An answer to the dissenters pleas for separation, or, An abridgment of the London cases wherein the substance of those books is digested into one short and plain discourse.

CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer. (Book 3)

THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer. This the Dis∣senters judge to be unlawful, or at least not expedient; and they think it a sufficient excuse for their separation from us. I shall therefore in this Chapter endeavour to rectify their mistakes; 1. By shewing that both Scripture and Antiquity do war∣rant Forms of Prayer. 2. By answering their ob∣jections against Forms of Prayer. And 3. by pro∣ving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with.

First then I shall shew, that both Scripture and An∣tiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer. The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive com∣mand of Scripture for the use of Forms of Prayer; but this is needless, because I have shewn in the

foregoing Chapter, that things not commanded may be lawfully us'd in Divine worship. However, for their full satisfaction I shall endeavour to prove these Two things;

• 1. That some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture.
• 2. That tho' no Forms were commanded, yet Forms are as Lawful as extempore Prayers.

I. Then, some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture. I do not say that God's Word com∣mands us to use none but Forms; but I affirm that several Forms of Prayer are injoin'd in God's Word. Thus Numb. 6.23, &c. the Priest is commanded to Pray for the People in this very Form of words, The Lord bless thee, &c. And Deut. 21.7, 8. the People are injoin'd to say, Be merciful, O Lord, &c. and 26.13, &c. I have brought, &c. Look down from thy Holy, &c. David also by Divine inspiration appoin∣ted the Book of Psalms for the public service, as appears by the Titles of many of them. And tho' some of them have no Titles at all, yet we find they were deliver'd by David into the hands of Asaph and his Brethren, for Forms of Praise and Thanksgiving, 1 Chron. 16.7. and accordingly Hezekiah commanded the Levites to make use of them, 2 Chron. 29.30. This Liturgy also was re∣new'd by Ezra, Ezr. 3.10, 11. Besides our Sa∣viour saies, When ye Pray, say, Our Father, &c. in which he do's as plainly prescribe that very Form, as 'tis possible. Nay had he said, use this Form, it cou'd not have been more expressive of his inten∣tion to impose it as a Form.

If it be said, that the Lord's Prayer is not a Form, but only a Pattern or Directory of Prayer; because our Saviour, Matt. 6.9. commanded his Disciples to Pray after this manner, Our Father, &c. I an∣swer,

1. When the same matter is mention'd am∣biguously in one Text, and plainly in another, then the doubtful or ambiguous Text must be determin'd by the plain one. Now 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Matt. 6.9. may be as well translated Pray in these words, as Pray after this manner; but I confess, we cannot cer∣tainly know from that Text, whether Christ com∣mands us to use that very Form, or one like it. But then the words, Luke 11.2. When ye Pray, say, Our Father, &c. are so express a command to use that very Form, that nothing can be plainer; and therefore the other Text must be determin'd by them. 2. Our Saviour gave this Prayer not after the manner of a Directory, but of a Form. Had he design'd it for a Directory, he wou'd have bid∣den them to call upon God for such and such things: whereas he gives them a Form'd Prayer, and bids them say it; and we may reasonably sup∣pose, that he intended we shou'd use it as a Form, since he gave it as such. 3. Tho' the words in St. Matthew were only a Directory, yet those in St. Luke are a Form of Prayer. For the former were deliver'd in the Sermon upon the Mount, in the second year after his Baptism; but the latter upon another quite different occasion in the third year after it. Therefore 'tis probable, that the Disciples understood those in St. Matthew only as a Directo∣ry; and requested our Saviour afterwards to give them a Form. For, 4. the occasion of Christ's giv∣ing them this Prayer in St. Luke, was their request∣ing him to Teach them to pray, as John taught his Disciples. For 'twas the custom of the Jewish Do∣ctors to Teach their Disciples a particular Form of Prayer; and St. John had done the same, and the Disciples desire, that Christ wou'd do so too. For neither St. John's, nor our Saviour's Disciples cou'd

be ignorant how to Pray; but their request was, that Christ wou'd give them his particular Form ac∣cording to the Jewish custom; and this Form he gave them, which we call the Lord's Prayer.

But 'tis objected, that supposing our Saviour did prescribe it as a Form, yet it was only for a time, till they shou'd be more fully instructed and enabled to Pray by the coming of the Holy Spirit. For, say they, before Christ's Ascension the Disciples had ask'd nothing in his Name, Joh. 16.24. but all Prayers after Christ's Ascension were to be offer'd in his Name, Joh. 14.13, 14. & 16.23. Now this Prayer has nothing of his Name in it; and there∣fore was not design'd to be us'd after his Ascen∣sion; and accordingly, say they, in all the New Testament we have not the least intimation of the Disciples using this Form. But this objection is of no force, if we consider the following particulars.

1. That our Saviour has not given us the least intimation, that he prescrib'd this Form only for a time, and not for continual use. And if we may pronounce Christ's Institution to be null without his Authority, then Baptism and the Lord's Sup∣per may be temporary prescriptions, as well as the Lord's Prayer. Whatever Christ has instituted with∣out limitation of time, do's alwaies oblige.

2. That his not inserting his own Name into it, is no Argument at all, that he never intended it shou'd be us'd after his Ascension. For to Pray in Christ's Name is to Pray in his Mediation, depending up∣on his Merits and Intercession for the acceptance of our Prayers; and therefore Prayers may be of∣fer'd up in Christ's Name, tho' we do not name him. Thus without doubt the Disciples Pray'd in his Name, Acts 4.24. tho' his Mediation is not mention'd. 'Tis true, his Name is not expres∣sed

in the Lord's Prayer; because when he gave it, he was not yet Ascended, and his Disciples were not to ask in his Name, till after his Ascen∣sion: but now that he is Ascended, we can as well offer it in his Name, as if it had been express'd in it. Nay 'tis so fram'd, that now after his As∣cension, when the Doctrine of his Mediation was to be more fully explain'd, we cannot offer it at all, but in and thro' his Mediation. For God is peculiarly our Father in and thro' Jesus Christ. And therefore Christ's not inserting his own Name, do's by no means prove, that he did not design it for a standing Form.

3. That tho' the Scriptures do not mention the Apostles and Disciples using the Lord's Prayer, yet this is no argument either that they did not use it, or that they did not believe themselves obliged to use it. For we may as well conclude from the si∣lence of Scripture, that they did not Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, tho' Christ had commanded them so to do; as we may conclude, that they did not use the Lord's Prayer, tho' Christ commanded them to say, Our Father, &c. Especially if we consider, that those who liv'd nearest the Apostolical Ages, and so were the most competent Judges of what was done in them, where the Scripture is silent, did al∣waies use this Form in their Public Prayers, and be∣lieve themselves obliged to do so. Now that this Prayer was look't upon as a standing Form, to be perpetually us'd, appears from Tertull. de Orat. St. Cyprian de Orat. Dom. St. Cyril, Cat. Myst. 5. St. Jerom. in Pelag. l. 3. St. Austin. Hom. 42.50. Epist. 59. St. Chrysost. de Simult. St. Gregory Ep. lib. 7. cap. 6. And to be sure, they who believ'd the Institution of it to be perpetually obliging,

cou'd not doubt, but that it was constantly us'd in the Apostolic Age. And methinks 'tis very strange, that had the Institution been temporary, the Church of Christ for Fifteen hundred Years, shou'd never be wise enough to discover it; and it seems to me a very high presumption for us to determin against the constant belief and practice of the Church in all Ages, without the least warrant so to do, either from our Saviour or his Apostles.

But it is Objected yet farther, that tho' Forms of God's appointing may and ought to be us'd, yet Forms of Man's composure ought not: and that we may as well appoint New Scripture for Public in∣struction, because the inspir'd persons did so; as we may appoint new Forms for Public worship, because they did so. But this objection also will be of no force, if we consider Four things.

1. That this Objection allows the prescribing of Forms to be lawful in its own nature; for other∣wise God must have done that which is unlaw∣ful in its own nature. Nay our Saviour's pre∣scribing his Form was a tacit approbation of other Forms, that were prescrib'd before, and that not only by God, but by Men too. For the Jews us'd several Forms of human composure in their Temple and Synagogues in our Saviour's time, yet he was so far from disapproving them, that he pre∣scrib'd a Form to his own Disciples; which Form, as Mr. Gregory has prov'd, he collected out of the Jewish Forms, in whose Books the several Parts and Clauses of it are Extant almost verbatim to this day. And certainly had he disapprov'd their Forms as evil and sinful, he wou'd never have Col∣lected his own Prayer out of them. Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms, 'tis plain

either that he approv'd what is evil, or that Forms are lawful.

2. That this Objection must allow the prescribing of Public Forms to be not only lawful, but also use∣ful. For otherwise God, who alwaies Acts for wise Ends, and Uses the most proper means, wou'd never have prescrib'd any Forms. And certainly what was once useful, is useful still. For 1. we are now dull and carnal enough to need Forms; and 2. our Saviour has prescrib'd one to be us'd in all Ages, which he wou'd not have done, had it not been useful for the Gospel-state.

3. That this Objection must also allow, that God's prescribing Forms by Inspir'd Persons may be lawfully imitated by us, provided we have the same reason for it. And therefore Governours may prescribe Forms as long as Forms are useful.

4. That tho' Governours may prescribe Forms after God's Example, yet they may not prescribe them as Scripture, or Divine Inspiration. For as Spiritual Governours must take care to instruct the People after God's Example, but are not obliged to do it by Inspir'd Persons: so they may prescribe Forms of Prayer after God's Example, but can∣not pretend to do it by Inspiration. They have God's Example for doing the Action; but they cannot pretend to Inspiration in the doing of it without manifest falshood and presumtion. And therefore, tho' God's Example will warrant for the one; yet it will not warrant them falsly to pre∣tend to the other. Thus then it appears, that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Holy Scripture; and that our Governours are Authoriz'd by God's Example to prescribe others, when they judge them useful.

II. Therefore, I am to prove, that tho' no

Forms were prescrib'd, yet Forms are as lawful as conceiv'd or Extempore Prayers. Certainly there is no command of God to pray Extempore; and there∣fore Forms have a better claim to Divine Autho∣rity, than they. 'Tis said indeed, that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally, we are com∣manded to Pray in our own Conceptions and words; but this is a great mistake. For certainly when God commanded Men to Pray by his own Forms, they did pray Vocally, tho' not in their own words. And here let me take notice, that Dissenters appro∣priate the Name of Prayer to Praying in their own words; and call the using a Form (not Prayer, but) Reading a Prayer. But surely the Levites did really Pray, when they us'd the Words of David and Asaph; and so did the Primitive Christians, when they said the Lord's Prayer; and if so, then a Form may be tru∣ly call'd a Vocal Prayer. For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whe∣ther with, or without a Form.

But they pretend, that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times, God has de∣clar'd in the New Testament, that it is his Will, we shou'd Pray by our own gift of utterance for the future. Now methinks, had it been the Will of God, that we shou'd not Pray by Forms, 'tis very strange that in all the New Testament there shou'd be no express prohibition of it. Especial∣ly since I have prov'd that the Jews had Forms, and Philo de Victim. p. 483. and the Modern Rabbins own the same; they were also a People most te∣nacious of their customs, and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms, had our Lord de∣sign'd to exclude them out of his Worship. Nay the Essenes, who of all the Sects of the Jews, did most readily embrace Christianity, had cer∣tain

Forms of Prayer, as Josephus observes, De Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 7. p. 783. Now when those that were most likely to receive the Christian Faith, were so addicted to Forms, can we imagine, that had Christ intended they shou'd use them no longer, he wou'd not have given them express warning of them? But when instead of so doing, he bids them say, Our Father, &c. how cou'd they think, but that he design'd they shou'd still use a Form, as they did before? Were not that his design, 'tis strange, that he took no care to undeceive them.

But that I may fully prove, that the Scripture does not command us to Pray without a Form; I shall examine the reasons for which the Dissen∣ters think it do's. God, say they, has pro∣mis'd us an ability to utter our minds in Vocal Prayer, and therefore to Pray by Forms of other Men's composure is contrary to his intention. But I shall afterwards prove, that this ability, which they pretend is promis'd for the purpose of Vocal Prayer, is a common gift, which God has no more appropriated to Prayer, than to any other end of utterance and elocution; and that there∣fore to omit the using it in Prayer, is no more contrary to the intention of God, than to omit the using it upon any other just and lawful occa∣sion. However, because they urge some places of Scripture to prove, that 'tis design'd merely for Vocal Prayer, I shall therefore consider them. 1. They urge Zach. 12.10. I will pour out upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and supplications. The Hebrew word, translated supplications, do's alwaies (say they) denote Vocal Prayer, and therefore pouring out the Spirit of supplications must imply com∣municating an ability to Pray Vocally. To this

I answer, that the word is no more restrain'd to Vocal Prayer, than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture. 'Tis true we read, Psal. 28.2. Hear the voice of my supplication, when I cry unto thee; but the voice of my supplication do's not ne∣cessarily denote Vocal Prayer. For 'tis a Hebrai••••, and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer. For so Gen. 4.10. 'tis said, The voice of thy Brother's blood cries, &c. Now the blood had no real voice to cry with, but cry'd just as mental Prayer do's. In other places the word signifies both mental and vocal Prayer indifferently, Psal. 86.6. & 6.9. or Prayer in general, Jer. 31.9. But sup∣pose the word were alwaies us'd for Vocal Prayer, yet surely the Promise of pouring out the Spirit of supplications intends a much greater good than the gift of extempore utterance in Prayer, of which bad Men may have a greater share than the most de∣vout. And what is that greater good, but the gift of Heavenly affections in Prayer? If it be urg'd, that God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son, crying, Abba Father. Gal. 4.6. and that we have receiv'd the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba Father, Rom. 8.15. and that these Texts prove us to be en∣abled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit, and that there∣fore we ought not to Pray by Forms; I answer, 1. That if these words oblige us to cry Vocally to God by our own gifts, then we are equally ob∣liged in all our Vocal Prayers to cry to him in these words, Abba Father; because that is the cry which the Spirit enables us to make, and the Text is every whit as express for one as for the other. 2. I de∣ny that crying here do's necessarily denote Vocal Prayer. For how often do we find the word ap∣ply'd to things that have no Voice at all? Thus the stones wou'd immediately cry out, Luke 19.40.

and the Labourers hire is said to cry to God, James 5.4. And indeed crying to God has the same la∣titude with Prayer, which includes both Vocal and Mental. 3. Suppose that crying, Abba Father, by the Spirit, signifies Vocal Prayer; yet all that can be gather'd from it is only this, that when we Pray Vocally, we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to address our selves to God with assurance, as to a merciful Father; and this we may as well do in a Form as otherwise. For if we never cry Abba Fa∣ther by the spirit, but when we word our own Prayers, we can no more be said to do it when we join with a public Extempore Prayer, than when we join with a public Form, because we word our own Prayers in neither.

'Tis true, the Scripture speaks of a gift of ut∣terance, which, say they, was given for Praying as well as Preaching; but I answer, that the gift of utterance was miraculous and particular to the Primitive Ages. This gift, saies Saint Chrysostom Hom. 24. ad Eph. c. 6. is that which Christ pro∣mis'd, Mark 13.11. by which the Disciples spake without premeditation, and what they spake was the inspir'd Word of God; and this Gift no so∣ber Dissenter will pretend to. The Apostles began to speak with tongues, as the spirit gave them utte∣rance, Act. 2.4. and the Dissenters may as well pre∣tend to the gift of Tongues, as that of Utterance, they being both extraordinary.

But say they, tho' all Men have not the Gift of Praying Extempore, yet some have; and there∣fore God requires such to Pray by their gift and not by a Form. For he requires them not to neglect the gift, 1 Tim. 4.14. but to stir up the gift, 2 Tim. 1.6. and to Minister the gift, 1 Pet. 4.10. and that having gifts, &c. Rom. 12.6. and if Men are obliged

to exercise their gifts in general, then they must exercise their gift of Praying Extempore in parti∣cular. Now to these things, I answer, First, That the gift bestow'd upon Timothy was the gift of E∣piscopal power, which he is exhorted to exercise diligently. For at the first plantation of the Gospel, the Holy Ghost Pointed out the Men, that were to be Bishops, as the (f) 1.1 Fathers testifie. For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophesy. 'Twas given also with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; and these two circumstances prove, that the gift was not the gift of Prophesying, but the gift of Episcopal Authority bestow'd upon him by imposition of hands at God's particular Ap∣pointment. And now I pray, how do's this Text prove, that we must use a gift of Vocal Prayer in our own words?

As for 1 Pet. 4.10. Rom. 12.6. I Answer, 1. That there can be nothing in them against Pray∣ing by a Form; for then they wou'd make as much against using the Lord's Prayer, as any other Form. 2. That the design of those Texts is to stir Men up to diligence in the exercise of those several Of∣fices, viz. The Office of a Bishop, a Priest, a Dea∣con, and a Rich Man. For 'tis plain that the word Gift do's oftentimes signifie an Office; and tho' it may be said, that the relief of the Poor is ra∣ther the exercise of an Ability than an Office, yet I answer, that 'tis properly the exercise of an Of∣fice, because the very having Ability do's as much put a Man into the Office of shewing mercy to the Poor, as if God had appointed him to it by a solemn Ordination. 3. Supposing that by these gifts were not meant Offices, but only abilities, yet

we are obliged so to exercise them, That all things may be done to Edification; for so the Apostle de∣clares that those extraordinary Gifts, that were pour'd out in the Primitive Times, were to be us'd, 1 Cor. 14.2, 6, 19, 40. as 'tis particularly plain by the instance of the Gift of Tongues, vers. 23, 26, 28. Now if we are not to exercise our gifts, but as they tend to Edification, then we must not exer∣cise the gift of Praying Extempore any farther than it tends to Edification. And since Praying by a Form in Public Worship do's (as I shall after∣wards prove) tend more to Edification, than Pray∣ing Extempore; therefore 'tis plain that we ought to suspend the use of the gift of conceiv'd Prayer. Thus, I hope, I have made it appear that some Forms of Prayer are commanded in Scripture, and that those Texts which are urg'd against the use of forms of Prayer, do prove nothing against them; and therefore I think I may safely affirm, that the Scripture do's warrant Forms of Prayer.

I proceed now to shew that Antiquity do's the same. This I shall do, 1. by answering those Au∣thorities, which are objected by the Dissenters a∣gainst the use of Forms in the Primitive Ages. 2. By proving that they were us'd in those Ages, by a short Historical Account of the matter of Fact.

1. Then 'tis objected, First that Justin Martyr saies, Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Com∣munion Pray'd, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, say they, ac∣cording to his ability; from whence they infer, that in his daies the Ministers Pray'd by their own gifts and abilities. To this I answer, that the words do signify with all his might, i. e. with his utmost fer∣vency. For the same words are spoken of the Peo∣ple in the same Book, p. 60. who did not com∣pose

their own Prayer at the Eucharist; and the same Phrase is us'd in the same sence by Nazian∣zen, Orat. 3. 2^dly, Because Tertullian in his Apology affirms, that Christians did Pray without a Monitor or Prompter, because they did Pray from their hearts; they think he alludes to a custom of the Heathen, who in their public worship had a Monitor to di∣rect them in what words and to what God they were to Pray. Now since the Christians Pray'd without a Monitor, therefore say they, they Pray'd without any one to direct them what Form of words they were to pray in. To which I answer, 1. That without a Monitor cannot signify, without any one to dictate a Form of words. For in their public Prayers the Minister was the Mouth of the People; and therefore whether he Pray'd by Form or extempore, his words were a Form to the Peo∣ple. Whatever therefore this obscure Phrase means, 'tis certain it cannot mean without a Form, unless it means without a Minister too. 2. It seems to me most probable, that by without a Monitor is meant, without any one to correct them, when either the People repeated or the Minister recited the public Prayers falsly. For (g) 1.2 the Heathen Priests began their Sacrifices with a Form of Prayer, which began with an Invocation of Janus and Vesta, and proceeded with the invocations of all the greater Deities by name. Now that none of the greater God's might be pretermitted, and (h) 1.3 none of the Prayers falsly or disorderly re∣cited or repeated, (i) 1.4 one Priest read out of a Ritual, and another was appointed for a Public Monitor, to oversee and correct such mistakes as

might be made. When therefore Tertullian saies, We Pray without a Monitor, his meaning is not, that we Pray without a Priest to dictate our Prayers to us, whether out of a Book or Extempore; but that we Pray without one to oversee, to admonish the Priests or People, when they dictate or repeat fals∣ly. Because, saies he, we Pray from our hearts; that is, either by joining our affections and desires with the Priest without repeating the words, or by saying our Prayers by heart; so that we need none to correct us. For Tertullian affects to ex∣press the Greek; and therefore 'tis probable his de pectore, or from the heart may be a translation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies to say by heart. So that Ter∣tullian's words do rather argue for the use of Forms, than against them. The Third and last testimony against the Antiquity of Forms of Prayer, is that of Socrates Scholasticus, whose words, Hist. lib. 5. c. 22. they thus translate; Every where and in all worships of Prayer, there are not two to be found, that speak the same words. And therefore, say they, 'tis very unlikely, they shou'd Pray by Forms. But we must observe, that he had been speaking of the different ceremonies and customs of the chief Churches; and then concludes, Every where and among all worships of Prayer, there are not two to be sound, (not that speak the same words) but that a∣gree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the same thing. Where by worships of Prayer he means rites of Prayer, which the Churches differ'd in. And how do's it follow, that because they did not use the same rites and cere∣monies of Prayer, therefore they did not use Forms of Prayer? For even now we see there are diffe∣rent rites and ceremonies of Prayer among those Churches, which do yet agree in using Forms of Prayer.

2. Therefore I am to prove, that Forms were us'd in the Primitive times, by a short Historical account of the matter of fact. 'Tis probable, that in the first Age there was a gift of Praying Ex∣tempore by immediate inspiration; and while this gift continu'd, perhaps there might be no other Form in public Worship, but only that of the Lord's Prayer. But 'tis probable, that upon the ceasing or abatement of it, Forms were compos'd after the method of those inspir'd Prayers. For 'tis most likely, that even from the Apostolical Age some part at least of the public Worship was perform'd in Forms of Prayer; because, so far as we can find, there never was any dispute among Christians con∣cerning the lawfulness of Praying by a Form. For 'tis strange that, if Forms were an innovation, such a remarkable and public innovation shou'd be in∣troduc'd without the least contest or opposition. For tho' some innovations did creep in; yet every one of that public nature alwaies found powerful adversaries to withstand it.

But not to insist upon probabilities, wee'l en∣quire into matter of fact. The Liturgies of Saint Peter, St. Mark and St. James, tho' corrupted by latter Ages, yet are doubtless of great antiquity, and probably even from the Apostles times. For besides many things, which have a strong relish of that Age, that of St. James was of great autho∣rity in the Church of Jerusalem in St. Cyril's time, who wrote a Comment upon it even in his younger years; and 'tis declar'd by (k) 1.5 Proclus, and the (l) 1.6 Sixth general Council to be of St. James's own Composure; and 'twas probably receiv'd in the Church of Jerusalem within 170 years after the

Apostolical Age. And that there are Forms of Worship in it as ancient as the Apostles, seems highly probable; For First, all the Form Sursum corda is there, and in St. Cyril's Comment; and the same is in the Liturgies of Rome and Alexandria and the Constitutions of Clemens, which all agree are of great antiquity; and St. Cyprian, who was living within an 100 years after the Apostles, (m) 1.7 mentions it as a Form then us'd and receiv'd; and St. Austin tells us, that Form is words deriv'd from the very age of the Apostles. The same is as∣serted by Nicephorus of the Trisagium in particular, Hist. lib. 18. c. 53. 'Tis evident, that from that Primitive Age there was a Form of questions and an∣swers prescrib'd in Baptism, from the questions and answers, which Tertull. De Resur. Carn. St. Cypr. 76.80. Origen in Numer. Hom. 5. speak of. And if the Minister may be limited to a Form of question, why not to a Form of Prayer, there being as great a necessity to prescribe for the latter as for the former?

But that de facto there were Forms of Prayer, as well as Questions and Answers us'd in Baptism, Clemens's Constitutions affirm; and some of the Prayers are there inserted, l. 7. And that Chri∣stians did very early use Forms of Prayer in their public Worship, is evident from the Names gi∣ven to public Prayers; for they are call'd the (n) 1.8 Common-Prayer, (o) 1.9 Constituted Prayers and (p) 1.10 Solemn Prayers; which last was the Title by which the Heathens distinguisht their (q) 1.11 pub∣lic

Forms of Prayer, and consequently in the Lan∣guage of that Age must signifie a public Form. (r) 1.12 St. Basil fetches the Glory be to the Father, &c. from the tradition of the Apostles, and cites it from St. Clemens the Apostles Scholar, and from Dionysius of Alexandria, who was living in the year 200; and Clemens of Alexandria, who was living in the year 160, sets down these words as the Christian Form of Praising God, (s) 1.13 Praising the Father and the Son with the Holy Ghost. So that this Form is older than the time of the Arians; for they are sharply (t) 1.14 reprov'd by the Orthodox Fathers for the alteration of it. And indeed a great part of the Primitive Worship consisted of Hymns, which must necessarily be compos'd into set Forms. Tertull. Apol. cap. 2. and before him Lucian in Philop. and Justin Martyr also, Epist. ad Zen. & Heren. speak of their singing such Hymns. They spend whole nights in watching and singing of Psalms, saies Lucian; and Pliny saies, that early in the Morning 'twas their manner to sing by turns a Hymn to Christ as God; which Hymn was doubtless of human composure, there being no Hymn to Christ in Scripture of that length, as to take up a consi∣derable part of their public Service. Eusebius tells us, that very early there were various Psalms and Odes compos'd by Christians concerning the Di∣vinity of Christ (u) 1.15; and that Paulus Samosatenus was condemn'd for suppressing those Hymns that were made in the Honour of Christ, as being the composition of Men of late daies (w) 1.16; tho' in all pro∣bability those Hymns were compos'd within much

less than an hundred years after the Apostolical Age. But as for this Hymn which Pliny speaks of, it was earlier, for it cou'd not be much above ten years after the death of St. John, that Pliny gave this ac∣count of the Christians to Trajan; and therefore to be sure the Hymn he there speaks of, was us'd in the Age of the Apostles. About the same time, Lucian makes mention of a Prayer which they us'd in their public Worship, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, begin∣ning from the Father; which doubtless was the Lord's Prayer: and of a famous Hymn added to the end of their Service, (x) 1.17 which in all probability was the Hymn that Pliny speaks of. Since therefore the Primitive Worship, did in a great measure consist of Hymns, which were Forms of Praise intermixt with Prayer, and some of these of human com∣posure; this is an evident Testimony of the Prim∣itive use of Forms. And doubtless, they who made no scruple of praying by Form in verse, cou'd not but think it lawful to pray by Form in prose. Now that Praying in Meeter or compos'd Hymns was a very early practice in the Christian Church, is evi∣dent from the Apostolical Constitutions, where it is injoin'd, Let the People sing the verses which answer adversly to one another (y) 1.18: which way of singing was so very ancient, that Eusebius (z) 1.19 urges it as an Argument to prove the Essenes Christians, be∣cause they sung by turns, answering one another; and how cou'd they thus answer to one another in their Hymns and Prayers, unless they had constant Forms of Prayer? But that they had such Re∣sponsals in Prayer, is evident, because, when Julian for the credit of Gentilism wou'd needs dress it up,

(a) 1.20 after the Order of the Christian Worship; one thing wherein he sought to imitate it was in their constituted Prayers; that is, not in having constituted Forms of Prayer, for that the Hea∣then had before; but in having such constituted Forms as the Christians had; that is, as Nazian∣zen (b) 1.21 explains it, a Form of Prayer to be said in parts; for this way of Praying in parts Nicephorus (c) 1.22 derives from Ignatius, who was a Scholar of the Apostles. All which to me is a plain demon∣stration of the great Antiquity of Forms. And that in Constantine's time, the Church us'd public Forms of Prayer, is evident from that often-cited place of Eusebius, (d) 1.23 where he tells us of Con∣stantine's composing Godly Prayers for the use of his Soldiers; and elsewhere tells us in particular what the Prayer was; We acknowledge thee, O God, a∣lone, &c. (e) 1.24 which is a plain evidence that it was a set Form of words. But it's objected that this Form was compos'd only for the use of his Sol∣diers, who were a great part of them Heathens; and that Constantine's composing it, is a plain evi∣dence, that at that time there were no public Forms in the Church; for if there had, what need Con∣stantine have compos'd one? To which I answer, That this Form indeed was compos'd only for his Heathen Soldiers; for as for his Christian Soldiers, the story tells us, that he gave them liberty to go to Church (f) 1.25. And therefore all that can be ga∣ther'd hence is, that the Christian Church had no Form of Prayers for Heathen Soldiers, which is no great wonder; for if they had, it's very unlikely

that the Heathen Soldiers wou'd have us'd it. But that they had Forms is evident, because he calls the Prayers which Constantine us'd in his Court, ac∣cording to the manner of the Church of God;▪ (g) 1.26 Au∣thoriz'd Prayers; which is the same Title which he (h) 1.27 gave to that Form which he made for his Heathen Soldiers. And therefore if by the Au∣thoriz'd Prayers which he prescrib'd to his Soldiers, he meant a Form of Prayers, as 'tis evident he did: then by the Authoriz'd Prayers which he us'd in his Court after the manner of the Church, he must mean a Form of Prayer also. And since he had a Form of Prayer in his Court after the manner of the Church, the Church must have a Form of Prayers too.

'Tis plain then, that the three first Centuries had public Forms of Prayer; after which (not to insist upon the Liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom and St. Ambrose) we have undeniable testimonies of the same. See St. Chrysost. 2. ad Corinth. Homil. 18. St. Austin de Bapt. cont. Donat. lib. 6. and Concil. Carth. 3. c. 12. Concil. Milev. c. 12. Justin. Novel. 137. Pref. & 1, 2, 6. Nazian. Orat. in Basil 20. saies, St. Basil compos'd Orders and Forms of Prayer: and St. Basil himself, Epist. 63. reciting the Man∣ner of the public Service, that was us'd in the Mo∣nastical Oratories of his Institution, saies, that no∣thing was done therein, but what was consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God. Nay the Council of Laodicea, holden about the Year 364, ex∣presly provides, That the same Liturgy, or Form of Prayers, shou'd be alwaies us'd both Morning and Evening, Can. 18. and this Canon is taken into the Collection of the Canons of the Catholic Church; which Collection was establish'd in the General

Council of Chalcedon, in the Year 451, by which establishment the whole Christian Church was ob∣liged to the use of Liturgies, so far as the Authority of the General Council extends. And then in the Year 541, these Canons were made Imperial Laws by Justinian, Novel. 131. c. 1. See Zonar. and Balsam. on can. 18. See also Smectym. Answ. to the Remonst. p. 7. Grand. deb. p. 11. and Concil. Laod. c. 15, 19. Thus for near 600 Years after Christ we have sufficient testimony of the public use of Forms of Prayer.

And from henceforth, or a little after, down to Mr. Calvin's time, all are agreed, that no Prayers but establish'd Liturgies were us'd. Nay Calvin, who Pray'd Extempore after his Lecture, alwaies us'd a Form before, Pref. ad Calv. Prael. in Min. Proph. and he compos'd a Form for the Sunday-Service, which was afterwards establish'd at Geneva. Nay he saies, for as much as concerns the Forms of Prayer, and Ecclesiastical Rites, I highly approve that it be determin'd so, as that it may not be lawful for the Ministers in their administration to vary from it; Ep. 87. Nor is there any one Reform'd Church, but what has some public Form of Prayer; nor was the lawfulness of Forms ever call'd in que∣stion before. Nay Mr. Ball, Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Norton and Mr. Tombes do (i) 1.28 expresly own them to be lawful; and this is said (k) 1.29 to be the tenent of all our (Dissenting) best, and most judici∣ous Divines. It is very well known (saies (l) 1.30 one)

that the flower of our own Divines went on in this way, when they might have done otherwise, if they had pleas'd, in their Prayers before Sermons; and we find Mr. Hil∣dersham's Prayer before Sermon (m) 1.31 Printed. This was so universally and constantly practis'd, that Mr. Clark (n) 1.32 tells us, that the first Man who brought conceiv'd Prayer into use in those parts where he liv'd, was Mr. Sam. Cook, who died but in the Year 1649. Nay the chief Dissenting writers do not only assert, but they also undertake to prove the lawfulness of Forms (o) 1.33 from the nature, use and ends of Prayer; and charge the contrary o∣pinion with Enthusiasm (p) 1.34 and Novelty (q) 1.35. They grant also, 1. That Forms are not only law∣ful, but that there are Footsteps of this way of Worship both in the Old and New Testament, as Mr. Tombes and others have shew'd, (r) 1.36 and Mr. Ainsworth (that did otherwise argue against them) do's confess (s) 1.37. 2. That they are very ancient in the Christian Church. The Christian Churches of ancient Times, for the space of this 1400 Years at least, if not from the Apostles Time, had their stinted Liturgies, saith Mr. Ball (t) 1.38: and (u) 1.39 they answer Objections to the contrary. 3. That in the best reform'd, nay, in all reform'd Churches, they are not only us'd and tolerated, but also (w) 1.40 useful

and expedient. 4. That those amongst us, to whom the use of the Common-Prayer has been most burthensome, have from time to time, profest their liking and approbation of a stinted Liturgy, as Mr. Ball assures us (x) 1.41. That they thought it altoge∣ther unlawful to separate from Churches for the sake of stinted Forms and Liturgies, is not on∣ly frequently affirm'd by Mr. Ball (y) 1.42, but lit∣tle less even by Mr. Norton, (z) 1.43 who saies, It is lawful to embrace Communion with Churches, where such Forms in public Worship are in use; neither do's it lie as a Duty on a Believer, that he disjoin and separate himself from such a Church. And they give this reason for it, that then they must separate from all Churches. So Mr. Baxter (a) 1.44, Is it not a high degree of Pride, to conclude, that almost all Christ's Churches in the World, for these 13 hun∣dred Years at least to this day, have offer'd such wor∣ship unto God, as that you are obliged to avoid it? And that almost all the Catholic Church on Earth this day, is below your Communion for using Forms? And that even Calvin, and the Presbyterians, Cart∣wright, Hildersham, and the Old Non-Conformists were unworthy your Communion?

As for Praying Extempore, 'twas set up in England in opposition to our Liturgy. For in the Ninth Year of Q. Eliz. to seduce the People from the Church, and to serve the ends of Popery, one Friar Comin began to Pray Extempore with such fervor, that he deluded many, and was amply rewarded for it by the Pope. See Foxes and Firebrands, p. 7, &c. After him Tho. Heath did the same, p.

17. See also Ʋnreason. of sep. pref. p. 11, &c. And I hope when the Dissenters have well con∣sider'd, whom they join with, and whose cause they advance, by decrying our Liturgy and ex∣tolling Extempore Prayers, they will see cause to think better of Forms of Prayer.

Secondly, I am now to answer the Dissenters Objections against Forms of Prayer.

1. They pretend, that the Use of public Forms do's deaden the Devotion of Prayer; whereas I doubt not to make it appear, that they do quic∣ken Devotion much more then Extempore Prayers.

'Tis plain that Forms of Prayer do fix the Minister's attention more than Extempore Prayers. For his matter and words being ready before him, he has nothing else to do but to attend his in∣ward Devotion, which is the life of Prayer: whereas Praying Extempore forces him to attend to the Recollection of Matter, and invention of expressions; which must more or less divert him, it being impossible to attend to several things, as closely as he may to one. 'Tis true, he that uses a Form, may permit his thoughts to wander; but then the sault is in the Man, and not in the Form; for he converts that which in it self helps Devotion, into an occasion of indevotion. He that Praies Extempore is more bound to attend to words; but he that Praies by Form, has better opportunities of attending to the proper business of Prayer, viz. Contrition, Sense of our Wants and dependence upon God, &c. And by being an example of these in his Prayer, the Minister do's very much excite the Devotion of the People.

But 'tis Objected, that while his thoughts are imploy'd in inventing the matter and words of his Prayer, they are well imploy'd; because they

are attending to the duty of Prayer, tho' they be not so fixt upon the inward Devotion of it, as they might be in the use of a Form. To this I answer, that to invent the matter and words of Prayer, is not to Pray, but to study a Prayer, which cannot be prov'd to be a part of our duty. But we believe, that when we Pray Devoutly by a Form, we discharge the whole duty of Prayer, tho' we do not invent the matter and words our selves; and till we see the contrary prov'd, we shall always think so. If it be said, that Praying Extempore will not suffer the Minister's thoughts to wander; I answer, that if the Minister have Devout affections, they will keep his thoughts from wandring, when he Praies by Form, as much as when he Praies Extempore; but if he has not, he cannot utter his words from his affections either way.

But 'tis pretended, that Praying Extempore do's heighten the Minister's affections more than a Form. Because, say they, in reading a Form his affections follow his words, and are rais'd and excited by them; whereas in Praying Extempore his words follow his affections. But why may not a Man, who knows before hand what he is to Pray for, be Devoutly affected with it, before he expresses it in a Form, as well as before he expresses it Extempore? And why may not he that Praies Extempore, be as little affected with what he Praies for, before he has exprest it, as he that uses a Form? May not a Man's tongue run before his heart either way? But suppose it true, that in Extempore Prayer the words follow the affections, and that in a Form the affections fol∣low the words; do's it follow that Praying Ex∣tempore heightens the affections more than a

Form? Why may not the affections, viz. de∣sire, &c. which follow the words, be as great as those that go before? Especially since our Dis∣senters say, that expressive words do naturally quicken affections.

If it be said, that the Minister cannot so well express his Devout affections in other Mens words, as in his own; I answer, that he is the Mouth of the Congregation, and that his business is, not to express his own particular and extraordi∣nary fervours, as the common case of the Con∣gregation; but so to speak, as every honest and ordinary Christian may join with him. For 'tis as bad for him to express such heights of Devo∣tion, as few or none of them are arriv'd to; as to confess in their names such sins, as few or none of them are guilty of. Now the common sense of the Congregation may be as well ex∣press'd in another Man's words as in his own; unless we suppose that Extempore words can more fitly express it, than those that are premeditated; which no sober Dissenter will affirm. But, say they, the Minister's Soul is so busied in reading a Form, that it cannot be so much affected, as when he Praies Extempore. Now I leave the Reader to judge, whether being busied about the Matter, Method and Expressions of Prayer, do's not much more imploy the Ministers Soul, than bare reading; that is, whether he that can read a Prayer without the least trouble, cannot read a Prayer more easily than invent one.

However, they tell us, that Praying always in the same words, do's cloy the Attention of the People; whereas the newness and variety of conceiv'd Prayers do's naturally awaken their Minds and keep them more sixt and intent. But

I answer, that the matter of public Prayer is, and for the main will be, the same; and therefore if the matter fixt their minds, 'twou'd as well do it in the same, as in new expressions. But if it be the Phrase, that their minds are fixt on, there is nothing in it, but an amusement of their fancies, which do's rather unfix them from the inward acts of Prayer, and distract their Devotion. Forms may be compos'd and pronounced as affectionately as Extempore Prayers, and may as well excite the People's Devotion; but novelty of method and expression do's as much deaden the Devotion of those that are fixt upon it, as worldly business. That seeming Devotion, that is rais'd by the jing∣ling of words, is not Devotion but Mechanism; for a Man may be strangely affected with the words of Prayer, who has not the least spark of true Devotion to the matter of it: but if the Mind do's affect the matter of Prayer for it self, and not for the sake of the words, I cannot ima∣gin, how new words shou'd any way advantage its Devotion, unless they were to express new matter.

Thus it appears, that even what is urg'd in be∣half of Extempore Prayers, do's plead much more for Forms; but then there are sundry advantages peculiar to Forms, which Extempore Prayers can∣not pretend to. For 1. People may consider the matter of a Form, and endeavour to affect their minds with it before hand; and so they may Pray with greater preparation. 2. People may join in a Form with more understanding, than in an Ex∣tempore Prayer, wherein the Minister is forced to use such expressions as come first to hand; and sometimes he is forced to use a hard word, which half of the Congregation do not know, because

an easier do's not come to his mind; besides many other inconveniencies, which 'tis impossible al∣waies to avoid. Now in composing public Forms more care will be taken that the words may be intelligible, than there can be in Extempore Prayer. And truly, if the words be not intelligible, the People's Prayer must be as much interrupted as if the Minister spake in an unknown tongue. 3. Men may join in a Form with much more Faith, and Hope of being heard, than they can in Extem∣pore Prayer. For they may be satisfied be∣fore hand, that the matter of a Form is good; but they cannot be so satisfied of an Extempore Prayer; considering that the Minister is many times a stranger, and may be perhaps Erroneous, Rash, Ignorant, &c. And even those Ministers whom they know, may sometimes mistake their Passion for their Zeal, and reake their Anger or their Faction in their Prayers, or let drop an Er∣rour, before they are aware, or express themselves so, as an honest mind may not be able to join. So that in joining with an Extempore Prayer a Man must judge what is said, before he can con∣sent to it: and if he meet with a rub, the Mi∣nister goes on in the mean time, and the Man is left behind at a loss, and perhaps confounded, be∣fore he can join again; and no sooner perhaps is he well fixt, but he is troubled again with the same inconveniency: all which is easily prevented by the use of Forms. 4. Forms do not divert the affections of the People from the Matter of Prayer, as Extempore Prayers do, which disturb Devotion, whenever the Minister hesitates, or blunders, or expresses himself improperly; for then some will be pitying, others contemning, others carping, &c. And if he perform well, some will ad∣mire

his Phrase, Judgment, Readiness, &c. all which things do call off their minds from the Matter. 5. The Decency and solemnity of public Worship, which things are highly advantageous to the Devo∣tion of the people are better secur'd by Forms, than by Extempore Prayers, where they depend wholly upon the Minister. For if he happens to be a Man of a bad memory, or apt to blunder, or be dull, &c. then the Devotion of the Congregation may be turn'd into scorn and laughter; and of this I have seen too many sad experiments. But suppose him to be an able and Pious person, yet he may be liable to indispositions of body, dul∣ness, inadvertency, &c. with outward cares and accidents; and if he be, he must many times Pray confusedly, or with broken, indecent expressions, and omit a great deal of the matter. Sometimes he will be at a loss, and be forced to use fulsome repetitions; and how is it possible almost, but that a great deal of flat and empty nonsence, undigested conceptions and unadvis'd expressions shou'd escape from his lips, before he is aware? And this, if he has a grain of modesty, must put him into greater confusion, and so amaze him, that he will be hardly able to recover himself. Now is it not a hard case that the Devoti∣ons of Five hundred or a thousand Persons must be disturb'd by one Man's disorders? For they must either Pray after him, or not Pray at all. But all these evils are prevented by set public Forms. 6. Those that join in a Form, may be better secur'd of the reality and sincerity of their own Devotion. For they knowing before-hand the expressions of the Form, are not so much surpriz'd with the Phrases; and therefore, if they find themselves affected, may more safely con∣clude,

'tis the Matter and not the words, that moves them. Whereas a Man that is tickled with the words of an Extempore Prayer may fancy himself to be very devout, when he has nothing of true Devotion in him. I might add more; but I think these things are enough to convince an unprejudiced person, that Forms of Prayer are so far from hindring, that they very much help Devotion.

But if any Man shall still object, that he finds by experience, that Forms do actually deaden his Devotions; because his affections are flat and hea∣vy, when he uses them, but he is almost trans∣ported when he hears a Man Pray Extempore; I beseech him to consider, whether his experi∣ence be not founded in prejudice, and whether his prejudice ought to prescribe to the whole Church. 'Tis certain, other Men find by expe∣rience, that joining with a Form do's help their Devotion; so that here is experience against ex∣perience. Now since two contrary experiences cannot proceed from the nature of the thing, therefore one must proceed from the temper of the Man. Now I have prov'd, and many Men find by experience, that Forms do help Devo∣tion; and therefore if he do's not find the same, the fault must be in himself; and I doubt not, but if he will consider the matter impartially, he will soon be of the same opinion. For we have Scripture and Reason on our side; but he is led by his passions, which may be charm'd and flat∣ter'd, and will betray him into strong delusions. 'Tis plain, 'tis not the matter of the Extempore Prayer, that affects him; for that is the same as in a Form: and if he be taken with the chi∣ming of words, 'tis but a sensitive delight; and

he must not make a Division in the Church, only to gratifie his fancy. Besides, I desire him strictly to examine his Conscience, whether he has not often been as dull at a conceiv'd Prayer, as at the public Forms. If so, then the person is to be blam'd, and not the Form; and he is guilty of a double iniquity, who divides the Church without sufficient cause, and charges his own formality upon a good and wholesome con∣stitution.

2. They pretend, that Praying in a Form of Words do's stint and limit the Spirit of Prayer. But before I answer this Objection, it will be necessary to explain, 1. What it is that the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer. 2. What is meant by stinting or limiting the Spirit in Prayer.

First Then, what is it that the Scripture attri∣butes to the Spirit in Prayer? I answer, There are some things attributed to him, which were Extraordinary and Temporary; and others that were Ordinary, fixt and standing. The Extra∣ordinary and Temporary were the immediate In∣spiration of the matter of Prayer, and an ability to express it in known or unknown Languages. We read in the Old Testament of Prayers and Praises, which for the matter of them, were im∣mediately inspir'd. Thus Pray'd Hannah, who, as the Targum paraphrases it, Pray'd by the Spi∣rit of Prophesy, that is, by immediate Inspiration. For Praying and Praising by immediate Inspira∣tion are frequently call'd Prophesying; 1 Sam. 10.5. Numb. 11.25. 1 Chron. 25.1. Luc. 1.67. for the matter of all those Prayers and Praises, to∣gether with those in the Book of Psalms, and sundry others recorded in Scripture, was imme∣diately

dictated by the Holy Ghost. But after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, where∣in the gift of Tongues was communicated, 'tis certain, that not only the matter, but the very Language of their Prayers was immediately In∣spir'd. This gift was peculiar to the Primitive Ages of Christianity; because the design of it was, not only to enable the first planters of the Gospel to perform their office in the Languages of the several Nations they were sent to, but al∣so to be a sign from God, as other Mira∣cles were, for the confirmation of the Gospel. Tongues were for a sign—to them that believe not, 1 Cor. 14.22. and therefore since all Miracles were Extraordinary, and after a time to cease, certainly this Miraculous gift of Prayer was so too.

However, because many Dissenters think it (not an extraordinary, but) a Standing Gift, which the Spi∣rit will communicate to all successive Ages of the World; I desire them to consider, 1. That there is no promise of such a gift by vertue of the New Covenant, and therefore no reason to expect the con∣tinuance of it; and 'tis presumtion to promise our selves, what God has not promis'd us. For as for the Spirit of Supplications, Zac. 12.10. 'tis plain, that 'tis the same with the Spirit of Grace, or of inward Piety and devotion. But that there is no such Pro∣mise in the New Covenant, is evident from what is acknowledg'd on all hands; viz. That there are many good Christians, who cou'd never pretend to any such Inspiration. For all good Christians have a Right to the blessings of the New Covenant; and I am very confident, 'twou'd be look'd up∣on by all sober Dissenters, as a very rash and un∣just censure, to affirm, that a Man cannot be a

good Christian, who do's not Pray by immediate In∣spiration, but is alwaies fain to depend either on his own invention, or a Form. 2. That as there is no Promise, so there is no need of any such immediate Inspiration. 'Tis true, the Spirit will assist us in all necessary things, wherein our du∣ty and Spiritual Life are concern'd; but 'tis an unwarrantable presumtion to expect an immedi∣ate Inspiration in Prayer, because there is no ne∣cessity of it. For, 1. As for the Matter of our Prayers, the Holy Spirit has already sufficiently reveal'd it to us in the Gospel, and as plainly instructed us what we are to pray for, as he can be suppos'd to do by any immediate Inspiration. And therefore, to suppose after all, a necessity of immediate Inspiration, is in effect to suppose, that We have neither reason enough to under∣stand the sense of plain Words, nor memory enough to retain it. But, say the Dissenters, We know not what to Pray for as we ought, but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groan∣ings which cannot be uttered, Rom. 8.26. and therefore we cannot in all cases know the Mat∣ter of our Prayers without immediate Inspira∣tion. But I answer, that the words relate not to the matter, but to the Manner of our Prayers. What to Pray for as we ought, we know not; that is, we know not how to Pray with that fervency and resignation, which we ought, unless the Spirit assist us. 2. As for the words of Prayer, there is no necessity they shou'd be im∣mediately dictated to us, since we may use Forms; and those Forms (with small additions) may be adapted to all particular Cases and Cir∣cumstances. 3. If Prayers are Inspir'd, they are equal to Scripture, and are infallible and the

Word of God; because whatever God inspires, must needs be so. But this, I am sure, no sober Dissenter will presume to say. 4. There is no sign of this immediate Inspiration remaining a∣mong us. Heretofore all Inspiration was attested by Miracles; but the pretended Inspiration of Prayer has no Miracles to warrant it. Whereas if the Inspiration be continu'd, 'tis requisite that proper signs shou'd be continu'd, that so we may be able to distinguish that which is Divine from that which is Natural or Diabo∣lical.

If it be said, that the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them; I answer, that tho' the Scri∣pture may be sufficient to distinguish, whether the Matter of the Inspiration be true or false: yet it's not sufficient to distinguish the Inspira∣tion it self, whether it be Divine or Natural, or Diabolical.

For, 1. 'Tis certain, a Man may Pray agreeably to Scripture by Natural Inspiration, that is, by a Na∣tural or accidental fervency of temper, as might be prov'd by many instances. And in this case how shall he know by Scripture, whether his present Inspiration be Natural or Divine? 'Twill be said perhaps; that God Inspires good Men with fervency in Prayer, and yet this fervency sometimes proceeds from temper of body; and why do's not the want of a sign to distinguish, conclude against the Inspiration of fervency, as well as against the Inspiration of the Matter and Words of Prayer? I answer, that we have a Promise of the Spirit's assistance for the ferven∣cy of our Prayers, but not for the Matter or Words of them. Besides, we may easily distin∣guish, whether the Inspiration of fervency be Na∣tural

or Divine, by our own sense. If it be ac∣company'd with a fixt and constant Devotion of Soul, 'tis Divine; but if it be only a sudden fit, and leaves us habitually indevout, we have just reason to think it Natural. But we cannot dis∣tinguish by Scripture between one and the other; for both may be agreeable to Scripture. And can it be imagin'd, that had God meant to con∣tinue the gift of Inspiration to us, he wou'd have left us thus in the dark concerning it, with∣out any certain sign to distinguish, whether it be from his Spirit, or from an ill-affected spleen, or a fever? 2. As for Diabolical Inspirations, we have sundry instances, such as Wier, Hacket, D. George and John Basilides Duke of Russia, who had such gifts of Prayer, as ravish'd the Audi∣tors, and in the opinion of the most impartial seem'd to exceed the power of Nature, and made many think them immediately Inspir'd by God. Now since by such Inspirations the Devil may sometimes serve his own ends, by recommending false Teachers, &c. we may reasonably suppose he do's use that method. And since he may In∣spire Men with such Matter of Prayer as is a∣greeable to Scripture, we cannot by Scripture cer∣tainly distinguish between his Inspiration and that of the Spirit. But surely 'tis blasphemy to think, that if God had continu'd this gift of Inspira∣tion, he wou'd leave us without a sign to dis∣tinguish it from that which is Diabolical. And since there is no sign, we have all the reason in the world to think the gift is ceas'd.

But farther, we have not only no certain sign of the Divine Inspiration of conceiv'd Prayers, but many very certain ones of the contrary: I will instance in four. 1. The great impertinence,

nonsence, and rudeness (to say no worse) that are sometimes mingled with these Extempore Prayers, and which we cannot attribute to the Holy Ghost without blasphemy. 2. That they are so gene∣rally tinctur'd with the particular Opinions of those that offer them. Whether this be not so, I appeal to all the world; and if it be so, then surely they are not Inspir'd. For either we must suppose this gift of Inspiration to be consin'd to one party, which wou'd be to stint the Spirit with a witness; or else we must blasphemously say the Spirit Inspires contradictions, and indites contrary Prayers to Men of opposite Parties. 3. Another plain sign that conceiv'd Prayers are not Inspir'd, is, that that which gives them the reputation of being so, is not so much the Mat∣ter, as the manner of expressing them. As for the Matter, I suppose the Dissenters will not de∣ny, but our Forms may equal at least, if not excell their conceiv'd Prayers: and therefore all the difference must be in the Manner. But are conceiv'd Prayers the more Inspir'd, because the words are Extempore? Did God continue the gift for no other end, but that Men might ask those things Extempore, which they might as well have asked in a Form? Or are they more Inspi∣red, because they do generally more enlarge, and express the same Matter over again in different words? Was the Spirit continu'd only to vary phrases? Our Saviour forbids us to use vain repe∣titions (or as Munster's Hebrew reads it, to mul∣tiply words above what is fit and seasonable) thin∣king we shall be heard for our much speaking; and therefore these enlargements are so far from being signs of their immediate Inspiration, that supposing the Spirit to be of the same mind with Christ,

they are generally signs of the contrary. 4. That extraordinary manner and way of expressing them, for which they are thought to be Inspir'd, ordina∣rily proceeds from natural causes, viz. Natural En∣thusiasm or present fervour of temper. For, 1. The Dissenters confess, it comes upon them much oft∣ner in their public, than in their private Devo∣tions. And the reason is plain, because the pas∣sions of the Congregation do so excite their af∣fections, and the reverence of an Auditory obli∣ges them so much to wreck their inventions, that their Spirits are many times transported into rap∣tures. 2. They are not so fluent in the begin∣ning, as when they have Pray'd a while; the reason of which is this, because the Spirits do not move so briskly, till they are chafed and heated with Labour. Then do they naturally raise the fancy, and render the invention more copious and easy. And certainly 'tis unwarrantable to attri∣bute that to Inspiration, which do's so apparent∣ly proceed from natural causes.

Thus have I shewn, what the extraordinary o∣perations of the Spirit are, and that they are not to be pretended to in these Times; I proceed in the next place to shew very briefly, what those or∣dinary operations are, which he has Promis'd to continue to the end of the World. They are therefore the proper graces and affections of Prayer, such as shame, sorrow, hope, &c. But as for the expressions of Prayer, they are of no account with God, but as they signify to him the graces and affections of it. Now can any Man imagin, that those affections will be the less ac∣ceptable to God, because they are presented in a Form, and not Extempore? Will a Father deny Bread to his Child, because he askt it to day

in the same words, that he did yesterday? Is God more taken with words, than with affecti∣ons? Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words, and continuing the Inspiration of affecti∣ons, prove the contrary.

Now that God do's continue the Inspiration of Devout affections in Prayer, is manifest from Gal. 4.6. Jude 20. and Rom. 8.26. where the Spirit is said to make intercession for us with groans, which cannot be utter'd, that is, with most fla∣grant affections. For these words do not, as some persons wou'd persuade us, prove the Inspira∣tion of the Words of Prayer; because the Inspi∣ration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered, cannot mean the Inspira∣tion of words: but this Intercession of the Spi∣rit signifies his exciting such affections, as make our Prayers acceptable. For as Christ, who is our Advocate in Heaven, enforces our Prayers with his own Intercessions: so the Spirit, who is our Advocate upon Earth, begets those affections, which render our Prayers prevalent. And these are the standing and ordinary operations, which the Scripture attributes to the Spirit in Prayer.

Secondly, Stinting or limiting the Spirit is a phrase, that is never mention'd in Scripture or Antiquity; and therefore 'tis a very new objection against Forms of Prayer, which I have shewn to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity. How∣ever, what the Dissenters mean by it is this; viz. that by confining our selves to a Form of words, we (stint or limit, that is,) restrain the Spirit from giving us that assistance, which he ordina∣rily vouchsafes in conceiv'd Prayer.

And now having explain'd the Two forgoing particulars, the answer to this Objection will be

very easy. For if the Spirit be stinted or re∣strain'd by Forms of Prayer, it must be either from Inspiring the words, or from exciting the affections of Prayer. But I have prov'd that Forms are so far from restraining the Devotion of Prayer, that they do very much promote and improve it; and as for the Words, I have prov'd, that since the first propagation of the Gospel the Spirit has withdrawn the immediate and Miracu∣lous Inspiration of them. And since that cannot be stinted which is not, therefore the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer is not stinted by Forms.

3. 'Tis Objected, that public Forms are a sin∣ful neglect of the Ministerial gift of Prayer. For, the Dissenters say, the gift of Prayer is an ability to express our minds in Prayer, which God has given to Ministers, as a means of pub∣lic Devotion; and therefore they may not omit the exercise of it, by using Forms of other Mens Composure. Now to this I answer, 1. That supposing that 'tis a fault in Ministers to omit the exercise of their ability, yet the People are not to be charged with it. God will not reject the People's Devotions, because the Minister is to blame. He only is accountable for that; for the People do not join with him in his omission, but in that which is acceptable to God. 2. This gift of Prayer is either natural or acquir'd. For cer∣tainly 'tis not Inspir'd at Ordination; because the Scripture do's not promise any such thing, nor is there any experience of it. Nay the Dissenting Ministers must own, that just before their Ordi∣nation they were as able to express the Devotions of a Congregation, as they were just after; which shews that they had no new ability to Pray In∣spir'd in their Ordination. Now since this gift

or ability is nothing more than a quickness of in∣vention and speech, which is either natural, or ac∣quir'd by art and practice; therefore 'tis no o∣therwise the gift of God, than our natural strength, or skill in History, or the like. All that God has Promis'd his Ministers, is to concur with their honest endeavours, as far as is necessary to the discharge of their Office: and to suppose that this cannot be done without Praying Extempore, is to take the Matter in question for granted. 3. This freedom of utterance is never call'd the gift of Prayer in Scripture. Praying in unknown Languages is once call'd a gift, but Praying in our own Language is never call'd so. Therefore 'tis plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer, but left in com∣mon to all other honest uses, that it can be ap∣ply'd to; and it may as well be call'd the Gift of Pleading at the Bar, or of Disputing, or Conversa∣tion, as the gift of Prayer. Accordingly we find, that those who have this gift in Prayer, have it also upon other occasions; which proves, that 'tis not appropriated to Prayer. 4. Since this gift of expressing our minds is not appropriated to Prayer, it may be as lawfully omitted in Prayer, as in any other purpose which 'tis design'd for. For if it be unlawful to omit the use of the gift of Elo∣cution, then he who has the gift, may not law∣fully use a Form in Petitioning his Prince, or in a Court of Justice: but if it be lawful to omit it in these cases, as a Man sees occasion, then it is equally lawful to omit it in Prayer. In short, if a Man has two gifts, he may use which he pleases; and since we have other means of Prayer, none is obliged to use his ability to pray Extempore. 5. Using a Form is as much a means of public Devo∣tion

as praying Extempore; because the end of public Prayer is at least as effectually serv'd by a Form, as by a conceiv'd Prayer. Now since there are two means of Prayer, and both cannot be us'd at the same time, therefore one may be lawfully omitted; and consequently the use of a Form, which is one means, is not a sinful neglect of the other.

4. The last Objection is, that the Common Cases and wants of Christians cannot be so well express'd in one constant Form, as in conceiv'd Prayers; because the circumstances of Men are infinitely variable, and require sutable Petitions and Thanksgivings, which the Minister cannot o∣therwise provide than by praying Extempore. To this I answer, 1. That the Common Cases and necessities of Christians are for the Main alwaies the same, and therefore may be more fully com∣prehended in a Form, than in an Extempore Prayer. For public Prayers, which are offer'd up in the Name of the whole Congregation, ought not to descend to particular Cases, but only to the Com∣mon Cases of all, and what every one may truly and sincerely join with. Now a Form will ex∣press them much better than an Extempore Prayer, which is subject to many omissions. 2. Forms can make as good provision for Extraordinary cases, as Extempore Prayer. For, as for those that can be foreseen, such as the want of rain, fair wea∣ther, &c. there may be Forms compos'd for them afore-hand: and as for others that cannot be fore-seen, Forms may be provided, when they happen; and this has ever been done in our Church. 3. If Forms must not be us'd, because they do not alwaies reach Extraordinary Cases, certainly Extempore Prayers ought not to be us'd, because

by reason of omissions, they will not alwaies reach even Ordinary Cases. In a word, it appears that all Extraordinary Cases may be very well provided for by Forms; but supposing it otherwise, yet since it has been prov'd at large, that the use of Forms is upon sundry accounts of great advantage to the public Devotion, 'tis unreasonable to spoil the Church of them, and leave her to the mercy of Extempore effusions, only for the sake of a few contingencies, which may happen but very rarely, if at all, in a whole Age.

III. I am now to prove in the last place, that the imposition of Forms may be lawfully comply'd with; and for this a very few words will suffice. For since the use of public Forms is lawful in it self, therefore it may be lawfully comply'd with; because I have shewn in the Second Chapter, that a Man may lawfully do a lawful thing, when 'tis injoin'd by Authority. And now I hope, it is evident to all impartial Readers, that Forms of Prayer are not only lawful, but expedient also.

Notes

• (f) 1.1

  Clem. 1 Epist. ad Corinth. Chrysost. in Act. 13.2.
• (g) 1.2

  A. Gell. Noct. Att. l. 13. c. 21. Rosin. Antiq. l. 3. c. 33.
• (h) 1.3

  Plin. l. 28. c. 2.
• (i) 1.4

  Liv, l. 4.
• (k) 1.5

  Allat. de Lit. Sti. Jac.
• (l) 1.6

  Concil. Trull. c. 32.
• (m) 1.7

  De Orat. Dom.
• (n) 1.8

  Justin. Apol. 2. Ignat. Epist. ad Magn.
• (o) 1.9

  Orig. cont. Celf. l. 6.
• (p) 1.10

  Cypr. de Laps. serm. 14.
• (q) 1.11

  Vid. Ovid. de fast. lib. 6. Stat. lib. 4. Senec. in Oedip. act. 2. scen. 2.
• (r) 1.12

  De Spir. S. c. 27. & 29.
• (s) 1.13

  Paedag.
• (t) 1.14

  Theod. Hist. l. 2. c. 24.
• (u) 1.15

  Euseb. Hist. lib. 5.
• (w) 1.16

  ibid. Hist. lib. 7.
• (x) 1.17

  Lucian. Philop.
• (y) 1.18

  Constitut. Apost. l. 2. cap. 5.
• (z) 1.19

  Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 171.
• (a) 1.20

  Soz. Hist. l. 5. c. 15.
• (b) 1.21

  Nazian. Orat. 1. p. 102.
• (c) 1.22

  Ni∣ceph. l. 13. c. 8.
• (d) 1.23

  Euseb. de Laud. Constant.
• (e) 1.24

  Id. de vit. Constant. c. 20.
• (f) 1.25

  Ibid. c. 19.
• (g) 1.26

  Ibid. c. 17.
• (h) 1.27

  Ibid. c. 18.
• (i) 1.28

  See Ball's Trial, Pref. &c. 1, 2, 3, 8. Baxter's Cure of Ch. Divis. p. 175. Owen's Work of the Spirit in Prayer▪ p. 220.222, 235. Norton's Answer to Apollon. c. 13.
• (k) 1.29

  Clark's Lives of 10 Divines, p. 255.
• (l) 1.30

  Bradshaw's Life in Clark's Coll. in fol. p. 67.
• (m) 1.31

  See His Doctrine of Fasting and Prayer, Anno 1633·
• (n) 1.32

  Collect. of 10 Lives, 4 to, p. 38.
• (o) 1.33

  See Ball's Tri l. c. 2. Rogers's Tr. 223. Bryan's Dwelling with God, p. 307. Egerton's Practice of Christianity, c. 11. p. 691. Edit. 5.
• (p) 1.34

  Grave Con∣fut. Epist. to the Reader. Contin. Morn. Exerc. p. 1006.
• (q) 1.35

  Priest, Serm. on Joh. 1.16.
• (r) 1.36

  Theodulia, p. 221. Baxt. Cure, p. 176. Ball's Tryal. p. 128, 129. Grave confut. p. 12, 13.
• (s) 1.37

  Annot. on Ex. 12.8.
• (t) 1.38

  Tryal, p. 96, 106, 111, 138. & p. 80.
• (u) 1.39

  Tombes's Theodulia, p. 222.
• (w) 1.40

  Ball's Tryal, p. 108, &c. Rogers's Treatises, p. 224. Tombes's Theod. p. 234.
• (x) 1.41

  Tryal, p. 96, 106, 12.
• (y) 1.42

  Resp. ad Apol. c. 13.
• (z) 1.43

  Sacril. de∣sert. p. 102.
• (a) 1.44

  Defence, part 2. p. 65. See Ball's Tryal, p. 131, Rogers's Tr. p. 224.