A Modest and Clear Answer to Mr Balls Set Forms of Prayer, Tract · Chapter 3
CHAP. III. Wherein Anſwer is returned to Reaſon the ſecond.
IF it be lawfull to uſe a preſcript form of bleſſing, prayer thanks-giving, and baptiſing ſet down in the Word of God, Then all preſcript forms of Prayer or Liturgy, are not to be condemned; but the former appeareth from Numb. 6.22, 23. Pſal. 102.1. Hoſ. 14.2, 3. Joel 2.17. Deut. 5.10. Pſal. 92.1. Ezra. 3.10. Rev. 15.3.2 Chron. 29.30. Iſa. 12.1. Math. 28.19. What anſwer do our Brethren return to this Argument?
Anſw. Our anſwer is ready, and plain, juſt and ſhort, we deny both the Major Propoſition, and the ground of the Minor; for (to ſpeak firſt to the former) it doth not follow that preſcript form of prayer invented by men is lawfull, becauſe a form preſcribed of God is good and allowable; the Reaſon whereof is ſound and evident; though God forbid men to make themſelves any Image, or likeneſſe in his worſhip, yet he hath not forbidden himſelfe this power to preſcribe any Image or form to us; he appointed his people to make the Cherubims to worſhip him before them, both in the Tabernacle and Temple; but yet when Jeroboam made to himſelf the like form at Dan and Bethel, and preſcribed them to the people, it was a manifeſt breach of the ſecond Commandement; what reply doth the Diſcourſer return to this?
Diſc. A meer ſhift (ſay you) inſtead of an anſwer: for the queſtion is not of this or that form in particular, but of a preſcript form in it ſelfe conſidered; the Lords Prayer was indited, or preſcribed by our Saviour himſelf, and they yet deny the uſe thereof as a prayer, and moſt of the Reaſons which they bring, do conclude againſt every ſet form of prayer, as well as againſt any one; thus they argue: If a ſet form of Prayer be lawfull, then a man may carry his prayers in his pocket; buy them at the Book-binders ſhops, &c. and doth not this Reaſon diſallow all penned and printed formes as well as ours?
Anſw. Thus, with one ſudden and blunt daſh of a Pen, a holy and divine truth confirmed by plentifull evidence of Scripture, and applyed generally and frequently by our beſt Divines againſt Popiſh Images, is at once blotted out, and branded as a ſhift: I ſay no more but this: This is a ſpeaking evill of the Law; and condemning of the Law, and that in a higher degree than that which is reproved by the Apoſtle James, Chap. 4.11. for the Law it ſelf in condemning Images, and the imaginations of mens deviſing, commandeth and eſtabliſheth the Images and imaginations ordained by God.
Therefore for you to call ſuch a diſtinction of Images, as is eſtabliſhed by the Law of God, a meer ſhift, is to make your ſelf (pardon my plainneſſe) in this caſe, not an obſerver of the Law, but a Judge; ſo farre will inordinate zeale to a way of error tranſport even godly minds.
But to ſpeak to the grounds of ſuch a cenſure, though it were granted that the queſtion is not of this or that form of Prayer in particular, yet is of a ſet form deviſed by men, and preſcribed to be read out of a book for an ordinary Prayer; yea, I might adde further, that the occaſion of the Queſtion in hand, ſpringeth from an offence taken at ſome brethren (as appeareth by the letters ſent to us about this matter, by ſundry Reverend godly brethren, and ſubſcribed amongſt others, by your own name) for their not joyning with others to worſhip God in a common ſtinted Liturgy, known to be deviſed by men, and preſcribed to be read for the publique Prayers of all the Churches in the Countrey; howſoever therefore the queſtion be reduced by your Diſcourſes ab Hypotheſi, ad Theſin (& by lawfull rules of diſpute ſo may be) yet it is againſt the rule foreign, ſo to palliate the matter, as to draw the queſtion above the kind, and occaſion of the queſtion, you may upon occaſion of one preſcript form of Prayer deviſed by men, put the queſtion of any preſcript form of Prayer deviſed by men; but it is an utter changing and forſaking of the cauſe to put off the queſtion in hand to forms of Prayer deviſed and preſcribed by God; what though ſome that have ſpoken or written in this cauſe, have waved ſome forms of Prayer deviſed by God himſelf; and have uſed ſome arguments, that graſp at more than they can hold?
The ſtate of the queſtion muſt not be drawn to the arguments, but the arguments to the ſtate of the queſtion; It is true, ſome have doubted, and ſome have denyed the uſe of the Lords Prayer (as it is called) for a Prayer, but they would never have denyed it or doubted of it, if they had thought it had been preſcribed by Chriſt for a Prayer: But howſoever (not to ſpend words and time in vain) we for our parts (I ſpeak for the moſt part) do grant it may be lawfull to pray thut very Prayer, in the ſame words, and yet this will not at all prejudice the cauſe in hand, to juſtifie Prayers in a Book compoſed by men, and impoſed by one Church upon another.
Nevertheleſſe, that Argument againſt ſuch Prayers which are fetched from the Topicks of the Pocket, or of the Book-binders Shops, we neither uſe, nor allow, they which uſe them may clear their own intentions and drift in them.
Having thus cleared the denyall of the Major Propoſition, we do as juſtly deny the ground of the Minor, for though it do appear from Scripture, that ſome forms of Prayer, or bleſſing, or baptizing, or thankſgiving deviſed by God, were ſometimes uſed by godly men (and it was lawfull for them ſo to do) yet we deny (that which was the ground of the Minor) that God in his Word did ſet down any preſcript form of any of theſe: Preſcript (I ſay) In ſuch a ſence as in this Queſtion is intended; to wit, preciſely injoyning the uſe thereof in all their publique holy Aſſemblies: nor will any of the Scriptures alledged reach that; in Numb, 6.22, 23. The Prieſts are directed to a form of bleſſing: But that they uſed that and not other forms, doth not appear: It is evident that the Apoſtles uſed divers other forms, as hath been ſhewed above, in Pſal. 22.1. there is no preſcribing of a form of words at all, only Chriſt uſed the ſame words, with a little variance upon the like occaſion, on the Croſſe, or if you urge the title of the Pſalms, from Junius his notes, as if the Pſalm were appointed to be ſung every morning by break of day: Bear with us if we rather fetch the meaning of theſe words foreign from the Pſalm it ſelf, verſ. 19. where the Prophet alluding to foreign calleth the Lord foreign my ſtrength haſten to help me, the words therefore in the title hold forth no more but the Argument of the Pſalm foreign for ſpeedy help a Pſalm of David, In Pſalm 102.1. the Title ſheweth what an afflicted ſoul in ſuch a caſe did pray; but doth not preſcribe all afflicted ſoules to powre out the ſame form of words in their afflictions. Hoſea 14.2, 3. The Prophet directeth them to take words to themſelves, to ſuch a purpoſe: But whether the ſelf ſame words, or ſome other ſuch like, he doth not limit or preſcribe: The like may be ſaid of Joel. 1.17. Deut. 5.10. hath nothing ſounding towards the point in hand. I ſuppoſe it is miſwritten by the errour of the Scribe. In Pſal. 92.1. the Pſalm is penned for the Sabbath, but whether for a word of inſtruction for the Sabbath, or for thankſgiving on the Sabbath it is not mentioned, we willingly grant it was penned for both; But nevertheleſſe, it was not preſcribed every Sabbath day to be ſung. In Ezra 3.10. it doth appear, as alſo 2 Chron. 29.30. That they praiſed God with the words of David and after his Ordinance: But his Ordinance and words were appointed by God, 2 Chron. 29.25. And yet not ſo preſcribed to be uſed as never to be omitted; In Rev. 15.3. when it is ſaid, they ſung the Song of Moſes the ſervant of God, and the Song of the Lamb; It is only meant, they praiſed God with Pſalms to the like effect as that of Moſes; not with the ſame words, much leſſe upon preſcript. Iſa. 12.1. It is propheſied the Church ſhall praiſe God to ſuch a purpoſe as theſe words hold forth: But whether in theſe very words, is uncertain, certain it is, they are not ſo preſcribed to do; but left at liberty. In Matth. 29.19. the place is miſwritten, as before.
Diſc. But it ſufficeth us that theſe forms of Bleſſing and Prayer, might lawfully be uſed as a bleſſing, or Prayer, though in conſcience they were not neceſſarily tyed to the uſe of them: The lawfull, not the neceſſary uſe of a preſcript form of prayer (or liberty) is now in queſtion: for if the Saints in former times might pray unto God, or praiſe him in a ſtinted form of words, indited by others, or invented by themſelves (as we find they might and did) we alſo at this day do the ſame.
Anſw. We deny not that forms of Prayer and bleſſings indited by the Holy Ghoſt in Scripture, may be lawfully ſo uſed, but we deny that they were preſcribed, or limited to be ſo uſed, but ſtill the Church left at liberty to uſe them, or ſome other holy forms in their ſtead; and therefore when the Diſcourſe ſaith the lawfull, not the neceſſary uſe of a preſcript form, is now in queſtion, you make the queſtion to imply a contradiction: for a preſcript form is put upon the Churches, as neceſſary to be uſed in all publique holy aſſemblies, elſe it is not a form preſcribed, but deſcribed only.
Diſc, But (ſaith the Diſcourſer) if they will hear with patience, the conſequence of that argument, The uſe of a deviſed, and preſcribed form of prayer will be juſtified from their own ground; for they teach that God hath not appointed in his Word any preſcript form, which of neceſſity we are tyed to uſe at all; that the matter of our prayers are divers, according to the ſeverall occaſions, which happen and fall out; that the Inward frame is the elevation of the ſoul to God, in humility, love, fear and confidence; from which premiſes it will neceſſarily follow, if one godly forme of prayer may be uſed, another alſo fit for matter, grave for phraſe of ſpeech, may be allowed, for none is abſolutely commanded.
Anſw. The contrary concluſion doth rather follow from the premiſes; for if none be abſolutely commanded by God, then none ought to be commanded or preſcribed by men; what God hath left free in his worſhip, let no man limit; To what Church did God ever give power to bind where himſelf looſeth? And if it be unlawfull for Church Governours to bind where God looſeth, it will be unlawfull for the people ſo deeply to offend the conſcience of their Governours, as to build them up, or to harden them in their ſins, by ready ſubjection to ſuch injunctions, and ſerious and zealous pleading for them: How much ſafer were it for the people of God, to ſtand faſt in the liberty which Chriſt hath purchaſed for them, in accepting no other yoke of ordinances, nor forms of worſhip, then himſelf hath put upon them? that ſo Church Governours might contain themſelves within the power in Church affairs, wherein the Lord hath contained himſelfe throughout the Scriptures; when ſhall it once be that the ſervants of God will learn to be wiſe, and teach others to be wiſe, not above that which is written, but according to it, that ſo an end might be put at length to the inventions and innovations of the ſons of men, whereby they take upon themſelves an uſurpation beyond the bounds of Apoſtolicall Authority, and put upon the people an unjuſt reſtraint of the bounds of their dear bought Chriſtian liberty?
Diſc. The uſe of a preſcript form of prayer (or Liturgy) derogateth (as ſome ſay) from the honour, fruit and benefit of Chriſts aſcention; who aſcending up on high, hath given gifts to men for the work of the Miniſtry, Eph. 4.8. Let it be granted that every particular Miniſter is able in ſo full and ample manner at all times to open his heart before God (which can never be proved) as that he ſhall not need the help of a book; Is there no warrant therefore for others to preſcribe, or for themſelves to read or uſe ſtinted prayer; why not? an able Miniſter hath diſcretion to know what portion of Scripture is fit to be read; Hath the Church then no power to appoint what Books and Chapters ſhall ordinarily be read; or hath a Miniſter no warrant to obſerve that appointment? A learned Linguiſt is able to tranſlate a Chapter in the old or new Teſtament, peradventure as well as it is tranſlated, may not the Church yet ordain one uſually to be read?
Let our brethren judge the ſtrength of their Reaſon, in one framed after the ſame manner; If a Miniſter be indued with gifts to judge what portion of Scripture is meet to be read, then is there no warrant for another to preſcribe, nor for them to read ſtinted portions of Scripture preſcribed by men; prayer is a part of Gods worſhip, ſo is reading of Scripture; the externall form of words are humane, ſo is the preſcription of ſuch a Book or Chapter.
Anſw. The Reaſon is of more weight againſt preſcript forms, then will ſo eaſily be caſt off, at leaſt to our beſt apprehenſions; For if the Lord Jeſus by his aſcention hath given ſufficient furniture of gifts to the Miniſters of his Church for prayer, as well as for preaching; For the whole work of the Miniſtry, for the edification of the Church, For the perfecting of the Saints unto the fulneſſe of the ſlature of the age of Chriſt; Then it is diſhonourable unto Chriſt, and ſuperfluous for the Governours of the Church, to preſcribe unto Miniſters ſet forms of Prayer in Liturgies, any more than ſet forms of preaching in Homilies; If Chriſt hath not gifted them as ſufficient for the one as for the other, it doth indeed derogate from the honour and fruit of his aſcention; if he have, then it is ſuperfluous for Church governours, Actum Agere, even as much as to tie bladders under the wings of Sea-fowls to keep them from ſinking, or to help them to ſwim; It is true that every good Miniſter is not able at all times to open his heart to God in Prayer, but neither is he able at all times to open the mind of God in preaching, but if he be not able to do both without book, neither will he be able to do either upon a book preſcribed to him; I have known a Miniſter to edifie the people more by ſilence in the Pulpit through ſtrength of temptation, then ever I knew any do by reading a Homily upon the Book.
If an able Miniſter have diſcretion to know what portion of Scripture is fit to be read, to what end ſhould the Church appoint him what Books and Chapter to read ordinarily; It is a commendable work in any ſtate to procure a faithfull tranſlation of the Bible to be extant in the mother tongue of each people under their dominions, for the common benefit of them all. And we do eaſily grant a Miniſter (though he be a learned Linguiſt) hath liberty not onelyonly to make uſe of it in his private ſtudies, but alſo to make uſe of it in the Congregation; for ſeeing reading of Scripture is an ordinance of God; yea, and reading of it in the mother tongue of each people, it will beſt agree with the edification of each people, to read it out of ſuch a book as is frequent and currant in all their hands.
But yet the Church may not ſo bind him to ſuch a tranſlation, as not to give him leave to amend it, if need be; and he be able: And beſides, this will no way reach the binding of Miniſters to a ſet form of Prayer upon a book: ſeeing reading of Prayers in the Church, as Prayers, is not any ordinance of God; as all the reading of tranſlated Scriptures be.