WE will forbear all Prefaces, and Rhetorical insinuations, and hasten to the main busi­ness. Truth may need such sometimes, by reason of mens infir­mities: [Page 2]and there be examples in Scri­pture, that may contend with the choicest Rhetorick, humane Authors afford, to justifie it, if need were. But in such a case as I conceive this is, where com­mon sense, best reason; Authority, divine and humane; all that can be de­sired in a cause, are so manifestly vi­sible, the best Rhetorick we can use, is to use no Rhetorick at all. It is the nature of Truth, to be most lovely, when seen naked: but it is not the luck of all Truth, to carry so much light, and lustre with it, as will pierce thorow all Obstacles, and make it visible to all eyes. I hope it is the luck of this, that we contend for here: the Reader will quickly see, let him but read; I will not say without prejudice, (for that is not to be hoped) but not obstinate­ly resolved against the ingenuity of his confession, though his conscience be convicted.

And here in the first place, we pro­fess, we pretend not to write against [Page 3]any, who say, or teach, that what Christ hath commanded, so command­ed without limitation of time or place, absolutely and generally to be observed, ought not to be done by men that pro­fess Christianity. There is no man so simple, but would presently make this inference: This were to deny him in deed, whom we profess to honour and worship in words. Except we should perchance establish such a power upon Earth, equivalent or superiour to the power of Christ: a power to abrogate, or ratifie, at pleasure, what is command­ed: Which opposeth and exalteth it self above all that is called God, &c. 2 Thes. 2.4. How far this may belong to the Pope of Rome, who by his Canonists and others, doth take upon himself to have a power, Supra & contra omne jus: contra jus naturale gentium; civile, huma­num, divinum, &c. contra Apostolum: Vetus Testamentum, &c. to make de pec­cato non peccatum, & de non peccato pecca­um: how far I say, the Pope of Rome [Page 4]may be concerned in that place of Scri­pture, I will not enquire. There be even of that side (professed Papists) that have laid it to his charge, and applyed those very words unto him. But it is not to our purpose to enquire: They are not Pa­pists, who we have to do with. We say therefore once again, We do not pretend to write against any, who main­tain positively Christ should not be obey­ed: Or yet more particularly; not against any, who acknowledging these words of Christ, recorded Mat. 6. and Luk. 11. Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. to be a prescript form of Prayer; forbid us, and forbear themselves, to use it as a Prayer: but against them, who allow not these words to be a Prayer, but a bare direction or platform of Prayer only: and upon that account, forbid, and for­bear, as I have said: who therefore will be ready to say, The question is not properly of honour, or dishonour done unto Christ, but of the right use, or understanding of his words.

This may seem plausible at first hear­ing. But here I must desire the Rea­der to consider; that scarce ever was any opinion so false, or so impious, but men could find some words to set it out in another shape, if we will con­tent our selves with a superficial view; or will look at a distance through such prospectives, as shall be put into our hands. We charge the Papists with impiety, for denying to ordinany Chri­stians the use of Gods Word. They will say, they honour the Scripture, in keeping them from it, who, (through ignorance and simplicity) are more likely to abuse it, than to make that use of it, for which it was given. That they were given us to do good, being committed unto such hands as have skill to handle them; not to do hurt, w^ch. in the hands of ignorant, illiterate people, they are most likely. If good words and fair pretences will serve the turn, it cannot be denyed, but, in this cause, such will easily be found, to make it plausible: though no cause [Page 6]can less pretend to solidity of reason, (if we come to the tryal of either Scri­pture or Antiquity) to make it true. Again, we charge them of Sacriledge and Impiety in maiming the Sacrament of the Lords Supper of one essential part, whilst they keep ordinary people from the use of the Cup. The question is not, what we can prove, but what they pretend. No such thing as we lay to their Charge, I am sure, that can be called either Sacriledge, or Impiety. The very Anabaptists, the rankest of them, (the Alumbradoes of Spain, or Quakers of England) who deny and de­spise all Scriptures; can we charge them of any impietie, if they may tell their own tale, and be believed without any further reasoning? They will say, They honour, though not what we call Scripture: yet, the word of God, as much as any; that is, their inspirati­ons, and raptures, and the Oracles of their own breast, their inward light; which they pretend to be the only true Word.

Since therefore it is certain, that no opinion can be so impious in it self, but it may be masked with words able, if not to make it plausible and popular; yet, to hide the impiety: laying aside what is pretended, as altogether imperti­nent: we will come to the true state of the question, which we conceive to be this.

Whether it may, or doth clearly ap­pear, by the plain literal obvious sense, or construction of Scripture; confirmed by all circumstances of the Context; all probabilitie of humane ratiocination: the sense and practise of all Christians, since the very beginning of Christianity, (so far as can be traced by History) in all ages, in all places; that these words, Our Father, &c. as set down in St. Mat­thew, and St. Luke, were prescribed by our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, as a very form of Prayer, to be used by all professing Christianity, in those very words, as a Prayer; yea, or noe.

A question of very great moment, as I apprehend it, the consequent, or consequence whereof; if the affirma­tive part of it be proved, will be,

First, that they who either by their example, or perswasions, bereave Christians of it, are guilty (Prayer being a thing of such consequence in Religion) of horrible, detestable sa­criledge: and may seem themselves (to others) to renounce thereby to no small part of Christianity. We speak to, and of profest Ministers only in all this Discourse.

Secondly, whilst it may probably be conceived, that a main reason that leads them unto this, is a great opinion they have of, or to their own conceptions in praying; which they therefore (in ordinary construction of reason) must be thought to prefer before this form; this form, I say, by such undeniable, un­controlable, (to common sense and found reason) evidence of Scripture made, and prescribed by Christ himself; (The [Page 9]Son of God, in whom all the Treasures of Wisdome are hidden, &c.) hence it will follow, that they are guilty (though I hope not intended by them) yet guilty of high Blasphemy against CHRIST, their God and Saviour.

Thirdly, whilest they seek evasions against such evidence of Scripture: such evidence, as no other point, or doctrine of Christianity, can pretend unto greater: it must needs follow, that by this their example, they give a most pernicious example to the most perni­cious Hereticks, of present, or future ages, to shift all Scriptures, though never so clear against them, and do much countenance the Blasphemies of some Papists, in calling them a Nose of Wax, &c. as also, stop or obstruct their own mouths for ever speaking against Quakers and Anabaptists, who certainly may pretend to as much ground of reason for denying all Scriptures, as any can, for denying the use of the Lords Prayer, as a Prayer unto Christians; [Page 10]so demonstrably grounded upon Scri­pture, commanded by Christ himself, confirmed by the practise of all Christi­ans in the world.

This is the true Estate of the questi­on, as I apprehend. If any think fit to add, in the last place; That in case we come short of our proofs, and cannot make our charge good, we must needs be guilty, either of inexcusable igno­rance, or intolerable uncharitableness, or both: I am content.

If any shall think I have used ag­gravation in it, I am sorry. My con­science doth bear me witness, I intend­ed it not. I pray God heartily it may never be laid to their charge; as I ve­rily believe, that none of these things are really intended by them. But in a business of this nature, where I con­ceive the honour of Christ, and the good of all Christians, so much interested; I think I should unworthily prevaricate, if I should not use plainness of words, and call [...], as the old say­ing [Page 11]is. But this I have said of my be­lief, as to their intention: I mean it of such, as are true Christians in the main Fundamentals. As for the profest Ana­baptists, Quakers, Enthusiasts, or howe­ver called, who have apostatized from the right saith: such, as they frequently blaspheme against the Person; so no wonder, if they frequently and pur­posely blaspheme the Prayer of Christ. As I have heard it reported of some, (some years ago, great pretenders to the spirit of prayer) they should often say, If Christ were alive again (con­versant in earth amongst men; intend­ed I suppose:) he would be ashamed of that prayer. Others have been heard, (wretched Miscreants!) to say, they thanked God they had forgotten it. As bad or worse hath been said of the Scri­pture in general, we need not wonder at it.

Though they blaspheme not in words, yet they may be thought to do some­what in deeds, of much affinity: who [Page 12]though they allow Children perchance, and simple people, in private, and in­feriour subordinate men; as Lecturers, and Clerks, in Churches, to use the Lords prayer: yet themselves will not do it that honour, as to use it in that sim­plicity of words, as delivered and com­mended unto us by Christ, but, either not at all: or so dislocated, (which we should not except against, if done in imitation, and not in liew of the Lords prayer) and dismembred with their own cenceptions, that little or nothing of it doth appear in its own shape and form.

Now we are to proceed to the consi­deration of the Text; we will first con­sider of a general objection, or evasion rather, which I find some have used in this very point. We urge the plain literal sense. Yes, but all things (say they) in Scripture, are not to be taken litterally. We grant it: but withall we say, to make use of this objection upon all occasions, when we find our [Page 13]selves pinched, without any ground at all, of either words, reason, circum­stance, &c. is as much as to void all Scripture, and to substitute our own phansies and imaginations in lieu of it. The Scripture saith. Thou shalt not wor­ship images, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, steal, &c. Yea, but every thing in the Scripture is not to be taken literally. What then is the use of the Scriptures, I would fain know, if it be enough to say so, when we would not have it to say, what crosses our humors, interest, or prejudice? The Reader will give me leave to insist a little upon this point. It will be of good use to our present occasion, and he will find it before he come to the end. All things in Scripture are not to be taken literally: No: there be many Types and Figures in the Scriptures; Metaphors and Tran­slations: many things spoken by way of similitude, which must not be under­stood literally; and may easily be un­derstood, without any other Comment [Page 14](or exposition) than nature and common sense. God speaking unto men, doth condescend to speak to them in the lan­guage of men. When Christ styleth the Pharisees, Generation of Vipers, can any be so simple, or so malicious, as to make him say, that they were really begotten of Vipers? or when he saith to his Disciples; that he is the Vine, and they the branches: that he intended it of a real Vine and Branches? When the Psalmist calls his God a Rock: who would, who could, man, woman or child; (that is come to the age of understand­ing) argue from thence, that David was an Idolator, because he did worship stones? But here is nothing of that na­ture; (figurative or metaphorical) in the words we have to do with; we shall not need to say more.

Again, Prophecies, are obscure: it is their nature to be so, not many things in them (we grant, ordinarily,) to be taken literally; but we need not in­sist upon it: here is no thing of that na­ture neither.

Again, Mysterious, sacramental things are commonly involved in figures: it is their nature to be so. That is not a Sacrament properly, that doth not shew somewhat that may be seen, whereby it would have somewhat understood that is not seen.

And do we wonder if Figures be used, when they are spoken of? Or should we in reason press the letter in such speeches, even against all sense and reason? Will any man say, that the Circumcision was a Covenant, literally, because it is so called: or that the Israelites were in motion, when they did eat the Paschal Lamb, because it is called the Passeover? Or that Christ, before he was made flesh, was a Stone, because St. Paul saith, Christ was the Rock that followed the Israelites? If therefore Christ saith, the Sacramen­tal Cup is the New Testament, or Testament in his blood, (as St. Paul expresseth him) or that the sacramental bread is his bo­dy; can we be charged with infidelity, because we believe a figure in the words, [Page 16](the proper style of Sacraments) though in that figure, a reality, as to the benefit, as considerable to us, as we could ex­pect from a visible presence, or partici­pation.

Again, St. Austin hath a rule, and much notice is taken of it: Si praecepti­va locutio est, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, &c. Where we have a com­mand, (saith he, or to that effect) that commands nothing against civility, or moral honesty: we must take it literally; otherwise figuratively. But here is nothing in this question of the Lords Prayer that comes within that compass, nothing of that nature objected against it, (that I know of,) or the use of it, though the irreverent carriage of some men in some places) (as I have heard) might make some men suspect, that they (if otherwise sober and religious) apprehended somewhat in it, very offen­sive to religious ears.

And now that the Reader may know this is no digression, I must tell him, I find [Page 17]them, by some that have written a­gainst the use of the Lords Prayer, as a prayer, them, I say, that stick to the plain literal meaning of Christs words in the institution of this holy Prayer, charged with some Popery, or imita­tion (at least) of Popery, upon this ve­ry ground, because Papists stick to the literal sense of these sacramental words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my Body: I will set down their words, In eo vero quod tantopere urgetis verba ipsa: Quando oratis, dicite, Pater noster, &c. quid aliud agitis, quam quod Papistae solent in quaesti­one Sacramenti, urgentes [...], & ad nauseam usque objicientes verba illa, Hoc est corpus meum. They are the words of one Franciscus Johnsonus, who had the reputation of a wondrous able man among the Sectaries, (or Puritans) of those times, in answer to John Carpen­ter, a reclaimed Papist, a son of the Church of England.

What particular Sect, besides a Pu­ritan them an was of, I know not. Some [Page 18]what it seems between Presbytery, and right down Anabaptism. For Anabap­tism he disclaims. And Presbyterian Government (at the very last of his dis­course) as well as Episcopy, he pro­nounceth to be derived from the Anti­christ. Whether Independants were then known, I know not. But let the Rea­dee judge what these men would bring Religion, and the word of God unto. If this be Popery, or Popish, when there is no imaginable ground, or colour for any other, to stick to the literal sense of Scripture: If I say to a thief, steal not; and tell him, it is forbidden in the Scripture, what a ready evasion will he have? whilest I think to convince him by the word of God, he will impeach me (and truly we know many have re­ally suffered for more ridiculous and groundless imputations, as the Surpliss, and the like:) of being a Papist, or a friend to Papists: (to their cause I mean; for their persons we may love and ho­nour, as they shall merit, I hope, with­out [Page 19]offence:) or perchance of making the Transubstantiation an article of my faith, because I press the literal sense against stealing. The best is, ordinary theft, the Law provides against: but Sacriledge, both by the Law of God, and by the rules of right reason, a greater theft, will easily be avoided by this sophistry; and perchance, instead of a crime, be made the Character of a Saint. As this is, so is all the rest, that I find in that great Champion (as he was accounted in those dayes) of Sectaries, against the use of the Lords prayer: such ridiculous, senseless sophistry, as I scarce re­member the like, in any thing that ever I read. But in such a case, (to prove twice two, not to be four: that the snow is black, and the Sun the cause of darkness:) who can expect it other­wise? Yet in this perchance we may commend his ingenuity above some others, that he freely confesseth the lite­ral obvious sense to be of our side.

This prayer then, (or pattern of [Page 20]prayer if you will) is set down, and re­corded in two Gospels, St. Matthew and St. Luke; the same words (in substance) in both Gospels: but as divers have well observed, uttered by Christ, (and re­corded accordingly by the Evangelists, as spoken and prescribed by him) at two several times, and upon several occasi­ons: which makes it the more bind­ing, because twice delivered in the same form.

In St. Mathew, Christ begins with the Doctrine of praying in general, and af­ter sundry precepts and instructions, pro­ceeds to a particular form: After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father &c. which is well observed by the Arabick translator, exhibited in the late London Bible, (that noble, and little less than miraculous work, if we consider all Circumstances) where we find this di­vision; first, from ver. 5. to verse 9. Doctrina Orandi, Consilium de oratione: then, Formula Orandi: an excellent me­thod, much neglected in these dayes [Page 21]of Inspiration; when ignorant illiterate creatures are put to it, illotis manibus: who though they know little or nothing of Prayer in general, more than this, that they must be so long, and keep saying whatever it be, yet are made believe, (and are soon perswaded) they do it far better, than they, who have long stu­died the duty of prayer in general, and think, it becomes them to consider of what they say, when they are to speak to Almighty God, upon any particular oc­casion.

Now before we proceed to further exa­mination of the words, it will not be amiss to take into consideration, what hath been (so far as we can find by books) the opinion of men in gene­ral, concerning this duty of prayer.

In ancientest times among Heathens, (that is, men that had the light of na­ture only to guide them:) it did belong unto Poets, who were the Theologues, or [Page 22] Divines of the times, to teach men forms of prayer for every Deitie they wor­shipped. Such forms of Invocations of Orpheus, so called; of Homer, are yet ex­tant. The doctrine of prayer was hand­led by philosophers; as Aristotle, among others; but that work of his is not ex­tant. But by Plato also, which is yet extant. In that Treatise Plato doth much commend a form of prayer, com­posed by some antient poet, not named by him, unknown to us, which Calvin in his Institutions, as I remem­ber, takes good notice of, and is ex­hibited in Greek by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations upon Mathew. A very com­mendable form indeed; the Author and those times considered; and which may be said, in some respects, to come nearer to the Lords prayer, than many prayers that are made after that pat­tern, as is pretended. For I take that part of the Lords prayer, to be a very consi­derable part of it, where we are taught to pray, That the Will of God, not [Page 23]out will, be done: For so I think the words ought to be understood, and sup­plyed, out of that other exemplary form of prayer, used by Christ himself, and for himself, (at that time) parti­cularly, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt, Mat. 26.39. And again, verse 42. Thy will be done: And so again, verse 44. Whereas our prayers commonly, instead of referring our Wills to Gods Will, are, that our Wills may be done, and that too, with much importunity. Yea some­times, we are ready to expostulate with God, if we have not what we ask; though God knows, when we have it, we have many times occasion enough to wish, that we had not had our wills; that God had not heard our Prayers. Again, In the Lords Prayers, we pray for our dayly bread: which are general words, translated by some, panem indi­gentiae [...] nostrae: referring particulars to God, who knows better than we, what [Page 24]is convenient for us, if we durst trust him.

Now that old form commended by Pla­to, was this.

[...].

In Plato indeed, [...], because of the verb [...] that followeth, as in prose; but without the verb, that is, as in the verse, ordinary construction doth require (and so it should have been printed in Hugo Grotius) [...]: as it is in the Anthologie of Greek ver­ses, and elsewhere. Yet an Infinitive might have stood well enough for an Indicative, if the former verb had been so too. But this obiter: In latin divers have done them; be content with my translation for this once, to save me further labour of seeking.

As for the sense in English, though I love a good verse heartily; yet my self I know, was never born to be a Poet in any Lan­guage, and there­fore never minded it; yet I think it necessary to put the words into some Rymes, that it may be known what they are (ver­ses) in the Origi­nal. † Great God, we thee beseech, those good things us to grant, Asked, or unasked; thy self doth know we want. As for those things we ask; if such as in the end Hurtfull (thou know'st) will prove; from such, great God, defend.

Juvenal the Poet, hath a whole Sa­tyre of this Subject, of the ignorance of man, in point of praying. Persius, another; both insist upon many parti­culars, to shew the danger of rash, hasty prayers. In the Old Testament, there be many prescript forms of prayers, ac­cording to best Interpreters. Davids [Page 27]Psalms in general were used, (and cer­tainly intended many of them from the very beginning) most of them by the ancient Jews, before Christs time, to that purpose. But more of this by and by.

In point of reason therefore, since prayer hath alwayes been a matter of such difficulty and danger withal; and that prescript forms have been used, not among Heathens only, but Israelites al­so, who would not think it most proba­ble, that when Christ said, (as his words are recorded by St. Mathew, verse 9.) After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father, &c. He intended a prescript form? Or if he had not intended it so, yet the words in ordinary construction, importing so much, he would have used some words to prevent our mi­stake? Some fly to the word [...] here, and tell us, it importeth sometimes no more, than a resemblance or likeness. We grant it. But what word is there almost to be found, or can be used by [Page 28]any man or Author, but is sometimes taken in a different sense? The que­stion is, whether any ground for any such sense in this place; such sense, I mean, as should exclude the more usu­al and ordinary. No man I think will deny, but that in ordinary construction, when it is said, you shall say thus; The words that follow there, are intended, and no other. As when God in Exo­dus often saith unto Moses, Go, and say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, that those very words there re­corded, were used by God unto Moses, when he gave him his commission. And Gen. 45.9. Thus saith thy son Joseph, &c. It followeth, verse 27. And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them. Infinite places of Scripture might be produced: some, where the very same words are repeat­ed; but that I think it will be granted by all men, that as there is a Thus of similitude, which we deny not; so of Identity; which by the due considerati­on [Page 29]of circumstances, and coherence, is generally to be determined.

It is well observed by some, that have written of this Subject, that had Christ intended a meer model of prayer by those words, he would rather (in all probabilitie, were it but to prevent our error) have said, pray that your sins may be forgiven you, &c. as elsewhere, pray that your flight may be in the sum­mer.

Lastly, Though I know the word Amen, is used, not at the beginning on­ly, but at the end also of some speeches, that are not prayers properly: yet it will not be denyed, that it is most proper at the end to formal prayers: witness St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.15, 16. so that even from this word may be be collected some­what, which alone would be of no great weight perchance; but joyned with so much evidence, and other ne­cessary consequence, is not imperti­nent.

Now were it so that this prayer, and [Page 30]Christs words about it, had been regi­stred by St. Mathew only, I think no more could rationally be required, to per­swade men that are not apt to be sway­ed by somewhat else more strongly than reason. There be many other truths delivered, with less evidence of truth, which we generally imbrace, both in the Old and New Testament. As on the other side, we must confess by sad experience, that no Truth can be de­livered with so much evidence, and ma­nifestation of words and circumstances, but private Interest, partiality, faction, prejudice, and the like, may draw to a contrary sense: so that if men cannot perswade themselves (though no wonder, if they do, even they that otherwise are judicions enough: strong interest, if men once give way, and be worldly given, will blind best Judgements in time) and their consciences, that it is so: yet they will hope by cunning and sophistry, they shall be able to perswade others. But Gods providence in this particular, hath [Page 31]otherwise ordered it. For as if St. Luke had fore-seen (by the Spirit) a possibili­ty that some would, or might stick at, and draw Arguments from the [...] in St. Mathew: he hath used such words, as every man must confess, leave no ground at all for scruples (though sought and desired) and evasions; except we fly to figures and metaphors, of which somewhat hath been said before.

But before we set down the very words, we must take notice of some circumstances of story belonging to this business, which St. Luke doth here set down. First, That Christ had been praying, when the Disciples did peti­tion him, that he would teach them to pray. Prayer is a duty that Christ him­self was much conversant in: we find that by many places: yet it is observed by some, we do not find expressed any where, that Christ prayed with his Disciples (ordinary common prayers excepted) but alwayes by himself. O­thers add, nor in the Temple publickly. [Page 32]How the observation will hold, will not much concern. If his Disciples hath heard him often, there was good ground for their request, that when they should not have the comfort of his prayers by bodily presence; yet they might not want the comfort of praying in his own words, when himself should be out of sight; such words as they might pre­sume (with the concurrence of a pure and well prepared heart) should al­wayes be most acceptable, as to Him, from whom they had received them; so to Him, that had sent him with a promise to hear petitions in his Name: very likely therefore (they might think) to like them best that should come with a double stamp both of his words and name. But if they did not often pray with him, when he used other prayers than those that were known and ordi­nary (of which we shall say more by and by) the less they had been acquaint­ed with his practise in that kind, from which they might frame a pattern to [Page 33]themselves: the more reason they had to require of him a certain form, which might supply their want.

But secondly, the Disciples ground their petition upon St. Johns example, Lord teach us to pray, as John taught his Disciples. Now I think it is not doubted by any man, or Interpreter of Scripture, but that John delivered unto his Disci­ples a formal prayer. Had St. John on­ly delivered unto them a pattern to frame their prayers by, I doubt they would have been much unsatisfied. It requireth no little skill or judgement, to follow a pattern well. It is not likely John Baptist his Disciples were such rea­dy men all, that he would trust them with a bare pattern. And whereas it is very probable (I am not alone that think so) that St. John's Disciples were, if not known and discerned from others abroad (as the Pythagoreans by their [...]:) yet much united and fasten­ed among themselves, by this prayer their Master had taught them: had [Page 34]it been a bare pattern, they might have jarred even unto Sects, and factions for all that: as we see all Christians do not pray after one sort, who pretend all to follow the same pattern.

This may be further confirmed by the consideration of what was usual among the Jews. Now so it is, (it cannot be denyed, but by them that are past shame, who to advantage that cause, whatso­ever it is, to which their Interest hath wedded them, will adventure upon any thing) that the Jewes, time out of mind, had been used to set forms of prayer. That they used no other in private, and upon extraordinary occasions, no man I think ever said: but that in their so­lemn devotions, and most publick oc­casions they did use set forms, all Pro­restants and Papists (as many as I have seen, or at this time remember) are con­senting. First of Numb. 23.4, 6. who can doubt, but the words contain a pre­script form of Blessing, [In this wise, or in this set forme of words] the Anno­tations [Page 35]there. But it is one thing to bless, another to pray, say some. Indeed a man may pray, and neither bless nor curse, that is certain: but to say, that blessing may not be the Subject of a prayer, either publick or private, as well as any thing else, is as ridiculous, as it is apparent, that this blessing here prescribed, is a very formal prayer. The Text is as clear, 2 Chron. 29, 30. Heze­kiah the King, and the Princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David, and Asaph the Seer. And 1 Chron. 16. the Psalmes (or psalme, as there joyned) stand up­on Record, that were appointed by Da­vid, and particularly verse 35. And say yea, &c. the Annotations there: [It is a phrase of incitation, &c. or, it is a direction to use this form, Hos. 14.2. Duke 11.2.] The latter Quotation, Luke 11.2. referring to these very words and subject we are now upon. Psalm the 20. is a form of prayer, or inter­cession, as the psalm following of Thanks­giving, [Page 36]as most Interpreters do agree. Di­vers others psalmes there be intended for set forms, upon several occasions, ob­served by most Interpreters. Ainsworth upon the 24. psalm, out of a passage of Maimonides, shews what psalm was ap­pointed for every day of the weeke, at the time of Divine service, long before Christ: and some of those psalms, I am sure, though commonly called psalms or songs; are prayers and intercessions, and nothing else; as particularly, Psalm 94. Others tell us of whole Liturgies, (or publick service-books) of those dayes yet extant, in part: after which I shall not need to make further enquiry at this time, because I think I have said enough to this purpose; and no more, I think, but will easily be granted.

It was proper enough, I think, to take notice of those things, observed by St. Luke certainly, for their further satis­faction, (in this very point) that should need it. But now we are come to the words themselves, I would desire the [Page 37]Reader, for a while to forget all that hath been said hitherto, (but withal, to lay aside, if it were possible, all prejudice and partiality) and when he hath read the words in St. Luke, (And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father, &c.) to consider with himself, whether he think any thing wanting to them, to make them plain, and express enough. I will say more; let it be grant­ed, (for a while at least) that Christ in­tended those words, as a form of prayer to be used by his Disciples, and by consequent, by such as should pretend to him in after-ages: I would have the Reader to pause and consider with himself, what words more express, more pregnant and significant, could be used to that purpose, to prevent all doubts and evasions. The words them­selves run in the form of a prayer, that, no man doth deny: and therefore a man would think, had there been no more in the Text, but; And he said, Our Fa­ther, &c. his intention had been plain enough, You shall pray thus: that is not [Page 38]more express, but more binding. But when you pray, say: for my part, I must con­fess, what words could have been used more express, or more binding, I can think of none. I deny not, but Christ might have used more words. He might have said, had he pleased, or thought fit: You shall have your desire: I will teach you, what you shall say. You shall have a form of prayer from me, which you may use: nay, what you made your request, I shall lay upon you, and all Christians of all a­ges, as a duty: When ye pray, say: In your best devotions, though you use other prayers, as your particular occasions shall require; yet use this, as your best prayer, Our Father, &c. He might have said, I know the time will come, when men out of an high conceit of their own parts, and in opposition to others, whom they shall use, or have used so and so, will not allow these words to be prescribed by me as a form of prayer, &c. Some such words, I grant, might have been spoken: but as there [Page 39]is no part of Scripture so clear or so ge­nerally received, but may be abused, quarrelled, denyed; so is there as lit­tle reason for any such words in this, as in any other place, that hath afford­ed matter of strife, and contention in any age of the world.

After such evidence of Scripture, that is, of the word of God: the consent or authority of man may be thought su­perfluous. And what if all men, all Christians that have been hitherto, in all places, in all ages of the world, had not all been of one opinion about it, would not, should not, the greatest part have served? would it not have become men, that pretend to honour the Scripture so much, as the Word of God; and to be such enemies to them that disho­nour it; have become them, I say, where the Text is so clear and express, to have adhered unto it, even against the consent of the major part? Should we believe nothing as Christians, but what is cleerly declared in Scripture, [Page 40]& may be said to have been assented unto by Christians, in all ages, and places without any contradiction or opposition: I doubt our faith would be much abridg­ed. But we must be as good as our undertaking. If we have not general consent of former and latter ages, (so far as can be found out by History: those new men of the late reformati­on excepted) evidence of Scripture shall be no good plea for us; will for­feit our cause.

Some it may be will here expect, that we should begin to search into ancient Records and Monuments for the opinion and practice of the ancient Christians, and primitive times of the Church: which with all that are not blinded by faction and self-love, must needs be of great Authority. But others with more reason would think, I might better have spared this labour, since I have to do with men, who as either sufficiently convicted of the truth of our plea, in this particular; or because they think [Page 41]it not worth the while (trusting to their own pretended illumination) to take the pains to enquire further into it, will sooner yield to us the matter of fact, then contend about it; and only except against the validity of the ex­ample, or authority, alledging for them­selves, that whether it be so or no, they do not think themselves bound to follow them. If you ask them the reason, they will tell you, because they were but men, and might err. Let the Reader remember, that the express letter of the Word of God, was yielded unto us before: and now we are to come to the consent or authority of men, we are told, that men are but men, not Gods. But we go on. They were but men, they say; truly I say so too, they were but men, not Gods; but, men that lived so many ages nearer to the source and spring of that infallible authority then familiarly conversant, (we speak now of the ancientest, or primitive Christians:) and resident among men. [Page 42] Men, who generally forsook all things that are dearest unto men usually, (for which things many in this age, make nothing to forsake their former faith:) to adhere unto Christ: Men, by whose holiness of life, and intolerable (to flesh and blood) sufferings for Christ, more than by their preaching, whole kingdomes and Nations of Pagans and Infidels were gained to the faith of Christ: and why the consent of such, so many, in several ages; in different places of the world, should not be more considerable: but I will proceed no further in the comparison. Cer­tainly, if any man (not engag'd by worldly interests) can be so simple, as not, of himself, to be sensible; I will not ex­pect that any reasoning can restore him. And why should it be a wonder to a rational man, that some are so simple among Christians, who knows that na­tural fools and Idiots, are little less than worshipped by the Turks (the great Conquerors of the world) for no other [Page 43]respect, but because fools and Idiots? We therefore take it for granted, un­till we know of any that oppose it; that we have (besides cleer Scripture; Con­sensum & consuetudinem, the general consent and practise of one thousand and five hundred, or six hundred years on our side. But it will not be amiss, to set down some of their words for the better satisfaction of the Reader. Ultimò, sequitur tritum illud vestrum & Papisticum argumentum (saith Johnson before named) de consuetudine mille quingentorum anno­rum. (Let the Reader take notice, that he calls this prescription of 1500 years, arpopish argument, whereby he doth yield to Papists, much more than I would, or can: I know nothing among them truly popish, that can prescribe to so much antiquity) De quo [...]etiam si [...]con­stat, quod vos pro concesso sumitis, hoc tamen semper tenendum, vocem Dei in Scrip­tura esse regulam sidei, &c. He doth not say, it is altogether so, but whether so, or no, (for he brings nothing to disprove [Page 44]it:) his evasion is, consent of many men or ages, is nothing, because the Scri­pture only is our rule. And again, a little after, Postrema tua ratio petita est ab authoritate Patrum, ut vocantur, quos certum in multis errasse, &c. Here we have the consent of the Fathers yielded to us. We would commend their mo­desty for yielding to the truth so far; if at the same time, they did not more immodestly oppose their own judge­ments to the acknowledged consent and authority of so many ages; and so ma­ny, much better men, than themselves can pretend unto.

So from former times, we come now to latter, or present. We will not mention the Papists, (so called) though no man can deny, but there be among them, men of great learning, and I be­lieve, religious: but because there is no question of their consent, and their authority not so much stood upon by them we have to do with: therefore needless here, as I imagine. As for Pro­testant [Page 45]Divines, or others, I think we need not search into the writings of par­ticular men, and trouble the Reader with multitude of quotations, which every body that can read, and hath access to books, may easily store him­self with, if he will: the practise of all Protestant Churches in all places of Europe, (I can give no account of In­dependent Conventicles) which may ap­pear by different Formularies and Litur­gies by them set out, as the best evidence of their opinions generally, so I suppose will give best satisfaction: so that al­though some particular acknowledged Protestant Writer should be found to be of another mind, yet it can be no prejudice to what we have said of their general consent. Now for their Formularies, in a business so exposed to every mans scrutiny, that will take a­ny paines to satisfie himself: I shall not use many words: I have some, have had, and seen many more, in several languages: never yet lighted upon any, [Page 46]in which the Lords Prayer was not pre­scribed, to be used by Preists and people in expresse termes, as in the Gospel. So upon confidence, that this also will be granted unto us, I shall forbeare fur­ther labour. As for particular authors: though I said before, we cannot un­dertake for, nor are indeed bound to take notice of every particular man: yet I may truly say, no such is known unto me, either by any reading in former times, or by any quo­tation, that I have met with in others upon this occasion. Calvin saith of it in his Institutions, as much as I would de­sire, and so in his Harmony: but that he hath an expression, which might be won­dered at: (non jubet nos conceptis verbis uti) had he not presently after explained himself, by a more full expression, ut nuper dixi, &c. They do him great wrong therefore, that would perswade us otherwise of him, taking the advantage of some particular words when his mean­ing both by his practise (witnesse those Formularies set out in his time, printed at [Page 47] Geneva) and by his writings is so easily known. Neither ought we to wonder, if nei­ther Calvin, or any other, whilst they com­mend unto us the Lords Prayer, be careful, at the same time, to prevent, that their words might not be drawn to a wrong sense, as though they commended it as the only prayer to be used either publikely, or privatly: which would be a great and dan­gerous mistake: but of that more afterward. I have mentioned Luther somewhere, as a great admirer of this holy Prayer. It shall not be amiss therefore to set down some of his words. In his Enchiridium piarum pre­cationum, which I have by it self, in a hand­some forme: but in his workes also, in the Wittenburg. edit. (A. D. 1558) to be found: he saith; Sum autem plane certus, Christi­anum satis abunde orasse, si Orationem Dominicam, vere ac rectè oret: quocun­que id tempore, & quamcunque ejus volet partem. Ne que enim si multum verborum numeres, ideo bona est oratio: quod Chri­stus quoque testatur, Math. 6. Sed si crebrò, ac cum magno ardore ad Deum suspires.

And again in the same book: Ubi ad [Page 48]verbum totam Orationem Dominicam re­citavi, partem unam, aut plures, si libet, repeto, &c. and concludes: Hic meus est orandi mos, et ratio. Nam quotidie ad­huc Orationem hanc Dominicam, quodam­modo sugo, uti infantulus: bibo, & mando, uti adultus; nec tamen ea satiari possum. Atque etiam dulcior & gratior mihi est ipsis Psalmis, quibus tamen mirificè & unice delector: quos & maximi facio. Profectò res ipsa clamat, à summo & praestantissimo artifice, eam orationem esse compositam, & praeformatam.

In another Treatise he saith: Cum haec Oratio à Christo habeat originem, debet indubitanter eminentissima, nobilissima, optimaque censeri: quâ si meliorem scivis­set integerrimus ac fidelissimus magister, eam quoque nos ille docuisset. I will not undertake for the exactness or propriety of the expression, (in those words, si meliorem scivisset) which the vehemency of his admiration and affection sug­gested unto him. It would make a man suspect, that even in those dayes, he had met with some that thought, they [Page 49]could pray as well, if not better, and perchance under pretence of imitation, would have been content (if they might) to leave it out of their publike devotions. But I do but suspect. It is apparent, he was a great admirer of it, and had very great zeale to it; and for it. Lu­ther's zeale to this prayer, puts me in minde of Ludovicus Vives, a Papist in­deed, not a Protestant, but generally acknowledged a learned, wise, devout man: he hath written a Commentary, as he calls it, upon the Lords prayer. How zealously he was affected towards it, and how much he had it in admiration, his preface will shew; it is well worth the reading. But of Protestant Divines, I make no question, but a man might make a whole book, that should collect their several Elogies, and testimonies concern­ing this Prayer, as it is a forme of prayer; but that it is not our business here. Generall consent is the thing that we contend for, and upon which we have in part ground­ed our case, in the stating of it. And [Page 50]for that we have appealed to the Formu­laries, that are extant of most Protestant Churches beyond the seas: which is the most direct and pertinent proof, that any man can expect. And if we knew any thing objected by any body in opposition to what we mantaine, we would take notice of it. I find no­thing of that nature in Johnson, before spoken of, though Carpenter had not omit­ted it, but put it to him in direct termes. Nullane Protestantium Ecclesia praeter ve­stram Synagogulam oculos habuit, aut men­tem? An vos soli sapitis, &c. (in St. Augustin's words against Donatus) to which particular I finde no answer at all, though the answer, (as called) be large and tedi­ous in general beyond measure. It seemes therefore he could not deny it, but all Protestant Churches were of another mind. If he had known any, certainly we should have heard of it. What notice therefore I have taken of particular men, as Luther and Calvin; is over and above, because of their eminency: Perkins in [Page 51]England, his authority would once have gone a great way, with those men especi­ally, that pretended to more than ordi­nary strictnesse in religion. What his opinion was in this matter, shall be seen at the end, where we take notice of some ob­jections.

But now since we have named some particular men, and have seen what de­votion they had (Luther especially) to this holy Prayer: with what zeale, and ad­miration they speak of it: let it not passe without some further observation. I make no question, but the like may be said, and observed of divers others emi­nently pious and learned in all ages. I have heard of some particularly in our age; men of great fame, that have pro­fessed to receive singular comfort of it, which might also be gathered by their frequent use of it in time of sicknesse. Now I would gladly know of those men (and I wish they would take it into their serions consideration) of those men, I say, who not only forbeare the use of [Page 52]it themselves, but also forbid it to others; and when used in their presence, have shewed much trouble and indigna­tion, as it is reported of some and may be true, for ought I know, of many more: whether it be likely, or possible, that such averseness and antipathy in them: such zeale and devotion in others, whom themselves perchance will not deny to have been pious and religious; should pro­ceed from one and the same spirit. And if they cannot find in their hearts to say, or to thinck, that it was a spirit of illusion, that led those good and godly men unto such esteeme and admiration of this prayer: from what spirit can their antipathy proceed? For my part (and I doubt not but it is the mind of many thousand Christians in England besides) though I know my self too great a sinner to expect that God should afford me those extraordinary ravishing content­ments and delights of the soule, which I believe he hath done, and doth unto many, more deserving; in the use of [Page 53]this holy prayer: Yet I should be very sorry, it should be in the power of any man living, to bereave me of that right and priviledge I have, as a Christian, unto it, and the use of it, whilest I live: and I shall ever believe, that a reverent use, and high esteem of it, as immediately proceeding from, and commended un­to us by such a ONE, to whom all manner of adoration is due; is no small part of that worship we owe unto God.

All things that have been said hither­to well considered, it may perchance make some wonder in some, what should induce men; some, learned, and conscien­tious otherwise; (as it is to be hoped:) but however, men, that professe Christiani­ty; to be so set against this prayer, that beareth the name of the Lord and Saviour of men: and I remember an observation in Aristotle, that, to give full satisfaction in a doubtful busines, [...], &c. We should not only tell what is truth, but also take paines to disco­ver [Page 54]the ground of the error, or that which is false. First then it must be granted, that even before these times, there were some in the world, that begun to hatch this monster: but being but few and in­considerable, standing divided from all the Reformed Churches in Europ; it leaves a wonder still, their opinion should be embraced by men accounted sober, and making profession of the protestant Religi­on. We say therefore in the second place, that the spirit of Enthasiusme, since the reines of order and discipline have been loose, and all liberty left unto men (Papists and Prelaticall, for so it pleaseth them to joyne us, only excepted) to fol­low their own fancies in all things belong­ing to Gods worship; having much pre­vailed (as it hath done in some ages of the world before this) among us, men have been very prone, to think them­selves inspired in the use of their extemp­orary faculty, which formerly (and it may be, formerly too much neglected) they had not been so well acquainted [Page 55]with: and through ignorance of Nature, and former times, (as hath been declared, and proved at large elsewhere▪) did apprehend a supernatural cause, where in­deed there was no cause at all: and this probably might make them by degrees, to loath and contemn this holy prayer. A third reason may be, the violence of op­position: [...], as St. Basil called it; Prelatical men having been used as they have been, put out of all, silenced, made incapable &c. it was very conse­quent, their cause should be made as odi­ous, as art and invention could make it.

God forbid I should take upon me to excuse any thing that hath been amisse. If I did not believe of myselfe, there was somewhat of that kind (in Church, or Commonwealth, or both:) yet the judg­ments of God (whom I believe to be most just) so great, and so heavy, would make me think so. But, why so many things formerly practised and observed in the Church of England, as for example; publike Catechising, so necessary to up­hold [Page 56]Christianity among men, though not so pleasing to itching eares, as ordi­nary preaching is: the use of the Sacraments, which in divers Parishes, where formerly duly administred, are now scarce known, or named: the observation of some prin­cipall holydayes, as the anniversary com­memoration of the birth of Christ, of his Resurrection &c. by which (though abused by profane men, as all things may be) the faith of most was much confirmed, honour and homage, in the most solemne manner, done unto Christ; not to mention some more private things; as childrens dayly asking their Parents bless­ing upon their knees, (a custome, though not elsewhere observed, that I know of; yet much commended by many strangers, that have seen the practise of it in Eng­land, as I can witness:) and the like; and among the rest, the reverent use of this holy prayer: why these I say, and the like should be so neglected, discountenanced, and, (in some places, at least) in a man­ner abrogated, having oftentimes thought [Page 57]of it with grief, I can give my self no reason more satisfactory to my wonder­ing, than that it is done in opposition to the former Clergy, because by them re­ligiously observed: Such is the nature of opposition; especially where private interest doth oblige. But yet, after all this, as to this particular of the Lords Pray­er: to speak my mind freely: I look upon it, rather as a judgement, than an er­ror: or if an error, yet as the punishment of another: this, justly inflicted for somewhat, that was more willfull and arbitrary. Let their own consciences tell them (profest Ministers, or Clergy men I mean; I have nothing to do with others) whether they have not, somewhat against consci­ence for politick ends, fiercely opposed (I will not say persecuted) somewhat, (once, the glory of the English Refor­mation) which though it pretend not to Divine authority, yet may pretend to the best of things established by humane, among men. And, what if the more opposed, because this very prayer [Page 58]is part of it, too great a part of it, as they pretend? May not we think there­fore that this hath happened to them, as a judgement, that their follie might be made manifest? But I will not be too bold upon secret judgements: though I have their example, if that would acquit me before God. Sure I am, and I think I may boldly speake it; those Christians have much to answer for, who upon so little ground of reason, and against such manifest Scripture, could so easily be drawn away from that piety, which they were bred unto, and in a manner, suckt from their mothers brest; by the exam­ple, or perswasion of such leaders. But thus it is (and no wonder) when a people is once come to that, as to reduce, (with those false Israelites, the Prophet Ezekiel describes chap. 33. v. 31, 32.) all religion to the pleasure of the eare. And for them that are such, for ought I see, let them but have what they affect, they may quickly be brought to swallow any thing, be it the grossest point of Popery; and [Page 59]yet think themselves very religious; yea, (if their Preachers tell them so) good Protestants.

There seems nothing to remain, but some objections to be taken notice of. But I would omit no means untried. Some things, though more remote in sight, may sometimes work more with some, than more concluding proofs, Et quae non prosunt singula, multa juvant. This Prayer is commonly called, The Lords Prayer, and there is reason for it; & there's a day call'd, the Lords day, (more properly so, than The Sabbath:) we will see what we may draw from this common appellation, or denomination from the same Lord. Our beginning may be thought somewhat remote. They that are more quick, will soon perceive, what we drive at. Others, I desire them to have patience, and to read to the end, before they judge.

I do not know any thing, whereby a man may sooner and surer find him­self, whether he be a true Christian indeed, a true Convert, or believer: [Page 60]then by the generality or simplicity (right­ly, understood)of his obedience, and conformity to the Laws and Commands of Christ. I will not go to the Planets or Climates, to fetch a reason. I will not believe, (though the Patrons of Astrologie, do not stick to say it) that any man is born, either a Murderer or an Adulterer. But sure it is, that all men are not born by their natural complexion, with equal advantage or disadvantage, to either vertue or vice. Some have none, or few notable vices: not so much, or perchance not at all, out of any love or knowledge of goodness, but because they find no inclination to be evil. They love, every body: are not malicious perchance, not revengefull; it is their nature, not religion. Humble, quiet, temperate in all things: it is their na­ture. We may say of them, as Sene­ca of those of the Golden age, Igno­rantiâ rerum, innocentes erant. Multum autem interest, utrum peccare aliquis nolit, aut nesciat. Some of these natural In­nocents [Page 61](as to the world, and the pub­lick) it may be, there are yet in the world, men and women, in some places. We are bound in the judgement of Charity, to account them vertuous, to honour and admire them as such, because we see their works: we can­not judge of their hearts. But if they have no other motive to goodness than nature, or custome, or education; I know not how far it may acquit them from worse: I am very confident it will never bring them to heaven. So far, wise Heathens have gone, who plainly teach and determine, that without [...], (reference to God) no man is truly ver­tuous or innocent, though he may ap­pear so outwardly by his actions. So the wiser Heathens; others, in stead of God, they say, Reason; non est virtus, cui non constat ratio, disputed at large by Seneca, and others. But those so generally innocent (in sight) by nature; I doubt they are not many, except they be innocents indeed, in another sense. [Page 62]Most men are of a mixt temper, as to vice, so to some vertue. Some men are not given to women: though there were no Laws to bind them, one wife doth serve their turn very well: Chastity is their vertue. It may be, as little subject to Wine: they look upon all excess in that kind, as the effects of brutish sensuality. But then for malice, or envy, or pride, perchance covetousness (which all good natured men, as we call them, do much about) these, all, or some of them, are so natural unto them, that though they are told what they are, and known for such, by all that know them; yet them­selves know it not; and though per­chance they do not care to have many like themselves, yet they will sooner believe them fools and Idiots that are not, than be perswaded out of their humour: it is so natural and pleasing. That man, that is all vice, without any natural propensity to some vertue, is not a bad, or vicious man properly, but a Monster: and so indeed set out by [Page 63]the Satyrick, Monstrum nulla virtute redemptum A vitiis: and, Illaudatus in the best of Poets, (very significantly) a man that could be commended for nothing; when he intended (as antient Gram­marians well observe) the worst of men, a Monster, such a one as Busiris was, of whom it is spoken. I cannot tell, how easie generally; but certainly the way to heaven would be much easier, might we but take a liberty, to what is most natural unto us, and yet be good Chri­stians. He that is vertuous indeed, that is, for God and conscience-sake, is, though not equally inclined by nature, yet equally resolved in his mind, to whatsoever is either commanded, or for­bidden by God in his Word. If he be vicious in some kind (as who not?) more than another, it is not because he thinks better of his vice, or for want of striving against it: but because as yet he hath not, (to his great grief and sorrow) been able to master his nature: and it may be, long striving, if sincere [Page 64]and real, may prove at last, through Gods Mercy, to his advantage. This, I think, is a very sure way, for every man to examine himself. And this is the way that St. Paul went to convince the Jewes, in a place. The Jewes in St. Pauls time were no idolators. They had been in former ages: they were now free from that sin: it is not laid to their charge no where in the New Te­stament. St. Jerome observes it very particularly, and some others also. They extreamly abhorred all other Nations of the world upon that score, and deem­ed them altogether unworthy of Gods mercy. St. Paul appeals to their con­sciences: he tels them first, that in o­ther things that were forbidden as well as Idolatry; as, Theft, Adultery, &c. they could not but know themselves guil­ty generally, as well as the Gentiles. He comes at last to that very thing, where­in was their greatest confidence, they were not Idolaters; Thou, saith he, that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacriledge? [Page 65]I will not enquire how far the Jews were guilty of that great sin, Sacriledge, in those dayes: It is enough for our present occasion, that St. Paul, to abate their confidence in that they most trusted to, doth object unto them one great sin which they could not acquit them­selves of: and it is possible, he did insist upon Sacriledge particularly, as a prophet, for the instruction of after-ages, as foreseeing that this horrible sin of Sacriledge would be committed ordinari­ly, and frequently (the time would come) under pretence of hatred to Ido­latry.

Well: we return where we began: as there is a day in the week, called The Lords Day: so there is a prayer as ordinarily called, in all ages since Christ, the Lords prayer: Both pretend unto the Lord, and the same Lord; the Saviour and Redeemer of the world. I would fain know what is the reason, that some shew so much zeal to the one, beyond what hath been known or pra­ctised [Page 66]in any age among Christians, or is at this day, in any place of the world, besides England, and those places that have relation to it; grounding upon Scriptures, of which there is great con­troversie, and variety of opinion among learned Protestants, as may appear by their Writings; and towards the other, of which never was any question before, but unanimous both practise and opini­on, among Christians of all ages; to­wards that, they shew so little zeal and affection? Truly, I think, as our Re­pentance, our obedience, should be ge­neral, and absolute, if true and real: so should our zeal too, if true zeal: Nay, St. James saith it positively, that true zeal, (he speaks it of [...]; Wisdome, immediately: but he began with [...]: and what he sayes of Wis­dome, belongs unto zeal, as the chief subject and occasion: for so indeed the word [...] ought to have been translat­ed here, as I conceive; Zeal: as well as Rom. 10.2. They have zeal, &c. and [Page 67]not envying. No man doth glory of en­vying, but of zeal, many, God knows, without cause, 10.14. And verse 16. Zeal and strife, or contention, that is, a contentious zeal, by a noted Scripture­figure) is [...], without partiality: a pregnant weighty word.

I will not enter into any disputation here, or interpose any thing of mine own Judgement or Opinion, concerning the observation of the Lords day: This I say, which no man can deny: It can never be shewed, that such pre­ciseness was ever used, or thought ne­cessary in the observation of it, as is re­quired by some men. First, for Pra­ctise: The first Emperour that was a Christian, and setled Christianity in the world, made a Law, it might be law­full (in case of unseasonable weather) to gather the fruits of the earth upon the Sunday. I know that Law was af­terwards repealed, and I know what is said by some, it was made in favour of the Gentiles, and not for Christians. [Page 68]I will not argue it here: but it is well known, there is enough to be said be­sides of former times. If we look upon the practice of Protestant Churches, (which I think will go further with many) in Geneva, in Calvin's time at least, how then it was, cannot but be known unto most, because observed by many: I will forbear the particulars. In the Low-Countries, till the Synod of Dort (it is a shame, I confess) no­thing almost was unlawful upon that day: And it is observed in course of Histo­ry, Monks and Friers were the first, that brought this preciseness in fashion in England.

Now for the Opinions of Protestant Divines beyond the seas, I know not of any at all, that have gone so far as the English: nayther indeed hath it been much questioned, till of late Go­marus, a great Anti-Arminian (upon information perchance of what was done in England, under pretence of Zeal) his Investigatio Sabbatbi, who in­deed [Page 69]doth go very far, as not allowing either name Diem Dominicum, in that sense, as commonly understood, or thing as grounded upon any authority of either Old or New Testament. He was op­posed by Dr. Riuet, the most authentick of these late times, but with great mo­deration; who also, though dissenting in other things, doth yield unto him, (and Gomarus in his Reply, is not little pleased with it) that the observation of one day of seaven, hath no ground at all upon the fourth Commandment, or Old Testament. Dr. Prideaux, the publick Professor of Divinity in Oxford for many years before these late wars, (a man generally accounted by the pre­ciser sort, as well as others, till this late Reformation, and that he was a Bishop, both learned and godly) did publickly maintain at a solemn Act in Oxford, almost as much as Gomarus, and quotes divers Protestant Divines, as Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others, for his opinion. The Book is translated [Page 70]into English: the Reader may do well not to rest upon what I say, but to peruse the book it self, being made so common and vulgar: it may be, he will not repent his labour. Walaeus, another Protestant Divine, no obscure man, neither; is the man, who, of all out-landish Writers I have seen, hath written, or may be thought to have written most, (though long before) in complyance to these times: yet even he, where he tells us of the Edicts of the Synod of Dort, for the more strict ob­servation of that day, commends their moderation, in that they did not con­demn them that were of a different opinion; in his Preface; and in his Book, he allows very well of Constantine's Law, for liberty upon Sundayes in harvest­time, when the weather proves unsea­sonable; as also of moderate and civil recreations upon that day, so it be after the publick service of the day perform­ed, and not before, or between.

Now for the Scriptures, which are [Page 71]the Rule of our faith, if a man look upon the Old Testament, upon a supposition, that what is there concerning the Jew­ish Sabbath, is applyable (a thing not easily proved) to the Lords day, or Sun­day of the Christians: so he shall find many things both in the Law, and in the Prophets, that may be thought to require great preciseness. But if we look into the New Testament, (our most immediate Rule, as Christians) there will not, neither in all that is re­corded of Christ, as either spoken or done by him in the four Gospels; nor in all the Writings of his Apostles, any thing be found, that doth make that way, but rather to the contrary: which is some wonder, if it were so material to Christianity: especially, after so much recorded in the Gospels of Christs speeches, tending, in ordinary constru­ction, to the abrogation of that legal or ceremonial preciseness. And it may be further observed, that those (for the most part) who commonly press those [Page 72]passages of the Old Testament, con­cerning the Sabbath, notwithstanding that so much is to be said against the pertinency of those allegations: yet in other things, as in matter of usury (con­trary to the opinion and practise of most of the old Clergy, or prelatical men,) they can swallow abundance of Texts, which in all probability (though I conclude nothing) should make it un­lawfull, at least, in Clergy men. For my part, as I said before, I conclude nothing; and I hope the ingenuous cha­ritable Reader, will not conclude from any thing I have said of the Lords day, that I am against the religious, yea, and strict (in some respects) observing of it. I am not, I never was: I will say more: if a man be not fully resolved and satisfied about this point, but though he have taken pains to be satisfied, stands in a kind of Aequilibrium, or Even-bal­lance, between both opinions, so that for ought he knows either of them may prove true, or false; in such a case, pro­vided [Page 73]that he condemn not others, that go another way; such especially, as do it with a [...] of faith and conscience, as to themselves, (men o­therwise religious in their life and conversation) and that he make it not a cloak of disobedience, to oppose lawfull, Authority, which in all things lawfull or doubtfull, ought to be obey­ed: in such a case, Isay, with these cautions we have inserted: I hold it much safer, according to the old say­ing, Peccare in meliorem partem: to be more precise, than he need perchance; then (for ought he knows) to take more liberty upon that day, than God hath allowed. But the case being so, be­tween the Lords day, and the Lords Prayer: that of the one, no question hath ever been among Christians: of the other, (as to that which is required by some, that would be thought most zealous) much question and controversie: how this can stand with true impartial zeal and piety, that the one should be so [Page 74]much pressed; and the other so little regarded, I leave it to the unpartiall reader, his further and sober considera­tion.

I might very well end here. For after so much light of Scripture, and so much weight of authority, (the best that can be desired in a cause) I make some que­stion, whether it be so lawfull and war­rantable, to give eare to any objection. What if a man will undertake to prove by Scripture, that there is no such thing, as the Resurection of the dead, or the immortality of the soul: there is Scrip­ture enough (it is true) for both; to satis­fy a man that is not wilfully blind, or factiously refractorie; a Quaker: an Anabaptist. However, he is but a poor Sophister, that cannot forme ob­jections, yea frame arguments (in shew) out of the Scriptures against both. To dispute with such, is to yield to them (so it may thought, at least) that they have some ground to doubt: and that is some wrong to the truth. Not to hear them, I [Page 75]hold it generally the best course; both for them, (if not past all hopes) to re­claim them: and for others, to keep them within sobrietie. However, after so much premised, because all men are not of one temper, and some more taken with sleight, then weight, in point of reason: I will take notice of such objections that I have mett with, or could think any way con­siderable.

Truely many are not so, especially such as I have met with in that Johnson, before named. You shall have a taste, if you please, that you may judge of the rest. Heare then, I pray, one of his maine proofes, why what we call the Lords Prayer, cannot be a prayer: If it be so; saith he, as you say, (that, Our Father &c. is a prayer) I would know of you, whose prayer shall it be cal­led? Christs: his Apostles: or ours? If you say Christs; why Christ did not so pray for himself: (else he that had no sin, must be thought to have prayed for [Page 76]remission of sinnes, p. 22.) but taught his Disciples so to pray. If you say, the Apostles: we do not finde in all the New Testament that they did ever use it. If you say: Ours: then it will follow, that we did pray before we were borne &c.

I am so farre from thinking, that this wants any refutation, that I cannot otherwise think, when I reade it; but that the man had som distemper in his braines: and had I been acquainted with him, I would freindly have perswaded him to have gone to a physician: I am very confident, good physick would do more good, (if themselves could be perswaded,) to many, great sticklers, and much followed, (such hath allwayes been the palate of the generalitie, espe­cially when wordly success doth coun­tenance the act:) then all the arguing of the world. Well: you have had a tast of this mans sophistrie: you had my judgement of him before. In stead of a refutation, you shall hear what more [Page 77]sober men (of these times) have written concerning this title, under which this holy prayer commonly passeth. Mr. Dan. Cawdry: and Mr. Herb. Palmer: members of the Assembly of Divines in Sabb. Rediv. or, the Christian Sabbath. pag. 341. in the margin: over against these words in the Book: [Then besides all that hath already been noted of the Lords Day, it is here­by also intitled to an Institution from the the Lord himself: from Christ: as being paralell in phrase, to the Lords supper: which beyond all peradventure, had no other institution but Christ; &c.] There, in the margin: [The primitive Church seems to bear witnesse to this, calling the Prayer instituted by Christ, by the same terme, [...]: Oratio Dominica: neither can it signify any thing, but the prayer of the Lords institution, though the generations after, weakened this testimony, by calling Churches so.] I think, the last words, if they had thought fit, might have been spared: since it is certain that Churches were so called, for [Page 78]another reason; not because instituted (particular Churches) by the Lord; but because consecrated (though now much abused, some by abominable profanation: & others, in some places irreligiously pul­led down, to build private houses, or to make mony) to the Lord. Walaeus had told them so long a go: [Sed nec ea consequen­tia est necessaria, quia [...], seu Do­minicum vocari potest; non tantum quod ab ipso Domino; sed etiam quod ad ipsius memoriam, ut veteres loquuntur; aut in ipsi­us honorem, et adipsius cultum est institu­tum: sicut altare Domini, & festum Do­mini, &c.]

The next objection, that I shall take notice of, is such a one, as the Reader perchance would not have expected, but I cannot satisfy my conscience, if I should conceale that from him, which, I confess, hath troubled me more, then all that I have read of that nature. I tooke notice before of what some particular men had said of this holy prayer, as Luther, Calvin, and others. Now I shall tell the Reader [Page 70]with greif, I find learned Mr. Hugo Grotius, most cold in this point. For though he also say, (quod cum fructu fieri potest:) that is, he allowes the Lords prayer to be used as a Prayer, and saith it may be done profitably: yet taking all his words together upon this occasion, I know not how to excuse him. We shall consider of some of them by and by. In the mean time, I would not have any man, either to wonder at it, or to value much his authority herein. There is no man can speake so highly of him, either of his parts, or performances in all kind of learning, but I shall willingly sub­scribe. However, nothing can be said of him so high, that can make me think him more then a man, [...]: a mu­table Creature, by nature (as Plato well de­fined him) as well in the affections of his soule, opinions of his minde; as temper, and condition of body. Salomon was a no­table example; and after him, we need not wonder at any man. What hapned to Grotius in his latter dayes; I am loath [Page 80]to say: I wish his own books; Annotati­ons upon the Scripture, and others since, did not so evidently proclaime. They that labour to excuse him, if any do, they but laterem lavare: and will sooner bring themselves into suspicion, than acquit him. Among other his extravagant con­ceits of his old age, one was, De communi­cando sine Symbolis: or, Sine pastore; or to that effect: for I have it not at this time: which was answered by Sirmondus, or Petavius (I know not which: I am grown such a stranger since these times of Reformation to those books I once had and read) and as I take it, he made some kind of recantation, by disavowing part of it. No wonder therefore, I say, if Grotius was no better friend (at that time) as to set prayers, in generall; so particularly, to this incom­parable pattern and president of all set prayers, and prescript formes. But Gro­tius, when truest Grotius, was I know, and can say it; a great admirer of the Church of England, as setled under King [Page 81] Charls the first, and other Princes of happy memory. Let the Reader guesse, to use no other arguments at this time; by what he wrote to me in a letter A. D. 1639. of Hooker his Ecclesiastical policie [Richardi Hookeri scripta ante annos multos vidi, & quanquam in sermone mihi non percognito, facile cognovi exactissimi Operis utilitatem: quae tanta est, ut hunt quoque librum Verti, sed in Latinum sermonem pervelim. quaero si quis hic est, qui id efficere cupiat. caeterùm tibi id ipsum cordi esse velim.] Hence doth appeare, how desirous he was, that Hookers bookes were turned into Latin, for the good he expected they would do, if more generally known. We have them in English, God be praysed: but do we reade them? In very deed, such is my opinion of that incomparable worke, that did not I believe the world (that is, the greatest number of men) really mad, in the true Stoicall sence: and that it is some degree of madness (especially, after long warrs; confu­sions and alterations of states) to ex­pect [Page 82]it otherwise: I would perswade men that have been buyers of books these 15. or 16. yeares last past, to burn one halfe, at least, of those bookes they have bought, (they were as good do so, as to fell them for nothing) and to betake themselves to the reading of Hooker: not doubting, but by that time they had read him once, or twice over accuratly, they would thank me for my ad­vice; but God, much more, that put it into their hearts to follow it.

It may be some Readers would be better satisfyed, if I had produced the whole letter from which that passage was taken: others, more likely, should I do it, would think I sought occasion to let the world know, how great I was, with that Great man. Truly, if the first will be granted unto me, I will not stick at the latter. I never was very prone to to seek acquaintances: I have had some opportunities, which I have declined. But Mr. Grotius did me the honour (Mr. [Page 83] Vossius I think perswaded him) to write to me the first letter, and so begun our acquaintance and communication. And truly, I will confess, I did ascribe so much unto his worth, and singular in­tegrity, I was not less proud (though I think not many can say, they ever heard me brag of it; nor any, that I shewed his Letters) of his acquain­tance, then if it had been with the greatest Prince of Europe. And though my love to the truth, hath compelled me to acknowledge so much of his incon­stancy in his latter dayes; yet my com­fort is, (I have reason to believe it, as I have elsewhere declared) he dyed a good Christian, and a Protestant; and my hope is, he hath a reward in hea­ven, for his zeal to the Christian Re­ligion, for which he hath written so excellently well, and his continual de­sire and endeavours for peace: besides his other performances, by which the honour of Learning hath been so much advanced. And if I may speak the [Page 84]truth without offence, I verily believe his great dislike of our doings in En­gland, was no small occasion of his fal­ling out with our Religion: besides the unkind dealing, and vigorous opposi­tion of some of his own Countrey, from whom he might have expected more fa­vour, having raised that Nation to the highest pitch of Glory (in point of learning) that any Nation hath attain­ed unto. Well, I am willing to be­lieve, that some Reader will desire to see the letter: but however that it may give less offence, (if any offence at all) it shall not be here, but at the end, where it may be taken in, or left, as the Reader shall think fit.

This great block in my way removed, as I hope it is, we proceed to objecti­ons. We do not find, say some, (and I find it in Grotius too) upon any Re­cord of Scripture, that either Christ, or his Apostles, did use this prayer. We said before, he doth not deny, but it may be done cum fructu: but he doth [Page 85]not make that the chief, or principal use of it. For my part, grant me the use of it as a Prayer, and so intend­ed by Christ himself: I think it very needless to contend with any man about the rest: whether intended principally as a Prayer, or a direction to Prayer. If it be a Prayer, there is no question to be made, and it will follow by ne­cessary consequence, that it is a Dire­ction of Prayer also, as it is his prayer, who spake nothing, did nothing, but is set out unto us for our (according to our power) imitation; our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. Yet if we must say somewhat to that business, I would say, but without contention, I should think that principally intended by Christ, which was most direct and pertinent to the request, made unto him by his Di­sciples. Now if it be granted, (which hath been spoken to before) that what his Disciples desired, was a form of Prayer: what will follow upon it, any man may gather. But I determine no­thing [Page 86]peremtorily: I will leave every man to his own Judgement, in this par­ticular. Well, the objection is, We do not find that Christ, &c. as before. I know that Grotius is not the first that hath so argued: I am sorry it can be said, that a man of his judgement did ever entertain this, as a material ob­jection. No sober man, I think (and this also before spoken of,) will deny, but that a very form of blessing is pre­scribed by God, Numb. 6.23. &c. Yet we do not find it in the whole Scripture. Again, We have a form of baptizing prescribed. Mat. 28. by Christ himself, In the name of the Father, &c. but no ex­ample of it elsewhere, that I know of in the New Testament, though we read of many baptized by the Apostles and others: and I think to this day, is a form of Baptism among Christians, in all places. We might insist in many more such things; out of the Old and New Testament, if need were.

Some press this further: not only this Prayer is not found used, as a [Page 87]Prayer, but neither in the Acts, nor any of the Epistles, though divers things concerning Prayer in general, are there prescribed: yet no mention at all of this Prayer is made. This may be thought to have a shew of somewhat: but in effect, it proves nothing, as by divers instances, of the same nature, if fearch be made, will appear. Act. 20.35. [...]; is mentioned, as one of Christ his me­morable sayings, which yet in none of the fouer Evangelists is found. We can make but a negative argument of it, which at the best is of no great vali­dity: but after such evidence of posi­tive proofes, is very impertinent.

But yet I cannot tell, whether it may so peremptorily be affirmed, that no mention at all, express or implicite, is made of the Lords prayer in the Wri­tings of his Apostles. There may some places be found perchance, where it may not improbably be thought alluded unto by some words. When the Apostles tells [Page 88]us in several places, that this or that is the Will of God: they do it often, and emphatically, sometimes; who can tell, but it was with some tacit re­ference and allusion, to the words of the Lords prayer, which they knew were dayly repeated and assented unto, by those primitive Christians they wrote unto, and therefore might enforce their exhortation to such and such duties, from their own secret consent, includ­ed and expressed in their daily prayer? But since this occasion is given me, I shall crave leave I may but propose what, long before I had any the least suspition, that ever the Lords Prayer should want any defence in England, had been in my thoughts. I pro­fess, I see men take so much liberty, I have no great fancy to new interpre­tations. I had much rather (were I to write upon the Scripture) defend one old received interpretation upon good grounds of reason, than be the author of two new, though probable. This [Page 89]makes me to suspect the more, what I have to say, because I find it no where. But because it was in my thoughts, as I said before, long before I had any thought of this occasion; in that respect, I suspect it less. In those words of St. Peter, chap. 1. vers. 17. [...], &c. I have thought it very probable, that he might intend the Lords prayer. First, That the word, [...], and [...], doth properly (and so commonly used in the New Testament) signifie, To call upon in prayer; and generally, To pray, will easily be granted I know. Beza translates, Si cognominatis patrem: The words may be translated, If you call upon him as Father, or, If in praying, you call him Father. Well, here is no great alteration in this, from what is commonly received. But what can we infer upon this, that will more particularly concern the Lords prayer? I ground chiesly upon the words following, [...], &c. [Page 90]which indeed seeme to promise least: yea, to cross rather what we would have: but, if well examined, it may prove otherwise. I must here appeal to the Hebrew Idiotism, whereof the New Testament (though written in Greek) is full. As for example, Acts 8.20. (a common example) where the Original hath it, [...]: it is rendred very truly in the English, exceeding fair, without any mention of God, which is in the Original words, and might seem strange to them that are not acquainted with the Hebrew phrase: to them that are, not at all: and so of divers places. Upon this ground of the Hebrew Idiotism, I think it may be said, That to be in heaven, as in the Lords prayer; (Our Father which art in Heaven:) and, To judge without respect of persous, ( [...]) accord­ing to every mans work: as in St. Peter, may amount to one and the same sense. For proof whereof, Psalm 115.2, 3. Wherefore should the heathen say, where is [Page 91]now their God? But our God is in the Hea­vens; he hath done whatsoever he pleaseth. The Psalmist, out of doubt, and so ex­pounded by some Antients, intended by these words, that although God, for some secret causes, best known to him­self, did defer the execution of his ju­stice, or just vengeance upon them, who had used his people so and so: yet in heaven he was for all that: want­ed neither power, nor will, but in due time would reward them, both them that had done, and them that had sur­fered wrong, according to their deserts. We say still, when we appeal to God, upon occasion of wrong and oppression, There is a God in Heaven. But if this be not express enough, I hope the next will be. Psalm 7.6, 7. Arise, O Lord, in thine Anger; lift up thy self, because of the rage of mine enemies; and awake for me to the judgement, that thou hast commanded. So shall the congregation of the people compass thee about: for their sakes therefore return thou on High. Return [Page 92]thou on high, that is, to heaven: (so the sense doth require; and all the Rabbins agree:) from whence God, as to the appre­hension of men, is supposed to absent himself, when he doth not execute judgement, but suffers the wicked to prevail in this world, as we see he doth often. The Reason of this speech, is, Heaven is, properly, the Throne of God. Heaven is my Throne, the earth is my foot­stool, (Psalm 66.1.) Now Thrones among men, are chiefly established for, and by Justice; therefore when Gods Ju­stice doth not appear among men, they suppose him, for a time, not to be in his Throne, that is, in Heaven. There be many phrases in Scripture, in the Psalms especially, that have reference to this, which we have spoken of else­where (Annot. upon Psalm 7. v. 7.56.2.68.18. & alibi.) Interpreters that ob­serve not this Idiotism, are put to it. I only observe more, that presently after these words in the Psalm, Return thou on high: it follows, The Lord shall judge [Page 93]the people: judge me, O Lord, as if he had said, No sooner is God returned to his place, his Throne, his Heavens, but we shall be sure to hear of Justice, and just judgements executed. The truth is, God is alwayes in Heaven: alwayes just: nay, alwayes doing ju­stice. For what is more just and reaso­nable, than to suffer them to be exer­cised in this world, for a while, with temporary afflictions and oppressions; whom he hath destinated to eternal hap­piness in the Kingdome of heaven? And to suffer them to prevail and pros­per, for a while, (though not alwayes so neither: And God knows, how in­considerable a time, compared to E­ternity) who for their wickedness and infidelity, are to undergo such an eter­nity of darkness and misery? Which is a manifest Token, saith the Apostle, of the righteous judgement of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdome of God, for which ye also suffer, seeing it is a righ­teous thing with God, &c. And in the [Page 94]parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Son, remember that thou in thy life time, re­ceivedst thy good things, and likewise La­zarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. But these things, though certain and true to the eye of Faith, (confirmed also by sound and solid Reason, if well looked into) yet, not so apprehended, ordinarily. There­fore the Psalmist saith in a place, That God is known (in the world) by the judge­ments which he executeth. So then, God (in one sense, for we exclude not others, as we shall say by and by;) is said, To be in heaven, to return on high; or, to Hea­ven: when he doth administer Justice, or just Judgements: or (to speak yet more particularly) When by those judge­ments he executeth; viz rewarding the good and bad, faithfull and Infidels, accord­ing to their deeds: he doth manifest him­self a just God. According to this sense, those words in the Lords prayer, Our Father which art in Heaven, are not only alluded unto, but fully paraphrased by [Page 95]St. Peter, when he saith, And if ye call on the Father (or, as we said the words may be rendred, If ye call him Father, when ye pray) who without respect of persons, judgeth according to every mans work, pass the time, &c.

Besides this, the coherence is much better by this interpretation. The Apostle, immediately before, used an argument to presse to holinesse, because God is holy: and to make his argument more weighty, he quotes Scripture for it: For it is written, be ye holy, &c. He proceeds here, and grounds another duty, to wit, holy fear, upon our relation to God, as a Father. Now though it be true that impartiall justice, may belong to a Father: yet the ground of this depen­dence, and St. Peter's inference, is some­what obscure, except he allude and ground upon the words in the Lords prayer, and their connexion there, Our Father, which art in heaven: according to that interpretation, we have spoken of, which to them that St. Peter wrote unto, could [Page 96]not but be familiar enough. And this is as much, as if he had, here also, quoted Scripture. As if he had said: Remem­ber and consider well, that in your day­ly prayer, prescribed unto you by Christ himself: as you call God, your Father, Our Father; which may seem to promise indulgence: so you adde, which art in heaven: to put you in mind, that God is just; impartiall, who without respect of persons, judgeth according to every mans work, which as I said, is equivalent to that quotation of Scripture in the former ver. Which nevertheles if it be granted, or suposed to have been St. Peter's mean­ing, it doth not follow, that those words in the Lords prayer, which art in heaven: admit of no other sence; or that St. Peter would have it so. It is enough, if the words will bear this sense also, without any violence offered unto them. But this, as I said at first, I propose as not impro­bable, and no otherwise; not so much in answer to what is objected (which needes it not:) as to contribute some­what, [Page 97](occasion being given) towards the right, or at least, probable under­standing of a place of Scripture.

Another Objection is: If those words [...], say ye; must be understood lit­erally, then we must never pray other­wise, but use those very words allways: and so, no other prayer, but the Lords prayer, shall be lawfull. But this we know is against the practise of all Churches, from the beginning: whence they would inferre, &c. Here I shall say, what common sense might suggest, unto any man; It is one thing to under­and words literally; another thing, pre­cisely peevishly: or to speake more plainly, maliciously. [...]: pray allwayes, or without ceasing, 1 Thes. v. 16. But this we know, precisely taken, cannot be: nay, contrary to other places and ex­pressions of Scripture. Therefore the Apostle doth not meane it, of real and literal praying. The Apostle saith: Children, obey your parents in all things. Col. 3.20. but this we know, precisely taken, [Page 98]ought not to be. For Parents may com­mand many things, and do often, contrary to the law of God. Therefore the Apostle intended it not of literall real obedience: or, not of carnal parents. A hundred such places we might produce: but these may suffice to shew the absurdity and iniquity of this kind of argumenta­tion. But, I say still: When, and where, there is good evidence for the literal meaning. In doubtfull places, a man may use his discretion.

I say Secondly: By the very circum­stances of the Text, it may be gathered, that Christs answer did not tend unto this, to forbid men other prayers. Teach us to pray, as Iohn did his Disciples, not, teach us to pray; barely, and absolutely. Or, what we shall say when we pray: but, as John taught his Disciples; so teach us also some particular forme, whereby we may be known unto others thy Disciples: and which our selves may use with confidence at all times as an un­questionable, unparallel'd forme. Teach us: us: in common: such a prayer [Page 99]therefore, that may sit all men, at all times. But we know, that as the con­dition of men upon earth, (some rich: some poore: some married, &c.) is very different: so must their occasions of pray­ing: nay, the same men have not allways the same occasions. Very unlikely there­fore, that such a prayer should either be expected by the Disciples, or intended by Christ that should be of such an extent, as should include all particular occasions. But however, if the emphasis of the word used by Christ, to endeare this pray­er unto us, and to prevent all evasions, had any ambiguity in it: yet God be thanked, there be Scriptures enough, (besides the constant use of the Church,) to take it away, and to satisfy the most scrupulous. Neither, indeed, do I hear of any, (what future times may produce, I know not) that makes any scruple, to pray in a Church with the Assembly; (Quakers, and Ana­baptists, I meddle not with:) or in his house, with his family; because [Page 100]Christ hath said, When thou prayest, enter into thy Closet: and when thou hast shut thy door, &c. So that this is a meer cavil. I wish some would take more notice of those words there: Use not vain Repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. The words, I think, are ex­press enough; and I know no inconve­nience, that would come of it, but that some men would loose somewhat of that contentment they find in the length of their prayers, upon a pleasing conceit of immediate inspiration.

But yet after all this, let me add, though the Lords prayer, doth not ex­clude other prayers, private, or publick, not upon particular occasions only, but at no time: and that we have warrant enough from Scripture for such: and that to be able to express himself, up­on all occasions, both publickly, and privately (many can privately, who have not the confidence to do it publick­ly) readily and fluently: but, perti­nently, [Page 101]and reverently withal; is to be accounted a great gift: which though all men have not, (not the best; the lear­nedst sometimes:) yet all men should desire, and honour it in others, that are Orthodox and Religious, (for it is well known, that some that were neyther, have had it in a large measure:) yet after all this, I say, I must add, that the Lords Prayer, with little, or no al­teration at all, may be used upon parti­cular occasions, whether publick or pri­vate; yea, and repeated (for which we have Christs warrant and example: Mat. 26.44. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time saying the same words; O my Father, if [...] be possible, let this cup pass from me; ne­vertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt, verse 39. and 42.) to very good purpose, as I conceive. For when we have once opened our case before God, and what our hearts incline us to desire, being of it self lawfull and warrantable: this done, if presently we betake our selves [Page 102]to the Lords Prayer: Thy Will be done in earth: or as Christ himself, to the same effect; Nevertheless, not my will, but thy Will be done: I think our prayers might prove more acceptable to God, more profitable to us, then often, when we long insist upon our desires. For God knows, such is our ignorance, we seldome know, what is best, or expe­dient: and it often falls out, that when we have obtained what we prayed for, we have afterwards occasion to curse the hour, that it ever came into our hearts to pray for such things. This is a point that hath been handled by Po­ets and Philosophers, (as was before intimated:) but very little understood and practised by many Christians: not by them, I am sure, who not only pre­scribe and press, very peremptorily, what God shall grant: but also are rea­dy to quarrel and expostulate with him, if they have not what they ask. And this is called zeal; when it is done by way of prayer: which would be little [Page 103]better than Blasphemy, in ordinary rea­soning.

We see dayly, how many things fall out contrary to expectation. I would ask our brethren, the Scots, (without offence, I hope) when they prayed so zealously in their Churches, for the success of their own, and the English Armies against their Soveraign, they then thought or believed, they prayed for their own confusion: and that the time would come, within few years after, and the same Parliament yet sitting, that we should give God thanks in our Churches, for killing them in the field? Or that Politick noble man, who when trusted by the King to reconcile differences in Scotland, did foment them under hand; would he have thought, when he saw his policy to suc­ceed, and hugg'd himself in his bosome for it; that the end of it within a while, would be, the loosing of his head upon a Scaffold, by those men, whom his plots had raised, and his hands strength­ned? [Page 104]There is store of such publick ex­amples, which every man may suggest unto himself. [ [...]: Thus did he pray; but, O the blindness of his mind! In that he pray'd, and had; his death and woe did find. Hom] But to insist in more & samiliar private experience. One main subject of private devotions, are Children: Ut sint superstites, that they may live; and according to the course of nature, out-live us. The very word Superstitio, once a good word, (taken for Religion, in general) had its Original from thence, as Cicero somewhere doth teach. Whatsoever is objected by La­ctantius, or any other against it, is ve­ry impertinent; as to them that are versed in these things, will appear. Most antient Heathens, when they treat of Superstition, insist upon this particu­lar of Parents. Now if we shall ap­peal to davly experience: How many Fathers and Mothers, who prayed for such and such Children, before they had them; or, when sick, or in danger, as [Page 105]the only thing almost that made them happy, and which they would expect from God, in this world at least; after­wards have thought both themselves, and those very Children, had been ve­ry happy, if they had never been born, or dyed young: and that God had been very mercifull unto them, if he had not heard their prayers? It is so, of all worldly things. habet has vices conditio mortalium, ut adversa exsecundis; ex ad­versis, secunda nascantur. Occultat utro­rum (que) semina Deus, & plerumque bonorum malorum (que) causae sub diversa specie latent. So the Orator, very wisely and truly. How then can it be otherwise? The Co­mick therefore, not less truly, than ele­gantly.

How much safer then (as we said before) when we have laid open our case and present apprehensions upon it, before God: to betake our selves to this Holy Prayer, which from his authority, that commended it to us, and other good considerations that should endear it to us, will both teach and help us, to ele­vate our hearts from those wordly tran­sitory petty things, Wives, Hu bands, Children, &c. in comparison) into better objects: The glory of our Creatour in heaven: the advancement of his Truth, in the world: humble submission to his heavenly Will and Wisdome, in all things, from whom all that is truly good, and nothing but good doth proceed: from which things so thought upon and desired, as we are taught by this Holy Prayer, our own eternal happiness doth depend. And here it may be observed, that whereas; Mat 7.2. it is said, If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your Children: how much more shall your Father, which is in beaven, give [Page 107]things to them that ask him? In St. Luke we find it, If ye then being evil, know how to give good things unto your Children, how much more shall your heavenly Father, give the holy Spirit to them that ask him: as if, (heavenly things, encrease of Grace,) that, the only thing either con­siderable, or that we can safely & secure­ly pray for. And if we so use the Lords Prayer, with these thoughts; this pre­paration of heart; we may (I said be­fore) if occasion be, use it often in one day, to our great comfort, and with less superstition I dare say, than some others their Battologies, or affected long prayers, condemned both in the Old and New Testament. All this while I have not forgotten what St. James saith, The ef­fectual fervent prayer of a righteous man, availeth much. Elias was a man, &c. Though somewhat might be said to that particular case: there be extraordinary times and occasions; yea, and persons too: [...]: of the same nature, as we are; Mortals, similes aliis (as the vulgar [Page 108]Latin very well, Acts 14.15. not Gods) yet endowed with extraordiuary zeal, and raised of purpose sometimes, for some extraordinary Act: but we have said enough already, to prevent Ca­lumny, as though we disliked others, whilst we commend and vindicate the Lords prayer.

To tell us, that this prayer hath been, or is yet, (being mumbled upon beads, in an unknown language, and the like) much abused, and to make that an ob­jection against the use of it, after it hath been so cleerly proved, that no one duty of Christian Religion, can pre­tend to more evidence, of either Scri­pture-authority, or universal consent: every man that is not very simple and ignorant, must needs understand, what will be the consequent of such an ar­gument. For what was ever, or is yet more abused, than the divine Scriptures; what more than praying or preaching? what more than Religion in genetal? under the mask whereof, what mis­chiefs? [Page 109]what miscarriages, both pub­lick and private have been contrived? What indeed is so generally abhorred among men, that hath not been acted under that sacred name? Neyther is it so among Christianr only. Look into ancient stories, when Paganism was the Religion of the world: look into latter stories of the Turks, or any other Na­tion: even now the present divisions of the Turks among themselves (as our News books tell us) go under the name of Religion and Reformation: Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum: in every mans mouth, and observation. And of Chri­stian Religion particularly, we are told in some late Relations, that the Turks themselves, (some of them, at least) confefs Christian Religion, to have been a good Religion for a long time, till it came to be corrupted, and abused by the Professours of it: which, they say, made God to send Mahomes, to establish a new. This may serve for a warning to others: sober men will not use such argu­ments.

We did promise, Mr. Perkins before. his words are these, And whereas sun­dry men in our Church (I must appeal to the knowledge of them that know more than I; for in all my time, I never heard of any: except, Mr. Perkins understood, men that were borne of the Church of England; but since divided from it, by faction and singularity: such as the forenamed Johnson; and his adherents) hold it unlawfull to use this very form of words, as they are set down by our Saviour Christ, for a prayer; they are far deceived, as will appear by their reasons. First, say they, it is Scripture; and therefore not to be used as a Prayer. I answer: that the same thing may be the Scripture of God, and also the prayer of man: else, the prayers of Moses, David, and Paul, being set down in the Scripture; cease to be prayers. again say they: That in prayer we are to expresse our Wants in particular, and the Graces which we desire. Now in those words, all things to be prayed for, are onely in general propounded: I answer. That the maine wants [Page 111]that are in any man, and the principal Graces of God to be desired, are set down in the petitions of this prayer in particuler. Thirdly, they plead, that the patterne to make all prayer by, should not be used as a Prayer. I answer, that therefore the rather it may beused as a Prayer: & sure it is, that ancient, and worthy Divines, have reverenced it as a prayer, chusing rather to use these words, then any other: as Cyprian De Orat. Domini, and Tertul. lib. de sugâ in persecut. and August. serm. 12.6, de tempore. Wherefore this opinion is full of ignorance and error. So he. You may see by the begining, that Mr. Perkins had no mind (by acknowledging them of the Church of England, in those dayes) to deale with them, as another man might have thought they had deserved. Yet it is somewhat, that even he did charg them of grosse ignorance, and error.

I have done with objections. There may be more, but I do not think them considerable: and there will be no end, if we must heare, or the Reader be told, [Page 112]what any man can say. I will con­clude all with those excellent words (though indeed the substance of them is in St. Cyprian) I find in the book intitled, A Collection of Private Devotions &c. of­ten printed: (and well deserving it:) in the preface of it: A prayer [the Lords prayer] whereby we have not only Christs own name, to countenance our suits (in whose name if we aske any thing, we shall have it: saith the Gospell:) but Christs own words also, who himself is our Aduocate: and being best acquainted with the Lawes, and phrases of his Fathers Court, hath drawn up such a Bill for us, both for matter and form, as shall make our supplications acceptable and prevalent with Almighty God. And though men should speak with Angels tongues, yet words so pleasing to the ears of God, as those which the Son of God did compose, cannot pos­sibly be uttered, nor any prayers so well fra­med, as those that are made by this pat­terne.