Inquiry and Answer of Thomas Whites Discovery of Brownism, Part 4
An Answer to the Reasons alledged to prove the vse of the Lords prayer as a Prayer.
Objection. 1.
AN expresse commaundement neither contrary to nature, nor analogie of Faith, and agreable also to the drift and tenour of the place, ought litterally to be vnderstood and obeyed.
But this Math. 6.9. foreign &c. And Luk. 11.2. foreign, say, Our Father, &c. is such an expresse cōmaundement &c. Ergo It is also so to be vnderstood and vsed.
Answer.
1. This reason was alledged before: Where see what is answered vntounto it. pag. 30.
2. The Assumption or second part of the reason is but barely affirmed, not proved at all.
3. How is it agreable to the nature of prayer and analogy of faith, that one man or Church at any time should so pray, as asking all things that ever any in the world hauehave needed or shall need vponupon any occasion whatsoever? Or that we now should offer such prayer and worship vntounto God, as we cannot have assurance by the Scriptures, that ever the Apostles or other Christians approved of God did so vse at any time? Or to keep alwayes a set forme of words for our prayer to God?
4. How is it agreable to the drift and tenour of the place, that Christ did so commaund it to be vsed as he pretendeth? 1. For then it should be sinne to pray at any time, and not to say it, seing Christ hath thus given his commaundement concerning it, Luk. 11.2. foreign. &c. When ye pray, say, Our father &c. 2. And thus also we should be bound to say it twise over together at everie time we vse it: because Mathew and Luke in some words and clauses recorded it diversly: And who can say we ought to vse the words of the one more then of the other? 3. But both *Mat. 6.9.the cōmaundement it self, and the circumstances about it noted in the Evangelists, shew it to be given for a rule of prayer; and therefore so to vse it, is that which is agreable to the tenour and drift of the place: As we hauehave heretofore shewed in ‡Apologie. Discovery. Questions. Answ: to Mr H. &c.divers Treatises yet vnanswered.
5. By literall vnderstanding of Christs words in the same sermon, do the Anabaptists gather, that it is vnlawfull for Christiās to take an oth, to go to warre, to beare Magistracy &c. pleading the expresse words and commaundement of Christ. Math. 5.34.39. &c. with many other pretences which they have thereabout. Shall we therefore admit of their errors, or vnderstand those Scriptures, as they would have vsus? Not to speak of other as expresse speaches, or any collections thereabout: As Mat. 6.17. Ioh. 13.5.12.14.15.
Objection. 2.
2. If Christ had taught onelyonly to pray to this effect, then had he taught nothing but that which Iohns Disciples & all the faithfull practised before: for the Prayers of the Saints, as of Salomon, Nehemiah, Daniel, were to that effect before.
Answer.
1. What if all this be graunted? What would follow therevpon? Doth not christ in the same sermō of his, teach the very same things that Moses in effect had taught before? But now by reason of the false gloses of the Pharisees, he explaned them, according to their true meaning. Math. 5.17. &c.
2. In like maner there being great abuse about prayer, as is particularlie noted by Mathew, Christ sheweth them how to vse it aright. Math. 6.5.6.7. &c.
3. If he meane, that the prayers of the holy men in former tymes were of such things as here be cōprised, it is true, that they thē prayed to this effect: But if he meane that they prayed with like intendement and in like manner as Christ now taught the Apostles and Christians hereafter to do, he is deceived. For in their prayers they intended and looked at Christ to come, they prayed that God would send him according to his promise, that he might performe the things spoken concerning him, &c. But now Christ directed all hereafter to pray in his Name, as being come and exhibited according to the promises that went before concerning him. Ioh. 14.13.14. & 16.23.24.
4. The purpose of Christ in giving this forme of Prayer, was not onelyonly to teach to pray to this effect, but to give direction also concerning all other things that are needfull to be knowen and observed in the right vse of prayer. As in other books already published we have shewed in divers particulars.
Objection. 3.
Whatsoever Scripture hath in every respect the forme of prayer, that is …ot alone matter of Doctrine, but hath bene vsed also as Prayer.
But this Scripture Math. 6.9. hath in every respect the forme of prayer: as, Our Father, give vsus, leade vsus, and amen, annexed in the end: ergo. And in deed how can they tell, which were prayers and which not, if not by their forme of Petition? whereby they are distinguished from Doctrines, and rules proposed in an other forme, as Mat. 7.7. & 21.22. 1 Ioh. 5.14.
Answer.
1. The Proposition or first part of the reason needeth proof: if he speak of the vse of the very words, as they are set downe. But if he speak onelyonly of praying for such things to such end and in such maner as is recorded, then we graunt it: and he speaketh nothing against vsus, but fighteth with his owne shadow.
2. For some instances herein, let these Scriptures be considered, Ier. 31.7. Hos. 14.3.4. Ioel. 2.17. which hauehave in every respect the forme of prayer,See also Iob 22.17. Esa. 44.17. Ier. 2.27. Hab. 2.19. and yet were given to be directions of the matter and maner of the prayers which then they should make, and not to prescribe thē the very words which they should vse. As likewise in this particular of Mat. 6.9—13. compared with Luk. 11.2.3, 4.
3. For the Assumption or second part of the reason, that it is propounded in forme of prayer, see the answer before: pag. 31. And let them now at length tell vsus, if it were so to be vsed as they say, whether we should follow Mathew or Luke therein, and whether we should at the end thereof vse the conclusion, and say Amen, or not: seing Mathew hath it so, and Luke not.
4. The very propounding of it in forme of Petition conteyneth in it great and needfull Doctrine for the right vse of Prayer. Of which also see before, pag, 31.
5 The Scriptures and rules of Prayer here mentioned by himself (Mat. 7.7. and 21.22. 1 Ioh. 5.14.) shew that neither Christ intended, nor the Apostles vnderstood it so, that those very words (as they are set downe) should be our prayer vntounto God. For which observe these clauses, Aske, seek, knock: As a sonne asketh of h… father bread, or fish &c. Mat. 7.7—11. Whatsoever ye aske, &c. Mat. 21.22. If we aske any thing according to his will &c. 1 Ioh. 5.14. Thincketh he, when Christ commended vntounto vsus the needfull, carefull, and fervent vse of prayer saying, Aske, seek, knock &c. that his meaning was, Get by rote and say over, Our father which art in heaven, &c. Or is the saying of these words, prayer to God, as when a child being hungry commeth to his father and asketh bread, or having bread asketh fish or other food according to his need? Or why did Christ vse such a generall clause, Whatsoever ye aske: and Iohn, If we aske any thing according to his will &c. if they had meant we should for our prayer vse that forme spoken of, wherein they knew are conteyned all things that can possibly be asked according to the will of God? Or should we therefore vse these words onelyonly for our prayers, and no other at all? But of this question we have written other where already: Which may suffice, till we be answered.
Objection. 4.
4. In a duty to be vsed of all, the holy Ghost is playne: but if those very words are not to be vsed as Prayer, no Christian for 1500. year…s & more, did ever vnderstand our Lords meaning.
Answer.
1 Salomon answereth, relating the words of Christ, that they are all plaine to him that will vnderstand, and streight to them that will find knowleledge. Prov. 8.9.
2. In the duties …o be vsed of all, about the Sacraments, &c. the holy Ghost is plaine: yet have Christians swarved from our Lords meaning therabout, as long since as he speaketh of: yea even in the Apostles times they began in divers things to go astray therefrom,1 Cor. 11.20. &c. as any that is acquainted with the Scriptures may perceive.
3. If erroneous pleading frō former times, without scripture, were proof sufficient, how many and great errors might be pleaded for? As the Antichristians do, for a multitude of their heresies and abhominations, which I will not stand here to particulate.
4. See also what is answered before, when to like purpose he alledged Tertullians testimonie, pag. 23. &c.
Exception. 1.
But they say that the Apostles never vsed those very words in prayer. I answer:
1. An expresse commaundement is warrant sufficient without example.
Answer.
He taketh for graunted that which he should prove, namely, that there is an expresse commaundement so to vse it as he pretendeth. Of which point we hauehave spoken before. And let the Reader observe, how he cannot shew by any Scripture at all, that the Apostles vsed those words for their prayer at any time. Neyther can he deny, but they vnderstood it aright, and prayed according to the true meaning thereof.
Exception. 2.
2. There is no example in the whole book of Gen. of the observation of the Sabaoth for 2369. yeares space after the institution of it. Gen. 2. Neither to come nearer, is there any example of baptising, in the name of the Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost, yet is the commaundement of Christ sufficient warrant so to do. Compare Math. 28.19. with Act. 10.48. & 19.5.
Answer.
What a reason is this? As if we thought nothing were observed of old, whereof there is not mention in the history; or as if no difference were to be put in the vnderstanding of the Scriptures, but that if one be vnderstood litterally, then must all other likewise. He might aswell have told vsus, we read not in the Scriptures that Methuselah did ever eat any meat, and yet lived 969 yeares,Gen. 5. the longest of any that are mentioned in the storie. And for the Apostles and others at that time administring Baptisme, how plaine is it in the Scriptures cited by himself, that they baptised in the Name of the Lord, as they were appointed? If he could shew but in generall termes, that the Apostles at any time when they prayed, sayd over the Lords prayer: though it be not written in particular that they said, Our father which art in heaven &c. there were some proportion in his maner of reason, which now is not.
Besides, the Apostles and Evangelists themselves recording the institution and vse of the Lords supper, observe not the same words alike, yet all of them agree in the same matter and substance? Mat. 26.26.27.28. Mark. 14.22.23.24. Luk. 22.19.20. 1 Cor. 11.24.25. And why should we not think likewise of their administration of Baptism…, that it was according to th… cōmaundement of Christ, though the same particular words be not rehearsed? Or how can any make question of it, when it is recorded that they baptised (not in their owne name, but) in the Name of the Lord: Act. 2, 38.41. & 10.48. Rom. 6, 3. 1 Cor. 1.13.15. Gal. 3.27. with Mat. 28.19. And so by their example have taught vsus how to vnderstand and vsus… these things aright?
Exception. 3.
3. It is the Anabaptists reasoning against childrens baptisme, asking for an example, when otherwise there is sufficient warrant so to do: yet are their Pretences as good or better then Mr Iohnsons in refusing obedience to our Lords commaundement for want of an example.
Answer.
A childish collection frō the Anabaptists errour about children… baptisme. How often shall we speak it, that other sufficient warrant from the Scriptures, is as good as a thousand examples? And why will he needs shew himself to be like the Anabaptists: who would bring in a worship of God, for which there cannot be shewed sufficient warrant eyther by precept, or by example, or sound collection from the Scriptures; and so by consequence in tyme deprive the Church of that true worship of God which we are taught both by commaundement and by example and by vnanswerable reasons drawen out of the word of God? Wherein the very experience of former tymes so extreemly corrupted in this exercise of prayer, might and ought to teach vsus to be more carefull.
For administring the seale of Gods covenant, and sacrament of i…itiation, & consequently of Baptisme, vntounto children being the seed of the faithfull, we have both precept, example, and vndeniable reasons out of the word of God: which I will not here stand to relate. If our reasons towching the vse of the forme of Prayer spoken of, be so weak as he pretendeth, why did he not vndertake to answer them: but chuse rather to insist vpō the Pretences which now he hath purposelie published concerning that Argument? And why will he never leave begging of that which he should prove, that i… … our Lords commaundement to say over the very words prescribed, Mat. 6. … Luk 11. for our prayer vntounto God?
Exception. 4.
4. The Prayers mencioned in the new Testament, are such as … powred forth vponupon speciall occasion, as Act. 4.24. Ioh. 17.
Answer.
An absurd pretence: and such as wherein he is against himself, yeelding that the Lords prayer is not to be vsed vponupon speciall occasion: or els he speaketh nothing to the purpose. And if it teach vsus not how to pray vpō speciall occasion, how is it a perfect directiō? Or if it do, & yet be not in such case to be vsed, how plain is it that Christs meaning & the Apostles vnderstanding of it was such as not to prescribe it for our prayer, but for our instruction and direction therein? Againe Christ saith, When ye pray, say, Our father &c. therefore also vponupon speciall occasion, if that were his meaning, as he would perswade. Not to speak how themselves commonly hold and give out that it is such as is fit to be vsed at all tymes and for all occasions. So well they agree together.
But why doth he cite here, Ioh. 17. wherein Christs prayer a little before his death is mentioned? Is it to shew that though Christ did not then vse it, praying vponupon speciall occasion, yet at other times he did? If this b… his intendement, who will believe him that Christ who had no sinn, could aske forgivenes of sinne, as in that forme of prayer is prescribed? If this be not his meaning, to what purpose is that Scripture alledged, vnles it be to reason against himself, & to shew still his owne foolishnes?
Exception. 5.
5 Let them shew me an example where ever the Apostles prayed before their Sermons; if they can.
Answer.
1. Have they not read what is written of the Apostles, Act. 6.4. how they said to the brethren at Ierusalem, Look ye out men whom we may appoint to this busines (of the Deacons office): And we will give our selves continually to prayer and to the ministration of the word? Nor how the Apostle Paul gave direction concerning publick prayer, when he wrote to the Churches and to Timothee about publik doctrine, whether it were in propheticall or ministeriall vse of the word of God. 1 Cor. 11.4. and 14. chap. 1 Tim. 1. and 2. chap. Or when Paul taught Timothee that the food of the body is to be sanctified vntounto vsus by prayer,2 Tim. 4.4.5. should he not think likewise of the food of the soule?
2. And what though the particular circūstance of time (before, or after) be not set down? Or that the Apostles having to deale with severall sorts of persons & occasions, did diversly cary themselves according therevnto?
3. Or doth it not ly vponupon the Ministers in publik, to be aswell the mouth of the Church vntounto God in prayer, as to be the mouth of God to the Church in doctrine? Or should we think that the Apostles did not carefully performe the whole worke of the Ministery committed vntounto them?
4. Finally, let these men shew vsus an example in the Apostles or Primitive Churches, where ever they said their prayers over by tote; or vsed a book of Common prayer among them; or read any prayers at all for their prayer to God; or had Archbishops, Lordbishops, Archdeacons, Priests, Parsons, Vicars, &c. eyther for vse of prayer, or for any other service Ministery or government of the Churches of Christ.
Finis.
End of the text · Francis Johnson, Inquiry and Answer of Thomas Whites Discovery of Brownism (1606)