Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist, Tract · Chapter 1

Questions Between the Conformist and Non-Conformist · Tract · Chapter 1

p. 1THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformiſt, Truly ſtated, and briefly diſcuſſed.

IT was not without the ordering of Divine Providence that the day which the Imitators of the Heathens foreign, did conſecrate to their St. Bartholomew, ſhould be the day on which the blood of ſo many thouſand Proteſtants was poured out in France, and the day alſo on which ſo many hundreds of Goſpel-Miniſters, to whom Chriſt had given both will and skill for his work, ſucceſs in his work, were turned out of his work in England. The crime both there and here which they found, was the ſame the Princes found againſt Daniel in the Law of his God. A day of gladneſs it was to many, but not to all upon the ſame ground. One Conformiſt, and a man of note, tells a Captain under his Majeſty, ſince his Return, that he was glad ſo many Miniſters refuſed to conform; the Captain would know his reaſon: he gives it thus: Had all Miniſters conformed, people would have thought there was nothing in Religion, only a thing to talk of in the Pulpit, and ſerve a State-deſign, for theſe Miniſters will turn any way the State turn: But by their giving up their livings, p. 2and expoſing themſelves and families to outward evils, rather than they would conform to things impoſed not agreeable (as they apprehended) to the Goſpel they preached, they have convinced men there is reality in Religion, and given a check to Atheiſm. This was the ſubſtance; and to be ſure he was not more glad than I was, when the Captain told me his Diſcourſe.

How zealous yet ſome have been to bring us over to Conformity, the many Books publiſhed for it, and againſt us, have declared. Some of which have come to my hand, but all were not written with the ſame Spirit. As they came to hand, ſo I peruſed them, to ſee if I could find any thing to convince me. And whereas there are five things impoſed upon us, 1. The Liturgy, with ſtinted forms of prayer. 2. Myſtical Ceremonies. 3. Subjection to ſuch Epiſcopacy. 4. Re-ordination. 5. Renouncing the Covenant. I applied my ſelf to the three firſt Queſtions chiefly. For if it can be proved that theſe are agreeable with, and conformable to the Laws of God, as the Friendly Debate, and Dr. Templer, would perſwade their Readers, then Re-ordination may be admitted, and the Covenant renounced.

As to the two firſt Queſt. Mr. Carre was the firſt man I met with that argued for them; after him I met with the Friendly Debate; next, with the Serious and compaſſionate Enquiry, &c. (Dr. Goodman, the Author as I hear, Nemine contradicente), but laſt of Mr. Falkner, a man of an excellent ſpirit, whom I ſhall honour, and one that hath ſaid more than all before. Before he came forth, I had drawn up my anſwer to all the former, and was loth to throw away all I had done, becauſe I ſaw there were ſome things in theſe Authors which Mr. Falkner had not, elſe I would wholly have attended him; but where I ſaw they all agreed, there I conſidered them conjunct; where one had what the other had not, there ſeverally.

As to the third Queſt. ſomething I found in a piece Entituled Samaritaniſm. As to the Learned Dr. Stilling fleet, by throwing down the Jus Divinum of any form of Church Government, he prepared the way for our ſubjection to ſuch Epiſcopacy, if his principle be ſound.

For the ſerious and compaſſionate Enquiry, I found little in that piece as to our queſtions, unleſs a man were ſo ſimple to take fine words for ſtrong arguments, and Rhetorick for Logick. For his Diſcourſe about ſchiſm, I ſhall conſider it in its place. But the chief things I obſerved in him, were his odious compariſons between the Conformiſt and Nonconformiſt, begun at p. 21. and continued ſome pages His ſlighting that worthy Father bleſſed Auſtin; the contempt he throws upon the Synod of Dort, which I did never expect from the pen of a Son of the Church of England. But I ſee this Church of England, and the p. 3famons Church of England, are not the ſame. I need not ſay any thing, there is an acute pen hath given him ſo full and ſolid an anſwer, that I ver expect to read his Reply.

To what he ſaith, pag. 3. That the Nonconformiſts blame the Doctrine of the Church, viz. the 39 Articles are not ſo punctual in defining the five points debated at the Synod of Dort, &c. I think I may ſay, I have been in the company of as many Nonconformiſts as that Author, but I have not heard them blame the Articles therefore. But this fault I have heard found, and do find, that we are commanded to affent to the 34, 35, & 36. Articles with the ſame faith we do to the fundamental Articles of our Faith and Salvation therein contained.

I thought among the Confeſſions of Faith, theſe 39 Articles were looked upon as the Confeſſion of the Faith of the Church of England; but I find it otherwiſe now; for Dr. Stillingfleet in his defence of Biſhop Laud, p. 54. being pinched by the Jeſuit, (who in this point is not anſwered) tells us, The Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but ſuch as have the Teſtimony of the whole Chriſtian world in all Ages, acknowledged to be ſuch by Rome it ſelf. And in other things ſhe requires ſubſcription to them, not as Articles of Faith, but inferiour truths, which ſhe expects a ſubmiſſion to in order to her peace and tranquility.

Afterwards p 82, & 104. He diſtinguiſheth between the internal aſſent of the mind, and the external act; the Church doth not require the firſt, but the latter.

To confirm his ſaying, he quotes Archbiſhop Bramhall, often expreſſing the ſenſe of the Church of England, as to her 39 Articles, thus: Neither doth the Church of England define any of theſe queſtions as neceſſary to be believed, either neceſſitate medii, vel praecepti, which is much leſs; but only bindeth her Sons for peace ſake not to oppoſe them. And in another place more fully, We do not ſuffer any man to reject the 39 Articles of the Church of England at his pleaſure, neither do we look on them as eſſentials of ſaving Faith, or Legacies of Chriſt and his Apoſtles; but in a mean as pious opinions, fitted for the preſervation of unity; neither do we oblige any man to believe them, but only not to contradict them. Thus the Archbiſhop. And this is not his opinion alone, but generally of the Grandees of this Church, as an intelligent and ſober Conformiſt tells me.

When I read theſe lines firſt, I read them again, and again, to ſee if I were not miſtaken, they were ſo ſtrange unto me at the firſt reading; when I ſaw I was not miſtaken, I turned to the beginning to ſee who did Licenſe it, and was amazed when I ſaw the name. According to this, Cerinthus, Pelagius, Arius, Socinus, Turks, Jews, yea Vaninus, p. 4may all ſubſcribe the Articles, and be Sons of the Church of England, if they can but keep their tongues from contradicting them, though they do not believe one of them. Though I am a Nonconformiſt, yet I am ſuch a friend to the Church of England as to her Doctrine, that I abhor theſe lines, and charge that Biſhop Bramhall with doing wrong to the Church. It ſeems when other Churches abroad read theſe 39 Articles as the Confeſſion of the Faith of the Church of England, and ſuppoſe we do believe them to be true, they are groſly miſtaken, it may be we believe not one; the Church do not oblige her Sons to it, but only not to contradict them. They are deluded, the Church reproached, and God is mocked.

Several things I could ſay to the diſproving of this ſenſe; but to what worthy Dr. Stilling fleet hath ſaid, I ſhould deſire him to name that Book of publick authority to warrant what he ſaith.

1. The Kings Declaration prefixed for the confirmation of them, and with that I queſtion not but the Biſhops did agree **The Declaration expreſſed. With the advice of ſo many of our Biſhops, &c., makes no ſuch diſtinction of ſuperiour and inferiour Truths, but ſpeaking of all the 39 Articles jointly taken together, thus declareth: The Articles of the Church of England do contain the true Doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to Gods word, &c. requiring all our ſubjects to continue in the Ʋniform profeſſion thereof. Again, requires all Clergy men to ſubmit to every Article in the plain and full meaning thereof; and ſhall not put their own ſenſe and comment to be the meaning of the Article, but ſhall take it in the literal and Grammatical ſenſe.

Again, doth not the fifth Canon ſay, Whoſoever ſhall hereafter affirm that any of the 39 Articles are in any part ſuperſtitious or erroneous, or ſuch as he may not with a good conſcience ſubſcribe unto, let him be Excommunicated, ipſo facto.

Lay theſe both together, and how can we receive his Interpretation.

Beſides, doth the Church not care though her Sons be ſuch groſs Hypocrites? Doth not Reaſon and Religion teach me firſt to try, examine, and to believe the thing to be lawful before I practiſe? Whatever is not of faith is ſin, Rom. 14 23.

I know two Conformiſts, one is known to be a right Son, the other is ſuſpected; neither of theſe do wear the Surplice; the reaſon is the ſame for both, neither Pariſh had provided one; when they came to the Court, the right Son hath nothing ſaid to him, though he did not practiſe; the other was ſuſpended. Was it not the internal aſſent that the Court regarded? it was that ſaved the true Son.

Are we not commanded unfeignedly to aſſent and conſent to all things in the Common-Prayer Book, in which are ſeveral Creeds? and you p. 5tell us, the Doctrine of your Thirty-nine Articles, contained.

To conclude this Head: of old he was eſteemed a true Son of the Church of England, who was tite to the 39 Articles, ſubſcribing to them in their Literal and Grammatical ſenſe, as the King required. Now he is reputed the true Son of the Church, who doth but ſubmit to theſe three articles that reſpect the Ceremonies, Rites, Epiſcopacy, &c. let him for Doctrine be an Arminian, Socinian, Papiſt, no matter how corrupt.

I would have leſt Dr. Goodman, or whoever it was, that was the Author of the ſerious and compaſſionate Inquiry, &c. till I had come to his ſtating of the Queſtions, but that I find him, p. 67, 69. giving one cauſe, which he imputes to us, worthy the taking notice of; and the ſpeaking to it here, will ſave me a labour afterwards.

A great part of this Nation, ſaith he, having been leaſened with Jewiſh ſuperſtition, or Jewiſh Traditions, hath thereby been indiſpoſed to an uniform reception of the reformation of Religion held forth by this Church; and thus doth charge us with Judaiſm, quoting Cartwright, Ainſworth, and H. Broughton, who were great Students in the Rabinical writings, and they leavened us, p. 68.

This is very ſtrange, when as if he will pleaſe to read over Mr. Falkner, he ſhall ſee how much he uſeth theſe Rabinical writings, and Jewiſh cuſtoms to confirm the Liturgy, and Forms of Prayer, and the Rites and Ceremonies of this Church. Yea, Chriſt himſelf is not ſpared, but he is made a Conformiſt to the Jewiſh cuſtoms, different from the Law, to prove our conformity. Thus Scaliger, and out of him Mr. Carre, and Mr. Falkner. That I was ſtudying how to give anſwer to this head of argument in theſe men; and this it ſeems is charged upon us.

To clear our ſelves then from this, and to give anſwer to the other men, I grant,

1. That the Jews had many Rites, Traditions, and Cuſtoms of their own; ſome of which the Holy Page od record. But for their Oral Law, Traditions, &c. they were not committed to writing till the reign of the Emperour Antoninus, and not perfected till the year 219 after Chriſt, ſaith Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. p. 52. ſome ſay more. Now how ſhall we be infallibly certain, that what Traditions they then wrote were exactly the ſame, which they were in Chriſt his time, above 200 years before? in ſuch a ſpace of time how eaſily may things vary?

2. We are infallibly certain that our Lord was an enemy to the Elders Traditions; how then theſe ſhould be brought in to prove the lawfulneſs of the things in queſtion, I know not.

p. 6How will you infallibly prove the Church of the Jews in the pureſt time, did tye up it ſelf to Forms of Prayer in publick adminiſtration? which though it could be proved, will not ſerve the turn, as we ſhall ſee when the queſtion comes to be ſtated.

3. Suppoſe Chriſt uſed ſome actions at his Supper like to the Jews, muſt he needs borrow them from the Jews to be conformable to them? I hope he did not learn to bleſs and give thanks from them.

Homer and Heſiod, ſome ſay, lived before Iſaiah, or about his time; Heſiod hath expreſſions very like that of Iſaiah, in the deſcription of Tophet, Analet. Sacr. p. 425.Iſa. 30.33. as if the Heathen drew with the ſame pencil, ſaith Doughtie. But did Iſaiah borrow from Heſiod? the ſame Author inſtanceth in many things more, and did the Penmen borrow (or rather the ſpirit that inſpired them) from the Heathen? Becauſe Plato hath an expreſſion ſomething like to Paul's diſtinction of the outward and inward man, muſt Paul needs borrow it out of Plato, as Nerimbergius would have him?

Thus ſome have affirmed that John took up his Baptiſm from the Jews baptizing of Proſelytes, when others have ſhown that the Jews took it from John, when Chriſt put the queſtion, Mat. 21.23, 25. The Baptiſm of John, whence was it, from heaven or men? Why did they not anſwer from the Elders Tradition; it ſeems it was the counſel of God, Luk. 7.30. whatever theſe men ſay: and Joh. 1.33. He that ſent me to Baptize.

Whence I ſhall deſire that leave to lay by all theſe Quotations out of Scaliger, Selden, and other Rabinical men, as ſignifying nothing to the Queſtions in hand. We muſt have Scripture, and Scripture reaſon, in matters of God.

Here Dr. Goodman proves us to be guilty of Judaiſm, telling his Reader, p. 69 this is their grand Hypotheſis, That nothing is lawful in the ſervice of God, but what is expreſly preſcribed in Scripture. Such an Hypotheſis I never ſaw yet in any of our Nonconformiſts Books. I will yield him more. As,

1. Not only expreſs Scripture, but neceſſary conſequence from Scripture; but then it muſt be neceſſary conſequence.

2. Where the Lord hath leſt us only a General Rule, and hath not tyed us op to Particulars; let but the Particulars carry in them the nature of the General Rule, as the ſpecies includes the eſſence of the Genus, and we will yield them too.

Yet this Doctor can tell his Reader, that this of expreſs Scripture is the Characteriſtical Doctrine of that party; and that we graft our Chriſtianity upon the ſcock of Judaiſm. Were the Jews tyed up to expreſs Scripture in all they did about the Worſhip of God? I think the p. 7Jews had as much liberty then, as we have under the Goſpel. I ſhall give but one inſtance, though I could more.

The Paſſover was a ſolemn Ordinance of God; now in Exod. 12.8. there is a command given to eat it with bitter herbs; foreignwe ſupply the word herbs; but the word is only bitterneſs, or Res amarae. The Chaldae, Arabick and Samaritan keep the Hebrew word without any addition of herbs. Here is only a General Rule given, but what thoſe bitter things ſhould be, whether herbs, roots, &c. there is no determination. Hence then, I might go into ſeveral houſes at that time, where they had prepared in one houſe ſuch bitter herbs as Sichory, Wild Lettice, (which they ſay they uſed); in another houſe Wormwood, and Horehound; in another Centory, Germander; in another bitter Almonds and Gentian, &c. ſo mention twenty more differences, yet if Bitterneſſes were obſerved, the rule was kept. Again, ſhall theſe bitterneſſes be boiled or raw, beaten into a ſawce like our Muſtard, as Scaliger ſaith the Churoſeth was? here is nothing determined; be ſure there be bitterneſſes, and the general Rule is kept.

Again, here is no mention made of drink; but to have a Lamb and unleavened bread eaten, and bitter things, and not drink, it had been a dry Feaſt, fit to choak them.

Again, the Lamb muſt be roaſt; but how, muſt it be without a Spit, (as we uſe ſometimes) or with a Spit? and if ſo, whether with a Spit made of Iron &c. or Wood, and that of a Pomegranate tree, as a Learned man ſuppoſeth, who can tell? there is nothing determined or expreſſed, and I prefume that Learned Author was not there to turn the Spit.

Again, it muſt be roaſt, but muſt the fire be made of wood or coal, or turff, or other combuſtible matter? not a word of any ſuch thing. Thus I might reckon up many more circumſtances; that I wonder at this Author, and another of his party anſwering for their Ceremonies, telling us, This is the difference between the Law and the Goſpel, that under the Law all ceremonies and circumſtances, are exactly preſcribed, not ſo under the Goſpel. How true this is, the Reader may judg.

Leaving then this Author a while, let us come to the ſtating of the Queſtions; and for the firſt about Forms of Prayer.

Mr. Carre begins his Book, and ſtates the Queſtion thus:

1. Forms of Prayer are lawful; thus it was ſtated in the Commencement-houſe when Dr. Fern was Vicechancellor, and moderated.

I yield it, being my own practice to compoſe Forms for my Children, and for others who could not expreſs themſelves in fit words in their families before their ſervants: and what then, what is this to our buſineſs?

p. 82. For the Ceremonies.

The Church hath power in circumſtances: and who denies it?

3. For Government; ſome Epiſcopacy is lawful.

The Propoſition muſt not be univerſal, for then we ſhall ſetch in a Univerſal Biſhop, which as yet our opponents do not like. Make it particular, for my part I yield it.

I ſhall therefore now give the true ſtate of the Queſtions, and then leave it to the judicious Reader to ſee, whether any one argument the Conformiſts uſe, conclude the Queſtions.

For the Firſt about impoſed Forms of Prayer, the queſtion is this:

Queſt. The Queſtion about Forms Prayer ſtated.Whether the Lord Jeſus hath given ſuch power to any ordinary perſons (Civil or Eccleſiaſtical) to compiſe and impoſe their Forms of Prayer upon his Miniſters in the Goſpel-church, whom he hath ſufficiently qualified for his work, unto which he hath called them; ſo that in their miniſtration and worſhipping of God by prayer, his Miniſters muſt be tyed up to thoſe very Forms and Syllables, and not vary from them?

Let me open the Queſtion.

1ſt. That Chriſt is Lord of his Houſe, King of his Church, having the only power over it to inſtitute what he pleaſe, no Chriſtian will deny.

2ly. True Miniſters of the Goſpel are his Miniſters; they have their talents and abilities from him, their call and authority from him; Their Laws and Doctrine what they muſt preach, and how they muſt order all things in the Church, from him. They have a promiſe of his Preſence, and unto him muſt they give an account of their work.

3ly. Theſe Miniſters being his, are ſufficiently qualified; in one ſenſe it is true, foreign, 2 Cor. 2. 16. who is ſufficient? but yet again Timothy is charged that thoſe whom he takes into the Miniſtry be foreign, ſufficient men. Praying and Preaching are the two great works of a Miniſter, Act. 6.4. to declare the will of God, to the people; and to open and preſent the wants of the people unto God is their buſineſs; and whom Chriſt ſends of his errand, he fits them for both, or never ſends them, Epheſ. 4.8, 11. He prepareth gifts for his.

If your Forms of Prayer will make a man ſufficient, I know not who ſhall be inſufficient if he can but read well.

4ly. Theſe are Chriſts Miniſters in the Goſpel church. I hope 'tis no ſtrange thing to put a difference between the Miniſters of the Old and New Teſtament, Gal 4.1. 2 Cor. 3, &c. that the Spirit is given by Chriſts Aſcenſion in a greater meaſure both as to gifts and grace, to p. 9the body of the Goſpel-Church, than to the old Church, hath been unqueſtioned Divinity by the Conformiſts.

5ly. For ordinary perſons to impoſe, ſuch as cannot, dare not lay claim to an extraodinary Miſſion as the Prophets and Apoſtles had. Yet the Apoſtles never impoſed their Prayers on the Churches.

6ly. For theſe to tye up Chriſts Miniſters to words and ſyllables in Prayer from which they muſt not vary. This is the practiſe indeed; but this is the queſtion, by what right this is done?

What I have heard in anſwer to it, is, that the Church allows our own Prayers before and after Sermon.

1. Whether the Church allow it, I cannot tell; the genuine Sons of the Church ſay no, and will uſe only the Canon-prayer. The Arch-Deacon in his Viſitation, did dehort the Miniſters from the uſe of their own prayers, with theſe words, Though I do not command, nor enjoin you, yet I adviſe you to it; it is more out of fear, it would cauſe ſuch an Odium among the people, ſhould they take them off from their own prayers wholly in places where there is any knowledg; in ignorant places they uſe none at all but the Common-Prayer, as I have certain intelligence of divers places. The Fathers of the Church in their Conterence with the other Miniſters at the Kings firſt coming in, thus expreſs themſelves: Account of the Proceedings, &c. p. 19.VVe heartily deſire that according to this Propoſal great care may be taken to ſuppreſs thoſe private conceptions of pray ers before and after Sermons. As the Judges are the Interpreters of Statute-Laws, ſo ſurely the Biſhops of the Canons. Now it is clear, they would take away all but Book-prayer. The judgment of Biſhop VVren, and Biſhop Cozens is well known.

2ly. But if ſuperiors being but ordinary perſons, have power to impoſe their Forms at Baptiſm, the Lords ſupper, &c. all but before and after Sermon; is it becauſe their power of impoſing is limited by God? where I pray? certainly by what power they take away the uſe of our own prayers before and after Sacraments, they may before and after Sermons, and that we ſee they deſire it might be done, but that they fear the conſequence.

Let us come to their reaſons for this: One they draw from the Scriptures, and that is worth twenty others, if they do not fail in the managing of it. Mr. Carre, Mr. Falkner, and the reſt that meddle with Liturgies, inſtance in the Form of bleſſing, the Prieſts had from God, Numb. 6.23. the many Prayers and Praiſes in the Pſalms, in the Old Teſtament.

To which I anſwer, 1. I wiſh theſe Gentlemen would caſt the argument into Form, and ſee how it will conclude the Queſtion.

The Queſtion ſpeaks of ordinary perſons; and here is God himſelf p. 10commanding Aaron, and giving him a form of words, to which Aaron muſt conform or ſin. For others, here were extraordinary perſons inſpired by the Holy Spirit; Theſe are part of the Canon into which our Faith is reſolved, part of Scripture; and ſo given by the inſpiration of God, 2 Tim. 3.16. This argument reaches not the queſtion.

The Fr. Deb. par. 2. pag. 354. tell us, that Jehoſhaphat, Hezekiah, Ezra, Daniel, uſed the words of Solomon.

What then? I pray conclude the queſtion. Beſides, as if we denied Miniſters to make uſe of Scripture-expreſſions, into which as I ſaid our Faith is reſolved. We commend ſuch prayers. I have heard a Nonconformiſt pray, and that for a convenient ſpace of time, his prayer was compoſed almoſt all of Scripture-expreſſions, but ſo aptly, that I could but wonder at the gift, and yet I perceived he did not tye himſelf to a Form.

But were thoſe under the Old Teſtament tyed up to words and ſyllables impoſed upon them by ordinary perſons, and might not, or did not uſe their own gifts? prove that, elſe you are beſide the queſtion. Beſides our queſtion ſpeaks of a Goſpel-church, which that was not.

But P. 2. p. 354, 392. the Fr. Deb tell us, Chriſt uſed the ſame words three times.

Sir, I pray caſt this argument alſo into form, ſee how it will conclude the queſtion. As if we thought or ever ſaid, that every time a Miniſter pray, he muſt have new expreſſions; or denied that a perſon under a heavy load upon his ſpirit as our bleſſed Lord had then, might not unload his grief to God in the ſame expreſſions.

The Jeſuit Clare tell us, Arraign. of Conver. Jew, p. 105. Fr. Deb. p. 360.that the cuſtom of praying ſo often upon Beads, is warranted from this example of Chriſt, uſing the ſame words three times; it proves both alike.

The Fr. Deb. tell us, p. 360. A man may be a good Miniſter, and yet want the gift of extemporary conceptions in prayer. In the requiſites for a Biſhop, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. this is not required nor expreſſed, Epheſ. 4.11, 12. and Rom. 12.6, 7.

Anſw. I pray, Sir, how came the word Extemporary to be foiſted into the queſtion? Have our Nonconformiſts ſo ſtated it? every true Biſhop is able to pray ſo, as to preſent his own and the peoples wants and neceſſities before the Lord; whether he doth it by extemporary, or premeditated conceptions, is none of our queſtion.

2. No wonder though the Apoſtle did not expreſs it; a man I hope is firſt a Chriſtian, before a Biſhop; and if but a Christian, he can pray, much more if a Biſhop. Prayer was one part of the Apoſtles work, Act. 6.4. I queſtion much whether the Apostles had a ſtinted Liturgy then.

p. 113. Though we have but a little learning left, yet we underſtand a Synecdoche; the principal work, Teaching, is there expreſſed, but other work is comprehended.

This puts me in mind of a Scholar I knew, of good natural parts, but of a profane ſpirit; upon a time he takes along with him another of his Companions to hear him, and gets into a Pulpit to try his faculty. When he had done, he tells his Companion, I could make a ſhift to preach as well as any of them, but a Devil on't, I cannot Pray.

4ly. When the Apoſtle wrote to Timothy, 1 Epiſt. 2.1. I exhort that ſupplications, prayers, &c. be made for all; he intended that prayer was a work incumbent on a Biſhop. But here I find Mr. Falkner, p. 109. with Dr. Ham. making this Text to warrant the compoſing of Forms of Prayer. The words foreign, may be taken in that ſenſe So he.

But 1. Paul was as able to compoſe as Timothy, why did not he as an Apoſtle ſet him a pattern?

2ly. Suppoſe Timothy ſhould compoſe, how will he prove that he impoſed them on the Miniſters, who were able to pray without them? how this would agree with Paul's Doctrine, Epheſ. 4.8, 11. theſe gifts were for Paſtors and Teachers, as well as Evangeliſts.

3ly. The Syriack Tranſlation will not admit this notion, for that reads the words thus, That thou offer ſupplication to God. It being Timothy's, and Miniſters duties, not to compoſe prayers, and impoſe them on other Miniſters, but to pray, &c.

4ly. I pray what difference between theſe words, foreign, in this Text, and foreign, &c. in Act. 12.5. Prayer was made without ceaſing? the Church was inſtant and earneſt in compoſing Forms of Prayer; this it ſeems is the ſenſe; what is there more in foreign, than foreign, to force ſuch an Interpretation?

5ly. It ſeems then by foreign, a phraſe often uſed by the Apoſtle John; we muſt underſtand to compoſe a form of ſin, and foreign, to compoſe a form of Righteouſneſs, 1 Pet. 2.22. when Peter ſaid of Chriſt, He did no ſin; foreign, we muſt underſtand he did not make a form of ſin; implying he might ſin, but did not make a form. So Jam. 3.18. foreign, make peace, that is, make a form of peace. So Paul, 2 Corinth. 11.7. foreign, have I ſinned? that is, have I made a form of ſin? we read have I committed an offence?

The next Scripture-argument I ſee they all make uſe of, is the example of John the Baptiſt, who they ſay gave to his Diſciples a form of prayer.

p. 12Anſ. 1. Suppoſe John gave them a Form, make the argument into Form, and ſee how it concludes the queſtion.

2. It was neceſſary for John to teach them how to pray at ſuch a time, the Meſſiah being about to manifeſt himſelf; ſo that their prayers might be ſuitable to the Diſpenſation they were under. But,

3ly. Were John's Diſciples Miniſters of Chriſt called by him to office?

4ly. Did John tye up his Diſciples to words and ſyllables, when his Diſciples were grown up in their underſtanding, and had gifts of their own? Though I gave my Children Forms of Prayers when they were young, I now expect they ſhould pray without thoſe Forms.

This argument is yet too weak.

The laſt argument I find out of Scripture, is the Prayer our Lord taught his Diſciples. All make uſe of this.

A. Let us hear the ſtrength: If Chriſt gave his Diſciples a Form (which is part of the Sacred Canon) and tyed them up to theſe words, &c. then ordinary perſons may impoſe, &c. a very ſtout argument! Chriſts and your authority it ſeems are equal. His is part of the Canon into which our Faith is reſolved, ſo it ſeems is yours. This Chriſt did when his Diſciples were but weak in gifts and grace, for Chriſt had not yet aſcended.

But ſtill two things muſt be proved:

1. That Chriſt gave them this for a Form; a perfect Form, as I hear it often expreſſed.

2ly. That Chriſt tyed them up to theſe words and ſyllables, as you do to yours.

For the firſt, That it was perfect for the end Chriſt gave it, I doubt not; that is, to give us a ſummary of Prayer, what we ſhould pray for. I ſhall quote but two or three that you will ſay were no Nonconformiſts. Maldonate the Jeſuit, on Mat. 6. Non his neceſſario verbis, ſed hac aut ſimili ſententiâ; quoting Auſtin and Beda for his judgment; but proves it beſt from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, that did not uſe thoſe very words in their Prayers. Grotius on Mat. 6. foreign, i.e. in hunc ſenſum; non enim praecipit Chriſtus verba recitari, ſed materiam precum hinc promere. And on Luk. 11. very fully, Doce nos compendium rerum orandarum, neque enim eo tempore ſyllabis adſtringebantur.

Theſe men then judg the matter, the Oranda, things to be prayed for, to be the intent of Chriſt, but not to tye us up to thoſe ſyllables, as you do to your Forms.

p. 13If that will not ſerve, then I will urge the very literal ſenſe, When you pray, ſay. 'Tis not, When you pray or ſay your Prayers, then ſay this; but when you pray, ſay. So that I ſhould uſe no other prayer when I do pray, but this.

If that will not do, yet it binds that always when you pray, this you muſt ſay; but when? at the beginning, end, or middle of my own prayer? Here is nothing. And your Conformiſts do not ſay it at the end of their prayers, before and after Sermon too; in that I think you are to blame.

That this Form of Prayer our Lord left us is perfect, as to the end he intended by it, I eaſily yield. But if by a perfect form, they underſtand ſuch a form of Prayer, as contains in it all the parts that are requiſite to Prayer, and therefore called a perfect form, as the opinion and practiſe of many would make us believe, I cannot eaſily yield to that.

Prayer is commonly thus deſcribed, and I think very fully and truly. It is an offering of our deſires to God for things agreeable to his will in the name of Chriſt, with confeſſion of our ſins, and thankeful acknowledgment of his mercies.

Here are four things expreſſed, as requiſite to make up a perfect Form of Prayer: They are partes Integrantes, or Conſtituentes of this Totum.

1. Confeſſion.

2. Petition.

3. Thankſgiving.

4. The offering up of all in the Name of Chriſt.

As for Petition, (which to ſpeak ſtrictly is prayer in that part we preſent our deſires), this is very fully expreſſed in our Lords Prayer, and in this reſpect it may well be called a perfect Form. For there is nothing we can rightly deſire, but it is reducible to one of theſe ſix Petitions, and contained in them, as Concluſions are in their Principles.

But let us come to ſome other Parts.

To offer up our Prayers to God in the Name of Chriſt, is an eſſential part of a Chriſtians prayer, Joh. 14.13, 14. and Joh. 16.23, 24. God brought his people to pray towards the Temple; ſo did Dan. 6.10. and Jon. 2.4, &c.

But this part is neither expreſſed nor contained in this Form of Prayer. If any Heretick will deny that we are to pray in the Name of Chriſt, convince him out of this Form of Prayer if you can.

p. 14For confeſſion of ſin; I grant it is tacitely implied in that petition for pardon of ſin; we do confeſs by conſequence we are ſinners, and have ſinned, in begging pardon.

But confeſſion of ſin, and petition for pardon of ſin, are two different things, yea differ exceedingly; a man may pray, as moſt men do, for pardon of ſin, from a principle of meer natural ſelf-love; but confeſſion of ſin is a thing man cares not for; even good David was not very forward to it at one time, Pſal. 32.3, 5. much of a gracious ſpirit may appear in confeſſion of ſin. Now one would think that this being one part to make up prayer, it ſhould be as plainly expreſſed as other parts are, being a principle to which all Confeſſions different for Aggravations, Circumſtances, &c. ſhould belong and be reduced, as it is in Petition. And as it is in the Commandments, we reduce many ſins and duties to theſe Commandments, but the Command to which they are reduced, is plainly expreſſed, and not tacitely only implied in another.

So that I conclude with Grotius as before: It is a thing often obſerved, men that in their converſation live in open rebellion againſt God, while they are about Divine Worſhip, they carry themſelves ſo proſanely, that one would think theſe perſons do not believe there is a God to worſhip; when they ſhould attend to the Word preached, they are talking, or jeering, or ſleeping; at the Miniſters prayer, ſit on their tails as if no ſuch ordinance in hand; but if the Miniſter come to the Lords-Prayer, then clap their Hats before their eyes, and mumble over the words; and now I hope they have worſhipped God well. But I leave it, let men uſe it, or not uſe it, at the end of their prayers, they ſhall not offend me.

I have done with all the Scripture-arguments I meet with in all their Books; Par. 1. pa. 64.the Fr. Debate I ſee in that place where he produceth the Form of the Lords-Prayer, tells his Reader, That the Nonconformiſts will not give the title of Saint to one of the Apoſtles, for no other reaſon that he can conceive, but their good Dames and Masters do not like it, they will not offend their tender ears.

Sir, ſince you profeſs your ſelf to be ſuch a maſter of reaſon, I pray give a reaſon why we may not as well ſay Saint Abraham, St. Samuel, St. Daniel, &c. as well as St. Paul, St. John, St. George, or St. Patrick forſooth? do the holy Prophets deſerve ſo little in compariſon of theſe two laſt Saints?

2ly. And I pray give a reaſon why we may not as well ſay Mathew, Mark, Luke, Paul, &c. as well as Clemens Romanus, Polycarpus, Ignatius, Clemens Alexandrinus, Athanaſius, &c? which Authors I p. 15ſee ſeldom put the Epithete Saint to them. Ignatius in one Epiſtle ſix times calls him Paul without Saint. Sometimes I have met with foreign, ſometimes foreign, but not with foreign, ſo commonly; though I do not deny but they may uſe that Epithere too, and I not ſee it. But did theſe Fathers forbear this word Saint, ſo as not (at leaſt always) as you do to uſe it, becauſe they would not diſpleaſe their good Dames and Maſters? or was it becauſe the art of Canonizing by the Triple-Crown was not then known as it is now? with whom it ſeems, as in other things you are pleaſed to ſymbolize, ſo in this.

The next Head are their Reaſons why theſe Forms muſt be impoſed. Now as to all their Humane reaſons in theſe caſes concerning God. I ſhall not much weigh them. For there is no man will ſet up his Inventions in Gods Worſhip without Reaſons; Jeroboam will not ſet up the Calves at Dan and Bethel, but he hath his Reaſons, 1 King 12.26, 27, 28, &c. He is a fool indeed that hath no reaſon to give for his act.

I much applaud one ſentence of the Schools in this caſe, and it had been well if they had kept to it: Sacra ſcriptura, eſt lex Ecclaſiae, fidei menſura, Regula intellectus, Humanae ratiocinationis fraenum. I will yet take a view of their Reaſons that are of moment.

One I find in the Fr. Deb. Par. 1. pag. 93. It is ſo lawful to uſe a form of words in prayer, that it is in a ſort neceſſary; we can have no ſecurity that the ſervice of God will be performed well without one. The beſt of men though their hearts be full of good deſires, may from ſome cauſe or other, want ſuch words as are fit to expreſs their meaning; hence may uſe words rude, ſlovenly, obſcure, &c.

Mr. Carre hath one like to it, only he doth not put the word neceſſary to it. Neceſſity I grant is a ſtrong reaſon.

Anſ. Rude ſlovenly words, are ſuch as I do not remember I have heard; once I heard an expreſſion that was not ſo becoming, and the perſon being told of it, reformed it, and never uſed it more; a better way to deal with perſons, than impoſe and tye up to ſyllables.

2ly. Will not this reflect upon Chriſt very much? Either,

1ſt. He did not foreknow the infirmities of his people.

2ly. Or though he did, yet he knew how to help them, or pardon them, and yet accept of their ſervice.

3ly. Or if he did foreknow them, and by a form of words impoſed, all theſe infirmities might be prevented, his Worſhip ſecured, and better performed than now it can be without a form, Heb. 3.6.Heb 3:6then Chriſt was not faithful in his Houſe as a Son; that would not provide for a thing neceſſary in his Houſe. The limitation after a ſort neceſſary, will not ſerve the turn, but it muſt reflect upon his honour.

p. 16Could not he have commanded his Apoſtles to compoſe one Liturgy that ſhould have ſerved all the Churches in the world? So it had been one Lord, one Faith, one Baptiſm, and one Liturgy, and then that trite, but pitiful reaſon from Ʋniformity had been anſwered; As if that unity Chriſt requires in his people and worſhip, could not be preſerved, without Uniformity in words and ſyllables.

3ly. But there are ſome men, even of your Conformiſts a few, whoſe words when they have liberty to uſe their own gift, are ſo apt that the Devil himſelf cannot find a rude or ſlovenly expreſſion, why muſt Forms be impoſed upon ſuch men?

4ly. We muſt have a Form before and after Sermon too; for ſomething may fall out which may cauſe rude and ſlovenly words in thoſe prayers, and ſo have nothing but Book-prayer.

5ly. We muſt take away all Preaching too, and uſe only Homilies, for fear of rude, ſlovenly words, and unhandſome expreſſions in Sermons; where be ſure they are too common with ſome. (How many Sermons in Conventicles Dr. Goodman heard, that he can charge them upon us, as he doth in his odious Compariſons, p. 21, 22, &c. I know not, I ſuppoſe he never heard one; may be I can tell him of an expreſſion of one of his Biſhops, and that in print too, that was not very handſome for a Sermon.)

But if he denies this, becauſe we may write down our Sermons and read them, as commonly you do; truly that doth not always ſerve neither. But however I reply, ſo may you compoſe your own prayers, and write them down, and read them, as you do your other prayers impoſed, and ſo prevent ſlovenly words.

6ly. Suppoſe we meet (as often we do) with caſes, which when we come to ſpread them before God, your Book-prayer hath no words at all. What ſhall we do now? our own words we muſt not uſe, they may be rude and ſlovenly; and for your Forms, there is none ſuit the caſe in words at all? it ſeems we muſt let the caſe alone.

Fr. Deb. p 96, 97. urgeth this argument, It is as lawful to uſe a Form of Prayer in proſe, as in verſe; but here you do not ſtick at it, when you can ſing David's Pſalms tranſlated into Engliſh Meter, though the words be mean, uncouth, and the ſenſe often miſtaken.

Anſ. Where lyes the ſtrength of your argument? if in the uncouth words, for this cauſe, and the ſenſe changed, I have not uſed the Pſalms by Hopkins and Sternbold many years. Others are uſed generally by the Nonconformiſts.

p. 172ly, Prayer or praiſe offered to God in verſe, require ſome art to make true Verſe, and fit Rime, ſuitable to Engliſh ears; every one who hath the gift of Prayer, hath not the gift of Poetry.

3ly. The people being to join in ſinging, and lift up their voice on high, if they do not know before hand what to ſing, will make mad work; there cannot be joint ſinging without a Form, ſo that it is neceſſary. But in prayer their hearts are only to join and give their Amen. If the Paſtor be the mouth of the Congregation, and the Service publick, belonging to a publick perſon.

4ly. But it ſeems they are David's Pſalms, compoſed by a Prophet, 2 Sam. 23.1, 2, 3.2 Sam 23:12 Sam 23:22 Sam 23:3part of the Canon; and what was done here, was by the Commandment of the Lord, 2 Chron. 29 25, 30. & 35.15. 2 Chron. 8.14. So that ſtill, Sir, your conſequence is denied, the queſtion not concluded.

But pag 94. All Churches in the world have had their publick Forms, Fr. Deb.he tell us.

I pray add, and thoſe impoſed by ordinary men, and all the Miniſters tyed up to them, elſe you miſs the queſtion.

I pray, Sir, ſpeak low, the little word All makes ſuch a noiſe that it troubles. What, the Apoſtolical Churches too? Will you prove to us invincibly that the Liturgies which go under the name of Peters, James, Marks, Andrews Liturgies, are genuine, faithfully theirs, and not ſpurious? Learned Mornaus **De Euchariſt. cap. 2.hath ſpoken ſo much to theſe, and ſo convincingly; alſo **Crit. Sacr. L. 1. cap 3.Rivet quoting Bellarmine againſt them, that I wonder any Proteſtant ſhould name them to patronize their Liturgies.

If All Churches, &c. what is the reaſon that Mr. Falkner dare not venture above thirteen hundred, and Mr. Carre, but twelve hundred years, and leave three hundred years of the beſt times of the Church next to Chriſt, in which they dare not affirm there were any Forms impoſed? Of which a word hereafter.

To conclude this: If foundneſs of Doctrine, purity of Worſhip, and a converſation in ſome meaſure becoming the Goſpel, be any true notes of a Church of Chriſt, then there have been, and I know are ſuch Churches where no Forms of Prayer are compoſed, much leſs impoſed upon the Miniſtry; that it was but a bold aſſertion of him to ſay All Churches had them.

I find no more in Mr. Carre, nor the Fr. Debat. I ſee Mr. Falkner hath ſummed up five Reaſons, which have been uſed by others moſt of them.

p. 18His firſt, The ſecurity of the Worſhip of God. This we had before. His ſecond, That needful comprehenſive petitions for all common and ordinary, ſpiritual and outward wants, &c. with fit Thanksgivings, may not be omitted, &c.

Anſ. Surely, Sir, he is but a mean Miniſter that cannot do this without a Book; though I know there is a vaſt difference in gifts, yet there is no true Miniſter but is able in ſome good meaſure to do this; the different Congregations are to be conſidered; ſome mens gifts may ſerve for ſome places well, that will not for others.

His third, That the affections and hearts of pions men may be more devont, &c. when they may conſider before-hand, what particular prayers they are to offer up.

Anſ. Who are further off from theſe, and care leſs for them, than your moſt truly pious men, who walk moſt with God, ſuch as can pour out their ſouls before God in prayer, (I ſpeak of private men) in another manner than moſt of your Miniſters can do; how have I heard them complain of theſe as deading their ſpirits! That truly, Sir, your argument from pious and religious hearts, was quite beſide the buſineſs; they are your formal Chriſtians, who ſooth up themſelves in their outward performances, that are the moſt devout at theſe.

But, 2ly. ſince I ſee you have twice quoted the Liber Ritualis in the Bohemian Churches on your ſide, and againſt us, let me give the Reader an account of it out of Comenius, the ſame Author and Book which you quote.

When a Miniſter is ordained, the Ritual-book is given to him, (ſo far you ſay true; but then he goeth on, which you conceal); this Ritualbook the common people were not to ſee; when the Miniſter died, the Book was returned to the Elders again. Not that the Miniſters were bound up to thoſe words and ſyllables in the Book. (ſaith Comenius) but they were left free. (This is quite againſt you) He goeth on, By this means the hearers were made more attentive, and greater admirers of the grace of God. For to rehearſe only Forms, or things preſcribed what will there be to excite attention? Quite croſs to you. The reaſon why they ſuffer not the people to have theſe Books, is, that the people might not ſlight or deſpiſe them. Had the people the Books (as ours the Common-Prayer Book) they would more obſerve whether the Miniſter read right, &c. ſaith Comenius. Thus we ſee when we go from the Scriptures to Humane Reaſons, how Reaſons claſh againſt one another.

p. 19Comen. in Annotat. ad Rat. Ord. & Diſcipl. Frat. Bohem. p. 100, & 101. who adds more that makes againſt you.

Something I may ſay as to the Walacrian Claſſis, whoſe judgment **Thus in the Dutch Churches, Miniſter preces vel dictante ſpiritu, vel certa ſibi propoſita formula concipiet. Har. Syno. Belg. Cap. 11. Canon 21. Apollon. p. 172. Comment on Exod. 28. Def. of B. Land, pag. 102.Exod 28you produce againſt us, 'tis true what you quore; but withal if you pleaſe to read the latter end of the firſt Paragraph you will find them rejecting the ceremonies and forms of publick worſhip in England, introduced in theſe latter times. And in the ſecond Paragraph, condemning Forms of Prayer and publick worſhip, though materially well diſpoſed, if impoſed as abſolutely neceſſary, and eſſential parts of Divine Worſhip, with a certain tyranny and violent command upon the conſciences of men.

I could alſo quote Rivet, whom you quote on your ſide for Ceremonies; he mentions your Surplices in England, which you retain ex reliquiis Papiſmi; and ſaith, if you do it in imitation of the Jews, or for ſome myſtical ſignification (which you do) then 'tis not to be born, ſaith he; In his pious and learned Homily de Orig. errores, grounded on the 2 Cor. 11.3. he ſaith, Mens departing from the ſimplicity of Chriſt, is the original of all error. Chriſts wiſdom is too low for men. There you will find ſomething more. Dr. Stillingfleet according with him in this, tells the Jeſuit piouſly and truly: If your Church had kept to the Primitive ſimplicity and moderation, the occaſion of moſt contreverſies in the Chriſtian world had been taken away. I may ſay the ſame for England.

I will not deny but you may quote many againſt us. But, 1. I am of that Faith concerning Churches which the Church of England is concerning General Councils, Act. 21. when General Councils are gathered together (for ſo much as they be an aſſembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Spirit and Word of God) they may err, and ſometimes have erred in things pertaining to God, &c. even good men may err. We know but in part.

2ly. We have Churches, if there be any true in the world, that are againſt theſe things; ſo that here is the Teſtimony of Churches againſt Churches.

3ly. The Holy Scriptures are the Rule of all Churches to which they ought all to conform. Wherefore Conſtantine ſaid right, and as became a Chriſtian, in the Council of Nice, Let us take our reſolution of queſtions out of the Books that are Divinely inſpired. To be ſure they do not err.

Mr. Falkner's fourth Reaſon, From the difficult parts of Church-offices, of Baptiſm, and the Lords-Supper, there a Form is needful, &c.

Anſ. He that doth not underſtand the nature of thoſe Ordinances, and is not able to unfold them to his people, is not fit to be a Miniſter. p. 20Chriſt doth not ſend fools of his Errand; he hath provided for thoſe whom he ſends. Now if they do underſtand them, and be found in the Doctrine of them, (which is beſt known by Confeſſion of their Faith) they may be able to compoſe prayers ſuitable to the Ordinances.

2ly. Or if ſuch be compoſed for your Tyrenes, when they firſt come into the work, muſt they needs be continued when they are grown more able? the ableſt and oldeſt men in England muſt be tyed up to words and ſyllables, as if they were ſtill Novices.

3ly. Truly, Sir, you muſt not much boaſt of your Form in this Adminiſtration; for the Parental-Covenant which is the only foundation of the adminiſtration of that Ordinance to Infants, the God of Abraham and his ſeed, this is not at all taken notice of in your Form. Beſides many other things which I ſhall not meddle with now, for I do not aim at your Liturgy more than any other in my diſcourſe.

5. His laſt reaſon, To be an evidence to other Churches, and future times, after what way and manner we worſhip God, &c.

Anſw. 1. But, Sir, cannot that be done unleſs we leave them the words and ſyllables of our prayers, to which we were continually bound up? will not the Confeſſion of our Faith, and a Directory for Worſhip, (if the Aſſemblies Directory be not ſufficient, I pray let your party mend it) do this ſufficiently?

2ly. If this reaſon be forcible, was it not as ſtrong in the Apoſtolical Churches, and much more than now? Why did they not leave their Liturgies that all Churches after them might know their way and man ner of worſhipping God? all their words in prayer? So name you but one argument that was not of as much validity in the Apoſtles time as now. Ʋniformity, prevention of errors, of rude and ſlovenly words and expreſſions, and what elſe you pleaſe. Then do but bring us forth their Forms which they impoſed upon the Churches, and give us but infallible ground for our faith to believe, that theſe they were, and no alteration in the leaſt, then Sir, we ſhall liſten to your reaſons.

From other men I have heard other arguments: One I heard from a Learned Phyſician, who had it from Biſhop Sparrow in a Sermon, and was much taken with the ſtrength of it. Suppoſe, ſaid he, their own prayers were better than the prayers of the Church, yet obedience is better than ſacrifice. Saul's obedience had been more acceptable than the fat beaſts he ſpared for ſacrifice.

The ſtrength of this argument let us ſee: Here is a King commanded to give obedience to God immediately, and that abſolutely without any queſtion. Our caſe is, we are called to give obedience to Superiours, but creatures; and that in ſuch things which concern God immediately; p. 21concerning which the Lord hath given us Commandments, to which all Superiours are as ſtrictly bound, as that King was to Gods command. Shall not we then firſt try whether Creatures commands agree with the Creators commands? muſt not obedience to the Potter take place of obedience to the potſheard? if not, then Ephraim did well when he willingly obeyed the command of Jeroboam, Hoſ. 5.11. and Iſrael did well, 2 King. 17.8. in obeying the ſtatutes of their Kings. Whence in matters of God we are bound to try all things; though the Commands be not ſub codem gradu, yet if we ſuſpect them to be ſub codem genere, let us have leave to examine. But in ſhort, were it not for God, we could with as much eaſe give obedience to mens commands as you can. But this inſtance is againſt the Biſhop.

2. If there be a Betterneſs, and we deny to give it to God, then give us leave to take heed of the curſe, Mal. 1.14.

Another common ſaying is this: All your conceived prayers are Forms to us: Ergo, theſe Forms are lawful.

Anſ. So is every mans Sermon; a man may make one Sermon, and in that comprehend all that is requiſite to a mans Salvation; but if a man ſhould only read that Sermon every Lords day, you would diſcern a difference between this Form, and the Sermons you hear daily, and think him worthy to be caſt out of his Miniſtry. All mens ſpeeches are but Forms in your ſenſe.

2ly, Therefore you do but Ludere Homonymia in the word Form. In every effect there muſt be a Form, though hard to find out. But Prayers compoſed of Confeſſions, Petitions, &c. in ſuch ſyllables, words, ſentences, to which men are tyed up in the Worſhip of God, this is the Form in queſtion. I grant by theſe, your Prayers differ from others, and ſo you make a formal difference. So we can allow there will be Forms in every mans Prayer.

3ly. A man that improveth the gift which Chriſt hath given him, reſting upon the promiſe of the Spirit to help his Infirmities, he doth as he ought. Let his Prayers ſeem what they will to you, they are not Forms according to the queſtion, he is not tyed up to ſyllables, but hath his liberty to vary according to the ſubject-matter before him, Occuring Providences, and ſpirits aſſiſtance.

The Scripture grounds which have made me judg this unlawful, are theſe.

1. That Text, Epheſ. 4 8, 11, 12. Chriſt when he aſcended, gave gifts unto men, v. 8. and theſe men amongſt others are Paſtors and Teachers, v. 11. the end of theſe gifts and officers, For the perfecting of the Saints, &c. v. 12. True indeed theſe gifts differ very much in men. So the 7th. v. tells us, But unto every one of us is given grace, according p. 22to the meaſure of the gift of Chriſt. But though the meaſure differ, yet ſo much is given to every Paſtor and Teacher, let him but be ſaithful in the improvement of it, as ſhall ſerve the end Chriſt intended. Thus Rom. 12.6. Having gifts, &c.

I am ſure among theſe gifts the gift of Prayer is one ſo requiſite in a Miniſter, and ſo common to all true Chriſtians, yea to Hypocrites. But this practiſe renders Chriſts act but various, and croſſes him in what he did, and doth in giving gifts; for though he doth give them, they muſt not uſe them, nor improve them; why then did he purchaſe them, and give them? it ſeems he gave gifts, to one or two in a Nation (compoſing of Prayers is not the work of a multitude), to compoſe Prayers, and theſe muſt be impoſed on all the Miniſters in a Nation, with a ſtamp of Authority; though Chriſt hath given gifts to all his Miniſters, and many of them as able, and more able than are the Compoſers and Impoſers; but their gift muſt lye dormant, they are tyed up to words. It was a ſilly anſwer he gave, They may uſe their gifts at home. The Text confutes him.

2ly. That Command, 2 Tim. 2.2. that Timothy look to it, that thoſe whom he admits into the Miniſtry, be faithful men, and able to teach others; is any man ſo abſurd to think that an ability to pray for others is not included; remembring 1 Tim. 2.1. Act. 6.4. and a gift ſo common to all Chriſtians? But this croſſeth the Command; for though they be never ſo able to pray, they ſhall not uſe their gift or ability, but be tyed up to other mens words and ſyllables. Why not before Sermons, as before Sacraments? give us a Text. But your own party think even thoſe prayers are taken away, or wiſh they were, even before Sermon.

3ly. As Chriſt purchaſeth and giveth gifts, and requires gifts, ability in thoſe whom he calls to his work, ſo no doubt but he will require an account of the uſe and improvement of thoſe gifts. That Miniſterial gifts are comprehended in the Talents given forth, Mat. 25.15. I think no underſtanding Divine will deny; in the 19 v. he will reckon with them. What account then ſhall we give for this, when one Talent we neglected, contenting our ſelves meerly with other mens words?

4ly. It renders the promiſe of the aſſiſtance of the Spirit in prayer, Rom. 8.26. but vain in great part. The Spirit in prayer helpeth our Infirmities, not only in the manner of our prayer, but even in the matter of our prayer; the foreign, for ſo are the words foreign the Quid oremus, this infirmity the Spirit helps; but now you will ſpare the Spirit that trouble, for the foreign, the things and words are all ſet down to a ſyllable.

p. 23Obj. The Fr. Deb. (falſly ſo called, for neither Author nor Book anſwer the title) part 1. p. 88. tells us, The Spirit of God doth not now ſuggeſt to any of us when we pray the very matter and words which we utter.

Anſ. 1. That the Spirit ſuggeſteth All the words and matter, I eaſily deny; but that the Spirit doth help his people in the very matter of their prayers, the foreign, I muſt own it, or give the lye to the Text.

2. Let me appeal to the experience of praying Chriſtians, Miniſters and others; when we have been called forth in our Miniſterial work, or at other times to pray; that was the work lay before us: when our hearts have been oppreſſed with ſome temptation, our ſpirits quite down, dead, and flat; the thoughts of our duty a terrour to us, becauſe we found no ability to it; we could not tell what-to ſay unto the Lord, we wanted words, we wanted hearts, we wanted every thing, but to our work we muſt go, we could not avoid it. Well, when we have been entred into our work, have we not found a ſupply afforded, our tongues untyed, our hearts enlarged; words and matter have come flowing in; ſuch ſentences, words and matter as were never in our minds before, yet very apt and pertinent; melting and warming, that the beſt prayers ever we made have been at ſuch times, when we have gone moſt preſſed with the ſenſe of our own inability? though it be not always ſo (the Spirit is a free agent), yet at theſe times, whence could it come but from this good Spirit? Shall he loſe his glory?

3. I thought that praying men uſe before-hand to pray for that good Spirit, for a preſence of Grace, (as to the ſpiritual manner of our work) and a preſence of aſſiſtance as to the matter of our work, being conſcious to our ſelves of the truth of the ſayings of that great Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 3.5. and 2.16. how the Spirit inſpired the Prophets, we enquire not; but that he helpeth our Infirmities in our Duties, ſhew me the ſace of that Miniſter that feareth the Lord, who will deny it, and doth not feel the want of him.

Having theſe Scripture-grounds, I go on to Arguments deduced alſo from Scripture.

4. That practiſe which nouriſheth Miniſters in their lazineſs and ſluggiſhneſs, is certainly an unlawful practiſe.

But this practiſe of Compoſing and Impoſing theſe Forms, &c. according to the queſtion, do ſo: Ergo, Miniſters duty is, to ſtir up the gifts of God which are in them, 2 Tim. 1.6. but that duty now as to the gift of prayer is layed by.

The Fr. Debat. tells us, Part 1. pag. 124.That ſome of the Nonconformiſts are for Liturgy, but they think it not convenient for men of their parts and gifts:

p. 24Truly, Sir, when our hearts are in any trim becoming the duty of prayer, we find it a very great hindrance to be tyed up to the Forms of other men; we cannot open our hearts, nor ſpread before the Lord our deſires in other mens conceptions; we cannot work with their tools. But when lazineſs, deſpondency, and unbelief prevail, it is as convenient as may be for men of our ſinful tempers. I could tell you ſomething of the experience of my own carnal heart as to this point; but I find you are a perſon that jeer at the experiences of Chriſtians, and therefore let it alone.

5. We are to pray for ſpiritual gifts, 1 Cor. 14.1. I hope not only for extraordinary gifts: Every good and perfect gift, Jam. 1.17. tells us whence it comes. Then for a gift of Preaching, and a gift of Prayer. But why ſhould we pray for it, if when the Lord hath given it, we muſt not uſe it, but be tyed up to other mens Forms?

6. If you may impoſe Forms of Prayer, then you may impoſe Forms of Preaching; ſo leave us nothing but Forms of Prayer and Homilies to read; as indeed they came in both together. We have Forms of Preaching in the Scripture, as you have of Prayer; by what authority you take away one, you may take away the other. Your Humane reaſons that I have met with as yet, will as ſtrongly argue for Forms of Preaching, as of Prayer.

When this argument was urged in the Commencement-houſe, the Reſpondent yielded it. But Dr. Fern being then Moderator, thought this was too groſs, and ſo denied the conſequence, Becauſe in Prayer we ſpake to God, but in preaching to men.

But the Doctors anſwer was invalid; for in prayer we repreſent, and are the mouth of a people of Infirmities; we are but perſons of Infirmities. Here Infirmities are but like us, the Lord expects no other from us, Rom. 8.26. The Spirit helps our infirmities in prayer. But in Preaching we ſpeak from God, we come in his Authority, and require Faith and Obedience to what we preach, therefore here we had need have a care what we ſpeak; for now we come with, Thus ſaith the Lord.

7. Diverſities of Gifts and Operations, are the Spirits work and glory, 1 Cor. 12.4.6. Diverſities of Kinds, and of Degrees in thoſe kinds; this diverſity is ſeen in the gift of Prayer, as well as in other gifts. As to have in one Lords-day many thouſands of Miniſters confeſſing of ſins, petitioning for mercies, pardon, purging, healing; praying alſo for Kings, &c. they all aim at the ſame thing in their Prayers; but the words, ſentences, whereby they expreſs the conceptions of their minds, and deſires of their hearts, how various are they? the ſame Spirit that gave this diverſity of gifts, aſſiſts them p. 25in the exerciſe of them. And it is his glory which is taken away, while theſe thouſands of Miniſters are tyed up to the ſame ſyllables in their Book.

This multi-form unity (if I may ſo call it, for here are various expreſſions, different ſentences, yet all tend to one and the ſame thing) hath better ground for it in Scripture than Ʋniformity in ſyllables.

8. What want of wiſdom, care, or grace, yea want of all, this (with your Ceremonies) charges upon the Apoſtles, all men may ſee; you pretend much wiſdom, and care of Gods worſhip in theſe things; were the Apoſtles ſo defective in wiſdom and care, that they could not foreſee the uſefulneſs of theſe things in the Church, and appoint them as well as you. And that, when there were the ſame reaſons that you urge for them now, in their time? We are built upon the foundations of the Prophets and Apoſtles; and take them to be as wiſe as any of their followers.

To conclude, how honourable is this for the Miniſtry? I will take a boy of eight years old, and teach him to read with a grave tone, a thing eaſily done, and this boy ſhall be able to perform all your Miniſterial Offices, excepting Preaching, which he may eaſily procure once a month, and he at other times read but Homilies. As did that Prieſt who was my Predeceſſor, (only one Miniſter for a ſhort time between us) that for fifty years could do no other but read his Book, (except one Sermon, and that a ſtrange one.) Yet he a Miniſter of the Church of England, takes the maintenance, and lets the people provide a Preacher at their charge, he contributing ſomething, as that I ſuppoſe the Law would force him.

Mr. Falkner I ſee labours much in giving us an account of the practiſe of the Jewiſh Church, and the Chriſtian Church.

For the Jewiſh-Church, whatever was their practiſe, it will not reach the queſtion. But however, how will Mr. Falkner give us infallible proof, that the Jews in the pureſt time of their Church-ſtate, did compoſe Prayers, and impoſed them upon the Prieſts and Levites, who were able to officiate without them? If he prove not this, (which he is never able to do) all that he hath writ about them, ſignifies nothing to the proof of the queſtion, and all that labour is but loſt.

For the Chriſtian Church:

1. Can Mr. Falkner give us an account infallibly of the practiſes of all the Churches after Chriſt for the firſt four Centuries? are the Infallible records of them all come to our hands? I thought we fell ſhort abundantly of the records of all the Churches, there might be many for ought he knows that uſed no Forms.

p. 262ly. It is poſſible that he may find ſeveral Paſtors, or Biſhops that did compoſe their own Forms. But,

Firſt, Can he prove they uſed only thoſe Forms, and did vary at no time? as was the practiſe of ſeveral of our old Divines, that had their Forms of Prayer before Sermon, (but of their own compoſing) and varied after Sermon according to the ſubject matter they had been Preaching upon. So did improve that gift they had received from Chriſt before and after Sermon.

Secondly, He muſt prove they Impoſed theſe Forms of theirs upon other Miniſters able to officiate without them, and tyed them up to theſe ſyllables, elſe he miſſes the queſtion, and his labour is but loſt there too. Neither of theſe hath Mr. Falkner proved.

The 23 Canon of the third Council of Carthage, which ſome write was Anno 395, others 397, others 399, at which were 44 Biſhops, and good Auſtin amongſt them, thus ordered:

No man ſhall uſe thoſe Forms of Prayer which he hath compoſed for himſelf, till he hath communicated them to more able Brethren. A Canon of a Council carries very much conviction with it! what was the practiſe there abouts, more than any thing Mr. Falkner hath produced? By this it appears that the more able Brethren did not firſt Compoſe the Prayers of thoſe who were leſs able. 2ly. Much leſs did they Impoſe them on thoſe who were able, and it may be more able than themſelves. Mr. Carre wrote more warily than Mr. Falkner, who dares not venture beyond twelve hundred years. This Canon interprets Tertullian's meaning to be againſt Forms, better then Mr. Falkner.

How long after this, the queſtion aroſe about Ambroſe and Gregories Liturgies, and into what a corrupt ſtate the Church was fallen, when Impoſition began, Mr Falkner knows well.

For that inſtance which Mr. Falkner brings p. 107. to prove Forms to be in uſe from Conſtantine's compoſing of Forms of Prayer for his Soldiers; Whence he thus argues:

It is not probable that Conſtantine the Emperour would have compoſed Godly Prayers for the uſe of his Soldiers, if ſuch Forms had not then been uſed in the Chriſtian Church.

Let us ſee the Logick of this, and how it proves the Queſtion.

1. Conſtantine compoſed Godly prayers for his Soldiers: Ergo, Some one Biſhop or Biſhops, or Miniſters compoſed prayers for Goſpel-Miniſters. How does this follow?

Conſtantine did well; and it may argue ſome did uſe Forms, and who denies it? But doth it follow that Miniſters did tye up themſelves to Forms? I hope Miniſters and Soldiers in a proper ſenſe differ.

p. 272. Conſtantine did thus: Ergo, we may impoſe our Forms upon able Miniſters. How does this follow? nor would Conſtantine impoſe his Forms upon his Soldiers, able to pray without them: Can Mr. Falkner prove it?

Once more. Had there then been Common-prayers compoſed to which the Church did tye up her ſelf, would they not have compoſed one or two prayers for times of War? they did not deſerve the name of Common-prayers, if that was omitted; and if they had done it, Conſtantine we all know bore ſuch reſpect and honour to the Church, that he would have uſed thoſe prayers before his own, not lay by them, and compole others. As our King now commandeth the Liturgy of this Church to be uſed in his Armies at Land and Sea; there being prayers for War, &c. So that to me this inſtance of Mr. Falkner is rather againſt him.

To put an end to this firſt queſtion: How lawful a Directory for Worſhip, and ſome Forms of Prayer compoſed for the help of young Miniſters at their firſt coming into the Miniſtry **Thus they who compoſed the Liturgy for the French-Church in Francfort, ſay, Hae formulae ſerviunt tantum rudioribus, nullius libertati praeſcribitur., who it may be at firſt are not ſo able in all offices to expreſs themſelves in prayer, foreign, before a multitude of people; how lawful, yea how uſeful this may be, I do not deny; but for theſe Miniſters to content themſelves with theſe Forms, and not labour to improve and increaſe their Talent, I think it is ſin againſt him, who hath given gifts, who requires gifts of all thoſe whom he ſends, and to whom they muſt give an account how they improved and ſtirred up the gift he beſtowed upon them; never did Chriſt ſend that man into his work, upon whom he did not beſtow a gift of Prayer.

How far the Congregational Divines have allowed of Forms of Prayer for ſome Miniſters, may be ſeen in that acute and learned Divine Mr. Norton of New-England, to which Book Mr. John Cotton, Dr. Tho. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Simpſon, have prefixed their Epiſtles, in a high commendation of the Book.

For other particular Offices, I ſhall not follow Mr. Falkner, Reſpon. ad Apollon. p. 137, &c.for I had no aim at the Common-Prayer-Book more than other Forms; but if the Impoſing of Forms according to the queſtion, can be proved from Divine Writ, I ſhould yield to ſeveral things he labours to juſtifie; only in Baptiſm there are four things I ſhould deſire ſatisfaction in, and more muſt be ſaid then Mr. Falkner hath yet ſpoken.