The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 2

The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication · Introduction · Chapter 2

p. 31CHAP. II.

An Anſwer to the Vindicators Second Chapter, concerning the Gift of Prayer. Whether the Gift of Prayer, as to Vocal Prayer, be properly an Ability to expreſs our minds to God in Prayer, p. 32or whether it be the ſame with the Grace given us to be uſed in Prayer, or an Extraordinary Gift, peculiarly relating to the Apoſtles and Chriſtians, in their Age?

1. ALL this while methinks I have been in a Drapers Shop, ſtaring upon the lofty and Oblique Lights, which I diſcerned in it, and wondering wherefore (…o make up a judgment whether the Sun ſhined or no) I muſt be put to a troubleſome elevation of my Eye, ſtretching my Nerves, and contracting my Eye-lids, till at laſt I diſcerned the Art, and that a nearer and more direct light, though it might have been (poſſibly) of more advantage to the buyer, yet to the ſeller would have been leſs profitable, giving his Cuſtomer a too near an advantage to judge of his Wares and the Arts uſed about them.

2. I had thought that in the beginning of the former Chapter, The Iſſue was joyned, or (as the Civilians ſpeak) we had had Litene conteſtatam: The Queſtion was ſtated. The Opponent agreed it clearly and plainly ſta…ed. The Arguments were brought: What had an Anſwerer to do, but to deny one or other Propoſition, or to diſtinguiſh of ſome Terms? Twelve Pages ſince that have been ſpent, and nothing of this done: To what purpoſe is this prejudicating a Reader? but to poſſeſs his mind one way before the cauſe is p. 33tryed; and to raiſe his paſſion with ſtrange ſtories, before he be ſuffered to uſe his Reaſon to judge who hath the beſt cauſe upon hearing what each party can ſay: But at length we ſhall (it may be) come to ſomething which is to the purpoſe.

3. The firſt Argument was ſtated thus.

To omit a mean for the performance of a Religious Act given us by God for the performance of it, and being natural, and proper,Reaſonable Account. p. 5. at the command of man, when we perform that Religious Act, is ſinful.

But for a Miniſter, having the Gift of Prayer, ordinarily to perform his Miniſterial Act in Prayer, by reading or reciting Forms of Prayers compoſed by others (confeſſedly not divinely inſpired) is for him to omit, a natural and proper mean given him by God, in order to the performance of ſuch Religious Act, and in the Omiſſion of it to perform ſuch Religious Act. Ergo,

The Major Propoſition ſhineth ſo much in its own light, that it was not to be denied, but by affirming, That it is lawful for us at the command of Men, in an Act of Gods W rſhip to omit a mean given us of God for that end, and to perform that Act in the uſe of other means, under no ſ…ecial preſcription from God; which is to ſay, it is lawful to allow Men to …e wiſer then God in directing the means of his Worſhip; which certainly is a ſtrange poſition.

p. 344. Yet our Anſwerer, tho he will not in plain terms deny the Major, p. 57. tells us, That a mean given us of God, if it be only capable of being uſed, and not a neceſſary mean to be uſed, may lawfully be omitted, eſpecially when there are ſeveral means. What doth he mean by ſeveral means? Several means given by God for that end, that are Natural and Proper, then it is moſt true. But it lieth upon him to prove that God hath in this caſe preſcribed ſeveral means. But if he means ſeveral Humane means under no Divine Preſcription, it amounteth to no leſs then I ſaid before, the praeference of the Wiſdom of Men to the Wiſdom of God.

5. What doth he mean by telling us, A Divine mean may be omitted, if it be not neceſſary to be uſed, when the very drift of the Argument is to prove, That it is neceſſary to be uſed, becauſe it is a Divine Mean, and there is no other can lay claim to that Notion, nor can be ſo Natural, nor is ſo Proper. Now this quite ſpoiles the retorting the Argument.

6. But altho our Anſwerer thinks fit to nibble a little about the Major, yet plainly diſcerning, that was not to be denied by any Perſon of his Reputation in the World, his whole force is ſpent about the Minor Propoſition, as to which he ſaith much; which himſelf ſummeth up, p. 57.

1. That an ability fitly to expreſs our mind to God in Prayer, is not the gift of Prayer p. 35nor any ſingular or peculiar gift of the Spirit of God.

2. That it is neither a duty nor yet expedient, that ſuch abilities ſhould be uſed and conſtantly uſed, any further then is agreeable to the Rules of Edification and Order.

7. Whatſoever our Anſwerer ſaith upon the firſt head (which is very much, one while confounding the Gift of prayer, and the Grace of Prayer, as one and the ſame thing; another while telling us of an Extraordinary Gift of Prayer) is ſo much from the purpoſe, that our Author owns it as a digreſſion p. 28. So as I am not concerned in any thing of that diſcourſe further then to mend a Term in my Minor, and make it to run thus: But for a Miniſter having an Ability fitly to expreſs his mind to God in Prayer, to perform his Miniſterial Acts in Prayer ordinarily by reading or reciting &c.

Nor was there any need at all thus to mend it, but to ſave my ſelf trouble of a Word-bait.

8. But yet to vindicate my ſelf from being as much out, as to proper ſpeaking, as it ſeems to this Author, I was in my Chronology of Gregory and Charles the great; we will have a few words about the Gift of Prayer, for I do ſuſpect that this multitude of words, is but to darken knowledge. It ſhall go under the Title of a Digreſſion, in Reply to a Digreſſion of the Anſwerers concerning p. 36the Gift of Prayer. I hope the Reader will pardon my going out of my way, ſeeing it is but to follow my Leader, and to Vindicate my ſelf from improper ſpeaking [that is, not to this Learned Mans mind, or Sentiment] and who but Men of his Principles can ſpeak Properly?

9. He doth p. 40. acknowledge, That there is an Ability in many Perſons, whereby they can expreſs their Minds in ſome degrees fitly to God in Prayer: But this he ſaith is not properly the Gift of Prayer, but rather of Speech: Here then is the Queſtion, The Scripture no where mentioning the Gift of Prayer, whether an Ability to expreſs our Minds fitly to God in Prayer, may not properly be called the Gift of Prayer? My opinion is, That it may; which I thus prove.

10. By the ſame reaſon, That an Ability to ſpeak, to Men to Edification, and Exhortation, and Comfort. 1 Cor. 14.3. is in Scripture, called the Gift of Prophecy; 1 Cor. 13.2. 1 Cor. 14.1. An Ability alſo fitly to expreſs our Minds to God in Prayer, may be properly called the Gift of Prayer. But ſuch an Ability is in Scripture called the Gift of Prophecy, as appeareth in the forementioned Texts. If our Anſwerer can ſhew a diſparity of Reaſon, he may, I cannot fancy any; by the ſame reaſon that Abilities to Actions are called foreign, by the ſame reaſon they may be and are properly called Gifts, for what is the Engliſh of that Greek, word but Powers or Abilities: and p. 37it is paſt all contradition, that what the Apoſtle calleth foreign [Powers] 1 Cor. 12.29. He calls the Gifts of Healing in the very next words. Have all the Gifts of Healing? What tho theſe were Gifts given at an extraordinary time, or in an extraordinary manner (which indeed they were) yet I appeal to any indifferently Learned Man, to determine, Whether this alters the Genus, or only diſtributes the Species. All Spiritual Abilities are Gifts, but they are not all Saving Gifts, or extraordinary Gifts. And this is enough to vindicate my ſelf from impropriety of Speech.

11. But ſaith our Author p. 29. That is eminently and eſpecially to be eſteemed the Gift of Prayer, which diſpoſeth and inableth to the performance of the duty of Prayer (very true,Vindication p. 29. and is not this all I have contended for?) And therefore ſince Prayer is not ſo much a verbal thing, as a pious addreſs of the Heart, Soul, and Spirit to God, the Supplies and Aſſiſtances of his Grace which kindle and excite pious Diſpoſitions, in ſeeking unto God, with earneſt and affectionate deſires, a lively Faith, and the exerciſe of inward Devotion; this is moſt properly his vouchſafing and beſtowing the Gift of Prayer; and our having and exerciſing them, is our having and uſing the Gift of Prayer.

This now is well ſaid as to Truth, but not a tittle of it to the purpoſe: Here is a manifeſt Tranſition, from one kind to another. p. 38That a Chriſtian may in his heart Pray, tho his Lips move not, is out of doubt (Hannah did ſo.) But can any Miniſter diſcharge his Miniſterial Duty in Publick Prayer thus? Nay can a private Chriſtian in his Family, or Cloſet do it? If not, there is another kind of Prayer beſides this, and our Author knew well enough, that it is that we are ſpeaking of. The Queſtion is, What is the Gift of Prayer relating to Vocal Prayer? Our Anſwerer grants, It is that which inableth and diſpoſeth to the performance of the duty. Now I appeal again to any one that underſtandeth ſenſe, Whether thoſe things which the Anſwerer mentions, inable any perſon to Vocal Prayer, as it ſtands contradiſtinguiſhed to meer heart Prayer, which is that we are not at all ſpeaking of? It is manifeſt it is not, for then no Ʋnbeliever, no Wicked Man, hath any Ability to pray, and St. Paul had given very impertinent Counſel to the Sorcerer to Pray, that the thoughts of his heart might be forgiven him; which it ſeems he had no Gift, no Ability to do; for it is certain he had no Faith, nor Pious Affections. It might have been expected, that he who Faults others for Impropriety of Speech, ſhould himſelf have ſpoken Ad idem at leaſt, i. e. to the thing in Queſtion, which whether he hath done, or no, I leave to any one who underſtands ſenſe to judge. The Author of the Book he anſwereth, had often enough told him, that he ſpake not concerning Heart Prayer but Vocal Prayer, p. 39that Praying wherein in obedience to the command of God, the voice is uſed, to expreſs the deſires of the heart. It is an eaſie thing to anſwer at this rate.

12. For what he ſaith p. 31, 32, 33. in Anſwer to what the Author had ſpoken from Zech. 12.10. Rom. 8.26. to prove a Gift of Prayer to be a Divine Gift, iſſueth in this, Whether by the Spirit of Grace and Supplication, and the Spirits helping our Infirmity in Pra er, be to be underſtood, as well the Spirits giving us an Ability fitly to expreſs our minds to God in Prayer, as furniſhing us with Gracious Habits, diſpoſing us ſo to Pray as we may find favour with God. It is our Anſwerers concern to affirm the latter onelyonly: But the Author is of another mind; becauſe he finds in Scripture, Gifts that are not ſaving, called Spiritual Gifts; 1 Cor. 12.1. and 1 Cor. 14.1. and the Manifeſtations of the Spirit; 1 Cor. 12.7. where are reckoned the Word of Wiſdom, the Word of Knowledg, the Gifts of Healing, Working of Miracles, Prophecy, Tongues; ſome of which are by the ſame Apoſtle determined no ſaving gifts; 1 Cor. 13.2, 3. The Author is of the mind that all theſe are comprehended under the Promiſes of powring out of the Spirit, mentioned in the Old Teſtament, And tho an Ability to Pray be not mentioned in that 1 Cor. 12.7. yet he never thought to have met with any who regarded what he ſaid, who would have denied, That it is a gift, and p. 40a Spiritual gift; nor doth yet believe it ſhut out of thoſe Promiſes, Zech. 12.10. Rom 8.26. tho not ſolely, perhaps not Principally intended in them: both which, the Author grants to the Anſwerer, if he can make any Market with them.

13. Our Anſwerer is again at it p 34. As that Ability of Expreſſion whereby a Man largely profeſſeth the particular Doctrines of the Chriſtian Faith, is not properly the Gift of Faith, of Believing, ſo neither is the like Ability of expreſſing the matter of our Prayer to be accounted in any proper ſenſe the Gift of Prayer. Still we are upon the old fallacy, and whatſoever I Anſwer, our Anſwerer will avoid us, by telling us he ſpake of meer Heart Pra…er, where no words are needful; that is, nothing to the point in Queſtion: Is Beleeving a Vocal Action think we? Or is it a meer Action of the Heart, and to ſay an Ability fitly to ſpeak, is that Gift, were to own my ſelf ſimple enough: But I hope an Ability fitly to ſpeak, is the Gift of Confeſſion of Faith with our Lipps. Let our Author ſpeak out and tell us, If a Praying with our hearts be all the Prayers God requireth of Miniſters in their publick Miniſtrations: If it be not, he ſaith nothing to the purpoſe, for ſtill the Gift of Prayer in that ſenſe (and I ſpake of another) is an ability fitly to expreſs our Minds to God in Prayer.

14. But he tells us, This is but the Gift of Speaking, Ʋtterance, or Elocution, p. 34. p. 41I have ſcarce patience for ſuch Aſſertions: Then every one who hath an Ability to ſpeak, utter, or to ſpeak out, or Oratoriouſly, hath the Gift of Prayer, which is demonſtrably falſe, and contrary to the experience of every day.

15. But at length our Anſwerer can find a Gift of Prayer, and with the Spirit; this he ſaith, was that whereby Chriſtians in the beginning of Chriſtianity, were inabled by the extraordinary Impulſes, and immediate Inſpiration of the Holy Spirit upon their Minds, ſo to Pray, either in their own, or other Languages, that thoſe Motions of their Hearts, and inward Deſires, and alſo their Words and Expreſſions, were the proper, and extraordinary Works and Dictates of the Holy Ghoſt. Admit this true, what followeth? Then an Ability to Pray is the Gift of Prayer, only given to ſome in a more extraordinary, to others in a more ordinary way. I freely grant him all he ſaith, if he doth not ſay, or by this cunningly go about to perſwade people, that now no people have an Ability to expreſs their Minds fitly to God in Prayer; which he muſt not, becauſe he is ſo liberal as to grant the contrary p. 40.

16. But he ſaith theſe extraordinary Gifts were peculiar to the primitive times; Who denys it? But is there not a more ordinary Gift of Prayer ſtill continuing, and the only queſtion is, Whether this be omitted in the performance of the Act?

17. He tells us p. 36. that thoſe who p. 42had theſe extraordinary Gifts, were to uſe them only ſo far as was conſiſtent with the rules of Order, Decency, and Edification: Who denieth this too? But theſe Rules of Order and Decency, were ſuch, as either Nature it ſelf ſhewed, or the Infallible Spirit, by the Apoſtles directed; let him prove any thing further if he can, and if he underſtands no more it is freely granted.

18. As to what he ſaith in Reply to what I anſwered to that which he objected from 1 Cor. 14. I know not what his Intentions were, but his words are theſe, Libertas Eccleſ. p. 120. The Argument againſt the lawfulneſs of ſet Forms, becauſe they limit the uſe of Gifts, needeth not much conſideration, ſince it is manifeſt that by the Will of God, bounds and limits were ſet, even to the uſe of extraordinary Gifts of Gods Spirit, that the Church might be edified; 1 Cor. 14.26, 27, 28, 30, 33.

Could any one make this leſs than an Argument a majori ad minus affirmando, if the greater Gifts might be Limited, then the leſſer may. In my Anſwer, I obſerved the fallacy might lurk under the term Limited, and diſtinguiſhed betwixt the Regular uſe and the Irregular abuſe of Gifts, and denied that conſequence: That becauſe the Irregular uſe of Gifts might be reſtrained, therefore the Regular uſe of them might. I ſhall leave the Reader to judg of what I ſaid, and he hath here anſwered, whether p. 43he hath taken off the leaſt of my Anſwer. Only adding, That an Argument from the Power of the Apoſtles to the Power of any Superiours now (till the Author hath proved thoſe now impowred, Poſſeſſed of the ſame Infallible Spirit, and of the ſame Divine Right, to make new Rules of Order for the Church) is very inconcluſive.

19. In his 41 p. He tells us that This faculty of Expreſſion in Prayer, Vindication p. 41.is procured and enlarged, by men who have a competent Natural freedom of Speech by uſe, and exerciſe, and advanced by various Methods. I acknowledge (ſaith he) that in ſome an Affectionateneſs of Devotion, doth contribute much thereto; in others confident ſelf conceit, and an heated fancy, and (as I have read ſome particular Inſtances) even Diabolical Contracts, have promoted the ſame. What he calls facility of Expreſſion, is the ſame with what I called an ability fitly to expreſs our minds to God in Prayer; and of this he ſpeaks, or he ſaith nothing to the purpoſe. This he ſaith is procured and enlarged by uſe and exerciſe (he ſaith true, provided the Perſon hath firſt a due knowledge of God, and of himſelf, and of the Scriptures; which till one hath acquired, all Ʋſe and Exerciſe is to no purpoſe.) This alſo muſt be ſuppoſed to Affectionateneſs of Devotion, which he (truly) ſaith contributeth much thereto; but how confident ſelf conceit, a meer heated fancy, or Diabolical Contracts ſhould do it, p. 44(which the Anſwerer it ſeems believeth, he would never elſe have troubled us with a Romance) are matters of wonderful ſubtil diſquiſition, eſpecially that, How the Devil ſhould help a Man (if he would be ſo kind) fitly to expreſs his mind to God in Prayer. I tremble while I mention ſuch a thing, as ever ſpoken by a Divine, to help the already too much Atheiſtical and Blaphemous World with an Authority (and that no leſs then Dr. Faulkners) to ſay, Godly Miniſters do that by the Devil, which they do by the aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit of God. The Anſwerers granting it may be, will be warrant enough to harden hundreds in ſuch Blaſphemies. How much Evil ſpeaking ſoever I be charged with, I hope I ſhall avoid that Evil ſpeaking, becauſe of thoſe Texts, Mar. 3.28.29. and that Matth. 12.31, 32. The Crime there, was the Phariſes aſſerting that what Chriſt did, by the Spirit of God, v. 28. Was done by Beelzebub the Prince of Devils. The Doctor doth not indeed boldly aſſert ſuch a thing but he hath ſo phraſed what he ſaith, that beſides, the Scurvy Innuendo in his words, he plainly grants it nut be. But ſurely the Devil fills none with the Knowledge of God, or with Affectionate Devotion. Now whether the Phariſes guilt there, were not an intituling the Devil to the Operations of the Bleſſed Spirit, I leave to his ſerious thoughts. Nor can I be ſo uncharitable even to the Phariſes, as to think, that they in ſaying ſo, p. 45Lied againſt the Holy Ghoſt, ſpeaking what they knew to be otherwiſe: I do judge, they thought as they ſpake, which if they did, I know no difference in the caſe, but in the means of Conviction they had further, then any can novv have, that the People of God Praying in the uſe of their Spiritual Gifts, Act by the Spirit, becauſe of the Miracles they ſaw wrought by Chriſt; which indeed was a great means: but the judgment of a true Miracle from the Phaenomenon of it, in one of Satans lying Wonders mentioned 1 Theſſa. 2.9. is ſo difficult, that I cannot ſee the heighth of their guilt lay there ſo much, as in their ſpeaking Evil (with reference to the bleſſed Spirit) in a thing which they knew not, but had good Evidence to the contrary: I pray God that it may not he laid to the charge of ſo Worthy a Perſon, that by this unaccountable Suggeſtion He hath (as David was charged in a caſe wherein the Holy Spirit was not ſo immediately concerned, 2 Sam. 12.14.) made the Enemies of God to Blaſpheme. That to Pray in the Spirit, or with the Aſſiſtance of the Spirit, is to perform the duty of Prayer, with a pious mind (as he tells us ſo many times over (foreign) is what none denies, but that this is the whole of it, that it is not alſo with ſuch words as the Spirit teacheth them to utter, which Spirit is therefore called the Spirit of Supplication, the Spirit of Adoption, ſent into our hearts; p. 46by which a Child of God crieth Abba Father, is what the Dr. neither hath proved nor ever can.

20. He tells us p. 43. that he acknowledgeth a ſober and due freedom of Expreſſion to be a Gift of God, in the ſame manner that the capacities of Mens Ʋnderſtandings, and all other Abilities of Mind and Body, are Gods Gifts: But it is plain, this liberty of Expreſſion is the product of the Natural Capacities Men receive from God, which are improved in well diſpoſed Perſons by ordinary means under Gods Bleſſing, &c. Socinus in his Dialogue of Juſtification, ſaith the ſame of Faith (a Spiritual Gift of a more Salvifick Nature) Faith (ſaith he) is ſuch a Gift of God as God gives to all, and a little before, Hearing is the Gift of God, &c. I do not compare Faith and the Gift of Prayer. I know Faith is a far more excellent gift: But I believe he ſpeaks as much truth, with reference to Faith, as our Anſwerer ſpeaks as to an Ability to expreſs our minds fitly, to God in Prayer; for Faith in the exerciſe, is the exerciſe of the Natural Capacity of a Soul, to put a confidence in a perſon, or Aſſent to a Propoſition which is evidenced to it to be truth; and every man hath a Natural Power to Aſſent and Rely on proper Objects: But to Aſſent to a Spiritual Truth above the Evidence of Senſe and Reaſon, to receive Chriſt and Rely on him for Life Eternal, theſe are no Natural Capacities: So to ſpeak, p. 47is but a Natural Capacity, the generality of Men have a Natural Capacity to expreſs their Minds, by Speech, but an Ability fitly to expreſs our Minds to God in Prayer, is no product of a meer Natural Capacity, but of the Spirit of God, having firſt enlightened the Soul with the knowledge of God.

21. If he ſaith it is but ſuch a Gift as Men may have, and Periſh eternally, it is granted him; but ſuch were Prophecy, the Myſteries of Knowledge, Miraculous Faith; Rom. 13.1, 2. Yet I hope they were Spiritual gifts, and not the meet products of Natural Capacities, and different from ſuch Natural Abilities as are neceſſary to make a Man perfect in Naturalibus; and it is eaſie to prove, that common gifts in the Service of God are of uſe and means to Spiritual Acts. I know none that ever called the Gift of Prayer a Spiritual ſaving Gift, nor is that any part of the Queſtion, but whether it be a Spiritual Gift? Yea in meer Natural gifts, the neglect cannot be diſpenſed with, when the Act to which they have a Relation, cannot be performed without the uſe of them. The Queſtion is, Whether the Gift of Prayer be not a mean in order to the Act of Prayer, and if it be ſo, and given of God for that end, whether in the performance of the Act it can be omitted Lawfully, and the Act performed, by a mean which is neither Natural, nor under p. 48any Divine Preſcript? And to this I find the Author as yet ſpeaking very little.

22. In his next Paragraph, p. 44. he tells us, That it is a conſiderable Objection againſt the neceſſity contended for, of a Miniſters uſing a particular Gift or Ability, meerly becauſe it is a Gift, in that this would equally make it his duty to uſe his preſent or extempore Ability, of Conception and Expreſſion in Prayer, or Preaching. — And the uſe of his Memory in declaring what he hath conceived, or thought on before, and alſo his Reading, what hath been before Compoſed by himſelf or others. — But the uſe of all theſe is an impoſſibilit…. None contends for the neceſſity of uſing a Gift, becauſe it is a Gift, but becauſe it is a means beſtowed upon him by God for this purpoſe, that by the uſe of it, he ſhould perform ſuch an Act; bur 'tis moſt extravagant, concluding, that becauſe in the performance of an Religious Action, a Man is tyed to the uſe or ſuch a Gift, as is a proper mean in order to the performance of ſuch an Act, and given him of God purpoſely for that end; therefore he is tyed to make uſe of all his Gifts in ſuch an Act, which are no means, or no direct and proximate means to the performance of that Act. There is no Gift but this Ability we ſpeak of, that hath any direct and preſent influence upon the Act: I mean no common Gift, Gracious Habits are of another Nature.

p. 4923. The Authors next Argument is weaker, For how doth it follow, that becauſe a Miniſter is bound in Prayer to uſe the Ability which God hath given him fitly to expreſs himſelf in Prayer, therefore he is bound to do it in any language he pleaſeth, directly contrary to another Rule of the Apoſtles, which obligeth him to have reſpect to the Peoples underſtanding; or in many Languages at one time: but this is all our Auth…r ſaith p. 41. n. 17 Who ſeeth not through theſe Cobwebs? Doth an Obligation to uſe a Gift in a Religious Act, proper to it, and given of God for that end ſolely, oblige us alſo to the uſe of other Gifts not proper to the Act, nor given us of God ſolely for that end? Or doth an Obligation to uſe our Ability fitly to expreſs our ſelves to God in Prayer, infer an Obligation to do it ſo many ways as we can do it? I ſee there is ſome need of Arguing Syllogiſtically, which if we had done, we had avoided theſe Impertinencies.

24. And it is every whit to as good purpoſe, that our Anſwerer tells us, We may omit our Gifts in Criticizing, in Expounding Scripture, p. 46.or of Fatheming deep Controverſies, in our Popular Sermons.

When the Anſwerer hath prov…d, That Critical expounding of a Text, or reſolving deep Controverſies, are Acts of a Goſpel Miniſters Miniſtry towards his People, who p. 50underſtand little or nothing of ſuch things, then I ſhall conſider what he hath ſaid; for he may remember that my Argument was limited to Publick Miniſterial Acts, which are parts of the Worſhip of God; as to which theſe Inſtances are apparently Impertinent. It will be proper to bring ſuch Inſtances as theſe, when he finds me making ſuch a Propoſition as this: If a Man cannot without ſin omit, the uſe of his Gifts, in his Miniſterial Acts of Worſhip: Then it if Sin for him to omit it, in his Scholaſtical Acts, or any other Acts of his Life.

25. Of the ſame nature are his Inſtances of Private Abilities, to Interpret the Scriptures out of the Original, to make Confeſſion of Faith and Creeds. Are any of theſe ordinary Miniſterial Acts? Or Acts of Worſhip, which are the Duties of every Miniſter? If they be, let our Anſwerer ſhew us their Eſtabliſhment in the Word of God (for there all Acts of Worſhip muſt have their Eſtabliſhment, or loſe their name, and ſo I think all Pro…eſtants agree) if he cannot make this appear he hath not ſpoken any thing to the purpoſe, but proceeds Ex Ignoratione Elenchi; p. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, and 56. We acknowledge that the Verſion of the Scriptures muſt proceed from an ability to do it, and ſuch an Ability, as ſtands in need of Gods great Aſſiſtance; but we ſay it is no Miniſter…al Duty, no work that God p. 51hath intruſted to ordinary Miniſters, no Act of Worſhip, &c. The Apoſtles Practice proves this, who made no New Verſions themſelves, nor gave any Miniſters ſuch a thing in charge; but enough was ſpoken to this in the Book our Anſwerer anſwereth, and much more than he is pleaſed to take notice of. Let the Reader but conſult the Reaſonable Account, p. 19, 20. for Creeds, and Confeſſions of Faith, the caſe is the ſame; they are Good and Prudential things, and the Duties of all Men to give, when they are required: But are theſe Acts of Worſhip? and to be performed, by any Divine Law, when ever any Congregation meets to Worſhip God? They may be made then, becauſe they are Modes of Teaching and Inſtructing, and ſo fall under the general precept of Teaching. But what are any of theſe to the Queſtion? Which is ſtated concerning the Miniſters Duty in their Publick, Solemn, Miniſterial Acts of Worſhip? Before our Anſwerer undertook his work in anſwering, he was at liberty whether he would meddle with the Reaſonable Account or no. But when he had undertaken the Vindication of Liturgies from what is there ſaid, he ought certainly to have ſpoken to the Queſtion, as the Author had ſtated it, p. 5. eſpecially conſidering he did the Author the Honour to ſay he had done it, with ſufficient clearneſs and plainneſs: Then ſurely the Author of the Vindication, ought p. 52either to have let it alone, or to have ſpoken to it, as it was ſufficiently, clearly, and plainly ſtated.

26. He telleth us 55. p. that in Publick Prayer (I have nothing to do with what he ſaith of Verſions of the Scripture, and Declarations of the Articles of Faith, which he joyns with it, they were both Excluded the Queſtion, as I ſtated it) but in Publick Prayer, it may well be preſumed that what is well conſidered and ſetled, or preſcribed as a form, is more perfect and compleat, in the compuſure, than can be expected, in any method of ordinary variation; and to aſſert that theſe things may be always better, or as well performed, and compoſed by every Miniſter, or even by the moſt Eminent Perſon, whomſoev…r, in a conſtant way of varying in the uſe of their own Abilities, then in well conſidered and digeſted Forms, is as much as to affirm, that the varied Expreſſions of Men, at every particular time, are more propper, pithy, and expreſſive, and full, then the beſt compoſed Prayer, that is at any time made, and reviewed, with the greateſt conſider and care; for ſo it may he expected, that a publikly eſtabliſhed Form is.

This is now a fine flouriſh, and harangue of words, but that is all; for if he meaneth it concerning our own Liturgy, what might have been expected I will not ſay; but if our Author inquireth, whether any one part of it, were ſo much as once read over by the Houſe of Commons (and p. 53being now part of an Act, many think it ſhould have been by the Law of England, all read over thrice) and when it was read over in the Houſe of Lords, what a miſtake was found in it by their Lordſhips, will ſee no reaſon to preſume, that it was by our Eccleſiaſtical Superiours (who yet without a Parliament, are not our Superiours, in the point of Legal Eſtabliſhments) reviewed with the greateſt Care and Conſideration. 2. If it were ſo, ſurely the Nonconfor niſts-Adverſaries, would not all this time have only contended that there were no Phraſes in it but might Lawfully be uſed, but they would have pleaded, That there could no better Forms be compoſed, or uſed; which I do not know that any of them hath gone about to demonſtrate. What in a Legal Eſtabliſhment, is not once reviewed, by one part of the Legiſlative power in any place, cannot certainly be ſaid to be reviewed, with the greateſt Conſideration, and Care, tho poſſibly it might be by ſome ſaid to be reviewed with a ſufficient Conſideration; as to which I ſay nothing, but cannot allow Superlatives in the caſe. 3. This very Argument will conclude for Forms of Preaching, every whit as much as for Forms of Prayer. But I ſhall give a ſtrict Anſwer to it.

27. In the Sacred Worſhip of God that is beſt, which God hath preſcribed and directed. In the cleanſing of the Leper, Levit. 14. the poor mans Two Turtle Doves, or two p. 54young Pidgeons, ſuch as he was able to get, v. 22. was (though of far leſs intrinſick value) yet every whit as good, as the Rich Mans Lamb, mentioned v. 12, 13, &c. and therefore when the Queſtion is, What is the Will of God in the caſe, all theſe diſcourſes which is beſt or worſt in Humane Eyes, or according to Humane valuations, are woful Impertinencies: That is beſt, which it is the Will of God we ſhould uſe or do. Nor is Superiours Eſtabliſhment, any evidence in which my Soul ought to reſt without further enquiry to guide my Practice, who am to ſearch the Scriptures, after St. Paul hath preached, Acts 17. That what is Eſtabliſhed is the Will of God in the Caſe, if it were true, inſtead of proving all things, that I might hold faſt that which is good, I ſhould prove nothing but preſume it beſt becauſe Superiors have eſtabliſhed it. This is the very thing that Eccius the Popiſh Lawyer replied to Luther at the Diet of Worms Ann. 1621.

Ne que tuum eſt ea quae Conciliorum authoritate ſunt olim definita rurſus in quaeſtionem aut dubium vocare. Sleidan. de Statu Religionis, &c. l. 5.

What is the Engliſh of that but this, That is beſt which your Superiours have determined; and how far ſuch a Notion is improveable to the ruin of all true Religion, appears by the Councel to which Eccius related; which conſiſted of as vile a p. 55pack of Men, as ever met in Council: For it was the Council of Conſtance, which determined the Pope above all Councils, contrary to the Council at Baſil juſt before; and in conformity to the Factious Council of Piſa, Aſſembled by Julius 2. to confront another Council ſitting, it was that Council (of Conſtance, I mean) that burnt John Huſs and Hierome of Prague, who had both the Popes and Emperours ſecurity, for ſafe coming, and returning, and eſtabliſhed another Curſed Doctrine of Popery, That Faith is not to be kept with Hereticks. In this caſe before us, the difference betwixt us and our Adverſaries (for I ſee I muſt call Brethren no more) lies here. We ſay, That is beſt in the Worſhip of God, which appeareth to be the Will of God; and what as to our own practice, ſo appeareth unto us, is beſt unto us. Our Adverſaries ſay, That is beſt which hath a Legal Eſtabliſhment, and as to your Practice ought to be preſumed beſt, tho you do judge the quite contrary, from Arguments which appear to you very probable, and you cannot anſwer: So in ſhort our conteſt is for no leſs, then the Foundation of the Reformed Religion. But it may be this Harangue of our Anſwerer, did not come in, becauſe he thought it pertinent, but to give him an opportunity to laſh him, whom he had to deal with, which is the next thing he attempts, but never toucheth him.

He goes on: And he who talketh p. 56of this our Church, That if all her Miniſters cannot conſtantly in their daily Prayers equal or outdo the perfection or exactneſs of a well conſidered Form (for this muſt be his Senſe, if he ſpeaketh to any purpoſe) that this may be ſpoken to the ſhame of the Church of God in England: Theſe raw and extravagant ſpeeches will be to the ſhame of thoſe that utter them, ſo far as they will be aſhamed of uncharitable and reproachful calumnies againſt the Church of God, and of ſpeaking againſt all Senſe and Reaſon.

When I read this, I wondered who he meant, till I ſaw in the Margent the Book quoted which he pretends to anſwer, p. 157. there I find in anſwer to the Vindicators arguing the Neceſſity of Liturgyes, That needful and 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. That the Author of that Book had ſaid,

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 needful comprehenſive Petitions, not only for common and ordinary, but for the Emergent and Extraordinary Spiritual and p. 57outward wants of any perſons with fit thankſgivings.

What makes the man in ſuch a paſſion for this?— Here is not a wotd of all Miniſters being able to equal and out do the Perfection and Exactneſs of a well conſidered Form, (but this he ſaith, muſt be his ſenſe, or he ſpeaks to no purpoſe) E Cathedra dictum.

1. But in cool blood (when men are leaſt ſubject to let their tongue outrun their reaſon) was the Author bound to ſay more in his Anſwer then his Objector had ſaid in his Objection? The Objecto… had not in his Objection ſaid, That all Miniſters might put up Prayers in the greateſt Perfection of Phraſe or Matter or Stile and Exactneſs, he onelyonly ſpake of needful Petitions, that ſhould comprehend all Common and Ordinary, Spiritual, and outward wants. 2. There is no need, nor doth God any where require, that all his Miniſters ſhould pray with the greateſt perfection and exactneſs, but that they ſhould do the beſt they are able to do, according to the beſt abilities God hath given them. 3. Doth the Author ſay, or was it the Vindicator, that ſuggeſted, that all Miniſters are not able to do this; I think it was the Vindicator, who upon this Argument pleaded the neceſſity of Others Preſcriptions. 4. The Author indeed did ſay, If it were ſo, No B. he had ſaid the ſame in the Reaſonable Account, p. 1…4.it was aſhame to the Church of God in England; he ſaith ſo ſtill, for no ſuch Miniſters are able to preach without ſuch Preſcriptions. 5. But to reconcile p. 58himſelf to the Vindicator, he doth from his heart believe that in the Church of England there are twice ten thouſand men (which is as many again as there are acting Miniſters) who without others Preſcriptions, are able to put up needful and comprehenſive Petitions, for all Common, and Ordinary, Spiritual and Outward Wants, of themſelves and others, with fit Thanksgivings. Yea and ſomething more than this, for all Emergent Occaſions, as to which Forms cannot provide; which it may be is the reaſon that it will be hard to prove, that ſuch Petitions, and fit Thankſgivings, have not Ʋniverſally been put up with reference to the late Horid Popiſh Plot, and moſt Eminent dangers of the Nation, as every good Engliſh mans common reaſon, may have judged needful. 6. From hence appears, that tho he be firſt Impeaching, yet it is not the Author, but the Anſwerer, who in the place quoted, hath Calumniated and Reproached the Church of God, and ſpoken rawly and extravagantly: The Vindicator plainly aſſerted the neceſſity of Liturgies, becauſe there were not in the Church perſons ſo able. The Author ſaith no ſuch thing, but ſaith, It is a ſhame for us, if there be not; in the mean time believing there are ſo many, either actually imployed in the Miniſtry, or who may be ſo, when they pleaſe But, Ʋt canem caedas facile eſt invenire baculum.

29. All this while it ſeems the Vindicator hath ſaid nothing to the Authors Argument. The great thing which ſeems to be the Queſtion betwixt us in all this Diſcourſe, is, Whether p. 59there be any ſuch thing the duty of Miniſters as Verbal Prayer, or whether words have any neceſſary concern in Miniſters Publick Prayers, ſince Prayer is not ſo much a Verbal thing ſaith he; p. 30. But is it not a Duty that cannot by a Miniſter be publickly performed without words: if not, by his leave words are eſſential to it (for certainly that is eſſential to a thing without which that thing cannot be.) He cometh now to the Authors Argument, after 26 pages ſpent in Prologomena. The firſt thing, which he ſaith p. 57. hath been before ſpoken to in the beginning of this Chapter, when I did not think fit to have ſpoken any thing to his long digreſſion, tho afterwards I ſaw it neceſſary to make good my Minor Propoſition.

30. The ſecond thing, he ſaith is p. 58. That Ability of Expreſſion is not peculiarly and particularly given by God to M niſters, that they might thereby perform the publick Office of Prayer. This he would prove, Becauſe it is given to others beſide Miniſters — Becauſe then our Lord would not have given his Diſciples a Form of Prayer: — But is this the Queſtion? I aſſume no more, then that it is a Mean given by God in order to the performance of the act, natural and proper. What if it be given to others as well as Miniſters? then they are alſo bound to perform the Act in the uſe of it: The giving of it to others as well as Miniſters, ſurely doth not make it ceaſe to be a Gift, a Miniſterial Gift, a Gift in order to the Act; which is all I have ſaid. And Dato non conceſſo, ſuppoſing our Saviour did give his Diſciples the p. 60Lords Prayer for a Form of words, doth it follow this is not a Divine Mean natural and proper, becauſe that (altho not ſo Natural) yet it is as Divine and Proper, being appointed by him who is God over all, bleſſed for ever; or that becauſe we may doubtleſs uſe any Mean of Divine Inſtitution, therefore we may neglect a Mean given us of God, and uſe a Mean under no Divine Preſcription? Certainly it will not follow, that becauſe a Form Compoſed, and Inſtituted by Chriſt, is a Divine Mean, therefore Forms Inſtituted by men, are; till Chriſts Commiſſion to them to do as much in his Church in this caſe as himſelf, be well proved. I leave this Anſwer to any fair intelligent Reader's Judgment, whether it be adequate or no?

31. In the next place he tells us the Authority of Governours is of conſiderable weight: Indeed it is, but not in this caſe, becauſe it cannot be pleaded without begging the Queſtion, as may be ſeen by the clear and plain ſtating of it p. 5. and certainly, the anſwering of an Argument by a plain and open begging the Queſtion, ſpeaks the Vindicator to be as Defective in his Logick, as the Author was ſuppoſed to be in his Chronological learning.

32. He tells us p. 60. That the Author ſaith, That a mans own Gift and Ability is a Divine Mean. He doth ſo, and it is true. But a Form of Prayer is a meer humane Mean. A Form of Prayer preſcribed or compoſed by others, to be uſed by me, if thoſe others were p. 61not authorized by God, is but an Humane Mean; nor is it poſſible that it ſhould be other.— Now (he ſaith) this muſt be upon a Suppoſition that an ability to compoſe a Prayer, to ſpeak it, is a Divine Ability; (he ſhould have ſaid Mean) but the ſame ability, to compoſe the ſame Prayer if it be written, is a meer Humane Mean (for ſo he ſhould have ſaid if he intended to ſpeak Senſe, as every Reader will own. ) An Ability to expreſs our minds fitly in Prayer to God, is a Divine Mean relating to the Action of Praying. An Ability fitly to expreſs the matter or ſtile of a Prayer in a Book, is alſo a Divine Mean, in order to the action of writing ſuch a Form. But how doth it appear that another Mans Ability, fitly to expreſs the matter or ſtile of a Prayer in a Book, is alſo a Divine Mean in order to my Action in Prayer? He that can prove this, muſt uſe another Medium, or elſe aſſert, That what is a Divine Mean for A. B. as to one Action, is alſo a Divine Mean for C. D. as to another Action of a quite differing Species. This is now what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi. What he ſaith p. 60, and 61. in his 36 Paragraph, is much of the ſame ſtrength. The Author did ſay, That if none have an Ability to expreſs their own and others Minds fitly to God in Prayer, then no Man hath an Ability to make publick Forms; for in them there muſt be ſuch an Ability exerciſed. What doth our Anſwerer conclude from p. 62hence? Then, The Ability to make Liturgies is the Gift of Prayer, and conſequently muſt be a Divine Mean for the performance of Prayer: How doth this follow? It will follow indeed, that it is a Divine Mean, for the compoſure of a Prayer, but not for the Action of Prayer; becauſe it it not the ability of him that prayeth, but of other Men, whom God never imployed (ſo far as we yet ſee proved) to find out means for others Actions in his Worſhip. But I am not difficult to grant, That an Ability to make Forms of Prayer is a Divine Mean for ſome perſons, viz. ſuch as have not attained to an Ability of themſelves, fitly to expreſs their mind to God: but will it therefore follow, that it is ſo for them, to whom God hath given another mean, more proper and natural?

33. The Anſwerer p. 61. comes to anſwer my Proofs, which were drawn from thoſe Texts, where Miniſters are from God commanded, not to neglect their Gifts, 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Pet. 4.10, 11. Rom. 12.3, 6. As to the firſt Text, he tells us, 1. That it was a charge not to neglect his Office. 2. That there is not a word ſpoken of Prayer. To which I reply, 1. That foreign, which in many other places ſignifies a Gift, or Ability to a Religious Act, in this place ſignifies an Office and not a Gift, is ſpoken without any proof. 2. That both the words before-going, Give Attendance to Reading, to Exhortation, Doctrine, — p. 63and thoſe immediately following: Meditate on theſe things, give thy ſelf wholly to them, — Take heed to thy ſelf and to thy Doctrine, are vehement Preſumptions to the contrary. 3. I will not deny but it may ſignifie both Gift, and Office, if that will pleaſe our Anſwerer, and that it doth ſignifie both is plain from 20 Texts in the New Teſtament. But it ſeems that it will not, for he goes on and tells us there is not a Word about Prayer: Who ſaid there was? I onelyonly urged it as a general Prohibition of the neglect of any Miniſterial Gifts, of which ſurely the Gift of Prayer is one. The Argument is, Miniſters muſt neglect no Miniſterial Gift: Therefore not that of Prayer. But he ſaith, The Gift of Prayer is not given by the laying on of hands, nor doth the Text ſay ſo; it ſaith, By Prophecy with the laying on of hands. By Prophecy, that is, that you might prophecy (ſo Piſcator, Vatablus, and Beza render it) or with Prophecy, ſo the Syriack, Arabick and Aethiopick Verſions expound it, or by Prophecy, ſo the Vulgar Latine and our Tranſlation, which is hardeſt to expound, unleſs (as ſome) we will expound it per oraculum, immediately from God. With Impoſitions of hands, that is with the Office of the Miniſtry, in which ſenſe foreign here cannot ſignifie the Office, but the Gift. But beſides, may not, are not Miniſterial Gifts in a more plentiful meaſure given at the time, vvhen God calls a man out to the Pubiick Miniſtry, p. 64I am Sure the Scripture tells us, of another Spirit, given to Perſons at their calling out to Places of Magiſtracy. I believe the ſame as to the Miniſtry. But our Anſwerer ſaith it might be meant of Extraordinary Gifts, which might not be neglected. May then Ordinary Gifts be neglected? And is not this an Infallible Anſwer as to any thing we can produce of this Nature? It is but ſaying, Thoſe Texts refer to the extraordinary Gifts, tho no pretence can be brought of proof for it.

Our Vindicator p. 63, ſeems again a little diſpleaſed, That I ſhould bring a Text to prove an obligation, as to the manner of Performance of Prayer, in which there is no mention of Prayer; who p. 142. cryed out upon it as Ridiculous for another to argue from Rom. 15.16. Becauſe the Apoſtle praying for likemindedneſs, prayed, That with one mouth they might Glorifie God, he might have told the Reader alſo, that in that place, I fairly ſtated the Argument which could be drawn from that Text, thus:

Thoſe who are to ſpeak the ſame thing, and are with one mouth to glorifie God; may lawfully, or muſt uſe ſet Forms of Prayer.

But Chriſtians are to ſpeak the ſame thing, 1 Cor. 1.10. and with one mouth to glorifie God — Ergo — If our Vindicator can make more of it, why doth he not.

I denied the Major, and told him, the p. 65ſame Argument would prove, Forms of Preaching neceſſary, and the ſame Forms to be uſed in all Churches, Families and Cloſets; yea and that it was neceſſary for all Chriſtians to ſpeak the ſame words in all Religious Diſcourſe, but then I ſhould not have uſed the ſame Logick. It is true none ought to do that himſelf, which he diſalloweth in another: But have I done it? Let us try. My Argument from that Text, 1 Tim. 4.14. lies thus,

Thoſe who ought not in their Miniſtry, to neglect their Miniſterial Gift, ought not to neglect their Gift of Prayer.

But Miniſters in their Miniſtry in Prayer, ought not to neglect their Miniſterial Gift, 1 Tim. 4.14. — Ergo.

I think this Arguing is according to an old Rule in Logick, Quicquid praedicatur de genere praedicatur etiam de ſpecie. Let but our Vindicator prove, That Miniſters all Praying by one and the ſame Form of Words, is a Species to Glorifying God with one Mouth, as I will prove that Gifts of Prayer are Species of Miniſterial Gifts: and he will ſay ſomething: otherwiſe this is nothing but an ugly Reflexion, of which his Book is too full.

What his quotation from Grotius means, I cannot tell: He was no Father, no Divine, but a Learned Politician, very Erroneous in his Divinity; of what Authority his Sentiment ſhould be with any ſober Divine, I cannot imagine.

p. 6635. He comes p. 64. to my Quotation of 1 Pet. 4.10. in the caſe, as every one hath received the Gift, ſo let him miniſter the ſame foreign The ſame, what? The ſame Gift. As to this he ſaith, Many underſtand that Text of Alms; and why? Becauſe the verſe before ſpake of Hoſpitality. Why may not others underſtand it of Spiritual Gifts, conſidering that the following words are, As Stewards of the Manifold Grace of God, foreign (is that Alms) If any man ſpeak, let him ſpeak as the Oracles of God. Then he refers us to the ſecond and third Anſwer which he gave to the aforementioned Text, that is, by Gift may he meant Office; but whether is more proper to ſay, Men miniſter their Office, or their Gifts in their Offices? But (which was his third Anſwer) it might be underſtood of extraordinary Gifts. Then this Text now ſignifies nothing of Duty to us, thus any thing may be avoided, nor is there the leaſt ſhadow of Reaſon for what he ſaith. Yes, ſaith he, he ſpeaks of miniſtring one to another; now he that prayeth miniſtreth only to God. He ſpeaketh of Officers in the Church miniſtring, now ſurely they in Prayer, Miniſter not to God only, but to the Church, or elſe the Church and they pray diverſe things.

36. He comes to anſwer what I urged from Rom. 12.6. Having Gifts given according to the Grace given us, whether prophecying, let us prophecy according to the proportion p. 67of Faith, or Miniſtry, let us wait on our miniſtry; or he that teacheth on Teaching, or he that exhorteth on Exhortation. He that giveth, let him do it with Simplicity, he that Ruleth, with Diligence, he that ſheweth Mercy, with Chearfulneſs.

As to this he only referreth to his former Anſwer to 1 Pet. 4.10. and tells us there is no mention of Prayer there, but the other gifts which the Apoſtle meaneth are there named. Let me a little enlarge on this Theme, becauſe it will give ſome light to that text, 1 Tim. 4.14.

The Apoſtle is plainly there ſpeaking of the Whole Church Service, which he diſtinguiſheth into Prophecy and Miniſtry. Miniſtry diſtinguiſheth it into the Miniſtry of him that giveth or ſheweth Mercy (which is that of Deacons) or Ruling; under Prophecying he comprehendeth all other Acts of a Goſpel Miniſter: for though Prophets and Prophecying, in the New Teſtament ſometime ſignify perſons or acts, predicting things to come, as it is uſed with reference to Agabus, Acts 21. ſometimes ſome Acts which were the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghoſt, as is in ſome places in 1 Cor. 12.13.14. yet it alſo ſignifies the Ordinary Miniſtry of all thoſe who had ſomething to do, beſides Ruling and ſhewing Mercy. Theſe we call Miniſters (tho the Apoſtle ſpeaks otherwiſe in this Text, to diſtinguiſh them from Deacons, and meer Rulers; and therefore calls their whole Miniſtration Prophecy.) That p. 68precept, 1 Theſſ. 5.20. Deſpiſe not Prophecying, is not to be reſtrained to Praedictions, or immediate Revelations, but comprehends all Goſpel Miniſtrations of the Ordinances of Chriſt, tho expreſſed by one of the Eminenteſt among them, which is Preaching the Goſpel. Now as to theſe the Apoſtle ſaith, Having Gifts let us Miniſter. Being in theſe Offices, let us Miniſter, foreign, according to the grace of God given to us; that is, according to that Ability which God hath given us. I Appeal to any thinking Reader, whether this bids not very fair for the true and plain ſenſe of that Text; which if it doth, 1. Prayer is there ſpoken to, included in the general term Prophecying, tho no more particularly named, then Baptizing, or Giving the Lords Supper, or Viſiting the Sick, &c. 2. If that difficult Phraſe, 1 Tim. 4.14. be not to be underſtood, By Prophecy, that is by God who is the Author of Prophecy, but To, or for Prophecy (according to Vatablus, Piſcator, and Beza) a very fair Senſe may be put on that Text, without reſtraining it (moſt unreaſonably) to the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit.

37. The Anſwerer ſaying no more, to deliver theſe Texts out of my hands, cometh p. 67, &c. to except againſt my deſcription of the Gift of Prayer for the publick Service of the Church, as very defective eſpecially in two things. My Deſcription was, An Ability to expreſs our Minds fitly to p. 69God in Prayer. 1. He ſaith the Conception: of the Miniſters mind, muſt be ſober, well ordered, comprehenſive, ſuitable to the Nature of the Duty. Is not all this comprehended in Fitly? To what purpoſe ſo many words? I never loved long Deſcriptions. 2. He tells me the Miniſter is not to ex…reſs his mind, his deſires or wants, but (the Mind he ſhould have ſaid) the wants of the whole Aſſembly. I would gladly know how he ſhould know the Wants and Regular deſires of the whole Aſſembly, but from the Scriptures; and whether their ordinary wants be not his alſo? For emergent wants, how they who made Forms 100 Years ago could know the Wants and Deſires of the ſeveral Aſſemblies of Chriſtians at this day, more than the Miniſters now living and converſing with them, and whether this be in the leaſt probable (if God or Chriſt, who did know all things paſt, preſent, and to come, did not draw thoſe Forms) I am not able to conceive.

38. Another place he muſt except to, that is, p. 9, 10. and put a Marginal Note upon it too: that is this, I ſaid, We thought it would be hard to find Nine or Ten thouſand Schollars in England, furniſhed with the Gift of Praying or Preaching, in any tolerable manner. Is not this one of their own Arguments for the neceſſity of Forms of Prayer? I have read and heard it forty times from them: I hope he will now be reconciled to me, who have told him, and p. 70do from my heart believe it, that there are twice Ten thouſand Perſons in England, who either are, or might be Miniſters, who have the Gift of Prayer. He might before have been Friends with me, if he had pleaſed, for I find I had told him ſo before, Reaſonable Account, p. 154.