I Have perus'd this Tract or Disceptation intitled The Ʋse of the Lords Prayer; and approving it to be learned and judi­cious, sound and Ortho­dox, I license it to be prin­ted and published.

John Downame.

THE USE OF THE LORDS PRAYER, MAINTAINED Against the Objections of the Innovators of these times, By JOHN DESPAGNE Minister of the holy Gospel.

Englished by C. M. D. M.

LUKE XI.

When you pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, &c.

LONDON, Printed by Ruth Raworth, for Richard Whi­taker, at the Kings Arms in Pauls Church­yard. 1646.

TO THE MOST HONOURABLE AND MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PHILIP Earl of Pembrook and Montgo­mery, Baron of Shurland, Lord of Cardiffe, Par, Ros of Kendal, Marmyon, and Saint Quintin, Knight of the Order of the Garter, &c.

MY LORD,

THis peece is the A­bridgement of two Ser­mons [Page 6] which I lately made up­on this subject in our French Congregation assembled in your house. I was requested by one of the most eminent and most ancient Doctors of the Church of England, & by some of my ordinary hearers, to publish it: Not but that this Argument might have been handled by others more powerfully then by my self, but for other reasons. I have assayed to joyn brevity with the Truth, knowing that you love both the one and the [Page 7] other: For to whom ought I rather to present it then to you, MY LORD, to whom all our Assembly, and my self in particular, are so greatly and continually obli­ged? When we pray for PHILIP Earl of Pembrook, our hearts say, LORD, he loves our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. In effect, the Ark of God wanted a vaile for a cover­ing, and you have lodged it in a house built of Cedars.

Accept, MY LORD, [Page 8] that in these lines I publish your charity towards us; and the LORD prolong your dayes, and powre upon you and your Illustrious Family his most pretious influences.

THE USE OF THE LORDS PARYER, MAINTAINED Against the Objections of the Innovators of these times.

THe same Spirit which cast the man possest sometimes into the fire, and sometimes into the water, [Page 10] assays to drive us from one su­perstition to another. The Church of Rome, in all the acts of her devotions, affects a con­tinual iteration of the Lords Prayer, out of an opinion that the words, or the number of their repetitions, carry some secret vertue. Many at this day are fallen into a superstition quite contrary, shunning the words of this Prayer as a dan­gerous rock, or a stone of stumbling: Some others who dare not flatly condemn the Use of this Prayer, make never­thelesse a scruple to pronounce it ordinarily, desiring rather to passe it by with silence; so that this Prayer is found banished from Families and publike As­semblies [Page 11] where it was wont to resound: This Candle which was set on the Candlestick to give light to all them of the house, is at this day buried un­der a bushel. If there were none but Hereticks, or Unbeleevers, who attempt to forbid it, we might taxe them with irreve­rence and contempt towards Jesus Christ: but because these people make profession to be otherwise Orthodox, one is not moved at this novelty, al­though that heretofore we ab­horred it as prodigious.

That we may see then the businesse in question, We are not so literal that we condemn every other form of Prayer, or that we admit not of other [Page 12] words; but men may use other Prayers, and not omit this. It is a bold attempt to blot out the memory of such a Prayer. A Prayer used to this present time by all the Churches of God, ancient and modern, throughout all the Universal World. A Prayer dictated by the supreme Wisdom of that great and eternal Mediator, who presents our Prayers to God, and who perfectly knows his Fathers minde. The most compleat Prayer that can be made, summing up all the law­ful requests which can be ima­gined. A Prayer which is the Epitome, the Miror, and the Rule of all others. A Prayer which in its wonderful brevity [Page 13] includes so great a plenty and variety of matters, as if it would cause a Camel to passe through a needl's eye. A Prayer which contains more Histories and more Mysteries then words. A Prayer in sum the most Me­thodical, the most Emphati­cal, the most Divine that can be framed: For all the parts of this Prayer cohere with an ad­mirable Symetrie: All of it is exactly made, in measure and proportion: All of it is full of torches which enlighten each other: One Petition relates to another: And these same men confesse, That neither all the wits of the Earth, nor all the Angels of Heaven, were ever capable to dictate the like.

[Page 14] Did Jesus Christ then dictate this Prayer to the end we should not use it at all? On the contrary, he sayes unto us, Pray thus, Our Father which art in Heaven. To this, they answer that Jesus Christ commands us to pray thus, that is to say, in the same sense, but not in the same words. Be it so. But then he sayeth ( Luke 11.) When you pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. Forbids he to pray in the same words? Because he teacheth us to say Our Father &c. may we conclude that we ought not to say it? It advan­tageth not to alledge that if this were a Command, we ought al­wayes to say this Prayer, and never any other. This is as if [Page 15] one should say, it is not com­manded to pray to God, be­cause it is said, Pray without cea­sing, 1 Thess. 5. 17. As if we ought to do nothing else but pray unto God. But suppose that this is no Command, and that Jesus Christ hath not en­joyned alwayes to pronounce this Prayer: neither hath he forbad to say it often, much lesse never.

The pretence is nothing, that it sufficeth to expresse the sense and meaning of Jesus Christ in this Prayer, although we ex­presse not his words: For that we may expresse his meaning, must we suppresse his words? Or can we better expresse the sense and meaning of Jesus [Page 16] Christ, then by the very words of Jesus Christ himself?

What have they then to say against the common Use of this Prayer? Certainly

  • Either is not lawful,
  • Or it is not necessary,
  • Or it is not expedient.

Let us view these in order. Is it then unlawful to utter this Prayer? This cannot be said. It shall be no more allowed to read it; but two places of Scrip­ture are to be raced, wherein it is found, Matth. 6. Luke. 11. Nor doth it help at all to say that ma­ny abuse of it. This is the Argu­ment wherewith our Adver­saries forbid the people the Scriptures. If Satan himself hath [Page 17] uttered them; if the Enchan­ters should employ the Psalms and terms of the Gospel, must we therefore refrain from ut­tering them? If it is unlawful to speak them superstitiously, shall it be unlawful to pro­nounce them piously? And if it be permitted in Prayer to use our own words, shall it be for­bidden to use the words of Je­sus Christ, which are the Rule of ours?

It is lawful then; but (say they) it is not necessary. I an­swer: Grant that it is in no wayes necessary to pronounce this Prayer, is it necessary to omit it? If it is indifferent to pronounce it or omit it, ought we for an indifferency to bring [Page 18] a difference in the Church? to affect a novelty? to break an Universal Order? and to raise scruples in mens consciences? But besides, there are degrees of indifferency as well as of ne­cessity. Will they say that the Use or omitting of this Prayer are in the same rank of indiffe­rency, as the use or abstinence from certain meats? Certainly that which serves for edifica­tion, is not at all indifferent. Will they say then, that the words of Jesus Christ serve not for edification? Although they dare not say it expresly, never­thelesse they say as much; for they maintain that it is not ex­pedient to pronounce them. This is the knot of the Que­stion, [Page 19] and all the Dispute is brought to this Point.

Wherefore then is it not ex­pedient to say this Prayer in the very words wherein Jesus Christ did dictate it? What great inconveniencies arise thence? What losse to Gods Glory? What hinderance to the salvation of mens souls? What ruine to the building of the Church?

Thereupon they alledge,

  • That we must not be tyed to words.
  • That there is danger to idolize the words in pronouncing them so of­ten.
  • That the attention that is given to the syllables, tyes up the spirit, and diverts the thoughts.
  • [Page 20] That this frequent pronunciation is a vain repetition condemned by Jesus Christ himself.
  • That this Prayer doth not sufficient­ly particularize all the necessities which ought to be expressed.
  • That it is couched in divers words by the two Evangelists, which have written it, to shew that we ought not to heed the words wherein it is comprised.
  • That the Apostles themselves ne­ver said it.
  • That many cannot say it but to their condemnation, because it obli­geth every one to beg forgivenesse of his sins, on condition of par­doning his enemies.
  • [Page 21] That it sutes not with a man that is ready to die, because he hath no much need to say, Give us our bread.
  • That it was not given to serve for a Prayer, but onely to be a Patern and Rule of Prayer.
  • And that besides, in their ordinary Prayers they comprehend all the substance thereof, though in dif­ferent words.

A general answer to these Objections.

TO all this I will first oppose a general answer, which shall overthrow the greatest part of their Objections. These men cannot deny, which is most manifest, that sometimes God hath prescribed several Forms of Prayer and other actions usual in the Church, to the end that they should be pronoun­ced word by word. Such was the Form of the Blessing which the Priests usually pronounced over the people in the very words which are read in the sixth Chapter of the Book of [Page 23] Numbers. Such was the Form of Thanksgiving prescribed in the offering of the first fruits, Deut. 26. Such was the Form of the Protestation and Prayer di­ctated in expresse words to them which came to pay their triennial tythes, Deut. 26. Such was the Form of Prayers which Moses commonly used when the Ark was set forwards, or when it rested, Numb. 10. 35, 36. Such was the Form of Prayers, or Thanksgiving, which they sung dayly in the Church; for, were not the Psalms for the most part Prayers or Thanksgivings? and were they not pronounced and sung usually? I forbear to say, that every company of Singers was expresly tyed to certain [Page 24] Psalms, as if it were to one task, as it appears by their titles. The Psalm 92. was sung every Sab­bath, as we read in the fronti­spice thereof. Consider here why God would dictate Prayers in form of verses, if it were not to the end that they should be pronounced word by word? For it is well known that it is a difficult thing to change the words of a line which is tyed to measures and fallings of the Art of Poetry. Nay, more: For we have di­vers Psalms wherein God would have us observe even the very letters of the Alpha­bet. The 25 Psalm which is a Prayer, and comes near in sub­stance to the Lords Prayer, be­gins [Page 25] almost every one of its verses according to the Order of the Hebrew Alphabet. The 34. 111. 112. and the 119. are of the same structure; this last notably in each of his eights, answering eight times to the number and order of the 22 let­ters. Every one acknowled­geth that by this Method God would ease mans memory, to the end that the most forgetful might easily retain the words of the holy verses, whose begin­nings were ranked in the form of A. B. C. Did he mean then that we should neglect the words thereof, since he would they should be punctually pro­nounced even to the very least letter? I might say also that [Page 26] there are Psalms, as the 118. and the 134. which expresse a Dialogue betwixt the Priests and the people. This inter­changeable discourse, consisting in a reciprocal communication of the one with the other, could not be kept without an exact observation of words, where­with they answered each other. But besides, in the Reformation of the Church, which the good King Hezekiah procured when there was question made of the re-establishing the holy Litur­gie, the Levites were comman­ded to praise the Lord with the words of David and Asaph, that is to say, to pronounce or sing the very words of the Psalms, 2 Chron. 29. 30. It appeareth al­so [Page 27] that in the Celebration of the Passeover, there was the Form of a Song, which was alwayes used at this Solemnity. And Jesus Christ himself at the end of this Action, when he prepared him­self for Death, made no diffi­culty to pronounce it, and would that his Disciples should pronounce it with him, Matth. 26.

If these people who condemn at this day the Use of the Lords Prayer, had lived in those dayes, they would have cen­sured the Wisdom of God for having prescribed Forms of Prayers, and for having bound the Church to pronounce them word by word: For the same reasons which they bring [Page 28] against the Use of this Prayer, the same inconveniencies which they find here, the same eva­sions by which they decline and shun the pronunciation there­of; all these may be alledged against all the Forms of Pray­ers, Blessings, and Thanksgi­vings which God had imposed upon his own people. Could not one have said, That one ought not to tye himself to the words of these Forms, and that it sufficeth to speak in the same sense? and That the spirit ought not to be limi­ted? That by amusing themselves at the words, good thoughts are lost? That these are continual repetitions? That these set Prayers expresse not all that ought to be said? That there is danger lest they should be con­verted [Page 29] to Idols? and in sum, That it was expedient to suppresse the Use thereof? This is a strange thing that God never foresaw these inconveniencies!

I am amazed that these peo­ple have not also abolished the ordinary singing of Psalms; for if their maxim be worth any thing, it is as bad to pronounce them as to pronounce the Lords Prayer. If one ought not to tye himself to the words of this Prayer, Why to the words of the Psalms? If we ought not to bind up the spirit, Is it more bound up by the words of this Prayer, then by the words of a Psalm? If the words of this Prayer divert the thoughts of him that prayeth, [Page 30] Shall not the singing of a Psalm astonish them? If we ought not to rehearse this Prayer, if it doth not particularize all the occurrences, if there be dan­ger to idolize the words, May not one say as much of any Psalm whatsoever? Nay, more: For we sing many Psalms which concerns us not so much, or wherein we have not so much interest as in the Lords Prayer. In them we pronounce some Prayers appointed expresly for the Jewish Church, upon occur­rences past, and which never at any time befal us. There we have requests, imprecations, reasonings, complaints, which were Divine in Davids mouth; but they are more disputable [Page 31] in our mouths then the Lords Prayer is. Why then doth this Prayer more stick in our sto­macks then those which are in the Psalms? Adde hereunto that the Psalms as we sing them in our vulgar tongues, are com­posed of words added by the humane industry of our Poets: So that this work, though most excellent, is not alwayes so Divine as the Lords Prayer. Why then is it more inconve­nient to pronounce the very words of Jesus Christ, then to sing those that men have intro­duced? Furthermore, Since that instead of the Lords Prayer we finde it more to the purpose to have Prayers after our own fashion, or framed according [Page 32] unto occasions; Why instead of Psalms do we not dayly com­pose Songs altogether new, to sing them in the Church? Is this for want of Poetical capacity that we are constrained to keep a perpetual Form of Psalms? And if it be for edification to pronounce them and rehearse them in the very words, Why is not also the Lords Prayer, which is the Abridgement of all the Prayers contained within the Psalms?

But I have more to say upon every one of their Objections, which now we must examine in particular.

OBJECTION I.

They alledge in the first place, That we ought not to tye our selves to words.

Answer.

1. THis Maxime taken uni­versally and without any distinction, is false and perni­cious. If this is to be received, we ought not to read the Bible; for in reading thereof, we must tye our selves to the very Scripture-words. We must not translate it; for in a translation we ought as much as is possible to sute precisely to the very [Page 34] original words. A Paraphrase is never so certain, and the change of one word sometimes changes the whole sens [...]. In the holy History, must we n [...]t needs keep the very names of places and persons? In the Law are we not bound to take heed to the least Iota, yea to the very least Point?

2. But the Objection is doubtful; For if they under­stand that we are not so tyed to the very words of this Prayer, that it may not be permitted us to use any other; this is that which we say with them. But if they mean under the shaddow of this liberty, that we must ne­glect or suppresse the words of this Prayer; this is that we ar­gue [Page 35] with them. For, because Jesus Christ permits us to use our own words, must we bury his? Because our own words are allowed to passe, must we cut down the words of the holy Ghost? But on the contrary; If ours are good, how much more those which he hath di­ctated to us? So far ought we to be from shunning the lan­guage of God, that on the con­trary, we ought as much as may be to make it familiar and com­mon. And would to God we were so well versed therein that we might have it continu­ally in our mouths.

OBJECTION II.

But here they observe unto us a great danger, That in ma­king so great esteem of the words of this Prayer, it is to be feared that in the end we may make thereof an Idol.

Answer.

1. THis is a strange Paradox, that the words of this Prayer which teach us to shun Idolatry, should be suspected by us as capable to make us commit Idolatry: For this Pray­er teacheth us to call on none but Our Father which art in Hea­ven; [Page 37] and to attribute neither Power, nor Kingdom, nor Glo­ry, but to him alone. Will not these men say too, That we are in danger to become Idola­ters of the second Command­ment of the Decalogue, if we pronounce it very often? Shall we make an Idol of that Com­mandment, which forbids Idols? Certainly the Church of Rome is not become idolatrous for ha­ving too often pronounced the words of this Commandment, but rather for having neglected them when they concealed them from the people.

2. But may not any one be­come an Idolater of the words which are pronounced in Bap­tism? Must we not passe them [Page 38] over also with silence to shun Idolatry? Is not the same dan­ger found in the words of the Lords Supper, This is my Body? The greatest Idolatry which is in the World, is founded upon these words ill understood. May we then abstain from pronoun­cing them? Nay, Ought we not also to pronounce them al­wayes and as often as we re­hearse the Institution of the Lords Supper? I will say more. The very Name of God is ido­lized by the Jews, saying, That the pronunciation thereof can work all the greatest miracles even to the removing of mountains: Must their superstition hinder us from the pronouncing of the Name of God? or may we im­pose [Page 39] every day on God some new Name, lest his ordinary Name being very often exprest should at last become an Idol?

3. Moreover, The same danger they finde in the Lords Prayer, may be found in every other Prayer: For may not any one idolize the words or the form, though it be new? Know we not that mans spirit is so prone to adore novelties? Must we then abstain wholly from praying to God, to shun all dan­ger of Idolatry?

OBJECTION III.

Now follows an Objection wherein these men attempt to make Jesus Christ speak against himself: For, say they, He hath condemned vain repetitions in Prayer. Now the ordinary Use of the Lords Prayer is a perpetual rehersal.

Answer.

1. REad the sixth of S. Mat­thew, the seventh and following verses, you shall finde there that Jesus Christ di­ctated this Prayer for the shun­ning of vain repetitions: Use [Page 41] not (says he) vain repetitions, but pray thus, Our Father &c. Shall we say that that is a vain repetition which is given us as a remedy against vain repeti­tions? Would Jesus Christ heal one maladie by another like it, or drive out one Devil to bring in another in the room?

2. Jesus Christ hath not con­demned all repetitions in gene­ral. Did not he himself, to wit in his agony, repeat even three times, the very same evening, the very same words, Abba Father, if it be possible let this cup passe from me? In one and the same Psalm, which is the 136. so many verses so many times this clause, The mercy of God endureth for ever: The same [Page 42] words are there pronounced 26 times.

3. What repetitions then are there found forbidden? Those which are vain. Vain they are when one thinks that their multiplication carryes some vertue. Vain also if there be want of understanding, of affe­ction, or of Faith. But the re­petition of a Prayer animated alwayes with the same Spirit which ought to act in this exer­cise, can never be vain: As on the contrary, a Prayer desti­tute of this Spirit, shall not cease to be vain, though it be pronounced but once. Besides, if it be permitted to repeat the same thoughts which I have al­ready had, why may I not re­hearse [Page 43] them in the very same words wherein I have already expressed them? There may be as much vanity in reitera­ting the sighs every moment, as many now adayes have made a fashion of it, as to repeat the words of Jesus Christ.

4. Moreover, I marvel that these men make profession that they so much hate repeti­tions, seeing the greatest part of their Prayers is built on no­thing but repetitions. A repe­tition consists not onely in re­hearsing the same words, but also in rehearsing the same thing, though in different terms. Is not this a rehearsal when a man having named dirt, comes a little after to name it [Page 44] mud? or after he hath spoken of a Sword, he comes to speak of a Rapier? Their Synonyma's and Periphrases, wherewith their Prayers are wholly stuft, are they not so many repetiti­ons?

5. We may observe here­upon, that this passage which they object against us, Matt. 6. 7. forbids not onely vain repeti­tions, but also multitude of words. Wherefore do not these men apprehend that there may be as much vanity in the length of their Prayers, wherein they spend as much time as would suffice for a good Sermon, as in saying once the Lords Prayer? Or is the tediousnesse of their Prayers more contrary to vain [Page 45] babling then the brevity of this?

It may be they will ask, How many times we may pronounce it in a day, or in an hour? But this is all one as if they should ask, How many times ought we to pray to God? For we are enjoyned to pray without ceasing. Not that God requires of us a continual act; but neverthelesse, it ought to be frequent. Besides, the worth of our Prayers lies not in the number, nor in the measure, but in the weight.

OBJECTION IV.

Behold another Objection. The words of him which prays, must second his thoughts; but it will come to passe that one being at­tentive to the words of the Lords Prayer, his good thoughts will straggle, and his spirit shall be di­verted.

Answer.

1. IT is false, and a very strange thing to say, that the words of Jesus Christ divert good thoughts. If they well understood this Prayer, they would never speak in this man­ner. [Page 47] Can we have better thoughts in Prayer, then those which are included in the words of this Prayer?

2. It is false, and cannot be said without blasphemy, that they make the spirit wander. On the contrary, they guide the spirit. Can we better rank our thoughts then by making them march according to the Order traced by Jesus Christ himself?

3. It is false and abomina­ble, that the words by which we receive the Spirit of God, distract the spirit of man; for this Prayer is a parcel of that Doctrine of Faith by which we receive the holy Ghost. Galat. 3. 2.

[Page 48] 4. Are these men so full of good thoughts, that having spent whole hours in venting their conceptions as they would, that they cannot be­stow three or four minutes on the Lords Prayer?

5. But if we ought to ab­stain from the words thereof, under colour that they do not alwayes meet with those thoughts which may come upon us in the act of Prayer; I de­mand of these men, When any one of them makes a Prayer in publike, whether he be assured that all the thoughts of his Au­ditors just meet alwayes and at such a point, with his own, or with the words by the which he expresseth them? It should be [Page 49] very hard for him in a great Assembly, to finde one man that hath so perfect a concur­rence with him. Is there not then the same danger, lest the words of his Prayer should di­vert the good thoughts of them that hear him? Or is there more disturbance in hearing a Prayer dictated by Jesus Christ, where­unto we have already prepared and conformed our thoughts, then to hear one of a man whose thoughts prevent and oftentimes stifle ours?

OBJECTION V.

This same shall serve for an an­swer to another reason which they alledge. T he spirit, say they, ought to be free, and we ought not to shut it up in the bonds of a Form.

Answer.

1. MUst the spirit of man, that it might be free, be without Rule? Or is it in­slaved if it pronounce the Lords Prayer? God grant we have alwayes the liberty to pro­nounce it!

2. This Prayer is indeed [Page 51] short in words; but in sub­stance, it is of so great extent, that it comprehends the Hea­ven and the Earth, the present and all ages to come. Is the spi­rit of these men so vast that this Prayer cannot contain it?

3. Or if it be captivity to hear this Prayer pronounced, Is the spirit of the hearers more captived in hearing the Prayer of Jesus Christ, or in hearing the Prayer of another?

OBJECTION VI.

Thereupon they say, This Prayer doth not sufficiently parti­cularize; it expresseth not our necessities but in terms very ge­neral: but we ought, according to occurrences, to expresse the par­ticularities every one by its own proper name.

Answer.

1. THese men fear (it seems) lest God should not well understand, unlesse they shew­ed him with the finger, and un­lesse they deciphered out unto him particularly all their petty [Page 53] necessities. And verily, under colour of particularizing, many instead of presenting their Prayers to God, seem to give him instructions. Many also ex­pressing particularities, expresse their impertinences. And ma­ny too, thinking they desire an Egge, desire a Scorpion. Certain­ly, it is often necessary to par­ticularize; but there needs great discretion, whereof all are not capable. General re­quests, as those of the Lords Prayer, are as the Stars, which have their station certain, and their motion regular. But when we come to particulars, then one descends as it were to the Elementary region, where all things are various and turbu­lent, [Page 54] and where one shall meet with a perpetual conflict of rea­sons as waves driven with con­trary winds.

2. Moreover, If a man would undertake to name all the favours which are necessary or expedient for him, he shall never end his Prayer. Is there any man that can particularize all the things which are requi­site either for his being, or for his wel [...]being? all the kindes of temptations? all the depths of Satan? all his own offences? Who is he that knows his transgres­sions? Psal. 19. And besides, all the necessities of the Uni­versal Church, and of every Member thereof? What sup­plement must we then make to [Page 55] our Prayers, to the end they should not be defective? Cer­tainly, we must necessarily come to general terms which com­prehend implicitly all particu­larities: As, after we have specified such and such sins, and being not able to make a full enumeration of all others, Must we not say in general, For­give us our trespasses? I retort then the Argument. Since it is impossible for us to frame any Prayer which particularizeth all things, we ought necessari­ly to use a Prayer which in its generalities contains all parti­culars.

OBJECTION VII.

But, say they, we read not that the Apostles ever pronounced it.

Answer.

1. THis reason is not conclu­ding. A negative Argu­ment, concerning a fact which is not of the essence of Faith, is not drawn out of Scripture. We read not in the History that the Jews ever celebrated the yeer of Jubile, one of the greatest Points of the Ceremonial Law; yet without doubt they did ce­lebrate it, otherwise it is cer­tain [Page 57] God would have censured them for an omission so repro­vable. We read not that the Apostles ever baptized in the Name of the three Divine Per­sons named in their Commis­sion; Shall we say then that they did not baptize in this form?

2. I say rather that Jesus Christ did dictate to them this Form of Prayer; therefore they used it. Is it credible that having desired to have a Form of Prayer, and Jesus Christ having dictated unto them this word by word, that they never pronounced it?

3. And if it were not so; the Apostles were endowed with a Spirit which guided [Page 58] them in their Prayers, as well as in their Doctrine. But, have we the same infallible Spirit which dictated to them such Prayers? Are we certain that we faile nomore then they, nei­ther in the Matter nor in the Form?

OBJECTION VIII.

After this they ask us a Questi­on. This Prayer, say they, is found written in two Books of the New Testament (to wit S. Matt. 6. S. Luke 11.) but with diversity of terms; and which is more, the one of these Evangelists omits that which the other hath written: How then ought we to pronounce it? either by that which is expressed in S. Matthew, or that which is cou­ched by S Luke? All this shews that the meaning of Jesus Christ was not that the words of this Prayer should be observed.

Answer.

1. IF this Argument might take place, When we ce­lebrate the Lords Supper, we must never pronounce the words which Jesus Christ spake in that Action; for they are re­lated diversly in four divers Books of the Scripture; so that one of the Evangelists which registred them, hath not these words, Do this in remembrance of me. Must we then in this Action wholly omit the words of Jesus Christ, under colour of the di­versity which we finde there? S. Paul did not so understand it; When he shews the Corinthians [Page 61] the form wherein they ought to celebrate the Lords Supper, he rehearseth expresly the very words that Jesus Christ uttered in the institution of this Sacra­ment according as he had recei­ved them of him, 1 Cor. 11.

2. This is a wrong Conclu­sion, that we ought not to take heed to the words, under pre­tence of the difference which we finde there. On the contra­ry, whereas God repeats the same thing in divers words, by so much the more ought we to mark them; for this difference tends to the clearing of one word by another. So when one of the Evangelists says, Re­mit us our debts; the other ex­pounds it by saying, Forgive us [Page 62] our trespasses. It is indifferent to take the one or the other of these two expressions: both these two were dictated by Je­sus Christ. Must we make the difficulty so great in chusing? Or must we suppresse both these two, because Jesus Christ hath dictated both these two?

3. To this that they al­ledge, That one of the Evan­gelists hath not this clause, For thine is the Kingdom, &c. it is ea­sie to answer. This is as if we should say, We ought not to celebrate the Lords Supper, be­cause one of the Evangelists, to wit, S. John, speaks not of it. If they finde not this clause in S. Luke, must they necessarily passe it over with silence, al­though [Page 63] it is found in S. Matthew? Or ought we upon this occasion to omit all this Prayer, al­though it be not found in both these Evangelists? We have divers Psalms which contain but one and the same subject; as the 14. and the 53. are but the self-same thing: notwithstand­ing there is in one a clause which is not in the other. Must we suppresse them both?

OBJECTION IX.

There are some which strive against the Use of this Pray­er, for an absurdity which they think is found in it. We desire therein our dayly bread: But, say they, a man which is ready to die (as he which is in an agony on his death-bed, or he which is on the Scaffold, and looks for nothing but the fatal stroke) must he also ask for bread? Is it to any purpose for him to de­mand a thing whereof he hath no more need, and which is no more of any use for him?

Answer.

I Have divers answers to give thereupon.

1. If this Request were convenient but for them which are assured to live, no man could ever say it; For those very men which are in perfect health and safety, yet never­thelesse are not certain to live one moment. So that Jesus Christ hath taught us to ask a thing which we ought never to demand.

2. As there is no man which is assured to live a day, so there is none that knows whether this day shall be his last. Many [Page 66] touch the gates of death, which enter not so soon in. Although then a man shall be and see him­self very near to go out of the World; neverthelesse since that he is ignorant of the time of his departure, must he boldly renounce bread & Gods liberality, which is the Doner thereof, as though he was as­sured he should never have need of it?

3. When I ask my bread, this is alwayes under conditi­on, In case that I have yet any need thereof; In case that my dayes may be yet prolonged upon Earth, and not other­wise. Is there any impertinence in this Request? Or ought we not alwayes thus to speak?

[Page 67] 4. It is well known that this Petition is not restrained to nourishment. In naming bread, I presuppose all that which is necessary for my life, the very air & breathing. May I not demand them for the time which I have to live, though indeed it were but for one very moment, to the end I might glorifie God?

5. Grant that he which is dying hath no more need to ask bread; hath he no need to say, Forgive us our trespasses, and, Lead us not into temptation?

6. Jesus Christ would not that a man should ask bread for himself alone; but he com­mands us also to ask bread for others, in saying, Give us. If [Page 68] then a man which is ready to dye, cannot or will not ask bread for himself; doth Charity for­bid him to ask for those that shall survive, and to pray for posterity?

7. And finally, Because that sick men dying, or those which are upon the gibbet, have no more need of bread, May we conclude all others ought to abstain from asking it? By the same reason they ought to ab­stain from eating.

OBJECTION X.

Many also make a scruple to pronounce this Prayer, be­cause it obliges them to say that they forgive them that have trespassed against them. Now a man hath not alwayes a meaning to pardon. This pre­tence is specious; for if I have thoughts of revenge, with what forehead can I say I for­give? But make I not my self more guilty in saying so? Nay this clause contains an imprecation which I make against my self, to wit, that if I pardon not, I do not ask pardon. Hence it comes to passe that many of them which have charge of pray­ing in Publike, abstain from this Prayer, for fear that some of the by-standers which pray with them, should be found to lye to God.

Answer.

1. THere is indeed much to be said upon the Que­stion. If a man which feels in himself any motion of hatred, must suspend the Use of this Prayer: I say hereupon, If he may not use this Prayer, he may not use any other. In so much, that to forbid a man the [Page 71] Lords Prayer upon this occasi­on, is to forbid him wholly to pray to God in what form so­ever. This consequence is ma­nifest by many reasons. First of all, he cannot make a good Prayer, if it be not agreeable (at least in substance) to the Lords Prayer. Now this Prayer then binds one to say, that he for­gives his enemies; so that if he says it not in the same words, it behooves him notwithstand­ing that he speaks in the same sence. Besides, can he make any Prayer without asking forgive­nesse of his sins? And seeing that this remission is not pro­mised him but upon condition to pardon, can he desire it otherwise? For if ye forgive not [Page 72] men their trespasses, neither will I forgive you yours, Matth. 6. 15. Nay indeed, he cannot ask any thing else of God without he be dis­posed to forgive. If he brings an offering to the Altar, he ought first to reconcile himself to his Brother; otherwise all his offerings, all his supplica­tions, are of no worth. Adde to this, that no man can make a Prayer without protest­ing that he will obey God; for in desiring God that he will ful­fill our will, we promise that we will perform His. We ought also to desire that his Will may be done. Now this is one Point of the Will of God, that we pardon them which have of­fended us. I say then, that i [...] [Page 73] rancour forbids a man to pro­nounce the Lords Prayer; the same reason forbids him to pray to God at all. Behold to what the opinion of these men comes; for their Argument forbids not onely the Lords Prayer, but also all those which they themselves are accustomed to make.

2. Let us see now the ob­stacles which are found here. He, say they, who instead of for­giving, burns with revenge, he which hath a soul drowned in his gall, and filled with implacable wrath, can he pronounce this Prayer? To this, I answer, that we mean not here them which are wholly possest with a spirit of revenge, and that have no intention to [Page 74] forsake their malice; but the Question is of them who through infirmity, finde a diffi­culty to forgive, and feel in themselves a combat of the flesh with the spirit. If I be then in this estate, may I say Forgive me my trespasses, seeing I have scarce power to say that I for­give them that have offended me? I answer also, Amongst the trespasses whereof I ask pardon, I count this, The dif­ficulty which I have to pardon. I desire pardon for this, that it is hard for me to give pardon: And I desire this grace that I may pardon. This clause comes then to this sence; Forgive me, as I pray that thou wouldst give me the grace to be able to forgive. Is [Page 75] there any man that can stumble at this? Is there also any Chri­stian that ought not thus to speak? It sufficeth not to al­ledge, that these things are ve­ry different, to say that we forgive, and to say that we de­sire power to forgive: For he that desires sincerely to have power to be able to forgive, hath already begun to forgive. If that this forgivenesse pro­ceeds not yet from a heart per­fectly appeased, shall we defer to pray to God until we become perfect? until that we love per­fectly our neighbour, that is to say, until we have accom­plished all the Law?

3. But after all this, sup­pose that it is not lawful for a [Page 76] man to say this Prayer whilest he is, though but a little, angry? Is it then forbid to say it after that there is no spark of wrath, and that his heart is entirely cleansed from hatred? If he is not in case to pronounce it at one time, must he abstain then from it for ever? And besides, for some particular men who have the spirit of revenge, and may not say this Prayer, Must all the Body of the Church be forbidden it? Must the passi­ons of some men serve for a Rule to all? Finally, Is this well done by him that prays in Publike, to sit himself rather to the malice of men, then to the Rule of Jesus Christ?

OBJECTION XI.

For to excuse themselves they alledge and object altoge­ther, That in their ordinary Prayers, they comprehend the whole substance of this; That they make thereof a Paraphrase which is the very same thing in effect, although that they pro­nounce not the very same periods of it.

Answer.

1. BY this reckoning, they say not formally, We forgive them which have trespassed against us: but they say it in sub­stance. [Page 78] Is it then more incon­venient to say it in the very words of Jesus Christ, then to say it in words equivalent? And likewise all the rest of the Lords Prayer: For since they confesse that we must expresse all the meaning thereof, is it forbidden to expresse the words thereof?

2. On the contrary, when a Question is of paraphrasing a passage, it behooveth to pro­nounce it word by word, to the end one may see if the para­phrase agrees with the Text. Since then they paraphrase the Lords Prayer, Why do they not pronounce it, to the end that men may see whether th [...] paraphrase answers the word [...] [Page 79] of Jesus Christ?

3. But furthermore, Are their paraphrases of the same weight as the words of our Lord? Is a paraphrase of the Scripture as authentique as the Scripture it self? The words of the Lords Prayer are Cano­nical; for they are a part of the Scripture: But these men dare not maintain that their Prayers, or the words thereof, are Ca­nonical: for can a Prayer com­posed by a man serve for an in­fallible Rule for his hearers. In the Apocryphal Books are found excellent Prayers, either in their substance, or in regard of their expressions; Why make we not so great an esti­mate of them, as of those that [Page 80] are contained in the Canonical Books? For, although they were conceived and framed by godly and understanding men, neverthelesse they come not from the holy Ghost, in the same quality, perfection, and authority, as th [...]se which are written by the hands of the Prophets, whereunto also we dare not compare ours, much lesse also to that which Jesus Christ hath dictated.

It is not enough to object That by this reckoning we ought ne­ver to say any other Prayer then this; For this is as if one should say, It is not permit­ted to paraphrase the Scripture, because our paraphrases or in­terpretations are never so au­thentique [Page 81] as the Scripture it self. We may paraphrase the Lords Prayer with other Prayers; but it is not for­bidden under the shaddow of our Paraphrases to pronounce it in its own words.

OBJECTION XII.

I come now to their last Obje­ction, wherein they beleeve they display a great subtilty. The words of this Prayer, say they, were dictated to be the Pattern of our Prayers, but not to serve for a Prayer.

Answer.

1. THis is but a sophistry, and a vain subterfuge. Cannot these words be a Prayer and the Model of Prayer? Can­not a building serve for a Mo­del to another building? Are these things incompatible?

[Page 83] 2. Note that Jesus Christ says not, Ask your Father, That his Name may be sanctified, That he give you your bread, &c. Nay, be­hold how he speaks: Say, Our Father which art in Heaven. Say, Hallowed be thy Name. Say, Give us our bread. Say, Forgive us. Say, Deliver us, &c. Are not these the terms and the form of a Prayer? Can one better and more expresly put in ones mouth ones own words? Or did Jesus Christ, when he or­dained us to say them, mean the quite contrary, to wit, that we ought not to say them?

3. But suppose that they were onely given us for a Pat­tern, and not for a Prayer; These men confesse that in [Page 84] praying I ought alwayes to have this Pattern in my minde: If I ought to have it in my minde, Why shall I not have it in my mouth?

4. If they will not pro­nounce it as a Prayer, Why do they not pronounce it at least as a Pattern, or Form? When they shall say, Jesus Christ th [...] Son hath taught us to say to thee, Our Father which art in Heaven▪ &c. are they afraid to lye in saying so? or do they fear that this truth is not well spoken?

5. I say, It is need that the people should be continually instructed to pray well. Now it is without Controversie, that it is impossible to make any good Prayer, if it agree not, at [Page 85] least in substance, with this Form of Jesus Christ. Is it not then expedient that the people hear often this Form, to the end that they may see to what Rule they ought to conform their Prayers? We taxe the Church of Rome for that she pronounceth not to the people the second Commandment of the Decalogue; because that this silence hinders very many from acknowledging the Ido­latry which they commit. Will not the suppression of this Form cause the people, especi­ally as many poor souls who neither can nor know how to read the Scriptures, to forget in the end this Prayer, and know no more the Rule which [Page 86] ought to be kept in praying to God? In effect, these men do as much as they can, to cause the memory of it to be lost.

To come to an end, Mark also here the difference which is betwixt the Prayers which are of our own making, and the Lords Prayer. There may be said as much as between the Tabernacle and the Pattern which God made Moses see upon the Mountain. The Pattern was Celestial, framed immediatly by the hand of God: The Ta­bernacle was Earthly, and made by the hand of man. The Lords Prayer is all Celestial and Di­vine: Ours are, in part, from mans industry; for we have not the spirit in perfection. This [Page 87] fabrick of our spirit is alwayes humane and imperfect: but the Pattern is alwayes Divine and perfect. There is no man so knowing, so religious, who is not subject to faile in the ma­king of his Prayers. They are subject to imperfection, to ex­cesse, to disorders, to many ir­regularities. We are not with­out errour in this businesse. We are herein perpetually wanting; either in omitting, or being over-brief in one point, over­tedious in another; or in raising our thoughts out of their rank. But in saying the Lords Prayer, I am sure I cannot faile to speak well, that I omit nothing, that I speak nothing superfluous, that I am not extravagant, that [Page 88] there is no rashnesse in my words. After then that I have framed a Prayer according to that which is possible for me, I consider the defects thereof; and to repair them, I use this which I know is altogether per­fect. Nay, I say, that after I have presented a Prayer of my own fashion, I ought to desire of God that he would help the de­fects thereof; and to these ends I present unto him this which his Son hath taught me. Is this proceeding impertinent? Is there any thing in it why we should reject the Use of this Prayer?

I conclude then, We ought to pronounce it. We ought, because Jesus Christ hath put it [Page 89] in our mouths. We ought, be­cause that this is the Abridge­ment of all other Prayers. We ought, because this is the Rule and Star which ought to guide us in praying to God. We ought, to reform the defects which are in all our other Prayers. We ought, because that it is Uni­versal, for all persons, for all matters, at all times, in all pla­ces. This is a Prayer which all the Churches of the World pronounce: and this is a great consolation to me, that I shall keep my part in this great con­sort. This is a Prayer which I can say in prosperity, in adver­sity; in Peace, in War; in health, in sicknesse; in life, in death: the young man and the [Page 90] old, the rich and poor, the King and Shepheard, may pro­nounce it together.

Is not this a strange thing, that the words of Jesus Christ should become suspected by us? If our Fathers, who have suffer­ed so much to have the liberty of pronouncing this Prayer in a language that may be under­stood, which had so much care to teach us to the end that we should have it alwayes in our mouths, should rise at this day from their graves, and should see that we attempt to forget this Prayer; With what re­proaches would they not cover us? But, which is more, be­hold Jesus Christ himself who bids you pronounce it. Whom [Page 91] will you obey; either him, or them who strive to perswade you the contrary? Fear not, fear not to pronounce the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ who dictated them to you shall be your Warrant to­wards God, and shall avouch your words, since they are his own. Carry them alwayes in your hearts and upon your lips. [...] adjure you, my Brethren, by the reverence which you bear to Jesus Christ, by the esteem which ye ought to make of his words, by the charity which he hath testified to us in teaching us this Prayer, by the [...]nterest which you have to well-praying, and by the Peace and Joy of the Church; suffer [Page 92] not any man to snatch from you this pretious Jewel, which was given you from the hand of the Son of God. And God grant, in mercy, that with one and the same voice, we alwayes addresse our selves to Our Father which is in Heaven; for to him belongs the Kingdom, Power, and Glory, for ever and ever.

Amen.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.