Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Touching the vſe of the Lords prayer.
THE mayn argument for our Separation being thus eſtabliſhed: I now come to the particulars. For the vſe or abuſe of the Lords prayer (ſo called) firſt I mentioned the reading of that part of ſcripture for a prayer: and with this you meddle not. Secondly I miſliked the ſaying it over by rote, as is the faſhion of many. To this you ſay, if I mean without vnderſtanding and feeling, you condemne that alſo. I anſwer, I meane not that onelyonly: for men may alſo read it, yea may read humane leitourgies with vnderſtanding and feeling, and yet offend in ſo praying: other things are requiſite to true prayer beſides vnderſtanding and feeling. I mean therfore by rote, after the common manner, without book: when men having committed it to memorie, ſay it over for their prayer, after they have prayed by the ſpirit; as God inabled them.
Thirdly I granted a lawfull and holy uſe of that or any other part of ſcripture in our prayers, as the Spirit of God leadeth us to any of them. You ſay, your manner is ordinarily before or after every Sermon, to conclude your prayers with the Lords prayer: after you have prayed by the help of the Spirit, you perſuade your ſelves that you alſo conclude by the help of the ſame Spirit.
This your practiſe and perſwaſion I approve not: being perſwaded that our Lord intended not ſuch an vſe of that ſcripture. My reaſons I will ſhew, when you have given anſwer to thoſe things ſet downe in our Apologie, as you promiſe.
For Mr. H. his doctrine among you, that it ſhould be ambiguous, and his meaning to be againſt thoſe onelyonly that contented themſelves with a ſet forme, and vſed no other in private, &c. I can goe no further then by report: others that heard him, ſay otherwiſe then you doe. I hear alſo that he continueth like doctrine ſtill where he teacheth, and privatly diſſwadeth from reading prayers in praying to God: and other reaſons (which I ſpare now to mention) move me to think otherwiſe then you write of him. And in ſpeech with my ſelf, about the ſame time, before two that came with him, he ſignified his diſlike of reading prayers, without any ſuch limitation as you allege. But if he taught as I heard it related, it was but the trueth: from which your contrary judgement ſwarveth. Which in one of the proofs of my former argument, if you had fallen into it, would have come to the trial.
Anſwer.
Your maine argument for ſeparation from ſin onelyonly vvill then be eſtabliſhed vvhen you have proved all thoſe particular things vvhichwhich you blame in vsus, to be ſin: and that you ſeparate from them onelyonly: vntill ſuch time, you do here in vaine flatter your ſelf that your maine argument is eſtabliſhed: The truth and force of that general reaſon depends vponupon the particulars vvhichwhich vve now come to examine. Touching our queſtion about the vſe or abuſe of the Lords prayer, you obſerve in the firſt place, how you mentioned the reading of that part of ſcripture for a prayer: and therevpon you note, that with this I meddle not. I anſwer, 1. The reaſon why I ſpoke not of reading that prayer out of the booke, vvas becauſe we do not in our Church ſo vſe to read it on a booke, but vtter it vvithout a booke as vve do the other part of our prayers going before:Now the queſtion layd downe before betwixt you and me at this time is touching the practiſe of our particular congregation: and therfore it is you rather that go beſide the queſtion in this your mentioning of it. 2. Seing the reading of it vponupon a book and vttring of it for our prayer without a book are both of them actions of like nature: ſeing the reaſons in your apologie againſt our vſe of this prayer are expreſſely and indifferently directed as well againſt the reading of this prayer, as againſt the ſaying of it by rote, (as you call it:) and there is no thing that is there diſtinctly ſpoken more againſt the one then the other: when I then vndertooke to refute thoſe reaſons in your Apologie, did I not therein alſo vndertake to maintaine the reading of that prayer againſt you? who ſees not now, that your firſt note in this place is but a trifeling obſervation. 3 I deſire the readers to looke back into the former part of our writings touching this poynt, both mine and yours: to compare them togather: and then to judge who it is that hath winked and paſſed by the evills obiected about this matter, and namely, beſide other things the ſlanderous and vngodly aſſertion of H. Barow touching our vſe of the Lords prayer.
In the ſecond place, you explane your meaning of that phraſe of ſaying by rote, contrary to the common acception of the word, of ſaying it not onelyonly without vnderstanding and feeling, but of ſaying it after the common maner, without booke, &c. you grant that men may alſo reade it, yea and other humane leitourgies with vnderſtanding and feeling, and yet offend in ſo praying: your reaſon is; other things are requiſite to true prayer beſides vnderſtanding and feeling. But what are thoſe other things which cannot be reduced vntounto theſe two? vnderſtanding conteyneth vnderunder it the knowledge of God, his wiſedome, power, love, truth and other attributes: his gracious covenant in Chriſte, his law, his workes, &c. Likewiſe the knowledge both of our neighbours eſtate and our owne, our ſins, miſeries, deliverances, &c. VnderUnder feeling joyned with knowledge, are comprehended the feeling of Gods mercy in Chriſte by a lively faith: the ſenſe of his glorious comforts by a lively hope: the feeling of our neighbours eſtate by true love and compaſſion and joy for him: the feeling of our owne ſins, miſeries, baſenes, by true and godly ſorow, humilitie, &c. Herevpon I do thus reaſon againſt you from your owne grant: That prayer which is vttred with knowledge, faith, hope, love, humility, &c. is acceptable unto God, & ought to be approved of Men. But the Lords prayer is by vsus vttred with knowledge, faith, hope, love, humility, &c. Therfore it is acceptable to God, and ought to be approved. The firſt propoſition is manifeſt from the aPſ. 25.1.2. Mark. 11.24.25. Ioh. 14.13. Heb. 11.4. Iam. 5.15. 1 Tim. 1.5. Pſ. 145.18.ſcriptures, that do allow ſuch vſe of prayer: The ſecond propoſition is granted by your ſelf, in that you yeeld the Lords prayer may be ſayd of vsus with vnderſtanding and feeling, ſeing thoſe two graces do comprehend vnderunder them the reſt above named which are required for the acceptation of our prayers.
In the third place, whereas ſpeaking of the Lords prayer, you grant a lawfull and holy vſe of that or of any other part of ſcripture in our prayers, as the ſpirit of God leadeth vsus vntounto any of them: you do here againe yeeld vsus the whole queſtion and as much as vve deſire: for we require no other vſe of the Lords prayer, then as the ſpirit of God leadeth vsus vntounto it. A Chriſtian man ought to be bRom. 8.1 Gal. 5.16.—25.led by the Spirit of God in all his other actions and converſation, as well as in prayer: vve hold alſo that as a Chriſtian man of weak memorie and vnable to read having but two or three pſalmes without book, may yet dayly and ordinarily ſing the ſame vntounto God early and late, as his prayers, praiſes and thankſgivings & herein worſhip God in the Spirit: that even ſo the Lords prayer may alſo be dayly vſed for our prayer and vvorſhip of God in the Spirit: ſeing we are no otherwiſe taught to c1. Cor. 14 15.pray with the Spirit and with vnderſtanding, then as we are taught to ſing with the Spirit & with vnderſtanding, which ſinging I think you will not deny but that it may be done in ſet words ordinarily.
In the fourth place it is here to be obſerved that whereas in my former vvriting, I deſired you to tell me plainely, whether you held our vſe of the Lord prayer to be ſin and a worſhip to be communicated with all: to this you anſwer not. VVhereas againe I anſwered you diſtinctly in the dPag. 14.ſame place, that the ſaying of this prayer by rote even in the worſt ſenſe without feeling and vnderſtanding could be no warrant for the people to ſeparate from vsus, though it ſhould be our ſin ſo to vſe it: to this alſo you give no reply but paſs by it as if it had not bene written, though I was inſtant with you, and ſhewed that about this poynt onelyonly our queſtion was, &c. further whereas in your fotmer ePag. 4.writing you confeſſe that for the vſe of the Lords prayer among vsus, you have not layd it downe as a cauſe of refuſing communion with vsus, &c. If you be ſtill of the ſame minde (as you have not yet declared the contrary though you have bene ſo earneſtly mooved to declare your meaning herein) then may you plainely diſcerne your ſeparation overthrowne hereby in reſpect of many of thoſe cauſes that you do pretend for the ſame: for if our vſe of the Lords prayers be vnlawful: if it be a tranſgreſſion contrary to the word of God and to ſo many ſcriptures as you do alledge to impugne the ſame: then why do you not ſeparate for it, as well as for other ſin which you impute vntounto vsus? as you approve not other things among vsus, ſo neither do you approve this; how can you without partiality give your ſelf a diſpenſation to hold communion with vsus notwithſtanding this ſin, rather then others? as for example, when you do maintaine your Elder Iohn Decluſe ſeparating from the French Church for their baptiſing ſome Children which you hold ought not to be baptiſed, how could you have allowed him to have held communion with them vſing the Lords prayer in your judgement contrary to the ſcriptures as well as the former? ſo for other read prayers: for celebration of Mariages in the Church, and the like, how can you alledge them as cauſes of ſeparation, rather then this ſaying of the Lords prayer by rote, as you ſpeak? Suppoſe you hold th' other to be greater ſins then this, yet vvill not that cleare you: for 1, a good conſcience vvill take heed of being defiled fMat. 5.19 & 23.23. Pſ. 119.6.128.vvith leſſerknowne ſins, and not vvith greater onelyonly: if there be ſuch an vnevitable pollution by communicating vvith that worſhip where any knowne ſin is committed as your vvritings for ſeparation do perſwade men: how comes it that this abuſe of the Lords prayer doth not pollute as vvel as the reſt? 2, ſeing the abuſe of the more gExo. 20.7 Numb. 4.15.holy thing is the greater ſin: if our vſe of the Lords prayer be a ſin, then muſt it needes in this regard be a greater ſin, then the vſe of other ſet formes of prayer written by men: in as much as it is a greater ſin to abuſe the vvords of Chriſt then the words of other men. 3, ſeing this abuſe of the Lords prayer (as you account it) is far more frequent then that baptiſing, and celebration of mariages which you alledge as cauſes of refuſing communion with the Reformed Churches, and ſeing that evilles hEſa. 59.12. Hoſ. 12.1.often committed do the more pollute: how can you but refuſe communion for this abuſe as vvel as for th' other? 4, ſeing in your maine argument layd downe before, you plead that ſeparation to be of God, which is from ſin onelyonly and communion therewith, and yet will not ſeparate for this ſin of abuſing the Lords prayer, had you not need to acquit your ſelf vviſely herein, vnleſs you vvil have your maine foundation of ſeparation to be ſhaken in peeces?
As for my promiſe which you mention, namely to anſvver your 9. reaſons in your Apologie, although my promiſe vvas made vponupon ſuch a condition as is not by you performed, yet becauſe the anſvver therevnto may ſerve for further defence of our Church in the vſe of the Lords prayer, I have not refuſed the labour to ſet dovvne a refutation thereof, as follovveth.
Apologie.
Apol. p. 69.You plead that our vſe of the Lord prayer is vnlavvful. 1. Becauſe Chriſtes doctrine there is, to teach vsus to pray after this maner: Math. 6.9. & is not, for our prayer, to reade or ſay ever thoſe wordes by rote, &c.
Anſwer.
Firſt, this reaſon is inconſequent: becauſe, though the maner and forme of true prayer be there taught by Chriſte, that hinders not, but the ſame words may be our prayer alſo: One and the ſame patterne or forme of a thing doth often ſerve both for preſent vſe in the work wherevnto it is intended, and for imitation to make the like: As a juſt weight or balance ſerves both for our preſent vſe to weigh with all, and alſo for a patterne to make an other like the ſame by it. So the Lords prayer ſerves for a patterne of true prayer, & alſo for our preſent vſe at any time to call vponupon the name of the Lord with thoſe words.
Secondly, conſider well your owne practiſe in ſinging of Pſalmes, and you ſhall thereby diſcerne your errour in this kinde of reaſoning here vſed by you: In the 8. the 100, the 117. Pſalmes and other ſuch like, the holy Ghoſt doth teach vsus after what maner we are to praiſe and glorify God: In the doctrine of them we have a patterne and forme of ſpirituall ſongs and Hymnes: and yet this hinders you not but that you vſe to read or ſay over by rote (as you call it) the very ſame words for your owne ſpirituall ſongs in the worſhip of God. See you not now hereby, that the ſame words may ſerve both for a rule and patterne after what maner we are to worſhip, and alſo for our worſhip of God in the vſe of the very ſame words without any change?
Thirdly, ſeing the aMat. 6.9. Luk. 11.2.phraſes vſed by our Saviour are ſuch as ſerve ſufficiently to expreſſe the mindes of fathers & Schoole-maiſters, even then when they allow their Children and Schollers to rehearſe their leſſons verbatim, either in ſome formes of ſalutation, petition or the like: what reaſon have you to deny the common and ordinary ſignification of the phraſes, there being nothing either in theſe texts or any other to enforce a change of this ſenſe and meaning wherein they are vſed?
Apology.
2. Becauſe both Mathew and Luke recording that forme of prayer given by Chriſt, they have not the ſame words, nor the ſame number of words every where, &c.
Anſwer.
VVe do not contend that the ſame words and number of words in the Lords prayer are alwayes preciſely and of neceſſity to be vſed, but we hold that it is lawfull to vſe them as our prayer, either with or without ſuch changes as are to be noted in the Evangeliſts recording them. If we preciſely follow Mathew, it is no offence to Luke: If we vſe the words as they are in Luke, it is no offence againſt Mathew: If we vary in phraſe from both of them, it may be without offence to either: our tenent is, that either the ſame words or to the ſame purpoſe may lawfully be vſed of vsus. And therfore this reaſon is wholly beſide the queſtion.
Apology.
3. Becauſe all the circumſtances in both the Evangeliſts do lead vsus thus to vnderstand it. As namely, that Chriſt there ſheweth the right maner how to vſe prayer, like as he doth for the right vſe of almes & faſting: how to avoyd ambition, hypocriſie, babling, and the like therein: how alſo to come to God in prayer, as Children do to their parents, aſking bread, an egge, fiſh, or the like: that is, making requeſts vntounto God according to our particular wants, in faith, hope, love, &c. Math. 6.1-18. Luk. 11.1-13.
Anſwer.
This argument is a mere aſſertion and moſt falſe, without any proofe. There is no circumſtance in either of the Evangeliſts that leads vsus to think we may not vſe the Lords prayer as a prayer. It can not be ſhewed that this vſe of it, doth make vsus guilty of ambition, hypocriſy or babling: or that in this vſe we can not come vntounto God with feeling of our particular wants as Children do to their parents: or that in this vſe of it there can not be the practiſe of faith, hope, love, &c. All this remaines to be proved, vntill which time this argument might well for ſhame have hidden his head, and pluckt in theſe hornes of ſlander by which it puſheth at all the Saincts in the Reformed Churches for their dayly publique & private vſe of this prayer, ſhutting them vp vnderunder the condemnation of Ambitious perſons, hypocrites, Bablers; as being without feeling of their particular wants: without faith, hope and love in their vſe of this prayer. Such arguments as this agree fitly with the ſlanders of H. Barow, but cannot become any modeſt Chriſtians.
Apology.
4. Becauſe the Apoſtles (who both knew and carefully followed the true meaning of Chriſt herein) did neither bynd themſelves to theſe words, but prayed ſtill as they had ſeverall occaſions, according to this rule (Act. 1.24.25. & 4.24-30, &c.
Anſwer.
Firſt, though the Apoſtles did not binde themſelves to theſe words, yet doth not this prove, that they never vſed the ſame as their prayer: they might pray according to their ſeverall occaſions, according to this rule, and yet with the words of the rule. The miniſters of Chriſt do here vſe to pray according to their ſeverall occaſions, and yet with the words of this prayer alſo.
Secondly, though we read not in their writings, that they did in expreſſe words teach men to ſay over the Lords prayer, yet we reade that by their example in their writings they did as much in teaching men other ſet formes of prayer in their ſalutations and valedictions: as appeares, Rom. 1.7. 1 Cor. 1.3. 2 Cor. 1.2. Gal. 1.3. Eph. 1.2. Phil. 1.2. Col. 1.2. 1 Theſ. 1.1. 2 Theſ. 1.2. Rom. 16.23. 1 Cor. 16.23. Phil. 4.23. 1 Theſ. 5.28. 2 Theſ. 3.18. At ſeveral times vvriting vponupon divers occaſions and vntounto divers people, Paul yet (we ſee) vſed the ſame forme of prayer, & the ſame words: And this is al one as if he had ſo many times vſed the Lords prayer: for vvherfore ſhould it be more vnlawfull to vſe the Lords prayer often, then to vſe theſe formes of words ſo often for his prayer.
Thirdly, though the Apoſtles taught men according to their neceſsities and occaſions to ſhew their requeſts vntounto God in all maner prayer and ſupplication in the ſpirit with giving of thanks, with watchfullnes and perſeverance, yet this hinders not but that they might vſe the Lords prayer & other like ſet formes of prayer alſo: for the vſe of the Lords prayer as a prayer doth not deſtroy ſupplication in the Spirit, nor overthrow perſeverance in prayer. Think you not, that there are many ſervants of Chriſt vſing to conclude their prayers with the Lords prayer, that yet watch with all perſeverance to ſhew their requeſts vntounto God in all maner prayer, as well as your ſelf, or any of your ſeparated people? Anſwer me plainely according to that light and feeling which is in your conſcience.
Apologie.
5. Els alſo how ſaith the Apoſtle (ſpeaking of prayer in a ſtrange tongue) when thou bleſſeſt, how ſhall he that occupieth the place of the vnlearned ſay Amen, at thy giving of thankes ſeing he knoweth not what thou ſpeakeſt? 1 Cor. 14.16. For if they ſay over the words of this forme of prayer, might not ſome have anſwered: yes we know what he ſaith, it is the Pater noſter, the Lords prayer which we know aforehand, and therfore we can ſay Amen vntounto it, though it be ſpoken in a strange tongue.
Anſwer.
Firſt, the Lords prayer might be vſed often as a prayer in the Church of Corinth, and yet the vnlearned among them not be able to ſay Amen vntounto theſe that ſpake ſtrange languages of whom the Apoſtle here ſpeaketh: becauſe theſe men were extraordinary Prophets and did at ſome times by a ſpeciall gift ſpeak other tongues and ſtrange languages. And therfore the Apoſtle might have replyed againe to any vnlearned that ſhould have anſwered as you ſuppoſe and feigne: Nay, though the Lords prayer be vſed ordinarily among you, in your owne ſpeech, yet you know not what theſe extraordinary Prophets ſay, which come with new revelations in a ſtrange tongue vntounto you and therfore you can not ſay Amen vntounto their prayers: ſo that I have ſtill juſt cauſe to ſpeak againſt their prayers in a ſtrange tongue.
Secondly, ſuppoſe the Corinthian Prophets had ſometimes vſed the Lords prayer in a ſtrange tongue, yet this might have bene ſo ſeldome and at ſuch times that the vnlearned could not perceyve or vnderſtand the ſame: This ſeldome and rare vſe of it, though it might be a ſufficient teſtimony how lawfull they held it to be for their prayer, yet could it not be ſufficient to enable the vnlearned to ſay Amen vntounto it.
Thirdly, ſuppoſe theſe extraordinary Prophets had ſo often & ordinarily vſed the Lords prayer in a ſtrange tongue, that all the vnlearned could have diſcerned when the Prophets repeated the ſame yet doth it not follow that they could in lawfull maner have ſayd Amen vntounto it: Becauſe the lawfull and right ſaying of Amen, whereof the Apoſtle ſpeakes requires not onelyonly a confuſed knowledge, that the Lords prayer is ſayd over at ſuch a time: but alſo a diſtinct vnderſtanding of the ſeverall words therein, that their hearts and affections might go along with him that vſed the ſame, and ſo at length in the concluſion ſignify and witneſſe their conſent by ſaying Amen vntounto it.
Fourthly, it is to be obſerved how H. Barow though vponupon a moſt abſurd pretence doth yet in a contrary extremity contradict this your Apologie: whiles he affirmeth touching our vſe of the Lords prayer, even in our mother-tongue: that it doth not edify the whole congregation, ſo that they may all minde one thing, or ſay Amen. Diſcov. p. 70.73.If it be true which he ſaith, that men vſing it in their vulgar tongue, can not yet ſay Amen vntounto it: how can it be true which your Apologie ſaith, that they which occupy the place of the vnlearned may ſay Amen vntounto it; evē when it is vſed in a ſtrange tongue?
Fiftly, if the people can ſay Amen vntounto the Lords prayer, when the words thereof are vſually ſayd over, as your Apologie here affirmeth: do you not hereby overthrow your owne aſſertion in denying our vſe of it? for can we ſay Amen vntounto an vnlawfull prayer, which is not ſupplication in the Spirit; which is not made with feeling of our wants, in faith, hope, &c? Or if it be lawfull for the people to follow vsus with their conſent, and with their Amen, in the vſe of this prayer, is it not as lawfullfor vsus to go before them in the vſe thereof? Thus may you ſee how your owne reaſonings returne vponupon your owne head.
Apology.
6. If Chriſt have commanded to vſe thoſe words in that number and order, then all ſuch do ſin as pray at any time and vſe not thoſe words, for he ſaith, when ye pray, ſay, &c. Luk. 11.2. And the words when ye pray ſhew that this commandement is to be obſerved at all times: And then the Apoſtles ſinned which prayed and vſed not theſe words. Mat. 14.30. &c.
Anſwer.
This argument, which is ſo much and ſo often ſtood vponupon in bDiſcov. p. 70. 71. Inquir. pag. 85. Anſwer to M. Carp. pag. 24. Iuſtif. of Separ. p. 471. Anſwer to Mr. Hild. pag. 140.your writings, at leaſt in ſix ſeverall bookes, is alſo with the reſt moſt weak and frivolous, for
Firſt, though Chriſtes commandement of this prayer do include an allowāce of the vſe of thoſe very wordes & in the ſame number & order that either Mathew or Luke have recorded: yet doth it not follow, that we are therfore tyed to thē alone, & that all other prayers are excluded thereby. Common vſe of ſpeech teacheth vsus to make an other conſtruction of his wordes: for as a man that ſends his Servant on a meſſage, and commandes him when he comes vntounto his friend to ſpeak on this maner and to ſay, &c. doth thereby ordinarily warrant him either to deliver the ſame words verbatim, or els the ſame matter and ſubſtance of the meſſage though with ſome change and variety of words and phraſes. And as it were then a ſtrange thing that he ſhould be accounted a diſobedient and vnfaithfull ſervant that ſhould vſe the very words of his maiſter without any change at all: ſo is it with the commandements of Chriſte. For example: Chriſt ſending his Apoſtles and commanding them a forme of prayer for ſalutation, when they came into any houſe, to ſay, Luk. 10.5.Peace be to this houſe, doth thereby warrant them either to vſe the ſame words verbatim, or the ſame in ſubſtance: And either way his commandement was fulfilled. The holy Ghoſt preſcribing a forme of praiſe to ſay alwayes, Pſa. 40.16.The Lord be prayſed, doth allow vsus either the very ſame vvords or ſuch as are equivalentvnto them. And even ſo for the vſe of the Lords prayer, our Saviour appoynts either the ſame words for our prayer, or ſuch as tend to the ſame purpoſe: and both wayes is his commandement fulfilled.
Secondly, as for that partickle hótan, when, which you do ſo much vrge againſt vsus; it is not in the vſe thereof ſo generall, nor ſo abſolutely and largely extended vntounto all times, as you vvould perſwade vsus: for example, Chriſt ſaith cLuk 11.24.25.26.when the vncleane Spirit goes forth, &c. when he comes againe, he findes the houſe empty, &c. dLuk 12,54.whē ye ſee a cloud riſing out of the weſt, ſtraight way ye ſay a ſhowre cometh & ſo it is. eLuk. 14,12.13.vvhen thou makeſt a feaſt call not thy frends, &c. But when thou makeſt a feaſt call the poore, the maimed, &c. Now ſometimes the vncleane Spirits were caſt out and returned not: ſometimes there are cloudes out of the vveſt without raine: ſometimes men may invite to feaſts their frends, brethren and rich neighbours. And therfore though our Saviour had alſo ſayd, when ye pray, vſe theſe phraſes and theſe very words for your prayers: &c. yet had he not thereby abſolutely tyed vsus vntounto them alone, and excluded all other: for the word hótan doth oft note vntounto vsus as much as ſometimes or for the moſt part as is evident in theſe inſtances & might alſo be ſhewed in many more ſuch like.
This anſwer may alſo ſuffice for that other part of your obiection, touching the excluding of all prayer in the Spirit alone that is without words or diſtinct voyce.
Apologie.
7. Becauſe that forme of prayer doth plainely and fully direct & reſtraine our ignorant and inordinate deſires, vntounto certaine heads: in which whatſoever is needfull and lawfull to aſk, &c.
Anſwer.
I may ſay of theſe your reaſons and conſequences as your ſelf once fDefenc. of Script. pag 92.wrote to Mr. Smith: The prayer of David ſeemes to have prevayled againſt you, for gPſ. 58.7.when you ſhoote arrowes they are as broken: or like vntounto ſtrawes: ſo weak and vaine they are, for.
Firſt though all things needfull or lawfull to be aſked, beconteyned in the heads of this prayer: though thouſands of petitions are and may be derived by the Children of God according to their ſeverall wants, times & occaſions from ech of theſe heads: yet doth it not follow that the words of this prayer themſelves may not be vſed by vsus for our prayer: here is no proofe of this conſequence.
Secondly, whereas you ſay: The heads themſelves are ſo generall as no man can well for himſelf or others vſe them aright without ſome ſpeciall relation or application to his or their particular eſtate or occaſions: This is both falſe and inconſequent: 1. This is falſe, for even in a generall reſpect and love of Gods name, kingdom and will, we may well and lawfully vſe the words of this prayer, though for the preſent our thoughts doe not light and ſettle vponupon the conſideration of the particular meanes and wayes, whereby his name is ſanctifyed, his will accompliſhed, &c. Mat. 18.10 Dan. 7.10.As the elect Angelles do evermore behold the face of God & preſent themſelves before him, wayting with reverence and with a generall reſpect vntounto his will before they receive any particular or ſpeciall commandements or commiſſions from him: ſo do the godly in the vſe of this prayer offer themſelves to God: and ſo are they taught to do even by the words of this prayer it ſelf, Mat. 6.10. againe we may well and comfortably vſe the vvords of this prayer with a generall reſpect of our ſins to be forgiven, and with a generall reſpect of temptations and afflictions that we deſire to be delivered from, though for the inſtant we do not think vponupon any of our particular ſins temptations or afflictions; where are the proofes that condemne vsus for ſo doing? 2. This is inconſequent: for ſuppoſe it were vnlawfull to vſe this prayer vvithout ſome ſpeciall relation or application thereof to our particular occaſions, yet what hinders but that in the vſe of the very words of this prayer, we may alſo ſometimes vponupon occaſion have relation to our particular ſins and temptations, & to the particular meanes of glorifying God, though the words be generall which we vſe.
Thirdly, whereas you ſay: Neither can any mans or Churches caſe and vnderſtanding reach vntounto all things needful for all occaſions, times and perſons, as thoſe heads do comprehend, this is alſo doubly inconſequent. 1. In reſpect of our eſtate and condition; for ſuppoſe no mans caſe reach vntounto all things comprehended in this prayer: yet ſeing there is no word of this prayer but it doth evermore in a great meaſure and in the mayne alvvayes concerne every Chriſtian mans eſtate, what forbids vsus to vſe the ſame as our prayer? 2. In reſpect of our vnderſtanding; though no man can reach vntounto all the things comprehended in this prayer, yet is it moſt ſenſeleſs to argue from hence againſt the lavvfull vſe of this prayer: for by this kinde of reaſoning vve might reiect almoſt all prayers, all bleſſings and all ſalutations: for example, we are taught to pray thus in our ſalutations, Luk 10.5. Ruth. 2.4.peace be vntounto you: The Lord be with you: The Lord bleſſe thee: And who can reach vntounto the things that are comprehended in theſe ſhort ſentences vvhile he vſeth the ſame? The whole ſumme of Gods covenant with the innumerable fruits and benefits thereof are certainely compriſed herein.
Apologie.
8. Els why ſhould not the miniſters be as well bound at the end of their Sermons, and all Magiſtrates and people at their inſtructions & exhortations given vntounto others, to ſay over the ten Commandements, becauſe they do fully and ſhortly compriſe all dueties.
Anſwer.
Firſt, our queſtion is about the lawfulnes, not about the neceſſity of vſing this prayer: we do not ſay that miniſters are bound to ſay over the Lords prayer at the end of every Sermō: much leſſe do we ſay that all Magiſtrates and people are bound to vſe it at the end of their inſtructions and exhortations: and thus this argument fayleth in the ground of that compariſon from whence it is taken.
Secondly, what law of God forbiddeth miniſters to repeat the 10. Commandements at the end of their Sermons? For the Miniſters of theſe Reformed Churches, there are divers of them vvhichwhich do ordinarily vponupon the Lords day before theirexerciſe of Catechizing, repeate the 10. Commandements, & what is their ſin in this? If judges and Magiſtrates who are appoynted to be keepers of the Decalogue ſhould with the repetition hereof, either begin or conclude their publique and ſolemne charges and exhortations which at certaine times they give vntounto people, vvho can condemne them for it? If Maiſters of families ſhould every day begin or conclude their family inſtructions with rehearſall of the 10. Commandements, ſhould not this be a teſtimony of their obedience to Gods aDeut. 6.7 8.9.law, rather then a tranſgreſsion thereof?
Thirdly, there is no equality nor juſt proportion in this compariſon: The vviſedome of God in his word teacheth vsus ſhort formes of prayer for ſalutation in 2 or 3 words, becauſe vve have every day and hovver occaſion to vſe them: And ſeing in like maner there is dayly and hovverly occaſion of mutuall exhortation, though it were an abſurd and vnreaſonable thing contrary to the wiſedome of God, to conclude ech ſalutation & exhortation with the Lords prayer and 10. Commandements, more then an 100. times in a week, yet doth it not follow that it is vnlawfull or inconvenient once or twiſe in a week ſo to begin or conclude a ſolemne exerciſe in the Church of God.
Apology.
9. Seing it is a moſt perfect forme of prayer, wherein is no want or ſuperfluity, if it were Chriſtes meaning to enjoyne the ſaying over of thoſe words for our prayer to God, then ought we to vſe theſe onelyonly and no other. Becauſe it ſhould be but babling or preſumption to joyne or put other prayers in ſtead of that which is ſo abſolute and ſufficient. For the Lord will be worſhipped with the best we have, and he is accurſed that having a male for ſacrifice, doth offer a corrupt thing to the Lord. Mal. 1.14.
Anſwer.
Firſt, touching the type and ceremony wherein this argument is grounded: God doth not by Malachie denoūce the curſe againſt thoſe which refuſed to offer the beſt ſacrifice which they had, but againſt thoſe that offred corrupt contrary to the law which required a ſacrifice bLev. 1.3.10. & 3.1. & 4.3.23.without blemiſh: againſt thoſe eſpecially which were hypocrites and deceyvers, pretending love of God and yet brought corrupt things, cMal. 1.13 14.torne, lame and ſick, &c. A man that had a Kow and 2 Sheep was not bound to offer his Kow, but might lawfully reteyne the ſame and enjoy the bleſsing dEſa. 7.21 22.promiſed of God vntounto his people. A poore man that had 10. Sheep, and ſome of them thriſe ſo good as the reſt, was not bound to offer the beſt: the law onelyonly required he ſhould offer that which was not corrupt. Yea in ſome kinde of ſervices, as in tithes, God would not have the beſt to be choſen out for him, but eLevit. 27.32.33.would have that which paſſed vnderunder the rod, the 10th as it came by tale, and this without change, the better might not be given to God in ſtead of the worſe.
Secondly, beſide your errour in the ſtory of this ceremony, conſider alſo how you erre in the application of this type vntounto the queſtion in hand. If you will have it to ſerve your turne, you muſt prove that all prayers beſides the Lords prayer are corrupt things, like the lame and torne ſacrifices: for this place doth not prove that the excellency of one ſacrifice did exclude an other which hath not the ſame degree and meaſure of goodnes, but onelyonly the corrupt and no other.
Thirdly, marke the contradiction of this argument with the 3d. 4th. & 7th. reaſons going before: here you wil have the Lords prayer being commanded to be without ſuperfluity: & all others joyned with it to be but babling: before you complayned and pleaded againſt the vſe of it, becauſe no mans or Churches caſe and vnderſtanding could reach vntounto ſo many things as were compriſed in it: And is not this to condemne it of ſuperfluity? Here you argue that no other but it alone muſt be vſed, becauſe it is ſo abſolute and ſufficient, having no want in it: before you pleaded againſt the vſe of it becauſe it did not ſerve to expreſſe our particular wants and neceſsities: And is not this to condemne it for the defects thereof? Thus is it apparant, that theſe your reaſons do neither agree with the truth, nor with themſelves.
TOuching Mr. Hu. his doctrine among vsus about the condemning of read prayer, having ſhewed you the errour of that report which you obiected vntounto me, both for the time thereof, and the matter thereof: as alſo for the erroneous vſe you collected thence: you omit to ſpeak of the firſt and laſt of theſe poynts: and touching the matter thereof you reply divers things: 1, that you can go no further then report, &c. but you had done well not to have gone ſo far, as it ſeemes the falſe report hath done: That which I have written vntounto you is vponupon my owne knowledge that heard him: and likevviſe vponupon his owne explanation of himſelf vntounto me before witneſſes, as I ſhevved you before. 2. You now tell me of an other report, you heare alſo that he continueth like doctrine ſtill where he teacheth, &c. But where doth he teach? is it not in the Church of England? you do wiſely not to name the place; the very naming thereof might well have holpen to bring this report into ſuſpicion of falſhood. Behold your partiality herein alſo: In this very page, where you write this of Mr. H. you would collect againſt me that becauſe I was a publique miniſter in one of their Pariſhes in England I did by their ordinary calling there adminiſter by an other leitourgie then Chriſts Teſtament, even by their book of common prayer, impoſed vponupon all the Pariſhes. The errour of this collection I am to ſhew you, when I come vntounto it. But in the meane time, I pray you tell me Mr. Ainſworth: Is not Mr. H. as publique a miniſter in one of the Pariſhes of England, as ever I was? was my publique miniſtery there a ſufficient proofe that I vſed the book of common prayer, and is not his publique miniſtery there as ſufficient a proofe that he allowes praying on bookes, even the book of common prayer? vvho ſees not your corrupt and partiall reaſoning againſt me? 3. You tell me further of his ſpeech with your ſelf before two that came with him, how he ſignifyed his diſlike of reading prayers without any ſuch limitation, &c. But I anſwer, limitations are not alwayes expreſſed, but oftentimes to be vnderſtood never the leſſe. And if he had ſpoken any thing vntounto you contrary to that which hedid to me, you might then lay ſome blame vponupon him, but not on me that have ſufficient witneſſes to confirme that I ſay. 4. Suppoſe Mr. H. had openly and abſolutely condemned all read prayer as ſin, yet what would this avayle you? you tell me in your former writing that becauſe I receyved not the truth from him but oppoſed it, fFol. 4. B.this is the cheefeſt thing that you miſlike in me about prayer: May we not herein mark your diſpoſition? howſoever you blame others for alledging the names of men and of Churches againſt you, yet when there is but a ſhadow or half a teſtimony of one man that ſeemes to make for your cauſe, how greedily do you ſnatch at it, to make vſe of it for your advantage and our reproofe, even to make it the cheefeſt thing that you miſlike in me that I receive not ſuch a teſtimony? How much more juſtly might I bring againſt you a cloud of witneſſes and this vponupon certaine knowledge and not vncertaine reports, & of true miniſters in the Reformed churches, whereas Mr. H. in your accoūt is a falſe miniſter, a hireling a deceyver, & make it a cheef matter of diſlike in you that you deſpiſe the teſtimony of them all? Here alſo we have juſt cauſe to complaine for want of ſincere and vpright dealing in you allowing that vntounto your ſelf which moſt partially you condemne in others.