CHAP. I. Of stating the Question, concerning the established constant use of Forms of Prayer, in the publick service of God.

IN managing his opposition against the constant use of prescribed Forms of Prayer,The Questi­on proposed, concerning the lawful­ness of using Forms by Ministers who have gifts. the forementioned Writer doth in his first Chapter, give us the state of the Question, which he undertakes to dispute, and therein he expresseth what he yieldeth, and granteth as lawful, and what he judgeth and esteemeth to be sin­ful, and undertaketh to prove it so: and herein he hath declared himself with suf­ficient clearness and plainness: What he contends for he thus expresseth,Reasona­ble Ac­count, p. 5. 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 in solemn, stated, publick Prayer, by reading or reciting forms of Prayer composed by other men, confessedly, not divinely and immedi­ately inspired, although our superiours do requrie this of us.

[Page 11]2. But he alloweth and acknowledg­eth,p. 2. that their labours are profitable, who have drawn the matter of Prayer into Forms: p. 3. that any Form of Prayer contained in the Scripture, may be used as part of our Prayer, whether it be under any command or no; but if it be commanded, it undoubt­edly ought to be used; ibid. That if a Minister distrusting his own memory or invention, shall compose Prayers for his own use, he may do it: ibid. that it is lawful, yea necessary, for them who join with others in Prayer, to make use of their words, which yet are but a Form to them: ibid. that he that ministers in Prayer to others may use a prescribed Form of anothers composure, if he have not the gift of Prayer. Andp. 4. that he alloweth short ejaculatory Forms; such as Lord have mercy upon us. This being the sense of this Wri­ter, I shall concerning his stating this Que­stion observe three things.

3. Obs. 1. From these premises, the Rea­der may yet have a little further insight into the matter of this Question: to which end he may consider, First, that our Prayer is directed to the most high God, and therefore it was called by the ancient WritersGreg. Nys. de Orat. [...] andCl. Alex. Strom. l. 7. [...], an having to do with, and speaking unto God. Secondly, that the ordinary wants of Christians (except extraordinary [Page 12]emergencies, which may be otherwise provided for) and consequently the usual matter of Prayer, for publick Assemblies especially, is constantly the same. He who will deny this, must as well condemn the Directory, forDirect. Of Assembling the Congre­gation. Of publick Prayer be­fore Sermon &c. directing to the matter of publick Prayer, as the Common Prayer for expressing the words; nor can he have such honourable thoughts as he ought to have, and as the Christian Church always hath had, of the Contents of the Lords Prayer. Thirdly, that the granting it lawful, for a Minister to use a prescribed Form of Prayer, of anothers composure, if he have not the gift of Prayer; is as much as to acknowledge, that such a Prayer, piously performed, is a true wor­ship of God, and may be acceptable to him; otherwise it would not be lawful. Fourthly, That the difference betwixt praying for the same things in a Form, and praying for them without a Form is this, that in the former way the same words and methods are constantly used, whereas in the latter the expressions are altered and changed, The result of this Questi­on is, Whe­ther variety of expressi­ons be of great conse­quence for the pleasing God? and oft-times the order and me­thod also, according as the person think­eth fit, or as he is able to perform it.

4. Wherefore fifthly, The main result of this Question, at the last comes to this: Whether mens changing of expressions, va­rying [Page 13]of phrases, and altering their order and method in their Prayers to God, be things so valuable and considerable in his sight, that his laws and will do require this, and that he hath such an eye unto it, that the humble, devout, and Religi­ous supplications, and addresses of pious persons, are not acceptable to him, unless they be attended with such variety of ex­pressions, where the persons have so much volubility of speech? Now upon a short view, it may appear, that the affirmative in this Question, is very unlikely and im­probable upon several accounts.

5. If we consult the rules of holy Scrip­ture; The contra­ry appears from Scrip­ture. our Saviour particularly rebuked the vanity of them, who think they shall be heard by their [...], much speak­ing or many and various words, Mat. 6.7. And as a remedy against it, taught his Disciples that comprehensive Form of the Lords Prayer. And from this Text S. Aug. Aug. Ep. 121. c 10. accounteth superfluity of words, to be un­meet for Prayer for things necessary. And hence also S. Hilary inferreth, that we shouldHil. in Mat. Can. 5. orare ad Deum, non multiloquio sed conscientia, pray to God not with a mul­titude of words, but with a good Conscience. And it is accounted a piece of reverence to God, which Solomon directed us to make use of in our addresses to him, Eccl. 5.2. [Page 14] Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not they heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

6.From the Jewish worship. And it may be considered, that un­der the Law, God did not require daily various changes, of the real expressions of religious worship and service; but ap­pointed them to be continually the same, Numb. 28.2, 3, &c. which makes it more than probable, that the variety of verbal expressions, is not requisite to obtain his acceptance under the Gospel. The daily burnt-offering was continually without any varying the thing, a lamb of the first year, with the same sort of meat-offering, and drink-offering; and the Priests without any varying of rites about that Sacrifice, were as Josephus saith,Joseph. Ant. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. [...], performing their office always in the same manner. Only upon their sabbath days, the ordinary sacrifice was doubled; and upon other days of great solemnity, there was an addition of other Sacrifices And I need not direct the intelligent Rea­der to observe, how much the service of our Church is in these things correspon­dent to what the wisdom of God himself then established: our Evangelical services being now morning and evening offered unto God, as then were the Legal: as hath [Page 15]been observed byBishop Sparrow's Ration. of Com. Pr. p. 3, 8. And from the nature of God. our Reverend and Learned Diocesan.

7. And he who considereth that God is a spirit, and that true piety, and good­ness, and sincerity, are the things in which he delights, cannot easily perswade him­self, that the use of different phrases in Prayer, can be of any great moment be­fore him, unless he had particularly com­manded this, and then indeed it would be a part of Obedience. Proper words are necessary in publick Prayer, that by their expressive significancy, the whole Con­gregation may join in their united Petiti­ons, and also for the promoting order and decency, and manifesting a due honour to Gods worship, and reverence for his name; and all these things may be most usefully provided for, in a well ordered Form. But words are not in re­ligious service valuable in themselves, fur­ther than they have respect to such things; but a pure heart, and the exercise of true piety, is that which God accepteth.

8. This truth is so manifest, that even the Ethnick Writers do frequently ex­press it. The Satyrist declares of a well fixed integrity, and inward purity of mind and heart,Pers. in Satyr. 2. Haec cedo ut admoveam templis & farre litabo; that this is the most valuable thing without compare, in [Page 16]the publick worship. And when Hierocles had declared,Hier. in Pyth. p. 26. what the Pythian Oracle spake to the same purpose, he thus ex­presseth his own sense, [...], with piety of mind every expression is acceptable to God, and without it, none. And amongst the Christian Writers such expressions are frequent, as that of S. Cyprian, Cyp. de Orat. Dom. Deus non vocis, sed cordis auditor est; God hears not the voice but the heart: and that of Cl. A­lexandrinus, that the most excellent ser­vice isCl. Alex. Strom. l. 7. [...], by a religi­ous devotion, and that as men observe our words, so God observes our minds and thoughts. But now the affecting variety of words, in the worship of God (where fit words may be best secured by a good Form) is both apt to hinder due devo­tion, and it also speaks such persons much concerned, about that which is too low and mean to procure Gods acceptance. And it implies a misconception of the di­vine nature and Being, in them who look upon such things, as of great concernment to please him; And the making that a necessary part of Religion which is not such, by laying a doctrinal necessity, upon it, where men are able to perform it, cannot be excused from being a piece of superstition, or a teaching for doctrines [Page 17]the precepts or fancies of men. Chap. I.

9. Obs. 2.Opposition against our Church and Liturgy is upon un­certain grounds. It may be noted, that this Author, though he sometimes talk high, doth not account himself certain of the truth of this position which he layeth down, in his stating the case, and in the following part of his Book undertakes to prove. His position expresseth the sinful­ness of using Forms of Prayer, in the Case he proposeth: and he saith,p. 2. their judg­ment of Conscience is that they are unlawful, and this theyCh. 8. p. 132. from their hearts believe, and so must practise. But when he speaks of his Arguments, he saith, they have Arguments whichp. 2. appear very probable, andp. 5. seem highly probable, with other like expressions. And how far this evidence doth prevail with himself, we may dis­cern by these words,p. 164 & p. 70. We judge not our selves infallible in our sentiments in this case; we condemn not our brethren which judge otherwise and accordingly practise, p. 132. & in p. 22. We dare not judge those who we think have the gift of Prayer, but think not fit to use it in their or­dinary ser­vice — Whether it be sin in them, we leave to Gods de­terminati­on. we pray God that if we be in the mistake, God would reveal it to us. These words do plainly speak doubtfulness and uncertainty, as do those in the Margent: for no understand­ing man can use such expressions, concern­ing what he certainly knows to be sin. In speaking of the sinfulness of theft or lying, he would not say, we condemn not them who practise otherwise, &c. to wit, thieves [Page 18]and lyars, since he certainly knows these things to be sin, and therefore that the practisers of them ought to be condemned. Yet at sometimes he speaks, as if he pro­ceeded onP. 25. & p. 123. demonstrations.

10. Now I hope to make it manifest, that his Arguments do not so much as prove any probability of truth in his asser­tion: yet I could in the mean time hearti­ly wish, that both he, and others with him, would seriously consider, how un­safe it is for themselves, The hurt and danger of such pra­ctices consi­dered. and dangerous to Religion, for men to oppose the state and order of a well setled Church, upon proba­ble Arguments. Where we have certain evi­dence of any thing being our duty, we are bound to embrace it, whomsoever we contradict: but certain evidence no man can have of an errour being truth. And to proceed upon probable Arguments only, yea or on such as men may by their mi­stake esteem, and confidently assert to be certain, is in an errour no safe foundation for practice.

11. The Donatists by their restless Pleas, and various disputations, manifest­ed that they proceeded on such Argu­ments, which to them seemed highly pro­bable; the same may be said of the Arians and Eunomians whose Arguments are fre­quently produced byAthan. contr. Ari­an. Or. 4. & passim. Athanasius, Naz. O­rat. 35, & 36. Gr. Nys. & Ba­sil. adv. Eu­nom. Gr. [Page 19]Nazianzene, and other ancient Writers, to a greater number than this Writer hath against Forms of Prayer. And almost all who were of old guilty of any Heresy or Schism, as also at this day the Romanists, Anabaptists, Quakers, and other such Sects, have their Arguments which they account probable. And for the Brownists, who declared in theirPraestant. Viror E­pist p. 925. Preface to their Con­fession, that the Church of England, its Ministry, and its worship, were all adul­terous; Fr. Johnson published hisJohn [...] Reason [...] for s [...] ­tion. seven Arguments of one sort, and seven of ano­ther sort, such as to them seemed proba­ble, and all of them in Syllogisms, as our Author produceth his seven Arguments in Syllogisms against Forms of Prayer. And Erbury and others with him, had their Arguments which to them seemed proba­ble, which they undertookMr. Long in Exam. of M^r Hales of Schism, p. 133. at Oxford to produce, and urge against all ordina­tion and ministry. Yet if I should ask this Author, whether he thinks all these per­sons did perform their duty to God aright, and were to be discharged from sin, in thus venting their errors and heresies, and that the Church of God received no disad­vantage from them, I presume he would not assert this; however we are sure of the contrary. And then the consequence will be, that if it be a duty, to hold Com­munion [Page 20]with our publick Assemblies, and to perform the worship of God according to our established Constitutions; they cannot be acquitted from sin, nor excused from doing hurt to the Church of God, who reject these duties upon their probable Ar­guments.

12. But in requital for his so favoura­ble expressions towards us, in not con­demning our using the Liturgy of the Church, this Author expects that we ought not to change him, and others of his per­swasion, with any blame in their dissent and separation.Reasona­ble Ac­count, p. 64. Dissenters are to be blamed. We condemn not our brethren. Let not them, saith he, judge and condemn us; We are in our dissents in the case, anothers servants. Now it becomes no man to pass that judgment on others, which is peculiar to God, as, concerning the hidden things of the heart of man, or his final state: but we are allowed to ac­count and judge those actions of men to be evil, which are manifestly so. And it is very unreasonable, that if they who violate any Laws of God or Man, do not blame others for keeping them, that there­fore they must not be charged with the breaking them. If S. Peter did not fault S. Paul, who according to his duty kept Communion with the Church at Antioch, S. Paul did not therefore think himself [Page 21]obliged not to rebuke S. Peter, for his un­warrantable withdrawing from it: but he declares in this case, Gal. 2.11. I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed; and v. 14. I saw that they walked not up­rightly, according to the truth of the Gospel.

13. Wherefore, because I think it my duty to deal faithfully and plainly in these things, I do freely profess, that be­sides what concerns the Laws of the Church and of the Realm; I account my self to have as plain evidence from the Laws of God, and the Constitution of the Christian Church, that Schism and unnecessary sepa­ration is a sin, in the breach of Christian Ʋnity, as that Adultery is a sin in breaking the bond of Wedlock. And I account my self to be as certain, that if ever there was any unwarrantable separation, from any known Church since the Apostles time, the separation from the Church of Eng­land is really such: since our Church is truly as free from any just exception, in its Constitution, doctrine and worship, as any other since that time either was, or is. And it seemeth highly probable, if I do not mistake plain words, that some of our dissenters themselves, are at some times satisfied either of so much, or of that which comes very near it, concerning [Page 22]the excellent Constitution of our Church D^r Owen saith,Of Evang. Love, p. 54, 55. We look upon the Church of England, or the generality of the nation professing Christian Religion (measuring them by the doctrine received since the Re­formation) to be as sound and healthful a part of the Catholick Church, as any in the World; and again,ibid. p. 87. We believe that the generality of the inhabitants of this nation, are by their profession constituted an eminent part of the Kingdom of Christ in this World. But if pitieth me to consider upon what weak and unwarrantable pretences, such persons venture upon the practices of real separation: and by what insufficient ex­cuses, they plead for themselves in the de­fence thereof.

14.This Au­thors opini­on is a hea­vy charge against the most e­minent Churches, and men. Obs. 3. There are considerable pre­judices against the truth of our Authors assertion, as it is by him stated, even such which, beside the more direct evidences (of which hereafter) will perswade a so­ber man, to be wary of entertaining it, if he duly observe them. For this opinion is not only against the Church of England, but the most famous Churches in the Pri­mitive times, who used such set Forms in their publick worship, as besides what hath been said already, will sufficiently appear in the following Discourse. This is also against the Constitution of many [Page 23]eminent Protestant Churches abroad, which I have elsewhereLibert. Eccl. B. 1. Ch. 4. Sect. 1. n. 11, 12. observed briefly, and shall not need here to add further proof, since this Author doth not deny the same, but tells usReason. Acc. Ch. 2. p. 9. the continuance of Liturgies upon the Reformation, owes it self in a great measure to their not having men able to pray without a Form. And yet I cannot but think, that this Author is a person of so much modesty, and hath such a respect to many of those Reformers, and their Successors, as not to think them inferiour to himself; and then they must come un­der the censure of his assertion. And to me it seemeth a very hard thing to em­brace such a position, as must cast re­proach on almost all the Churches of Christ in all Ages; and must also conclude all the most famous Ministers therein, to have lived and died, in the constant pra­ctice of the same sin unrepented of. Now I can easily apprehend, that such a con­sideration as this, will have a different influence upon such men as this Author, according to the different temper in which it may meet with them. For at one time he tells usCh. 9. p. 163. authority or practice is a lamentable Argument: but at another time he declares, concerning the sense and apprehensions of good men, thatCh. 2. p. 44. the sen­sus piorum, neither is, nor ever was judged [Page 24]by persons of sobriety and worth, an inconsi­derable Argument; for the truth of a pro­position (especially a practical proposition) not plainly determined in holy Writ.

15.Nor is it consistent with it self. his very stating his Question, overthrows the main foundati­ons, and chief Arguments of his Discourse: and then he who will embrace our Au­thors assertion, according as he hath sta­ted it, upon such Arguments as he chiefly urgeth, must learn to affirm and deny the same thing, or to reconcile things con­tradictory; which to me and to all ratio­nal men must be, when observed, another great prejudice against his opinion. Now in stating his Case, he grants, as I above observed, that such Forms of Prayer as God hath commanded in Scripture, (if any such be) must be used, and other Scripture Forms, though not commanded, may be used as part of our Prayer; and yet he de­clares it sinful for such Ministers who can pray otherwise, to use Forms. 1. From the duty of using their own Ch. 2. p. 6, 7, &c. and Ch. 3. gifts, and 2. From the hindrance of pious dispositi­ons, or attention and fervency, from the use of a Form of words in Prayer; and yet if these Arguments are of any weight, they must conclude against the lawful use of Scripture Forms, as well as of o­thers, which yet he asserteth to be lawful. [Page 25]And indeed, some Scripture Forms being in the New Testament commanded to be used, that sufficiently manifesteth, that a set Form of words in Prayer can be no hindrance to a religious temper of mind, unless we will grant that our Saviours commands are hurtful to his Religion, and that such Positions of men, which are contrary to his Precepts, ought to be preferred before them.

16. He acknowledgeth also, p. 3. that it is lawful, yea necessary, for them who join with others in Prayer, to make use of his words who speaketh, which c an be but a Form to them. And p. 19. he saith, such persons have nothing to do but to exercise their grace. And this consideration was made use of, to prove the lawfulness of Forms, byPract. Ca­techism, B. 3. Sect. 2. Bishop Tayl. Of Prayer Extempore, n. 46, 47. Disp. of Liturg. Prop. 1. Arg. 6. D^r Hammond, D^r Taylor, and M^r Baxter. Now from hence it not only follows, that such Prayers are acceptable to God, which are put up by pious men with devout hearts, but without the ex­ercise of their own gifts; but it must also be hence concluded, that Ʋnity in publick Prayer, is more acceptable to God, than the use of mens own abilities in conception or expression. For otherwise, it would be the duty of all persons in the publick As­semblies, who have any such abilities, not to take notice of the Ministers words, or [Page 26]to join in them; but distinctly to exer­cise their own gifts, or make use of their private conceptions there, or else to with­draw themselves from the publick Assem­blies, that they may have the more free opportunity for the exercise of them.

17.Nor gene­rally owned by the Non-Conform­ists. I shall only add in the last place, that this assertion of our Author is such, that a great part, and I think the greater part of the Nonconformists themselves will not own. Indeed in Qu. Eliz. her time, theIn Bishop Whitgifts Defence Tr. 9. Ch. 2. Div. 2. first Admonition disliked the being tied to any Forms of Prayer invented by men, but M^r Cartwright in hisibid. Div. 3. Reply, de­clares his agreement for a prescript Form to be used in the Church. And besides o­ther particular persons, the Presbyterian Commissioners at the Savoy, made not our Authors Position any part of their obje­ctions, yea they were willing to have composedGrand debate; in exceptions of Presbyt. p. 29. new Forms, as themselves ex­press. And it would be well if our dis­senting Brethren would really consider, how great their disagreements are among themselves, even in so many things; that it cannot be expected that any way of settlement should be agreed upon among themselves, as it was experimentally ma­nifested by the proceedings of 1643, 1644, 1645. and the years ensuing.

18. And I should be wanting in due [Page 27]returns of civility to our Author, if I do not do him so much right, as to acknow­ledge, that his perspicuous stating the Que­stion, hath made way for the fairer exa­mination thereof. And he also disowns those wilder extreams in denying the lawfulness of all Forms in general, and al­so declares, that hep. 18. doth not argue for praying ex tempore, but only in the use of our own gifts, which excludes not preme­ditation: But I must likewise do the truth that right, as to observe, that his position as he hath stated it, is not consi­stent therewith; and therefore ought not to be asserted or defended.

CHAP. II. Ch. II. Of the gift of Prayer.

THE first Argument produced a­gainst the lawfulness of ordinarily using a set Form, by such Ministers who have a gift of Prayer, is because (saith he) this gift is a mean given by God for the performance of this religious act of Prayer, and thereforeReasona. Account. p. 5, 6. may not be neglected or omitted. And he tells us by the gift of Prayer he meansp. 6. a mans ability fitly to ex­press his mind to God in Prayer. And that such a person, who is able fitly to express his mind in his own words, ought to make use of them in publick Administrations, and may not lawfully pray by a Form; he endeavours to prove, by urging some Scriptures which require the use of some gifts, as 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. Rom. 12.3, 6.

2.What the gift of Prayer is? Now that I may give the clearest satisfaction to the Reader in this particu­lar, I shall not content my self barely to answer this Argument, and to shew the weakness thereof; but I shall first give an account, What that is which is and may be called the Gift of Prayer? and [Page 29]how far this is afforded? and how far mens own abilities must be exercised?Of the na­ture of Prayer. And for the better understanding of this, it must be observed, that a pious and devout Prayer, doth contain a great part of the lively exercise, and practice of Religion and Piety; especially if we comprehend under the name of Prayer, both confessi­on and thanksgiving. It includeth a pro­fessed owning the true God, and Faith in him, and acknowledging him to be the Governour and disposer of all things, and the Author of all good: and this is called by Philo Philo lib. Quod De­us sit im­mutabilis, p. 306. [...], a great Prayer. It taketh in also a professed owning the Almighty power, infinite wisdom, goodness, faithfulness and Omniscience of God: and also the exercise of reverence, submission, humility, hope, affectionate desire, heavenly mindedness, and repentance; together with a lively sense and belief of the Gos­pel grace and promises, and of the merits, Mediation and Intercession of our only Lord and Saviour; and a sincere love to all men, and particularly to the Church, and our Governours, for whom we pray.

3. Wherefore first, that is eminently and especially to be esteemed the gift of Prayer, which disposeth and enableth to the performance of the duty of Prayer. [Page 30]And therefore since Prayer is not so much a verbal thing,The gift of Prayer is a devout tem­per of mind as a pious address of the heart, soul and spirit unto God, Gods bestowing the supplies and assistances of his grace, which kindle and excite pious dispositions in seeking unto God, with earnest and affectionate desires, a lively faith, and the exercise of inward devotion; this is most properly his vouchsafing, and bestowing the gift of Prayer: and our re­ceiving and exercising them, is our having and using the gift of Prayer. For as the gift of Charity, doth not consist in speak­ing of the matters or rules of Charity, but in being inwardly disposed to the lively practice of that divine grace, so is it also in Prayer. Now if any persons shall here say (as some are used to speak) that what I have expressed, is not the gift, but the grace of Prayer, he may consider that by Grace, he can here understand nothing else but an excellent and gracious gift; and as S. Austin declaredAug. Ep. 105. Sixto. ipsa oratio in­ter gratiae munera reperitur; Prayer it self is to be reckoned amongst the works of grace.

4. And whereas this AuthorReas. Acc. p. 19. produ­ceth two places of Scripture, to prove the gift of Prayer from the holy Spirit,This shewed from the Holy Scrip­ture. Zec. 12.10. and Rom. 8.26. it is remark­ably observable, that both these places [Page 31]so far as they speak of the spirit or gift of Prayer, have particular respect to the in­ward affection and devotion of the heart, and not, according to his notion, to the ability of expression. The former place is Zec. 12.10. I will pour upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and suppli­cations; and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn, &c. Where the Hebrew word translated Sup­plications is by divers Interpreters, as the Chaldee Paraphrast, the Septuagint, the Syriack and Arabick Versions, and Pag­nine, agreeably to the derivation of it, rendred Mercies or Compassions. And since the spirit of supplications, is the spirit of grace, it therefore is to be understood ac­cording to the common sense of Interpre­ters, of piety of mind and affections, and an holy temper and disposition of heart, to trust in God and call upon him. And the following words, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and shall mourn, &c. will infer the same thing, if those words be taken as expressions of true repentance, which is the sense of many good Expositors; though some modern andEus. Dem. Evang. l. 8. Test. 4. ancient Writers, look upon them, as expressing the anguish of them who had despised and disobeyed our Blessed Lord and Saviour.

[Page 32]5. The other place is Rom. 8.26. The spirit helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what to pray for as we ought, but the spirit it self maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now concerning the former part of these words, it cannot be conceived, that this great Apostle, and other Christians at that time, should be ignorant of the common matters of Christian Prayer, who could not but be acquainted withAug. Ep. 121. ad Prob. the Lords Prayer, but a considerable part of the sense of this clause is, that whilest under troubles and sufferings, of which the Apostle was dis­coursing, even good men are apt to think their present redress and deliverance most desirable, as this Apostle himself did the departing of that outward affliction which he callsAug. ib. Chrys. in Rom. 8.26. a thorn in the flesh, 2 Cor. 12.7, 8, 10. the influence of Gods spirit di­rects them to seek his Kingdom, and with hope, and patience, and submission, to re­sign themselves unto the will of God, that that may be done on earth, and that his most wise Government should order all their affairs in this life. And the guidance of the Holy Spirit by keeping pious men humble, preserves them ordinarily from such irregular inclinations and desires, as appeared in the request of the two Sons of Zebedee, James and John, [Page 33]which they made to our Lord. And all this is performed by the influence of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

6. And in the latter part of these words, the Spirits making intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered, may well be applied to vehement affections, and inward gracious motions of the heart; but cannot consistently with com­mon sense, be referred to words and ex­pressions. But I see no great difference, whether this clause be understood imme­diately of the Holy Ghost himself, as most of theAug. Ep. 105. & Ep. 121. & passim [...] Ambr [...] ad Horon [...] Ancients understand it, that he gemendi inspirat affectum, promotes affe­ctionate groans; as in a like way of ex­pression they observe the Spirit is said to cry Abba Father, Gal. 4.6. because there­by we cry Abba Father, Rom. 8.15. Or whether it be understood of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, and the spirits of pious men who are influenced thereby, in de­pendance upon him; which is the inter­pretation ofChrys. in loc. S. Chrysostom, and is also mentioned byContra Serm. Ari­an. S. Austin.

7. The continued and encreased sup­plies of this divine grace and gift of Prayer, This gift necessary to be exerci­sed. or inward devotion of mind, is usually vouchsafed to pious men, according to their diligence, and progress in piety, goodness and righteousness, and their fre­quent [Page 34]practice of these duties of Religi­on, with careful preparation of mind. And the exercise of this gift being so great a part of Religion, and of singular use for obtaining various blessings from God, it ought by all men to be performed with the greatest seriousness. And as that abi­lity of expression, whereby a man largely professeth the particular doctrines of the Christian Faith, in the several Articles of our Belief, is not properly the gift of Faith or of believing, so neither is the like abi­lity of expressing the matter of our Prayer, to be accounted in any proper sense the gift of Prayer, but rather of speaking, utterance, or Elocution. But it is the inward gracious dispositions, and mo­tions of our hearts and minds, which is the most powerful Oratory, to prevail with God. And this whether with or without a Form of words; yea whether joined with outward expressions, or at­tended with silence, is the effectual and fervent prayer of a righteous man, which availeth much. Hereby as Cl. Alexandri­nus Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 7. saith, [...], We speak distinctly though with silence, Of the ex­traordinary gifts used in Prayer, in the be­ginning of Christiaui­ty. and utter inward loud cries, where no voice is heard.

8. Secondly, There was also a gift of Prayer, and praying with the spirit, when [Page 35]together with what is above expressed, many Christians in the beginning of Chri­stianity, were frequently enabled, by the extraordinary impulses and immediate in­spiration of the Holy Spirit upon their minds, so to pray either in their own or other Languages, that these motions of their hearts, and inward desires, and also their words and expressions, were the proper and extraordinary works and di­ctates of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 14.14, 15, 16, 17. And it seemeth highly proba­ble, that the Apostle had some respect to this gift, Rom. 8.26, 27. according to the interpretation ofChrys. in Rom. 8. S. Chrysostome, who thinks that for the better clearing those words, there must be recourse had to the times of such extraordinary gifts, which in his days were ceased. And he saith, God then gave gifts which are called also spirits; and having mentioned the gift or spirit of prophecy, of wisdom, heal­ing, miracles, tongues, &c. he addeth, after all these, [...], there was a gift of Prayer, which is also called a spirit (or spirit of Prayer) and he who had this, saith he, prayed for the whole multitude. And in another place the same Father observes, that this gift which he there also calls,Chrys. in 1 Cor. 14. [...], was sometimes accompanied with the gift of [Page 36]tongues, or an ability by the inspiration of the spirit, to express these Prayers in other Languages: which is also manifest from the Scriptures themselves, 1 Cor. 14.14, 15, 16.

9.How far such extra­ordinary gifts were to be used? Now he who had this gift, ought to make use thereof in a due and regular manner, especially so far as concerned the matter of this inspiration and gui­dance. For this was an extraordinary and singular favour from God, and these im­pulses were most excellent assistances, and infallible guides, for the right performance of the duty of Prayer, and making inter­cession according to the will of God, Rom. 8.27. But these eminent and extraordi­nary motions being miraculous, were pe­culiar to that primitive time, for which they were calculated, when the Christian Faith needed Confirmation, by the demon­stration of the spirit, both for the establish­ing of Christians, and the Conversion of others. But no man now can justly pre­tend to speak or pray, by such infallible inspirations, nor ought he to be credited who shall so pretend. Yet they who then received these assistances, were not obli­ged always to make use of them, meerly for the exercising of their gifts in the Christian Assemblies; but they ought on­ly so far to use them, as was consistent [Page 37]with the rules of order, and decency, and edification; but in other Cases they were to forbear the use thereof, as is manifest from 1 Cor. 14. And upon this account, the Apostle argues against the publick use of the gift of Prayer in an unknown tongue, though in the use of inspired gifts, 1 Cor. 14.14. my spirit prayeth, but my understanding, [...], is unfruitful; i.e. my gift is exercised, and my own mind and spirit is affected; but my sense and meaning is not declared, to the profit and benefit of others. For [...], which is here rendred understanding, appears to be used by S. Paul in this place, for the de­clared sense of his words and expressions, or the trueValla, Lud. Cap­pel. in loc. meaning of what he spake, as appears from v. 19. and so it is used elsewhere in this Epistle, 1 Cor. 2.16. we have [...], the mind of Christ, or the plain and true manifestation of his mind and doctrine.

10. From this 1 Cor. Ch. 14. I had in my Libertas Ecclesiastica given this as an Answer to that Argument against set Forms of Prayer, that they limit the use of gifts:Lib. Eccl. B. 1. Ch. 4. Sect 2. p. 120. That by the will of God, bounds and limits were to be set, even to the use of the extraordinary gifts of Gods spirit, that the Church might be edified, 1 Cor. 14.26, 27, 28, 30, 33. Whereas now no such mira­culous [Page 38]emanations of the Holy Ghost can be pretended. Now in reply to this, this Au­thor usethReas. Ac­count. p. 14, 15, 16, 17. many words, and saith these Precepts of the Apostle in this Chapter, were against two or three speaking or gabling together, and for the avoiding undue length in their Discourses, and that if any speak in an unknown tongue some should interpret. And then he declares, that such disorderly things may be restrained; but saith, it is one thing to restrain the notorious abuse of gifts, but it is a quite different thing to restrain the use of them. And to this pur­pose he misrepresents my sense, in a Syllo­gism of his own, and then triumphs over what himself had formed; wherewith I shall not trouble the Reader, but shall in a few words declare, what manifest evi­dence there is in this Chapter, for that which I urged from it.

11.Rules for the exercise of such gifts laid down 1 Cor. 14. considered. My intention was to shew, that the use of particular gifts, is not of so great necessity in the Church, because they are gifts, but that even some of the extraor­dinary emanations of the Holy Spirit might be, and ought to be forborn to be exercised, where this forbearance tended to decent order, or edification. And if this be plainly proved from this Chapter, the general urging the necessity of the use of all gifts given of God, further than [Page 39]that use is orderly and needful for edifi­cation, is an errour and mistake. Now the Apostle in this Chapter declares that charity, edification, and the good and profit of others, are things to be preferred and valued, above extraordinary spiritual gifts, v. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. that they who had these extraordinary gifts of the spirit, were not bound to use them in the Church, meerly because they were gifts, unless the use thereof was for the profit and edifica­tion of others, v. 2, 6, 18, 19. Yea the use of the gift of tongues, though given by the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was totally forbidden, where there was no interpreter, v. 23, 27, 28. and yet so far as concerns the nature of gifts, an ability to speak with other tongues, by peculiar assist­ances of the Spirit, was as much, yea more a gift, than an ability of expressing our selves in our own tongue, without any such extraordinary and peculiar assistance. And they who had other gifts of revela­tion, interpretation or doctrine, were to hold their peace, so far as was requisite to the observing the rules of order, and de­cency, and the avoiding confusion, v. 26, 30, 33, 40. But in our Case, there are no such gifts in being now, as then were in the Church, and therefore no restraint laid upon any such; here is no prohibi­ting [Page 40]that which is the proper gift of Prayer as I have above shewed, nor is any thing forbidden directly or indirectly, by the injoining Liturgies, which is of greater use to the edification of the Church; as I shallIn Ch. 3. hereafter shew; but here is a di­rection for a better and more useful per­formance of the duty of Prayer prescri­bed.

12. Thirdly, I acknowledge there is an ability in many persons, whereby they can express their minds in some de­gree fitly to God in Prayer. This our Au­thor dothReas. Acc. p. 6, 8, 10. divers times declare to be that which he accounteth the gift of Prayer. And I do not love to contend about ex­pressions; yet the phrase of the gift of Prayer, is no where used at all in the Scripture, and the ancient Writers do usefully for the promoting devotion in Prayer, discourse of it as a work of the heart and soul, and not of words: Prayer, saith S. Basil Basil. in Mart. Ju­litt. & in Bas. de O­rat. [...], we do not at all define to be a business of words: and whilest we are warned a­gainst confidence in [...], much speak­ing, it is [...], a diligent dis­position of heart, that is of great use. Where­fore as I before said, I esteem not this ability of expression, to be properly the gift of Prayer, but rather of speech or [Page 41]utterance, or a piece of elocution.

13.How far readiness of expression in Prayer is a gift of God? This facility of expression is procu­red and enlarged, in men who have a competent natural freedom of speech, by use and exercise, and is advanced by va­rious methods. I acknowledge that in some an affectionateness of devotion doth contribute much thereto: and in others confident self-conceit, and an heated fancy, and (as I have read some particular in­stances) even diabolical contracts have promoted the same. And as I cannot ad­mit these things last mentioned to be cal­led the gifts of God, so neither is it to be allowed, that the natural product of them in those persons should be so esteemed; and much less are they to be called Gifts of the Holy Spirit. And it is manifest, that a readiness of expressing the sense of their minds, with fluency of fit words, and vo­lubility of speech, doth attend even such men, who make use of their Prayers and other Discourses, to propagate and up­hold errors, and heretical doctrines, and Enthusiasm, and even them who are sunk into the depth of impiety; as well as those who design to promote truth and goodness. And it must be an high disho­nour to the Holy Spirit for any to say, that he gives his immediate and peculiar assist­ances, to the advancing of error and fals­hood. [Page 42]S. Paul observed a sleight and cun­ning craftiness, in them who lie in wait to deceive, Eph. 4.14. and that by good words and fair speeches, they deceive the hearts of the simple, [...], men of innocent and harmless intentions, Rom. 16.18. And Nazianzene describes the discourses of He­reticks, that they hadNaz. O­rat. 33. [...], a quick, nimble, and voluble tongue, and they spake, [...], with a masculine and generous stile, and choice and approved words. And these persons and such like, might be forward enough to call these things gifts, and to use our Authors Argument against the re­straint of them.

14. The high advantages of the influ­ences, and aids of the Holy Spirit in the Church of God, are with great thankful­ness to God and our Saviour to be ac­knowledged; but the operations of this spirit tend to produce purity, holiness and goodness. Christians are commanded in the Holy Scriptures to pray in the spirit, which (besides what was extraordinary, and peculiar to those times) consists in inward piety of heart, and not in variety of words. And copiousness of expression is so far from being an evidence of his con­duct, that in S. Chrysostoms judgment, where there is an over-flowing abun­dance, [Page 43]and multitude of words in Prayer, this cannot consist with that praying in the spirit, which is commanded by the Apo­stle, Eph. 6.18. It is saith he,Chrys. in Eph. 6. [...], not to pray in the spirit, when any one useth multitudes of words and repetitions. And indeed to pray in the spirit, as the Apostle directs, is to perform the duty of Prayer with a pious temper of mind, according to the Christian rules; whereas the de­signed use of variety of words and expres­sions, and the affecting this, is contrary to the Precepts of our Saviour. The Com­mentaries under S. Ambrose his name de­clare,In Eph. 6. Hoc est in spiritu semper or are, mun­da conscientia, & fide integra precem ad Deum dirigere; This is to pray always in the spirit, to direct prayer to God with a pure conscience, and an upright faith: and Calvin explains praying in the spirit, by declaring the inward devoutness of affe­ction, which is a fruit of that spirit;In Ep. Jud. v. 20. hinc ardor & vehementia, hinc deni (que) gemitus illi inenarrabiles, Hence proceed warmth and earnestness of spirit and groans, that cannot be uttered.

15. I acknowledge a sober and due freedom of expression, to be a gift of God, in the same manner that the capacities of mens understanding, and all other abilities [Page 44]of mind and body, are Gods gifts. But it is plain that this liberty of expression, is the product of the natural capacities men receive from God, which are improved in well disposed persons by ordinary means, under Gods blessing. And I cannot discern (and I think no man else can) that a Ministers ability of speech, either for Prayer, or Preaching, or Conference, is of any other nature, than that freedom of expression which a Lawyer hath to plead, or which other persons of good ca­pacities and liberal education, and who have accustomed themselves to discourse, do make use of concerning such things, as they have well considered: only it may be advanced by a pious affection towards the things he may discourse of.

16. I shall now consider, whether it be the duty of Christians, or particularly of Ministers, to make use of such abilities, at all times, in the exercises of Religion. And besides what I have said before,How far Ministers are obliged to exercise all their a­bilities? it may justly be accounted a considerable, if not an unanswerable objection, against the necessity contended for, of a Mini­sters using a particular gift, or ability wherewith he is endued, meerly because it is a gift; in that this would equally make it his duty, to use his present or extempore ability of conception, and expres­sion [Page 45]in Prayer or Preaching, if he have any such ability, and the use of his memory, in declaring what he hath himself concei­ved, or thought on before-hand, and also his reading what hath been before com­posed, either by himself or by others. But the use of these several abilities at the same time, is impossible, because of their being inconsistent with one another. But God obligeth no man to impossibilities.

17. And besides this, if it be necessary to the obtaining the favour of God, for Ministers to use their own gifts, in utter­ing variety of expressions in their Prayers to God, because they may not neglect the use of any of their gifts or abilities; then it must be necessary also, where the per­son who Ministers hath an ability to per­form it, and the Auditory (among lear­ned men and Scholars) hath a capacity to understand it; to perform the Offices of Prayer in the use of divers languages, some part in one language, and some part in another, exercising therein all his several abilities. For our Authors Argument will as much prove the necessity of this, as the necessity of his using his own parts, in dif­ferent ways of expression, in his own lan­guage; since the former is a more eminent and extraordinary ability than the latter, and if no gift or accomplishment, may be [Page 46]totally neglected in the service of God, then not this, which is of so considerable a degree. But yet if we consider God,Cl. Alex. Strom. l. 7. [...], he desires not, and is not pleased with the variety of sounds of words and languages; and the urging such a practice as a neces­sary duty of Religion, would represent Re­ligion, as if it was a business of affectation, fancy and humour; and not of piety and seriousness. Now this I mention, to ma­nifest hereby, of how low and little con­cernment in Religion, the meer exercise of a mans own abilities are, further than they have an influence upon the profit and edification of others.

18.No duty to use any abi­lity, further than is or­derly and for edifica­tion. And there are also many other abilities, gifts or perfections of another nature, which God bestows upon some Ministers, the exercise of which they may lawfully, and usefully, wholly omit in their Ministerial employments. For in­stance, he who is eminently able by cri­tical learning, to explicate divers difficult Texts of Scripture; or who is one of a piercing judgment, to fathom the depth of the greatest controversies, will not only be free from sin, but may be commended, if he silence these his abilities in his popu­lar Sermons, and acquaint common Audi­tories with such doctrines and duties, as [Page 47]are both useful for their practice, and su­table to their capacities. Thus S. Paul dealt with his Corinthians, feeding them with milk, 1 Cor. 3.2.

19. I shall now go further, and shew,'Tis best for the Church, that the a­blest men in some cases ordinarily make use of what was formed by others abi­lities. that Ministers who have themselves gifts, and abilities of the greatest degree, both lawfully may, and for the greater good of the Church, ought, to make use of what is drawn up to their hands by others, in some great and weighty cases, rather than of their own gifts, in the neglect of what is so composed, drawn up and esta­blished. And of this I shall give two in­stances.

20. My first instance shall be, concern­ing the translation of the Holy Scripture. Now I presume this Author will acknow­ledge,As the Translation of Scripture. that Ministers ought to instruct their people, in the doctrine and Religion of Christianity, out of the holy Scriptures. But according to his Principles, he who is able to give an account of the Original, ought not to cite the Scripture according to our English Translation, but must use his own gift and ability, in making a new Translation of his own: and possibly, if he be guided by our Authors way of rea­soning, he must be still making new Translations of the same Text of Scrip­ture, when he cites it a second, third, [Page 48]and fourth time, if he be able to vary so oft. And yet it is easy to see, that a fixed and well considered Translation must be of more value and esteem, and of greater use for the instructing people in the doctrine of Christianity, than this changeable method. And in this case, we have the acknowledgment of this Writer himself, who saith,Reas. Acc. p. 20. both Christ and his Apostles made frequent use of the Septuagint Version.

21. Our Author himself proposeth it, as an objection against his opinion, that according to it,P. 19. Ministers who are able must be bound in reading the Scriptures, to make a Translation of their own. And here at first he makes a doubt, whether read­ing the Scriptures be a Ministerial act; and saith, Christ never said to them, Go and read, and he supposeth the Scriptures may be read by inferiour officers, as is done in other Reformed Churches. But thus far his Answer is very insufficient, if it be con­sidered, 1. That the reading the holy Scriptures in the Church, hath been a part of the publick Offices in the Christian As­semblies, from the time of theTertul. Apol. c. 39. Just. Mart. Apol. 2. first Cen­turies, and even in the Apostles times, and by their Precept, Act. 15.31. Col. 4.16. 1 Thes. 5.27. and that this is included in that charge to Timothy, 1 Tim. 4.13. Give [Page 49]attendance to reading, is acknowledged by manyV. D^r Hammond, & in Baldw. in loc. Expositors. And therefore if all publick offices ought to be performed by the use of mens own gifts, why not this? 2. Even the publick Prayers were also in the ancient Greek Church, usually performed or read, not by the chief Offi­cers, but by the Deacon, asChrys. in Rom. & passim. S. Chrysostom oft expresseth. 3. That yet when per­sons of great abilities do undertake to read the Scriptures publickly, they must either sin according to his Position, in neglecting the use of their gifts, or else must make New Translations. 4. That what ever such men as our Author will deter­mine, concerning the publick reading the Scriptures, which was also constantlyBuxt. Syn. Jud. c. 9. practised in the Jewish Church, Act. 13.15, 27. ch. 15.21. and where our Savi­our himself, after he had begun to preach, stood up for to read, Luk. 4.15, 16. Yet so long as instructing the people out of the Scriptures, is acknowledged a Mini­sterial Act, they must according to his Argument, be hence obliged to make new Translations.

22. But for a further Answer, he tells us,p. 20. That no single Minister is fit to be trusted with this, nor to enter a dissent to the ordinary Version, — but with great mo­desty and upon weighty grounds. Now I [Page 50]commend the modesty of these expressi­ons, though I think in the former clause, they run too far into the other extream. I do not see what reason our Author hath, to condemn S. Hieroms translating the Old Testament, out of the Original Hebrew (or his Translating the Scriptures, for the use of hisHi [...]ron. Sophro­nio. Country-men into the Dalma­tian or Slavonian Tongue, and the like undertakings of divers other persons) be­cause this was performed by a single Pres­byter: and for this work, he hath been deservedly honoured in the Christian Church. And I did not think, he would have been so severe against the Version of Junius and Tremellius, or (if they may escape the better because they were two) against Beza's Version of the New Testa­ment. Yet I suppose all understanding men will grant, that the undertaking new Translations of the Bible, when the old one is sufficiently perfect, is a very need­less enterprize, to make them more nu­merous than learned men are.

23. But why may not what he speaks of a Version, be as well and as truly af­firmed concerning the publick Prayers of the Church, when there are as great abi­lities required, (not indeed of skill in the learned languages, and ancient Cu­stoms, but) of true wisdom, care, conside­ration [Page 51]and prudence, and as much autho­rity also, fitly to comprise the common addresses of the Church, and to recom­mend them to be presented to God in its publick service, as to make a translation of the Scripture? And why private Mi­nisters should have a greater liberty, to enter their dissents here, than concerning a Translation, I do not understand; es­pecially since we are more certain, that our Liturgy is free from any mistake or er­rour, in the matter of it, than we can be in some difficult Texts, concerning any Translation yet extant, every Age afford­ing further helps, for the clearer under­standing of some of them. And it is as easy a thing to make declamations against them who shall suppose, that many Mi­nisters are not able to examine, and give the sense of the original Texts, especially of the New Testament, as our Author can make against them, who think all private Ministers not sufficiently able, with due fitness, exactness and comprehensive­ness, daily to compose new solemn addres­ses to God, to present therein the common service of the Church. And yet if their private abilities could constantly enable them, to make Prayers every way as per­fect, as a well-ordered Form is, I shall in the next Chapter shew the advantages, [Page 52]that a fixed Form in the publick service, would still have above them.

24. But besides this, I know not how our Author will be able here to Answer his own instance. For whatsoever may be said of other Ministers; were notReas. Ac­count. ibi­dem. Christ, and his Apostles who were divinely inspi­red, of abilities sufficient to be intrusted with usual interpreting the Scriptures from the Original, yea and of making an infal­lible translation also? And yet they thought it neither necessary nor fit, when ever they cited the Scripture, to exercise their gifts, in making a new Version, but as he himself observeth, they frequently and for the most part followed the Septuagint. Indeed if our Author should embrace that Notion, from Aristaeus, which is men­tioned byPhil. de Vit. Mos l. 2. p. 659. Philo, and espoused by many of theJust. Mart. Co­hort. ad Gr. Cl. A­lex. Strom. 1. Epiphan de Mens & Pond. Au­gustin. &c. ancient Writers of the Church; and favoured by theNovel. Tit. 29. Const. 146. c. 1. Imperial Law, and by someSalian. An. Mund. 3775. n. 71. &c. M^r Greg. in Opus [...]. and others ci­ted by B. Walton Proleg. 9. in Bibl. Po­lygl. learned men of later days, that the Version of the Septuagint was framed by a kind of divine inspiration, he would hereby in some degree avoid this difficul­ty. But he hath shut himself out from this Plea, since in the same place he declareth, that Christ and his Apostles made use of this Version, though as full of mistakes as any other. And in that the Pen-men of the New Testament, did sometimes vary very [Page 53]considerably from the Septuagint; as for instance, in that Prophecy of Zech. 12.10. cited Joh. 19.37. where the Septuagint inHieron. in Zech. 12. S. Hieroms time were observed, and affirmed by him to read it, as our most ordinary Copies thereof now do; this is evidence enough, that they did not esteem that Version to be of divine inspi­ration.

25. A second instance I shall give,No new Creeds to be daily made. con­cerneth the Creed, or profession of the Christian Faith. Now supposing accord­ing to the assertion ofVoss. de Trib. Symb. Dis­sert. 1. c. 25. &c. Vossius, that the Creed called the Apostles, was not made by themselves: In reciting the Articles of the Christian Faith at Baptism, or accord­ing to the ancient Custom to theAug. de Symbol. ad Catechum. Cate­chumeni before Baptism; it cannot be ex­pedient, that every Minister should every time exercise his gifts, in forming a new Creed. And if he should do this, it would neither be so close and pithy in its matter and substance, nor of that authority, which the received Creeds are; and this would be the way to lose the old faith, by a changeable novelty of words. The anci­ent Custom of the Church, was to keep to theirRuffin. in Symbol. fixed Creeds. And then they who would not acquiesce in the recei­ved Symbol or Rule of Faith, were look­ed upon withSocr. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. [...]. suspicion, of having [Page 54]designs against the true Faith.

26.Publick Forms al­lowed by Dissenters. The like may be said of publick Confessions. And which way soever our Author may be enclined in this Case, some of the chief persons of the Presbyterian Party, in our late times, discerned so much hurt by the rejecting these publick Forms, as made them earnest in pleading the usefulness of them. Thus for instance, D^r Tuckney, on 2 Tim. 1.13. Hold fast the Form of sound words. Whence he declares,Form of sound words, p. 246. Forms so much decryed in our times, were not so undervalued in Paul's, who you see left with Timothy a Form of words. And he said,p. 248. these have been ever in use, since God himself wrote the Deca­logue, — and Christ taught us his own Prayer, — And the Apostles their Canons, Act. 15. and the Primitive Churches and Fathers their Creeds. And he not only asserts,p. 252. that the Forms of sound words are useful and in some cases necessary: but complains also, that ourp. 258. experience in these wofully distracted times, too sadly cry­eth aloud, that the not keeping more close to such Forms of sound words, (which our Church was sometimes famous for, in point of Doctrine) — hath miserably torn us in pieces, and divided us in semper divisibilia, with more to that purpose. And con­cerning every man taking the liberty, of [Page 55]venting his own novel composures of this kind, he declaresp. 272. many such Forms are in these times of Deformation rather than Reformation, minted daily. So he in the Year 1650.

27. And amongst the Independents, when their Elders and Messengers, from the several parts of the Realm, met at the Savoy, to publish their joint Declaration of Faith and Order; this their General As­sembly, it seems, thought it not necessary or requisite for them, to make use of their gifts to compose a new Confession of Faith. For in the main part of what they pub­lished,In De­clar of the Faith and Order of the Congr. Churches. in several whole Chapters, and most of their Paragraphs, they kept ex­actly even to the words of the Confession of the Assembly at Westminster, making very few alterations in any other things, save where the Independent opinions dif­fered from the Presbyterians. And yet themselvesIn the Preface. highly magnified, and applau­ded their own proceedings in this Con­vention, and their Ʋnity therein.

28. And it may be further considered,Well consi­ [...] Forms more com­pleat than other vari­ed compo­s [...]res. that in all these things, viz. the Version of Scripture, the Declaration of the Articles of Faith, and in publick Prayers, it may well be presumed, that what is well con­sidered and setled, or prescribed as a Form, is more perfect and compleat in the com­posure, [Page 56]than can be expected in any me­thod of ordinary variation. And to as­sert, that these things may be always bet­ter (or as well) performed, and compo­sed by every Minister, or even by the most eminent person whomsoever, in a constant way of varying, in the use of their own abilities, than in a well consi­dered and digested Form; is as much as to affirm, that the varied expressions of men at every particular time, are more pro­per, pithy, expressive and full, than the best composed Prayer that is at any time made, and reviewed with the greatest con­sideration and care: for so it may be expected that a publickly established Form is.

29. And he who talketh of this our Church, that if all her Ministers cannot constantly in their daily new Prayers, equal or out-do the perfection or exactness of a well considered Form, (for this must be his sense, if he speaks to any purpose) thatReas. Ac­count. p. 157. this may be spoken to the shame of the Church of God in England: these raw and extravagant speeches will be to the shame of those who utter them, so far as they will be ashamed of uncharitable and reproachful calumnies against the Church of God, and of speaking against all sense and reason.

[Page 57]30. Now the result of what I have hi­therto discoursed is, that what our Au­thor contends for, is neither the true and proper gift of Prayer, which is necessary to be exercised; nor yet any singular or peculiar gift of the spirit of God, as a spe­cial benefit of Christs Exaltation; but it is an ability of a more common and ordi­nary nature. And that it is neither a duty, nor yet expedient, that such abilities should be used and constantly exercised, any further than is agreeable to the rules of edification and order. Thus much I thought fit to write for the Readers better satis­faction, concerning the subject or matter of his first Argument; but I shall not need to do the like concerning the rest: And now it will be no hard thing, to Answer the Argument it self.

31. The substance of his Argument is,Reas. Acc. p. 5, 6. that a Ministers own gift, of expressing his mind fitly to God in Prayer, is a mean given by God, for the performance of the Religious act of Prayer; and therefore may not be omitted, no not at the command of man. To which I Answer,

32. First, That a mean given of God, Means or abilities not necessa­ry for the performing duties, may be omitted. if it be only capable of being used, and not a necessary mean to the performance of the duty, may lawfully be omitted. Especially when there are several means, [Page 58]which may all of them singly be used, he who chuseth one of them, and the most profitable, is not to be faulted, because he doth not use the other which is less profi­table. Thus in the publick Prayers of the Church; whereas a Ministers present flu­ency of expression, or his remembrance of what himself hath before conceived, with respect to that particular time; or his using a set Form, are different ways or means of performing this service; he who chuseth the last, which hath many ad­vantages of the other two, is not to be blamed because he doth not chuse either of those two. And by this it may appear, that this Writers own Argument, if it were of any strength, might easily be in­verted, and retorted against himself, if we put in the phrase of a Form of Prayer, instead of a Ministers own gift, &c.

33. Secondly, That ability of expression was not peculiarly and particularly given by God to Ministers, that they might thereby perform the publick Offices of Prayer. This is manifest, because this is also given to them, whom God never calls to perform the publick Offices of Mi­nistration. And also because if our Lord had intended it, to be the duty of all Mi­nisters of the Gospel, that they must use their own abilities of expression in the [Page 59]Prayers of the Church, and might not make use of any Forms, he would not himself have given them an Example, of composing a Form of Prayer, and deliver­ing this to be used by his own Apostles, and this too to be made use of, not as their private addresses, for themselves alone; but with respect to the whole Christian Society, and therefore beginning as was anciently observedCyp. de Orat. Dom. Non dici­mus patermeus—publica no­bis est & communis oratio. Our Father, as being a publick and Common Prayer. And this was the more considerable because it was agreeable to, and in approbation of what John the Baptist had directed his Disci­ples: and the like method had been be­fore used, throughout all the state of the Jewish Church, as I have inLibert. Eccles. p. 103, 104. another place evinced, and shall further prove, Ch. 3. Sect. 3. n. 27, 28, &c.

34.The Autho­rity of our Governours is to be ho­noured. The authority of our Governours is also in this Case of considerable weight. For though the command of man is not to be performed, if it be against the will of God; yet since it is fit, that a due order of publick worship in Christian Assem­blies, should be provided for by them, who have the chief Authority and inspection therein; the constant use of the Liturgy, being of it self agreeable to the will of God, becomes more obligatory upon us, because this way of worship is wisely [Page 60] established by our superiours. And the Apostle S. Paul declared, that the use ever of extraordinary spiritual gifts, must give place to decency and order, 1 Cor. 14.26,—33,—40.

35. But he further saith, that a man own gift or ability of expression in Pray­er, isReas. Ac­count. p. 6, & 7, & 18. a divine mean, but a Form o [...] Prayer isp. 7. & 18. Liturgies are no meer humane means for Gods wor­ship. a meer humane mean. Now this must be upon supposition, that an ability to compose a Prayer to speak it, is a di­vine ability, (which how far it is true, I have shewed above) but the same ability to compose the same Prayer, if it be to be written, is a meer humane ability. But no man can see any truth in such a sup­position, nor any reason for it.

36. But however our Author think fit to talk; so far as he hath proved any thing, he hath proved the composing of Liturgies, to be by a divine ability, or gift of Prayer. For he thus argues against those who deny any such gift, as the gift of Prayer. p. 8. This is, saith he, either [...] deny what is evident to sense, That there are some persons able, fitly to express then minds to God in Prayer, or to deny the Scriptures, which say, Jam. 1.17. th [...] every good gift, and every perfect gift com­eth from above, from the Father of lights. Besides that, it stubbeth up all Liturgies by [Page 61]the roots, none it seems having any ability to make them. Now the result of this Dis­course is, that the ability to make Litur­gies is the gift of Prayer, and a gift of God; and consequently they must be a divine mean for the performance of Prayer, or such an one as is afforded to us by the assistance of God. Besides this, God hath so far declared his approbation of Forms of Prayer, that he himself de­livered such, and enjoined them under the Old Testament, as our Saviour did under the New: and if that may be further cal­led divine, which serves the ends of God in the World, and conduceth to holiness and piety, upon this account also good and well-ordered Forms must be so esteemed.

37. But it now remains, that I examine his proofs, produced to shew that it is a duty, in the publick Prayers of the Church, for a Minister to use his own gifts of ex­pression, if he have such abilities. His firstp. 6. proof is, 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. But Ans. 1. In this place the Apostle requires Timothy, to take care of executing his Episcopal Office, The Precepts of the Scrip­ture con­cerning the use of gifts considered. and exercising his authority (which things were given by the laying on of hands) and also to discharge the duty of his place and [Page 62] function, with care and diligence, accord­ing to the grace which God had giver him. 2. Here is not a word spoken it this Text concerning Prayer, or the per­formance thereof by any such gift as our Author pleads for, nor doth the Context which mentioneth reading, exhortation, and doctrine, speak any thing thereof. And I suppose this Author doth not account the gift of Prayer, to be given by the lay­ing on of hands, when himself saith, the Churchp. 13. should judge of her Ministers gift of Prayer, before she trust them with the publick Ministry.

38. And 3. if this Text had particu­larly expressed the use of the gift of Prayer, and intended this concerning ut­terance and expression, as it doth not; the Argument from Timothy, at that time, when publick Offices of the Church were often performed by miraculous gifts, and who himself was in all probability fur­nished therewith, would not be of force, for them who have no such extraordinary gifts. Yet such Precepts do not enjoin the use of any gifts, further than may consist with order and tend to edification; which are general rules for the exercise of all gifts. And when the Apostle saith in this Verse, and 1 Tim. 1.18. that Timothies Ordination, and the discharge of his Fun­ction, [Page 63]was by prophecy, even this hath re­spect to those miraculous emanations of the Holy Spirit, who in those times, did in an extraordinary manner, often make choice of persons to be ordained; and di­rected the Apostles by Prophecy, or some other way of guidance, whom they should make choice of. To which purposeEp. ad Corinth. p. 54. Cle­mens Romanus speaks of the Apostles, [...], chusing and ap­proving by the Spirit, those whom they or­dained Bishops and Deacons. AndEuseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. [...]. Euse­bius from Clemens Alexandrinus, declares as a certain account of History, concern­ing S. John, that he ordained Bishops, and others of the Clergy, of persons [...], who were sig­nified and marked out by the spirit.

39. Now how severe this Writer is en­clined to be, against such like Arguments, produced by others against his opinion, from Texts where there is no mention at all of Prayer, we may discern by this in­stance. When he took notice that that Text Rom. 15.6. that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, was pro­duced, as well it might be, in favour of Forms: he breaks out into a swelling passion, and in contempt cries outReas. Acc. p. 142. Ridi­culous! is there in that Text a word con­cerning Prayer, &c. Now though there be [Page 64]in that Text, a more general expressi [...] of glorifying God, of the practice and ex­ercise of whichGrot. in Rom. 15.6. i. e. Ut cum Deum laudatis, ei (que) preces funditis, fa­ciatis id, non tan­tum eo­dem ver­borum so­no (sicut [...] fieri solebant) sed & ani­mo pleno mutuae di­lectionis. Prayer is one part [...] branch: yet if there had been no su [...] expression, if I had been of his Council I would have advised him to milder ex­pressions, for his own sake, towards such ways of arguing as himself maketh [...] of, but with less strength and evidence.

40. Another place of Scripture he pro­duceth is, 1 Pet. 4.10. As every one ha [...] received the gift, even so minister the sa [...] one to another, &c. Now this Verse is b [...] D^r Ham­mond in loc. many Writers, understood of givi [...] ­alms, to which sense its Connexion wi [...] the former Verse doth incline. But if [...] be understood concerning any ministe­rial abilities, of which the following Ver [...] discourseth, the main part of what I me [...] ­tioned in the second and third Answer to the forecited place of Scripture, w [...] equally agree to this. And indeed th [...] place cannot be understood, to have a [...] particular respect to Prayer; since [...] speaks of ministring one to another: Where­as in Prayer, and all proper acts of w [...] ­ship, as well as in sacrifice, he that mini­streth, ministreth only to God, to who [...] alone the Prayers and Service of the Church was directed.

41. He mentioneth also Rom. 12.6. [Page 65] Having gifts, differing according to the grace given to us, whether Prophecy, let us prophesie according to the proportion of faith. But the same Answer will fit this place also: for neither here, nor in 1 Pet. 4.10. is any mention at all of Prayer, but the other gifts, which the Apostles had their particular eye upon, are expresly named in the following Verses, in both these Chapters. And yet if the Apostle had then commanded them to have used such expressions in Prayer, as they were furnish­ed with by the gifts of the Holy Ghost, asGrot. in in Jud. 20. Grotius seemeth to think, that pray­ing in the Holy Ghost, Jude v. 20. is to pray, according to the dictates of the Holy Spirit, (which yet is more proba­bly, from the connexion of that phrase, with their most holy faith preceding it, and the love of God following it, to be under­stood of the grace of the Spirit) this would not have a like respect to us now, since the like dictates, and effusion of spiritual gifts are not now afforded. They then not only prayed, but also sung by the peculiar guidance of the Spirit, as is manifest, 1 Cor. 14.15, 26. and were therefore infallibly guided in both; but neither assistances of infallibility are now pretended to, from the divine spirit, save only in the deceits of Popery and Enthu­siasm, [Page 66]nor will our Author allow, thatReas. Acc. p. 18, 19. new hymns ought to be composed by the exercise of gifts.

42. And he produceth Rom. 12.3. where the Apostle requireth every one to think of himself soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith, and giveth us the last part of this Verse in Greek, as if there were some stress to be laid thereupon. But this ap­pears to be so little to his purpose, that I cannot ghess what he aimed at herein, unless it be that a Minister ought to think himself able, by his constant gifts, to outdo the perfection of Liturgies; which is directly against what the Apo­stle enjoined in the former part of that Verse, that no man should think of him­self more highly, than he ought to think. For I conceive it to be a manifest truth, that there is now no man whosoever he be, who by constant alterations, and making new Prayers, according to his own abili­ties, can perform these services at all times, with that exactness, which may be had in a Form: but he will some­times either omit something expedient, or be defective in due expression, or be wanting in that pithiness, closeness and comprehensiveness, which may be provi­ded for by a Form.

[Page 67]43. Now as there is not one word in any of these Texts, concerning the parti­cular use either of extraordinary gifts, and much less of ordinary abilities, in publick Prayer; so I cannot see, how any Christian can conceive, that they were at all intended against the use of Forms; unless he can first perswade himself, that these Apostles intended to contradict the direction and command of our Saviour, concerning the Lords Prayer.

44. Having now sufficiently, as I hope, answered what he produceth as his Argu­ment, I shall not take notice of those other particular Answers, which he men­tioneth, as having been by some given to this Argument, and unto which he gives his replies: though several of them are sufficiently vindicated, from what I have said. But there are two or three other passages in this Chapter, which I shall briefly reflect upon.

45. His description of the gift of Prayer, for the publick service of the Church, as beingp. 6, 8. This Au­thors ac­count of the gift of Prayer very deficient. an ability to express ones mind fitly to God in Prayer, is very defective and imperfect, especially in two things, though I use the phrase of the gift of Prayer here, improperly in his own sense. 1. In that he accounts this ability of com­posing or forming Prayers, to consist [Page 68]only in a persons being able to express his mind, whereas it is chiefly to be provi­ded that the conceptions of his mind be sober, and well ordered, comprehensive, and every way sutable to the nature of the duty. 2. In that he only mentions the expressing his mind; Whereas in publick Prayers, it is not a mans own private desires or wants, so far as they are peculiar to himself, which he is to pre­sent to God; but he is to express what is fit, to represent the minds of the whole Assembly, and the common desires and wants, and joint Devotions of all the Congregation.

46. Another place I shall examine is, where he tells us they p. 9, 10. His defa­v [...]ing the ministry of our. Church is unjust, and unrea­sonable. think 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. Thus in this place and in many others, he takes any occasion to reproach, and cast dirt upon the Mini­stry of the Church of England; even to such excess, as sometimes to call them (though he excepts very many particular persons from that charge)p. 124. an ignorant, [Page 69]lazy and sottish Ministry. And he is the more liberal in these exorbitant Censures, when he doth withal bespatter our Li­turgy, as in both these places, or what he termsp. 149. that pitiful thing called Ʋnifor­mity, in words, and syllables, and phra­ses.

47. Now I conceive my self abun­dantly warranted to say, that the abili­ties of the present Ministry of the Church of England are such as were never in this Church outdone (if equalled) in any fore­going Age; nor as I verily believe, in any other part of the Christian World, since the Apostolical times, in any Church of so large extent. And it is an easy thing, but mightily unworthy of a Professor of Christianity, to speak bad and evil words of the mosT worthy men and things. But doth the use of a Liturgy hinder men from studying the Scriptures, or their own hearts, (which is a loud calumny upon our Ministry, and many other excellent per­sons, of eminent piety and goodness, who have a very high value for our Liturgy) and were the ancient Fathers, and our first Reformers, and their Successors, who closely adhered to a Liturgy, men of no understanding in the Scriptures, and men of no piety of heart, or holiness of life? Or is the dayly reading the Scriptures, as [Page 70]is done in the Liturgy (and by the Mi­nistry of England at other times also) that which must hinder mens study and under­standing in them? and is the constant use of morning and evening devotions, which the Liturgy directeth, the great obstacle to piety, and to mens taking serious care of their own hearts, to have them possessed with fear and reverence of God, and dispo­sed to the exercises of Religion, and univer­sal obedience? And what a wild accusati­on is this, to revile and asperse a National Ministry at random, and at a venture, concerning such things, wherein every Reader may discern, that it is impossible for him to know what he speaks to be true, and others, blessed be God, know them to be false?

48. And I wish our Author be not him­self defective, in some part at least, of what he chargeth upon others. For in studying the Scriptures, he could not but meet with Precepts against evil speaking, false accusing, rash judging, and uncharita­bleness; and in studying his own heart, he would discern, whether he had not of­fended in any of these. And I presume him (though I am not very certain who he is) to be so much a Scholar, as to know that [...], the usual Greek word for the Evil one, doth properly and prima­rily [Page 71]signify a Calumniator, and it is thence unlikely, that any of the spirit of Chri­stianity should be contained in reproach­ing others, which Nazianzen accounted to beNaz. O­rat. 53. [...], one of the greatest evils.

49. In Answer to such words, I could also without much pains, find out defa­ming and reflective expressions, if I were enclined that way; but I am content herein to be inferiour to him, but truly sorry to see what liberty he sometimes gives himself in such things. I have long since learned, from the example of our Lord and Saviour, from the rules of the Christian Religion, and particularly from our Church-Catechism, to keep my tongue from evil-speaking, lying, and slandering. And if he will not take it ill from me, which I assure him, I intend no otherwise than with a truly charitable mind; I dare confidently affirm, that if he shall please to be a strict observer of so much, though it be out of our Liturgy, he will not thereby be the worse man.

50. And I hope he may be the less of­fended with me for this Counsel, because I do not write it out of any private pro­vocation, or any apprehension of disre­spectful expressions towards my self. I acknowledge his expressions towards me [Page 72]in particular, to have been very civil and courteous, and I thank him for them. And I shall not return to him any thing un­meet. But I should not be faithful to the truth, nor to himself, if I should not shew the weakness and mistakes of his Argu­ments, so far as I discern them. And the duty I owe to the Church, of which I am a member, cannot well be discharged, without taxing his reproachful words a­gainst it, where I meet with them.

51. What he speaketh concerningp. 18, 19. Hymns and Anthems, I shall have occa­sion to take notice of in the nextCh. 3. Sect. 2. n. 38, &c. Chap­ter.

CHAP. III. Of Devotion, and attentive fervency of mind in publick Prayer: and whether the use of Liturgies be hin­drances, or helps therein.

CHAP. IV. Ch. IV. Forms of Prayer are not forbidden ei­ther in the Second Commandment, or by any other Divine Precept.

HIs third Argument is, that it is Sin­ful for Ministers, having the gift of Prayer, to use prescribed Forms, no ne­cessity compelling; because God hathReas. Account, p. 71. neither by the light of Nature directed them, nor in his Word prescribed them. Now it is acknowledged, that all the parts of Divine Worship must be such,Of the parts of Divine Worship, and the manner of performing it. as the light of Nature, or the revealed Will of God do direct. By the former, our dependance as Creatures, doth oblige us to acknowledg and honour God; and to call upon him, and pray unto him: And the holy Scriptures give us further Precepts, and encouragements in these Duties. And in the parts and duties of Divine Worship, the manner of per­forming them, and our outward expres­sions therein, must be such as is sutable to the Duty it self; as swerveth from no Divine Precept, or Institution; and is recommended either by the light of [Page 178]Nature or Scripture. But from what I have said in the former Chapter, it may appear,Forms of Prayer are agreeable to the light of Nature and Scrip­ture. that Forms of Prayer in the publick Worship of God, are recom­mended by the Light of Nature, as it directeth us to chuse the best, and most expedient and profitable way of per­forming that Worship; and that the Scriptures also do encourage us in, and give their approbation of the use there­of.

2. But there is yet a further design in this Argument, which is, That no­thing may be used in God's Worship, which he hath not himself prescribed. To this end, he saith, the sense of the Second Commandment is this, P. 73. Thou shalt worship in no other Way, by no other Means or Religious Rites, than what I have prescribed: And again,P. 75. & the like P. 74. We judg all Acts, Rites and Means of Wor­ship prohibited by God, which either in express Terms, or by first consequences from Scripture, are not prescribed. Now if he will be consistent with himself, and conclude any thing in the Case under debate from these things, which are ra­ther Positions,And are not forbid­den be the the Second Command­ment. and unproved Asserti­ons, than Arguments; his Inference must be, That no words and expressions (for of these we are now discoursing) [Page 179]ought to be used in the Worship of God, which are not by him prescribed. But con­cerning this Argument, I shall observe three things.

3. Obs. 1. That he here contradict­eth, what he declared in the stating his Question, and hath oft repeated, ha­ving as he tells us,P. 91. Again and again, said, That they do not think Forms of Prayer unlawful. This Ar­gument Clasheth with him­self. But if they be not prescribed, and all means not prescri­bed be prohibited, they must be asser­ted to be unlawful. And being thus prohibited, no pretence of necessity on Mans part, can make them lawful. For according to that ancient rule, Nulla est necessitas delinquendi, quibus una est ne­cessitas non delinquendi, Tertul. It can be ne­ver necessary for them to sin, for whom it is only necessary that they do no sin. And it is more necessary, to forbear any pre­sent external expression of Homage to God, than to make use of that which is unlawful and forbidden, as is mani­fest in the instance of Saul's sacrificing.

4. Obs. 2. By this way of arguing, the particular conceptions and expressi­ons, of him who prayeth without a Form, are as much forbidden, And will conclude Prayers without Forms to be fitful. as the use of a Form is pretended to be; since God hath not prescribed these Expressi­ons. [Page 178] [...] [Page 179] [...] [Page 180]But here our Author tells us, that the light of Nature shews our own inven­tion to be a mean, and a sufficient mean in this act of Worship. Thus Men who talk at this loose rate can tell, when it serves their own turn, how to allow what God hath not prescribed, and to justifie it upon this very account; be­cause it is the Invention of Man, though they can declaim against Ecclesiastical Constitutions, under the very name of Inventions of Men. But if we may use words and expressions, and a method and composition of Prayer, not particu­larly prescribed of God; what an un­reasonable vanity is it, to argue from this Topick against a Form of Prayer, because these particular things in this Form, are not appointed of God.

5. But possibly he may tell us, as some have done, that by keeping to the con­stant use of a Form of Prayer, we make that a proper part of Divine Worship. Now though this was answeredThes. Salmur. Part 3. de Liturg. n. 35. by Cappellus, and in part byLib. Ec­cles. B 2. p. 305, 306. me else­where, I shall here say, That we are far from thinking, that any particular Form of Prayer, appointed in any part of the Church, is necessary to be used in all Christian Churches in the World; who all of them are obliged to perform all [Page 181]the proper parts of Divine Worship. Nor is Religion, and the Worship of God placed in the bare reciting the words of a Form, but chiefly in the pious devotion of the Heart, of which these words are an expression and guide. And thus much must be allowed to the use of words in those Prayers, which for distinction sake, I call Conceived Prayers. I hope he will not say, that it is the constant and prescribed use, of the same thing not commanded of God, which only is forbidden in the Second Commandment; as if the worshipping an Image was only forbidden, where there is a constant Adoration given to the same Image, but that it is allowable where there is so great a number of them, that men sometimes make choice of one, and sometimes of another, with various changes. We allow the Second Commandment, and the Rules of Scrip­ture concerning God's Worship, to re­quire that no act of Divine Adoration be given to any thing else besides God himself;What God hath for­bidden, or command­ed concern­ing his Worship. and that that Homage and Ser­vice which is sutable to his Nature, and according to his Will, be religiously per­formed; and that no such pretended Worship, which is unsutable to his Na­ture, or disagreeing to his Will, ought [Page 182]to be presented to him. But this sug­gestion, that Forms of Prayer are for­bidden by the Second Commandment, as included under Idolatry, is so unreason­able, thatView of Direct. Chap. 1. Sect. 22. Dr. Hammond might justly wonder, at the strangeness and prodigiousness thereof; and Cappellus might well declare, concerning them who urge this, as an Argument,Ubi sup. n. Cras­se admodum hîc homines isti hallucinan­tur; These Men are herein exceeding gros­ly deceived.

6. Obs. 3. This Position, That no­thing may be used or appointed in God's Worship, but what is particularly en­joyned by God himself, (besidesReas. Acc. p. 75, 76, 77. & p. 86, 87. ne­cessary circumstances to humane actions as Humane) is that, concerning the false­ness and dangerous consequence of which I discoursed largely in my Liber­tas Ecclesiastica B 2. c. 1. through­out, & c. 2., to which I refer, nor is any answer given thereto by this Writer. And I shall here note, that as it is improved,That Posi­tion that nothing not prescri­bed, may be used in Gods Wor­ship, is de­structive of all Rell­gion. it is destructive to pub­lick Worship and Religion. For since God hath commanded us to pray, but hath not in all acts of Worship, enjoyned our Words, or the performance of this Duty with or without a Form; it must according to this Position, be done in neither, since each of these are by con­sequence [Page 183]sequence pretended to be forbidden, be­ing not prescribed. The same may be said of our Saviour's Precept, concern­ing the celebrating his Supper in Bread and Wine, but he hath not prescribed or determined the sort of Bread, or the kind of Wine. And though God hath commanded us to sing Praises to him; whatever this Writer saith, he can ne­ver prove, the singing continually the Psalms of David, and others recorded in Scripture, to be particularly enjoyned by a Divine Institution, under the Go­spel; though the Church of God hath very generally and advantageously used them. Wherefore the result of this as­sertion is, for men to contradict them­selves, in the performances of Religion, and (which is far more intolerable) to look upon God, as having contradicted himself, in giving such Laws, which so clash with one another, that they cannot be obeyed, and that by the one he hath set us free from observing the other.

7. But if these things may be deter­mined by men, as they indeed must be, the common rules of Prudence will not allow that it should be lawful and fit, for every Minister by his more sudden and vario thoughts, to determine these things for the Congregation where he [Page 184]ministers;Things ne­cessary to be determi­ned in Re­ligion, may be best de­termined by publick Constitu­tions. and that it should be un­lawful and unreasonable, that any such things should be considered and resol­ved on, by the deliberate Consultations of the most prudent Men: And if we consider the Authority of our Superi­ours, to reject pious Forms of Prayer by them appointed, and which I have shewed to be of excellent use, speaks a wnat of just Reverence and Submission to them, and a not yielding to them that due Superiority in matters Ecclesiastical, for the right ordering the exercises of Religion, which belongeth to them; of which I have in another Book discoursed some-what.

8. But whilst this Author in this Chapter observes, that some urge the DutyP. 74, 85, 86. of obeying Superiours in things lawful, and not forbidden of God, as an obligation upon Inferiours in our Case, to joyn in our publick Forms of Prayer; besides what he urgeth against this, that Forms of Prayer are things forbidden of God, as I above noted, he hath some other expressions, concern­ing the Power and Authority of Supe­riours, and our obedience to them, which I shall reflect upon.

9. He grants that the Superiour may in some cases determine of such a thing,P. 88. [Page 185]which both he and the Inferiour confess to be in it self indifferent; but not in things,P. 77. which the Superi­our acknowledgeth not necessary, and the Inferiour thinks are forbidden. Useful things are fit to be stablished, tho some by mistake may rashly Condemn them. Now if any Inferiour, or any Person whosoe­ver, account any thing to be forbidden, and proceed in his judgment upon good and true grounds; no such thing may be appointed, being in it self evil; whe­ther the Superiours acknowledg it not necessary, or by mistake think it is so. But where any Superiours do upon good grounds, judg any thing to be of good and profitable use for the publick good, though not absolutely necessary in it self: And some Inferiours out of mistakes, or forwardness to censure, will condemn such things as sinful and unlawful; it is no way fit that such good Orders be laid aside; and many others, and the Church it self, be deprived of the good they might receive from them, by yielding a Compliance to these mi­stakes. And whereas he here urgethP. 77. the duty of Charity, he ought to consider, that real charity in providing for the good and profit of the Souls of Men, is of far greater value, than that which he calls Charity, in gratifying the Opinions, and complying with the Er­rors [Page 186]of Men, in their mistakes. But of the appointments of such things as are scrupled, I have treated more at large in anotherLibert. Eccl. B. 2. Ch. 2. § 3. through­out Discourse.

10. Concerning obedience to Supe­riours, he saith,P. 80. Doth this make a sufficient reason for practice in Divine Worship, that Man commandeth it? And he producethP. 81. Bishop Jewel's Testi­mony, that God is to be obeyed, rather than Men; which we assert: AndP. 82, 83, 84. Bishop Davenant, condemning the blind obedience of the Jesuits, and asserting unto all men such a judgment of discretion, that they may consider whether the things be true, or lawful, which are directed by their Superiours. And then he tells us, ThatP. 84. blind Obedience is the very foundation of Popery; but the judgment of private and practical Discretion, is the foundation of the Protestant Religion.

11. Now it is true, That to yield such a blind Obedience to Superiours, as to account them Infallible, and thereup­on to account that all they deliver must be received, without any liberty to ex­amine the truth, and lawfulness thereof, is a foundation of Popery. But to own the due Authority of our superiours and Spiritual guides, and to acknowledg, that they may determine matters of [Page 187] Order and Decency in the Church, and that it is the duty of Inferiours to sub­mit themselves to such Determinations, if they be not contrary to the Will of God, is that which Christianity requireth, and is a necessary foundation of Peace and Ʋ ­nity. What judg­ment of discretion, the true principles of Religi­on do al­low in all Men. And to make use of our own judg­ments and understandings, so as to reject whatsoever we certainly know to be false and evil, is that which all true Religion and good Conscience, and the Christi­an and Protestant Principles will direct. But for any to think it their duty, to close with such Arguments as seem to them probable, but are weak and fallaci­ous, and are of no clear evidence and undoubted certainty; and to account themselves warranted thereby, to pur­sue what is against the established State and Order of the Church, and its Peace and Welfare; and against the Authori­ty of their Superiours, or any rules of Duty; this will lead Men into all man­ner of evil Faction, Schism, and Fana­ticism, and such Principles cannot justi­fie themselves in the sight of God, or good Men, as I haveCh. 1. n. 9. &c. above shew­ed.

12. This is that which the Writers of our Church declare against, and so do Protestants generally, and so doth [Page 188]particularlyDaven. de Judice Contro­vers. c. 1.2. Bishop Davenant, who first reserving to god the Supreme power of judging, ibid. c. 16. asserteth to our Supe­riors, the ministerial judgment, whereby, besides other things, they have Autho­rity to judge, de constitutionibus ad ex­ternam Ecclesiae politiam pertinentibus, of Constitutions belonging to the ex­ternal Polity of the church. And he then declares the necessity of a judg­ment of discretion in all Christians: which he understands, according to the sense I have in the former Paragraph expres­sed, as is manifest both from that Trea­tise, and the other cited by this Writer, In Epist. ad Colos. c. 2. v. 23. And he particularly acknowledgeth it, to be the general sense of Protestants; ibid. cap. ult. Judi­cium hoc discretionis vanum, falsum, fana­ticum esse concedunt, quando ex privato sensu & phantasmate ipsius judicantis di­manat; verum, firmum & legitimum, cum oritur ex lumine infuso Spiritus Sancti, & dirigitur ad normam verbi: That they acknowledg that judgment of discreti­on to be vain, false and Fanatical, when it proceeds upon the private sense and fancy of him that judgeth; but that it is true, firm and allowable, when it is inlightned by the Holy Spirit, and di­rected by the rule of the word. Where­fore [Page 189]he gives no allowance to mens pro­ceeding upon probable and uncertain arguments, but only upon manifest and clear evidence, in opposing what is esta­blished by Superiors. And indeed dis­obeying upon such grounds as are not manifest, is but a blind disobedience, which may well be ranked with blind Obedience. We and all sober Prote­stants are against both; and if the for­mer should be followed, by Children to their Parents, and Servants to their Masters, especially in working Fancies, and weak Judgments, it would bring nothing but confusion into Families.

13. This Author also tells us, That to justifie the Subjects obedience,p. 89. there must appear to him, some reason from a Divine command, requiring the thing. Here if the Precepts of Ʋnity, Peace, Order and Obedience be sufficient, these are frequent and clear; but if he still mean, that no particular thing may be established, unless, it be some way de­termined, by a Divine Precept, this I have above refuted, n. 2. &c.

14. He declares alsoibid. that Gestures or Actions, that are idle or insignificant, are in worship sinful; and therefore may not be submitted to. Now it is well, he hereby disallows the fond notion of [Page 190]them, who decry our Rites or Ceremo­nies, because they are significant. The ap­p [...]inting Liturgy in what sense to reckoned among things in­different. But this can make nothing against Forms of Prayer, where the words express the sense of the Prayer, and are not only significant, but very useful. And though such thngs as are appointed, in the due order of the Church; as the Forms and Order of Prayer, Hymns, and such like, have been usually and frequently called things indifferent: the word indifferent here, is only to be understood in oppo­sition to what is in it self absolutely neces­sary, but not in opposition to, or di­stinction from what is good, useful, and profitable to Edification. so that such things are, if I may so call them, in them­selves legally indifferent, being particu­larly established by no Divine Law, and which may as things of Ecclesiastical liberty be appointed by Superiors, not morally indifferent, as if the appoint­ment and practice of them, was not use­ful, profitable and good.

15. He saith also, thatibid. an appro­priated habit is in worship sinful (the contrary I have sufficiently proved in myB. 2. ch. 1. p. 320, 321. & ch. 4. p. 492, &c. Libertas Ecclesiastica) and that for the Superiour to command any such thing, will be a sin unto him, as Gideons Ephod was a snare to his house. Jud. 8.27. But [Page 191]the Scripture saith, concerning Gideons Ephod, which he made and put in his own City; that all Israel went thither a whoring after it; which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and his house. So that publick Idolatry in which Gideons family did in all probability joyn, was that whereby [...] became a snare unto them.Of Gide­ons Ephod. But nei­ther was the Ephod of Samuel, 1 Sam. [...]. 8. nor of David, 2 Sam. 6.14. nor the Levites garments, 2 Chr. 5.12. at all blamed in the Holy Scriptures, but approved, though none of them were appointed by the Law of God: and therefore it must be somthing of another nature, than the bare making an habit, that was of so ill consequence to Gideon and his Family. And as this at last came to a manifest and general Idolatry, so there was probably somthing blameable in its first Constitution. St. Austin Quaest. super Ju­dic. c. 41. from the great proportion of Gold, al­lotted tot he making this Ephod, Jud. 8.26. thinketh that other ministerial things, relating to Gods service, were made therewith: and others think that Gideon making an Ephod, like the high Priests, intended to worship God, and enquire of God thereby, in his own city, and not in Gods Tabernacle, which was to erect a Schism. Now Schism and Ido­latry, [Page 192]whether they be commanded by Superiors, or practised by Inferiors, joyntly or separately, will be a Snare unto them, as they were to the house of Gidcon.

16. Our Author takes notice, thatp. 91.92. commands in Scripture, and examples, are urged for forms of Prayer; and saith, it can never be proved, that there were forms of Prayer in the Jewish Church, or that the Lords Prayer was intended as an ordinary form: and however what is produced from these things, concern­ing the State of the Gospel, he calls pitiful inconclusive Arguments. And saith he, if David made Psalms (which are Pray­ers) he was a Prophet, but did he make an Act of Ʋniformity too? But that the Jewish Church had forms of Prayer; that the Lords Prayer (which surely was delivered under the Gospel) was delive­red as a form, and that the Arguments from hence are cogent, I have proved in the former chapter. And since the ordinary practice of the Jews, in using forms, was approved by our Saviour, it is not considerable, whether any of them were established by David, or other persons in Authority. Yet David did in some things appoint rules and orders for the service of God, 1 Chr. 25.2, 6. [Page 193]And Hezekiah and his Princes, ordered in what form of words the Levites should sing praise to God, 2 Chr. 29.30.

CHAP. V. Ch. V. Of other Prayers, besides those in the Liturgy, and publick service of the Church.

HIs fourth Argument is, That the ad­mitting, or agreeing Reas. Account. p. 93.94. Ministers to use ordinarily prescribed forms of Pray­er, is of sufficient force to restrain the total exercise of the gift of Prayer, which is sinful. And that by this principle, Mi­nisters may not pray otherwise, before and after Sermon. And that if the Ma­gistrate shall hereafter make a Law, p. 95. Of the use of other Prayers, besides forms. of the Latitude of that of Nebu­chadnezzar, to tie men to pray no where to God, neither in Family, or Closet, but in the use of a form, or the Churches Prayers, they must obey this also, by the same reason, which obligeth them, to use set forms in the publick use of the Liturgy. And, saith he,p. 97. who shall determine, how far the Magistrate may impose, or not im­pose? [Page 194]Now in this Chapter he produ­ceth nothing new, to prove it a Duty, for men to use their own abilities of ex­pression in Prayer; but saith,p. 93. he takes this to shine sufficiently in its own light.

2. Wherefore, in answering this Chapter, I shall premise three things, First, That I have above shewed,Chap. 1. that mens abilities of expression, which are not properly the gift of Prayer, are not on other accounts necessary to be used; unless, where they be requisite, for the better performing the worship of God.

3. Secondly, that since I have mani­fested, the usefulness of setChap. 1. & 2. forms in themselves, for the publick offices of Religious worship, and do not found their lawfulness, and expediency meerly upon Obedience to our Superiors; there­fore I can be no way concerned here, to determine, or enquire after, the extent or boundaries of the Authority of our Governors, in ordering things relating to the worship of God.

4. Thirdly,The extent of Gover­nours Au­thority, not requisite to be question­ed, in every act of Obe­dience. That it doth not express any great reverence to Superiors, for any to deny submission, to the lawful and useful Constitutions by them established; and to plead for this, by putting other Questions, about their power of com­manding things, which seem disadvan­tageous [Page 195]to Religion, and by declaring, that the extent of their Authority, is not sufficiently stated. What confusion would it bring into Families, if when Children, or Servants, are commanded there to joyn in any exercise of Religi­on, as in prayer in the Family (which our Author grants, must be a form to them, who joyn in the words of others) they may be allowed to answer, they will not comply therewith, because, by so doing, they may be imposed on in Religion, from one thing to another: and they must first know the strict bounds of that Authority they are under, and who shall fix them. And the like may be said, of the several conventions of different Sepa­ratists. But if it be enough, to say in the case of a Family, that they may then deny actual obedience and subjection, when any thing is required of them, which they know to be evil; we acknow­ledg the same in our case.

5. And thus much might be sufficient,Whether it be a duty, to use other Prayers be­sides form [...]. for answer to this Chapter, as it hath a particular aspect upon the Authority and commands of our Governors; yet be­cause, I would not avoid any thing, which may seem material and useful, I shall farther here consider, Whether, and how far, Christians, or Ministers, [Page 196]are under any obligation to Duty, to use any other prayers, besides set forms, in all those particular cases mentioned in this chapter; before and after Sermon, in the Family, and in the Closet. Now comprehensive and well ordered forms, being with deliberation fitted to the common state of Christians, and the ends of our Religion; are as I have above shewed, to be preferred, in the publick worship of God. And that before or after Sermon, there should ordinarily be new and varied Prayers, I know no rule of reason, or precept of the Christian Religion, which requireth this, and maketh it a Duty.

6.Before Ser­mons. Before Sermons Of Re­ligious Assembl. c. 7 p. 237. & 252. Mr. Thorndike observes, That in the flourishing times of the Church, Preachers were wont to com­mend themselves, and their labours to Gods blessing. But this was frequently, at least, done by a set form. A short form to this purpose, of St. Ambrose is, as Mr. Thorn­dike there observed, yet extant, may be seen in Ferrarius de ritu concion. and from thence inAlliance of Divine Offices. Chap. 6. p. 183. Mr. Hamon L'estrange, and the form of Aquinas, is published byCasland. Prec. Ec. Cassander. And some of the most eager of our Dissenters, ahve formerly kept themselves ordinarily to set forms before their Sermons. And our Church [Page 197]in herCan. 55 Canons, hath given direction for a form of Prayer, to be used before Sermons, as is there expresed, or to that effect: but among the different practices, it is not necessary for me here, to con­sider what liberty is hereby allowed to Ministers.

7. In the close of the Sermon, After Ser­mons. many Homilies of the ancient Writers, had some supplicatory expressions, interwoven as a conclusory part thereof, and some­times with particular respect to the sub­ject of their Discourse. Such things were in some of their popular Discour­ses, practised byBasil. Hom. 2. & 6. in Hexaem. De Jejun. Hom. 1. de Mam. Mart. & de Lib. Arb. St. Basil, Naz. Orat. 2.6, 10, 28, 42. V. Schol. Gr. in Not. Billij in Naz. Orat. 18. Gr. Nazianzen, St. Chrysostom, in some Ho­milies, ad Pop. Antioch, and others, and also in St. Augustine, St. Gregory, Bernard, and divers others: and our Church doth not seem to dislike this Method, which is imitated in some of her Homilies. But yet this was used but in some, either of the ancient Homilies, or of those of our Church; St. Austin used most re­quently the same conclusory Prayer, or Collect, which is extant inAug. Tom. 8. pag. ult. his works. The method used by several persons, of the several persuasions among our Dis­senters, who frequently have prayed over the several heads and parts of their Ser­mons, that their Auditors might be per­suaded [Page 198]of them, stands chargeable with this fault among others; that asDisc. Prayer extem­poret. Bishop Taylor observed, as their Sermons according to their different parties, were oft directed against one another, and in contradiction to one another, so by con­sequence were their Prayers, and there­fore the matter of Prayer must be, in many of them unsound. But that excel­lent Collect, Grant we beseech thee Al­mighty God, &c. much used in our Chnrch after Sermons, (besides, the ex­pressions in the Prayer for the Church militant, to the same purpoe) is so pi­thy, in desiring the blessing of God, for obtaining the best effect of the Sermon, that no pretence can remain, to charge any blame upon those, who use no diffe­rent concluding supplicatory expressi­ons of their own.

8. Indeed there are sometimes extra­ordinary cases and occasions, which are proper matter for our publick Prayers and Thanksgivings, and ought not to be omitted. It is observed byAnn. Eccl. An. 37. n. 7.8. Ba­nonius, that the Church presented their especial Suffrages to God, for the good success of Gratian against the Alemans: andAthan. Apol. 2. ad Con­stant. Athanasius did publickly do the like, for Constantius against Magnentius. Such cases as are most weighty, or usual, [Page 199]are provided for by particular Collects in our Liturgy; and if they be cases of particular persons, they may be com­prised in the Prayer for all conditions of men, and the general Thanksgiving, ac­cording to the directions in our Liturgy. And these parts are as blameless, and as commendable in their use, as the ordi­nary parts of the Liturgy. And if there should yet be some great and extraordnary case, which is not sufficiently con­tained, under any of these Prayers or Praises: Dr. Hammond declared,Pract. Catechism l. 3. Sect. 2. The Church sometimes permits, and upon incidental occasions prescribes, other forms in the Congregation. Such are upon great special reasons, the Prayers for particu­lar public days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving. And if saith Mr.Discour. 1. on Mat. 6.9. [...] Mede, There be any sudden unexpected oc­casions, for which the Church cannot pro­vide, the spirit of her Ministers is free. Who will forbid her Ministers to supply in such a case, that by a voluntary and arbitra­ry form, that the Church could not provide for in a set form? But such cases where this is necessary, will be very rare, and must keep their place.

9. And for Family, and Closet Prayers, what ever freedom of expression any man hath, whensoever he devoutly and [Page 200]piously addresseth himself to God in a form of words, in the daily and constant matters of worship,Of Prayer in Fami­lies and Closets. as acknowledging, and adoring the Divine excellencies and perfections, blessing God for daily bene­fits, and seeking to him for such mercies, as we always stand in need of; I do not see, how the least blame can be charged upon such a Person, but his mind may be enlarged, his memory helped, and his affections quickned thereby.

10. And so far as I can discern, the ordinary use of a well composed form, may usually in a Family, most conduce to the promoting inward and serious Piety, upon many of the same grounds that prove it expedient in the publick service. and the disparaging the use of forms of Prayer in Families, is both un­reasonable, and really hurtful to Religi­on:Forms of Prayer of great use in Families. it being the probable occasion of the total neglect of such Religious servi­ces in many Families; many persons on this account, omitting the use of all Prayer in their Families, rather than to expose themselves to be censured as weak, in using a Form. And other per­sons of greater confidence, perform this much worse, both as to matter and words of Prayer, and the profit of others, than they might do in the use of a good form. [Page 201]And I desire, that this thing may be se­riously and carefully considered, it being of concernment to the real profit and good of men, however it may be slight­ed by some conceited and self-pleasing Persons. To this purpose, Cappellus declared his dislike of them, whoThes. Salmur. de Litur­g. n. 30. cer­tas orandi formulas, etiam in privatis fami­lijs damnant, condemn fixed forms of Prayer, even in private Families. And what Melancthon speaks, in approbation of forms in private, as well as in publick, I haveCh. 3. Sect. 3. n. ult. above noted.

11. But because, many private cases, which may be of great concernment to particular persons and Families, may be more properly taken into the subject of Family Devotions, than of publick As­semblies: it is expedient, and ordinarily necessary, that such things also be upon emergent occasions presented to God, for obtaining his help and blessing, in as suitable words, as the person is able to express, and without affecting variety of words. And in the Closet, many things concerning the persons own particular case and wnats, which cannot be com­prised in a form, are needful matters of his private and retired Devotion: which may either be by vocal expressions, or only by the inward lively motions of a [Page 202]contrite spirit, as the person himself finds most expedient. Wherefore Dr. Hammond declared,ubi sup. That it is suppo­sed by the Church, that in the Family and Closet, every man may ask his own wants, in what form of words he shall think fit. and what he said, and the liberty therein expressed, was observed as an instance of the moderation of our Church, by my worthy friendMode­rat. of the Chur. Ch. 7. §. 6. Dr. Puller. And I acknowledg, That if any Superior should forbid all such private Confessi­ons and Petitions, this being against the duty of a Creature, and a Christian, ought not to be submitted to. But blessed be God our Governors are far enough from any such thing, nor ought our Au­thor to propose it.

12. Wherefore the result of this mat­ter, is this, That the performing the pub­lick offices of the Church by a set-form, is that which is really profitable to Chri­stianity: and the appointing them to be so performed, ought not to be looked on, as meer act of Power and Domini­on, in our Superiors, which is designed no farther than to try the Subjects obe­dience; but in this case, it is a pious act of their Christian care and prudence. If all Ministers should perform these Offices, without prescribed Forms, how [Page 203]many inconveniencies, Constant use of Li­turgies is advanta­geous. and what impedi­ments to piety must constantly in some things, and might frequently in others thence ensue, is easie to be considered; and in many things hath been, and in part willCh. 9. farther be expressed in this Book. the celebrating these Offices by some with a Form, and by others without one, would be an engine of Discord and Faction; and men of high conceit and rash confidence, who are most apt to mis­carry, would be most impatient of that restraint, from which others are free. And if any one person under a wel-con­stituted order, use his own different way of celebrating Divine Offices, (be­ing member of that, and not of any foreign Church) even this would be against the peace of the Church, and so not to be desired of any good man. And this man also, whoever he be, un­less he keep himself to the same seriously premeditated things, will not perform these with that exactness, that is in a Form, and may be sometimes liable to defects of memory or expression. And Forms of Prayer are also of excellent and singular use in Families and in Clo­sets.

13. Yet we account other Prayers, besides Forms, in their placeDr. Hammon. Pract. Catech. of Prayer. allow­able. [Page 204]God forbid, that any should speak, against the general matter and design of such a Work, as St. Austins Confessions, or the pious Meditations and Soliloquies,Other Prayers in their place useful. of many ancient and mo­dern devout men. And we esteem it so useful an exercise of Religion, for Christians frequently to set themselves to take a strict account of themselves, and penitently to confess their particular neglects and trespasses, and to implore the needful mercies and blessings of God, that none need to fear, that any Christian Governor will ever prohibit such things. And whereas by a constant strict course of Piety, some persons have arrived in a tranquillity of mind, to an higher de­gree of Mortification, Of the highest and most raised Devoti­ons. and holy sublime affections to, and sense of God, and his Goodness, than the generality even of other pious Christians; it is fit that in their private Devotions, they express, as they think most expedient, the noble, grave and sober sentiments of their Souls, in acts of Adoration. But such things are unfit for publick conventions, being too high for the common state of men, who can more easily admire them, than joyn in them. And all En. husi­astical pretences, and the methods of speaking mystical non-sense, deserve no [Page 205]where either commendation or any al­lowance.

14. And I humbly beseech Almighty God, in the name of his only Son, who founded his Church in Ʋnity, that all men who have any love of God or goodness, may at length learn to study, and to do and speak those things, which tend to peace in the Church, and not to make breaches therein, and to divide it. And that we may all more thankfully acknowledg the signal mercy of God to us, That we have the priviledg of having been educated, in so excellent a part of the Christian Church, as our Church is. And God grant that this Discourse, may have some influence to­wards these ends.

15. But it would be diligently con­sidered,No peace and order, where eve­ry person or party will un­dertake to new-model the Church That no Church can enjoy Peace, but that whose members keep their own station, and the governing and ordering part, is left to the Gover­nors and Superiors, to be determined by them, others yielding due submission in things lawful. But if every man, or every several club, or distinction and party of men, may claim to themselves a power, of new-modelling the state of the Church; this not only tends to con­fusions, but speaks them to intrude them­selves [Page 206]into the office of the Supreme Governor;Ch. VI. and that they may overlook and overturn, all the foundation and fa­brick of a well ordered Church.

CHAP. VI. Of Preaching, and whether it be as reasonable, to preach in a Form of Words composed by others, as to pray in a prescribed Form?

HIS fifth Argument is,Reas. Acc. p. 98, 100. that if Ministers may obey Men, in perfor­ming their Ministerial Acts of solemn Prayer, by the prescribed Forms of o­thers; upon the same principle may all Ministerial Gifts in preaching be sup­pressed, and Ministers may be appoin­ted to read some Discourses of others to the People. Now what I premised to the foregoing Argument, may be a­gain useful to be considered here. But since I have manifested, the ordinary and constant usefulness, of set Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship, for the ad­vantage of Religion; if he be able to prove the same, concerning the ordi­nary [Page 207]using the Discourses of others in Preaching, (as I conceive he never can) he hath then, and not till then, made the Cases parallel.

2. The different practice of the Chri­stian Church, Forms of Prayer, be­ing most expedient, do not prove it best to have constant Forms of Preaching. which for many Ages be­fore the Romish Corruptions over­spread it, constantly used set Forms of Prayer, when their Sermons were com­posed by the Preachers themselves, and the like usage in our own Church, may incline modest men to think, that these Cases are not alike. The Apostolical Doctrine required of the Clergy, that they should be apt to teach, and so doth our own Book of Ordination, and theCan. Ap. 58. Syn. in Trul. c. 19. Ancient Canons required their dili­gent practice herein: And the use of such Instructions or Exhortations, in the Christian Assemblies, is of as early Ori­ginal as from the first Ages, as appears from the Testimonies ofJust. Mar. Ap. 2. Justin Mar­tyr, andTert. Apol. c. 39. Tertullian; and the con­tinuance thereof is evident from very many Homilies, Tractates and Orations of following Ages, which are yet ex­tant. And our Author may, if he please, consider such differences as these.

3. First, Preaching is directed to Men, but publick Prayer to God in the [Page 208]name of Men. And therefore as bothDisc. 1. on Mat. 6.9. Mr. Mede, andOf Pray­er extem. n. 57. Bishop Taylor, observe, It is convenient the People should know beforehand, what the Mini­ster puts up to God in their names, but there is not the like reason for Preach­ing. And variety of Words and Expres­sions, have a considerable efficacy upon the minds of Men: Whereas it is a thing unworthy of God, asInstit. l. 3. c. 20. n. 29. Calvin ob­serves, to think that he is humano more persuadendus, to be wrought upon by words as Men are. For while he search­eth the Heart, his attention is not to be procured by arts of Speech, or him­self moved, affected, or pleased by a new composure of words.Several things which make the case of Prayer and Preaching herein dif­ferent. And besides this, a pious reverence not only in our Hearts, but in well-deliberated words, and in gestures also, is considerable in the sight of God; and this is more due to God to whom we pray, than to Men to whom we preach.

4. Secondly, As the matter for Ser­mons, or popular Discourses, is of so large extent, as to include all the great and necessary Doctrines and Rules of Religion, so that are too oft corrupt No­tions and Opinions which subvert Piety, and ill practices which may be apt to prevail, at some special times and places. [Page 209]Now here a watchful Minister, will en­deavour to beat down all such Notions and Practices, which cannot well be done but by his own Abilities, in an­swering all their Pleas, Pretences and Objections.

5. Thirdly, By this means he can ac­quaint his People with such things as he thinks, in the Matter of them, most pro­per and sutable to them, and can pro­pose these things in such a manner, as is most agreeing to their Capacities; which thing was noted byTr. 13. Ch. 1. Div. 7, Bishop Whitgift, to be of great advantage in or­der to profiting. And to this purpose also it is reasonable, that the Method and manner of Composure, of popular Discourses, be such as suit the Place, Time and Age, wherein we live.

6. Fourthly, It is not only requisite that our Publick Service of God be at all times so comprehensive, as to take in all the usual parts of Religious Wor­ship: Adoration, Thanksgiving, and Sup­plication, for all ordinary Blessings; but this also seemeth enjoyned by Apostoli­cal Precept, 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. and there­fore it is expedient to secure this Com­prehensiveness, by a publick Form. But it is no way needful, that every Ser­mon should contain all the necessary [Page 210]points of Doctrine and Practice, but such a particular Branch thereof, as the Speaker thinks most proper. But was he to declare or express all the Articles, or Doctrines of the Christian Faith; certainly a known Creed is more fit for this purpose, than a new Composure. And besides this, as the temper of the Age accounteth it a Disparagement to preach a Sermon composed by another Man; this temper having nothing of hurt in it (as the condemning Forms of Prayer hath) is fit to be complied with, for the benefit of the Hearers. And these things will shew, that able Mini­sters ought ordinarily to preach Sermons of their own preparing. See also Chap. 7. n. 4.

6. But notwithstanding this,Instructi­ons and Exhorta­tions in some cases best perfor­med by a Form. it is far from being a Sin, for Ministers in their instructing others, to make use of what is Composed by others, in such cases, where this may tend to the greater pro­fit or advantage, of the Persons to be instructed. In acquainting others with the principles of Religion, or Catechi­sing them, it is certainly best, that this be done in the use of a known set Form of Catechism. The short exhorta­tion in administring the holy Communion, (and the like may be said of other Of­fices) [Page 211]where the Graces to be exerci­sed, and the Duties to be performed, are constantly the same, may be better performed in a well composed pithy Form, than by a continued varying.

7. And for Sermons, as it may be ve­ry allowable, to cite one or more sen­tences from an approved Author, when this may be of good use: So I know no reason, why in some cases the using a larger portion of anothers Discourse, openly and freely owning the Author, may not be done without any blame, where the authority of the Person, or the Discourse it self, might have a grea­ter efficacy, on the promoting Good­ness and Religion, than what the Spea­ker might express in his own words. It wasAug de Doc. Chr. l. 4. c. 29. St. Austin's judgment, that such of the Clergy who could not com­pose Discourses, so well as they could speak them, might do good service to the Church, by publickly pronouncing what was made by others. And I doubt not, it had been much better for many Teach­ers, and for the Church of God too, if they had sown good Seed, received from other faithful Hands, rather than to have dispersed their own Tares, Er­rors, and unsound Doctrines. In the Primitive Times, it was ordinary, to [Page 212]read publickly on the Lord's Days, in the Christian Assemblies, the Epistles of some eminent Men, and some Histo­rical Relations which concerned the Church: And there would be the same reason for a Sermon or Homily, where that might have a remarkable influence on the Churches good. And it is most probable, that the ApostleWhitak. Controv. r. 1. Qu. 3. c. 4. Da­ven. in Loc. requires an Epistle written from the Church of Laodicea, to be read in the Church at Coloss, Col. 4.16.

8. But though I have a due value and esteem for Preaching, yet I can by no means come up to our Author's height, who not only calls Preaching theReas. Acc. p. 99. greatest Ordinance of the Gospel; but he also declaresP. 108. from the Commissio­ners in the Savoy, that Preaching is such a Speaking in God's Name to the Peo­ple, and a speaking his Word, Truth, or Message, that we make God a Lyar, if we speak a falshood in his Name. Sure­ly he who thinks,Of the due esteem and value for Preaching. that every expression he useth in Preaching, must be a Di­vine Oracle, and that if he be guilty of any Mistake, he becomes thereby so horrid a Blasphemer, as to make God a Lyar; had need confine himself to the manifest Articles of the Christian Faith, and the clear and plain rules of Practice, [Page 213]or to some certain form of sound words; and for other things had need shut and seal up his lips, until he have surely at­tained (what he must never expect) the gift of Infallibility: and our Author, if he preach at that loose rate which he writeth, hath reason then to tremble and stand amazed.

9. In preaching, the Minister by con­sidering the general rules of Goodness and Truth, and the particular Doctrines of the Scripture, and divine Revelation, is conscientiously towards God and man, to declare what he discerneth to be useful and wholsom Truth. And in the main and necessary things of the Christi­an Faith and Life, there is such certain evidence thereof, that I do willingly call it infallible: and other Expositions, Directions and Notions, he is to express with pious care and sincerity, but not with any pretence to Infallibility. I do acknowledg, that it is matter of La­mentation, that very many persons are much wanting in that due Reverence, they ought to have for their spiritual Guides, whom God hath set over them; and their Counsels, Instructions, Exhor­tations and Discourses are not received with such an humble temper of mind, as is suitable to be expressed, to Gods offi­cers [Page 214]and Ministers, unto whom he hath committed a very great Authority. And there is also another great miscarriage on the other hand, in them who lay too high a stress upon preaching and hearing, and too little upon practising; or upon the fearing God, and keeping his Com­mandments; upon honouring the pecu­liar Institutions of our Saviour, in reve­rencing the Ministry he sent, highly esteeming the Unity and Communion of the Church which he founded, celebra­ting the Sacraments which he instituted; and in being peaceable, humble, meek and charitable towards men, and obedient to Superiours.

10. I shall take no further notice of any thing in this Chapter, save of one clause wherein he reflects on the Mini­stry of our Church, and their preaching, saith hep. 107 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, Railleries, and evomitions of the lusts and choler in the Preachers hearts? These are the kind words and meek expressions, of one who judgeth and censures the sharpness of other men; [Page 215]and in almost every Chapter, he breaks out into the same temper and spirit of Reproaching. Now whosoever they be,Our Au­thor no fit person to complain of contumeli­ous expres­sions in Sermons. who are over fierce and Satyrical in their words, I shall neither justifie nor excuse them. But thus much I shall add, that within these Twenty years last past, I have heard very many Sermons, preached by Reverend and worthy persons of the Church of England, besides what I have preached my self; and in all these Discourses, I do not remember, that I ever heard so many Contumelious ex­pressions, towards our Dissenters, as may be found against the Ministry of our Church, in this one little Book of our complaining Author.

11. And concerning Discourses, to prove that men have a natural power to do things spiritually good, Of the power of men to do things spi­ritually good. it is easie to see through his mistake. All the Ministers of our Church, with thankfulness be­lieve and profess, Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the World; and that the new Covenant of grace is confirmed through him, and that we are now un­der this day of grace and Salvation; wherein God gives his aids and assi­stances, besides the instructions of his word, the mighty motives of his Gospel, and the benefits of the Ministry of re­conciliation, [Page 216]and his holy Sacraments. And surely all this, is more than the power of Nature. Now to say, That men under these helps, if they be not wanting to themselves, may work out their own Salvation, believe and submit themselves to the Doctrines of the Go­spel, and live Godly, Righteously and Soberly: this is not to exalt the power of Nature, as our Author mistakes it, but it is to own the advantages of the Gospel-Grace, and of the mediation and undertaking of our Saviour. But if under these gracious circumstances, men are in no capacity of doing any spiritual good, or of being persuaded to it; I cannot understand to what end Preach­ing can tend, when it must be in vain to exhort them to their Duty, and unrea­sonable to reprove their neglect of it; Nor can they act without natural powers and faculties.

12. And concerning Justification there is as little reason for his complaint, as in the former head. We disclaim every where merit in our own works and actions, and do here acknowledg, That our Saviour hath, as our mediator, in­terposed by his Obedience, Righteous­ness and Sacrifice, to expiate our Sins, give the sanction to the new Covenant [Page 217]of Grace and Righteousness and to assure the mercy of God, and pardon and for­giveness upon the terms thereof.Of the terms arnd condition of our ju­stification, an its de­pendence upon the Righteous­ness and Sacrifice of Christ. But if we speak of the Gospel-condition of Justification, that must be performed by us our selves, and we do account, that as Repentance, which excludes forsaking evil and doing good, is a necessary con­dition to the obtaining pardon of sin (which I presume no sober Christian will deny) so consequently, it must be necessary to our being justified; unless we can be justified, and yet unpar­doned.

13. Or to speak plainly, all sin what­soever stands forbidden by the Holy rules and precepts of the Gospel, as much as by any other Dispensation: but the terms of the Gospel-Covenant, are so gracious and extensive, that they admit Repentance, tender pardon, and accept the sincere obedience of the Christian faith and life; yet all that is necessary, as the condition of the Gospel, in order to our being ac­cepted into Gods favour, is necessary to our justification. And that a renewed and Holy life is necessary hereto, is ma­nifest, from that wrath and threatning, denounced against workers of Iniquity, and from the impossibility for them to find favour, in the sight of God, who [Page 218]do not do the Will of our Father which is in Heaven.

14. Yet the Gospel-justification, up­on these terms of Grace in the new Co­venant, is still through the redemption of our Saviour, and faith in him: and from the benefit of his Sacrifice, we receive the pardon of our sins, in the Holy Sa­craments of the Gospel especially; in the administration of which Sacra­ments, is a principal part of the benefit of the Ministry of Reconciliation. But it cannot be, that the Righteousness of Christ, should be so imputed to us, that we should be looked on, as having done or suffered, what he did or suffered: for then must every Christian be reputed and looked on, as having performed the office of Mediator, and having paid to God the price of Redemption, for the sins of the World, and as having made Re­conciliation, and obtained thereby Re­mission: and then besides many other gross absurdities, they might be invoca­ted on this account, for the dispensing the same. And they who are reputed to have performed compleat actual sin­less Obedience, need no such Grace, whereby they must receive pardon and Remission. But the Holy Jesus by his Sacrifice, hath made a way of Reconcili­ation, [Page 219]and, as our Mediator, hath by his Blood established that new Covenant of Grace, whereby through his Redemp­tion, we may be justified, upon perfor­ming the Conditions of his Gospel. And I see no other blame can be charged on this Doctrine, unless it be, that it is consistent with it self, and with what was delivered by the Apostles of our Lord.

CHAP. VII. Praying by a Form, is very rashly and injuriously charged with mocking of God.

IN his seventh Chapter, he produceth his sixth Argument, which is, That forReas. Acc. p. 115. Ministers who have the Gift of Prayer, to perform publick Vocal Prayer, by the prescribed Forms of others, is to pretend to do an act of Worship, and at the same time not to do it, and isP. 115 to mock God and deceive their own Souls.

2. Now this is a very heavy Charge, if it be true, and can be proved; but if all this shall appear to be a false Ac­cusation, [Page 220]and to be untrue,Ch. VII. it is then no little Slander and Calumny, upon the Religious Worship of God;Praying by a Form no mocking God. and upon all those Churches of God, and Pious Christians, who make use of Forms in their Prayers. And to make good his Charge, our Author must here recal and deny, what he hath so often grant­ed, That the use of Forms of Prayer are in themselves lawful, and that they may be lawfully used by Ministers in some cases. For if they be a mocking of God, and the duty of Prayer is not really performed, in the use of them, but is only pretended so to be, to the deceiving mens own Souls, then they are certainly unlawful.

3. Now his chief and yet trifling Ar­gument, to make good this very weigh­ty and heavy Charge, is this,P. 116, 117. That the command to go and Preach, requi­reth the Ministers exercise of his own Inventing and Composing, and therefore so must the Command to make publick Prayers. Now in answer to this, it may be sufficient to say,The nature and exer­cise of Prayer is sutably per­formed by a Form. That every Duty is to be performed, sutably to the nature of the Duty it self, or in such a manner, as may best tend to the pleasing of God, and the exercising true Piety therein. But in publick [Page 221]Prayer, Religious Devotion, and gra­cious dispositions and desires towards God, are the great things to be practised; and to that end, the use of a Form of words in publick Ser­vice, is well accommodated, as I have shewed, and therefore may be not only fitly, but profitably used.

4. And with respect to Preaching, though our Author will find it a dif­ficult task to prove, that in every In­struction, a Minister is bound to have new matter of Invention and Compositi­on; yet his greatest mistake is, in sup­posing the cases of Instruction, Exhor­tation, or Preaching, and of Praying, to be parallel. For where in instructing others in the knowledg of Religion,Of the comparing Preaching and Pray­ing. it is the Ministers duty to teach them what they before understood not, and to that end to use new Words, that they may learn Knowledg; it can never be imagined, that he ought also to ac­quaint God in Prayer, with what he be­fore understood not. And when in Exhortations to Men, to make them better, and to change their Tempers, it may be of good use, to suggest to them, and urge upon them, such Arguments and Considerations, as before they ei­ther never thought of, or at least did [Page 222]not duly consider the weight and force of them; there is not the like reason of using frequently new words and expres­sions to God, as if men were to put him in mind, of the force of such things, as he had not considered. Surely no­thing can be more weak, than to insist on such unlike Comparisons, instead of Arguments.

5. But besides this, he tells us, that those words in Scripture, which are used in commanding publick Prayer, are not used concerning the reciting or reading the words of others. Thus he saith when Prayer is commanded, Hos. 14.2. and Joel 2.17. the word is [...], say, and he saith,P. 118. He is not awar of any Text in the Old Testament, where that word signifies the Recitation, or repetition of Words formed by others. Of the words of Scripture which en­joyn Pray­er. Now if this was true, it would be very little, or not at all to purpose, unless he could prove, that the using of the words of a Form, is not Speaking, or Saying. But yet in truth, notwithstanding his pretence to Critical Observations, in which he is also very unhappy, this ve­ry word [...] to Speak, or Say, is very frequently in the Old Testament, used for reciting the words prescribed by others; as in Gen. 32.4. Deut. 26.5. [Page 223] Deut. 27.14. and in many other places.

6. And he tells us,P. 119. That in the New Testament, the Precepts for Pray­er are expressed, by [...], to Pray, and [...], to Say, to wit, in Praying. But what meaneth he? Are these words never made use of for the reciting a Form of Prayer, when they are the very words, by which the Lords Prayer is prescribed? The former [...]. Mat. 6.9. and both of them [...]. Luke 11.2. And the former of them, toge­ther with the Noun derived from the latter, is used [...]. Mat. 26.44. to ex­press our Saviour his Praying the third time, saying the same words. I might al­so mind our Author, that giving thanks to God, is in Scripture expressed to be done, in reciting the words of others, 1 Chron. 16.7. But though I was not willing to pass by any thing which he urged, though but under the appea­rance of an Argument, I must intreat the Readers pardon, in giving him the trouble of perusing a thing so very in­considerable, as this Argument is.

7. Indeed he tells us,p. 120. he layes a greater stress upon his former Arguments, than upon this: but what little reason he hath, to lay any such stress upon them, may, I hope, by this time appear. [Page 224]But he saith, he cannot think this altoge­ther vain and impertinent; but of that, let others judge. But withal, this Ar­gument had need to be of great force, when upon the account of this, he tells us again, in theIbid. close of this Chap­ter, he makes it a great question, whether if we think to fulfil the command of God, for vocal Ministerial prayer, by reading Forms, we should not come short of what God requires, and both mock God, and de­ceive our own Souls. Thus some men with extravagancy enough, can speak great and swelling words, supported, or rather unsupported, by weak, feeble and impotent Arguments. And his last words of this Chapter are, That there is neither Precept nor President, for pray­ing by Forms; which assertion, he hath peremptorily avowed again and again, though it be plainly against both the Scriptures, and the sense of the Ʋniversal Church, and the contrary thereunto I have aboveChap. 3. Sect. 2, & 3. plainly proved.

CHAP. VIII. C. VIII. Forms of Prayer are falsly accused, of debasing the Ministry, and of seve­ral unblest Effects.

HIs seventh Argument is,Reas. Acc. p. 120, 121. That Ministers performing their Mini­sterial acts in Prayer, by prescribed Forms, tends to level the sacred Office of the Mi­nistry, to the capacity of the meanest of the People: but saith he,p. 121. God would never have erected an Office, to do what the meanest person in the Church, hath a natu­ral ability to do. And he there adds, there is nothing plainer in the whole Book of God, than that God hath established a peculiar order of persons to be his Mini­sters, to declare his will unto his People, and on their behalf to intercede with God in Prayer. And he saith, if thisp. 122. might be performed by Forms, there would be no great reason for any peculiar mainte­nance for the Ministry, nor for Honour and Reverence to them. Now in answer to this, I shall observe four things:

2. Obs. 1. That he gives a very de­fective description, of the work and [Page 226]business of the Ministry; as if it only consisted in being Orators, and in the well using words and expressions.Of the work and Office of the Mini­stry. And this is no more than a master of a Family may do, to instruct and pray for those of his Family: but it must be the exer­cise of a special power of Office, which must be the chief Ministerial performan­ces, of those who are in the Sacred fun­ction of the Ministry. Wherefore by special Authority and Commission, to re­ceive persons into the Church, in the name of Christ; and to govern them in it, to exercise the power of the Keys, to consecrate the holy Sacraments, and therein to exhibit in Christs name, the tender and seal of remission of Sins, and by his Authority Ministerially to dis­pense Absolution and Remission, to them who are qualified to receive it, by per­forming the conditions of the Gospel; these and other such acts of Authority, are the great and chief parts of the Mi­nisterial office, which he wholly omits. And even instructions and prayers, per­formed by those who are in this Sacred function, are of greater moment, be­cause of their Office. But what God worketh by their Ministry, is especially to be regarded; and if this was nothing, asChrys. in 2 Tim. c. 1. Hom. 2. St. Chrysostome argues, [...], [Page 227]&c. Thou thy self neither hast any Baptism, nor dost thou receive the Sacra­ments, nor dost thou enjoy Benedictions, nor indeed art thou a Christian.

3. Obs. 2. The use of Forms of Prayer is far from rendring learning, knowledg, and such like abilities useless, or needless for the Ministry: nor can any man that knows the work and du­ty of a Minister, judge so. Besides his preaching, so as to approve himself a workman that need not be ashamed; he is by his Office, to be a spiritual Guide to the consciences of others,Learning and know­ledg great­ly requisite to the Mi­nistry. when they apply themselves to him for Counsel and Advice, not only for their comfort, but chiefly for their practice. He is to direct and oblige Offenders, who are under his care, to observe the due rules and exer­cises of Repentance; and this with re­spect to conscience, men ought to take more notice of, than most persons do. And in a time, when the Church and Truth hath many enemies (and this Au­thor might have been better employed, than to have appeared as one) the Mi­nisters of the Church are to be able to convince, or at least to confound their Adversaries, and detect their errors, and the danger of them. They are also to watch over their charge, and as much [Page 228]as may be, to preserve them from being led aside, by the slight and cunning craf­tiness of them, who would deceive them. And these are things, which re­quire far greater abilities, study, care and diligence, than is needful to enable any man, to use fluent expressions in Prayer.

4.The wean­est persons A [...]ristred in the Church, when forms of Prayer were dis­ [...]ed most. Obs. 3. The time when Liturgies were laid aside in England, was that time when many of the meanest of the Peo­ple, both men of weak abilities, who yet could speak confidently, and also men of bad and erroneous Principles, were thought fit to be taken into the Ministry, in the place of many sound and able men, who were cast out. And the performing Prayer, and popular Ser­mons, after that method our Author con­tends for, in expression of their own, may be effected, to the satisfaction of great numbers of ordinary hearers (whatever may be pretended to the contrary) by a man who hath a forward tongue, and but indifferent parts, with­out any considerable learning or study, and without much knowledg of the Doctrines of Religion and Christianity. There are so many evidences of this, among the several parties of our divi­ded Separations, that the chief persons [Page 229]among our Dissenters, do very well know the Truth thereof.

5. Obs. 4. Our Author's assertion, That God would never erect an Office or Order of Persons, to do what the meanest of the People, have a natural capacity to do, is also certainly false. The Priests Office un­der the Law. For under the Law, the office of the Priests, was par­ticularly appointed to minister before the Lord, by offering Incense and Sa­crifices, though Corah and his Compa­ny, and any other of the Israelites, had Natural Capacities of knowing how to order the Incense and Sacrifices, as well as the Priests. And the High Priest was to offer the Sacrifices for Attonement, and to enter into the Holy of Holies, with the Blood thereof; and perform­ing other Rites of Expiation, to bless the People; and upon occasion to ask coun­sel of God by Ʋrim and Thummim. The Levites also, were to wait on the service of the Tabernacle. And these and such like Rites, were accompanied with Prayers and Praises; but I haveCh 3. Sect. 3. a­bove shewed, that prescribed Forms were used in that Service. But none of these Persons were by their relation to the Tabernacle, or Temple, or by ver­tue of the Offices of Divine Appoint­ment, Scribes or Rabbins, or Doctors [Page 230]of the Law, and Sons of the Prophets, to teach the People in their Synagogues. Indeed after the time of David, when the Ark had rest in the Tabernacle he pitched, many of the Levites were made Officers and Judges of the People, and were therefore to direct them in the Law of God, and the knowledg of his Will, and some of their Scribes might also be of this Tribe, as well as of any other. But this was not their Original Office, further than as good Men, and the special Servants of god to attend upon his Worship, they would by their Example, and no doubt by their Coun­sel also, excite others to perform care­fully the Service of God, and to keep his Law.

6. And with respect to what our Au­thor speaks,God's Law made a large pro­vision for the Main­tenance of the Levites concerning the Maintenance of the Ministry, it is worthy to be obser­ved, that God himself then thought fit, for the Honour of his Worship and Mi­nistry, to allot and appoint a greater In­come, for the support and plentiful sub­sistance of the Priests and Levites, than our Clergy now enjoy, and the Revenue of their Priests, was greater than that of our Bishops. For the manifesting of which, it may be considered, that after the Israelites came out of Egypt, the o­ther [Page 231]Tribes besides the Levites, had males from twenty years old and upward, six hundred thousand, three thousand, five hundred and fifty, Numb. 1.45, 46, 47. But the Levites being numbred from a month old and upwards, were only twen­ty and two thousand, Numb. 3.39. And in reasonable conjecture, those of them who were under twenty years old, might be near as many, as those who were above it. But if there were thir­teen thousand Levites, who were twen­ty years old and upwards, we will pro­ceed upon that Supposition as probable. Now God gave the Tribe of Levi all the Tenth, or Tith of the Land of Is­rael, Numb. 18.21, 24. and the other nine parts being reserved to the other Israelites, these thirteen thousand Levites, who were grown Men, had a larger provision, from these Tithes alone, than sixty seven thousand grown Men of the other Israelites had, though every one of these Israelites, was to have their in­heritance of Freehold, and none was to be poor among them. So that every man of the Levites, had from this Re­venue alone, a more ample Provision and Subsistance, than five Men of the other Tribes, who were heads of Fa­milies, taking them one with another. [Page 232]But then if to this be added, their own Flocks, and the Suburbs of their Cities, Numb. 35.2, 3. and their share, in the extraordinary Tithe of the third Year, Deut. 14.28, 29. and in some other Ob­lations, Deut. 12.12. Chap. 16.11. These things with other Accessions and Priviledges, which they had, make their proportion much more considerable.

7.The great Revenue appointed by God for the Priests. And whereas at that time, there were only five Persons consecrated Priests; Aaron the High Priest, and his Sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Exod. 28.1. Nadab and Abihu being dead without any Issue, Lev. 10.2. Num. 3.2, 3, 4. there remained then on­ly three Persons, who ministred as Priests, in the Service of God. I confess their number after increased, and so did the number of the other Tribes. But these Priests had the tenth of the Tithe allotted to them, Numb. 18.26, 28. and upon this account alone, there was appointed by the Divine Law, for these three Priests, a much greater Revenue, than for six thousand Men fit for War, of the other Tribes. But besides this, the Priests had the First-fruits of the Land, which God gave to them, Numb. 18.12. which, asPhilo. de Sacer­dot. Pro­em. & Honor. p. 830, 831. Philo, agreeably to the Scripture observes, included even the [Page 233] First-fruits of their Bread, and the best of their Corn, Wine, Oyl, and other in­crease. And it hath been observed from other Jewish Writers, that some gave the Fortieth part of their increase, others the Fiftieth, and others the Six­tieth part for their First-fruits. The Redemption also of the First-born of Men, and of them who were under a Vow, the Firstlings of the clean Beasts, and the redemption of other Firstlings; their proportion in the se­veral Sacrifices, in some the wave Breast, and heave Shoulder, and the Skins of se­veral Burnt-offerings, asIbid. p. 833. Philo no­ted, and the Scripture it self declares, Lev. 7.8. These things, besides their interest in Free-will Offerings, and vo­luntary Oblations, do very much add to the greatness of their Revenue, which was assigned them by the Law.

8. And we may further note from Josephus, who was himself one of the Priests, that notwithstanding this ample Provision, God then made for these his Priests, yet they were not at the expence of the daily Sacrifice, or the Lamb that was offered every Morning and Eve­ning; but that was defraiedJos. An­tiq. Jud. l. 3. c. 10. [...], by a publick or com­mon Charge: Only the daily Meat-offer­ing [Page 234]was prepared by the Priests, upon their own expence, and the Bullock of­fered for the High Priest, upon the day of Atonement, was at the charge of the High Priest himself, asIbid. the same Au­thor attesteth.

9. Thus whatsoever our Author may think to the contrary, the Wisdom of the most High God did annex a great, and honourable Revenue, (such saithUbi sup. Philo, as might resemble the glory and majesty of Princes) for them who were his Officers, though their Work was none other, than what other Persons had a natural capacity to do. But other Persons had not a Divine Authority to act as God's Officers, and to intermeddle in his sacred Institutions. And it is a much more high and honourable thing, in the sight of all who have any lively sense of God upon their hearts, to be his Officers, invested with a special and ex­cellent authority from him, than to be so far popular Orators, as to be able to speak to the satisfaction of the People, or even to their admiration.

10. Having now ended his Syllogisti­cal Arguments, he tells us,P. 123. He shall only instance in one thing more, and that is those unblest effects, which, saith he, are matters of Demonstration to us: These [Page 235] P. 131. he calls, Effects obvious to every Eye; and entring upon them saith,P. 124. Let us instance in some too evident effects of Forms of Prayer, &c. And the first of these is, The filling the Church of God, with an ignorant, lazy, and sottish Mi­nistry. He indeed here excepts very many Persons, but yet these are his re­proachful words, reflecting upon the generality of our Ministry, or in his own expression, those that fill the Church. Now such an open notorious and shameless Calumny, ought not to pass without just rebuke. The great accuser of the Brethren, to his grief and indignation knows, that there is now in England as Learned, Able,The Eng­lish Clergy falsly asper­sed as Ig­norant, Lazie, and Sottish. and In­dustrious a Clergy, as this Church ever had, or any other of so numerous a Mi­nistry: Nor can the main Body of our Clergy, be called Ignorant and Sottish, but by such Persons as make no con­science of Slandering, and speaking fals­ly. And truly, Sir, to say no more, the reason and understanding part of this your Discourse, which you intitle, A Reasonable Account, &c. is very far from being above the pitch, of the ge­nerality of that part of our Ministry, which I have had the opportunity to know. And if you were indeed the [Page 236]main Men, acquainted with Knowledg and Learning, and had the advantage of Truth also on your side, as you pretend, how easily might you bafle and confute us, by clear and plain Evidence, which your selves are sensible enough you can­not do. And therefore your most usual Methods are, to work upon the fearful and melancholy temper of some, and up­on the fierce and angry disposition of others, and upon the earnest and weak af­fections, and the prejudices of many well-disposed People: But you can hope to prevail little, on men of even, calm, and composed Tempers, and Persons of the best judgment and understanding.

11. A second effect he instanceth in, is,P. 125. The loss of Ministerial Gifts and Abilities. But blessed be God, there is no loss in our Church, of any Abilities, requisite for the due discharge of the Ministry. But he here again falls upon the gift of Prayer; of which, as also of the lawfulness, and profitableness of u­sing of Forms of Prayer, I have suffi­ciently discoursed, in the former part of this Book.

12. His third and last,P. 130. If not ef­fect, yet experimented consequence of pre­scribed Forms, is a flood of Iniquity, for more than an hundred Years, caused there­by, [Page 237]in our parts of the World. Hence saith he, Bitter words in Pulpits, and printed Books, which have vexed righte­ous Souls, who have had nothing to reply, but, The Lord rebuke you. (They it seems wholly imitating the pattern of the Archangel, contending with the Devil, Jude 9.Ill effects charged upon Litur­gies, pro­ceed from another cause. Or of the Lord check­ing of Satan, Zech 3.2.) Hence saith he, Are ungodly representations to Superiours, of Men of whom the World was not wor­thy; hence suspensions of so many thou­sands, and Ruines of so many eminent Servants of God and their Families, and hence the separations of Christians from one another. Thus our Author char­geth a great deal of evil, upon our Laws and Governours, which accord­ing to his rash Position they must stand guilty of, unless all enjoyned Liturgies, and Uniformity be utterly rooted out of the Church, and unless they will lay aside that care they ought to have, of the due order and decency of the pub­lick Worship of God; and unless an Inlt may be opened, to such Confusions, Heresies, yea, and Blasphemies, as in these Kingdoms were brought into the Church, when Liturgies were shut out, and the publick Worship was perform­ed even by men of Erroneous princi­ples, [Page 238]according to the vanity of their own minds. But that our Author hath mistaken the true cause, of that evil he complains of, I have shewedCh. 3. Sect. 4. above, to which I refer. But that the violent and ungrounded oppositions, against law­ful constitutions, are too great an inlet into much iniquity, will I think appear manifest enough, from what I wrote in myB. 1. Ch. 1. throughout Libertas Ecclesiastica. And I do both heartily pity, and am really grieved and sorry, for the temper of such persons, who by their mistakes, and too much of eagerness and passion in them, not only expose themselves to outward inconveniencies, but which is of far grea­ter concernment, both run themselves into many sinful undertakings, and are the occasion of much hurt and evil to the Church of God; and make use of the latter, as a remedy against the former.

13. If any persons among us, have spoken or written, with overmuch pas­sion or sharpness, we will defend no man, wheresoever he deserves blame: but our Governours, and the Constitution of our Church, are not concerned herein. But have our Dissenters replyed nothing but calmness and meekness, as this Au­thor suggests? One might be apt to think, upon considering such words, that [Page 239]he is a stranger in England, and unac­quainted with affairs here, and may have lately come from some unknown Island, separated from converse with other parts of the world. I heartily wish their party had been as free from all fierceness, as this Author pretends,Many sad and evil effects from the opposers of our Liturg [...] and then both Church and State, would have enjoyed more quiet, and many things had never been heard of which have been a scandal to Christianity. But if their writings be reviewed from Mar­tin Mar-prelate to this present year, ma­ny of them will manifest that keen and bitter words, and reproaches and revi­lings, are no strangers to their Tents. It seems not wholly to have savoured of the spirit of Christian meekness, patience and gentleness, when they made such violent invectives against our Gover­nours, and Establishment, as kindled our late dreadful civil Wars, when they eje­cted, sequestred, imprisoned, and put to Death, great numbers of the Clergy, Gentry and Nobility, for their loyalty to the King, and their honourable respect to the Church, when they strained their hands, and more deeply their Consciences in eager and forward shedding the blood of many thousands of Christians, and dared to stretch out their hands against [Page 240]the Lords Anointed, and to take away the life of one of the best Princes, that ever the Christian world enjoyed. All this seems not to speak only the meekness of the Lamb, and the innocence of the Dove.

14. Besides the writings of particu­lar persons, could it be any other than a strange fierceness inAnsw. to Remon. p. 83.84. Smectymnuus, in charging the Clergy of our Church, with bringing in a new Creed, other Scri­ptures, another Baptism and Eucharist, and another Christ too; and another Heaven, from what Christianity propo­seth; which they call an Heaven recep­tive of Drunkards, Swearers, Adulte­rers, &c. Can it be otherwise, than that passion and uncharitableness made them write, what they could not but know to be far from Truth? They who have much conversed with very many men of this way, cannot be unacquainted with their temper of rash censuring, and un­charitable speaking, and may see reason to conclude, that these are not the great examples of Christian meekness. These things I should not have mentioned, but that as a charge against the establishment of our Liturgy, and the care of our Governours therein, our Author pre­tends many unblest effects to proceed [Page 241]from it,Ch. IX. whilest there is nothing but goodness and mildness in them who op­pose it; though he afterward acknow­ledgeth passions in them.

CHAP. IX. The Arguments for set Forms of Pray­er, are solid and substantial.

IN his ninth Chapter, he mentioneth divers Arguments, produced for Forms of Prayer, to which he returns his answers. Now since I have above, not only answered his Arguments, but in several parts of my Discourse, have proved the profitable use of Forms of Prayer, and have in my thirdSect. 2. Chap­ter, vindicated several Arguments, which I urged in my Libertas Ecclesiastica, it is not necessary for me to undertake the defence of others, which are insisted on by other men. But the five last Argu­ments expressed in this Chapter, which were urged by my self, I shall particu­larly consider, reflecting also upon some other Arguments and expressions.

2. And indeed my foregoing Dis­course, [Page 242]hath given a sufficient reply to many of his answers,Ch. VIII. to the Arguments he recites in this Chapter. For instance, To the first Argument for the lawful­ness of Ministers using Forms,p. 134. Forms of Prayer are not forbid­den. that what God hath not forbidden is lawful, he answers, that Forms in the case by him stated, are forbidden by the second com­mandment; which I spake to, Chap. 4. that they are forbidden by the precepts to stir up gifts; which I considered, Chap. 2. and are forbidden by those com­mands, which require us to worship God with all our hearts, and with the greatest attention and fervency; and of this I discoursed Chap. 3.

3. To the second Argument, from the Lords Prayer being a Form, and from the use of the Psalms of David, and the Priestly blessing under the Law,p. 135.136. he only repeats what he had before spoken, and the mistakes of which I have manifested, Chap. 3. Sect. 2.

4. The third Argument (which hath respect to 1 Cor. 14, 40.) is, that Forms of Prayer p. 136. Of matters of order, decency & circum­stance. are matters of meer decen­cy, order and circumstance, and therefore may be lawfully commanded and pra­ctised. Now though I account them to be more than so, and not to be only things of external order, but to be more [Page 243] internally of profitable use, and conducive to the edification and good of the Church and its members; yet I shall observe what weak answers he gives to this Argument. As to order he saithibid. order only respects prius and posterius first and last. This was I conceive rash­ly written; for surely he could not be ignorant, that the Apostles [...], had respect to order of regular constitu­tion and appointment, and not to order of number and mere succession of one thing after another. Concerning De­cency, he saithibid. nothing can be decent, but the contrary must be indecent. Now though a Form, and no Form, are not properly contrary, but rather contra­diction; and though many indecencies have been committed, where Forms of Prayer have been rejected; and the con­demning Forms is worse than indecency, being an hurtful errour; yet his assertion is also false; a white Garment may be decent, and so may a black one, and yet white and black are contrary. Con­cerning Circumstances, he saithp. 137. Forms are no Circumstances relating to the action as humane, because it may be performed without them. By this reason standing, or any other particular gesture in read­ing, is no circumstance, which yet hath [Page 244]been usually thought so:Ch. IX. and some gesture is at all times, and in all actions necessary. And as for the words of pub­lick Prayer, there can be no such Prayer without any words, nor unless these words be fixed on, and determined by some person: but the sense and matter, taken care of in Forms of Prayer, is of an higher nature than a Circumstance. And he addsibid. that he conceives no Cir­cumstances appropriated to an action as Religious, are left to mens liberty to de­termine. According to which rule, it must be sinful for a Father to command his Child, or for any man to determine himself, to kneel in Prayer, out of any reverence to God, because, this is a cir­cumstance to the action as Religious. If all this be not trifling, I know not what is.

5. The fourth Argument is, thatibid. all the essentials to Prayer may be found (I would add, may in publick Prayer be best secured) in a prescribed Form. This Prayer may be in the matter agreea­ble to the will of God, it may be put up in the name of Christ, and it may be at­tended with exercise of Graces, and sanctified Affections. But he here an­swersp. 138. All things necessary and essen­tial to Prayer, may be in the use of a Form. that the use of his own gifts is also necessary: but this pretence I have [Page 245]refuted, Chap. 2. and I presume, no pious man can easily think, that the will and pleasure of God, should require a mans own abilities to be exercised, merely to shew his parts, when the whole business of Religion, may be every way as well, or better performed without them; as may appear in every Minister under­taking to make new translations of Scri­pture, whensoever he cites them, that his gift may be exercised. But he saith also, thatibid. he hath given his reasons, why Praying by Forms cannot be with the same attention, and intention and ferven­cy: But these reasons I have answered in my third Chapter, and have manife­sted the contrary.

6. In his sixth Argument, he produ­ceth 1 Tim. 2.1, 2. where the Apostle commands, that Prayers, &c. be made for all men, and herep. 140. he takes notice of what I said, in my Libert as Ecclesiastica, p. 109. that many have thought the Apostle had a special eye to the composure of Forms of Prayer, agreeably to what the Baptist, and our Saviour prescribed to their Disci­ples, in this his command to Timothy, the Governour of the Church. And he ob­serves that I added, though the phrase [...], may either signifie, that Prayers be put up to God, or that they be [Page 246]composed, in this place it may well intend both. And I now add, That the evi­dence I have given of the use of Forms, in the earliest Ages of Christianity, and also in the Jewish Church, makes it the more probable, that the Apostle might have some eye unto them.

7. But he tells me, but upon what reason I know not,P. 141. that I am a little critical with the Verb [...], and saith he, [...], a Poet comes from it; but he is but a miserable Poet, who should on­ly read or recite, Copies of Verses compo­sed by others. Now though I speak of composing Prayers which might be reci­ted, or publickly used; yet to gratify our Author, I shall acquaint him, that though the Imperial Law of Justinian, established the use of Forms of Prayer, as ICh. 3. Sect. 3. above shewed, yet the pray­ing by these Forms isJustin. Novel. 137. c. 6. there expres­sed by [...]. But be­sides this, he is but a little Critical, in imagining so unreasonable a thing, as that the signification of [...], must be every where accommodated to [...] a Poet. Our Au­thors fancy about Poe­try. And he is so unhappy in this his Fancy, as well as in his Argu­ments, that as weak as it is, it is not so much as fitted to serve his own Design. I am persuaded that upon further [Page 247]thoughts, he will not open his mouth,Ch. VIII. for practising according to his own lit­tle Criticism, or for making Prayers, af­ter the manner that Poets make Verses; who are for exercising their own Fan­cies, and gratifying the Humours of o­ther men, more than for keeping close to truth, or minding what is serious. And I wish, that no such miscarriages may prevail with any, according to our Author's way and method, which he contends for. And with respect to the Speaker, if this Criticism was of any weight; as they are not the best Poets, who trust themselves to their present sudden abilities of expression; but ra­ther they, who with great care, consi­der both matter and words, and write them down, and have left their Wri­tings for lasting Monuments; those also must be the best Prayers, which are composed in like manner. But for the People, they are utterly cut out, from having any part in making publick con­fessions, or supplications to Almighty God, according to this conceit, though the Scriptures, and the Language of the Church, admit them to have a share therein.

8. His seventh Argument, being on­ly intended as a general proof for the [Page 248] lawfulness of Forms enjoyned, is this,Reas. Acc. p. 146. that a man may lawfully determine himself to the use of Forms, and there­fore may be lawfully determined to them by his Superiours. Here he first tells us, this doth not reach his Question, con­cerning Ministers who have the gift of Prayer. But he saith further, A Chri­stian hath a liberty to determine himself, where he may not lawfully be determined by his Superiour; as in case of Marriage to a particular Woman, in the choice of his Trade and course of Life, and a Mi­nister may determine himself, to write his Sermon constantly at length. Now these words, as many others in this Dis­course, being written with reflection upon the authority of Superiours, I shall consider the weight of them, with re­spect to the Case in hand.

9. Wherefore it may be observed, that there are two Cases, concerning the matter of a Law, which may render it unlawful,Of the lawfulness of being determined by our Su­periours, where we may deter­mine our selves. to be enacted by Superiours: The one when it takes away the just civil Rights, and freedoms of the Sub­ject, and imposeth unreasonable needless burdens; the other when it is against the rules of Conscience. In the former case it is true, that a man's own civil rights, are so far at his own disposal, [Page 249]and in his own power, that he may here determine himself, to what his Superiour may not determine him. Thus a free Subject of a considerable estate, may if he please settle his Estate upon another Person, or remove his Habitation into another Country, or resolve upon a sin­gle Life, or put himself into the conditi­on of a Servant. Another Person of like competent Estate, may determine himself to a retired Life, a sparing Diet, and a mean Garb; and if he be free from dependent Relations, may resolve to give the surplusage of his Estate to pious, publick, and charitable Ʋses. But it is not fit nor lawful for his Supe­riour, so to deprive him of his civil Rights, as to put upon him so much burden and trouble. But in things which are lawful or unlawful, according to the rules of Conscience, where he may lawfully as to Conscience determine him­self to any thing, he may lawfully be determined by his Superiour; and if from the unlawfulness in Conscience, he may not be determined, to any particu­lar thing by his Superiour, neither may he determine himself to it. And the reason of this is, because if this thing be a Sin, a man may not lawfully deter­mine himself to it, but if it be no Sin, [Page 250]no principle of Conscience will oblige him, not to be determined by his Supe­riour. Now the appointing prescribed Forms of Prayer (taking this in gene­ral as ourP. 163, 164. In the present Question, we sup­pose Forms as good [...]nd perfect, as the W [...]t and Piety of men can make. Author discourseth of it) can be no invading the civil rights of Subjects, or imposing things burdensome to their outward condition considered apart from Conscience; and therefore if there be any dispute about the law­fulness hereof, it must proceed from the rules of Conscience. And therefore if a man may lawfully determine himself in this case, or any other of like nature, he may also be lawfully determined by his Superiour.

10. He also tells us,P. 147. It is no Popery for People to think their Spiritual Guides, and Go­vernours wiser than themselves. That the Au­thor of this Argument, would persuade us to be Papists, in that he would have men think, that the judgment of Superiours is better than our own. But he might con­sider, that since God hath appointed Spiritual Guides, it is both the most pru­dent course, and the duty of private Persons, in cases of practice which them­selves do not throughly understand, to consult them, receive their counsel, and be directed by them. And his establish­ing other Governours, manifesteth that they are appointed to consider, what within the sphere of their Power, is [Page 251]useful for the publick good, and others are to be directed by them, and to rest satisfied in their determination. Nor is this any thing of Popery, but due Chri­stian sobriety. Only this limitation must be admitted, that as I haveCh. 4. n. 11.12. above shewed, if any thing be proposed by them, which upon plain and certain evi­dence appears to be unlawful, those who are under them, ought then to reject their Direction and Authority, as being contradicted by a greater and higher.

11. The tenth Argument mentioned by him is, ThatReas. Acc. p. 149. Forms are necessary for Ʋniformity. And here he again de­clares, against that pitiful thing, called Ʋniformity in words, and syllables and phrases, as he upbraidingly stiles it. But having answered this in aCh. 3. Sect. 4. former Chapter, and therewith justified Unifor­mity, and shewed the great benefit of it, and of Forms of Prayer upon this ac­count, I shall not need to repeat it again here.

12. But that he may vent himself the more, against Liturgy and Ʋniformity, he tells us, that in the case of Daniel the Princes resolved p. 150. it necessary to establish an Ʋniformity in Prayers; and all must be commanded to pray only to Darius. Yet here was nothing of Ʋniformity in words [Page 252]and phrases, of which he was discoursing; but that matters not,An act for Uniformity is no such wicked thing, as the prohi­bitive Act of worship by Darius. so long as an occa­sion can be taken to reproach Ʋniformi­ty. He might as well, if he had pleased, have called that precept of our Saviour, Mat. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; an act of Uniformity, only that would not serve his purpose, to insinuate that Li­turgy and Uniformity, are like that act in the time of Darius, designed wholly for mischief, and to hinder the worship of God, and to establish Idolatry against the second commandment, though not so grosly as in worshiping the Persian Kings, who were wont to receive Di­vine worship, as is evident in the many te­stimonies produced byDrus. in Esther. c. 3 Drusius. But these things are so manifestly uncharita­ble, that every sober considering man may easily discern them. And since the Holy God appointed certain Forms of Prayer, to be used under the old Testa­ment, and our Blessed Saviour prescribed the Lords Prayer under the new; and since the ancient Jewish Church, and the Christian Church in the purest times, used Forms of Prayer; no considering per­son, who hath any sense of God or Reli­gion, can think that all these must be con­demned of designing nothing but mis­chievous [Page 253]things, and the ruining the true way of Religion; how far soever some mens angry temper may be unjustly dis­pleased, with Forms and Ʋniformity.

13. This Writer in some following pages, discoursing about the ability or gift of Prayer, at length saith,p. 154. as we judg, 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. So he. But I hope he was not knowingly so bold with the Holy Scripture, as to alter and change both the words and sense of it, as he pleaseth: when the Apostle speaks nothing in that place of Prayer, Praise, Preaching or Sacraments, but of offering gifts and sacrifices for Sins. And therefore I shall pass by this, as a gross oversight in him; or possibly something may be left out by the Prin­ter.

14. I now come to justifie five Rea­sons, mentioned in myCh. 4. p. 97.98, 99. Expedien­cy of set Forms pro­ved. Libertas Ec­clesiastica (besides others which I vin­dicated, in the third Chapter of this discourse) for the requisiteness of set Forms of Prayer, which I there produ­ced, [Page 254]to shew not only the lawfulness, but the usefulness and expediency of Forms.

15. My first Reason was, because 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. To this he saith, 1. That alone is p. 156. 1. as best securing a fit and right way of worship. a right way of worship, which God hath instituted. And I reply, that Prayer performed with a devout heart, where the matter is holy, pious and re­ligious, and expressed without affecting variety of words, is according to his will, and appointed by him. But he hath not instituted the very words we are to use, upon all occasions, whether we pray by a Form, or by any conceived Prayer, of which I said more, Chap. 4.

16. He saithibid. 2. That God should be so worshipped is reasonable, but that this should aforehand be secured, is not possible, in men who may err: nor will Forms secure it, which may be read falsly and dis­orderly enough. To which I answer, That when he requires, that none should be admitted to the Ministryp. 153. and in o­ther pla­ces. who have not the gift of Prayer, is not the intent of this, to secure as much as may be, the right performance of that duty? but this may be best provided for by a Form, as I shewed in the second and third [Page 255]Chapters. And what he speaks of read­ing falsly, as a disparagement to Forms is inconsiderable, and is one of the weak Arguments, of the meanest disputants for Oral Tradition, against the Scriptures. For there may be as many mistakes,Of read­ing falsly, see also n. 24. in reading the Scriptures, as the Prayers of the Church: and besides that, they who would decry their Authority, can talk of their being possibly printed false, or it may be in some things translated amiss, or that the copies whence they were translated might not be every where pure and right. But such little objecti­ons, are easily seen through by men of understanding.

17. He saith 3.p. 157. That for twenty years together, the worship of God was per­formed in a well-ordered manner, in hun­dreds of Congregations in England with­out Forms. Now though I have shew­ed, (Chap. 2. & 3.) that it cannot be reasonably expected, that it should be constantly performed so well in any one Congregation, by any Person whomsoe­ver, in a way of constant varying, as in the use of a good Form; yet there ought to be respect had to all our Con­gregations. And we do not think that a well ordered Worship, where one or both the Sacraments were in many pla­ces [Page 256]disused, and other considerable parts of Worship and Prayer, (as confession of Sin) purposely and generally omit­ted by others, as I observed above: And the several Sects, ordered the Wor­ship of God according to their own Er­rors. And I can as easily be persuaded, that the Papists, Arians, and Donatists, did rightly order the Worship of God, as that all our several Sects and Parties did so.

18. My second Reason was, That needful and comprehensive Petitions, for all spiritual and outward wants, with fit thanksgivings, may not in the publick sup­plications of the Church be omitted, which can be no other way so well, or at all se­cured. To this he saith,P. 157. It is to the shame of our Church, 2 As pro­viding for a compre­hensiveness of Prayers. if there be not Per­sons enough sufficient for this, and how­ever there are some. Now in this An­swer he contradicts what in the forego­ing Page he said, in answer to my for­mer Reason, to wit, That it is not pos­sible to secure this right Worship before­hand. And I have above shewed, that no Persons, in using constant altera­tions, can perform publick Worship, with that due fulness, comprehensive­ness, and pithiness, which is in a well-ordered Form.

[Page 257]19. But that able men may not be under restraint, he is willing thatIbid. Forms be composed, extant and left at li­berty This he again mentions, in the last Paragraph of his Book. And this me­thod was declared by Didoclavius, Al [...]ar: Damasc. p. 613. whom our Author cites in his Title Page, to have taken place in his days in Scotland: Who also tells us, that him­self having been many years in the Mi­nistry, had never used them, nor did he think them wise that did. And the leaving Forms of Prayer at liberty, Ill effects of having Forms left at liberty. would besides the inconveniences above ob­served, have this ill issue in the end. That they who seek to be esteemed of a dividing Party, or are solicitous to avoid the fierce censures of rash Men, or who are highly conceited of them­selves and affect singularity, or who are Erroneous, and not willing to walk in the sound path of Religion, will be most sure to avoid Forms, for the pro­moting these ill purposes, which will be to the great damage of the Church.

20. He adds thatP. 158. This Argument would hold stronger, for Forms of Ser­mons. It holds indeed to prove, a com­prehensive summary of the Articles of the Christian Faith, to be better expres­sed, in the fixed words of known and [Page 258] received Creeds, then in the composing of new Creeds, of every mans own ma­king. But for ordinary Preaching, I have shewed the contrary, Chap. 6.

21. My third Reason was, That the hearts of pious men may be more devout, and better united in the Service of God, by considering beforehand, what Prayers and Thanksgivings they are to offer up, and come the more ready and prepared to joyn in them. To this he saith,P. 158. Such a particular foreknowledg is not needful, andP. 159. it rather hinders devotion and affection, as he hath proved. But this pretended proof I have answered,3. As con­du [...]ing to the better preparation of mens hearts and affections. and evidenced the contrary, in the third Chapter. And sure the Ministers pre­meditation, what he should ask, in the way and method our Author proposeth, which he alloweth, (and so must every one, who thinks care and consideration to be useful, in the most weighty things, or who would not be rash to utter any thing before God, which he would not do before a Prince) must be an hin­drance to his devotion, if the Peoples knowledg beforehand what they shall pray for, must hinder theirs.

22. He further saithP. 158, 159. there needs no more than a general composure of spi­rit to seek God, to ask whatsoever they or [Page 259]others stand in need of, and to confess all Sin. Now I acknowledg this to be ve­ry good and pious. But possibly, what they come thus prepared to do, as to confession of Sin may be omitted, and also the asking of many other things, which are reliefs for our constant wants, and other things may be prayed for, which they cannot so readily joyn in. And this general composure or preparation, where these parts of service are omitted, can be of no more use, than such a general pre­paration is, in the worship of the Ro­mish Church, where the vulgar, know not particularly what is expressed by the Priest. But in a well-composed Form, according to the use of the Re­formed Churches, these things are much better provided for.

23. He saith also,P. 158. If the Mini­ster transgress his Rule, Concerning the People correcting the erring Minister. and ask what is not according to the Will of God, the People may withhold their Amen. But such a worship in others, our Author would be apt to call, offering the Blind and the Lame; and when they have a Male in their flock, to offer to God a corrupt thing; when the Speaker in his part doth amiss, and the People at best, must forbear their act of publick wor­ship, in the time of it, and when they come to perform it. But besides this, [Page 260]the people are not able thus to over-rule their Teachers, and it is a great distracti­on and discomposure to them, where they must be constantly put upon these doubtful disquisitions: and it is too plain, that many thousands are misled, by the errors of them whom they receive as their guides, into Antinomianism, Popery, Quakerism, and the worst of Sects.

24. But that he may catch at every thing, he saith again here,ibid. that Forms may be read falsly. But beside what I above answered, this is very unlike, in what is so well known, and constantly used: but if there should be some words pronounced amiss, the People may more easily help themselves here, they having oft heard and joyned in this Form, which is no new thing to them, and many of them having the advantage of their Books also.

25.4. As best fitted for the difficultest of­fices of Sa­cramental Admini­strations. My fourth Reason is, That such difficult parts of Church-offices, as Bap­tism and the Lords Supper, the matter of which requires great consideration, may in composing 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 bold­est opposers. Now this Argument is of the greater weight, because of the great [Page 261]concernment of Sacramental Admini­strations. If an error be committed in any thing essential to Baptism, the Bap­tism it self, and the persons membership in the Church, must thereupon be que­stioned. If the like happen in the Lords Supper (which without Forms, may sometimes be occasioned by defect of memory, and some present confusion) there may not only be a loss in the high benefits and blessings of that ordinance, but (as in Baptism also) a profanation of the ordinance it self.

26. Here he saith,Reas. Acc p. 159, 160, 161. In the Lords Supper, the Consecration is by reading the words of Institution and Prayer; the di­stribution hath nothing of difficulty, and the application is by Exhortation and Prayer, and surely he that can pray and preach can do that. And for Baptism: the Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, with a fore­going Prayer, and Prayer or Thanksgiving concluding, is, he judgeth, sufficient with­out a Form. Now it is well, that the words of Christs Institution in the Lords Supper, and the Form of Baptism, are thought needful to be retained and ob­served. But I know not why other persons may not think, themselves to have a liberty of varying here, with as [Page 262]much reason, as our Author rejects the use of the Lords Prayer. And there­fore it is not certain, if Forms were laid aside, how far, and how long, he could give any security in this particular; when some may, asIrenaeus adv. Hae­res l. 1. c. 18. Irenaeus tells us, some who forsook the Catholick Church did, vainly by obscure Paraphrases, alter the Form of Baptism in the name of the Fa­ther, &c. and the matter also, or the use of Water.

27. And touching Prayer in this case, (and Exhortation also) there is no small difficulty. For there are various mi­stakes concerning the Sacraments, which some would have only significative signs, others will have them to be an absolute sealing in Christs name, remission and other blessings, to every person who communicateth in them, and that there­fore certain evidence of actual grace in the Communicants, is necessary to the Administration thereof. And other mistakes there are, concerning the effects and gracious benefits of the Sacraments, concerning their efficacy and operation, and the manner of Christs presence there­with. Now they who keep a well or­dered Form, are in the most sure and safe way. But they who affect to vary con­stantly, may from the difficulty of the [Page 263]Subject, more easily go astray here, than in other cases. And here particular Per­sons will be apt to express themselves, according to their own different opinions, whereby they may err and miscarry, and great inconvenience and hurt may en­sue.

28. My fifth Reason for the expedi­ency of Forms of Prayer, is, That this may be an evidence to other Churches, and future times, after what way and manner we worship God, and that such a Church is in its measure a pure and incorrupt Church. To this he saithp. 162. 1. Where hath God required the leaving any such Testimony? Now we need not a special command, 5. As lea­ving a te­stimony to others of our right worship. for every particular thing, which is of good use; and his question might equal­ly be put concerning Forms of publick Confession, which all Protestant Churches have owned, amongst other ends, for a Testimony of their owning the true prin­ciples of Religion. And the precepts of Christian profession, and the case of Ʋnity with all true parts of the Christian Church, doth at least greatly recommend such a Testimony as this. And since in all cases of Religion we are to give an answer to them who accuse us, where that is needful; to this end, Forms may be of considerable use. Besides the [Page 264]charge of the Romanists, some earnest Lutherans accused the Churches of the Palatinate, for not having the Sacraments truly Administred, for the refelling of which,Ursin Praesat. in Apol. Ca­tech. Ʋrsin appeals to their pub­lick Forms.

29. He saith 2.ibid. That Forms of Sermons are also needful to this end; but though we have many volumes of our Printed Sermons, they are no direct part of our common Worship.

30. He saith, 3. While we declare our selves Christians, and that we worship God according to his word, ibid. we leave a suffi­cient Testimony, that we are a true Church of God. If this be true, our Author hath now found a precept for giving such a Testimony, if he allow any precept for declaring our selves Christians: But indeed if persons so declaring themselves Christians, &c. do enough in this case, then all manner of Sects and Hereticks, who own the Christian name, give suffi­cient Testimony of their being a true Church, and of their right worshiping God. But we are further to profess the true Catholick Doctrine, and to wor­ship God according to the true rules of Christianity.

31. He saith, 4.ibid. a confession of Faith, is a sufficient Testimony. It is so, [Page 265]as to our Doctrine, not as to our Wor­ship: since several chief parts of wor­ship (as the Sacraments) may still be neglected: and there may be many other defects in worship, performed without the use of Forms, by forgetfulness, or being at a loss. And withall, no such Confessions of Faith, were kept to in England, by all those who undertook to guide others in the worship of God, in our late times when the Liturgy was taken away: nor do all our several di­viders, who reject our Church and Li­turgy, agree in any such Confession at this time.

CHAP. X. Ch. X. A persuasive Conclusion.

HIs tenth and last Chapter, which contains little more than one Page, is has Conclusion; wherein in some things, he more particularly repeats his own sense, but addeth nothing of any further Argument, which requires my answer. Among these things he saith,Reas. Acc. p. 164. We do not think it unlawful, to joyn with another praying by the use of Forms, provided the matter be good and pious. It is gran­ted that the Congre­gation may discharge their duty by joyning in publick Forms. 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 fails in his, we do not question. From these words it is ap­parent, that after all his discourse, he here freely grants, that all the Congre­gation, except the Minister who offici­ateth, may without question do their du­ty in the use of Forms of Prayer. And then they cannot be justified and excu­sed from Sin, who make separation out of dislike of them.

2. But as the conclusion of my Dis­course, [Page 267]I shall hence take occasion to apply my self a little to all those, who dissent and divide from our Church, both Teachers and People, Our dissen­ting Bre­thren in­treated [...] consider how they will an­swer for such sad divisions. (and among them to the Author of that Discourse which I have examined, if he shall please to take notice of it) by serious and earnest persunsion. And that I would intreat of them is, that they would calmly consider, what good account they can give to God, and what security they have from the dangers of Sin, in making that sad separation, wherein they engage, and too much please them­selves. That these Divisions do hin­der Religion and Piety, and disorder the Spirits and Minds of men, is so ma­nifest, that some among your selves have much complained thereof; That these are the great encouragements to Popery, and that here is the greatest danger of undermining our Protestant Reformati­on, both many Romish Authors, and some of your own Writers do acknow­ledg: And many other sad effects there are of these Dissentions.

3. Friends, can you think rending the Church, to be a slight thing? Hath God given you any special leave or au­thority, to overlook all your Obligati­ons to a Constituted Church? Or may any [Page 268]Christians at their pleasure, divide them­selves from any Church,When they cannot and mostly do not charge our Com­mution with sin. and frame new Models to themselves? Or will your dis­like of some things, upon highly probable Arguments (as our Author calls them) and yet without any certainty of truth, secure you? Very few men of any note among your selves, dare charge any sin upon our Communion, and they who do it, are not able to give any tolerable proof of their Accusation; and with­out evidence of sin in communicating, se­paration can never be justified. I hope, what this Writer I have dealt with, hath insisted on, for the unlawfulness of mi­nistring by a Form, will sufficiently ap­pear to be weak enough. And yet his undertaking goes not so high, as to urge these things against the lawfulness of Communion, or joyning in the Reli­gious Worship, which is so performed.

4. If some things be said in behalf of your Separation, or as proofs that your withdrawing is no Separation, and your dividing no Schism; which till they be throughly examined and understood, may seem plausible to you, even this is not enough,Plausible Arguments are no secu­rity to them who neglect their duty. to justifie your practices, without certain evidence that Commu­nion is sinful. Those who are men of any parts and learning among your selves, know how easie it is, to make [Page 269]some fair pretence and plea for almost any Error; yea, and to bring some sub­tle Arguments, against any truth in the World: But no Christian may hence conclude, that hereupon he may safely neglect his duty, of imbracing that Truth, or rejecting that Error, And I presume that those who are of the meanest rank among you may know, that there are few causes so bad, but that a Lawyer, who hath used himself to pleading, though he be not a person of profound skill in the Law, may say something plau­ble in the behalf thereof. But this will not justifie him who doth an injury to his Neighbour in his civil Rights: Much less will the like secure you, if you act against that which is really your duty to God, his Church, and other Christians, in matters of Religion.

5. In reading the holy Scriptures, no­thing can be more plain, than that the Peace and Ʋnity of the Church,The Pre­cepts for Peace and Unity are plain and weighty parts of of our Christian duty. is fre­quently and earnestly commanded and enjoyned, and Divisions vehemently condemned and censured, in the Chri­stian Religion. We profess our selves the Disciples of that Jesus, who before his Death, expressed his affectionate de­sire and prayer for Ʋnity in his Church: And he declared this to be a great [Page 270]means, whereby his Religion might be propagated, and take the greater place in the World, John 17.11, 21, 23. In Christianity, while many are eager, in prosecuting their Contests too highly in other things, the Apostle assures us, that Peace is one of the great parts in which the Kingdom of God consists, Rom. 14.17, 19 And he persuades to Unity in the Church, with very great and affectionate earnestness, Phil. 2.1, 2. and urgeth the same in almost every Epistle: Declaring also, that they who make Drvisions contrary to this Christi­an Doctrine, serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 16.17, 18. But can any persons be the better Christians, by de­spising the weighty, and frequently in­culcated Precepts of Christianity? Or can they be the faithful Disciples of Christ, who are earnest in disobeying him, even in such Precepts, which (be­sides his Authority) are intended for the Honour, and the progress of his Re­ligion?

6.The anci­ent Church zealous practisers hereof. How unlike are these practices, to the ancient Catholick temper of Christi­anity, which long continued in the Church, sutable to Rules of our holy Religion; by the ancient Canons of the Ʋniversal Church, they who would [Page 271] withdraw from the established Church, God. Can. Eccl. Univ. can. 65. and as disesteeming that, would pri­vately, and without the consent of the Bi­shop, set up another Church, were un­der an Anathema. And that the Anci­ent Fathers and Christians, accounted the Precepts of the Gospel for Peace and Ʋnity, to forbid and condemn Di­visions and Separations from the Church, and that they themselves were zealous in rejecting such practices, may suffici­ently appear from what I have shew­ed inLibert. Eccles. p. 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24. another Discourse. But are the rules and practice of Christianity now changed, and become quite dif­ferent from what they were in the Pri­mitive Times? Or can any man pre­tend to a sufficient Warrant and Autho­rity, for altering the nature of these Duties, or cancelling their Obligati­on?

7. I know that some plead on your behalf, that you are not chargeable with any blameable separation. You meet in­deed by your selves, to perform publick worship, in a different way from us, as one Church may do distinctly from ano­ther: but you do not censure the Church of England, to be no true Church, but profess to own her to be a true Church, and her Communion to be lawful, and [Page 272]therefore you are chargeable with no Schism, Those Dis­sers not excused from schism who pro­fessedly ac­knowledg us to have a true Church, and a true worship. or unwarrantable division. Now though this profession is not always made, with sufficient clearness and freedom; the acknowledgment thereof, is so far from being a plea on your behalf, that it is rather an unanswerable charge against you. For you reject in your practice, the Rules and Constitutions established by Authority, concerning the order of the Church and its worship; you general­ly express your dislike of our way of worship, or at least your disesteem and undervaluing thereof, many of you use your utmost endeavours, to draw off persons from our Communion, and to bring them to your Congregations; and some of your chief Teachers have written their Letters to that purpose, to such persons in whom they think they have any great interest, some of which I have seen, some years since; your party frequently useth sharp censures, against such pious persons, who will not forsake our Church, to joyn with you. Your people ordinarily use reproachful expres­sions of our service, yea concerning our Church and Ministry (and so do your Teachers too frequently) and if any per­sons forsake you, and return to our Church, they then fall under the load of [Page 273]your displeasure. And because this be­haviour is used towards that Church, which you acknowledg to be a true Church, and her Communion not sinful, this is so far from justifying your pra­ctices, that it renders them unaccounta­ble and unexcusable.

8. Can it be supposed,The contra­ry proved, from one end of Christian Unity. that the Ʋnity and Peace our Saviour recommended, for the gaining upon the world, was only this: that his Disciples and fol­lowers should all profess his Name and Doctrine, but might make themselves of as many several parties as they pleased, all of them openly before the world, pro­testing their dislike of the several models, the other parties embraced, and also of that worship, which was most publickly used and established by the chief Guides and Governours of the Church? Now if all this might be done, and care must only be taken, that the dividing parties, do not charge the main body of the Church, to be no true Church, or to have no true worship; could this be the way to promote the honour of Religion, or would it not rather make it appear con­temptible? And in our own present case, do the enemies of the Protestant Refor­mation, when they observe your divi­ding behaviour, honour our Reformati­on, [Page 274]because of our Ʋnity? or do not you know, that upon this account they upbraid our discord and divisions, and make ill use of them. And besides this in theCan. Apost. c. 8. ancient Church, the very for­bearance of open Communicating, when this might only be feared to have such effects, as to cause offences, and raise sus­picions in the people, was esteemed so blameable, though it might continue but a short time, that unless a sufficient account was given thereof, it was se­verely punished.

9. We know that St. Peters with­drawing from the Gentiles at Antioch,2. From S. Peters with­drawing at Anti­och. was deeply censured by St. Paul, Gal. 2.11, 12, 13, 14. because of the di­sturbance and trouble it might create, to the minds and consciences of the Gen­tiles. But none can think, that St. Peter, who immediately before communicated with them, did now charge them to be no true Church, or that their worship and communion was sinful: Wherefore it is hence manifest, that there may be a scan­dalous and sinful separation from a Church, where there are no such uncha­ritable censures.

10. And I appeal unto any party of our Dissenters themselves, whether if any members of their own number, [Page 275]should new model themselves into diffe­rent Forms under several lesser divisions, 3. By ap­peal to the dissenting parties themselves, concerning the ill con­sequences of this their Plea. and setting up themselves to be new parties, shall desert and declare their dis­like of that Society or Communion, with which they before joyned: still calling them a true Church, and not charging their worship with sin; I say, whether the Teachers, and remaining members of this first party, will justifie these divi­ders, who thus separate from, and for­sake them. If they will approve these things, they must profess themselves Patrons of Confusion, and that any part of a Christian Society may separate it self, when there is no apparent danger of sin in the Communion, and conse­quently where no rules of conscience, will oblige them to forsake that Com­munion. But if they will blame this practice, let them reflect upon them­selves. And yet these new parties of di­viders are the less to be condemned by them, because they followed their ex­ample.

11.The danger of divi­ding to be considered. And now let me prevail with you to consider, what danger they run upon, who causlesly rend the Church of Christ; whence it will appear necessary, that they who forsake a well-established [Page 276]Church, must proceed upon necessary grounds. Now disobedience to any Di­vine precept, and therefore to this for Peace and Ʋnity; if it be from careles­ness and gross neglect, in not minding the will of God; or from a temper resol­ved rather to please it self, than to be obedient; or from the rule and domini­on of pride or passion; is so opposite to the spirit of Christianity, that he who is guilty hereof, cannot find acceptance with God, v. n. 16.

12.Joyning in divisions are dange­rou to wel [...] dis­posed men. But besides this, I have one thing more to add, which I think is very con­siderable, and which possibly you have not observed. It seems plain enough in the Apostolical Doctrine, that even such persons who unwarily joyn in di­viding and rending the Church, though they hold fast the fundamental doctrines of Religion, and a care of many other duties of a holy life, yet for this miscar­riage, and their persisting therein, they diminish their future happiness, and the degrees of glory, which they might o­therwise attain unto, in the other world. For the proof whereof, I shall give some account, of the third Chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians.

13. When the Apostle reflected upon [Page 242]the Strife, and divisions of the Church of Corinth, he thence pronounceth them to be carnal, and Babes in Christ, 1 Cor. 3.1, 3, 4. or that they were of the lowest sort, 1 Cor. Ch. 3. Conside­red. Dividers are not of the highest rank of Christians. and meanest rank and de­gree of Christians, if they were Christi­ans at all; however they might value and esteem themselves. And whereas they were one of Paul, and another of Apollos, he shews them, that Paul and Apollos, and all other Ministers of Christ were labourers under God, and neither could, nor did, lay any other foundation than Jesus Christ, v. 5.11. which is an Argument against dividing, Ch. 1.11, 12.

14. And the Apostle,Sincerity in Christi­an Do­ctrine, Pi­ety and Unity is greatly re­warded. still continuing his Discourse, with a particular respect to this Subject concerning Divisions; tells them, concerning what is built upon this Foundation, that every mans work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, v. 14. and that the Apostle speaks this of the day of judgment, or the day of the Lord (as being opposed to mans day, Ch. 4.3.) is manifest, from Ch. 3.8. and especially from Ch. 4.4, 5. He acquaints them, that he who shall build upon this foundation, Gold and Sil­ver, and precious Stones, and whose work [Page 278]shall abide; that is, who shall keep close to the integrity of the Christian Faith and Doctrine, and to the purity of the Christian Life, and therein to Christian Unity, which is one great duty thereof, and a means of growth therein: (v. 1.3, 4.) he shall receive a reward v. 12.14. or obtain great and perfect happiness.

15. And he lets them know, that they who build Hay and Stubble, upon this foundation, and whose work shall be burnt, they shall suffer loss, ver. 15. Which shews, that they who shall joyn hurtful Opinions and Errors, though not in things Fundamental, with the Christian Religion; and irregular Practices, tho they be not wholly opposite to a Chri­stian Life:Well dis­posed per­sons, by closing with Di­visions, lessen their future re­ward. And particularly (which is the special occasion of this discourse of the Apostle) they who upon this Foun­dation build Strife, Factions, or Divi­sions, shall suffer loss. Or these, though they act from mistaken Zeal, or from some other Principle, which is not in­consistent with all integrity of heart; they shall with respect to another World, have abatements of reward: Though they shall be saved as by Fire, or with appearance of difficulty and danger. And besides the evidence that this Truth [Page 279]hath, from the scope, series, and con­nexion of this Apostolical Discourse; it is manifest of it self, that such Divi­sions, as these at Corinth were, which are so much decried and condemned, in the Doctrine of Christianity, must be reckoned amongst those works, which shall not abide, but be burnt, to the loss of them who are engaged in them. And they who are Babes and carnal, (ver. 1, 3.) may well be thought inferiour in re­ward, to them who are Spiritual and grown men, when every man shall receive his own reward according to his own la­bour, ver. 8.

16. And this Apostle still eying their Divisions in the Church,Dividing the Church, is a pra­ctice in many de­structive of their sal­vation, v. n. 11. goes on to declare their danger, Ver. 16. Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God? And Ver. 17. If any man desile the Temple of God, him will God destroy. That is, that they who deprave the genuine Pu­rity of the Church of God, in Do­ctrine or Practice, or who defile them­selves by any Vice; and particulaly who so engage in Divisions, as thereby to turn aside from the Christian Life, their end will be misery. And to this purpose, [...], Divisions, or Se­ditions, are reckoned among those fruits [Page 280]of the Flesh, which exclude from the Kingdom of God, Gal. 5.20, 21. And yet further, with respect to the same thing, the Apostle, Ver. 18, 19, 20. shews, That what men may sometimes account to be their Wisdom, if it lead them amiss (as particularly by bringing them into the paths of strife and dis­cord) is no true wisdom, but folly. And the same thing is asserted by St. James, Jam. 3.13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

17. And to make it manifest, that in this discourse of the Apostle thus far, and also in his proceeding yet further, what he wrote was particularly directed to the case and miscarriage of their Di­visions: From what he had hitherto said,The sense above men­tioned fur­ther clear­ed. he deduceth this Inference, Ver. 21. Therefore let no man glory in Men, i.e. to make Factions and Divisions, out of pretence of the esteem they have, even of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or any other. And he directs, Chap. 4.1. Let a man so account of us, as of the Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the Mysteries of God. And Chap. 4. v. 6. he tells them, These things I have in a Figure, transferred to my Self and to Apollos, for your sakes, that you might learn in us, not to think of men, above that which is written, that [Page 281]no one of your be puffed up for one against another.

18. And that no man may slight and despise this consideration, and still con­clude, that as he can please himself in such undertakings, so God surely can­not be so displeased, with these Divi­sions, I shall take a little notice of the evil temper, that generally attends them. Besides,The evil attendants of Schism. the hurt that is done to the Church of God, to Religion, and to o­ther men; the engaging in Separation, is also usually accompanied with many disorders of Mind and Practice. Here are Prejudices towards them, from whom they divide, with disordered heats and censoriousness; a neglect of due reverence to Superiours; and a proneness to em­brace some particular Opinions, concern­ing some things in Religion, whereby they may distinguish their Party, and by opposing others herein, keep them­selves at a greater distance from them. And withal, the offending Persons are here ordinarily so far pleased with, and ready to justifie, and approve their mis­carriages, that they are not willing to examine their own Errors and Mistakes; are far from being pleased with him, who shall reprove their faults, and some­times [Page 282]with him also, who shall in the mildest and kindest manner persuade them, to consider of their Duty, and return unto it. And this temper of mind, besides the various woful fruits, and manifest consequents of Divisions themselves, may well provoke the Di­vine displeasure.

19. Wherefore as every Person va­lueth and esteemeth the pleasing God, and minding the duties of the Christian Religion, which are things of mighty concernment and absolute necessity; they must not think,Care of Unity is greatly necessary. they may safely omit the duty of Ʋnity, or any other great command of the Gospel, and practise only such Rules and Precepts, as themselves please. When St. Paul did beseech his Ephesians, Eph. 4.1. to walk worthy of the Vocation wherewith they were called; he to this end, among other duties, insists most particularly, and most largely, upon keeping the Ʋnity of the spirit in the bond of peace; and inforceth this by very many Arguments, and Obligations to Christian Ʋnity, v. 3.4, 5, 6. And I hope I need add no more, but the Apostles conclusive words, in his latter Epistle to the Corinthians, be­fore he gives his Apostolical Blessing, to [Page 283]them, who had been drawn into Divisi­ons, 2 Cor. 13.11. Finally, Brethren farewell, be perfect, (orv. Dr. Hammonds Annot. in Loc. be compact and knit together) be of good comfort (or as others render it not amiss, receive exhor­tation) be of one mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you.