was no establishment of Forms of Prayer by the Council of Chalcedon 451. 12. We must therefore come to Justinians Novellae Constitutiones I presume every one knows that great Emperours neither use to write out Folio's nor to draw Prefaces to them The Imperial Law in that Emperors time say the Centuriaters and Moxia was scattered in near 2000 Books it was time to abridge it the Emperour Justinian employed in it three Lawyers the principal was one Tribonianus Sleidan saith of him He was a covetous profane man and reported for summs of money given him fixisse refixisse leges to have made and unmade Laws at his pleasure