CHAP. I.

The Queſtion ſtated, What is not the Queſtion? What is? No queſtion about the lawfulneſs of forms in general, nor forms of a mans compoſure for his own uſe, nor about any good uſe of forms, nor about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of ſcriptural forms, nor about short ejaculations: But onely concerning the Lawful uſe of forms of Prayer compoſed by fallible men, & preſcribed to others, to be by them ordinarily uſed, in ſtated, ſolemn prayer, whom God hath fitted for the ministry by giving them the Gift of prayer. The negative aſſerted.

§. 1. AMongſt all Paralogiſmes, there is none more unworthy of a Scholar, then, that which the Logicians call, Ignoratio Elenchi where the Opponent cheats his adverſary, and the hearers, with an argument that ſeemes to conclude againſt the question, but indeed doth not; nor is there that wee know any matter in controverſy, where in diſpute, this fallacy hath been made more frequent uſe of, then in the Queſtion under our preſent debate. Let us therefore firſt truely ſtate our Queſtion, that our adverſaries may know what we ſpeak, and whereof we affirm and not looſe their labour in proving what we do not deny, nor bring arguments no way concluding the thing in Queſtion betwixt us.

§. 2 The ſubject of the Queſtion is, Forms of Prayer dictated or preſcribed by other men, to be ordinarily uſed in ſolemn prayer by miniſters of the goſpel, furnished by God with the gift of prayer, and having a natural liberty to uſe thoſe gifts. The Queſtion is whether the uſe of them bee lawful or no? We deny it, & ſay wee have arguments which appear to us very probable, whence wee have formed a particular judgment of conſcience, that they are Ʋnlawful, that is, That without ſinning againſt God, we cannot ordinarily uſe them, in the diſcharge of our miniſterial Act in ſolemn prayer.

§. 3 Hence appeareth. That wee are not diſputing

1 Whether there may bee a good and lawful uſe of Forms of Prayer. Wee deſire with all thankfulneſs to God, to own and acknowledge the profitable labours of thoſe, who have drawn the matter of prayer for more ordinary, & more extraordinary occaſions into Forms; from whence both young ſcholars, and private Chriſtians, may bee taught the ordinary method, and matter of prayer. And allow the ſame uſe of good Prayer-books, as of good ſermon-books, for Inſtruction of thoſe that are leſs knowing. It is onely the uſe of them as our Prayers is in queſtion betwixt us.

2 Nor do we queſtion, the lawfulneſs of uſing all forms of Prayer for our Prayers; or part of our Prayers. I if there can be found any forms of Prayer, which either God or Chriſt, or any in Scripture deriving authority from him, hath commanded to bee uſed, undoubtedly we ought to uſe it, whether it be under ſuch an expreſs command or no, we believe it may bee uſed as a part of our prayer, though we do not think our ſelves obliged to it. 2 If any miniſter diſtruſting his memory, or invention, shall think fit to compoſe a prayer, or more prayers for his owne uſe, we doubt not but he may do it; he ſerveth God here as God hath given him the gift, & we should be loth to condemn him. The queſtion is onely of forms compoſed for our uſe by others, & thoſe neither pretending to the Authority of Chriſt, or his Apoſtles.

3 Nor do we queſtion the lawfulneſs, of any perſons uſing a form of prayer 1 We do believe it lawful for ſuch perſons as are to join with others in prayer, to make uſe of his words who ſpeaketh, which can bee but a form to them, did we ſay it is lawful? yea, it is Neceſſary. 2 We do alſo believe it lawful for him that miniſtreth in prayer to others, to uſe the preſcribed form of anothers compoſure, if hee can do no other, we mean: if hee hath not the gift of prayer to which many private Chriſtians have not attained; yea, and many whom the church, in the beginning of Reformation, was forced to uſe for miniſters; and we should not find any difficulty to allow other miniſters alſo to do the ſame: Suppoſing them immediately hindred by God (which often happens by ſome diſeaſes in the head) that at this or that time they cannot uſe the gift they have. The Queſtion is onely about Miniſters, and ſuch as have the Gift, or might have it, and are not by the hand of God immediately hindred ſo as they cannot exerciſe the gift, which they may do Ordinarily.

4 Neither is the queſtion about short Ejaculations, but ſolemn, ſtated Prayer. Wee are not ſo ridiculous, as to think wee may not ſay, Lord have mercy upon us, or the like, becauſe it is a form. The Queſtion then truly ſtated is this whether it bee lawful for miniſters ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in ſolemn, ſtated, publick Prayer by reading or reciting forms of prayer, compoſed by other men in obedience to the commands of ſuperiours?

§. 4 From whence it appeareth, That all arguments brought to prove the lawfulneſs of compoſing forms, or miniſters compoſing them for their own uſe, and ſo uſing them, or peoples praying by the form of him who miniſtreth, or Chriſt commending a form to his diſciples, or God preſcribing forms of bleſſing, or Davids or other holy penmen of ſcripture compoſing, or propoſing, or uſing forms, (if it could bee proved that they were at firſt compoſed, & commended for conſtant uſe, and ſo uſed generally) or from the lawfulneſs of the uſing of them by and commending them to ſuch, as had, or have not the gift of prayer, or the uſe of short ejaculatory forms. Are perfectly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 arguments that proceed ex ignoratione elenchi and cannot conclude the Queſtion. All that we affirm is this, That our conſciences do, from arguments which to us at leaſt ſeem highly probable, judge. That it is unlawful for miniſters having the gift of prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts inſolemn, ſtated, publick Prayer; by reading or reciting forms of prayer compoſed by other men confeſſedly not divinely & immediately inſpired, although our ſuperiours do require this of us. What thoſe arguments are, which to us appear highly probable in the negative part of this Queſtion, we now come to declare.

CHAP. II.

The firſt Argument, drawn from the nature of the Gift of Prayer, conſidered as a Mean given us by God in reference to the Act natural & proper, therefore the uſe not to be omitted. The Propoſitions opened & proved. The Inſufficiency of ſix anſwers given to this Argumemt. A 7th given by Mr. Falconer examined and found alſo inſufficient. The Aſſertion freed from diverſe abſurd conſequences which ſome would incumber it with. The Argument not concluſive againſt the lawfulneſs of hearing men praying by forms.

§. 1. OUr firſt Argument we thus ſtate,

To omit a mean for the performance of a Religions act given us by God for it, & being natural & proper, at the command of man when we perform that Religious action 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 prayer compoſed by others confeſſedly not divinely inſpired, is for him to omit a natural & 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 action; Ergo.

That a mans Gift, or Ability fitly to expreſs his mind unto God in Prayer is given him from that God, from whom come all ſpiritual gifts, every good and perfect gift (as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh) we think will be denied by none who underſtandeth any thing of the Scriptures. Nor that this Ability is given to a man by God, as a means in order to help him in the performance of the Act, for to what end elſe, can any imagine it given? which maketh it to bear the Notion of a Divine Mean, and being ſo, it muſt be moſt Proper, unleſs men will pretend to be wises then God, and that it is moſt Natural, is as obvious: now that ſuch Gifts muſt not be neglected, the Apoſtle is plain, 1 Tim. 4. 14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee A precept extending as well to one miniſterial gift as another. But leaſt any should ſay, we do not neglect that, the uſe of which ſuperiours prohibit: We put in the word Omit, now who ſo in the performance of the act doth not uſe This Gift, doth moſt certainly Omit the uſe of it, and about the lawfulneſs of this omiſſion at the command of men is the Queſtion. We judge this ſinful, and that partly from Scripture, partly from Reaſon.

§. 2 We judge ſo from Scripture, 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11. As every man hath received the gift, ſo miniſter it one to another, as good ſtewards of the manifold grace of God▪ If any man ſpeak, as the oracles of God: if any one miniſter, &c. The Apoſtle is evidently there ſpeaking of goſpel miniſtrations, and giving a Rule about them, his Rule is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As every man hath received the Gift, miniſtring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the ſubſtantive to that muſt be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is the ſame which the Apoſtle expreſſeth in a little different phraſe. Rom. 12. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As God hath divided to every one a meaſure of faith. v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . According to the Grace given to us. The Apoſtle makes the gift 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which we are to miniſter, and we are commanded to miniſter according as we have received it. Now in adminiſtrations, by other mens forms (and prayer is the one half of our miniſtry) we neither miniſter The gift; nor as every one hath received the gift; but as we find in the Book, or in the forms preſcribed. A gift indeed we uſe, Reading is a gift, but not the gift of prayer.

§. 3 But if we had no ſuch expreſs Scripture, The very light of Nature and Reaſon, would make this very probably appear to be the will of God to us. 1 Becauſe we uſe in an act of worship a leſs proper, leſs natural, and perfectly human mean: and in the mean time we omit a more proper, more natural & Divine mean. 2 Becauſe wee cannot uſe other mens forms, omitting our own gift, but we muſt omit a mean given us by God for the act, to uſe a mean under no Special divine preſcription. And we think it but reaſonable, that nothing but a ſpecial divine preſcription, should controle a general rule, whether written in Scripture, or approving it ſelf to our Reaſon. Eſpecially, if it be in matter of Divine worship, and to be done ordinarily. This is our firſt Argument, delivered and opened with as much freedom and plainneſs, as we are able to expreſs it in. We have indeed met with Six or Seven anſwers, but ſuch as we cannot acquieſce in; we will fairly relate them all, and shew why they apear to us by no means ſatisfactory.

§. 4 Some have gone roundly to work, denying any ſuch gift, as the gift of prayer; But this is either to deny what is evident to ſenſe: viz. That there are ſome perſons able fitly to expreſs their minds to God in prayer: or to deny the Scriptures which ſay, Ja. 1. 17. That Every good gift and every perfect gift cometh from above, from the father of Lights. Beſides, That it ſtubbeth up all Liturgies of Prayer by the roots, none it ſeems having any ability to make them. But thoſe who have thus anſwered have been very few and very invaluable.

§. 5 Others therefore tell us, That all miniſters have not this gift, and it were unreaſonable to preſume it in ſuch a clergy as that of England, conſiſting of 9, or 10000 perſons. To this we anſwer. If they who anſwer thus, intend by all Miniſters, all who are ordained by men, or, all thoſe whom the church in ſome ſtreſs of neceſſity is forced to make uſe off in ſtead of miniſters, have not the gift of prayer, we do agree it: But if they mean that, All thoſe who are ſent of God into the miniſtry have not the gift of Prayer, we think we should too much treſpaſs upon the reverence we owe to God, if we should grant, That hee ſendeth any into his work, whom hee hath not firſt fitted for all the parts of it.

2 We do grant, That there may be ſuch a ſtate of the church when for the preſent, it cannot be furnished with perfect miniſters (by perfect, we mean ſuch as are tolerably fit for all the parts of their work) Our forefathers experienced this, both in the beginnings of our Reformation in K. Edw. & in Qu. Eliz. time, as alſo did our Forefathers Brethren in other churches: They were ſo far from finding perſons enough fitted to pray & preach, that were well affected to a Reformation, that they had much a do to find ſuch perſons enough, that could read; And it is ſaid, the Priviledge in our courts of Judicature which perſons guilty of theft (ſeparated from Burglary & other crimes) have, comes from this defect of former ages: And we do believe that the Orginal or continuance of Liturgies upon the Reformation, owes it ſelf in a great meaſure to this. But we ſay, Theſe were but Tanquam miniſters, better theſe then none, their Reading may give the people ſome inſtruction. But 3ly ſuppoſe ſome that muſt be made uſe off for, the preſent neceſſity of the church, have not the gift; muſt they therefore who have it be reſtrained in the uſe of it? We do indeed think, that it will be hard to find nine or ten thouſand ſcholars in England, furnished with the gift either of praying, or preaching in any tolerable manner: and one great reaſon is, Becauſe they have been ſo tied to a Liturgy, that they have never applied themſelves to the ſtudy of the Scriptures, and their own hearts, as they should: but to tie up all to the uſe of ſuch forms, is the ready way, never to have ſuch a number. Therefore this anſwer is far from a ſatisfaction.

§. 6 Another hath told us, That the ſame gift may ſerve for ſeveral uſes: and he that uſeth it to one uſe, is in ſome caſes excuſed from uſing it in another: eſpecially, if he be hindred by authority. This gift he ſaith, may be uſed another way both in the worship of God, & out of it: In the worship of God, becauſe the ſame faculty which enableth a man to utter a good prayer to God, enableth him to make a good exhortation to people; Out of the worship, elſe thoſe Laymen who have it, and are no miniſters, ſin. This is Ireneus Freemans anſwer in his book called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But certainly this author had forgot whereof he ſpake By the gift of prayer muſt be underſtood, An ability in man fitly to expreſs his mind to God in prayer, in asking things agreeable to his will. Can this gift, or faculty be uſed in making good orations & exhortations to the people? or can any thing be ſpoken more abſurdly then to ſay, That the gift of prayer may be put to ſome other uſe out of Gods worship, (Surely the author doth not think it lawful to pray to Saints & Angels) But by the Gift of prayer, he certainly underſtands nothing but the gift of ſpeaking, or at moſt of ſpeaking ſenſe: But ſurely the gift or ability of working in Braſs, & iron, & wood are differing abilities, or gifts, though at ſeveral times they be exerciſed by the ſame perſon, & proceed from the ſame reaſonable ſoul. But diſtruſting this anſwer, he hath a Fourth.

§. 7 That the man ſinneth not, who omiteth a gift, when the uſing of it would hinder another: and this he ſaith excuſeth miniſters, that they do not pray without end, but afford ſome time for preaching, yea, and for reading too. Yea, he ſaith, without this moſt men would be inexcuſable if they did not come into the church and make prayers there: For in that they do not, it is manifeſt they uſe not their gift. He applies it, p. 20. If the laws ſay, that he who will uſe his gift of prayer, shall not uſe his gift of preaching, but lie in priſon or worſe; it is manifeſt, that it is better to uſe one of theſe gifts, then by uſing them both, to be ſuffered in the uſe of none. Now, good Reader, judge if it be poſſible, an ingennous ſoul should be patient at ſuch Ridiculous trifling, was there ever any further queſtion then, Whether it be lawful to omit the uſe of the gift, when we are performing the Religious act to which the gift relates? Did ever any ſay▪ They were bound to uſe the Gift of prayer at all times, or onely at all times when they miniſtred in prayer? 2 Is the gift of prayer onely to be uſed in temples, that a Layick may not uſe it in his family, if he hath it? Is not this a learned Medium to prove, That thoſe who have the gift of prayer, may ordinarily omit the uſe of the gift of prayer given them by God, as a mean for it without ſin, when they are performing the act to which it relates: becauſe, When they are not to perform ſuch acts, but acts of a quite differing ſpecies, they may omit it. He ſaith, The exerciſe of the gift of Prayer may be omitted when it would hinder the uſe of the gift of preaching. He ſaith true, if the hindrance of the exerciſe of the gift of preaching proceedeth from the irregular, and diſorderly uſe of his gift of Prayer, by the voluntary act of him who hath both gifts: and ſtands bound to uſe both in their order, he may omit ſuch a meaſure of the uſe of one, as would hinder the due uſe of the other. But certainly he otherwiſe ſpeakes very impertinently, and not like a Divine: For in that I am hindred in the exerciſe of the gift of preaching by a meer human law, is the fault of others; nor can I ſin in it, if I be free to do it, without ſuch circumſtances as are ſinful. It is the ſin of others that we are not ſuffered to do what God hath called us to do, and as he hath required us to do it. Now whether ſuch ordinary praying would not be our ſin, is the matter in queſtion? God needeth not mans ly for his glory.

A fifth anſwer we have met with is, That a miniſter hath a liberty to uſe his Gift of Prayer, before his ſermon, and in his own private family. This is more then any thing before ſaid, But, 1 It reacheth not the Queſtion, for ſtil he muſt Ordinarily perform his miniſterial Act in Prayer in the omiſſion of the Divine mean, given him on purpoſe for the performance of it: for certainly, He that uſeth the preſcribed forms of others as oft as he publickly miniſtreth, doth it Ordinarily, in his miniſterial act. 2 If we look wiſtly into the law, we shall find it is but an aſſumed liberty men take to uſe their owne gift in prayer before their ſermons, and this Bp. Wren & Coſins underſtood well enough, & therefore would indure no ſuch thing where they had to do. And this Mr. Kemp hath told us in print, in a ſermon (ſince printed, preached in St. Maries in Cambridge) with this brand upon ſuch practice, That it is a Geneva trick, brought in by John Calvin, & Thomas Cartwright. For his liberty left him in his family, that is not in his publick miniſtry, beſides that we shall shew anon, that granting this Principle, That obedience to ſuperiors in this caſe is our duty, we lie at mercy for that too: and both theſe pretended liberties may be taken away, when our ſuperiours will pleaſe to ſay, you shall do ſo no more.

§. 9 For a Sixt Anſwer, we are ſlightily told by ſome, That the Church muſt judge, whether her Miniſters have ſuch gift of prayer or no? But, 1 Certainly it were a ſtrange judgment for a church to make, that none of her miniſters have the gift of prayer. 2 Again we freely agree, That the church muſt judge whether men have both the Gift of prayer, and preaching too; but we ſay this should be, before she truſteth them with the publick miniſtry: for in ſetting them apart to the miniſtry, she hath paſſed her judgment, That they have an ability both to pray and preach, Or elſe she hath dealt very unfaithfully to her Lord and Maſter, by ordination declaring, That Chriſt hath ſent thoſe whom he never ſent, when she ought firſt to have proved them. 3 If the church hath found her ſelf miſtaken, she ought to confeſs her error by removing them from the miniſtry, who are not fit for it; not to help them, by preſcribing them, what to ſay.

A late Reverend Author Mr. Falconer in his Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, p. 120. hath given us another anſwer, viz. That gifts may be limited, which (he ſaith) is manifeſt, becauſe by the will of God bounds & limits were ſet even to the uſe of the extraordinary Gifts of Gods Spirit. 1 Cor. 14. 26, 27, 28, 33. This is all which that Reverend Author ſaith to this argument, beſides what we shewed the weakneſs of in our reply to the fifth Anſwer, now, to this we anſwer, That the word Limited is a very general term. We will freely grant, That Limitations may be put and that by preſent ſuperiors upon the diſorderly and extravagant uſe of Miniſterial gifts, and that is all which is proved by that text, 1 Cor. 14. 26, 27, 28, 33. The words are theſe. v. 26. How is it then (Brethren) that when you come together, every one of you hath a Pſalm, hath a Doctrine, hath a Tongue, hath a Revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done to Edifying. v. 27. If any man ſpeak in an unknown tongue let it be by two, or at moſt by three, and that by courſe, and let one interpret. v. 28. But if there be no interpreter let him keep ſilence in the church: and let him ſpeak to himſelf and to God. v. 33. For God is not the Author of confuſion, but of peace in all the churches of the ſaints.

Here is indeed a direction given by an infallible Apoſtle for the exerciſe of thoſe extraordinary gifts; A direction whoſe end was Edification, and this by the avoiding of Confuſion and a reaſon given: For God is not the author of Confuſion, The Confuſion is plainly by the Apoſtle ſignified.

1 That ſeveral perſons who had theſe extraordinary gifts, would at the ſame time be communicating to their Brethren their Pſalms, their Doctrines, their Revelations, their Interpretations, Their gift in languages. 2 That thoſe who could ſpeak with diverſe tongues never regarded to have what they ſaid interpreted, from whence nothing could proceed for Edification, while many underſtood nothing of what was ſaid: and manifeſt Confuſion, ſeveral perſons gabling diverſe things, at the ſame time. To the avoiding of which the Apoſtle directeth.

1 That they should not ſpeak together, but ſucceſſively, & by courſe.

2 To avoid undue lengths, That not above Two, or Three at moſt should ſpeak at the ſame time.

3 That if any should ſpeak an unknown language, ſome one should interpret, That what was ſpoken might be underſtood by all. This is all the Apoſtle ſaith. Is there any Noncon. that will not moſt freely grant all this? 1 That Two or Three miniſters should not pray and preach together to the ſame auditory, and if any will be ſo diſorderly the ſuperior ought to reſtrain them, that there be no Confuſion. 2 That if miniſters will protract their diſcourſes to unreaſonable lengths, they may be reſtrained. 3 That if any be ſo vain, as becauſe he can ſpeak Latine, French, Dutch, or any other language, not generally known to his poeple, he will pray, & preach in ſuch language: The ſuperiors shall forbid it, & that by authority of this ſcripture.

But ſurely, our Reverend Brother is ſo much of a ſcholar & a Divine as to conclude, That becauſe ſuperiors may thus far reſtrain the notorious, & evident abuſe of gifts; therefore they may as they pleaſe limit the uſe of them; yea, forbid the uſe of them ordinarily in the performance of thoſe Acts to which they relate.

If indeed he could have proved, That the Apoſtle had ſent them a Manuſcript of his own (and we know he had parchments) of Propheſies, Doctrines, Pſalms, Revelations, and commanded them that when they Propheſied, taught, ſang, they should ordinarily uſe them, & none but them. This had come nearer the buſineſs, (yet not home to it, till the ſame Infallibility could be aſſerted for preſent ſuperiors, as for the bleſſed Apoſtle) as well as the ſame conſtitution of God for them to direct in all matters of worship, and Eccleſiaſtical order; which none can deny the Apoſtles to have been poſſeſſed of: Yet the Apoſtle knew the mind of his maſter too well, to ſend them books to pray & preach by, but onely directeth them to ſuch an uſe of thoſe Gifts with which God had bleſſed them, as might be without what all men would cry out off as confuſed, clamorous, diſorderly, and unreaſonable: becauſe the generality of hearers not underſtanding them, could not poſſibly get any good or advantage from them. Our Reverend Brothers Argument muſt lie thus.

If the Apoſtle Paul might in the Church of Corinth direct, that none might ſpeak in an Ʋnknown tongue, nor Two or Three gabble together, nor any (though he were able) miniſter in a language which the people underſtood not; and the Corinthians were bound to obey: Then the Church or Churches of the preſent age, may command all their miniſters when they pray, for three parts of four of their time ſo ſpent, to ſpend it in praying (omitting any uſe of their own gifts) by reading, or reciting the preſcribed forms of prayers which they shall ſend them: And thoſe miniſters are bound to do accordingly.

We leave our Reverend Brother upon ſecond thoughts to judge of the validity of this conſequence, and do believe that it will not juſtify it ſelf to his own private thoughts: we cannot (we profeſs) reconcile it to any degree of Reaſon. Here is a manifeſt arguing from things of one kind, to things of another, and that quite different. It being one thing, to reſtrain the abuſe of gifts, another thing to reſtrain the uſe and that not as to order of time, and ſo as to make the uſe of them (ſtill eſtablished even in every individual act) intelligible, and of uſe to the church: but ſo as it shall be onely denied or Suppreſſed, as to the far greater Number of thoſe individual acts wherein they should be uſed. The upshot therefore of this argument is, Thoſe of our Brethren who will anſwer this argument, muſt bring us ſome Medium which will conclude.

That it is lawful for miniſters of the goſpel, having a ſpiritual gift given them of God; as a proper mean to help them in the performance of their Miniſterial acts in ſolemn, publick prayer: yet at the command of ſuperiors, ordinarily to perform thoſe acts, omitting the uſe of ſuch means, and uſing the preſcribed forms of others. Which we can by no means agree to.

1 Becauſe of the force of the ſcriptures before mentioned.

2 Becauſe, we think we should allow men wiſer then God, if we should in practice prefer a mean of mere human invention, before one that is Divine; and therefore more proper, and (we are ſure) more natural.

§. 8 We meet with no more (pretended) direct anſwers to our argument. We are aware of the indeavours of ſome, to reduce it to abſurdity; with what ſucceſs, we shall very shortly examine. They tell us that admitting this Principle,

1 All thoſe Eminent Divines would be condemned, who have uſed or do before their Sermons uſe a form of their own compoſure, The vanity of this will appear from our ſtating the Queſtion.

2 He who preacheth muſt preach ex tempore. This is as idle as the other, we argue not for praying ex tempore; but onely in the uſe of our own gifts, which certainly excludes not previous meditation; men may uſe what of that they pleaſe.

3 We muſt not uſe the Lords prayer. Let any one read our queſtion, & ſee if it concludes againſt any ſuch thing.

4 The miniſters alſo muſt make hymns, and people muſt not ſing by forms. As if we had not ſcriptural forms to which we are tied in ſinging, compoſed by men divinely inſpired. We think Apochryphal Anthems to be ſang in publick worship no more lawful, then Liturgical forms of Prayer. Nor can it be proved, that Hymn-making, or ſinging is an ordinary miniſterial act: Nor that God hath to any promiſed the gift of Pſalm, or Hymn-making; but it is certain he hath promiſed the Spirit of prayer, Zech. 12. 10. Rom. 8. 26.

5 Nor do they ſpeak any thing more to the purpoſe, who tell us that according to our Principle, None muſt join with others in prayer, for the ſpeakers prayer is a form to him. The Queſtion is not about him who barely prayeth, who hath nothing to do but to exerciſe his grace: but about him who is in prayer to miniſter unto others.

6 We have met with ſome, who have indeavored to encumber this argument with another abſurdity, telling us that according to this Principle, Every miniſter who is able to interpret the Hebrew of the old Teſtament, & the Greek in the new, is bound to read the ſcripture according to his own interpretation: and not the tranſlation received in the Church where he miniſtreth. And indeed of any thing we ever heard objected, this cometh neareſt an argument to bring our Principle to an abſurdity; But yet we think it is not ſufficient: For, not to diſpute, whether Publick Reading of the ſcriptures be (though a good work and fit to be uſed in the Congregation, as Moſes was read in the Synagogue) ſtrictly a miniſterial act; we never read Chriſt ſaying to his Miniſters, Go & read: ſo, as for ought we know, The ſcriptures may in the publick Congregation be read by inferiour officers (as is very ordinary, in other Reformed Churches) we ſay, not to inſiſt upon this (which yet were a foundation not to be shaken) we take that Principle which (if we remember right) we have ſome where read in Mr. Capel, to be a true Principle, That God never yet had a church in any place of the world, but he at the firſt planting of it, and ſo after (as there was occaſion) ſtirred up the Rulers, to employ ſome in making a true verſion of the ſcripture; which perſons ſo employed, God hath, upon experience, been found conſtantly ſo to aſiſt, That they have not erred or miſtaken in any point of Doctrine neceſſarily to be known & believed: and that it is his will, that particular miniſters, & members in ſuch churches in their ordinary uſe, & reading of the ſcriptures, should uſe ſuch verſion, or the verſion of ſome other church, which they may find more exact & perfect. This is ſo fully proved by experience, & the frequent uſe which both Chriſt & his Apoſtles made of the Septuagint verſion (though as full of miſtakes as any other, if compared with the Hebrew) that nothing is to be ſaid againſt it, nor need any more be ſaid in anſwer to this objection. The ſum of what is ſaid is this, That to interpret the body of ſcripture to be read to people is no private miniſterial act, or gift, nor is any ſingle miniſter fit to be truſted with it, nor to enter a diſſent to the ordinary verſion uſed either in the church of which he is a member, or ſome other orthodox church as to a particular text, but with great modeſty and upon weighty grounds.

§. 9 We think enough ſaid to juſtify our argument againſt all anſwers we have met with; and thoſe, who are ſo ready upon all occaſions to ſend us for ſatisfaction to Mr. Hooker & Dr. Sanderſon, should do well to tell us in what Page of either of their works this argument is anſwered: for we can in neither of them find an anſwer to it. Our adverſaries may alſo ſee, that we do not neglect to inquire into all their writings for ſatisfaction: Though it be our misfortune to find them rarely ſpeaking to the true queſtion, but firſt making to themſelves a man of ſtraw, then pelting him with arguments, and immoral language.

§. 10 Hence alſo appears to our weaker Brethren an obvious reaſon, why ſome of us can at a pinch hear other miniſters pray in the uſe of ſuch peſcribed forms; though our ſelves cannot uſe them: When we join in prayers with others, we have nothing to do, (provided the petitions we hear be according to the will of God) but to ſay, Amen, exerciſing our faith, &c. But if we be our ſelves to Miniſter in prayer, either we are miſtaken, (which we muſt firſt be convinced of) or beſides the exerciſe of Grace, God requireth alſo, we should uſe Our Gifts being the mean he hath given us for thoſe acts: Whether he who miniſtreth acquitteth himſelf to God or no? Viderit ipſe, it is nothing to us let him look to that. Nor can there be any thing of ſcruple in the hearing of miniſters praying by the forms of others (provided the matter) of them be good, and according to the will of God: Unleſs ſome should ſcruple it, as encouraging a miniſter in that which they judge ſinful. But why may not we think, That he who doth uſe them, doth it in an humble diſtruſt of his own abilities, & thinks at leaſt that he doth agere optimum, do his beſt? Why muſt we think our ſelves infallible? We dare not judge thoſe who we think have the gift of prayer, but think not fit to uſe it in their ordinary ſervice; becauſe their ſuperiors command the omiſſion of it: but as we do not judge them, ſo we dare not practice after their copy. Whether it be ſin in them we freely leave to Gods determination, we are ſure it would be ſin to us. As we believe, ſo we ſpeak, ſowe muſt act: but shall freely liſten to what any of our Brethren can ſay to the taking away of the appearing Probability, both of this argument, or any other we shall bring. In the mean time we would not be crowed over, as ſuch dunces who have nothing to ſay: but are hardned with Prejudice, blinded with paſſion, biaſſed by falſe Principles, &c. See Dr. Asheton's Ded. Ep. Nor as meerly peevish & Grubſtreet Divines, &c. which with abundance more of ſuch brutish ſtuf another uſeth. Till theſe confident men have let the world know, That they have given a ſufficient anſwer like ſcholars to what we ſay, and that they are good at ſomething elſe beſides reviling, we are not careful to anſwer them.

CHAP. III.

The ſecond argument. The terms opened. What is meant by Attention, Intention, & Fervency? Both propoſitions proved. Mr. Freemans anſwer conſidered. What Mr. Falconer hath ſaid, in anſwer to this argument, proved in ſufficient. The Judgment of the Leyden Profeſſors, and the Walachrian claſſis not duely oppoſed to this Argument. Mr. Falconers three reaſons why forms should not hinder devotion anſwered.

§. 1 WE proceed to a ſecond Argument which we thus ſtate,

To uſe ſuch a mode, in the ordinary performance of our duty in ſolemn publick prayer, as either from the neceſſary workings of human nature: or otherwiſe upon experience we find, either hindring the Attention of our own, or others thoughts to the duty: or the Intention and Fervency of our own, or others Spirits in the performance of the duty, when we can ſo perform it as neither of them will be to that degree hindred, is Ʋnlawful:

But for him who hath the Gift of prayer, ordinarily to perform his miniſterial Acts in publick ſolemn prayer: is for him to uſe ſuch a mode in thoſe Acts of worship as either from the Natural workings of human nature, or from ſome other cauſe ſcarce avoidable is upon experience found to hinder his own Attention and alſo the Attention of others thoughts to the duty, and the Intention & Fervency of his own, & others ſpirits in the duty, when in the mean time he hath a natural ability ſo to perform it as neither of them will (at leaſt to that degree) be hindred; Ergo▪

This we conceive to be what by Mr. Falconer is repreſented as a ſecond Objection under the terms, That it is diſadvantageous to devotion. We shall with what candor becomes us towards a perſon of Mr. Falconers worth & candor, conſider both what he ſaith in anſwer; And alſo ex abundanti, what we find to have been ſaid (to leſs purpoſe) by any others; And examine, whether what he or they have ſaid, amounteth to a ſtrict anſwer, which may free us from the probability of truth which appears in this argument.

§. 2 For the Propoſition it is ſo evident from Scripture, being indeed a branch of the commandment which our ſaviour calls, The firſt and great commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy ſoul, & all thy ſtrength: And inforced by ſo many Scriptures directly requiring Attention of thoughts, and Fervency of Spirit in all the ſervice of God, (eſpecially in prayer) That we never met with any bold enough to deny it: For he who denieth it muſt affirm, That though God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart, ſoul, & ſtrength: yet, if man commands us not to do it, it is lawful, though God hath commanded us to ſerve him with the Attention of our thoughts; & with Fervency of Spirit; and commanding us to purſue this end, hath alſo enjoined us to uſe the means moſt proper for it: yet, If our ſuperiour commands us to uſe ſuch means as are leſs proper, we may lawfully do it. Which to us appears very ſtrange aſſertions, neither becoming Divines, nor good Chriſtians, nor indeed rational men: For ſuppoſing that there is a God, The light of nature is enough to shew us, He muſt be ſerved with all our hearts, with the higheſt attention of thoughts, & intention, & fervency of Spirit.

§. 3 So as all the Queſtion can be, is about the Minor propoſition, Whether he that performs his Miniſterial act in Solemn Prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, doth not uſe a mean leſs accommodate to his own & others Attention of thoughts, and Intention & Fervency of Spirit: then he who deales with God immediately, uſing his tongue to expreſs conceptions firſt formed in his own heart? To us it is next to a demonſtration that he doth, and that upon that account it is unlawful: to which purpoſe we deſire, That theſe things may be wiſtly conſidred by any deliberate perſon.

§. 4 Whether it be poſſible for any perſon to read any diſcourſe, be it a Prayer, a ſermon, an Oration (what it will) with that degree of Attention of thoughts, as he muſt pronounce the ſame diſcourſe with by heart: if he ſo pronounceth it as but to ſpeak ſenſe? We do think none will find, or ſay it is. The thoughts of man are wild things, & impatient of a long intenſe abode upon any object (we ſpeak of the generality of men) but never ſo buſy to break priſon, & wander, as when we are employed in the holy ſervices of God, And that partly in regard, That God is an inſenſible metaphyſical object: Partly, Becauſe of that natural averſion from communion with God, which (ſince the fall) hath been the univerſal diſeaſe of human nature. So that conſidering how human nature is ſtated ſince the fall, we believe it a thing impoſſible. We know it will be ſaid (and that truly) that this argument concludeth not againſt the miniſters uſe of forms preſcribed by others, if he reciteth them by heart; but onely againſt his performing his miniſterial acts in prayer by reading ſuch forms. We confeſs it, and ſay▪ That if but this poſt be gained, much is done. God would doubtleſs be ſerved with much leſs diſtraction, and divagation of thoughts, then he ordinarily is on the part even of him that miniſtreth; which was the Reaſon, why the Reverend and very learned Author of Altare Damaſcenum allowing the uſe of forms at firſt, to help thoſe who have not attained the gift of prayer, in any proportion fit for miniſters, would yet have them enjoined to recite them by heart.

§. 5 Secondly, Whether any thing can in reaſon be imagined more conducive to fix the thoughts upon the duty, & God in the duty? Then when a miniſter hath attained, to ſuch a familiarity with the phraſe of Scripture, and ſuch a knowledge in the body of Divinity, That although he will always need a premeditation of the Greatneſs, & Majeſty of God; his own vileneſs, & nothingneſs; and the weightineſs of the duty: yet, he needeth not compoſe his form ſyllabically before he comes; but can truſt his Affections to thruſt out words, while his eyes may be shut & ſent to his heart, (as our Divine Poet ſpeaks) Or open, and lifted up to heaven and fixed towards the place, where his heavenly father is; and while his heart is enditing a good matter: And his tongue employed as the pen of a ready writer▪ We think this is ſo evidently more conducive to the fixation of a mans thoughts, and the commanding their attention to the duty, That it is impoſſible for any who will not deny the workings of a reaſonable ſoul, to be able without a ſelf condemnation to deny it.

§. 6 A third thing which we would have conſidred is, Whether conſidering the infirmity of all our natures, any ſuch attention is to be expected, or hoped for from people to forms of prayer which they hear a thouſand times over, as to conceived prayer? We lay no great ſtreſs upon it, but think it at leaſt an ingenious obſervation, That God himſelf when he would Stir up his peoples attentions, & affections to what he was doing, tells them, He would do a new thing. We are ſure common experience teacheth us, That none gives that attention to a diſcourſe or ſtory, he hath heard an hundred times over, that he giveth to a new diſcourſe or ſtory, (excepting onely to the holy ſcriptures, for which God hath ſecured an abiding reverence in all pious ſouls) And this is owned by Mr. Falconer, giving it in his Epiſtle as a Reaſon, why after ſo many learned men he wrote upon this ſubject: Becauſe the humour of this age (he might have ſaid all ages) is more apt to ſeek for new books then read old ones. Whether this be the infirmity of our natures, and if our infirmity, whether our ſinful infirmity or no, are not much material to our preſent queſtion? Let it be the one, or the other, if not to be shaken off, and if by a mean which Gods word forbids not, it may in any meaſure be helped; certainly conſidering how neceſſary it is to the duty, that mean ought not to be neglected in obedience to any creature.

§. 7 But Attention of thoughts is not all our duty in prayer, Intention of ſpirit, and fervency of Affections is alſo a prime requiſite to an acceptable performance of it. Rom. 12. 11. Jam. 5. 16. Yea, It is ſo neceſſary as without it, the ſoul plainly mocketh God, and deceiveth it ſelf: now we cannot apprehend, That either the perſon miniſtring, should have the ſame intention & fervency in reading the preſcribed forms of others, as when his prayer is firſt formed in his own heart, or that the people should be ſo advantaged in their fervor and intention.

§. 8 As to him that miniſtreth. There is a great deal of difference betwixt words following the Affections, and Affections following words. This is an old Argument made uſe of by the learned Author of Altare Dameſcenum in conceived prayer. The heart is firſt inflamed and made apprehenſive, of the Greatneſs & Majeſty of God; the vileneſs, & ſinfulneſs of its ſelf, &c. And upon the working of theſe affections, words are formed in the mind, and then thruſt out at the lips. In the uſe of the preſcribed forms of others, words are firſt, which indeed uttered may excite ſome affection, or in the uttering be attended by ſome affection: but there is a great deal of difference, betwixt the workings of the affections thus commanded, and preſt into the ſervice; or thus cauſed, and following words uttered: and the workings of affections firſt inflamed, & then commanding our words. It is true, That if a man be to uſe preſcribed forms, there may be ſome general previous preparation of the Affections: but he who will deal truly with his own ſoul, will find it hard to keep them up and warm ſo long, as until he cometh to his work. Nor do we think it poſſible that the words of another should ſo well fit our hearts, and be ſo expreſſive of raiſed Affections as our own. An orator (let him be as much an Artiſt as he can) will find it no eaſy thing to give one of Tullies Orations (recited by him) ſuch an accent, as he can eaſily give one whom he himſelf hath formed. There is ſomething (not ſo eaſy to be expreſſed what) in our own words to expreſs the Affections of our hearts, and conducive to keep up their warmth & vigour; which is not in the words of another, which are to the ſoul (as Sauls armour to David) we hardly think it poſſible (we are ſure not ordinary) for a miniſter to preach a ſermon of anothers with that life and vigour, with which he can do one formed by himſelf.

§. 9 If the miniſter readeth his forms, there is a manifeſt impoſſibility of the like degree of intention: For it is the ſoul, which looking through the eye, directeth it ſo as a man readeth true; & ſo is plainly diverted from its immediate contemplation of, & fixation upon God.

§. 10 But here the author of The Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice comes acroſs us, & tells us for a firſt anſwer to this Argument.

P. 30. He that prays without book, eſpecially with Vocal prayer, muſt needs look upon the like Prints, and ſtamps made in the brain, (or whatſoever things the ſpecies are) without which a man can neither think nor ſpeak, they muſt be accounted objects; And the legible ſigns in the book do ſerve to bring the inward phantaſms more readily in actual view, and to marshal them with leſs labour, diverſion, or disturbance.

He ſaith well (or what ever things the ſpecies are) It is indeed a notion vulgarly received, That all underſtanding is by ſome ſenſible, or intelligible ſpecies, or prints of things in the brain: But it is very like the author knows that Philoſophers have found it hard to determin, what thoſe effluvia are? Where they lodge? How the ſoul worketh in the uſe of them? and in theſe things the beſt Philoſopher is but a Lover of wisdom, & cannot ſay it shall dy with him. Suppoſe a child born blind & deaf, yet it may underſtand ſomething, but by what ſpecies we cannot tell. To ſay it is by ſome connate ſpecies contradicteth Philoſophy; Acquired it can have none; If we ſay, it is by Infuſed ſpecies, we make it an early Enthuſiaſt, and we have better ground by far to ſay, That he who prayeth hath ſuch, becauſe the Spirit is promiſed in the caſe, Rom. 8. 26. Becauſe we know not what to pray for.

§. 11 But ſuppoſing what he ſaith, That he who prayeth Vocally by words firſt conceived in his own heart, muſt firſt attend to the prints in his brain of the words which he is about to utter; yet, Surely the Author of this anſwer might have conſidred. 1 That he who readeth forms muſt firſt attend to the prints in his book, and then to the prints which are made by the Effluvia from the book in his brain, before he can ſpeak: ſo as here is a double act, whereas the other is but ſingle. 2 Again, The firſt attention to the prints in our brains, is neceſſary according to the order of Nature, our author himſelf tells us, without them we can neither ſpeak nor think. 3 Farther, That Attention of the ſoul within it ſelf, is an immanent act; but the viewing of a book, and the prints there, and its excerciſing it ſelf in the compoſition of thoſe ſyllables and words is not ſo; not terminated within the ſoul, not naturally neceſſary to the action, nor neceſſary from any immediate divine precept: But a perfect unneceſſary diverſion, and a moſt certain hindrance of the minds intenſion: becauſe it is impoſſible that any created being should in the ſame action duly intend two objects. We remember the ſchoolmen firſt ſuppoſing what is falſe, That when Chriſt in his laſt Supper gave his body to his diſciples, he did alſo offer it up as a Sacrifice to God; ſtart a queſtion, How he could do both theſe at the ſame time with a due intenſion? They ſay he could, Quia intentionem habuit perfectiſſimam, Becauſe he had a moſt perfect intenſion, a Priviledge we hope our Brethren will not challenge for every clergy man. But this is enough to have ſaid for the Miniſters intention.

§. 12 The Intenſion of the people is matter of far more ſubtil disquiſition. The very learned Author of the book called, Altare Damaſcenum, p. 1614 hath this expreſſion,

Et puto ego auditores, &c. And I think (ſaith he) that the people do feel another kind of flame, [or Affection] when the miniſter goeth before them, in words determined from his affection going before; then from affections following after words, eſpecially when the hearers are a little wonted to the preſcribed forms.

We do think the ſame thing, and believe it a notion which will juſtify it ſelf to the experience of every pious, deliberate Soul. Poſſibly it is not ſo eaſy to aſſign the true reaſon of this difference, whether it be ſome ſecret ſympathy of pious ſouls? 2 Or ſome more ſpecial aſſiſtance of God to, and influence upon his miniſters doing their duty, ſuggeſting to them what to ſpeak beſt ſuted to their peoples ſouls? Or whether we should lay it upon peoples infirmity, indiſpoſing them to bend their minds ſo to forms ſaid over & over? Which if it be, it is ſuch as human nature is not like to quit it ſelf off. Nor in our caſe is it at all neceſſary to aſſign the reaſon, The queſtion being onely about the, Anſit? Whether it be ſo or no? And we cannot but obſerve that the Author of the Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, p. 31. doth after ſome words confeſs, That he who himſelf is in ſpeaking affected, is moſt like to affect others, if he be as clear, as rational, and perſuaſive. The Noncon. will eaſily agree, that he is not ſo likely, if his diſcourſe be irrational, confuſed, dark & flat.

§. 13 But the ſame Author offers at a ſecond anſwer, he had granted both the Major & Minor propoſition: The Major, p. 22 in theſe words, Every man is bound to pray with the higheſt intention of mind and fervency of Spirit, which can be obtained by lawful means, we dare ſay no Noncon. will ask him more: The minor he grants again & again, Sect 7. p. 25, 26, 27. What will he deny then? nothing remains but the Concluſion. He would fix this intention of mind in conceived, more then in preſcribed forms of prayer, upon ſome as he thinks falſe bottoms. He inſtanceth in 8.

1 Prejudice againſt the uſe of forms. 2 Novelty of words and phraſes. 3 The exerciſe of gifts with which we are more delighted then the exerciſe of grace. 4 The Natural delight men have in their own, more then in others Inventions. 5 The ſcope men have conceived in Prayers for glory & oſtentation. 6 The tumults of bodily Spirits. 7 The bending their minds in Invention. 8 The ſtraining their bodies by drawing out words.

Now to this we anſwer, Firſt,

§. 14 Either theſe muſt be the onely cauſes of greater Intenſion & fervency of Spirit in conceived, then in preſcribed forms of prayers; or elſe this is nothing to the purpoſe, and onely concerneth thoſe to whom theſe alone are the cauſes of ſuch greater fervor & intention: But we have before shewed, theſe are not the onely cauſes; but becauſe the ſoul is not ſo much diverted, &c. as it muſt be in the uſe of forms.

§. 15 But Secondly, When we have reminded our Reader what we underſtand by fervor and intention of ſoul, we will conſider the eight particulars, which the Author confeſſeth contributary to it. By the ſouls Attention we mean, Its immediate contemplation of God, without diverſions to other objects. A thing ſo neceſſary, that the ſoul which doth not its utmoſt toward it, doth but mock God, and cannot be ſerious with him. A Schoolmaſter (if he can diſcern it) will not indure the Omiſſion of it, in a boys ſaying his leſſon to him. It is (in short) for the ſoul hoc agere, indeed to do what it pretends to do. My heart is fixed (ô God! ſaith David) my heart is fixed. By Intention, & Fervor of Spirit we underſtand, That holy zeal & heat which the ſoul should be in, in all religious acts required of all Gods ſervants. Rom. 12. 11. Commended in Apollos, Acts. 18. 15. But eſpecially in Prayer called, crying unto God, A pouring out of our ſouls, & hearts before him, A wreſtling with him, as in Jacobs caſe, Hoſ. 12. 4. This prayer is that which St. James calls, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Jam. 5. 16. Thus Epaphras laboured in prayer fervently, Col. 4. 12. We mean nothing leſs by it, then the heat of the Brain, or the body about which this Author trifleth at a ſtrange rate: we mean the heat of the Inward man, which lies in the intenſe motions of the affection, of Sorrow in confeſſing ſin, Deſires in putting up petitions, Joy in thanksgivings, &c. The eagerneſs of the ſoul to, and in its work; That which David calls, The ſouls preſſing after God, Jacob, A not letting God go, The Prophet, A not being quiet, not holding our peace, &c. The duty required in the firſt commandment (ſo far as concerneth prayer) ſerving God with all our heart, all our ſoul, all our ſtrength: This being now every Miniſters, yea, every private Chriſtians duty: We ſay, Whatſoever means nature it ſelf, reaſon, or our particular experience, or Gods word dictateth as proper in order to it; we muſt not, we can not in Obedience to mans command barely omit: And whatſoever either Gods word, or nature it ſelf, or reaſon, or our Experience sheweth us will in any degree hinder this: it muſt be ſinful, let who will require it; as being contrary to our Duty expreſsly required in the Firſt and Great commandment. And in many particular Scriptures referrable unto that.

§. 16 This Aſſertion ſtandeth upon that foundation confeſſed by all Divines, That the precept requiring the end, doth alſo include the means; which ſurely muſt not be interpreted with an exception, viz. Except ſuperiours forbid the uſe of ſuch means, or commands the uſe of the contrary, &c. The precept legitimateth the means, if another particular divine precept hath not forbidden them, which it moſt certainly hath not.

§. 17 To come then cloſe to our Author, 1 If the Bending of the mind to think what to ask of God, & how to ask it. 2 If the exerciſe of gifts at the ſame time when grace is to be exerciſed will conduce to the farther exerciſe of grace, and the not exerciſing them will in any degree hinder ſuch exerciſe of grace. 3 If the natural proneſs which is in man, rather to have his heart dilate & to be fervent in the uſe of words firſt formed in his own heart, do evince that this fervor doth moſt uſually attend conceived Prayers. 4 If the tumult of bodily Spirits (as he calls it) being firſt occaſioned by the ſouls intenſion upon its work, being raiſed once will help the fervor of the ſoul. nay, 5 If the novelty of words, and phraſes will do it (and theſe are five of the eight things which himſelf confeſſeth may cauſe it) he muſt shew us they are ſinful cauſes, or he hath granted all we contend for.

§. 18 If indeed (as that Author would uncharitably enough inſinuate) the fervor of him who prayeth by conceived prayer, be meerly from prejudice againſt forms, (though he should have done well to have opened to us that cauſation, it is ſomething hard to conceive) or 2 from a ſinful end of Vain glory or foolish oſtentati • n, we do wholly condemn it: And for his Eighth particular, to us it wants an Interpreter, how ſtraining the body by drawing out words should cauſe fervency of ſoul. So as what this Author pretendeth for an anſwer to our arguments, is but a bundle of impertinencies, having no cognation to an anſwer: And indeed he who had ſo juſtly before granted us both Major & Minor, had nothing to do; but (like a young Logician) to deny the Concluſion: or to amuſe us what he could with long, and impertinent diſcourſes. But let us further take notice of ſome other looſe paſſages in him, and ſee, whether any thing in them, or in his diſtinctions will ſave him harmleſs?

§. 19 He telleth us, This fervency muſt be obtained by the uſe of juſt means. This is moſt true, and is not the uſe of a Gift given us by God for that end, a juſt mean? Is it not Natural, Rational, Scriptural? Such a mean as the ſervants of God have uſed? Is not this a juſt means think we? That which he would have us to believe is, That though it be our duty to pray with utmoſt fervor, & intention of Spirit; and though, in order to this Praying in the uſe of our own gifts, be more proper, & effectual: yet, if the Magiſtrate forbiddeth us the uſe of this Mean, it becometh an unlawful mean, and lawful for us to omit it, though we pray leſs fervently; therefore he tells us, p. 23.

He that is by the Magiſtrate forbidden to go to the next church, and therefore is neceſſitated to go to one more remote; muſt needs be more indiſpoſed to prayer by his long journy (except ſome men of a temper by themſelves) ſo that he shall not perform the duty with ſo high an intention of mind, or fervency of Spirit, as might probably be experienced in caſe he came to the church leſs wearied, and weather beaten: but yet, ſuch a man may lawfully go to the fartheſt church, and pray there though theſe hinderances of intention, and fervency be conſequent thereupon: becauſe they are neceſſary, not voluntary; he wisheth the caſe were otherwiſe with him, but as the caſe ſtandeth, if he should go to the next church, contrary to the Magiſtrates Prohibition, he should ſin and Evil is not to be done that Good may come of it, eſpecially when a greater evil might come of it, then the good aimed at, as in this Caſe.

§. 20 To all which we anſwer, God ſend his church in England better Divines then this Author. The caſe is this, The unlawfulneſs of miniſters ordinary uſe of forms preſcribed by others was indevoured to be proved, becauſe it hindred intention of mind, and fervency of Spirit. Two things from reaſon, and by Gods ſpecial command, and determination neceſſary to every good prayer. He grants they are both neceſſary, whence it followeth, That he who omitteth any means given, or allowed him by God being natural, & rational which may help him in this muſt needs ſin againſt God whoſe law commanding, an End, always commandeth the uſe of all proper Means relating to it. He granteth this a Mean in it ſelf lawful, & he muſt acknowledge it proper and natural, yet he ſaith, It is no ſin to omit it, and ſo conſequently no ſin for one to ſerve God with a lesſer intention and fervency, when we have a natural power to ſerve him with a greater intention and fervency. And why none? Becauſe he ſaith, It is neceſſary not voluntary. Is it not voluntary? That is ſtrange, he did not put the caſe of the Magiſtrates forcing him to be draged to another place at ſuch a diſtance, where his Spirits muſt be exhauſted before he could come. How was it neceſſary then? Not naturally, not by coaction; It remaineth therefore that it muſt be neceſſary by ſome divine determination. In what leafe of Scripture shall we find it? He offers no texts but what commands our obedience to Magiſtrates. But is there any Scripture requireth an obedience to man in all things? Or muſt thoſe texts be limited to ſuch things, where we may obey them without diſobeying God. Thus this Author hath finely anſwered, by begging the queſtion which is, Whether it be lawful to omit the uſe of a proper Mean given by God, for the performance of an Act in his worship according to his will? The Apoſtles ſurely determined better. Whether it be better to obey God or man judge you. To his inſtance therefore the Anſwer is eaſy, If when we may with equal advantage to our ſouls go to a nearer church, and to one farther, but yet not at ſuch a diſtance as before we come there we shall be ſpent, our Spirits exhauſted, and we fitter to ſleep then to ſerve God, we think we ought to obey. But if they will command us to go to a place at ſuch a diſtance, as we cannot reach in any time, or without ſuch a waſting & tyring of our Spirits, as when we come there we shall be unfit for the ſervice of God, we cannot obey. He trifleth to ſay, The thing is Inexpedient. It is unlawful, and he is a fallacious Sophiſter in Divinity who talkes of chuſing leſſer evils of ſin before greater. There can be no neceſſity of ſinning.

§. 21 In his p. 26. he ſeemeth to hint a time when a leſs intention is more acceptable to God then a greater. That time we would gladly know, for the Scripture ſaith nothing of it. He tells us, when the Over-plus ariſeth from the gift not from the Grace. This is a ſtrange nick of time, we always thought. The grace exerciſed in prayer, lay very much in Gods aſſiſtance of us, to keep our minds attent to our duty, and intent upon & fervent with God in our duty: ſo that to us it ſeems a ſtrange piece of ſenſe, That the overplus of Attention, Intention, and Fervency should proceed not from the Grace but from the gift: he goes on & tells us, p. 28.

Seeing the ſame things are prayed for in the Litany which can be the matter of the longeſt conceived prayer, though not in that variety, novelty, and elegancy of Phraſe; if the heat and the intention they ſpeak of proceeded from the ſtrength of their deſire to the things themſelves, it would be equal in both caſes: but ſeeing it is not equal, it muſt needs proceed from ſome other cauſe, and probably, from ſome of thoſe aſſigned.

§. 22 He ſaith true, It muſt either proceed from ſome different matter, or ſome other cauſe. But, 1 we doubt whether what he ſayes of the Litany be true, We think it far short of conteining the whole matter of ordinary Confeſſion, or Petitions, or thanksgivings, See what the Commiſſioners at the Savy (in their papers ſince printed) have ſaid to this. But ſuppoſe 2 The matter were ful, Can there be nothing elſe frigidam ſuffundere, to cool a Chriſtians Spirit. What if there be a mixture of ſomething elſe which a Chriſtian cannot in his judgment allow? In the Popish Miſſal is much excellent matter, but we should think him but a lukewarm Proteſtant that could be fervent in Spirit ſerving the Lord by it. It is a great cooling to a Chriſtians Spirit when his mind ſuggeſts doubts to him, Whether this be a way, mode, or method of worship which God will accept: becauſe never directed by him. Here we inſtead of ſtirring up, & exerciſing our own gifts, and miniſtring them; borrow the gifts of others, and ſerve God with what coſts us nothing but a little lip labour.

§. 23 To conclude for this Author we need no more then Mr. Ireneus againſt Mr. Freeman.

Every man is bound to pray with the higheſt intention of mind, and fervency of Spirit which he can by juſt means attain.

But he who (having an ability to expreſs his own wants & wants of others to God in prayer in words firſt formed in his own heart) doth in the exerciſe of prayer uſe the forms of other men, doth not pray with the greateſt intention of mind, & fervor of Spirit which can be obtained by juſt means; Ergo.

This is Mr. Ireneus argument, in his book called The Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, Let Mr. Freeman anſwer it, we profeſs we cannot. The Major is made up of Mr. Ireneus his own words in the aforeſaid book. p. 22.

The Minor is not onely ſaid by Mr. Ireneus but proved too.

1 If a man hath an antipathy to forms, he ſaith, It is no wonder that he can have but little intention, and fervor in the uſe of them. So then he who hath ſuch an infirmity, cannot pray with the like intention or fervor by them. Now that ſuch an Antipathy is ſinful, he hath not proved. We ſuppoſe he doth not mean Natural Antipathy, That muſt be neceſſary and by his own conſequence not ſinful. If he means Moral, It is the ſame with prejudice. The goodneſs or badneſs of which depends upon the efficient cauſe; If any be therefore prejudiced againſt them, becauſe he cannot apprehend it a way of worship inſtituted by God, enjoned or practiſed by the Apoſtles or Apoſtolical church, Let him demonſtrate the ſinfulneſs of this Prejudice, we cannot.

2 Men may be more intent, he ſaith, becauſe of novelty of phraſe; Be it ſo, ſo that they be more intent & fervent. If the newneſs of phraſe will contribute towards it, for ought we know it is a bleſſed Mean: For ſurely it is lawful by Gods law, and if by doing what is not in it ſelf ſinful, we can advantage our ſelves in doing what is (by a divine precept neceſſary, he muſt by his next tell us, why we may not do it.

3 He ſaith, p. 26. Nature it ſelf is apt to be more intent, and fervent in the exerciſe of a Gift then of a grace; and therefore where there is a place for the exerciſe of both, there may (probably) be more intention and fervor. But ſay we the uſe of a gift is juſt no where forbidden by God; but we are commanded to miniſter it, to ſtir it up, not to neglect it, &c. It is natural, rational, proper, moſt immediate, Given by God on purpoſe for the Act to which it relates.

4 He ſaith, Men are naturally more affected with their own inventions then with the inventions of others. What need more, What Scripture, what reaſon makes the uſe of our own invention, and words unlawful: So that we think Mr. Ireneus hath fully proved that it is unlawful for him, who himſelf hath an ability fitly to expreſs his own, and others wants in words unto God in prayer, ordinarily to uſe the forms of others: becauſe he alloweth it our duty to ſerve God with the higheſt attention of thoughts, intention of mind, and fervor of Spirit which can be attained by lawful means: and he hath alſo given us four, or five reaſons, why we cannot pray with the like attention, and intention by the preſcribed forms of others as by words firſt formed in our own hearts. Thus hath Mr. Ireneus concluded againſt Mr. Freeman and left him nothing to do but to prove.

That if Superiors command men to ſerve God in prayer with leſs Attention, Intention & Fervency, it is lawful; and ſuch prayers may be more acceptable to God, then ſuch as are put up, with greater Attention, Intention, and Fervor: which we shall believe, when he hath proved, That if the Iſraelites Superiors had commanded them, though they had Males in their flocks; yet to offer females, they might have lawfully done it, and it would have been either as, or more acceptable. The caſe is the very ſame.

§. 24 For what the ſame Author talks more of the heat of the Body, and ſuch as is cauſed by obſtruction of breath, and drawling out of words. It ſpeaks nothing but the Eructation of a profane heart more diſpoſed to flout at Religion, and to take any ſilly occaſion true, or falſe to reproach the Profeſſors of it; then to anſwer a good and ſolid Argument. And ſo we have done with Mr. Freeman believing we have not left him ſo much as a figeale to cover the nakedneſs of his anſwer.

§. 25 Let us now conſider what is ſaid againſt this Argument by Mr. Falconer the Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, who p. 120, 121. thus ſpeaketh,

It is further objected that Forms of Prayer, are diſadvantages to piety, and devotion and the Noncon often plead Experience as a Teſtimony, They are the cauſe of much deadneſs in mens Spirit, and the hinderance of the lively exerciſe of Religion. Hear on the other hand others by experience aſſert the advantage of ſet forms to promote Devotion, when attended without prejudice, and with a Religious deſign of joining in Gods worship. To diſcern the truth in this difference; it may be uſeful to conſult the judgments of ſuch perſons, as are leaſt partial in this caſe, and yet are able to make a true eſtimate of damage, and advantage, and then eſpecially, to conſider the evidence of Reaſon which may be produced. To which we ſay,

§. 26 The ſenſus piorum, neither is, nor ever was judged by perſons of our Reverend Brothers ſobriety and worth an inconſiderable argument for the truth of a propoſition (eſpecially a practical propoſition) not plainly determined in holy writ, nor can be ſo judged as to the helps of true devotion: they being like beſt to underſtand the beſt and trueſt means, who are moſt exerciſed in the Acts and conſtant purſuit of the end.

Indeed it is very reaſonable in this caſe, That if the Propoſition be not of that nature as the truth of it is variable, with reference to ſeveral Chriſtians, that the Major part of pious ſouls, and able should be taken into judgment, And verily in this caſe were it poſſible that all religious ſouls having themſelves the gift of prayer could be aſſembled, we think we might truſt the queſtion in iſſue to their umpirage; as to thoſe (though pious) who have not attained to this gift, we cannot judge them competent judges of what they have no experience, but this being not to be hoped for.

§. 27 We ſay, we do not think but the experience of Chriſtians may be different in the caſe: and 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, which every one hath not in the ſame meaſure. But this we judge, That every one is bound in the duty of prayer to uſe that lawful mean, which he by experience finds moſt conducive to himſelf, to keep his thoughts attentive, his mind intent, his heart and affections fervent: So as one may be under an obligation not to uſe forms, another under an obligation for the preſent to uſe them. The obligation here ariſing from the nature of the thing, as it may be the beſt mean to one, and not to another; ſo he is bound, or not bound. Let not therefore him that uſeth them, condemn him that uſeth them not: nor he that uſeth them not condemn him that uſeth them; And we do not think matters of this nature fit matter for a ſuperiors command. One miniſter by experience finds it beſt, (as Mr. Herbert ſaith.) In time of prayer to ſeal up both his eyes, shutting up the doors at which a wandring ſoul uſeth to go out. Another finds it more expedient to keep his eyes open, and fixed towards heaven: both theſe aiming at the ſame end, and uſing that Mean, which in their own experience they find beſt to keep their thoughts attent, their hearts heavenly: shall the ſuperiors make a law in this Caſe, That all miniſters should pray with their Eyes shut; or with their Eyes open; or lifted up to heaven? We do think ſuch a law would be unjuſt and he that obeyed it should ſin if he found the part commanded what he could not do, but his heart more would wander and be leſs intent, and leſs fervent. Liberty in this caſe ought to be allowed, and the private Chriſtian cannot want it; becauſe he hath no liberty to ſerve God with a cold, wandring and diſtracted heart.

§. 28 Our Author p. 121. goth on telling us, what the Leyden Profeſſors declare in their Synopſis. Diſp. p, 36. Qu. 33. And the Walachrian claſſis in Apollonius his conſiderations, Controver. Anglic. cap. 7. Qu. 2. We will give our Reader a full account of what is ſaid in the caſe by either of them. The Reverend Profeſſors at Leyden, Diſp. 36. Qu. 33. do indeed ſay,

That they judge forms of Prayer not onely lawful, but alſo very profitable, if they be pronounced with due attention of mind. Authority without reaſon ſignifieth little, let us therefore attend to their reaſons, which they thus deliver us,

1 Becauſe every Chriſtian hath not the gift. This doth not at all touch the caſe as ſtated by us.

2 Becauſe in great meetings Attention is much helped by uſual forms, whence (ſay they) God preſcribed a form of bleſſing. Num. 6. 24. Chriſt uſed Davids form, Mat. 27. 46. And the diſciples had a form from Chriſt, Lu. 11. 2. But yet,

Sect. 34. They confeſs it it very profitable, yea, almoſt neceſſary; that all grown Chriſtians, eſpecially paſtors, should ſtir up their gift of praying publickly without previous forms, that as occaſion shall offer it ſelf, they may pray and give thanks as the holy men in Scripture did.

§. 29. The Walachrian claſſis begin with telling us, That they do eaſily agree to the Leyden Doctors, and Dr. Ames his determination in the place by them there quoted. Caſ. l. 4. cap. 17. & Qu. 4. Now in that place that eminent Caſuiſt thus ſpeaketh, Having put the queſtion in general about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of forms of Prayer. He thus anſwereth,

1 It is manifeſt that it is lawful to uſe them, Aliquando, ſometimes; from the practice of the ſaints, which the Scripture commendeth to us, and the forms of bleſſing there uſed.

2 It is profitable, & neceſſary, Quibusdam, for ſome to follow ſuch forms, though they onely read them out of a book.

1 Becauſe ſome are, Adeorudes, So raw, & imperfect that they cannot fitly expreſs their minds in any meaſure.

2 There are others, who though they can do it well enough to ſerve themſelves in private, yet, if they muſt pray with others, they want ability to do it, or a liberty [we ſuppoſe he means a natural liberty of ſpeech] to exerciſe it.

3 There are ſome, for whom it is profitable, that they may rule their Meditations, and deſires.

3 But none ought to acquieſce in it, but to labour for an ability that he may pray without this help for which he giveth us four reaſons.

I Becauſe, while a preſcribed form doth not follow our affections, but plainly lead them, he who ſo Prayeth doth that which is of the Nature of prayer leſs perfectly. Obſerve that.

2 Becauſe in a preſcribed form, all thoſe particulars cannot be opened, which it may concern us to mention to God in prayer.

3 Becauſe God is wont in the time of Prayer, to ſtir up in our hearts ſpecial Affections, which are often hindred, and extinguished by keeping to a form.

4 Becauſe by this means, a lazineſs, & fear & ſluggishneſs in the performance of the duty creepeth upon us, ſo as the form is onely cuſtomarily, & formally recited. Thus far that incomparable Caſuiſt Dr. Ames, with whom as with the Leyden Profeſſors, Apollonius and the reſt of the Walachrian Divines in the firſt place declare themſelves fully to conſent. The ſum of what they ſay is, That praying by forms is a leſs perfect way of praying, and therefore not to be reſted in, but all ought to labour for an ability to pray without this help: And ſurely when they have attained it, then they ought to uſe it. But they ſay, Forms of prayer are not things in themſelves unlawful, But may be uſed Aliquando, & ab aliquibus, ſometimes, and by ſome perſons, which they expound, when men are ſo raw that they have not the gift; or not in a meaſure fit for publick uſe; or have not a liberty or freedom of ſpeech. We freely grant all this, but it toucheth not our queſtion.

§. 30 But the Walachrians go on and reject. 1 All ſuch forms as are in their matter vicious, having any thing illegitemum, impertinens, indecorum. Ʋnlawful, impertinent, or indecent: And upon this account they in expreſs terms declare againſt the forms in our late Common prayerbook. Whether juſtly or no we determine not: but ſurely their authority ought not to have been brought by our Reverend Brother to countenance the uſe of thoſe forms.

2 They reject all thoſe forms which by a Tyranny, or violent commands are impoſed upon mens conſciences, as parts of worship and abſolutely neceſſary, &c. 3 Finally, They ſtate the Queſtion onely about ſuch a Preſcription.

Quâ ad ordinem, & decorum cultus divini Eccleſiaſticâ authoritate commendantur, ut utiles & conducentes iis, vel facultate idoneâ, vel eam exercendi libertate deſtituuntur, &c. That is,

By which they are by Eccleſiaſtical authority commended as profitable, and conducive to them, who either want the Gift of Prayer or a liberty to uſe it, to expreſs themſelves decently; and that by them as by certain means they might be ruled, in their meditations, deſires, words, and actions; and the attention of the hearers, eſpecially in great meetings of churches may be helped, and directed; and an uniformity in the exerciſes of publick worship may in all churches be obſerved, for avoiding of ſcandals, and for the greater edification of churches. We (ſay they) do think ſuch forms, ſo uſed both publickly, & privatly, lawful, and profitable: ſo that they be read with due attention, reverence, faith, and Spiritual affection towards God, and zeal; and that not onely in a caſe of neceſſity, when a miniſter wants ability to expreſs himſelf in prayer, or in other parts of Divine worship, decently; but when the Attention of the hearers is to be directed, and helped, and an Uniformity in the exerciſes of Gods worship is to be kept for an edification of the church of God: This they prove.

1 From the confeſſed lawfulneſs of ſinging by a form.

2 Becauſe they conceive, that in the uſe of ſuch forms all the eſſentials of Prayer may be found, and obſerved.

3 From our Saviours Preſcription of a form, in the Lords Prayer, and for the adminiſtring of the Sacraments.

Hence they ſay. They are approved almoſt in all Reformed churches.

§. 31 Our Queſtion is not, Whether forms of Prayer be lawful or no in themſelves? we have granted them lawful and expedient to be uſed where the perſons to miniſter have not the Gift of Prayer, or want a natural liberty to uſe it? The Queſtion is onely, Whether it be lawful for them to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, and a natural freedom to uſe it? Whether they may ordinarily perform the Acts of prayer by the preſcribed forms of others? We think they may not. As a Medium to prove it, we have urged this. That it (at leaſt in many) hinders attention, intenſion, and fervency, The great requiſites of prayer. What now do theſe Reverend Brethren ſay to this, indeed they ſay, Wee can ſay by experience, That a prayer holy and lawful as to the matter, may be read in a form, and offered up to God with an humble ſenſe of our wants, with a deſire and zeal, with holy affections, faith and a religious motion of the will towards God, as our occaſions require. This we think too, but it toucheth not the Queſtion, which is not about the thing in any degree; but about the Magis & Minus. If our Brethren had ſaid▪ That a prayer may be read in a form with an equal attention of thoughts, an equal intention and fervor of Spirit as if uttered from the immediate conceptions of our hearts; they had then indeed offered their judgment, and experience directly contrary to our judgment, and experience: But let us hear their Arguments.

§. 32 They ſay, The Scripture (though in a form) may be read with underſtanding, humility, reverence, zeal, a religious motion of the will towards God, faith in him, an application of the word read to our publick neceſſities; and therefore why may not forms of prayer be ſo read? We anſwer, Becauſe their is a vaſt difference between the pure words of God▪ (for which God both hath, and ever will ſecure a reverence in all religious ſouls) and forms compoſed by fallible men without any ſuch direction from God. Let any Chriſtian experience whether it be poſſible for him to read any book of mans making a thouſand times, with that guſt, and holy reverence, and with ſo little tedium as he may ſo read the books and chapters of holy Scripture. Sic magnis componere parva ſolemus? 2 Beſides, The due workings of the ſoul upon God in reading his word, and in making known our requeſts unto him, are of a quite differing nature. To read the Scriptures fervently, and to pour out our ſouls before God in reading Scripture, or to wreſtle with God in reading, are very uncouth phraſes▪ ſuch as we find not in our Bibles; But, to pray fervently, to pour out ſouls in prayer, to wreſtle with God in prayer are ſcriptural, proper, uſual phraſes. Nor indeed is it poſſible in the caſe, to ſay any thing with ſenſe, as to prayers which are read: For to ſay, A ſoul may be as intent upon God, when it muſt neceſſarily at the ſame time be diverted to look into a book as it might if the eyes were shut, or fixed: is to ſay, what every perſons Reaſon will tell him is impoſſible.

§. 33 And to ſay, That the Affections may be equally intenſe, and that the prayer is as perfect when the Affections are made to follow the words; as when they do procede them, and are the cauſes of them; is what we believe the experience of all ſerious and conſiderate Chriſtians will contradict, and what as we hear before, Doctor Ames doth deny, with whom the Walachrians profeſs fully to agree.

§. 34 Again, all the Authorities produced put in an [If] if they be produced with due attention of mind (ſay the Reverend Profeſſors of Leyden.) So they be read with attention (ſay the Walachrians.) Due attention of the mind in this caſe, muſt be equal attentions to what may be given in conceived Prayers: for in the worship of God the higheſt attention is our unqueſtionable duty, and the mean proper to that, is moſt unqeſtionably to be uſed, and no creature can controle the uſe of it, and that leſs proper muſt be rejected: now in this ſenſe we think it impoſſible, that any prayers should be read with Due attention: that is, with Attention equal to what may be had in praying by immediately conceived Prayer. And therefore we cannot but obſerve, That both the Divines of Leyden, and thoſe alſo belonging to the Walachrian claſſis, ſpeak not a word to juſtify the lawfulneſs, or utility of reading Prayers; Ex libro pronuncientur, ſay the Walachrians: which indeed, if it be the miniſter may (for ought we yet diſcern) do his work with Equal Attention of thoughts. For the attention of the hearers, we yet a little doubt it, and think that the preſcribed forms of others, or conſtant uſe of the ſame form, though compoſed by the miniſter himſelf, will be found ſo far from being conducive to allure, or promove peoples attention, that (through the corruption to which we shall find all our own hearts ſubjected) they will rather be a Temptation to the contrary. Which makes us admire, that our Reverend Brethren should ſo much as mention it as a due medium in the caſe.

§. 35 It is manifeſt to us that both the Profeſſors at Leyden, and the Walachrians, and Dr. Ames alſo ſpeak rather to the queſtion about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of Forms in general: Then about the lawfulneſs of miniſters uſing them; And that all miniſters, and ordinarily as well ſuch as have the gift of prayer in an eminent degree, as ſuch as have not; Therefore the firſt Reaſon which the Profeſſors at Leyden give and Dr. Ames alſo is; Becauſe all Chriſtians have not the gift: and the Walachrians in their ſtating the queſtion, Profeſs onely to ſpeak to the caſe, Where men want an ability, or a liberty to exerciſe it. Neither can we underſtand them concerning forms Ʋniverſally impoſed. The word uſed by the Walachrians is, Commendantur, nor is there a word in any of them to juſtify the lawful uſe of forms impoſed upon all miniſters. They have indeed ſome expreſſions which would make one think, They judged it lawful for ſome miniſters having the gift of prayer, in publick to uſe the preſcribed form of others commended to them ſometimes: For the ſecond Reaſon given by the Doctors of Leyden is, Becauſe in great meetings, attention is much helped by uſual forms; which the Walachrians alſo hint: But we cannot poſſibly fathom this, and think the contrary is demonſtrable.

§. 36 The Walachrians alſo urge ſome other reaſons curſorily. 1 That he who prayeth by them may be ruled in his meditations, deſires, words, and actions. 2 That uniformity in all churches may be obſerved, Scandals avoided, The church edified. Nothing in it ſelf ſinful can be done to avoid ſcandal, nor can poſſibly tend to edification: ſo as, Thoſe kind of arguments have no place, while we are diſputing the lawfulneſs of the thing. In short, but one of theſe will concern all miniſters: For doubtleſs ſome are able without book to pray, ſo as to give no ſcandal, but to edify the church; and need no book to regutate their meditations, deſires, words and actions: if there be not, we are ſure theres none fit to compoſe forms to help them: So that all the buſineſs is, That Ʋniformity may be obſerved. Ʋniformity either reſpecteth the ordinary matter of Prayer; or, The words and Syllables uſed in prayer. For the firſt, ſurely theres no need of forms for that, that indeed is neceſſary (abating particular caſes) and this is that Uniformity, which the Scotish and English Divines have ſo pleaded for, purſuant to an Ʋnity in Doctrine. But 'tis pretty to obſerve, How ſome late little Authors have laid hold upon this word Ʋniformity in the writings of Presbyterians and Congregational Divines, to make the world believe they were once patrons for that pitiful thing now called Ʋniformity, which lies in an oneneſs of ſyllables, words and phraſes; A thing which never came into the heart of their God to command, nor of thoſe his ſervants to commend or ſpeak a word for: and certainly, If it were at all neceſſary would be fully as neceſſary in preaching; but they muſt have ſomething to beſpatter poor Nonconformiſts, Dolus an virtus quis in hoſte requiret?

What other means of Edification there are (excepting the word, the Reading that, and the adminiſtration of the Sacraments) beſides the gifts of Gods miniſters, and people, we do not underſtand. But Authority apart from the Reaſons they give, ſignifieth little in this caſe; and therefore our Reverend Brother doth rightly ſay, That the ſureſt way of Trial is to conſider the Arguments uſed in the caſe, In which we freely join iſſue with him.

§. 37 His firſt argument is, Becauſe God himſelf preſcribed forms of prayer for the Jewish offerings, and for the Priests bleſſings; and our Saviour taught his diſciples a form. The Argument lies thus,

What God himſelf preſcribed to be ordinarily uſed in his worship, and what Chriſt preſcribed to be ordinarily uſed in worship, that can be no hindrance of piety and devotion:

But God himſelf, and Chriſt hath preſcribed the forms that are by miniſters now ordinarily to be uſed in prayer; Ergo.

The minor here is apparently falſe, If our Brother intended to argue thus, If thoſe forms which God appointed to be uſed, and which Chriſt appointed to be uſed, might be lawfully uſed: Then, Thoſe which men appoint may be uſed. We shall deny the Conſequence.

The short is this, That forms in themſelves are not unlawful from their own nature. This we freely grant, But we hope, Though God might be allowed a liberty to direct the images of oxen and Cherubims to be in his temple: and the people might lawfully worship before them (ſo be it they worshipped the true God) yet, Aaron might not of his own head, nor to humour the foolish Iſraelites, make a golden calf, though before it they worshipped Jehovah. If it be ſaid, God had forbidden images in the Second commandment. We ſay, and under that general all other mediums, or means and helps of worship, not of divine preſcription: yet, This argument is urged as a huge concluſive Argument; Both by the Leyden Profeſſors, and the Walachrians, and by Mr. Ball: whenas indeed it concludeth nothing (though it could be proved, that God and Chriſt did preſcribe forms to be ordinarily uſed in his worship) But that forms of prayer, are not things in themſelves unlawful; as murther, inceſt and things againſt nature: But ſuch things as God might legitimate, and make lawful by his ſpecial preſcript; which, it is more then we know if any one hath denied.

For our parts we do believe, That ſome forms are lawful, In particular, Any Scriptural forms duly uſed, nay, That forms made by men are lawful for Some perſons, i. e. For ſuch as have not attained to the gift of prayer: and at Some times, i. e. When men have not their uſual liberty of Spirit, or ſpeech: Nor will this argument (ſuppoſing the Minor true) prove, That forms may be uſed without prejudice to devotion, intention, and affections; God ſecures that to his own inſtitutions.

§. 38 But is the Minor unqueſtionable, viz. That God, and Chriſt preſcribed forms of bleſſing, and Prayer to be ſyllabically uſed by miniſters or people. We deny ſaith Mr. Cotton, in his Advertiſements upon the diſcourſe of ſet forms of prayer, That God in his word hath ſet down any preſcript form, in ſuch a ſenſe as in this Queſtion is intended. The Priests, Num. 6. 22, 23. are indeed directed to a form of bleſſing, But that they uſed that, and no other form doth not appear, It is evident the Apoſtles uſed diverſe other forms. For the Lords prayer, we do not think our Saviour ever intended it to be uſed Syllabically: If he had, we do not think Dr. Cauſabon would have been put ſo hard to it, to make it up out of all the Apoſtolical writings; picking a ſentence here, another there. Surely had they apprehended it left them for a form of words and ſyllables, we should have found ſome after record of the uſe of it. 2 Beſides ſuppoſe he had ſo intended it, all that can be concluded is, That Chriſt may appoint a Liturgy for his church which ſurely none denies. 3 Whether ſuppoſing Chriſt did at that time intend it for a form for his diſciples? Whether it were to laſt beyond his Reſurrection, and the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, is yet a farther Queſtion? It is well obſerved by the learned authour of Bonaſus Vapulans, That if he had, it is not likely that he would have left out his own name, and till that time himſelf ſaith, His diſciples had ſo asked nothing. Joh. 16. 44. But were afterwards ſo enjoined to ask, Joh. 14. 13, 14. Joh. 16. 23. We refer the Reader to what Mr. Cotton hath farther ſaid to prove, That God himſelf never did preſcribe to his miniſters forms of words to be uſed, and no other in their publick miniſtrations. Now by this it is very eaſy to conſider, How far from any thing of an argument this is in the caſe.

1 It will not prove it lawful to uſe any forms, but ſuch as God himſelf hath preſcribed, or ſuch as have been compoſed by men who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and penmen of holy writ: ſo as indeed the ſame argument would alſo prove a liberty for men to make us new Scriptures. All which will follow from the Argument is, That the uſe of forms, is not a thing of it ſelf like Blasphemy; or ſome ſin ſo intrinſſecally evil, as God himſelf could in no caſe will it. But we hope, Though God might command Abraham to ſacrifice his Son, and had he done it, he might have been juſtified by that ſpecial precept: yet, without that it had been unlawful.

2 It will not prove, That the ſame forms may or ought to be uſed ordinarily and conſtantly and that ſyllabically.

3 Much leſs will it prove, That the uſe of forms not particularly directed by God, or parts of holy writ, by reading them, doth not prejudice devotion, by hindring Attention, Intention & Fervor.

§. 39 Our Reverend Brothers Second argument is thus by him ſtated, p. 22 Becauſe it is generally acknowledged, that the ſinging of Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe, may be advantageouſly performed by a ſet form of words: and the holy Scriptures, are not the leſs edifying, nor the leſs applicable to our ſelves, becauſe they are conteined in ſet forms of words: and both in reading the Scriptures and in prayer our hearts ought to be moved towards God, though in ſomething a different manner. The Argument is this,

What, in ſinging of Pſalms and Reading and Applying the Scriptures, doth not prejudice Devotion; That in Prayer doth not prejudice devotion:

But ſet forms of words doth not (as we confeſs) prejudice Devotion in ſinging Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe; nor in the reading and applying the Scriptures; Ergo.

The whole argument may be granted, For it concludeth nothing againſt us, Proceeding ex ignoratione Elenchi, upon a miſtake of the Queſtion, which is not about the lawfulneſs, or unlawfulneſs of the uſe of ſet forms; But of forms of words ſet us by men confeſſedly not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not authorized, and directed by God to make ſuch forms for general uſe by any ſpecial command. The Minor therefore should have been laid thus. But ſet forms of words in ſinging Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe, being no parts of holy writ, nor made by God, or penmen of holy writ, do not hinder devotion. And if it be ſo formed we shall deny it, for it is moſt certainly falſe.

§. 40 For reading the Scriptures, our Reverend Brother knoweth, We can both shew him Precepts in Scripture for it, and alſo Promiſes made to it; if he can shew us but one precept for reading forms of Prayer, or one promiſe made to it, he will then have ſaid ſomething. Theſe precepts, and promiſes are of that moment in the caſe, That they make Reading the Scriptures on Gods part, A ſacred inſtitution; on our part, A neceſſary duty: And by reaſon of the promiſe to be done in faith. Let our Reverend Brother, (if he can) ſay as much for forms of Prayer, made by men in theſe days.

§. 41 The ſame may be ſaid of the Pſalms of prayer and praiſe which we ſing, They are ſuch forms as God hath canonized; and to which in our ſinging we conceive our ſelves limited. Our Brother knows or may know, we are as much againſt ſinging by others ſet forms; as againſt Praying, ordinarily, by the ſet forms of others. Beſides it poſeth us to fancy how it is poſſible, that a whole Congregation should ſing the ſame thing together, otherwiſe then by a ſet form: The peoples voices, that we know, are no where required in Prayer. And for the meeter, (which ſome make an objection) if it be not conſonant to the Pſalms in proſe, we abhor it; if it be, The words are but the words of Scriptures limited by meaſures for the apparent order and decency of the action: ſinging being Gods inſtitution, it is not to be doubted, but it may by a careful ſoul be performed by ſuch Attention, Intention, and Holy workings of the ſoul upon God, as he hath directed, and will accept in the action.

§. 42 But neither is the Major of our Reverend Brothers argument unqueſtionable, for he knows and confeſſeth, That the workings of the ſoul upon God, and the motions of the ſoul towards God in Prayer, are different from its workings and motions in Reading and Singing. In Reading, and Singing their should be, 1 Some contemplation and intuition of God. 2 Attention to what we are about. 3 An exerciſe of faith, believing what we read, and ſing to be truth. But in prayer is required, A more immediate intuition and contemplation of God. 2 A ſtriving and wreſtling with God, for the obteining what we ask; therefore it is expreſſed, By calling upon God, crying to him, pouring out our ſouls before him, a wreſtling with him, a liſting up of our ſouls, it muſt be with ſtrong crys & groans, Heb. 5. 9. Rom. 8. 26. Now that this cannot be done in reading of forms, preſcribed by fallible men, or at leaſt not ſo well done, as when the ſoul hath nothing to do, but meerly to look up to heaven, and thruſt out its own words by which it expreſſeth its own conceptions, is to us next to a demonſtration. Beſides there is as we conceive another Act of faith to be excerciſed in Prayer then in Reading the word, &c. viz. A particular motion of the ſoul devolving itſelf upon God, and truſting in him for the granting of what we ask of him. But enough is ſaid to shew, That neither is the Major of our Reverend Brothers Argument unqueſtionable.

§. 43 His third Argument to induce us to believe, that ſuch forms do not hinder devotion, is in p. 123. laid thus,

Becauſe all the ages of the church from the Firſt centuries have uſed them as an advantage to Religion; and it is not at all probable that ſuch excellent, devout, and religious men as the Fourth and Fifth Centuries abounded with, should be ſo ſtupid, and dull ſpirited, as not any of them to diſcern between the helps and hindrances of devotion, in matters of moſt ordinary practice: wherefore though many mens minds may be moſt pleaſed, and delighted with a variey of expreſſion, yet, There is no prejudice to piety from a ſet form farther then this is cauſed by a prejudice againſt a ſet form, and by want of a Religious temper to join in it. The Argument is this,

What all ages of the Chriſtian church; eſpecially ſuch devout and judicious men as lived in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries judged no hindrance to devotion, is no hindrance: But all ages of the Chriſtian church, more eſpecially thoſe devout and Religious men who lived in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries judged preſcribed forms of prayer to be read, no hindrance to devotien; Ergo.

The Major is onely proved by, It is not probable (for certainly it was poſſible,) The Minor is taken for granted.

§. 44 In the firſt place we cannot but obſerve, The phraſes our Reverend Brother uſeth, they uſed them, as an advantage to Religion. So they might, and yet they might be a diſadvantage to the particular devotion of a great Number: We do believe that the English Liturgies, eſtablished in Ed. 6. & Qu. Eliz. time, was a great advantage to Religion in the nation in general, ſo great an ignorance having prevailed upon the nation in general in the times of Popery, as few were able to read, much leſs to compoſe prayers: But the tying of thoſe to the uſe of it whom God had furnished with abilities that they needed it not, was notwithſtanding this, A great disadvantage both to their particular devotion who had ſuch gifts (and ſo our Brethren at Francfort judged in Qu. Maries time) and the general devotion of the whole church as to future times: both hindring miniſters care to ſtudy the Scriptures, and to improve in ſpiritual miniſterial gifts, and making an engine of perpetual diſcord from that time to this; and which hath been made uſe of for to deprive the church of God of the gifts and abilities of hundreds of able, godly, and painful miniſters: while in the mean time, many have crept into the employment of it (being by Liturgies and Homilies now made ſo eaſy for them) of whom every one who hath any concern for Gods glory, or the churches repute, hath cauſe to blush and be ashamed.

§. 45 But Secondly, we would ſee it proved, That all the devout and judicious men, in the five firſt Centuries, That is for five hundred yeares after Chriſt, either judged, Preſcribed forms of prayer to be ordinarily uſed by all miniſters in their publick miniſtrations advantageous to devotion; or that they ſo uſed them. We often hear of this, But when we call for proof, we can meet with nothing but Gloria patri, &c. & Surſum corda. Where we deſire it may be obſerved, That a proof that in that time there were ſome forms extant, or uſed by ſome, in ſome particular churches, will not reach the caſe. We are not againſt a form to be compoſed, propoſed and left at liberty, that thoſe may uſe it who either have not, or durſt not truſt to their own gift. We farther know, That there then might be, and ſtill may be ſome particular reaſons in ſome particular churches, which was the cauſe of the Canon of the Milevitan Council, in regard of the errors of Pelagius, being in matters of Doctrine ordinarily falling into miniſters Confeſſions and Petitions: And if in ſuch a ſtreſs as that, There could be proved a temporary impoſition of the uſe of forms of ſound words in prayer, upon miniſters who are ſuſpected tainted in matters of doctrine, we should not oppoſe it.

§. 46 But whom doth our Brother call, The church in the fourth and fifth Centuries, or the three preceding; or how doth it appear to him, or can it appear to us, That they generally ſo judged of forms of prayer, or ſo generally uſed them as helps to devotion. Certainly our Brother doth not call the 22, or 32, or if there were 42 Bishops in the Council of Laodicea (more none ſpeaks of) the church in that age. Beſides, that if there were 42, it is poſſible that 20 of them might be of another mind, for we know that in councils, the Major part muſt carry it, let the exceſs be never ſo ſmall. Yet, That Council of Laodicea ſaith nothing of ſtated forms of prayer, cap. 18. onely orders prayers to be poured out morning and evening: but that they should be read, or recited out of a book given, that Council ſaith not. Nor doth the Third Council of Carthage, Can. 23. quoted by our Reverend Brother, p. 106. ſpeak any thing at all, nay, it plainly hinteth us the quite contrary, viz. That miniſters were wont to compoſe their own prayers: onely in regard it was a time of errour, they required the weaker ſort of miniſters not to uſe the prayers they had made for their uſe, without firſt shewing them to their more able Brethren. The whole canon as Caranza gives it, is this,

That none in their prayers should name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father; and when they ſtood at the Altar, They should direct their Prayers to the Father: And whatſoever prayers any miniſter should write for himſelf, he should not uſe them till he had conferred them with his more able Brethren.

Doth not this Canon plainly imply, They had no publick ſet forms at that time: for if they had, there could be no ſuch miſtakes as it is made againſt. This was about the year 398. For the Milivitan councill Anno 402. It doth indeed decree in that overſpreading floud of Pelagianiſm, That the prayers agreed upon by the Council, should be uſed in that Province: it doth not ſay no other, onely 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . No others againſt the faith should be uſed. It doth not follow, That becauſe ſet preſcribed forms, were advantageous to devotion in that African Province ſo tainted in its miniſtry with Pelagianiſm; that therefore they are Univerſally ſo, our Reverend Brother is miſtaken therefore in ſaying, That we hold they were in uſe for 1300 years upon the account of theſe Canons: for we hold no ſuch thing, nor ſee any pretence for it from theſe Canons.

§. 47 And for the Centuries preceding, we do not think it worth the while for us to write over again what hath been ſaid, almoſt by all who have wrote Critically upon the writings of the Ancients, to shew the horrible impoſture of the Liturgies ſaid to be made by St. James, St. Mark, St. Andrew, St. Peter, St. Mathew, Clemens, Dioniſ. Areop. &c. We onely shall ſay this, That they are ſo generally rejected by all ſober, and learned Authors both Papiſts and Proteſtants, that we ſtand amazed to hear our Reverend Brother, ſo much as naming them: Let thoſe that are at leiſure read, Morneium de Miſsâ, cap. 2. What a lamentable shift it is to tell us, That they have undergone diverſe alterations. Who altered them? In what things? How doth it appear? Thoſe who know any thing, know it was the intereſt of the Church of Rome to have a ſottish, ignorant inferiour clergy, and that theſe could not do their work without Liturgies, and therefore it was their concern, Firſt to have them made, Then to avouch their original as high as they could. It pleaſed God in their haſt in this buſineſs to let them ſlip into moſt notorious errors, aſcribing Liturgies to Chryſoſtom, Baſil, &c. Where were prayers for perſons not in being for ſome hundreds of years after, and Doctrines averred, That all know the Church never knew, for many years after. Now when the forgery is thus detected, for any Proteſtants to tell us, it is true, There are ſome manifeſt interpolations which are of a later date; but the Liturgies are ancient: is both gratis dictum, a thing can never be proved; and a fair offer at the deſtruction of our moſt convincing argument of the Popish abominable forgery.

§. 47 For what Mr. Falconer ſaith about Conſtantines compoſing godly prayers for his ſouldiers, It is a good argument that the church had then no publick Liturgies: for ſurely Conſtantine needed not then have made any, and it had been a great derogation from the honour of the church. In short our Reverend Brother might have remembred, That his Majeſties Commiſſioners at the Savoy replied to that part of his Majeſties Commiſſion, which required them to compare the English Liturgy with the Ancient Liturgies of the pure and primitive church.

That they could not find any authentick record of any Liturgy generally impoſed upon any national church for more then 300 years after Chriſt, (we believe they might have ſaid 600) and did upon the point challenge the oppoſite Commiſſioners to juſtify that which they make their Palmanum Argumentum, Let but the Indifferent Reader See and Judge of what was anſwered, though it may reaſonably be preſumed, conſidering the Learning, and intereſt of their opponents, that they omitted nothing which could with any truth or modeſty be ſpoken in the caſe. All they ſay is this,

That there were ancient Liturgies in the church is evident, St. Chryſoſtoms, St. Baſils, and others. And the Greeks tell us of St. James's, much older then they. And though we find not in all ages whole Liturgies, yet it is certain there were ſuch in the oldeſt times, by thoſe parts which are extant. Surſum Corda, Gloria Patri, Benedicite, Hymnus veré Cherubinus, Veré dignum eſt & juſtum, &c. Dominus Vobiſcum, & cum Spiritu tuo. With diverſe others, Though thoſe which are extant may be interpolated, yet ſuch things as are found in them, all conſiſtent to primitive and Catholick Doctrine, may well be preſumed to have been from the firſt, eſpecially ſince we find no original of thoſe Liturgies from general councils. For anſwer to this,

We shall refer our reader to the Anſwer of the Noncon. commiſſioners p. 76. Of the account of their proceedings, printed 1661.

§. 48 To bring this point to an iſſue, There was a book published 1662. called, Aſober and temperate diſcourſe concerning the Intereſt of words in Prayer, where chap. 3. 4. The Reader may at Large ſee what we judge of the Original of Liturgies, when our Reverend Brother, or any for him hath given a ſtrict reply to thoſe two chapters, then we shall think they have more to ſay for their Antiquity, then we have yet ſeen. In the mean time we do believe, That Gregory the great (uſually ſaid to be the worſt of all the Popes that went before him) under the Protection of Charles the great, was the father of all thoſe that dwell in theſe tents; and this eight hundred, or a thouſand years after Chriſt, An impoſed Liturgy unleſs in a particular Province, for a time, in a particular caſe (ſuch as was that of the ſpreading of Pelagianiſm) we cannot find. And for a Liturgy, to be propoſed onely and left at liberty, we know moſt reformed churches have ſuch a one, and we have before declared our judgment for the reaſonableneſs of it; & he who thinks ſuch an Eminent man as Gregorius, Magnus, would do nothing which should diſadvantage true Devotion, hath not (we think) attentively either read his ſtory, or conſidered the Acts of the Governing-part of the church in his time.

§. 49 We are not ſo uncharitably diſpoſed, as not to think there were many eminently good and judicious men in the fourth and fifth Century, who were able to judge what was of true advantage or diſadvantage to devotion. But this is that which we ſay, That the ſame things are not at all times, nor yet to all perſons advantages; either to publick, or private Devotion. We have already granted forms of prayer advantages to the devotion of particular perſons, who, being to miniſter before others, have not attained the gift of prayer, i. e. an ability in that duty fitly to expreſs themſelves. 2 To the general devotion of a church, when her miniſters are very many of them tainted with errors in Doctrine; which was the cauſe of the Milivitan Canon. We do know that in the fourth Century there was An Arnobius, A Lactantius, An Athanaſius, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Auguſtin, Hierom, and very many others; but we alſo know there was an Arius, and Pelagius: and that their herecies were of deſperate conſequence, and had over ſpread a great part of the church: yea, had tainted a very great part of the miniſtry of it, now it will not follow, That becauſe ſet forms were advantages to devotion in ſuch a time, and in ſuch parts of the church for a time; therefore they will be Univerſally ſo. Nor do we think that either in the fourth or fifth Century, There was generally ſuch knowledge as in the later ages of the church; nor is it proved, That in thoſe ages, ſet forms were generally impoſed. The Queſtion is. Whether ſet forms be advantages or hinderances of devotion to ſuch whom God hath bleſſed with the gift of prayer; and to ſuch churches who have ſuch miniſters, and are not ſo tainted with erroneous opinions in the fundamentals of Religion? And thus we think we have fully anſwered whatſoever Mr. Falconer hath offered in anſwer to this Argument. But becauſe our ſtrict deſign is not to anſwer Mr. Falconer, but to shew we have probable Arguments inducing us to believe, That what ever it be to others, It would be ſinful for us ordinarily to perform our miniſterial Acts in Prayer by reading or reciting the preſcribed forms of others. We will yet proceed to add ſome further Arguments inductive of ſuch a perſuaſion in us, ſtill profeſſing, That we do not judge our ſelves infallible; nor condemn any of our Brethren, who are of another mind in the caſe: onely as we our ſelves apprehend and believe, ſo we ſpeak, ſo we act; and not out of any factious humour as we are rashy judged.

CHAP. IV.

The Third Argument propounded. Both propoſitions in it proved. The ſecond commandment forbiddeth all means of worship, not directed in Scripture. Mr. Freemans anſwer conſidered. What the Noncon. grant. His inſtances anſwered. Bishop Jewels opinion and Bishop Davenants againſt blind obedience. The Difference between circumſtances, and Ceremonies, what circumſtances are in the power of man. Why Forms of Prayer may not be commanded, as well as Time and place. Acts, rites and means in worship muſt appear reaſonable in themſelves to him who conſcientiouſly obeyeth.

§. I WE thus ſtate our Third Argument.

To uſe a mean in an Act of worship, which God hath neither by the light of nature directed, nor in his word preſcribed (no natural neceſſity compelling us ſo to do) is ſinful:

But for us, or any of us to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, ordinarily in prayer to perform our miniſterial acts by the preſcribed forms of others read, or recited; were for us (no natural neceſſity compelling) in Acts of worship to uſe means neither of God directed by the light of nature; nor by him in his word preſcribed; Ergo.

The proof of the major propoſition depends upon theſe hypotheſes.

1 That divine worship is nothing elſe but an homage done unto God in conſideration of his excellency. In this we think all are agreed.

2 That it belongs to God alone to preſcribe both the Acts, and Means of this homage: which certainly is the moſt reaſonable thing in the world, That God should tell us what homage he will have at our hands, and how performed. God hath as much right to appoint the way of his worship, as to be worshipped, ſaith Dr. Ashton himſelf, in his Caſe of perſecution. p. 45.

3 God having determined our Acts of worship, hath likewiſe in his word, and by the light of Nature given us ſufficient direction as to the means: Which if it be true it certainly muſt be impious to neglect, or deſpiſe it, and to omit it, and uſe others directed by man would be an implicit owning the wisdom of man as paramount to, and excelling the wisdom of God.

4 God hath alſo (as we conceive) expreſly in his word forbidden the uſe of any other mean in his worship, then what either nature sheweth us, and directeth us as neceſſary (as we cannot ſpeak a prayer without the uſe of our tongue) or what he hath preſcribed in his word. The firſt of theſe needeth no proof.

§. 2 To prove the Second, we need ſay no more then this, That it is evident, That the uſe of a mean in worship which ought not to be uſed quite altereth the nature of the worship, and of true, maketh it falſe. To pray to God is an act of true worship, but if a man in prayer ſet an image before him as a mean of worship, it makes it idolatry. So as in worship none can pretend a right to preſcribe a mean, but he that hath alſo a right to preſcribe the act.

§. 3 For the proof of the third hypotheſis, we deſire but an inſtance of any Act of worship for which we cannot shew a ſufficient mean, either by the Light of nature or Scripture directed. As to what is the matter of our preſent debate, both the Light of nature sheweth our own invention a ſufficient mean, and Scripture commands us to miniſter as we have received the gift.

§. 4 But for the laſt which we think will be moſt ſtumbled at, we shall onely mention the ſecond commandment. The ſenſe of which we ſay is this, Thou shalt worship in no other way, by no other mean or religious rites then what I have preſcribed. The term Graven image is undoubtedly a Generical term & figuratively put to ſignify, not onely that, but any other mean that hath no more of divine inſtitution then that hath. And if this be not the ſenſe of it, it will be impoſſible to reduce all the precepts in Scripture relating to the manner of external worship to the ſecond precept in the Decalogue. To ſpare ſaying over again what hath already been ſaid in juſtification of this, we refer our Reader to a book of Mr. Cottons called Advertiſements upon a diſcourſe of ſet forms of Prayer, p. 17, 18, 19, 20, &c.

§. 5 The minor propoſition ſtandeth firm, until our Brethren have shewed us where God hath preſcribed any ſuch mean. But here again our old Adverſary Mr. Freeman cometh acroſs us and tells us, There is a general command for forms of prayer when they are impoſed, for we are enjoined in Scripture to obey our Rulers in ſuch things as Gods word doth not forbid, and ſuch things are forms. To which we anſwer,

1 That we can find no precept in Scripture in the terms mentioned by him.

2 The ſame argument will prove that it is the duty of Prieſts in popish countries in baptiſm to uſe ſalt, oyl, ſpittle and cream, Rulers require it, where hath Gods word expreſsly forbidden the uſe of them?

3 We do not know what he meaneth by not forbidden, There is an explicit, and an implicit forbidding. God by determining the Acts of his worship, and directing ſufficient means for the performance of them hath we ſay conſequentially forbidden any other means to be uſed.

§. 6 But he telleth us that Both in words and deeds we grant, That a particular command, or example is not neceſſary (we ſuppoſe he means to juſtify any acts, or the uſe of any mean in the ſtated worship of God; or elſe he ſaith nothing to the matter in queſtion) For we ſing Hopkins, and Sternholds Pſalms for which is no particular command. 2 We anoint not with oyl though St. James doth command it. Becauſe we meet with this ſo often we who take our ſelves to be ready to give account of our faith to every one that asketh us, shall once for all tell him what we believe, and hold in this great point.

§. 7 We believe the Holy Scripture to be a full, and perfect rule; as of Doctrine, ſo of worship, both as to the Acts and Means of it: with no other help then the light of nature directing the application of ſome common circumſtances, either neceſſary to all human actions, (as time and place are) and ſome common actions and ſigns ſignifying no more in ſacred then in civil actions; and this either from nature, or the general, guiſe, and cuſtom of the countries wherein the worship is performed. 2 Hence both we and all Proteſtants deny a power to any man to inſtitute New ordinances of worship for which there is in Gods word, no particular precept or example either of Chriſt or his Apoſtles: And certainly, worship being nothing elſe, But an homage done unto God in conſideration of his excellency, It is every whit as reaſonable, That God should direct both the Acts, and Means, and Rites of his worship; As that an Earthly Potentate should direct his ſubjects, or ſervants the manner of their addreſſes to him, or the habits they should appear before him in. Gods word eſpecially declaring againſt will worship. 3 Hence we judge, All Acts, religious Rites, and Means of worship prohibited by God, which either in expreſs terms, or by firſt conſequences from ſome Scriptural Propoſitions are not in the word of God preſcribed, or Commanded.

But natural Reaſon aſſuring us, That as all human actions muſt have ſome circumſtances: So Religious worship being a human action muſt have ſome appendant circumſtances; either ſuch as are neceſſary to all human actions of which number are time or place; or neceſſary for actions of that nature. So we judge it as reaſonable, That a bell or a Trumpet should call people to worship God; as ſcholers living in ſeveral colledges to a Convocation, or Towns men living ſcattered up and down the town to a townhouſe or Aſſembly. We take Pulpits, and Pewes, & Churches to be as reaſonable, as that in the Seſſions the Judge should have a Cushion and a Taller-ſeat: or the Major in a Guildhal, or that the Commoners or Aldermen, being to ſit two or three hours all that time should not be put to ſtand; but have ſeats & pewes. In this ſenſe it is true that Dr. Ashton in his caſe of perſecution hath told us 48 (after 40 before him) Theſe circumſtances muſt be, and are not determined in Scripture. We do yeild our ſuperiours a great power in determining theſe Circumſtances of Religious duties, as they are human actions, without which they are neither at all to be performed, or with no Conveniency Nay further, There are ſome Circumſtances neceſſary upon the account of Decency, the not obſerving of which would make the action appear either from the light of nature, or from the guiſe and cuſtom of the country irreverently, brutishly and indecently performed. If any will come naked, or half naked, or shoulder-naked into a religious aſſembly, or pray to God with his hat on; we believe ſuperiours may as well reſtrain them; as they may reſtrain one that should run up and down a market naked, or one that should refuſe to pull off his hat when he ſpeaketh to his Prince. And ſo for any thing of this nature, where is onely a general application of the rules and cuſtoms of places for reverence, order, and decency in all human actions to religious actions: If two or three will confuſedly be babling together in a meeting for religion, we believe ſuperiours may reſtrain them, as well as he may reſtrain ſuch a confuſion in a Town-hall, or civil Aſſembly met for any civil ends.

For theſe circumſtances it is true again that Dr. Ashton ſaith, p. 50. They muſt not be left indetermined: But all this reacheth not Ceremonies, that is, Religious rites (be they habits, or geſtures, or actions appropriated to Religious actions) theſe are quite other things, and muſt have ſomething of the generical nature of worship in them: Becauſe of their appropriation to acts of that nature. We ſay onely, That no creature hath power to command thoſe things in Gods worship. 1 Which are in Gods word either explicitly forbidden, or implicitly as having ſomething of worship in them. Or 2 Which the ſuperiour acknowledgeth not in themſelves neceſſary, and the inferiour thinks are forbidden. Thoſe of the firſt ſort being eminently againſt Piety; Thoſe of the latter ſort, as eminently againſt Charity. Having thus freely and plainly opened our minds, Let us now conſider our Authors inſtances, from which he would make the world believe, That we little value a Divine precept in acts, rites, or means of Divine worship.

§. 8 His firſt inſtance is, our Singing Scriptural Pſalms in the meeters of Sternhold and Hopkins, which (in deriſion) he calls Hopkins and Sternholds Pſalms. And there is he thinketh the ſame reaſon for ex tempore Hymns, as for ex tempore Petitions. We have already ſaid enough, and the learned and judicious Cotton hath ſaid more to anſwer this pitiful Cavil; but that we may be troubled with it no more. This objection muſt be either againſt the matter of what we ſing, or the form of the meeter. 1 The Matter is Scripture; directed by the Spirit of God, compoſed by the Penmen of holy writ; we abhor any Singing of other compoſitions in publick worship. 2 It is plain that ſinging and by ſuch forms hath been ever uſed as an ordinance of God, both in the Churches of Jews and Chriſtians. 3 It is manifeſt not one of many attains the gift of Hymn making. It is a known ſaying, Poeta naſcitur. 4 We do not know that God ever promiſed his Spirit to teach his people to compoſe Hymns, but he hath promiſed to teach us what to pray for. 5 Singing being the joint action of a congregation, cannot poſſibly be done but by a ſet form, without notorious and eminent confuſion. It is more then we know, That in the publick congregation the people are all to pray aloud together. 6 We cannot underſtand how the metrical forms uſed by us in Singing make the Pſalms we ſing more Hopkins and Sternholds, then our Bibles are the Tranſlators Bibles.

2 For the meeter, it makes no alteration in ſenſe, onely limits the number of Syllables in a pauſe for order in Singing. We do ſee many things in the ordinary meeter of our English Pſalms which do no better fit the English idiom of our age, Then, with my body I thee worship, fits it to expreſs the honour which a man ows to his wife: But we ſee Davids ſenſe kept in that meeter (as the Hebrew ſenſe was much kept, eſpecially in material things, by the 70 interpreters) and therefore we do keep to it. And this we think enough to have ſaid to shew the Vanity of his firſt inſtance. We proceed to his ſecond.

§. 9 Again (ſaith Mr. Freeman) when they viſit the ſick, they anoint them not with oyl, yet they shall be ſo far from producing an inſtance for ſuch a viſiting from the Scripture, that they shall find the contrary in St. James. If they ſay there is not the ſame Reaſon for that anointing now which was then: I reply, Neither is there the ſame reaſon now for unpremeditated prayers, (forms of prayers compoſed by others he should have ſaid) as was then, for now forms are commanded by our Rulers, then (according to their opinion) they were not.

§. 10 In anſwer to which we firſt ask, will our conformable Brethren then, when they viſit the ſick anoint them with oyl? or have they any Rubrick for that? How dare they omit it? If it were a ſtanding inſtitution of the goſpel? They are yet a peg higher then we thought off, if they alſo will maintain a power for ſuperiors to abrogate any goſpel inſtitutions. Was it a temporary practice? What an impertinency is it then to urge it?

§. 11 We confeſs we do not anoint the ſick with oyl, not onely becauſe we do not know what oyl to uſe, and much depends upon the kind, whether it wrought by a natural virtue, or by virtue of an inſtitution. But becauſe we learn from Mark. 6. 13. That anointing with oyl was annexed to the extraordinary, and miraculous gift of healing; which gift both reaſon and experience tells us is now ceaſed. So that notwithſtanding theſe two inſtances, Mr. Freeman may ſee, we are conſiſtent enough to our principles. And this we take to be ſomething a better anſwer and more particular, then what he ſuppoſeth we would ſay, viz. There is not the ſame reaſon now, That is true; but it is further true, That God in his providence making the miraculous gifts of healing to ceaſe hath taken away any pretended Reaſon for that practice. Whereas he ſaith; neither is there the ſame reaſon for unpremeditate forms now, becauſe Rulers command the contrary. We anſwer, That Mr. Freemans friends think they were then alſo commanded: But ſuppoſe they had been then commanded, doth this make a ſufficient Reaſon for a practice in Divine worship, that man commandeth it?

§. 12 But becauſe this is ſo oft repeated, as if all the world were drunk with Hobbiſm & Parkeriſm, believing,

That the Superior commanding, not the inferiour obeying muſt anſwer for the ſin if any be committed by any ſuch obedience.

Let us diſcourſe this point a little, In the firſt place this muſt be an exception to the general rule of Gods word which hath told us, The ſoul that ſinneth shall dy, and the child shall not be punished for the parent; or elſe it muſt be a new gloſs; or a thing forgotten by St John when he deſcribed ſin to us to be, A transgreſſion of the law. And Thirdly, They should do well to tell us which way the obliquity of one creatures action should paſs to another creature that he should bear his Brothers ſin. Again if the command of ſuperiors will juſtify the Inferiours from guilt in their acts of obedience to their commands, The Command of the Pope will do it for all under his jurisdiction, and would have done it for us here in England while he was here without controle allowed to be the Head of the church: But our forefathers the Martyrs were not of this impudent Religion. If they had, they might have ſaved their lives. But let us hear what hath been the opinion of more valuable, and ancient Proteſtants in this caſe, we will inſtance in two, both eminent Bishops of Salisbury: The one at the beginning of the Reformation; The other dying within a few years laſt paſt, Bp Jewel, and Bp Davenant.

§. 13 What Bishop Jewel thought, may be read in his Apology againſt Harding, chap. 2. Diviſ. 7.

The ſubject (ſaith he) is bound to obey his Prince, how be it, not in all things, but where Gods glory is not touched. Theſe Nobles [he ſpeakes of thoſe in Scotland] had learned of St. Peter It is better to obey God then man; And of the Prophet David, It is better to truſt in God, then in Princes, for they are mortal, and shall dy. Neither may a Godly Prince take it as any dishonour to his eſtate, to ſee God obeyed before him, for he is not God, but the miniſter of God. Leo ſaith, Chriſt determined, That we should give to God, the things that are Gods; and to Ceſar the things that are Ceſars. Verily this is not to rebel againſt Ceſar but to help him, &c.

§. 14 In the next place let us hear Bp Davenant in his excellent commentary on the Colloſſians, chap. 2. v. 23.

Ignatius Loyola (ſaith he) the father of the Jeſuites in that Epiſtle of his, which is read in the Jeſuites, Colledge every month warneth and commandeth them ſeriouſly by a blind obedience, abſolutely to do whatſoever their ſuperiors command, not conſidering whether it be good or profitable, yea or no: for that (ſaith he) takes away the value and merit of obedience.

It is alſo the common opinion of the Papiſts, That there ought to be in Chriſtians ſuch an humility of mind, that they muſt not in the leaſt doubt of thoſe things which are commanded by the Church of Rome; either to be believed, or done in Religion, or in the worship of God: but we ſayth he notwithſtanding this truly ſay, That this Blind obedience is not onely foolish, but Impious, and Irreligious.

1 Becauſe we are not bound to obey ſuperiors but in caſes wherein they are our ſuperiors, now as to Doctrines of Faith and Divine worship, God alone is our ſuperior. If therefore men indeavour to forge new Doctrines of faith, or to bring in a New worship, they go beyond the bounds of that power, which is committed to them, and are not in this thing acknowledged to be our ſuperiors. 2 Becauſe the command of an inferiour power doth not oblige to obedience when it contradicteth the command of a ſuperiour power. Asts 4. 19. We muſt rather obey God then man. 3 Becauſe no intelligent perſon will expoſe himſelf to the danger of mortal Sinning, as the ſchool men ſpeak; but whoſoever voweth, and performeth abſolute ſubjection, and blind obedience to man, expoſeth himſelf to a manifeſt hazard; for every man may err, by commanding thoſe things that are evil.

According to the Doctrine of our new edition of Divines we would gladly underſtand, how any man can run a danger either of mortal ſin, or venial either, by doing any thing in obedience to the command of ſuperiors. 4 Becauſe what is proper to God cannot without great impiety be given to men: But an abſolute dominion over mens ſouls, & bodies is proper to God alone; To him the will of man oweth an abſolute obedience, to him his underſtanding oweth in all things a prompt aſſent. But thoſe who require this obedience of us uſe to object, That it is not the ſubjects part to judge of the faith & actions of their ſuperiors, they ſeem therefore to recede from their duty when they doubt, whether the things be true, and lawful which are published and confirmed by the Authority of thoſe who are ſet over them. This he anſwereth, Subjects neither may nor ought with a judgment of Authority to judge of their ſuperiors actions, but they may and ought to judge of them ſo far as concerneth themſelves with a judgment of Diſcretion. Aquinas excellently gives the reaſon of it, Every one (ſaith he) is bound to examin his own acts according to the knowledge which he hath from God: Whether it be natural, acquired or infuſed, for he is bound to act according to Reaſon, It is (ſaith he) confirmed by the Examples of all pious men, who although they did not arrogate to themſelves a judgment of Authority upon Magiſtrates, or Prelates, yet they uſed their judgment of Diſcretion concerning things commanded by them. Thus far that Reverend and very Learned man.

§. 15 This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and was wont to be the Doctrine of the Fathers in the Church of England, and we humbly offer it to the conſideration of our Rulers, whether there can be greater factors for Popery in England, then thoſe who ſo boldly aſſert the duty of Blind Jeſuitical Obedience, and declaim againſt the Judgment of private, and practical Diſcretion: The firſt is the very foundation of Popery; The latter, the foundation of the Proteſtant Religion.

§. 16 But to proceed with Mr. Freeman he telleth us, The Nonconformists have in word granted more then he asketh. Let us firſt know what he asketh, then ſee what they have granted, that which he asketh is our conceſſion, That it is lawful in the worship of God to do ſomethings not commanded by God. What have the Nonconformiſts granted, He inſtanceth in three things.

1 To command in the circumſtances of divine worship, what is generally commanded in the word of God.

2 To appoint time and place.

3 To appoint ſuch circumſtances, without which the worship of God, in the judgment of common Reaſon, Muſt be indecently and diſorderly performed; of which he makes the following improvement, p. 35. Of the Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice.

1 A form of prayer is but a circumſtance of Prayer, and I have proved, That if the Magiſtrate think them convenient they are in the general commanded. 2 If he can appoint the time and place, which he thinketh moſt convenient though otherwiſe it would be leſs, he would fain know a reaſon, why he may not appoint a form, which he thinketh moſt expedient, though otherwiſe it would be leſs expedient, To appoint to begin at ſuch a time is as really a limitation of the Spirit, as to appoint a form: For the ordinary reaſon which they ſpeak of, it muſt either be the Reaſon of the Magiſtrate, or of the People or both. If they mean the reaſon of the people, Then the ſenſe is, That the Magiſtrate hath power to appoint ſuch things, as the People judge reaſonable. We thank them for nothing: If both, we thank them for as much. If they mean that Reaſon which is beſt without reſtraining it to any ſubject, I reply, That Reaſon in the Idea doth nothing, but as it is ſomebodies Reaſon: Except the Magiſtrate hath power to command what he apprehendeth agreable to the beſt Reaſon: He muſt command what the Subjects apprehend ſo, or nothing at all; therefore it remains, That that Reaſon which muſt judge what is indecent, muſt be the Magiſtrates, and if he commandeth ſuch things as be indecent, ſo they be not otherwiſe unlawful; The people muſt ſubmit. To all which we anſwer.

§. 17 As to the matter of our preſent debate, There were no great loſs in granting all he ſaith; for the matters pleaded againſt are not onely pleaded as indecent (though none hath power to command any indecent thing in Gods worship) but as unlawful. But we know he would then ſay, we muſt not then uſe this as a medium to prove them ſo, Becauſe they are not commanded. We will therefore reply more ſtrictly.

§. 18 He ſaith, we have granted a power to ſuperiors to command particular circumſtances of Divine worship, which circumſtances are generally commanded. For Example, Reverence and Order are commanded generally as Moral duties, and eſpecial regard is to be had to them in the worship of God. If any will come to the publick Congregation in the ridiculous habits of moris-dancers, or naked, The Magiſtrate may for ought we know command them into a gaol: But what is this to our Authors purpoſe? A form of prayer, he ſaith, is but a circumſtance, and that is generally commanded in the Divine precepts for obedience to Magiſtrates. We anſwer that we do indeed make a great difference between a circumſtance, and a Ceremony. The firſt we ſay is appendant to an action as an human action; The latter to a Religious action as a Religious action. But we do not know that in reference to Divine worship men may appoint whatſoever may come under the notion of a Circumſtance in the Latitude of the term, nor do we think our Brethren judge all circumſtances in worship determinable by creatures.

§. 19 There is a Rhetorical notion of a circumſtance, and ſo Circumſtances are uſually comprehended in that verſe,

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.

If this Author thinks, That all Circumſtances of Divine worship in this large notion are determinable by man, he muſt affirm, That Magiſtrates may appoint whom they pleaſe to Baptize & adminiſter the Sacraments, That is the Quis. And that if the Magiſtrate thinks fit to command men to worship God before an image, that alſo becomes lawful, quibus auxiliis, is a circumſtance he knows. There is a Logical notion of a circumſtance, and ſo a circumſtance is, Quicquid rei praeter eſſentiam adjungitur, Whatſoever is added to the eſſence of a thing, and in this ſenſe no ceremony can be a circumſtance, for the Appropriation of it to the Religious action makes it a piece of Homage done to God; ſo as it partakes of the general nature of the whole action in which it is uſed. We never thought that men might inſtitute or appoint ſuch circumſtances, as wanted nothing but a Divine inſtitution to make them True Divine worship. Will any ſay, There was nothing of divine Homage in the High Prieſts garments which he might never put on but in his approaches to God? we by Circumſtances underſtand, Appendants to actions as meer humane actions, ſuch are Time & Place: and poſſibly ſo much of the quomodo, as is natural to reſtrain an indecency, and diſorder which the light of nature, or the particular cuſtom of the place sheweth to be ſuch. Theſe things we believe in their kind required in the General precepts of Gods word for order and decency, hence it appeareth.

§. 20 The fault was not in us but in his own Reſon, That (as he tells us) he cannot ſee why the Magiſtrate may not as well command forms of Prayer, as determine Time & Places. Are therefore forms of prayer in the general neceſſary to the act as human, or as Religious? Or could any one think, That Gods word should ſet down a certain rule for times and particular places of worship for all churches in the world? This is ſo miſerable trifling, as we are ashamed to make any reply to. But we muſt follow the Author yet further.

§. 21 He would know whoſe Reaſon muſt judge in the caſe? Whether the Reaſon of the Magiſtrate, or of the people? To which we freely anſwer, If the queſtion be about Lawful or Ʋnlawful, Every private Chriſtians Reaſon muſt judge as to his own practice, unleſs we will turn Papiſt and vow Blind obedience. If the thing be confeſſed both by the ſuperior and the inferiour. A thing in it ſelf indifferent we believe moſt Noncon. will allow the judgment to their ſuperiors. If the Author will but conſult Bp. Jewells Apology, pag. 435. He will find him laughing at the Papiſts for their obedience in carying baskets from Paleſtina to Damaſcus, Sitting 7 years together Silent, and watering for 12 months together a dead tree. Let the author determin whoſe Reaſon was to judge in thoſe caſes.

§. 22 To make the buſineſs short, In all Religious commands there muſt appear to the perſon that obeyeth ſome Reaſon from a divine command; either particularly, or generally requiring the thing, The meer will, and authority of an another in theſe things is not reaſon enough to juſtify our obedience. In matters of that nature we muſt be very wary of idle, and ſuperfluous actions, To be of no uſe, and inſignificant, is enough in worship to make a geſture or action ſinful, yea, and an appropriated habit too. There lyeth no neceſſity upon the ſuperior to command any ſuch things, nay, to do it will be a ſin unto him, as Gideons Ephod was a ſnare to his houſe, Judg. 8. 27. Precepts in ſuch things muſt be for farther uſe (and evidently ſo) then to try inferiours obedience. The lawfulneſs, or policy of precepts of no farther ſignificancy in things of a meer civil nature, may be diſputed, The Magiſtrate is the miniſter of God for good, Rom. 13. 4. But in theſe matters it is out of queſtion. In matters of civil nature the Magiſtrate hath unqueſtionably a far greater power then in them, yet even in thoſe things he that will not grant, that all commands muſt refer to ſome general, or particular good will be brought to ſtrange abſurdities. But he is a judge of good eſpecially in particular relating to political concerns, he is judge of the beſt means of order and policy, and every particular perſon is not to be a privy counſellor: which warranteth in ſuch things much of a blind obedience, Beſides there are various diſpoſitions of people, ſeveral complexions of Political bodies: for all which it is not imaginable that God in his word should have ſet down particular laws, for their preſervation and civil order. Nor hath God in his word laid out any general platforms of civil Government: But in Matters of worship, There is both a general, and ſufficient rule, all the Earth is tied to worship God, and to worship God by the ſame acts. Every particular perſon may and ought to know the myſteries of the Kingdom of God, ſo as there being a ſufficient rule for worship in Scripture both for the Acts, and Rites, and Means of it; ſuppoſing time and place by the church determined, or by the Magiſtrate; either people following no other rules then the light of nature, and of Scripture sheweth them: may ſo worship God, as neither he will be offended, nor any good man need be ſcandalized. It is every individual Chriſtians duty to enquire into the Myſteries of the Kingdom of heaven, and to be acquainted with the laws of Divine worship; and he cannot do that there in meer obedience to his ſuperior, which he can neither ſee the Light of Nature, Reaſon or Scripture requireth of him: or which his conſcience or Reaſon telleth him is idle, ſuperfluous or ludicrous; and ſo under ſuch circumſtances repugnant to the Divine will, without an high profanation of the holy name of God. If ſuch things be commanded, he muſt patiently ſuffer, if he doth them, he unqueſtionably ſinneth againſt the Lord, who in matters of his external worship hath particularly told him, That he is a Jealous God.

§. 23 But our Author goes on telling us, There are particular commands and examples of forms of prayer in Scripture. Davids Pſalms are prayers, ſo Hoſ. 14. 2. Joel. 2. 10. Acts 4. 24. Luke 11. 2. Though this be ſufficiently before anſwered, yet in short we again deſire our reader to conſider,

That if this Author by [commands] doth not mean, That there is ſome command, that the church of God, and all the miniſters in it, (at leaſt in ſome National church) should uſe ordinarily in their ſtated Solemn prayer certain forms made by others; he ſaith nothing to the purpoſe, we have ſaid again and again, That we do not think, Forms of Prayer unlawful. That we are not againſt forms to be uſed by ſome perſons, at ſome times, much leſs againſt them as made by any miniſter for his own uſe, and the propoſing of a form, which thoſe who will may uſe. David made ſome Pſalms which were forms of Prayer, but did he make an Act of Uniformity too? Again, a great Prophet and Penman of holy writ made forms of Prayer, Suppoſe he had enjoyned the conſtant uſe of them too in all places of publick worship, may therefore men that are no Prophets, no Penmen of Scripture, no pretenders to ſuch an inſpiration do the like? Farther ſuppoſe, That it could be proved, (which it never can) that there were forms of Prayer compoſed for, and uſed in the Jewish church; or that the Lords prayer was intended for a form of words, and commanded to be ordinarily uſed for a time, (yet we never met with any that ſaid, The Apoſtles might ordinarily uſe no other) how doth this prove, That it was the will of Chriſt concerning the church under the goſpel? That becauſe Chriſt who was the head of the church enjoined the uſe of ſuch a form: Therefore any Superior deriving from him may do the like, and add fourty times as much, and enjoyn it to all miniſters, after Chriſts aſcenſion on high, pouring out the gifts of his Spirit upon all flesh, who ſeeth not what pitiful inconcluſive arguments theſe are. But our Author pretendeth to give ſome reaſons for the Neceſſity of Impoſing forms of prayer. They are but the Ordinary topicks, which all make uſe of in the caſe, we will therefore reſerve them for a proper place and go on yet with our other arguments.

CHAP. V.

The Fourth Argument ſtated, Becauſe actively to obey in this caſe is to grant a principle improveable to ſuppreſs the total exerciſe of the gift of prayer, in Publick meetings, Families, Cloſets, all places to which the ſuperiors dominion extends. To ſay, This is not yet commanded, is in part falſe as to prayers before and after ſermons: if true, no anſwer. The Vanity of thoſe that ſay though the ſuperior may impoſe in part, yet not in whole. The Quota pars not determined, nor determinable from Scripture & Reaſon. No power in man to ſuppreſs the total exerciſe of any miniſterial gift.

§. 1. OUr Fourth Argument we ſtate thus,

To agree a principle, which being agreed, is of ſufficient force to reſtrain the total exerciſe of the gift of prayer, is ſinful.

But to agree it lawful for miniſters ordinarily in their Solema prayers, to perform their acts of prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, were to agree ſuch a principle; Ergo.

We hope there is none will deny the Major, until he hath proved to us, That it is lawful for man wholly to ſuppreſs any miniſterial gift, and make it uſeleſs as to its end, yea, and ſinful to uſe it at any time, (which to us appears a ſtrange task) we shall therefore at preſent not labour in the eſtablishing of that, taking it to shine ſufficiently in its own light.

§. 2 For the Minor we ſay, All Prayer is either Publick in the Congregation, or Domeſtick in the family, or Private, or Secret in the Cloſet. For that which is made in the Congregation. We are indeed often told, That the miniſter hath a power left him to pray before and after Sermon. But 1 Suppoſe he had, yet he may be reſtraind we hope by the ſuperiors precept, and if he be, we hope he is bound to Obey it: For why should it be leſs lawful for him to ty himſelf to the uſe of forms in the Pulpit, then in the Desk▪ 2 But it were worth the examining whether he hath ſuch a liberty? Did the late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Couſins think ſo? Let any miniſter in his dioceſs enquire about that. Did Bishop wren think ſo? Doth Mr. Kemp think ſo? Let the Reader read his ſermon on this ſubject. Doth the Act of Parliament ſay ſo? But once for all, Let the Reader judge of this by what he shall find in the Printed account of the proceedings of the Commiſſioners of both perſuaſions, p. 19. He shall find, The Commiſſioners on the Bishops ſide (and they were no leſs then eleven Bishops, and nine Doctors of Divinity of which five have ſince been made Bishops) thus ſpeaking,

We heartily deſire that (according to this Propoſal) great care may be taken to ſuppreſs thoſe private conceptions both before and after ſermon; leaſt private opinions be made the matter of prayer in publick as hath and will be, if private perſons take liberty to make publick prayers.

Here is, Heartily deſire, and Great care to be taken to ſuppreſs private conceptions both before, and after Sermon. It ſeemes they apprehended, The law gave no ſuch liberty; and therefore are very heartily deſirous, the Executors of it would take care, yea, and great care too, that none might take it. Let us therefore hear no more of a liberty (not ſo much as indulged) and if it were, no more then indulged for miniſters at all to uſe their miniſterial gift in prayer, There is no ſuch liberty but as aſſumed.

§. 3 So that the publick miniſterial exerciſe of this gift is wholly ſuppreſt, but yet we are told Miniſters may in their families uſe their gifts. This is indeed true, (notwithſtanding any law or canon yet extant) onely diverſe of thoſe miniſters, who uſe any family prayer, who are to be too the examples to the flock, do not think fit to uſe it but there alſo limit themſelves to the publick book. But the queſtion is, Whether ſuppoſing it be lawful to obey ſuperiours, commanding us to perform our miniſterial acts ordinarily in publick ſolemn prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, yea, and neceſſary too, ſuppoſing hereafter ſuperiours should command men to do the like in their families, obedience alſo in that caſe would not be both lawful, and neceſſary? (We have a ſcriptural inſtance, of a Magiſtrates edict reaching to families) We muſt profeſs if we could grant the obligation, and judge it lawful to obey in the firſt (which is our preſent caſe) we cannot ſee with what pretence of Scripture, or Reaſon we could avoid obedience to a ſuperiors command in the Second caſe, and we would gladly learn of our Brethren.

§. 4 Nay, ſuppoſing a law, of the Latitude of that of Nebuchadnezzar, extenſive to a cloſet alſo. That we should no where pray to the God of heaven but in the uſe of the church prayers. What should hinder but that it should be lawful, yea, neceſſary to yeild a ready, active obedience to it? Will any one ſay, That it doth not follow, That becauſe we are bound to obey Magiſtrates commands for worship, in publick prayers and publick places; therefore we should be bound to obey the ſame commands made to extend to private worship and places, ſuch as houſes and cloſets. We muſt profeſs we are of another mind, and not able to aſſign any ſufficient reaſon to the contrary, and should be glad to hear any could teach us. Our dull ſouls reaſón thus, Are not Magiſtrates and Subjects Relatives, and is not dominion the foundation of the Relation, and Relatives uſe to go together; ſurely look how far the ſuperiours Dominion and right to that extendeth, ſo far obedience will be found a duty. So as the queſtion onely will be, Whether the Magiſtrate hath not a dominion over his ſubjects in their private houſes and cloſets? If he hath, his commands reach them there, which if they do if the matter be lawful, (ſay our Brethren) it is neceſſary to obey, and why is not a command as lawful, enjoining the conſtant uſe of preſcribed forms there, as in Churches or Temples? Now the Magiſtrates daily, and confeſſedly juſt punishing enormities in families, cloſets, bedchambers, are ſufficient inſtances of the extent of the Magiſtrates dominion to thoſe private places, and conſequentially evince the duty of obedience ſuppoſing a command, if in a matter wherein the law of God hath given him a power to oblige his ſubjects. And although it be true, That the Magiſtrate, cannot take ſuch a cogniſance of what is done in private houſes, and cloſets: yet that ſignifies nothing in the caſe, for our queſtion is, Whether ſuppoſing ſuch a command, it might with a good conſcience be obeyed? If it might, then it muſt be obeyed (according to our Brethrens principle) then whether the Magiſtrate knowes of the diſobedience or no matters not (yet he may come to the cogniſance of it, by children, by eves-droppers, by confeſſions, &c.) The ſoul of the offender how ever is made guilty, and ſtands bound over to the Judgment of the great day. So as we profeſs we cannot ſee, but if we might lawfully in obedience to man perform our miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed forms of others if the ſuperiour commandeth, We may lawfully alſo uſe nothing elſe but thoſe forms in our families and cloſets. Nay, we muſt uſe no other in caſe of ſuch a command, ſo as we cannot do it without implicitly ſaying, If the Magiſtrate commands us to uſe no other prayers while we live, but the Publick, preſcribed forms, either in publick, or in private, either before or after ſermons, either in our houſes or cloſets we do judge that it is ſinful for us to uſe any other: though by this means the gift of prayer, in all the miniſters of Chriſt shall plainly be ſuppreſſed, and made of no uſe.

§. 5 We can by no means be ſatisfied, with what we hear ſome ſay, & think it a ſufficient anſwer, viz. That though man may impoſe in part, yet he may not impoſe upon the whole uſe of any miniſterial gift, ſuch a command they ſay ought not to be obeyed. This appeareth worſe then a figleaf to our conſciences. For, 1 Who shall determin what is the Quota pars? How far he may impoſe or not impoſe? 2 By what rule shall that limitation be made? The word of God directs him no more to impoſe upon a part, then upon the whole. Let us but underſtand by what rule of Scripture, or Reaſon he shall limit us to pray by forms in the Desk, and not in the Pulpit; Though he do's go ſo far, he leaves room for the uſe of gifts in families: nay, why may he not command the like in families? He leaves room yet for the uſe of gifts in the cloſet. We know when he go's to viſit the ſick he muſt keep to them, we muſt wait to hear what other anſwers our Brethren shall make to this Argument, we can ſee no evaſion from it.

CHAP. VI.

The Fifth Argument ſtated from the Equal lawfulneſs of obeying a command requiring Miniſters ordinarily to preach ſermons compoſed by others. The unlawfulneſs of obeying ſuch a command proved. The Propoſition argued betwixt commands for forms of prayer and forms of Sermons. The Vanity of Ireneus Freemans diſcourſed, in pretending to shew a different reaſon; Becauſe in Prayer the Miniſter ſpeaks in the name of the people, and becauſe all points to be preached on cannot be comprehended in forms.

§. 1 WE proceed to a Fifth Argument,

To agree a principle, which agreed, would allow man alſo a power when he pleaſed to ſuppreſs all miniſterial gifts in preaching, is ſinful.

But to agree it lawful for miniſters to obey man, in performing their publick miniſterial acts in Solemn prayer by the preſcribed forms of others; were to agree a Principle which once agreed would allow man a power, when he pleaſed to ſuppreſs all miniſterial gifts in preaching; Ergo.

We do know that ſome of our Brethren here will deny us the Major, and allow man a power to ſuppreſs all preaching, and it hath been whiſpered in ſome both Pamphlets and Pulpits, That Preaching in a conſtituted church is needleſs, and ſerveth onely to breed Diſputes and Schisms. It was indeed neceſſary at the firſt for the firſt plantation of the goſpel, when men were Pagans. But now they are converted it is not neceſſary. As if There were not a converſion from ſin to God neceſſary to ſalvation, as well as from Paganiſm to a Chriſtian Profeſſion. If ſome of theſe men had not plowed with a Popish Aſs, and a Socinian Heifer they had never found out this Riddle. Dr. Fuller in his church hiſtory p. 262. tells us, That it was the very Argument the Popish Abby-lubbers, Monks and Prieſts uſed to perſuade the Pope to appropriate to Covents, & Abbies the tythes belonging to many Parishes: and the Racovian Catechiſm de Eccleſ. c. 11. hath it plain enough.

Poſtquam igitur Doctrina Chriſti ſecundum conſilium Dei, & patefacta, & confirmata fuit abundè iis perſonis quae eam patifecerent, & confirmarent; nihil amplius loci in Eccleſiâ relictum.

And the Arminians agree much with them. Epiſcopius Diſput. 28. determineth preaching profitable, but not neceſſary. But bleſſed be God the number of theſe men in England is not great, all men almoſt acknowledging Preaching a great Ordinance of Chriſt, an ordinance, not onely to make men Chriſtians in name and outwardly, but Chriſtians inwardly and indeed, changing their hearts and turning them from all ſin and luſt to ſerve the living God. It was the unhappineſs of England to have three or four Prelates of great power, who thus depretiated the greateſt ordinance of the goſpel: But as they are gone, and ere this know, whether they in this thing did well or ill? ſo there are not many that approve their ſayings, or will riſe up to call them bleſſed. We therefore take it for granted that Preaching may not be ſuppreſſed, and are little affected with a Critial Authors witin diſtinguishing betwixt Preaching and Teaching; and eſſays to prove it is not the miniſters duty to Preach, but to Teach. In short we think that Critick had need himſelf be taught, before he either preacheth or teacheth.

§. 2 Our onely queſtion is, Whether it be in the power of man to ſuppreſs the gift of preaching, in a miniſter of the goſpel? We think it is not, becauſe of the frequent commands in Scripture to miniſters, To ſtir up and not to neglect that gift, and to miniſter it. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 1 Pet. 4. 10, 11, &c. And to us nothing can be more abſurd then to fancy, That God should have given abilities and gifts to men for ſo great a work as the work of the miniſtry; and given them an heart to deſire the imployment; and the church should have approved of them as furnished by God for his work, and ſent into it: and after this, it should be in the power of men to ſuppreſs the uſe of theſe gifts, and appoint them in ſtead of it to readſome diſcourſes of others to the people.

§. 3 The onely doubt then can be about the Minor Propoſition which ſtands upon this foundation, That God hath given unto man no farther liberty to ſtifle and ſuppreſs one miniſterial gift then another. Nor can any ſufficient reaſon be given of their farther authority in the one caſe then the other; and therefore our wiſe Reformers (ſeing a neceſſity to make a proviſion for that moſt ſad ſtate which our and other Reforming-churches were in, in the beginning of Reformation, at the ſame time provided miniſters both a book of Homilies, and a book of Publick prayers and Homilies (at firſt) juſt proportioned to the Number of ſermons they willed to be preached every year. That was 12 on each month, Well knowing, That if they had Authority to do the one, they had Authority to do the other: And thoſe who had need of the one, had an Equal need (if not greater) of the other. The Doctor Reſpondent therefore within theſe few years, at a Commencement having given the lawfulneſs of Impoſing and uſing forms of prayer for his Queſtion, and being preſſed by one of our Learned Prelates with this Argument. That then it was lawful to impoſe, and uſe forms of ſermons too. Like a wiſe man granted the Conſequence, and denied the Aſſumption: And his hearers thought he anſwered well (to avoid a publick baffle, though he affirmed a falshood by denying the Minor) we are ſure ſome of us did, judging the Conſequence by no means to be deſtroyed by the Art of man.

§. 3 Every conſiderate perſon will eaſily underſtand, That if it be lawful for man to compoſe all forms of prayer, and forms of ſermons to be uſed by miniſters, and they may diſcharge their miniſterial office by reading them both: We shall neither need Grammar-ſchools nor Ʋniverſities to breed up men for the Miniſtry. Let us but make ſure of good School-dames in every Parish to learn children to read, and every parish will commence a Nurſery of very able and ſufficient Clerks, that is, Such as can read Primers, Pſalters, and Bibles, or any other books of reaſonable good Prints. If any will tell us that a Miniſter hath ſome other work. We anſwer, we know of no other, But the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, where God himſelf hath made the Form certain, & the Miniſter in thoſe ordinances hath nothing farther (that we know) to do, but to add the application of Prayer and Exhortation (the two general acts of his office) to that particular performance. Let none tell us, That he is to Convince gainſayers, for that (ſo far as it is the work of every ordinary miniſter) it is by way of plain Scripture, and miniſterial reproof: and for that too, there are books enough in English. So that we are confident, That if St Paul had thought ſuch kind of Diſcharge of the miniſterial work would have acquitted Timothy's ſoul before God, he would never have ſo called upon him as he doth, 1 Tim. 4. 13. To give attendance to Reading, to Exhortation, to Doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, &c. Nor have told him that ſuch labourers in the word and Doctrine, were worthy of double honour, 1 Tim. 5. 11. Nor charged him, To prove miniſters, (was it whether they could read or no, think we) Not to lay hands ſuddenly on any. Nor charged him as, 2 Tim. 1. 6. To ſtir up the gift of God. Nor called upon him, rightly to divide the word of truth (it had been divided to his hand) he would never have called upon Timothy as, 1 Tim. 4. 15. To Meditate on the Scripture, To give himſelf wholly to that ſtudy, that his profiting might appear to all.

§. 4 But we find our old friend, Ireneus Freeman, here again oppoſing us, not urging the lawfulneſs of Magiſtrates impoſing and Miniſters uſing forms of ſermons; but pretending a different Reaſon betwixt Forms of Prayers, and of ſermons; which indeed may enfeeble our Minor Propoſition we have onely to Examin what he ſaith, whether it will amount to what he would have it? For otherwiſe the ſtrength of our Argument is evident enough, to every deliberate Chriſtian. He begins with telling us.

That one would in charity think, That theſe men were none of the Contrivers, or Approvers of the Directory: for theſe lamentable reſtraints both of ſermons, and Prayers are to be found there.

To which we anſwer, That, one would in charity alſo think, That this Author, a Scholar and Divine, should ſpeak truth: And not abuſe his Reader with a known falshood. Surely he never read the Directory, or hoped his Readers never would. Who ever ſaw one form of prayer, or of a Sermon in the Directory? Who ever heard any miniſter tying himſelf to the words there? Doth not the name shew the matter of that book? It onely directs the general matter (which fourty other books do) both as to Prayer and preaching (and ſurely it is a charitable work) Where doth it ſo much as direct, much leſs preſcribe a form of words, or command the uſe of any ſuch thing. Mr. Freemans Readers muſt take heed they look with their own eyes; for never were more impudent impoſings of that nature, then ſome men are now hardy enough to make. But poſſibly he goes on to more purpoſe,

I cannot, ſaith he, conceive them to be ſo unlearned, as yet to learn why forms of ſermons should not be impoſed, as well as forms of Prayer. A mans mother-wit, may prompt him with two Reaſons.

We muſt confeſs we are ſo unlearned, and ready to ſit at this Gamaliels feet, if he can inſtruct us in the caſe, and onely fear his Mother-wit (as he calls it) not ſufficient to inſtruct us or any part of the reaſonable world in this point. But let us hear his two Reaſons: for any thing of that nature shall be welcome to us. His firſt Reaſon (as he calls it) he thus delivereth.

§. 5 Becauſe in the Sermon the miniſter ſpeaketh what he thinketh is true, if it appeareth otherwiſe, the people may reject it: But in prayer the Miniſter (in the name of the people: for he ſaith not I but we) preſenteth deſires to God, which ſometimes happen to be quite contrary to the deſires of ſome, yea, of all the people. It may poſſibly fall out that the people cannot join with him in one expreſſion, whereby it comes to paſs, That both the Miniſters Prayer is a falshood, and that the people (being in a praying poſture) do make a kind of Profeſſion, that they ſay, Amen to thoſe petitions, which their ſouls Abominate. Which makes it appear, why there is more Reaſon that people should know beforehand what shall be prayed, then what shall be preach: which foreknowledge is the effect of forms. To all which we anſwer.

That foreknowledge indeed may be the effect of forms, provided that he who Readeth, readeth them true (at which we have more then once heard ſome very unhappy) but the Queſtion is, what need there is, That people should aforehand know, the Words and Syllables by which their minds should be expreſſed to God: more then the Words and Syllables by which Gods will should be declared unto them: both duties muſt be done in the exerciſes of Faith, Love, Reverence, Meekneſs, Humility, &c. The pretended Reaſon now produced by this acute Author is Becauſe in preaching the miniſter ſpeaketh what he thinkes to be truth, and if it be otherwiſe the people may reject it. It is true, That the Miniſter in ſpeaking (if he be not a very wretch) ſpeaketh what he thinketh to be true, and that too in a Theological ſenſe; for he is the ſteward of the myſteries of God and of ſtewards it is required that they ſhould be faithful, he is the Embaſſador of Chriſt, and God intreateth by him. 2 Cor. 5. 20. It is as true, That it is poſſible that a miniſters words may be otherwiſe. What Remedy hath the people? They may reject them, he ſaith, that is, not believe them. 2 They may if he goeth on complain to the church, who are to ſay to Archippus, Take heed to thy Miniſtry, If yet he will go on in ſuch kind of preaching, they may and ought to remove him. Is it not the very ſame caſe as to Prayer, should not he who prayeth petition for ſuch things, as he believeth to be according to the will of God? Suppoſe he doth not, May not the people at the time withold their Amen? May they not complain of him to the officers of the church? Should not they admonish him? And if he go's on remove him from his ſtation? What shadow is here of different Reaſon? But he ſaith,

In Prayer, the miniſter ſpeaketh in the name of the People, for he ſaith not I but we.

Pitiful! And when he is preaching doth he not ſpeak in the name of God? Is he not in Chriſts ſtead? 2 Cor. 5. 20. We would have the reader but conſider; Which ought more warily to be done? Is there a fear that the miniſter in Prayer should beg of God ſomething which the people would not have him ask? (which indeed as to many of the people who have no mind to be purged of their luſts, he doth every time he prayeth as he ought to pray) And is there no fear that in preaching the Miniſter should declare ſomething which God would not have him declare? And is not this full as ordinary and a thouſand times greater error: For it is not the peoples willings that is our Rule in prayer, but Gods will on the behalf of people. And we think, The ſame reveiled will of God is the rule of our preaching too as well as Prayer. And we would fain know, Why the people may not withold their Amen in Prayer, as well as in Preaching, And their faith and Aſſent in hearing? Are not theſe ſubtil ratiocinations, for one to Domineer over his brethren with? He ſaith,

It may ſometime ſo happen that a Prayer may be put up and the people cannot join in one Petition.

That ſurely is a rare caſe: And it may be it is nothing but the error, and luſts of their hearts hinder them, but that in the ſame prayer they may join in every petition, the Prayer for all this may be for things according to the will of God, and in the name of Chriſt, which is the miniſters rule, not the peoples ſentiments, and luſts. But let us now compare. Is is not poſſible alſo, That a preachment, or Harangue may be made in a pulpit, in which the people cannot find one entire propoſition which they can give aſſent to? How many diſcourſes of late years have we had in Pulpits, pretending to prove, Men have a natural power to things Spiritually good? That we are not juſtified by the imputed Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, but by our own works? How many perfect Satyrs, Raillerys, and Evomitions of the luſts and choler in the Preachers hearts? Such as people could not aſſent to one Propoſition, nor in hearing exerciſe the leaſt Faith, Love, or Reverence; but according to Gods will they have abhorred, and abominated. But he ſaith,

The people being in a praying poſture, do make a profeſſion of aſſent to the Petitions which they abominate.

Doth their poſture do it in prayer, & will not their preſence and ſitting ſtill, do the ſame in hearing? May they shew their diſſent in preaching by turning their backs, and departing: and may they not do the ſame in Prayer (if they ſee cauſe) So as this firſt pretended Reaſon ſignifieth juſt nothing. Nay, it may be improved to an higher advantage for us. See the Commiſſioners Accompt of their Proceedings, p. 20, 21.

It is known that in Preaching a man hath far greater opportunity to vent a private opinion then in Prayer. It is known de eventu, That it is much more ordinary. And if you ſay that in Preaching, The miniſter ſpeaks not the words of the Church, but his own, nor unto God but man, and therefore it is a leſs matter. We anſwer, It is as conſiderable if not much more, from whom he ſpeaketh then to whom: In preaching he ſpeaks as a miniſter of Chriſt in his ſtead, and name, 2 Cor. 5. 19, 20. And it is as an higher, ſo a more Reverend thing to ſpeak in Gods name to people, Then in the peoples name to God; and to ſpeak that which we call Gods word, Truth, or Meſſage, Then that which we call our own deſire. We make God a liar, or corrupt his word, if we ſpeak in his Name a falshood: we make but our ſelves lyars, if we ſpeak a falshood to him, in our own names. The former therefore is the more heinous, and dreadful abuſe, and more to be avoided. We might further add, That if there were any reaſon in this Reaſon it would be of equal force againſt all conceived Prayers before others, as well in the Pulpit, as in the Desk, as well in the family, as in the more publick Congregation. Let us now ſee if Ireneus Freemans Second Reaſon hath any thing more in it. He gives it us in theſe words,

§. 6 Becauſe the miniſter in his preaching is to expound, confirm and apply all the Articles of faith, as occaſion shall be which is a work would require many days, if not years. It would be endleſs to comprice the ſubſtance of all Sermons in forms. But we pray for the ſame things continually, and therefore the Directory ſaw reaſon to put down the matter of prayer though not of ſermons. Here the Author forgot he but even now, had told us the Directory had put many lamentable reſtraints upon preaching.

Here now we confeſs is ſomething that hath a great shew of Reaſon. Againſt the flail of Neceſſity there is no defence, It muſt be obeyed, and hath no law. If it be true, as he ſaith, That forms of ſermons cannot be made comprehenſive of all we are to preach, he ſaith ſomething. To prove this he aſſumes.

1 That the miniſter in preaching is to open, confirm and apply all the Articles of faith.

2 That the ſubſtance of theſe cannot be comprehended in forms.

The Firſt is granted, but the ſtreſs lieth upon the Second; and our advantage is, That no medium will ſerve him to make it good, But, That they are infinite: for if they be finite they may doubtleſs with all their appurtenances of Explication, Confirmation, and Application be limited by forms. The queſtion is not whether 12 or 24 forms will comprehend them? But whether, No Number of forms are comprehenſive of them? Are not all the Articles of faith with plentiful Explication, Confirmation and Application of them, conteined in many books? Suppoſe now ſupperiours should command all Miniſters, in ſtead of ſtudying the Scriptures, and compoſing diſcourſes of their own, to read ſome of theſe books by portions. The queſtion is, Whether they might lawfully do this inſtead of compoſing ſermons themſelves, and then preaching them, or of he should command them, That for three parts of four of their time uſed to be ſpent in ſermons of their own, They should do this and leave them at liberty, for a fourth part, to preach from their own parts, and abilities. Were this lawful? If he ſaith yes; we are ſure that Dr. Ames, Mr. Perkins and all valuable authors we have met with, have determined the contrary, and do believe the whole company of Chriſtian hearers would be found of another mind. And could we think this lawful, We should ſee no further need of Ʋniverſities, then to accomplish a few Gentelmen with ſome Philology, for which four colledges might ſerve in ſtead of 34. If he ſaith, Such a command were not lawful, nor could lawfully be complied with, We would underſtand the Reaſon why, All miniſters might not in this caſe lawfully obey? Certainly it muſt be, becauſe in doing this, They should contrary to the Apoſtolical command, Neglect the gift that is in them, or not ſtir it up, nor rightly divide the word of God: inſtead of shewing themſelves workmen that need not be ashamed, they should shew themſelves no workmen at all. If ſuch a thing might not be lawfully commanded what can be the reaſon, but, Becauſe man who hath no power but what he deriveth from God, can have no power to ſuppreſs and ſmother thoſe miniſterial gifts with which the moſt wiſe God hath immediately furnished his miniſters with as means in order to their miniſterial acts, and by their having, or not having of which the Church muſt judge, whether God hath called, or not called them to the miniſtry? We do here allow our ſuperiours both in church and ſtate a great power.

1 In regard that he who deſires that office, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , deſires a noble work, and that a Bishop as the Apoſtle ſaith, should be blameleſs, &c. apt to teach, 1 Tim. 3. 1, 2, 3. Holding the myſtery of faith in a pure conſcience, v. 9. and therefore, v. 10. He muſt be firſt proved. We ſay the church is to prove them, whether they be indeed ſent of God, or meerly thruſt on by their deſire of gain, or love of preheminence? And in this judgment we ſay, The church acteth in the place of God: and we do think the Chriſtian Magiſtrate may appoint ſome of the church to do this work. 2 In regard all men are fallible, and thoſe entruſted with this Judgment, may be miſtaken in their judgment, and find that the perſons they have ſent our are not what they took them for, but blameable perſons, lazy, covetous, unfit to teach, winebibers, ſtrikers, men of ill report, unſound in the faith: we do allow a judgment to the church in caſe any be found ſuch, to ſay to Archippus, Take heed to thy miniſtry, to admonish them, to remove them: and we ſay the Magiſtrate may command this from the church: but ſtill allowing them men fit for their ſtations; We ſay, None can hinder them in the uſe of their gifts, though they may be reſtrained in, and reproved for the abuſe, or diſorderly uſe of them. For what the ſuperiour doth, he doth vice Dei, in the place of God, and God having given his miniſters, gifts as means in order to this work, cannot be preſumed to will the omiſſion of them, whence it muſt follow, That the commands of the church in ſuch a caſe are contrary to the will of God, and to be ſuperſeded by, It is better to obey God then man. The ſame reaſon holds againſt forms of prayer to be impoſed upon all miniſters; yet certainly forms of Preaching are as neceſſary, 1 For Ʋniformity. 2 To prevent Hereſy. 3 For people to know, and deliberate beforehand what they should give their aſſent unto; which are the great arguments for forms of Prayer, to which we shall hereafter ſpeak particularly.

§. 7 Mr. Freeman aſſumeth in the third place, what is falſe, viz. That we are continually to pray for the ſame things. Certainly we have neither the ſame ſins at all times to confeſs, nor the ſame wants at all times to begg a ſupply of, nor the ſame receipts of mercy at all times to give thanks for; and therefore forms of prayer will no more fit us then forms of preaching; where neither have we any new goſpel, or doctrine to preach. Witneſs that known Ipſwich ſtory, Where an eminent ſon of the church, not being able out of the Liturgy to fit the caſe of the man that was goared by an Ox with a thanks giving was put to it to read, in his caſe, The office for churching women. We muſt profeſs we tremble at the force of the conſequence of this Argument, ſo horrid a thing do we look upon it to eſtablish a power in man at his pleaſure to ſmother, and totally to ſuppreſs miniſterial gifts, The great means which God hath thought fit immediately to give, and by his word to appoint for converting, and perfecting ſouls, and make them wholly uſeleſs, That we ſtand amazed, that any underſtanding Chriſtian should agree to it.

§. 8 But we hear ſome ſaying, That they do not agree to any ſuch power, though they think, they▪ shall not ſin in obeying ſuch a command: yet they think the ſuperior ſinneth in commanding. To which we anſwer, We muſt grant that there are many things which the ſuperiour cannot command, but he muſt ſin; yet the people may without ſin obey, if they be commanded. And in requital to us for this conceſſion, we are ſure the moſt wiſe and ſober of our brethren will grant to us, That there are thouſands of other things which can neither lawfully be commanded, nor obeyed if commanded. The queſtion is in which order of things, The ordinary diſcharge of our Miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed forms of others is? Or whether in neither of them: but ſuch as may both be univerſally commanded & alſo uſed? Our Brethren (we believe judge the laſt) but for advantage againſt us, Suppoſe them in the firſt order, we think them in the Second order, Becauſe Prayer is a divine inſtitution Praying and Preaching are both ſo, and great means in order to the converſion, edification, and eternal ſalvation of ſouls: and that in order to both of them, God hath furnished his miniſters with gifts. Man ſaith, you shall not uſe that means, but another mean in the performance of thoſe acts which I judge more accommodate to this end then your own gift. To ſay no more, Thoſe who think, That obedience in this caſe is not a diſobedience to God, ſeem not to have that Reverence for God, which we deſire that our ſouls may be poſſeſſed of to judge his wiſdom paramount to the wiſdom of men.

§. 9 When we could relieve our ſelves by thinking, But there is yet no ſuch thing required of us, or ordinarily to perform our miniſterial acts in preaching, by reading ſermons made to our hands, We find we cannot: becauſe our conſciences tell us we grant the Principle, That it may be done, and if commanded we are obliged no more to diſpute ſuch command, In granting man a power to ſuppreſs, or ſmother one miniſterial gift, we yeild him a power for him to impoſe upon us as to the other, and oblige our ſelves to obey. We muſt profeſs, let others think what they pleaſe, we cannot but judge, That thoſe who can ſwallow this and ſtumble at a Ceremony, do but ſtrain at a gnat, while unwarily they ſwallow a camel. This is more to us, then a thouſand ſurplices, or rings in marriages. But we have ſaid enough to eſtablish this argument, which we cannot find any where anſwered in the All-ſatisfying Mr. Hooker.

CHAP. VII.

The Sixth Argument Stated and Juſtifyed, Whether the precept for miniſterial Vocal prayer, includes not the uſe of our own gifts? The precept for preaching ordinarily ſo interpreted, There is in all languages a difference betwixt the words that ſignify to Read, and thoſe by which the Action of Prayer is expreſt.

§. 1 WE proceed to a Sixth Argument which we thus form,

To pretend to perform an act of Divine worship, and at the ſame time not to do it, is ſinful:

But for miniſters furnished by God with the gift of prayer to perform their miniſterial Acts in prayer, by the preſcribed forms of others, is to pretend to the performance of an act of Divine worship, and at the ſame time not to do it; Ergo.

The propoſition will be granted, by all who will be ſo juſt as to acknowledge, It is ſinful both to mock God, and to deceive our own ſouls, ſo as all we have to prove, is the Aſſumption, and that depends upon the reſolution of this ſingle queſtion.

Whether the Precepts for Vocal miniſterial prayer, doth not imply the firſt forming of the petitions in our hearts, which we utter with our lips.

Where we deſire our Reader to obſerve, That the queſtion is not about the precept for Prayer in the general, but about Vocal prayer, when we are to expreſs the deſires of our hearts by the words of our lips, ſuch is all Miniſterial prayer. The caſe is quite otherwiſe when we onely pray, but do not miniſter in prayer. We know Hannah may pray, and her voice not be heard: but we alſo know, That a miniſter in his publick miniſtry muſt not ſo pray (as we hope all will grant) Now we profeſs we do very much incline to the affirmative part of the queſtion, That is, we think, whereſoever God hath commanded his miniſters in their Publick miniſtry to pray, The meaning is, That they should firſt in their own hearts form ſuch petitions as they judge according to the will of God, both on their own behalf and their peoples, and then to expreſs ſuch conceptions and deſires by their own words: and we are induced thus to judge from theſe reaſons.

§. 2 The whole world almoſt (the Chriſtian world we mean) thus interpreteth for Preaching. No ſober Divine (that ever we met with) ever ſaid that a miniſter of the goſpel could diſcharge his miniſterial office in preaching (no not in one Individual Act) by reading or reciting another mans ſermon. Mr. Perkins & Dr. Amer (two of our Proteſtant Caſuiſts) determin the quite contrary, and tell us, That, To Read or recite another mans ſermon is not to preach, and therefore a late hypercritical ſon of the church took himſelf concerned (in a book printed ſome few years ſince) to diſtinguish between Preaching, and Teaching: and took upon him to learn us a new leſſon, That a Miniſter is not bound to Preach but to Teach. And that (if we may believe him) he may do, By reading anothers Sermon, or good book, By writing a good book, By ſetting another to teach, By living a good life, &c. But none we know off ever affirmed, That to read or recite another mans Sermon was a lawful diſcharge of the miniſters duty in Preaching. What is the reaſon? Becauſe he who doth not exerciſe his own gift in inventing and compoſing. Chriſt hath bid us, Go Preach. What then is the meaning of that? Have not all Divines agreed to interpret it thus? Go ſtir up the gift that is in you, Give your ſelves to the ſtudy of the holy Scriptures, and to Meditation. Compoſe diſcourſes of Chriſt and Goſpel-doctrines, then communicate them by your voice to people; opening to them the ſenſe of the Scriptures, applying the will of God reveiled in them to the conſciences of all, dividing the word of God aright, that you may shew your ſelves workmen that need not be ashamed. Chriſt hath alſo bid us Pray, his great Apoſtle hath commanded, That ſupplications, prayers, interceſſions and givingthanks be made for all men. How come we to interpret this thus? Go read a form or forms of words which other men have made for you. We do not ſo interpret Go preach. It is true (as we hinted before) there is a praying in the Spirit, which ſome who have no mind to conſider the force of an argument may object to us; but we are ſpeaking of Vocal miniſterial prayer, and what is the will of God in commands which relate to that ſpecies of prayer: Such prayer alone he can uſe, who in that duty miniſtreth unto others; and every one will grant, That there is ſuch a duty. A whole Congregation muſt not pray in the Spirit onely, without any voice heard. The Queſtion is, Whether he who in prayer miniſtreth to others, more fulfilleth the precept of God, concerning miniſterial prayer; then he who readeth, or reciteth onely other mens Sermons fulfilleth the precept concerning Preaching? We think not.

§. 3 It is yet a farther queſtion, If he onely readeth ſuch prayers, Becauſe the words uſed in Scripture in all languages to expreſs reading, are quite other from thoſe uſed to expreſs our duty in praying, and the action of Reading, and praying are quite differently expreſſed to us? Thoſe who know any thing know, That the Hebrews had a great ſcarcity of words, the Radical words in their language, hardly bearing the proportion of a fifth part to thoſe in Greek or Latine: So as they are forced to make uſe of the ſame words to ſignify ſometimes quite contrary actions: Ordinarily, to ſignify diverſe actions if they have but the leaſt cognation each to other. So that it is not ſo eaſy to argue from the old Teſtament upon this Topick. Yet we cannot but obſerve that the words uſed, Hoſ. 14. 2. Joel 2. 17. is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . We will not be too confident of it, but we are not aware of any text in the old Teſtament, where it ſignifieth that kind of ſpeech which is but the recitation or repetition of words formed by others. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indeed which is generally uſed to expreſs Reading, when it is joined with [upon the Lord] or [upon the name of the Lord] doth ſometimes ſignify the action of prayer. As it never ſignifys to read without the addition of, The book of the law, or the law, or ſome ſuch ſubſtantive following it. Both Pagnine and Buxtorf ſay, it properly ſignifyes, Clamare voce ſignificativâ verbis expreſſis & conceptis; But as we before ſaid, the execeding penury of words in that language makes it hard to eſtablish an argument from proper and ſignificant words in it. In the Greek the caſe is much plainer, The precepts for prayer are every where expreſſed there, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. never by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the proper word uſed to ſignify reading. In short, Speaking may be conceived by us as a Generical term, and is either Mental, or Vocal. The firſt we call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Second 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a ſpeaking to the capacity, and underſtanding, or ſenſe at leaſt of others, ſo as they may know what we ſay. And this again is twofold. 1 The one is, The re-forming of words which others have firſt conceived in their minds, and committed to writing for us, or which they dictate to us. If they be written down or printed for us, and we recite them, looking upon the characters in the books, This we call Reading. Criticks tell us, That Legere, eſt oculis ſcripta percurere, quoniam literae oculis legi, id eſt, collegi videntur. This cannot be done without the help of our eyes, which gathering up the letters, makes a repreſentation of them to our underſtandings, This action the Greeks expreſs by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Or elſe we Reform words conceived by others and dictated to us, our ears there gathering up the ſounds of them. This in English we call Reciting, or Repeating. The Latines Recitare, Repetere, from re and cito, or re & Peto. 2 There is a ſpeaking which is the forming of words, which we have firſt formed and our ſelves conceived in our own hearts. Neither Legere, nor repetere, nor recitare in Latine. Nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, are expreſſive of this action. Every one would deride him; that being to expreſs the action of him who made an argument, or pronounced an Oration, should either in Greek ſay, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or in Latine Legit orationem. The words expreſs Actions ſpecifically diſtinct, ſo as though we lay a greater ſtreſs upon our arguments before mentioned then upon t is, yet we cannot think this altogether vain and impertinent; we cannot but make a great queſtion, Whether if we should think to fulfil the command of God for our duty in Vocal and miniſterial prayer, by a reading forms, ready compoſed for us: we should not come short of what God requires of us in the action, and ſo both mock God and deceive our own ſouls? we can find neither precept nor preſident for ſuch praying.

CHAP. VIII.

The Seventh Argument from the tendency of the principle to level the ſacred office of the miniſtry to the capacity of the meaneſt of the people ſtated, & proved. The laſt, from the Ʋnbleſt effects of forms univerſally impoſed, Three bitter effects, or conſequents inſtanced in, proved from experience and Reaſon. The concluſion of the Arguments againſt the lawfulneſs of preſcribed forms, to be univerſally impoſed or uſed.

§. 1 WE proceed to a Seventh Argument,

That principle, which levelleth the performances 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, levelleth the performances of the great and ſacred office of the miniſtry to the capacity of the meaneſt of the people; Ergo. That Principle is not true.

The propoſition doth but preſume the truth of this, That God would never have erected an office or order of perſons in his church to do onely that which the meaneſt perſon in the church had a natural ability or power to do. There is nothing plainer in the whole book of God, then that God hath eſtablished a peculiar order of perſons to be his miniſters, in his name to declare his will unto his people; and on their behalf to intercede with God in prayer: Now if they may do the one by forms of ſermons made for them, and the other by forms of prayer alſo made for them, This is no more then the meaneſt of their people could do as well as they: it requireth no extraordinary knowledge in the Scriptures, no ſtudy and meditation, &c. The miniſter of the goſpel would onely ſtand diſtinguished from the people by impoſition of hands upon him. He would have nothing to do but what any one might do, ſuppoſing him under the ſame circumſtances of ordination. The Apoſtle Paul needed onely have given Timothy a charge to have found out faithful men: for ſuch as should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , able, they were eaſy enough to find if this were all the ability requiſite. Now we cannot entertain any ſuch thoughts of God, eſpecially conſidering, how much care he hath taken in his word, For a double honour for ſuch as labour in the word and Doctrine; which Divines do interpret of Reverence, and Honour, and Maintenance: And if that be not the ſenſe of that phraſe, yet we are ſure that both of them are by many other Scriptures required for the miniſters of the goſpel. Suppoſing this were lawful, there were no great reaſon for either. 1 Not for any peculiar maintenance, it were but ordaining ſo many of the people, and that charge might be ſaved: Beſides the reaſonableneſs of maintenance, depends very much upon their ſeparation from worldly buſineſſes that they might ſtudy, and attend to their office, and be fit for their work; but none of this were needful, if the great acts of their miniſterial office might be ſo diſcharged. 2 For Honour and Reverence, God that knoweth our frame, knew it would be hard to gain of the world a reverence for thoſe, whom people should onely ſee their ſuperiors in a notion, or by an inoperative character. We therefore obſerve that God himſelf, when hee called any to a place of publick employment, conſtantly capacitated them to ſome farther noble and powerful actions, then others could do; or ſet upon them ſome ſpecial ſenſible marks of his favour, by which rationally an honour, and reverence was gained for them. Moſes is called up to the mount, his face shineth ſo as they were not able to look upon him. Moſes and Aaron are empowred to do miracles. So alſo the Prophets, and the latter to ſoretel future contingencies. The Apoſtles work miracles, ſpeak with tongues, &c. and though theſe extraordinary miraculous operations be ceaſed, which were at firſt to give the goſpel credit in the world: yet he ſtill gives gifts unto men, and that which gains a reverence for miniſters is, when people ſee them, in gifts and graces, higher by the shoulders then themſelves. There is nothing of ſuch efficacy to deſtroy the miniſtry, and to make the officers and offerings to be a contempt; as to let the people ſee or to induce them to believe, that they are no other then what the meaneſt of them could offer. And of this every day giveth ſuch an ample experience, That it were idle for us to ſpend many words in the proof of it. But this would follow, viz. That God hath erected a ſort of officers, to do that which the meaneſt people might do as will as they; if it be lawful ordinarily to perform miniſterial acts in Prayer and preaching by the preſcribed forms of others: for ſetting aſide the application of thoſe general acts, there is nothing in the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, but any one may do who hath hands and a tongue. This makes it very probable to us, That this principle is falſe, and that it is not lawful, &c.

§. 2 It were an eaſy thing to multiply arguments, but we shall onely inſtance in one thing more, and that is thoſe unbleſt effects, which are matters of demonſtration to us. We hope the Argument will not be judged improper, both becauſe our Saviour hath learned us the Topick, and moſt of the Arguments brought for ſuch forms are beholding to this Topick. Beſides that we ſay in Logick, Talis cauſa qualis effectus, which it true, where the effects are natural and any way neceſſary. Yea, or ordinary. But our Saviour hath taught us to conclude what the tree is from the fruits. Math. 7 Let us therefore inſtance in ſome too evident effects of forms of prayer univerſally impoſed, and to be ordinarily uſed by miniſters.

1 The Firſt is, The filling of the church of God with an ignorant, lazy, and ſottish miniſtry. This we confeſs is no neceſſary conſequent. A miniſter may be a diligent, painful, holy man that yet in his miniſterial prayer, may think fit to uſe the preſcribed forms of others. Bleſſed be God we have had, and have very many that are ſo. Far be it from us, either to ſay or think otherwiſe. But we ſay, That the eſtablishing this for univerſal uſe, opens a door for ſuch perſons to enter in, and as a deluge overflow the Church. And while ſuch a door is open, it is not to be expected but they will enter in, and it is evident many ſuch have ordinarily entred in. Experience tells us, That conſcience is not enough in all to oblige them to their duty, nay, That the very beſt of men had need of all the obligations that can be laid upon them, over and above the bare obligation of conſcience ariſing from the force of the Divine precept. We have before ſaid, That forms of ſermons may every whit as lawfully be impoſed, as forms of prayer. Suppoſing both, we would fain know, why a miniſter may not neglect the uſe, or ſtirring up of his own gifts, improving his mind by ſtudy and meditation? nay, if his own luſts ſo incline him, why he may not ſpend the whole week at an alehouſe, and be ready too for his work on the Lords day? He will have no ty upon him to take more pains in his ſtudy, and meditations from the work he hath to do: nor from any honour in doing of it well, his work (if it be meerly to read firſt Prayers, then an Homily) needs no preliminary pains, and may be done as laudably ex tempore, as upon the longeſt premeditation: Whereas if every one were obliged to pray, and preach conſtantly in perſon, and in the excerciſe of their own gifts, men would have an obligation upon them to ſtudy, & to meditate, and to give up themſelves to their proper work, and would not find ſo much leiſure for markets, and taverns and coffee-houſes. Or were forms of prayer onely recommended and left to liberty, men would have ſome obligation upon them from honour and repute to Take heed to their miniſtry. Beſides the Teſt of miniſters upon ordination would be proportionable, none would be admitted to that ſacred office, but ſuch of whoſe abilities, both for praying and preaching, a trial would be firſt made, and thoſe fitter for any other employments, would (and that juſtly) be remitted to the proſecution of them: whereas indeed there is no reaſon for ſuch a ſcrutiny, if according to the Doctrine of one whom we knew (but wonder how he raiſed it from his text) That Reading is Preaching and Teaching; he should have added praying too, A very ordinary Ordinary may judge, An legat ut clericus? But this is but the firſt ill effect we thought reaſonable to inſtance in.

§. 3 A Second (of no whit inferior evil conſequence) is, The loſs of miniſterial gifts and abilities as to perſons that miniſter.

That this de facto is, and hath proved the effect of forms, is paſt all denial; from a Clericus cum libro, came a clericus absque libro non valet ova duo. Multitudes of inſtances of this nature are and have been, we have known ſome of us perſons of honour and quality, by this very thing brought out of love with preſcribed forms, ſending for one after another in a ſickneſs, and finding them not able to pray with them, beyond the office for viſitation of the ſick, and the Litany.

§. 4 Thus is that Scripture fulfilled, Math. 25. 29. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance, but from him that hath not shall be taken away, even that which he hath.

To every one that hath, i. e. That hath for his Maſters uſe. That hath and uſeth them for his Maſters ſervice, and honour in the Acts for the performance of which his Maſter hath given them to him: To him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance, His gifts shall improve, and grow more, and more: But from him that hath gifts (as the man in that parable had his maſters talent) ſo as to have them not for his maſters uſe, i. e. ſo as not to uſe them in his maſters ſervice, for the performance of thoſe acts to capacitate him for the performance of which his maſter hath given them: even that which he hath shall be taken away; he shall looſe his parts, and gifts.

§. 5 Nor is this more then the providence of God doth ordinarily make the punishment of the not uſing any habits, either wholly acquired, or (though founded in nature) yet improved by ſtudy, and practice whether of more or leſs Spiritual tendency. Every days experience teacheth us it, The preſerving almoſt of any gift, or faculty depending upon the uſe and exerciſe of it. A knowledge and skill in writing, or ſpeaking any language, or in the practice of any art whether liberal, or mechanick, is in a few years loſt by diſuſe of practice. So as it is not at all to be wondred at, that there should be the ſame effect of a diſuſe of a Spiritual gift, which we naturally do not ſo much delight in, as in ſuch which are of a more ſecular uſe, and afford us more ſenſible profit, and pleaſure.

§. 6 We do know, That a conſtant exerciſe of the gift of prayer, though it be but in our families, will preſerve the gift in a great meaſure. We ſay in a great meaſure, for wholly it will not, we frequently ſee, That the miniſter who can with great freedom preach to a few in a country-church, is not able to do ſo in a great, or learned auditory; through a diffidence, and diſtruſt in himſelf. And we believe the ſame of a miniſter that is conſciencious to uſe his own gifts to pray twice a day in his family, if he wholly omits the like performance in a congregation, and tieth up himſelf to a form, we much queſtion, whether after ſome few years, he would be able, if he ſet himſelf to it to pray otherwiſe then by a form in the Congregation, we ſee he that hath uſed himſelf to notes cannot preach without them, how able ſoever he be.

§. 7 We do with all humble thankfulneſs to God, and due honour to the perſons acknowledge, That very many of our brethren in the miniſtry who do conform, have not felt this ill effect of their uſe of forms, but are able to pray pro re natâ, as God offers them occaſions, and that to great acceptation, and with eminent abilities. But as the number of theſe comparatively is very few, ſo we believe that both they, and we are for this preſervation of thoſe eminent gifts, beholding, not onely to their conſtant praying. without preſcribed forms in their families: But alſo to that liberty of praying by conceived prayer before and after ſermon, which they have aſſumed, and do aſſume a liberty no more then indulged to them, The ſtatute-law alloweth it not. It is ſufficiently known, That diverſe late Bishops. (Who may be preſumed to have known the law both of church and ſtate) ſeverely forbad it, ſuſpended diverſe for the uſe of it. And we do believe, that even to theſe of our brethren who yet by this means preſerve their emeninent gifts, Seven years experience of tying themſelves to preſcribed forms in the pulpit, as well as in the desk, would juſtify what we ſay: and that at the end of them, they would find a decay at leaſt of thoſe gifts, though all this while nurſed up by a more private practice in their families. Ability to the publick exerciſe of miniſterial gifts will (like ſome creatures) hardly be kept alive in a confinement to the walls of a private houſe.

§. 8 Beſides that (as we before proved) granting the lawfulneſs of theſe commands as to, and miniſters practice in publick prayer, and the liberty of uſing miniſters gifts at all in publick prayer, may at any time be knockt down by the ſame cudgel. And for the liberty of uſing gifts in private Domeſtickprayer, it will not be able with any modeſty to ask farther favour then that of Polyphemus, to be devoured laſt: it will but wait for ſuch a command, as is now with reference to Desk-prayer, and hath been lately throughout ſome dioceſſes preſſed as to all publick Pulpit-prayer, and as we heard before paſſionatly wished, That it might be revived, and urged (for they thought there is already a warrant by law though dormant for it) and then certainly, all miniſterial gifts would quickly ſleep their laſt ſleep.

§. 9 Beſides this, How many are there, while publick preſcribed forms are impoſed, who will magnify them, they muſt be the very ſword of Goliah none to them. And this muſt be taken defide, as matter of faith; becauſe the church commands them without examining either the comprehenſiveneſs of the matter, or the decency of the form, or the dueneſs of the connexion of phraſes, or the ſafety of any expreſſions, or the fitneſs of their fashion to the preſent age to excite affections: and while they do ſo, they will think, and do think uſing their gifts in their families, while they have a publickbook in the houſe, like offering a female, while they have a male in their flock: and accordingly in hundreds of miniſters families there is nothing heard, but the Prayers of the Church; or if any thing, It muſt be a form, Conceived-prayers are defamed, the others have all the repute, and hence it is, That though indeed the loſs of miniſterial gifts be not an univerſal, and neceſſary effect of miniſters limiting themſelves by preſcribed forms in ſome parts of publick worship: yet it is a certain effect as to very many, and is like enough to be as to many more, as that practice shall gain more repute and authority. But we shall add no more to our diſcourſe upon this ſecond effect.

§. 10 A third if not natural effect, yet, experimented conſequence of them (and that of a very ſad and melancholick conſideration) is a floud of iniquity which the univerſal impoſing of them hath, for more now then an hundred years cauſed in our parts of the world. This, This hath been the mother of thoſe bitter words, with which many, (and thoſe miniſters of the goſpel) both in pulpits, and in printed books, have vexed the righteous ſouls of their brethren, who have had nothing to reply, but, The Lord rebuke you. Hence the uncharitable and ungodly repreſentations to ſuperiours of men, of whom the world was not worthy. Hence the ſuſpenſions, and ſilencings of ſo many thouſands; the impriſonments and ruins of ſo many eminent ſervants of God, with their families: which have cauſed ſo many appeals to the great day, and hath made ſo many thouſand caſes depending before the great tribunal betwixt poor miniſters, and their families, and their Eccieſiaſtical ſuperiours. Hence the ſeparations of Chriſtians in communion one from another. Upon this moſt be charged, and at laſt come moſt of the ſuſpenſions, ſilencings, impriſonments, revilings, ſufferings of all ſorts of the righteous ſervants of God even, from the firſt diſturbance upon that account made at Franckfort by Dr. Cox, (hunting out Mr. Knox) unto this very day: which (with a thouſand evills more which we forbear to mention) had been all prevented, if Dr. Cox his Spirit, and ſome others of his age could have allowed, The miniſters of God to have ſerved him in the uſe of their own gifts: or at leaſt allowed, That a puhlick Liturgy should have been by authority propoſed, and commended, but left at liberty. We will not ſay but many of our forefathers, and brethren, may by their paſſions have increaſed the heap of theſe ſins, we know they have, and excuſe them not unleſs it be a Tanto. Zipporah, (under her circumſtances) might be a little excuſed, though she threw the foreskin of the child at her husband, and ſaid, A bloudly husband haſt thou been to me.

§. 11 We ſay, That we reflecting upon theſe bitter effects, and conſequents, which are obvious to every eye, cannot but think it very probable, That a ſubmiſſion to this practice is not lawful, but the principle falſe, which muſt juſtify our ſuch ſubmiſſion, viz. That it is lawful for us being miniſters of the goſpel, who durſt never have entred upon the ſacred office of the miniſtry if we had not hoped, and the church had not firſt judged, That we were furnished with abilities both to pray and preach, to perform our miniſterial acts in prayer, by reading or reciting forms preſcribed by others. We cannot but ſay, ſurely if this thing had been pleaſing in the ſight of God, if our Brethren that for theſe many years have done it, had in it done what God would have had them do, we should not have ſeen ſuch effects and conſequents of it; and thoſe ſo far from abating in this long proceſs of time, that we ſee them every day more and more increaſing. How be it, in this thing we are far from judging our ſelves infallible, and therefore do not condemn our brethren, nor judge them who are otherwiſe minded to us in this caſe. But pray God, That if we be in the miſtake, God would reveil it to us. But as we from our hearts believe, ſo we ſpeak, ſo we muſt practice: and beg no more then a liberty for us ſo to do, leaving our Brethren to the latitude of their own conſciences. If we have ſaid enough to evince to the world, we are not ſuch fools, or ſons of Belial, as Dr. Parker, Dr. Ashton and many more in their printed diſcourſes would perſuade our ſuperiors we be; and as we are daily repreſented from inconſiderate tongues of them that have the ſole priviledge of publick-pulpits, tis all we aim at. And whether we have done that or no? We freely leave to the judgment of all ſober, intelligent and unprejudiced perſons. It will be time enough, when we are convinced by our adverſaries, or it be proved by them to the world, That theſe arguments are of no force. To examin whether we have not alſo probable arguments to perſuade us, That the uſe of ſignificant ceremonies, Reordination, &c. is not lawful. We shall shut up our mouths, and our diſcourſe at preſent with conſidering in a ſingle chapter, what our Brethrens arguments are for the lawfulneſs, or expediency of ſuch preſcribed forms to be univerſally impoſed or uſed, where we shall have liberty to weigh what contrary good effects of them are pretended: And whether they will ballance theſe evil effects and conſequents which we have mentioned?

CHAP. IX.

Several Arguments anſwered brought to prove the lawfulneſs of ſet forms by ſeveral Authors. Ireneus Freemans and Mr. Falconers reaſons for the lawfulneſs or expediency of them conſidered, and anſwered.

§. 1 BEfore we come to reply to the Arguments alledged againſt our opinion in this caſe, we shall onely deſire our Reader to conſider, That all that which our Brethren labour for, is but to prove the thing in diſpute betwixt us, may lawfully be commanded, They do not ſo much as pretend it neceſſary. This is all the Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica pretendeth to, or indeed any other who hath wrote ought worthy of our notice.

§. 2 But to make our work the shorter in anſwering objections, let us admonish our Reader wiſtly to conſider, That the matter in queſtion which was to be proved is this.

That it is lawful for miniſters of the goſpel, furnished with the gifts of prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in publick prayer by the preſcribed forms fothers, and thoſe ſuch, as cannot pretend to any immediate Divine Inſpiration.

§. 3 To this purpoſe they thus argue,

What God hath not forbidden is lawful:

But God hath not forbidden this to miniſters; Ergo.

This is an old ſouldier of the churches, and hath fought many a field, yea, never was there a Battel fought between a Con. and Noncon. but this commanding Argument appeared. It hath been wounded, and had its head cut off oftner then ever Hydra's was by Hercules; but how it comes to paſs we know it not, like that monſter, it puts up its head again in the next pulpit, or preſs. Let us once more try a fall with it.

What God hath not forbidden is lawful.

True, what God hath not forbidden either Generally or particularly, either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 literally, or by direct conſequence of Scripture, is lawful: But if our Brethren by Forbidden mean, Particularly, and Expreſly forbidden, or Literally forbidden, and lay the Propoſition thus,

Whatſoever is not in the letter of Scripture, particularly and by name forbidden, that is lawful. Our Brethren will we truſt give us leave to deny the Propoſition; becauſe they agree with us in determining a hundred things to be ſinful, and ſome of them in a moſt heinous degree ſinful that are not particularly, and by name forbidden onely as they fall as Specials under ſome other Generals, or by a firſt, and juſt conſequence: If they ſo underſtand the Major, we do think, That miniſters are in Gods word forbidden plainly enough forbidden, having abilities to expreſs their own and their peoples minds to God in publick prayers, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in prayer, by onely reading, or reciting forms of prayer compoſed by others, being no Gods, nor by any plain deſignation of God appointed to compoſe ſuch forms for the uſe of the church. Forbidden. 1 By the ſecond commandment, as a mean of worship not inſtituted by God. 2 Forbidden by all thoſe texts mentioned in juſtification of our firſt argument commanding us, To ſtir up, not to neglect our miniſterial gifts, but as every man hath received the gift ſo to miniſter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it, &c. 3 Forbidden by all thoſe texts that command us to worship God in the beſt manner we can, with all our hearts, all our ſouls, all our ſtrength; not having a male in our flocks to offer a female. 4 Forbidden by all thoſe texts that require of us in prayer the higheſt attention of thoughts, intention of mind and fervor of affections. All which we have before juſtified under our five firſt arguments: ſo as in short, we deny the Minor in that firſt Argument, and if all do not think it forbidden in this manner, yet we do, and our conſciences muſt be the proximate rule of our actions: ſo as it is at leaſt to us forbidden from Rom. 14. 23.

§. 4 They object in the ſecond place the form of Bleſſing, Num. 6. The forms of Pſalms compoſed by David, The Lords prayer. The Argument is thus, If it were lawful for Chriſts diſciples to uſe the Lords prayer, and for the church to uſe the form of bleſſing directed by God himſelf, Num. 6. And for the church in Davids time, to uſe his forms of Pſalms: Then it is lawful now for miniſters having the gift of 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 Prayer ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in Prayer, by the forms preſcribed not immediately by God, but by men, and thoſe no prophets, nor perſons divinely inſpired, &c.

But the former was lawful, therefore the latter is alſo lawful. We deny the conſequence, not onely becauſe we do not think, That God ever intended the form of bleſſing ſhould ſyllabically be uſed ſo often as the Prieſt bleſſed the people; but onely, That the name of the Lord to that ſenſe should be lifted up upon them Nor that Chriſt ever intended to enjoin his diſciples the ſyllabical-uſe of the Lords prayer. Nor do we read, That either the former bleſſing, nor the latter Prayer was ſo ordinarily uſed: But we find diverſe forms both of prayer, and bleſſing uſed. But alſo, Becauſe we think no man hath ſuch authority now to preſcribe in matters of worship as God, and Chriſt unqueſtionably had; or as David, and other holy Penmen of Scripture had. Which this argument muſt ſuppoſe, or the conſequence muſt be falſe. But we have ſpoke to this fully before.

§. 5 A third Argument is this,

What is matter of meer decency, order, and circumſtance in the worship of God, may be lawfully commanded by Superiours, and lawfully obeyed by Inferiours:

But this is matter of meer decency, order, and circumſtance▪ Ergo.

We deny the Minor, order is not concerned in it, that onely reſpecteth prius & poſterius; firſt and laſt. Nothing can be decent but the contrary muſt be indecent, there is no medium participationis in the caſe. No ſober perſon will ſay, it is indecent for miniſters having the gift of prayer to pray without the preſcribed forms of others, Circumſtances relate to actions as humane actions, but the preſcribed forms of others in prayer, have no ſuch relation to prayer, it may be performed without them. They muſt be therefore (if at all circumſtances) appropriated to the action quatenus a religious action, and no ſuch circumſtances we conceive are left to mens liberty to determin, being properly Ceremonies, or religious rites, which in them have ſomething of homage to God.

§. 6 A Fourth Objection, or Argument is this,

If all the eſſentials to prayer may be found or obſerved in the preſcribed forms of others, Then the miniſter may in his publick miniſtry uſe them:

But all the eſſentials to prayer may be found, and obſerved in the uſe of the preſcribed forms of others.

To juſtify this, ſome tell us, That matter and form are the onely eſſentials to prayer. Others tell us, Due affections and grace may be equally exerciſed in praying by a form. To which we anſwer, That Prayer may be conſidered either in Facto eſſe, as a compoſition of words and phraſes: ſo indeed, The eſſentials are the ſame as of all other compounded things, Matter and Form. The due matter of prayer is, Things agreable to the will of God: The form in the name of Jeſus Chriſt. We moſt freely grant, That both theſe may be found in a form compoſed and preſcribed by men. What follows? Therefore this form is a good form, and it may be uſed. It is granted, it may lawfully be read for inſtruction by the beſt; it may be uſed as an help for children, or men that have not yet attained the gift of prayer, All this is true. But we are conſidering Prayer not in this notion, but as an human Action; and ſay, That a religous action a piece of homage and worship which his miniſter in the Congregation puts up to him, To this action, It is eſſentially neceſſary, not onely that he confeſſeth ſins, putteth up petitions, &c. according to the will of God, and that with a ſutable exerciſe of Grace, and Sanctified affections, but that. 1 He uſeth an audible voice, and this all will grant. 2 Say we, that if he hath them, he uſeth his own gifts; not other mens. He thus underſtands his Lord ſaying to him, Go and preach, why should he otherwiſe interpret him, ſaying to him, Go and pray? When he hath bidden him miniſter his gifts 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and according to the Grace given, ſo to miniſter. Rom. 12. Beſides we have declared both our judgments as that, and our reaſons why we ſo judge, That he who prayeth by reading or reciting the preſcribed forms of others, cannot pray with the ſame Attention, Intention and fervour, eſſentiall things to acceptable prayer.

§. 7 But then (ſaith a Reverend perſon) for a child, or ſcholar to uſe a form which is preſcribed by his Father, or Maſter would be unlawful. Let us turn it into a form.

What is not unlawful for a child, or ſcholar (we will add to advantage the argument, or ſave our ſelves labour of more words) or a private perſon, that hath not attained to the gift of prayer, or ſuch whom the church is enforced to uſe in publick miniſtrations for want of perſons better qualified to do in prayer, That is not unlawful for miniſters to do ordinarily, to whom God hath given the gift:

But to pray by the preſcribed forms of others ordinarily, in private or publick, is not unlawful for children, or grown perſons, or ſuch miniſters; Ergo.

The Aſſumption is granted, but the Propoſition is unqueſtionably falſe, ſincerity is accepted, not according to what a man hath not, but according to what he hath. We do believe many an honeſt hearted miniſter in the beginning of reformation, who never preached, nor yet was able to do it, was accepted of God in reading good Homilies: But we do not think, That any who were able to preach otherwiſe was alſo accepted. We truſt, He that hath ten talents muſt improve them all, though it had been enough for him that had but one, if he had not laid it up in a napkin, but improved that for his maſters glory, and advantage. This Argument therefore onely proveth, That forms of prayer are not in themſelves unlawful to be uſed, not that they may not be ſo to ſome perſons whoſe circumſtances vary. Our queſtion is onely about Miniſters to whom God hath given the gift, or who onely want it through their own default or negligence.

§. 8 But Sixthly, A great Doctor (and that in a publick Sermon, as well as diverſe others in their printed diſcourſes) tell us, That there is a command for Preſcribed forms of prayer to be uſed in the church under the goſpel. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Cor. 10. 13. A text urged (weakly enough) by the author of the book called Pulpit conceptions, Popular deceptions, and Mr. Falconer, p. 109. tells us.

That many have thought that the Apoſtle had a ſpecial eye to the compoſure of ſuch forms of prayer, agreable to what the Baptiſt, and our Saviour preſcribed to their diſciples, in commanding Timothy the Governour of the church, That amongſt the things which concerned his behaviour in the church of God, Ch. 3. 15. Firſt of all prayers, interceſſions, ſupplications, and giving of thanks, should be made for all men, &c.

For this he quotes Dr. Hammond in loc. And addeth Though the phraſe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may either ſignify, That prayers be put up to God, or that they be compoſed, in this place it may well intend both, &c.

It is enough for us that our Reverend Brother juſtly alloweth, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Prayers be made, doth not neceſſarily ſignify, That church Governours should make Liturgies for all Miniſters, from whence it followeth, That this text will afford no cogent argument for ſuch an inſtitution. Nor will any other text give relief in the cauſe, coming in as an auxiliary to this. It is indeed a plain command for Timothy in his publick miniſtry himſelf to pray, and to enjoin all inferiour miniſters to do the like, but we have produced other, and thoſe plainer texts enough directing miniſters how to perform their miniſterial acts, by miniſtring their gift according to the grace given, Stiring up, not neglecting their gift, &c. And becauſe our reverend Brother is a little critical with the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , we shall onely tell him that he knows that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Poet comes from it, and we know him ſo much a ſcholar, as he would judge him but a miſerable poet, That should onely read, or recite copies of verſes compoſed by others. If indeed prayers, interceſſions, ſupplications, & giving of thanks could not be made for all men unleſs ſuperiors preſcribed, or miniſters uſed the preſcribed forms of others, there were ſomething in this text: But it is an obſervable vanity, that when men are poſſeſſed of ſome ſingular notion hard to be made out, they fancy every verſe almoſt in Scripture to be for their purpoſe. The Doctor ſaw the word Prayers here, and he fancieth it muſt be a Liturgy, or Prayer-book. Juſt like another who meeting in the epiſtle of Peter, with a phraſe of Offering up Spiritual Sacrifices to God, runs away with as much confidence of a new 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a Liturgy, though there be not a word for it near the text. Yea, and in his heat runs down the Puritans arguments in his way like durt: But with this diſcretion, That though it is like he ſaw ſome better forces of theirs ſtanding by, then any which he tried his skill upon, yet he thought fit rather to purſue the chaſe of the left wing of Pigmies, then to ſtand to hazard a battel with ſome other men of war that faced him all the while.

§. 9 The Author of the Pulpit conceptions hath (he thinks) found out ſome other expreſs Scripture. 1 Cor. 1. 10. That you all ſpeak the ſame thing. Rom. 15. 6. That you may with one mind, and one mouth glorify God. And he is hugely confident, That the firſt mentioned text, is not to be forced into a contrary interpretation. Ridiculous! Is there in that text a word concerning Prayer? Is that the Theme the Apoſtle is there treating of? Were the Diviſions (for a Remedy as to which he gives this advice) about Prayer? It not the Apoſtle both to the Corinthians, and Romans giving Catholick directions? And will not then this Argument prove that not onely Liturgies: But the ſame Liturgies verbatim muſt be uſed in all churches to the end of the world? But let us turn this into an argument, That the Doctor may ſee we will deny him no juſt advantage, which his learning may have upon us, more then we are aware of.

Thoſe who are to ſpeak the ſame thing, and are with one mouth to glorify God, may lawfully, or muſt uſe ſet forms of Prayer: But Chriſtians are to ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth to glorify God; Ergo.

The Major is to be proved, and when he hath proved it, let him conſider whether the ſame argument will not prove, That in all families, and cloſets alſo the ſame form muſt not be uſed? And whether ſuch another learned Topick, will not prove, That all miniſters muſt uſe the ſame ſyllables, words and ſentences in preaching? Yea, and in all their more private religious diſcourſes, Certainly ſober perſons ever thought that by theſe expreſſions, the Apoſtle intended onely an unity in the matter, and ſubſtance of Religion, not in words, and ſyllables expreſſing their conceptions about it, either to God or men. But to do the Dr. right he lays his Argument from theſe texts in a little different form, we will not conceil it from our Readers, Valeat, quantum valere poteſt. We are contending for truth not for maſtery. His form is this.

That ſervice of God which is conſonant to holy Scripture is lawful, The ſervice of God performed by a preſcribed Liturgy is conſonant to holy Scriptures. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6 Ergo, It is lawful.

Lawful is a diminitive term, for if thoſe texts prove it, it is neceſſary: for it is doubleſs neceſſary for Chriſtians with one mouth to glorify God, and to ſpeak the ſame thing in the ſenſe of that text. But it may be the Doctor thought ſo, and intended to deliver hard arguments in ſofter words. The Dr. gueſſeth right, the Aſſumption is that we deny. He proveth it, by theſe two texts thus,

That Service of God whereby we declare, That we are perfectly joined together in the ſame mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby we all ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God: That ſervice is conſonant to the holy Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6.

But the ſervice of God by a preſcribed Liturgy is ſuch; Ergo.

The Major propoſition, having its matter neceſſary, and being as to its form indefinite, according to our Rule in Logick, muſt as to its form be reduced to an Ʋniverſal, and be rendered thus,

Every ſervice of God whereby we declare, That we are perfectly joined together in the ſame mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby we do all ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God. Is conſonant to Scripture:

But the ſervice of God by a preſcribed Liturgy is ſuch; Ergo.

Let us alſo have liberty to aſſume upon the foundation laid in the Major propoſition.

But all miniſters preaching in the ſame words, and ſyllables is a Service of God whereby they might declare, That they are joined in one mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby they might ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God; therefore. That alſo were neceſſary if commanded, or however is lawful.

Doth not every ordinary Reader ſee the vanity of this Argument? But more directly, Have we not heard of ſuch maximes as; Bonum ex cauſis integris, Malum ex quolibet defectu.

Is it enough to make a piece of Divine worship conſonant to the will of God in Scripture, That one or two texts of Scripture have a general term, or expreſſion or two (as well applicable to any other pieces of Divine ſervice, as that in diſpute) from which in the appearance of the letter of it, a concluſion may be drawn, ſeeming to conclude an act, mode, or mean of worship lawful, though juſtified by no particular precepts, or examples: yea, and appearing contrary to diverſe other texts of holy writ? To make an act of worship conſonant to Scripture. It muſt be ſuch as to the matter of it, and as to the manner ſo performed, that it shall not be diſſonant to any part of Scripture either in the Letter, or Reaſon of it. To conclude then, when this Author hath proved. 1 That the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6. is giving a rule ſtrictly about Acts of worship.

2 That in the ſenſe of thoſe texts Chriſtians cannot ſpeak the ſame thing, and glorify God with the ſame mouth, unleſs they ſpeak the ſame words and ſyllables.

3 That nothing we have ſaid proved this mode, or mean of worship diſſonant to any part of the reveiled mind, and will of God. He will then have ſet this lame argument upon its leggs again, and may expect a new aſſault; but till that time, we ſurceaſe from farther labour about it, and leave our Readers to judge what conſequence there is in it. We think it is the firſt time ever thoſe texts were otherwiſe then curſorily, and in looſe diſcourſe brought to ſerve in the ſervice of preſcribed Liturgies generally impoſed; and we hope we shall hear of it no more. We are ſure it will not come a volunteer into the ſervice. This is all we ever heard pretended from Scripture or the reſon of Scripture to juſtify the lawfulneſs of an univerſal impopoſing of forms upon miniſters, or an univerſal uſe of them (if impoſed) by miniſters. In the next place they argue from Reaſon.

§. 10 We remember (in the ſeventh place) that the Author of a Pamphlet wrote ſome years ſince, called Aaron Bimnucha, argueth thus,

That which a man may determin himſelf unto, To that he may be determined by his ſuperiour.

His reaſon is evident, becauſe, were it not in it ſelf lawful. he might not himſelf chooſe it, or determin himſelf to it: Now he should have aſſumed, But a miniſter in the Ordinary performance of his miniſterial Acts in publick Prayer, may determin himſelf to the preſcribed forms of men. Had he thus aſſumed, we should have denied the Aſſumption, but he onely aſſuming, That a man may Lawfully determin himſelf to the uſe of forms, hath not concluded againſt our queſtion. We do grant, That a miniſter may ſometimes determin himſelf to forms compoſed by himſelf for his own uſe: but that is nothing at all to the matter in queſtion. But yet neither can we agree the Major, That a Chriſtian may by his ſuperiour be determined to whatſoever, he hath a liberty to determin himſelf. A man may in a great meaſure determin himſelf to a ſtate of marriage, or ſingle life, And in caſe of marriage as to the particular woman which he will make his wife, he may determin himſelf. A young man may determin himſelf, as to his trade and courſe of life, whether he will be, a Merchant, or a Lawyer, or a Scholar; may therefore he be lawfully determined by his ſuperior in all theſe things? And by the way, if our Oppoſites ſay no; they deſert their Principle. That what is in it ſelf lawful, becomes neceſſary if it be commanded. Will they have us reſtrain our diſcourſe to things in worship? Surely a miniſter may lawfully determin himſelf never to preach without notes; nor without writing out his Sermon at length, may he therefore (think we) be lawfully by Superiours determined unto ſuch things? May the Superiours by their command make it ſinful for a miniſter to preach without notes? Or till he hath written his Sermon Verbatim? An hundred things of this nature might be inſtanced in.

§. 11 It is worthy of the Readers obſervation, how the aformentioned author (and that in the purſuit of this argument) would perſuade us to be Papiſts, acting contrary to the ſingular judgment of our own conſciences, out of an abounding Voluntary Humility, and judging, and that as to matters of our particular practice, upon which our eternity depends, As the miſcarriage in them may lay the ſoul under the guilt of ſin, That the Judgment of ſuperiours is better then our own. Whence he would infer not onely a lawfulneſs, but a neceſſity incumbent upon a reaſonable ſoul which is by its principles obliged to follow what is beſt, to obey men that are our ſuperiours contrary to our own opinion, and Judgment. If that author can but prevail in this, he hath but one thing more to do, (which too, every Romish-prieſt and Jeſuite will help him in) that is, To evince to men that the Bishop of Rome, in all Spiritual things, is all Chriſtians ſuperiour. And he hath done the Popes buſineſs as effectually as he could have done it, had he been hired to it by a Cardinals cap. But both St. Paul. Col. 2. 23. and Bp Davenant (as before cited on that text have told us, what kind of Humility this is.

§. 12 An eighth Argument uſed by ſome is this, The people that join with a miniſter in prayer, pray by a form. The miniſters prayer is but a form to them and limitation of them, &c. Therefore the miniſter may lawfully do it. We have fully anſwered this before but in short. 1 The Queſtion is about vocal-prayer, the people are onely required to pray mentally, this is quite another ſpecies of Prayer. In mental-prayer, God onely requireth the exerciſe of grace. In miniſterial-vocal-prayer, he alſo requireth the exerciſe of gifts: And that not ſuch gifts as remotely, but ſuch as ſpecifically relate to the Act. 2 It is one thing barely to worship in prayer, Another thing to miniſter to others in worshipping. Our queſtion is what is lawful for him that doth not onely worship, but miniſtreth in worshipping?

§. 13 Ninthly, ſay ſome, If a miniſter in publick be ſuffered to pray by conceived-prayer, he may vent Blasphemy, Hereſy, Nonſenſe, and how shall the people ſay, Amen? This alſo we have fully before anſwered. But, 1 This argument holds equally if not with much more advantage againſt any other preaching then by reading, or reciting other mens Sermons. 2 If the miniſter doth vent error, blasphemy, &c. we hope every one hath his Amen, within his own teeth, which he may withold, if he hear Petitions come out his mouth not according to the will of God, nor, 3 Is it impoſſible, that men may do the like by miſcalling or miſplacing words in reading, or reciting forms.

§. 14 But Tenthly, Forms they tell us are neceſſary for Ʋniformity, but we muſt firſt enquire; whether Ʋniformity be neceſſary, or at all deſireable in the ſenſe we here take it? Where by it, we underſtand nothing but an uniformity in Sentences, Words, and Syllables uſed in prayer. Ʋnity is indeed a beauteous thing, whether it be in Affections or Judgment: So is Ʋniformity, if underſtood of a worship of God in the ſame ſolemn time, That is on the Sabbath-day, and by the ſame ſpecifical Acts of worship, or As to the matter of prayer: Thus far all ſober men are agreed. We all obſerve the Sabbath, we all on the Sabbath publickly Read the Word, Pray, Sing, Preach, &c. In our prayers we all Confeſs our ſins, put up our petitions to God for good things which we or others need and give God thanks for good things which we or others have received: here now is a great and beauteous Ʋniformity, we all ſpeak the ſame thing, do the ſame thing, and on the ſame day. But how shall it be ever proved, That that pitiful thing called Ʋniformity in Words, and Syllables, and Phraſes was ever deſired of God, or that it ever came into his, or his Sons heart? Or that it is acceptable to him? Or that it hath more beauty in it then would be in a Congregation where all men wear the ſame coloured clothes? Or had the very ſame lines in their faces, or the ſame fashioned periwiggs upon their heads. 2. The Beauty of no end can juſtify any ſinful mean, Gods glory is the nobleſt end, the Apoſtle hath told us, That it needeth not our ly to promove it. 3 If it be lawful for men to fancy ends, as fine things, which God never ſpake of: It is no wonder if they can find no means adequate to them, but ſuch as are juſtifiable by no Right Reaſon, or Divine Rule. The Princes of Babylon had an end to deſtroy Daniel, they ſaw that (except in the matter of his God) nothing was to be found againſt him: In their opinion therefore it was neceſſary to eſtablish an uniformity in prayers, yet not (that we read off) in words, but as to the object of the Act, All muſt be commanded to pray onely to Darius (poſſibly there might be ſome form limited) but the end was naught, ſo was the mean. 4 But ſuppoſe Ʋniformity, ſyllabicaluniformity Neceſſary, Lawful, Beautiful, Deſirable, and certainly deſirable it is as to Doctrines of Religion and ſome particular terms, and phraſes, by which they may ſafely be expreſſed: We remember what a difference was made both in the church, and the Doctrine of it, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 How yet shall forms of prayer help us with it without forms of Sermons too, and a conſtant ſticking to the uſe of them, and no other.

§. 15 In the next place cometh Ireneus Freeman in, and telleth us in p. 38. of his Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, That in caſe liberty be granted to ſome to do that for which they have a gift, it will provoke others who have it not to imitate them. He adds, If the denial of liberty to ſome who have the gift, be to Cut the man fit for the bed: the granting of ſuch a liberty as we deſire would be to Stretch a man fit for the bed. Now ſeing both will ly together, he ſaith, it is more equitable, That the tall man should pull up his leggs: then that the low man should be put to the rack. The queſtion in iſſue is, Whether it be lawful univerſally to impoſe upon miniſters, Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily uſed in their publick miniſtrations? Or for miniſters, whom God hath furnished with the gift of prayer, to perform their miniſterial acts ordinarily by the uſe of thoſe forms, though impoſed? Yes, ſaith Mr. Freeman, for it is neceſſary. Every thing ſay we which is neceſſary, eithir is ſo from nature, or a ſupervening command. The firſt is not pretended, But the Second. It is neceſſary, becauſe Magiſtrates or Superiours command us, and God hath commanded us to obey our Superiours. We ſay, God hath onely commanded us to obey our Superiours in things where in we may obey them, and not ſin. Which ſay we in this caſe we cannot. You may ſaith Mr. Freeman, And why? Becauſe it is neceſsary, If this Medium be good, It muſt be made ſo by ſome precept of God particularly relating to this caſe, not by the general precepts of Gods word to obey our Superiours, For the thing muſt firſt be agreed lawful, before we can have in it any ſuperiour, but God onely. Now whether, This uſe of forms be ſo or no, is the matter in queſtion? How then doth what he ſaith evince the neceſſity of them. 2 All that he ſaith amounts but to a contingent diſorder, which may happen upon a liberty given by ſome to uſe their gifts in prayer. But shall a contingent danger be pleaded in bar to a duty think we? Or shall the ſin of another be ſufficient to juſtify our ſuperiour in prohibiting us from the diſcharge of what is our duty? 3 For his Similitude, it is more then ordinarily unlucky, for whereas we ſay no ſimilitude runs on all four feet, This is ſo unhappy, As to halt on all four: for ſurely in the caſe as ſtated by him, It is not the Magiſtrate that ſtretcheth that confident little fellow he talks of, or puts him upon the rack. So as the Queſtion is, Whether the ſuperiours ought to gratify thoſe little perſons luſts? Or to give liberty to thoſe whom God hath fitted for their work, to uſe the means which he hath immediately furnished them with, in order to thoſe ſpecifical performances? But our author will not yet have done he go's on.

§. 16 In caſe liberty be given to an officer to do ſomething, for which he hath a gift, and the denial of it to another officer of the ſame ſociety, which hath no ſuch ability, but cannot be ſpared any more then the former, would make the weaker officer, contemptible, and uſeleſs: Eſpecially if he be the weaker, onely in that caſe, but far ſtronger in others: in this caſe, as he thinkes, the firſt mentioned liberty ought to be denied to the officer firſt mentioned.

The Reaſon lies in this narrow compaſs, It is neceſſary to impoſe forms of prayer upon all miniſters, and they may lawfully be uſed by all miniſters: That thoſe miniſters, who are otherwiſe uſeful, and of whom an uſe muſt be made, may not be made contemptible to the people, tho they have not ſuch abilities, & gift of Prayer.

Every one ſees, That the truth of this depends upon diverſe Hypotheſes.

1 That a man may be a true and perfect miniſter of Chriſt, and yet not have the gift of Prayer. This we deny, Believing God ſends none into his work, not fitted for it.

2 That the church cannot be without ſuch miniſters, as are deſtitute of this Gift. This we alſo deny and think, she may better be without them, then furnished with them.

3 That ſome miniſters praying by forms will make them contemptible, we are apt to believe this hath ſomething of truth in it. But they who urge it, are concerned to reconcile it with what they ordinarily ſay, That the greater part of the people are for forms, onely an inconſiderable number of ſingular fanaticks. If ſo, ſurely they will the more reverence ſuch as keep to them. When theſe are all proved, it may be ſeaſonable to inquire upon theſe two things.

1 Whether it be not the ſin of any man to thruſt himſelf into the work of the miniſtry, or of ſuperiors to admit him into it, who hath not the gift of prayer? He is not fitted for his work; therefore not called, or ſent of God to it. The gift of prayer is what we queſtion, whether God denieth to any, who will but duly ſtudy the Holy Scriptures, their own hearts, and their people as they ought, The three books which Luther thought ſufficient to accomplish a Divine? A miniſter that cannot pray, is to us as much nonſenſe as a workman that cannot work. Now shall the ſins of any rule Superiours conſcientious in their Government, to reſtrain others in what is either their duty or their liberty? What kind of Divine is he, who knoweth not what God is? or under what name to ſpeak unto him? What ſin is? and what is Commanded, and forbidden in the law of God? What thoſe things are or many of them at leaſt, which aggravate ſin, and make it more exceeding heinous? What men have need off both for their ſouls and bodies? And what according to the will of God they may ask? What good things he or others ought to give thanks for, &c? Or that is not more then ordinarily verſed in the Holy Scriptures? Which knowledge being attained, ſurely (if the man can but ſpeak) the gift of prayer is gained, if want of exerciſe, and neglect of practice hindreth not.

2 Whether men can have the gift of preaching that want the gift of prayer? We doubt it. The ſame knowledge being neceſſary to preaching, that is neceſſary unto prayer, and nothing more (as we ſaid before) being neceſſary unleſs frequent exerciſe.

3 Whether that Church which hath twice ten thouſand Chriſtians who want not the gift of Prayer, can but by her own fault want miniſters who have that gift? Conſidering, That as we judge, The Apoſtle, Heb. 5. 1. hath given us the perfect notion of a miniſter in the deſcription of the High-prieſt, he is but, a perſon taken from men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he might offer Prayers and Praiſes, Preach and Adminiſter the holy Sacraments. If a church hath miniſters that she hath manu errante ordained, which can neither pray, nor preach: she may clave non errante caſt them out, and ordain thoſe that are not yet ordained, but fitter for the work.

§. 17 In short our Hypotheſis is, That it is lawful for ſuch, to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed forms of others: is not to be overthrown by an argument drawn from neceſſity; Becauſe there can be no neceſſity of ſinning. And whereas all neceſſity ariſeth either from nature, or the Original will of God; as the Firſt cannot be pretended, ſo ſuppoſing the thing unlawful, To ſay it is neceſſary in the Second ſenſe, is to blaſphem. Neither can there be any neceſſity in this caſe but what ſin makes, either the ſinful commands of men: or the ſinful lazineſs of the miniſter.

§. 18 We shall onely ſay this, If it be neceſſary that ſome of the places for publick preaching, should be in the power of ſome who shall have ſo little of conſcience, as either for a little mony, or to make a match, or to gratify a friend, or to aſcertain themſelves obſequious ſervants, will preſent moſt unable, and unworthy perſons; And that the Bishop should be under the danger of A Quare non admiſit, If when the Clerk cometh, he doth not inſtitute him, if he be but able to turn nine or ten lines of the Thirty nine Articles into Latine, which a child of eight or nine year old may do? We ſay, If there be a neceſſity of theſe things there may be a neceſſity, that not onely Forms of Prayer, but of Sermons too should be made to capacitate theſe men to do any thing like the ſacred acts of their office. But this is a woful, ſinful neceſſity, which nothing but the corruptions of ages, and manners have made, and cannot infer either the goodneſs of the end, or any juſt reaſon for impoſing forms upon all, nor can infer a farther neceſſity for forms of Prayer then for forms of Sermons. He that dreamed of an abſolute neceſſity when he burnt his shins by the fire, that the chimny should be pulled down, and ſet farther off, might with leſs labour and charge too have removed his leggs to a farther diſtance from the fire. And we think, That thoſe who dream of an abſolute neceſſity of forms of prayer for all; becauſe ſome miniſters or that go for miniſters, can do nothing in prayer without, might with leſs guilt, and reproach to our church cure that diſeaſe, & deſtroy that neceſſity, which is but a Chimera made by their own fancies.

§. 19 The Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, p. 98. &c. hath given us Four or Five farther Reaſons, as he calls them, for forms of prayer, which in the laſt place we will conſider.

He ſaith, Hereby a fit, true, right, and well ordered way of worship in addreſſes to God may be beſt ſecured to the church in the publick ſervice of God: that neither God, nor his worship may be dishonoured.

There being many eaſily diſcernable ways of conſiderable miſcarriage in the pubiick offices of the church, even by thoſe who err not in the Doctrines of Religion.

To which we anſwer. 1 That alone is a fit, true, right and well ordred worship which God hath inſtituted. Worship is his Homage, and there's all the reaſon in the world he should preſcribe to his own Homage.

2 That God in the Church should be truly, fitly, rightly, and in due order worshipped is reaſonable, but that it should aforehand be ſecured, That he should be ſo worshipped by miniſters, who are but men and may err, is not poſſible. Nor will forms ſecure it, which miniſters may if they will be careleſs (and many have done it) read falſely and diſorderly enough. There is therefore no ſecurity to be had in the caſe, caution may be uſed. The Rulers may ſay to Archippus, Take heed to thy miniſtry.

3 We do think, That for twenty years together. The worship of God was truly, fitly, rightly, and in a well ordered manner performed in hundreds of congregations in England where no forms of prayer were uſed & in the eye of all ſober, reaſonable men, better, then where they were uſed; we therefore ſee nothing here but a flourish of words.

§. 20 His Second reaſon is, That needful, comprehenſive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of our ſelves, and others, with fit thanksgivings, may not in the publick ſupplications of the church be omitted, which (conſidering men as they are) can no other way be ſo well, or at all aſſured.

To which we anſwer, Pudet haec opprobria nobis & dici potuiſſe, &c. Let it be ſpoken to the shame of the church of God in England, and it shall be for a lamentation in it, if in a church whoſe territories are ſo large, there cannot be found perſons enough ſufficient, without others preſcriptions to them, to put up full, and comprehenſive petitions, not onely for common and ordinary, but for emergent and extraordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of any perſons with fit thanksgivings. But Secondly, If there be not men enough to do this, yet certainly there are ſome and very many miniſters of all perſuaſions that can do it, what need therefore is there farther, Then that ſuch Forms be compoſed, extant and left at liberty. Muſt thoſe be reſtrained that are able to perform their duty, becauſe there are others, that either cannot or will not ſet themſelves to the due performance of it. Beſides, That this Argument holds ſtronger for forms of Sermons too to be impoſed: For thoſe who know how in preaching to reveil to people the whole counſel of God, moſt certainly know how to put up full, and comprehenſive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual & Outward wants of themſelves and others.

§. 21 Mr. Falconers Third Reaſon is, That the Affections, and hearts of pious, and Religious men, may be more devout, and better united in their preſenting their Services to God; where they may conſider beforehand, what particular prayers, and thanksgivings they are to offer up, and come the more ready, and prepared to join in them. This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind, ſucked in by prejudice, or ſwallowed down by careleſneſs.

To which we anſwer, that in this pretended reaſon, we can ſee nothing but words. Are not we to ask of God for our ſelves, or others all good things under ſuch limitations as his word directeth, ſubmitting our petitions for temporary things to the will, and wiſdom of God? Needs there any more when we come to prayer, then a general compoſure of our Spirits to ſeek God for all good things we or others ſtand in need of? If not, what needs ſuch a particular foreknowledge of the words and phraſes to be uſed in asking. If the miniſter transgreſſeth his Rule and asks what is not according to the will of God, (and that he may do by reading forms falſely) may not people withold their, Amen? The Affections and hearts of all good people (though the publick prayers be not by preſcribed forms) are united. 1 As to the duty, They all ſay to God, Thy face will wee ſeek. 2. As to the matter of the duty, To Confeſs all ſin Original, Actual, To beg of God whatſoever they or other ſtand in need of, which God hath promiſed to give. For the particular phraſes, There is no ſuch need of a foreknowledge, nor will it at all (as we we have proved before) promove, but rather hinder devotion and affection.

§. 22 His Fourth Reaſon is. That ſuch difficult parts of church-offices as Baptiſm, and the Supper of the Lord, the matter of which requireth great conſideration, That they may be aright and clearly expreſſed, (as both Conformists, and many Nonconformists acknowledge) & is evident by the many diſputes about them, by men neither of mean parts, nor dangerous deſigns; may by a conſiderate care, in the compoſing of a form be ſo framed, That men of greateſt underſtandings may with readieſt aſſent entertain them, and that they may be ſufficiently vindicated againſt the the boldeſt oppoſers.

We do confeſs that we have met with ſome of our Brethren who lay ſome ſtreſs on this, But we are no more taken with meer words from Noncon. then from other men. And we cannot underſtand, What there is in the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, that makes Forms of Prayer, &c. neceſſary. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, where (if any where) it ſeemes moſt neceſſary. What is there in that Adminiſtration, more then?

1 The Sanctification or Conſecration of the elements.

2 The Diſtribution of them, and words uſed in the diſtribution.

3 The Application of the General acts of the miniſterial office, Prayer and Exhortation to that particular action.

For the firſt the Apoſtle hath taught us that Sanctification, or Conſecration is by the word & Prayer. The word is nothing but the words of Inſtitution, which are in Scripture. The Reading of which declares Chriſts ſeparation of thoſe elements for that uſe: and our ſeparation of them in his name, for and during that time, for that ordinance. For other words and forms of conſecration, we know no need of them, no warrant for them, and believe them of ill original and conſequence. Now any one that can read a form, can read the Scripture.

For the diſtribution of them, It is no further work then every hand can do, what words to uſe, Our Saviour hath ſet down, from which we know no need to vary. In uſing of them can be no errour, in deviating from them indeed there may.

For the Application of Exhortation & Prayer to that act, ſurely he that can Pray and Preach can do that.

The like is to be ſaid of the other Sacrament, ſo that a Righteous law that all should keep to the Scriptural-inſtitution is enough, we think in that caſe: And wonder at their fancies, That think of ſuch a ſpecial need of a form in thoſe caſes, believing no pretence of neceſſity, but what depends upon a fancy of a reaſonableneſs to add to the Divine inſtitution in the caſe of which we cannot be convinced. For God-fathers and God-mothers and Forms of queſtions to be propounded to them, we underſtand neither neceſſity, nor uſe of them: much leſs any particular Forms of words (beſides thoſe the Scripture gives us) for Conſecration, or to be uſed in the Diſtribution of the elements in the Supper. The points in diſpute can this way come into no diſpute that we know, nor any error infuſed into poeple. It is mens varying from the Inſtitution in this caſe, which alone hath given advantage to the Envious one to ſow tares. If any miniſter having the elements of bread and wine before him shall read, I The words of Inſtitution as delivered (by the Evangeliſts, or the Apoſtle Paul) Then ſolemnly praying to God, Firſt, That as he had inſtituted that ordinance, for the remembrance of Chriſt, The shewing forth of his death, The communion of his body and bloud, &c. So he would at that time bleſs it to thoſe ends, &c. Pardoning his peoples want of preparation and accepting them in their deſires to honour him in his own inſtitutions, &c. Or to that purpoſe. Then giving the bread, repeating onely our Saviours words, with but a ſmall and that neceſſary change. Take, eat, This is the body of Chriſt [in ſtead of my body] which was broken for you. And after the cup, repeating onely Chriſts words, This cup is the new Teſtament in the bloud of Chriſt, &c. We would fain know if this man (concluding all with a prayer, & hymn of thanksgiving) had not duly adminiſtred the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If he had, what need is there of forms of words in this caſe, other then what the holy Scriptures have given us: For as to the Prayer before and after, as we conceive him a pitiful miniſter and very unfit to be truſted with that office, (which often calleth him to pray upon particular emergent occaſions, for which a form cannot be made ready) if he cannot without it apply his petitions, to the particular buſineſs in hand, viz. The adminiſtration of the Sacrament: So if he diſtruſteth himſelf, he may compoſe himſelf a form of prayer fitted for that purpoſe. For the adminiſtration of that ordinance is ſeldom or never ſo ſudden, as to ſurprice a miniſter. So for the other Sacrament, Will any one dare to ſay, That a lawful miniſter, (having water before him) who shall firſt beg of God, To own and bleſs his own inſtitution, To wash away the ſin of the perſon to be baptized with his own bloud, And to grant that it may be born again of water and the Spirit, &c. Or to the like purpoſe. And then having had a previous knowledge, That the parent is a believer i. e. one who either hath a true faith, or maketh profeſſion of ſuch true faith: shall take water, and pour, or ſprinkle it upon the childs face, or dip the perſon in it, ſaying, J. Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, is not truly Baptized? A prayer and thanksgiving uſually concludes the Action. But what need here of a form more then the Scripture hath furnished us with, or directed us to? May one miniſter ſay, J. Baptize thee, &c. Another, Let this perſon be Baptized, &c. A third, Be thou Baptized, &c? For our parts we think the difference not ſo much, as to require a preſcribed form to reconcile: and should not doubt, but the perſon were truly Baptized, under any of thoſe variations of words. Water being poured, or ſprinkled on it, and the action declared to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. We conclude as we ſaid before, That we can ſee nothing in either Sacrament but the inventions of men, ſuperadding to the inſtitutions of the goſpel diverſe rites, and actions of which Chriſt never ſpake, which makes any pretence for a need of Forms in the adminiſtration of them. There being nothing to be done in them that requireth any ſpecial ability comparable to that which Preaching & Praying according to the various ſtates of the church, and the particular caſes of ſouls in it doth require.

§. 23 Mr. Falconers Fift Reaſon is thus by himſelf expreſſed,

To be an evidence to other churches, and future times after what way and manner we worship God, and that both the matter and expreſſion of our ſervice to him is ſound and pious, in our general and common worship. And this may be a full Teſtimony, That ſuch a church receiving the true faith and expreſſing a right way of worship, is both a true, and in its meaſure a pure and incorrupt church.

We anſwer, 1 Where hath God required the leaving any ſuch Teſtimony? 2 If he had, forms of prayer had not been ſufficient without forms of Sermons too. 3 While we declare our ſelves Chriſtians, and that we worship God according to his word, we leave a ſufficient Teſtimony, that we are a true church of God. 4 A confeſſion of faith publickly owned, & ſubſcribed unto by all miniſters (which we never oppoſed) doth far better effect this, which may be done, without making a new act or mode of worship.

§. 24 Mr. Falconer at laſt comes to this argument from example, which yet he doth not lay ſo much ſtreſs upon as to aver, They evince a neceſſity of Forms, but he thinks the countenance, the lawfulneſs, and expediency of them. For what he ſaith about the Lords prayer, it is anſwered by us before. In short, It reacheth not the caſe. There can be no concluſion from Chriſts power to the power of ordinary Governors now in the church: Or from the lawfulneſs of Chriſts diſciples uſing a Form of prayer, dictated by Chriſt himſelf, in that time before his aſcenſion, and the effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, to the lawfulneſs of miniſters in after ages uſing, a bundle of forms, neither compoſed by Chriſt, nor by his Apoſtles. Beſides the probabilities we have before offered, that even then when it was firſt given it was not intended for a form of words (nor do we ever read of it after ſo uſed) but as a more general direction for the ordinary matter of our prayers.

§. 25 As to what Mr. Falconer ſaith further of Scripturalforms, it hath had its anſwer from us before Chap. 3. §. 37, &c. What he farther ſaith of the uſe of them in the Chriſtian church, we have anſwered in that Chap. 3. §. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. In short, We think we may ſay of this as we ſay of the Papiſts plea for themſelves, From Peters being at Rome. If they could prove, That forms of prayer were univerſally impoſed upon the whole church, and uſed by all miniſters in it within 400 years after Chriſt, and ſo in the ages downward, it would not prove either the lawfulneſs of ſuch general Impoſition or uſe; but they shall never be able to prove it while they live. Let us therefore leave inquiring, What thoſe who lived before us did, or thought might lawfully be done, and enquire what Chriſt and his Apoſtles did; or determined lawful to be done. While we are diſputing, about what is lawful and unlawful, Authority, or practice is a lamentable argument, and will never be inſiſted on by wiſe and underſtanding men, but for want of ſuch as are better and more cogent. It will be a very hard thing to juſtify all thoſe things to be lawful, which were eſtablished by councils of as great antiquity as any they can pretend to for the eſtablishment of forms of prayer to be univerſally uſed. And thus much may ſerve for an anſwer to all we have heard or met with pleaded for the lawfulneſs of a general impoſition, or uſe of forms of Prayer in the church. We shall onely ſay, That our Brethren dealing with thoſe who in their conſciences judge them unlawful. We think were concerned to have proved them neceſſary. For certainly if Superiours will think themſelves in the leaſt obliged by the Roial law of love, they ought not with their meat (which they may eat, or let alone) command to be eaten or not eaten to deſtroy the ſouls of their inferiours for whom Chriſt died: Either by tempting them to do what in their conſciences they think is ſinful: or without neceſſity laying their ſouls under a guilt for diſobeying them, if that be true, That whoſoever obeyeth not the command of his Superiour in a lawful thing, ſinneth againſt God.

CHAP. X.

The Concluſion of the diſcourſe, nothing ſaid againſt any particular forms. No judging or condemning of thoſe who judge otherwiſe in the caſe. No unlawfulneſs concluded to join with thoſe who uſe pious forms. It is reaſonable to propoſe, and recommend ſome forms leaving them at liberty. This the onely mean of Comprehenſion.

§. 1 THat we may not be miſunderſtood in this diſcourſe, we hope every ingenuous Reader will eaſily underſtand, That we have not levelled any thing in this diſcourſe againſt any particular forms or books of Prayers. In the preſent queſtion we ſuppoſe Forms as good, and perfect as the wit, and piety of men can make, and diſpute their ſtate in worship i. e. Whether they may be indiſcriminatively impoſed or lawfully uſed by ſuch miniſters as God hath bleſſed with the Gift of prayer? We have an equal Reverence for the Firſt compilers of the English Liturgy, as the later compilers of the Directory, believing they both did famouſly in their generations. We onely think, The forms miſtaken, in their opinion of the lawfulneſs of an univerſall impoſing, or uſe of them in publick worship.

§. 2 Nor do we judge our ſelves infallible in our ſententiments in this caſe, but as we believe, ſo we ſpeak, ſo we muſt practice. We condemn not our brethren that judge otherwiſe and accordingly practice. We truſt God will either to us or them reveil his mind that we shall at length know who are miſtaken. Let not them judge and condemn us, we are in our diſſents in the caſes anothers ſervants: And that other we take to be our common Lord and Maſter Jeſus Chriſt. Let us 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to the Apoſtles precept, ſtrive for truth, & walk in what we apprehend to be truth, yet walk in love.

§. 3 We do not think it unlawful to join with another praying by the uſe of forms, provided the matter be good, and pious. We have in ſuch praying nothing to do but to ſay, Amen. Whether he who ordinarily doth ſo, doth his miniſterial duty? We confeſs, That we queſtion. But that we may do our duty, though he faileth in his, we do not queſtion. If any Nonconformiſts amongſt the miniſters, or people, judge otherwiſe, it muſt be upon ſome principle forreign to this diſcourſe; ſuch as that of ſcandal, &c. Which is not our buſineſs here to argue.

§. 4 We do think it not onely lawful but Reaſonable, That ſome Forms of Prayer (or Directions at leaſt) should be propoſed, and commended, by the approbation of our Superiours and left at liberty. That thoſe may uſe them for ſome time at leaſt who have not attained to the gift of prayer, or may diſtruſt themſelves, or not have their uſual natural liberty to expreſs themſelves in prayer. And indeed, this is the onely medium we can fancy for a juſt Comprehenſion, and reſtoring to an uſe in the church of all Valuable Diſſenters. We humbly leave our thoughts in this caſe, and the Candor of our Spirits to the Judgment of all, Whether our ſuperiors or Brethren in this famous church.