The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
A Reply to the Vindicators Second Section of his Second Chapter; concerning the judgment of other Divines. What is in the Reaſonable Account concerning the judgment of the Leiden Profeſſors, Dr. Ames, the Divines of the Walachrian Claſſis further conſidered, and vindicated. Whether in Acts of External Worſhip, there be any thing which hath in it, an Intrinſecal Piety, Religion, or Devotion, Antecedaneous to the Revealed Will of God? Whether God requireth the ſame degree of Attention and Fervour in all Duties?
1. THe Anſwerer begins his Second Section, p. 98. with telling us, That he propoſed it as uſeful, to try the Iſſue of the thing in queſtion, viz. Whether Forms of Prayer were any prejudice to Piety or Religion.
To conſult the judgment of them who are leaſt partial, and yet able to make a true eſtimate, and eſpecially to conſider the Evidences of Reaſon, which may be produced. He ſaith, I agreed it. But how? take my words, p. 44.
Indeed it is very reaſonable in this caſe, That if the Propoſition be not of that Nature, with reference to ſeveral Perſons, that the experience of Chriſtians be variable in the caſe, it is reaſonable that the Major part of pious and able ſhould be taken into Judgment, or rather Counſel. — But I further told him, That we believe the Experience of Chriſtians may be really different in this caſe: ſome may find the uſe of their own Gifts more advantageous, others may poſſibly find Forms more advantageous; it depends much on the degree of the Gift each one hath received. But every one, is bound to uſe that lawful means which he b… experience findeth moſt conducive to himſelf, to keep his thoughts attentive, and his affections fervent; ſo as one may be und…r an obligation a divine obligation not to uſe Forms, another for the preſent to uſe them. So as I did not think this matter of a Superiours command, becauſe an Ʋniverſal command here, muſt neceſſarily treſpaſs (as to ſome) upon a Divine Obligation, which hath pre-obliged them to the contrary; the command of Attention and Fervency in Prayer; which they muſt not violate, in obedience to any man, as all Divines agree. I think this is Senſe and Divinity.
Now good Reader obſerve what our Anſwerer (who hath ſo often told the World, there is no weight no ſtrength, no truth in what I ſay) replyeth to this.
2. He tells us, That He who ſeriouſly minds his duty, muſt alſo have a conſcientious regard to Ʋnity, Order, and the Duty of due ſubmiſſion: and the obſerving them, are not the way to make him leſs devout, and fervent—That the Exerciſe of one duty will not hinder us in another—That the Promiſes of Gods Grace and Preſence, are chiefly made to them who embrace Peace and Ʋnity. I do very well know that there are Precepts for, and Promiſes, to Peace and Ʋnity, and thoſe that follow it, and ſome of thoſe Precepts, which alſo direct us how to follow it; as Heb. 12.14. Follow Peace with all Men and Holineſs, Rom. 12.18. If it be poſſible, as much as lyeth in you, live peaceably with all Men: So that Ʋnity and Peace is no further our duty, then it is conſiſtent with Holineſs, which ſurely lyeth in the diſcharge of our Obligations to God: No further then it is poſſible for us, and as in us lyeth. Now it is not Morally poſſible for us, it lyeth not in us, to be at Peace and in Ʋnity with them, who will be in no Peace and Ʋnity with us, unleſs we will conſent to pleaſe them, to quit what we verily believe is our Obligation to God, viz. To Pray with the greateſt attention of our thoughts, and fervency of our Spirits. Fathers, and Authority of Men enough, might be quoted in this caſe, but that I fancy no ſuch Oſtentation. There are Precepts alſo requiring order and due ſubmiſſion to Governours, but they muſt both be expounded as the other. Will any one then in his right reaſon urge us with Precepts to Ʋnity, Order and Submiſſion, in a caſe where the queſtion is, Whether we can follow theſe Precepts with Holineſs, yea or no? Whether they be morally poſſible, or lie in us yea or no? Or, Whether before ever any ſuch precepts of Men were, we were not pre-obliged to the contrary by God?
3. To as little purpoſe is his Text, Matth. 5.23, 24. brought; for our Brother neither hath nor can have any thing againſt us, (tho he be offended at us) if he be offended at us meerly, becauſe to be at Ʋnity with him, or to pleaſe him, we will not violate an Obl…gation which we believe was ever upon us from God. Now that we have ſuch an Obligation upon us, this Argument was brought to prove, Becauſe we have an Oblition upon us, to the greateſt attention of thoughts and fervency of Spirit in Prayer, and this we cannot diſcharge (as we upon experience find) by Praying by Forms. But he promiſeth us a diſcourſe hereafter, about Superiors power in this caſe: To which time we ſhall adjourn this diſcourſe, only minding him, that my inſtance of a command to Pray with our Eyes ſhut or open, was not brought as a Compariſon, but as an Inſtance. That there are ſome things ind…fferent, that are not the object of Superiors commands. Yet we cannot but judge ſuch a command as momentous, as a command one while to pray ſtanding up, another while kneeling down, what ſpeaking evil of Dignities, this is, I cannot underſtand; but I am ſure in this and many other things as cauſeleſly, he pleaſeth himſelf to ſpeak evil of me; which ſpeaks him not very confident of the Validity of his own Anſwers. It uſeth to be the policy of Commanders in an Army, when they know they have beaten their Enemy, to multiply their Adverſaries Numbers, and magnifie their Couragious Fighting; but I ſee my Adverſary is ruled by other Politicks.
4. He comes in the next place, p. 10. to tell us, There can be no Publick Worſhip in any Church, unleſs it be firſt determined to be either with, or without a Form, we deſire no other determination then, That it may be determined lawful for Miniſters to Pray with, or without a Form; and thus this point is determined by the Churches of God in France, and Holland. It is determined in New England, and Scotland, that it ſhall be without a Form. I ask not ſo much, yet ſurely there is with this Doctors leave Publick Worſhip in all theſe places and therefore if his meaning be, that there can be no Publick Worſhip, unleſs one way be fixed of them two, and the other deſtroyed, he condemns all the Publick Worſhip of France, and Holland, where either of them is at liberty. There is therefore no neceſſity for the determination of all Men in this caſe, before there can be any Publick Worſhip of God, no not by him that officiateth; unleſs he means as to a Particular Act, and therein he ſaith true; but in the ſame Congregation Publick Worſhip may for ought I know be this day performed, by one that uſeth no Form, and to morrow by another who uſeth a Form (not having Gifts, or being nor confident he hath, or being hindred by God at this or that time, as to the uſe of them.)
5. At length he comes to the two Teſtimonies, that of the Divines of Leyden and that of the Walachrian Claſſis, which he had brought to prove, that they judged it lawful for all Miniſters in their Miniſterial Acts of Prayer, to uſe Forms of Prayer compoſed, tho by Men not Divinely inſpired; tho he tells us p. 3. he laid no great ſtreſs on them, yet becauſe he chargeth me with not giving a true account of them, and calls it, an high degree of Careleſneſs and not Faithful dealing, I muſt examine the matter again.
1. He agrees (as I ſaid) p. 46. of the Reaſonable Account, that the Walachrians profeſſed to agree with Ameſius, and he agrees that Ameſius was not for preferring Forms before conceived Prayer. Well then, where was the Errour I committed, ſhewing my ſelf careleſs and unfaithful? He tells us that the Walachrians only declared their Agreement with Dr. Ames in that Queſtion, Whether Forms were lawful for Prayer and adminiſtring the Sacraments, or thoſe Churches that uſed them were guilty of Superſtition and Will Worſhip; and whether men might retain Communion with thoſe Churches that uſed them? In theſe words the Walachrians ſtate the Queſtion, and that in the very place quoted in Dr. Faulconers Libertas Eccleſ. p. 121. Conſiderat. Cap. 7. qu. 2. The very firſt words in Anſwer to this Queſtion are, Nos in hac controverſia faciles accedimus iis, quae ab Ameſio ſuper hac Quaeſt ſcribuntur. What ſaith ou… Anſwerer? I acknowledge this to be the ſenſe of Ameſius. But it ſhould have been obſerved by our Author, That the Walachrians onelyonly declared their Agreement with them in that Queſtion, which was by them propounded; then he repeateth the Queſtion which I have tranſlated Verbatim. Doth our Vindicator call this an Anſwer, or a Vindication? He told us the Walachrian Claſſis in Zealand, do in like manner declare publick Forms to be lawful, and profitable for the direction of the attention of the Auditors, and preſerving Uniformity; Libertas Eccleſ. p. 121. to prove this he quotes Conſid. Cap. 7. Qu. 2. I look that Chap. that Qu. I tell him, That the Walachrian begin their Anſwer to that Q. with ſaying: They eaſily agreed to what Dr. Ames had ſaid upon this Queſtion (which is the Queſtion before ſtared) the Queſtion quoted in Libertas Eccleſiaſtica.
Now faith he, I ſhould have conſidered that they declared their Agreement with D. Ames in that Queſtion by them propoſed. Very good, and that Queſtion propoſed is the very Queſtion Libertas Eccleſiaſtica referred me to. Is not this enough? But he tells us it is another Queſtion, Whether Praying by Publick Forms be the moſt uſeful way of performing that Service? What have I to do with another Queſtion? I was only to ſpeak to the Queſtion quoted, and this is that Queſtion I am ſure. Neither is there any other Queſtion in all thoſe Conſiderations ſtated about Forms of Prayer: Beſides our Queſtion is about Lawfulneſs, for all Miniſters to uſe them, Dr. Ames with whom the Walachrians profeſs to agree in this Queſtion, ſaith expreſly, Caſ. Conſc. 14. c. 17. qu. 4.
None ought to acquieſce in Praying by Forms, Liber…as Eccleſ. p. 121.but to labour for an ability that he may Pray without this help. And gives four reaſons for it. The firſt is:
That while a preſcribed form doth not follow our affections,Reaſonable Account p. 46, 47. but plainly lead them; he who ſo prayeth, doth that which is of the Nature of Prayer leſs perfectly. Now with this man (as to the Queſtion before tranſlated) the Walachrians who ſpoke to no other Queſtion about Prayer in all their Books,Vindication p. 106. profeſs they readily agree. Judge good Reader who hath dealt leſs faithfully with thee, I, or the Vindicator, look but the Books ſet in the Margent.
6. But he tells us, They could not agree with thoſe of Leyden and Dr. Ames too.Synopſis pur. Theol. Diſput. 36. Sect. 33. They plainly ſay they do agree with them both. Let us ſee that. The words of the Leyden Profeſſors in the place cited, are theſe:
There is a Queſtion uſually made (ſo it is no novel Queſtion) whether it be lawful to uſe Forms of Prayer, publickly or privately? We ſay, If they be pronounced with due attention of Mind [mark pronounced] and with due attention, they are not only lawful, but very profitable. 1. Becauſe every Chriſtian hath not an Ability, and the attention of the People in great Meetings is not a little helped by uſual Forms. Upon which account God himſelf directed the Prieſts a Form of Bleſſing under the Old Teſtament, Num. 6.24. &c. And Chriſt upon the Croſs is obſerved to uſe that Form of Deprecation, which David. (who was a type of him) uſed, Matth. 27.46. and the Diſciples of Chriſt, Luk. 11.2. asked Chriſt to teach them to Pray, as John taught his Diſciples. To whom Chriſt anſwered, When you Pray, ſay Our Father, &c. from which Circumſtances of the Words, it is manifeſt, that this Prayer of Chriſt was not only a Rule to Pray by, but alſo a Form of Prayer, as all the Ancient Church thought unqueſtionable.
Sect. 34. But in the mean time we do confeſs, That it is profitable, yea almoſt neceſſary, that all grown Believers, and eſpecially the Paſtors of Churches, ſhould ſtir up in themſelves, the Gift of Praying, publickly without praevious Forms; that as occaſion ſe…veth, and neceſſities renew, they may pray and give thanks; as we read, that Holy Men, Prophets, and Apoſtles did often do, both in the Old and New Teſtament; which will not be difficult for them, if they obſerve the Method of Prayer, and be frequently exerciſed in it.
7. This is all which thoſe learned Profeſſors ſay. Now I muſt profeſs I ſee no reaſon for what our Vindicator ſaith, That the Walachrians could not agree with Dr. Ames, and the Leyden Profeſſors too; one thing is, Dr. Ames is put firſt: Whether they alſo agreed with the Leyden Profeſſors, is not much material, let thoſe word… be blotted out. I have enough to make me underſtand their Senſe upon the Queſtion, in their telling me, They readily agree with Dr. Ames in this Controverſie. If it be not poſſible they ſhould agree with the Leyden Profeſſors too, then their Teſtimony againſt us ſignifies nothing, for they contradicted themſelves, and Dr. Ames did not agree with thoſe of Leyden; but I do not think ſo. It may be our Anſwerers miſtake only.
8. Nothing can be certainly concluded in the cauſe, but I think I ſhall offer what any unbiaſt Reader ſhall judge very probable in the Cauſe. All Divines that will ſpeak clearly and diſtinctly in this Cauſe, muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt ſuch as are more imperfect and low in Knowledge and Gifts, and ſuch as are more grown and perfect. So that Acute Caſuiſt Dr. Ames diſtinguiſheth; and certainly ſo do the Leyden Profeſſors, and it is apparent from their words: 2. They (like Divines) accordingly deliver their minds in two Theſes. The one (which is the 33) relating only to Chriſtians and Miniſters, in a more Imperfect State, while they have not the Gift of Prayer: As to theſe, they determine Forms of Prayer both lawful and neceſſary, eſpecially where ſuch Miniſters in a low ſtate of the Church, have great Congregations, for there their hearers are more advantaged doubtleſs by a Form, then they would be by the uſe of ſuch Perſons own Abilities (for they are not two Sentences, but one; becauſe every Chriſtian that is to Miniſter, hath not an Ability, and [in ſuch caſes] the hearers are more advantaged by Forms, and the Perſon miniſtring doth well, for tho he offereth a Female, he hath no Male in his flock; for of all the inſtances they give, there is not one other. Such was the ſtate of all the Miniſters of the Jews, of all the Diſciples of John, and of Chriſt his own Diſciples, before the days of Pentecoſt; prophecyed of under the Old Teſtament, by the Prophet Joel, when God would pour out his Spirit on all Fleſh, Acts 2.17. Joel 2.28. that is, imperfect comparatively, with what it was after the Effuſion of the Spirit. Upon this Account Chriſt ſaith, Tho to that day there had not appeared Born of Women, one greater then John Baptiſt, yet the leaſt in the Kingdom of God, ſhould be greater then he; greater as to Spiritual Gifts, Knowledge, Ʋtterance, able to ſpeak greater things then he could. And the Promiſes are to Chriſts Diſciples for doing greater things (not then Chriſt could do, but) then he did do, becauſe he was aſcending to his Father, John 14.18. with many others of like import, proveth this. And it is certain that till that time, the Apoſtles had very imperfect Knowledge of the great Myſteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, the Ʋnion of Chriſt and his Father, John 14.8, 9. The Sitting at Chriſts right hand in his Kingdom, &c. And in this ſtate, and during this ſtate, it is not unreaſonable to think Chriſt ſhould give his Diſciples a Form of Prayer at their requeſt, yea of words to be uſed in Prayer.
9. In the 34 Theſis theſe Learned Profeſſors determine in the caſe, as to ſuch as are Provectiores, better grown, for theſe they judiciouſly determine (and eſpecially for thoſe amongſt them, that are Paſtors of Churches) that it was advantageous, yea upon the point neceſſary for them, To ſtir up in themſelves the Gift of Praying Publickly, without Forms. 1. That they might be able to Pray upon all occaſions and emergencies. 2. That they might be like the Holy Men, Prophets, and Apoſtles, who ſo Prayed, and tells them this was no hard thing to attain, if they obſerved the due Method of Prayer, and frequently exerciſed themſelves in it.
10. So that I ſee no difference betwixt the judgments of Dr. Ames and the Profeſſors of Leyden in the caſe. Thoſe of the Province of the Walachrians tell us, They as to this Queſtion agree with theſe. If they afterward ſay any thing which doth not agree with them, we are not concerned to juſtifie or to follow them. For Mr. Calvins opinion in Epiſt. ad Protectorem. 87, If our Reader will but conſider that it was wrote at a time, when Popery was but turning out of England, when the Nation h…d but very few Bibles in our own Languages, and very few Proteſtants that could read them, he will not wonder at Mr. Calvins …udgment. Thoſe who are moſt againſt impoſing Forms Ʋniverſally, now, would have been as much for an Ʋniverſal impoſing of them then, during ſuch a ſtate; and do think it neceſſary now, if Spain or Portugal, were Reformed: The Prieſts in corrupt Churches (I mean the generality of them) ſeldom complying with a Reformation, and the number of others who will humble themſelves (as they think) to the work of the Miniſtry, and have any abilities for it, being every where very ſmall. Our Vindicator laying no great ſtreſs upon this Teſtimony (as he tells, p. 111.) we ſee no great reaſon to contend for the Senſe, it being but the Senſe of a particular Claſis, and we being fully of the mind of thoſe great perſons with whom they profeſs to agree, it is no great matter whether we agree with them or no, becauſe they cannot agree with themſelves as our Anſwerer noteth.
11. Our Vindicator goeth on and telleth us, he had in his Libertas Eccleſiaſtica brought three Arguments, to prove, That forms of Prayer were of no diſadvantage to Piety. The firſt was From Gods preſcribing a conſtant form of Prayer for the Jewiſh offerings, and for the Prieſts bleſſing, our Saviours directing the Lords Prayer, but the Holy God, our Bleſſed Saviour, would not impoſe what is of its own nature an hindrance to Godlineſs, Piety, and Religion. My Anſwer was to this Senſe. That it was wild (in a matter of Worſhip eſpecially) to conclude, mans power from Gods fact. That becauſe God might preſcribe, therefore man might preſcribe. Our Vindicator here now tells us, He is not ſo void of all Reverence to God, as ſo much as to think ſo. I truely hope ſo, much leſs ſo void of all ſenſe and Reaſon, but what then is that which our Anſwerer would conclude from thence? That theſe things cannot prejudice Religion, he ſaith.
12. If we could once agree upon terms, I would hope all ſober and good men would agree. That which makes us differ, is we uſe General terms of Religion, Piety, The Church, Schiſme, Seperation, &c. and will never let one another underſtand what we mean by them. Piety and Religion here are theſe aequivocal Terms that deceive one party. We are here arguing about Prayer, as it is a part of the Inſtituted Worſhip of God, and in no other ſenſe. Inſtituted Worſhip, is not what is commanded by the Law of Nature, but by the Will of God revealed in his Word. We ſay that it is thus commanded by God, not onelyonly that we ſhould pray, but that we ſhould pray with the utmoſt Attention of our thoughts, to our work, and with the utmoſt intention of our mind, and pious fervour. This (ſay we) we profeſs we cannot do by forms. Yes (ſaith our Vindicator you may, or elſe God would never have preſcribed forms of Prayer and Bleſſing to the Jewiſh Prieſts, nor Chriſt to his Diſciples. How doth this follow? Is God then obliged, in a piece of Service, (which is no ſervice to him, but only becauſe he ſo willed it) to will it to all Perſons and at all times, under the ſame Circumſtances? Who will deny a Prince the liberty to direct one Subject to perform his Homage to him one way, and another to pay it another way; yea though the Act of Homage be ſpecifically the ſame? And ſhall we deny God that liberty, who is the moſt free of all Agents, and the King of Kings?
14. So that the Anſwerer either very weakly, or very invidiouſly ſaith, That the ſenſe of my Anſwer is, That the God of infinite Goodneſs, and Purity, may appoint, and enjoyn, and conſequently may be pleaſed with ſuch things as in their own Nature are hurtful to Piety, and oppoſe Piety and Goodneſs in the World: when as the ſenſe of my Anſwer (as is obvious to every underſtanding Reader) is no more then this, That the God of infinite liberty to direct his Homage in what manner he pleaſeth, may appoint ſeveral perſons in ſeveral ages, and under ſeveral diſpenſations, yea, and ſeveral perſons in the ſame age, to Worſhip him in the ſame ſpecifical Acts of Worſhip, ſeveral ways as he pleaſeth, and each of them becauſe he ſo appoints them, ſhall be Pious, Religious, Good, and Pure, and that as to thoſe Perſons whom he ſo commands, moſt Good, Pious and Religious.
14. And upon this foundation it was, That it was Pious to the Jews to Worſhip God by the Levitical Offerings, &c. which to us would be impious, not only becauſe he hath expreſly forbidden them, but becauſe he hath not commanded us any ſuch thing: And if God or Chriſt did preſcribe Forms of Prayer or Praiſe to the Jews, or to ſome particular Chriſtians, under ſome particular Circumſtances, the uſe of them as to them, or any under the ſame Circumſtances, may be Pious, and Religious, and doubtleſs is ſo, and yet not ſo to others, who are or may be under other Circumſtances, and other Precepts, relating to them as under ſuch Circumſtances; and this is our very Caſe. Perſons that have not Abilities fitly to expreſs their Minds to God in Prayer, are under different Circumſtances, from thoſe who have ſuch Abilities, and ſo may be under different Obligations of Divine Precepts in the caſe. God not commanding thoſe to whom he hath not given the beſt means, to pray with the greateſt Attention of thoughts, and Intention of Mind and Fervor, who are not able to do it, but only to do it ſo far as they are able. But in the mean time, theſe precepts oblige all to their utmoſt Ability to do it. And this is a full, or at leaſt a ſufficient Anſwer to what our Vindicator ſaith in his long Vindication of his Argument from his 113 to his 129 page. For, not to multiply words to no purpoſe, let men believe what they will, whether the Form of Bleſſing was to be uſed as a Form, and the Lords Prayer to be uſed as a Form, yea or no. (Great Authors are in both ſides in the caſe) It proveth no more, then that Forms of Prayer are not in themſelves ſo evil, that God himſelf cannot preſcribe and legitimate them; which none but mad men will ſay they are, or (as this Author phraſeth it) that they are not in their own Nature hurtful, and ſo hurtful, as God cannot command the uſe of them, which is a degree of badneſs, which very few things have. In the mean time they may be ſinful enough, as contrary to the Divine Will, and that tho not to all Perſons, yet to ſome Perſons; which is all I contend for.
15. And here I muſt crave pardon of my Reader for giving ſome inſtances of things which God by his command could not legitimate, as to thoſe perſons to whom he gave the command. Murther and Inceſt, I admire how they ſlipt my pen (tho our Vindicator who laſheth me ſufficiently for much leſſer Errors then this, taketh no notice of it) for tho it be true, God cannot make Murther and Inceſt lawful, yet that is but trifling, becauſe they will not be Murther or Inceſt when he hath commanded them. But God by a Special command to particular perſons, may make thoſe actions lawful, which if any others did without ſuch a ſpecial command, they would be Murther and Inceſt, and unlawful: So it was lawful by vertue of Gods command to Abraham for him to think upon, and deſign the killing of his Son, to prepare means for it and go about it, and alſo to have done it. But I hope our Vindicator doth not think this would have been, or is lawful for any other perſons, under the circumſtance of no ſuch ſpecial command; and this will let the Reader ſee how little to the purpoſe the Vindicator ſpeaks of this p. 116. I appeal to every man of Senſe, whether that inſtance was not good enough to prove, That God by his command may make ſome things lawful, which without ſuch command to thoſe particular perſons, had been unlawful, and are unlawful, as contrary to his Revealed Will, as to any others who have no ſuch command, but his General Rule to the contrary. What but the ſpecial Command of God to Magiſtrates, makes it lawful for them to execute malefactors, or by their Souldiers to kill men in juſt wars? What but the ſpecial permiſſion or licenſe of God, makes it lawful to kill men breaking open their houſes, or in their own defence. The General Precept is, Thou ſhalt not kill. But this is abundantly enough to ſhew his poor Vindication of his firſt Argument founded on this Miſtake, That we ſay, Forms of Prayer do in their own Nature hinder Piety.
16. The truth is, there are ſome things ſo intrinſically evil that God cannot make them lawful; but theſe are very few (nor are all men agreed in this) for my own part I do agree with thoſe who think, there are Eternal Idaea's both of Good and Evil (I know it is a Subtil Queſtion) but I cannot think that God can authorize a perſon, to deny his Being, or to Blaſpheme himſelf: God cannot deny himſelf, nor expoſe his own Eſſential Glory. But that God cannot make the ſame thing both lawful and unlawful, the doing of which at all, or in ſuch or ſuch a manner, does meerly depend upon his Will, is to me little better then Nonſenſe. Now whether God would be worſhipped, or ſhould be worſhipped by Vocal Prayer or no? certainly depends upon his Will, and nothing but his Will; and if it be his will that all Perſons ſhould do it with the utmoſt attention of thoughts, and intention of mind, and fervor of ſpirit, they are able. And if one perſon be not able to do it, by forms preſcribed by other men, and another be beſt able to do it ſo, it is plain that the Will of God in the caſe is different as to theſe two perſons: and to tell us, that the firſt perſon may do it, without prejudice to his piety in the action, when all the piety of the action lyeth in Obedience to the Will of God, ſounds in my Ears, very Atheologically, and awkly, to ſay no worſe concerning it.
17. This miſerable arguing makes me quite weary of replying (my hand is in, and I ſhall go through, but I think never to take up a pen again in this Caſe) p. 129. the Vindicator comes to Vindicate his Second Argument, which was from the lawfulneſs of Singing Pſalms in Meeter, and Reading the Scriptures: We muſt put it into Form, or the Reader will never ſee the force or weakneſs of it. His Argument could be but this, If the Scriptures may be read with utmoſt attention of thoughts, and fervor of Spirit, and Pſalms may be ſung (and that in Meeter) with the utmoſt intention of Spirit, and attention of Thoughts, and they yet be Forms, and not the the dictates of our Hearts to our Lipps; Then Prayers may be put up to God by Forms compoſed by other Men, not divinely inſpired, with the utmoſt attention of our thoughts, and intention, and fervor of our ſpirits. — But. Ergo,
The ſumm of my Anſwer was a denial of the conſequence. My reaſons were, and are: Becauſe theſe were Duties of different ſpecies, and the ſame Motions, Affections, and Degrees of Affection, are not by God required of us in all Duties.
It is no Rule of Logick, or Reaſon, that whatſoever may be affirmed or denied of one Species, may be affirmed of another; for then we might conclude in Animals, that an Horſe can diſcourſe, becauſe Man can. It is as true in Actions, in Religious Actions. Worſhip here is the. Genus, Reading the Scriptures, Singing Pſalms, Praying, Preaching, &c. are Species contained under Worſhip, as the Genus: We can neither affirm nor deny, all things concerning one of theſe Species, that we may affirm or deny of another. This is evident now to all, and might be juſtified in forty inſtances. The Queſtion therefore is, Whether God requireth the ſame affections, and the ſame degree of fervor of Spirit, in Reading the Scriptures, and Sing ng of Pſalms, that he doth require of us in Prayer? If he doth not, the Argument is fallacious, becauſe of the manifeſt Tranſition De Genere ad Genus.
18. It is plain he doth not. Prayer (as I told him, p. 61.) is in Scripture called, a crying to God, a wreſtling with him, a powring out of our Souls, it muſt be with ſtrong cries and groans. Is there any ſuch thing ſaid of Reading the Scriptures? Or of Singing Pſalms? Attention of our thoughts indeed is required in all, ſo are ſuch degrees of Fervor as are proper to thoſe duties; but what if God will require ſome degrees of Homage to be performed to him one way, ſome another, ſome in a way not capable of the like degrees of Attention and Fervour, as others are (ſuch I take reading the Scriptures to be) is it not enough for us to do that duty, with ſuch degrees of Attention and Fervour, as he requires in that duty, tho we do not do it with ſuch degrees of Attention and Fervour, as in that duty he hath not required? Or ſhall it be concluded by any man of reaſon, that the mean which God hath appointed by which we may ſerve him in one duty (as in Reading the Scripture, it is nothing but the uſe of our ability to read) which is not by reaſon of the infirmity of our nature capable of ſuch an attention of our thoughts (which will wander if they have the leaſt liberty) may be uſed in another duty of another Species, where God requires other degrees of Attention and Fervour: or that the mean which he hath given us for that duty is not neceſſary, but that duty alſo may lawfully be performed in the uſe of a mean, which doth hinder ſuch degrees of Attention and Fervour?
19. This was the ſubſtance of one of my Anſwers (tho a little further opened.) now what ſaith our Vindicator to this? Truly little, what he ſaith is p. 135. in theſe words and no more. But what he ſaith That there are different workings of the Soul towards God in Singing, and in Prayer, I ſuppoſe he will upon further conſideration diſcern to be an overſight, ſince the Application to God for the ſame things, require the ſame Pious Exerciſes of Mind, whether it be in Proſe, or Meeter; and it was another overſight, that he declares me to know and confeſs what he thus aſſerts, when I never declared any ſuch thing, but know the contrary. — As to the laſt Clauſe Reader judge, ſee Libertas Eccleſ. p. 123. — Both in reading the Scriptures, and in Prayer, our hearts ought to be religiouſly moved towards God, tho in ſomwhat a different manner. Wherein have I wronged him here? Neither ſee I reaſon to acknowledg the overſight: let him prove if he can, that we are obliged to Sing Pſalms with an equal degree of Fervor of Spirit at all times, as we are to Pray. Though we may ſing the Words of a Prayer, yet it is more then I know, that we are to make thoſe words our Petitions, or to addreſs our Souls unto God for the ſame things which are the matter of the Pſalm we Sing. If I thought ſo, I ſhould hardly ſing many of Davids Pſalms, having no occaſion for the things he asked of God. Nor do I think Singing is the Application of our Souls to God for obtaining Mercies, but the Praedication of the Holy Name and Will of God, and only to differ from Reading the Scripture, as the firſt is done with the Modulation of the Voice, the other not ſo; which Modulation is required, as having ſome force in it to excite ſeveral Affections, either of Joy or Grief, according to the matter ſung. Further in the ſame page he ſaith:
Tho there be different Acts of the Mind exerciſed in theſe duties, yet that Conſideration, Reverence, Faith, Submiſſion, and other Gracious Diſpoſitions, which ſuit the ſpecial parts of Divine truth; doth require as much ſeriouſneſs, diligence and care in reading the holy Scriptures.
But doth it require as much Fervour of Spirit and Affections? That is the Queſtion; and the contrary was ſhewed by the Phraſes wherein Prayer is in Scripture expreſſed: but as to this not a word, onelyonly he had ſhewed before, that a Form of Words in Prayer doth not hinder any Exerciſes of Piety therein. What he hath formerly ſaid, I have formerly anſwered. I leave the Judgment to any Intelligent Reader.
20. I had further told him, That the Scriptures are Divine Forms, and reading them is a Divine Precept, and the Forms we Sing, Divine Songs, and the Singing of a Congregation by a Form naturally neceſſary, and the duty impoſſible to be performed, but by a Form. The Queſtion was only ſtated about Humane Forms, and in a Caſe where no ſuch thing is neceſſary; all the World will ſee the inconcluſivenes of ſuch Arguings. I ſhall not trouble my ſelf to anſwer ſuch things further, which nothing relate to the Queſtion in iſſue, which himſelf owned to be plainly and cleerly ſtated. I wiſh I could ſay that on his ſide, it had been as plainly and clearly Argued againſt.