Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful, Letter
For the Reverend his very Worthy Friend, &c.
SIR,
YOU muſt think me either very regardleſs of the Obligations you have laid on me, or (which I had rather chuſe) very inconcerned in the New Argument for Forms of Prayer, from Matth. 26. 44. that I ſhould put you to the trouble of a ſecond Letter to mind me, not to overlook it, and particularly to give you my thoughts upon it. Indeed▪ Sir, the Argumentation from it ſavours fo little of a Scholar, or a rational man, that I did not think you in earneſt. But calling to mind, that the Gentlemen we have to do with, think they have a concluſive argument in the caſe, from the … Apoſtles foreign command that prayers ſhould be made for all men, 1 Tim. 2 (which ſurely may be made by each Miniſter for his Congregation▪ and ſhall not need be preſcribed in a book); and what your ſelf told me, that you heard a late Biſhop of Bath and Wells ſay, That it was very probable that the foreign, the Parchments left at Troas, which St. Paul took ſuch care Timothy ſhould bring, were the Church-prayers, or Liturgy, forgetting (as you well note) that there St. Paul prayed ſome time without them. I began to aſſume ſome more deliberate thoughts of that Text, Mat. 26. eſpecially reading what you write, that you had once met with it in Print, and had often heard it in Sermons and Conferences. For Sermons, men now-a-days uſe more Rhetorick than Logick; but, methinks, in Prints and Conferences they ſhould be more Logical. Let me therefore conſider the Text, Mat. 26. 44. foreign; we tranſlate it [ſaying the ſame words]; ſo ſaith Mark▪ 14. 39. Luke mentioneth but one prayer. Now, Sir, how foreign can be tranſlated the ſame words, judg you; it muſt be the ſame word (if any thing) …nd we know, though our Saviours prayer were very ſhort, yet there was more than one or two words in it. But, Sir, this Topick ſpeaks either a very great ignorance, or a wilful deſign, to lead others to miſtake in thoſe that uſe it: foreign doth not ſignifie always a ſyllabical word, but the thing, or matter, which ſome words ſignifie, and other words may ſignifie too. The Leper is ſaid Mar. 1. 45. foreign, we tranſlate it, to blaze abroad the matter, and that very truly. Chriſt is ſaid to preach the word to the people, Mar. 2. 2. that is, the matter of the Goſpel, for no doubt he did not always uſe the ſame ſyllabical words: ſo Mark 4. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Matth. 13. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. where word ſignifies, the matter of the Goſpel, though in diverſified words, it were eaſie to produce an 100 Texts. The truth is, it is an Hebraeiſm, foreign anſwering to their foreign, which ſignifies matter, or things, as often as ſyllabical words; and thoſe who know not this, are very ignorant of the Dialect of the Hebrew, or the Greek Tongue. Chriſt went and prayed, ſaying the ſame thing, that is, to the ſame ſenſe, the ſame matter: and this muſt be the ſenſe, for we ſhall find that Chriſt did not uſe the ſame ſyllabical words the firſt time, Mat. 26. 39. The words are,
O my father, if it be poſſible, let this cup paſs from me: nevertheleſs, not as I will, but as thou wilt.
V. 42. He went away the ſecond time, an… prayed, ſaying, O my father, if this cup may not paſs from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
V. 44. He prayed the third time, ſaying the ſame words.
Mark 14. 36. He ſaid, Abba Father, all things are poſſible unto thee, take away this cup from me: nevertheleſs, not what I will, but what thou wilt. V. 39. He prayed, and ſpake the ſame words.
Luke 22. 42. Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup fr…m me: nevertheleſs, not my will, but thine be done.
It is agreed on all hands by the Evangeliſts, that our Saviour at this time prayed but three times; Luke mentions but one, Mark mentions two, Matthew mentions three. Here are four forms; how is it poſſible that he ſhould then uſe the ſame ſyllabical words twice, and yet uſe all the forms as they lye before us? In earneſt, the Argument from this Text is ſuch a trifle, as I am aſhamed to examine it, leſt ſome ſhould think me as ſimple as they that uſe it; for it is as much idleneſs to pelt a Puppet, as to make it. Thoſe who argue from this Topick, muſt be acquainted little with the Hebrew, or the Greek, or with the Scripture; and thoſe that think it militates againſt my Poſition, muſt have as little acquaintance, either with it, or with common ſenſe, chuſe they whether. My Hypotheſis is,
That it is unlawful for Miniſters whom God hath furniſhed with the gift of Prayer, ordinarily to perform their miniſterial Acts in publick ſolemn prayer, by the preſcribed forms of others.
No (muſt they ſay) Chriſt did it: Say they ſo? who made theſe forms for him, I wonder? who denies but that a perſon furniſhed with the gift of prayer, may pray by a form compoſed in his own heart? who ſays forms of prayer are ſinful in that degree as blaſphemy, ſo that God himſelf cannot legitimate them? who ſaith, that when we are to pray for one and the ſame thing, we may not uſe the ſame words which we have before conceived in our own hearts? Now what doth this Text prove more? If it could be proved that our Saviour did uſe the ſame words ſyllabically two or three times, which it is plain he did not; if he did not pray ſix times inſtead of three (which are all the Evangeliſts mention), yet I hope he made uſe of words conceived by himſelf; and I do not read that he left any order, that his Diſciples, or the Church ſhould afterwards uſe theſe very words, and no other in a ſtate of affliction; if he had, ſurely we ought to have had no other Collect for ſick and afflicted perſons; and by his varying four times (or three times), he taught us that we may lawfully vary our words, and yet foreign, pray to the ſame ſenſe, and make the ſame to be the matter of our Petitions. So that thoſe who triumph in this Argument, do not only triumph before the Victory (which the Proverb makes abſurd), but they triumph in the thing by which they are conquered; which yet if it be rightly done, is but ingenuous; for we ought to rejoyce when Truth (to which all rational ſouls are debtors) prevaileth. By which (Reverend Sir) you may ſee I am very well pleaſed at the news▪ that my little book ſhall be anſwered. I do not think it worthy of a man to be afraid of an Anſwer; and profeſs to you rom my heart, that I ſhould be glad to ſee an ingenuous anſwer, to which I ſhould not be able to make a reply ſatisfactory to my ſelf, or any reaſonable perſons. I will aſſure you it would go a great way to deliver me from the name of a Diſſenter: But for a Miniſter of Chriſt, to be made a meer Miniſter of men, to read, or ſay in his Miniſterial Acts only what men would have them, is what I am ſo far from thinking lawful, that I cannot entertain a thought of it with that patience I ordinarily uſe in cauſes which appear to me of a lighter nature: This is my preſent apprehenſion of this matter. I ſeek for Truth, and not for Maſteries, and ſhall therefore rejoyce if any can inform me better; but you ſee it muſt be with better arguments than theſe, though this be as good an argument, I muſt needs ſay, as that from Hoſea 14. Take unto you words, and ſay, &c. and many others. But I have enlarged too much upon ſo inconcludent an argument, unleſs (as I hope) it will conclude that I am,
Your moſt affectionate Brother and Servant,
End of the text · John Collinges, Supplement to Why Nonconforming Ministers Judge it Sinful (1680)