The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
An Anſwer to what the Vindicator ſaith in his Third Chapter; beginning at p. 73. Whether any can with equal Attention of his Mind, read in a Book, as ſpeak the Conceptions of his own Heart? Whether Miniſters can by Forms Pray with equal Fervency and Devotion? The contrary proved. The People not ſo much concerned in it, &c.
1. THe Argument which our Anſwerer comes to anſwer in this Chapter was falſly Printed, and I thank him for not imputing the Error of the Printer to me, who ſaw not the Book till it was too late, to Correct any thing in it. I ſhall therefore tranſcribe and amend it here: It lyeth thus:
To uſe ſuch a mode in the ordinary performance of our duty, in publick Solemn Prayer, as either from the neceſſary workings of Humane Nature, or otherwiſe upon experience we find, either hindring the Attention of our own or others thoughts to the duty, or the Intention of our own or others Spirits, in the performance of the duty, when we can ſo perform it, as neither of them will be to that degree hindred, is unlawful.
But for him who hath the Gift of Prayer [I now expound that term, by an Ability fitly to expreſs his Mind to God in Prayer] to perform his Miniſterial Acts in Publick Solemn Prayer, by the Preſcribed Forms of other Men, not divinely inſpired, (theſe words were left our) is for him to uſe ſuch a mode in thoſe Acts of Worſhip, as either from the Natural workings of Human… Nature or from ſome other cauſe ſcarce … voidable, is upon experience found, to hinder our own Attention, and alſo the Attention of others thoughts to the duty, and the intention and fervency of our own and others Spirits in the duty, when in the mean time we have an Ability ſo to perform it, as neither of them will (at leaſt) to that degree be hindred Ergo.
All the queſtion here lieth upon the Minor. The Anſwerer very honeſtly grants the Major, he only ſaith there may be too great ſtreſs laid upon Zeal and Fervency, but I hope not upon Holy Zeal; if he looks back, he will find himſelf acknowledging that which I ſaid p. 43.
2. In his 75 p. he ſeems to fault my leaving Arguments, and propounding three queſtions. He hath no reaſon to be diſpleaſed at that, conſidering he told us in his Introduction, that it was acceptable to few but thoſe who admired the Art of making Syllogiſms. And tho I judged a Proſyllogiſm, containing the head of an Argument, very reaſonable, to keep thoſe that argue within their bounds; yet in a Book, I never thought following diſcourſe reaſonable to be tyed to thoſe Forms My firſt queſtion was: VVhether it be poſſible for any to read any diſcourſe with that degree of Attention of thoughts as he muſt pronounce the ſame with by heart? It is manifeſt this Queſtion was ſtated only with reference to the Attention of him that miniſtreth in the duty.
Our Anſwerer replies, It is certain this may eaſily be done. I am clearly of another mind, conſidering, 1. That there is not a wilder thing, then Mans imaginative power; nor its wildneſs at any time more ſeen, then in Holy Duties. Who is able to keep his thoughts fixed upon God, and the matter of his Supplications for one quarter of an hour in Prayer? The Lord Pardon me, I cannot. 2. While I am Reading by the help of my Eye, Why a Man cannot read any thing with like Attention of thoughts, as he may ſpeak it by heart from his own Conceptions.my thoughts are more at liberty to wander from what I am about, then while I am ſpeaking, from the Conceptions of my own Heart. I have an Eye to ſee, and a Tongue to ſpeak, let my thoughts be where they will, as to the main Operations of them, after an habit of Reading once acquired, they have no great buſineſs to do to help me to read right. It is no great buſineſs for me to think how to ſound thoſe Letters which my Eyes have before them. But while I ſpeak from my own Conceptions, my thoughts muſt attend my Tongue, or I ſhall ſpeak nothing but Nonſenſe. This I did ſay, and do ſay, is to me next to a Demonſtration, onelyonly I crave leave to make one term in the Queſtion plainer [by heart.) I meant, by it from the Conceptions of his own heart; and ſo let it ſtand or fall, by any diſcreet Judgment.
3. But ſaith our Anſwerer, How uſual is it to read the Scriptures and other Books, with at great Attention as the ſame things can be ſpoken without Reading? Attention to what? To the matter he readeth? I do doubt that. I am ſure a Mans thoughts in ſuch Services are moſt inclinable to wander, and be imployed about other things, and I am ſure they are more at liberty to wander. Now conſidering both theſe things, this poſſibility is (confidering our imperfect ſtate) very queſtionable; yet will it not follow that then we muſt not read the Scriptures, but always recite them by heart, becauſe God hath made Reading of them our Duty. As to this Queſtion let all truly ſpeak as they find, I own the wildneſs of my heart in this thing.
4. Our Anſwerer, p. 77, 78. comes to the Second Queſtion which I propounded.
Whether any thing ean more conduce to fix the thoughts upon the Duty and upon God, then when a man can truſt his Affections, to thruſt out words?
Our Anſwerer ſaith, That a Devout Senſe of Gods preſence and of his Purity, &c. may, but he never conſidered that all theſe were pre-neceſſary to Pious Affections, and without theſe the Affections are not rightly ordered for the duty. The Queſtion was, Whether the Affections being rightly diſpoſed, their thruſting out words did not more conduce, then any Form made by Men could, to fix the thoughts? Dr. Ames was of the opinion it did; De Caſibus Conſc. l. 4. 17. cap. qu. 4. the learned Author of Altare Damaſc. is of that mind; in ſhort I never met with any that denied it; of neceſſity it muſt be ſo, for there is no Medium betwixt ſuch Affections and ſuch words to divert or give ſcope of devagation to the thoughts. For our Saviours repeating the ſame words in his Prayers upon his Agony, neither is it ſo in the Greek, neither are the words the ſame; but for this I refer the Reader to a Supplement to the Reaſonable Account, where this ſilly Argument is fully ſpoken to p. 99. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104.
5. The third Queſtion which I propounded was,
Whether any ſuch Attention, is to be expected from people to Forms of Prayer, which they often hear, as to a conceived Prayer?
The Author thinks it may be given to the matter of the Prayer: I think ſo too, there is no impoſſibility in the caſe I know of. But the Queſtion was, Whether it be to be expected, or hoped for, conſidering the infirmity of all our natures? This he wiſely leaveth out, and as wiſely replieth nothing to the true Queſtion.
6. For what our Author adds in anſwer to an obſervation which I called at leaſt ingenious, tho none of my own; That God to ſtir up peoples Attentions, tells his people he will do a new thing, he may find it Iſaiah 42.9.43.19.Beſides Iſ. 42.9. new things are oppoſed to the former things. it is this that the Scripture calls Admirable things new; Num. 16.30. Jer. 31, 32. But was not their Newneſs one thing which made them admirable? I hope both his inſtances were new things in the ſtrictneſs of Senſe, for when did the Earth before open and ſwallow up men alive? When was any before Chriſt ſo miraculouſly conceived? We do not much uſe to admire things we have ſeen a thouſand times. 2. He asks, If God never intends to ſtir up mens Affections by his Word, but when he tells them he will do a new thing. What is that to the purpoſe? Is not therefore newneſs of a thing one means to ſtir up Attentions and a great one too, ſo far as it may be uſed without Sin? Then ſurely it may be uſed. He tells us further that True Religion and Devotion doth always incline to the ſame things. Very true, as to the matter and ſubſtance, but doth it ſo alſo as to Words and Syllables? Our Anſwerer hath heard of foreign ſpeaking the ſame things in a new manner; and certainly Experience will tell us that the doing this in Divinity, as well as in Hiſtory, contributes to the generality of Peoples Attention.
7. He comes p. 82. to conſider what I ſaid to prove that Forms in Prayer hindred Fervency. This I proved, 1. On the Miniſters part, from the vaſt difference betwixt words following the Affections, and Affections following of Words, urged both by Dr. Ames and Mr. Calderwood, in his Altare Damaſcenum. This our Anſwerer grants as to the firſt uſe of any Form (but if it cannot be once lawfully uſed how ſhall it be lawfully uſed a ſecond, third, fourth time?) But it is not to be helped after once reading without Previous Preparation, as our Anſwerer grants. So as the Queſtion is, Whether it can be expected that ordinarily men ſhould uſe ſuch a Preparation, as ſhould inflame their Affections to ſuch a degree, as the heat ſhould not abate before they come to their Work. For what he ſaith of the Peoples Fervency as it is not here ſpoken to, (for himſelf quoteth me ſaying no more then— As to him that miniſtreth, there is a great deal of difference betwixt words following the Affections, and Affections following the words) ſo neither are the People to uſe any words at all, when they joyn with Miniſters in Conceived Prayer; therefore their Fervency is not hindred by Conceived Words. It is a quite different Species of Prayer. The Miniſter Prayeth Vocally, the People onelyonly in their Hearts; as to which the Miniſters conceived Words and Fervency doth help, not hinder them, coming with prepared hearts; and this is a ſufficient Anſwer to what he ſaith again p. 84. as if I had ſpoken very abſurdly, in ſaying p. 28, 29. That I could not think it poſſible, That the words of another ſhould ſo well fit our hearts and be ſo expreſſive of raiſed Affections as our own: He ſaith, I did not conſider that what I thus ſpake tended to declare, that the People cannot with Fervent Affection, joyn with the Miniſter in any Prayer ſoever, becauſe his words are not theirs, and then all Publick Prayer fitted to the People muſt be …ondemned and we muſt take up with Quakers or Papiſts? Still he ſeeks occaſions againſt me, and expoſeth me without Wit or Reaſon.
8. Now I would have him know that I did conſider it. But I alſo conſidered that there is a Vocal Prayer and a meerly Mental Prayer, both of them our Duties at ſeveral times, the latter only the Peoples Duty in Publick Aſſemblies, where it is Gods Ordinance that one ſhould miniſter to the reſt. I do believe that no one of the People can be ſo Fervent when he joyneth with the Miniſter miniſtring words to him, as when in his Family or Cloſet, his Affections thruſt them out of his own heart: But yet they may be ſo fervent as God requireth of them in ſuch a ſervice, where he hath to avoid confuſion, forbidden them the uſe of that Mean of geater Fervency. By which it appears our Anſwerer here triumphed before the Victory.
9. He cometh p. 85, 86. to ſpeak to ſomething which I had ſaid p. 29. That the Miniſter reading his Forms, there was a manifeſt impoſſibility of the like degree of Intention; for it is the Soul, which looking through the Eye, directe…h it ſo as a Man readeth true, and ſo it is plainly diverted from its immediate Contemplation of and Fixation upon God. I think it beneath me to ſpeak any thing to what he afterward ſpeaks, p. 96, 97. reflecting on me for ſaying in Prayer there is or ſhould be a Contemplation or Intuition of God, as if none could ſay ſo, but thoſe who had outdone St. Paul. The Anſwerer knew well enough, that St. Paul there ſpeaketh of a ſeeing God in Glory: And that I was ſpeaking, of Beholding him in this life. Where I hope tho none can ſee him as he is, nor face to face, yet they may immediately contenplate God. not with their bodily eyes, but the E…es of their mind. In all Meditation of God in a mans cloſet there is ſuch an immediate Contemplation. It is nothing but the Souls direct Motion to God. In all Prayer there is ſuch a contemplation, or ſhould be at leaſt. This was therefore nothing but another attempt to expoſe me to ſuch as know nothing of a Souls Communion with God in the Spirit. Let it paſs, Et valeat quantum valere poteſt. Our Anſwerer (to return to his 85 p.) ſaith, That this Argument doth not only recoile with equal violence upon my ſelf (unhappy me to be Felo de ſe ſo often) but it is againſt all Vocal Prayer (I ſhould be ſorry for that, but how doth that appear?) For ſaith he, The conſidering Words, Phraſes, Method and Senſe, is a different thing in Conceived Prayer, from the directing the Heart to God, and muſt take up more of his thoughts then the looking upon a Book doth. But did I ſay then that in Prayer the Soul had nothing more to do, then to direct its Eye to God? I deſire to know where; if I did not, this is nothing to the purpoſe. If he had but conſidered p. 30. of the Book, he would have found a great part of an Anſwer to this. The Soul in Prayer is to conſider what it hath to ſay to God; which being conſidered or known, it is to direct it ſelf unto God, with the greateſt Intention and leaſt Diverſion that it can. Now this I ſay cannot be done ſo well by a Form, as in Conceived Prayer; for tho it is true, he who Prayeth De pectore from the Conceptions of his own Heart, muſt firſt conſider his Matter and Words, yet. 1. This is neceſſary, ſo are not Forms. 2. The Soul is all the while imployed upon the work of Prayer, and its Acts are meerly Spiritual, and immanent Acts within its ſelf. But ſo are not its Acts in looking upon, and reading a Form, theſe are plain Diverſions of the Soul to objects without it ſelf, neither naturally neceſſary, nor from any Divine Precept neceſſary to the Action. So that he ſeeth I have not by my Argument deſtroyed all Vocal Prayer, but onelyonly reformed and eſtabliſhed it. And for what he faith of the Peoples hearing and obſerving the words ſpoken by the Miniſter, it is naturally neceſſary, for they cannot elſe ſay Amen. It is neceſſary by all thoſe Divine Precepts which have eſtabliſhed Mental Prayer, as the Peoples duty, in Communion with him that miniſtreth.
10. He comes in the next place p. 87. to prove, That Conceived Prayers, as the publick Service of the Church, may be an Impediment of Devotion. I have proved that Forms muſt be from a neceſſity of Nature (as to the Miniſters Devotion at leaſt) He only undertakes to prove, That Conceived Prayers may be concerning the Devotions of the people; and of this he giveth us a five-fold Account, 1. They are not certain that they can joyn in the matter of a new Conceived Prayer, till they have conſidered it. 2. They may be too apt to give their minds too much liberty, to obſerve the manner or compoſure; to judge of it or imitate it. 3. They hinder Peoples Praying with one Accord. 4. Some want quickneſs of Capacity to go along with New Prayers, who can Devoutly and Piouſly joyn with thoſe they have been aequainted with. 5. All Impertinencies, unbecoming Expreſſions, reſults of Paſſions, Imprudencies, &c. which may be inconceived Prayers; hinder Devotion.
For the firſt of theſe, There is no need of any ſuch thing, that People ſhould afore-hand be certain what Petitions their Miniſters will put up in Prayer, nor doth God any where require it, nor any right reaſon enforce it. How doth it appear that all the Congregation of Iſrael were certain before-hand what Solomon would, and did pray for, 1 Kings 8.22? Or what Hezekiah would, and did pray for, 2 Chron. 30.18. or Jehoſaphat 2 Chron. 20.5. or Ezra, Ezra 9.5. It is wonderful theſe great Men could not ſee the neceſſity of this Device, for promoving Peoples Devotion. Nor doth any Reaſon ſhew it. I know nothing any Man or Woman hath to do, who is to joyn with another in Prayer, but keeping his heart in Heaven as much as he can, to attend to the words ſaid, or read by the Miniſter, and making up a judgment on each Petition, if he or ſhe apprehendeth it to be according to the Will of God, earneſtly and believingly to deſire it: this they may as we l do upon hearing a Conceived as a Read Prayer.
For his Second Particular, it is a May Be, riſing from Mens Luſts, eaſy to be avoided without providing Forms, which will as little ſecure the Devotion againſt other Luſts of a far more hainous Nature. 3. The Third is non intelligible, why People may not pray with one Accord, whilſt the Miniſter without a Form miniſtreth words to them; eſpecially, if as our Anſwerer told us, in the laſt Chap. Prayer be not ſo much a Verbal thing. I am ſure Prayer in the Congregation by the People is not a Verbal thing, but meerly Mental. For what he ſaith Fourthly it may be true, where People ſtudy Starcht Prayers, ſuch as Dr. Featly reflects on in his Ancilla Pietatis, but in no caſe elſe. 5. For Impertinencies, Inconvenient Expreſſions, &c. which we are ſo often told of. I have heard more (ſome within theſe 28 days) from Miniſters falſe reading the Forms, then ever I heard from Conceived Prayers; both proceed from a non attentive mind, which I am ſure Forms will not prevent, but rather give Temptations to (by allowing the thoughts more liberty to the contrary.)
11. I have nothing to do with what our Anſwerer ſaith, p. 89, 90, 91, and 92. being not concerned to oppoſe his Vindication of himſelf, from what I never charged him with: But he hath three Obſervations, which begin p. 91. which I muſt concern my ſelf with. The Firſt is: That Attention, Intention, and Fervency,P. 91, 92. is not the whole buſineſs needful to be minded and taken care of in the Publick Service of the Church, but rightly ordered Matter, due Expreſſions, and Behaviour; and here Forms have the advantage.
I anſwer, not at all. As to Behaviour, a law may help that, but ſure a Form of Prayer cannot. For the other Two things, they are no more neceſſary to be taken care for, as to Prayer, then as to Preaching. Then it ſeems all Miniſters muſt Preach by Forms too, or elſe the Church ought to take care, that Miniſters for Matter and Phraſe ſpeak fitly in the Peoples name to God; but need take no care that Miniſters ſpeak fitly in Gods Name to the People. 3. The care the Church ought to take, ſhould be, That none be admitted as Miniſters in it, who are not able to do both; and when all is done, ſome Errors will be. Another thing he ſaith that muſt be cared for, is, That Mens Devotion may be ſo, as not to croſs other Duties. It is impoſſible it ſhould, for it would no longer be Devotion. But what other duty will be hindred by Conceived Prayer? That which he inſtanceth in is Preſervation of Ʋnity and Obedience to Superiours. But are theſe Duties, when the buſineſs contended for, is that this thing (ſo far as the Perſons concerned can judge, and as they are ready to argue) is not lawful? And when they oppoſe the firſt and great Commandment. To which the Second (tho like to it, I and to which both theſe relate) is and ought to be ſubordinate.
12. His Second Obſervation is, That there may be a want of due Devotion, Attention, and Fervency, in thoſe that uſe Forms, and yet this not proceed from the Form. This is doubtleſs true, if he meaneth ſolely, and chiefly; but what is this to the purpoſe, when the buſineſs of the Argument is, to prove that in him that miniſtreth, a Form muſt neceſſarily hinder degrees of Attention and Fervency? This obſervation is true, or falſe, as his anſwer to the Argument is good or bad; which I leave to the Reader to judge from my reply to it.
13 His Third obſervation. p. 95. is: That Publick Service ought to be ſo ordered, as may fit the General Temper of the true Chriſtian Spirit, but muſt not be cenſured if it fit not with the Inclinations of all particular Perſons.
Agreed, therefore ſaid the Author, let it be ſo ordered, that thoſe who deſire it, may have a Miniſter to pray with and for them, by a Form, and others may have one that may pray with and for them, from the Conceptions of his own Heart. It is very like the True Chriſtian Spirit may be found in the latter, as much as in the former, if that Spirit be a Spirit of Holineſs, and of the Fear of the Lord, of Love to God, and Communion with God, as I think it is, and believe moſt Chriſtians are of my mind.