Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Treatise · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX.
Several Arguments anſwered brought to prove the lawfulneſs of ſet forms by ſeveral Authors. Ireneus Freemans and Mr. Falconers reaſons for the lawfulneſs or expediency of them conſidered, and anſwered.
§. 1 BEfore we come to reply to the Arguments alledged againſt our opinion in this caſe, we shall onelyonly deſire our Reader to conſider, That all that which our Brethren labour for, is but to prove the thing in diſpute betwixt us, may lawfully be commanded, They do not ſo much as pretend it neceſſary. This is all the Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica pretendeth to, or indeed any other who hath wrote ought worthy of our notice.
§. 2 But to make our work the shorter in anſwering objections, let us admonish our Reader wiſtly to conſider, That the matter in queſtion which was to be proved is this.
That it is lawful for miniſters of the goſpel, furnished with the gifts of prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in publick prayer by the preſcribed forms fothers, and thoſe ſuch, as cannot pretend to any immediate Divine Inſpiration.
§. 3 To this purpoſe they thus argue,
What God hath not forbidden is lawful:
But God hath not forbidden this to miniſters; Ergo.
This is an old ſouldier of the churches, and hath fought many a field, yea, never was there a Battel fought between a Con. and Noncon. but this commanding Argument appeared. It hath been wounded, and had its head cut off oftner then ever Hydra's was by Hercules; but how it comes to paſs we know it not, like that monſter, it puts up its head again in the next pulpit, or preſs. Let us once more try a fall with it.
What God hath not forbidden is lawful.
True, what God hath not forbidden either Generally or particularly, either foreign literally, or by direct conſequence of Scripture, is lawful: But if our Brethren by Forbidden mean, Particularly, and Expreſly forbidden, or Literally forbidden, and lay the Propoſition thus,
Whatſoever is not in the letter of Scripture, particularly and by name forbidden, that is lawful. Our Brethren will we truſt give us leave to deny the Propoſition; becauſe they agree with us in determining a hundred things to be ſinful, and ſome of them in a moſt heinous degree ſinful that are not particularly, and by name forbidden onelyonly as they fall as Specials under ſome other Generals, or by a firſt, and juſt conſequence: If they ſo underſtand the Major, we do think, That miniſters are in Gods word forbidden plainly enough forbidden, having abilities to expreſs their own and their peoples minds to God in publick prayers, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in prayer, by onelyonly reading, or reciting forms of prayer compoſed by others, being no Gods, nor by any plain deſignation of God appointed to compoſe ſuch forms for the uſe of the church. Forbidden. 1 By the ſecond commandment, as a mean of worship not inſtituted by God. 2 Forbidden by all thoſe texts mentioned in juſtification of our firſt argument commanding us, To ſtir up, not to neglect our miniſterial gifts, but as every man hath received the gift ſo to miniſter foreign it, &c. 3 Forbidden by all thoſe texts that command us to worship God in the beſt manner we can, with all our hearts, all our ſouls, all our ſtrength; not having a male in our flocks to offer a female. 4 Forbidden by all thoſe texts that require of us in prayer the higheſt attention of thoughts, intention of mind and fervor of affections. All which we have before juſtified under our five firſt arguments: ſo as in short, we deny the Minor in that firſt Argument, and if all do not think it forbidden in this manner, yet we do, and our conſciences muſt be the proximate rule of our actions: ſo as it is at leaſt to us forbidden from Rom. 14. 23.
§. 4 They object in the ſecond place the form of Bleſſing, Num. 6. The forms of Pſalms compoſed by David, The Lords prayer. The Argument is thus, If it were lawful for Chriſts diſciples to uſe the Lords prayer, and for the church to uſe the form of bleſſing directed by God himſelf, Num. 6. And for the church in Davids time, to uſe his forms of Pſalms: Then it is lawful now for miniſters having the gift of duplicate page duplicate page Prayer ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in Prayer, by the forms preſcribed not immediately by God, but by men, and thoſe no prophets, nor perſons divinely inſpired, &c.
But the former was lawful, therefore the latter is alſo lawful. We deny the conſequence, not onelyonly becauſe we do not think, That God ever intended the form of bleſſing ſhould ſyllabically be uſed ſo often as the Prieſt bleſſed the people; but onelyonly, That the name of the Lord to that ſenſe should be lifted up upon them Nor that Chriſt ever intended to enjoin his diſciples the ſyllabical-uſe of the Lords prayer. Nor do we read, That either the former bleſſing, nor the latter Prayer was ſo ordinarily uſed: But we find diverſe forms both of prayer, and bleſſing uſed. But alſo, Becauſe we think no man hath ſuch authority now to preſcribe in matters of worship as God, and Chriſt unqueſtionably had; or as David, and other holy Penmen of Scripture had. Which this argument muſt ſuppoſe, or the conſequence muſt be falſe. But we have ſpoke to this fully before.
§. 5 A third Argument is this,
What is matter of meer decency, order, and circumſtance in the worship of God, may be lawfully commanded by Superiours, and lawfully obeyed by Inferiours:
But this is matter of meer decency, order, and circumſtance▪ Ergo.
We deny the Minor, order is not concerned in it, that onelyonly reſpecteth prius & poſterius; firſt and laſt. Nothing can be decent but the contrary muſt be indecent, there is no medium participationis in the caſe. No ſober perſon will ſay, it is indecent for miniſters having the gift of prayer to pray without the preſcribed forms of others, Circumſtances relate to actions as humane actions, but the preſcribed forms of others in prayer, have no ſuch relation to prayer, it may be performed without them. They muſt be therefore (if at all circumſtances) appropriated to the action quatenus a religious action, and no ſuch circumſtances we conceive are left to mens liberty to determin, being properly Ceremonies, or religious rites, which in them have ſomething of homage to God.
§. 6 A Fourth Objection, or Argument is this,
If all the eſſentials to prayer may be found or obſerved in the preſcribed forms of others, Then the miniſter may in his publick miniſtry uſe them:
But all the eſſentials to prayer may be found, and obſerved in the uſe of the preſcribed forms of others.
To juſtify this, ſome tell us, That matter and form are the onelyonly eſſentials to prayer. Others tell us, Due affections and grace may be equally exerciſed in praying by a form. To which we anſwer, That Prayer may be conſidered either in Facto eſſe, as a compoſition of words and phraſes: ſo indeed, The eſſentials are the ſame as of all other compounded things, Matter and Form. The due matter of prayer is, Things agreable to the will of God: The form in the name of Jeſus Chriſt. We moſt freely grant, That both theſe may be found in a form compoſed and preſcribed by men. What follows? Therefore this form is a good form, and it may be uſed. It is granted, it may lawfully be read for inſtruction by the beſt; it may be uſed as an help for children, or men that have not yet attained the gift of prayer, All this is true. But we are conſidering Prayer not in this notion, but as an human Action; and ſay, That a religous action a piece of homage and worship which his miniſter in the Congregation puts up to him, To this action, It is eſſentially neceſſary, not onelyonly that he confeſſeth ſins, putteth up petitions, &c. according to the will of God, and that with a ſutable exerciſe of Grace, and Sanctified affections, but that. 1 He uſeth an audible voice, and this all will grant. 2 Say we, that if he hath them, he uſeth his own gifts; not other mens. He thus underſtands his Lord ſaying to him, Go and preach, why should he otherwiſe interpret him, ſaying to him, Go and pray? When he hath bidden him miniſter his gifts foreign, and according to the Grace given, ſo to miniſter. Rom. 12. Beſides we have declared both our judgments as that, and our reaſons why we ſo judge, That he who prayeth by reading or reciting the preſcribed forms of others, cannot pray with the ſame Attention, Intention and fervour, eſſentiall things to acceptable prayer.
§. 7 But then (ſaith a Reverend perſon) for a child, or ſcholar to uſe a form which is preſcribed by his Father, or Maſter would be unlawful. Let us turn it into a form.
What is not unlawful for a child, or ſcholar (we will add to advantage the argument, or ſave our ſelves labour of more words) or a private perſon, that hath not attained to the gift of prayer, or ſuch whom the church is enforced to uſe in publick miniſtrations for want of perſons better qualified to do in prayer, That is not unlawful for miniſters to do ordinarily, to whom God hath given the gift:
But to pray by the preſcribed forms of others ordinarily, in private or publick, is not unlawful for children, or grown perſons, or ſuch miniſters; Ergo.
The Aſſumption is granted, but the Propoſition is unqueſtionably falſe, ſincerity is accepted, not according to what a man hath not, but according to what he hath. We do believe many an honeſt hearted miniſter in the beginning of reformation, who never preached, nor yet was able to do it, was accepted of God in reading good Homilies: But we do not think, That any who were able to preach otherwiſe was alſo accepted. We truſt, He that hath ten talents muſt improve them all, though it had been enough for him that had but one, if he had not laid it up in a napkin, but improved that for his maſters glory, and advantage. This Argument therefore onelyonly proveth, That forms of prayer are not in themſelves unlawful to be uſed, not that they may not be ſo to ſome perſons whoſe circumſtances vary. Our queſtion is onelyonly about Miniſters to whom God hath given the gift, or who onelyonly want it through their own default or negligence.
§. 8 But Sixthly, A great Doctor (and that in a publick Sermon, as well as diverſe others in their printed diſcourſes) tell us, That there is a command for Preſcribed forms of prayer to be uſed in the church under the goſpel. 1 Tim. 2. 1, 2. 1 Cor. 10. 13. A text urged (weakly enough) by the author of the book called Pulpit conceptions, Popular deceptions, and Mr. Falconer, p. 109. tells us.
That many have thought that the Apoſtle had a ſpecial eye to the compoſure of ſuch forms of prayer, agreable to what the Baptiſt, and our Saviour preſcribed to their diſciples, in commanding Timothy the Governour of the church, That amongſt the things which concerned his behaviour in the church of God, Ch. 3. 15. Firſt of all prayers, interceſſions, ſupplications, and giving of thanks, should be made for all men, &c.
For this he quotes Dr. Hammond in loc. And addeth Though the phraſe foreign may either ſignify, That prayers be put up to God, or that they be compoſed, in this place it may well intend both, &c.
It is enough for us that our Reverend Brother juſtly alloweth, That foreign Prayers be made, doth not neceſſarily ſignify, That church Governours should make Liturgies for all Miniſters, from whence it followeth, That this text will afford no cogent argument for ſuch an inſtitution. Nor will any other text give relief in the cauſe, coming in as an auxiliary to this. It is indeed a plain command for Timothy in his publick miniſtry himſelf to pray, and to enjoin all inferiour miniſters to do the like, but we have produced other, and thoſe plainer texts enough directing miniſters how to perform their miniſterial acts, by miniſtring their gift according to the grace given, Stiring up, not neglecting their gift, &c. And becauſe our reverend Brother is a little critical with the verb foreign, we shall onelyonly tell him that he knows that foreign a Poet comes from it, and we know him ſo much a ſcholar, as he would judge him but a miſerable poet, That should onelyonly read, or recite copies of verſes compoſed by others. If indeed prayers, interceſſions, ſupplications, & giving of thanks could not be made for all men unleſs ſuperiors preſcribed, or miniſters uſed the preſcribed forms of others, there were ſomething in this text: But it is an obſervable vanity, that when men are poſſeſſed of ſome ſingular notion hard to be made out, they fancy every verſe almoſt in Scripture to be for their purpoſe. The Doctor ſaw the word Prayers here, and he fancieth it muſt be a Liturgy, or Prayer-book. Juſt like another who meeting in the epiſtle of Peter, with a phraſe of Offering up Spiritual Sacrifices to God, runs away with as much confidence of a new foreign for a Liturgy, though there be not a word for it near the text. Yea, and in his heat runs down the Puritans arguments in his way like durt: But with this diſcretion, That though it is like he ſaw ſome better forces of theirs ſtanding by, then any which he tried his skill upon, yet he thought fit rather to purſue the chaſe of the left wing of Pigmies, then to ſtand to hazard a battel with ſome other men of war that faced him all the while.
§. 9 The Author of the Pulpit conceptions hath (he thinks) found out ſome other expreſs Scripture. 1 Cor. 1. 10. That you all ſpeak the ſame thing. Rom. 15. 6. That you may with one mind, and one mouth glorify God. And he is hugely confident, That the firſt mentioned text, is not to be forced into a contrary interpretation. Ridiculous! Is there in that text a word concerning Prayer? Is that the Theme the Apoſtle is there treating of? Were the Diviſions (for a Remedy as to which he gives this advice) about Prayer? It not the Apoſtle both to the Corinthians, and Romans giving Catholick directions? And will not then this Argument prove that not onelyonly Liturgies: But the ſame Liturgies verbatim muſt be uſed in all churches to the end of the world? But let us turn this into an argument, That the Doctor may ſee we will deny him no juſt advantage, which his learning may have upon us, more then we are aware of.
Thoſe who are to ſpeak the ſame thing, and are with one mouth to glorify God, may lawfully, or muſt uſe ſet forms of Prayer: But Chriſtians are to ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth to glorify God; Ergo.
The Major is to be proved, and when he hath proved it, let him conſider whether the ſame argument will not prove, That in all families, and cloſets alſo the ſame form muſt not be uſed? And whether ſuch another learned Topick, will not prove, That all miniſters muſt uſe the ſame ſyllables, words and ſentences in preaching? Yea, and in all their more private religious diſcourſes, Certainly ſober perſons ever thought that by theſe expreſſions, the Apoſtle intended onelyonly an unity in the matter, and ſubſtance of Religion, not in words, and ſyllables expreſſing their conceptions about it, either to God or men. But to do the Dr. right he lays his Argument from theſe texts in a little different form, we will not conceil it from our Readers, Valeat, quantum valere poteſt. We are contending for truth not for maſtery. His form is this.
That ſervice of God which is conſonant to holy Scripture is lawful, The ſervice of God performed by a preſcribed Liturgy is conſonant to holy Scriptures. 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6 Ergo, It is lawful.
Lawful is a diminitive term, for if thoſe texts prove it, it is neceſſary: for it is doubleſs neceſſary for Chriſtians with one mouth to glorify God, and to ſpeak the ſame thing in the ſenſe of that text. But it may be the Doctor thought ſo, and intended to deliver hard arguments in ſofter words. The Dr. gueſſeth right, the Aſſumption is that we deny. He proveth it, by theſe two texts thus,
That Service of God whereby we declare, That we are perfectly joined together in the ſame mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby we all ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God: That ſervice is conſonant to the holy Scripture, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6.
But the ſervice of God by a preſcribed Liturgy is ſuch; Ergo.
The Major propoſition, having its matter neceſſary, and being as to its form indefinite, according to our Rule in Logick, muſt as to its form be reduced to an Ʋniverſal, and be rendered thus,
Every ſervice of God whereby we declare, That we are perfectly joined together in the ſame mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby we do all ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God. Is conſonant to Scripture:
But the ſervice of God by a preſcribed Liturgy is ſuch; Ergo.
Let us alſo have liberty to aſſume upon the foundation laid in the Major propoſition.
But all miniſters preaching in the ſame words, and ſyllables is a Service of God whereby they might declare, That they are joined in one mind, and in the ſame judgment, whereby they might ſpeak the ſame thing, and with one mouth glorify God; therefore. That alſo were neceſſary if commanded, or however is lawful.
Doth not every ordinary Reader ſee the vanity of this Argument? But more directly, Have we not heard of ſuch maximes as; Bonum ex cauſis integris, Malum ex quolibet defectu.
Is it enough to make a piece of Divine worship conſonant to the will of God in Scripture, That one or two texts of Scripture have a general term, or expreſſion or two (as well applicable to any other pieces of Divine ſervice, as that in diſpute) from which in the appearance of the letter of it, a concluſion may be drawn, ſeeming to conclude an act, mode, or mean of worship lawful, though juſtified by no particular precepts, or examples: yea, and appearing contrary to diverſe other texts of holy writ? To make an act of worship conſonant to Scripture. It muſt be ſuch as to the matter of it, and as to the manner ſo performed, that it shall not be diſſonant to any part of Scripture either in the Letter, or Reaſon of it. To conclude then, when this Author hath proved. 1 That the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 1. 10. Rom. 15. 6. is giving a rule ſtrictly about Acts of worship.
2 That in the ſenſe of thoſe texts Chriſtians cannot ſpeak the ſame thing, and glorify God with the ſame mouth, unleſs they ſpeak the ſame words and ſyllables.
3 That nothing we have ſaid proved this mode, or mean of worship diſſonant to any part of the reveiled mind, and will of God. He will then have ſet this lame argument upon its leggs again, and may expect a new aſſault; but till that time, we ſurceaſe from farther labour about it, and leave our Readers to judge what conſequence there is in it. We think it is the firſt time ever thoſe texts were otherwiſe then curſorily, and in looſe diſcourſe brought to ſerve in the ſervice of preſcribed Liturgies generally impoſed; and we hope we shall hear of it no more. We are ſure it will not come a volunteer into the ſervice. This is all we ever heard pretended from Scripture or the reſon of Scripture to juſtify the lawfulneſs of an univerſal impopoſing of forms upon miniſters, or an univerſal uſe of them (if impoſed) by miniſters. In the next place they argue from Reaſon.
§. 10 We remember (in the ſeventh place) that the Author of a Pamphlet wrote ſome years ſince, called Aaron Bimnucha, argueth thus,
That which a man may determin himſelf unto, To that he may be determined by his ſuperiour.
His reaſon is evident, becauſe, were it not in it ſelf lawful. he might not himſelf chooſe it, or determin himſelf to it: Now he should have aſſumed, But a miniſter in the Ordinary performance of his miniſterial Acts in publick Prayer, may determin himſelf to the preſcribed forms of men. Had he thus aſſumed, we should have denied the Aſſumption, but he onelyonly aſſuming, That a man may Lawfully determin himſelf to the uſe of forms, hath not concluded againſt our queſtion. We do grant, That a miniſter may ſometimes determin himſelf to forms compoſed by himſelf for his own uſe: but that is nothing at all to the matter in queſtion. But yet neither can we agree the Major, That a Chriſtian may by his ſuperiour be determined to whatſoever, he hath a liberty to determin himſelf. A man may in a great meaſure determin himſelf to a ſtate of marriage, or ſingle life, And in caſe of marriage as to the particular woman which he will make his wife, he may determin himſelf. A young man may determin himſelf, as to his trade and courſe of life, whether he will be, a Merchant, or a Lawyer, or a Scholar; may therefore he be lawfully determined by his ſuperior in all theſe things? And by the way, if our Oppoſites ſay no; they deſert their Principle. That what is in it ſelf lawful, becomes neceſſary if it be commanded. Will they have us reſtrain our diſcourſe to things in worship? Surely a miniſter may lawfully determin himſelf never to preach without notes; nor without writing out his Sermon at length, may he therefore (think we) be lawfully by Superiours determined unto ſuch things? May the Superiours by their command make it ſinful for a miniſter to preach without notes? Or till he hath written his Sermon Verbatim? An hundred things of this nature might be inſtanced in.
§. 11 It is worthy of the Readers obſervation, how the aformentioned author (and that in the purſuit of this argument) would perſuade us to be Papiſts, acting contrary to the ſingular judgment of our own conſciences, out of an abounding Voluntary Humility, and judging, and that as to matters of our particular practice, upon which our eternity depends, As the miſcarriage in them may lay the ſoul under the guilt of ſin, That the Judgment of ſuperiours is better then our own. Whence he would infer not onelyonly a lawfulneſs, but a neceſſity incumbent upon a reaſonable ſoul which is by its principles obliged to follow what is beſt, to obey men that are our ſuperiours contrary to our own opinion, and Judgment. If that author can but prevail in this, he hath but one thing more to do, (which too, every Romish-prieſt and Jeſuite will help him in) that is, To evince to men that the Bishop of Rome, in all Spiritual things, is all Chriſtians ſuperiour. And he hath done the Popes buſineſs as effectually as he could have done it, had he been hired to it by a Cardinals cap. But both St. Paul. Col. 2. 23. and Bp Davenant (as before cited on that text have told us, what kind of Humility this is.
§. 12 An eighth Argument uſed by ſome is this, The people that join with a miniſter in prayer, pray by a form. The miniſters prayer is but a form to them and limitation of them, &c. Therefore the miniſter may lawfully do it. We have fully anſwered this before but in short. 1 The Queſtion is about vocal-prayer, the people are onelyonly required to pray mentally, this is quite another ſpecies of Prayer. In mental-prayer, God onelyonly requireth the exerciſe of grace. In miniſterial-vocal-prayer, he alſo requireth the exerciſe of gifts: And that not ſuch gifts as remotely, but ſuch as ſpecifically relate to the Act. 2 It is one thing barely to worship in prayer, Another thing to miniſter to others in worshipping. Our queſtion is what is lawful for him that doth not onelyonly worship, but miniſtreth in worshipping?
§. 13 Ninthly, ſay ſome, If a miniſter in publick be ſuffered to pray by conceived-prayer, he may vent Blasphemy, Hereſy, Nonſenſe, and how shall the people ſay, Amen? This alſo we have fully before anſwered. But, 1 This argument holds equally if not with much more advantage againſt any other preaching then by reading, or reciting other mens Sermons. 2 If the miniſter doth vent error, blasphemy, &c. we hope every one hath his Amen, within his own teeth, which he may withold, if he hear Petitions come out his mouth not according to the will of God, nor, 3 Is it impoſſible, that men may do the like by miſcalling or miſplacing words in reading, or reciting forms.
§. 14 But Tenthly, Forms they tell us are neceſſary for Ʋniformity, but we muſt firſt enquire; whether Ʋniformity be neceſſary, or at all deſireable in the ſenſe we here take it? Where by it, we underſtand nothing but an uniformity in Sentences, Words, and Syllables uſed in prayer. Ʋnity is indeed a beauteous thing, whether it be in Affections or Judgment: So is Ʋniformity, if underſtood of a worship of God in the ſame ſolemn time, That is on the Sabbath-day, and by the ſame ſpecifical Acts of worship, or As to the matter of prayer: Thus far all ſober men are agreed. We all obſerve the Sabbath, we all on the Sabbath publickly Read the Word, Pray, Sing, Preach, &c. In our prayers we all Confeſs our ſins, put up our petitions to God for good things which we or others need and give God thanks for good things which we or others have received: here now is a great and beauteous Ʋniformity, we all ſpeak the ſame thing, do the ſame thing, and on the ſame day. But how shall it be ever proved, That that pitiful thing called Ʋniformity in Words, and Syllables, and Phraſes was ever deſired of God, or that it ever came into his, or his Sons heart? Or that it is acceptable to him? Or that it hath more beauty in it then would be in a Congregation where all men wear the ſame coloured clothes? Or had the very ſame lines in their faces, or the ſame fashioned periwiggs upon their heads. 2. The Beauty of no end can juſtify any ſinful mean, Gods glory is the nobleſt end, the Apoſtle hath told us, That it needeth not our ly to promove it. 3 If it be lawful for men to fancy ends, as fine things, which God never ſpake of: It is no wonder if they can find no means adequate to them, but ſuch as are juſtifiable by no Right Reaſon, or Divine Rule. The Princes of Babylon had an end to deſtroy Daniel, they ſaw that (except in the matter of his God) nothing was to be found againſt him: In their opinion therefore it was neceſſary to eſtablish an uniformity in prayers, yet not (that we read off) in words, but as to the object of the Act, All muſt be commanded to pray onelyonly to Darius (poſſibly there might be ſome form limited) but the end was naught, ſo was the mean. 4 But ſuppoſe Ʋniformity, ſyllabicaluniformity Neceſſary, Lawful, Beautiful, Deſirable, and certainly deſirable it is as to Doctrines of Religion and ſome particular terms, and phraſes, by which they may ſafely be expreſſed: We remember what a difference was made both in the church, and the Doctrine of it, by foreign & foreign How yet shall forms of prayer help us with it without forms of Sermons too, and a conſtant ſticking to the uſe of them, and no other.
§. 15 In the next place cometh Ireneus Freeman in, and telleth us in p. 38. of his Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice, That in caſe liberty be granted to ſome to do that for which they have a gift, it will provoke others who have it not to imitate them. He adds, If the denial of liberty to ſome who have the gift, be to Cut the man fit for the bed: the granting of ſuch a liberty as we deſire would be to Stretch a man fit for the bed. Now ſeing both will ly together, he ſaith, it is more equitable, That the tall man should pull up his leggs: then that the low man should be put to the rack. The queſtion in iſſue is, Whether it be lawful univerſally to impoſe upon miniſters, Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily uſed in their publick miniſtrations? Or for miniſters, whom God hath furnished with the gift of prayer, to perform their miniſterial acts ordinarily by the uſe of thoſe forms, though impoſed? Yes, ſaith Mr. Freeman, for it is neceſſary. Every thing ſay we which is neceſſary, eithir is ſo from nature, or a ſupervening command. The firſt is not pretended, But the Second. It is neceſſary, becauſe Magiſtrates or Superiours command us, and God hath commanded us to obey our Superiours. We ſay, God hath onelyonly commanded us to obey our Superiours in things where in we may obey them, and not ſin. Which ſay we in this caſe we cannot. You may ſaith Mr. Freeman, And why? Becauſe it is neceſsary, If this Medium be good, It muſt be made ſo by ſome precept of God particularly relating to this caſe, not by the general precepts of Gods word to obey our Superiours, For the thing muſt firſt be agreed lawful, before we can have in it any ſuperiour, but God onelyonly. Now whether, This uſe of forms be ſo or no, is the matter in queſtion? How then doth what he ſaith evince the neceſſity of them. 2 All that he ſaith amounts but to a contingent diſorder, which may happen upon a liberty given by ſome to uſe their gifts in prayer. But shall a contingent danger be pleaded in bar to a duty think we? Or shall the ſin of another be ſufficient to juſtify our ſuperiour in prohibiting us from the diſcharge of what is our duty? 3 For his Similitude, it is more then ordinarily unlucky, for whereas we ſay no ſimilitude runs on all four feet, This is ſo unhappy, As to halt on all four: for ſurely in the caſe as ſtated by him, It is not the Magiſtrate that ſtretcheth that confident little fellow he talks of, or puts him upon the rack. So as the Queſtion is, Whether the ſuperiours ought to gratify thoſe little perſons luſts? Or to give liberty to thoſe whom God hath fitted for their work, to uſe the means which he hath immediately furnished them with, in order to thoſe ſpecifical performances? But our author will not yet have done he go's on.
§. 16 In caſe liberty be given to an officer to do ſomething, for which he hath a gift, and the denial of it to another officer of the ſame ſociety, which hath no ſuch ability, but cannot be ſpared any more then the former, would make the weaker officer, contemptible, and uſeleſs: Eſpecially if he be the weaker, onelyonly in that caſe, but far ſtronger in others: in this caſe, as he thinkes, the firſt mentioned liberty ought to be denied to the officer firſt mentioned.
The Reaſon lies in this narrow compaſs, It is neceſſary to impoſe forms of prayer upon all miniſters, and they may lawfully be uſed by all miniſters: That thoſe miniſters, who are otherwiſe uſeful, and of whom an uſe muſt be made, may not be made contemptible to the people, tho they have not ſuch abilities, & gift of Prayer.
Every one ſees, That the truth of this depends upon diverſe Hypotheſes.
1 That a man may be a true and perfect miniſter of Chriſt, and yet not have the gift of Prayer. This we deny, Believing God ſends none into his work, not fitted for it.
2 That the church cannot be without ſuch miniſters, as are deſtitute of this Gift. This we alſo deny and think, she may better be without them, then furnished with them.
3 That ſome miniſters praying by forms will make them contemptible, we are apt to believe this hath ſomething of truth in it. But they who urge it, are concerned to reconcile it with what they ordinarily ſay, That the greater part of the people are for forms, onelyonly an inconſiderable number of ſingular fanaticks. If ſo, ſurely they will the more reverence ſuch as keep to them. When theſe are all proved, it may be ſeaſonable to inquire upon theſe two things.
1 Whether it be not the ſin of any man to thruſt himſelf into the work of the miniſtry, or of ſuperiors to admit him into it, who hath not the gift of prayer? He is not fitted for his work; therefore not called, or ſent of God to it. The gift of prayer is what we queſtion, whether God denieth to any, who will but duly ſtudy the Holy Scriptures, their own hearts, and their people as they ought, The three books which Luther thought ſufficient to accomplish a Divine? A miniſter that cannot pray, is to us as much nonſenſe as a workman that cannot work. Now shall the ſins of any rule Superiours conſcientious in their Government, to reſtrain others in what is either their duty or their liberty? What kind of Divine is he, who knoweth not what God is? or under what name to ſpeak unto him? What ſin is? and what is Commanded, and forbidden in the law of God? What thoſe things are or many of them at leaſt, which aggravate ſin, and make it more exceeding heinous? What men have need off both for their ſouls and bodies? And what according to the will of God they may ask? What good things he or others ought to give thanks for, &c? Or that is not more then ordinarily verſed in the Holy Scriptures? Which knowledge being attained, ſurely (if the man can but ſpeak) the gift of prayer is gained, if want of exerciſe, and neglect of practice hindreth not.
2 Whether men can have the gift of preaching that want the gift of prayer? We doubt it. The ſame knowledge being neceſſary to preaching, that is neceſſary unto prayer, and nothing more (as we ſaid before) being neceſſary unleſs frequent exerciſe.
3 Whether that Church which hath twice ten thouſand Chriſtians who want not the gift of Prayer, can but by her own fault want miniſters who have that gift? Conſidering, That as we judge, The Apoſtle, Heb. 5. 1. hath given us the perfect notion of a miniſter in the deſcription of the High-prieſt, he is but, a perſon taken from men, and ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he might offer Prayers and Praiſes, Preach and Adminiſter the holy Sacraments. If a church hath miniſters that she hath manu errante ordained, which can neither pray, nor preach: she may clave non errante caſt them out, and ordain thoſe that are not yet ordained, but fitter for the work.
§. 17 In short our Hypotheſis is, That it is lawful for ſuch, to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed forms of others: is not to be overthrown by an argument drawn from neceſſity; Becauſe there can be no neceſſity of ſinning. And whereas all neceſſity ariſeth either from nature, or the Original will of God; as the Firſt cannot be pretended, ſo ſuppoſing the thing unlawful, To ſay it is neceſſary in the Second ſenſe, is to blaſphem. Neither can there be any neceſſity in this caſe but what ſin makes, either the ſinful commands of men: or the ſinful lazineſs of the miniſter.
§. 18 We shall onelyonly ſay this, If it be neceſſary that ſome of the places for publick preaching, should be in the power of ſome who shall have ſo little of conſcience, as either for a little mony, or to make a match, or to gratify a friend, or to aſcertain themſelves obſequious ſervants, will preſent moſt unable, and unworthy perſons; And that the Bishop should be under the danger of A Quare non admiſit, If when the Clerk cometh, he doth not inſtitute him, if he be but able to turn nine or ten lines of the Thirty nine Articles into Latine, which a child of eight or nine year old may do? We ſay, If there be a neceſſity of theſe things there may be a neceſſity, that not onelyonly Forms of Prayer, but of Sermons too should be made to capacitate theſe men to do any thing like the ſacred acts of their office. But this is a woful, ſinful neceſſity, which nothing but the corruptions of ages, and manners have made, and cannot infer either the goodneſs of the end, or any juſt reaſon for impoſing forms upon all, nor can infer a farther neceſſity for forms of Prayer then for forms of Sermons. He that dreamed of an abſolute neceſſity when he burnt his shins by the fire, that the chimny should be pulled down, and ſet farther off, might with leſs labour and charge too have removed his leggs to a farther diſtance from the fire. And we think, That thoſe who dream of an abſolute neceſſity of forms of prayer for all; becauſe ſome miniſters or that go for miniſters, can do nothing in prayer without, might with leſs guilt, and reproach to our church cure that diſeaſe, & deſtroy that neceſſity, which is but a Chimera made by their own fancies.
§. 19 The Reverend Author of Libertas Eccleſiaſtica, p. 98. &c. hath given us Four or Five farther Reaſons, as he calls them, for forms of prayer, which in the laſt place we will conſider.
He ſaith, Hereby a fit, true, right, and well ordered way of worship in addreſſes to God may be beſt ſecured to the church in the publick ſervice of God: that neither God, nor his worship may be dishonoured.
There being many eaſily diſcernable ways of conſiderable miſcarriage in the pubiick offices of the church, even by thoſe who err not in the Doctrines of Religion.
To which we anſwer. 1 That alone is a fit, true, right and well ordred worship which God hath inſtituted. Worship is his Homage, and there's all the reaſon in the world he should preſcribe to his own Homage.
2 That God in the Church should be truly, fitly, rightly, and in due order worshipped is reaſonable, but that it should aforehand be ſecured, That he should be ſo worshipped by miniſters, who are but men and may err, is not poſſible. Nor will forms ſecure it, which miniſters may if they will be careleſs (and many have done it) read falſely and diſorderly enough. There is therefore no ſecurity to be had in the caſe, caution may be uſed. The Rulers may ſay to Archippus, Take heed to thy miniſtry.
3 We do think, That for twenty years together. The worship of God was truly, fitly, rightly, and in a well ordered manner performed in hundreds of congregations in England where no forms of prayer were uſed & in the eye of all ſober, reaſonable men, better, then where they were uſed; we therefore ſee nothing here but a flourish of words.
§. 20 His Second reaſon is, That needful, comprehenſive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of our ſelves, and others, with fit thanksgivings, may not in the publick ſupplications of the church be omitted, which (conſidering men as they are) can no other way be ſo well, or at all aſſured.
To which we anſwer, Pudet haec opprobria nobis & dici potuiſſe, &c. Let it be ſpoken to the shame of the church of God in England, and it shall be for a lamentation in it, if in a church whoſe territories are ſo large, there cannot be found perſons enough ſufficient, without others preſcriptions to them, to put up full, and comprehenſive petitions, not onelyonly for common and ordinary, but for emergent and extraordinary Spiritual and Outward wants of any perſons with fit thanksgivings. But Secondly, If there be not men enough to do this, yet certainly there are ſome and very many miniſters of all perſuaſions that can do it, what need therefore is there farther, Then that ſuch Forms be compoſed, extant and left at liberty. Muſt thoſe be reſtrained that are able to perform their duty, becauſe there are others, that either cannot or will not ſet themſelves to the due performance of it. Beſides, That this Argument holds ſtronger for forms of Sermons too to be impoſed: For thoſe who know how in preaching to reveil to people the whole counſel of God, moſt certainly know how to put up full, and comprehenſive petitions for all common and ordinary Spiritual & Outward wants of themſelves and others.
§. 21 Mr. Falconers Third Reaſon is, That the Affections, and hearts of pious, and Religious men, may be more devout, and better united in their preſenting their Services to God; where they may conſider beforehand, what particular prayers, and thanksgivings they are to offer up, and come the more ready, and prepared to join in them. This is an advantage of which many are deprived by a bad temper of mind, ſucked in by prejudice, or ſwallowed down by careleſneſs.
To which we anſwer, that in this pretended reaſon, we can ſee nothing but words. Are not we to ask of God for our ſelves, or others all good things under ſuch limitations as his word directeth, ſubmitting our petitions for temporary things to the will, and wiſdom of God? Needs there any more when we come to prayer, then a general compoſure of our Spirits to ſeek God for all good things we or others ſtand in need of? If not, what needs ſuch a particular foreknowledge of the words and phraſes to be uſed in asking. If the miniſter transgreſſeth his Rule and asks what is not according to the will of God, (and that he may do by reading forms falſely) may not people withold their, Amen? The Affections and hearts of all good people (though the publick prayers be not by preſcribed forms) are united. 1 As to the duty, They all ſay to God, Thy face will wee ſeek. 2. As to the matter of the duty, To Confeſs all ſin Original, Actual, To beg of God whatſoever they or other ſtand in need of, which God hath promiſed to give. For the particular phraſes, There is no ſuch need of a foreknowledge, nor will it at all (as we we have proved before) promove, but rather hinder devotion and affection.
§. 22 His Fourth Reaſon is. That ſuch difficult parts of church-offices as Baptiſm, and the Supper of the Lord, the matter of which requireth great conſideration, That they may be aright and clearly expreſſed, (as both Conformists, and many Nonconformists acknowledge) & is evident by the many diſputes about them, by men neither of mean parts, nor dangerous deſigns; may by a conſiderate care, in the compoſing of a form be ſo framed, That men of greateſt underſtandings may with readieſt aſſent entertain them, and that they may be ſufficiently vindicated againſt the the boldeſt oppoſers.
We do confeſs that we have met with ſome of our Brethren who lay ſome ſtreſs on this, But we are no more taken with meer words from Noncon. then from other men. And we cannot underſtand, What there is in the Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, that makes Forms of Prayer, &c. neceſſary. For the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, where (if any where) it ſeemes moſt neceſſary. What is there in that Adminiſtration, more then?
1 The Sanctification or Conſecration of the elements.
2 The Diſtribution of them, and words uſed in the diſtribution.
3 The Application of the General acts of the miniſterial office, Prayer and Exhortation to that particular action.
For the firſt the Apoſtle hath taught us that Sanctification, or Conſecration is by the word & Prayer. The word is nothing but the words of Inſtitution, which are in Scripture. The Reading of which declares Chriſts ſeparation of thoſe elements for that uſe: and our ſeparation of them in his name, for and during that time, for that ordinance. For other words and forms of conſecration, we know no need of them, no warrant for them, and believe them of ill original and conſequence. Now any one that can read a form, can read the Scripture.
For the diſtribution of them, It is no further work then every hand can do, what words to uſe, Our Saviour hath ſet down, from which we know no need to vary. In uſing of them can be no errour, in deviating from them indeed there may.
For the Application of Exhortation & Prayer to that act, ſurely he that can Pray and Preach can do that.
The like is to be ſaid of the other Sacrament, ſo that a Righteous law that all should keep to the Scriptural-inſtitution is enough, we think in that caſe: And wonder at their fancies, That think of ſuch a ſpecial need of a form in thoſe caſes, believing no pretence of neceſſity, but what depends upon a fancy of a reaſonableneſs to add to the Divine inſtitution in the caſe of which we cannot be convinced. For God-fathers and God-mothers and Forms of queſtions to be propounded to them, we underſtand neither neceſſity, nor uſe of them: much leſs any particular Forms of words (beſides thoſe the Scripture gives us) for Conſecration, or to be uſed in the Diſtribution of the elements in the Supper. The points in diſpute can this way come into no diſpute that we know, nor any error infuſed into poeple. It is mens varying from the Inſtitution in this caſe, which alone hath given advantage to the Envious one to ſow tares. If any miniſter having the elements of bread and wine before him shall read, I The words of Inſtitution as delivered (by the Evangeliſts, or the Apoſtle Paul) Then ſolemnly praying to God, Firſt, That as he had inſtituted that ordinance, for the remembrance of Chriſt, The shewing forth of his death, The communion of his body and bloud, &c. So he would at that time bleſs it to thoſe ends, &c. Pardoning his peoples want of preparation and accepting them in their deſires to honour him in his own inſtitutions, &c. Or to that purpoſe. Then giving the bread, repeating onelyonly our Saviours words, with but a ſmall and that neceſſary change. Take, eat, This is the body of Chriſt [in ſtead of my body] which was broken for you. And after the cup, repeating onelyonly Chriſts words, This cup is the new Teſtament in the bloud of Chriſt, &c. We would fain know if this man (concluding all with a prayer, & hymn of thanksgiving) had not duly adminiſtred the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If he had, what need is there of forms of words in this caſe, other then what the holy Scriptures have given us: For as to the Prayer before and after, as we conceive him a pitiful miniſter and very unfit to be truſted with that office, (which often calleth him to pray upon particular emergent occaſions, for which a form cannot be made ready) if he cannot without it apply his petitions, to the particular buſineſs in hand, viz. The adminiſtration of the Sacrament: So if he diſtruſteth himſelf, he may compoſe himſelf a form of prayer fitted for that purpoſe. For the adminiſtration of that ordinance is ſeldom or never ſo ſudden, as to ſurprice a miniſter. So for the other Sacrament, Will any one dare to ſay, That a lawful miniſter, (having water before him) who shall firſt beg of God, To own and bleſs his own inſtitution, To wash away the ſin of the perſon to be baptized with his own bloud, And to grant that it may be born again of water and the Spirit, &c. Or to the like purpoſe. And then having had a previous knowledge, That the parent is a believer i. e. one who either hath a true faith, or maketh profeſſion of ſuch true faith: shall take water, and pour, or ſprinkle it upon the childs face, or dip the perſon in it, ſaying, J. Baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt, is not truly Baptized? A prayer and thanksgiving uſually concludes the Action. But what need here of a form more then the Scripture hath furnished us with, or directed us to? May one miniſter ſay, J. Baptize thee, &c. Another, Let this perſon be Baptized, &c. A third, Be thou Baptized, &c? For our parts we think the difference not ſo much, as to require a preſcribed form to reconcile: and should not doubt, but the perſon were truly Baptized, under any of thoſe variations of words. Water being poured, or ſprinkled on it, and the action declared to be in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoſt. We conclude as we ſaid before, That we can ſee nothing in either Sacrament but the inventions of men, ſuperadding to the inſtitutions of the goſpel diverſe rites, and actions of which Chriſt never ſpake, which makes any pretence for a need of Forms in the adminiſtration of them. There being nothing to be done in them that requireth any ſpecial ability comparable to that which Preaching & Praying according to the various ſtates of the church, and the particular caſes of ſouls in it doth require.
§. 23 Mr. Falconers Fift Reaſon is thus by himſelf expreſſed,
To be an evidence to other churches, and future times after what way and manner we worship God, and that both the matter and expreſſion of our ſervice to him is ſound and pious, in our general and common worship. And this may be a full Teſtimony, That ſuch a church receiving the true faith and expreſſing a right way of worship, is both a true, and in its meaſure a pure and incorrupt church.
We anſwer, 1 Where hath God required the leaving any ſuch Teſtimony? 2 If he had, forms of prayer had not been ſufficient without forms of Sermons too. 3 While we declare our ſelves Chriſtians, and that we worship God according to his word, we leave a ſufficient Teſtimony, that we are a true church of God. 4 A confeſſion of faith publickly owned, & ſubſcribed unto by all miniſters (which we never oppoſed) doth far better effect this, which may be done, without making a new act or mode of worship.
§. 24 Mr. Falconer at laſt comes to this argument from example, which yet he doth not lay ſo much ſtreſs upon as to aver, They evince a neceſſity of Forms, but he thinks the countenance, the lawfulneſs, and expediency of them. For what he ſaith about the Lords prayer, it is anſwered by us before. In short, It reacheth not the caſe. There can be no concluſion from Chriſts power to the power of ordinary Governors now in the church: Or from the lawfulneſs of Chriſts diſciples uſing a Form of prayer, dictated by Chriſt himſelf, in that time before his aſcenſion, and the effuſion of the Holy Ghoſt, to the lawfulneſs of miniſters in after ages uſing, a bundle of forms, neither compoſed by Chriſt, nor by his Apoſtles. Beſides the probabilities we have before offered, that even then when it was firſt given it was not intended for a form of words (nor do we ever read of it after ſo uſed) but as a more general direction for the ordinary matter of our prayers.
§. 25 As to what Mr. Falconer ſaith further of Scripturalforms, it hath had its anſwer from us before Chap. 3. §. 37, &c. What he farther ſaith of the uſe of them in the Chriſtian church, we have anſwered in that Chap. 3. §. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49. In short, We think we may ſay of this as we ſay of the Papiſts plea for themſelves, From Peters being at Rome. If they could prove, That forms of prayer were univerſally impoſed upon the whole church, and uſed by all miniſters in it within 400 years after Chriſt, and ſo in the ages downward, it would not prove either the lawfulneſs of ſuch general Impoſition or uſe; but they shall never be able to prove it while they live. Let us therefore leave inquiring, What thoſe who lived before us did, or thought might lawfully be done, and enquire what Chriſt and his Apoſtles did; or determined lawful to be done. While we are diſputing, about what is lawful and unlawful, Authority, or practice is a lamentable argument, and will never be inſiſted on by wiſe and underſtanding men, but for want of ſuch as are better and more cogent. It will be a very hard thing to juſtify all thoſe things to be lawful, which were eſtablished by councils of as great antiquity as any they can pretend to for the eſtablishment of forms of prayer to be univerſally uſed. And thus much may ſerve for an anſwer to all we have heard or met with pleaded for the lawfulneſs of a general impoſition, or uſe of forms of Prayer in the church. We shall onelyonly ſay, That our Brethren dealing with thoſe who in their conſciences judge them unlawful. We think were concerned to have proved them neceſſary. For certainly if Superiours will think themſelves in the leaſt obliged by the Roial law of love, they ought not with their meat (which they may eat, or let alone) command to be eaten or not eaten to deſtroy the ſouls of their inferiours for whom Chriſt died: Either by tempting them to do what in their conſciences they think is ſinful: or without neceſſity laying their ſouls under a guilt for diſobeying them, if that be true, That whoſoever obeyeth not the command of his Superiour in a lawful thing, ſinneth againſt God.