Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Treatise · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The Third Argument propounded. Both propoſitions in it proved. The ſecond commandment forbiddeth all means of worship, not directed in Scripture. Mr. Freemans anſwer conſidered. What the Noncon. grant. His inſtances anſwered. Bishop Jewels opinion and Bishop Davenants againſt blind obedience. The Difference between circumſtances, and Ceremonies, what circumſtances are in the power of man. Why Forms of Prayer may not be commanded, as well as Time and place. Acts, rites and means in worship muſt appear reaſonable in themſelves to him who conſcientiouſly obeyeth.
§. I WE thus ſtate our Third Argument.
To uſe a mean in an Act of worship, which God hath neither by the light of nature directed, nor in his word preſcribed (no natural neceſſity compelling us ſo to do) is ſinful:
But for us, or any of us to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, ordinarily in prayer to perform our miniſterial acts by the preſcribed forms of others read, or recited; were for us (no natural neceſſity compelling) in Acts of worship to uſe means neither of God directed by the light of nature; nor by him in his word preſcribed; Ergo.
The proof of the major propoſition depends upon theſe hypotheſes.
1 That divine worship is nothing elſe but an homage done unto God in conſideration of his excellency. In this we think all are agreed.
2 That it belongs to God alone to preſcribe both the Acts, and Means of this homage: which certainly is the moſt reaſonable thing in the world, That God should tell us what homage he will have at our hands, and how performed. God hath as much right to appoint the way of his worship, as to be worshipped, ſaith Dr. Ashton himſelf, in his Caſe of perſecution. p. 45.
3 God having determined our Acts of worship, hath likewiſe in his word, and by the light of Nature given us ſufficient direction as to the means: Which if it be true it certainly muſt be impious to neglect, or deſpiſe it, and to omit it, and uſe others directed by man would be an implicit owning the wisdom of man as paramount to, and excelling the wisdom of God.
4 God hath alſo (as we conceive) expreſly in his word forbidden the uſe of any other mean in his worship, then what either nature sheweth us, and directeth us as neceſſary (as we cannot ſpeak a prayer without the uſe of our tongue) or what he hath preſcribed in his word. The firſt of theſe needeth no proof.
§. 2 To prove the Second, we need ſay no more then this, That it is evident, That the uſe of a mean in worship which ought not to be uſed quite altereth the nature of the worship, and of true, maketh it falſe. To pray to God is an act of true worship, but if a man in prayer ſet an image before him as a mean of worship, it makes it idolatry. So as in worship none can pretend a right to preſcribe a mean, but he that hath alſo a right to preſcribe the act.
§. 3 For the proof of the third hypotheſis, we deſire but an inſtance of any Act of worship for which we cannot shew a ſufficient mean, either by the Light of nature or Scripture directed. As to what is the matter of our preſent debate, both the Light of nature sheweth our own invention a ſufficient mean, and Scripture commands us to miniſter as we have received the gift.
§. 4 But for the laſt which we think will be moſt ſtumbled at, we shall onelyonly mention the ſecond commandment. The ſenſe of which we ſay is this, Thou shalt worship in no other way, by no other mean or religious rites then what I have preſcribed. The term Graven image is undoubtedly a Generical term & figuratively put to ſignify, not onelyonly that, but any other mean that hath no more of divine inſtitution then that hath. And if this be not the ſenſe of it, it will be impoſſible to reduce all the precepts in Scripture relating to the manner of external worship to the ſecond precept in the Decalogue. To ſpare ſaying over again what hath already been ſaid in juſtification of this, we refer our Reader to a book of Mr. Cottons called Advertiſements upon a diſcourſe of ſet forms of Prayer, p. 17, 18, 19, 20, &c.
§. 5 The minor propoſition ſtandeth firm, until our Brethren have shewed us where God hath preſcribed any ſuch mean. But here again our old Adverſary Mr. Freeman cometh acroſs us and tells us, There is a general command for forms of prayer when they are impoſed, for we are enjoined in Scripture to obey our Rulers in ſuch things as Gods word doth not forbid, and ſuch things are forms. To which we anſwer,
1 That we can find no precept in Scripture in the terms mentioned by him.
2 The ſame argument will prove that it is the duty of Prieſts in popish countries in baptiſm to uſe ſalt, oyl, ſpittle and cream, Rulers require it, where hath Gods word expreſsly forbidden the uſe of them?
3 We do not know what he meaneth by not forbidden, There is an explicit, and an implicit forbidding. God by determining the Acts of his worship, and directing ſufficient means for the performance of them hath we ſay conſequentially forbidden any other means to be uſed.
§. 6 But he telleth us that Both in words and deeds we grant, That a particular command, or example is not neceſſary (we ſuppoſe he means to juſtify any acts, or the uſe of any mean in the ſtated worship of God; or elſe he ſaith nothing to the matter in queſtion) For we ſing Hopkins, and Sternholds Pſalms for which is no particular command. 2 We anoint not with oyl though St. James doth command it. Becauſe we meet with this ſo often we who take our ſelves to be ready to give account of our faith to every one that asketh us, shall once for all tell him what we believe, and hold in this great point.
§. 7 We believe the Holy Scripture to be a full, and perfect rule; as of Doctrine, ſo of worship, both as to the Acts and Means of it: with no other help then the light of nature directing the application of ſome common circumſtances, either neceſſary to all human actions, (as time and place are) and ſome common actions and ſigns ſignifying no more in ſacred then in civil actions; and this either from nature, or the general, guiſe, and cuſtom of the countries wherein the worship is performed. 2 Hence both we and all Proteſtants deny a power to any man to inſtitute New ordinances of worship for which there is in Gods word, no particular precept or example either of Chriſt or his Apoſtles: And certainly, worship being nothing elſe, But an homage done unto God in conſideration of his excellency, It is every whit as reaſonable, That God should direct both the Acts, and Means, and Rites of his worship; As that an Earthly Potentate should direct his ſubjects, or ſervants the manner of their addreſſes to him, or the habits they should appear before him in. Gods word eſpecially declaring againſt will worship. 3 Hence we judge, All Acts, religious Rites, and Means of worship prohibited by God, which either in expreſs terms, or by firſt conſequences from ſome Scriptural Propoſitions are not in the word of God preſcribed, or Commanded.
But natural Reaſon aſſuring us, That as all human actions muſt have ſome circumſtances: So Religious worship being a human action muſt have ſome appendant circumſtances; either ſuch as are neceſſary to all human actions of which number are time or place; or neceſſary for actions of that nature. So we judge it as reaſonable, That a bell or a Trumpet should call people to worship God; as ſcholers living in ſeveral colledges to a Convocation, or Towns men living ſcattered up and down the town to a townhouſe or Aſſembly. We take Pulpits, and Pewes, & Churches to be as reaſonable, as that in the Seſſions the Judge should have a Cushion and a Taller-ſeat: or the Major in a Guildhal, or that the Commoners or Aldermen, being to ſit two or three hours all that time should not be put to ſtand; but have ſeats & pewes. In this ſenſe it is true that Dr. Ashton in his caſe of perſecution hath told us 48 (after 40 before him) Theſe circumſtances muſt be, and are not determined in Scripture. We do yeild our ſuperiours a great power in determining theſe Circumſtances of Religious duties, as they are human actions, without which they are neither at all to be performed, or with no Conveniency Nay further, There are ſome Circumſtances neceſſary upon the account of Decency, the not obſerving of which would make the action appear either from the light of nature, or from the guiſe and cuſtom of the country irreverently, brutishly and indecently performed. If any will come naked, or half naked, or shoulder-naked into a religious aſſembly, or pray to God with his hat on; we believe ſuperiours may as well reſtrain them; as they may reſtrain one that should run up and down a market naked, or one that should refuſe to pull off his hat when he ſpeaketh to his Prince. And ſo for any thing of this nature, where is onelyonly a general application of the rules and cuſtoms of places for reverence, order, and decency in all human actions to religious actions: If two or three will confuſedly be babling together in a meeting for religion, we believe ſuperiours may reſtrain them, as well as he may reſtrain ſuch a confuſion in a Town-hall, or civil Aſſembly met for any civil ends.
For theſe circumſtances it is true again that Dr. Ashton ſaith, p. 50. They muſt not be left indetermined: But all this reacheth not Ceremonies, that is, Religious rites (be they habits, or geſtures, or actions appropriated to Religious actions) theſe are quite other things, and muſt have ſomething of the generical nature of worship in them: Becauſe of their appropriation to acts of that nature. We ſay onelyonly, That no creature hath power to command thoſe things in Gods worship. 1 Which are in Gods word either explicitly forbidden, or implicitly as having ſomething of worship in them. Or 2 Which the ſuperiour acknowledgeth not in themſelves neceſſary, and the inferiour thinks are forbidden. Thoſe of the firſt ſort being eminently againſt Piety; Thoſe of the latter ſort, as eminently againſt Charity. Having thus freely and plainly opened our minds, Let us now conſider our Authors inſtances, from which he would make the world believe, That we little value a Divine precept in acts, rites, or means of Divine worship.
§. 8 His firſt inſtance is, our Singing Scriptural Pſalms in the meeters of Sternhold and Hopkins, which (in deriſion) he calls Hopkins and Sternholds Pſalms. And there is he thinketh the ſame reaſon for ex tempore Hymns, as for ex tempore Petitions. We have already ſaid enough, and the learned and judicious Cotton hath ſaid more to anſwer this pitiful Cavil; but that we may be troubled with it no more. This objection muſt be either againſt the matter of what we ſing, or the form of the meeter. 1 The Matter is Scripture; directed by the Spirit of God, compoſed by the Penmen of holy writ; we abhor any Singing of other compoſitions in publick worship. 2 It is plain that ſinging and by ſuch forms hath been ever uſed as an ordinance of God, both in the Churches of Jews and Chriſtians. 3 It is manifeſt not one of many attains the gift of Hymn making. It is a known ſaying, Poeta naſcitur. 4 We do not know that God ever promiſed his Spirit to teach his people to compoſe Hymns, but he hath promiſed to teach us what to pray for. 5 Singing being the joint action of a congregation, cannot poſſibly be done but by a ſet form, without notorious and eminent confuſion. It is more then we know, That in the publick congregation the people are all to pray aloud together. 6 We cannot underſtand how the metrical forms uſed by us in Singing make the Pſalms we ſing more Hopkins and Sternholds, then our Bibles are the Tranſlators Bibles.
2 For the meeter, it makes no alteration in ſenſe, onelyonly limits the number of Syllables in a pauſe for order in Singing. We do ſee many things in the ordinary meeter of our English Pſalms which do no better fit the English idiom of our age, Then, with my body I thee worship, fits it to expreſs the honour which a man ows to his wife: But we ſee Davids ſenſe kept in that meeter (as the Hebrew ſenſe was much kept, eſpecially in material things, by the 70 interpreters) and therefore we do keep to it. And this we think enough to have ſaid to shew the Vanity of his firſt inſtance. We proceed to his ſecond.
§. 9 Again (ſaith Mr. Freeman) when they viſit the ſick, they anoint them not with oyl, yet they shall be ſo far from producing an inſtance for ſuch a viſiting from the Scripture, that they shall find the contrary in St. James. If they ſay there is not the ſame Reaſon for that anointing now which was then: I reply, Neither is there the ſame reaſon now for unpremeditated prayers, (forms of prayers compoſed by others he should have ſaid) as was then, for now forms are commanded by our Rulers, then (according to their opinion) they were not.
§. 10 In anſwer to which we firſt ask, will our conformable Brethren then, when they viſit the ſick anoint them with oyl? or have they any Rubrick for that? How dare they omit it? If it were a ſtanding inſtitution of the goſpel? They are yet a peg higher then we thought off, if they alſo will maintain a power for ſuperiors to abrogate any goſpel inſtitutions. Was it a temporary practice? What an impertinency is it then to urge it?
§. 11 We confeſs we do not anoint the ſick with oyl, not onelyonly becauſe we do not know what oyl to uſe, and much depends upon the kind, whether it wrought by a natural virtue, or by virtue of an inſtitution. But becauſe we learn from Mark. 6. 13. That anointing with oyl was annexed to the extraordinary, and miraculous gift of healing; which gift both reaſon and experience tells us is now ceaſed. So that notwithſtanding theſe two inſtances, Mr. Freeman may ſee, we are conſiſtent enough to our principles. And this we take to be ſomething a better anſwer and more particular, then what he ſuppoſeth we would ſay, viz. There is not the ſame reaſon now, That is true; but it is further true, That God in his providence making the miraculous gifts of healing to ceaſe hath taken away any pretended Reaſon for that practice. Whereas he ſaith; neither is there the ſame reaſon for unpremeditate forms now, becauſe Rulers command the contrary. We anſwer, That Mr. Freemans friends think they were then alſo commanded: But ſuppoſe they had been then commanded, doth this make a ſufficient Reaſon for a practice in Divine worship, that man commandeth it?
§. 12 But becauſe this is ſo oft repeated, as if all the world were drunk with Hobbiſm & Parkeriſm, believing,
That the Superior commanding, not the inferiour obeying muſt anſwer for the ſin if any be committed by any ſuch obedience.
Let us diſcourſe this point a little, In the firſt place this muſt be an exception to the general rule of Gods word which hath told us, The ſoul that ſinneth shall dy, and the child shall not be punished for the parent; or elſe it muſt be a new gloſs; or a thing forgotten by St John when he deſcribed ſin to us to be, A transgreſſion of the law. And Thirdly, They should do well to tell us which way the obliquity of one creatures action should paſs to another creature that he should bear his Brothers ſin. Again if the command of ſuperiors will juſtify the Inferiours from guilt in their acts of obedience to their commands, The Command of the Pope will do it for all under his jurisdiction, and would have done it for us here in England while he was here without controle allowed to be the Head of the church: But our forefathers the Martyrs were not of this impudent Religion. If they had, they might have ſaved their lives. But let us hear what hath been the opinion of more valuable, and ancient Proteſtants in this caſe, we will inſtance in two, both eminent Bishops of Salisbury: The one at the beginning of the Reformation; The other dying within a few years laſt paſt, Bp Jewel, and Bp Davenant.
§. 13 What Bishop Jewel thought, may be read in his Apology againſt Harding, chap. 2. Diviſ. 7.
The ſubject (ſaith he) is bound to obey his Prince, how be it, not in all things, but where Gods glory is not touched. Theſe Nobles [he ſpeakes of thoſe in Scotland] had learned of St. Peter It is better to obey God then man; And of the Prophet David, It is better to truſt in God, then in Princes, for they are mortal, and shall dy. Neither may a Godly Prince take it as any dishonour to his eſtate, to ſee God obeyed before him, for he is not God, but the miniſter of God. Leo ſaith, Chriſt determined, That we should give to God, the things that are Gods; and to Ceſar the things that are Ceſars. Verily this is not to rebel againſt Ceſar but to help him, &c.
§. 14 In the next place let us hear Bp Davenant in his excellent commentary on the Colloſſians, chap. 2. v. 23.
Ignatius Loyola (ſaith he) the father of the Jeſuites in that Epiſtle of his, which is read in the Jeſuites, Colledge every month warneth and commandeth them ſeriouſly by a blind obedience, abſolutely to do whatſoever their ſuperiors command, not conſidering whether it be good or profitable, yea or no: for that (ſaith he) takes away the value and merit of obedience.
It is alſo the common opinion of the Papiſts, That there ought to be in Chriſtians ſuch an humility of mind, that they muſt not in the leaſt doubt of thoſe things which are commanded by the Church of Rome; either to be believed, or done in Religion, or in the worship of God: but we ſayth he notwithſtanding this truly ſay, That this Blind obedience is not onelyonly foolish, but Impious, and Irreligious.
1 Becauſe we are not bound to obey ſuperiors but in caſes wherein they are our ſuperiors, now as to Doctrines of Faith and Divine worship, God alone is our ſuperior. If therefore men indeavour to forge new Doctrines of faith, or to bring in a New worship, they go beyond the bounds of that power, which is committed to them, and are not in this thing acknowledged to be our ſuperiors. 2 Becauſe the command of an inferiour power doth not oblige to obedience when it contradicteth the command of a ſuperiour power. Asts 4. 19. We muſt rather obey God then man. 3 Becauſe no intelligent perſon will expoſe himſelf to the danger of mortal Sinning, as the ſchool men ſpeak; but whoſoever voweth, and performeth abſolute ſubjection, and blind obedience to man, expoſeth himſelf to a manifeſt hazard; for every man may err, by commanding thoſe things that are evil.
According to the Doctrine of our new edition of Divines we would gladly underſtand, how any man can run a danger either of mortal ſin, or venial either, by doing any thing in obedience to the command of ſuperiors. 4 Becauſe what is proper to God cannot without great impiety be given to men: But an abſolute dominion over mens ſouls, & bodies is proper to God alone; To him the will of man oweth an abſolute obedience, to him his underſtanding oweth in all things a prompt aſſent. But thoſe who require this obedience of us uſe to object, That it is not the ſubjects part to judge of the faith & actions of their ſuperiors, they ſeem therefore to recede from their duty when they doubt, whether the things be true, and lawful which are published and confirmed by the Authority of thoſe who are ſet over them. This he anſwereth, Subjects neither may nor ought with a judgment of Authority to judge of their ſuperiors actions, but they may and ought to judge of them ſo far as concerneth themſelves with a judgment of Diſcretion. Aquinas excellently gives the reaſon of it, Every one (ſaith he) is bound to examin his own acts according to the knowledge which he hath from God: Whether it be natural, acquired or infuſed, for he is bound to act according to Reaſon, It is (ſaith he) confirmed by the Examples of all pious men, who although they did not arrogate to themſelves a judgment of Authority upon Magiſtrates, or Prelates, yet they uſed their judgment of Diſcretion concerning things commanded by them. Thus far that Reverend and very Learned man.
§. 15 This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and was wont to be the Doctrine of the Fathers in the Church of England, and we humbly offer it to the conſideration of our Rulers, whether there can be greater factors for Popery in England, then thoſe who ſo boldly aſſert the duty of Blind Jeſuitical Obedience, and declaim againſt the Judgment of private, and practical Diſcretion: The firſt is the very foundation of Popery; The latter, the foundation of the Proteſtant Religion.
§. 16 But to proceed with Mr. Freeman he telleth us, The Nonconformists have in word granted more then he asketh. Let us firſt know what he asketh, then ſee what they have granted, that which he asketh is our conceſſion, That it is lawful in the worship of God to do ſomethings not commanded by God. What have the Nonconformiſts granted, He inſtanceth in three things.
1 To command in the circumſtances of divine worship, what is generally commanded in the word of God.
2 To appoint time and place.
3 To appoint ſuch circumſtances, without which the worship of God, in the judgment of common Reaſon, Muſt be indecently and diſorderly performed; of which he makes the following improvement, p. 35. Of the Reaſonableneſs of Divine ſervice.
1 A form of prayer is but a circumſtance of Prayer, and I have proved, That if the Magiſtrate think them convenient they are in the general commanded. 2 If he can appoint the time and place, which he thinketh moſt convenient though otherwiſe it would be leſs, he would fain know a reaſon, why he may not appoint a form, which he thinketh moſt expedient, though otherwiſe it would be leſs expedient, To appoint to begin at ſuch a time is as really a limitation of the Spirit, as to appoint a form: For the ordinary reaſon which they ſpeak of, it muſt either be the Reaſon of the Magiſtrate, or of the People or both. If they mean the reaſon of the people, Then the ſenſe is, That the Magiſtrate hath power to appoint ſuch things, as the People judge reaſonable. We thank them for nothing: If both, we thank them for as much. If they mean that Reaſon which is beſt without reſtraining it to any ſubject, I reply, That Reaſon in the Idea doth nothing, but as it is ſomebodies Reaſon: Except the Magiſtrate hath power to command what he apprehendeth agreable to the beſt Reaſon: He muſt command what the Subjects apprehend ſo, or nothing at all; therefore it remains, That that Reaſon which muſt judge what is indecent, muſt be the Magiſtrates, and if he commandeth ſuch things as be indecent, ſo they be not otherwiſe unlawful; The people muſt ſubmit. To all which we anſwer.
§. 17 As to the matter of our preſent debate, There were no great loſs in granting all he ſaith; for the matters pleaded againſt are not onelyonly pleaded as indecent (though none hath power to command any indecent thing in Gods worship) but as unlawful. But we know he would then ſay, we muſt not then uſe this as a medium to prove them ſo, Becauſe they are not commanded. We will therefore reply more ſtrictly.
§. 18 He ſaith, we have granted a power to ſuperiors to command particular circumſtances of Divine worship, which circumſtances are generally commanded. For Example, Reverence and Order are commanded generally as Moral duties, and eſpecial regard is to be had to them in the worship of God. If any will come to the publick Congregation in the ridiculous habits of moris-dancers, or naked, The Magiſtrate may for ought we know command them into a gaol: But what is this to our Authors purpoſe? A form of prayer, he ſaith, is but a circumſtance, and that is generally commanded in the Divine precepts for obedience to Magiſtrates. We anſwer that we do indeed make a great difference between a circumſtance, and a Ceremony. The firſt we ſay is appendant to an action as an human action; The latter to a Religious action as a Religious action. But we do not know that in reference to Divine worship men may appoint whatſoever may come under the notion of a Circumſtance in the Latitude of the term, nor do we think our Brethren judge all circumſtances in worship determinable by creatures.
§. 19 There is a Rhetorical notion of a circumſtance, and ſo Circumſtances are uſually comprehended in that verſe,
Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.
If this Author thinks, That all Circumſtances of Divine worship in this large notion are determinable by man, he muſt affirm, That Magiſtrates may appoint whom they pleaſe to Baptize & adminiſter the Sacraments, That is the Quis. And that if the Magiſtrate thinks fit to command men to worship God before an image, that alſo becomes lawful, quibus auxiliis, is a circumſtance he knows. There is a Logical notion of a circumſtance, and ſo a circumſtance is, Quicquid rei praeter eſſentiam adjungitur, Whatſoever is added to the eſſence of a thing, and in this ſenſe no ceremony can be a circumſtance, for the Appropriation of it to the Religious action makes it a piece of Homage done to God; ſo as it partakes of the general nature of the whole action in which it is uſed. We never thought that men might inſtitute or appoint ſuch circumſtances, as wanted nothing but a Divine inſtitution to make them True Divine worship. Will any ſay, There was nothing of divine Homage in the High Prieſts garments which he might never put on but in his approaches to God? we by Circumſtances underſtand, Appendants to actions as meer humane actions, ſuch are Time & Place: and poſſibly ſo much of the quomodo, as is natural to reſtrain an indecency, and diſorder which the light of nature, or the particular cuſtom of the place sheweth to be ſuch. Theſe things we believe in their kind required in the General precepts of Gods word for order and decency, hence it appeareth.
§. 20 The fault was not in us but in his own Reſon, That (as he tells us) he cannot ſee why the Magiſtrate may not as well command forms of Prayer, as determine Time & Places. Are therefore forms of prayer in the general neceſſary to the act as human, or as Religious? Or could any one think, That Gods word should ſet down a certain rule for times and particular places of worship for all churches in the world? This is ſo miſerable trifling, as we are ashamed to make any reply to. But we muſt follow the Author yet further.
§. 21 He would know whoſe Reaſon muſt judge in the caſe? Whether the Reaſon of the Magiſtrate, or of the people? To which we freely anſwer, If the queſtion be about Lawful or Ʋnlawful, Every private Chriſtians Reaſon muſt judge as to his own practice, unleſs we will turn Papiſt and vow Blind obedience. If the thing be confeſſed both by the ſuperior and the inferiour. A thing in it ſelf indifferent we believe moſt Noncon. will allow the judgment to their ſuperiors. If the Author will but conſult Bp. Jewells Apology, pag. 435. He will find him laughing at the Papiſts for their obedience in carying baskets from Paleſtina to Damaſcus, Sitting 7 years together Silent, and watering for 12 months together a dead tree. Let the author determin whoſe Reaſon was to judge in thoſe caſes.
§. 22 To make the buſineſs short, In all Religious commands there muſt appear to the perſon that obeyeth ſome Reaſon from a divine command; either particularly, or generally requiring the thing, The meer will, and authority of an another in theſe things is not reaſon enough to juſtify our obedience. In matters of that nature we muſt be very wary of idle, and ſuperfluous actions, To be of no uſe, and inſignificant, is enough in worship to make a geſture or action ſinful, yea, and an appropriated habit too. There lyeth no neceſſity upon the ſuperior to command any ſuch things, nay, to do it will be a ſin unto him, as Gideons Ephod was a ſnare to his houſe, Judg. 8. 27. Precepts in ſuch things muſt be for farther uſe (and evidently ſo) then to try inferiours obedience. The lawfulneſs, or policy of precepts of no farther ſignificancy in things of a meer civil nature, may be diſputed, The Magiſtrate is the miniſter of God for good, Rom. 13. 4. But in theſe matters it is out of queſtion. In matters of civil nature the Magiſtrate hath unqueſtionably a far greater power then in them, yet even in thoſe things he that will not grant, that all commands muſt refer to ſome general, or particular good will be brought to ſtrange abſurdities. But he is a judge of good eſpecially in particular relating to political concerns, he is judge of the beſt means of order and policy, and every particular perſon is not to be a privy counſellor: which warranteth in ſuch things much of a blind obedience, Beſides there are various diſpoſitions of people, ſeveral complexions of Political bodies: for all which it is not imaginable that God in his word should have ſet down particular laws, for their preſervation and civil order. Nor hath God in his word laid out any general platforms of civil Government: But in Matters of worship, There is both a general, and ſufficient rule, all the Earth is tied to worship God, and to worship God by the ſame acts. Every particular perſon may and ought to know the myſteries of the Kingdom of God, ſo as there being a ſufficient rule for worship in Scripture both for the Acts, and Rites, and Means of it; ſuppoſing time and place by the church determined, or by the Magiſtrate; either people following no other rules then the light of nature, and of Scripture sheweth them: may ſo worship God, as neither he will be offended, nor any good man need be ſcandalized. It is every individual Chriſtians duty to enquire into the Myſteries of the Kingdom of heaven, and to be acquainted with the laws of Divine worship; and he cannot do that there in meer obedience to his ſuperior, which he can neither ſee the Light of Nature, Reaſon or Scripture requireth of him: or which his conſcience or Reaſon telleth him is idle, ſuperfluous or ludicrous; and ſo under ſuch circumſtances repugnant to the Divine will, without an high profanation of the holy name of God. If ſuch things be commanded, he muſt patiently ſuffer, if he doth them, he unqueſtionably ſinneth againſt the Lord, who in matters of his external worship hath particularly told him, That he is a Jealous God.
§. 23 But our Author goes on telling us, There are particular commands and examples of forms of prayer in Scripture. Davids Pſalms are prayers, ſo Hoſ. 14. 2. Joel. 2. 10. Acts 4. 24. Luke 11. 2. Though this be ſufficiently before anſwered, yet in short we again deſire our reader to conſider,
That if this Author by [commands] doth not mean, That there is ſome command, that the church of God, and all the miniſters in it, (at leaſt in ſome National church) should uſe ordinarily in their ſtated Solemn prayer certain forms made by others; he ſaith nothing to the purpoſe, we have ſaid again and again, That we do not think, Forms of Prayer unlawful. That we are not againſt forms to be uſed by ſome perſons, at ſome times, much leſs againſt them as made by any miniſter for his own uſe, and the propoſing of a form, which thoſe who will may uſe. David made ſome Pſalms which were forms of Prayer, but did he make an Act of Uniformity too? Again, a great Prophet and Penman of holy writ made forms of Prayer, Suppoſe he had enjoyned the conſtant uſe of them too in all places of publick worship, may therefore men that are no Prophets, no Penmen of Scripture, no pretenders to ſuch an inſpiration do the like? Farther ſuppoſe, That it could be proved, (which it never can) that there were forms of Prayer compoſed for, and uſed in the Jewish church; or that the Lords prayer was intended for a form of words, and commanded to be ordinarily uſed for a time, (yet we never met with any that ſaid, The Apoſtles might ordinarily uſe no other) how doth this prove, That it was the will of Chriſt concerning the church under the goſpel? That becauſe Chriſt who was the head of the church enjoined the uſe of ſuch a form: Therefore any Superior deriving from him may do the like, and add fourty times as much, and enjoyn it to all miniſters, after Chriſts aſcenſion on high, pouring out the gifts of his Spirit upon all flesh, who ſeeth not what pitiful inconcluſive arguments theſe are. But our Author pretendeth to give ſome reaſons for the Neceſſity of Impoſing forms of prayer. They are but the Ordinary topicks, which all make uſe of in the caſe, we will therefore reſerve them for a proper place and go on yet with our other arguments.