I Have perused this Tract or Disceptation entitled The use of the Lord's 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 Lord's 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 King's Arms in Paul's churchyard. 1646.   

TO THE MOST HONOURABLE AND MOST ILLUSTRIOUS PHILIP Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Baron of Shurland, Lord of Cardiff, Par, Ros of Kendal, Marmyon, and Saint Quintin, Knight of the Order of the Garter, &c.  
MY LORD,  
THis piece is the Abridgement of two Sermons 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 myself, but for other reasons. I have assayed to join brevity with the Truth, knowing that you love both the one and the other: For to whom ought I rather to present it then to you, MY LORD, to whom all our Assembly, and myself in particular, are so greatly and continually obliged? When we pray for PHILIP Earl of Pembroke, our hearts say, LORD, he loves our Nation, and hath built us a Synagogue. In effect, the Ark of God wanted a veil for a covering, and you have lodged it in a house built of Cedars.  
Accept, MY LORD, that in these lines I publish your charity towards us; and the LORD prolong your days, and power upon you and your Illustrious Family his most precious influences.   

THE USE OF THE LORDS PARYER, MAINTAINED Against the Objections of the Innovators of these times.  
THe same Spirit which cast the man possessed sometimes into the fire, and sometimes into the water, 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 Lord's Prayer, out of an opinion that the words, or the number of their repetitions, carry some secret virtue. 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 nevertheless a scruple to pronounce it ordinarily, desiring rather to pass it by with silence; so that this Prayer is found banished from Families and public Assemblies 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 heretics, or unbelievers, who attempt to forbid it, we might tax 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 business in question, We are not so literal that we condemn every other form of Prayer, or that we admit not of other 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 father's mind. The most complete 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 includes so great a plenty and variety of matters, as if it would cause a Camel to pass through a needl's eye. A Prayer which contains more Histories and more Mysteries than 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 symmetry: 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 confess, That neither all the wits of the Earth, nor all the Angels of Heaven, were ever capable to dictate the like.  
Did Jesus Christ then dictate this Prayer to the end we should not use it at all? On the contrary, he says 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 than 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 allege that if this were a Command, we ought always to say this Prayer, and never any other. This is as if 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 enjoined always to pronounce this Prayer: neither hath he forbade to say it often, much less never.  
The pretence is nothing, that it sufficeth to express the sense and meaning of Jesus Christ in this Prayer, although we express not his words: For that we may express his meaning, must we suppress his words? Or can we better express the sense and meaning of Jesus 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 razed, 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 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 ways 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 a difference in the Church? to affect a novelty? to break an Universal Order? and to raise scruples in men's 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 expressly, nevertheless they say as much; for they maintain that it is not expedient to pronounce them. This is the knot of the Question, 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 loss to God's Glory? What hindrance to the salvation of men's souls? What ruin to the building of the Church?  
Thereupon they allege, 

That we must not be tied to words.  
That there is danger to idolise the words in pronouncing them so often.  
That the attention that is given to the syllables, ties up the spirit, and diverts the thoughts.  
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 show 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 forgiveness of his sins, on condition of pardoning his enemies.  
That it suits 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 only to be a pattern 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 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 express words to them which came to pay their triennial tithes, 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 daily 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 expressly tied to certain 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 frontispiece 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 tied 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 Lord's Prayer, begins 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 man's 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 there are Psalms, as the 118. and the 134. which express 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 liturgy, 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 that in the Celebration of the Passeover, there was the Form of a Song, which was always 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 Lord's Prayer, had lived in those days, 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 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 alleged 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 tie 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 express not all that aught to be said? That there is danger lest they should be converted to Idols? and in sum, That it was expedient to suppress 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 Lord's Prayer. If one ought not to tie 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, 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 idolise 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 Lord's Prayer. In them we pronounce some Prayers appointed expressly for the Jewish Church, upon occurrences past, and which never at any time befall us. There we have requests, imprecations, reasonings, complaints, which were Divine in David's mouth; but they are more disputable in our mouths then the Lord's Prayer is. Why then doth this Prayer more stick in our stomachs then those which are in the Psalms? Add hereunto that the Psalms as we sing them in our vulgar tongues, are composed of words added by the human industry of our Poets: So that this work, though most excellent, is not always so Divine as the Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer we find it more to the purpose to have Prayers after our own fashion, or framed according unto occasions; Why instead of Psalms do we not daily 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 Lord's 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 allege in the first place, That we ought not to tie ourselves to words.  

Answer.  
1. THis maxim 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 tie ourselves to the very Scripture-words. We must not translate it; for in a translation we ought as much as is possible to suit precisely to the very 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 Jota, yea to the very least Point?  
2. But the Objection is doubtful; For if they understand that we are not so tied 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 shadow of this liberty, that we must neglect or suppress the words of this Prayer; this is that we argue with them. For, because Jesus Christ permits us to use our own words, must we bury his? Because our own words are allowed to pass, 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; 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 pass them over also with silence to shun Idolatry? Is not the same danger found in the words of the Lord's 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 always and as often as we rehearse the Institution of the Lord's Supper? I will say more. The very Name of God is idolised 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 every day on God some new Name, lest his ordinary Name being very often expressed should at last become an Idol?  
3. Moreover, The same danger they find in the Lord's 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 man's 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 Lord's Prayer is a perpetual rehearsal.  

Answer.  
1. REad the sixth of S. Matthew, the seventh and following verses, you shall find there that Jesus Christ dictated this Prayer for the shunning of vain repetitions: Use 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 malady 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 pass 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 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 carries some virtue. Vain also if there be want of understanding, of affection, or of Faith. But the repetition of a Prayer animated always 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 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 adays 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 only 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 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 stuffed, are they not so many repetitions?  
5. We may observe hereupon, that this passage which they object against us, Matt. 6. 7. forbids not only 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 Lord's Prayer? Or is the tediousness of their Prayers more contrary to vain babbling 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 enjoined to pray without ceasing. Not that God requires of us a continual act; but nevertheless, 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 pass that one being attentive to the words of the Lord's 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. Can we have better thoughts in Prayer, than 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.  
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 Lord's Prayer?  
5. But if we ought to abstain from the words thereof, under colour that they do not always 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 public, whether he be assured that all the thoughts of his Auditors just meet always and at such a point, with his own, or with the words by the which he expresseth them? It should be very hard for him in a great Assembly, to find 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 allege. The spirit, say they, aught 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 enslaved if it pronounce the Lord's Prayer? God grant we have always the liberty to pronounce it!  
2. This Prayer is indeed 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 express the particularities every one by its own proper name.  

Answer.  
1. THese men fear (it seems) lest God should not well understand, unless they showed him with the finger, and unless they deciphered out unto him particularly all their petty necessities. And verily, under colour of particularising, many instead of presenting their Prayers to God, seem to give him instructions. Many also expressing particularities, express their impertinences. And many too, thinking they desire an egg, 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 Lord's Prayer, are as the Stars, which have their station certain, and their motion regular. But when we come to particulars, than one descends as it were to the Elementary region, where all things are various and turbulent, 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 kinds 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 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 year of jubilee, one of the greatest Points of the Ceremonial Law; yet without doubt they did celebrate it, otherwise it is certain God would have censured them for an omission so reprovable. We read not that the Apostles ever baptised 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 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 fail 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 shows 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 Lord's Supper, we must never pronounce the words which Jesus Christ spoke in that Action; for they are related diversely in four divers Books of the Scripture; so that one of the Evangelists which registered 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 find there? S. Paul did not so understand it; When he shows the Corinthians the form wherein they ought to celebrate the Lord's Supper, he rehearseth expressly 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 find 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 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 choosing? Or must we suppress both these two, because Jesus Christ hath dictated both these two?  
3. To this that they allege, That one of the Evangelists hath not this clause, For thine is the Kingdom, &c. it is easy to answer. This is as if we should say, We ought not to celebrate the Lord's Supper, because one of the Evangelists, to wit, S. John, speaks not of it. If they find not this clause in S. Luke, must they necessarily pass it over with silence, although 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 selfsame thing: notwithstanding there is in one a clause which is not in the other. Must we suppress 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 daily bread: But, say they, a man which is ready to die (as he which is in an agony on his deathbed, 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 nevertheless 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 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; nevertheless since that he is ignorant of the time of his departure, must he boldly renounce bread & God's liberality, which is the donor thereof, as though he was assured he should never have need of it?  
3. When I ask my bread, this is always under condition, In case that I have yet any need thereof; In case that my days may be yet prolonged upon Earth, and not otherwise. Is there any impertinence in this Request? Or ought we not always thus to speak?  
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 glorify 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 then a man which is ready to die, 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 always 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 myself more guilty in saying so? Nay this clause contains an imprecation which I make against myself, to wit, that if I pardon not, I do not ask pardon. Hence it comes to pass that many of them which have charge of praying in public, abstain from this Prayer, for fear that some of the bystanders which pray with them, should be found to lie 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 Lord's 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 Lord's Prayer. Now this Prayer than 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 sense. Besides, can he make any Prayer without asking forgiveness 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 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. Add to this, that no man can make a Prayer without protesting that he will obey God; for in desiring God that he will fulfil 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● rancour forbids a man to pronounce the Lord's 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 only the Lord's 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 hear them which are wholly possessed with a spirit of revenge, and that have no intention to forsake their malice; but the Question is of them who through infirmity, find 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 sense; Forgive me, as I pray that thou wouldst give me the grace to be able to forgive. Is there any man that can stumble at this? Is there also any Christian that ought not thus to speak? It sufficeth not to allege, 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 forgiveness 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 man to say this Prayer whilst he is, though but a little, angry? Is it than 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 public, to sit himself rather to the malice of men, then to the Rule of Jesus Christ?    

OBJECTION XI.  
For to excuse themselves they allege 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. 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 Lord's Prayer: For since they confess that we must express all the meaning thereof, is it forbidden to express 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 than they paraphrase the Lord's Prayer, Why do they not pronounce it, to the end that men may see whether the paraphrase answers the word● 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 authentic as the Scripture itself? The words of the Lord's 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 are contained in the Canonical Books? For, although they were conceived and framed by godly and understanding men, nevertheless 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 less 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 than 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 authentic as the Scripture itself. We may paraphrase the Lord's Prayer with other Prayers; but it is not forbidden under the shadow of our Paraphrases to pronounce it in its own words.    

OBJECTION XII.  
I come now to their last Objection, wherein they believe they display a great subtlety. 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?  
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 expressly put in one's mouth one's 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 only given us for a Pattern, and not for a Prayer; These men confess that in praying I ought always to have this Pattern in my mind: If I ought to have it in my mind, 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 the Son hath taught us to say to thee, Our Father which art in Heaven▪ &c. are they afraid to lie 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 controversy, that it is impossible to make any good Prayer, if it agree not, at 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 tax 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 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 Lord's 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 immediately by the hand of God: The Tabernacle was Earthly, and made by the hand of man. The Lord's Prayer is all Celestial and Divine: Ours are, in part, from man's industry; for we have not the spirit in perfection. This fabric of our spirit is always human and imperfect: but the Pattern is always Divine and perfect. There is no man so knowing, so religious, who is not subject to fail in the making of his Prayers. They are subject to imperfection, to excess, to disorders, to many irregularities. We are not without error in this business. We are herein perpetually wanting; either in omitting, or being over-brief in one point, over-tedious in another; or in raising our thoughts out of their rank. But in saying the Lord's Prayer, I am sure I cannot fail to speak well, that I omit nothing, that I speak nothing superfluous, that I am not extravagant, that there is no rashness 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 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 sickness; in life, in death: the young man and the old, the rich and poor, the King and shepherd, 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 always 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 will you obey; either him, or them who strive to persuade 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 always 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 not any man to snatch from you this precious 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 always address ourselves to Our Father which is in Heaven; for to him belongs the Kingdom, Power, and Glory, for ever and ever.  
Amen.    
FINIS.