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. V.

The Fourth Argument stated, Because actively to obey in this case is to grant a principle improveable to suppress the total exercise of the gift of prayer, in Publick meetings, Families, Closets, all places to which the superiors dominion extends. To say, This is not yet commanded, is in part false as to prayers before and after sermons: if true, no answer. The Vanity of those that say though the superior may impose in part, yet not in whole. The Quota pars not deter∣mined, nor determinable from Scripture & Reason. No power in man to suppress the total exercise of any ministerial gift.

§. 1. OUr Fourth Argument we state thus,

To agree a principle, which being agreed, is of suffi∣cient force to restrain the total exercise of the gift of prayer, is sinful.

But to agree it lawful for ministers ordinarily in their Solema prayers, to perform their acts of prayer by the prescribed forms of others, were to agree such a prin∣ciple; Ergo.

We hope there is none will deny the Major, until he hath proved to us, That it is lawful for man wholly to suppress any ministerial gift, and make it useless as to its end, yea, and sinful to use it at any time, (which to us appears a strange task) we shall therefore at present not labour in the esta∣blishing of that, taking it to shine sufficiently in its own light.

§. 2 For the Minor we say, All Prayer is either Publick in the Congregation, or Domestick in the family, or Private, or Secret in the Closet. For that which is made in the Congregation. We are indeed often told, That the minister hath a power left him to pray before and after Sermon. But 1 Suppose he had, yet he may be restraind we hope by the superiors precept, and if he be, we hope he is bound to Obey it: For why should it be less lawful for him to ty himself to the use of forms in the Pulpit, then in the Desk▪ 2 But it were worth the examining whether he hath such a liberty? Did the late Bishop of Durham, Dr. Cou∣sins think so? Let any minister in his diocess enquire about that. Did Bishop wren think so? Doth

Mr. Kemp think so? Let the Reader read his ser∣mon on this subject. Doth the Act of Parliament say so? But once for all, Let the Reader judge of this by what he shall find in the Printed account of the pro∣ceedings of the Commissioners of both persuasions, p. 19. He shall find, The Commissioners on the Bishops side (and they were no less then eleven Bishops, and nine Doctors of Divinity of which five have since been made Bishops) thus speaking,

We heartily desire that (according to this Pro∣posal) great care may be taken to suppress those private conceptions both before and after sermon; least private opinions be made the matter of prayer in publick as hath and will be, if private persons take liberty to make publick prayers.

Here is, Heartily desire, and Great care to be taken to suppress private conceptions both before, and after Sermon. It seemes they apprehended, The law gave no such liberty; and therefore are very heartily desirous, the Executors of it would take care, yea, and great care too, that none might take it. Let us therefore hear no more of a liberty (not so much as indulged) and if it were, no more then indulged for ministers at all to use their ministerial gift in prayer, There is no such liberty but as assumed.

§. 3 So that the publick ministerial exercise of this gift is wholly supprest, but yet we are told Ministers may in their families use their gifts. This is indeed true, (notwithstanding any law or canon yet extant) onely diverse of those ministers, who use any family prayer, who are to be too the examples to the flock, do not

think fit to use it but there also limit themselves to the publick book. But the question is, Whether sup∣posing it be lawful to obey superiours, commanding us to perform our ministerial acts ordinarily in publick solemn prayer by the prescribed forms of others, yea, and ne∣cessary too, supposing hereafter superiours should com∣mand men to do the like in their families, obedience also in that case would not be both lawful, and necessary? (We have a scriptural instance, of a Magistrates edict rea∣ching to families) We must profess if we could grant the obligation, and judge it lawful to obey in the first (which is our present case) we cannot see with what pretence of Scripture, or Reason we could avoid obedience to a superiors command in the Second case, and we would gladly learn of our Brethren.

§. 4 Nay, supposing a law, of the Latitude of that of Nebuchadnezzar, extensive to a closet also. That we should no where pray to the God of heaven but in the use of the church prayers. What should hinder but that it should be lawful, yea, necessary to yeild a ready, active obedience to it? Will any one say, That it doth not follow, That because we are bound to obey Magistrates commands for worship, in publick prayers and publick places; therefore we should be bound to obey the same commands made to extend to private worship and places, such as houses and closets. We must profess we are of another mind, and not able to assign any sufficient reason to the contrary, and should be glad to hear any could teach us. Our dull souls reasón thus, Are not Magistrates and Subjects Relatives, and is not dominion the foundation

of the Relation, and Relatives use to go together; surely look how far the superiours Dominion and right to that extendeth, so far obedience will be found a duty. So as the question onely will be, Whether the Magistrate hath not a dominion over his subjects in their private houses and closets? If he hath, his commands reach them there, which if they do if the matter be lawful, (say our Brethren) it is ne∣cessary to obey, and why is not a command as law∣ful, enjoining the constant use of prescribed forms there, as in Churches or Temples? Now the Magi∣strates daily, and confessedly just punishing enor∣mities in families, closets, bedchambers, are sufficient instances of the extent of the Magistrates dominion to those private places, and consequentially evince the duty of obedience supposing a command, if in a mat∣ter wherein the law of God hath given him a power to oblige his subjects. And although it be true, That the Magistrate, cannot take such a cognisance of what is done in private houses, and closets: yet that signifies nothing in the case, for our question is, Whether supposing such a command, it might with a good conscience be obeyed? If it might, then it must be obeyed (according to our Brethrens principle) then whether the Magistrate knowes of the disobedience or no matters not (yet he may come to the cogni∣sance of it, by children, by eves-droppers, by confes∣sions, &c.) The soul of the offender how ever is made guilty, and stands bound over to the Judgment of the great day. So as we profess we cannot see, but if we might lawfully in obedience to man perform our

ministerial acts in prayer by the prescribed forms of others if the superiour commandeth, We may law∣fully also use nothing else but those forms in our fa∣milies and closets. Nay, we must use no other in case of such a command, so as we cannot do it without implicitly saying, If the Magistrate commands us to use no other prayers while we live, but the Publick, prescribed forms, either in publick, or in private, either before or after sermons, either in our houses or closets we do judge that it is sinful for us to use any other: though by this means the gift of prayer, in all the ministers of Christ shall plainly be suppressed, and made of no use.

§. 5 We can by no means be satisfied, with what we hear some say, & think it a sufficient answer, viz. That though man may impose in part, yet he may not impose upon the whole use of any ministerial gift, such a command they say ought not to be obeyed. This appeareth worse then a figleaf to our consciences. For, 1 Who shall determin what is the Quota pars? How far he may impose or not impose? 2 By what rule shall that limitation be made? The word of God directs him no more to impose upon a part, then upon the whole. Let us but understand by what rule of Scripture, or Reason he shall limit us to pray by forms in the Desk, and not in the Pulpit; Though he do's go so far, he leaves room for the use of gifts in families: nay, why may he not command the like in families? He leaves room yet for the use of gifts in the closet. We know when he go's to visit the sick he must keep to them, we must wait to hear what

other answers our Brethren shall make to this Argu∣ment, we can see no evasion from it.