AN EXERCITATION Concerning the frequent use of Our LORDS PRAYER In the Public Worship of God. And A view of what hath been said By Dr. OWEN concerning that Subject.  
Ignatius ad Magnesios' p. 55. per Vedelium. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Chemnitius in Harmo. p. 785. Fastidere vel brevitatem, vel simplicitatem Orationis Dominicae, quasi meliorem Orandi formam tu possis excogitare & componere, non tam temeritas quam Impietas est.  
By THOMAS LONG, Preacher of the Gospel.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for R. Marriot, and are to be sold at his shop in St. Dunstan's Churchyard, Fleetstreet. 1658   

THE DEDICATION.  
Blessed Saviour,  
WHo hast put into the heart of thy meanest Servant to vindicate one of the highest Ordinances, and hast in some measure given him strength to bring forth what thou gavest him grace to conceive: Pardon (I humbly beseech thee) the weakness of these endeavours, and prosper them by thy Almighty Spirit, to the reviving of thine own despised Institution. Thou hast the hearts of all men in thy hand; remove, I pray thee, all ignorance and prejudice, all pride and partiality, all carnal interests, and inordinate passions from their hearts, into whose hands these unworthy labours shall come; and cause them, and the daily prayers of thy Servant, to become effectual through thy blessing, for the production of that good end to which it is intended: And let the Power and the Praise be only thine, who bringest greatest things to pass by the weakest means, and out of the mouths of babes and sucklings dost ordinarily perfect thy praise. Suffer not (blessed Lord) the spirit of error and division to prevail against those whom thou hast purchased with thy blood; but let that blood be effectually applied unto them, to cleanse them from their sins, to confirm them in thy truth, and to cement them inseparably in brotherly love and unity: That as we have One Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, so we may be all of one heart and of one mind in all things that concern the purity of thy worship, the peace and edification of thy Church, and may have all our requests, together with the Incense of thy Almighty Intercession, daily presented unto our heavenly Father, in that golden Censer which thou (in great mercy to our infirmities) hast consecrated for the offering up of the prayers of thy Servants; commanding us when we pray, to say, Our Father, etc.   

To the Worshipful, JOHN MAYNARD ESQUIRE, Sergeant at Law.  
Honoured Sir,  
I Have made my Dedication, laying down myself, and all my poor endeavours, at the feet of Jesus Christ, my great Master: And having paid my vows, I come now to pay my debts, or rather (because they are greater than I can satisfy) to make my acknowledgement, presenting this Pepper-corn to your hand. All the hope that I have of your acceptance, is, because I have entitled you to a righteous cause, and such as can plead for itself. No eminency of learning or authority can give any opponent so great advantage against him that pleadeth the cause of Christ, is the truth and goodness of that cause can administer to him that defends it against all opposers, be they never so numerous, or clamorous: And yet (Worthy Sir) lest the weakness of the Advocate should seem to prejudice the cause, I have chosen to plead it mostly in the Language, and Arguments of men, as famous for excellent learning and exemplary Piety, as any this Age can boast of; And I am sure too, that there are many Persons alive of that Character, who will readily appear and plead for it still: but if all should forsake it, if all should oppose it, Our great Master can plead his own Cause, and I doubt nor Sir, but you will be of his Council; and than though the Solicitor be an Ignoramus, yet there is no fear of the Verdict.  
And thus having done my devoir, and told the world that no man on Earth hath better Title to my Labours then yourself, I beseech the God of Heaven to make you as eminent in Spiritual, as you are in Temporal blessings, that the inner man may prosper as the outward doth. So prayeth  
Your Servant in all good Offices, THO. LONG.   

The Preface.  
WHile our generation hath been so busy in casting out the rubbish of the Sanctuary, it should have been the special care and inspection of the public Servants of God attending holy things, that none of the sacred vessels and utensils of that house, which 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  had Holiness to the Lord written on them, were thrown out: But the enemy having prevailed with too many to lay aside some as vessels, and to trample on others as outworn beggarly implements, hath also raised so much dust, as hath buried many, and sullied the glory of all the rest; yea, and (as if the Christian Church had its cloud too) the understandings of the beholders are so darkened, that it is become as difficult to discern, and separate between the precious and the vile, as it is easy & familiar to call evil good, and good evil. In this great confusion, wherein Jerusalem hath been made an heap, that Golden Censer wherein the Prayers of the Saints were wont to be offered up to the God of Heaven, and that which hath been used in all ages as the 
* Sal omnium Divinorum officiorum.  Salt to season all Christian services, hath itself been huddled up as useless, or cast out as unsavoury. And no wonder; for when the enemy opposeth no Ordinance more than Prayer, and of all Prayers this of our Lord is incomparably the most excellent, of which we may justly say (as the People did of David) Thou 
1 Kings 22. 31.  art worth ten thousand of others; we may not think it strange, if (as the King of Syria did) he so order it, that his Instruments fight not against small or great, but only this King of Prayers. And indeed fought they have against it many a time, since Pelagius first blew the trumpet, and marshaled his forces against this and other important truths of Christ; but never were they so unhappily successful as in our generation. That the professed enemies of Jerusalem should cry, raze her, raze her, even to the ground, is a 
Psalm 137. 7.  voice that the Church hath been acquainted with in all ages; that they should assault her foundations, and trample upon all the holy Ordinances, disannul the Office, and despise the persons of the Ministry, call their Prayers charms, and their Preaching foolishness, is so far from wonder, that it would be a great wonder if they should not; but that they who are named by the name of Christ should do these iniquities, that his veterane Soldiers, and houshold-servants, who yet remain in his Tents, should conspire with his enemies to betray his foretresses, cast away their arms, and desert 
Preces & lachrymae arma Ecclesia.  his cause, is of very sad consideration: Such practices as these have weakened the cause of Christ, and given great advantage to the adversary; yea, and a just ground of scandal is hereby offered to all sober Christians, both at home and abroad, against the Persons and Prayers of the Ministry of England, that we have been so negligent in asserting the frequent use of Our Lord's Prayer, (of which the most are guilty,) or contrary to their former practice (which it is hoped they performed in Faith) have wholly abandoned the use of it (as too many;) and what is worst of all, that any Disciple, after Confession of its excellency, and crying Hosanna to it, should almost in the same breath denounce a crucifigite, that with its blessed Maker it might be betrayed with a kiss.  
When an Enemy, when the Sea invadeth our Land, and threateneth destruction, we all join as one man to make up the breaches; but when our Religion, our Zion, is assaulted by more Enemies than ever, when her Turrets and Battlements are broken down, no man layeth it to heart: This is Zion whom no man seeketh after, was her Motto of old, jer. 30. 17. How secure and negligent have we been for the most part, disserviceable and injurious to the Cause of Christ and his Church, against the unchristian reasonings, and unreasonable practices of such men, who would drive us from our last and best refuge, (Quid enim nisi vota? for what can Christians better confide in then in their Prayers; and what Prayer is like to be more safe and effectual than this?) I shall expose myself, not animated with the expectation of success and victory, (being on the defensive part) but to discharge my duty, to show my readiness in the cause of Christ, and to strengthen the feeble knees, and lift up the hands that hang 
Hebr. 12. 12.  down, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way: And yet seeing that Magna est veritas, & praevalebit, truth is great and will prevail, (though the Advocate that pleadeth for it be never so weak;) and seeing that no truth hath more express foundation in Scripture, or for that cause hath had more universal practice in the Church, I despair not but the eyes of those that are not wilfully blind may be opened, at least the mouths of such as are not desperately wicked may be stopped from reproaching the footsteps of Gods anointing, in decrying the pious use of this most excellent Prayer, by that which (through the blessing of God) shall be said on its behalf in this ensuing Exercitation. Which that it may not swell with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or digression, I shall insert a few things by way of Introduction against the opinion of such as oppose this Prayer under the notion of being a form; as 1. that though some forms may justly be disliked, yet the ground of disliking them because they are forms, is very unjust; forasmuch as God himself prescribed divers forms, which were accordingly practised by the Jewish Church under the Law: and our Saviour, and the Christian Church after his Example have in all ages done the like under the Gospel; Most unhappy therefore are they who heap such disrespect on that most Heavenly Prayer, delivered and inculcated by our Saviour once and again to his Disciples, merely on the account of its being a form; in as much as they seem to fight against God, and proclaim that to be common and unclean which God and our Saviour have Sanctified by their reiterated injunction and practice.  
And with what greater pomp the Friends of the English Liturgy could have solemnised its funerals, than the enemies of it have done, in causing this sacred form to accompany it to its grave, no Master of Ceremonies could well have contrived. In condemning this they have (as much as in them lay) justified that, and given its friends some hope (there being so much Divinity in the Grave with it) that one day it may have a refined resurrection.  
But at such a Funeral as this the Church cannot but mourn in the words of old Jacob; joseph is not, and Simeon 
Gen. 42. 36.  is not, and will ye take Benjamin away? all these things are against me. But that in the Old Testament divers forms were prescribed by God, and used by the Jews, sundry instances will evince.  
That of Alsteed shall lead the Chorus; 
Theol. Catech. p. 683  Etsi in S S. nihil tradatur de formula precum, Although nothing be recorded in Scripture concerning a form of Prayer used by the Fathers before the flood, (for that which the Jews say of certain Psalms then used, is uncertain) yet sure it is that they had a set form of Prayer, because they had a set form of worshipping God, i. e. certain Rites, Ceremonies, and Sacrifices (for the worship of God without 
Gen. 4. 3. 4.  Prayer is imperfect,) and God was then invocated.  
To this, that they had a certain sort of 
Judas 14.  Books wherein 'tis likely such forms were recorded: But after the flood, before the promulgation of the Law, there were extant the devout Prayers of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. Moreover, 
Gen. 18. 27. Gen. 32. 9 Exod. 34. 8. Numb. 6. 24.  when God delivered the Law of the Nazarites, he enjoined Aaron and his Sons a form of Prayer, which others afterward did imitate. Thus far Alsteed. And I find his first conjecture to be approved by many learned men, viz. that Sacrifice was always attended with solemn invocation; which appeareth from Gen. 12. 8. Abraham built an Altar, and called upon the Name of the Lord: and from Psalm 116. verse 13, 17. I will take the cup of salvation, and will call upon the Name of the Lord. I will offer to thee the sacrifice of Thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord.  
Sigonius saith, that from the time of 
Sigonius de Repub. Hebraeorum. p. 151  their settlement in Canaan, the Jews had, In omnibus urbibus loca quaedam destinata precibus solennibus, certain places set apart in every City for solemn Prayers; so that Prayers (it seemeth) were more usual than Sacrifice: and thus Bertram; Conveniebat populus ad Synagogas 
De Politia Judaica p. 96. & 131.  extra Jerusalem ad preces solennes; the people met in certain Synagogues without Jerusalem for solemn Prayer: but now (as Dr. Lightfoot noteth) they 
Miscell. p. 44.  are content (as appeareth in their Common-Prayer-book, and they pray God to be so too) with Prayers without Sacrifices. The Jews have a form of Prayer recorded which (they say) was used by Noah; how truly, I will not contend: but these following instances of prescribed forms so used are undoubtedly true; as the blessing enjoined Aaron and his 
Numb. 6. 24.  sons was constantly pronounced, and continued until the days of Simeon the 
Pet●. Gaclat. p. 85.  Just, who embraced Christ in his arms. The Song of Moses, Exod. 15. 1. was used on all occasions of Thanksgiving by 
Deut. 26. 13.  that Church. The form enjoined at the end of tithing on the third year. Paulus Fagius giveth us the form of Prayer used by Aaron over the Scape-goat, Quae forma haec fuit, which form was this; O 
Levit. 16. 21.  Lord, thy people the children of Israel have sinned, they have done wickedly, they have grievously transgressed against thee; I beseech thee now O Lord forgive their sins, iniquities and transgressions wherein, thy people the children of Israel have sinned, and done wickedly, and transgressed against thee. And another form when the bullock was offered, v. 27. And he giveth a third form on ch. 8. and addeth, 〈◊〉 simile est Christum quibusdam quae in his precibus continentur usum fuisse, It is likely that Christ made use of some things in these prayers; but of this hereafter.  
Hoernebeck repeating the seven precepts 
Deconvert. & convincend. Judaeis. p. 447.  of Noah, viz. 1. For avoiding Idolatry, 2. Not cursing of God, 3. Not shedding of blood, 4. Not discovering of nakedness, or fornication, 5. Of theft and rapine, 6. Of Judgement, 7. Of not eating any part of a living creature: all which the Jews say were given by Noah, and so continued till Abraham, who received a precept for circumcision, and appointed Morning-prayer: Isaac consecrated Tithes, and added another prayer to be said before day: Jacob added another precept, De non comedendo nervo oblivioso, of not eating the nerve of forgetfulness, and prayers for the Evening, and at length by Moses was the Law consummate. Mr. Herbert Thornedike proves the use of forms from 1 Chron. 23. 30. where the Levites were to bless 
Of the service of God, p. 2 9  and praise the God of Israel, using some Psalms of David, particularly those Psalms of Degrees from Psalm 121. to 
Car. Sigonius de Repub. Hebr. p. 243.  Psalm 135. which being ended, they pronounced the blessing appointed in the Law. And indeed the Titles of those Psalms, directed, for the Masters of Music, do intimate that they were to be used in the service of the Temple; and learned men also assure us, they were constantly so used: many of David's Psalms were used as the Jewish Liturgy on all occasions; Psalm 104, 105, 106, 107. were of frequent use, Psalm 92. was appointed for the Sabbath, Psalm 118. for Festivals, Psalms 102. for the afflicted.  
Saint Hierome observes, that four of 
Psal. 17. 86. 142. Case of Conscience.  them are expressly called Prayers. Mr. Perkins saith, that most of them are so, Psalm 90. is called A Prayer of Moses the man of God; which because Scripture saith it, we ought to believe it was so, Hezekiah, we read, commanded the Levites 
2 Chron. 29. 30.  to praise God in the words of David and Asaph; and that he had a form of thanksgiving which he used all the days of his life is very probable from Isa. 38. 20. for it was appointed for the House of the Lord. Calvin saith, Consilium Spiritus 
On Ps. 20.  Sancti (meo judicio) fuit ordinariam precandi formam Ecclesiae tradere, cujus usum ex verbis fuisse colligimus, quoties discrimen aliquod instabat: It was the counsel of the Spirit of God to give his Church an ordinary form of Prayer, which was used in words, as oft as any danger approached.  
In a Samaritan Chronicle, which the renowned Archbishop of Armagh procured from the Library of the admirably learned Joseph Scaliger, is another testimony of the Antiquity of forms; Postea mortuus est Adrianus, etc. After this died Adrian, in whose time the high Priest took away that most excellent book that was in their hands ever since the calm and peaceable times, which contained those Songs and Prayers which were ever used before the Sacrifices, (for before every several sacrifice they had their several songs still used in those times of peace.) All which accurately written were transmitted to the subsequent generations, from the time of the Legate Moses unto this day, by the Ministry of the high Priest: this book he (the high Priest) took away, than which no History besides the Pentateuch of Moses was found more ancient. These memorial of forms of public and prescribed Prayer before the time of Ezra may suffice here: the studious Reader may observe many more in the Rabbins works, and from them in Scaliger, Selden, Fagius, Buxtorfe, etc. From the time of Ezra until Christ's, it is yet more evident that public forms were used. Mr. Selden saith, that certain 
On Eutythius, p. 411.  forms of Prayer were to be used daily by every one, by Law, or received custom, which were composed by Ezra and his house, or consistory. Capel us 
Spicilegium, p. 68  relateth the same, and that Ezra and his house (the great Synagogue) appointed eighteen forms of Benedictions. Rabbi Tanchum saith, The wise men made these eighteen Prayers for so many bones in the back of a man, which are to be bowed at the rehearsal of them, because David saith, All my bones shall praise thee; which Benedictions were to be pronounced in words already conceived: And that the number of their Prayers was according to the number of their Sacrifices, their 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  morning Prayer, their 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  mincha minor and 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  major, (i) the lesser and greater oblation, their 
d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Evening Prayer, their 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  additionary Prayer, and the 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  concluding Prayer; and he addeth, The Prayer for which Peter and John, Acts 3. 1. went into the Temple, was the mincha minor, which answered to the Evening-sacrifice of the Law; and the hour, according to our account, was three of the clock in the afternoon.  
Selden addeth, that the Prayers prescribed 
See Drusius on the place. Praeterit. p. 159.  by Ezra were to be learned by every man, that so the prayers of the unskilful might be as perfect as of the eloquent man; that every act of praying was begun with O Lord, open thou our lips, 
Ps. 51. 15. Ps. 31 15. De Edmend. Temporum, lib. 6.  etc. and concluded with, Into thy hands I commit my spirit. The learned Scaliger saith, Rara illis benedictio erat sine his verbis solennibus, Benedictus es Domine Deus noster, etc. There was seldom a blessing without these words, Blessed art thou, O Lord God, King of Ages, who hast sanctified us, and hast given commandment about these and these things. Joseph Albo Ikkar saith, 
lib 4. c. 35.  The men of the great Synagogue attributed the work of the Resurrection only to the power of God, in this form; Tu potens in seculum Domine, etc. Thou O Lord, art Almighty for ever, thou restorest the dead to life, and art of great power to save. A little before the dispersion of the Jews, R. Gamaliel added a nineteenth Prayer to those of Ezra, and after him others, until the daily service grew to an hundred Prayers. The Jews Talmud, especially that part called the Mischna, is full of such forms, which carry the names of the ancient Rabbins that composed them; the first Chapter of the Talmud is entitled (as Buxtorf observeth) Berachos (i) of Blessings and Prayers for the fruits of the Earth; and the practice of the jews (ever since the penning of the Talmud) in recording their set forms of Prayers upon divers occasions, is an Argument that it was their use to compose such, and use them in more ancient times. Now this is evident by the many volumes of public Devotions published by them; of which it shall suffice to name these following: In the History of Pascha, are the Blessings and Prayers belonging to that Festival. The second part of Sepher Haa hava is concerning Prayers: Also a great Ritual and commentary upon the Prayers of the jews: Another, Precationes quibus utuntur ante & post cibum; Of Prayers 
See Drusius Praetcrit. p. 90. Of blessing bread and wine.  used before and after meat; which were divers, some at public Feasts, and others at private meals: Another named Selichos, being Prayers appointed for obtaining mercy and forgiveness of sin.  
Genebrard hath translated from Maimonides officium lugentium, the office of mourners, wherein are many forms of Prayer.  
Sol. Bar R. Nathan composed a form of Prayer to be said at the visiting of Sepulchers; of which the learned Pocock 
Notae Miscel. in Portam Mosis p. 227.  saith, Principium Orationis hujus, etc. The beginning of this Prayer is taken out of that which is among the forms of the hundred Benedictions, extant in the public Liturgy of the Jews; and in the Margin he saith, This is otherwise attributed to Abraham.  
Aben Ezrae on Eccles. 1. preferreth the Hymns made by R. Saadiah Haggaon, before those of Rabbi Eliezar Hakkalir: Now considering the Antiquity of many of these forms, more than a thousand years since, and the tenaciousness of that people in adhering to the traditions of their Fathers; and that in the Mischna are many forms used by the jews before our Saviour's days (as shall be proved hereafter) it is a convinceing Argument that it was usual for their Rabbis and Doctors, even before our Saviour's time, as to expound the Law in the Temple and Synagogues, so to guide the people in their devotions, in the Synagogues and Proseucha's (which were very many) by certain composed forms of Prayer; which Prayers were learned, and delivered, only by oral tradition, and not permitted to be written or made public, until that R. Hakkadosh composed the Mischna.  
And whereas Master Thorndike hath observed their Prayers were read by one whom they called the Apparator of the Synagogue, who was of inferior rank to the Scribes and great Doctors, and of a like degree and quality as Deacons in the Christian Church; this is an Argument that they were not entrusted to direct the Devotion of their betters by any ex tempore effusions, but to pronounce such Prayers as had been composed by their Superiors.  
And thus we have brought down the continued use of set and prescribed forms of Prayer to our Saviour's days; wherein I have greatly exercised the patience of my Reader: but I could not avoid it, this being a part of my groundwork, on which I intent, after a little more labour, to build this assertion, That Saint John Baptist (a most eminent Prophet) being to gather a new Church, and to make a reformation of Religion, and (by instructing his Disciples in the Doctrine of Repentance) to prepare them for the receiving of the Messeas, did, (after the manner of other Doctors and teachers among the jews) collect out of the Prayers and Hymns of Moses, David, the Prophets, and other devout men, such heads of Prayer as concerned the days of the Messiah, his Offices and Doctrine; and of these did compose a form of Prayer, which he delivered to his Disciples, to be publicly used by them on all solemn occasions, and to serve as a Cognizance of their professing and owning the Doctrine taught by him; which the Disciples of our Saviour observing, on this occasion, and for the same end, they ask, and our Saviour prescribeth, this form of Prayer, and enjoins the use of it; when ye pray, say, etc.  
But that I may not in this discourse seem to fight with my own shadow, as the Pontikes once did, Qui per errorem longius cadentes umbras quasi hostium corpora 
Lucius Florus.  petebant; I may say as David coming down to the battle against the Philistines, Is there not a cause? Are there not 
1 Sam. 17. 29.  too many enemies, both in opinion and practice, to our Lord's Prayer? are not the Consequences of neglecting it extremely sad? when many Christians have so far degenerated, as to thank God they have forgotten what our Saviour commanded his Disciples to learn and say, Our Father, etc.  
The grounds on which the most moderate dissenters proceed, are these:  
First, that nothing is to be admitted into Christian practice, as far as it concerneth the public worship of God, for which there is not an express or sufficient warrant in Scripture.  
Secondly, That to use Prayer as a form, there is no such warrant, either in that of Saint Matthew 6. 9 or Saint Luke 11. 12.  
The first plea divers learned men have 
Mr. Hooker Dr. Sanderson Preface to last Sermons.  answered; I shall only offer against it that which Doctor Sanderson hath written to this effect; What scandal and advantage hath been given to Anabaptists and Quakers, by, What command have you in Scripture? It is like the opening the Trojan horse, or Pandora's box, as if all had been let loose: Unà Eurusque Notusque ruunt, and swarms of Sectaries have overspread the land, and the young striplings soon outstrip their leaders upon their own ground; as they said, what command or example for kneeling at the Communion, for Surplices, Lord Bishops, a penned Liturgy, and Holy days? and there stopped: These add further, Where are your Lay-Presbyters, your Classes, your Steeple-houses, and national Churches, your Tithes and Mortuaries, your Infant-sprinklings, and meeter-Psalmes, your two Sacraments, and weekly Sabbaths? so far they are gone already; Et erranti nullus terminus, there is no bound to an erroneous spirit: Nor indeed can they that set them a going, now stop or relaim them, Fugiunt trepidi vera & manifesta loquentem Stoicidae; for they proceed upon their own principles: and if they say, Haec ego nunquam Mandavi (dices) olim, nec talia suasi, We never intended, nor countenanced these things: the reply is ready, Mentis causa malae tamen est & origo pencs te, The fountain of all these bitter and turbulent waters is with you. They that made a stand sooner are displeased with such as rushed on further, and declare against them; but no great reason, when they lent them the premises, to fall out with the conclusion.  
The master in the Fable did not well to beat his maid for serving him with thin milk, when his own Cow gave it; Why should he that giveth another scancal, be angry with him for taking it? or he that setteth a stone tumbling down the hill, blame it for not stopping where he would have it? So mischievous a thing it is not to lay the foundation on a firm bottom. It were well if this were helped ere it went too far. So far that Reverend Dr.  
As to the second ground, that there is no warrant in Scripture for the use of this Prayer as a form, sub judice lis est. All that I shall say here, is, That it is a sad thing, when men are so blinded by the opinions and prejudices which they have espoused, as that they can see nothing but what they have a mind to see; or being defective in their own sight, will needs persuade others (as she in the Comedy) that there is no light in the room: And in our days the Proverb is verified, even of Aaron's bells,  
As every man doth think,  
So the bells do clink.  
I cannot promise any Eyesalve to cure such inveterate diseases; it is opus Deo dignum, the Almighty's work. Those that are not wholly blinded I shall lend the best spectacles I have, and make it my daily Prayer for myself and all (as Bartimeus did) Lord, that our eyes may 
Mark 10. 31.  be opened. To all my Readers I commend this rule, Not easily to believe every Doctrine, and take up their Religion upon trust, but to search the Scriptures (as those more noble Bereans did) whether things be so or no; And having tried all things, to hold fast that which is good.   

An EXERCITATION Concerning the frequent use of Our LORD'S PRAYER, In the Public worship of God.  MATTH. 6. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye, or (as the Original, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) Thus pray ye, Our Father, etc. LUKE. 11. 2. And he said unto them, when ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. 
THESE two Evangelists seem to differ, not only in the divers expressions used by our Saviour in the prescribing of this form, but also in the time and occasion of the delivery thereof; some of the ancient Fathers 
Egthymius. Rupertus. Mr. Mede. Dr. Lightfoot.  assert that it was twice delivered, that in S. Matthew in the second year of our Saviour's baptism, this of S. Luke in the third, (as learned Mr. Mede computes it,) The different occasion Mr. Calvin observes, (Lucas rogatum fuisse dicit 
In locum.  Mattheus inducit ultro docentem) Luke affirms that our Saviour was desired to teach it: Matthew that he taught it voluntary, and so he favours the opinion of Mr. Mede, who with some others of great esteem, do conjecture, that the 
Medes Diatrib. Paraus. Hooker.  Disciples, when it was first given them in Matthew, understood not that their Master intended it for a form of public Prayer, whereby they might be known to be his Disciples, and therefore they desire of him in Luke such a distinguishing form, and that according to the example S. John Baptist his forerunner, (for it was usual for the eminent Doctors among the Jews to compose forms of Prayer and praise for their Disciples) Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his Disciples.  
Sect. 2. The immediate occasion of prescribing this form in S. Matthew was our Saviour's great 
Montibus inquit e●ant & erant sub montibus illis. Ovid. Metam. lib. 2.  dislike of that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) superfluous repetition of words used by one Battus a Poet, and the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or much-babling, is of a near signification, as Hesychius and Suidas expound it; learned men do parallel these expressions with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Munster paraphraseth the word thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Drusius Chap. 7. 14.  (. i.) Do not multiply words: and Grotius compares it with that phrase in Ecclesiasticus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which is translated, Use not much babbling when thou prayest: Heinsius would not be beholding to Ovid's Battus for the word, but thinks that our Saviour condemns a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when the lips and tongue pray without the mind, which the Rabbins call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speech of the lips: and the word may be as well compounded of Hebrew and Greek, and as fitly as of Latin and Greek Lyra gives the same sense of the word. (Hi exercendae linguae magis operam dant quam mundandae menti.) They did exercise their voice more than their affections, thinking to move their Gods, as a prisoner his judge, by oftensolicitation & importunity; or as if their God were at a great distance, and must be called nearer by their loud cries; of this fault the 
Grotius in loc.  Jews were not guilty, whose prayers were generally concise, and often times submissa voce, with a low voice. They pretend they learned to make short prayers from Elias, in this tradition R. Josi 
Talmud in Sephar Herachoth.  saith, on a time I walking on the way, went into one of the Deserts to pray, then came Eliah of blessed memory and watched me at the Gate, and stayed for me till I had ended my prayer; after that he saith unto me, Peace be upon thee Rabbi; I said to him, Peace be upon thee Rabbi and Master; then said he to me, My Son wherefore goest thou into the Desert? I said, to pray: He said to me, thou mightest have prayed in the way: Then said I, I was afraid lest Passengers would interrupt me: He said unto me, Thou shouldest have prayed a short Prayer. At that time I learned of him three things; 1. That we should not go into the Desert. 2. That we should pray by the way. 3. That he that prayeth by the way, should pray a short prayer: Two of these Traditions our Saviour reproves here, but nothing against the third. Now the Heathen were generally guilty of irksomeness and babbling; as a Poet of their own says, they thought their Gods (nil intelligere 
Grotius on Matth. ●.  nisi illud dictum sit centies) to understand nothing but what was repeated an hundred times, and therefore they did for some hours together chant aloud the same words, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. of which practice of theirs the Scripture records two examples, the one of Baal's Prophets, crying from 
1 King. 18. 26. Act. 19 34.  Morning till Noon, O Baal hear us! The other of the Ephesians, crying for two hours' space, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. More of this nature may be seen in Brisonius de formulis, and not much unlike are the Tautologies in the Popish Missals, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus miserere, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus adjuva, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus da mihi purgatorium meum hic. In opposition to such practices, our Saviour prescribes a succinct form of most significant words, not only enjoining them when they did compose Prayers of their own to have respect to this, as a rule; but when they did actually, and solemnly pray, to use this form; for here is evidently (transitus à formulâ ad formulam) a passing from one form to another; from their tedious Tautologies, who thought their Gods needed them, to awaken and excite them to their help, by loud noise, and long clamour, to a compendious and most comprehensive expression of all such desires as concern the glory of God, or man's temporal or eternal happiness; all which being composed in a most exquisite form, he commends to his Disciples and the multitude with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus pray ye, or more plainly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when ye pray, say, Our Father.  
Sect. 3. The occasion of repeating this form in S. Luke was an earnest request of the Disciples, who having observed the practice of S. John's Disciples, desire that our Saviour would teach them as John also had taught his Disciples. In which request we may plainly observe  

1. Rem. The desired matter, Teach us to pray.  
2. Modum. The manner, As John also taught his Disciples,   
For they were as yet ignorant, both as to the matter, what things to ask, and also to the manner, how to ask fitly and orderly.  
In our Saviour's answer are also two parts,  

1 Indeterminatio temporis, The not determining of the time, when ye pray.  
2 Determinatio orationis ad rem & modum, The determining of the Prayer, as well in its manner and form, as matter, say, Our Father, etc.   
For beyond all question, our Saviour in this, as in all other good things, did satisfy the desires of his Disciples as well in the manner as the matter of their request, direction for both these being desired; if therefore it shall be proved that John Baptist taught his Disciples a form of Prayer which they used publicly, and by which they were distinguished from the Disciples of other Jewish Doctors, and known to be followers of S. John, it may be irrefragably inferred that our Saviour taught his Disciples this Prayer to be also used as a public form, and to serve as a cognizance, whereby they might be known to be his followers.  
Sect. 4. Now to confirm this, I shall add (to what hath been alleged in the Preface,) the authorities of divers learned men, and such (for the most part) whose piety and judgement, have in other things a great esteem, and influence upon such as descent, as an argument ad homines. But in the first place, I shall briefly premise, that John Baptist, being himself a Jewish Doctor, did (as our Saviour also did) observe the Rites and Customs then in use among that people, and accommodate them to the business of the Gospel: thus it was usual with them to admit Proselytes by baptism; for as Doctor Lightfoot 
Dr. Lightfoot's Mistel. p. 80. See Dr. Hammonds Queries. Ariaes' Montanus on Luke 11. 1.  observes, that in Solomon's time, when men became Proselytes by thousands, they admitted them by baptism (as some Jews do witness, saith he.) And Arias Montanus a man that knew the customs and practices of that people as well as any in his time, gives this brief Comment on the occasion of prescribing this Prayer; Aliquâ orationis formuld, certi argumenti, nos imbue, ut caeteri Magistri suos Discipulos, utque Johannes, qui ex doctrinae suae de poenitentia, praeceptis, precationes opportunas composuit, (. i.) Give us a form of Prayer of an invariable matter or Argument, as other Masters gave their Disciples, and as John who out of the Precepts of his doctrine of Repentance, did compose certain seasonable Prayers. And doubtless our own Expositors have not taken up this opinion upon bare trust, but deliver it to us as their judgement upon good grounds. Calvin who here, as on most other places, 
Calvin's Harm. p. 150. mihi.  comments most judiciously, gives the like sense, his words are these, in respect of the more public Prayers of that Church; Johannes privatam orandi formam tradidit suis Discipulis; id fecisse existimo, prout temporis ratio ferebat. Res tunc valdè apud judaeos corruptas fuisse notum est, tota certè religio sic collapsa erat, ut mirum non sit, precandi morem à paucis ritè cultum fuisse: rursus, quum instaret promissa redemptio, fidelium mentes precando ad ejus spem & desiderium excitari oportuit. Johannes ergo, ex variis Scriptura locis certam aliquam precationem conficere potuit quae tempori congrueret, ac propiùs accederet ad spirituale Christi regnum, quod jam patefieri coeperat. (. i.) john gave his Disciples a private form of Prayer, which I think, he did as the custom of that age did require. Great corruption was then among the jews, their whole religion was so decayed, that it is no wonder that the manner of praying was rightly observed by very few; and because the promised redemption drew nigh, it was necessary to excite the minds of the faithful by prayer, to hope and desire the accomplishment thereof; john therefore out of divers places of Scripture, could, (. i.) (as I understand him, de jure, rightly and with good authority, for he had spoken de facto before) compose some certain form of prayer which was agreeable to the present time, and most suitable to the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, which then began to be manifested. This I suppose is a just interpretation of Mr. calvin's words and sense; and in this he fully accords with my assertion concerning the practice of the jewish Doctors, and particularly of john Baptist, in teaching their Disciples a form of prayer: to him I join our judicious 
hooker's Eccl. Peli● l. 5.  Hooker, who in this (conjurat amicè) is of the same mind. john Baptists disciples (saith he) which had always been brought up in the bosom of the Church from the time of their first infancy, till the time that they came to the School of john, were not so brutish that they could be ignorant to call upon the name of God; but of their Master they had received a form of prayer amongst themselves, which form none did use but his Disciples, so that by it as by a mark of special difference they were known from others; and of this the Apostles having taken notice, they request that as john taught his Disciples, so Christ would likewise teach them, to pray. Doctor Lightfoot 
Dr. Lightfoot's Harm. p. 47.  will make this argument stronger yet; thus, saith he, Christ taught this prayer almost a year and half ago in his Sermon on the Mount, and now being desired to teach his Disciples to pray, he gives the same again. john had taught his to pray after the same manner and use of the Nation, and Christ being desired to teach his Disciples as john had taught his, rehearseth this form which he had given them before: were these arguments considered without prejudice, I should not need to add more to prove this prayer a Form intended for public use.  
But I fear all that may be said will not satisfy some men; yet because this argument will be as a chief stone, on which (as to the context) we may lay some stress, I shall take a little more pains to settle it, viz. That john did, after the manner of jewish Doctors, teach his Disciples a brief form of prayer to be frequently used by them, which accordingly they did often, and publicly use, whereby they were known to be his Disciples.  
Sect. 5. I was once confidently informed that the late Bishop of Worcester had in some determinations of his when he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford, repeated the form of prayer that was dictated by S. john to his Disciples; but upon inquiry I could find no such thing, and indeed I did despair of it, when instead of finding it recorded among ancient monuments, I found that many 
Tertullian. Maldonate Compare Matth. 3. 2. with c. 4. 17.  learned men did bewail the loss of it. In all probability it did agree, both in matter and form, with this of our Saviour; as their form of Doctrine was alike, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, so likely was their form of Prayer. However their authority that argue merely negatively (that there was no such form because it is not recorded in Scripture) will signify but little, when in the first place, it shall be considered, how many things are mentioned in Scripture as done, the particulars whereof (in regestâ) 
S. Judes' Epist. ver. 6. 9  are not to be found; and Tertullian tells us that john's form was purposely omitted, that our Saviour's alone might be used; john must decrease 
Joh. 3. 30.  that Christ may increase: and secondly, when it shall be laid in the balance with the judgement of those learned and famous men that are otherwise minded. The Assembly in 
Assemblies Annot. on Luke.  their Annotations comment thus; (As john also taught) that is giving them a form. It seemeth that because Religion was miserably corrupted by the false Glosses, and superstitious Traditions of the Pharisees, as also by a general depravation of manners, so that it was no marvel if very few of them, either rightly practised, or truly understood the main part of God's worship, which is in devout and faithful prayer, therefore, whereas now, the long promised redemption of the faithful drew near, it was necessary that their hope should be strengthened by prayer to expect it, so that john Baptist whose office it was to prepare the way of Christ, did out of most evident places of Scripture thereto pertinent, compose for his Disciples (whom he was to instruct and fit to receive the Messias) some private prayer suitable to their present 
* In calvin's sense.  condition, and the spiritual Kingdom of Christ, which they were to profess.  
Diodate on the words (as john also taught) 
Diodate on Luk. 11. 1.  that is, giving them some express form of it.  
Doctor Lightfoot, whom we have before named, 
Doctor Lightfoot suprà.  says, they that deny this for a form of prayer, either know not or consider not, what kind of prayers the eminent men among the jews taught them.  
Sect. 6. And whosoever shall read the Mischna and Gemara, Seder Tephiloth of the jews of Portugal, the Comment on Perk Avoth, Sepher Hammusar, Machazor, and other Rabbinical writings, he may see many remains of forms of Prayer made by their ancient Doctors, and retaining still the inscription of their names. It is to be known, saith learned Mr. Thorndike, that things related in the Misna written in the 
Thorndike of the service of God, p. 232.  days of Antoninus Pius, are not to be understood as if they were of no greater standing then that time, but are the most ancient orders of that people, practised and delivered long before from hand to hand, as things not lawful to be committed to writing, and then first written, for fear that their manifold dispersions might bring their rules and orders into oblivion. And from the first title of the Misna we have enough to evince this whole point, for there we have divers cases concerning the formal words of divers of those prayers which still they use, resolved by Doctors that lived not long after our Saviour's time, and therefore the terms and cases of more ancient Doctors disputed at that time by these, must needs be of greater antiquity. Scaligers 
Scaliger de Emend. Temp. l. 6. p. 537.  hand shall be the last that shall be applied for the settlement of this stone.  
Si quis neget, etc. If any deny the antiquity of these Record, it is all one as if he should deny the Determinations of Papinian, Paul, Ulpian, and other Lawyers registered in the Digests of Justinian, to be their resolutions under whose names they are cited. And now I know no more to be done toward the settlement of this stone, but to fill up the chinks and to polish it, I shall add these considerations;  
Sect. 7. 1. That S. john's Disciples did use such a distinct form of prayer, as that they were thereby known by all that heard them to belong unto him, is clearly intimated in the Disciples question, which was occasioned by this observation of theirs; Master, teach us to pray, as john also taught his Disciples.  
2. This prayer, so commonly used by them, must be either of their own composure, agreeable to certain heads prescribed by their Master; or else a set form.  
That it should be of their own composure, according to their divers abilities, is unlikely;  
1. Because the Disciples of john were generally but of a mean condition, and to think that they had any extraordinary gifts bestowed upon them so early, (our Saviour's own Disciples, after they had been a long time with him, being but meanly qualified, before the coming of the Holy Ghost) is somewhat dissonant from the truth of the holy Scriptures, and the wisdom of our Saviour, that did not (on this supposition) choose Disciples for himself as well qualified as S. john's were; but in all probability they were both of them ignorant, not only of the matter, what to ask, but (which seemeth most difficult) of the manner also how to ask aright.  
2. Because, as hath been proved, other Doctors among the jews did usually prescribe the very form of prayer that was used by their Disciples, and the composure of public prayer was not the work of ordinary Disciples, but the office of one, or more, eminent men in all ages of that Church.  
3. Because if S. john had only given his Disciples heads of prayer, and not a set form, this would not have conduced to the production of that effect which the Scripture intimates to have followed, (viz.) to make them known to all that heard them whose Disciples they were; for though their prayers for the matter of them might be agreeable, yet differing wholly in form, and variety of expressions, they could not be well understood by people of mean capacities, to have followed the same rule; this I guess from the little uniformity observed in the devotion of such as follow the heads of prayer prescribed by the Directory. For though there be a good method and excellent matter proposed, yet men being left to their own composures, they either slight the method, or so invert, confound, perplex and obscure the matter thereof in their own expressions, as that it can justly be said but of a few, these do observe the Directory.  
4. Questionless the matter of S. john's prayer had a great harmony with the chief heads which were ordinarily used by the Disciples of other jewish Doctors, and therefore it must be the form that made the distinction.  
5. And lasty, If we may judge of a deed by its counterpart, our Saviour delivering in his answer a form of prayer, (as is granted by all) doth more than intimate that the prayer taught by john, and that which was desired by his own Disciples, (unless we should think that our Saviour answered impertinently) was a form. So that if we should paraphrase the words thus, Lord teach us a prayer whereby we may be known to be thy Disciples, as john also taught his Disciples a prayer, whereby we and all that hear them, may know whose Disciples they are: Our Saviour's answer, delivering a composed form, doth approve this interpretation, When ye pray, say this form, Our Father.  
Sect. 8. And upon these premises I may build this conclusion, that the prayer delivered by our Saviour on the request of his Disciples, according to the instance of S. John, was not intended only as a Directory for matter and method of prayer, but as a set form to be used by them, and to serve as a peculiar mark, and character that they were his Disciples.  
Sect. 9 But before we consider the words of the injunction and command, this one thing may be opportunely, and materially inserted, that (as it hath been already proved) forms of prayer were used in the jewish Church until our Saviourstime; so our Saviour himself did not dislike, or abhor from, either forms of prayer in general, or those forms which were then in use among the Jews in particular; for the Scripture assures us that in a great extremity, when as we may all think our Saviour would pray most fervently, he used the same words three times, (viz.) Father; if it be possible; let this cup pass from me: And it is the opinion of many learned men, that our Saviour on the Cross did repeat, not only the first verse of Psal. 22. but the whole Psalms throughout, which undoubtedly is a form. S. Hierom speaking of 
Mat. 17. 46. Hier. advers. Pelagium. p. 248. mihi.  Christ's prayer on the Cross, repeats more as spoken by Christ, then is recorded by S. Matthew; (Sic Christus or avit in Cruse) My God, my God; why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?  
Sect. 10. Moreover it is proved by learned men, beyond all contradiction, that our Saviour in the dispensation of the New Testament, did retain and practise several forms, which were used by the jews under the Old: Particularly, in the Institution and administration of his last Supper, our Saviour varied very little from the forms and customs used by them at the celebration of the Passeover; of the truth whereof besides other reasons, this in the opinion of learned men is a sufficient confirmation: That as the jews were wont to shut up the solemnity of the Passeover by singing some of David's Psalms; so our Saviour, after the celebration of the Sacrament of his body and blood, went out with his Disciples to the Mount of Olives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having sung the Hymn, which Hymn (say the best Expositors) was the same that the jews did ordinarily sing after the Passeover, and is called by them the great Hallel, which, as Pau'us Brugensis says, consisted of six Psalms, from Psal. 113. to Psal. 118. and he adds (verisimile est 
P. Brugen. in Ps. 113.  hos à Domino decantatos) it is most like that these were sung by our Saviour. And Drusius says, hunc hymnum hodieque canunt in nocte Paschatis; 
Drusius obser. p. 156.  The jews sing this Hymn in the evening of the Passeover to this day. The learned Scaliger having largely described the forms and rites of celebrating the Passeover, concludes thus; This was the true rite of celebrating the Passeover in the times of the Messias,— No man will deny that this last was like unto the former, and that Christ did celebrate them in the same manner as the jews (viz.) both of them in the manner expounded. And he concludes thus; They that object that Christ did not submit to the jewish customs, may be confuted by six hundred arguments, if it were of moment; and I believe that Drusius, Capellus, Doctor Lightfoot and others have made up the full number.  
In the conference at Hampton Court, we have 
Conference at Hampton. p. 67.  this passage; the Dean of the Chapel (who I suppose was Bishop Montague) remembered the practice of the jews, who unto the Institution of the Passeover prescribed unto them by Moses had (as the Rabbins witness) added both signs and words, eating sour herbs and drinking wine, with these words, Take, eat these in remembrance, etc. And, Drink this in remembrance, etc. upon which Addition, and Tradition of theirs, our Saviour instituted the Sacrament of his last Supper, celebrating it with the same words and after the same manner, thereby approving that fact of theirs in particular. Scaliger tells us, there was Bread also as well as 
Scaliger de Emend. Temp. p. 536.  Wine exhibited at the Passeover, with these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the bread of affliction, which your fathers did eat in the land of Egypt; let every one that hungreth come and eat, let every one that hath need come and keep the Passeover; ye were sometime servants there, but now ye are in the land of Israel; ye were sometime servants there, but now ye are free in the land of Israel.  
Now if our Saviour did accommodate the jewish forms, (some of which were merely of humane invention) to the solemn administration of that most blessed Sacrament, which is to 
1 Cor. 11. 26.  continue in his Church until his coming again; we may not think it strange that he should prescribe a form of prayer of his own composure, and enjoin his Disciples the frequent use of it in their solemn devotions.  
Doctor Lightfoot descends to particular instances, as that our Saviour after the cup of blessing, 
Temple Service p. 161.  took some of the unleavened bread and blessed and broke it, and gave it to be eaten for his body from thenceforth in that sense, that the flesh of the Paschal Lamb had been his body unto that time; and that which was called the Cup of Hallel, he taketh and ordaineth for the Cup of the New Testament in his blood, and after sung the Hallel throughout, and so went out to the Mount of Olives. And Arias Montanus 
Montanus de hymno.  notes, that the use of this Hymn was an action and rite common and most familiar to all.  
Mr. Trap gives also another instance of our 
On Mat. 6. 9 Luk. 24. 30.  Saviour's using a form of thanksgiving, by which, as it is intimated in S. Luke, his Disciples knew him. I shall not insist on this, but certainly the jews had forms of blessing their meat and drink; as these usual forms do evince: The blessing of the bread was this, (Benedictus tu Domine Deus noster Rex Seculi, qui educis panem è terra.) And (Benedictus, etc. qui creas fructum vitis.) (. i.) Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, everlasting King, who dost bring forth bread out of the earth, and blessed, etc. who createst the fruit of the vine. But enough of this; he that would see more of the former particulars, let him view Cassander, Morney of the Mass, Beza, Doctor Lightfoot, Doctor Heylyn of Liturgies. All my observations do concentre with that of a Reverend Divine in his book of singing Psalms, that this opinion is the constant vote of all the learned. And here by the way, that assertion of Grotius is sufficiently confuted, Neque enim eo 
Grotius in Luk. 11. 1.  tempore syllabis adstringebantur; for what he only says in the Negative, Scaliger, and many others of great learning and integrity, do not only say, but prove in the affirmative; (. i.) that the people were not in those days confined to words and syllables.  
By what hath been said, it appears that our Saviour was no such enemy to forms, either of prayer or thanksgiving, as those who now profess themselves to be his choice Disciples, are known to be, even to his own form of prayer.  
Sect. 11. But I shall make an essay beyond this, to prove that our Saviour in the composure of his prayer had respect unto the devotion & prayers of the Church of the Jews then in use, & was pleased to compose his for martyr and method like unto theirs. And that I may allay the prejudice, which this conjecture is like to create, I offer these grounds for it; 1. That our Saviour being to reconcile Iewes and Gentiles into one, could not use a better medium to win upon them both, then by enjoining such an uniformity in the chief part of God's worship, as was consistent with the common good and desires of all mankind in general, and agreeable to the jews own forms of devotion, (they having been for a long time God's peculiar people) in special. Nor, 2. is it any disparagement to our Saviour, the eternal Wisdom of the Father, that he did create a prayer as beautiful as the heavens, out of such a Chaos, and gather up those Jewels out of that dunghill wherein they had obscured them, and set them in such a heavenly frame, as nothing out of heaven or the Scriptures (whereof this is 
Aria's Mont. Formula ex Sacris Script. Petita.  the sum, as many Divines affirm) is half so perfect: For certainly, they had these petitions out of the Scripture from the Prophets and holy men of God. And Mr. Lightfoot applies that to the Talmud (wherein many of these are) which was said of the works of Origen, Ubi bene nemo meliùs, That which is good is very good, and that which is bad is very bad.  
And now remembering you that our Saviour did in other parts of God's worship comply with the accustomed forms of the Jewish Church, it will appear very probable that he did the same in respect of Prayer, both as to the method, and form of it.  
The likeness of Method hath been observed from Mr. Selden, who says, that of the eighteen Prayers or Benedictions (called in the Gemara, composed, or appointed Prayers, and which were for a long time the chief body of their devotion) the three first, and the three last, respected the glory of God, the other twelve those things that were necessary either for the whole people of God, or for every particular man. And whether our Saviour did not design his Prayer, (though not according to the number of their Petitions, yet) to the general method and matter of them, (vi.) the three first branches of it, and the conclusion (which may serve for three more,) referring to the glory of God, the other intermediate to the public and private necessities of God's people, is of easy observation.  
Then for the particular Heads and Petitions, they are more obvious; we shall give an instance of each: First, for the Preface, it is commonly known that the Jews did prefix to their Prayers these two letters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, as Buxtorf in his 
Buxtorf. Heinsius.  Abbreviations, says, do signify the Preface of our Lord's Prayer, (viz.) Our Father which art in Heaven. Dr. Lightfoot notes, that in Folio 
Miscel. p. 57  5. of their Common-prayer-book is this passage, Humble your hearts before your Father which is in Heaven: and he proves the appellation of 
On Matt. 6. 9  Our Father to be common among the Jews in those days; and both he and Heinsius do add- Ubique Christus hoc egisse videtur, ut ad receptas paroemias, axiomata, vel formulas respiceret. The 
Heinsius. Dr. Lightfoot.  Doctor seems to translate him thus, Christ hath an eye and reference to their Customs, Language, Doctrines, Traditions and Opinions, almost in every line.  
Drusius gives the reason why to the appellation of Our Father, they added as a note of distinction, Which art in Heaven, because they did frequently call the Patriarches by that Title, Pater noster Abraham, Isaac Pater noster, Jacob Pater noster, our father Abraham, etc. Therefore when they call God Our Father, they usually add, which art in Heaven: and so Capellus 
Spicilegium, on Matth. 6. 9  giveth the Preface entire, out of Seder Tephilloth of the Jews of Portugal (i) their order of Prayers for the whole year; used as Buxtorf says, by the jews of France, Germany, Poland, Italy and Spain;) thus, Our Father which art in Heaven be gracious unto us. And in Machazor (i) Cyclus, a circle of Prayers for their greatest Festivals. Let our Prayers be accepted before our Father which is in Heaven. Then for the first Petition, Hallowed be thy Name, in Seder Tephilloth, 
p. 114.  Hallowed be thy Name O Lord our God, and let thy memorial be glorified, O our King (in 
Gregory's notes.  heaven above, and on the earth beneath.) Master Gregory from the comment on 
* Fol. 24.  Perk Avoth transcribes the second Petition, Let thy Kingdom reign over us for ever and ever. Doctor Lightfoot says, they pray almost in every other prayer 
Miscel. E. lib. Musar. 49. 1.  thy Kingdom come, and that bimherah beiamenu, quickly in these our days. And Drusius mentioneth all these: Deus noster qui in coelo unicus es, etc. Our God which art one in Heaven, let thy Name be established for ever, let thy Kingdom rule over us for ever and ever, and let thy Name be sanctified by our works.  
The fourth Petition hath such an evident agreement with that Prayer of Agur, Feed me 
Pro. 30. 8.  with food convenient for me; which phrase our Bible's do parallel with this Petition, by quoting 
Matt. 6. 11.  it in the margin, and is such an approved Exposition of it in the Rabbins sense, that I will not trouble myself or Reader to transcribe other instances.  
The fifth Petition they express thus; Our pious forefathers were wont to say, remit and pardon all them that trouble me. This Drusius, Doctor Lightfoot, and Master Gregory observe from the Comment on Avoth, fol. 24.  
The last Petition is in Seder Tephilloth, p. 115. Led us not into sin, nor into transgression, nor into temptation; and remove from me every evil imagination. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the Devil, or Original sin and concupiscence: This Petition Master Gregory repeats thus out of Sepher 
So Drusius.  Hammassar, p. 49. Led us not into the power of temptation, but deliver us from evil: And to this they immediately subjoin a like Doxology, Quia tuum est regnum, & regnabis gloriosè in seculae seculorum. Of this we shall have occasion to speak hereafter. Solomon Glassius asserts also very 
Sol. Glassius parte prima, p. 149. 1 Chron. 29. 11.  confidently, that our Saviour in this Doxology had respect to that of Solomon, Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory; and again, thine is the Kingdom, (Ex qua desumpsisse Christus clausulam istam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 omnino videtur) from which form it fully appears, our Saviour took the Doxology in the close of his Prayer: And very usual it was with the jews, to shut up their devotions with such short forms of praise. And thus having found both the method and the matter of our Lord's Prayer in the Devotion of the jews, it only remaineth, that we answer one Objection or two against our assertion, (viz.) That our Saviour in the framing of this most heavenly form, had respect unto the forms of Prayer, then in use among the jews, the grounds of which we have laid already.  
The first Objection is, that these books from which it is supposed, that our Saviour borrowed 
Sect. 12. Object.  the heads of his Prayer, are of a far later date, than our Saviour's time, and therefore, they may more probably be thought to have transcribed something out of the Gospels, then that our Saviour, the very wisdom of God, should borrow any thing from their devotions.  
To this Objection a satisfactory answer hath 
Answ.  been given already by Scaliger, and Master Thorndike; to which (ex abundanti) it may be added, That it is true, the Books themselves are not (some of them) above a thousand, or eleven hundred years old, but yet they do record matter: of a far greater Antiquity; as books printed in this very age may record such rites and forms as were in use among primitive Christians for more than a thousand years since; so (for instance) in the late Liturgy were the best parts and offices of devotion preserved that had been used by any Church since the Apostle; days: And as for the Mischna, wherein most of these petitions are extant, it is known to be one part of that Talmud which was compiled by R. Hakkadosh, who lived in the year of Christ 150. that is 1508. years since; and the Title, and Contents of it is this, Liber traditionum, qui Patrum traditiones continet, quae inde à Mose observatae, & successiuè 
So Buxtorf.  per oralem traditionem propagatae fuerunt. The book of traditions, which containeth the traditions of the Fathers which had been observed from that time unto Moses, and were successively propagated by Oral tradition. Maimonides gives us this series of the tradition. R. Hakkadosh 
Per Pocock p. 33, 34.  had it from Simeon his father, he from Gamaliel his father, he from another Simeon his father, he from another Gamaliel his father, he from a third Simeon, he from Hillel, he from Shemaiah and Abtalion his masters, they from Judas the son of Tabbaeus, etc. unto Simeon the Just, who had it from Ezra, he from the Prophets successively, they from the Judges and Elders of Israel, they from Joshua, he from Moses, who (as they pretend) had many of them from God.  
Arias Montanus, speaking of the form in which 
Montanus on Matt. 16. 30.  Christ gave thanks, saith thus, Porro illa gratiarum actionis formula antiqua est, ut constat ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Israelitarum, & ex Mischnaioth. Now if these books prove the antiquity of that form used by our Saviour, they must relate it as a matter of fact beyond the time of our Saviour, in the judgement of that learned man. And certainly, the forms and heads of Devotion, used and recorded by these later Jew's of Portugal, were the product of more ancienttimes, and were then collected and composed by them, that they might not be lost and forgotten in the dispersion, as they had lost many Customs and Manners, and their very Language, in the Babylonish captivity. In one of the Petitions above named, they say so much expressly (dicebant pii priores) Our pious forefathers were wont to say, etc.  
And considering how superstitiously tenacious they have ever been of the customs and traditions of their forefathers, retaining and practising in their Synagogues, to this very day, many things which their Ancestors practised long before our Saviour's time, it cannot reasonably be thought that they did coin any new devotions, or at least that they did insert any such there; but least of all, would they have stamped upon them the likeness of our Lord's Prayer in every Character, as we shall now show in answer to the second Objection, which is—  
2. Object. That possibly the Rabbins, since 
Sect. 13.  the days of our Saviour, may have borrowed some parts and expressions of their Devotion, from our Lord's Prayer, and from other Evangelical passages; but that our Saviour, the very wisdom of his Father, should be beholden to the Jewish Liturgies, and Forms for his Devotion, is not with any reason to be imagined.  
1. Answer. This Objection is made somewhat unadvisedly; for if it were true that the Jews did insert these Petitions into their Devotion, from our Saviour's Prayer, it would be a sad consideration that the Jews should show more respect and observance to the prescriptions of our Saviour, than such as would be accounted the most excellent Christians.  
Secondly, It hath been already proved beyond all contradiction, that our Saviour was pleased to practise and retain divers Jewish forms, and adapted them to the Ministry of the Gospel, and commended them to his Disciples in the principal service of God; and therefore there is sufficient ground to assert, that he did the same in this business of devotion. But on the contrary there will be but rare instances given, that the Jews did make use of any new Rite, Institution, Doctrine or History which is proper to the Gospel, in those ancient Records of theirs, so as to use or approve the same, and therefore it is unlike that they had any respect to this Prayer in their Devotions.  
Thirdly, It is yet more incredible that the Jews, who abhor the very name of Christ, and make many solemn, public imprecations against him and all his followers, should transcribe any thing of his, into their Devotion, much less that every Petition of our Saviour's Prayer should find 
Part 4. Chap. 9 See buxtorf's Biblioth. Rab.  place in theirs; for in the very Talmud, one Chapter is entitled De Idololatriâ, ac vitanda omni conversatione & societate cum Christianis. Of Idolatry, and of avoiding all manner of society and conversation with the Christians: And Buxtorf saith of them, In secretissimis corum 
Synag. Jud.  libris scribunt & docent quòd anima Esavi corpus Christi subingressa est; They call Christians Edomites and Esavites: and in exemplaribus vetustis, saith he, they have sundry forms of imprecation against Christians, of which take this one: Let them be destroyed and have no more hope, and let all the Infidels (they mean Christians especially) perish in the twinkling of an eye, and all thy enemies which have hated thee, O Lord our God, be suddenly rooted out, and that proud and presumptuous Kingdom be quickly overthrown, and at last come to a total ruin; and make them without delay subservient to us in these our days. That the Turks should record some of our Saviour's sentences is not strange, seeing they account him to have been a Prophet, and I have read, that among their devotions they have a Prayer which they call the Prayer of Jesus the Son of Mary, which differs little from ours, only it ends thus; And let not him have rule over me that will have no mercy upon me, O thou most High. But that the Jews who hate and nauseate every thing that hath the least savour of Christianity, eo nomine as it is Christian, should insert this most Christian Prayer, in its full latitude, into their prayers, is certainly a vain imagination.  
Yet, as you see, both jews and Turks do retain, (though not as Christian) both the form and matter of this Prayer; where than are the enemies of it, if they be friends? Alas! in Christ's own house, among them for whose sake chiefly it was written, and unto whom it was not only commended as a privilege, but commanded as a duty, among Christ's own stewards and servants: Of our own selves (as the Apostle saith) have men arose speaking perverse 
Acts 10. 30.  things: they that had made it their familiar, and would not eat at God's Table, or sleep in their own beds without it, have, (I will not say done it themselves, but) given occasion to others to 
Psal. 41. 9  lift up the heel against, or, as the Marginal reading is, have magnified every petty imperfect prayer against it. We applaud and admire the gifts and forms of Prayer used by divers men, all which are beautiful in their kind, and have done excellently, and for them I shall join with any 
Prov. 31. 29.  to bless God; but when this Prayer which excelleth them all, non laudatur, or, as Pagnines interlineary interpretation, non Epithalamio celebratur, is not celebrated and espoused, but is neglected 
Psal. 78. 63. 1 Cor. 1. 12.  and slighted, when, as the Apostle observes, One is of Paul, another of Apollo's, another of Cephas, to the having men's persons in admiration, and slighting the things of Christ in their plainness and simplicity, this is utterly a fault.  
As to the rise of this practice in former times, 
Sect. 14.  I can discern no other ground, but either the stifling of some truth, or the venting of some heresy, or the continuing more securely in some sin; one or more of which hath been certainly the ground why the use of it hath been formerly laid aside. 
Aug. ad patres Milevit. Epist. 92. & 94. See Ravenel. in ver. Oratio Dominica.   
The first enemy to the use of it was Pelagius, as both St. Augustine and St. Hierome assure us; Pelagioni or ationem Dominicam impiis disputationibus auferre conabantur, evertentes duos artieulos, Dimitte nobis, & Ne nos inducas: The Pelagians did endeavour with wicked disputations to take away the use of our Lord's Prayer, overthrowing these two Articles, For give us our trespasses, and lead us not into temptation. You see they would have sacrificed this Prayer to their heresies; for which among other things they are worthily branded for heretics in church-history.  
Saint Hierome deals more roundly with him, 
Adu. Pelag. lib. 3. p. 248.  thus; Sic docuit Apostolos suos, ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio oredentes audeant loqui, Pater noster, etc. Thus did Christ teach his Apostles, that they should constantly at the Sacrament of his Body say Our Father; and accordingly they desire that the name of God, which is most holy in itself, may be sanctified in them: but thou sayest, Lord, thou knowest how holy, innocent and pure my hands are: They say, Thy Kingdom come, antedating the hope of Christ's Kingdom that was to come; that he reigning, sin might not reign in their mortal bodies: They say, Thy will be done, that humane weakness might imitate the Angels. Thou sayest a man may, if he will be free from all sin. They say, Give us, etc. praying for that supersubstantial bread, that they might be fit to receive the body of Christ: And ye by supererrogatory holiness, and a confident righteousness, boldly challenge heavenly gifts. They (as it follows) For give us, etc. coming from the Font of Baptism, and being regenerate through the Lord our Saviour, presently at the first communion of Christ's body: They say, Forgive us, etc. not in a feigned pretence of humility, but in consciousness of their humane weakness: They say, Led us not, etc. Thou sayest (with Jovinian) that they who have by Faith received Baptism, cannot be tempted, or sin any more: Lastly, They say, Deliver us, etc. Why do they pray for that which they have in the power of their own freewill? This is the Leader, and these the grounds of his defiance against the Lord's Prayer, (viz.) that he might raise his errors upon the ruin of it. And whether heretics in our days have not served themselves, and advantaged their errors both in Doctrine and Practice, by the disuse of it, aught by all sober Christians to be considered and laid to heart.  
The Papists are marshaled in the next rank as enemies to this Prayer; and that first for locking up the whole Prayer from the people, under an unknown language, and giving them only the shell to chew upon; their affections and understandings being unmoved and silent, while their lips and tongues are busy.  
Secondly, for curtailing it, and omitting the whole Doxology.  
Thirdly, for preferring the use of their Ave Maria's, and Prayers of other Saints, above this, as learned Chemnitius complains. 
Chemnit. Harm. p. 1977.   
(In Papatu circumtulerunt precationes Sanctae Brigiddae, promittentes largas indulgentias iis qui eas recitarunt, interim Orationis Dominicae prorsus obliti erant:) In the papacy they carry about the Prayers of Saint Bridget, promising large Indulgencies to such as would recite them, being in the mean time wholly forgetful of our Lord's Prayer.  
Lonicer reckoneth also the Disciples of one 
Theatrun. Hist. p. 91.  Martin Steinsback of Selestad in Germany, for professed enemies to it, who, (as once a proud Spaniard said, that if he had been with God at the Creation, he would have contrived things better) did go about to correct the Lords Prayer, as not well composed.  
King James says, the Brownists did not like 
On the Lords, Prayer.  it, because it was a form. Maresius a learned Frenchman numbers divers others that have imagined strange things against it.  
And lastly, (for I am not so well acquainted 
Pansebia p. 389.  with the enemy's tenets, as to reckon all,) Ross tells us of some that are against forms, chiefly the Lords Prayer, accounting such forms a choking of the Spirit. And when our Saviour tells us, that He that is not with him is against him, there are many more that are not so fast 
Matth. 12. 30.  friends unto this Prayer as they ought to be; for it is not enough to call him Lord and Master, except we also do the things that he hath commanded us: we profess to worship him in Prayers and Supplications of our own devising; and these things indeed we ought to do, but then we should be sure not to leave the other undone, that is, to worship and invocate him in the same manner and form as he hath prescribed in his Word. It may suffice to have offered these Arguments, from the occasion and context, of which this is a Sylloge:  
1. Forms of Prayer were in use among the Jews.  
2. Their Doctors did ordinarily compose prayers to be used by their Disciples.  
3. Saint john, at first a jewish Doctor, upon new emergencies taught his Disciples a new form.  
4. The Disciples so used that form, as that they were thereby observed and known to be john's Disciples.  
5. Upon this consideration the Disciples of our Saviour desired from him such a form of Prayer.  
6. Our Saviour, who was no enemy to forms in general, nor to the forms of Prayer then used by the jews in particular, did, agreeably to them, compose for his Disciples a certain form to be used by them, delivering it to them at two several times, and on divers occasions; but on both these with a plain injunction, Thus pray ye, and, when we pay, say, Our Father, etc.  
It comes now to be considered, whether the 
Sect. 15.  terms under which our Saviour enjoins it do aamount to the nature of a Precept, so as to oblige Christians to the use of this Prayer in express words, and as a form; and this, supposing it had not been twice delivered, nor on such an occasion as St. Luke relates: And in order hereunto we have the import of two words in Saint Matthew to be considered, (viz.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And here I must remember you, that our Saviour having reproved the tedious repetitions of heathenish forms, passeth on to a most excellent form of his own, and enjoins it with an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thus pray ye: Which word is in all languages used to signify an identity and individuality with the thing to which it hath reference; as when I indite to any, and bid him write thus or thus, I intent he should write the same words; and so doubtless, when Christ commanded his Disciples to pray, Thus: he meant in the same words. Indeed when we deal in similitudes, and make application by this word Thus, or So, there is only a likeness to be understood: but in all Problems, and School-Disputes, in all quotations and repetitions, it is used to signify the same thing in terms to which it is annexed. Thus when in the Philosopher we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and when we repeat Syllogisms, with a sic disputas, we do or aught to respect the very terms: and thus a good Grammarian tells 
Pasor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  us of the word, Si Logicum spectes usum, it is (not a redditionis) a note of Repetition; and a disputant may be justly displeased if ye alter his terms, and will tell you, nonsic, sed sic argumentatus sum, I did not dispute so, that is, in your words, but so, that is, in my own: and in this sense the word is interpreted by most judicious Expositors, as signifying not, after this manner, (as our Translation paraphraseth it,) but (which it will better bear,) in this form, and in these words: which Interpretation is warranted from the use of it in that signification in the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament. Thus when Aaron and his sons were commanded, On this wise ye shall bless the people, the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Numb. 6. 23.  which the Septuagint render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and I am assured that the Priests kept to the very words of that Benediction; and whether they should not have offended if they had done otherwise, is to be considered. Maimonides, in his More Nevochim, 
More Nevochim per Buxtorf. p. 108.  upon the words (Sic benedicetis (i) (saith he) hâc linguâ, in this very language; but there is no necessity of understanding them so strictly, only it shows they were far from varying the form: And questionless they did, and might, with more faith and better success retain and use this, and 
Numb. 10. 35. Deut. 21. 7, 8. 26. 13. Host 14. 2. Joel 2. 7.  several other forms that were commanded them under this or a like expression, then if they had varied them into any other words whatsoever. If you or I should command a servant to deliver a message to a superior, and put words in his mouth, in oyning him to say thus, or if you will, after this manner; I trow we think so well of our own expressions, and know our own case, and the quality of the person to whom we send so well, that we should censure that servant as guilty of high presumption, who should purt osely lay aside all our expressions, which he might very well have remembered, and deliver our message in words of his own framing; nor are such servants like to mend the matter: and therefore it is every where obvious in Scripture, that the messengers of great and holy men, Kings and Prophets, have delivered their Embassy in the same words they received it; and it would have been an act of disobedience, and an argument of pride, to have altered matter, method and form; and yet this is done to our Saviour's injunction, by all those who neither say this, nor thus. When God sent Moses to the children of Israel, he commanded him, Thus shalt thou say unto the 
Exod. 3. 14. Ch. 4. 30.  children of Israel; and the Text says, Moses told Aaron all the words, and Aaron spoke all the words which the Lord had spoken unto Moses. So in the New Testament, when our Saviour sent two of his Disciples to bring him a Colt, he commanded them, if any should ask them why they loosed the Colt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thus shall ye say unto them, The Lord hath need of him: such an 
Luk. 19 31.  answer might seem very unsatisfactory to the owner; & yet we find they say neither more nor less, (though their safety were at stake) than what they were in express words commanded; and therefore it cannot well be presumed that they made any variation here, where the word of injunction 
Ver. 34.  is the same, and the matter of a greater importance: and so lastly, when any Sentence is quoted out of the Old Testament in the New, in the same terms. The holy Penmen make ●se of this Word, which also the Apostle parallels with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; what saith the Law? and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it 
Rom. 10. 6, 8.  speaketh thus: And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, how, are both used in one sense, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answereth to both: And when in any of our writings 
Luke 10. 26.  or sayings we quote the authority of learned men, with a Sic dixit Aristot. Augustin. etc. we should be unfaithful did we not deliver their very words in their own language, or as near as we can translate them in ours.  
There is also somewhat considerable in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as joined with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Thus 
Sect. 16.  pray ye. Our Saviour doth not say, look to this copy, frame your Prayers after this example, but when you actually pray, Pray thus; which is the same with St. Luke's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pray or say, Our Father; Pray or say, Hallowed be thy Name; for although the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be of a larger extent in its proper notion, and like the materia prima be capable of all forms, yet being here limited to the act of Praying, and the act determined by a certain form, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath now received its principle of individuation; and as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when it respects a person is of the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 respecting a certain thing, of the same signification, as if our Saviour had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i) Pray ye, in these words.  
And when our Saviour delivers an entire, 
Sect. 17.  uninterrupted Form of Prayer, and immediately subjoins a brief rational upon what seemed most harsh and obscure in it, (for if ye 
Matth. 6. 14, 15.  forgive, etc. But if ye forgive not, etc.) This is to me a good Argument, that that Prayer ought to be used by us without any addition or alteration, pro hic & nunc, at certain times and occasions, which he himself would not dismember by any Parenthesis or Exposition of his own. But last of all, supposing the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signify only (after this manner, or to this purpose,) yet doubtless there is no danger in using the very words also; whereas on the contrary, if it were our Saviour's intention that we should say these words, (as the Church of God have practised, and the best Expositors in all ages have understood it;) there is then a certain fault in those that slight and omit them: So that there will lie more than an appearance of evil upon the dissenters, but none at all upon the practices; and we know who hath 
1 Thes. 5. 22. Bernard ad Eugenium; lib. 3. de Consid. c. 4.  commanded us to abstain from all appearance of evil; Quicquid est malè coloratum, saith Saint Bernard, whatever hath any show or tincture of sin and disobedience. This for the words of prescription in Saint Matthew.  
But now when our Saviour was desired by his 
Sect. 18.  Disciples, in Saint Luke, to teach them to pray as John taught his Disciples, respecting the manner and form as well as the matter; and our Saviour in compliance with their desires; gives them a complete form, and plainly enjoins them without a thus, or after this manner, although that be plain enough too, to say, (1.) totident verbis, in express words, Our Father: I must needs say, saith judicious Hooker, that the Opinion of 
hooker's Polity.  some, who affirm that our Saviour did set his Disciples a bare example to contrive and devise Prayers of their own, and no way bind them to use his, is undoubtedly an error. And Master Perkins is not far from his opinion; Whereas, faith 
Perkins on the Lord's Prayer.  he, sundry men in our Church, hold it unlawful to use this very form of words, as they are set down by our Saviour Christ for a Prayer; they are far deceived: and in answer to a third Objection, which is, That the pattern to make all Prayers by, should not be used as a Prayer: I answer, says Master Perkins, that therefore the rather it may be used as a Prayer; and sure it is, that ancient and worthy Divines have reverenced it as a Prayer, choosing rather to use these words then any other; as Cyprian, Tertullian, and Augustine: wherefore, saith he, that opinion is full of ignorance and error: And I may add, if the opinion be full the practice cannot be empty.  
And indeed, as Master Mede and Master Hodges say, what more significant expression, supposing it had been our Saviour's mind to enjoin it as a form, could be fitted or contrived to intimate it to his Disciples then this, when ye pray, say, etc. Or had our Saviour foreseen the controversies that would arise in these last days concerning the use of it (and doubtless he did foresee them all) how could he more positively have decided them then by this plain expression, when ye pray, say? Suppose this had been the sense of the Disciples in this place ask a Prayer, as some learned men conceive it was, Lord, thou gavest us a Prayer in the Mount, but whether that was intended for public use or no, we are not fully satisfied; wherefore now we beseech thee teach us such a one as John also taught his Disciples; what more punctual answer could be devised then this, when ye pray, say, & c?  
Such as descent from this opinion and practice, finding themselves overborne by the weight of 
Sect. 19  this expression in Saint Luke, are wont to retreat to that of Saint Matthew, by whom they plead Saint Luke aught to be expounded; to which if we should give way, as it would not much help them, (that fortress having declared already for the contrary opinion;) so I doubt not but we may easily block up all avenues to that refuge, and evince by sufficient Arguments, that Saint Luke should rather expound Saint Matthew, then be expounded by him.  
For seeing it is true, as many learned men do 
Chemnitius Luc. Brugen. Paraeus, etc. Mede.  affirm, that our Saviour did twice deliver this form, and the Disciples not fully apprehending it at first to be intended for public use, he repeats the same form a second time under a more plain injunction; this signifieth he intended it so in Saint Matthew, and his second injunction is but a more solemn sanction of it as a form for public use; and that it was twice delivered appears partly from what Master Mede saith; that it is impossible to make these two relations of the Evangelists to be coincident for time; and the different occasion heightens the impossibility: Marlorate makes this of Saint Luke to agree with another passage of Saint Matthew, Chapter 14. 23. where our Saviour is said to go into a Mountain apart to pray; and so here in Saint Luke, He prayed, and that alone or apart; so that the coincidency of these two places is far more probable than the other: For this Prayer of St. Matthew was delivered in the first year, saith Chemnitius; in the second year of our Saviour's Ministry, saith Master Mede, this of Saint Luke in the third year; in all probability there was more than the distance of a complete year; whereas by the general consent of Harmonists that of the 14. of Mat. is much more coincident in time, and the occasion seems one and the same; only Saint Matthew, having recorded this Prayer before, passeth it by here; and Saint Luke omitting it in the Sermon on the mount, where Saint Matthew had recorded it, repeats it here, where Saint Matthew had omitted it: for all know that is the usual manner of the Evangelists, as to repeat that more briefly which the former had enlarged, so to enlarge that more fully which the other did but touch, or pretermitted; which double Sanction as it is a good Argument to prove that Christ intended it for a form, so it doth also strongly infer that which I intent, that the injunction in Saint Luke is the most express and plain; unless we should affirm that our Saviour did make things more perplexed and obscure by his often repetition of them: and being most express and plain, it ought certainly to expound that which is more dark and doubtful, unless, contrary to the Rules of all good method, we will teach ignotum per ignotius, which is as to make the blind lead the lame. And seeing all Expositors do grant, that Saint Luke is most exact in the orderly disposing of things according to their time, and relating their occasions, it will still follow (although we should grant the places of both Evangelists to be for time coincident) that Saint Luke, who recordeth the occasion more fully, and the injunction more plainly, aught to expound Saint Matthew, and not to be expounded by him; and so we see Saint Matthewes sic hath its sicut in Saint Luke, After this manner pray ye, is of the same force, as, when ye pray say, etc.  
Doubtless our Saviour could express his mind 
Sect. 20.  so appositely, and foresee all inconveniences so clearly, that had it been his mind that his Disciples should not have used this Prayer as a form, or that their successors should offend in so doing, he would have propounded it with some caution or limitation; either he would not have made it a form, or being such, he would not have commended it unto them under such an apparent injunction, as when ye pray, say, etc. (which sounds quite contrary to such an intent) for in this sense it hath been understood, and accordingly practised by the Church in all Ages; and any vulgar eye that vieweth the whole structure may observe that it was fitted by our Saviour for public Devotion, to be used by his Disciples in consort, and to serve as a note of distinction to such as heard them whose Disciples they were. And Doctor Hammonds Paraphrase most genuinely agrees with the Text: One of his Disciples besought him to give them a form of Prayer which they might constantly use, as John Baptist had given to his Disciples; and upon that demand of his, being at another time, and upon another occasion from that in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ said to his Disciples, Whensoever ye pray solemnly omit not to use this form 
Matth. 6.  of words. For if Saint John's Disciples did publicly use the form of Prayer given them by their Master; and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as much as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, si quando, if at any time ye will pray, so as to be known that ye are my Disciples; what can this signify less then, when ye pray solemnly omit not to use this form of words?  
Master Hodges his Argument hath also its 
Sect. 21.  weight, and may be improved thus; Suppose the Disciples had asked, Master, teach us to sing as David taught the people of God; or, which is the same, teach us to pray, as David taught the People of God, (for he taught them Psalms of Prayer as well as Praise, and hereupon our Saviour had composed some Psalms of Praise and Prayer; I demand, whether we should not have been obliged to use those Hymns of Prayer and Praise, although there had been no injunction annexed to them: And doubtless, as the people of God under the Old Testament, and we under the New, aught to use David's Hymns of Prayer and Praise, as an Ordinance of God in his public Worship; so ought we more especially, and at least as frequently, to use this most solemn and Divine form of Prayer. And thus of the Arguments from the words of injunction, whereof this is a Sylloge:  
1. The injunction of Saint Matthew is sufficiently clear to all unprejudiced persons.  
2. That of Saint Luke, delivered a second time, and on a different occasion, hath yet (as the dissenters grant) a more clear command; by which  
3. That of Saint Matthew (if there had been any difficulty in it) ought to be interpreted.  
4. There cannot be a more apposite expression given to signify that it ought to be used as a form.  
And fifthly, had our Saviour intended it only as a Pattern or heads for Prayer, or foreseen any inconvenience in the use of it as a form, he would never have commended it under such words, as in the judgement of the Church, and eminent servants of God in all ages, hath the full import of a positive injunction, When ye pray, say.  
The next thing to be considered, is the matter of fact, what hath been the practice of the Disciples, 
Sect. 22.  of the Church of God, and of pious and learned Christians in all ages. And although it be no where in Scripture set down positively, that the Apostles did use this form of words, as neither that they did use the same method or matter; yet this being but a negative argument, concludes no more that they did not use this form of Prayer, then, because we read not that they baptised any In the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, therefore they did not so baptise any; which form was yet enjoined by our Saviour, as a prime Office of their Ministry, and beyond all peradventure they did strictly observe as oft as they baptised any. And when the Scripture assures us, that it was their practice to use Psalms and Hymns, and spiritual songs, praising God, and praying unto him in the words of David, when they did keep to the same prescibed words in the administration of both Sacraments, when they observed forms in the benediction of the people, in the close of their Epistles, and in other solemn Acts of God's worship; (all of which forms were not so authentic as to be of our Saviour's own composure and prescription) what should hinder but that they might and did use this most excellent form of Prayer in their devotion? Most certain it is, that they who retain a form of Benediction over the people when they dismiss them, and of administration of both Sacraments, have no more to say in their defence, than they who retain and use this form of Prayer; for Christ who gave commission to his Disciples to go and discipline all Nations, baptising them, etc. He that said, Take, eat, this is my body, etc. the same commanded also as positively, when ye pray, say, etc. And when we all account it our duty to praise God in singing David's Psalms, some of which, as we use them, are of a mean composure, and carry expressions beneath the Majesty of Scripture; others, such as concerned the Jewish Church only; why ought not the Apostles, and we as necessarily, to use this form of Prayer, sanctified by our Saviour's own lips? Can we charitably think they asked a Prayer, in sense of their own insufficiency for that duty, and such a one as by the use thereof they might be known to be his Disciples, and when they obtained one so heavenly, so succinct, and yet so significant, and enjoined under such plain terms, yet did refuse or neglect to use it? doubtless, they did bestow some time to commit it to memory, they did often con it and meditate upon it; and when they repeated it, I suppose it was not without some affection, devotion, and lifting up their souls to God; and if so, they did use it as a form of Prayer.  
And surely that of Saint Augustine may take 
Aug. de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 2. c. 7. & lib. 4. c. 24.  take place here if any where; Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, etc. In practical matters the use whereof is obscure, the general practice of the Church is the best Interpreter. His rule is this; That which the universal Church doth hold, not as being instituted by Counsels, but as always retained in the Church, we rightly believe it to be of Apostolical authority: Now indeed the Counsels did often check the neglect, and determine 
Conc. Gerun. Toletan.  the times and order of using it, but never imposed it de novo, as a thing that had not been formerly practised. Quia quotidiana Oratio est quotidie dici oportet, saith the Toledan Counel; Because it respects our daily needs, it ought to be said daily.  
Nothing can be more certainly affirmed from 
Sect. 23.  Ecclesiastical Records concerning any matter of fact, then that the Church of Christ did early and constantly use this form as a chief part of their devotion: That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, One Common 
Ignatius ubi suprà.  Prayer used in the time of Ignatius, who saw Christ in the flesh, it was in all probability this, or some other form.  
Genebrard in his Chronol. tells us of a School at 
Lib. 3. p. 511. Anno 196. Hier. in Catal.  Alexandria, wherein Saint Mark had appointed that there should be continually such Doctors as should teach the Fundamentals of Christian Religion; he nameth Pantenus, who lived under Commodus the Emperor, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen; and he saith from Tertullian 
Tertul. lib. 5. contr. Martion. & Socrates Hist. ubi suprà.  and Socrates, that in this School were taught the Creed, the Decalogue, and the Lords Prayer; Saint Hieromes authority you have had already: So Christ taught his Apostles, saith he, that they should constantly at the Sacrament of his body say, Our Father, and accordingly they desire, etc. repeating the whole Prayer. The next testimony is Tertullias, Praemissâ legitimâ & ordinariâ precatione quasi fundamento, jus est desideriorum, 
Tertul. de Oratione, c. 1.  jus est super struendi extrinsecus petitiones; Haveing first said the lawful and ordinary prayer as a foundation, we make it the rule of our desires, and of framing all our Petitions according to it. He calls it lawful, as appointed in the Gospel by the Law of Christ; and being ordinary, it is an Argument that the general use of it had prevailed through ancient custom in more Primitive times: and that Father is large in the commendation of it, call it. Breviarium totius Evangelii, a breviary of the whole Gospel, which is not more succinct in words, than it is enlarged in matter, comprehending not only all the Offices of prayer, but all the sayings of Christ.  
If any credit may be given to the Clementine 
Clement. Constitutiones per Surium lib. 7. c. 25. cap. 45.  Constitutions, it was of ordinary use even in Apostolical times: They naming the Lords Prayer, add, Ad hunc modum precamini ter singulis diebus, use this Prayer three times a day: and again, Let the baptised person standing up, say the Prayer which the Lord hath taught us.  
Gregory being asked why he did annex the 
Gregor. Mag. l. 7. Epist. 54.  Lord's prayer to the Canon for celebration of the Lords Supper, gives this reason; Mos fuit Apostolorum, ut ad ipsam solummodo Orationem Dominicam, etc. It was the practice of the Apostles to consecrate the Holy Sacrament only by the Lord's prayer. And indeed the many Comments and pious Expositions of this prayer, in all 
So August. Epist. 59 ad Paulinum.  those Primitive times of the Church, by their chiefest Doctors, is to me an argument, of its ordinary use: and were those Expositions collected into one volume, and well digested, it might prove as great a help to devotion as any that I know. But I may easily tyre my Reader, leading him only through a few of those many ancient paths, where evident footsteps of the common and frequent use of this Prayer do appear: as in those most ancient Liturgies collected by Bignius and George Cassander, many of which 
Bignii Biblioth. tom. 6. Georg. Cassan. de Liturg.  are for the chief parts of them, and as far as concerns the matter in hand authentic, though in other things they have suffered additions and alterations; in these generally this prayer is inserted sometimes more than once: thus in those that bore the names of Saint Mark, Saint James, chrysostom, and Basil his Greek Liturgy, and that which he translated out of the Syriack, the Ethiopian, Armenian, and the Roman, before the defection of that Church, in all these this prayer is used; and Master Hooker hath observed, That what part of the world soever we fall into, if Christian Religion have been there received, 
Ecclesiast. Polity li. 5.  the ordinary use of this very prayer hath with equal continuance accompanied the same, as one of the principal and most material duties of honour done to Jesus Christ. Saint Augustine makes 
August. ad Laurentium.  many memorial of the use of it, as in his Enchiridion, Ecce tibi est Symbolum & oratio Dominica, etc. You have the Creed and the Lords prayer, what shorter rule is heard or read, or more easily committed to memory? And again, They that walk in the ways of the Lord, say, Forgive us our trespasses: and again, the daily prayer which 
Concio 3. in Psal. 18 De civet. Dei, l. 21. c. 27.  the Lord himself taught, (whence it is called the Lords prayer,) doth obtain pardon for daily sins: And speaking of the prayer used at the administration of the Sacrament, he saith, Which prayer almost all the Church concludes with the Lords prayer; we cannot pray for any thing else, saith 
See also Epist. 1 21. b. 12.  he, seeing whatever may be desired of God, this one prayer taught by Christ doth contain, and all in that order as it ought to be desired; so that this prayer is to be preferred above all, as for brevity of words, so for plenty of things, and their orderly disposure. And that diligent and devout Father hath divers entire Comments upon it. I shall add only one saying more of his; Simo 
Hom. 42.  quis vestrum non poterit tenere perfectè, audiendo quotidie tenebit; If any of you have not learned it perfectly, by hearing it daily he may.  
Saint Ambrose on the fifteenth Petition of this 
Ambrose in Orat. Dom. p. 54. tom. 5.  prayer saith thus; Therefore daily say this Petition, that thou mayst daily obtain pardon for thy debt: And again, Let us hear what the Disciple of Christ doth pray, namely, that which his master taught him; Hear, saith he, what the Priest 
See p. 265 tomis. 51.  saith, Through Jesus Christ, in whom, and with whom, unto thee be honour, praise and glory: This was a clause added by the Latin Church to our Lord's prayer instead of the Doxology, of which more hereafter.  
Saint Cyprian is most excellent in the commendation 
Cyprian de Orat. Dom.  of this prayer, and the use of it as a form; his words are these: seeing this prayer was breathed forth from God our Saviour, what can be more acceptable, what more effectual with God the Father? what should be more dear and familiar to us? Lest thou shouldest be ignorant how God is to be spoken to, God himself puts words into thy mouth; and lest thou shouldest doubt how ready he is to hear thy prayers, he himself directs thee how to pray in such a manner as is fit to be heard; and lest thou shouldest complain that (a form of prayer being prescribed) thou hast lost thy liberty of ask the things thou needest, whatever things thou mightest rightly desire, are all included; and our Saviour hath included them in a prayer, that gives us so great honour, that raiseth us to so great hope, that flows with so much sweetness, as no tongue can express; and it is to be wished the understanding of the supplicant could aspire thereunto: Let us therefore pray, beloved brethren, (as he goes on) as God our Master hath taught us; it is a friendly and familiar Prayer, to entreat God in his own words, when the Prayer of Christ shall ascend from our mouths to the ears of God; the Father will own the Sons words, when we pray unto him in them; if whatever we ask in his Son's Name he will give us, how much more effectually 
John 16. 23.  shall we obtain if we ask in Christ's Name by his Prayer? Thus Saint Cyprian. Lucas Brugensis 
Brugensis Annot.  speaking of the manner of saying the Lords Prayer in the Latin Church, saith, it was so ab istis Apostolorum temporibus, from the Apostles days.  
Saint chrysostom doth record it as a Rule of the Church, (which we have already mentioned 
Homil. 20. on Matth.  out of the Clementine Constitutions, and by this of Saint chrysostom it receiveth a further confirmation,) that the baptised person should say the Lords Prayer; from which custom he proves, against the Heretics of his time, that the People of God were not by Baptism secured from falling into sin, nor were they excluded from all hope of remission, if they did repent for the sins which were committed after Baptism; seeing that the Church doth not teach them in vain presently upon that Ordinance to say, Forgive us our trespasses.  
In the Canons of King Canut under Aethelnoth, this is one: Moreover, we exhort that every 
Sr. H. Spelman. Conc. Britt. Reg. 22.  Christian do so learn as that he well understand the true Faith, and have the Lords prayer, and the Apostles Creed familiar; for Christ himself did first teach that prayer, and gave it to his Disciples; and he that will not learn these shall never partake of happiness with Christians when he dies, not living shall be admitted to the Eucharist, nor shall he be counted worthy the name of a Christian. I shall add but one testimony more, and that (for antiquities sake) from the mouth of an heathen, namely Lucian the Scoffer, who in his Philopatris purposely derides the doctrine and practices of Christians; he names our Saviour Chrestus, by way of contempt; he calls his scholar by the word used in the Primitive Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one that is to be catechised: He sets down the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it was then taught, One in Three, and Three 
Socinus in defence. Anim ad. cont. Gabriel. Eutropium.  in One, (which expression of his is acknowledged by Socinus to be so fair an evidence for the Doctrine of the Trinity, that he says, he never read any thing more strong:) He describes the Creation, and Moses; St. Paul, and the Sacrament of Baptism; and at last bespeaks Critias, that personated a young Christian disciple, thus; But let these alone, and go say thy Prayer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Beginning with Father, and adding that famous Doxology. This Rigaltius on Tertullian notes, that the Pagan meant it of the Lords prayer; and it is brought by the learned Mr. Gregory, to prove against the Papists, that the Doxology is authentic; and he that considers the design of that left-witted heathen, cannot devise what else he should mean: And if so, it appears that it was the frequent practice of Christians in Lucian's days, (that is, in the time of Trajan, less than two hundred years after it was delivered by Christ) to use this form of Prayer publicly: for how else could this Pagan come to the knowledge of it, or scoffingly enjoin it as a duty to be performed by him that would become a Christian? And now let it be considered, whence had these most Primitive times this custom of using and enjoining our Lord's prayer, if not (as they do all testify uno ore, with one consent) from the practice of the Apostles, as they had it from the precept of Christ? He must bring some convincing Argument, or Demonstration, that will disprove all these Evidences; and until that be done, we may safely acquiesce in these.  
If I should now add the authorities and opinions 
Sect. 24.  of modern Divines, whose names and memories are, and ever will be, fresh and fragrant in all the reformed Church, I should far exceed my intended limits: I shall therefore mention only the most eminent, and them chiefly who are of greatest repute with the dissenters. And 
Calv. Institut. l. 3. c. 20. S. 34.  first, Mr. Calvin saith; Now not only a more certain rule, but the very form itself of prayer is to be taught: and again, for Christ prescribed us a form. And as this prayer was used in the Geneva Liturgy, so frequently by Mr. Calvin himself, at or before his Homilies.  
And Beza became his scholar in this also; for 
Beza's Annot. on Luk. 11.  he says, Our Lord's Prayer is precum formula divinitùs nobis quasi praeseriptis verbis mandata, A form of prayer commanded unto us from heaven as it were in prescribed words. Next, Chemnitius 
Chemn. Har. p. 1175.  in his Harmony says, That the Disciples desired of Christ, after the example of St. John, a certain form of prayer which they might use in their devotion, and by which they might the more easily obtain what they desired.  
Again, we know that when we recite the Lords Prayer we enjoy a great privilege, seeing that he who taught us sits in heaven the Master of our requests; who also presents our prayers, and intercedes for us: Cum primis verò illud notatu dignum est (as he saith) This especially aught to be observed, That when Christ in the first year of his Ministry had taught his Disciples how to pray; and here again, being desired to teach them to pray, taught no new form, but repeated the old; it shows, we should not be troubled every day about new forms, nor that our prayers are therefore unacceptable, (other requisites being observed) because we repeat the same form; for (as he quoteth from St. Augustine) All the prayers of the Saints are nothing else but the Pater noster, etc. enlarged, and in it is comprised the marrow of all the prayers of the old Testament; and hence (saith he) the word (Collect) is used to signify a prayer, this prayer being a collection of all good prayers that ever were made in the world.  
Mr. Thomas Cartwright says; I know in so 
Bishop whitgifts defence. p. 804.  few words it is impossible for any man to frame so pithy a prayer; only there is no necessity laid on us to use this and no more: (where he seems to grant a necessity of using this:) and again, I confess the Church doth well in concluding their prayers with the Lords prayer.  
And indeed the use of it hath been preserved in all famous Liturgies of the Reformed Churches, as well Lutheran as Calvinists; in that which was composed by the English exiles at Frankefort in the Marian days, and printed at Geneva, 1556. it is twice inserted.  
But of all Champions, Pareus hath most successfully 
Pareus on Matth. 6.  defended it: Seeing (saith he) this prayer is read in two different places, it is made a question whether it was twice delivered; and I see nothing to the contrary but it was prescribed twice, once in the mount to the Disciples and people, another time to the Disciples alone: to which opinion the different occasions in Matthew and Luke do persuade me; for it seems the Disciple who in Luke demanded a prayer, was not present at the Sermon on the Mount, or the form first given was forgotten; for the Disciples were ignorant, sua ruditate, for their dulness, of some things which were twice or thrice delivered to them. Then it may be demanded (saith he,) whether our Saviour did so strictly oblige us to this form and words, as that we may not use any other: thish e deservedly denieth, (using St. Augustine's distinction, viz. we may pray aliter, or aliis verbis, in other forms, and words, but we cannot pray for aliud, any other thing then what is included in these words) but yet he saith, both to public and private prayers we do rightly add this form, as a seal of them. For which he gives these reasons:  
1. That we may obey the command of the Son of God.  
2. 
Pareus his Reasons for using our Lord's Prayer in public & private.  Because it may not be doubted, but these words of prayer are most acceptable to our heavenly Father; for the Father ever heareth the Son, therefore he will hear the Sons words.  
3 Because it most succinctly contains a perfect sum of all things desirable, so that in whatever particular our own prayers have been defective, this form will make a supply.  
4. This prayer is granted as an encouragement to those who are yet more slow and ignorant, that the Son of God hath instructed them how to the prayers of the Church they should join their own, in this short form.  
Thus Pareus; and our Assembly in their works have done worthily on this behalf: In their Catechism they have this question, How is the Lords prayer to be used? The answer is, The Lords prayer is not only for direction, as a pattern according to which we are to make our prayers, but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding, reverence, faith, and other gifts necessary to the right performance of the duty of prayer. More fully yet in their Directory; The prayer which Christ taught his Disciples, is not only a pattern of prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer: Therefore we recommend it to be used in the prayers of the Church. And above and beyond this is that which is delivered by them in the large Annotations: This is a true sum 
On Matt. 6 9  and form of all Christian prayer, set down both in precept and practice. And on Luke 11. 2. When ye pray; Compare (say they) Matthew 6. 9 and the circumstances show, that Christ did twice at least teach them the very form of prayer; and hence it appeareth, that as this is the most absolute and complete pattern of prayer, comprehending all that we must ask; so is it the most exact and sacred form of prayer, indicted and taught his Disciples (who were to teach the whole world the rules and practice of true Religion) by Christ himself, who is best able to teach his Disciples to pray.  
Again, on the word (Say) Christ prescribed this form of prayer to his Disciples to be used by them, not rejecting others which his spirit taught, or teacheth; (That is, as I suppose, other forms, which the Spirit did, or might teach) but to abridge all necessary petitions into this one sum. Thus that grave Assembly. And Dr. Hammond 
View of the Directory, p. 28.  tells us, he heard one of the gravest members of it, being asked concerning the use of the Lords Prayer, to answer thus; God forbid I should ever be upon my knees in prayer, and rise up without adding Christ's form to my imperfect petitions. So that even they who reject other forms of prayer, think it fit to retain this. And what pity is it when the General Assembly teach it so well to others, any particular members should make it a castaway in their own practice?  
The Dutch Annotations say thus: Order all 
Matth. 6. 9  your prayers according to this form; not that we are bound always, or only, to hese words, f in necessities that may fallout, it is also lawful farther to enlarge some petitions, and also to express them in other words. Junius on Matthew thus; Substantiam orationis, etc. Christ taught the substance of prayer, in that most holy form which is observed in the Church: and in the notes with Tremelius on Luke 11. It is probable that John did compose a certain prayer out of divers places of Scripture, which agreed to the time, and came near to the spiritual Kingdom of Christ that was to be revealed.  
Lucas Brugensis on the word (Say) Use this form, which being extracted out of the holy Scripture contains the sum of all petitions: and it is 
Luc. Brugen. on Luk. 11.  no wonder if Christ did repeat this most perfect form, not twice only, but more often, which he would have his Disciples use daily.  
Bishop Andrew's speaking of Prayer, says; And in this also we want not fancies (in this age 
Bishop Andrew's of worshipping Imaginations, p. 36  especially) wherein an idle conceit is taken up, that never came into the heads of any of the old heretics, though never so brainsick, once to imagine; Our Saviour Christ thus willeth us, when ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. A most fond imagination is start up in our times, never once dreamt of before, that telleth us in no case we must say, Our Father; with which form, (if Saint Augustine be to be believed as a witness of Antiquity,) 
Epist. 5.  the Universal Church of Christ hath ever used to begin and end all her prayers; as striving indeed to express the sense of that prayer, but not being able to come nigh the high art, and most excellent spirit of perfection in that pattern, they always conclude with it; as being sure, however they may for divers defects not attain to the depth of it, by it they shall be sure to beg all things necessary at God's hands.  
Bishop Usher in his body of Divinity, to the 
p. 352.  Question, What is the Lords prayer? Answers, It is an absolute prayer in itself, a prayer giving perfect direction to frame all other prayers by. And again; it is a prayer which we may and aught to pray. See Baldwines Cases of Conscience. Maresius 
Lib. 2. c. 7. Cas. 13.  saith, Christ did not only present us with an Idea, but a Form of prayer, when to his Disciples ask him, Teach us to pray, he answered, when ye pray, say, etc. Alsted saith, The Lord's prayer is 
Theol. proph. p. 700.  the breviary of the Gospel; therefore with this form of prayer especially God is to be invocated. Mr. Ball saith, To refuse this form savoureth of a 
Ball on the Lords Prayer, p. ult. Ravenelun verb. Oratio Dom. Sect. 25.  proud contempt of Christ's Ordinance. Ravenella from Tertullian tells us, It is that new form of prayer which Christ hath determined for the Disciples of the New Testament.  
Here are Champions sufficient; and yet to these we might call in, if need were, (and those no foreign forces neither) the votes of all those National Churches, and famous Persons, which have both practised and pleaded for, not this form only, but the use of other forms of far inferior rank; and I have not yet heard or seen their Arguments or practice disproved by any. The Albingenses, Waldenses, Lutherans generally, the Protestants of France, Denmark, Swethland, Helvetia, both Germanies, Geneva and Franckefort; Wickliff, Hus, Luther, Melanchton, Calvine, Bucer, Phagius, Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, Bradford, Hooper, Taylor, (almost an army of Martyrs;) Fox, Dr. John Reynolds, Burges, Greenham, Baines, Hildersham, Perkins, Preston, Ball, Sibi, Dod, with many others: all which being confessedly the Luminaries of their several Generations, have given light to the lawfulness, and consent & liking to the use of forms in general, and much more of this in particular. For if forms of prayer have been approved by all these, then questionless this which is the rule and standard of all, (and is disliked chiefly, if not only, for its being a form) was approved above all.  
And if its being a form, or our using it as such, be a fault, both these may be charged on our Saviour's 
Sect. 26.  account, who yet knew no sin, though he used divers forms: and why we should be such professed enemies to what our Saviour declared himself so much a friend, (especially if we consider how much the forms used by him were beneath that which he commanded us) I fear a satisfactory reason can be scarcely given. Nay, when we do the same thing in other parts of God's Worship, why should we disallow ourselves in this? The Scriptures which we read are forms; There are forms of Doctrine, and forms of wholesome words, forms of praising God, and praying unto him in the words of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Deborah, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc. and when we may and aught to bless and praise God in some of these forms, why ought we not also to pray unto God in this? It seems forms are lawful in our praises, in the administration of both Sacraments, in our benedictions, yea and our excommunications too, only in our prayers they are not so. And is not this greatly to be wondered at, that in our Generation men should so much dote upon, and contend for petty forms of Discipline, which till of late days were never fancied to be either in the Scriptures of God, or the practice of his Church; for which notwithstanding the veil of the Temple, yea the very bowels of the Church, are rend, and Christ himself seems to be crucified afresh; when this form, so positively prescribed in Scripture, so universally practised by the Church in all ages, is most undeservedly and unworthily exploded?  
Our Saviour's own practice was a sufficient warrant for the Primitive Church to compose and make use of forms of Prayer in the public worship of God; and that promise of his (which also implies a precept) was a firm ground of raising their faith and hope of obtaining a blessing on them: I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall 
Matth. 18. 9  ask, it shall be done for them, etc. And indeed it will require the serious study, experience, wisdom, and premeditation of more than one Disciple, to express the necessities of all the people of God, and suit them to the capacities and affections of them all.  
And now having already given you a series of 
Sect. 27.  the use of forms in the service of God under the Old Testament, and seeing the use of this prayer is disliked chiefly because it is a form, I am even necessitated to say somewhat of the use of forms also under the New: And, that they that seek a stumbling-block may find none, I shall choose to do it in the words of pious and approved men, who are above all exception: And such an one in the first place I take Mr. Calvin to be, who in his Epistle to the then Protector of 
Cal. Epistles, Octob. 22 1548.  England says thus; As for forms of Prayer, and Ecclesiastical rites, I greatly approve that there be set forms, from which the Pastors may not depart in their offices, and whereby provision will be made to assist the simplicity and indiscretion of some; and the consent of all Churches may more visibly appear; and it will prove a remedy against the desultory levity of some men that still affect innovations: as I have showed (saith he) that the Catechism itself serves for this purpose; so therefore there ought to be a set form of Catechism, a set form of the administration of the Sacraments, and of public prayer.  
The worst that Mr. Calvine said of the English Liturgy (when it was newly purged from the dross of Popery) being importuned by some dissenting English at Franckfort to pass his censure upon it, was this, that the things most obvious to exception were tolerabiles ineptiae, trifles that might be tolerated, rather than contended about: and his toleration of the worst implies his approbation of the rest. Upon one of these grounds the heathen themselves made use of forms, (which indeed were grown more universal than the Church herself,) ne fortè aliquid praeposterè dicatur, 
Alex. ab Alex. l. 4. c. 7.  lest any unfit thing should be spoken, they read their Prayers before their sacrifices out of a book. And in truth, as at the building of the Temple there was no noise of axes and hammers 
1 King. 6. 7  heard, but all the materials were hewed and form before hand; so in the public service of God we should use all lawful means to secure ourselves from those weaknesses, indecencies, and miscarriages, to which we are all subject.  
Marosius tells us, that adstata pietas officia, 
System. p. 305.  etc. It is both lawful and expedient in the constant duties of Piety, as well private as public, to use preconceived forms, whereby both the mind and tongue may be guided in the performance: for this (saith he) was the constant practice of the Church 
Numb. 6. 23. 2 Chron. 7. 6. 29. 30▪  in all ages, and grounded upon most firm testimonies of Scripture.  
Next, Alsted says, That certain forms of prayer have been always used in the Church; and 
Theol. Catech. p. 683.  although to pray in a right manner be a gift of the holy Ghost, (tamen formulae precum divinitus praescriptae, etc.) yet forms of prayer which are by divine prescription are not to be neglected; as the precepts of living well are not therefore to be despised, because the holy Spirit doth work Holiness in us.  
Bishop Andrew's reproves an imagination against (Orabo Spiritu) praying in the Spirit, 1 Cor. 14. 15. 
Of worshipping Imaginations. p. 37.  by finding fault with a fit Liturgy, which they call stinted Prayers; and giving themselves to imagine Prayers at the same instant; whereby it is plain, they so occupy their minds with devising what to say next, that their spirit is unfruitful, no less than the others understanding: and both the understanding of the mind, and the affection of the spirit, are there necessarily required.  
And again, St. Cyprian saith, It was ever in Christ's Church counted an absurd thing, ventilari precs inconditis vocibus; the absurdity whereof would better appear, if, seeing under prayers here Psalms and spiritual Songs are contained, (both being parts of Invocation) they would have no stinted Psalms, but conceive their songs too, and so sing them: for in truth there is no more reason for the one then for the other; but God's Church hath ever had, as a form of Doctrine, both of Faith, in the Creed, and of life, in the Decalogue; so of Prayer too, which from Acts 13. 2. the Fathers in all ages have called a Liturgy, or the Service of God. So the Reverend Bishop. And Alsted 
Theol. Proph. p. 216.  says, Eruditio eruditionum est Symbolum; Virtus virtutum est Decalogus; Litania litaniarum est Oratio Dominica.  
I shall close this with that which D. Wilkins hath said of this subject; who after a debate, pro and 
Dr. Wilkins gift of Prayer, p. 14.  con, for Prayer by form, and without form, concludes, That generally it is both lawful and necessary to prepare ourselves, as for the gift in general, so for every particular Act of it, by premeditating, if we have leisure for it, both matter, order, and words; for though it be a gift of the Spirit, yet it is not to be expected that it should suddenly be infused into us without any premeditation of our own, no more than the gift of preaching, for which the ablest Ministers are bound to prepare themselves with diligence and study; there being not any ground for a man to expect more immediate supplies from above in the duty of Prayer, then in that of preaching. And page 15. Because there will be sometime a necessity that our affections should follow, and be stirred up by our expressions, (which is especially to be aimed at when we pray in public, in reference to those that join with us, and will very often fall out likewise in our secret devotions) therefore it is requisite that a man should be always furnished with such premeditated forms as may be most effectual to this end, namely, to excite the affections; and to this purpose, if those heads which will be always pertinent, and of continual necessity, were comprehended in some set forms, studied with care and diligence, they might perhaps be more serviceable for the stirring up our faith and affections, than they could otherwise be, if they did proceed only from our own sudden conceptions: and page 17. Such crude notions, and confused matter, as some by their neglect in this kind will vent, doth rather nauseate, and flat the devotion, then excite it: page 18. There is nothing more unsuitable to the solemnity of this duty, to that reverence which we owe to the Divine Majesty, then to be speak him in a loose, careless, empty manner.  
And to that objection from Matthew 10. 19 Take not thought how or what ye shall speak, for it shall be given you in that same hour:  
He answers; When men may use the common means, it is a great presumption to depend upon extraordinary helps, such as were there promised to assist them in special services. The son of Sirach saith, Before thou prayest prepare thyself, and be not as one that tempts the Lord: he that 
Ecclus. 18. 23.  rusheth upon this duty without using the common means of fitting himself for it, doth tempt God. Of this those are guilty who depend so much upon immediate infusion, as to neglect all previous study.  
This (de jure) concerning the lawfulness and 
Sect. 28.  great conveniency of forms. The matter o fact, and the constant use of them in the Church hath been sufficiently testified already from those ancient Liturgies before named; many of which, though (as all Protestants grant) have been lamentably adulterated by the additions and alterations of late Sophisters, do yet retain manifest impressions of antiquity; so that though it may be disputed concerning them, as about Theseus his ship at Athens, whether it were the same ship or not, every part almost being changed, yet it was granted, that such a ship there had once been; Even so certain it is, there were Liturgies in those Primitive times, though we cannot affirm of any one Liturgy now commended to us under those Apostolical names, that it is completely the same as it was of old. Rivet indeed reckoneth those Liturgies among zizania, or tares which were sown by the enemy while the husbandmen slept: but certainly the husbandman had sown good seed in those fields, though the enemy took the advantage of sowing suddenly after them; the foundation was good, though ungodly men built hay and stubble on it.  
St. Augustine observed many corruptions in 
Aug. de bona Perseverant.  these public devotions in his time, but yet highly commended the prayers of the Church; Utinam tardi cord, etc. I would to God that they who are of a slow heart would so hear our disputes, that they would also consider our prayers, which the Church hath always had, and will have unto the world's end.  
The Magdeburgenses have this observation 
Cent. 3. c. 6. p. 135.  from St. Cyprian, that the rite observed in the public Prayers of the Church, was this; The Priest at the beginning of Prayer did stir up the people to a devout calling on God, saying, Sursum corda, Lift up your hearts; and they answered, We lift them up unto the Lord: and they add, Formulas quasdam precationum sine dubio habuerant, They had without doubt certain forms of 
Origen in Euchylog. & contra Celsum.  Prayer. Origen hath some remains of those ancient forms; he says they had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ordained Prayers; to some of which he often alludes, as on Jeremy, Frequenter in oratione dicimus, etc. We often say in our prayers, Grant this O heavenly Father, grant us a portion with thy Prophets, and the Apostles of thy Christ. Eusebius saith, that Constantine had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 
De vitâ Constant. l. 4. c. 20.  his Army and Family, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, studied, premeditated and appointed prayers. The Council of Laodicea speaks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Can. 18. c. 19  A Liturgy of Prayer; and that at the entrance into the Church, first the Prayer of the Catechumeni was said, then that of the Penitents, and lastly, that of the Faithful. And the Council of Carthage ordained thus; Quicunque preces 
Can. 23.  aliunde desumit, etc. Whoever did frame any other prayers, should first consult with his more learned brethren.  
The Milevitan Council took care that the Prayers of the Church, and no others, should be used. Then St. Basil, Though we are bid to pray concinually (saith he) yet may we not despise the prayers of the Church. And Concil. Gangrene. 
Can. 5. Anno 324.  hath made one Canon to this end, Ne orationes Ecclesiae contemnantur, That the Prayers of the Church be not contemned.  
The chief Objection against the use of forms of Prayer is for ever silenced by Doctor Preston.  
The Objection is this; That in stinted Prayers 
Sect. 29. Object. Saints daily exercise, p. 81.  the Spirit is straitened; when a man is tied to a form, than he shall have his Spirit as it were bounded and limited, that he cannot go beyond that which is prescribed; and therefore (say they) it is reason a man should be left to more liberty, (as he is in conceived Prayer) and not tied to a strict form.  
To this I answer, (saith he) that even those 
Answ.  men that are against this, and that use this reason, they do the same thing daily in the congregation; for when another prays that is a set form to him that hears it; I say it is a set form; for put the case that he which is the hearer, and doth attend another praying, suppose that his spirit be more enlarged, it is a straitning of him, he hath no more liberty to go out, he is bound to keep his mind intent upon that which the other prayeth; and therefore if that were a sufficient reason that a man might not use a set form, because the spirit is straitened, a man should not hear another pray, (though it be a conceived Prayer) because in that case his spirit is limited; it may be that the hearer hath a larger heart a great deal than he that speaks and prays, so that there is a bounding, straightening and limiting of the Spirit to him; and therefore that reason cannot be good. So far that pious Doctor.  
And if his reason be good, it will follow, That the Church doth no more quench or limit the Spirit, in prescribing a form to the Ministers, than they do quench or limit the Spirit in the people, whom they from time to time do confine unto those forms which they do presently conceive and utter among them. And as the spirit of the people is in this respect subject to 
1 Cor. 14. 32.  the Prophets, so the spirit of the Prophets divisim, severally, is subject to the Prophets conjunctim, jointly.  
That which is objected by some against the use of forms, from 1 Corinthians 14. 15. I will pray with the Spirit, etc. is not at all understood by the Objectors: Calvine says, 
Cal. Instit. lib. 3. c. 20.  Spiritus voce singulare linguarum donum, etc.  
By the word Spirit that extraordinary gift of tongues is to be understood. And Beza, on Orabo spiritu, (i) saith he, linguâ perogrinâ quam mihi dictat Spiritus: I will pray in the spirit is no more than this, I will pray in a strange tongue, as the Spirit shall dictate to me; and so on verse 16. When thou shalt bless with the spirit (i) in a strange tongue, how shall he, etc. Or if this place could possibly be understood of extemporary effusions in Prayer, they were extraordinary ones, wherein the Spirit dictated words as well as matter; and such as cannot now be pretended to.  
But lastly, if by that Scripture praying in the spirit excludes forms of Prayer, then by Verse 15. singing in the spirit excludes forms of singing; and so we should bring in extemporary Psalms too, and then I fear we should transgress that of our Apostle, verse 40. Let all things be done decently and in order, According to appointment (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) among you.  
It is the duty of every Christian to grow in 
Sect. 30.  the exercise of his gifts and graces in Prayer, to be able on all occasions to lift up holy desires to God; and he that endeavours not this, may be marked with that Character of an hypocrite which Eliphaz would have stamped on him, Thou restrainest prayer from God, Thou keepest thy 
Job 15. 4. Imminues loquelam.  prayer from growing. So Fenner. And they that cannot go to spread their wants in the presence of God without the help of a form, are strangers to a great part of their happiness, which consisteth in a free, filial, and ingenuous communion with God.  
And I make no question but Ministers may and aught on new occasions to add and alter many Petitions, and after long experience and practice in private, may exercise those gifts of Prayer which God hath given them, in public; but yet if the occasion may be fore-known, if it do not surprise him too suddenly, no question but by study and deliberation he may better comply with it, and excite the people's affections more than he can in an extemporary manner: And when in the main, both the matter and method of Prayer (as Invocation, Confession, Supplication, Intercession and Thanksgiving) are still the same, there can be, as no sure sign of grace in varying the words, so) no just cause of rash censure in retaining and using the same; for since we pray to the same God, in the Name of the same Mediator, profess our belief in the same truths, feel the same wants, and fear the same evils, inward and outward, (and all these are in a great measure common to all) we may as well meditate and prepare in what words, a in what sense, and in what manner we ought to come before the Majesty of God, as for what end; and certainly wholesome words deliberately fitted, (by one or more judicious and experienced Disciples) to the capacities and understanding of the hearers, are soon received into their hearts, and have a greater influence upon the affections, to raise them, and lift them up to God in Prayer, than any other.  
But enough of these premises; The conclusion is this: If both public and private forms be lawful and expedient, as both the practice of the Church, and the judgement of men famous for Learning and Piety do assert, surely then there cannot be any fault (on the account of its being a form) justly imputed to our Lord's Prayer, or which may justify the disuse of it.  
For, let all the Arguments that are brought in defence of other forms (as for singing Psalms, 
Sect. 31.  administration of the Sacraments, blessing the people) be all summed up, and each of them may be easily and highly improved for the lawful use of this form: I shall give you (for instance) a view of these Arguments that are urged by a Reverend and judicious Divine for singing Psalms; and every one may perceive how fitly they may be accommodated to the use of our Lord's Prayer.  
1. If singing of Psalms in David's forms (in which are many Prayers) be a Gospel-Ordinance, so is praying unto God in our Saviour form.  
2. If there be no reason why our conceived Psalms should thrust out David's Psalms, neither is there any reason why our conceived prayers should thrust out our Saviour's Prayer.  
3. If upon concession that we must sing Psalms, David's Psalms will carry it (there being no art or spirit of man that can come near that of David:) Then also upon concession that we must pray, Christ's Prayer will carry it; there being no art or spirit of man that can come near that of Christ.  
4. If none dare deny but that the Levites had the assistance of the Spirit, when they praised God in the words of David; then neither can any deny (whatever they dare) but that the Disciples of Christ may have the assistance of the Spirit, when they pray to God in the words of Christ; Quâ 
Tertul. de Oratione.  nulla spiritualior oratio, Than which there is no prayer more spiritual; as Tertul.  
5. Are David's Psalms to be sung, because they suit with all occasions of the people of God, as well, or better than any songs composed by an ordinary gift? for the same reason ought our Saviour's Prayer to be used, it being fitted to the necessities of the people of God in all ages, in all conditions, and for all just desires. And thus every Argument for any other form may à fortiori be more strongly applied to this, and all Answers to any Objections against them will be subservient to this most excellent form.  
Of which, as Hooker saith, Though men should 
Sect. 32.  speak with the tongues of Angels, yet words so pleasing to the ears of God as those which the Son of God himself hath composed, were not possible for men to frame; for he that made us live hath also taught us to pray, to the end, that speaking to the Father in the Son's prescript form, without scholy or gloss of ours, we may be sure that we offer nothing that God will disallow or deny. A Prayer which uttered with true devotion and zeal of heart, affordeth to God himself that glory, that aid to the weaker sort, to the most perfect that solid comfort which is unspeakable.  
A Prayer, (saith Dr. Espaigne) dictated by the supreme wisdom of God, that great and eternal Mediator, who presents all our prayers to God, and perfectly knows his Father's mind; the most complete Prayer that can be made, summing up all lawful requests which can be imagined; The Epitome; rule and mi rour of all others: A Prayer which in its wonderful brevity includes so great a plenty of matter, as if it would cause a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle; a Prayer which contains more matter and mysteries than words; the most Methodical, Emphatical and Divine that can be found: All the parts cohere with an admirable symmetry and proportion, all full of torches enlightening each other; and it is confessed by all, that all the wits on Earth, and all the Angels in Heaven, were not able to dictate the like; Tantum series, & res, juncture aque pollet:  
Its body is composed with so much art,  
That Christ's soul breathes in all and every part.  
There is not in it (perhaps) so large an enumeration of particulars, as to some weak apprehensions may seem necessary, (nor indeed can all the necessities of particular persons be fully, and to their apprehension, expressed by any Minister that hath the best faculty, and takes the most time to do it;) but this excellency is eminently in our Lord's Prayer, that there are both general heads, and significant words, under which an enlarged heart may conceive and present to God all his grievances and necessities, and beg any blessing that concerns life or godliness; as some of the Rabbins say of Manna, that it yielded to every man the relish of that dainty which his appetite and palate did most desire and delight in. It is like a well-limmed Picture, that respects all, and yet seemeth intent upon every one in the room; sit pro omnibus Christianis, & omnes Christiani vicissim illam pro nobis recitant, as Alsteed saith. It is made for all Christians, and by all Christians for each other. 
Theol. Proph. p. 197.  It is a daily miracle whereby our Saviour with six Petitions supplies all things necessary for souls and bodies, not for a few thousands, but the whole Christian world; and there remain fragments for the heathen world too.  
When thou comest to God to present thy prayers in the Congregation, the Minister ufeth his own words, to express his own conceptions, and confines himself sometime to one or two particular heads of Prayer, so as thou mayst not meet with any expressions that may signify thy desires, which therefore may languish, and never ascend up to the Throne of Grace; but our Lord's Prayer hath this certain advantage above others, that it is accommodated to all persons, things, times and places, and to all sorts and conditions of people; Capi potest (as Alsteed,) 
Alsteed ubi supra.  It may be understood and used of children, and all people; of those that are sick at home, and busied abroad; those that are of a slow memory, or of the quickest invention: there is such an ocean of matter, that the Elephant may swim, the most enlarged spirit may expatiate in it, and yet the tender lamb that hath any knowledge of other essential parts of Christian Religion, may wade through it without either sin or danger. Herein (though we are alone) we are sure to hold communion, and join in consort with the Universal Church, and to have the united aid of the Prayers of all God's people: and what a comfort is it, what an encouragement to pray in faith, when we know all the people of God agree with us, (and there is a promise to two or three) to ask 
Matth. 18. 19  the same things, in one and the same effectual Prayer; compassing the Throne of Grace with many hands and eyes, but with one heart and lip, as if they would offer violence to the Kingdom of 
Matth. 11. 12. Sect. 33.  Heaven, and take it by force?  
And now I beg leave to reason the case briefly with my dissenting brethren, Quae tanta fuit causa? what great cause prevailed with them to neglect so good a practice? was it any thing intrinsical and essential to the Prayer? that cannot be; It is a land that flows with Rivers of pleasure, infinitely beyond those of milk and honey, a Paradise wherein every tree is a tree of Life, whose fruits never fade nor fail; Uno avulso non deficit alter Aureus. Of which, as eloquent and pious Mr. Herbert in like case:  
I value this Prayer so,  
That were I to leave all but one,  
Wealth, fame, endowments, virtues, all should go,  
I and this Prayer would together dwell,  
And quickly gain for each inch lost an ell.  
Let us view this Canaan in a Map, and we shall find it to be full of all perfections.  
1. The Preface; what term of invocation gives better encouragement then (Father?) what works greater reverence than (Heaven?) what can raise the soul to a higher plerophory of of faith, then when Christ that made the God of Heaven to become our Father, bids us also call him ours? Then for the matter and method of all the Petitions, which accord like Beauty and Bands, they are equally admirable: In them we 
Zach. 11. 7.  ask, first, that which is the principal end of our being, viz. God's glory in the first Petition; then the subordinate, our own salvation in the second Petition: and thirdly, the things conducing to both ends, either principal, as Sanctification, in the third; or secondary, as sustentation of life in the fourth Petition: and lastly, the removing of impediments, all our former sins in the fifth: and all occasions of offending for the present, or the time to come, in the last Petition: and so we conclude all in a Hymn of praise, which doth no less encourage us to expect, than it doth acknowledge God's Power to grant, the things prayed for; to all which things there is no Christian but will say, Amen, so be it.  
Thus there is nothing intrinsecal, as to the matter or method, that may make us offended at it; it must be in the form therefore, or not at all.  
But first, S. Paul commends a form of wholesome words, and approves the observation of it: And 
2 Tim. 1 13.  when our Saviour did not only make it a form in St. Matthew, but use it as such, in St. Luke; and having fitted it for public Devotion, prescribed it to his Disciples, it is an invincible Argument, that the use of a form, quà talis, is not offensive to God or man; we may safely follow that Lamb wherever he leads us.  
In the next place therefore they must be some extrinsical arguments that have persuaded to this omission; But if it appear (as I hope it doth) to be a Precept of Christ, when we pray, to say, Our Father, let the motive that prevailed with us be what it will be, it can never excuse us; for as we may do no evil that any good may come of it, so neither may we constantly omit any good duty that is prescribed, on pretence that it may occasion evil. Si de veritate scandalum sumatur, melius est ut scandalum oriutur quam ut verìtas relinquatur, saith Gregory. If 
Gregor. 9 Mag. Hom. 7. in Ezek.  scandal be taken against any truth, it is better that men should be causelessly offended, than the truth shamefully betrayed. Sin gets strength, and takes advantage by the Commandments of the Law, and sometimes the corruption of man's heart is enraged and heightened by the preaching of the Gospel; yet notwithstanding these and many more offences taken by wicked men, we must preach both the Law and the Gospel too; though it prove a stone of stumbling, and a savour of death to some, yet it is the savour of life and salvation unto others. Suppose then this form be abused to ill purposes by some, and (as is said) occasioneth formality in others; yet they that know it to be their duty, and have grace to use it better, may not neglect it upon that pretence: certain it is, our good use of it will more benefit them, than their abuse of it can prejudice us; and we know, as the Civilians teach, nulla est obligatio ad illicita, there can be no obligation laid on us to do what is forbidden, or to leave undone what is required by Law, both these being illicita, unlawful.  
Yea, supposing this form had not been prescribed, 
Sect. 34.  but left as a thing indifferent to be used or not used pro arbitrio, yet seeing indifferent things do then become necessary, when by the use of them God may have most glory, and his people most benefit, as well by the increase of peace and holiness, as by the prevention of division and wickedness; I would gladly join issue here, and bring it to a fair trial and determination with any sober man, whether the using or not using the Lords Prayer as a form be most conducible to these ends.  
And should we give it but Lidford Law, and sit in judgement after Execution, to hear the indictment and evidences produced against it; and after the general neglect of it, I should ask the same question as the Governor did in behalf of its Maker, what evil hath it done? and upon 
Matth. 26. 23.  hearing, no evil, but a great good hath appeared in the use of it; and contrary, no good, but a great deal of evil, by the omission; and after this the multitude should continue and heighten their clamours against it, and those who have been chiefly faulty herein should instead of washing their hands, or acknowledging that they have sinned in denying this most excellent useful Prayer, say still, the guilt be upon us and upon our children; there is just ground of suspicion given that they have not that Christian prudence, and pious affection to the things of Christ, as they ought to have that profess themselves his Disciples.  
And now if (as I have heard since I first 
Sect. 35.  thought on this subject) any man's blood and passion, shall be troubled by the view of these considerations (as natural concupiscence is often excited by the Law, which seeks to restrain it) so as that they do sound a trumpet, and bid defiance, and make parties against such as in obedience to an apparent command of Christ shall continue or reassume this practice, let them know that they do not deal with others (whose consciences may be as tender as their own,) as they themselves would be dealt with; and it will but little extenuate their sin that do oppose the practice of any Ordinance of Jesus Christ, though they should be persuaded that therein they do God good service; and as surely as it was piously, and in obedience to our Saviour's in junction practised by the people of God in former ages, so it cannot be omitted, much less opposed, by any among us, without great suspicion of pride and disobedience: But this by way of caution; I go on to argue the case in hand.  
And in the next place, It is a thing impossible 
Sect. 36.  for any rational man to conceive, that when our Saviour bid his Disciples, when they pray, to say, Our Father, etc. that it should be his sense and intent, that we ought not to say so, or that we should do amiss in so doing. Had there been any danger in using of it, our Saviour, who foresaw all possible inconveniences and offences, and bid us especially to pray that we might not be led into temptation, would not have brought us to a precipice, or, as Satan carried him upon a Pinnacle of the Temple, from whence we might the more easily and irrecoverably fall, having a Scriptum est to cast us headlong into that (supposed) offence of saying as he taught us; for most certain it is that upon these very words of our Saviour, Thus pray ye, and when ye pray, say, the Church of Christ in all ages hath been induced to use the very words of this prayer in all their solemn Devotions; & if they have offended in so doing, or if the inconveniences which have followed the practice be chargeable upon it as proper effects of it, let those that so judge consider, whether they do not make our Saviour an accessary, if not a principal, in all those offences; and it is more safe to be reputed an offender with him, then innocent in any society that separates from him.  
But it will be objected, That our Saviour commanded 
Sect. 37. Object.  this Prayer, as a platform, to frame our Prayers like unto it in matter and method only, and not at all in the use of the same words.  
That our Saviour should make it a form, and so 
Answ.  use it more than once, and yet intent it only for a platform, is wondrously strange; and why we who use to hear the prayers and praises of holy men in their several forms and expressions as well as matter, may not as innocently and devoutly use this of our Saviour, is a very rare and abstruse speculation. The Creed, the Rule of Faith, must not be varied in words by any private person, nor the Decalogue the rule of works; yet this, which is not only a Rule, but a most perfect Form of Prayer, must not be used in the prescribed words.  
Suppose a Minister should frame his whole public prayer of Scripture-forms and expressions, (such as we have fitted to all occasions) no doubt but such a Prayer, though it consisted of forms, would be of excellent use and efficacy; and why the summing up of that Prayer or rather the consummating of it in our Lord's Prayer, should be accounted less useful and effectual, no impartial eye can discern; seeing, as the matter of this would be more comprehensive, so the Architecture and composure of it is far beyond the contrivance of any humane inventions; and if our care to study the Scriptures, and out of them to choose acceptable words and phrases for the composition of our Prayers, then surely our fixing upon this most wholesome form of words, deserves yet a greater commendation, and (necessitate medii as well as praecepti) becomes necessary, as being most fit to affect the understanding, and thereby to stir up the affections, by the quickness, plainness, significancy and fullness of it. Suppose our Saviour instead of this form had set down only the heads of Prayer, as thus; when ye pray, observe these Rules; First, invocate God as your Heavenly Father, and pray that he would dispose of you, and all things, to the glory of his Name and Holy Attributes: then for the enlargement and consummation of his Kingdom, grace and glory, etc. And having so done, a Christian Disciple should have done by our Saviour's Directory as some have done by the Assemblie's, turn the heads and matter of Prayer with little alteration into a form, which form would have been like this of our Lord's Prayer; doubtless that prayer would have been very pious and acceptable; and seeing it was our Saviour's good pleasure to save us that labour, and to compose those heads more summarily and significantly than we can do, I wonder why the same words ought not to be used by us. If it be required that in all our prayers we should have this pattern for matter in our minds, why should we not sometimes have the same form of words in our mouths? It is hard measure to make a man 
Isa. 29. 21.  an offender for such words as these; Our prayers which are then only acceptable when presented in our Saviour's Name, do not ipso facto become void when presented in his words: That rule which gives rectitude to another is itself most right and perfect to all uses and purposes: If on sudden emergencies we may use some briefer forms of prayer without a precept, why on more solemn occasions may we not use this most exquisite form, which is so positively enjoined? Every prayer, by whomsoever indicted, is acceptable to God, when presented in faith, though read out of a book, or repeated by memory, (other essential properties of prayer being joined) why not this then, which is put into our mouths by him who gave us a right to ask, as well as instructions how to ask aright? That holy Spirit which helpeth our infirmities, and assists our weak devotions, even in sighs and groans, did and will doubtless abound in every Petition of this prayer, when offered from a penitent heart; That Dove loves such Olive-branches. I have heard and read, that wicked spirits have been conjured and dispossessed by an impious perverting and abuse of this prayer; but that the good Spirit of God, who indicted it for use, should abandon it when used by humble and faithful Christians, is a degree of blasphemy to think. And upon what account we Protestants shall be able to justify our quarrel against the Papists for leaving out the Doxology, when at once we cashier the whole Prayer, will be hard to find. Beza saith, it is Vera omnium Christianarum precum summa ac formula. Annot. in Matth.  
Let us therefore (dear Brethren) whom God 
Sect. 38.  hath made his more public servants, as gladly and readily continue and reassume the practice of this long-neglected duty, as the people did the feast of Tabernacles, which they celebrated with very great gladness, after it had been omitted 
Neh. 8. 17  for some hundreds of years.  
I can only pray and hope, that every public Minister will bring the spices and flames of his Devotion, that he may help to raise this Phoenix out of her ashes; or at least that every one whose judgement and conscience is convinced that 'tis his duty to use it, will not be withheld from the exercise of it by any shame or fear whatever: it is no shame to rectify an error, but to persevere in it; and fear and shame where there is no 
Errare possum, haereticus esse nol●.  sin, but contrarily a manifest duty incumbent on us, are but bugbears to affright children and cowards, and should not at all move any good soldier of Jesus Christ from his station; or if any such thing might befall us, yet the great dishonour that hath redounded to our Nation, and the Church of Christ among us, through the neglect of this duty, should to a public person, and will, if he have a public spirit too, render all personal reflections inconsiderable. We have not been afraid or ashamed to plead for and practise some forms of which there is not so 
Confirmation. Excommunication.  clear a warrant in Scripture as for this (although they are lawful and necessary in their kind) only this, like the wounded person, is passed by without any commiseration from Priest or Levite; although we cannot practise any of them in so much faith as this: for, God having commended his Son to us, saying, this is my beloved Son, hear him, how confidently may we recommend our prayers back unto him, and say, Lord thus thy beloved Son hath taught us to pray, Hear thou us in his Name and Words?  
Besides, it may be considered, whether this 
Sect. 39  prayer may not as well be left out in our Catechisms for the instruction of youth, (and if this, than the Creed, and the Commandments too, and so we should reduce ourselves to that which some would have (i.) no Catechism at all, for fear of forms) as well as from our prayers in the Congregation; for even among the elder people are some children in knowledge, who need to be taught again the first Principles of Christian Religion, and who indeed are uncapable of higher attainments, unless such a soundation be laid; and if these things should be disused, experience may assure us that some would slight them, and others forget them, and a great part of our people be willingly ignorant of the true sense and meaning, as well as of the letter of them; and (which is also a sad truth) cast off the very form of godliness, as well as the form of prayer: all which mischiefs, seeing the frequent use and occasional interpretation of these fundamentals of our Religion may in all probability, through the blessing of God, prevent for the future, we are in duty obliged to the use of them.  
And if those masters of Families which wholly neglect the duty of prayer, and so have not the appearance of Christianity among them, (the Heathen and the families that call not on God's Name being both alike) would begin that duty with this form, and some other joined to it, and having learned themselves the true meaning of each Petition, (the prime and literal sense whereof would be easily found) would teach it to their families, I doubt not, but as hereby they would give an evidence of their being Christians, so they might certainly obtain the blessing of God for themselves and families; and who knows whether the wisdom of God did not abbreviate the Doctrine and form of prayer, and make it so plain and easy, for this end among others, to render them inexcusable who should omit this duty when it would cost them so little labour, study or time, the words being so few and plain, so nigh them, even in their mouths? Oratirnem 
Deut. 30. 14. Lyra on Matth. 6.  (saith Lyra) brevibus verbis composuit, ut sit nobis siducia citò annuendi quod breviter vult rogari; Our Saviour composed this prayer in few words, that we might believe to receive speedily what he commands us to ask briefly: And Mr. Calvine to the same purpose; The only Son of God hath put words into our mouths which may clear our minds from all doubting. It was convenient (saith Aquinas) to the consummation of our hope, that a form of Prayer 
Aquinas Opuscul. de Oratione.  should be delivered by Christ, wherein he shows what things we may hope for from him, by what he hath willed us to ask of him. It is doubtless a commendable Office to instruct both our Churches and Families, as Christ did instruct his, yea, and to inculcate the same lesson again and again, as Christ did, until they be perfectly acquainted with it. Not that I would have any the most private Christian to set up his rest here, or in any other forms; but my desire is, that such as have not yet gone so far, would begin with this, as a step and help, yea as a pillar and foundation of their devotions; and whatever progress they make, they will see so much imperfection in this, (if they be humble Christians) that (as they say of Apelles, when with great care and skill he drew the picture of Campaspe, he fell in love with the Original) they will embrace and reverence this Prayer the more as long as they live.  
Remember therefore that Christ hath enjoined the use of this prayer; whose injunction, as it makes it our duty, so it will be our discharge; and the practice of learned and pious Christians will be our encouragement: And if any contentious spirit shall withdraw his neck from this gentle and easy yoke that is imposed by the precept of Christ, and so kick against both, I will only say as the Apostle doth, we have no such custom, neither 
1 Cor. 11. 16.  the Churches of God.  
If all this will not move, I beseech my brethren 
Sect. 40.  sadly to reflect on the manifold inconveniences and mischiefs that have followed upon the neglect of observing the matter and form of this prayer; for of both these omissions our age is generally guilty, and it is a rare thing to find any that neglects the form to comply duly with the matter and method of it; and then they do undoubtedly offend, when they neither say, this, nor thus, as Christ did command them. Do not some men forget the Publicans confession, and only satisfy themselves with the Pharisees congratulation? are not those faults grown rise and common, against which our Saviour prescribed 
Matth. 6. 7. Juvenal. satire 3.  this prayer as a remedy? Is it not true which the Poet observed of old, nocitura petuntur, some things have been desired that have been for the matter unlawful, and for the manner of ask sinful? One thinks this prayer a mean contemprible thing, unfit to be taught their children; another speaks it out, That there is more devotion in a verse or two of David's Psalms, then in all our Lords Prayer. It is agreeable to the nature of public prayer, that whatsoever news or occurrences, opinion or interest, passion or prejudice, whatever design or debate, public or private, men do espouse, should be made the subject of public prayer; and so the people have many times stones given them instead of bread. And whereas it is said, that the use of this and other forms hath a direct tendency to spiritual laziness and formality in prayer; I can only wish that the prayers of those that despise this were secured from the temptations of speaking rashly and unadvisedly with their lips, of priding themselves in the ostentation of parts and gifts, to the raising of invincible prejudice in the hearts of the people against such as have not the like faculties, and causing them to have some men's persons in admiration, as if invention, and the apt cadency of words, and confident elocution, were the principal parts of Christian oratory; whereas it is undeniable, that men of unsanctified spirits may in these exercises exceed the soundest Christians; as the Rabbins say Achitophel did, who had three new prayers for every day; and our late writers affirm of Hacket, who in 
Cambdens Elizabeth. Casauhon of Enthus. p. 213.  the days of Queen Elizabeth died a blasphemer, yet could perform this exercise to the admiration of his hearers.  
Alas! how many disorderly and impertinent prayers have been publicly delivered! what a monstrous excess in some, and a like defect of the essential parts of prayer in others! no marks of our Saviour's rule, either in matter, method or form, as if we had found out some new Northwest passage to the throne of Grace, which the wisdom of our great Pilot did not discover: Against such prayers as these good Christians may safely oppose that form of Plato, Deus Rex optime, bona quaeque nobis voventibus & non vo ventibus tribue; mala autem etiam poscentibus abesse jube. O God our great King, grant us all good things, whether we ask them or not, and command evil things to be kept from us, though we desire them never so earnestly.  
These things remember me of Esop's Fables; of a River that railed against the Fountain, as being sluggish and immovable, and had not a Fish in it, whereas her streams did abound with variety of fish, and did incessantly pass by the fruitful valleys, making music as they went: whereat the Fountain was displeased, and restrained his waters, and so the streams dried up, the fish; perished, and all the pleasant murmurs ceased.  
I speak not this any ways to reproach the holy prayers of those ancient and experienced Saints of God, who by his blessing upon their daily industry, and constant exercises of devotion, have attained a more excellent way: for which gifts and graces as I do from my soul bless God, and account them the horsemen and Chariots of our 
1 Kings 13. 14.  Israel; so it is also the desire of my heart to be remembered of them in all their addresses to the throne of Grace: But only to express the just regret of my soul for the many miscarriages of rash and inconsiderate persons, discovered in public devotions, which, through the defect of necessary matter, and the redundancy of impertinencies, and for the great disorder and want of method, having no imaginable resemblance with our Saviour's form, we may name Ichabod, where 
1 Sam. 4. 21.  is the glory? Against all these real, or but possible evils, did we lay the line and rule of our Lord's Prayer to our devotions, and apply it to each part, Componens manibusque manus atque oribus ora, as the Prophet Elisha put his mouth upon the dead child's mouth, his eyes upon the child's eyes, etc. 
2 Kings 4. 34.  we might perceive new life and spirit to inspire them, to the comfort of all that hear them. To such therefore especially as are conscious to themselves that they have been often surprised to speak rashly and impertinently in the Congregation; to such as in Mr. Calvines phrase are guilty of desultorie levity, and are tempted to ostentation and vain glory, I earnestly recommend this remedy, that they would better observe the matter and method of Christ's Prayer, and study more to conform their own thereunto; and for fear of failing in this, would they devoutly use the very form too, as Christ hath enjoined them, it would prove an excellent remedy against the above named evils; and surely, when neither in matter nor form we express any care to resemble this Architype, we do as much as in us lieth make void this injunction of our Saviour.  
Again, this mischief hath been the product of disusing this Prayer, that some (whom we should judge more sober and knowing Christians by their profession) if they hear a Minister sum up his devotions in it, (though he be a person of excellent parts and piety) they presently conceive a prejudice against him, as being a man of a carnal, formal temper, and of a different persuasion from themselves; and so deprive themselves of that Spiritual comfort and edification which otherwise they might receive by his Ministry: yea, it hath been known, that on the very repetition of this Prayer, some have immediately withdrawn themselves from the Ordinances of God, and so forsaken their own mercies; for whom my hearts desire is, that they may have time and hearts in humility and faith to say this Prayer, once at least, before they die; and God forbid that I should cease to pray for them in another form of our Saviour, 
Luke 23. 34.  Father forgive them, they know not what they do.  
If for thirty or forty years since, or any age of the Church beyond that home to our Saviour's time, it should have been adjudged scandalous to use the Lords Prayer, the Creed, or the Commandments, or any should have made it the mark of a faithful Disciple to omit these things, the present Church would doubtless have branded the authors of that Opinion for Arch-heretics; and yet not this opinion only, but the practice too, hath like a gangrene so spread itself over the face of the land, and the hearts of the people, that those Ministers are generally excluded from the number of Christ's faithful and able Disciples who devoutly repeat these things: And if this malady only were cured, I shall account this labour happily bestowed. But beside this, some sober men, whose judgements and practices have been for the use of this prayer as a form, being called to pray in Congregations of a contrary persuasion, to avoid the Charybdis of giving a groundless offence, have run on the Scylla of disobeying Christ, and swerving from their own principles, as if they were ashamed of Christ and 
Mark 8. 38.  of his words in an adulterous generation: And who knows whether for our wilful neglect of this one, many among us have not been justly deprived of other of God's Ordinances, and given up to contempt of them? But there are yet sadder effects than these; The disuse of it by some hath been improved to a contempt of it in others, in so much that they whose duty it was to have blessed God for it, (as for a jacob's ladder to lift them nearer Heaven) have degenerated so far from Christianity, as to thank God they have forgotten it, and to abhor the teaching of it to their children, as if it were some unlucky spell or charm; yea, (and what is enough to make us all tremble) have quaked at the repetition of it. These are sad considerations, and cannot be denied to be for the most part the proper effects of omitting this prayer; and, as ever we hope to have them cease, we should join with one consent to remove the cause, and renew our first love to this Ordinance, bring back again with joy and gladness this Ark to the House of God, and prove if he will not open the windows of heaven, and pour down his blessings upon us.  
To such as have conscientiously continued the 
Sect. 41.  use of this prayer, I say as the Angel did to the Church of Philadelphia, Hold thou that fast which 
Revel. 3. 11.  thou hast, Let no man take thy Crown; it hath not been, nor ever will it be, a barren or fruitless prayer, unless want of faith and true devotion in us do hinder its efficacy.  
Take heed of a hasty perfunctory posting of it over, as if the words were too hot for our mouths, whereby we may cause our good to be evil spoken of: Let it be uttered with deliberation and servency in faith, and an actual apprehension of those mercies which we want and chiefly desire under each Petition, that both our own and our people's judgements and affections may accompany it. And on all occasions open this box of precious ointment, or in a plain and familiar Exposition of the chief parts of it unto the people; that the spices thereof may send forth their smell, even a sweet savour of reconciliation and acceptation with God, a savour of Piety, Charity, and Life unto the people; cautionate them against formality and lio-labour only in this prayer, which, as the fly which Solomon speaks of, will cause the whole composition to corrupt. The drawing nigh unto God 
Matth. 15. 8.  with the lips, (though in this most excellent Prayer) while the heart is far from him, will turn this Sacrifice of God into an offering of fools; and therefore instruct them how every desire of theirs may, and all their present wants and requests ought to be referred to, and expressed in one of these Petitions; the diligent Reader may see what Reverend Mr. Ball hath 
Ball on the Lords Prayer.  written to this purpose: And let none think it enough to use it as a form only, but let him study to conform all his more solemn devotions to the matter and method of it; and so we shall be sure to observe our Saviour's injunction, and obtain his blessing.  
It remains only now that we wipe off those Objections that stick on this practice, which although as so many Vipers on Saint Paul's hand, coming out of the fire which contentious spirits have kindled, may seem to argue its guiltiness of divers accusations, yet after that we have had the patience to look on them awhile, we shall see them fall off of their own accord, and the sight thereof I hope will cause the Objectors to change their minds.  
The first Objection is this; The form related 
Obje. 1.  by St. Matthew doth differ from that in St. Luke; as in the fourth Petition, what St. Matthew expresseth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, day by day, St. Luke renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, day by day; and in the fifth Petition for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in St. Matthew is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Luke, Our debts, our trespasses; which variety of readings argueth that it was not intended for a form of words to be precisely so used.  
It is more than probable that our Saviour did 
Answ. 1.  deliver it both times in the same words; they that hold it was but once delivered must of necessity acknowledge it; but our Saviour using the same Syriack Dialect, which the Apostles afterward expressed in Greek, as their own style guided them, it is almost impossible to think how they should accord better, considering, that although the Holy Ghost did assist them in calling things to their remembrance, and dictating Divine truths to them, yet did not, as is reported of the seventy Interpreters, suggest each word and syllable, but left both the Apostles and Prophets free to use their own expressions; from whence it is that this joseph's coat hath such divers colours, I mean that there are such different styles of the holy Penmen.  
2. There is not a better Harmony in any one passage delivered by any of the Evangelists then in this; and the difference that is in them is very inconsiderable, being in show only, and not in sense.  
3. St. Augustine resolves the greatest of these 
August. de verbis Dem ni. See Chèmnitius, p. 1977. De his qui poenae astricti sunt. Grotius. 1 Chron. 19  doubts in a Question, Quid est debitum nisi peccatum? what is our debt but our sin? A sinner in Hebrew is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sometime 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but more frequently in the Syriack language, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to denote any that is obnoxious to debt, or guilt and punishment; and in this sense the Chaldee Paraphrase useth the word four times in Solomon's Prayer; Forgive the debts of thy people Israel; and the Syriak in Psalm 1. 1. read thus; Blessed is the man that hath not stood in the way 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of Debtors; this was in the Syriak language the common name for sinners, and then no wonder if St. Luke knowing the import of the word, and being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, best skilled in the Greek 
Debita (i) peccata, Sylli Sermonis idiotismo: as Beza in Mat. 6.  Language, did very significantly render that word, sins, which St. Matthew more literally renders debts; and St. Luke presently expounds himself to deliver the same thing with St. Matthew; for having said, And forgive us our trespasses, he adds, as we forgive them that are indebted unto us; and Grotius saith, that St. Luke's 
Grotius in Locum. Beza in Lucam. 11.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is but an Exposition of what St. Matthew meant by debts: And Beza makes the other two words of one signification; Idem declarabit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, atque apud Matthaeum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that i, as much as we shall need this day; and so the vulgate reads hodiè, this day, in both places. The variety of expressions doth only help to understand the true sense and meaning of our Saviour the better, as several Translations do to the understanding of the Original; and in respect of the Language wherein our Saviour delivered this Prayer the Greek is but a Translation.  
But I foresee that this objection may be much improved, by what hath been said by some men of great reputation and learning concerning the 
Beza and Grotius.  vast difference of these forms in St. Matthew and St. Luke, not in words only, but in sense, and some essential parts of it; for in the vulgate Latin these things are omitted, Noster qui es in coelis, the whole third Petition, Thy will be done, etc. and deliver us from evil; all this in Saint Luke's relation is wanting: and they with some others do think, that the whole Doxology in Saint Matthew was surreptitious, and not of the Text: But of this anon. Of the particulars left out by St. Luke Beza saith this; Haec non legic vetus interpres, etc. These things an ancient Interpreter doth not read, (he means the Vulgate;) and it appears out of Augustine to Laurentius, that the Latin exemplars had only five Petitions in this Prayer, the third being omitted, and the latter part of the sixth, which were afterward supplied out of Matthew; which that it was done olim, long ago, appears not only by the Greek Copies, but also by the Syriack Translation. So Beza; and after him Grotius to the like purpose: Omnino oredibile est, etc. It is very credible that the particulars omitted in Luke's copy were added out of the Greek of Matthew; his reason also the same, cum non extet in Latinis antiquis illud, Because it is not in the ancient Latins: Now this is the force of the Objection.  
If our Saviour had intended these words for a 
Obje. 2.  form of Prayer, he would not have made so great a difference, not in terms only, but in some of its chief and essential parts; which difference doth evince, that it was not our Saviour's will to tie us precisely to the words.  
To this I answer, first, that on this supposition 
Answ.  of defectiveness, as it is not a form, so neither may it be admitted as a perfect rule or platform, seeing some necessary things are left out; and so we should make void the injunction of Christ to both purposes.  
Secondly, The difference of these forms is in our Translations (which agree with the most ancient and best Greek copies) inconsiderable, being, as you have heard in the answer to the former Objection, in show only, not at all in sense; and I remember that I am to deal now with Protestants, who do own the Translation now in use, and by consequence the copies from which it was translated as most authentic. And I beseech them to consider what an unhandsome reflection is hereby made, not on our Translators only, but on all the Reformers, as if they wanted judgement and discretion to choose, or integrity to make use of the best copies; In imitando non optimum proponere, is no wise man's part.  
But thirdly, I doubt not but that it will appear, that the most and best Greek copies have these particulars Originally, and consequently our Translations are good and authentic. And first, all that Grotius saith, is, Graeci quidam codices omittunt: Some Greek copies (but not many) do omit the third Petition. Two things therefore I will inquire;  
First, the number of those Greek copies that retain these particulars:  
Secondly, their quality and authority, which in all probability are most authentic, either the Copies which omit, or those which retain them.  
1. For the number, it will be easily granted that there are more with us then against us; for (in my observation) these parts are omitted only in these:  
1. That of Bezn, given to the University of Cambridge.  
2. In that second copy of Henry Stephens, 
in Matt. ●  where yet, the word Amen is added.  
3. In that of March. Velesius, there wanteth only the first particular, viz. Our— which art in Heaven.  
4. In that of Magdalene College in Oxford, wants only, which art in Heaven. So that by the way, it is worth observation, that like false witnesses, neither of these defective copies do agree among themselves, or with the Vulgate Latin, that of Beza only excepted; Now there are three or four copies to one that retain these parts, and they are agreeable to each other, as learned Chemnitius observes; We follow the 
Chemnitius Harm. p. 1977.  Greek copies (saith he) in which there is no difference as to the sense in either form, only two words are changed, but of a like signification: and therefore he expounds the forms jointly, p. 785. and there adds, The Greek copies do relate the whole Prayer in Luke, after the same manner as in Matthew, except only the Doxology. Then for the Latin Translations, (though the Vulgate 
Chemnitius p. 785.  have it not) yet some in St. Augustine's time had it, for in cap. 28. de verbis Domini, he reciteth the whole prayer out of St. Luke, as out of Saint Matthew, and it seems such copies were of use and authority in those days, for St. Ambrose relates it in like manner; From whence, saith 
Ambrose de Sacrament. l. 5. c. 4.  Chemnitius, it may be gathered that the Latin copies did differ in Augustine's time, some reading this Prayer in St. Luke, as the Greek copies do whole and entire. Besides, Lucas Brug. numbers eight Latin Manuscripts wherein the third Petition is retained in St. Luke; where he adds, that it agrees to the Greek Text of the King's Bible, and to the Syriack Translation of the same; and of the other particulars, Qui es in Coelis, and libera nos à malo, he saith some Latin exemplars have them.  
Now here that I may give more full satisfaction, and because the consequence of what I shall say may resolve another scruple concerning the Doxology, I shall briefly discuss these four things:  

1. The authority of the Greek Copies above others.  
2. Which of the Greek Copies are most authentic.  
3. In what ancient Beza's Greek Copy is to he had.  
4. What is the rise and authority of the Vulgate Latin.   
First, the authority of the Greek Copies is acknowledged even by the Papists themselves, when they are serious, to be Apostolical. Bellarmine saith, Constat N. T. Graece scriptum esse ab 
De verb● Dei. l. 2. c. 7.  Apostolis vel Evangelistis quorum nomina titulis praefiguntur; It is manifest that the New Testament written in Greek by the Apostles or Evangelists, were theirs whose names are prefixed to the Titles; And it cannot be doubted (saith he) that the Apostolical editions are of highest authoty, unless it could be proved that they were corrupted, of which I have reason to think the same as of the Hebrew Copies, viz. that neither they nor the Greek are generally corrupted; and this (saith he) may be easily demonstrated; for there never wanted Gatholickes which did discover the endeavours of those heretics that sought to corrupt them, and did not permit those sacred Scriptures to be depraved. Thus he; wherein he speaks as much like a Protestant as those that make the Objection: and indeed when we hear the complaints of the Greek Fathers in those Primitive times, sounding loud against those bold and busy Heretics, as Ireneus against Martion, Origen, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, etc. against the Arians, Macedonians, Manichees, Valentinians, Nestorians and others, they showed themselves careful and faithful shepherds, in watching and withstanding those morning-Wolves. Bellarmine notes, that Ambrose did so by the Arians, who from John 4th. took away Spiritus 
Jo. 4. v. 24 Ambr. li. 3. de Spiritu sancto. c. 11.  est Deus, (for so the Vulgate read it) which all the Greek books have (saith he.) So that although those vermin did impair some of those books, yet seeing the Fathers of the Church did hunt them out of their lurking places, and observed all their haunts, and through God's providence, by their care did prevail to preserve the greater number of those books pure and entire, which were so owned and received by the common consent and practice of the Church, I know not what any adversary can say against the authority of them. Take these instances of the watchfulness of those Ancients; Origen noteth that those Heretics took away that in Rom. 16. 25. Ei qui potens est, etc. which (saith he) was in other copies that had, not suffered by them.  
Theodoret speaking of Tatian, saith, Ego inveni 
Lib. 1. Haret. fab. tit. de Tatiano.  plusquam ducentos hujusmodi libros, I found more than two hundred depraved books, which were had in honour in our Churches, which when I had gathered, I caused them to be laid aside, and in their stead I placed the four Evangelists; for, as he saith, this Tatian had composed a Gospel which he called the Gospel by four, leaving out the Genealogies, and whatever doth prove that Christ descended from David according to the flesh; which Gospel not only those of his sect did use, but such also who following the Doctrine of the Apostles did not discern the fraud, but in simplicity made use of it as a Compendium of all the Gospels.  
Dionysius Bishop of Corinth observed such endeavours, Dominicas Scripturas nonnulli corrumpere 
Euseb. l. 4. c. 22.  sunt cornati, Of many that would corrupt the holy Scriptures. And in truth whatever the Papists say in the heat of dispute, yet in cold blood they all prefer the Greek copies: So Brugensis; Sic esse legendum Graeca clamant, Thus the Greek Exemplars vote it. The Divines at Louvain. Ita in Graecis exemplaribus legi: and by the Greek they do frequently correct their Latin copies; So Maldonat on Matthew 6. 5. where the Latin read, qui amant, the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for they love, in this place; I judge (saith he) that our copies ought to be corrected rather than the Greek; So Stapleton: Where the Latin read, 
Prompt. f●r. 3. Hebd. S. 4. Luk 22. 22  Sanguis qui pro nobis fundetur; (i.) the blood that shall be poured out for us, the Greek reads in the present tense, the blood that is poured out: these words (saith he) are to be read in the present tense according to all the Evangelists in the Greek text. So Faber on John 1. 30. The Latin read, Qui ante me factus fuit; (i.) who was made before me; the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is only fuit, was before me; unhappy Arius would admit no other Exposition, (saith he) that he might belch out his madness against us, and confute us by an Interpreter, which he could not do by the truth. Bellarmine himself saith, the Fathers do teach every where, that we 
Lib. 2. de Verb. Dei.  must have recourse to the Greek and Hebrew Fountains; Vega, Ribera, Vives, Costa, and others, do acknowledge the same; and whereas some of them have sifted the Greek books, to discover corruptions in them, Chamier, Glassius and others, have sufficiently vindicated them.  
Secondly, the constant interpretations of the Text by the Greek Fathers (with whom many of the Latin do agree) according as it is in the Greek copies, is an argument that they are preserved pure, and entire; for seeing these sacred books were written originally in Greek, it was more facile for the Fathers of that Church to find (which doubtless they did seek) the best copies, then for any others.  
And secondly, supposing they had greater helps to find, and obtain, we cannot in Charity deny them care and integrity to preserve them entire from all corruption, addition, or detraction; for they were not ignorant of that curse, Revel. 22. 18. neither (as in fact it appeareth) were they wanting in this duty.  
Thirdly, The Greek Churches which then owned these copies were of a far greater number and extent than the Latin were; The Church of Asia, and Palestine, the Greeks in Egypt, and Europe, with whom the Syrians also joined. To which add  
Fourthly, The providence of God, who would not permit the fountain of Holiness and Truth to be depraved; which providence, as it did appear in preserving those Oracles of God that were committed to the Jews, so doubtless it hath, and will appear in the preservation of the Mysteries of our salvation in the New Testament to the end of the world; for I know not any promise, or privilege that the Jews had in this respect above Christians: and seeing God doth require on our parts that we should captivate our reason and understandings to the Doctrines and Truths therein revealed, it is but reasonable to think, that God will certainly preserve them in their integrity and purity. And if the Jews, who have been professed enemies to Christ and Christian Religion ever since they had a being, have been so wonderfully withheld from corrupting the Scriptures of the Old Testament, in those things that concern our Saviour, his Nature, Person, and Offices, which they have always had more than a good will, but never power to do, how can it be supposed that the Greek books of the New Testament, which have always been in the custody, and under the care of most of the Churches of God, who in all ages have had men of great ability, fidelity, and vigilancy to preserve them, should be corrupted?  
And thus we pass on in the second place, to inquire, that seeing there are many Greek copies some of which do hugely differ from others, yet all of them pretend to Antiquity, and Purity, which of these are the most authentic; and in this also we shall be directed by those that are the greatest enemies to them. Sextus Senensis 
Biblioth. l. 7. p. 565.  thus; Dicimus eum Gracum codicem qui nunc in Ecclesia legitur, etc. We affirm this Greek book which is now used in the Church to be the very same which the Greek Church had in the times of Hierome, and long before, even to the days of the Apostles, which is true, sincere, and faithful, not polluted by any falsity, as the continual reading of all the Greek Fathers doth plainly show; for Dionysius, Justine, Irenaeus, Melito, Origen, Affricanus, Apollinarius, Athanasius, Eusebius, Basil, chrysostom, Theophylact, and other Fathers before and after the time of Hierome, do use one and the same Text of Scripture. Now that all these should be so deluded, as not to know the corrupt copies from the true, and by their inanimadvertency purchase a curse to themselves, and entail it on their posterity, no rational man can think, if he consider how near they were to the Apostles days, what abilities they had, and what courage for the cause of Christ (besides the tradition of the Church, which is an Argument against the Papists) and the actings of divine Providence to the contrary. And Saint Hierome tells us, it was the practice of the 
Epistola ad Sunn●am & Fr●telliam.  Church in his time, In N. T. si quando apud Latinos quaestio oritur, etc. If any controversy do arise among the Latins concerning the New Testament, and there be variety in the Latin copies, we presently fly to the Greek fountains; and although some Greek copies did anciently differ, as possibly they might within a few Centuries of years, yet the difference being but in words and letters rather than sense, and the Church still retaining those which did agree, with one consent and common practice, there cannot be a more probable Argument of their authority and perfection. Besides, seeing those ancient Greek copies, which by the Primitive Church have been delivered to us, do keep the same Analogy of faith and truth among themselves, it is an argument they were not corrupted by those Heretics whose malice aimed at the most precious truths. But when any particular Greek copy goes against the generally approved ones, and is faulty in any of the more important truths, that copy may be suspected as spurious or corrupted: thus the corruption of the Arian copies discovered itself in corrupting those places that did in Christo hominem à Deo separare, separate the Divinity from the Humanity of Christ, as Jo. 1. 30. 1 Jo. 5. 7.  
Our third inquiry is concerning the authority of those Greek copies, especially that of Beza, which differ from the rest: Brugensis saith of his second copy, which hath some difference from others, Latinae editioni contra alia omnia consonat, etc. that it agrees with the Latin Edition against all others, and sometime with its Grand errors, 
Erroribus ejus inolitis.  and was almost wholly conformed to the Latin. So Erasmus of the Greek copy in the Vatican; Exemplum illud ante paucos annos confectum esse tempore Concilii Florentini, cum facta est concordia Latinae Ecclesiae cum Graecâ; This copy was made not many years since, in the time of the Florentine Council, when there was a peace made between the Latin and Greek Churches.  
Then for Beza's copy; Mr. Gregory tells us, 
Gre. Notes ch. penult.  that it was the Opinion of those two learned Bishops, Armagh and Worcester, that it had been corrupted by the Heretics; and that which he intimates concerning its faultiness in the Genealogy, is an argument of it. But it may suffice to give you his own judgement concerning that copy, as he delivers it in his Epistle to the University of Cambridge, to whom he presented it:  
Quatuor Evangeliorum, & Actorum Apostolorum Graeco-Latinum exemplar, ex Sancti Irenaei caenobio Lugdunensi, ante aliquot annos nactus, inutile quidem illud, & neque satis emendatè ab initio ubique descriptum, neque ita ut oportuit habitum, (sicut ex paginis quibusdam diverso charactere insertis, & indocti cujuspiam Coligeri barbaris alibi adscriptis notis, apparet) vestrae potissimùm Academiae, ut inter verè Christianas vetustissimae, plurimisque nominibus celeberrimae, dicandum existimavi, Reverendi Domini & Patres, in cujus Sacrario tantum hoc venerandae (nisi forte fallor) vetustatis monumentum collocetur; etsi nulli verò melius quam vos ipsi quae sit huic exemplari fides aestimarint, hac de re tamen vos admonendos duxi, tantam à me, in Lucae praesentìm Evangelio, repertam esse inter hunc codicem & caeteros quantum vis veteres discrepantiam, ut vitandae quorundam offensioni, asservandum potius quam publicandum existimem, In hac tamen non sententiarum, sed vocum diversitate, nihil profecto comperi unde suspicari potuerim à veteribus illis haereticis fuisse depravatum; imo multa mihi videor deprehendisse observatione digna, quaedam etiam sic à recepta Scriptura discrepantia, ut ramen cum veterum quorundam, & Graecorum & Latinorum Patrum scriptis consentiant; non pauca denique, quibus vetusta Latina editio corroboratur: quae omnia, pro ingenii mei modulo, inter se comparata, & cum syrâ & Arabicâ editione collata, in majores meas Annotationes à me nuper emendatas, & brevi (Deo favente) prodituras, congessi, etc.  
This copy was found at Lions in France, during the civil wars there, in the year 1562. of whole Antiquity the chief mark that Beza gives, is, that it hath barbarous notes affixed to it; whereas the Grecians have been more barbarous in these later centuries then in the former: nor doth he say much for the authority of it.  
For first, he saith it differs from other ancient copies, especially in Saint Luke's Gospel, so much, as that for fear of giving offence he thought it fitter to conceal then publish it:  
And secondly, that some things in it differed from the received Scripture, but so as it agreed with the Writings of Greek and Latin Fathers:  
Thirdly, that it did in many things confirm the old Latin Edition.  
And this last, I take it, is no great argument of its authority or purity. Solomon Glassius suspects that it was corrected by the Latin; for, as Brugensis had said of his second copy, that it was so conformed; Quidni de antiquis Beza codicibus, si qui fuerant, asseri possit? the same (saith Glassius) may be affirmed of Beza's.  
And surely were not our Scriptures a more sure word then either the writings of Greek and Latin Fathers (I speak without any disparagement of them;) or if we had not a more pure and perfect copy of the Scriptures than the vulgate Latin, we should not build on so sure a foundation, as now by the mercy of God we do. Besides, Beza's copy differs from all others, as in many things throughout, and especially in Saint Luke, so even in this Prayer, retaining the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, debts, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, trespasses; which no other Greek copy doth.  
But I shall use another medium, because it is pertinent to the business in hand, to prove the imperfection both of Beza's Greek, and the Vulgate Latin copies, which is this; If the Doxology in our Lord's Prayer, and those copies that retain it, be authentic, than such as leave it out are not so: But the Doxology, etc. Ergo. The authority of the copies retaining it we have proved already, and the verity of the Doxology follows upon that: but yet, because the truth is generally opposed by the Papists, and too much slighted by some Protestants, I shall do my endeavour to assert it; And I will not dissemble who they are, and what they say, that speak against it: Erasmus saith, Taxanda est illorum tomeritas, qui non voriti sunt tam divinae precationi suas nugas assures; Their rashness is much to be blamed, that were not afraid to annex their trifles to this Divine Prayer: Kirstenius saith, A pio quodam fidei imbecillis tanquam nova precatio additafuit; (more modestly) that it was added as another Prayer by some pious man, but of a weak faith. Brugensis saith, that it crept into the Greek of St. Matthew from the Liturgies of the Greek Church. Grotius saith the same; and Beza calls it Magnificam & longè sanctissimam— Sed irrepsisse in contextum, & quae in vetustissimis aliquot codicibus Graecis desit: Here is much said by great men, but Magna est veritas, truth is great, and will prevail.  
To these things therefore thus I answer; that Erasmus is not much to be confided in in this business; for he gives an easy consent to the expunging that of 1 John 5. 7. which so plainly proveth the Doctrine of the Trinity, and that upon a weak ground, because some Greek, and some Latin books have it not; the authority of which place hath been irrefragably asserted by Gerhard in his dispute upon it.  
But I shall prove this particular also ex concessis, from premises granted by the Papists themselves, viz. the authority of the Greek books.  
And first, take the testimony of Brugensis, (though our enemy in this particular) who speaking of the Doxology, saith thus; Coronidem istam quae subsequitur in Graecis plerisque & Syriacis libris, etc. That clause which followeth in most of the Greek and Syriack books we omit, and Erasmus and Bellarmine grant, that it is generally in the Greek books; to whose authority you have heard their assent: Solo. Glassius tells us particularly, that it is in the ancient and correct copies of Henry Stephens, and Aldus 
De textu N. T. p. 149.  Manutius, & in others that are most ancient and approved. Beza saith the same, that it is in the Syriack and in most Greek copies. And again, 
Variae lect.  Brugensis saith of one of the Greek copies at Paris, which omits the Doxology, that it was corrected by the Latin, because; saith he, in this place, and in divers other, all the Greek books add what the Latin omit; and so doth the Syriack interpreter, and the Greek Fathers, as he there observes. Laurentius Valla saith, Nihil hic erat Graecis additum, sed à Latinis detractum; (i.) Nothing was here added to the Greek, but omitted in the Latin books. And so Solomon Glassius; Quis 
Glassius p. 150.  verò nos, quove argumento certos reddat, etc. But who can assure us, or by what argument, that it was rather added to the Greek, then substracted from the Latin? seeing (as he quoteth from Helvicus) that the Greek is the fountain, the Latin are the streams, this the daughter, and that the mother, by which therefore it ought to be corrected; and he thinks the Vulgate Latin inexcusable for maiming our Lord's Prayer, as it doth in St. Luke, which he thinks a sufficient argument to justify the Greek copies against it in other particulars: So that if I may speak ingenuously what I think, although Beza made very good use of his copy in his Annotations, yet he seems a little too zealous in building the reputation of it on the disparagement of the many ancient Greek and Syriack copies that retain it; which, because they differ from his, he saith they had those particulars supplied (Olympia) long since, (which was indeed ab initio from the beginning, as hath been proved:) but the Papists greedily swallow this concession, and vomit it forth against Protestants, as Huntly the Jesuit doth; 
See Glassius p. 151.  I shall therefore make my restringent the stronger, by adding to the testimonies above the reasons for the authority of the Doxology.  
1. Because it is extant in the Syriack translation, which is of greater antiquity and purity than any that wants it can pretend unto; of this Brugensis saith, Hoc teneo indubitanter, This I firmly believe, that the Syriack text of the New Testament 
Comment. in N. T. n. 6.  ought to be had in esteem and honour with the ancient Greek exemplars: And Franzius saith; Omnes eruditi, etc. All learned men do 
De interp. Scr. p. 45.  assert the purity of this above all other versions, which holy men did therefore so esteem, because Christ did speak and preach in this Language; so that without doubt the Apostles and Apostolical men did diligently inquire, and conserve the formal words of Christ, and by a pious labour did record them in this translation; and moreover, they did most happily translate the Apostolical Epistles, seeing that these Syriack Doctors held frequent converse with the Apostles themselves. And in p. 38. Of all the translations of the New Testament the Syriack is the chiefest, most sure, 
Idem. p. 38  happy, and divine, compiled without doubt by Apostolical men, which best knew the words of Christ and his Apostles, and their sense of them also, being fresh in memory, for this Language Christ did use; and for this cause wise men would even equal it with the Greek fountain: See also what Tremelius saith of it in his Preface to the New Testament. And Chamier tells us, the Syrians did use the Doxology in their Liturgy as well as in the Gospel.  
2. Maldonate confesses that it is in the Hebrew 
Mald. Preface. ch. 5. Of this opinion were Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Baronius, as in Bellar. de verb. Dei, l. 2. c. 7.  copy also; and he attempts to prove that St. Matthews Gospel was originally written in Hebrew, and urgeth St. Hieroms testimony, who had seen and made use of the Hebrew copy; and therefore he concludes it to be (not a temeritatis) a note of rashness, to deny it; and answers Objections to the contrary: if this be true, it must needs be authentic, however the antiquity of this Hebrew copy is beyond St. Hieroms time.  
3. It is also in some Arabic translations; in that printed by Erpenius, and a manuscript in Queen's College Library: Certain it is that many of the books of the New Testament were translated into this Language in the Apostles days, yea, 'tis said, that they have certain Epistles of St. Paul, and other Apostles, which are not yet extant in any other Languages; that St. Paul himself 
Franzius p. 39  was among them, appears from Gal. 1. 17. and this will help to justify it against the Vulgate also.  
4. The learned Mr. Gregory gives two reasons 
Ubi suprà.  more for its authority; the first is, that it was used by the Christians in Lucian's days, long before any of those books that omit it were extant.  
5. Because in all probability, as our Saviour had respect unto the prayers of the Jews in all other parts of his prayer, so had he also in this; and it appears, that as they used the last Petition, so they annexed the Doxology unto it, as, Libera nos à malo, quia tuum est regnum, & regnàbis 
Sepher Hammussar 9 12.  gloriose in secula seculorum; (i.) Deliver us from evil, for thine is the Kingdom, and thou shalt reign in glory for ever and ever.  
6. It's conformity with the analogy of Faith throughout the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is an argument (in the judgement of 
Chamier useth this Argument.  Sol. Glassius) that it is authentic, who thinks that our Saviour had respect to a like clause, 1 Chron 29. see also 2 Tim. 4. 18. and sure I am it could not serve the design of any Heretic to insert it.  
7. The Prayer itself would be less perfect without it, and therefore it was not originally wanting: the Council of Trent saith; Orationis 
De partibus & gradibus Orat.  Dominicae duae sunt parts, there are two parts of the Lords Pray Petition and Thanksgiving: and, as Morton saith, Lest we should deprive God of one part of his worship, which consists of thanksgiving, this clause must be annexed; for though the two first Petitions, Thy Kingdom come, etc. seem to imply thanksgiving, yet is it not actually performed except in the Doxology.  
Having thus confirmed the Protestant Tenet, we shall also confute the Papists Objections against it.  
1. Bellarmine objects, that the Latin Fathers do not expound it when they open all other parts of the Prayer.  
To this it is briefly answered, that this will conclude nothing against its authority, seeing the Greek Fathers, who in the Primitive times were more, and had more advantages to know the truth, did retain it in their Expositions: for as Chamier saith, Non à Latinis ad Graecos, sed à Graecis ad Latinos scripturae pervenere; The Scriptures were not delivered from the Latin to the Greek, but from the Greek to the Latin Fathers.  
2. He saith, Graeci in sua liturgiâ recitant quidem 
Bellar.  haec verba, etc. The Greek Liturgies do recite these words after the Lord's Prayer, but do not continue them with the Prayer.  
To this Chamier Answers; That they did continue 
L. 12. c. 13 S. 31.  it with the Prayer (as in St. Basil, and St. chrysostom appears;) and it was, the order of the Church then that the Priest only should pronounce it; which also is an argument of its authority, the most solemn offices being always performed by them. So Montanus; Sacerdoti 
Montan. in locum.  duntaxat licere verba ista proffer; It was lawful for the Priest only to pronounce these words: and so Master Gregory, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is always the Priests; and it would be a strange inference, to conclude, that therefore it was less authentic, or that it was not originally in the Greek books. Yet again Huntly saith, Istis Verbis respondebat Populus Sacerdoti●i post orationem Dominicam: That in the Greek Liturgies the people did answer the Priest in these words. But whether both of these be true or false, they will conclude nothing against the authority of this clause, as will appear in answer to the next Objection.  
Some Protestants do join with the Papists, objecting that this clause was inserted into the Greek 
Obje. 3.  copies from their Liturgies: So Brugens. Verisimile fit; etc. It is probable that this clause was added by the Grecians out of their Liturgy, or some other solemn form, into the Gospel of Matthew; as also out of some such form, these words are added to the Angelical Salutation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Luke 1. 28.  Because thou hast born the Saviour of our souls. But by the way, be it known, that we Protestants disown any such surreptitious addition to that place of St. Luke in the copies which we follow; and therefore the Objection concludes not against them or us upon this account. But to go on with the Objection, in which Grotius agrees with Brugensis, thus; Seeing 
Matth. 6. 13.  this clause is not extant in some ancient Greek exemplars, but is in the Syriack, and Latin, and Arabic, it is an argument, that not only the Arabic and Latin, but the Syriack translation also were made after that the Liturgies of the Church had received a certain form; for this Doxology, (rather than a part of Prayer) was annexed according to a custom of Greece altogether unknown to the Latins. And what Beza saith you have heard already, that it did creep into the context, etc. And he and Grotius will not grant the Amen to be Canonical, but that both it and the Doxology came in as a thing in use among those Primitive Christians. Thus I have made the most of the Objection, and shall now do my best endeavour to answer it.  
And first, whereas the Objectors suppose that the Doxology crept in from the Greek Liturgies 
Answ. 1.  into those many and ancient copies; it will undeniably follow from this supposition, that the use of the Liturgies and public form of Prayer was of Apostolical authority and antiquity; for so are many of the Greek, Syriaeck, Hebrew, and Arabic copies that do retain this Doxology; to say nothing of the Latin, which Grotius also mentioneth.  
And whoever he be that agrees with the Objectors in this supposition, cannot possibly be at any great distance with me in my main proposition; for if public Prayers were by Apostolical practice used in the service of God in other forms, than this form was used by them much more, there being not any of those supposed, or real Liturgies, which did not use our Lord's Prayer as a chief office of devotion.  
2. It is an uncharitable and high presumption for any to think that those Apostolical men that penned those holy books, should be such profane, daring persons, as to harbour any thought, much less actually to attempt, the mending of our Lord's Prayer, when not only their care and diligence to prevent the like practice from others, but their fidelity to the Gospel and truths of Christ, which they maintained with the expense of their blood and lives, is so apparent to all; certainly if they had Liturgies so anciently 
The Latins are guilty of this, as Grotius notes on Matth. 6. 13. In Latin is codicibus ex rituali Latino multa adhaeserunt.  (which I think my present adversaries will not grant, or if they do, we shall be adversaries no longer) they would rather have reform their Liturgies by the Gospel, out of which indeed the materials of them were taken, and not the Gospel by their Liturgies: And though they used many forms in their devotions as frequently as this Doxology, which they did also immediately annex and insert to portions of Scripture used in their Liturgy; yet we never find them guilty of annexing or inserting them to the holy Writ, as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Glory be to the Father, after the Psalms, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Angelical Salutation; Surely whatever succeeding ages were, they were not so unfaithful to the great depositum of the Gospel, as to consent unto, much less to be contrivers of, and actors in the corruption of it, by any additions, or otherwise. It may with much more charity and probability be thought, that this clause was in progress of time omitted by the Latin Translators as a thing of form, and daily use, which none could be ignorant of, or forget; as when we transcribe any thing of accustomed forms we write a part, and supply the rest of it with etc. and this Doxology was not only used to the Lords Prayer, but from thence added to other parts of devotion also, and so became most familiar; this I say may be more charitably thought, then that those most ancient, unquestionable Writers, should purposely without any reason or design, with high presumption, and a heavy curse (which was but even then pronounced, being almost the last words of the Scriptures,) add it unto the holy Gospel: besides, these did only transcribe it 
Rev. 22. 18.  from Greek to Greek; and every one knows there is less danger of error in transcribing then in translating; there will likely be somewhat lost in tossing liquors from vessel to vessel, by the most steady hand.  
And that all that guilt which I wipe off from the Greek transcribers may not stick on the Latin translators (whoever they were,) I shall offer (with submission to better judgements) this conjecture, as the ground why they did omit the Doxology, which at best was but (pia fraus) a pious fraud.  
I read in St. Ambrose, after he had expounded 
P. 178. to. 40.  the rest of our Lord's Prayer thus; Quid sequitur? (saith he) Audi quid dicit Sacerdes, Per Dominum nostram Jesum Christum, in quo tibi est, cum quo tibi est, honour, laus, gloria, magnificentia, potestas, cum Spiritu Sancto à seculis, & nunc & semper in omnia secula seculorum. Amen. (i) What follows? hear what the Priest saith, Through Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom, and with whom, be unto thee, together with the holy Spirit, honour, praise, glory, magnificence, and power from all ages, both now and always, for ever and ever. Amen. Now plain it is that the Latin Church did use this clause with the Lords Prayer, and that it was pronounced by the Priest; as also that it was fitted by that Church to maintain the Doctrine of the Trinity, which was by many contradicted. So that my opinion is, that having first left out the genuine and proper clause of our Lord's Prayer in their Liturgies, and established this in the place of it, as most conducing to the ends they aimed at; and being so settled, in progress of time they did omit the true Doxology, to gain the more credit to this new one; and when (as all learned Protestants know) there were many corruptions, and additions, and omissions too, in the Vulgate Latin, even in those days, which St. Hierome himself did note, but not amend, Ne 
Epist. ad Damasum.  nimis multa immutasse videretur, Lest he should seem to change too many things; no wonder if this were passed over among others. And we know also that the Latin Church hath not for a long time upward been so tender of the Scriptures as they should: Cardinal Hosius was not 
Tilenus' ad Bellar. de verb. D. l. 2. c. 14.  afraid to write, meliùs actum fuisse cum Ecclesia; si nulla unquam Sciptura extitisset. It might have been better with the Church if none of the Scriptures tures had ever been extant. And seeing (as Grotius 
Grotius on Matt. 6. 1.  observes) they did add to the Gospels out of their rituals, it is likely they did omit also from the Gospels. Then for the word Amen, which is not in Beza's copy, and is disliked by Grotius, who saith it was not added by Christ, but came in from a custom of the Church, which did approve their prayers by that word; this that learned man only saith, for what he allegeth afterward will prove the contrary, that the word is used in the Old and new Testament; Now this 
Deut. 27. 15. 1. Cor. 14. 16. Variae Lect. Lat.  word is also retained in the Latin; and Brugensis (who in the business of the Doxology opposed us) saith of this word, Syriacum manuscriptum Graecique omnes libri quos vidi, etc. The Syriack manuscript, and all the Greek books that I have seen, do conspire with these Latin ones that have it. Hierome with Euthemius elegantly expound it, call it Signaculum Dominicae Orationis, the Seal of the Lords Prayer, as it is a note of confirmation; so he teacheth in two Epistles to Marcellinus: and the Apostle useth the word, 1 Cor. 14. 6. See this great Scholar urgeth the same Argument for it which Grotius urged against it. Now if Beza's copy, and those few others which only in some things consent with his, be true, than the many ancient, & generally received and approved Greek, Hebrew, Syriack, & Arabic copies, which differ from his, but agree among themselves, are false; or if these be true, as, I hope; appears to every impartial person, than his is false in this particular of the Doxology; and if it be faulty in St. Mattehw, much more in that of Saint Luke (as himself grants in his Epistle) and especially in omitting those several parts of our Lord's Prayer, which those more ancient copies retain. And here I may also conclude with reverend M. Crook, That the Doxology is causelessly and without warrant omitted by the Church of Rome  
And now we come in the last place to inquire 
Guide to Blessedness.  after the rise and authority of the vulgate Latin, upon whose credit both Beza and Grotius do dissent from the most and best copies, and from the judgement of almost all Protestant Divines: concerning the entireness of our Lord's Prayer in Saint Luke, Beza saith, Haec non legit vetus interpres, ut apparet ex Augustino; The ancient Interpreter (viz. the vulgate Latin) doth not regard these things, as appears out of Augustine: and so Grotius, cum non extet in Latinis antiquis illud; Because it is not in the ancient Latin, therefore he suspects it was not in the Greek. But the reading of the Latins will not at all prejudice the more constant and unanimous readings of the Greek, if we consider the rise and authority of it.  
1 There were in the Latin Church, in the time of St. August. and Hierom, divers Latin Editions, besides that which is now called the vulgate, some of which did agree much better with the Greek; but this was most approved by that Church: This especially was so miserably corrupted, that Pope Damasus sent to Saint Hierome, to amend it by the Greek: and accordingly he sets about the work, not to 
Bellar de v. D. li. 2. c. 9  translate it de novo (that the Pope would not have) but to correct it where the greatest faults were; and how he did that himself tells us in his Preface to the Evangelists, Ita in hac commendatione calamo temperavimus, ut his tantùm quae sensum mutare videbantur correctis, reliqua manere permitteremus ut fuerant; We have so guided our pen in this Edition, that amending only those things which did seem to alter the sense, we have suffered other things to stand as they were: and this was his rule as well in the translating the Old Testament, as in correcting the New; Quod semel aures hominum occupaverat, & nascentis Ecclesiae roboraverat fidem, justum erat etiam nostro silentio comprobari. (i) That which had once possessed the ears of men, and had built up the faith of the growing Church was justly approved by our silence; and upon this account he passed over many things which he knew did greatly need amendment. So that the groundwork of this edition is an old vulgar Latin, used by Pope Damasus, amended in some few things by St. Hierome, but to this day differing from the Greek copies, which translation was not received into the Church until Gregory's time, (i) about two hundred years after Saint Hierome, as Bellarmine saith; this is the rise of it: now concerning its authority, hear what Bellarmine saith, Mirificè, etc. All the Heretics (i. Protestant's) do wonderfully agree against the Romish Church; and the Lutherans and Zwinglians, (so he names the Calvinists,) urge this against its authority, Innumerabiles in ea deprehenduntur errores, That innumerable errors are found in it; and this, as it hath already, and may more largely be proved by the Papists, and especially by comparing the vulgate Latin with that of Montanus his interlineary version of the New Testament, so more especially from the observation of Protestant Divines; for although Sixtus Quintus boasted much of his Edition, how many things he had reformed, yet Dr. James reckoneth 2000 faults mended 
Bellum Papale.  in that Edition by Pope (lement the Eighth, and yet this Pope saith modestly, divers things were still to be amended; and the Council of Trent did take some care for the effecting of it, but still Brugensis observes six hundred faults more; and when Bellarmine saw Brugensis his emendations, he sends him this with his thanks: You may know that the vulgate Bibles are not accurately mended by us, for many things are purposely past by which seemed to need amendment, which for just cause we did not amend; this cause is so secret, that we cannot judge how just it is.  
But I remember Bellarmine falls foul with Calvine for saying of the vulgate Edition, Adeo nullam esse in vulgatâ editione integram paginam, nt vix tres sunt continui versus non insigni aliquo errore faedati, That the vulgate Edition is so far from having any entire page, that it hath scarce any three continued verses free from some gross error: This holds true of the New Testament as well as of the Old.  
Whatever Bellarmine, Huntly, and other Jesuits have said in defence of it, hath been confuted by Chamier, Chemnitius, Glassius, and others: One argument of Bellarm. for the defence of it I cannot but take notice of; Because (saith he) it hath been used by the Latin Fathers for a thousand years: this makes little for the authority of it, if we consider the reason that he himself giveth why the Latin Fathers did so generally use this so faulty a translation, in his fourth argument, viz. that few of them did understand the Greek, he instanceth in the six hundred Latin Bishops at the Council of Ariminum, whereof not one (Nemo fuit) understood the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for when the subtle Arians propounded to them, a vellent Christum colere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they all answered, nolumus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed Christum. But what if the Latin Church and Fathers have used it for above a thousand years? such a prescription as that is not a sufficient warrant for us to believe and practise all that was then believed and practised; and when no Protestant doth acknowledge it to be a convincing proof that the Greek reading of the Old Testament is therefore authentic above the Hebrew, because the Apostles themselves did use it, much less will the use of the vulgate by the Latin Fathers convince any of its authority above the Greek, wherein the several books were first written, and which do generally accord in all necessary truths, especially in the things which we have now controverted: and Bellarmine saith, Plus credendum uni testi loquentì quam mille nihil dicentibus, One witness that speaks out a truth is rather to be credited then a thousand that say nothing. As for its purity, having said some things in general from the writings of those that make it their Diana, I shall only add a few particulars; the absurdity of which should long since have made them intolerable among Christians.  
Thus Luke 15. 8. the vulgate reads (evertit 
Evertit pro everrit.  domum) the poor woman having lost a piece of silver, etc. overthrows her house, instead of sweeps it: as the word is also used Luke 11. 25. So Luke 16. 22. mortuus est Dives, & sepultus in inferno, they read thus, the rich man also died and was buried in hell; whereas Montanus reads as we do, and ends that verse thus, the rich man also died and was buried. Romans 12. 19 Non vosmetipsos defendentes, they read, Not defending yourselves; the word signifies not revenging yourselves: They seem to make a great improvement of the precept, but how contrary their practice is, the Mysteries of Jesuitism lately printed will inform us out of their own authors; 1 Pet. 2. 23. where our Saviour is said to have committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, they read, se injustè judicanti, that judgeth him unjustly. This taste is enough to make us know how much that impure vessel hath tainted the precious liquor of God's word; and yet the Papists will not permit the people to drink at the Fountain, but only at these impure streams. Huntly says, Nos Graecum textum corruptum esse pronunciamus, praesertim ubi dissentit à vulgatâ nostrâ; We pronounce the Greek Text to be corrupted, especially where it dissenteth from our vulgate Latin: but I hope that the premises which we have laid down will bear this conclusion, That the Greek copies ought to be consulted and believed by us, both for the determining of controversies, the understanding of difficulties, and for the entire and pure delivery of the truths of God. And 
Franzius de interp. S. p. 47.  thus we have proved the Doxology in St. Matthew to be authentic, and the forms in both Evangelists to be entirely the same, though delivered at several times, only in Saint Luke the Doxology is not added; whence will arise ano-Objection:  
The form in Saint Luke, which is most strictly 
Obje. 4.  enjoined, is less perfect; and the quere will be which form ought to be used.  
To this I answer, that it is usual with the later Evangelists to deliver those particulars more briefly which had been insisted on more at large by the former; thus in an important cmmand, v. 33. of this Chap. Seek the Kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof, etc. St. Luke reads only this, seek the Kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added: and this is also the method observed 
Matth. 6. 33. Luke 12. 31.  by the Evangelists, as to repeat some things already delivered more briefly, so to express other things omitted more plainly; and it seems it was the aim of St. Luke to express the word of precept and injunction for the using of this form, so as that it should admit no contradiction: But I remember that this Prayer was twice delivered, and so our Saviour himself might here in Saint Luke repeat it more contractedly to his Disciples alone, who, we may suppose had all recorded and learned it throughout; or at least, that St. Luke might abbreviate it, as a thing sufficiently known from St. Matthews relation. But however it be, when two forms are prescribed, we need not dispute which we should use, much less may we deny to use either: but as it is our duty to use one, so it will be our sin to omit both: and our own prudence, and the practice of the Church in all ages may direct us to use that which is most perfect. And our Assembly gives the same advice in a like matter; for whereas the Apostle differs from the Evangelist in the form of words used at the Institution of the Lords Supper, which in St. Matthew 26. 26. is, Take, eat, this is my body; and at the cup, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins: But in St. Paul thus; Take, eat, this is my body 
1 Cor. 11. 24.  which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me: and at the cup, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, this do you as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. The first are Christ's own words according to St. Matthew, and St. Paul saith also, That he received of the Lord that which he delivered unto the Corinthians; yet, as there is a necessity of using one of those forms, so the Directory giveth us liberty to use either. The same advice will hold in this business of the two forms of Prayer: One we are bound to use, we have liberty to choose which; but Christian prudence directs us to use that which is most complete; and Chemnitius assures us that the 
●arm. p. 1988.  Doxology which is wanting in St. Luke, may be piously supplied from St. Matthew, and then there is not the least difference in the forms.  
That all our Prayers ought to be made in knowledge 
Obje. 5.  and understanding: But these Petitions are either obscure in their terms, or comprehend such mountains of matter and mysteries under each expression, as the common sort of people cannot actually apprehend under such brief expressions.  
Having proved it to be our duty, by virtue o Christ's command, all objections for the non performance of it, arising from our own incapacity, will be found to be but vain pretences, an such is this.  
For first, I beseech the Objectors to consider, what our Saviour was doing when he delivered this Prayer; he was instructing, not only his Disciples, but the whole multitude also, in the chief parts of God's worship; wherein he no doubt descended to the capacities of them whom he intended to instruct, and did not now speak in Parables, as at other times, but proposed plain truths, to guide their spirits, and raise their affections in Prayer, and other exercises of Religion: And I cannot think any man as good a Master of Method, or a plainer teacher than our Saviour.  
2. They that have not a competent degree of Knowledge to apprehend the prime sense of each Petition in this Prayer, if they be Ministers, they are not sufficiently qualified to utter Prayers ex tempore in the Congregation; or if they be people, they are less able at one and the first hearing, to understand all the uncouth words, and mysterious expressions of those that do so pray before them.  
3. The prime and literal sense is obvious, and easy to be understood by every ordinary capacity; but if there be any thing difficult, there are few established Ministers but are able to expound it; and were all Ministers as diligent in unfolding the Method and heads of this Prayer as the ancient Fathers were, and as it is their duty to be, this Objection would soon vanish.  
4. That which the whole Assembly makes an argument to commend the use of it as a form, namely, the comprehensiveness of it, is but unhappily urged by any one or more inferior persons, against the use of it as such.  
5. This Objection would condemn the use of any Petitions wherein the Attributes of God are mentioned, and any Scripture-purase (to which more senses than one may be accommodated) is used; and as the Jews say, there are Mountains of Divinity on every point of Scripture.  
6. Nor indeed is it necessary that we should in every Prayer have an actual apprehension of every particular that may upon deliberation be referred to each head of this Prayer, but only of such things as we do stand in need of, and for the supply of which we do at that time make our addresses to the throne of Grace; and if we should stand to enumerate our particular wants, to confess our several sins, and to implore grace against each infirmity, in every Prayer, it is not a day that would be sufficient for these and such like things. And it it not in vain that our Saviour hath said, Your heavenly Father knoweth what things ye have need of, so immediately before this injunction, 
Matt. 6. 8.  Thus therefore pray ye.  
7. This Objection is so like that which the Papists make against the use of the Scriptures by the Lay-people, that one egg is not more like another, viz. Because in them are some things hard to be understood, therefore they permit them not to converse with them, and to use means, & lay hold on opportunities to understand them better; It is great pity that the excellency of things should render them useless, that the exemplary justice and goodness of Aristides, should be the ground of his banishment. Besides, suppose the people be ignorant of the proper sense of one or two Petitions, it cannot charitably be supposed that they are ignorant of all; and their ignorance of some particulars will not be a sufficient excuse for the total omission of this duty, no more I think then if a man should plead, I am not in perfect charity, I am dull and indisposed, therefore I will not pray; though such a one may sin in his prayer, yet he sins more in the wilful omission; and it is better to pray in a sense of our infirmities and unworthiness, which still accompany us, than not to pray at all, because we cannot in some things justify ourselves. Doctor Preston makes Prayer the best preparation to Prayer, and Saint James commends it as a good mean to obtain spiritual knowledge; If any man 
James 1. 5  lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, and it shall be given him.  
If this Prayer be so positively enjoined, than it ought to be used as the only prayer, at least it should 
Obje. 6.  be added to all other.  
Affirmative precepts do always oblige us to 
Answ.  the performance of them, but not to the actual exercise of the duties enjoined by them at all times. Thus when we are bid to pray continually, we may as well conclude that we ought to do nothing but pray, (for which opinion the Euchites 
1 Thes. 5. 17.  and Messalians were accounted Heretics) as to infer from hence that we ought to use this form only, or this at all times of prayer: and so from that Precept, vers. 6. of Matthew 6. we might as truly infer, that all but closet - prayers are unlawful, because Christ there saith, when thou prayest enter into thy closet; whereas we might rather infer, that as our Saviour commended closet - prayers to his Disciples, to distinguish them from hypocrites, who were wont to pray chiefly in the streets and high ways; so he commendeth this form, to difference them from the heathen, and to be as a cognizance of their Discipleship, to be used pro hic & nunc, on solemn occasions in public, and once a day at least in private, as is implied in the fourth Petition.  
2. Supposing (as some contend) that our Saviour had enjoined this Prayer as a platform only, as then there would have been no necessity of conforming every occasional Petition to the whole method and frame of it, but it should have served as a rule by which to conform our more solemn Devotions; so now our public prayers being framed by it, we ought to apply the form itself to these especially, as a rule to discover their rectitude or deficiency, and to supply their imperfections; which if it were duly done as oft as we worship God in public, it would be as salt to season our Devotions, and give the people assurance that we have done according to the pattern in the mount; it might cover a multitude of infirmities, and commend our Devotions to God and man.  
And lastly, it might prove an effectual mean to revive that Unanimity and Charity which hath so long been cold and dead amongst us.  
When I have kept close to the matter of this 
Obje. 7.  prayer in my devotion, it is but a vain repetition to say over the form.  
If those that fail in observing the matter 
Answ.  and method would use the form, (and the use of one of these is undoubtedly their duty) the far greater part of our Ministers would use it.  
2. There can be no great danger in saying our prayers too oft, whether in the same or other words. Our Saviour repeated the same words three times when he was in an Agony, Matthew 26. 44. O my Father, if it be possible let this cup pass from me. And if the same conceptions may be often repeated in other words of our own invention, as is generally practised, why may they not be once repeated in Christ's words? To go from a less perfect form to a more perfect, from our own to Christ's, is a good method. There is an Art taught by Saint Paul, how to make an old prayer new, Phil. 3. 18. namely, by renewing our fervent affections; Of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, the increase of zeal, and fervour of spirit, will add new life and efficacy to any prayer.  
But we find our hearts dull and cold under this, 
Obje. 8.  as well as under other forms.  
To this we may answer as the Apostle in another case, ye are not straitened by this form, ye are straitened in your own bowels. It may 
Answ. 2 Cor. 6. 12.  be your hearts are stupid at the reading of the Scriptures, must that Ordinance therefore cease? Mr. Ball telleth us of one Smith, that would cast reading of Scripture out of the Assembly, because in his opinion it quenched the Spirit: But in such cases the deadness of our hearts is to be blamed, not the form of Prayer, which is full of life and spirit; yet it is strange that any man's heart should be active and fervent under one that prays a form to him ten or twenty times to him as long, and presently grow stupid and cold at the devout repetition of this form (perhaps) by the same Minister: Doth the holy Spirit assist you in hearing the Minister's form, and withdraw from you in hearing this? no, doubtless; but as we may be edified by Psalms, and Hymns, and spiritual Songs brought into forms by men, so much more by the use of this form, composed, and enjoined by the Son of God. I should rather therefore think that the hearts of those that have been dull, or disaffected, under the prayers of the Ministers, should be quickened and elevated by this; as the drooping Disciples going to Emaus, while Christ was speaking to them their 
Luke 24. 2  hearts burned; and so indeed the people in former days, by their more reverend gestures, their cheerful and unanimous joining with their Ministers in the use of this prayer, were wont to express their most hearty devotion.  
And here we may observe, how little the enemies of the truth do agree; One accusing it for being more large and comprehensive than their spirits and understandings can apprehend; another, for that it doth too much straiten and confine their spirits, and make them flat and dull: which accusations, as they cannot be both true, so without better proof we have no reason to believe either.  
But most men cannot safely say this Prayer, 
Obje. 9  they cannot call God Father, nor pray for forgiveness on that hard condition (for such our Saviour maketh it) of being forgiven as they do forgive others, lest they should do as Adonijah did, the words of whose Petition were spoken against his 
2 Kings 2. 23.  own life.  
To the first part of the Objection, Dr. Lightfoot answereth thus; They that do deny this 
Answ.  Prayer is to be used by any but real Saints, because (as they say) none but such can call God Father, either know not, or consider not, how usual this compellation was among that Nation in their devotions; and Christ speaketh constantly according to the common and most usual Language of the Country; And if Christ did from the common practice of the Jews insert it into his own prayer, it argues his approbation of it too in the common devotion of Christians.  
2. To both parts of the Objection I Answer, that every man that would pray fitly and acceptably in the congregation, or in his closet, aught to follow this prayer as his Rule & Directory in observing the matter of it at least, if not the form also, (otherwise Christ hath made it a form and rule in vain:) Now I say, if our keeping of the form be dangerous, so is our observing the matter too; and then by this reason, if the most of men may not pray in this form, neither may they pray according to this matter; for as no solemn prayer should be made without ask God forgiveness, so no forgiveness can be expected without the 
Matt. 6. 15.  condition of forgiving, our brethren: it is as Montanus saith, Praecisa & irrevocabilis sententia sine exceptione, a general & unalterable rule without exception, If ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive your trespasses. And what a vain excuse this will be in the ears of God, I did not pray nor ask pardon, because I could not call God Father, nor forgive my brethren, or because there were some in the Assembly that had not faith to call God Father, or charity to forgive their brethren, every Christian ear can try.  
But if this be the reason why some have so long omitted it, let me mind them of what our Saviour told some of his Disciples, Ye know not what 
Luke 9 55.  spirit ye are of: Now the frequent use of this Petition would lay on new and strong Obligations upon all persons, to perform that most excellent Christian duty so much wanting among us, of a free and full forgiveness of our brethren; to which religious practice, it is well if by any Art we could oblige our people; yea this very terror of the Lord, which is here put into our own mouths of obtaining no forgiveness from God, but on condition of forgiving others, would effectually persuade us to it, or else keep us under a tacit sentence in our own consciences of being Excommunicated from the throne of Grace, and of receiving no benefit by all our prayers. And suppose there be some such in each Congregation as cannot, or at least will not join with the rest in saying this Prayer, must the rest of the Congregation be deprived of the benefit of it for their sakes? It may be all the Ministers Prayers may not be as suitable, and profitable to the most and best of the people, as this; and it is a sad thing, if a Minister shall comply rather with the weakness and malice of a few, then with the devotion and benefit of many. The use of holy and honest things is not to be laid aside, because some are causelessly offended at them, especially when the greater part are justly prejudiced at the omission.  
And finally, this also is to be considered, that the yielding to scrupulous and contentious persons in lesser things, (although I account this one of the greatest magnitude) is the way to harden them in their present prejudices, and to dispose them for more and greater.   

Amicus SOCRATES, Amicus PLATO, Magis amica veritas.  
THat which Dr. Owen hath said concerning 
Dr. Owen p. 667.  the use of this form, is, in his Answer to Beedles 11. Questions, and the Answer thereto.  
Beedles Question is this; Did not Christ prescribe a form of Prayer to his Disciples, so that there remaineth no doubt touching the lawfulness of using a form?  
To this he answers, Luke 11. 1, 2, 3. To this thus replieth:  
Dr. Owen. If Christ prescribed a form of Prayer to his Disciples, to be used as a form by the repetition of the same words, I confess it will be out of question that it is lawful to use a form.  
Reply. But Christ did prescribe a form of Prayer, etc. Therefore it is lawful to use a form. The minor Proposition is chiefly to be proved, and the conclusion, (viz.) the lawfulness of using a form (indefinitely) which is that which Beedle contends for, and the Doctor here grants, will be of considerable importance hereafter. Now the truth of this Proposition will appear by the proof of its parts, thus: Either it is not a form, or not prescribed to be used as such; but it is a form, and prescribed to be used as such; Ergo. That it is a form is granted by all, and made the apple of contention by most that disuse it under that notion: but the rottenness of this assertion is so apparent, that the next scruple is added, as a leaf to cover it, (i) whether it is prescribed to be used as such: This, although it be sufficiently clear, cannot be seen by those who have entertained the former prejudice, for being professed enemies to all forms of Prayer, they are resolved to make it good that our Saviour was no friend to them; which is contrary to his own practice, (as hath been showed) and against a double precept also, in as plain expressions as could be used to that purpose. But none are more unlike to discern the mind of God in the Scriptures, than they that sift them rather to find or fancy something in them to confirm their opinions, then to direct and settle their judgements: otherwise they that observe, and use a form of words prescribed in the administration of both Sacraments, might with the same eyes observe this also prescribed for use in prayer: But  
2. It is also granted that there is a plain and positive prescription preceding this form, When ye pray, say, And thus pray ye. And I never heard as yet that any have questioned the sufficiency of the injunction; about what then is the contest? this; they fancy, that the matter only of that form doth fall under the prescription, and not the form of words. So that the truth of both assertions is granted in sensu diviso, (viz.) that there is a form, and a prescription, but not insensu composito, that that form is to be used as such, by virtue of this prescription. But what God hath joined together let no man put asunder; for the decision of this I will make my appeal to any impartial person, as Judge: when there is a form composed by Christ himself, and commanded to his Disciples with a plain precept prefixed, viz. When ye pray, say, how unreasonable it is to affirm that the prescript should concern the matter, or the method only, and not the form of words also? Quis discrevit? what sufficient cause of divorce between these two can be assigned? or what reason hath any to distinguish, where the Law of God doth not? had the Disciple asked our Saviour thus; Master, teach us what things to pray for, give us some heads of Devotion, than this inference might have some colour of truth; but even then our Saviour giving and prescribing a form with the matter, it would have been hard measure to exclude the form of words from the prescription, when Christ had included it: The proposition being thus confirmed, the conclusion is granted by the Doctor, viz. that out of question it is lawful to use a form: this Beedle infers — The lawfulness of using a form (indefinitely,) and in this the Doctor gratifieth him; which we do here observe, because the Doctor presently withdraws, saying, His Conclusion must be; that, that form ought to be used, not at all that any else may.  
Dr. Owen. But that is lawful not to use a form, or that a man may use any Prayer but a form on that supposition, will not be so easily determined.  
Reply. This is the Doctor's Argument; If it be lawful to use a form of Prayer, than any other prayer: But a form is unlawful. As if forms and non-forms were as irreconcilable as light and darkness, or Christ and Belial; I know none that useth forms, so to Idolise them, as to condemn the use of Extempotary prayer, especially in secret, to which they do earnestly exhort all Christians to aspire, as to a degree of perfection in their devotion; neither their principles nor their practice will own this conclusion, of condemning all prayers that are not forms as unlawful: We who account it lawful to read the Scripture in the form that we have received it, do not make it unlawful to meditate and comment, to write or read pious and learned discourses, expounding the sense of it.  
The people may be holy in a sense as well as the Priests, although not so solemnly consecrated; this Prayer indeed, like its Maker, is anointed with a holy Oil above its fellows, but yet that Oil (as from Aaron's head) runs down to the skirts of his garments, to every private extemporary Prayer and ejaculation that is breathed out of a contrite heart.  
Prayers are not therefore lawful or unlawful, because they are forms, or extemporary; the Spirit may assist each, and either may be performed without the assistance of the Spirit: Therefore, as Saint Paul said in another case, 
1 Cor. 14 15.  I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the Understanding also; So, I may pray by a form, and I may pray ex tempore also.  
Dr. Owen. The words of Christ are, When ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. If in this prescription, not the Matter only, but the Words also are attended, and that Form of them which follows is prescribed to be used, by virtue of this Command of Christ, it will be hard to discover on what ground we may otherwise pray, seeing our Saviour's Command is Positive, When ye pray, say, etc. (This is the Centre to which many of the Doctor's Lines do tend.) That which Master Beedle is to prove, is, That our SAVIOUR hath prescribed the Repetition of the same words ensuing; and when he hath so done (if he can) his Conclusion must be, that, that Form ought to be used not at all, that any else may.  
Reply. There is a plain Non sequitur in this Argument, (viz.) If this Form be lawful, than the other forms are unlawful: The Standard was a rule to all other measures, were other measures therefore which agreed with the Standard unlawful? It is indeed the perfection of other prayers to be as like this, both in matter and form, as may be; the contrary might indeed be more rationally inferred (viz.) If this form be prescribed and lawful, than other forms (especially prescribed ones) are lawful also; which consequence seeing the Doctor did with good reason grant, we will take him to his word, not because we need it, or shall account it as a gift, but because we have right and just title to it: Indeed if the whole mass of form had been corrupted, and our Saviour had chosen and sanctified this one only, the Doctor's consequence had been good; but seeing they were originally lawful, and prescribed by God himself in the Old Testament, and many of them approved by our Saviour's practice, as well as this by his positive precept in the New: it seems harsh Doctrine (pardon the Expression) to leave them all under an absolute irrespective decree.  
In a word, our Saviour did not prescribe that which was unlawful before, to make it lawful, but that which was lawful to make it necessary. Besides, Christ doth not enjoin this Prayer (exclusiuè) as if it were unlawful to add other; but (eminentèr) as a visible Character of being his Disciples, to be used occasionally (pro hic & nunc) as a token that they owned him for their Master, and were constant in the Faith delivered by him.  
Dr. Owen. If our Saviour have prescribed us a form, how shall any man dare to prescribe another? or can any man do it without casting on this, the roproch of imperfection and insufficiency?  
Reply. Our Saviour having prescribed us a form, it is a dutiful, no daring thing to follow him in so plain and practical a part of Piety; we ought to conform all our Devotions to this pattern in the mount: They certainly are the daring spirits that neglect and slight this prescribed form.  
All grant that we ought to conform our prayers to Christ's; this than will be the question, Whether it is lawful to meditate and study that our prayers may be comformable to his, or to presume of such a conformity at an adventure: If you say (as all sober Christians will) that study and meditation are requisite, I rejoin, study and meditation to compose our prayers, and conform them unto Christ's, is the constituting of them forms; therefore if study and meditation, etc. be lawful, other forms of prayer are lawful, and being lawful, the prescribing of them to such as need them, for helps to their Devotion, doth not make them unlawful.  
Suppose I should argue from the Doctor's supposition (viz.) that it is the matter only that is prescribed, thus; If the matter of this Prayer only be prescribed, than the prescribing and using of any heads or matter of prayer, more or less than are in this prayer, is unlawful; I should not conclude rationally, nor piously, but cast a reproach on many devout supplications of private Christians, and on public Forms and Directories too: But certainly the framing of our Petitions like to this, is to honour it as our rule, not to cast reproach on it as imperfect and insufficient; let them look to that who reject the use of it, and are so much enamoured with their own forms (for forms they are to all but themselves) as to abandon this.  
But it is natural to us to see a mote in a brother's eye, and not to consider the beam that is in our own; If they reproach it that conform to it, and in a conscientious obedience to our Saviour's prescription repeat it in the same words, and apply it to their own prayers to supply the defects of them, what do they that pronounce the saying of it (which is prescribed) to be ridiculous, and a charm, and question whether the saying of these words, which Christ and his Evangelists have put into our mouths, be a part of the worship of God, or whether any promise of acceptation (no matter with what affection and devotion it be said) be annexed to the saying so? and many such things, the mentioning of which will be a sufficient confutation. But I forbear, and close with Master Ball, who first grants it is a form, and addeth; The principal use of it is to direct all God's People to make their Prayers by it.  
Dr. Owen. Our Saviour hath prescribed a form of prayer to be used as a form by repetition of the same words; therefore we may use it, yea, we must use it, is an invincible Argument, on supposition of the truth of the Proposition: But our Saviour hath prescribed us such a form, therefore we may use another, hath neither show, nor colour of reason in it.  
Reply. He must either wilfully shut his eyes, or have a weak sight, that cannot discern more than a colour of Reason in this consequence, (viz.) Our Saviour hath prescribed us one form as lawful, therefore we may use other forms lawfully: for surely our Saviour did not prescribe any thing which was (in genere suo) unlawful. Indeed the contrary inference is strange, and hard to be proved, (viz.) Our Saviour hath asserted the lawfulness of one or more forms, therefore all others (not so asserted) are unlawful.  
When it was prescribed at a solemn Fast, that 
Joel 2. 17.  the Priests should say, Spare thy people, O Lord, etc. Is it reasonable to think that they made use of no other prayers, (as of David's penitential Psalms, and the like) but only of that short form there prescribed; or that they did offend in so doing? Or what if any should argue thus; Our Saviour hath prescribed us this form, therefore those in Hosea, Joel, etc. are unlawful to be used?  
The Primitive Christians saw more than a colour of Reason in this Consequence, when on this very ground, because Christ gave his Disciples a form of Prayer, they did with study and meditation compose their public devotions after this Example. So Tertullian; Praemissâ legitimâ & ordinariâ oratione quasi fundamento jus est desideriorum, jus est superstruendi extrinsecus petitiones.  
The lawful and ordinary prayer being premised, it becomes the rule of all our desires, and of raising all our Petitions upon it: and Mr. Ball, who maketh it a form saith also that Christ admitteth all Languages, Words and Forms agreeable to it, whether read, rehearsed by heart or presently conceived: And Espencaus observeth the same, Ducta est hinc Ecclejiae consuctudo Deum 
P. 1025.  precandi, & precibus instar ejus quam constituit & composuit Dominus utendi. From this practice of our Saviour the Church hath grounded her practice of praying unto God, and using such Prayers, as the Lord did appoint and compose.  
Dr. Owen. But how will Master Beedle prove that Christ doth not here instruct his Disciples in what they ought to pray for, and for what they ought in prayer to address themselves unto God, and under what considerations they are to look on God in their approaches to him, and the like, only, but also, that he prescribeth the words there mentioned by him to be repeated by them in their supplications?  
Reply. The task which the Doctor sets Mr. Beedle to prove in the Negative, should have been proved by himself in the Affirmative; and I think it will be sufficiently difficult to demonstrate, that the matter and heads of Prayer, and the method and considerations by and under which we are to call on God, (cum multis aliis) and other such things, are all of them, and only prescribed, and yet the form itself not intended, especially if the context in Saint Luke be heeded, Lord teach us to pray, as John also taught his Disciples, that is, (in the judgement of many learned Divines already named, to whom I shall add Espencaeus, Doce nos orandi formulam) teach us a form of Prayer. But the Doctor essays the 
De collectis Ecclesiastisis. p. 1025.  proof of this by telling us:  
Dr. Owen. That whereas in Luke 11. Christ bids his Disciples say, Our Father, etc. this in Matthew 6. is, Pray after this manner, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to this purpose.  
Reply. The importance of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus, in Saint Matthew, as well as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Saint Luke, hath been already considered; and the reason of expounding Saint Matthew, by Saint Luke, and not Saint Luke by Saint Matthew, sufficiently asserted against any thing that hath yet been leaded for the contrary.  
Dr. Owen. I do not think the Prophet prescribeth a form of words to be used by the, Church, when he saith, Take with you words; but rather calleth 
Host 14. 2.  them to fervent supplication for pardon for sin, as God should enable them to deal with him.  
Reply. Bernardus non videt omnia: Calvine was of this judgement; non de quibustibet verbis hic loquitur Propheta, sed mutuam esse relationem 
In locum.  inter Verba Dei & bominum ostendit; ubi ergo ita ex ore Dei sumimus verba, & afferrimus ad ipsum, hoc est sumere verba. The Prophet doth not speak here of any words, but showeth the mutual relation between the Words of God and the words of man; when therefore we do thus take words from the mouth of God, and bring them to him, this is to take words. So our Annotators [words] that is, say they, from God's mouth, and to be spoken to him: and again [say 
In loc.  unto him] he dictateth as it were the solemn form and manner of their conversion. Doctor Reynolds hath observed these two parts in this Text:  

1. A general Instruction.  
2. A particular Form.   
And it is easy to observe, as an Exhortation and Directory for prayer in the former words, viz. O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God, etc. so a set form in the following words, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, etc.  
Hutchinsons' third Note on this Verse is; Our words in prayer ought not to be such, or so ordered as we please, but God is the prescriber of our prayers, whose directions we are bound to follow; for so much doth this direction given by him teach. After consultation with these, and some other Authors, my thoughts are, that the faithful people of God then living, having received from an undoubted Prophet of the Lord a prescribed form of prayer, whatever other prayers they did use besides, they did most certainly use this also. And that which the Doctor addeth, viz. that God calleth them to fervent Supplication as he should enable them to deal with him; doth not overthrow, but rather confirm the Prophets prescribing a form of words to be used; for seeing Gods ordinary way of enabling his people was by directions given to his Prophets on their behalf, by whose Ministry the Lord puts words in their mouth, as here, and in Joel 2. It had been great presumption in them to have neglected the dispensation of the Spirit by the Prophet, which with great Faith and confidence they might have used in the prescribed words, and to have expected it by an immediate impulse on their own spirits in an extraordinary manner.  
Dr. Owen. And though the Apostles never prayed for any thing, but what they were for the substance directed to by this Prayer of our Saviour, yet we do not find that ever they repeated the very words here mentioned, or once commanded or prescribed the use of them to any of the Saints in their days, whom they exhorted to pray so fervently and earnestly.  
Reply. This Argument concludeth nothing, being merely Negative; and it would certainly brand the Apostles with a note of disobedience, as well for not observing the heads and matter of this Prayer, as for omitting the form; for we do not hear or read of any public or solemn Prayer of theirs, wherein the matter and method was fully observed; may we therefore conclude, that they followed 
Malum ex causâ patiali, bonum non nisi ex causis integris.  neither matter nor form? If any one defect be enough to denominate a thing evil, and nothing is good but what hath all its due circumstances attending, I do not see how those more solemn public Prayers can be so highly excellent which are huddled up without any respect to this, either as to matter, method, or form, and perhaps carry not the sense of more than one or two Petitions, though they exceed it almost an hundred times in length.  
But as for Apostolical practice, there are many credible authorities among the ancients to induce us to believe that they did frequently use it, as Saint Augustine, Gregory, etc. nor can the bare denial of any one or more 
ut suprà.  modern and prejudiced persons overthrow their testimonies; or at least such a way of Arguing would raze many fundamentals of our Religion.  
As for their commanding or prescribing the use of these words to others, I cannot think so uncharitably of the Apostles, as to conceive they omitted this duty, seeing our Saviour gave them in charge, To teach the people all things whatsoever he commanded 
Matt. 28. 20. Acts 20. 20.  them; And the Apostle saith, He had kept back nothing that was profitable unto them.  
And as in criminal Causes, where there wanteth clear Evidence concerning matter of Fact, Judgement may justly be pronounced upon evident and pregnant Circumstances concerning the same; So in this cause also.  
Dr. Owen. Nor in any of the rules and directions that are given for our praying, either in reference to ourselves, or him by whom we have access to God, is the use of these words at any time in the least recorded to us, or recalled to mind as a matter of duty.  
Reply. This was done twice by our Saviour in a most solemn manner, and what need there should be of a third repetition by the Disciples, I know not; when the master had so authoritatively prescribed it, what weight could the servants Fiat add? doubless this double command was enough to oblige them, nor will any good servant expect more than a twofold injunction to do his duty; It is safer by far in a business of this nature, to obey, then dispute the commands of our Superiors.  
Dr. Owen. Our Saviour saith, when ye pray, say, Our Father, etc. on supposition of the sense contended for, and that a form of words is prescribed, I ask whether we may at any time pray and not say so?  
Reply. Without doubt we may; Our Saviour bids when we pray to enter into our closerts; Quere whether we may at any time pray and not enter into our closerts? Who doubts of this?  
Again, our Saviour bids us when we pray to observe the matter and method of this Prayer; Quere, whether we may pray at any time, and not entirely observe the matter and method of this Prayer? yes, we do, and may, both alter the method, and omit many heads of the matter in our occasional Petitions. Affirmative precepts bind us to the actual performance of such duties as are enjoined by them, only pro hic & nunc, as occasion shall require. But yet when I consider that this Prayer is by our Saviour adapted to public devotion, and was given to his Disciples to be used as a Cognizance to whom they did belong, I am somewhat of the Doctor's mind, that we may not at any time pray publicly and not say so.  
Dr Owen. Q. Whether the saying of these words be a part of the worship of God?  
Reply. That words are a part of the worship of God, who requireth the service of the outward as well as of the inward man, is undeniable; 
Quia verbis aliquando in oratione opus est, nulla commodior est oratio quam quae à Domino tradita & praescripta est. Chenmitius  and what words can lay better claim to this privilege than Christ's own? If the varying of the matter of this Prayer into expressions of our own be to worship God, then much more to present the same matter in Christ's words; for our alteration of the words may invert the method, and change the sense: and certainly the use of these very words (other requisites in Prayer being adjoined) is as solemn and acceptable a service as any we can do God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. 
Hoc modo verba illa sunt incitamentum devotionis, p. 785. Verba coelesti patri & nota & grata. Idem.  When God bid the people, Host 14. 2. to take with them words; and the Priests in Joel 2. 17. to say, Spare thy people, etc. it would sound harsh to make a Quere whether the saying of those prescribed words were a part of the worship of God. If the praising of God, and praying unto God in the words of David be a part of God's worship (as undeniably it is) then much more the praying unto God in the prescribed words of Christ.  
Dr. Owen. Or whether any promise of acceptation be annexed to the saying so.  
Reply. Our Saviour was never yet reputed so hard a Master, as to enjoin a Duty, and not to imply or express a promise of acceptation. Every precept virtually carrieth a reward with it; In keeping of them, saith the Psalmist, there 
Psal. 19 11.  is great reward. What better promise than the forgiveness of sins? yet this Christ annexeth to the due performance of the duty, in one of the Petitions; For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive 
Matth. 6. 14.  you: and why is that Parable in Saint Luke adjoined so immediately to this Prayer, which our Saviour concludeth thus; Ask, 
Luk. 11. 5.  and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find, etc. but to assure us, that God will accept of their devotions who importune him 
Certi simus quando bane precationis formam reddimus, not tales preces coelesti Patri propenere quae ipsius Filii sacratissimo ere sunt benedicta, as proinde certam exauditionem speremus. Chemnitius.  their heavenly Father according to the manner and matter prescribed? And when there is no Psalm or Prayer in Scripture, either of David, or any other, though it be not enjoined, but the use of it (debitâ cum reverentiâ) hath its acceptance, there is no reason to question the acceptation of this which is prescribed.  
Let us sincerely perform the duty, and we may confidently trust God with the reward, whether expressly annexed or not: yet, if, as Saint Cyprian saith, there be a promise, Verily, 
Jo. 16. 23.  verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you; how much rather if unto his name we add his words also?  
Dr. Owen. Whether the Spirit of Grace and Supplication be not promised unto all believeers, and whether he be not given to enable them to pray, both as to the matter and manner.  
Reply. All persons that have the grace of 
Materiam dat gratia, materiaeque Ingenium cultus induit, arsque●odos.  the Spirit have not the gift of utterance, and of a ready elocution; nor is it the proper Office of the Spirit of Grace to dictate words, but to quicken and raise the affections. The Spirit of God doth not teach believers to despise forms, nor always enable them to solemn devotions without the help of forms. They who have their hearts enlarged toward God, whose very sighs and groans are accepted, may yet (like narrow-mouthed vessels) not be enabled to express their desires in a ready & composed manner: yea, there be many believers on earth, and glorified Saints in heaven, who never were enabled to pray unto God in a more public solemn manner, but by the help of composed forms: and Mayer observeth, that 
Catechism p. 425.  if a Minister have the Spirit, yet there is danger, through weakness of memory, of omitting things necessary to be prayed for in the congregation; of Excursions, and running out into Clauses impertinent and idle, and of tautologies, repeating the same things again and again, to the wearying of the hearers: and Plutarch observed the like danger in speaking ex tempore long before him. But besides all this, the Objection lieth as well against the observation of the matter, as the form prescribed; for if believers are enabled to both, they are not obliged to regard either.  
Dr. Owen. And if so, whether the repetition of the words mentioned by them who have not the Spirit given them for the ends before mentioned, be available.  
Reply. The repetition of these words by them who have the Spirit, but are not always enabled by that Spirit as to the gift of utterance, and a ready composure, may certainly be available; for even they who have the gift of utterance, as well as of the Spirit of Prayer, may effectually pray unto God, in this, or in other forms composed by themselves, or others; and therefore they that have the Grace, but want the gift of exercising that Grace externally, may also; for if the Spirit of God do enable them to pray effectually in their own forms, certainly that Spirit will not withdraw from them when they address themselves to him in that form which was taught us by his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased.  
Dr. Owen. And whether Prayer by the Spirit, where these words are repeated, as to the letters and syllables, and order wherein they stand be acceptable to God.  
Reply. Prayers by the Spirit of Grace, in whatsoever words, syllables, and order, are acceptable; yet God is the God of Order also, but not of confusion; and if the broken expressions of the weakest believer, then much more Prayers by the Spirit in the words which our Saviour hath in great Wisdom and order composed and sanctified, are acceptable to God; there are degrees of acceptation.  
Dr. Owen. Whether the prescription of a form of words, and the gift of the Spirit of Prayer be consistent.  
Reply. When Christ prayed in the words 
Matth. 27. 46. Matth. 26. 30.  of David, and sung a Hymn in the words of David, Quere whether the use of a form of words, and the gift of the spirit of Prayer, be consistent. I am sure beyond all scruple, that Christ never used any thing in Prayer himself, nor commanded it to be used by others, but what was highly consistent with the gift of the Spirit; and if the use of any one or more forms of Prayer in Scripture, not positively enjoined, be lawful, and consistent with the spirit of Prayer, much more that form of words whereof Christ is the prescriber, hath a Benjamins' portion.  
They who have the spirit of assisting them 
Quae potest esse magis spiritualis oratio quam qua verè à Christo data est, à quo nobis Spiritus Sanctus missus est? St. Cyprian suprà.  in their extemporary prayers need not doubt of it, when they study and meditate for the composing of one or more forms to be used by themselves: and indeed, the people who in the Congregations pray unto God in that form of words in which the Minister goeth before them, should never pray with the Spirit, if the prescription of a form of words, and the gift of the Spirit of Prayer were not consistent.  
And why may it not be as well questioned, whether the Spirit of Grace be consistent with a form of words in the administration of the Sacraments, as in Prayer?  
I aver therefore, that nothing is more consistent than such a Divine Prescription of a form of words, and the Spirit of Prayer, for as much as the prescribed words of God are that Chariot, and jacob's Ladder, by which the Spirit of God ordinarily descendeth into the hearts of men, and the souls of men ascend up to God; and therefore to intimate an inconsistency of these two, is as the dashing of the two Tables against each other, it is to oppose Martin to Luther, and to sow discord among brethren; they have both one Father.  
The gift of the Spirit of Prayer is either Internal, which we may call the infused Grace; or external, which is the ability to exercise that Grace; which ability is attained per modum habitus acquisiti, as an acquired habit, by study, meditation, and frequent exercise; so that he who would fitly exercise the Grace of the Spirit, is obliged to use such means as God hath appointed to enable him thereunto, (even as he who would exercise the gift of the Spirit in preaching;) and this studying and reducing the gift of the Spirit into a form, either of Preaching or Praying, doth not extinguish, but cherish the Grace of the Spirit, as Saint Paul's precept to Timothy doth plainly teach; Meditate upon these 
1 Tim. 4. 15.  things, give thyself wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all.  
And seeing it is likely that we may serve God better, and edify his people more, by our premeditating, and studying both the matter, and expressions of our Prayers, we ought to do it, unless we will adventure to appear empty before the Lord, and to serve him of that which cost us nothing. The truth is, there is an immediate infusion, and an assistance of the Spirit in an extraordinary manner pretended unto in exemporary Prayers, as if there were a (dabitur in eâ hor â) a present enthusiasm given from above to supersede them from all study and premeditation; which Opinion all sober Christians must condemn, or they will cast a great prejudice upon the Devotion of all that have not a like faculty.  
I deny not, but ingenious and exercised persons, may by the Gift of God, and the concourse of Natural causes and circumstances, have their spirits so quickened, their faculties of inventing and disposing matter so improved, and their delivering thereof in ready and significant expressions, so familiar, as may become the public service of God; but still I say, he that can do this ex tempore, may do much better with study and meditation, and that as well in Prayer as in Preaching.  
Dr. Owen. Whether the form be prescribed, because believers are not able to pray without it.  
Reply. The Apostles desire will in part resolve this doubt, Lord (say they) teach us to pray; they were conscious of their own insufficiency, and yet were believers; & indeed neither they, nor we could have prayed so regularly and devoutly, as now we may, had not this form been recorded, And had that of the Apostle been considered; All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in 
2 Tim. 3. 17.  righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works; this Quere might have seemed superfluous: It may in a sort be as justly questioned, whether the Scriptures be written, because we cannot be instructed in our Christian Faith and obedience without them; for, Eadem est ratio partium & totius. Seeing that Christ did prescribe it to teach his Disciples, doubtless it 
1 Cor. 10. 11.  was intended as a help of devotion for all them that should believe in his Name, unto the end of the world.  
Master Hutchinson in his fourth Note on Host 14. 2. speaketh very pertinently to this Quere; It may be (saith he) the condition of God's humble and exercised People, that they cannot command their own dispositions, nor get their heaerts brought into frame before God; in which case, however he abhor those that draw nigh unto him with their lips, etc. yet they who 
Is. 29. 13.  are sensible of the backwardness of their hearts, ought not to stay away because of that, but should come, if it were but with words to God, to seek of him that he would give them more to bring unto him. So much for this (take with you words) albeit they could command no more.  
So that it is not derogatory to the glory of God, either to say that all believers have great help to their devotions from this form, or that some believers, at sometimes, need this or other forms of inferior rank, with which they may go to God in Prayer; nor doth it derogate from the efficacy of the Spirit, promised and given to believers, because that spirit doth not always work the external faculty or gift of exercising Prayer, where it doth infuse the inward Grace; the most gracious heart may be joined with a slow tongue, as 
Exod. 4. 10.  it was in Moses.  
And where the spirit doth work the gift, it is not by an immediate inspiration, suddenly elevating the Intellectuals and Faculties of man to an extraordinary degree of Invention and Elocution, but gradually, by Meditation, study, and the use of means, especially such as are commended and prescribed in the Word of God for that purpose; of which means this form is the chiefest, and therefore most useful to teach believers for what, and how to pray.  
Dr. Owen. Or because there is a peculiar energy in the letters, words and syllables, as they stand in this form. And whether to say this be not to assert the using of a charm in the worship of God.  
Reply. I grant, that in bare words and syllables used in Prayer, and in opere operato, the lip-labour only, there is not any efficacy at all: Saint Cyprian saith indeed, Agnoscit Pater verba Filii sui, that the Father will own his Sons words, but it is when filial affections are joined with them in the suppliant, else they have no peculiar energy with God.  
But yet, as to man, whose affections are ordinarily wrought upon by words, these words of our Saviour may have a peculiar energy; for being sanctified by his lips, they are more than common, and being so appositely fitted to the matter, they are like to make the greater impression upon our understandings; and being enjoined by our merciful Saviour and Mediator, they have yet a greater energy, because they raise the devout soul to a more confident expectation of receiving the desired blessings, because as to the matter and words they do not ask amiss: So Calvin; magnum 
Inst. lib. 3. c. 20. Sect. 34.  consolationis fructum percipimus, etc. We gather hence abundant fruit of consolation, in that we know we ask nothing that is absurd, or strange, or wicked, yea, nothing which is not acceptable to him, who beseech him in words that came out of his own mouth.  
And what if we should say with the Poet, Inest sua gratia verbis? Job saith the same, How forcecible are right words? and Solomon, 
Job 6. 25. Pro. 25. 11.  A word fitly spoken is like Apples of Gold in pictures of Silver: and the Preacher is said to have sought out acceptable words; of which 
Eccles. 12. 10, 11.  words it is said in the next verse, they are as goads and nails fastened by the Masters of Assembly: And holy Job speaks of choosing out his 
Job 9 14.  words to reason with God; upon which Doctor Wilkins observeth, that it is amongst expressions, as with persons and things, some are choice and beautiful, others refuse and improper.  
And certainly, that injunction of Saint Paul to Timothy is very considerable as to 
2 Tim. 1. 13.  this, who biddeth him to hold fast the form of sound words which he heard of him, that is, (saith Master Calvin) not only the substance but the very form of speech, for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth the lively representation of things, by words properly accommodated to their Nature, which because none can be more adapt and fit then the Penmen of the Holy Scriptures, therefore the least declining from that form of words is dangerous; So that in these respects, the words of this Prayer being deliberate, proper, and pertinent, they will leave a strong and lasting Impression upon the hearers, and as Master Calvine saith, once again, Unigenitus Dei Filius nobis verba in os suggerit quae mentem nostram omni haesitatione expediant; The only Son of God hath put such words in our mouths, as may clear our hearts from all doubtings. So that there is certainly great reason to keep exactly to these words, because although there be no peculiar efficacy in them, in respect of God, yet there may be in respect of men; and therefore it is an unhandsome Expression, to name a charm with that form of Divine words; God give us all grace to hear and obey the voice of that Charmer, than whom never any charmed more wisely.  
Dr. Owen. Whether in this respect the Pater Noster be not as good as Our Father.  
Reply. It is to him that knoweth the use of that Language every way as effectual in Latin, or Greek, as in English; yet to him that wants true devotion, there is much difference between the use of a prayer in a known tongue, where possibly the expressions, and the necessary blessings desired by him may inflame his affections, and in an unknown tongue, where in all probability no such effect can follow; I think if we should preach all our Sermons in Latin, and so pray before our people, we should do less good upon the unconverted, than we may (by God's blessing) in English.  
There is utterly a fault, as Master Mayer 
Catech. p. 434.  observeth, in those Popes that promise pardon for the saying of seven Pater nosters, and as many Ave Maria's every day; and it is a fault too (as he addeth) so to detract from this Prayer, as to account 〈◊〉 better, or not so worthy as a man's own conceived Prayer; which is derogatory and arrogant.  
Dr. Owen. Whether innumerable poor souls are not deluded, and hardened, by satisfying their Consciences with the use of this form, never knowing what it is to pray in the Holy Ghost.  
Reply. The right use of this form never deluded or hardened any; nor is it easy to think how any that hath in faith and knowledge used this Prayer, should not also endeavour for other inlargements. Instruct a poor soul in the right use of this, and there is no such method in the world to fit him for praying in the Holy Ghost; and therefore to oppose the use of this form (under a pretence of satisfying the Conscience therewith) to pray in the Holy Ghost, is no pious or laudable Artifice, as if this Prayer were exclusive of the Grace of the Spirit; or as if that Holy Spirit had refused the waters of Siloah that go softly, and chosen to reside in troubled waters and whirlwinds.  
Dr. Owen. And whether the asserting this form of words, hath not confirmed many in their Atheistical blaspheming of the Holy Spirit of God, and his Grace, in the prayers of his people.  
Reply. Cujus contrarium: This I dare affirm with equal truth and confidence, that not the asserting, but the disusing, and condemning this form of words, hath confirmed many in their Atheistical blaspheming of the holy Spirit of God, and his Grace, in the Prayers of his People.  
I offer this instance, which is notoriously known; When a Minister of God, of great integrity and ability (for many such there be beyond all contradiction that use this form) cannot repeat this Pryaer, but a great part of his auditors, in some Congregations, instantly conceive an invincible prejudice against both his Person and services, as if there were an impossibility of being edified by them; Can any good thing come out of Nazareth? yea, and when some actually withdraw from the Ordinance of Christ (as if the Preaching of the Gospel by such men were foolishness indeed) this is not far from an Atheistical blaspheming of the Holy Spirit of God and his grace in the Prayers of his People; and this effect hath not been produced by the asserting, but by the laying aside the use of this form in our Prayers, as a fruitless carnal ordinance, which hath made too many of our people to conceit of it as so much Collquiutida, that maketh all the Service of God unsavoury.  
And in my best observation I could never discover that it was the design of those that assert this form, to cast any contempt 
Hanc veniam petimusque damusque.  upon other well-ordered Devotions; although contrarily, the practice and pleading against the use of this bringeth a certain disrespect both upon this Form, and upon all other Prayers to which this is annexed.  
But what if the asserting of a commanded duty do confirm some in causeless prejudices? It is better that others be scandalised without our fault, than Christ be disobeyed and dishonoured by our fault. The preaching of the Gospel is a rock of offence, and a savour of death to many; shall these evil effects be charged upon the Gospel as the proper products thereof? God forbid! Indeed the wilful neglect of an enjoined duty, and fixing of contempt upon a Precept of our Saviour, and upon the universal practice of his Church in all Ages, may make wary Christians jealous of some other practices of such men; for we all know, they have not the Spirit who despise the Word; and it is as well known, that to speak against some opinions, and practices, which in our generation pretend much to the Spirit, is neither Atheistical nor blesphemous; I suppose therefore we may safely walk by this rule, Not to judge of our duty by the event, but by the lawfulness thereof, and the authority of its prescription; If any draw an ill conclusion from good premises, it is his fault, not ours.  
When Christ hath commanded a duty, we must do it, though all the world should be offended at it: Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.  
Dr. Owen. And whether the repetition of these words, after men have been long praying for the things contained in them (as the manner of some is) be not so remote from any pretence or colour of warrant in Scripture, as that it is in plain terms ridiculous.  
Reply. That our Saviour intended we should use other Prayers besides this I doubt not; and what warrant the use of this hath in Scripture, let every Christian Reader judge: I am sure the reviling of this Practice hath none.  
And now, it is too apparent who it is that casteth reproach on this Prayer, when the repetition of it is in plain terms pronounced ridiculous; that stomach must be very foul that nauseates manna itself: It cannot be adjudged ridiculous in our Saviour to prescribe this form twice, and how cometh it to be so to use it once? It was not ridiculous in him to use the same words three times on the same occasion, 
Matt. 26. 44. Psal. 136.  in a great agony; nor in David to bless God six and twenty times in the same words annexed to other; Nor is it adjudged ridiculous to use frequent variations of words on the same matter in our Prayers: nor when we have gone over the heads of our Sermons more than once, to recount them again in our Prayers; and yet when we have prayed to God, and being conscious of the imperfections and failings of our Prayers both as to the matter and manner, do continue them in Christ's own words, as a supply of those defects, this is pronounced in plain terms ridiculous.  
The Prophet speaketh of some that have 
Psal. 59 7.  swords in their lips; such a sword is this through the sides of Christ's Ministers teacheth his own.  
I end this with a note of Master Mayer; As a wrestler (saith he) having used his best 
Catech. p. 424.  skill and strength to over come in wrestling, yet finding the getting of the victory to be very hard, he reinforceth himself at the last with all his might, force, and skill together, that be may carry away the prize: So the Christian man, wrestling as Jacob with God by Prayer, in the end reinforceth himself in this Prayer, that he may not depart unblessed.  
Dr. Owen. When Master Beedle, or any on his behalf hath answered these Queries, they may be supplied with more of the like nature and importance.  
Reply. Not so much on the behalf of Master Beedle, as for the vindicating of an Ordinance of our blessed Saviour, and for the stablishing of wavering souls, I have endeavoured (according to my ability) to answer the Doctor's Queries; but I have not the least expectation of the supply that is promised although I easily believe the Doctor may raise many more scruples, which (as he saith) may be of the like nature and importance: but seeing the Doctor hath already bestowed some time and labour in doing the cause of Christ acceptable service, my humble advice is, that he should redeem all opportunity for those better services, lest by opposing this one sacred Truth, he should hazard all that credit which he hath got in confuting so many dangerous errors.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
FINIS.