Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Treatise · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
The Fourth Argument ſtated, Becauſe actively to obey in this caſe is to grant a principle improveable to ſuppreſs the total exerciſe of the gift of prayer, in Publick meetings, Families, Cloſets, all places to which the ſuperiors dominion extends. To ſay, This is not yet commanded, is in part falſe as to prayers before and after ſermons: if true, no anſwer. The Vanity of thoſe that ſay though the ſuperior may impoſe in part, yet not in whole. The Quota pars not determined, nor determinable from Scripture & Reaſon. No power in man to ſuppreſs the total exerciſe of any miniſterial gift.
§. 1. OUr Fourth Argument we ſtate thus,
To agree a principle, which being agreed, is of ſufficient force to reſtrain the total exerciſe of the gift of prayer, is ſinful.
But to agree it lawful for miniſters ordinarily in their Solema prayers, to perform their acts of prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, were to agree ſuch a principle; Ergo.
We hope there is none will deny the Major, until he hath proved to us, That it is lawful for man wholly to ſuppreſs any miniſterial gift, and make it uſeleſs as to its end, yea, and ſinful to uſe it at any time, (which to us appears a ſtrange task) we shall therefore at preſent not labour in the eſtablishing of that, taking it to shine ſufficiently in its own light.
§. 2 For the Minor we ſay, All Prayer is either Publick in the Congregation, or Domeſtick in the family, or Private, or Secret in the Cloſet. For that which is made in the Congregation. We are indeed often told, That the miniſter hath a power left him to pray before and after Sermon. But 1 Suppoſe he had, yet he may be reſtraind we hope by the ſuperiors precept, and if he be, we hope he is bound to Obey it: For why should it be leſs lawful for him to ty himſelf to the uſe of forms in the Pulpit, then in the Desk▪ 2 But it were worth the examining whether he hath ſuch a liberty? Did the late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Couſins think ſo? Let any miniſter in his dioceſs enquire about that. Did Bishop wren think ſo? Doth Mr. Kemp think ſo? Let the Reader read his ſermon on this ſubject. Doth the Act of Parliament ſay ſo? But once for all, Let the Reader judge of this by what he shall find in the Printed account of the proceedings of the Commiſſioners of both perſuaſions, p. 19. He shall find, The Commiſſioners on the Bishops ſide (and they were no leſs then eleven Bishops, and nine Doctors of Divinity of which five have ſince been made Bishops) thus ſpeaking,
We heartily deſire that (according to this Propoſal) great care may be taken to ſuppreſs thoſe private conceptions both before and after ſermon; leaſt private opinions be made the matter of prayer in publick as hath and will be, if private perſons take liberty to make publick prayers.
Here is, Heartily deſire, and Great care to be taken to ſuppreſs private conceptions both before, and after Sermon. It ſeemes they apprehended, The law gave no ſuch liberty; and therefore are very heartily deſirous, the Executors of it would take care, yea, and great care too, that none might take it. Let us therefore hear no more of a liberty (not ſo much as indulged) and if it were, no more then indulged for miniſters at all to uſe their miniſterial gift in prayer, There is no ſuch liberty but as aſſumed.
§. 3 So that the publick miniſterial exerciſe of this gift is wholly ſuppreſt, but yet we are told Miniſters may in their families uſe their gifts. This is indeed true, (notwithſtanding any law or canon yet extant) onelyonly diverſe of thoſe miniſters, who uſe any family prayer, who are to be too the examples to the flock, do not think fit to uſe it but there alſo limit themſelves to the publick book. But the queſtion is, Whether ſuppoſing it be lawful to obey ſuperiours, commanding us to perform our miniſterial acts ordinarily in publick ſolemn prayer by the preſcribed forms of others, yea, and neceſſary too, ſuppoſing hereafter ſuperiours should command men to do the like in their families, obedience alſo in that caſe would not be both lawful, and neceſſary? (We have a ſcriptural inſtance, of a Magiſtrates edict reaching to families) We muſt profeſs if we could grant the obligation, and judge it lawful to obey in the firſt (which is our preſent caſe) we cannot ſee with what pretence of Scripture, or Reaſon we could avoid obedience to a ſuperiors command in the Second caſe, and we would gladly learn of our Brethren.
§. 4 Nay, ſuppoſing a law, of the Latitude of that of Nebuchadnezzar, extenſive to a cloſet alſo. That we should no where pray to the God of heaven but in the uſe of the church prayers. What should hinder but that it should be lawful, yea, neceſſary to yeild a ready, active obedience to it? Will any one ſay, That it doth not follow, That becauſe we are bound to obey Magiſtrates commands for worship, in publick prayers and publick places; therefore we should be bound to obey the ſame commands made to extend to private worship and places, ſuch as houſes and cloſets. We muſt profeſs we are of another mind, and not able to aſſign any ſufficient reaſon to the contrary, and should be glad to hear any could teach us. Our dull ſouls reaſón thus, Are not Magiſtrates and Subjects Relatives, and is not dominion the foundation of the Relation, and Relatives uſe to go together; ſurely look how far the ſuperiours Dominion and right to that extendeth, ſo far obedience will be found a duty. So as the queſtion onelyonly will be, Whether the Magiſtrate hath not a dominion over his ſubjects in their private houſes and cloſets? If he hath, his commands reach them there, which if they do if the matter be lawful, (ſay our Brethren) it is neceſſary to obey, and why is not a command as lawful, enjoining the conſtant uſe of preſcribed forms there, as in Churches or Temples? Now the Magiſtrates daily, and confeſſedly juſt punishing enormities in families, cloſets, bedchambers, are ſufficient inſtances of the extent of the Magiſtrates dominion to thoſe private places, and conſequentially evince the duty of obedience ſuppoſing a command, if in a matter wherein the law of God hath given him a power to oblige his ſubjects. And although it be true, That the Magiſtrate, cannot take ſuch a cogniſance of what is done in private houſes, and cloſets: yet that ſignifies nothing in the caſe, for our queſtion is, Whether ſuppoſing ſuch a command, it might with a good conſcience be obeyed? If it might, then it muſt be obeyed (according to our Brethrens principle) then whether the Magiſtrate knowes of the diſobedience or no matters not (yet he may come to the cogniſance of it, by children, by eves-droppers, by confeſſions, &c.) The ſoul of the offender how ever is made guilty, and ſtands bound over to the Judgment of the great day. So as we profeſs we cannot ſee, but if we might lawfully in obedience to man perform our miniſterial acts in prayer by the preſcribed forms of others if the ſuperiour commandeth, We may lawfully alſo uſe nothing elſe but thoſe forms in our families and cloſets. Nay, we muſt uſe no other in caſe of ſuch a command, ſo as we cannot do it without implicitly ſaying, If the Magiſtrate commands us to uſe no other prayers while we live, but the Publick, preſcribed forms, either in publick, or in private, either before or after ſermons, either in our houſes or cloſets we do judge that it is ſinful for us to uſe any other: though by this means the gift of prayer, in all the miniſters of Chriſt shall plainly be ſuppreſſed, and made of no uſe.
§. 5 We can by no means be ſatisfied, with what we hear ſome ſay, & think it a ſufficient anſwer, viz. That though man may impoſe in part, yet he may not impoſe upon the whole uſe of any miniſterial gift, ſuch a command they ſay ought not to be obeyed. This appeareth worſe then a figleaf to our conſciences. For, 1 Who shall determin what is the Quota pars? How far he may impoſe or not impoſe? 2 By what rule shall that limitation be made? The word of God directs him no more to impoſe upon a part, then upon the whole. Let us but underſtand by what rule of Scripture, or Reaſon he shall limit us to pray by forms in the Desk, and not in the Pulpit; Though he do's go ſo far, he leaves room for the uſe of gifts in families: nay, why may he not command the like in families? He leaves room yet for the uſe of gifts in the cloſet. We know when he go's to viſit the ſick he muſt keep to them, we muſt wait to hear what other anſwers our Brethren shall make to this Argument, we can ſee no evaſion from it.