A VINDICATION OF THE LORDS PRAYER, As a formal Prayer, and by Chriſts Inſtitution to be uſed by Chriſtians, as a Prayer; againſt the Antichriſtian Practiſe, and opinions of ſome.
WE will forbear all Prefaces, and Rhetorical inſinuations, and haſten to the main buſineſs. Truth may need ſuch ſometimes, by reaſon of mens infirmities:2 and there be examples in Scripture, that may contend with the choiceſt Rhetorick, humane Authors afford, to juſtifie it, if need were. But in ſuch a caſe as I conceive this is, where common ſenſe, beſt reaſon; Authority, divine and humane; all that can be deſired in a cauſe, are ſo manifeſtly viſible, the beſt Rhetorick we can uſe, is to uſe no Rhetorick at all. It is the nature of Truth, to be moſt lovely, when ſeen naked: but it is not the luck of all Truth, to carry ſo much light, and luſtre with it, as will pierce thorow all Obſtacles, and make it viſible to all eyes. I hope it is the luck of this, that we contend for here: the Reader will quickly ſee, let him but read; I will not ſay without prejudice, (for that is not to be hoped) but not obſtinately reſolved againſt the ingenuity of his confeſſion, though his conſcience be convicted.
And here in the firſt place, we profeſs, we pretend not to write againſt3 any, who ſay, or teach, that what Chriſt hath commanded, ſo commanded without limitation of time or place, abſolutely and generally to be obſerved, ought not to be done by men that profeſs Christianity. There is no man ſo ſimple, but would preſently make this inference: This were to deny him in deed, whom we profeſs to honour and worſhip in words. Except we ſhould perchance eſtabliſh ſuch a power upon Earth, equivalent or ſuperiour to the power of Chriſt: a power to abrogate, or ratifie, at pleaſure, what is commanded: Which oppoſeth and exalteth it ſelf above all that is called God, &c. 2 Theſ. 2.4. How far this may belong to the Pope of Rome, who by his Canoniſts and others, doth take upon himſelf to have a power, Supra & contra omne jus: contra jus naturale gentium; civile, humanum, divinum, &c. contra Apoſtolum: Vetus Testamentum, &c. to make de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccaum: how far I ſay, the Pope of Rome4 may be concerned in that place of Scripture, I will not enquire. There be even of that ſide (profeſſed Papiſts) that have laid it to his charge, and applyed thoſe very words unto him. But it is not to our purpoſe to enquire: They are not Papiſts, who we have to do with. We ſay therefore once again, We do not pretend to write againſt any, who maintain poſitively Chriſt ſhould not be obeyed: Or yet more particularly; not againſt any, who acknowledging theſe words of Chriſt, recorded Mat. 6. and Luk. 11. Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. to be a preſcript form of Prayer; forbid us, and forbear themſelves, to uſe it as a Prayer: but againſt them, who allow not theſe words to be a Prayer, but a bare direction or platform of Prayer only: and upon that account, forbid, and forbear, as I have ſaid: who therefore will be ready to ſay, The queſtion is not properly of honour, or diſhonour done unto Chriſt, but of the right uſe, or underſtanding of his words.
5This may ſeem plauſible at firſt hearing. But here I muſt deſire the Reader to conſider; that ſcarce ever was any opinion ſo falſe, or ſo impious, but men could find ſome words to ſet it out in another ſhape, if we will content our ſelves with a ſuperficial view; or will look at a diſtance through ſuch proſpectives, as ſhall be put into our hands. We charge the Papiſts with impiety, for denying to ordinany Chriſtians the uſe of Gods Word. They will ſay, they honour the Scripture, in keeping them from it, who, (through ignorance and ſimplicity) are more likely to abuſe it, than to make that uſe of it, for which it was given. That they were given us to do good, being committed unto ſuch hands as have skill to handle them; not to do hurt, wch. in the hands of ignorant, illiterate people, they are moſt likely. If good words and fair pretences will ſerve the turn, it cannot be denyed, but, in this cauſe, ſuch will eaſily be found, to make it plauſible: though no cauſe6 can leſs pretend to ſolidity of reaſon, (if we come to the tryal of either Scripture or Antiquity) to make it true. Again, we charge them of Sacriledge and Impiety in maiming the Sacrament of the Lords Supper of one eſſential part, whilſt they keep ordinary people from the uſe of the Cup. The queſtion is not, what we can prove, but what they pretend. No ſuch thing as we lay to their Charge, I am ſure, that can be called either Sacriledge, or Impiety. The very Anabaptiſts, the rankeſt of them, (the Alumbradoes of Spain, or Quakers of England) who deny and deſpiſe all Scriptures; can we charge them of any impietie, if they may tell their own tale, and be believed without any further reaſoning? They will ſay, They honour, though not what we call Scripture: yet, the word of God, as much as any; that is, their inſpirations, and raptures, and the Oracles of their own breaſt, their inward light; which they pretend to be the only true Word.
7Since therefore it is certain, that no opinion can be ſo impious in it ſelf, but it may be masked with words able, if not to make it plauſible and popular; yet, to hide the impiety: laying aſide what is pretended, as altogether impertinent: we will come to the true ſtate of the queſtion, which we conceive to be this.
Whether it may, or doth clearly appear, by the plain literal obvious ſenſe, or conſtruction of Scripture; confirmed by all circumſtances of the Context; all probabilitie of humane ratiocination: the ſenſe and practiſe of all Chriſtians, ſince the very beginning of Chriſtianity, (ſo far as can be traced by Hiſtory) in all ages, in all places; that theſe words, Our Father, &c. as ſet down in St. Matthew, and St. Luke, were preſcribed by our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, as a very form of Prayer, to be uſed by all profeſſing Chriſtianity, in thoſe very words, as a Prayer; yea, or noe.
8A queſtion of very great moment, as I apprehend it, the conſequent, or conſequence whereof; if the affirmative part of it be proved, will be,
Firſt, that they who either by their example, or perſwaſions, bereave Chriſtians of it, are guilty (Prayer being a thing of ſuch conſequence in Religion) of horrible, deteſtable ſacriledge: and may ſeem themſelves (to others) to renounce thereby to no ſmall part of Chriſtianity. We ſpeak to, and of profeſt Miniſters only in all this Diſcourſe.
Secondly, whilſt it may probably be conceived, that a main reaſon that leads them unto this, is a great opinion they have of, or to their own conceptions in praying; which they therefore (in ordinary conſtruction of reaſon) muſt be thought to prefer before this form; this form, I ſay, by ſuch undeniable, uncontrolable, (to common ſenſe and found reaſon) evidence of Scripture made, and preſcribed by Chriſt himſelf; (The9 Son of God, in whom all the Treaſures of Wiſdome are hidden, &c.) hence it will follow, that they are guilty (though I hope not intended by them) yet guilty of high Blaſphemy againſt CHRIST, their God and Saviour.
Thirdly, whileſt they ſeek evaſions againſt ſuch evidence of Scripture: ſuch evidence, as no other point, or doctrine of Chriſtianity, can pretend unto greater: it muſt needs follow, that by this their example, they give a moſt pernicious example to the moſt pernicious Hereticks, of preſent, or future ages, to ſhift all Scriptures, though never ſo clear againſt them, and do much countenance the Blaſphemies of ſome Papiſts, in calling them a Noſe of Wax, &c. as alſo, ſtop or obſtruct their own mouths for ever ſpeaking againſt Quakers and Anabaptiſts, who certainly may pretend to as much ground of reaſon for denying all Scriptures, as any can, for denying the uſe of the Lords Prayer, as a Prayer unto Chriſtians;10 ſo demonſtrably grounded upon Scripture, commanded by Chriſt himſelf, confirmed by the practiſe of all Chriſtians in the world.
This is the true Eſtate of the queſtion, as I apprehend. If any think fit to add, in the laſt place; That in caſe we come ſhort of our proofs, and cannot make our charge good, we muſt needs be guilty, either of inexcuſable ignorance, or intolerable uncharitableneſs, or both: I am content.
If any ſhall think I have uſed aggravation in it, I am ſorry. My conſcience doth bear me witneſs, I intended it not. I pray God heartily it may never be laid to their charge; as I verily believe, that none of theſe things are really intended by them. But in a buſineſs of this nature, where I conceive the honour of Chriſt, and the good of all Chriſtians, ſo much intereſted; I think I ſhould unworthily prevaricate, if I ſhould not uſe plainneſs of words, and call〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the old ſaying11 is. But this I have ſaid of my belief, as to their intention: I mean it of ſuch, as are true Chriſtians in the main Fundamentals. As for the profeſt Anabaptiſts, Quakers, Enthuſiaſts, or however called, who have apoſtatized from the right ſaith: ſuch, as they frequently blaſpheme againſt the Perſon; ſo no wonder, if they frequently and purpoſely blaſpheme the Prayer of Chriſt. As I have heard it reported of ſome, (ſome years ago, great pretenders to the ſpirit of prayer) they ſhould often ſay, If Chriſt were alive again (converſant in earth amongſt men; intended I ſuppoſe:) he would be aſhamed of that prayer. Others have been heard, (wretched Miſcreants!) to ſay, they thanked God they had forgotten it. As bad or worſe hath been ſaid of the Scripture in general, we need not wonder at it.
Though they blaſpheme not in words, yet they may be thought to do ſomewhat in deeds, of much affinity: who12 though they allow Children perchance, and ſimple people, in private, and inferiour ſubordinate men; as Lecturers, and Clerks, in Churches, to uſe the Lords prayer: yet themſelves will not do it that honour, as to uſe it in that ſimplicity of words, as delivered and commended unto us by Chriſt, but, either not at all: or ſo diſlocated, (which we ſhould not except againſt, if done in imitation, and not in liew of the Lords prayer) and diſmembred with their own cenceptions, that little or nothing of it doth appear in its own ſhape and form.
Now we are to proceed to the conſideration of the Text; we will firſt conſider of a general objection, or evaſion rather, which I find ſome have uſed in this very point. We urge the plain literal ſenſe. Yes, but all things (ſay they) in Scripture, are not to be taken litterally. We grant it: but withall we ſay, to make uſe of this objection upon all occaſions, when we find our13 ſelves pinched, without any ground at all, of either words, reaſon, circumſtance, &c. is as much as to void all Scripture, and to ſubſtitute our own phanſies and imaginations in lieu of it. The Scripture ſaith. Thou ſhalt not worſhip images, Thou ſhalt not commit adultery, Thou ſhalt not kill, ſteal, &c. Yea, but every thing in the Scripture is not to be taken literally. What then is the uſe of the Scriptures, I would fain know, if it be enough to ſay ſo, when we would not have it to ſay, what croſſes our humors, intereſt, or prejudice? The Reader will give me leave to inſiſt a little upon this point. It will be of good uſe to our preſent occaſion, and he will find it before he come to the end. All things in Scripture are not to be taken literally: No: there be many Types and Figures in the Scriptures; Metaphors and Tranſlations: many things ſpoken by way of ſimilitude, which muſt not be underſtood literally; and may eaſily be underſtood, without any other Comment14 (or expoſition) than nature and common ſenſe. God ſpeaking unto men, doth condeſcend to ſpeak to them in the language of men. When Chriſt ſtyleth the Phariſees, Generation of Vipers, can any be ſo ſimple, or ſo malicious, as to make him ſay, that they were really begotten of Vipers? or when he ſaith to his Diſciples; that he is the Vine, and they the branches: that he intended it of a real Vine and Branches? When the Pſalmiſt calls his God a Rock: who would, who could, man, woman or child; (that is come to the age of underſtanding) argue from thence, that David was an Idolator, becauſe he did worſhip ſtones? But here is nothing of that nature; (figurative or metaphorical) in the words we have to do with; we ſhall not need to ſay more.
Again, Prophecies, are obſcure: it is their nature to be ſo, not many things in them (we grant, ordinarily,) to be taken literally; but we need not inſiſt upon it: here is no thing of that nature neither.
15Again, Myſterious, ſacramental things are commonly involved in figures: it is their nature to be ſo. That is not a Sacrament properly, that doth not ſhew ſomewhat that may be ſeen, whereby it would have ſomewhat underſtood that is not ſeen.
And do we wonder if Figures be uſed, when they are ſpoken of? Or ſhould we in reaſon preſs the letter in ſuch ſpeeches, even againſt all ſenſe and reaſon? Will any man ſay, that the Circumciſion was a Covenant, literally, becauſe it is ſo called: or that the Iſraelites were in motion, when they did eat the Paſchal Lamb, becauſe it is called the Paſſeover? Or that Chriſt, before he was made fleſh, was a Stone, becauſe St. Paul ſaith, Chriſt was the Rock that followed the Iſraelites? If therefore Chriſt ſaith, the Sacramental Cup is the New Teſtament, or Teſtament in his blood, (as St. Paul expreſſeth him) or that the ſacramental bread is his body; can we be charged with infidelity, becauſe we believe a figure in the words,16 (the proper ſtyle of Sacraments) though in that figure, a reality, as to the benefit, as conſiderable to us, as we could expect from a viſible preſence, or participation.
Again, St. Austin hath a rule, and much notice is taken of it: Si praeceptiva locutio eſt, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, &c. Where we have a command, (ſaith he, or to that effect) that commands nothing againſt civility, or moral honeſty: we muſt take it literally; otherwiſe figuratively. But here is nothing in this queſtion of the Lords Prayer that comes within that compaſs, nothing of that nature objected againſt it, (that I know of,) or the uſe of it, though the irreverent carriage of ſome men in ſome places) (as I have heard) might make ſome men ſuſpect, that they (if otherwiſe ſober and religious) apprehended ſomewhat in it, very offenſive to religious ears.
And now that the Reader may know this is no digreſſion, I muſt tell him, I find17 them, by ſome that have written againſt the uſe of the Lords Prayer, as a prayer, them, I ſay, that ſtick to the plain literal meaning of Chriſts words in the inſtitution of this holy Prayer, charged with ſome Popery, or imitation (at leaſt) of Popery, upon this very ground, becauſe Papiſts ſtick to the literal ſenſe of theſe ſacramental words, Hoc eſt corpus meum, this is my Body: I will ſet down their words, In eo vero quod tantopere urgetis verba ipſa: Quando oratis, dicite, Pater noſter, &c. quid aliud agitis, quam quod Papiſtae ſolent in quaeſtione Sacramenti, urgentes〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & ad nauſeam uſque objicientes verba illa, Hoc eſt corpus meum. They are the words of one Franciſcus Johnſonus, who had the reputation of a wondrous able man among the Sectaries, (or Puritans) of thoſe times, in anſwer to John Carpenter, a reclaimed Papiſt, a ſon of the Church of England.
What particular Sect, beſides a Puritan them an was of, I know not. Some18 what it ſeems between Presbytery, and right down Anabaptiſm. For Anabaptiſm he diſclaims. And Presbyterian Government (at the very laſt of his diſcourſe) as well as Epiſcopy, he pronounceth to be derived from the Antichriſt. Whether Independants were then known, I know not. But let the Readee judge what theſe men would bring Religion, and the word of God unto. If this be Popery, or Popiſh, when there is no imaginable ground, or colour for any other, to ſtick to the literal ſenſe of Scripture: If I ſay to a thief, steal not; and tell him, it is forbidden in the Scripture, what a ready evaſion will he have? whileſt I think to convince him by the word of God, he will impeach me (and truly we know many have really ſuffered for more ridiculous and groundleſs imputations, as the Surpliſs, and the like:) of being a Papiſt, or a friend to Papiſts: (to their cauſe I mean; for their perſons we may love and honour, as they ſhall merit, I hope, without19 offence:) or perchance of making the Tranſubstantiation an article of my faith, becauſe I preſs the literal ſenſe againſt ſtealing. The beſt is, ordinary theft, the Law provides againſt: but Sacriledge, both by the Law of God, and by the rules of right reaſon, a greater theft, will eaſily be avoided by this ſophiſtry; and perchance, inſtead of a crime, be made the Character of a Saint. As this is, ſo is all the reſt, that I find in that great Champion (as he was accounted in thoſe dayes) of Sectaries, againſt the uſe of the Lords prayer: ſuch ridiculous, ſenſeleſs ſophiſtry, as I ſcarce remember the like, in any thing that ever I read. But in ſuch a caſe, (to prove twice two, not to be four: that the ſnow is black, and the Sun the cauſe of darkneſs:) who can expect it otherwiſe? Yet in this perchance we may commend his ingenuity above ſome others, that he freely confeſſeth the literal obvious ſenſe to be of our ſide.
This prayer then, (or pattern of20 prayer if you will) is ſet down, and recorded in two Goſpels, St. Matthew and St. Luke; the ſame words (in ſubſtance) in both Goſpels: but as divers have well obſerved, uttered by Chriſt, (and recorded accordingly by the Evangeliſts, as ſpoken and preſcribed by him) at two ſeveral times, and upon ſeveral occaſions: which makes it the more binding, becauſe twice delivered in the ſame form.
In St. Mathew, Chriſt begins with the Doctrine of praying in general, and after ſundry precepts and inſtructions, proceeds to a particular form: After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father &c. which is well obſerved by the Arabick tranſlator, exhibited in the late London Bible, (that noble, and little leſs than miraculous work, if we conſider all Circumſtances) where we find this diviſion; firſt, from ver. 5. to verſe 9. Doctrina Orandi, Conſilium de oratione: then, Formula Orandi: an excellent method, much neglected in theſe dayes21 of Inſpiration; when ignorant illiterate creatures are put to it, illotis manibus: who though they know little or nothing of Prayer in general, more than this, that they muſt be ſo long, and keep ſaying whatever it be, yet are made believe, (and are ſoon perſwaded) they do it far better, than they, who have long ſtudied the duty of prayer in general, and think, it becomes them to conſider of what they ſay, when they are to ſpeak to Almighty God, upon any particular occaſion.
Now before we proceed to further examination of the words, it will not be amiſs to take into conſideration, what hath been (ſo far as we can find by books) the opinion of men in general, concerning this duty of prayer.
In ancienteſt times among Heathens, (that is, men that had the light of nature only to guide them:) it did belong unto Poets, who were the Theologues, or22 Divines of the times, to teach men forms of prayer for every Deitie they worſhipped. Such forms of Invocations of Orpheus, ſo called; of Homer, are yet extant. The doctrine of prayer was handled by philoſophers; as Ariſtotle, among others; but that work of his is not extant. But by Plato alſo, which is yet extant. In that Treatiſe Plato doth much commend a form of prayer, compoſed by ſome antient poet, not named by him, unknown to us, which Calvin in his Inſtitutions, as I remember, takes good notice of, and is exhibited in Greek by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations upon Mathew. A very commendable form indeed; the Author and thoſe times conſidered; and which may be ſaid, in ſome reſpects, to come nearer to the Lords prayer, than many prayers that are made after that pattern, as is pretended. For I take that part of the Lords prayer, to be a very conſiderable part of it, where we are taught to pray, That the Will of God, not23 out will, be done: For ſo I think the words ought to be underſtood, and ſupplyed, out of that other exemplary form of prayer, uſed by Chriſt himſelf, and for himſelf, (at that time) particularly, O my Father, if it be poſsible, let this cup paſs from me, nevertheleſs, not as I will, but as thou wilt, Mat. 26.39. And again, verſe 42. Thy will be done: And ſo again, verſe 44. Whereas our prayers commonly, inſtead of referring our Wills to Gods Will, are, that our Wills may be done, and that too, with much importunity. Yea ſometimes, we are ready to expoſtulate with God, if we have not what we ask; though God knows, when we have it, we have many times occaſion enough to wiſh, that we had not had our wills; that God had not heard our Prayers. Again, In the Lords Prayers, we pray for our dayly bread: which are general words, tranſlated by ſome, panem indigentiae•noſtrae: referring particulars to God, who knows better than we, what24 is convenient for us, if we durſt truſt him.
Now that old form commended by Plato, was this.
〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
In Plato indeed,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, becauſe of the verb〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉that followeth, as in proſe; but without the verb, that is, as in the verſe, ordinary conſtruction doth require (and ſo it ſhould have been printed in Hugo Grotius) 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: as it is in the Anthologie of Greek verſes, and elſewhere. Yet an Infinitive might have ſtood well enough for an Indicative, if the former verb had been ſo too. But this obiter: In latin divers have done them; be content with my tranſlation for this once, to ſave me further labour of ſeeking.
As for the ſenſe in Engliſh, though I love a good verſe heartily; yet my ſelf I know, was never born to be a Poet in any Language, and therefore never minded it; yet I think it neceſſary to put the words into ſome Rymes, that it may be known what they are (verſes) in the Original. †Great God, we thee beſeech, thoſe good things us to grant, Asked, or unasked; thy ſelf doth know we want. As for thoſe things we ask; if ſuch as in the end Hurtfull (thou know'ſt) will prove; from ſuch, great God, defend.
26Juvenal the Poet, hath a whole Satyre of this Subject, of the ignorance of man, in point of praying. Perſius, another; both inſiſt upon many particulars, to ſhew the danger of raſh, haſty prayers. In the Old Teſtament, there be many preſcript forms of prayers, according to beſt Interpreters. Davids27 Pſalms in general were uſed, (and certainly intended many of them from the very beginning) moſt of them by the ancient Jews, before Chriſts time, to that purpoſe. But more of this by and by.
In point of reaſon therefore, ſince prayer hath alwayes been a matter of ſuch difficulty and danger withal; and that preſcript forms have been uſed, not among Heathens only, but Iſraelites alſo, who would not think it moſt probable, that when Chriſt ſaid, (as his words are recorded by St. Mathew, verſe 9.) After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father, &c. He intended a preſcript form? Or if he had not intended it ſo, yet the words in ordinary conſtruction, importing ſo much, he would have uſed ſome words to prevent our miſtake? Some fly to the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉here, and tell us, it importeth ſometimes no more, than a reſemblance or likeneſs. We grant it. But what word is there almoſt to be found, or can be uſed by28 any man or Author, but is ſometimes taken in a different ſenſe? The queſtion is, whether any ground for any ſuch ſenſe in this place; ſuch ſenſe, I mean, as ſhould exclude the more uſual and ordinary. No man I think will deny, but that in ordinary conſtruction, when it is ſaid, you ſhall ſay thus; The words that follow there, are intended, and no other. As when God in Exodus often ſaith unto Moſes, Go, and ſay unto Pharaoh, Thus ſaith the Lord God of Iſrael, that thoſe very words there recorded, were uſed by God unto Moſes, when he gave him his commiſſion. And Gen. 45.9. Thus ſaith thy ſon Joſeph, &c. It followeth, verſe 27. And they told him all the words of Joſeph, which he had ſaid unto them. Infinite places of Scripture might be produced: ſome, where the very ſame words are repeated; but that I think it will be granted by all men, that as there is a Thus of ſimilitude, which we deny not; ſo of Identity; which by the due conſideration29 of circumſtances, and coherence, is generally to be determined.
It is well obſerved by ſome, that have written of this Subject, that had Chriſt intended a meer model of prayer by thoſe words, he would rather (in all probabilitie, were it but to prevent our error) have ſaid, pray that your ſins may be forgiven you, &c. as elſewhere, pray that your flight may be in the ſummer.
Laſtly, Though I know the word Amen, is uſed, not at the beginning only, but at the end alſo of ſome ſpeeches, that are not prayers properly: yet it will not be denyed, that it is moſt proper at the end to formal prayers: witneſs St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.15, 16. ſo that even from this word may be be collected ſomewhat, which alone would be of no great weight perchance; but joyned with ſo much evidence, and other neceſſary conſequence, is not impertinent.
Now were it ſo that this prayer, and30 Chriſts words about it, had been regiſtred by St. Mathew only, I think no more could rationally be required, to perſwade men that are not apt to be ſwayed by ſomewhat elſe more ſtrongly than reaſon. There be many other truths delivered, with leſs evidence of truth, which we generally imbrace, both in the Old and New Teſtament. As on the other ſide, we muſt confeſs by ſad experience, that no Truth can be delivered with ſo much evidence, and manifeſtation of words and circumſtances, but private Intereſt, partiality, faction, prejudice, and the like, may draw to a contrary ſenſe: ſo that if men cannot perſwade themſelves (though no wonder, if they do, even they that otherwiſe are judicions enough: ſtrong intereſt, if men once give way, and be worldly given, will blind beſt Judgements in time) and their conſciences, that it is ſo: yet they will hope by cunning and ſophiſtry, they ſhall be able to perſwade others. But Gods providence in this particular, hath31 otherwiſe ordered it. For as if St. Luke had fore-ſeen (by the Spirit) a poſſibility that ſome would, or might ſtick at, and draw Arguments from the〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in St. Mathew: he hath uſed ſuch words, as every man muſt confeſs, leave no ground at all for ſcruples (though ſought and deſired) and evaſions; except we fly to figures and metaphors, of which ſomewhat hath been ſaid before.
But before we ſet down the very words, we muſt take notice of ſome circumſtances of ſtory belonging to this buſineſs, which St. Luke doth here ſet down. Firſt, That Chriſt had been praying, when the Diſciples did petition him, that he would teach them to pray. Prayer is a duty that Chriſt himſelf was much converſant in: we find that by many places: yet it is obſerved by ſome, we do not find expreſſed any where, that Chriſt prayed with his Diſciples (ordinary common prayers excepted) but alwayes by himſelf. Others add, nor in the Temple publickly. 32How the obſervation will hold, will not much concern. If his Diſciples hath heard him often, there was good ground for their requeſt, that when they ſhould not have the comfort of his prayers by bodily preſence; yet they might not want the comfort of praying in his own words, when himſelf ſhould be out of ſight; ſuch words as they might preſume (with the concurrence of a pure and well prepared heart) ſhould alwayes be moſt acceptable, as to Him, from whom they had received them; ſo to Him, that had ſent him with a promiſe to hear petitions in his Name: very likely therefore (they might think) to like them beſt that ſhould come with a double ſtamp both of his words and name. But if they did not often pray with him, when he uſed other prayers than thoſe that were known and ordinary (of which we ſhall ſay more by and by) the leſs they had been acquainted with his practiſe in that kind, from which they might frame a pattern to33 themſelves: the more reaſon they had to require of him a certain form, which might ſupply their want.
But ſecondly, the Diſciples ground their petition upon St. Johns example, Lord teach us to pray, as John taught his Diſciples. Now I think it is not doubted by any man, or Interpreter of Scripture, but that John delivered unto his Diſciples a formal prayer. Had St. John only delivered unto them a pattern to frame their prayers by, I doubt they would have been much unſatisfied. It requireth no little skill or judgement, to follow a pattern well. It is not likely John Baptiſt his Diſciples were ſuch ready men all, that he would truſt them with a bare pattern. And whereas it is very probable (I am not alone that think ſo) that St. John's Diſciples were, if not known and diſcerned from others abroad (as the Pythagoreans by their〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) yet much united and faſtened among themſelves, by this prayer their Maſter had taught them: had34 it been a bare pattern, they might have jarred even unto Sects, and factions for all that: as we ſee all Chriſtians do not pray after one ſort, who pretend all to follow the ſame pattern.
This may be further confirmed by the conſideration of what was uſual among the Jews. Now ſo it is, (it cannot be denyed, but by them that are paſt ſhame, who to advantage that cauſe, whatſoever it is, to which their Intereſt hath wedded them, will adventure upon any thing) that the Jewes, time out of mind, had been uſed to ſet forms of prayer. That they uſed no other in private, and upon extraordinary occaſions, no man I think ever ſaid: but that in their ſolemn devotions, and moſt publick occaſions they did uſe ſet forms, all Proreſtants and Papiſts (as many as I have ſeen, or at this time remember) are conſenting. Firſt of Numb. 23.4, 6. who can doubt, but the words contain a preſcript form of Bleſsing, [In this wiſe, or in this ſet forme of words] the Annotations35 there. But it is one thing to bleſs, another to pray, ſay ſome. Indeed a man may pray, and neither bleſs nor curſe, that is certain: but to ſay, that bleſſing may not be the Subject of a prayer, either publick or private, as well as any thing elſe, is as ridiculous, as it is apparent, that this bleſſing here preſcribed, is a very formal prayer. The Text is as clear, 2 Chron. 29, 30. Hezekiah the King, and the Princes commanded the Levites to ſing praiſe unto the Lord, with the words of David, and Aſaph the Seer. And 1 Chron. 16. the Pſalmes (or pſalme, as there joyned) ſtand upon Record, that were appointed by David, and particularly verſe 35. And ſay yea, &c. the Annotations there: [It is a phraſe of incitation, &c. or, it is a direction to uſe this form, Hoſ. 14.2. Duke 11.2.] The latter Quotation, Luke 11.2. referring to theſe very words and ſubject we are now upon. Pſalm the 20. is a form of prayer, or interceſſion, as the pſalm following of Thankſgiving,36 as moſt Interpreters do agree. Divers others pſalmes there be intended for ſet forms, upon ſeveral occaſions, obſerved by moſt Interpreters. Ainſworth upon the 24. pſalm, out of a paſſage of Maimonides, ſhews what pſalm was appointed for every day of the weeke, at the time of Divine ſervice, long before Chriſt: and ſome of thoſe pſalms, I am ſure, though commonly called pſalms or ſongs; are prayers and interceſſions, and nothing elſe; as particularly, Pſalm 94. Others tell us of whole Liturgies, (or publick ſervice-books) of thoſe dayes yet extant, in part: after which I ſhall not need to make further enquiry at this time, becauſe I think I have ſaid enough to this purpoſe; and no more, I think, but will eaſily be granted.
It was proper enough, I think, to take notice of thoſe things, obſerved by St. Luke certainly, for their further ſatisfaction, (in this very point) that ſhould need it. But now we are come to the words themſelves, I would deſire the37 Reader, for a while to forget all that hath been ſaid hitherto, (but withal, to lay aſide, if it were poſſible, all prejudice and partiality) and when he hath read the words in St. Luke, (And he ſaid unto them, When ye pray, ſay, Our Father, &c.) to conſider with himſelf, whether he think any thing wanting to them, to make them plain, and expreſs enough. I will ſay more; let it be granted, (for a while at leaſt) that Chriſt intended thoſe words, as a form of prayer to be uſed by his Diſciples, and by conſequent, by ſuch as ſhould pretend to him in after-ages: I would have the Reader to pauſe and conſider with himſelf, what words more expreſs, more pregnant and ſignificant, could be uſed to that purpoſe, to prevent all doubts and evaſions. The words themſelves run in the form of a prayer, that, no man doth deny: and therefore a man would think, had there been no more in the Text, but; And he ſaid, Our Father, &c. his intention had been plain enough, You ſhall pray thus: that is not38 more expreſs, but more binding. But when you pray, ſay: for my part, I muſt confeſs, what words could have been uſed more expreſs, or more binding, I can think of none. I deny not, but Chriſt might have uſed more words. He might have ſaid, had he pleaſed, or thought fit: You ſhall have your deſire: I will teach you, what you ſhall ſay. You ſhall have a form of prayer from me, which you may uſe: nay, what you made your requeſt, I ſhall lay upon you, and all Chriſtians of all ages, as a duty: When ye pray, ſay: In your beſt devotions, though you uſe other prayers, as your particular occaſions ſhall require; yet uſe this, as your beſt prayer, Our Father, &c. He might have ſaid, I know the time will come, when men out of an high conceit of their own parts, and in oppoſition to others, whom they ſhall uſe, or have uſed ſo and ſo, will not allow theſe words to be preſcribed by me as a form of prayer, &c. Some ſuch words, I grant, might have been ſpoken: but as there39 is no part of Scripture ſo clear or ſo generally received, but may be abuſed, quarrelled, denyed; ſo is there as little reaſon for any ſuch words in this, as in any other place, that hath afforded matter of ſtrife, and contention in any age of the world.
After ſuch evidence of Scripture, that is, of the word of God: the conſent or authority of man may be thought ſuperfluous. And what if all men, all Chriſtians that have been hitherto, in all places, in all ages of the world, had not all been of one opinion about it, would not, ſhould not, the greateſt part have ſerved? would it not have become men, that pretend to honour the Scripture ſo much, as the Word of God; and to be ſuch enemies to them that diſhonour it; have become them, I ſay, where the Text is ſo clear and expreſs, to have adhered unto it, even againſt the conſent of the major part? Should we believe nothing as Chriſtians, but what is cleerly declared in Scripture,40 & may be ſaid to have been aſſented unto by Chriſtians, in all ages, and places without any contradiction or oppoſition: I doubt our faith would be much abridged. But we muſt be as good as our undertaking. If we have not general conſent of former and latter ages, (ſo far as can be found out by Hiſtory: thoſe new men of the late reformation excepted) evidence of Scripture ſhall be no good plea for us; will forfeit our cauſe.
Some it may be will here expect, that we ſhould begin to ſearch into ancient Records and Monuments for the opinion and practice of the ancient Chriſtians, and primitive times of the Church: which with all that are not blinded by faction and ſelf-love, muſt needs be of great Authority. But others with more reaſon would think, I might better have ſpared this labour, ſince I have to do with men, who as either ſufficiently convicted of the truth of our plea, in this particular; or becauſe they think41 it not worth the while (truſting to their own pretended illumination) to take the pains to enquire further into it, will ſooner yield to us the matter of fact, then contend about it; and only except againſt the validity of the example, or authority, alledging for themſelves, that whether it be ſo or no, they do not think themſelves bound to follow them. If you ask them the reaſon, they will tell you, becauſe they were but men, and might err. Let the Reader remember, that the expreſs letter of the Word of God, was yielded unto us before: and now we are to come to the conſent or authority of men, we are told, that men are but men, not Gods. But we go on. They were but men, they ſay; truly I ſay ſo too, they were but men, not Gods; but, men that lived ſo many ages nearer to the ſource and ſpring of that infallible authority then familiarly converſant, (we ſpeak now of the ancienteſt, or primitive Chriſtians:) and reſident among men. 42Men, who generally forſook all things that are deareſt unto men uſually, (for which things many in this age, make nothing to forſake their former faith:) to adhere unto Chriſt: Men, by whoſe holineſs of life, and intolerable (to fleſh and blood) ſufferings for Chriſt, more than by their preaching, whole kingdomes and Nations of Pagans and Infidels were gained to the faith of Chriſt: and why the conſent of ſuch, ſo many, in ſeveral ages; in different places of the world, ſhould not be more conſiderable: but I will proceed no further in the compariſon. Certainly, if any man (not engag'd by worldly intereſts) can be ſo ſimple, as not, of himſelf, to be ſenſible; I will not expect that any reaſoning can reſtore him. And why ſhould it be a wonder to a rational man, that ſome are ſo ſimple among Chriſtians, who knows that natural fools and Idiots, are little leſs than worſhipped by the Turks (the great Conquerors of the world) for no other43 reſpect, but becauſe fools and Idiots? We therefore take it for granted, untill we know of any that oppoſe it; that we have (beſides cleer Scripture; Conſenſum & conſuetudinem, the general conſent and practiſe of one thouſand and five hundred, or ſix hundred years on our ſide. But it will not be amiſs, to ſet down ſome of their words for the better ſatisfaction of the Reader. Ultimò, ſequitur tritum illud vestrum & Papiſticum argumentum (ſaith Johnſon before named) de conſuetudine mille quingentorum annorum. (Let the Reader take notice, that he calls this preſcription of 1500 years, arpopiſh argument, whereby he doth yield to Papiſts, much more than I would, or can: I know nothing among them truly popiſh, that can preſcribe to ſo much antiquity) De quo•etiam ſi•constat, quod vos pro conceſſo ſumitis, hoc tamen ſemper tenendum, vocem Dei in Scriptura eſſe regulam ſidei, &c. He doth not ſay, it is altogether ſo, but whether ſo, or no, (for he brings nothing to diſprove44 it:) his evaſion is, conſent of many men or ages, is nothing, becauſe the Scripture only is our rule. And again, a little after, Poſtrema tua ratio petita eſt ab authoritate Patrum, ut vocantur, quos certum in multis erraſſe, &c. Here we have the conſent of the Fathers yielded to us. We would commend their modeſty for yielding to the truth ſo far; if at the ſame time, they did not more immodeſtly oppoſe their own judgements to the acknowledged conſent and authority of ſo many ages; and ſo many, much better men, than themſelves can pretend unto.
So from former times, we come now to latter, or preſent. We will not mention the Papiſts, (ſo called) though no man can deny, but there be among them, men of great learning, and I believe, religious: but becauſe there is no queſtion of their conſent, and their authority not ſo much ſtood upon by them we have to do with: therefore needleſs here, as I imagine. As for Proteſtant45 Divines, or others, I think we need not ſearch into the writings of particular men, and trouble the Reader with multitude of quotations, which every body that can read, and hath acceſs to books, may eaſily ſtore himſelf with, if he will: the practiſe of all Proteſtant Churches in all places of Europe, (I can give no account of Independent Conventicles) which may appear by different Formularies and Liturgies by them ſet out, as the beſt evidence of their opinions generally, ſo I ſuppoſe will give beſt ſatisfaction: ſo that although ſome particular acknowledged Protestant Writer ſhould be found to be of another mind, yet it can be no prejudice to what we have ſaid of their general conſent. Now for their Formularies, in a buſineſs ſo expoſed to every mans ſcrutiny, that will take any paines to ſatisfie himſelf: I ſhall not uſe many words: I have ſome, have had, and ſeen many more, in ſeveral languages: never yet lighted upon any,46 in which the Lords Prayer was not preſcribed, to be uſed by Preiſts and people in expreſſe termes, as in the Goſpel. So upon confidence, that this alſo will be granted unto us, I ſhall forbeare further labour. As for particular authors: though I ſaid before, we cannot undertake for, nor are indeed bound to take notice of every particular man: yet I may truly ſay, no ſuch is known unto me, either by any reading in former times, or by any quotation, that I have met with in others upon this occaſion. Calvin ſaith of it in his Inſtitutions, as much as I would deſire, and ſo in his Harmony: but that he hath an expreſſion, which might be wondered at: (non jubet nos conceptis verbis uti) had he not preſently after explained himſelf, by a more full expreſſion, ut nuper dixi, &c. They do him great wrong therefore, that would perſwade us otherwiſe of him, taking the advantage of ſome particular words when his meaning both by his practiſe (witneſſe thoſe Formularies ſet out in his time, printed at47 Geneva) and by his writings is ſo eaſily known. Neither ought we to wonder, if neither Calvin, or any other, whilſt they commend unto us the Lords Prayer, be careful, at the ſame time, to prevent, that their words might not be drawn to a wrong ſenſe, as though they commended it as the only prayer to be uſed either publikely, or privatly: which would be a great and dangerous miſtake: but of that more afterward. I have mentioned Luther ſomewhere, as a great admirer of this holy Prayer. It ſhall not be amiſs therefore to ſet down ſome of his words. In his Enchiridium piarum precationum, which I have by it ſelf, in a handſome forme: but in his workes alſo, in the Wittenburg. edit. (A. D. 1558) to be found: he ſaith; Sum autem plane certus, Chriſtianum ſatis abunde oraſſe, ſi Orationem Dominicam, vere ac rectè oret: quocunque id tempore, & quamcunque ejus volet partem. Ne que enim ſi multum verborum numeres, ideo bona est oratio: quod Chriſtus quoque teſtatur, Math. 6. Sed ſi crebrò, ac cum magno ardore ad Deum ſuſpires.
And again in the ſame book: Ubi ad48 verbum totam Orationem Dominicam recitavi, partem unam, aut plures, ſi libet, repeto, &c. and concludes: Hic meus eſt orandi mos, et ratio. Nam quotidie adhuc Orationem hanc Dominicam, quodammodo ſugo, uti infantulus: bibo, & mando, uti adultus; nec tamen ea ſatiari poſſum. Atque etiam dulcior & gratior mihi eſt ipſis Pſalmis, quibus tamen mirificè & unice delector: quos & maximi facio. Profectò res ipſa clamat, à ſummo & praeſtantiſsimo artifice, eam orationem eſſe compoſitam, & praeformatam.
In another Treatiſe he ſaith: Cum haec Oratio à Chriſto habeat originem, debet indubitanter eminentiſsima, nobiliſsima, optimaque cenſeri: quâ ſi meliorem ſciviſſet integerrimus ac fideliſsimus magister, eam quoque nos ille docuiſſet. I will not undertake for the exactneſs or propriety of the expreſſion, (in thoſe words, ſi meliorem ſciviſſet) which the vehemency of his admiration and affection ſuggeſted unto him. It would make a man ſuſpect, that even in thoſe dayes, he had met with ſome that thought, they49 could pray as well, if not better, and perchance under pretence of imitation, would have been content (if they might) to leave it out of their publike devotions. But I do but ſuſpect. It is apparent, he was a great admirer of it, and had very great zeale to it; and for it. Luther's zeale to this prayer, puts me in minde of Ludovicus Vives, a Papiſt indeed, not a Proteſtant, but generally acknowledged a learned, wiſe, devout man: he hath written a Commentary, as he calls it, upon the Lords prayer. How zealouſly he was affected towards it, and how much he had it in admiration, his preface will ſhew; it is well worth the reading. But of Proteſtant Divines, I make no queſtion, but a man might make a whole book, that ſhould collect their ſeveral Elogies, and teſtimonies concerning this Prayer, as it is a forme of prayer; but that it is not our buſineſs here. Generall conſent is the thing that we contend for, and upon which we have in part grounded our caſe, in the ſtating of it. And50 for that we have appealed to the Formularies, that are extant of moſt Proteſtant Churches beyond the ſeas: which is the moſt direct and pertinent proof, that any man can expect. And if we knew any thing objected by any body in oppoſition to what we mantaine, we would take notice of it. I find nothing of that nature in Johnſon, before ſpoken of, though Carpenter had not omitted it, but put it to him in direct termes. Nullane Proteſtantium Eccleſia praeter veſtram Synagogulam oculos habuit, aut mentem? An vos ſoli ſapitis, &c. (in St. Auguſtin's words againſt Donatus) to which particular I finde no anſwer at all, though the anſwer, (as called) be large and tedious in general beyond meaſure. It ſeemes therefore he could not deny it, but all Proteſtant Churches were of another mind. If he had known any, certainly we ſhould have heard of it. What notice therefore I have taken of particular men, as Luther and Calvin; is over and above, becauſe of their eminency: Perkins in51 England, his authority would once have gone a great way, with thoſe men eſpecially, that pretended to more than ordinary ſtrictneſſe in religion. What his opinion was in this matter, ſhall be ſeen at the end, where we take notice of ſome objections.
But now ſince we have named ſome particular men, and have ſeen what devotion they had (Luther eſpecially) to this holy Prayer: with what zeale, and admiration they ſpeak of it: let it not paſſe without ſome further obſervation. I make no queſtion, but the like may be ſaid, and obſerved of divers others eminently pious and learned in all ages. I have heard of ſome particularly in our age; men of great fame, that have profeſſed to receive ſingular comfort of it, which might alſo be gathered by their frequent uſe of it in time of ſickneſſe. Now I would gladly know of thoſe men (and I wiſh they would take it into their ſerions conſideration) of thoſe men, I ſay, who not only forbeare the uſe of52 it themſelves, but alſo forbid it to others; and when uſed in their preſence, have ſhewed much trouble and indignation, as it is reported of ſome and may be true, for ought I know, of many more: whether it be likely, or poſſible, that ſuch averſeneſs and antipathy in them: ſuch zeale and devotion in others, whom themſelves perchance will not deny to have been pious and religious; ſhould proceed from one and the ſame ſpirit. And if they cannot find in their hearts to ſay, or to thinck, that it was a ſpirit of illuſion, that led thoſe good and godly men unto ſuch eſteeme and admiration of this prayer: from what ſpirit can their antipathy proceed? For my part (and I doubt not but it is the mind of many thouſand Chriſtians in England beſides) though I know my ſelf too great a ſinner to expect that God ſhould afford me thoſe extraordinary raviſhing contentments and delights of the ſoule, which I believe he hath done, and doth unto many, more deſerving; in the uſe of53 this holy prayer: Yet I ſhould be very ſorry, it ſhould be in the power of any man living, to bereave me of that right and priviledge I have, as a Chriſtian, unto it, and the uſe of it, whileſt I live: and I ſhall ever believe, that a reverent uſe, and high eſteem of it, as immediately proceeding from, and commended unto us by ſuch a ONE, to whom all manner of adoration is due; is no ſmall part of that worſhip we owe unto God.
All things that have been ſaid hitherto well conſidered, it may perchance make ſome wonder in ſome, what ſhould induce men; ſome, learned, and conſcientious otherwiſe; (as it is to be hoped:) but however, men, that profeſſe Chriſtianity; to be ſo ſet againſt this prayer, that beareth the name of the Lord and Saviour of men: and I remember an obſervation in Ariſtotle, that, to give full ſatisfaction in a doubtful buſines,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We ſhould not only tell what is truth, but alſo take paines to diſcover54 the ground of the error, or that which is falſe. Firſt then it muſt be granted, that even before theſe times, there were ſome in the world, that begun to hatch this monſter: but being but few and inconſiderable, ſtanding divided from all the Reformed Churches in Europ; it leaves a wonder ſtill, their opinion ſhould be embraced by men accounted ſober, and making profeſſion of the proteſtant Religion. We ſay therefore in the ſecond place, that the ſpirit of Enthaſiuſme, ſince the reines of order and diſcipline have been looſe, and all liberty left unto men (Papiſts and Prelaticall, for ſo it pleaſeth them to joyne us, only excepted) to follow their own fancies in all things belonging to Gods worſhip; having much prevailed (as it hath done in ſome ages of the world before this) among us, men have been very prone, to think themſelves inſpired in the uſe of their extemporary faculty, which formerly (and it may be, formerly too much neglected) they had not been ſo well acquainted55 with: and through ignorance of Nature, and former times, (as hath been declared, and proved at large elſewhere ▪) did apprehend a ſupernatural cauſe, where indeed there was no cauſe at all: and this probably might make them by degrees, to loath and contemn this holy prayer. A third reaſon may be, the violence of oppoſition:〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as St. Baſil called it; Prelatical men having been uſed as they have been, put out of all, ſilenced, made incapable &c. it was very conſequent, their cauſe ſhould be made as odious, as art and invention could make it.
God forbid I ſhould take upon me to excuſe any thing that hath been amiſſe. If I did not believe of myſelfe, there was ſomewhat of that kind (in Church, or Commonwealth, or both:) yet the judgments of God (whom I believe to be moſt juſt) ſo great, and ſo heavy, would make me think ſo. But, why ſo many things formerly practiſed and obſerved in the Church of England, as for example; publike Catechiſing, ſo neceſſary to uphold56 Chriſtianity among men, though not ſo pleaſing to itching eares, as ordinary preaching is: the uſe of the Sacraments, which in divers Pariſhes, where formerly duly adminiſtred, are now ſcarce known, or named: the obſervation of ſome principall holydayes, as the anniverſary commemoration of the birth of Chriſt, of his Reſurrection &c. by which (though abuſed by profane men, as all things may be) the faith of moſt was much confirmed, honour and homage, in the moſt ſolemne manner, done unto Chriſt; not to mention ſome more private things; as childrens dayly asking their Parents bleſsing upon their knees, (a cuſtome, though not elſewhere obſerved, that I know of; yet much commended by many ſtrangers, that have ſeen the practiſe of it in England, as I can witneſs:) and the like; and among the reſt, the reverent uſe of this holy prayer: why theſe I ſay, and the like ſhould be ſo neglected, diſcountenanced, and, (in ſome places, at leaſt) in a manner abrogated, having oftentimes thought57 of it with grief, I can give my ſelf no reaſon more ſatisfactory to my wondering, than that it is done in oppoſition to the former Clergy, becauſe by them religiouſly obſerved: Such is the nature of oppoſition; eſpecially where private intereſt doth oblige. But yet, after all this, as to this particular of the Lords Prayer: to ſpeak my mind freely: I look upon it, rather as a judgement, than an error: or if an error, yet as the puniſhment of another: this, juſtly inflicted for ſomewhat, that was more willfull and arbitrary. Let their own conſciences tell them (profeſt Miniſters, or Clergy men I mean; I have nothing to do with others) whether they have not, ſomewhat againſt conſcience for politick ends, fiercely oppoſed (I will not ſay perſecuted) ſomewhat, (once, the glory of the Engliſh Reformation) which though it pretend not to Divine authority, yet may pretend to the beſt of things eſtabliſhed by humane, among men. And, what if the more oppoſed, becauſe this very prayer58 is part of it, too great a part of it, as they pretend? May not we think therefore that this hath happened to them, as a judgement, that their follie might be made manifeſt? But I will not be too bold upon ſecret judgements: though I have their example, if that would acquit me before God. Sure I am, and I think I may boldly ſpeake it; thoſe Chriſtians have much to anſwer for, who upon ſo little ground of reaſon, and againſt ſuch manifeſt Scripture, could ſo eaſily be drawn away from that piety, which they were bred unto, and in a manner, ſuckt from their mothers breſt; by the example, or perſwaſion of ſuch leaders. But thus it is (and no wonder) when a people is once come to that, as to reduce, (with thoſe falſe Iſraelites, the Prophet Ezekiel deſcribes chap. 33. v. 31, 32.) all religion to the pleaſure of the eare. And for them that are ſuch, for ought I ſee, let them but have what they affect, they may quickly be brought to ſwallow any thing, be it the groſſeſt point of Popery; and59 yet think themſelves very religious; yea, (if their Preachers tell them ſo) good Proteſtants.
There ſeems nothing to remain, but ſome objections to be taken notice of. But I would omit no means untried. Some things, though more remote in ſight, may ſometimes work more with ſome, than more concluding proofs, Et quae non proſunt ſingula, multa juvant. This Prayer is commonly called, The Lords Prayer, and there is reaſon for it; & there's a day call'd, the Lords day, (more properly ſo, than The Sabbath:) we will ſee what we may draw from this common appellation, or denomination from the ſame Lord. Our beginning may be thought ſomewhat remote. They that are more quick, will ſoon perceive, what we drive at. Others, I deſire them to have patience, and to read to the end, before they judge.
I do not know any thing, whereby a man may ſooner and ſurer find himſelf, whether he be a true Chriſtian indeed, a true Convert, or believer:60 then by the generality or ſimplicity (rightly, underſtood) of his obedience, and conformity to the Laws and Commands of Chriſt. I will not go to the Planets or Climates, to fetch a reaſon. I will not believe, (though the Patrons of Aſtrologie, do not ſtick to ſay it) that any man is born, either a Murderer or an Adulterer. But ſure it is, that all men are not born by their natural complexion, with equal advantage or diſadvantage, to either vertue or vice. Some have none, or few notable vices: not ſo much, or perchance not at all, out of any love or knowledge of goodneſs, but becauſe they find no inclination to be evil. They love, every body: are not malicious perchance, not revengefull; it is their nature, not religion. Humble, quiet, temperate in all things: it is their nature. We may ſay of them, as Seneca of thoſe of the Golden age, Ignorantiâ rerum, innocentes erant. Multum autem intereſt, utrum peccare aliquis nolit, aut neſciat. Some of theſe natural Innocents61 (as to the world, and the publick) it may be, there are yet in the world, men and women, in ſome places. We are bound in the judgement of Charity, to account them vertuous, to honour and admire them as ſuch, becauſe we ſee their works: we cannot judge of their hearts. But if they have no other motive to goodneſs than nature, or cuſtome, or education; I know not how far it may acquit them from worſe: I am very confident it will never bring them to heaven. So far, wiſe Heathens have gone, who plainly teach and determine, that without〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (reference to God) no man is truly vertuous or innocent, though he may appear ſo outwardly by his actions. So the wiſer Heathens; others, in ſtead of God, they ſay, Reaſon; non eſt virtus, cui non conſtat ratio, diſputed at large by Seneca, and others. But thoſe ſo generally innocent (in ſight) by nature; I doubt they are not many, except they be innocents indeed, in another ſenſe. 62Moſt men are of a mixt temper, as to vice, ſo to ſome vertue. Some men are not given to women: though there were no Laws to bind them, one wife doth ſerve their turn very well: Chaſtity is their vertue. It may be, as little ſubject to Wine: they look upon all exceſs in that kind, as the effects of brutiſh ſenſuality. But then for malice, or envy, or pride, perchance covetouſneſs (which all good natured men, as we call them, do much about) theſe, all, or ſome of them, are ſo natural unto them, that though they are told what they are, and known for ſuch, by all that know them; yet themſelves know it not; and though perchance they do not care to have many like themſelves, yet they will ſooner believe them fools and Idiots that are not, than be perſwaded out of their humour: it is ſo natural and pleaſing. That man, that is all vice, without any natural propenſity to ſome vertue, is not a bad, or vicious man properly, but a Monſter: and ſo indeed ſet out by63 the Satyrick, Monſtrum nulla virtute redemptum A vitiis: and, Illaudatus in the beſt of Poets, (very ſignificantly) a man that could be commended for nothing; when he intended (as antient Grammarians well obſerve) the worſt of men, a Monſter, ſuch a one as Buſiris was, of whom it is ſpoken. I cannot tell, how eaſie generally; but certainly the way to heaven would be much eaſier, might we but take a liberty, to what is moſt natural unto us, and yet be good Chriſtians. He that is vertuous indeed, that is, for God and conſcience-ſake, is, though not equally inclined by nature, yet equally reſolved in his mind, to whatſoever is either commanded, or forbidden by God in his Word. If he be vicious in ſome kind (as who not?) more than another, it is not becauſe he thinks better of his vice, or for want of ſtriving againſt it: but becauſe as yet he hath not, (to his great grief and ſorrow) been able to maſter his nature: and it may be, long ſtriving, if ſincere64 and real, may prove at laſt, through Gods Mercy, to his advantage. This, I think, is a very ſure way, for every man to examine himſelf. And this is the way that St. Paul went to convince the Jewes, in a place. The Jewes in St. Pauls time were no idolators. They had been in former ages: they were now free from that ſin: it is not laid to their charge no where in the New Teſtament. St. Jerome obſerves it very particularly, and ſome others alſo. They extreamly abhorred all other Nations of the world upon that ſcore, and deemed them altogether unworthy of Gods mercy. St. Paul appeals to their conſciences: he tels them firſt, that in other things that were forbidden as well as Idolatry; as, Theft, Adultery, &c. they could not but know themſelves guilty generally, as well as the Gentiles. He comes at laſt to that very thing, wherein was their greateſt confidence, they were not Idolaters; Thou, ſaith he, that abhorreſt Idols, doſt thou commit ſacriledge? 65I will not enquire how far the Jews were guilty of that great ſin, Sacriledge, in thoſe dayes: It is enough for our preſent occaſion, that St. Paul, to abate their confidence in that they moſt truſted to, doth object unto them one great ſin which they could not acquit themſelves of: and it is poſſible, he did inſiſt upon Sacriledge particularly, as a prophet, for the inſtruction of after-ages, as foreſeeing that this horrible ſin of Sacriledge would be committed ordinarily, and frequently (the time would come) under pretence of hatred to Idolatry.
Well: we return where we began: as there is a day in the week, called The Lords Day: ſo there is a prayer as ordinarily called, in all ages ſince Chriſt, the Lords prayer: Both pretend unto the Lord, and the ſame Lord; the Saviour and Redeemer of the world. I would fain know what is the reaſon, that ſome ſhew ſo much zeal to the one, beyond what hath been known or practiſed66 in any age among Chriſtians, or is at this day, in any place of the world, beſides England, and thoſe places that have relation to it; grounding upon Scriptures, of which there is great controverſie, and variety of opinion among learned Proteſtants, as may appear by their Writings; and towards the other, of which never was any queſtion before, but unanimous both practiſe and opinion, among Chriſtians of all ages; towards that, they ſhew ſo little zeal and affection? Truly, I think, as our Repentance, our obedience, ſhould be general, and abſolute, if true and real: ſo ſhould our zeal too, if true zeal: Nay, St. James ſaith it poſitively, that true zeal, (he ſpeaks it of〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Wiſdome, immediately: but he began with〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: and what he ſayes of Wiſdome, belongs unto zeal, as the chief ſubject and occaſion: for ſo indeed the word〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉ought to have been tranſlated here, as I conceive; Zeal: as well as Rom. 10.2. They have zeal, &c. and67 not envying. No man doth glory of envying, but of zeal, many, God knows, without cauſe, 10.14. And verſe 16. Zeal and strife, or contention, that is, a contentious zeal, by a noted Scripturefigure) is〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without partiality: a pregnant weighty word.
I will not enter into any diſputation here, or interpoſe any thing of mine own Judgement or Opinion, concerning the obſervation of the Lords day: This I ſay, which no man can deny: It can never be ſhewed, that ſuch preciſeneſs was ever uſed, or thought neceſſary in the obſervation of it, as is required by ſome men. Firſt, for Practiſe: The firſt Emperour that was a Chriſtian, and ſetled Chriſtianity in the world, made a Law, it might be lawfull (in caſe of unſeaſonable weather) to gather the fruits of the earth upon the Sunday. I know that Law was afterwards repealed, and I know what is ſaid by ſome, it was made in favour of the Gentiles, and not for Chriſtians. 68I will not argue it here: but it is well known, there is enough to be ſaid beſides of former times. If we look upon the practice of Proteſtant Churches, (which I think will go further with many) in Geneva, in Calvin's time at leaſt, how then it was, cannot but be known unto moſt, becauſe obſerved by many: I will forbear the particulars. In the Low-Countries, till the Synod of Dort (it is a ſhame, I confeſs) nothing almoſt was unlawful upon that day: And it is obſerved in courſe of Hiſtory, Monks and Friers were the firſt, that brought this preciſeneſs in faſhion in England.
Now for the Opinions of Proteſtant Divines beyond the ſeas, I know not of any at all, that have gone ſo far as the Engliſh: nayther indeed hath it been much queſtioned, till of late Gomarus, a great Anti-Arminian (upon information perchance of what was done in England, under pretence of Zeal) his Inveſtigatio Sabbatbi, who indeed69 doth go very far, as not allowing either name Diem Dominicum, in that ſenſe, as commonly underſtood, or thing as grounded upon any authority of either Old or New Teſtament. He was oppoſed by Dr. Riuet, the moſt authentick of theſe late times, but with great moderation; who alſo, though diſſenting in other things, doth yield unto him, (and Gomarus in his Reply, is not little pleaſed with it) that the obſervation of one day of ſeaven, hath no ground at all upon the fourth Commandment, or Old Teſtament. Dr. Prideaux, the publick Profeſſor of Divinity in Oxford for many years before theſe late wars, (a man generally accounted by the preciſer ſort, as well as others, till this late Reformation, and that he was a Biſhop, both learned and godly) did publickly maintain at a ſolemn Act in Oxford, almoſt as much as Gomarus, and quotes divers Proteſtant Divines, as Calvin, Bullinger, Urſinus, and others, for his opinion. The Book is tranſlated70 into Engliſh: the Reader may do well not to reſt upon what I ſay, but to peruſe the book it ſelf, being made ſo common and vulgar: it may be, he will not repent his labour. Walaeus, another Proteſtant Divine, no obſcure man, neither; is the man, who, of all out-landiſh Writers I have ſeen, hath written, or may be thought to have written moſt, (though long before) in complyance to theſe times: yet even he, where he tells us of the Edicts of the Synod of Dort, for the more ſtrict obſervation of that day, commends their moderation, in that they did not condemn them that were of a different opinion; in his Preface; and in his Book, he allows very well of Conſtantine's Law, for liberty upon Sundayes in harveſttime, when the weather proves unſeaſonable; as alſo of moderate and civil recreations upon that day, ſo it be after the publick ſervice of the day performed, and not before, or between.
Now for the Scriptures, which are71 the Rule of our faith, if a man look upon the Old Teſtament, upon a ſuppoſition, that what is there concerning the Jewiſh Sabbath, is applyable (a thing not eaſily proved) to the Lords day, or Sunday of the Chriſtians: ſo he ſhall find many things both in the Law, and in the Prophets, that may be thought to require great preciſeneſs. But if we look into the New Teſtament, (our moſt immediate Rule, as Chriſtians) there will not, neither in all that is recorded of Chriſt, as either ſpoken or done by him in the four Goſpels; nor in all the Writings of his Apoſtles, any thing be found, that doth make that way, but rather to the contrary: which is ſome wonder, if it were ſo material to Chriſtianity: eſpecially, after ſo much recorded in the Goſpels of Chriſts ſpeeches, tending, in ordinary conſtruction, to the abrogation of that legal or ceremonial preciſeneſs. And it may be further obſerved, that thoſe (for the moſt part) who commonly preſs thoſe72 paſſages of the Old Teſtament, concerning the Sabbath, notwithſtanding that ſo much is to be ſaid againſt the pertinency of thoſe allegations: yet in other things, as in matter of uſury (contrary to the opinion and practiſe of moſt of the old Clergy, or prelatical men,) they can ſwallow abundance of Texts, which in all probability (though I conclude nothing) ſhould make it unlawfull, at leaſt, in Clergy men. For my part, as I ſaid before, I conclude nothing; and I hope the ingenuous charitable Reader, will not conclude from any thing I have ſaid of the Lords day, that I am againſt the religious, yea, and ſtrict (in ſome reſpects) obſerving of it. I am not, I never was: I will ſay more: if a man be not fully reſolved and ſatisfied about this point, but though he have taken pains to be ſatisfied, ſtands in a kind of Aequilibrium, or Even-ballance, between both opinions, ſo that for ought he knows either of them may prove true, or falſe; in ſuch a caſe, provided73 that he condemn not others, that go another way; ſuch eſpecially, as do it with a〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉of faith and conſcience, as to themſelves, (men otherwiſe religious in their life and converſation) and that he make it not a cloak of diſobedience, to oppoſe lawfull, Authority, which in all things lawfull or doubtfull, ought to be obeyed: in ſuch a caſe, Iſay, with theſe cautions we have inſerted: I hold it much ſafer, according to the old ſaying, Peccare in meliorem partem: to be more preciſe, than he need perchance; then (for ought he knows) to take more liberty upon that day, than God hath allowed. But the caſe being ſo, between the Lords day, and the Lords Prayer: that of the one, no queſtion hath ever been among Chriſtians: of the other, (as to that which is required by ſome, that would be thought moſt zealous) much queſtion and controverſie: how this can ſtand with true impartial zeal and piety, that the one ſhould be ſo74 much preſſed; and the other ſo little regarded, I leave it to the unpartiall reader, his further and ſober conſideration.
I might very well end here. For after ſo much light of Scripture, and ſo much weight of authority, (the beſt that can be deſired in a cauſe) I make ſome queſtion, whether it be ſo lawfull and warrantable, to give eare to any objection. What if a man will undertake to prove by Scripture, that there is no ſuch thing, as the Reſurection of the dead, or the immortality of the ſoul: there is Scripture enough (it is true) for both; to ſatisfy a man that is not wilfully blind, or factiouſly refractorie; a Quaker: an Anabaptiſt. However, he is but a poor Sophiſter, that cannot forme objections, yea frame arguments (in ſhew) out of the Scriptures againſt both. To diſpute with ſuch, is to yield to them (ſo it may thought, at leaſt) that they have ſome ground to doubt: and that is ſome wrong to the truth. Not to hear them, I75 hold it generally the beſt courſe; both for them, (if not paſt all hopes) to reclaim them: and for others, to keep them within ſobrietie. However, after ſo much premiſed, becauſe all men are not of one temper, and ſome more taken with ſleight, then weight, in point of reaſon: I will take notice of ſuch objections that I have mett with, or could think any way conſiderable.
Truely many are not ſo, eſpecially ſuch as I have met with in that Johnſon, before named. You ſhall have a taſte, if you pleaſe, that you may judge of the reſt. Heare then, I pray, one of his maine proofes, why what we call the Lords Prayer, cannot be a prayer: If it be ſo; ſaith he, as you ſay, (that, Our Father &c. is a prayer) I would know of you, whoſe prayer ſhall it be called? Chriſts: his Apostles: or ours? If you ſay Chriſts; why Christ did not ſo pray for himſelf: (elſe he that had no ſin, muſt be thought to have prayed for76 remiſsion of ſinnes, p. 22.) but taught his Diſciples ſo to pray. If you ſay, the Apostles: we do not finde in all the New Teſtament that they did ever uſe it. If you ſay: Ours: then it will follow, that we did pray before we were borne &c.
I am ſo farre from thinking, that this wants any refutation, that I cannot otherwiſe think, when I reade it; but that the man had ſom diſtemper in his braines: and had I been acquainted with him, I would freindly have perſwaded him to have gone to a phyſician: I am very confident, good phyſick would do more good, (if themſelves could be perſwaded,) to many, great ſticklers, and much followed, (ſuch hath allwayes been the palate of the generalitie, eſpecially when wordly ſucceſs doth countenance the act:) then all the arguing of the world. Well: you have had a taſt of this mans ſophiſtrie: you had my judgement of him before. In ſtead of a refutation, you ſhall hear what more77 ſober men (of theſe times) have written concerning this title, under which this holy prayer commonly paſſeth. Mr. Dan. Cawdry: and Mr. Herb. Palmer: members of the Aſſembly of Divines in Sabb. Rediv. or, the Chriſtian Sabbath. pag. 341. in the margin: over againſt theſe words in the Book: [Then beſides all that hath already been noted of the Lords Day, it is hereby alſo intitled to an Inſtitution from the the Lord himſelf: from Chriſt: as being paralell in phraſe, to the Lords ſupper: which beyond all peradventure, had no other inſtitution but Chriſt; &c.] There, in the margin: [The primitive Church ſeems to bear witneſſe to this, calling the Prayer inſtituted by Chriſt, by the ſame terme,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Oratio Dominica: neither can it ſignify any thing, but the prayer of the Lords institution, though the generations after, weakened this teſtimony, by calling Churches ſo.] I think, the laſt words, if they had thought fit, might have been ſpared: ſince it is certain that Churches were ſo called, for78 another reaſon; not becauſe inſtituted (particular Churches) by the Lord; but becauſe conſecrated (though now much abuſed, ſome by abominable profanation: & others, in ſome places irreligiouſly pulled down, to build private houſes, or to make mony) to the Lord. Walaeus had told them ſo long a go: [Sed nec ea conſequentia est neceſſaria, quia〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ſeu Dominicum vocari poteſt; non tantum quod ab ipſo Domino; ſed etiam quod ad ipſius memoriam, ut veteres loquuntur; aut in ipſius honorem, et adipſius cultum eſt inſtitutum: ſicut altare Domini, & feſtum Domini, &c.]
The next objection, that I ſhall take notice of, is ſuch a one, as the Reader perchance would not have expected, but I cannot ſatisfy my conſcience, if I ſhould conceale that from him, which, I confeſs, hath troubled me more, then all that I have read of that nature. I tooke notice before of what ſome particular men had ſaid of this holy prayer, as Luther, Calvin, and others. Now I ſhall tell the Reader70 with greif, I find learned Mr. Hugo Grotius, moſt cold in this point. For though he alſo ſay, (quod cum fructu fieri poteſt:) that is, he allowes the Lords prayer to be uſed as a Prayer, and ſaith it may be done profitably: yet taking all his words together upon this occaſion, I know not how to excuſe him. We ſhall conſider of ſome of them by and by. In the mean time, I would not have any man, either to wonder at it, or to value much his authority herein. There is no man can ſpeake ſo highly of him, either of his parts, or performances in all kind of learning, but I ſhall willingly ſubſcribe. However, nothing can be ſaid of him ſo high, that can make me think him more then a man,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: a mutable Creature, by nature (as Plato well defined him) as well in the affections of his ſoule, opinions of his minde; as temper, and condition of body. Salomon was a notable example; and after him, we need not wonder at any man. What hapned to Grotius in his latter dayes; I am loath80 to ſay: I wiſh his own books; Annotations upon the Scripture, and others ſince, did not ſo evidently proclaime. They that labour to excuſe him, if any do, they but laterem lavare: and will ſooner bring themſelves into ſuſpicion, than acquit him. Among other his extravagant conceits of his old age, one was, De communicando ſine Symbolis: or, Sine pastore; or to that effect: for I have it not at this time: which was anſwered by Sirmondus, or Petavius (I know not which: I am grown ſuch a ſtranger ſince theſe times of Reformation to thoſe books I once had and read) and as I take it, he made ſome kind of recantation, by diſavowing part of it. No wonder therefore, I ſay, if Grotius was no better friend (at that time) as to ſet prayers, in generall; ſo particularly, to this incomparable pattern and preſident of all ſet prayers, and preſcript formes. But Grotius, when trueſt Grotius, was I know, and can ſay it; a great admirer of the Church of England, as ſetled under King81 Charls the firſt, and other Princes of happy memory. Let the Reader gueſſe, to uſe no other arguments at this time; by what he wrote to me in a letter A. D. 1639. of Hooker his Eccleſiaſtical policie [Richardi Hookeri ſcripta ante annos multos vidi, & quanquam in ſermone mihi non percognito, facile cognovi exactiſſimi Operis utilitatem: quae tanta eſt, ut hunt quoque librum Verti, ſed in Latinum ſermonem pervelim. quaero ſi quis hic est, qui id efficere cupiat. caeterùm tibi id ipſum cordi eſſe velim.] Hence doth appeare, how deſirous he was, that Hookers bookes were turned into Latin, for the good he expected they would do, if more generally known. We have them in Engliſh, God be prayſed: but do we reade them? In very deed, ſuch is my opinion of that incomparable worke, that did not I believe the world (that is, the greateſt number of men) really mad, in the true Stoicall ſence: and that it is ſome degree of madneſs (eſpecially, after long warrs; confuſions and alterations of ſtates) to expect82 it otherwiſe: I would perſwade men that have been buyers of books theſe 15. or 16. yeares laſt paſt, to burn one halfe, at leaſt, of thoſe bookes they have bought, (they were as good do ſo, as to fell them for nothing) and to betake themſelves to the reading of Hooker: not doubting, but by that time they had read him once, or twice over accuratly, they would thank me for my advice; but God, much more, that put it into their hearts to follow it.
It may be ſome Readers would be better ſatisfyed, if I had produced the whole letter from which that paſſage was taken: others, more likely, ſhould I do it, would think I ſought occaſion to let the world know, how great I was, with that Great man. Truly, if the firſt will be granted unto me, I will not ſtick at the latter. I never was very prone to to ſeek acquaintances: I have had ſome opportunities, which I have declined. But Mr. Grotius did me the honour (Mr. 83Voſsius I think perſwaded him) to write to me the firſt letter, and ſo begun our acquaintance and communication. And truly, I will confeſs, I did aſcribe ſo much unto his worth, and ſingular integrity, I was not leſs proud (though I think not many can ſay, they ever heard me brag of it; nor any, that I ſhewed his Letters) of his acquaintance, then if it had been with the greateſt Prince of Europe. And though my love to the truth, hath compelled me to acknowledge ſo much of his inconſtancy in his latter dayes; yet my comfort is, (I have reaſon to believe it, as I have elſewhere declared) he dyed a good Chriſtian, and a Proteſtant; and my hope is, he hath a reward in heaven, for his zeal to the Chriſtian Religion, for which he hath written ſo excellently well, and his continual deſire and endeavours for peace: beſides his other performances, by which the honour of Learning hath been ſo much advanced. And if I may ſpeak the84 truth without offence, I verily believe his great diſlike of our doings in England, was no ſmall occaſion of his falling out with our Religion: beſides the unkind dealing, and vigorous oppoſition of ſome of his own Countrey, from whom he might have expected more favour, having raiſed that Nation to the higheſt pitch of Glory (in point of learning) that any Nation hath attained unto. Well, I am willing to believe, that ſome Reader will deſire to ſee the letter: but however that it may give leſs offence, (if any offence at all) it ſhall not be here, but at the end, where it may be taken in, or left, as the Reader ſhall think fit.
This great block in my way removed, as I hope it is, we proceed to objections. We do not find, ſay ſome, (and I find it in Grotius too) upon any Record of Scripture, that either Chriſt, or his Apoſtles, did uſe this prayer. We ſaid before, he doth not deny, but it may be done cum fructu: but he doth85 not make that the chief, or principal uſe of it. For my part, grant me the uſe of it as a Prayer, and ſo intended by Chriſt himſelf: I think it very needleſs to contend with any man about the reſt: whether intended principally as a Prayer, or a direction to Prayer. If it be a Prayer, there is no queſtion to be made, and it will follow by neceſſary conſequence, that it is a Direction of Prayer alſo, as it is his prayer, who ſpake nothing, did nothing, but is ſet out unto us for our (according to our power) imitation; our Lord and Maſter Jeſus Christ. Yet if we muſt ſay ſomewhat to that buſineſs, I would ſay, but without contention, I ſhould think that principally intended by Chriſt, which was moſt direct and pertinent to the requeſt, made unto him by his Diſciples. Now if it be granted, (which hath been ſpoken to before) that what his Diſciples deſired, was a form of Prayer: what will follow upon it, any man may gather. But I determine nothing86 peremtorily: I will leave every man to his own Judgement, in this particular. Well, the objection is, We do not find that Chriſt, &c. as before. I know that Grotius is not the firſt that hath ſo argued: I am ſorry it can be ſaid, that a man of his judgement did ever entertain this, as a material objection. No ſober man, I think (and this alſo before ſpoken of,) will deny, but that a very form of bleſſing is preſcribed by God, Numb. 6.23. &c. Yet we do not find it in the whole Scripture. Again, We have a form of baptizing preſcribed. Mat. 28. by Chriſt himſelf, In the name of the Father, &c. but no example of it elſewhere, that I know of in the New Teſtament, though we read of many baptized by the Apoſtles and others: and I think to this day, is a form of Baptiſm among Chriſtians, in all places. We might inſiſt in many more ſuch things; out of the Old and New Teſtament, if need were.
Some preſs this further: not only this Prayer is not found uſed, as a87 Prayer, but neither in the Acts, nor any of the Epiſtles, though divers things concerning Prayer in general, are there preſcribed: yet no mention at all of this Prayer is made. This may be thought to have a ſhew of ſomewhat: but in effect, it proves nothing, as by divers inſtances, of the ſame nature, if fearch be made, will appear. Act. 20.35. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; is mentioned, as one of Chriſt his memorable ſayings, which yet in none of the fouer Evangeliſts is found. We can make but a negative argument of it, which at the beſt is of no great validity: but after ſuch evidence of poſitive proofes, is very impertinent.
But yet I cannot tell, whether it may ſo peremptorily be affirmed, that no mention at all, expreſs or implicite, is made of the Lords prayer in the Writings of his Apoſtles. There may ſome places be found perchance, where it may not improbably be thought alluded unto by ſome words. When the Apoſtles tells88 us in ſeveral places, that this or that is the Will of God: they do it often, and emphatically, ſometimes; who can tell, but it was with ſome tacit reference and alluſion, to the words of the Lords prayer, which they knew were dayly repeated and aſſented unto, by thoſe primitive Chriſtians they wrote unto, and therefore might enforce their exhortation to ſuch and ſuch duties, from their own ſecret conſent, included and expreſſed in their daily prayer? But ſince this occaſion is given me, I ſhall crave leave I may but propoſe what, long before I had any the leaſt ſuſpition, that ever the Lords Prayer ſhould want any defence in England, had been in my thoughts. I profeſs, I ſee men take ſo much liberty, I have no great fancy to new interpretations. I had much rather (were I to write upon the Scripture) defend one old received interpretation upon good grounds of reaſon, than be the author of two new, though probable. This89 makes me to ſuſpect the more, what I have to ſay, becauſe I find it no where. But becauſe it was in my thoughts, as I ſaid before, long before I had any thought of this occaſion; in that reſpect, I ſuſpect it leſs. In thoſe words of St. Peter, chap. 1. verſ. 17. 〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. I have thought it very probable, that he might intend the Lords prayer. Firſt, That the word,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, doth properly (and ſo commonly uſed in the New Teſtament) ſignifie, To call upon in prayer; and generally, To pray, will eaſily be granted I know. Beza tranſlates, Si cognominatis patrem: The words may be tranſlated, If you call upon him as Father, or, If in praying, you call him Father. Well, here is no great alteration in this, from what is commonly received. But what can we infer upon this, that will more particularly concern the Lords prayer? I ground chieſly upon the words following,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.90 which indeed ſeeme to promiſe leaſt: yea, to croſs rather what we would have: but, if well examined, it may prove otherwiſe. I muſt here appeal to the Hebrew Idiotiſm, whereof the New Teſtament (though written in Greek) is full. As for example, Acts 8.20. (a common example) where the Original hath it,〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: it is rendred very truly in the Engliſh, exceeding fair, without any mention of God, which is in the Original words, and might ſeem ſtrange to them that are not acquainted with the Hebrew phraſe: to them that are, not at all: and ſo of divers places. Upon this ground of the Hebrew Idiotiſm, I think it may be ſaid, That to be in heaven, as in the Lords prayer; (Our Father which art in Heaven:) and, To judge without reſpect of perſous, (〈…〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) according to every mans work: as in St. Peter, may amount to one and the ſame ſenſe. For proof whereof, Pſalm 115.2, 3. Wherefore ſhould the heathen ſay, where is91 now their God? But our God is in the Heavens; he hath done whatſoever he pleaſeth. The Pſalmiſt, out of doubt, and ſo expounded by ſome Antients, intended by theſe words, that although God, for ſome ſecret cauſes, beſt known to himſelf, did defer the execution of his juſtice, or juſt vengeance upon them, who had uſed his people ſo and ſo: yet in heaven he was for all that: wanted neither power, nor will, but in due time would reward them, both them that had done, and them that had ſurfered wrong, according to their deſerts. We ſay ſtill, when we appeal to God, upon occaſion of wrong and oppreſſion, There is a God in Heaven. But if this be not expreſs enough, I hope the next will be. Pſalm 7.6, 7. Ariſe, O Lord, in thine Anger; lift up thy ſelf, becauſe of the rage of mine enemies; and awake for me to the judgement, that thou haſt commanded. So ſhall the congregation of the people compaſs thee about: for their ſakes therefore return thou on High. Return92 thou on high, that is, to heaven: (ſo the ſenſe doth require; and all the Rabbins agree:) from whence God, as to the apprehenſion of men, is ſuppoſed to abſent himſelf, when he doth not execute judgement, but ſuffers the wicked to prevail in this world, as we ſee he doth often. The Reaſon of this ſpeech, is, Heaven is, properly, the Throne of God. Heaven is my Throne, the earth is my footſtool, (Pſalm 66.1.) Now Thrones among men, are chiefly eſtabliſhed for, and by Juſtice; therefore when Gods Juſtice doth not appear among men, they ſuppoſe him, for a time, not to be in his Throne, that is, in Heaven. There be many phraſes in Scripture, in the Pſalms eſpecially, that have reference to this, which we have ſpoken of elſewhere (Annot. upon Pſalm 7. v. 7.56.2.68.18. & alibi.) Interpreters that obſerve not this Idiotiſm, are put to it. I only obſerve more, that preſently after theſe words in the Pſalm, Return thou on high: it follows, The Lord ſhall judge93 the people: judge me, O Lord, as if he had ſaid, No ſooner is God returned to his place, his Throne, his Heavens, but we ſhall be ſure to hear of Juſtice, and juſt judgements executed. The truth is, God is alwayes in Heaven: alwayes juſt: nay, alwayes doing juſtice. For what is more juſt and reaſonable, than to ſuffer them to be exerciſed in this world