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 instruction 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 otherwise God must have done that which is unlawful in its own nature Nay our Saviour's prescribing 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 prescrib'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 Collected his own Prayer out of them Since therefore our Saviour's giving a Form in such circumstances signifies his approbation of other Forms 't is 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 useful 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 cannot 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 pretend 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 therefore Forms have a better claim to Divine Authority than they 'T is said indeed that wheresoever we are commanded to Pray Vocally we are commanded 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 appropriate 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 truly call'd a Vocal Prayer For Vocal Prayer consists in the speaking of our devout affections to God whether with or without a Form But they pretend that whatsoever instances there may be of Forms in Old Times God has declar'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 't is very strange that in all the New Testament there shou'd be no express prohibition of it Especially 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 tenacious of their customs and therefore needed to be forbidden the use of Forms had our Lord design'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 certain 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 't is 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 Dissenters think it do's God say they has promis'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 therefore 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 occasion However because they urge some places of Scripture to prove that 't is 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 communicating an ability to Pray Vocally To this I answer that the word is no
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 Errour 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 consent to it and if he meet with a rub the Minister goes on in the mean time and the Man is left behind at a loss and perhaps confounded before 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 admire 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 Devotion 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 dulness 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 Devotions 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 conclude 't is 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 heavy when he uses them but he is almost transported when he hears a Man Pray Extempore I beseech him to consider whether his experience be not founded in prejudice and whether his prejudice ought to prescribe to the whole Church 'T is certain other Men find by experience that joining with a Form do's help their Devotion so that here is experience against experience 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 Devotion 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 flatter'd and will betray him into strong delusions 'T is plain 't is 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 chiming of words 't is 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 constitution 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 attributes 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 Extraordinary and Temporary were the immediate Inspiration 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 immediately inspir'd Thus Pray'd Hannah who as the Targum paraphrases it Pray'd by the Spirit of Prophesy that is by immediate Inspiration For Praying and Praising by immediate Inspiration 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 together with those in the Book of Psalms and sundry others recorded in Scripture was immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost But after the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost wherein the gift of Tongues was communicated 't is certain that not only the matter but the very Language of their Prayers was immediately Inspir'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 also to be a sign from God as other Miracles 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 Spirit will communicate to
made by incense the coals were to be taken from thence and therefore surely 't was peculiar to those offices Nay just after the account of the extraordinary way of lighting the fire follows this relation of Nadab and Abihu to shew wherein they offended For before it was the office of Aaron's Sons to put fire upon the Altar and now they suffer'd for attempting to do as formerly because Heaven had declar'd to the contrary There was also a Conformity between the punishment and the sin for as fire from the Lord consum'd the burnt-offering so fire from the Lord consum'd them So that their case seems like that of Vzzah 1 Chron. 13.7 10 15.2 for they acted contrary to God's command I may add that in other places also the phrase not commanded is apply'd to things forbidden such as are call'd abominations that is idolatrous worship false Prophets c. Deut. 17.3 4. Jer. 7.31 19.5 32.35 so that since the phrase is always spoken of things plainly forbidden 't is a sign that 't is rather God's forbidding that made them unlawful than his not commanding But say they why shou'd the phrase be us'd at all in such matters if not commanded is not the same as forbidden To this I answer that not commanded is only a softer way of speaking which is usual in all languages and frequently to be met with in Scripture Thus God saies that hypocrites chuse that in which I delighted not Is 66.4 that is their abominations as we read v. 3. So the Apostle saies the Gentiles did things not convenient Rom 1.28 29. that is envy murther c. And the phrase not commanded is of the like kind when the things it 's apply'd to are alike abominable Besides if not commanded be the same as forbidden then the very notion of indifferent things is destroy'd and there is no indifferent thing in the world because a thing indifferent is as I said before that which is neither commanded nor forbidden But 't is said that all things not commanded in God's Word are additions to it and that such additions are unlawful because God saies Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you neither shall ye diminish ought from it Deut. 4.2 and the Scribes are condemn'd Matth. 15.9 because they taught for doctrines the Commandments of Men. Now to this I reply that if by adding to the Word they mean doing what the Word forbids or appointing somewhat else instead of what God has appointed or expounding away the design of the Word or making that which is not the Word of God to be of equal authority with it as the Scribes did or giving the same efficacy to human institutions as God does to his if I say by adding to the Word they mean any of these things we think that adding to the Word is unlawful And if by diminishing they mean neglecting what the Word requires or thinking God's institutions not compleat we think that diminishing from the Word is unlawful But if they say that doing any thing not commanded in the worship of God tho' it have none of the ingredients before spoken of is a sinful adding to the Word we therein differ from them 1. Because Christ and his Apostles and all Churches have done things not commanded 2. Because this destroys the nature of indifferent things which cannot be indifferent if they be sinful additions to God's Word Besides adding is adding to the Substance and diminishing is diminishing from the Substance so that when the Substance remains intire without debasement or corruption it cannot be call'd an addition or diminution in the Scripture-sence However our Adversaries themselves are really guilty of what they charge upon us for they forbid as absolutely unlawful to use any thing in the worship of God which is not prescrib'd and certainly he that forbids what the Scripture do's not forbid do's as much add to it as he that commands what the Gospel doth not command As for the Words of the 2d Commandment Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image c. they do by no means prove that we must worship God by no other Religious rites than what he has prescrib'd 'T is true we are there commanded to worship none besides God and to worship God in a manner sutable to his Nature and agreeable to his Will but surely rites instituted by Men for the Solemnity of God's Service are not there forbidden It has been said indeed that Ceremonies being invented by Man are of the same nature with images but we must observe 1. That Images are expresly forbidden and Ceremonies are not 2. That Images tend to debase God in the thoughts of those that worship him after that Manner but Ceremonies do not and therefore Ceremonies are not a breach of the 2d Commandment Ceremonies are not Essential parts of Divine Worship but only circumstances of it and certainly our Brethren cannot find fault that such circumstances are us'd to further Devotion For they themselves do plead for sitting at the Lord's Supper c. upon this very account because they think such external circumstances do further Devotion But say they if there be not a Rule for all things belonging to the Worship of God the Gospel wou'd be less perfect than the Law and Christ wou'd not be so faithful in the care of his Church as Moses who was faithful in all his house Heb. 3.2 Therefore as Moses laid down all the particular Rules for God's Worship under the Law so has Christ under the Gospel and it is as dangerous to add as to detract from them Now to this I answer that the design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to compare Moses and Christ or the Law and the Gospel and to shew the exact Correspondence between the Type and the Antitype and not to shew that our Saviour had as particularly prescrib'd the Order of Christian Worship as Moses had that of the Jewish The Gospel is not so particular in the Circumstantials of Worship as the Law was and we must not affirm that it is because we wou'd have it so We cannot prove that Christ has actually done this because we imagine that he shou'd have done it We may better argue that since these things are not expresly determin'd under the Gospel as they were under the Law therefore they are left to the determination of our Superiours whom we are commanded to obey Nor are the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ to be judg'd of by what we fancy they shou'd have determin'd but by what they have Since we do not find in the Scriptures such particular prescriptions in Baptism as in Circumcision nor in the Lord's Supper as in the Passover nor in our Prayers as in the Jewish Sacrifices therefore 't is plain that the sufficiency of Scripture and faithfulness of Christ do respect somewhat else and that they are not the less for want of them Christ was faithful as Moses to him that
with respect to the whole as the Church is the House of God 1 Pet. 2.5 and every Christian is a Stone of it and therefore ought to study what may be for the Edification of the whole And how is that but by promoting Love Peace and Order and taking care to preserve it For so we (e) 1 Cor. 14.26 2 Cor. 10.8 1 Tim. 1.4 Rom. 14.19 1 Thess 5.11 Eph. 4.12 16. find Peace and Edifying Comfort and Edification Union and Edification join'd together as the one promotes the other And therefore as the good and Edification of the Church is to be always in our Eye so 't is the Rule by which we ought to act in all things lawful and to that end we shou'd comply with its customs observe its directions and obey its orders without reluctancy and opposition If any Man seem or have a mind to be contentious we have no such custom neither the Churches of God 1 Cor. 11.16 Whatever might be urg'd the Apostle concludes we have no such Custom c. The Peace of the Church is to a peaceable mind sufficient to put an end to all disputes about it and since the Peace of the Church depends upon the observation of its customs that is infinitely to be preferr'd before scrupulosity and niceness or a meer inclination to a contrary practice There must be somewhat establish'd and the very change of a custom tho' it may happen to profit yet doth disturb by its Novelty saies St. Austin Epist 118. Infirmity in a Church is better than confusion and in things which neither we nor the worship are the worse for but the Church the better for observing Peace and Order are to be preferr'd far before niceties and certainly neither we nor the service of God can be the worse for what God has concluded nothing in In a word what St. Austin and his Mother receiv'd from St. Ambrose is worthy to be recommended to all That in all things not contrary to Truth and good Manners it becomes a good and prudent Christian to practise according to the custom of the Church where he comes if he will not be a scandal to them nor have them to be a scandal to him Epist 118 86. And if the custom and practice of a Church must oblige a good Man much more ought it so to do when 't is Establish'd by Law and back'd by Authority For then to stand in opposition is not only an Offence but an Affront 't is to contend whether we or our Superiours shall Govern and what can be the issue of such a temper but distraction 'T is pleaded that there shou'd be a Liberty left to Christians in things undetermin'd in Scripture but there are things which they must agree in or else there can be nothing but confusion For instance what Order can there be if Superiours may not determine whether Prayers shall be long or short and the like To conclude when the Scripture do's neither require nor forbid an action we ought to obey the Orders of the Church in the performance or omission of it But 't is said That if we be restrain'd in the use of indifferent things we are also restrain'd in our Christian Liberty which the Apostle exhorts us to stand fast in Gal. 5.1 Now to this I answer 1. This is no argument to those that say there is nothing indifferent in the worship of God for then there is no matter of Christian Liberty in it 2. A restraint of our Liberty or receding from it is of it self no violation of it The most scrupulous Persons plead that the strong ought to bear with the weak and give them no offence by indulging that Liberty which others are afraid to take and why I pray is a Man's Liberty more damaged when restrain'd by Superiours than when 't is restrain'd by another's Conscience If it be said that the Superiour's command restrains it perpetually I answer that the case is still the same for the Apostle who knew his own Liberty supposes that it wou'd not be damnify'd tho' it were restrain'd for his whole life For saies he if Meat make my Brother to offend I will eat no Flesh while the World standeth 1 Cor. 8.13 and this he wou'd not have said had he not thought it consistent with standing fast in that Liberty c. 3. Christian Liberty is indeed nothing else but freedom from the restraints which the Jewish Law laid upon men This is that Liberty which we are exhorted to stand fast in and I think that in obeying the orders of our Church there is no danger of Judaism But we must note that Christian Liberty consists not in our being freed from the act of observing the Jewish Law but in being freed from the necessity of observing it For the Apostles and first Christians did observe it for some time upon prudential considerations but they did so not out of necessity but in condescension to their weak Converts And if they cou'd observe some Judaical Rites without infringing their Christian Liberty certainly we may safely use a few indifferent Ceremonies From what has been said it plainly appears that the use of indifferent things is no objection against living in Communion with our Establish'd Church and this is enough to satisfy those Persons who upon no other account than that of a few harmless impositions are guilty of separation from her But because they have some particular objections against some particular things impos'd by her therefore I shall not satisfy my self with proving the lawfulness of using indifferent things in general but endeavour to satisfy all their scruples which relate to single instances as I shall have occasion to treat of them in the following Chapters CHAP. III. Of the Lawfulness and Expediency of Forms of Prayer THE next objection against our Communion is the use of Forms of Prayer This the Dissenters 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 warrant Forms of Prayer 2. By answering their objections against Forms of Prayer And 3. by proving that the imposition of Forms of Prayer may be lawfully comply'd with First then I shall shew that both Scripture and Antiquity do warrant Forms of Prayer The Dissenters indeed require us to produce some positive command 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 commands us to use none but Forms
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 continuance of it and 't is presumtion to promise our selves what God has not promis'd us For as for the Spirit of Supplications Zac. 12.10 't is plain that 't is the same with the Spirit of Grace or of inward Piety and devotion But that there is no such Promise 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 't wou'd be look'd upon by all sober Dissenters as a very rash and unjust censure to affirm that a Man cannot be a good Christian who do's not Pray by immediate Inspiration 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 'T is true the Spirit will assist us in all necessary things wherein our duty and Spiritual Life are concern'd but 't is an unwarrantable presumtion to expect an immediate Inspiration in Prayer because there is no necessity 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 understand 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 groanings which cannot be uttered Rom. 8.26 and therefore we cannot in all cases know the Matter of our Prayers without immediate Inspiration 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 immediately dictated to us since we may use Forms and those Forms with small additions may be adapted to all particular Cases and Circumstances 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 among 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 't is 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 Diabolical If it be said that the Scripture is sufficient to distinguish them I answer that tho' the Scripture may be sufficient to distinguish whether the Matter of the Inspiration be true or false yet it 's not sufficient to distinguish the Inspiration it self whether it be Divine or Natural or Diabolical For 1. 'T is certain a Man may Pray agreeably to Scripture by Natural Inspiration that is by a Natural 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 'T will 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 fervency of our Prayers but not for the Matter or Words of them Besides we may easily distinguish whether the Inspiration of fervency be Natural or Divine by our own sense If it be accompany'd with a fixt and constant Devotion of Soul 't is 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 distinguish 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 continue the gift of Inspiration to us he wou'd have left us thus in the dark concerning it without 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 Auditors 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 Inspire Men with such Matter of Prayer as is agreeable to Scripture we cannot by Scripture certainly distinguish between his Inspiration and that of the Spirit But surely 't is blasphemy to think that if God had continu'd this gift of Inspiration he wou'd leave us without a sign to distinguish 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 generally 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 Matter as the manner of expressing them As for the Matter I suppose the Dissenters will not deny 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 Inspired 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 repetitions or as Munster's Hebrew reads it to multiply words above what is fit and seasonable thinking 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 ordinarily proceeds from natural causes viz. Natural Enthusiasm or present fervour of temper For 1. The Dissenters confess it comes upon them much oftner in their public than in their private Devotions And the reason is plain because the passions of the Congregation do so excite their affections and the reverence of an Auditory obliges them so much to wreck their inventions that their Spirits are many times transported into raptures 2. They are not so fluent in the beginning 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 't is unwarrantable to attribute that to Inspiration which do's so apparently proceed from natural causes Thus have I shewn what the extraordinary operations 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 ordinary 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 acceptable 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 affections Certainly his withdrawing the Inspiration of words and continuing the Inspiration of affections 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 flagrant affections For these words do not as some persons wou'd persuade us prove the Inspiration of the Words of Prayer because the Inspiration of those things that are too big for words and cannot be uttered cannot mean the Inspiration of words but this Intercession of the Spirit 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 't is a very new objection against Forms of Prayer which I have shewn to be warranted both by Scripture and Antiquity However 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 ordinarily 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 restrain'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 Miraculous 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. 'T is Objected that public Forms are a sinful 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 public 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 't is 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 certainly 't is 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 Ordination 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 Inspir'd in their Ordination Now since this gift or ability is nothing more than a quickness of invention and speech which is either natural or acquir'd by art and practice therefore 't is no otherwise 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 't is plain that the gift of readiness of speech is not appropriated by God to Prayer but left in common to all other honest uses that it can be apply'd to and it may as well be call'd the Gift of Pleading at the Bar or of Disputing or Conversation as the gift of Prayer Accordingly we find that those who have this gift in Prayer have it
appointed him in performing what belong'd to him as a Mediatour and discovering to Mankind in Scripture the Method and Means by which they may be sav'd and the sufficiency of Scripture appears in its being a sufficient means to that end and it 's putting Men into such a State as will render them capable of attaining to it III. I am next to consider how we may know what things are indifferent in the worship of God To this I might answer briefly that in things forbidden by human Authority the not being requir'd in Scripture and in things requir'd by human Authority the not being forbidden in Scripture is a Rule whereby we may know what things are indifferent in the worship of God But because things in their nature indifferent may become unlawful in their use and application therefore I shall add the following particulars 1. Things are call'd indifferent from their general Nature and not as if they were never unlawful for they are lawful or unlawful as they are us'd and apply'd 2. A thing may not be requir'd or forbidden by one Law which is by another and that may be indifferent in one state which is not in another and therefore when we say a thing is indifferent we must consider the Case and Law which it respects Thus to discourse about common affairs is a thing indifferent but it is unlawful when practis'd in the Church and in the midst of Religious Solemnities 3. As there are certain Rules which we are to respect in common conversation and which even in that case ought to tie us up in the use of things otherwise indifferent so there are some Rules which we must have a regard to in the administration of Divine worship And as in common matters the nature of the thing in actions the end in conversation the circumstances are to be heeded viz. time place persons as when where before whom we are cover'd and uncover'd c. so in sacred matters the nature of the thing in the decency and solemnity of the worship the end for which it was appointed in the Edification of the Church and the Peace Glory and Security of that are to be respected By these Rules we are to judge of the indifferency of things in God's service But because these Rules are general and Decency Edification and Order are variable according as circumstances alter and because different men have different opinions of them therefore I shall give more particular Directions 1. Some things are so notoriously agreeable or opposite to Decency Edification and Order that common reason will be able to judge of them Thus 't is plain that a tumultuous speaking of many together is less for Edification and has more of confusion than the orderly speaking of one by one and service in an unknown Tongue do's less conduce to Edification than when 't is in a Language commonly understood But 2. There are other things which are not so evident and therefore for the clearing of them we may observe 1. That Decency Order and Edification depend upon each other and must not be consider'd asunder And therefore we must not throw down the bounds of public Order and bring all things into confusion for the sake of Edification or because we think any matter indecent What is against public Order and Practice is for that reason indecent were there no other reason to make it so So that if we wou'd judge aright of either of these we must judge of them together and as Order alone is not enough to make a thing Decent which is in it self indecent so Decency or particular Edification is not enough to recommend that which cannot be introduc'd without the disturbance of public Order 2. That when the case is not apparent we shou'd rather judge by what is contrary than by what is agreeable to these rules We know better what things are not than what they are and therefore since we better know what is indecent than decent disorderly than orderly against Edification than for it it 's best to take this course in judging about it As for instance if we wou'd inquire into the decency of the posture to be us'd in the Lord's Supper or the Edification that may arise from it it may not perhaps be so easy for a Man to judge of the greater Decency and Edification of kneeling or sitting but if he find that the posture injoin'd is not indecent or destructive of Piety and of the ends for which the ordinance was instituted he is therewith to satisfy himself If says St. Austin Epist 118. what is injoyn'd be not against Faith or good manners it is to be accounted indifferent and I may add if it be not indecent disorderly and destructive of Piety it 's lawful 3. That if the case be not apparent and we cannot easily find out how the things injoin'd are decent c. we are obliged to be cautious how we condemn an action which those men practice whom for other things we cannot condemn When we find that they argue and produce Experience and Reason for it and we have a whole Church against our Opinion we shou'd be apt to think the fault may be in our selves and that 't is for want of understanding and insight for want of use and Tryal and by reason of some prejudices that we thus differ in our judgment from them We see what little things do determine men ordinarily in these matters how addicted they are to their own ways and customs and therefore we shou'd think again So may we be reconcil'd to the rites of a Church as we are to the customs and habits of a Nation which at first seem as indecent as the Ceremonies of a Church can do In short we have reason to suspect 't is a Zeal without Knowledge when we presume to set our Judgment Reason and Experience against the Judgment Reason and Experience of the Christian World IV. I am now to shew in the last place how we are to determine our selves in the use of indifferent things with respect to the worship of GOD. 1. Then as particular Persons solitary and alone we may forbear to use what is indifferent when no Law of Man requires it and we may freely use it when no Law of Man forbids it 2. In our conversation with others we must so use our Liberty as shall be less to the prejudice and more to the benefit of those we converse with We may act or forbear in complyance with Persons of weaker Judgment But 3. as we are Members of a Church we are to obey the commands of it For if the not grieving a Brother or endangering his Soul obliges us to restrain the exercise of our Liberty much more do's the Peace of the Church oblige us to the same Let every one please his neighbour for his good to Edification Rom. 15.2 that is to his improvement in Knowledge Grace or Piety and the promoting of Concord and Charity Now Edification is chiefly so
more restrain'd to Vocal Prayer than any other word that signifies Prayer in Scripture 'T is 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 necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For 't is a Hebraiâ—â— and may signify no more than my Supplication or Prayer For so Gen. 4.10 't is 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 suppose 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 devout 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 enabled to Pray Vocally by the Spirit and that therefore 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 obliged 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 deny that crying here do's necessarily denote Vocal Prayer For how often do we find the word apply'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 latitude 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 Father 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 'T is true the Scripture speaks of a gift of utterance 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 promis'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 sober Dissenter will pretend to The Apostles began to speak with tongues as the spirit gave them utterance Act. 2.4 and the Dissenters may as well pretend 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 therefore 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 particular Now to these things I answer First That the gift bestow'd upon Timothy was the gift of Episcopal 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) Clem. 1 Epist ad Corinth Chrysost in Act. 13.2 Fathers testifie For this reason the gift is said to be given him by Prophesy 'T was 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 Appointment 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 Praying 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 Offices viz. The Office of a Bishop a Priest a Deacon and a Rich Man For 't is plain that the word Gift do's oftentimes signifie an Office and tho' it may be said that the relief of the Poor is rather the exercise of an Ability than an Office yet I answer that 't is properly the exercise of an Office 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 declares 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 't is 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 exercise 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 afterwards prove tend more to Edification than Praying Extempore therefore 't is 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 Authorities which are objected by the Dissenters against 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 't is objected First that Justin Martyr saies Apol. 2. p. 98. That the Minister at the Communion Pray'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
nothing can be distinctly heard To this I answer that those who can read may bring Books and those that cannot may attend to those that are near Nay I have been credibly inform'd that some devout People that cou'd never read have attain'd to an ability of reciting most of the Psalms without book by often hearing them in those Churches where they are alternately recited I shall add that for the most part the Psalms are recited alternately in those Churches only where it may be reasonably presum'd that the whole Congregation can read very few excepted Now if the People may join in Vocal Praise why may they not also join in Vocal Prayer If it be said there is some example or warrant in Scripture for the one but not for the other it seems to be a good answer that there is such a parity of reason as that the express warrant of Scripture for the one is an imply'd warrant for the other I have already shewn Chap. 3. that the People's joining in Vocal Prayer was very anciently practis'd and if this was the Primitive way 't is probable that it was the way in the Apostles times I know 't is objected that the People's speaking to God in the Church is disorderly and a breaking in upon the Minister's office But will they say that the Children of Israel intrench'd upon the Priest when they all bowed themselves upon the Pavement and worshipped the Lord and prais'd him saying for he is good for his mercy endureth for ever 2 Chron. 7.3 Ecclesiastical Order is secur'd by the Minister's presiding in God's public Worship and guiding the performance of it but not to allow the People to make an Audible confession of sin after the Minister nor to utter some few affectionate Petitions and those very short to which they are also invited and â—â—ted by him seems rather to favour of an affectation of undue superiority over the People than to proceed from any fear of the Minister's office being invaded Some urge that Women are forbidden to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14.34 but this is strangely misapply'd to the Matter in hand For 't is plain that the speaking mention'd by the Apostle signifies nothing but Prophesying Interpreting Preaching and Instructing and that the reason why he will not allow this to the Woman is because Preaching implies Authority whereas the Woman's part is obedience and subjection They that will read the whole Chapter will find that this is the meaning of St. Paul 5. I proceed in the next place to consider whether there be any just cause to find fault with the reading of the Apocryphal Lessons in our Church Now if Sermons and Catechizing be allowable besides the Word of God why may not some Apocryphal Lessons be read which contain excellent Rules of life Especially since those Writings were greatly esteemed by the Church in its purest Ages when they and other human writings also were publicly read as well as the Scriptures and those Chapters of the Old Testament which are omitted do either recite Genealogies or the Rules of the Levitical Service or matters of fact deliver'd in other Chapters that are read or which are hard to be understood If it be said that because the Scripture is all of Divine Authority 't is more profitable to read any part of that than any other good Lesson I answer that then no place will be left for Sermons which are no more of Divine Authority than the Apocryphal Lessons There is no danger of any person 's mistaking the Apocryphal Lessons for Canonical Scripture because the Church speaks so plainly in her Sixth Article nor do we read them otherwise than the antient Church did I shall only add that no Apocryphal Lesson is read upon any Lord's Day in the Year and as for other exceptions I refer the Reader to Dr. Falkener's Libertas Eccles p. 164 c. 6. If any object against our Standing at the Creed Mr. Baxter saies his judgment is for it where it is required and where not doing it wou'd be aivisive and scandalous Nay elsewhere he saies that 't is a convenient praising gesture c. See his Christ Direct p. 858. I proceed now to the Vindication of the Litany against which 't is pleaded 1. That the People utter the Words of invocation in the Litany for the most part the Minister all the while suggesting the matter of it to them But this Objection is of no force if what I have said concerning the lawfulness of allowing the People an interest in Vocal Prayer be admitted If it be said that the People bear too considerable a part to the disparagement of the Minister's office I answer that 't is a great mistake For 1. tho' the People say Good Lord deliver us and We beseech thee to hear us Good Lord yet the Minister saies the other and the far greater part of the Prayer 2. They are but these Two short and known Petitions which are excepted against and if the People may be allowed any part in Vocal Prayer I know of nothing more proper than these nor are they repeated but when they are apply'd to new and distinct matter Besides they relieve our attention and cherish our warm affections in Prayer and I could almost appeal to the keenest of our Adversaries whether if Good Lord deliver us were apply'd but once in gross to that part of the Litany we shou'd not be more apt to languish in the offering it up than as it is now ordered But 3. 'T is plain that in those Prayers the Minister has the principal and guiding part in that he utters all the distinct matter of the Prayer which the People do not whereas he utters words of invocation as well as they And consider I pray whether if the People were to utter that which is the Minister's part now and the Minister to say that only which is theirs we shou'd not have more grievous complaints that the Minister's authority was slighted in the whole design since he seem'd only to learn from the People what the Congregation was to pray for 2. 'T is Objected that we pray to be deliver'd from all deadly sin which seems to imply that there are some sins which are not deadly Now in answer to this it is by some truly enough said that these words do not necessarily imply a distinction between sins that are and sins that are not deadly But admitting that such a distinction were intended yet we must observe that tho' all sin be in its own nature deadly or damnable yet thro' the Mercy of God and the Merits of Christ sins of mere infirmity are not imputed and therefore not deadly to us But there are some sins so heinous that he who commits them is thereby put into a damnable state and 't is of such sins as these that this passage is to be understood as appears by Deadly Sin being added to Fornication from Fornication and all other Deadly Sin Good Lord deliver us
by the passions of their Weak Brethren Whatever condescension may be due to the Weak yet 't was never intended they shou'd Govern the Wiser and who can Govern more absolutely than those whom none must displease Since then Scandalizing or giving offence do's not signify doing something which another takes ill I design to shew what is the true meaning of it in Scripture The Greek word which we translate Scandal or Offence signifies either a Trap or Snare or else more commonly something laid in the way of another which occasions his stumbling or falling by which he is bruis'd and hurt And so whatever it was that hindred Men from becoming Christ's Disciples or made them entertain unworthy thoughts of their profession or discourag'd them in it or tempted them to forsake it is call'd a Scandal or Offence It is sometimes rendred an occasion to fall Rom. 14.13 occasion of stumbling 1 Joh. 2.10 a stumbling block Rev. 2.14 or a thing that doth offend Matth. 13.41 in all which places there is the same original word Hence to Offend or Scandalize any one as 't is commonly us'd in the (a) See Matth. 17.27 and 26.31 Mark 4.17 and 6.3 Joh. 6.61 1. Cor. 1.23 New Testament is to do something which tends to fright him from Christianity to make him think hardly of it or is apt to make him Repent of his Conversion So that in the most general sense to Scandalize or Offend any one is to give occasion to his sin and consequently his Ruin and undoing and this I suppose will be granted by all that do not receive their opinions from the mere sound of words Hence I observe Four things 1. The better Men are the harder 't is to Scandalize them Those are not such Godly Persons as they wou'd be thought who are so ready at all turns to be Offended For how can they excel others in knowledge or goodness who are so easily drawn or tempted to sin 2. That Man that saies he shall be Scandaliz'd at what another Man do's speaks falsely For it is as much as to say that he shall be led into sin ignorantly whereas his saying so confutes his ignorance for if he knows it to be a sin he commits it wilfully 3. Since Offending or scandalizing signifies tempting to sin there can be no fear of Offending any one by Conforming to the Church because there is nothing us'd in it but what may be comply'd with without sin For the Man that fears giving Offence to the Weak is suppos'd to be satisfy'd himself that Conformity is lawful and how then shou'd he fear that his example will tempt others to sin in doing an innocent action If it be said that tho' what I do is lawful yet it may give occasion to others to do something else that is unlawful and so I may become truly guilty of giving Offence I answer that we are accountable only for the Natural tendencies of our actions and not for such consequences as wicked or silly Men may draw from them for at that rate a Man cou'd not speak or do any thing without the guilt of giving Scandal If it be said that tho' I am satisfy'd my self yet I may by my example tempt others that are not satisfy'd or that think Conformity to be sinful to follow me with a doubting or gainsaying Conscience I answer 1. that 't is as unlawful to go to separate Meetings against one's Conscience as to Conform against one's Conscience and the Man ought to fear lest he draw some to separate Meetings against their Conscience as well as he fears the drawing of others to Church against their Conscience The influence of his example is the same in both instances and the danger of Scandal is equal and therefore his own persuasion must determine his practice 2. A Man that is satisfy'd himself ought to endeavour to satisfy others especially those whom he formerly persuaded to separation by his example and when he has done thus he has done what lies in his power to prevent the ill effect and shall not be farther answerable for the consequences of what he doth 4. Since Scandalizing is leading into sin we may Scandalize others as soon by complying with them as by thwarting their humour St. Paul who circumcis'd Timothy Acts 16.3 in favour of the Weak Jews lest they shou'd have forsaken the Faith refus'd to circumcise Titus Gal. 2.3 tho' he angred the Jews by it lest they shou'd think the Jewish Law still in force And this he did because the condition of the Persons was different If he had pleas'd them he had truly Scandaliz'd them by hardening them in their folly and ignorance Mr. Baxter saies in his Cure of Church-Divisions Many a time I have the rather gone to the Common-Prayers of the public Assemblies for fear of being a Scandal to those same men that call'd the going to them a Scandal that is for fear of hardening them in a sinful Separation and Error Because I knew that was not Scandal which they call'd Scandal that is displeasing them and crossing their Opinions but hardening them in an Error or other Sin is true Scandalizing Vnderstand this or you will displease God under pretence of avoiding Scandal p. 135. This surely ought to be well consider'd of by a sort of Men amongst us who shall go to Church in the Morning and to a Conventicle in the Afternoon who halt between both and wou'd fain displease neither side but indeed give real Offence to both From all this I think it is very plain that he who is satisfy'd in his own mind of the lawfulness of Conformity but is afraid of giving Offence by it if he be true to his Principle ought to hasten the faster to his Parish-Church that he may not offend those very Dissenters of whom he wou'd seem to be so tender III. In the last place I am to inquire how far and in what instances we are bound to consider the Weakness of our Brethren In answer to this I shall now suppose notwithstanding all I have already said that the Dissenters are truly weak Persons and that there may be some danger of their being thro' their own fault Offended by our Conformity yet taking this for granted I shall plainly shew that he who is in his own mind convinced of the lawfulness of Conformity ought not to forbear it for fear of giving such Offence to his Weak Brethren For First Nothing that is sinful may be done to avoid others being Scandaliz'd We must not do evil that good may come Rom. 3.8 We must not commit the least sin our selves to prevent the greatest sin in another The very best things may be perverted and Christ himself is said to be set for the fall of many Luke 2.24 but this do's not cancel our obligations to obey God's Laws If offence be taken at my doing any duty those only that are offended are chargeable with it Since those who fear giving Offence do themselves think Conformity