A reasonable account why some pious, nonconforming ministers in England judge it sinful for them to perform their ministerial acts, in publick, solemn prayer by the prescribed forms of others wherein several of their arguments are modestly propounded, opended and justified against pretended answers given to them, either by Ireneus Freeman, or Mr. Falconer, in his book entituled Liberitas ecclesiastica, or others : the strength also of the several arguments brought by them, for the lawfulness of forms to be used universally by ministers, in their publick ministrations, is fairly tried.

CHAP. IV.

The Third Argument propounded. Both propositions in it proved. The second commandment forbiddeth all means of worship, not directed in Scripture. M^r. Freemans answer considered. What the Noncon. grant. His instances answered. Bishop Jewels opi∣nion and Bishop Davenants against blind obedience. The Difference between circumstances, and Cere∣monies, what circumstances are in the power of man. Why Forms of Prayer may not be commanded, as well as Time and place. Acts, rites and means in worship must appear reasonable in themselves to him who conscientiously obeyeth.

§. I WE thus state our Third Argument.

To use a mean in an Act of worship, which God hath neither by the light of nature directed, nor in his word prescribed (no natural necessity compelling us so to do) is sinful:

But for us, or any of us to whom God hath given the gift of prayer, ordinarily in prayer to perform our ministerial acts by the prescribed forms of others read, or recited; were for us (no natural necessity compelling) in Acts of worship to use means neither of God directed by the light of nature; nor by him in his word prescribed; Ergo.

The proof of the major proposition depends upon these hypotheses.

1 That divine worship is nothing else but an ho∣mage done unto God in consideration of his excel∣lency. In this we think all are agreed.

2 That it belongs to God alone to prescribe both the Acts, and Means of this homage: which certainly is the most reasonable thing in the world, That God should tell us what homage he will have at our hands, and how performed. God hath as much right to appoint the way of his worship, as to be worship∣ped, saith Dr. Ashton himself, in his Case of perse∣cution. p. 45.

3 God having determined our Acts of worship, hath likewise in his word, and by the light of Nature given us sufficient direction as to the means: Which if it be true it certainly must be impious to neglect, or despise it, and to omit it, and use others directed by man would be an implicit owning the wisdom of man as paramount to, and excelling the wisdom of God.

4 God hath also (as we conceive) expresly in his word forbidden the use of any other mean in his worship, then what either nature sheweth us, and directeth us as necessary (as we cannot speak a prayer without the use of our tongue) or what he hath prescribed in his word. The first of these needeth no proof.

§. 2 To prove the Second, we need say no more then this, That it is evident, That the use of a mean in worship which ought not to be used quite altereth the nature of the worship, and of true, maketh it

false. To pray to God is an act of true worship, but if a man in prayer set an image before him as a mean of worship, it makes it idolatry. So as in worship none can pretend a right to prescribe a mean, but he that hath also a right to prescribe the act.

§. 3 For the proof of the third hypothesis, we desire but an instance of any Act of worship for which we cannot shew a sufficient mean, either by the Light of nature or Scripture directed. As to what is the matter of our present debate, both the Light of nature sheweth our own invention a sufficient mean, and Scripture commands us to minister as we have received the gift.

§. 4 But for the last which we think will be most stumbled at, we shall onely mention the second com∣mandment. The sense of which we say is this, Thou shalt worship in no other way, by no other mean or re∣ligious rites then what I have prescribed. The term Graven image is undoubtedly a Generical term & figu∣ratively put to signify, not onely that, but any other mean that hath no more of divine institution then that hath. And if this be not the sense of it, it will be impossible to reduce all the precepts in Scripture relating to the manner of external worship to the se∣cond precept in the Decalogue. To spare saying over again what hath already been said in justification of this, we refer our Reader to a book of Mr. Cottons called Advertisements upon a discourse of set forms of Prayer, p. 17, 18, 19, 20, &c.

§. 5 The minor proposition standeth firm, until our Brethren have shewed us where God hath prescri∣bed any such mean. But here again our old Adver∣sary

M^r. Freeman cometh across us and tells us,

There is a general command for forms of prayer when they are imposed, for we are enjoined in Scripture to obey our Rulers in such things as Gods word doth not forbid, and such things are forms.

To which we answer,

1 That we can find no precept in Scripture in the terms mentioned by him.

2 The same argument will prove that it is the duty of Priests in popish countries in baptism to use salt, oyl, spittle and cream, Rulers require it, where hath Gods word expressly forbidden the use of them?

3 We do not know what he meaneth by not for∣bidden, There is an explicit, and an implicit forbid∣ding. God by determining the Acts of his worship, and directing sufficient means for the performance of them hath we say consequentially forbidden any other means to be used.

§. 6 But he telleth us that

Both in words and deeds we grant, That a particular command, or example is not necessary

(we suppose he means to justify any acts, or the use of any mean in the stated worship of God; or else he saith nothing to the matter in question)

For we sing Hopkins, and Stern∣holds Psalms for which is no particular command. 2 We anoint not with oyl though St. James doth command it.

Because we meet with this so often we who take our selves to be ready to give account of our faith to every one that asketh us, shall once for all tell him what we believe, and hold in this great point.

§. 7 We believe the Holy Scripture to be a full, and perfect rule; as of Doctrine, so of worship, both as to the Acts and Means of it: with no other help then the light of nature directing the application of some com∣mon circumstances, either necessary to all human actions, (as time and place are) and some common actions and signs signifying no more in sacred then in civil actions; and this either from nature, or the general, guise, and custom of the countries wherein the worship is performed. 2 Hence both we and all Pro∣testants deny a power to any man to institute New ordinances of worship for which there is in Gods word, no particular precept or example either of Christ or his Apostles: And certainly, worship being nothing else, But an homage done unto God in consideration of his excellency, It is every whit as reasonable, That God should direct both the Acts, and Means, and Rites of his worship; As that an Earthly Potentate should direct his subjects, or servants the manner of their addresses to him, or the habits they should appear before him in. Gods word especially declaring against will worship. 3 Hence we judge, All Acts, religious Rites, and Means of worship prohibited by God, which either in express terms, or by first con∣sequences from some Scriptural Propositions are not in the word of God prescribed, or Commanded.

But natural Reason assuring us, That as all hu∣man actions must have some circumstances: So Re∣ligious worship being a human action must have some appendant circumstances; either such as are necessary to all human actions of which number are time or

place; or necessary for actions of that nature. So we judge it as reasonable, That a bell or a Trumpet should call people to worship God; as scholers living in several colledges to a Convocation, or Towns men living scattered up and down the town to a townhouse or Assembly. We take Pulpits, and Pewes, & Churches to be as reasonable, as that in the Sessions the Judge should have a Cushion and a Taller-seat: or the Major in a Guildhal, or that the Commoners or Alder∣men, being to sit two or three hours all that time should not be put to stand; but have seats & pewes. In this sense it is true that D^r. Ashton in his case of persecution hath told us 48 (after 40 before him) These circumstances must be, and are not determined in Scripture. We do yeild our superiours a great power in determining these Circumstances of Religious duties, as they are human actions, without which they are neither at all to be performed, or with no Conveniency Nay further, There are some Circum∣stances necessary upon the account of Decency, the not observing of which would make the action appear either from the light of nature, or from the guise and custom of the country irreverently, brutishly and indecently performed. If any will come naked, or half naked, or shoulder-naked into a religious as∣sembly, or pray to God with his hat on; we believe supe∣riours may as well restrain them; as they may restrain one that should run up and down a market naked, or one that should refuse to pull off his hat when he speaketh to his Prince. And so for any thing of this nature, where is onely a general application of the

rules and customs of places for reverence, order, and decency in all human actions to religious actions: If two or three will confusedly be babling together in a meeting for religion, we believe supe∣riours may restrain them, as well as he may restrain such a confusion in a Town-hall, or civil Assembly met for any civil ends.

For these circumstances it is true again that Dr. Ashton saith, p. 50. They must not be left inde∣termined: But all this reacheth not Ceremonies, that is, Religious rites (be they habits, or gestures, or actions appropriated to Religious actions) these are quite other things, and must have something of the generical nature of worship in them: Because of their appropriation to acts of that nature. We say onely, That no creature hath power to command those things in Gods worship. 1 Which are in Gods word either explicitly forbidden, or implicitly as having something of worship in them. Or 2 Which the superiour acknow∣ledgeth not in themselves necessary, and the inferiour thinks are forbidden. Those of the first sort being eminently against Piety; Those of the latter sort, as eminently against Charity. Having thus freely and plainly opened our minds, Let us now consider our Authors instances, from which he would make the world believe, That we little value a Divine precept in acts, rites, or means of Divine worship.

§. 8 His first instance is, our Singing Scriptural Psalms in the meeters of Sternhold and Hopkins, which (in derision) he calls Hopkins and Sternholds Psalms. And there is he thinketh the same reason for ex tempore

Hymns, as for ex tempore Petitions. We have already said enough, and the learned and judicious Cotton hath said more to answer this pitiful Cavil; but that we may be troubled with it no more. This ob∣jection must be either against the matter of what we sing, or the form of the meeter. 1 The Matter is Scripture; directed by the Spirit of God, compo∣sed by the Penmen of holy writ; we abhor any Singing of other compositions in publick worship. 2 It is plain that singing and by such forms hath been ever used as an ordinance of God, both in the Churches of Jews and Christians. 3 It is manifest not one of many attains the gift of Hymn making. It is a known saying, Poeta nascitur. 4 We do not know that God ever promised his Spirit to teach his people to compose Hymns, but he hath promised to teach us what to pray for. 5 Singing being the joint action of a congrega∣tion, cannot possibly be done but by a set form, without notorious and eminent confusion. It is more then we know, That in the publick congregation the people are all to pray aloud together. 6 We cannot under∣stand how the metrical forms used by us in Singing make the Psalms we sing more Hopkins and Sternholds, then our Bibles are the Translators Bibles.

2 For the meeter, it makes no alteration in sense, onely limits the number of Syllables in a pause for order in Singing. We do see many things in the ordinary meeter of our English Psalms which do no better fit the English idiom of our age, Then, with my body I thee worship, fits it to express the honour which a man ows to his wife: But we see Davids

sense kept in that meeter (as the Hebrew sense was much kept, especially in material things, by the 70 interpreters) and therefore we do keep to it. And this we think enough to have said to shew the Vanity of his first instance. We proceed to his second.

§. 9

Again (saith Mr. Freeman) when they visit the sick, they anoint them not with oyl, yet they shall be so far from producing an instance for such a visiting from the Scripture, that they shall find the contrary in St. James. If they say there is not the same Reason for that anointing now which was then: I reply, Neither is there the same reason now for unpremeditated prayers, (forms of prayers composed by others he should have said) as was then, for now forms are comman∣ded by our Rulers, then (according to their opinion) they were not.

§. 10 In answer to which we first ask, will our conformable Brethren then, when they visit the sick anoint them with oyl? or have they any Ru∣brick for that? How dare they omit it? If it were a standing institution of the gospel? They are yet a peg higher then we thought off, if they also will maintain a power for superiors to abrogate any gospel institutions. Was it a temporary practice? What an impertinency is it then to urge it?

§. 11 We confess we do not anoint the sick with oyl, not onely because we do not know what oyl to use, and much depends upon the kind, whether it wrought by a natural virtue, or by virtue of an institution. But because we learn from Mark. 6. 13.

That anointing with oyl was annexed to the extraor∣dinary, and miraculous gift of healing; which gift both reason and experience tells us is now ceased. So that notwithstanding these two instances, Mr. Free∣man may see, we are consistent enough to our prin∣ciples. And this we take to be something a better answer and more particular, then what he supposeth we would say, viz. There is not the same reason now, That is true; but it is further true, That God in his providence making the miraculous gifts of healing to cease hath taken away any pretended Reason for that practice. Whereas he saith; neither is there the same reason for unpremeditate forms now, because Rulers command the contrary. We answer, That Mr. Freemans friends think they were then also commanded: But suppose they had been then com∣manded, doth this make a sufficient Reason for a practice in Divine worship, that man comman∣deth it?

§. 12 But because this is so oft repeated, as if all the world were drunk with Hobbism & Parkerism, believing,

That the Superior commanding, not the inferiour obeying must answer for the sin if any be committed by any such obedience.

Let us discourse this point a little, In the first place this must be an exception to the general rule of Gods word which hath told us, The soul that sinneth shall dy, and the child shall not be punished for the parent; or else it must be a new gloss; or a thing forgotten by St John when he described sin to us to be, A trans∣gression

of the law. And Thirdly, They should do well to tell us which way the obliquity of one creatures action should pass to another creature that he should bear his Brothers sin. Again if the command of superiors will justify the Inferiours from guilt in their acts of obedience to their commands, The Com∣mand of the Pope will do it for all under his juris∣diction, and would have done it for us here in England while he was here without controle allowed to be the Head of the church: But our forefathers the Martyrs were not of this impudent Religion. If they had, they might have saved their lives. But let us hear what hath been the opinion of more valuable, and ancient Protestants in this case, we will instance in two, both eminent Bishops of Salis∣bury: The one at the beginning of the Reformation; The other dying within a few years last past, Bp Jewel, and Bp Davenant.

§. 13 What Bishop Jewel thought, may be read in his Apology against Harding, chap. 2. Divis. 7.

The subject (saith he) is bound to obey his Prince, how be it, not in all things, but where Gods glory is not touched. These Nobles [he speakes of those in Scotland] had learned of St. Peter It is better to obey God then man; And of the Pro∣phet David, It is better to trust in God, then in Princes, for they are mortal, and shall dy. Neither may a Godly Prince take it as any dishonour to his estate, to see God obeyed before him, for he is not God, but the minister of God. Leo saith,

Christ determined, That we should give to God, the things that are Gods; and to Cesar the things that are Cesars. Verily this is not to rebel against Cesar but to help him, &c.

§. 14 In the next place let us hear Bp Davenant in his excellent commentary on the Collossians, chap. 2. v. 23.

Ignatius Loyola (saith he) the father of the Je∣suites in that Epistle of his, which is read in the Jesuites, Colledge every month warneth and com∣mandeth them seriously by a blind obedience, ab∣solutely to do whatsoever their superiors com∣mand, not considering whether it be good or pro∣fitable, yea or no: for that (saith he) takes away the value and merit of obedience.

It is also the common opinion of the Papists, That there ought to be in Christians such an humi∣lity of mind, that they must not in the least doubt of those things which are commanded by the Church of Rome; either to be believed, or done in Religion, or in the worship of God: but we sayth he notwithstanding this truly say, That this Blind obedience is not onely foolish, but Impious, and Irreligious.

1 Because we are not bound to obey superiors but in cases wherein they are our superiors, now as to Doctrines of Faith and Divine worship, God alone is our superior. If therefore men indeavour to forge new Doctrines of faith, or to bring in a New wor∣ship, they go beyond the bounds of that power, which is committed to them, and are not in this

thing acknowledged to be our superiors. 2 Because the command of an inferiour power doth not oblige to obedience when it contradicteth the com∣mand of a superiour power. Asts 4. 19. We must rather obey God then man. 3 Because no intelligent per∣son will expose himself to the danger of mortal Sinning, as the school men speak; but whosoever voweth, and performeth absolute subjection, and blind obedience to man, exposeth himself to a manifest hazard; for every man may err, by commanding those things that are evil.

According to the Doctrine of our new edition of Divines we would gladly understand, how any man can run a danger either of mortal sin, or venial either, by doing any thing in obedience to the command of superiors. 4

Because what is proper to God cannot without great impiety be given to men: But an ab∣solute dominion over mens souls, & bodies is proper to God alone; To him the will of man oweth an absolute obedience, to him his understanding oweth in all things a prompt assent. But those who require this obedience of us use to object, That it is not the subjects part to judge of the faith & actions of their superiors, they seem therefore to recede from their duty when they doubt, whether the things be true, and lawful which are published and confirmed by the Authority of those who are set over them. This he answereth, Subjects neither may nor ought with a judgment of Authority to judge of their superiors actions, but they may and ought to judge of them so far as concerneth them∣selves

with a judgment of Discretion. Aquinas excellently gives the reason of it, Every one (saith he) is bound to examin his own acts accor∣ding to the knowledge which he hath from God: Whether it be natural, acquired or infused, for he is bound to act according to Reason, It is (saith he) confirmed by the Examples of all pious men, who although they did not arrogate to themselves a judgment of Authority upon Magistrates, or Prelates, yet they used their judgment of Discre∣tion concerning things commanded by them.

Thus far that Reverend and very Learned man.

§. 15 This is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and was wont to be the Doctrine of the Fathers in the Church of England, and we humbly offer it to the consideration of our Rulers, whether there can be greater factors for Popery in England, then those who so boldly assert the duty of Blind Je∣suitical Obedience, and declaim against the Judgment of private, and practical Discretion: The first is the very foundation of Popery; The latter, the foun∣dation of the Protestant Religion.

§. 16 But to proceed with Mr. Freeman he tel∣leth us, The Nonconformists have in word granted more then he asketh. Let us first know what he asketh, then see what they have granted, that which he asketh is our concession, That it is lawful in the worship of God to do somethings not commanded by God. What have the Nonconformists granted, He instanceth in three things.

1 To command in the circumstances of divine worship, what is generally commanded in the word of God.

2 To appoint time and place.

3 To appoint such circumstances, without which the worship of God, in the judgment of common Reason, Must be indecently and disorderly performed; of which he makes the following improvement, p. 35. Of the Reasonableness of Divine service.

1 A form of prayer is but a circumstance of Prayer, and I have proved, That if the Magistrate think them convenient they are in the general commanded. 2 If he can appoint the time and place, which he thinketh most convenient though otherwise it would be less, he would fain know a reason, why he may not appoint a form, which he thinketh most expedient, though otherwise it would be less expedient, To appoint to begin at such a time is as really a limitation of the Spirit, as to appoint a form: For the ordinary reason which they speak of, it must either be the Reason of the Magistrate, or of the People or both. If they mean the reason of the people, Then the sense is, That the Magistrate hath power to appoint such things, as the People judge reasonable. We thank them for nothing: If both, we thank them for as much. If they mean that Reason which is best without restraining it to any subject, I reply, That Reason in the Idea doth nothing, but as it is somebodies Reason: Except the Magistrate hath power to command what he apprehendeth agreable to the best Reason: He must command what the Subjects apprehend so, or nothing at all; therefore it remains, That that Reason which must

judge what is indecent, must be the Magistrates, and if he commandeth such things as be indecent, so they be not otherwise unlawful; The people must submit.

To all which we answer.

§. 17 As to the matter of our present debate, There were no great loss in granting all he saith; for the matters pleaded against are not onely pleaded as indecent (though none hath power to command any indecent thing in Gods worship) but as unlawful. But we know he would then say, we must not then use this as a medium to prove them so, Because they are not commanded. We will therefore reply more strictly.

§. 18 He saith, we have granted a power to su∣periors to command particular circumstances of Divine worship, which circumstances are generally commanded. For Example, Reverence and Order are commanded generally as Moral duties, and especial regard is to be had to them in the worship of God. If any will come to the publick Congregation in the ridiculous habits of moris-dancers, or naked, The Magistrate may for ought we know command them into a gaol: But what is this to our Authors purpose?

A form of prayer, he saith, is but a circumstance, and that is ge∣nerally commanded in the Divine precepts for obe∣dience to Magistrates.

We answer that we do indeed make a great difference between a circum∣stance, and a Ceremony. The first we say is appen∣dant to an action as an human action; The latter to a Religious action as a Religious action. But we do not know that in reference to Divine worship men may

appoint whatsoever may come under the notion of a Circumstance in the Latitude of the term, nor do we think our Brethren judge all circumstances in worship determinable by creatures.

§. 19 There is a Rhetorical notion of a circum∣stance, and so Circumstances are usually comprehen∣ded in that verse,

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.

If this Author thinks, That all Circumstances of Di∣vine worship in this large notion are determinable by man, he must affirm, That Magistrates may appoint whom they please to Baptize & administer the Sacraments, That is the Quis. And that if the Magistrate thinks fit to command men to worship God before an image, that also becomes lawful, qui∣bus auxiliis, is a circumstance he knows. There is a Logical notion of a circumstance, and so a circum∣stance is, Quicquid rei praeter essentiam adjungitur, Whatsoever is added to the essence of a thing, and in this sense no ceremony can be a circumstance, for the Appropriation of it to the Religious action makes it a piece of Homage done to God; so as it partakes of the general nature of the whole action in which it is used. We never thought that men might institute or appoint such circumstances, as wanted nothing but a Divine institution to make them True Divine worship. Will any say, There was nothing of divine Homage in the High Priests garments which he might never put on but in his approaches to God? we by Circumstances understand, Appendants to actions

as meer humane actions, such are Time & Place: and possibly so much of the quomodo, as is natural to restrain an indecency, and disorder which the light of nature, or the particular custom of the place sheweth to be such. These things we believe in their kind required in the General precepts of Gods word for order and decency, hence it appeareth.

§. 20 The fault was not in us but in his own Re∣son, That (as he tells us) he cannot see why the Ma∣gistrate may not as well command forms of Prayer, as determine Time & Places. Are therefore forms of prayer in the general necessary to the act as hu∣man, or as Religious? Or could any one think, That Gods word should set down a certain rule for times and particular places of worship for all churches in the world? This is so miserable trifling, as we are ashamed to make any reply to. But we must follow the Author yet further.

§. 21 He would know whose Reason must judge in the case? Whether the Reason of the Magistrate, or of the people? To which we freely answer, If the question be about Lawful or Ʋnlawful, Every pri∣vate Christians Reason must judge as to his own practice, unless we will turn Papist and vow Blind obedience. If the thing be confessed both by the su∣perior and the inferiour. A thing in it self indifferent we believe most Noncon. will allow the judgment to their superiors. If the Author will but consult Bp. Jewells Apology, pag. 435. He will find him laughing at the Papists for their obedience in carying baskets from Palestina to Damascus, Sitting 7 years

together Silent, and watering for 12 months together a dead tree. Let the author determin whose Reason was to judge in those cases.

§. 22 To make the business short, In all Religious commands there must appear to the person that obeyeth some Reason from a divine command; either particularly, or generally requiring the thing, The meer will, and authority of an another in these things is not reason enough to justify our obedience. In mat∣ters of that nature we must be very wary of idle, and superfluous actions, To be of no use, and insigni∣ficant, is enough in worship to make a gesture or action sinful, yea, and an appropriated habit too. There lyeth no necessity upon the superior to com∣mand any such things, nay, to do it will be a sin unto him, as Gideons Ephod was a snare to his house, Judg. 8. 27. Precepts in such things must be for farther use (and evidently so) then to try inferiours obedience. The lawfulness, or policy of precepts of no farther significancy in things of a meer civil na∣ture, may be disputed, The Magistrate is the mi∣nister of God for good, Rom. 13. 4. But in these mat∣ters it is out of question. In matters of civil nature the Magistrate hath unquestionably a far greater power then in them, yet even in those things he that will not grant, that all commands must refer to some general, or particular good will be brought to strange absurdities. But he is a judge of good especially in particular relating to political concerns, he is judge of the best means of order and policy, and every particular person is not to be a privy counsellor: which

warranteth in such things much of a blind obedience, Besides there are various dispositions of people, several complexions of Political bodies: for all which it is not imaginable that God in his word should have set down particular laws, for their preservation and civil order. Nor hath God in his word laid out any general platforms of civil Government: But in Matters of worship, There is both a general, and sufficient rule, all the Earth is tied to worship God, and to worship God by the same acts. Every particular person may and ought to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, so as there being a sufficient rule for worship in Scripture both for the Acts, and Rites, and Means of it; supposing time and place by the church deter∣mined, or by the Magistrate; either people follo∣wing no other rules then the light of nature, and of Scripture sheweth them: may so worship God, as neither he will be offended, nor any good man need be scandalized. It is every individual Christians duty to enquire into the Mysteries of the Kingdom of heaven, and to be acquainted with the laws of Divine worship; and he cannot do that there in meer obedience to his superior, which he can neither see the Light of Nature, Reason or Scripture re∣quireth of him: or which his conscience or Reason telleth him is idle, superfluous or ludicrous; and so under such circumstances repugnant to the Divine will, without an high profanation of the holy name of God. If such things be commanded, he must patiently suffer, if he doth them, he unquestionably sinneth against the Lord, who in matters of his exter∣nal

worship hath particularly told him, That he is a Jealous God.

§. 23 But our Author goes on telling us, There are particular commands and examples of forms of prayer in Scripture. Davids Psalms are prayers, so Hos. 14. 2. Joel. 2. 10. Acts 4. 24. Luke 11. 2. Though this be sufficiently before answered, yet in short we again desire our reader to consider,

That if this Author by [commands] doth not mean, That there is some command, that the church of God, and all the ministers in it, (at least in some National church) should use ordinarily in their stated Solemn prayer certain forms made by others; he saith nothing to the purpose, we have said again and again, That we do not think, Forms of Prayer unlawful. That we are not against forms to be used by some persons, at some times, much less against them as made by any minister for his own use, and the proposing of a form, which those who will may use. David made some Psalms which were forms of Prayer, but did he make an Act of Unifor∣mity too? Again, a great Prophet and Penman of holy writ made forms of Prayer, Suppose he had enjoyned the constant use of them too in all places of publick worship, may therefore men that are no Prophets, no Penmen of Scripture, no pretenders to such an inspiration do the like? Farther suppose, That it could be proved, (which it never can) that there were forms of Prayer composed for, and used in the Jewish church; or that the Lords prayer was intended for a form of words, and commanded to

be ordinarily used for a time, (yet we never met with any that said, The Apostles might ordinarily use no other) how doth this prove, That it was the will of Christ concerning the church under the gospel? That because Christ who was the head of the church enjoined the use of such a form: Therefore any Superior deriving from him may do the like, and add fourty times as much, and enjoyn it to all ministers, after Christs ascension on high, pouring out the gifts of his Spirit upon all flesh, who seeth not what pitiful inconclusive arguments these are. But our Author pretendeth to give some reasons for the Necessity of Imposing forms of prayer. They are but the Ordinary topicks, which all make use of in the case, we will therefore reserve them for a proper place and go on yet with our other arguments.