Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Treatise · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The ſecond argument. The terms opened. What is meant by Attention, Intention, & Fervency? Both propoſitions proved. Mr. Freemans anſwer conſidered. What Mr. Falconer hath ſaid, in anſwer to this argument, proved in ſufficient. The Judgment of the Leyden Profeſſors, and the Walachrian claſſis not duely oppoſed to this Argument. Mr. Falconers three reaſons why forms should not hinder devotion anſwered.
§. 1 WE proceed to a ſecond Argument which we thus ſtate,
To uſe ſuch a mode, in the ordinary performance of our duty in ſolemn publick prayer, as either from the neceſſary workings of human nature: or otherwiſe upon experience we find, either hindring the Attention of our own, or others thoughts to the duty: or the Intention and Fervency of our own, or others Spirits in the performance of the duty, when we can ſo perform it as neither of them will be to that degree hindred, is Ʋnlawful:
But for him who hath the Gift of prayer, ordinarily to perform his miniſterial Acts in publick ſolemn prayer: is for him to uſe ſuch a mode in thoſe Acts of worship as either from the Natural workings of human nature, or from ſome other cauſe ſcarce avoidable is upon experience found to hinder his own Attention and alſo the Attention of others thoughts to the duty, and the Intention & Fervency of his own, & others ſpirits in the duty, when in the mean time he hath a natural ability ſo to perform it as neither of them will (at leaſt to that degree) be hindred; Ergo▪
This we conceive to be what by Mr. Falconer is repreſented as a ſecond Objection under the terms, That it is diſadvantageous to devotion. We shall with what candor becomes us towards a perſon of Mr. Falconers worth & candor, conſider both what he ſaith in anſwer; And alſo ex abundanti, what we find to have been ſaid (to leſs purpoſe) by any others; And examine, whether what he or they have ſaid, amounteth to a ſtrict anſwer, which may free us from the probability of truth which appears in this argument.
§. 2 For the Propoſition it is ſo evident from Scripture, being indeed a branch of the commandment which our ſaviour calls, The firſt and great commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy ſoul, & all thy ſtrength: And inforced by ſo many Scriptures directly requiring Attention of thoughts, and Fervency of Spirit in all the ſervice of God, (eſpecially in prayer) That we never met with any bold enough to deny it: For he who denieth it muſt affirm, That though God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart, ſoul, & ſtrength: yet, if man commands us not to do it, it is lawful, though God hath commanded us to ſerve him with the Attention of our thoughts; & with Fervency of Spirit; and commanding us to purſue this end, hath alſo enjoined us to uſe the means moſt proper for it: yet, If our ſuperiour commands us to uſe ſuch means as are leſs proper, we may lawfully do it. Which to us appears very ſtrange aſſertions, neither becoming Divines, nor good Chriſtians, nor indeed rational men: For ſuppoſing that there is a God, The light of nature is enough to shew us, He muſt be ſerved with all our hearts, with the higheſt attention of thoughts, & intention, & fervency of Spirit.
§. 3 So as all the Queſtion can be, is about the Minor propoſition, Whether he that performs his Miniſterial act in Solemn Prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, doth not uſe a mean leſs accommodate to his own & others Attention of thoughts, and Intention & Fervency of Spirit: then he who deales with God immediately, uſing his tongue to expreſs conceptions firſt formed in his own heart? To us it is next to a demonſtration that he doth, and that upon that account it is unlawful: to which purpoſe we deſire, That theſe things may be wiſtly conſidred by any deliberate perſon.
§. 4 Whether it be poſſible for any perſon to read any diſcourſe, be it a Prayer, a ſermon, an Oration (what it will) with that degree of Attention of thoughts, as he muſt pronounce the ſame diſcourſe with by heart: if he ſo pronounceth it as but to ſpeak ſenſe? We do think none will find, or ſay it is. The thoughts of man are wild things, & impatient of a long intenſe abode upon any object (we ſpeak of the generality of men) but never ſo buſy to break priſon, & wander, as when we are employed in the holy ſervices of God, And that partly in regard, That God is an inſenſible metaphyſical object: Partly, Becauſe of that natural averſion from communion with God, which (ſince the fall) hath been the univerſal diſeaſe of human nature. So that conſidering how human nature is ſtated ſince the fall, we believe it a thing impoſſible. We know it will be ſaid (and that truly) that this argument concludeth not againſt the miniſters uſe of forms preſcribed by others, if he reciteth them by heart; but onelyonly againſt his performing his miniſterial acts in prayer by reading ſuch forms. We confeſs it, and ſay▪ That if but this poſt be gained, much is done. God would doubtleſs be ſerved with much leſs diſtraction, and divagation of thoughts, then he ordinarily is on the part even of him that miniſtreth; which was the Reaſon, why the Reverend and very learned Author of Altare Damaſcenum allowing the uſe of forms at firſt, to help thoſe who have not attained the gift of prayer, in any proportion fit for miniſters, would yet have them enjoined to recite them by heart.
§. 5 Secondly, Whether any thing can in reaſon be imagined more conducive to fix the thoughts upon the duty, & God in the duty? Then when a miniſter hath attained, to ſuch a familiarity with the phraſe of Scripture, and ſuch a knowledge in the body of Divinity, That although he will always need a premeditation of the Greatneſs, & Majeſty of God; his own vileneſs, & nothingneſs; and the weightineſs of the duty: yet, he needeth not compoſe his form ſyllabically before he comes; but can truſt his Affections to thruſt out words, while his eyes may be shut & ſent to his heart, (as our Divine Poet ſpeaks) Or open, and lifted up to heaven and fixed towards the place, where his heavenly father is; and while his heart is enditing a good matter: And his tongue employed as the pen of a ready writer▪ We think this is ſo evidently more conducive to the fixation of a mans thoughts, and the commanding their attention to the duty, That it is impoſſible for any who will not deny the workings of a reaſonable ſoul, to be able without a ſelf condemnation to deny it.
§. 6 A third thing which we would have conſidred is, Whether conſidering the infirmity of all our natures, any ſuch attention is to be expected, or hoped for from people to forms of prayer which they hear a thouſand times over, as to conceived prayer? We lay no great ſtreſs upon it, but think it at leaſt an ingenious obſervation, That God himſelf when he would Stir up his peoples attentions, & affections to what he was doing, tells them, He would do a new thing. We are ſure common experience teacheth us, That none gives that attention to a diſcourſe or ſtory, he hath heard an hundred times over, that he giveth to a new diſcourſe or ſtory, (excepting onelyonly to the holy ſcriptures, for which God hath ſecured an abiding reverence in all pious ſouls) And this is owned by Mr. Falconer, giving it in his Epiſtle as a Reaſon, why after ſo many learned men he wrote upon this ſubject: Becauſe the humour of this age (he might have ſaid all ages) is more apt to ſeek for new books then read old ones. Whether this be the infirmity of our natures, and if our infirmity, whether our ſinful infirmity or no, are not much material to our preſent queſtion? Let it be the one, or the other, if not to be shaken off, and if by a mean which Gods word forbids not, it may in any meaſure be helped; certainly conſidering how neceſſary it is to the duty, that mean ought not to be neglected in obedience to any creature.
§. 7 But Attention of thoughts is not all our duty in prayer, Intention of ſpirit, and fervency of Affections is alſo a prime requiſite to an acceptable performance of it. Rom. 12. 11. Jam. 5. 16. Yea, It is ſo neceſſary as without it, the ſoul plainly mocketh God, and deceiveth it ſelf: now we cannot apprehend, That either the perſon miniſtring, should have the ſame intention & fervency in reading the preſcribed forms of others, as when his prayer is firſt formed in his own heart, or that the people should be ſo advantaged in their fervor and intention.
§. 8 As to him that miniſtreth. There is a great deal of difference betwixt words following the Affections, and Affections following words. This is an old Argument made uſe of by the learned Author of Altare Dameſcenum in conceived prayer. The heart is firſt inflamed and made apprehenſive, of the Greatneſs & Majeſty of God; the vileneſs, & ſinfulneſs of its ſelf, &c. And upon the working of theſe affections, words are formed in the mind, and then thruſt out at the lips. In the uſe of the preſcribed forms of others, words are firſt, which indeed uttered may excite ſome affection, or in the uttering be attended by ſome affection: but there is a great deal of difference, betwixt the workings of the affections thus commanded, and preſt into the ſervice; or thus cauſed, and following words uttered: and the workings of affections firſt inflamed, & then commanding our words. It is true, That if a man be to uſe preſcribed forms, there may be ſome general previous preparation of the Affections: but he who will deal truly with his own ſoul, will find it hard to keep them up and warm ſo long, as until he cometh to his work. Nor do we think it poſſible that the words of another should ſo well fit our hearts, and be ſo expreſſive of raiſed Affections as our own. An orator (let him be as much an Artiſt as he can) will find it no eaſy thing to give one of Tullies Orations (recited by him) ſuch an accent, as he can eaſily give one whom he himſelf hath formed. There is ſomething (not ſo eaſy to be expreſſed what) in our own words to expreſs the Affections of our hearts, and conducive to keep up their warmth & vigour; which is not in the words of another, which are to the ſoul (as Sauls armour to David) we hardly think it poſſible (we are ſure not ordinary) for a miniſter to preach a ſermon of anothers with that life and vigour, with which he can do one formed by himſelf.
§. 9 If the miniſter readeth his forms, there is a manifeſt impoſſibility of the like degree of intention: For it is the ſoul, which looking through the eye, directeth it ſo as a man readeth true; & ſo is plainly diverted from its immediate contemplation of, & fixation upon God.
§. 10 But here the author of The Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice comes acroſs us, & tells us for a firſt anſwer to this Argument.
P. 30. He that prays without book, eſpecially with Vocal prayer, muſt needs look upon the like Prints, and ſtamps made in the brain, (or whatſoever things the ſpecies are) without which a man can neither think nor ſpeak, they muſt be accounted objects; And the legible ſigns in the book do ſerve to bring the inward phantaſms more readily in actual view, and to marshal them with leſs labour, diverſion, or disturbance.
He ſaith well (or what ever things the ſpecies are) It is indeed a notion vulgarly received, That all underſtanding is by ſome ſenſible, or intelligible ſpecies, or prints of things in the brain: But it is very like the author knows that Philoſophers have found it hard to determin, what thoſe effluvia are? Where they lodge? How the ſoul worketh in the uſe of them? and in theſe things the beſt Philoſopher is but a Lover of wisdom, & cannot ſay it shall dy with him. Suppoſe a child born blind & deaf, yet it may underſtand ſomething, but by what ſpecies we cannot tell. To ſay it is by ſome connate ſpecies contradicteth Philoſophy; Acquired it can have none; If we ſay, it is by Infuſed ſpecies, we make it an early Enthuſiaſt, and we have better ground by far to ſay, That he who prayeth hath ſuch, becauſe the Spirit is promiſed in the caſe, Rom. 8. 26. Becauſe we know not what to pray for.
§. 11 But ſuppoſing what he ſaith, That he who prayeth Vocally by words firſt conceived in his own heart, muſt firſt attend to the prints in his brain of the words which he is about to utter; yet, Surely the Author of this anſwer might have conſidred. 1 That he who readeth forms muſt firſt attend to the prints in his book, and then to the prints which are made by the Effluvia from the book in his brain, before he can ſpeak: ſo as here is a double act, whereas the other is but ſingle. 2 Again, The firſt attention to the prints in our brains, is neceſſary according to the order of Nature, our author himſelf tells us, without them we can neither ſpeak nor think. 3 Farther, That Attention of the ſoul within it ſelf, is an immanent act; but the viewing of a book, and the prints there, and its excerciſing it ſelf in the compoſition of thoſe ſyllables and words is not ſo; not terminated within the ſoul, not naturally neceſſary to the action, nor neceſſary from any immediate divine precept: But a perfect unneceſſary diverſion, and a moſt certain hindrance of the minds intenſion: becauſe it is impoſſible that any created being should in the ſame action duly intend two objects. We remember the ſchoolmen firſt ſuppoſing what is falſe, That when Chriſt in his laſt Supper gave his body to his diſciples, he did alſo offer it up as a Sacrifice to God; ſtart a queſtion, How he could do both theſe at the ſame time with a due intenſion? They ſay he could, Quia intentionem habuit perfectiſſimam, Becauſe he had a moſt perfect intenſion, a Priviledge we hope our Brethren will not challenge for every clergy man. But this is enough to have ſaid for the Miniſters intention.
§. 12 The Intenſion of the people is matter of far more ſubtil disquiſition. The very learned Author of the book called, Altare Damaſcenum, p. 1614 hath this expreſſion,
Et puto ego auditores, &c. And I think (ſaith he) that the people do feel another kind of flame, [or Affection] when the miniſter goeth before them, in words determined from his affection going before; then from affections following after words, eſpecially when the hearers are a little wonted to the preſcribed forms.
We do think the ſame thing, and believe it a notion which will juſtify it ſelf to the experience of every pious, deliberate Soul. Poſſibly it is not ſo eaſy to aſſign the true reaſon of this difference, whether it be ſome ſecret ſympathy of pious ſouls? 2 Or ſome more ſpecial aſſiſtance of God to, and influence upon his miniſters doing their duty, ſuggeſting to them what to ſpeak beſt ſuted to their peoples ſouls? Or whether we should lay it upon peoples infirmity, indiſpoſing them to bend their minds ſo to forms ſaid over & over? Which if it be, it is ſuch as human nature is not like to quit it ſelf off. Nor in our caſe is it at all neceſſary to aſſign the reaſon, The queſtion being onelyonly about the, Anſit? Whether it be ſo or no? And we cannot but obſerve that the Author of the Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, p. 31. doth after ſome words confeſs, That he who himſelf is in ſpeaking affected, is moſt like to affect others, if he be as clear, as rational, and perſuaſive. The Noncon. will eaſily agree, that he is not ſo likely, if his diſcourſe be irrational, confuſed, dark & flat.
§. 13 But the ſame Author offers at a ſecond anſwer, he had granted both the Major & Minor propoſition: The Major, p. 22 in theſe words, Every man is bound to pray with the higheſt intention of mind and fervency of Spirit, which can be obtained by lawful means, we dare ſay no Noncon. will ask him more: The minor he grants again & again, Sect 7. p. 25, 26, 27. What will he deny then? nothing remains but the Concluſion. He would fix this intention of mind in conceived, more then in preſcribed forms of prayer, upon ſome as he thinks falſe bottoms. He inſtanceth in 8.
1 Prejudice againſt the uſe of forms. 2 Novelty of words and phraſes. 3 The exerciſe of gifts with which we are more delighted then the exerciſe of grace. 4 The Natural delight men have in their own, more then in others Inventions. 5 The ſcope men have conceived in Prayers for glory & oſtentation. 6 The tumults of bodily Spirits. 7 The bending their minds in Invention. 8 The ſtraining their bodies by drawing out words.
Now to this we anſwer, Firſt,
§. 14 Either theſe muſt be the onelyonly cauſes of greater Intenſion & fervency of Spirit in conceived, then in preſcribed forms of prayers; or elſe this is nothing to the purpoſe, and onelyonly concerneth thoſe to whom theſe alone are the cauſes of ſuch greater fervor & intention: But we have before shewed, theſe are not the onelyonly cauſes; but becauſe the ſoul is not ſo much diverted, &c. as it muſt be in the uſe of forms.
§. 15 But Secondly, When we have reminded our Reader what we underſtand by fervor and intention of ſoul, we will conſider the eight particulars, which the Author confeſſeth contributary to it. By the ſouls Attention we mean, Its immediate contemplation of God, without diverſions to other objects. A thing ſo neceſſary, that the ſoul which doth not its utmoſt toward it, doth but mock God, and cannot be ſerious with him. A Schoolmaſter (if he can diſcern it) will not indure the Omiſſion of it, in a boys ſaying his leſſon to him. It is (in short) for the ſoul hoc agere, indeed to do what it pretends to do. My heart is fixed (ô God! ſaith David) my heart is fixed. By Intention, & Fervor of Spirit we underſtand, That holy zeal & heat which the ſoul should be in, in all religious acts required of all Gods ſervants. Rom. 12. 11. Commended in Apollos, Acts. 18. 15. But eſpecially in Prayer called, crying unto God, A pouring out of our ſouls, & hearts before him, A wreſtling with him, as in Jacobs caſe, Hoſ. 12. 4. This prayer is that which St. James calls, foreign, Jam. 5. 16. Thus Epaphras laboured in prayer fervently, Col. 4. 12. We mean nothing leſs by it, then the heat of the Brain, or the body about which this Author trifleth at a ſtrange rate: we mean the heat of the Inward man, which lies in the intenſe motions of the affection, of Sorrow in confeſſing ſin, Deſires in putting up petitions, Joy in thanksgivings, &c. The eagerneſs of the ſoul to, and in its work; That which David calls, The ſouls preſſing after God, Jacob, A not letting God go, The Prophet, A not being quiet, not holding our peace, &c. The duty required in the firſt commandment (ſo far as concerneth prayer) ſerving God with all our heart, all our ſoul, all our ſtrength: This being now every Miniſters, yea, every private Chriſtians duty: We ſay, Whatſoever means nature it ſelf, reaſon, or our particular experience, or Gods word dictateth as proper in order to it; we muſt not, we can not in Obedience to mans command barely omit: And whatſoever either Gods word, or nature it ſelf, or reaſon, or our Experience sheweth us will in any degree hinder this: it muſt be ſinful, let who will require it; as being contrary to our Duty expreſsly required in the Firſt and Great commandment. And in many particular Scriptures referrable unto that.
§. 16 This Aſſertion ſtandeth upon that foundation confeſſed by all Divines, That the precept requiring the end, doth alſo include the means; which ſurely muſt not be interpreted with an exception, viz. Except ſuperiours forbid the uſe of ſuch means, or commands the uſe of the contrary, &c. The precept legitimateth the means, if another particular divine precept hath not forbidden them, which it moſt certainly hath not.
§. 17 To come then cloſe to our Author, 1 If the Bending of the mind to think what to ask of God, & how to ask it. 2 If the exerciſe of gifts at the ſame time when grace is to be exerciſed will conduce to the farther exerciſe of grace, and the not exerciſing them will in any degree hinder ſuch exerciſe of grace. 3 If the natural proneſs which is in man, rather to have his heart dilate & to be fervent in the uſe of words firſt formed in his own heart, do evince that this fervor doth moſt uſually attend conceived Prayers. 4 If the tumult of bodily Spirits (as he calls it) being firſt occaſioned by the ſouls intenſion upon its work, being raiſed once will help the fervor of the ſoul. nay, 5 If the novelty of words, and phraſes will do it (and theſe are five of the eight things which himſelf confeſſeth may cauſe it) he muſt shew us they are ſinful cauſes, or he hath granted all we contend for.
§. 18 If indeed (as that Author would uncharitably enough inſinuate) the fervor of him who prayeth by conceived prayer, be meerly from prejudice againſt forms, (though he should have done well to have opened to us that cauſation, it is ſomething hard to conceive) or 2 from a ſinful end of Vain glory or foolish oſtentati…n, we do wholly condemn it: And for his Eighth particular, to us it wants an Interpreter, how ſtraining the body by drawing out words should cauſe fervency of ſoul. So as what this Author pretendeth for an anſwer to our arguments, is but a bundle of impertinencies, having no cognation to an anſwer: And indeed he who had ſo juſtly before granted us both Major & Minor, had nothing to do; but (like a young Logician) to deny the Concluſion: or to amuſe us what he could with long, and impertinent diſcourſes. But let us further take notice of ſome other looſe paſſages in him, and ſee, whether any thing in them, or in his diſtinctions will ſave him harmleſs?
§. 19 He telleth us, This fervency muſt be obtained by the uſe of juſt means. This is moſt true, and is not the uſe of a Gift given us by God for that end, a juſt mean? Is it not Natural, Rational, Scriptural? Such a mean as the ſervants of God have uſed? Is not this a juſt means think we? That which he would have us to believe is, That though it be our duty to pray with utmoſt fervor, & intention of Spirit; and though, in order to this Praying in the uſe of our own gifts, be more proper, & effectual: yet, if the Magiſtrate forbiddeth us the uſe of this Mean, it becometh an unlawful mean, and lawful for us to omit it, though we pray leſs fervently; therefore he tells us, p. 23.
He that is by the Magiſtrate forbidden to go to the next church, and therefore is neceſſitated to go to one more remote; muſt needs be more indiſpoſed to prayer by his long journy (except ſome men of a temper by themſelves) ſo that he shall not perform the duty with ſo high an intention of mind, or fervency of Spirit, as might probably be experienced in caſe he came to the church leſs wearied, and weather beaten: but yet, ſuch a man may lawfully go to the fartheſt church, and pray there though theſe hinderances of intention, and fervency be conſequent thereupon: becauſe they are neceſſary, not voluntary; he wisheth the caſe were otherwiſe with him, but as the caſe ſtandeth, if he should go to the next church, contrary to the Magiſtrates Prohibition, he should ſin and Evil is not to be done that Good may come of it, eſpecially when a greater evil might come of it, then the good aimed at, as in this Caſe.
§. 20 To all which we anſwer, God ſend his church in England better Divines then this Author. The caſe is this, The unlawfulneſs of miniſters ordinary uſe of forms preſcribed by others was indevoured to be proved, becauſe it hindred intention of mind, and fervency of Spirit. Two things from reaſon, and by Gods ſpecial command, and determination neceſſary to every good prayer. He grants they are both neceſſary, whence it followeth, That he who omitteth any means given, or allowed him by God being natural, & rational which may help him in this muſt needs ſin againſt God whoſe law commanding, an End, always commandeth the uſe of all proper Means relating to it. He granteth this a Mean in it ſelf lawful, & he muſt acknowledge it proper and natural, yet he ſaith, It is no ſin to omit it, and ſo conſequently no ſin for one to ſerve God with a lesſer intention and fervency, when we have a natural power to ſerve him with a greater intention and fervency. And why none? Becauſe he ſaith, It is neceſſary not voluntary. Is it not voluntary? That is ſtrange, he did not put the caſe of the Magiſtrates forcing him to be draged to another place at ſuch a diſtance, where his Spirits muſt be exhauſted before he could come. How was it neceſſary then? Not naturally, not by coaction; It remaineth therefore that it muſt be neceſſary by ſome divine determination. In what leafe of Scripture shall we find it? He offers no texts but what commands our obedience to Magiſtrates. But is there any Scripture requireth an obedience to man in all things? Or muſt thoſe texts be limited to ſuch things, where we may obey them without diſobeying God. Thus this Author hath finely anſwered, by begging the queſtion which is, Whether it be lawful to omit the uſe of a proper Mean given by God, for the performance of an Act in his worship according to his will? The Apoſtles ſurely determined better. Whether it be better to obey God or man judge you. To his inſtance therefore the Anſwer is eaſy, If when we may with equal advantage to our ſouls go to a nearer church, and to one farther, but yet not at ſuch a diſtance as before we come there we shall be ſpent, our Spirits exhauſted, and we fitter to ſleep then to ſerve God, we think we ought to obey. But if they will command us to go to a place at ſuch a diſtance, as we cannot reach in any time, or without ſuch a waſting & tyring of our Spirits, as when we come there we shall be unfit for the ſervice of God, we cannot obey. He trifleth to ſay, The thing is Inexpedient. It is unlawful, and he is a fallacious Sophiſter in Divinity who talkes of chuſing leſſer evils of ſin before greater. There can be no neceſſity of ſinning.
§. 21 In his p. 26. he ſeemeth to hint a time when a leſs intention is more acceptable to God then a greater. That time we would gladly know, for the Scripture ſaith nothing of it. He tells us, when the Over-plus ariſeth from the gift not from the Grace. This is a ſtrange nick of time, we always thought. The grace exerciſed in prayer, lay very much in Gods aſſiſtance of us, to keep our minds attent to our duty, and intent upon & fervent with God in our duty: ſo that to us it ſeems a ſtrange piece of ſenſe, That the overplus of Attention, Intention, and Fervency should proceed not from the Grace but from the gift: he goes on & tells us, p. 28.
Seeing the ſame things are prayed for in the Litany which can be the matter of the longeſt conceived prayer, though not in that variety, novelty, and elegancy of Phraſe; if the heat and the intention they ſpeak of proceeded from the ſtrength of their deſire to the things themſelves, it would be equal in both caſes: but ſeeing it is not equal, it muſt needs proceed from ſome other cauſe, and probably, from ſome of thoſe aſſigned.
§. 22 He ſaith true, It muſt either proceed from ſome different matter, or ſome other cauſe. But, 1 we doubt whether what he ſayes of the Litany be true, We think it far short of conteining the whole matter of ordinary Confeſſion, or Petitions, or thanksgivings, See what the Commiſſioners at the Savy (in their papers ſince printed) have ſaid to this. But ſuppoſe 2 The matter were ful, Can there be nothing elſe frigidam ſuffundere, to cool a Chriſtians Spirit. What if there be a mixture of ſomething elſe which a Chriſtian cannot in his judgment allow? In the Popish Miſſal is much excellent matter, but we should think him but a lukewarm Proteſtant that could be fervent in Spirit ſerving the Lord by it. It is a great cooling to a Chriſtians Spirit when his mind ſuggeſts doubts to him, Whether this be a way, mode, or method of worship which God will accept: becauſe never directed by him. Here we inſtead of ſtirring up, & exerciſing our own gifts, and miniſtring them; borrow the gifts of others, and ſerve God with what coſts us nothing but a little lip labour.
§. 23 To conclude for this Author we need no more then Mr. Ireneus againſt Mr. Freeman.
Every man is bound to pray with the higheſt intention of mind, and fervency of Spirit which he can by juſt means attain.
But he who (having an ability to expreſs his own wants & wants of others to God in prayer in words firſt formed in his own heart) doth in the exerciſe of prayer uſe the forms of other men, doth not pray with the greateſt intention of mind, & fervor of Spirit which can be obtained by juſt means; Ergo.
This is Mr. Ireneus argument, in his book called The Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, Let Mr. Freeman anſwer it, we profeſs we cannot. The Major is made up of Mr. Ireneus his own words in the aforeſaid book. p. 22.
The Minor is not onelyonly ſaid by Mr. Ireneus but proved too.
1 If a man hath an antipathy to forms, he ſaith, It is no wonder that he can have but little intention, and fervor in the uſe of them. So then he who hath ſuch an infirmity, cannot pray with the like intention or fervor by them. Now that ſuch an Antipathy is ſinful, he hath not proved. We ſuppoſe he doth not mean Natural Antipathy, That muſt be neceſſary and by his own conſequence not ſinful. If he means Moral, It is the ſame with prejudice. The goodneſs or badneſs of which depends upon the efficient cauſe; If any be therefore prejudiced againſt them, becauſe he cannot apprehend it a way of worship inſtituted by God, enjoned or practiſed by the Apoſtles or Apoſtolical church, Let him demonſtrate the ſinfulneſs of this Prejudice, we cannot.
2 Men may be more intent, he ſaith, becauſe of novelty of phraſe; Be it ſo, ſo that they be more intent & fervent. If the newneſs of phraſe will contribute towards it, for ought we know it is a bleſſed Mean: For ſurely it is lawful by Gods law, and if by doing what is not in it ſelf ſinful, we can advantage our ſelves in doing what is (by a divine precept neceſſary, he muſt by his next tell us, why we may not do it.
3 He ſaith, p. 26. Nature it ſelf is apt to be more intent, and fervent in the exerciſe of a Gift then of a grace; and therefore where there is a place for the exerciſe of both, there may (probably) be more intention and fervor. But ſay we the uſe of a gift is juſt no where forbidden by God; but we are commanded to miniſter it, to ſtir it up, not to neglect it, &c. It is natural, rational, proper, moſt immediate, Given by God on purpoſe for the Act to which it relates.
4 He ſaith, Men are naturally more affected with their own inventions then with the inventions of others. What need more, What Scripture, what reaſon makes the uſe of our own invention, and words unlawful: So that we think Mr. Ireneus hath fully proved that it is unlawful for him, who himſelf hath an ability fitly to expreſs his own, and others wants in words unto God in prayer, ordinarily to uſe the forms of others: becauſe he alloweth it our duty to ſerve God with the higheſt attention of thoughts, intention of mind, and fervor of Spirit which can be attained by lawful means: and he hath alſo given us four, or five reaſons, why we cannot pray with the like attention, and intention by the preſcribed forms of others as by words firſt formed in our own hearts. Thus hath Mr. Ireneus concluded againſt Mr. Freeman and left him nothing to do but to prove.
That if Superiors command men to ſerve God in prayer with leſs Attention, Intention & Fervency, it is lawful; and ſuch prayers may be more acceptable to God, then ſuch as are put up, with greater Attention, Intention, and Fervor: which we shall believe, when he hath proved, That if the Iſraelites Superiors had commanded them, though they had Males in their flocks; yet to offer females, they might have lawfully done it, and it would have been either as, or more acceptable. The caſe is the very ſame.
§. 24 For what the ſame Author talks more of the heat of the Body, and ſuch as is cauſed by obſtruction of breath, and drawling out of words. It ſpeaks nothing but the Eructation of a profane heart more diſpoſed to flout at Religion, and to take any ſilly occaſion true, or falſe to reproach the Profeſſors of it; then to anſwer a good and ſolid Argument. And ſo we have done with Mr. Freeman believing we have not left him ſo much as a figeale to cover the nakedneſs of his anſwer.
§. 25 Let us now conſider what is ſaid againſt this Argument by Mr. Falconer the Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, who p. 120, 121. thus ſpeaketh,
It is further objected that Forms of Prayer, are diſadvantages to piety, and devotion and the Noncon often plead Experience as a Teſtimony, They are the cauſe of much deadneſs in mens Spirit, and the hinderance of the lively exerciſe of Religion. Hear on the other hand others by experience aſſert the advantage of ſet forms to promote Devotion, when attended without prejudice, and with a Religious deſign of joining in Gods worship. To diſcern the truth in this difference; it may be uſeful to conſult the judgments of ſuch perſons, as are leaſt partial in this caſe, and yet are able to make a true eſtimate of damage, and advantage, and then eſpecially, to conſider the evidence of Reaſon which may be produced. To which we ſay,
§. 26 The ſenſus piorum, neither is, nor ever was judged by perſons of our Reverend Brothers ſobriety and worth an inconſiderable argument for the truth of a propoſition (eſpecially a practical propoſition) not plainly determined in holy writ, nor can be ſo judged as to the helps of true devotion: they being like beſt to underſtand the beſt and trueſt means, who are moſt exerciſed in the Acts and conſtant purſuit of the end.
Indeed it is very reaſonable in this caſe, That if the Propoſition be not of that nature as the truth of it is variable, with reference to ſeveral Chriſtians, that the Major part of pious ſouls, and able should be taken into judgment, And verily in this caſe were it poſſible that all religious ſouls having themſelves the gift of prayer could be aſſembled, we think we might truſt the queſtion in iſſue to their umpirage; as to thoſe (though pious) who have not attained to this gift, we cannot judge them competent judges of what they have no experience, but this being not to be hoped for.
§. 27 We ſay, we do not think but the experience of Chriſtians may be different in the caſe: and ſome may find the uſe of their own gifts more advantageous; others may poſſibly find forms more advantageous: it depends much on the degree of the gift, which every one hath not in the ſame meaſure. But this we judge, That every one is bound in the duty of prayer to uſe that lawful mean, which he by experience finds moſt conducive to himſelf, to keep his thoughts attentive, his mind intent, his heart and affections fervent: So as one may be under an obligation not to uſe forms, another under an obligation for the preſent to uſe them. The obligation here ariſing from the nature of the thing, as it may be the beſt mean to one, and not to another; ſo he is bound, or not bound. Let not therefore him that uſeth them, condemn him that uſeth them not: nor he that uſeth them not condemn him that uſeth them; And we do not think matters of this nature fit matter for a ſuperiors command. One miniſter by experience finds it beſt, (as Mr. Herbert ſaith.) In time of prayer to ſeal up both his eyes, shutting up the doors at which a wandring ſoul uſeth to go out. Another finds it more expedient to keep his eyes open, and fixed towards heaven: both theſe aiming at the ſame end, and uſing that Mean, which in their own experience they find beſt to keep their thoughts attent, their hearts heavenly: shall the ſuperiors make a law in this Caſe, That all miniſters should pray with their Eyes shut; or with their Eyes open; or lifted up to heaven? We do think ſuch a law would be unjuſt and he that obeyed it should ſin if he found the part commanded what he could not do, but his heart more would wander and be leſs intent, and leſs fervent. Liberty in this caſe ought to be allowed, and the private Chriſtian cannot want it; becauſe he hath no liberty to ſerve God with a cold, wandring and diſtracted heart.
§. 28 Our Author p. 121. goth on telling us, what the Leyden Profeſſors declare in their Synopſis. Diſp. p, 36. Qu. 33. And the Walachrian claſſis in Apollonius his conſiderations, Controver. Anglic. cap. 7. Qu. 2. We will give our Reader a full account of what is ſaid in the caſe by either of them. The Reverend Profeſſors at Leyden, Diſp. 36. Qu. 33. do indeed ſay,
That they judge forms of Prayer not onelyonly lawful, but alſo very profitable, if they be pronounced with due attention of mind. Authority without reaſon ſignifieth little, let us therefore attend to their reaſons, which they thus deliver us,
1 Becauſe every Chriſtian hath not the gift. This doth not at all touch the caſe as ſtated by us.
2 Becauſe in great meetings Attention is much helped by uſual forms, whence (ſay they) God preſcribed a form of bleſſing. Num. 6. 24. Chriſt uſed Davids form, Mat. 27. 46. And the diſciples had a form from Chriſt, Lu. 11. 2. But yet,
Sect. 34. They confeſs it it very profitable, yea, almoſt neceſſary; that all grown Chriſtians, eſpecially paſtors, should ſtir up their gift of praying publickly without previous forms, that as occaſion shall offer it ſelf, they may pray and give thanks as the holy men in Scripture did.
§. 29. The Walachrian claſſis begin with telling us, That they do eaſily agree to the Leyden Doctors, and Dr. Ames his determination in the place by them there quoted. Caſ. l. 4. cap. 17. & Qu. 4. Now in that place that eminent Caſuiſt thus ſpeaketh, Having put the queſtion in general about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of forms of Prayer. He thus anſwereth,
1 It is manifeſt that it is lawful to uſe them, Aliquando, ſometimes; from the practice of the ſaints, which the Scripture commendeth to us, and the forms of bleſſing there uſed.
2 It is profitable, & neceſſary, Quibusdam, for ſome to follow ſuch forms, though they onelyonly read them out of a book.
1 Becauſe ſome are, Adeorudes, So raw, & imperfect that they cannot fitly expreſs their minds in any meaſure.
2 There are others, who though they can do it well enough to ſerve themſelves in private, yet, if they muſt pray with others, they want ability to do it, or a liberty [we ſuppoſe he means a natural liberty of ſpeech] to exerciſe it.
3 There are ſome, for whom it is profitable, that they may rule their Meditations, and deſires.
3 But none ought to acquieſce in it, but to labour for an ability that he may pray without this help for which he giveth us four reaſons.
I Becauſe, while a preſcribed form doth not follow our affections, but plainly lead them, he who ſo Prayeth doth that which is of the Nature of prayer leſs perfectly. Obſerve that.
2 Becauſe in a preſcribed form, all thoſe particulars cannot be opened, which it may concern us to mention to God in prayer.
3 Becauſe God is wont in the time of Prayer, to ſtir up in our hearts ſpecial Affections, which are often hindred, and extinguished by keeping to a form.
4 Becauſe by this means, a lazineſs, & fear & ſluggishneſs in the performance of the duty creepeth upon us, ſo as the form is onelyonly cuſtomarily, & formally recited. Thus far that incomparable Caſuiſt Dr. Ames, with whom as with the Leyden Profeſſors, Apollonius and the reſt of the Walachrian Divines in the firſt place declare themſelves fully to conſent. The ſum of what they ſay is, That praying by forms is a leſs perfect way of praying, and therefore not to be reſted in, but all ought to labour for an ability to pray without this help: And ſurely when they have attained it, then they ought to uſe it. But they ſay, Forms of prayer are not things in themſelves unlawful, But may be uſed Aliquando, & ab aliquibus, ſometimes, and by ſome perſons, which they expound, when men are ſo raw that they have not the gift; or not in a meaſure fit for publick uſe; or have not a liberty or freedom of ſpeech. We freely grant all this, but it toucheth not our queſtion.
§. 30 But the Walachrians go on and reject. 1 All ſuch forms as are in their matter vicious, having any thing illegitemum, impertinens, indecorum. Ʋnlawful, impertinent, or indecent: And upon this account they in expreſs terms declare againſt the forms in our late Common prayerbook. Whether juſtly or no we determine not: but ſurely their authority ought not to have been brought by our Reverend Brother to countenance the uſe of thoſe forms.
2 They reject all thoſe forms which by a Tyranny, or violent commands are impoſed upon mens conſciences, as parts of worship and abſolutely neceſſary, &c. 3 Finally, They ſtate the Queſtion onelyonly about ſuch a Preſcription.
Quâ ad ordinem, & decorum cultus divini Eccleſiaſticâ authoritate commendantur, ut utiles & conducentes iis, vel facultate idoneâ, vel eam exercendi libertate deſtituuntur, &c. That is,
By which they are by Eccleſiaſtical authority commended as profitable, and conducive to them, who either want the Gift of Prayer or a liberty to uſe it, to expreſs themſelves decently; and that by them as by certain means they might be ruled, in their meditations, deſires, words, and actions; and the attention of the hearers, eſpecially in great meetings of churches may be helped, and directed; and an uniformity in the exerciſes of publick worship may in all churches be obſerved, for avoiding of ſcandals, and for the greater edification of churches. We (ſay they) do think ſuch forms, ſo uſed both publickly, & privatly, lawful, and profitable: ſo that they be read with due attention, reverence, faith, and Spiritual affection towards God, and zeal; and that not onelyonly in a caſe of neceſſity, when a miniſter wants ability to expreſs himſelf in prayer, or in other parts of Divine worship, decently; but when the Attention of the hearers is to be directed, and helped, and an Uniformity in the exerciſes of Gods worship is to be kept for an edification of the church of God: This they prove.
1 From the confeſſed lawfulneſs of ſinging by a form.
2 Becauſe they conceive, that in the uſe of ſuch forms all the eſſentials of Prayer may be found, and obſerved.
3 From our Saviours Preſcription of a form, in the Lords Prayer, and for the adminiſtring of the Sacraments.
Hence they ſay. They are approved almoſt in all Reformed churches.
§. 31 Our Queſtion is not, Whether forms of Prayer be lawful or no in themſelves? we have granted them lawful and expedient to be uſed where the perſons to miniſter have not the Gift of Prayer, or want a natural liberty to uſe it? The Queſtion is onelyonly, Whether it be lawful for them to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, and a natural freedom to uſe it? Whether they may ordinarily perform the Acts of prayer by the preſcribed forms of others? We think they may not. As a Medium to prove it, we have urged this. That it (at leaſt in many) hinders attention, intenſion, and fervency, The great requiſites of prayer. What now do theſe Reverend Brethren ſay to this, indeed they ſay, Wee can ſay by experience, That a prayer holy and lawful as to the matter, may be read in a form, and offered up to God with an humble ſenſe of our wants, with a deſire and zeal, with holy affections, faith and a religious motion of the will towards God, as our occaſions require. This we think too, but it toucheth not the Queſtion, which is not about the thing in any degree; but about the Magis & Minus. If our Brethren had ſaid▪ That a prayer may be read in a form with an equal attention of thoughts, an equal intention and fervor of Spirit as if uttered from the immediate conceptions of our hearts; they had then indeed offered their judgment, and experience directly contrary to our judgment, and experience: But let us hear their Arguments.
§. 32 They ſay, The Scripture (though in a form) may be read with underſtanding, humility, reverence, zeal, a religious motion of the will towards God, faith in him, an application of the word read to our publick neceſſities; and therefore why may not forms of prayer be ſo read? We anſwer, Becauſe their is a vaſt difference between the pure words of God▪ (for which God both hath, and ever will ſecure a reverence in all religious ſouls) and forms compoſed by fallible men without any ſuch direction from God. Let any Chriſtian experience whether it be poſſible for him to read any book of mans making a thouſand times, with that guſt, and holy reverence, and with ſo little tedium as he may ſo read the books and chapters of holy Scripture. Sic magnis componere parva ſolemus? 2 Beſides, The due workings of the ſoul upon God in reading his word, and in making known our requeſts unto him, are of a quite differing nature. To read the Scriptures fervently, and to pour out our ſouls before God in reading Scripture, or to wreſtle with God in reading, are very uncouth phraſes▪ ſuch as we find not in our Bibles; But, to pray fervently, to pour out ſouls in prayer, to wreſtle with God in prayer are ſcriptural, proper, uſual phraſes. Nor indeed is it poſſible in the caſe, to ſay any thing with ſenſe, as to prayers which are read: For to ſay, A ſoul may be as intent upon God, when it muſt neceſſarily at the ſame time be diverted to look into a book as it might if the eyes were shut, or fixed: is to ſay, what every perſons Reaſon will tell him is impoſſible.
§. 33 And to ſay, That the Affections may be equally intenſe, and that the prayer is as perfect when the Affections are made to follow the words; as when they do procede them, and are the cauſes of them; is what we believe the experience of all ſerious and conſiderate Chriſtians will contradict, and what as we hear before, Doctor Ames doth deny, with whom the Walachrians profeſs fully to agree.
§. 34 Again, all the Authorities produced put in an [If] if they be produced with due attention of mind (ſay the Reverend Profeſſors of Leyden.) So they be read with attention (ſay the Walachrians.) Due attention of the mind in this caſe, muſt be equal attentions to what may be given in conceived Prayers: for in the worship of God the higheſt attention is our unqueſtionable duty, and the mean proper to that, is moſt unqeſtionably to be uſed, and no creature can controle the uſe of it, and that leſs proper muſt be rejected: now in this ſenſe we think it impoſſible, that any prayers should be read with Due attention: that is, with Attention equal to what may be had in praying by immediately conceived Prayer. And therefore we cannot but obſerve, That both the Divines of Leyden, and thoſe alſo belonging to the Walachrian claſſis, ſpeak not a word to juſtify the lawfulneſs, or utility of reading Prayers; Ex libro pronuncientur, ſay the Walachrians: which indeed, if it be the miniſter may (for ought we yet diſcern) do his work with Equal Attention of thoughts. For the attention of the hearers, we yet a little doubt it, and think that the preſcribed forms of others, or conſtant uſe of the ſame form, though compoſed by the miniſter himſelf, will be found ſo far from being conducive to allure, or promove peoples attention, that (through the corruption to which we shall find all our own hearts ſubjected) they will rather be a Temptation to the contrary. Which makes us admire, that our Reverend Brethren should ſo much as mention it as a due medium in the caſe.
§. 35 It is manifeſt to us that both the Profeſſors at Leyden, and the Walachrians, and Dr. Ames alſo ſpeak rather to the queſtion about the lawfulneſs of the uſe of Forms in general: Then about the lawfulneſs of miniſters uſing them; And that all miniſters, and ordinarily as well ſuch as have the gift of prayer in an eminent degree, as ſuch as have not; Therefore the firſt Reaſon which the Profeſſors at Leyden give and Dr. Ames alſo is; Becauſe all Chriſtians have not the gift: and the Walachrians in their ſtating the queſtion, Profeſs onelyonly to ſpeak to the caſe, Where men want an ability, or a liberty to exerciſe it. Neither can we underſtand them concerning forms Ʋniverſally impoſed. The word uſed by the Walachrians is, Commendantur, nor is there a word in any of them to juſtify the lawful uſe of forms impoſed upon all miniſters. They have indeed ſome expreſſions which would make one think, They judged it lawful for ſome miniſters having the gift of prayer, in publick to uſe the preſcribed form of others commended to them ſometimes: For the ſecond Reaſon given by the Doctors of Leyden is, Becauſe in great meetings, attention is much helped by uſual forms; which the Walachrians alſo hint: But we cannot poſſibly fathom this, and think the contrary is demonſtrable.
§. 36 The Walachrians alſo urge ſome other reaſons curſorily. 1 That he who prayeth by them may be ruled in his meditations, deſires, words, and actions. 2 That uniformity in all churches may be obſerved, Scandals avoided, The church edified. Nothing in it ſelf ſinful can be done to avoid ſcandal, nor can poſſibly tend to edification: ſo as, Thoſe kind of arguments have no place, while we are diſputing the lawfulneſs of the thing. In short, but one of theſe will concern all miniſters: For doubtleſs ſome are able without book to pray, ſo as to give no ſcandal, but to edify the church; and need no book to regutate their meditations, deſires, words and actions: if there be not, we are ſure theres none fit to compoſe forms to help them: So that all the buſineſs is, That Ʋniformity may be obſerved. Ʋniformity either reſpecteth the ordinary matter of Prayer; or, The words and Syllables uſed in prayer. For the firſt, ſurely theres no need of forms for that, that indeed is neceſſary (abating particular caſes) and this is that Uniformity, which the Scotish and English Divines have ſo pleaded for, purſuant to an Ʋnity in Doctrine. But 'tis pretty to obſerve, How ſome late little Authors have laid hold upon this word Ʋniformity in the writings of Presbyterians and Congregational Divines, to make the world believe they were once patrons for that pitiful thing now called Ʋniformity, which lies in an oneneſs of ſyllables, words and phraſes; A thing which never came into the heart of their God to command, nor of thoſe his ſervants to commend or ſpeak a word for: and certainly, If it were at all neceſſary would be fully as neceſſary in preaching; but they muſt have ſomething to beſpatter poor Nonconformiſts, Dolus an virtus quis in hoſte requiret?
What other means of Edification there are (excepting the word, the Reading that, and the adminiſtration of the Sacraments) beſides the gifts of Gods miniſters, and people, we do not underſtand. But Authority apart from the Reaſons they give, ſignifieth little in this caſe; and therefore our Reverend Brother doth rightly ſay, That the ſureſt way of Trial is to conſider the Arguments uſed in the caſe, In which we freely join iſſue with him.
§. 37 His firſt argument is, Becauſe God himſelf preſcribed forms of prayer for the Jewish offerings, and for the Priests bleſſings; and our Saviour taught his diſciples a form. The Argument lies thus,
What God himſelf preſcribed to be ordinarily uſed in his worship, and what Chriſt preſcribed to be ordinarily uſed in worship, that can be no hindrance of piety and devotion:
But God himſelf, and Chriſt hath preſcribed the forms that are by miniſters now ordinarily to be uſed in prayer; Ergo.
The minor here is apparently falſe, If our Brother intended to argue thus, If thoſe forms which God appointed to be uſed, and which Chriſt appointed to be uſed, might be lawfully uſed: Then, Thoſe which men appoint may be uſed. We shall deny the Conſequence.
The short is this, That forms in themſelves are not unlawful from their own nature. This we freely grant, But we hope, Though God might be allowed a liberty to direct the images of oxen and Cherubims to be in his temple: and the people might lawfully worship before them (ſo be it they worshipped the true God) yet, Aaron might not of his own head, nor to humour the foolish Iſraelites, make a golden calf, though before it they worshipped Jehovah. If it be ſaid, God had forbidden images in the Second commandment. We ſay, and under that general all other mediums, or means and helps of worship, not of divine preſcription: yet, This argument is urged as a huge concluſive Argument; Both by the Leyden Profeſſors, and the Walachrians, and by Mr. Ball: whenas indeed it concludeth nothing (though it could be proved, that God and Chriſt did preſcribe forms to be ordinarily uſed in his worship) But that forms of prayer, are not things in themſelves unlawful; as murther, inceſt and things againſt nature: But ſuch things as God might legitimate, and make lawful by his ſpecial preſcript; which, it is more then we know if any one hath denied.
For our parts we do believe, That ſome forms are lawful, In particular, Any Scriptural forms duly uſed, nay, That forms made by men are lawful for Some perſons, i. e. For ſuch as have not attained to the gift of prayer: and at Some times, i. e. When men have not their uſual liberty of Spirit, or ſpeech: Nor will this argument (ſuppoſing the Minor true) prove, That forms may be uſed without prejudice to devotion, intention, and affections; God ſecures that to his own inſtitutions.
§. 38 But is the Minor unqueſtionable, viz. That God, and Chriſt preſcribed forms of bleſſing, and Prayer to be ſyllabically uſed by miniſters or people. We deny ſaith Mr. Cotton, in his Advertiſements upon the diſcourſe of ſet forms of prayer, That God in his word hath ſet down any preſcript form, in ſuch a ſenſe as in this Queſtion is intended. The Priests, Num. 6. 22, 23. are indeed directed to a form of bleſſing, But that they uſed that, and no other form doth not appear, It is evident the Apoſtles uſed diverſe other forms. For the Lords prayer, we do not think our Saviour ever intended it to be uſed Syllabically: If he had, we do not think Dr. Cauſabon would have been put ſo hard to it, to make it up out of all the Apoſtolical writings; picking a ſentence here, another there. Surely had they apprehended it left them for a form of words and ſyllables, we should have found ſome after record of the uſe of it. 2 Beſides ſuppoſe he had ſo intended it, all that can be concluded is, That Chriſt may appoint a Liturgy for his church which ſurely none denies. 3 Whether ſuppoſing Chriſt did at that time intend it for a form for his diſciples? Whether it were to laſt beyond his Reſurrection, and the deſcent of the Holy Ghoſt, is yet a farther Queſtion? It is well obſerved by the learned authour of Bonaſus Vapulans, That if he had, it is not likely that he would have left out his own name, and till that time himſelf ſaith, His diſciples had ſo asked nothing. Joh. 16. 44. But were afterwards ſo enjoined to ask, Joh. 14. 13, 14. Joh. 16. 23. We refer the Reader to what Mr. Cotton hath farther ſaid to prove, That God himſelf never did preſcribe to his miniſters forms of words to be uſed, and no other in their publick miniſtrations. Now by this it is very eaſy to conſider, How far from any thing of an argument this is in the caſe.
1 It will not prove it lawful to uſe any forms, but ſuch as God himſelf hath preſcribed, or ſuch as have been compoſed by men who were foreign, and penmen of holy writ: ſo as indeed the ſame argument would alſo prove a liberty for men to make us new Scriptures. All which will follow from the Argument is, That the uſe of forms, is not a thing of it ſelf like Blasphemy; or ſome ſin ſo intrinſſecally evil, as God himſelf could in no caſe will it. But we hope, Though God might command Abraham to ſacrifice his Son, and had he done it, he might have been juſtified by that ſpecial precept: yet, without that it had been unlawful.
2 It will not prove, That the ſame forms may or ought to be uſed ordinarily and conſtantly and that ſyllabically.
3 Much leſs will it prove, That the uſe of forms not particularly directed by God, or parts of holy writ, by reading them, doth not prejudice devotion, by hindring Attention, Intention & Fervor.
§. 39 Our Reverend Brothers Second argument is thus by him ſtated, p. 22 Becauſe it is generally acknowledged, that the ſinging of Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe, may be advantageouſly performed by a ſet form of words: and the holy Scriptures, are not the leſs edifying, nor the leſs applicable to our ſelves, becauſe they are conteined in ſet forms of words: and both in reading the Scriptures and in prayer our hearts ought to be moved towards God, though in ſomething a different manner. The Argument is this,
What, in ſinging of Pſalms and Reading and Applying the Scriptures, doth not prejudice Devotion; That in Prayer doth not prejudice devotion:
But ſet forms of words doth not (as we confeſs) prejudice Devotion in ſinging Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe; nor in the reading and applying the Scriptures; Ergo.
The whole argument may be granted, For it concludeth nothing againſt us, Proceeding ex ignoratione Elenchi, upon a miſtake of the Queſtion, which is not about the lawfulneſs, or unlawfulneſs of the uſe of ſet forms; But of forms of words ſet us by men confeſſedly not foreign not authorized, and directed by God to make ſuch forms for general uſe by any ſpecial command. The Minor therefore should have been laid thus. But ſet forms of words in ſinging Pſalms of Prayer and Praiſe, being no parts of holy writ, nor made by God, or penmen of holy writ, do not hinder devotion. And if it be ſo formed we shall deny it, for it is moſt certainly falſe.
§. 40 For reading the Scriptures, our Reverend Brother knoweth, We can both shew him Precepts in Scripture for it, and alſo Promiſes made to it; if he can shew us but one precept for reading forms of Prayer, or one promiſe made to it, he will then have ſaid ſomething. Theſe precepts, and promiſes are of that moment in the caſe, That they make Reading the Scriptures on Gods part, A ſacred inſtitution; on our part, A neceſſary duty: And by reaſon of the promiſe to be done in faith. Let our Reverend Brother, (if he can) ſay as much for forms of Prayer, made by men in theſe days.
§. 41 The ſame may be ſaid of the Pſalms of prayer and praiſe which we ſing, They are ſuch forms as God hath canonized; and to which in our ſinging we conceive our ſelves limited. Our Brother knows or may know, we are as much againſt ſinging by others ſet forms; as againſt Praying, ordinarily, by the ſet forms of others. Beſides it poſeth us to fancy how it is poſſible, that a whole Congregation should ſing the ſame thing together, otherwiſe then by a ſet form: The peoples voices, that we know, are no where required in Prayer. And for the meeter, (which ſome make an objection) if it be not conſonant to the Pſalms in proſe, we abhor it; if it be, The words are but the words of Scriptures limited by meaſures for the apparent order and decency of the action: ſinging being Gods inſtitution, it is not to be doubted, but it may by a careful ſoul be performed by ſuch Attention, Intention, and Holy workings of the ſoul upon God, as he hath directed, and will accept in the action.
§. 42 But neither is the Major of our Reverend Brothers argument unqueſtionable, for he knows and confeſſeth, That the workings of the ſoul upon God, and the motions of the ſoul towards God in Prayer, are different from its workings and motions in Reading and Singing. In Reading, and Singing their should be, 1 Some contemplation and intuition of God. 2 Attention to what we are about. 3 An exerciſe of faith, believing what we read, and ſing to be truth. But in prayer is required, A more immediate intuition and contemplation of God. 2 A ſtriving and wreſtling with God, for the obteining what we ask; therefore it is expreſſed, By calling upon God, crying to him, pouring out our ſouls before him, a wreſtling with him, a liſting up of our ſouls, it muſt be with ſtrong crys & groans, Heb. 5. 9. Rom. 8. 26. Now that this cannot be done in reading of forms, preſcribed by fallible men, or at leaſt not ſo well done, as when the ſoul hath nothing to do, but meerly to look up to heaven, and thruſt out its own words by which it expreſſeth its own conceptions, is to us next to a demonſtration. Beſides there is as we conceive another Act of faith to be excerciſed in Prayer then in Reading the word, &c. viz. A particular motion of the ſoul devolving itſelf upon God, and truſting in him for the granting of what we ask of him. But enough is ſaid to shew, That neither is the Major of our Reverend Brothers Argument unqueſtionable.
§. 43 His third Argument to induce us to believe, that ſuch forms do not hinder devotion, is in p. 123. laid thus,
Becauſe all the ages of the church from the Firſt centuries have uſed them as an advantage to Religion; and it is not at all probable that ſuch excellent, devout, and religious men as the Fourth and Fifth Centuries abounded with, should be ſo ſtupid, and dull ſpirited, as not any of them to diſcern between the helps and hindrances of devotion, in matters of moſt ordinary practice: wherefore though many mens minds may be moſt pleaſed, and delighted with a variey of expreſſion, yet, There is no prejudice to piety from a ſet form farther then this is cauſed by a prejudice againſt a ſet form, and by want of a Religious temper to join in it. The Argument is this,
What all ages of the Chriſtian church; eſpecially ſuch devout and judicious men as lived in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries judged no hindrance to devotion, is no hindrance:
But all ages of the Chriſtian church, more eſpecially thoſe devout and Religious men who lived in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries judged preſcribed forms of prayer to be read, no hindrance to devotien; Ergo.
The Major is onelyonly proved by, It is not probable (for certainly it was poſſible,) The Minor is taken for granted.
§. 44 In the firſt place we cannot but obſerve, The phraſes our Reverend Brother uſeth, they uſed them, as an advantage to Religion. So they might, and yet they might be a diſadvantage to the particular devotion of a great Number: We do believe that the English Liturgies, eſtablished in Ed. 6. & Qu. Eliz. time, was a great advantage to Religion in the nation in general, ſo great an ignorance having prevailed upon the nation in general in the times of Popery, as few were able to read, much leſs to compoſe prayers: But the tying of thoſe to the uſe of it whom God had furnished with abilities that they needed it not, was notwithſtanding this, A great disadvantage both to their particular devotion who had ſuch gifts (and ſo our Brethren at Francfort judged in Qu. Maries time) and the general devotion of the whole church as to future times: both hindring miniſters care to ſtudy the Scriptures, and to improve in ſpiritual miniſterial gifts, and making an engine of perpetual diſcord from that time to this; and which hath been made uſe of for to deprive the church of God of the gifts and abilities of hundreds of able, godly, and painful miniſters: while in the mean time, many have crept into the employment of it (being by Liturgies and Homilies now made ſo eaſy for them) of whom every one who hath any concern for Gods glory, or the churches repute, hath cauſe to blush and be ashamed.
§. 45 But Secondly, we would ſee it proved, That all the devout and judicious men, in the five firſt Centuries, That is for five hundred yeares after Chriſt, either judged, Preſcribed forms of prayer to be ordinarily uſed by all miniſters in their publick miniſtrations advantageous to devotion; or that they ſo uſed them. We often hear of this, But when we call for proof, we can meet with nothing but Gloria patri, &c. & Surſum corda. Where we deſire it may be obſerved, That a proof that in that time there were ſome forms extant, or uſed by ſome, in ſome particular churches, will not reach the caſe. We are not againſt a form to be compoſed, propoſed and left at liberty, that thoſe may uſe it who either have not, or durſt not truſt to their own gift. We farther know, That there then might be, and ſtill may be ſome particular reaſons in ſome particular churches, which was the cauſe of the Canon of the Milevitan Council, in regard of the errors of Pelagius, being in matters of Doctrine ordinarily falling into miniſters Confeſſions and Petitions: And if in ſuch a ſtreſs as that, There could be proved a temporary impoſition of the uſe of forms of ſound words in prayer, upon miniſters who are ſuſpected tainted in matters of doctrine, we should not oppoſe it.
§. 46 But whom doth our Brother call, The church in the fourth and fifth Centuries, or the three preceding; or how doth it appear to him, or can it appear to us, That they generally ſo judged of forms of prayer, or ſo generally uſed them as helps to devotion. Certainly our Brother doth not call the 22, or 32, or if there were 42 Bishops in the Council of Laodicea (more none ſpeaks of) the church in that age. Beſides, that if there were 42, it is poſſible that 20 of them might be of another mind, for we know that in councils, the Major part muſt carry it, let the exceſs be never ſo ſmall. Yet, That Council of Laodicea ſaith nothing of ſtated forms of prayer, cap. 18. onelyonly orders prayers to be poured out morning and evening: but that they should be read, or recited out of a book given, that Council ſaith not. Nor doth the Third Council of Carthage, Can. 23. quoted by our Reverend Brother, p. 106. ſpeak any thing at all, nay, it plainly hinteth us the quite contrary, viz. That miniſters were wont to compoſe their own prayers: onelyonly in regard it was a time of errour, they required the weaker ſort of miniſters not to uſe the prayers they had made for their uſe, without firſt shewing them to their more able Brethren. The whole canon as Caranza gives it, is this,
That none in their prayers should name the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father; and when they ſtood at the Altar, They should direct their Prayers to the Father: And whatſoever prayers any miniſter should write for himſelf, he should not uſe them till he had conferred them with his more able Brethren.
Doth not this Canon plainly imply, They had no publick ſet forms at that time: for if they had, there could be no ſuch miſtakes as it is made againſt. This was about the year 398. For the Milivitan councill Anno 402. It doth indeed decree in that overſpreading floud of Pelagianiſm, That the prayers agreed upon by the Council, should be uſed in that Province: it doth not ſay no other, onelyonly foreign. No others againſt the faith should be uſed. It doth not follow, That becauſe ſet preſcribed forms, were advantageous to devotion in that African Province ſo tainted in its miniſtry with Pelagianiſm; that therefore they are Univerſally ſo, our Reverend Brother is miſtaken therefore in ſaying, That we hold they were in uſe for 1300 years upon the account of theſe Canons: for we hold no ſuch thing, nor ſee any pretence for it from theſe Canons.
§. 47 And for the Centuries preceding, we do not think it worth the while for us to write over again what hath been ſaid, almoſt by all who have wrote Critically upon the writings of the Ancients, to shew the horrible impoſture of the Liturgies ſaid to be made by St. James, St. Mark, St. Andrew, St. Peter, St. Mathew, Clemens, Dioniſ. Areop. &c. We onelyonly shall ſay this, That they are ſo generally rejected by all ſober, and learned Authors both Papiſts and Proteſtants, that we ſtand amazed to hear our Reverend Brother, ſo much as naming them: Let thoſe that are at leiſure read, Morneium de Miſsâ, cap. 2. What a lamentable shift it is to tell us, That they have undergone diverſe alterations. Who altered them? In what things? How doth it appear? Thoſe who know any thing, know it was the intereſt of the Church of Rome to have a ſottish, ignorant inferiour clergy, and that theſe could not do their work without Liturgies, and therefore it was their concern, Firſt to have them made, Then to avouch their original as high as they could. It pleaſed God in their haſt in this buſineſs to let them ſlip into moſt notorious errors, aſcribing Liturgies to Chryſoſtom, Baſil, &c. Where were prayers for perſons not in being for ſome hundreds of years after, and Doctrines averred, That all know the Church never knew, for many years after. Now when the forgery is thus detected, for any Proteſtants to tell us, it is true, There are ſome manifeſt interpolations which are of a later date; but the Liturgies are ancient: is both gratis dictum, a thing can never be proved; and a fair offer at the deſtruction of our moſt convincing argument of the Popish abominable forgery.
§. 47 For what Mr. Falconer ſaith about Conſtantines compoſing godly prayers for his ſouldiers, It is a good argument that the church had then no publick Liturgies: for ſurely Conſtantine needed not then have made any, and it had been a great derogation from the honour of the church. In short our Reverend Brother might have remembred, That his Majeſties Commiſſioners at the Savoy replied to that part of his Majeſties Commiſſion, which required them to compare the English Liturgy with the Ancient Liturgies of the pure and primitive church.
That they could not find any authentick record of any Liturgy generally impoſed upon any national church for more then 300 years after Chriſt, (we believe they might have ſaid 600) and did upon the point challenge the oppoſite Commiſſioners to juſtify that which they make their Palmanum Argumentum, Let but the Indifferent Reader See and Judge of what was anſwered, though it may reaſonably be preſumed, conſidering the Learning, and intereſt of their opponents, that they omitted nothing which could with any truth or modeſty be ſpoken in the caſe. All they ſay is this,
That there were ancient Liturgies in the church is evident, St. Chryſoſtoms, St. Baſils, and others. And the Greeks tell us of St. James's, much older then they. And though we find not in all ages whole Liturgies, yet it is certain there were ſuch in the oldeſt times, by thoſe parts which are extant. Surſum Corda, Gloria Patri, Benedicite, Hymnus veré Cherubinus, Veré dignum eſt & juſtum, &c. Dominus Vobiſcum, & cum Spiritu tuo. With diverſe others, Though thoſe which are extant may be interpolated, yet ſuch things as are found in them, all conſiſtent to primitive and Catholick Doctrine, may well be preſumed to have been from the firſt, eſpecially ſince we find no original of thoſe Liturgies from general councils. For anſwer to this,
We shall refer our reader to the Anſwer of the Noncon. commiſſioners p. 76. Of the account of their proceedings, printed 1661.
§. 48 To bring this point to an iſſue, There was a book published 1662. called, Aſober and temperate diſcourſe concerning the Intereſt of words in Prayer, where chap. 3. 4. The Reader may at Large ſee what we judge of the Original of Liturgies, when our Reverend Brother, or any for him hath given a ſtrict reply to thoſe two chapters, then we shall think they have more to ſay for their Antiquity, then we have yet ſeen. In the mean time we do believe, That Gregory the great (uſually ſaid to be the worſt of all the Popes that went before him) under the Protection of Charles the great, was the father of all thoſe that dwell in theſe tents; and this eight hundred, or a thouſand years after Chriſt, An impoſed Liturgy unleſs in a particular Province, for a time, in a particular caſe (ſuch as was that of the ſpreading of Pelagianiſm) we cannot find. And for a Liturgy, to be propoſed onelyonly and left at liberty, we know moſt reformed churches have ſuch a one, and we have before declared our judgment for the reaſonableneſs of it; & he who thinks ſuch an Eminent man as Gregorius, Magnus, would do nothing which should diſadvantage true Devotion, hath not (we think) attentively either read his ſtory, or conſidered the Acts of the Governing-part of the church in his time.
§. 49 We are not ſo uncharitably diſpoſed, as not to think there were many eminently good and judicious men in the fourth and fifth Century, who were able to judge what was of true advantage or diſadvantage to devotion. But this is that which we ſay, That the ſame things are not at all times, nor yet to all perſons advantages; either to publick, or private Devotion. We have already granted forms of prayer advantages to the devotion of particular perſons, who, being to miniſter before others, have not attained the gift of prayer, i. e. an ability in that duty fitly to expreſs themſelves. 2 To the general devotion of a church, when her miniſters are very many of them tainted with errors in Doctrine; which was the cauſe of the Milivitan Canon. We do know that in the fourth Century there was An Arnobius, A Lactantius, An Athanaſius, Ambroſe, Chryſoſtom, Auguſtin, Hierom, and very many others; but we alſo know there was an Arius, and Pelagius: and that their herecies were of deſperate conſequence, and had over ſpread a great part of the church: yea, had tainted a very great part of the miniſtry of it, now it will not follow, That becauſe ſet forms were advantages to devotion in ſuch a time, and in ſuch parts of the church for a time; therefore they will be Univerſally ſo. Nor do we think that either in the fourth or fifth Century, There was generally ſuch knowledge as in the later ages of the church; nor is it proved, That in thoſe ages, ſet forms were generally impoſed. The Queſtion is. Whether ſet forms be advantages or hinderances of devotion to ſuch whom God hath bleſſed with the gift of prayer; and to ſuch churches who have ſuch miniſters, and are not ſo tainted with erroneous opinions in the fundamentals of Religion? And thus we think we have fully anſwered whatſoever Mr. Falconer hath offered in anſwer to this Argument. But becauſe our ſtrict deſign is not to anſwer Mr. Falconer, but to shew we have probable Arguments inducing us to believe, That what ever it be to others, It would be ſinful for us ordinarily to perform our miniſterial Acts in Prayer by reading or reciting the preſcribed forms of others. We will yet proceed to add ſome further Arguments inductive of ſuch a perſuaſion in us, ſtill profeſſing, That we do not judge our ſelves infallible; nor condemn any of our Brethren, who are of another mind in the caſe: onelyonly as we our ſelves apprehend and believe, ſo we ſpeak, ſo we act; and not out of any factious humour as we are rashy judged.