The Vindication of Liturgies Proved No Vindication, Introduction · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
A Reply to what the Vindicator ſaith in his 4 Chap. beginning p. 177. Whether in Vocal Prayer, words be not an Eſſential part of the Worſhip, which no Superiors can inſtitute? Whether things in Acts of Worſhip, by Gods Inſtitution, left to liberty of Miniſters, or People, may be determined by any, but thoſe to whom the liberty is left? About the Power of Superiors to command in Divine things, Whether he can command, what he judgeth to be indifferent, and the Inferiours judge Unlawful.
1. OUR Vindicator in his 4 Chap. which beginneth in his 177 p. pretendeth to Anſwer the Authors third Argument, which he had thus laid:
To uſe a Mean in an Act of Worſhip, which God hath neither directed by the light of Nature, nor by his Word preſcribed; no natural neceſſity compelling us ſo to do, is ſinful.
But for us or any of us, to whom God hath given the Gift of Prayer, ordinarily to perform our Miniſterial Acts in Prayer,Reaſonable Account, p. 71. by the preſcribed Forms of other Men, read, or ricited, were for us (no natural neceſſity compelling us ſo to do) in Acts of Worſhip to uſe means, neither directed of God by the light of Nature, nor yet by him in his Word preſcribed. Ergo.
In proof of the Major I ſaid, 1. That Divine Worſhip, is nothing elſe but an Homage performed to God upon account of his Excellency. 2. That it belongs to God to appoint thoſe Acts, and Means by whom this Homage ſhould be paid. 3. That God hath determined (by the light of Nature, and his Word given us) ſufficiently both as to Acts and Means, of this Homage. 4. That he hath forbidden any other Means in the Second Commandment, where under the Notion of Graven Images, he forbids all Acts and Means of Publick Worſhip which himſelf hath not appointed; and if this were not the ſenſe of it, it were impoſſible to reduce to that Commandment, all the Precepts in Scripture as to External Worſhip and Adoration. I alſo further referred to what Mr. Cotton hath ſaid in this Caſe, in his Advertiſements upon a Diſcourſe of Set Forms of Prayer p. 17. 18. &c. In my further Diſcourſe upon this Argument, I was led (in Anſwer to another) into a diſcourſe about The power of Superiors, in Gods Worſhip, to command, what they judged indifferent; but their Inferiors or Parties commanded judged ſinful, and unlawful.
2. Poſſibly that diſcourſe, contained two Queſtions in Divinity, upon which the main hinge of this Controverſie lay; viz.
1. Whether man can lawfully inſtitute at his pleaſure Parts or Means of Divine Worſhip?
2. Whether Superiors can command Inferiours, in Divine VVorſhip, to do any thing, which they the Superiors judge indifferent, (that is neither commanded, nor forbidden by God) but the Inferiours judge ſinful, upon Arguments which to them appear highly probable.
Let us but be agreed in theſe two things, and we ſhall in this Controverſie have little to contend about. Our Vindicator, who (in the Section immediately preceding, had ſpent 6 leaves in nothing but Reflections, ſpends but 8 leaves about this Chapter, which I doubt not but to ſhew him (except he had ſpoken cloſer to the thing in queſtion) was much too little. But what doth he ſay?
3. He granteth p. 177. That all the parts of Divine VVorſhip muſt be ſuch as the light of Nature, or the Revealed VVill of God directeth. Tho this be very true, yet what is it to the purpoſe? The Argument ſpake not of Parts, but of Means of Divine Worſhip, nor doth the ſecond Commandment, ſpeak only of Parts but of Means. Why doth he not either affirm or deny, that the Means of External VVorſhip, muſt be directed from God, either by the light of Nature or Scripture? But inſtead of this he runs to his uſual way of Obſervations.
4. He firſt obſerveth, That this contradicteth what I had before ſaid, That Forms of Prayer may be lawfully uſed [by ſome men, and at ſometimes] what if it did contradict what I ſaid before? The Argument may be good enough, notwithſtanding Nemo omnibus horis ſapit. 2. But this is not ſo, for we are diſcourſing of what is lawful or unlawful, not as to what is meerly Mental Prayer, but as to Miniſterial Vocal Prayer, which is the moſt perfect kind of Prayer: I have told him, that I believed, that he who prayed by the Ʋſe of Forms, only prayeth in his Heart. Now as to that Act, Forms may be helps, and ſo lawful to be uſed by thoſe to whom God hath not given due means for Miniſterial Prayer, which muſt be Vocal, where the heart inditeth a good Matter, and the tongue (the proper Secretary to the heart) is as the Pen of a ready Writer. Now ſuppoſing (what our Anſwerer ſo zealouſly contends for) that God preſcribed Forms to the Jewiſh Miniſters, and that Chriſt Preſcribed his Diſciples Forms of Prayer to be ordinarily uſed. Means as to Heart-Prayer, are preſcribed by God in his Word, as to which kind of Prayer, words are not neceſſary, for it may be performed without words, ſo as words are no parts of it.
5. Forms not directed by God or Chriſt, or any where in Holy Writ, cannot be an External Homage to God, or part of External Worſhip; for our Author grants, that Parts of Worſhip muſt be directed by Nature or Scripture; now ſuch Forms are not directed by Scripture; I am ſure they are not directed by Nature. Beſides, if they were an External Worſhip, or part of it, they muſt be never omitted. Now that Vocal Prayer is a part of External Worſhip, diſtinct from what is meerly Mental, cannot be denied; for that Prayer which is meerly in the heart, I am ſure is not the Publik Worſhip of a Miniſter in the Congregation.
6. Hence it followeth, That he who prayeth by Forms only, prayeth Mentally, as all the People do, who joyneth with him who Miniſtreth in Prayer: For the Miniſters reading a Form, can be no part of External Worſhip, becauſe in it, he is neither directed by the Light of Nature, nor by the Will of God in Scripture. It is only an help to himſelf or others, or both, to order himſelf, and people by, in their Mentall Prayers.
7. Neither can I ſee how it can properly be called a Mean (unleſs the Form be particularly by God directed) of Mental Prayer. For in reaſon, the mean of meer internal adorotion muſt be, an Ability ſo to adore which a man hath partly from Nature; (whence is his Ability to think and conceive) partly from the influence of the Holy Spirit of Prayer and Supplication.
8. His next Obſervation is as idle, as his Reflection in that Paragraph founded upon it is impertinent: it is this p. 179. That according to this Argument, the conceptions and expreſſions of him who Prayeth without a Form, are as much forbidden as the uſe of Forms is pretended to be, becauſe God hath not preſcribed theſe Expreſſions. I had told him, that both the Light of Nature, and the Will of God declared in his Word, 1 Tim. 4.14. 1 Pet. 4.10. Rom. 12. have ſhewed us, That an ability fitly to expreſs our minds that is our wants and deſires] to God in Prayer, is the means which God hath preſcribed for Vocal Prayer; how well he hath diſproved what I ſaid, let the Reader judge from my reply; ſo that in further anſwer to this his Obſervation, I ſhall but oppoſe another obſervation, and commend it to my Reader; viz. That he hath anſwered my Argument learnedly, by begging the Queſtion, for this was the foreign betwixt us.
9. But yet becauſe our Author hath no mind to treat of Means, and to grant us that Means as well as Acts and Parts of Divine Worſhip, muſt have a Divine Inſtitution; Let us take him at his own conceſſion. That parts of Worſhip muſt have ſuch an Inſtitution; this he yieldeth in terminis, p. 177. I ſay that words in Vocal Prayer, are parts of Worſhip; his friend Capellus he owns hath affirmed it, That by keeping to the conſtant uſe of a Form, men make it a proper part of Worſhip. This he doth not like. But why then in the very ſame caſe about Forms of Prayer, doth he choke us with what Capellus hath ſaid.Vindicat. p. 167, 173, 201. It is a juſt Rule in Law, That he who hath produced a Witneſs in the ſame cauſe for himſelf, hath granted him a ſufficient Witneſs, and ſhall never be allowed to except againſt him as not ſuch. I hope if Capellus his Authority be valuable againſt us, it is ſo for us.
10. But I have another Argument to prove, that Forms of Prayer Ʋniverſally impoſed, are parts of Prayer, proper parts of Prayer, that is Vocal Prayer, which alone is Miniſterial Prayer: For the parts of that religious Action are Two; The one is Internal, which lyeth in the Motions of the Heart and Affections: The other is External, which are Our words. And theſe are the two Eſſential parts of Worſhip in that Prayer; take away either of them, and it is no Prayer, that is no Miniſterial Vocal Prayer: And theſe or thoſe words are eſſential parts of this or that Miniſterial Vocal Prayer. Now if Men without expreſs direction from God, may preſcribe us words, they may preſcribe an Eſſential part of VVorſhip; which our Vindicator juſtly denieth they may.
11. His third Obſervation, p. 182. is, That in his Libertas Eccleſiaſtica. 2. Sect. Chap. 1. He hath largely proved, That it is a falſe and dangerous Poſition to ſay that nothing may be uſed, or appointed in Gods Worſhip (beſides neceſſary Circumſtances of humane Actions) but what is appointed by God himſelf. — He addeth here, That it is deſtructive to Publick VVorship and Religion. For ſince God hath commanded us to pray, but hath not in all Acts of Worſhip enjoyned our words, or the performance of this duty with or without a Form, it muſt needs according to this Poſition, be done neither by a Form nor without, becauſe both by conſequence are forbidden being not preſcribed. Then he telleth us, That God hath not preſcribed what ſort of bread, or wine, ſhould be uſed in the Supper of the Lord, nor what Pſalms ſhould be ſang. To which I reply,
12. I am not at leiſure to reply to all he hath ſaid in 72 pages of his Libertas Eccleſiaſt. but I do not remember that he hath there ſaid, That Men may appoint Eſſential, or integral parts of VVorſhip; if he hath, I am ſure he hath denyed it here, p. 177. Now I have both ſaid, and proved, that words are an Eſſential part of Miniſterial, Vocal Prayer. If there be no words uſed, there can be no ſuch thing; therefore by our Anſwerers own conceſſion words in this Prayer, muſt be directed by the Light of Nature, or by the VVill of God VVriten in his Word. I have ſhewed, that Gods VVill, is revealed in the cauſe, both in the Light of Nature, which directeth us to expreſs our own thoughts in our own words, and by his VVill revealed, commanding us to Miniſter our Gifts, and according as we have received the G…ft, or Grace. Neither do I remember that our Vindicator hath aſſerted, That Men not divinely authorized and inſpired for that end, may appoint Means of VVorſhip. I am ſure in this Book he is very ſhy of it, if he hath ſaid any ſuch thing elſewhere, it is falſe, and contrary to the Second Commandment. For any appointments of other things, in, about, or relating to the Worſhip of God, we are not here diſputing, nor was the Queſtion ſtated, with reference to them.
13. It is raſhly (if no worſe) ſaid, That there can be no Publick Worſhip or Religion according to that Poſition. For it plainly inferreth, That in the Churches of God in Scotland, Holland, France, New England, &c. there is no Publick Religion or VVorship; for it is certain that in all, or moſt of them, there are no Forms of Prayer Ʋniverſally uſed or impoſed, tho there be in ſome of them, ſome made and left at liberty to be uſed or not uſed.
14. Whereas he ſaith, That according to this Poſition, there can be no Adminiſtration of the Sacraments, becauſe according to this Principle, all Bread, and VVine, is forbidden to be uſed in that Ordinance, becauſe the particular kind of Bread and Wine is not preſcribed: It proceedeth upon this Hypotheſis, which is falſe; That we ſay, That nothing is left to our liberty, in, about, or relating to the Worſhip of God, becauſe we ſay no Acts, Parts, or Means of VVorship, are left to liberty. We ſay, that particular Phraſes in Prayer and Preaching, ſo the particular kinds of Bread and VVine, to be uſed in the Lords Supper, are left to liberty but yet words are not left to liberty. Nor whether any Bread or Wine ſhould be uſed, are not left to liberty; and where God hath left any thing to liberty, it ought not to be determined by Superiors; becauſe it was the VVill of God, that his People ſhould have liberty in the caſe, and that liberty is a part of the Inſtitution.
15. In the Old Law, where a ſtrict Preſcription of all Acts, Parts, and Means of VVorship can be modeſtly denyed by none, yet in the burnt offering of Fowls, Levit. 1.14. the people were left to liberty, to bring either Turtle Doves, or any other Young Pidgeons, and in the Womans Purification, Lev. 12.6. ſhe had the like liberty. I would gladly know now if our Vindicator, or any ſober man, thinks that the Superiors in the Church or State of the Jews, might have determined the Jews, and by their commands enjoyned all the Jews to bring none but Turtle Doves? Or none but Young Pigeons of another kind? Or what preſident there is in Scripture of any Eccleſiaſtical or Civil power, that ever arrogated and aſſumed ſuch a liberty, or declared that they judged ſuch a thing lawful? This I think ſufficient to have ſpoken to what our Anſwerer ſaith as to the firſt Queſtion.
16. The Second Queſtion was about the Superiors power of commanding in Religious Acts. A grave and weighty Queſtion, an Agreement in which will bring us to a preſent iſſue as to all our Religious differences. Let us ſee what our Vindicator will grant in the caſe. He tells us p. 185.
That if any Inferior, or any perſon whatſoever, accounteth any thing to be forbidden, proceeding upon any good and true grounds, no ſuch thing may be appointed, being in it ſelf evil, whether the Superior think it not neceſſary or by a miſtake thinks it neceſſary. We thank him for this, it is enough for us, nor ſhall we need repeat any thing more he hath in this Chapter ſaid. I have onelyonly this Queſtion to ask, Who, as to the Inferiors Practice, muſt judg, whether the Inferiors judgment proceedeth upon juſt and true grounds. Let us but have this point freely and clearly ſpoken to. If he ſaith the Superior muſt judge, all this is juſt nothing, for thoſe Superiors muſt be prodigiouſly wicked, that ſhall command their Inferiours to do that, which they judge the Inferiors upon good and true grounds judge unlawful. This were for him to command things, which he knew to be ſinful.
17. If he ſaith (as he muſt do if he will maintain the Religion of Proteſtants) That tho the Superior be the judge of the lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs of his commands, ſo far as concerneth his own Act in commanding; yet every Inferiour muſt judge of the lawfulneſs or unlawfulneſs of his Act, in obeying, and the truth and falſhood of the grounds upon which he proceeds. It is what we hold and agree in.
18. But ſtill the true Queſtion remains, upon ſuppoſition, That the Superior and Inferiour differ in their Aprehenſions of a thing, the Superiour thinking upon ſuch as he thinks good and true grounds, that the thing is lawful, The Inferior judging upon (what he thinks) true and good grounds, that it is unlawful.
Whether the Superior can command his Inferiors ſuch things in the VVorship of God, Qu.which he judgeth not neceſſary from the Light of Nature, or Revealed Will of God, and the Inferior judgeth ſinful and what he may not do. So then there are two things we yield in the caſe.
19. That as to things which are meerly Political and ſecular, the Magiſtrate may command what he judgeth neceſſary, or expedient, for the ends of his Government? of which things, he hath no Judge (ſave God alone) Superior to him, and the Inferiour muſt obey him, where Gods Will doth not plainly controul; and if it doth controul him, he muſt patiently ſuffer the penalty for not doing them; for his private Conſcience is no Judge of theſe things further then as to his own practice, whether they be contrary to the Rule of Gods Word or no.
20. That as to things of a more Spiritual Nature, which concern the Worſhip of God, the Magiſtrate is bound to command, what he, after diligent inquiry into the law of God, judgeth neceſſary; that is commanded by God in his Word: and to forbid, what he judgeth there forbidden, and in theſe things the Inferiour is bound to obey. If in theſe things he judgeth diverſly from his Superiour, he cannot do the things, but muſt patiently ſuffer, and the matter in difference muſt be by God determined at the laſt day, where the Magiſtrate (tho it then appears he was in a miſtake) may hope for Mercy, becauſe he did what he did, in the integrity of his heart, provided he neglected not due means for finding out of the Will of God, nor in his Puniſhment for diſobedience, exceeded the Rules of Scripture, and right Reaſon, and Juſtice.
21. But we do not think, that in the Worſhip of God, eſpecially as to the Acts, Parts, or Means of it (thoſe being things of the truth or falſhood of which the Will of God alone can determine, and which he hath ſufficiently determined in his Word.) The Superior without ſin, can command, what himſelf doth not from the will of God judge neceſſary, but he knoweth the Inferiour judgeth to be ſinful.
1. Becauſe he hath no power in commanding things of this nature, more then the Kings of Iſrael and Judah had, who had no power to bind up all the Iſraelites to bring Turtle Doves, when Gods preſcription had left them at liberty, either to bring them, or young Pidgeons; nor was ever any ſuch power aſſumed by Magiſtrates under the ordinary Circumſtances of Magiſtrates (that is being no Prophets, and divinely inſpired, as were David and Solomon) who both were Pen-men of Scripture.
2. Becauſe ſuch commands muſt neceſſarily be for Deſtruction, not for Aedification, and the Apoſtle declared he had no ſuch power, 2 Cor. 13.10. ſuch commands muſt neceſſarily be againſt Charity, tending to deſtroy Peoples Souls.
22. But as to this, our Vindicator tells us, That real Charity providing for the good and profit of the Souls of Men, is of far greater value, then that which I call Charity gratifying and complying with men in their miſtakes.
How properly this is ſpoken, and how prettily the Queſtion here begged, let any ordinary Reader judge; was not I arguing for the good and profit of Peoples Souls and Bodies too? That which I call Charity is what the Apoſtle calls ſo, Rom. 14.15. If thy Brother be grieved with thy Meat (which thou mayeſt eat, or let alone) now walkeſt thou not charitably (that is in eating and ſo giving him occaſion to ſin) deſtroy not him with …y meat, for whom Chriſt dyed. Can any Divine think that God in that Text hath not ſaid to all Magiſtrates, in the matters relating to my Worſhip, make not him to ſin by thy commands, which thou mayeſt or mayeſt not (as thou thinkeſt) at thy pleaſure give out, for whom Chriſt dyed.
23. I appeal now to all rational and intelligent perſons, whether the Vindicator or I, have ſpoken here moſt ſenſe and pertinencies as to the matter in Queſtion, Whether Forms of Prayer in the publick Miniſtry, may be univerſally uſed or impoſed. This is all which I can find in this Chapter of our Vindicator worth any notice as to the Queſtion in hand; for what is ſpoken, as to other Rites, Ceremonies, and Geſtures, the lawfulneſs, or unlawfulneſs of them, it doth not concern our preſent purpoſe. Let us firſt have done with this ſingle Queſtion, and then we will if he pleaſeth, diſcourſe other things; in the mean time I intend not to ſwell a Book with Diſcourſes De Omni Ente. Beſides it may be, that by our cloſe diſcourſe upon this Queſtion, we ſhall be better prepared for others, which in my mind are much lighter, by underſtanding upon what principles we diſtinctly argue, and firſt expoſing the truth or falſhood of them to the judgment of the World. Our Vindicators Principles in this Chapter ſeem to be, 1. That words in Vocal Miniſterial Prayer, are neither parts nor means in that Worſhip. 2. That Superiors may determine whatever he judgeth God hath left at liberty in his Worſhip, though the Inferior thinks they are not there left at liberty. I am not of his mind.