A VINDICATION OF THE LORDS PRAYER, AS A FORMAL PRAYER, And by CHRIST'S INSTITUTION To be used by Christians as a Prayer; against the Antichristian Practice and Opinion of some men.  
Wherein, Also their private and ungrounded zeal is discovered, who are very strict for the observation of the Lords Day, and make so light of the LORDS PRAYER.  
By MERIC CASAUBON, D. D. one of the Prebandaries of C. C. Canterb.  
LONDON, printed by T.R. for Thomas Johnson at the Key in St. Paul's Church yard, 1660.   

TO THE READER.  
THE first occasion of this Treatise (Christian Reader,) was the Relation of a strange affront done publicly unto Christ, or if you will more punctually, to the Lords Prayer, in the chief Church of Oxford, by one that had then (under usurping Powers) the chief Government of that famous University. When the thing was done, (for I have heard it confirmed by divers) I know not precisely: this I know, that ever since I heard of it, I never was at rest in my mind, though it might be a good while before I had the opportunity, until I had written somewhat in Vindication of it. It did trouble me, that any man professing Christianity, should so much dishonour Christ; much more, that he durst (an argument of dismal times;) do it in such a place: most of all, that when he did it, so many Christians then present, had the patience to see it, or the confidence to tarry in the place, where such an Affront was done unto him they call Saviour. Since that, much hath been added, to my indignation both, & admiration, when I have been told, that many that professed another way, and went under another Title, notwithstanding what they had said of it publicly, did shamefully comply with the Court-Preachers and Parasites of the times, and had given it over, they also, many, or most of them, I know somewhat is said in their defence; but that somewhat (if I be not mistaken in this Treatise) makes the case rather worse: and if such poor shifts may serve for so fowl Acts, let us talk no more of Scripture against Papists, or  others: I know nothing so gross, but Scripture may be pretended for it, with as much or more probability. What is here presented unto thee, Good Reader, was written and ready for the Press, above a year ago, as some can witness, that have seen it, and read it. How it happened, that it was not printed before; one occasion was, that I have been often away; and when in Town, not always at leisure to think of it. But if it be now seasonable, (as I hope it is) it is nedless to make any further Apology, why not before. Only this it is fit thou shouldst know, that if it had been now to do, (since this blessed alteration, for which God make us all thankful) my expressions might have been fuller and plainer, in some places. In a place, where I say, this might happen to them, as a Judgement, for opposing, yea, persecuting somewhat, once the glory of the English Reformation, and the best of things that have been (by humane contrivance and Authority) established among men; I hope I shall be understood, to mean this of the English Liturgy or Book of Common Prayers. Indeed that is my meaning: and I hope, I say no more of it, than I can (with the help of God) make good against any that shall pretend to oppose it, by either reason, or Scripture. Yet I know, even of late, what out-cries are made against it. Will the Reader give me leave, to give him a taste of their objections? It doth much trouble them, that by it, some Lessons out of the Apocrypha are appointed. Well, if that were thought fit to be altered, that is little or nothing to the substance of the book. But is this such a thing in the mean time, that deserves such out-cries? O, but things fabulous, false, contradictory out of them are read. Indeed this were a grievous imputation, if they were proposed unto the people, as any part of the Word of God. Though this we may say withal, that many things may appear false, ridiculous, contradictory, at first hearing, as they may be set out, which upon better examination, will not be found so. But if nothing must be read or heard in a Church, but what is unquestionably true, and good, that is, divine: Lord, what will become of Sermons then, such especially as we have had of late years, in many places? Men indeed make bold to call them generally, the Word of God; but I hope no body is so stupid, as to think all treason, blasphemy, nonsense, false doctrine, delivered out of Pulpits, to be truly the Word of God. But Sermons, some will say perhance, are the Ordinance of God. However, so much will follow, that somewhat may be tolerated, (in the Church) for a greater good; that is liable to some inconveniences. And I think no sober impartial man will deny, but that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and other Books that go under that title of Apocrypha, do afford as good things for the Instruction of people, as many Sermons usually, that are not of the worst. Well: what are Prayers, that are made extempore, or would be thought so, at least: so much in request in these late times, are they not liable to the same inconvenience? If any man shall infer hereupon, that therefore none but prescribed Prayers, allowed by public Authority, are so fit to be used in a Church; I for my part should readily subscribe; but I doubt the necessity of the inference, will not so easily be granted by all men. Truly, It might have been hoped, that the sad experience of these late times, since every man, Papists only, and Prelatical men excepted, have been left to their liberty, would have disposed men truly zealous for the Protestant Interest, to a better Opinion of former times, when, to the grief of the Adversaries of it; the Protestant Religion here flourished; and to entertain now with joy, what once in peevishness, and love of Novelty, they did not so much care for. But I doubt there is somewhat else in it. What that is, (if not already too visible to the world;) I rather leave to their own consciences. One passage, or Testimony (for the Eminency of the Author, and his exquisite Judgement in such things; our late Gracious Sovereign, now a glorious Martyr in heaven;) I would have added to this Treatise, where the Reader shall think most convenient. It was not then in my thoughts, when I was upon it; though indeed the Book highly deserve, never to be out of our hands. The words are, Some men I hear, are so impatient not to use, in all their Devotions, their own invention and gifts, as they not only disuse, (as too many) but wholly cast away and contemn the Lords Prayer, whose great guilt is, that it is the warrant and original pattern of all set Liturgies in the Christian Church. 
† King Charles the First, in His Sacred Meditations, ch. 16. upon the Ordinance against the Common prayer book.  I will not excuse myself for this passage: in the rest, if the Reader think I have said more than I needed, I crave his pardon, and bid him Farewell.   

A POSTSCRIPT.  
SInce this was printed, and ready to come forth, a book (or Pasquil rather, it is so full of railing:) entitled, The Common Prayer Book unmasked, etc. came to my sight, and I thought myself engaged by the Argument, to look upon it. It is such a piece of exquisite Nonsense, of groundless impudent Sophistry, with bitter railing, and much profane jeering all along, that I must needs think, they that have patience (exceptengaged by some particular consideration) to read such stuff, without detestation, may as plausibly be persuaded to sing Ballads, in stead of Holy Hymen's, and to think that men serve God best in Tap-houses-The whole strength of the Book lieth in this: The Masse-Book, Breviaries, etc. are idolatrous popish-Books; therefore whatsoever is taken out of them, (or may be supposed to be taken out of them, because to be found there) is popish, and idolatrous. Now a good part both of the Old and New Testament, besides the whole Book of Psalms, is to be found in Mass-books, and Breviaries: Is any man so blind that dooh not see what will follow? And is it not the same reason for many godly prayers and forms: (not to speak of Ceremonies, though it be true of them also) that were in use in time of purest Christianity, long before Popery was heard of; yet to be found in Mass-books and Breviaries? Or is it the bare word Mass, that turneth all into Idolatry? why might not it be a good word, whatever it is now, a thousand years ago? Many ages are not yet passed, when Canticles, or the Song of Songs, (as it is in the Original,) was called in English, the Ballad of Ballads. Now many, if not most ballads, we now so call, are profane, or ridiculous; and that word now, a word of Scorn; therefore the Canticles, or Song of Songs, shall be no longer part of Scripture, but mere Idolatry. Certainly, it must be granted, that wise Governors see much more, than ordinary men: else, such senseless impious stuff, a man would think, would not be permitted to be public. But, what is all this, may some say, perchance, to the Lords Prayer, our subject? Alas! who seethe not, if all that is in Missals and Breviaries, or say, taken out of them, (immediately perchance, not originally,) be idolatrous; then, we know what must become of the Lords Prayer, being there more than once upon several occasions, and the first thing there that offers itself to the view, in some of those Books. This did oblige me to take some notice of the book: and so, I have done.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 4. l. 7. r. whom. p. 18. l. 7. r. independents. p. 19 l. 2. r. transsubst. p. 29. l. 17. r. end of f.. p. 32. l. 2. r. had. p. 54. l. 12. r. Enthusiasm, p. 80. l. 5. r do but lat. p. 81. l. 10. r. quaeram. p. 92. 11. r. Isa. 66.11.   

A VINDICATION OF THE LORDS PRAYER, As a formal Prayer, and by Christ's Institution to be used by Christians, as a Prayer; against the Antichristian Practice, and opinions of some.  
WE will forbear all Prefaces, and Rhetorical insinuations, and hasten to the main business. Truth may need such sometimes, by reason of men's infirmities: and there be examples in Scripture, that may contend with the choicest Rhetoric, humane Authors afford, to justify it, if need were. But in such a case as I conceive this is, where common sense, best reason; Authority, divine and humane; all that can be desired in a cause, are so manifestly visible, the best Rhetoric we can use, is to use no Rhetoric at all. It is the nature of Truth, to be most lovely, when seen naked: but it is not the luck of all Truth, to carry so much light, and lustre with it, as will pierce thorough all Obstacles, and make it visible to all eyes. I hope it is the luck of this, that we contend for here: the Reader will quickly see, let him but read; I will not say without prejudice, (for that is not to be hoped) but not obstinately resolved against the ingenuity of his confession, though his conscience be convicted.  
And here in the first place, we profess, we pretend not to write against any, who say, or teach, that what Christ hath commanded, so commanded without limitation of time or place, absolutely and generally to be observed, ought not to be done by men that profess Christianity. There is no man so simple, but would presently make this inference: This were to deny him in deed, whom we profess to honour and worship in words. Except we should perchance establish such a power upon Earth, equivalent or superior to the power of Christ: a power to abrogate, or ratify, at pleasure, what is commanded: Which opposeth and exalteth itself above all that is called God, etc. 2 Thes. 2.4. How far this may belong to the Pope of Rome, who by his Canonists and others, doth take upon himself to have a power, Supra & contra omne jus: contra jus naturale gentium; , humanum, divinum, etc. contra Apostolum: Vetus Testamentum, etc. to make de peccato non peccatum, & de non peccato peccaum: how far I say, the Pope of Rome may be concerned in that place of Scripture, I will not inquire. There be even of that side (professed Papists) that have laid it to his charge, and applied those very words unto him. But it is not to our purpose to inquire: They are not Papists, who we have to do with. We say therefore once again, We do not pretend to write against any, who maintain positively Christ should not be obeyed: Or yet more particularly; not against any, who acknowledging these words of Christ, recorded Mat. 6. and Luk. 11. Our Father which art in Heaven, etc. to be a prescript form of Prayer; forbidden us, and forbear themselves, to use it as a Prayer: but against them, who allow not these words to be a Prayer, but a bare direction or platform of Prayer only: and upon that account, forbidden, and forbear, as I have said: who therefore will be ready to say, The question is not properly of honour, or dishonour done unto Christ, but of the right use, or understanding of his words.  
This may seem plausible at first hearing. But here I must desire the Reader to consider; that scarce ever was any opinion so false, or so impious, but men could find some words to set it out in another shape, if we will content ourselves with a superficial view; or will look at a distance through such prospectives, as shall be put into our hands. We charge the Papists with impiety, for denying to ordinary Christians the use of God's Word. They will say, they honour the Scripture, in keeping them from it, who, (through ignorance and simplicity) are more likely to abuse it, than to make that use of it, for which it was given. That they were given us to do good, being committed unto such hands as have skill to handle them; not to do hurt, which in the hands of ignorant, illiterate people, they are most likely. If good words and fair pretences will serve the turn, it cannot be denied, but, in this cause, such will easily be found, to make it plausible: though no cause can less pretend to solidity of reason, (if we come to the trial of either Scripture or Antiquity) to make it true. Again, we charge them of Sacrilege and Impiety in maiming the Sacrament of the Lords Supper of one essential part, whilst they keep ordinary people from the use of the Cup. The question is not, what we can prove, but what they pretend. No such thing as we lay to their Charge, I am sure, that can be called either Sacrilege, or Impiety. The very Anabaptists, the rankest of them, (the Alumbradoes of Spain, or Quakers of England) who deny and despise all Scriptures; can we charge them of any impiety, if they may tell their own tale, and be believed without any further reasoning? They will say, They honour, though not what we call Scripture: yet, the word of God, as much as any; that is, their inspirations, and raptures, and the Oracles of their own breast, their inward light; which they pretend to be the only true Word.  
Since therefore it is certain, that no opinion can be so impious in itself, but it may be masked with words able, if not to make it plausible and popular; yet, to hid the impiety: laying aside what is pretended, as altogether impertinent: we will come to the true state of the question, which we conceive to be this.  
Whether it may, or doth clearly appear, by the plain literal obvious sense, or construction of Scripture; confirmed by all circumstances of the Context; all probability of humane ratiocination: the sense and practise of all Christians, since the very beginning of Christianity, (so far as can be traced by History) in all ages, in all places; that these words, Our Father, etc. as set down in St. Matthew, and St. Luke, were prescribed by our LORD and SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, as a very form of Prayer, to be used by all professing Christianity, in those very words, as a Prayer; yea, or no.  
A question of very great moment, as I apprehend it, the consequent, or consequence whereof; if the affirmative part of it be proved, will be,  
First, that they who either by their example, or persuasions, bereave Christians of it, are guilty (Prayer being a thing of such consequence in Religion) of horrible, detestable sacrilege: and may seem themselves (to others) to renounce thereby to no small part of Christianity. We speak to, and of professed Ministers only in all this Discourse.  
Secondly, whilst it may probably be conceived, that a main reason that leads them unto this, is a great opinion they have of, or to their own conceptions in praying; which they therefore (in ordinary construction of reason) must be thought to prefer before this form; this form, I say, by such undeniable, uncontrollable, (to common sense and found reason) evidence of Scripture made, and prescribed by Christ himself; (The Son of God, in whom all the Treasures of Wisdom are hidden, etc.) hence it will follow, that they are guilty (though I hope not intended by them) yet guilty of high Blasphemy against CHRIST, their God and Saviour.  
Thirdly, whilst they seek evasions against such evidence of Scripture: such evidence, as no other point, or doctrine of Christianity, can pretend unto greater: it must needs follow, that by this their example, they give a most pernicious example to the most pernicious Heretics, of present, or future ages, to shift all Scriptures, though never so clear against them, and do much countenance the Blasphemies of some Papists, in calling them a Nose of Wax, etc. as also, stop or obstruct their own mouths for ever speaking against Quakers and Anabaptists, who certainly may pretend to as much ground of reason for denying all Scriptures, as any can, for denying the use of the Lords Prayer, as a Prayer unto Christians; so demonstrably grounded upon Scripture, commanded by Christ himself, confirmed by the practice of all Christians in the world.  
This is the true Estate of the question, as I apprehend. If any think fit to add, in the last place; That in case we come short of our proofs, and cannot make our charge good, we must needs be guilty, either of inexcusable ignorance, or intolerable uncharitableness, or both: I am content.  
If any shall think I have used aggravation in it, I am sorry. My conscience doth bear me witness, I intended it not. I pray God hearty it may never be laid to their charge; as I verily believe, that none of these things are really intended by them. But in a business of this nature, where I conceive the honour of Christ, and the good of all Christians, so much interested; I think I should unworthily prevaricate, if I should not use plainness of words, and call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the old saying is. But this I have said of my belief, as to their intention: I mean it of such, as are true Christians in the main Fundamentals. As for the professed Anabaptists, Quakers, Enthusiasts, or however called, who have apostatised from the right saith: such, as they frequently blaspheme against the Person; so no wonder, if they frequently and purposely blaspheme the Prayer of Christ. As I have heard it reported of some, (some years ago, great pretenders to the spirit of prayer) they should often say, If Christ were alive again (conversant in earth amongst men; intended I suppose:) he would be ashamed of that prayer. Others have been heard, (wretched Miscreants!) to say, they thanked God they had forgotten it. As bad or worse hath been said of the Scripture in general, we need not wonder at it.  
Though they blaspheme not in words, yet they may be thought to do somewhat in deeds, of much affinity: who though they allow Children perchance, and simple people, in private, and inferior subordinate men; as Lecturers, and Clerks, in Churches, to use the Lords prayer: yet themselves will not do it that honour, as to use it in that simplicity of words, as delivered and commended unto us by Christ, but, either not at all: or so dislocated, (which we should not except against, if done in imitation, and not in lieu of the Lords prayer) and dismembered with their own cenceptions, that little or nothing of it doth appear in its own shape and form.  
Now we are to proceed to the consideration of the Text; we will first consider of a general objection, or evasion rather, which I find some have used in this very point. We urge the plain literal sense. Yes, but all things (say they) in Scripture, are not to be taken literally. We grant it: but withal we say, to make use of this objection upon all occasions, when we find our selves pinched, without any ground at all, of either words, reason, circumstance, etc. is as much as to void all Scripture, and to substitute our own fancies and imaginations in lieu of it. The Scripture saith. Thou shalt not worship images, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. Yea, but every thing in the Scripture is not to be taken literally. What then is the use of the Scriptures, I would fain know, if it be enough to say so, when we would not have it to say, what crosses our humours, interest, or prejudice? The Reader will give me leave to insist a little upon this point. It will be of good use to our present occasion, and he will find it before he come to the end. All things in Scripture are not to be taken literally: No: there be many Types and Figures in the Scriptures; Metaphors and Translations: many things spoken by way of similitude, which must not be understood literally; and may easily be understood, without any other Comment (or exposition) than nature and common sense. God speaking unto men, doth condescend to speak to them in the language of men. When Christ styleth the Pharisees, Generation of Vipers, can any be so simple, or so malicious, as to make him say, that they were really begotten of Vipers? or when he saith to his Disciples; that he is the Vine, and they the branches: that he intended it of a real Vine and Branches? When the Psalmist calls his God a Rock: who would, who could, man, woman or child; (that is come to the age of understanding) argue from thence, that David was an Idolater, because he did worship stones? But here is nothing of that nature; (figurative or metaphorical) in the words we have to do with; we shall not need to say more.  
Again, Prophecies, are obscure: it is their nature to be so, not many things in them (we grant, ordinarily,) to be taken literally; but we need not insist upon it: here is no thing of that nature neither.  
Again, Mysterious, sacramental things are commonly involved in figures: it is their nature to be so. That is not a Sacrament properly, that doth not show somewhat that may be seen, whereby it would have somewhat understood that is not seen.  
And do we wonder if Figures be used, when they are spoken of? Or should we in reason press the letter in such speeches, even against all sense and reason? Will any man say, that the Circumcision was a Covenant, literally, because it is so called: or that the Israelites were in motion, when they did eat the Paschal Lamb, because it is called the Passeover? Or that Christ, before he was made flesh, was a Stone, because St. Paul saith, Christ was the Rock that followed the Israelites? If therefore Christ saith, the Sacramental Cup is the New Testament, or Testament in his blood, (as St. Paul expresseth him) or that the sacramental bread is his body; can we be charged with infidelity, because we believe a figure in the words, (the proper style of Sacraments) though in that figure, a reality, as to the benefit, as considerable to us, as we could expect from a visible presence, or participation.  
Again, St. Austin hath a rule, and much notice is taken of it: Si praeceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, etc. Where we have a command, (saith he, or to that effect) that commands nothing against civility, or moral honesty: we must take it literally; otherwise figuratively. But here is nothing in this question of the Lords Prayer that comes within that compass, nothing of that nature objected against it, (that I know of,) or the use of it, though the irreverent carriage of some men in some places) (as I have heard) might make some men suspect, that they (if otherwise sober and religious) apprehended somewhat in it, very offensive to religious ears.  
And now that the Reader may know this is no digression, I must tell him, I find them, by some that have written against the use of the Lords Prayer, as a prayer, them, I say, that stick to the plain literal meaning of Christ's words in the institution of this holy Prayer, charged with some Popery, or imitation (at least) of Popery, upon this very ground, because Papists stick to the literal sense of these sacramental words, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my Body: I will set down their words, In eo vero quod tantopere urgetis verba ipsa: Quando oratis, dicite, Pater noster, etc. quid aliud agitis, quam quod Papistae solent in quaestione Sacramenti, urgentes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & ad nauseam usque objicientes verba illa, Hoc est corpus meum. They are the words of one Franciscus Johnsonus, who had the reputation of a wondrous able man among the Sectaries, (or Puritan) of those times, in answer to John Carpenter, a reclaimed Papist, a son of the Church of England.  
What particular Sect, besides a Puritan them an was of, I know not. Some what it seems between Presbytery, and right down Anabaptism. For Anabaptism he disclaims. And Presbyterian Government (at the very last of his discourse) as well as Episcopy, he pronounceth to be derived from the Antichrist. Whether Independants were then known, I know not. But let the Readee judge what these men would bring Religion, and the word of God unto. If this be Popery, or Popish, when there is no imaginable ground, or colour for any other, to stick to the literal sense of Scripture: If I say to a thief, steal not; and tell him, it is forbidden in the Scripture, what a ready evasion will he have? whilst I think to convince him by the word of God, he will impeach me (and truly we know many have really suffered for more ridiculous and groundless imputations, as the Surpliss, and the like:) of being a Papist, or a friend to Papists: (to their cause I mean; for their persons we may love and honour, as they shall merit, I hope, without offence:) or perchance of making the Transubstantiation an article of my faith, because I press the literal sense against stealing. The best is, ordinary theft, the Law provides against: but Sacrilege, both by the Law of God, and by the rules of right reason, a greater theft, will easily be avoided by this sophistry; and perchance, instead of a crime, be made the Character of a Saint. As this is, so is all the rest, that I find in that great Champion (as he was accounted in those days) of Sectaries, against the use of the Lords prayer: such ridiculous, senseless sophistry, as I scarce remember the like, in any thing that ever I read. But in such a case, (to prove twice two, not to be four: that the snow is black, and the Sun the cause of darkness:) who can expect it otherwise? Yet in this perchance we may commend his ingenuity above some others, that he freely confesseth the literal obvious sense to be of our side.  
This prayer then, (or pattern of prayer if you will) is set down, and recorded in two Gospels, St. Matthew and St. Luke; the same words (in substance) in both Gospels: but as divers have well observed, uttered by Christ, (and recorded accordingly by the Evangelists, as spoken and prescribed by him) at two several times, and upon several occasions: which makes it the more binding, because twice delivered in the same form.  
In St. Matthew, Christ gins with the Doctrine of praying in general, and after sundry precepts and instructions, proceeds to a particular form: After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father etc. which is well observed by the Arabic translator, exhibited in the late London Bible, (that noble, and little less than miraculous work, if we consider all Circumstances) where we find this division; first, from ver. 5. to verse 9 Doctrina Orandi, Consilium de oratione: then, Formula Orandi: an excellent method, much neglected in these days of Inspiration; when ignorant illiterate creatures are put to it, illotis manibus: who though they know little or nothing of Prayer in general, more than this, that they must be so long, and keep saying whatever it be, yet are made believe, (and are soon persuaded) they do it far better, than they, who have long studied the duty of prayer in general, and think, it becomes them to consider of what they say, when they are to speak to Almighty God, upon any particular occasion.  
Now before we proceed to further examination of the words, it will not be amiss to take into consideration, what hath been (so far as we can find by books) the opinion of men in general, concerning this duty of prayer.  
In ancientest times among Heathens, (that is, men that had the light of nature only to guide them:) it did belong unto Poets, who were the Theologues, or Divines of the times, to teach men forms of prayer for every Deity they worshipped. Such forms of Invocations of Orpheus, so called; of Homer, are yet extant. The doctrine of prayer was handled by philosophers; as Aristotle, among others; but that work of his is not extant. But by Plato also, which is yet extant. In that Treatise Plato doth much commend a form of prayer, composed by some ancient poet, not named by him, unknown to us, which Calvin in his Institutions, as I remember, takes good notice of, and is exhibited in Greek by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations upon Matthew. A very commendable form indeed; the Author and those times considered; and which may be said, in some respects, to come nearer to the Lords prayer, than many prayers that are made after that pattern, as is pretended. For I take that part of the Lords prayer, to be a very considerable part of it, where we are taught to pray, That the Will of God, not out will, be done: For so I think the words ought to be understood, and supplied, out of that other exemplary form of prayer, used by Christ himself, and for himself, (at that time) particularly, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt, Mat. 26.39. And again, verse 42. Thy will be done: And so again, verse 44. Whereas our prayers commonly, instead of referring our Wills to Gods Will, are, that our Wills may be done, and that too, with much importunity. Yea sometimes, we are ready to expostulate with God, if we have not what we ask; though God knows, when we have it, we have many times occasion enough to wish, that we had not had our wills; that God had not heard our Prayers. Again, In the Lords Prayers, we pray for our daily bread: which are general words, translated by some, panem indigentiae● nostrae: referring particulars to God, who knows better than we, what is convenient for us, if we durst trust him.  
Now that old form commended by Plato, was this.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In Plato indeed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that followeth, as in prose; but without the verb, that is, as in the verse, ordinary construction doth require (and so it should have been printed in Hugo Grotius) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as it is in the anthology of Greek verses, and elsewhere. Yet an Infinitive might have stood well enough for an Indicative, if the former verb had been so too. But this obiter: In latin divers have done them; be content with my translation for this once, to save me further labour of seeking.  
Quae data 
* That is, things honest and just, according to the opinion of divers ancient Philosophers, who maintained that nothing was truly profitable, but what was honest and just: So Plato, so divers others. Tully in his Offices at large. Neither was this an Opinion in the School, or Academic only for the Exercise of their tongues, or wit, (as some lately in the Pulpit, Get faith, etc. if it be true) but an Opinion maintained and asserted by some of them in their greatest trials; as may appear by those words of Tully, when the Common-real was invaded by Caesar, and compliance the only way to save, or to get Estates; he than wrote thus unto his friend, Quid rectum sit apparel: quid expediat, obscurum est; ita tamen ut si nos two samus qui esse debemus, id est, study digni, & l●teris 〈◊〉, (that is, constant to our Principles and former Profession) dubitare non possimus, qui● ea maxime conducant quae sunt rectissima. What grounds they had for this opinion, that had no certain knowledge of any reward after this life, I know not. Christians have, I am sure. Let them look to it whom it concerns.  conducent, vel non orantibus ultro  
Da Pater Alme: preces damnosas, Alme, negato.  
As for the sense in English, though I love a good verse hearty; yet myself I know, was never born to be a Poet in any Language, and therefore never minded it; yet I think it necessary to put the words into some Rhymes, that it may be known what they are (verses) in the Original. 
† 
Great God, we thee beseech, those good things us to grant,  
Asked, or unasked; thyself doth know we want.  
As for those things we ask; if such as in the end  
Hurtful (thou knowst) will prove; from such, great God, defend.    
Juvenal the Poet, hath a whole Satire of this Subject, of the ignorance of man, in point of praying. Persius, another; both insist upon many particulars, to show the danger of rash, hasty prayers. In the Old Testament, there be many prescript forms of prayers, according to best Interpreters. David's Psalms in general were used, (and certainly intended many of them from the very beginning) most of them by the ancient Jews, before Christ's time, to that purpose. But more of this by and by.  
In point of reason therefore, since prayer hath always been a matter of such difficulty and danger withal; and that prescript forms have been used, not among Heathens only, but Israelites also, who would not think it most probable, that when Christ said, (as his words are recorded by St. Matthew, verse 9) After this manner therefore pray ye, Our Father, etc. He intended a prescript form? Or if he had not intended it so, yet the words in ordinary construction, importing so much, he would have used some words to prevent our mistake? Some fly to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, and tell us, it importeth sometimes no more, than a resemblance or likeness. We grant it. But what word is there almost to be found, or can be used by any man or Author, but is sometimes taken in a different sense? The question is, whether any ground for any such sense in this place; such sense, I mean, as should exclude the more usual and ordinary. No man I think will deny, but that in ordinary construction, when it is said, you shall say thus; The words that follow there, are intended, and no other. As when God in Exodus often saith unto Moses, Go, and say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, that those very words there recorded, were used by God unto Moses, when he gave him his commission. And Gen. 45.9. Thus saith thy son Joseph, etc. It followeth, verse 27. And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them. Infinite places of Scripture might be produced: some, where the very same words are repeated; but that I think it will be granted by all men, that as there is a Thus of similitude, which we deny not; so of Identity; which by the due consideration of circumstances, and coherence, is generally to be determined.  
It is well observed by some, that have written of this Subject, that had Christ intended a mere model of prayer by those words, he would rather (in all probability, were it but to prevent our error) have said, pray that your sins may be forgiven you, etc. as elsewhere, pray that your flight may be in the summer.  
Lastly, Though I know the word Amen, is used, not at the beginning only, but at the end also of some speeches, that are not prayers properly: yet it will not be denied, that it is most proper at the end to formal prayers: witness St. Paul, 1 Cor. 14.15, 16. so that even from this word may be be collected somewhat, which alone would be of no great weight perchance; but joined with so much evidence, and other necessary consequence, is not impertinent.  
Now were it so that this prayer, and Christ's words about it, had been registered by St. Matthew only, I think no more could rationally be required, to persuade men that are not apt to be swayed by somewhat else more strongly than reason. There be many other truths delivered, with less evidence of truth, which we generally embrace, both in the Old and New Testament. As on the other side, we must confess by sad experience, that no Truth can be delivered with so much evidence, and manifestation of words and circumstances, but private Interest, partiality, faction, prejudice, and the like, may draw to a contrary sense: so that if men cannot persuade themselves (though no wonder, if they do, even they that otherwise are juditions enough: strong interest, if men once give way, and be worldly given, will blind best Judgements in time) and their consciences, that it is so: yet they will hope by cunning and sophistry, they shall be able to persuade others. But God's providence in this particular, hath otherwise ordered it. For as if St. Luke had fore-seen (by the Spirit) a possibility that some would, or might stick at, and draw Arguments from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Matthew: he hath used such words, as every man must confess, leave no ground at all for scruples (though sought and desired) and evasions; except we fly to figures and metaphors, of which somewhat hath been said before.  
But before we set down the very words, we must take notice of some circumstances of story belonging to this business, which St. Luke doth here set down. First, That Christ had been praying, when the Disciples did petition him, that he would teach them to pray. Prayer is a duty that Christ himself was much conversant in: we find that by many places: yet it is observed by some, we do not find expressed any where, that Christ prayed with his Disciples (ordinary common prayers excepted) but always by himself. Others add, nor in the Temple publicly. How the observation will hold, will not much concern. If his Disciples hath heard him often, there was good ground for their request, that when they should not have the comfort of his prayers by bodily presence; yet they might not want the comfort of praying in his own words, when himself should be out of sight; such words as they might presume (with the concurrence of a pure and well prepared heart) should always be most acceptable, as to Him, from whom they had received them; so to Him, that had sent him with a promise to hear petitions in his Name: very likely therefore (they might think) to like them best that should come with a double stamp both of his words and name. But if they did not often pray with him, when he used other prayers than those that were known and ordinary (of which we shall say more by and by) the less they had been acquainted with his practice in that kind, from which they might frame a pattern to themselves: the more reason they had to require of him a certain form, which might supply their want.  
But secondly, the Disciples ground their petition upon St. John's example, Lord teach us to pray, as John taught his Disciples. Now I think it is not doubted by any man, or Interpreter of Scripture, but that John delivered unto his Disciples a formal prayer. Had St. John only delivered unto them a pattern to frame their prayers by, I doubt they would have been much unsatisfied. It requireth no little skill or judgement, to follow a pattern well. It is not likely John Baptist his Disciples were such ready men all, that he would trust them with a bare pattern. And whereas it is very probable (I am not alone that think so) that St. John's Disciples were, if not known and discerned from others abroad (as the Pythagoreans by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:) yet much united and fastened among themselves, by this prayer their Master had taught them: had it been a bare pattern, they might have jarred even unto Sects, and factions for all that: as we see all Christians do not pray after one sort, who pretend all to follow the same pattern.  
This may be further confirmed by the consideration of what was usual among the Jews. Now so it is, (it cannot be denied, but by them that are past shame, who to advantage that cause, whatsoever it is, to which their Interest hath wedded them, will adventure upon any thing) that the Jews, time out of mind, had been used to set forms of prayer. That they used no other in private, and upon extraordinary occasions, no man I think ever said: but that in their solemn devotions, and most public occasions they did use set forms, all Prorestants and Papists (as many as I have seen, or at this time remember) are consenting. First of Numb. 23.4, 6. who can doubt, but the words contain a prescript form of Blessing, [In this wise, or in this set form of words] the Annotations there. But it is one thing to bless, another to pray, say some. Indeed a man may pray, and neither bless nor curse, that is certain: but to say, that blessing may not be the Subject of a prayer, either public or private, as well as any thing else, is as ridiculous, as it is apparent, that this blessing here prescribed, is a very formal prayer. The Text is as clear, 2 Chron. 29, 30. Hezekiah the King, and the Princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David, and Asaph the Seer. And 1 Chron. 16. the Psalms (or psalm, as there joined) stand upon Record, that were appointed by David, and particularly verse 35. And say yea, etc. the Annotations there: [It is a phrase of incitation, etc. or, it is a direction to use this form, Hos. 14.2. Duke 11.2.] The latter Quotation, Luke 11.2. referring to these very words and subject we are now upon. Psalm the 20. is a form of prayer, or intercession, as the psalm following of Thanksgiving, as most Interpreters do agree. Divers others psalms there be intended for set forms, upon several occasions, observed by most Interpreters. Ainsworth upon the 24. psalm, out of a passage of Maimonides, shows what psalm was appointed for every day of the week, at the time of Divine service, long before Christ: and some of those psalms, I am sure, though commonly called psalms or songs; are prayers and intercessions, and nothing else; as particularly, Psalm 94. Others tell us of whole Liturgies, (or public service-books) of those days yet extant, in part: after which I shall not need to make further enquiry at this time, because I think I have said enough to this purpose; and no more, I think, but will easily be granted.  
It was proper enough, I think, to take notice of those things, observed by St. Luke certainly, for their further satisfaction, (in this very point) that should need it. But now we are come to the words themselves, I would desire the Reader, for a while to forget all that hath been said hitherto, (but withal, to lay aside, if it were possible, all prejudice and partiality) and when he hath read the words in St. Luke, (And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father, etc.) to consider with himself, whether he think any thing wanting to them, to make them plain, and express enough. I will say more; let it be granted, (for a while at least) that Christ intended those words, as a form of prayer to be used by his Disciples, and by consequent, by such as should pretend to him in after-ages: I would have the Reader to pause and consider with himself, what words more express, more pregnant and significant, could be used to that purpose, to prevent all doubts and evasions. The words themselves run in the form of a prayer, that, no man doth deny: and therefore a man would think, had there been no more in the Text, but; And he said, Our Father, etc. his intention had been plain enough, You shall pray thus: that is not more express, but more binding. But when you pray, say: for my part, I must confess, what words could have been used more express, or more binding, I can think of none. I deny not, but Christ might have used more words. He might have said, had he pleased, or thought fit: You shall have your desire: I will teach you, what you shall say. You shall have a form of prayer from me, which you may use: nay, what you made your request, I shall lay upon you, and all Christians of all ages, as a duty: When ye pray, say: In your best devotions, though you use other prayers, as your particular occasions shall require; yet use this, as your best prayer, Our Father, etc. He might have said, I know the time will come, when men out of an high conceit of their own parts, and in opposition to others, whom they shall use, or have used so and so, will not allow these words to be prescribed by me as a form of prayer, etc. Some such words, I grant, might have been spoken: but as there is no part of Scripture so clear or so generally received, but may be abused, quarrelled, denied; so is there as little reason for any such words in this, as in any other place, that hath afforded matter of strife, and contention in any age of the world.  
After such evidence of Scripture, that is, of the word of God: the consent or authority of man may be thought superfluous. And what if all men, all Christians that have been hitherto, in all places, in all ages of the world, had not all been of one opinion about it, would not, should not, the greatest part have served? would it not have become men, that pretend to honour the Scripture so much, as the Word of God; and to be such enemies to them that dishonour it; have become them, I say, where the Text is so clear and express, to have adhered unto it, even against the consent of the major part? Should we believe nothing as Christians, but what is clearly declared in Scripture, & may be said to have been assented unto by Christians, in all ages, and places without any contradiction or opposition: I doubt our faith would be much abridged. But we must be as good as our undertaking. If we have not general consent of former and latter ages, (so far as can be found out by History: those new men of the late reformation excepted) evidence of Scripture shall be no good plea for us; will forfeit our cause.  
Some it may be will here expect, that we should begin to search into ancient Records and Monuments for the opinion and practice of the ancient Christians, and primitive times of the Church: which with all that are not blinded by faction and self-love, must needs be of great Authority. But others with more reason would think, I might better have spared this labour, since I have to do with men, who as either sufficiently convicted of the truth of our plea, in this particular; or because they think it not worth the while (trusting to their own pretended illumination) to take the pains to inquire further into it, will sooner yield to us the matter of fact, then contend about it; and only except against the validity of the example, or authority, alleging for themselves, that whether it be so or no, they do not think themselves bound to follow them. If you ask them the reason, they will tell you, because they were but men, and might err. Let the Reader remember, that the express letter of the Word of God, was yielded unto us before: and now we are to come to the consent or authority of men, we are told, that men are but men, not Gods. But we go on. They were but men, they say; truly I say so too, they were but men, not Gods; but, men that lived so many ages nearer to the source and spring of that infallible authority then familiarly conversant, (we speak now of the ancientest, or primitive Christians:) and resident among men. Men, who generally forsook all things that are dearest unto men usually, (for which things many in this age, make nothing to forsake their former faith:) to adhere unto Christ: Men, by whose holiness of life, and intolerable (to flesh and blood) sufferings for Christ, more than by their preaching, whole kingdoms and Nations of Pagans and Infidels were gained to the faith of Christ: and why the consent of such, so many, in several ages; in different places of the world, should not be more considerable: but I will proceed no further in the comparison. Certainly, if any man (not engaged by worldly interests) can be so simple, as not, of himself, to be sensible; I will not expect that any reasoning can restore him. And why should it be a wonder to a rational man, that some are so simple among Christians, who knows that natural fools and Idiots, are little less than worshipped by the Turks (the great Conquerors of the world) for no other respect, but because fools and Idiots? We therefore take it for granted, until we know of any that oppose it; that we have (besides clear Scripture; Consensum & consuetudinem, the general consent and practise of one thousand and five hundred, or six hundred years on our side. But it will not be amiss, to set down some of their words for the better satisfaction of the Reader. Ultimò, sequitur tritum illud vestrum & Papisticum argumentum (saith Johnson before named) de consuetudine mille quingentorum annorum. (Let the Reader take notice, that he calls this prescription of 1500 years, arpopish argument, whereby he doth yield to Papists, much more than I would, or can: I know nothing among them truly popish, that can prescribe to so much antiquity) De quo●etiam si●constat, quod vos pro concesso sumitis, hoc tamen semper tenendum, vocem Dei in Scriptura esse regulam sidei, etc. He doth not say, it is altogether so, but whether so, or no, (for he brings nothing to disprove it:) his evasion is, consent of many men or ages, is nothing, because the Scripture only is our rule. And again, a little after, Postrema tua ratio petita est ab authoritate Patrum, ut vocantur, quos certum in multis errasse, etc. Here we have the consent of the Fathers yielded to us. We would commend their modesty for yielding to the truth so far; if at the same time, they did not more immodestly oppose their own judgements to the acknowledged consent and authority of so many ages; and so many, much better men, than themselves can pretend unto.  
So from former times, we come now to latter, or present. We will not mention the Papists, (so called) though no man can deny, but there be among them, men of great learning, and I believe, religious: but because there is no question of their consent, and their authority not so much stood upon by them we have to do with: therefore needless here, as I imagine. As for Protestant Divines, or others, I think we need not search into the writings of particular men, and trouble the Reader with multitude of quotations, which every body that can read, and hath access to books, may easily store himself with, if he will: the practice of all Protestant Churches in all places of Europe, (I can give no account of Independent Conventicles) which may appear by different Formularies and Liturgies by them set out, as the best evidence of their opinions generally, so I suppose will give best satisfaction: so that although some particular acknowledged Protestant Writer should be found to be of another mind, yet it can be no prejudice to what we have said of their general consent. Now for their Formularies, in a business so exposed to every man's scrutiny, that will take any pains to satisfy himself: I shall not use many words: I have some, have had, and seen many more, in several languages: never yet lighted upon any, in which the Lord's Prayer was not prescribed, to be used by Priests and people in express terms, as in the Gospel. So upon confidence, that this also will be granted unto us, I shall forbear further labour. As for particular authors: though I said before, we cannot undertake for, nor are indeed bound to take notice of every particular man: yet I may truly say, no such is known unto me, either by any reading in former times, or by any quotation, that I have met with in others upon this occasion. Calvin saith of it in his Institutions, as much as I would desire, and so in his Harmony: but that he hath an expression, which might be wondered at: (non jubet nos conceptis verbis uti) had he not presently after explained himself, by a more full expression, ut nuper dixi, etc. They do him great wrong therefore, that would persuade us otherwise of him, taking the advantage of some particular words when his meaning both by his practice (witness those Formularies set out in his time, printed at Geneva) and by his writings is so easily known. Neither ought we to wonder, if neither Calvin, or any other, whilst they commend unto us the Lords Prayer, be careful, at the same time, to prevent, that their words might not be drawn to a wrong sense, as though they commended it as the only prayer to be used either publicly, or privately: which would be a great and dangerous mistake: but of that more afterward. I have mentioned Luther somewhere, as a great admirer of this holy Prayer. It shall not be amiss therefore to set down some of his words. In his Enchiridium piarum precationum, which I have by itself, in a handsome form: but in his works also, in the Wittenburg. edit. (A. D. 1558) to be found: he saith; Sum autem plane certus, Christianum satis abunde orasse, si Orationem Dominicam, vere ac rectè oret: quocunque id tempore, & quamcunque ejus volet partem. Ne que enim si multum verborum numeres, ideo bona est oratio: quod Christus quoque testatur, Math. 6. Sed si crebrò, ac cum magno ardore ad Deum suspires.  
And again in the same book: Ubi ad verbum totam Orationem Dominicam recitavi, partem unam, aut plures, si libet, repeto, etc. and concludes: Hic meus est orandi mos, et ratio. Nam quotidie adhuc Orationem hanc Dominicam, quodammodo sugo, uti infantulus: bibo, & mando, uti adultus; nec tamen ea satiari possum. Atque etiam dulcior & gratior mihi est ipsis Psalmis, quibus tamen mirificè & unice delector: quos & maximi facio. Profectò res ipsa clamat, à summo & praestantissimo artifice, eam orationem esse compositam, & praeformatam.  
In another Treatise he saith: Cum haec Oratio à Christo habeat originem, debet indubitanter eminentissima, nobilissima, optimaque censeri: quâ si meliorem scivisset integerrimus ac fidelissimus magister, eam quoque nos ille docuisset. I will not undertake for the exactness or propriety of the expression, (in those words, si meliorem scivisset) which the vehemency of his admiration and affection suggested unto him. It would make a man suspect, that even in those days, he had met with some that thought, they could pray as well, if not better, and perchance under pretence of imitation, would have been content (if they might) to leave it out of their public devotions. But I do but suspect. It is apparent, he was a great admirer of it, and had very great zeal to it; and for it. Luther's zeal to this prayer, puts me in mind of Ludovicus Vives, a Papist indeed, not a Protestant, but generally acknowledged a learned, wise, devout man: he hath written a Commentary, as he calls it, upon the Lord's prayer. How zealously he was affected towards it, and how much he had it in admiration, his preface will show; it is well worth the reading. But of Protestant Divines, I make no question, but a man might make a whole book, that should collect their several Eulogies, and testimonies concerning this Prayer, as it is a form of prayer; but that it is not our business here. General consent is the thing that we contend for, and upon which we have in part grounded our case, in the stating of it. And for that we have appealed to the Formularies, that are extant of most Protestant Churches beyond the seas: which is the most direct and pertinent proof, that any man can expect. And if we knew any thing objected by any body in opposition to what we maintain, we would take notice of it. I find nothing of that nature in Johnson, before spoken of, though Carpenter had not omitted it, but put it to him in direct terms. Nullane Protestantium Ecclesia praeter vestram Synagogulam oculos habuit, aut mentem? An vos soli sapitis, etc. (in St. Augustin's words against Donatus) to which particular I find no answer at all, though the answer, (as called) be large and tedious in general beyond measure. It seems therefore he could not deny it, but all Protestant Churches were of another mind. If he had known any, certainly we should have heard of it. What notice therefore I have taken of particular men, as Luther and Calvin; is over and above, because of their eminency: Perkins in England, his authority would once have gone a great way, with those men especially, that pretended to more than ordinary strictness in religion. What his opinion was in this matter, shall be seen at the end, where we take notice of some objections.  
But now since we have named some particular men, and have seen what devotion they had (Luther especially) to this holy Prayer: with what zeal, and admiration they speak of it: let it not pass without some further observation. I make no question, but the like may be said, and observed of divers others eminently pious and learned in all ages. I have heard of some particularly in our age; men of great fame, that have professed to receive singular comfort of it, which might also be gathered by their frequent use of it in time of sickness. Now I would gladly know of those men (and I wish they would take it into their serions consideration) of those men, I say, who not only forbear the use of it themselves, but also forbidden it to others; and when used in their presence, have showed much trouble and indignation, as it is reported of some and may be true, for aught I know, of many more: whether it be likely, or possible, that such averseness and antipathy in them: such zeal and devotion in others, whom themselves perchance will not deny to have been pious and religious; should proceed from one and the same spirit. And if they cannot find in their hearts to say, or to think, that it was a spirit of illusion, that led those good and godly men unto such esteem and admiration of this prayer: from what spirit can their antipathy proceed? For my part (and I doubt not but it is the mind of many thousand Christians in England besides) though I know myself too great a sinner to expect that God should afford me those extraordinary ravishing contentments and delights of the soul, which I believe he hath done, and doth unto many, more deserving; in the use of this holy prayer: Yet I should be very sorry, it should be in the power of any man living, to bereave me of that right and privilege I have, as a Christian, unto it, and the use of it, whilst I live: and I shall ever believe, that a reverend use, and high esteem of it, as immediately proceeding from, and commended unto us by such a ONE, to whom all manner of adoration is due; is no small part of that worship we own unto God.  
All things that have been said hitherto well considered, it may perchance make some wonder in some, what should induce men; some, learned, and conscientious otherwise; (as it is to be hoped:) but however, men, that profess Christianity; to be so set against this prayer, that beareth the name of the Lord and Saviour of men: and I remember an observation in Aristotle, that, to give full satisfaction in a doubtful business, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We should not only tell what is truth, but also take pains to discover the ground of the error, or that which is false. First than it must be granted, that even before these times, there were some in the world, that begun to hatch this monster: but being but few and inconsiderable, standing divided from all the Reformed Churches in Europe; it leaves a wonder still, their opinion should be embraced by men accounted sober, and making profession of the protestant Religion. We say therefore in the second place, that the spirit of Enthasiusme, since the reins of order and discipline have been lose, and all liberty left unto men (Papists and Prelatical, for so it pleaseth them to join us, only excepted) to follow their own fancies in all things belonging to God's worship; having much prevailed (as it hath done in some ages of the world before this) among us, men have been very prone, to think themselves inspired in the use of their extemporary faculty, which formerly (and it may be, formerly too much neglected) they had not been so well acquainted with: and through ignorance of Nature, and former times, (as hath been declared, and proved at large elsewhere▪) did apprehend a supernatural cause, where indeed there was no cause at all: and this probably might make them by degrees, to loath and contemn this holy prayer. A third reason may be, the violence of opposition: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as St. Basil called it; Prelatical men having been used as they have been, put out of all, silenced, made incapable etc. it was very consequent, their cause should be made as odious, as art and invention could make it.  
God forbidden I should take upon me to excuse any thing that hath been amiss. If I did not believe of myself, there was somewhat of that kind (in Church, or Commonwealth, or both:) yet the judgements of God (whom I believe to be most just) so great, and so heavy, would make me think so. But, why so many things formerly practised and observed in the Church of England, as for example; public Catechising, so necessary to uphold Christianity among men, though not so pleasing to itching ears, as ordinary preaching is: the use of the Sacraments, which in divers Parishes, where formerly duly administered, are now scarce known, or named: the observation of some principal holidays, as the anniversary commemoration of the birth of Christ, of his Resurrection etc. by which (though abused by profane men, as all things may be) the faith of most was much confirmed, honour and homage, in the most solemn manner, done unto Christ; not to mention some more private things; as children's daily ask their Parent's blessing upon their knees, (a custom, though not elsewhere observed, that I know of; yet much commended by many strangers, that have seen the practice of it in England, as I can witness:) and the like; and among the rest, the reverend use of this holy prayer: why these I say, and the like should be so neglected, discountenanced, and, (in some places, at least) in a manner abrogated, having oftentimes thought of it with grief, I can give myself no reason more satisfactory to my wondering, than that it is done in opposition to the former Clergy, because by them religiously observed: Such is the nature of opposition; especially where private interest doth oblige. But yet, after all this, as to this particular of the Lords Prayer: to speak my mind freely: I look upon it, rather as a judgement, than an error: or if an error, yet as the punishment of another: this, justly inflicted for somewhat, that was more wilful and arbitrary. Let their own consciences tell them (professed Ministers, or Clergy men I mean; I have nothing to do with others) whether they have not, somewhat against conscience for politic ends, fiercely opposed (I will not say persecuted) somewhat, (once, the glory of the English Reformation) which though it pretend not to Divine authority, yet may pretend to the best of things established by humane, among men. And, what if the more opposed, because this very prayer is part of it, too great a part of it, as they pretend? May not we think therefore that this hath happened to them, as a judgement, that their folly might be made manifest? But I will not be too bold upon secret judgements: though I have their example, if that would acquit me before God. Sure I am, and I think I may boldly speak it; those Christians have much to answer for, who upon so little ground of reason, and against such manifest Scripture, could so easily be drawn away from that piety, which they were bred unto, and in a manner, sucked from their mother's breast; by the example, or persuasion of such leaders. But thus it is (and no wonder) when a people is once come to that, as to reduce, (with those false Israelites, the Prophet Ezekiel describes chap. 33. v. 31, 32.) all religion to the pleasure of the ear. And for them that are such, for aught I see, let them but have what they affect, they may quickly be brought to swallow any thing, be it the grossest point of Popery; and yet think themselves very religious; yea, (if their Preachers tell them so) good Protestants.  
There seems nothing to remain, but some objections to be taken notice of. But I would omit no means untried. Some things, though more remote in sight, may sometimes work more with some, than more concluding proofs, Et quae non prosunt singula, multa juvant. This Prayer is commonly called, The Lord's Prayer, and there is reason for it; & there's a day called, the Lords day, (more properly so, than The Sabbath:) we will see what we may draw from this common appellation, or denomination from the same Lord. Our beginning may be thought somewhat remote. They that are more quick, will soon perceive, what we drive at. Others, I desire them to have patience, and to read to the end, before they judge.  
I do not know any thing, whereby a man may sooner and surer find himself, whether he be a true Christian indeed, a true Convert, or believer: then by the generality or simplicity (rightly, understood) of his obedience, and conformity to the Laws and Commands of Christ. I will not go to the Planets or Climates, to fetch a reason. I will not believe, (though the Patrons of Astrology, do not stick to say it) that any man is born, either a Murderer or an Adulterer. But sure it is, that all men are not born by their natural complexion, with equal advantage or disadvantage, to either virtue or vice. Some have none, or few notable vices: not so much, or perchance not at all, out of any love or knowledge of goodness, but because they find no inclination to be evil. They love, every body: are not malicious perchance, not revengeful; it is their nature, not religion. Humble, quiet, temperate in all things: it is their nature. We may say of them, as Seneca of those of the Golden age, Ignorantiâ rerum, innocentes erant. Multum autem interest, utrum peccare aliquis nolit, aut nesciat. Some of these natural Innocents' (as to the world, and the public) it may be, there are yet in the world, men and women, in some places. We are bound in the judgement of Charity, to account them virtuous, to honour and admire them as such, because we see their works: we cannot judge of their hearts. But if they have no other motive to goodness than nature, or custom, or education; I know not how far it may acquit them from worse: I am very confident it will never bring them to heaven. So far, wise Heathens have gone, who plainly teach and determine, that without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (reference to God) no man is truly virtuous or innocent, though he may appear so outwardly by his actions. So the wiser Heathens; others, in stead of God, they say, Reason; non est virtus, cui non constat ratio, disputed at large by Seneca, and others. But those so generally innocent (in sight) by nature; I doubt they are not many, except they be innocents' indeed, in another sense. Most men are of a mixed temper, as to vice, so to some virtue. Some men are not given to women: though there were no Laws to bind them, one wife doth serve their turn very well: Chastity is their virtue. It may be, as little subject to Wine: they look upon all excess in that kind, as the effects of brutish sensuality. But then for malice, or envy, or pride, perchance covetousness (which all good natured men, as we call them, do much about) these, all, or some of them, are so natural unto them, that though they are told what they are, and known for such, by all that know them; yet themselves know it not; and though perchance they do not care to have many like themselves, yet they will sooner believe them fools and Idiots that are not, than be persuaded out of their humour: it is so natural and pleasing. That man, that is all vice, without any natural propensity to some virtue, is not a bad, or vicious man properly, but a Monster: and so indeed set out by the Satiric, Monstrum nulla virtute redemptum A vitiis: and, Illaudatus in the best of Poets, (very significantly) a man that could be commended for nothing; when he intended (as ancient Grammarians well observe) the worst of men, a Monster, such a one as Busiris was, of whom it is spoken. I cannot tell, how easy generally; but certainly the way to heaven would be much easier, might we but take a liberty, to what is most natural unto us, and yet be good Christians. He that is virtuous indeed, that is, for God and conscience-sake, is, though not equally inclined by nature, yet equally resolved in his mind, to whatsoever is either commanded, or forbidden by God in his Word. If he be vicious in some kind (as who not?) more than another, it is not because he thinks better of his vice, or for want of striving against it: but because as yet he hath not, (to his great grief and sorrow) been able to master his nature: and it may be, long striving, if sincere and real, may prove at last, through God's Mercy, to his advantage. This, I think, is a very sure way, for every man to examine himself. And this is the way that St. Paul went to convince the Jews, in a place. The Jews in St. Paul's time were no idolators. They had been in former ages: they were now free from that sin: it is not laid to their charge no where in the New Testament. St. Jerome observes it very particularly, and some others also. They extremely abhorred all other Nations of the world upon that score, and deemed them altogether unworthy of God's mercy. St. Paul appeals to their consciences: he tells them first, that in other things that were forbidden as well as Idolatry; as, Theft, Adultery, etc. they could not but know themselves guilty generally, as well as the Gentiles. He comes at last to that very thing, wherein was their greatest confidence, they were not Idolaters; Thou, saith he, that abhorrest Idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? I will not inquire how far the Jews were guilty of that great sin, Sacrilege, in those days: It is enough for our present occasion, that St. Paul, to abate their confidence in that they most trusted to, doth object unto them one great sin which they could not acquit themselves of: and it is possible, he did insist upon Sacrilege particularly, as a prophet, for the instruction of after-ages, as foreseeing that this horrible sin of Sacrilege would be committed ordinarily, and frequently (the time would come) under pretence of hatred to Idolatry.  
Well: we return where we began: as there is a day in the week, called The Lord's Day: so there is a prayer as ordinarily called, in all ages since Christ, the Lords prayer: Both pretend unto the Lord, and the same Lord; the Saviour and Redeemer of the world. I would fain know what is the reason, that some show so much zeal to the one, beyond what hath been known or practised in any age among Christians, or is at this day, in any place of the world, besides England, and those places that have relation to it; grounding upon Scriptures, of which there is great controversy, and variety of opinion among learned Protestants, as may appear by their Writings; and towards the other, of which never was any question before, but unanimous both practice and opinion, among Christians of all ages; towards that, they show so little zeal and affection? Truly, I think, as our Repentance, our obedience, should be general, and absolute, if true and real: so should our zeal too, if true zeal: Nay, St. James saith it positively, that true zeal, (he speaks it of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Wisdom, immediately: but he began with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and what he says of Wisdom, belongs unto zeal, as the chief subject and occasion: for so indeed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aught to have been translated here, as I conceive; Zeal: as well as Rom. 10.2. They have zeal, etc. and not envying. No man doth glory of envying, but of zeal, many, God knows, without cause, 10.14. And verse 16. Zeal and strife, or contention, that is, a contentious zeal, by a noted Scripturefigure) is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without partiality: a pregnant weighty word.  
I will not enter into any disputation here, or interpose any thing of mine own Judgement or Opinion, concerning the observation of the Lords day: This I say, which no man can deny: It can never be showed, that such preciseness was ever used, or thought necessary in the observation of it, as is required by some men. First, for Practise: The first Emperor that was a Christian, and settled Christianity in the world, made a Law, it might be lawful (in case of unseasonable weather) to gather the fruits of the earth upon the Sunday. I know that Law was afterwards repealed, and I know what is said by some, it was made in favour of the Gentiles, and not for Christians. I will not argue it here: but it is well known, there is enough to be said besides of former times. If we look upon the practice of Protestant Churches, (which I think will go further with many) in Geneva, in Calvin's time at least, how then it was, cannot but be known unto most, because observed by many: I will forbear the particulars. In the Low-Countries, till the Synod of Dort (it is a shame, I confess) nothing almost was unlawful upon that day: And it is observed in course of History, Monks and Friars were the first, that brought this preciseness in fashion in England.  
Now for the Opinions of Protestant Divines beyond the seas, I know not of any at all, that have gone so far as the English: nayther indeed hath it been much questioned, till of late Gomarus, a great Anti-Arminian (upon information perchance of what was done in England, under pretence of Zeal) his Investigatio Sabbatbi, who indeed doth go very far, as not allowing either name Diem Dominicum, in that sense, as commonly understood, or thing as grounded upon any authority of either Old or New Testament. He was opposed by Dr. Rivet, the most authentic of these late times, but with great moderation; who also, though dissenting in other things, doth yield unto him, (and Gomarus in his Reply, is not little pleased with it) that the observation of one day of seven, hath no ground at all upon the fourth Commandment, or Old Testament. Dr. Prideaux, the public Professor of Divinity in Oxford for many years before these late wars, (a man generally accounted by the preciser sort, as well as others, till this late Reformation, and that he was a Bishop, both learned and godly) did publicly maintain at a solemn Act in Oxford, almost as much as Gomarus, and quotes divers Protestant Divines, as Calvin, Bullinger, Ursinus, and others, for his opinion. The Book is translated into English: the Reader may do well not to rest upon what I say, but to peruse the book itself, being made so common and vulgar: it may be, he will not repent his labour. Walaeus, another Protestant Divine, no obscure man, neither; is the man, who, of all outlandish Writers I have seen, hath written, or may be thought to have written most, (though long before) in compliance to these times: yet even he, where he tells us of the Edicts of the Synod of Dort, for the more strict observation of that day, commends their moderation, in that they did not condemn them that were of a different opinion; in his Preface; and in his Book, he allows very well of Constantine's Law, for liberty upon Sundays in harvest-time, when the weather proves unseasonable; as also of moderate and civil recreations upon that day, so it be after the public service of the day performed, and not before, or between.  
Now for the Scriptures, which are the Rule of our faith, if a man look upon the Old Testament, upon a supposition, that what is there concerning the Jewish Sabbath, is appliable (a thing not easily proved) to the Lords day, or Sunday of the Christians: so he shall find many things both in the Law, and in the Prophets, that may be thought to require great preciseness. But if we look into the New Testament, (our most immediate Rule, as Christians) there will not, neither in all that is recorded of Christ, as either spoken or done by him in the four Gospels; nor in all the Writings of his Apostles, any thing be found, that doth make that way, but rather to the contrary: which is some wonder, if it were so material to Christianity: especially, after so much recorded in the Gospels of Christ's speeches, tending, in ordinary construction, to the abrogation of that legal or ceremonial preciseness. And it may be further observed, that those (for the most part) who commonly press those passages of the Old Testament, concerning the Sabbath, notwithstanding that so much is to be said against the pertinency of those allegations: yet in other things, as in matter of usury (contrary to the opinion and practice of most of the old Clergy, or prelatical men,) they can swallow abundance of Texts, which in all probability (though I conclude nothing) should make it unlawful, at least, in Clergy men. For my part, as I said before, I conclude nothing; and I hope the ingenuous charitable Reader, will not conclude from any thing I have said of the Lords day, that I am against the religious, yea, and strict (in some respects) observing of it. I am not, I never was: I will say more: if a man be not fully resolved and satisfied about this point, but though he have taken pains to be satisfied, stands in a kind of Aequilibrium, or Even-ballance, between both opinions, so that for aught he knows either of them may prove true, or false; in such a case, provided that he condemn not others, that go another way; such especially, as do it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of faith and conscience, as to themselves, (men otherwise religious in their life and conversation) and that he make it not a cloak of disobedience, to oppose lawful, Authority, which in all things lawful or doubtful, aught to be obeyed: in such a case, Isay, with these cautions we have inserted: I hold it much safer, according to the old saying, Peccare in meliorem partem: to be more precise, than he need perchance; then (for aught he knows) to take more liberty upon that day, than God hath allowed. But the case being so, between the Lord's day, and the Lords Prayer: that of the one, no question hath ever been among Christians: of the other, (as to that which is required by some, that would be thought most zealous) much question and controversy: how this can stand with true impartial zeal and piety, that the one should be so much pressed; and the other so little regarded, I leave it to the unpartial reader, his further and sober consideration.  
I might very well end here. For after so much light of Scripture, and so much weight of authority, (the best that can be desired in a cause) I make some question, whether it be so lawful and warrantable, to give ear to any objection. What if a man will undertake to prove by Scripture, that there is no such thing, as the Resurrection of the dead, or the immortality of the soul: there is Scripture enough (it is true) for both; to satisfy a man that is not wilfully blind, or factiously refractory; a Quaker: an Anabaptist. However, he is but a poor Sophister, that cannot form objections, yea frame arguments (in show) out of the Scriptures against both. To dispute with such, is to yield to them (so it may thought, at least) that they have some ground to doubt: and that is some wrong to the truth. Not to hear them, I hold it generally the best course; both for them, (if not past all hopes) to reclaim them: and for others, to keep them within sobriety. However, after so much premised, because all men are not of one temper, and some more taken with sleight, than weight, in point of reason: I will take notice of such objections that I have met with, or could think any way considerable.  
Truly many are not so, especially such as I have met with in that Johnson, before named. You shall have a taste, if you please, that you may judge of the rest. Hear then, I pray, one of his main proofs, why what we call the Lords Prayer, cannot be a prayer: If it be so; saith he, as you say, (that, Our Father etc. is a prayer) I would know of you, whose prayer shall it be called? Christ's: his Apostles: or ours? If you say Christ's; why Christ did not so pray for himself: (else he that had no sin, must be thought to have prayed for remission of sins, p. 22.) but taught his Disciples so to pray. If you say, the Apostles: we do not find in all the New Testament that they did ever use it. If you say: Ours: than it will follow, that we did pray before we were borne etc.  
I am so fare from thinking, that this wants any refutation, that I cannot otherwise think, when I read it; but that the man had some distemper in his brains: and had I been acquainted with him, I would friendly have persuaded him to have gone to a physician: I am very confident, good physic would do more good, (if themselves could be persuaded,) to many, great sticklers, and much followed, (such hath always been the palate of the generality, especially when worldly success doth countenance the act:) then all the arguing of the world. Well: you have had a taste of this man's sophistry: you had my judgement of him before. In stead of a refutation, you shall hear what more sober men (of these times) have written concerning this title, under which this holy prayer commonly passeth. Mr. Dan. Cawdry: and Mr. Herb. Palmer: members of the Assembly of Divines in Sabb. Rediu. or, the Christian Sabbath. pag. 341. in the margin: over against these words in the Book: [Then besides all that hath already been noted of the Lords Day, it is hereby also entitled to an Institution from the the Lord himself: from Christ: as being parallel in phrase, to the Lords supper: which beyond all peradventure, had no other institution but Christ; etc.] There, in the margin: [The primitive Church seems to bear witness to this, calling the Prayer instituted by Christ, by the same term, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Oratio Dominica: neither can it signify any thing, but the prayer of the Lords institution, though the generations after, weakened this testimony, by calling Churches so.] I think, the last words, if they had thought fit, might have been spared: since it is certain that Churches were so called, for another reason; not because instituted (particular Churches) by the Lord; but because consecrated (though now much abused, some by abominable profanation: & others, in some places irreligiously pulled down, to build private houses, or to make money) to the Lord. Walaeus had told them so long a go: [Sed nec ea consequentia est necessaria, quia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seu Dominicum vocari potest; non tantum quod ab ipso Domino; sed etiam quod ad ipsius memoriam, ut veteres loquuntur; aut in ipsius honorem, et adipsius cultum est institutum: sicut altar Domini, & festum Domini, etc.]  
The next objection, that I shall take notice of, is such a one, as the Reader perchance would not have expected, but I cannot satisfy my conscience, if I should conceal that from him, which, I confess, hath troubled me more, than all that I have read of that nature. I took notice before of what some particular men had said of this holy prayer, as Luther, Calvin, and others. Now I shall tell the Reader with grief, I find learned Mr. Hugo Grotius, most cold in this point. For though he also say, (quod cum fructu fieri potest:) that is, he allows the Lord's prayer to be used as a Prayer, and saith it may be done profitably: yet taking all his words together upon this occasion, I know not how to excuse him. We shall consider of some of them by and by. In the mean time, I would not have any man, either to wonder at it, or to value much his authority herein. There is no man can speak so highly of him, either of his parts, or performances in all kind of learning, but I shall willingly subscribe. However, nothing can be said of him so high, that can make me think him more than a man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: a mutable Creature, by nature (as Plato well defined him) as well in the affections of his soul, opinions of his mind; as temper, and condition of body. Solomon was a notable example; and after him, we need not wonder at any man. What happened to Grotius in his latter days; I am loath to say: I wish his own books; Annotations upon the Scripture, and others since, did not so evidently proclaim. They that labour to excuse him, if any do, they but laterem lavare: and will sooner bring themselves into suspicion, than acquit him. Among other his extravagant conceits of his old age, one was, De communicando sine Symbolis: or, Sine pastore; or to that effect: for I have it not at this time: which was answered by Sirmondus, or Petavius (I know not which: I am grown such a stranger since these times of Reformation to those books I once had and read) and as I take it, he made some kind of recantation, by disavowing part of it. No wonder therefore, I say, if Grotius was no better friend (at that time) as to set prayers, in general; so particularly, to this incomparable pattern and precedent of all set prayers, and prescript forms. But Grotius, when truest Grotius, was I know, and can say it; a great admirer of the Church of England, as settled under King Charles the first, and other Princes of happy memory. Let the Reader guess, to use no other arguments at this time; by what he wrote to me in a letter A. D. 1639. of Hooker his Ecclesiastical policy [Richardi Hookeri scripta ante annos multos vidi, & quanquam in sermone mihi non percognito, facile cognovi exactissimi Operis utilitatem: quae tanta est, ut hunt quoque librum Verti, sed in Latinum sermonem pervelim. quaero si quis hic est, qui id efficere cupiat. caeterùm tibi id ipsum cordi esse velim.] Hence doth appear, how desirous he was, that hooker's books were turned into Latin, for the good he expected they would do, if more generally known. We have them in English, God be praised: but do we read them? In very deed, such is my opinion of that incomparable work, that did not I believe the world (that is, the greatest number of men) really mad, in the true Stoical sense: and that it is some degree of madness (especially, after long wars; confusions and alterations of states) to expect it otherwise: I would persuade men that have been buyers of books these 15. or 16. year's last passed, to burn one half, at least, of those books they have bought, (they were as good do so, as to fell them for nothing) and to betake themselves to the reading of Hooker: not doubting, but by that time they had read him once, or twice over accuratly, they would thank me for my advice; but God, much more, that put it into their hearts to follow it.  
It may be some Readers would be better satisfied, if I had produced the whole letter from which that passage was taken: others, more likely, should I do it, would think I sought occasion to let the world know, how great I was, with that Great man. Truly, if the first will be granted unto me, I will not stick at the latter. I never was very prone to to seek acquaintances: I have had some opportunities, which I have declined. But Mr. Grotius did me the honour (Mr. Vossius I think persuaded him) to write to me the first letter, and so begun our acquaintance and communication. And truly, I will confess, I did ascribe so much unto his worth, and singular integrity, I was not less proud (though I think not many can say, they ever heard me brag of it; nor any, that I shown his Letters) of his acquaintance, then if it had been with the greatest Prince of Europe. And though my love to the truth, hath compelled me to acknowledge so much of his inconstancy in his latter days; yet my comfort is, (I have reason to believe it, as I have elsewhere declared) he died a good Christian, and a Protestant; and my hope is, he hath a reward in heaven, for his zeal to the Christian Religion, for which he hath written so excellently well, and his continual desire and endeavours for peace: besides his other performances, by which the honour of Learning hath been so much advanced. And if I may speak the truth without offence, I verily believe his great dislike of our do in England, was no small occasion of his falling out with our Religion: besides the unkind dealing, and vigorous opposition of some of his own Country, from whom he might have expected more favour, having raised that Nation to the highest pitch of Glory (in point of learning) that any Nation hath attained unto. Well, I am willing to believe, that some Reader will desire to see the letter: but however that it may give less offence, (if any offence at all) it shall not be here, but at the end, where it may be taken in, or left, as the Reader shall think fit.  
This great block in my way removed, as I hope it is, we proceed to objections. We do not find, say some, (and I find it in Grotius too) upon any Record of Scripture, that either Christ, or his Apostles, did use this prayer. We said before, he doth not deny, but it may be done cum fructu: but he doth not make that the chief, or principal use of it. For my part, grant me the use of it as a Prayer, and so intended by Christ himself: I think it very needless to contend with any man about the rest: whether intended principally as a Prayer, or a direction to Prayer. If it be a Prayer, there is no question to be made, and it will follow by necessary consequence, that it is a Direction of Prayer also, as it is his prayer, who spoke nothing, did nothing, but is set out unto us for our (according to our power) imitation; our Lord and Master Jesus Christ Yet if we must say somewhat to that business, I would say, but without contention, I should think that principally intended by Christ, which was most direct and pertinent to the request, made unto him by his Disciples. Now if it be granted, (which hath been spoken to before) that what his Disciples desired, was a form of Prayer: what will follow upon it, any man may gather. But I determine nothing peremtorily: I will leave every man to his own Judgement, in this particular. Well, the objection is, We do not find that Christ, etc. as before. I know that Grotius is not the first that hath so argued: I am sorry it can be said, that a man of his judgement did ever entertain this, as a material objection. No sober man, I think (and this also before spoken of,) will deny, but that a very form of blessing is prescribed by God, Numb. 6.23. etc. Yet we do not find it in the whole Scripture. Again, We have a form of baptising prescribed. Mat. 28. by Christ himself, In the name of the Father, etc. but no example of it elsewhere, that I know of in the New Testament, though we read of many baptised by the Apostles and others: and I think to this day, is a form of Baptism among Christians, in all places. We might insist in many more such things; out of the Old and New Testament, if need were.  
Some press this further: not only this Prayer is not found used, as a Prayer, but neither in the Acts, nor any of the Epistles, though divers things concerning Prayer in general, are there prescribed: yet no mention at all of this Prayer is made. This may be thought to have a show of somewhat: but in effect, it proves nothing, as by divers instances, of the same nature, if search be made, will appear. Act. 20.35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; is mentioned, as one of Christ his memorable say, which yet in none of the fover Evangelists is found. We can make but a negative argument of it, which at the best is of no great validity: but after such evidence of positive proofs, is very impertinent.  
But yet I cannot tell, whether it may so peremptorily be affirmed, that no mention at all, express or implicit, is made of the Lords prayer in the Writings of his Apostles. There may some places be found perchance, where it may not improbably be thought alluded unto by some words. When the Apostles tells us in several places, that this or that is the Will of God: they do it often, and emphatically, sometimes; who can tell, but it was with some tacit reference and allusion, to the words of the Lords prayer, which they knew were daily repeated and assented unto, by those primitive Christians they wrote unto, and therefore might enforce their exhortation to such and such duties, from their own secret consent, included and expressed in their daily prayer? But since this occasion is given me, I shall crave leave I may but propose what, long before I had any the least suspicion, that ever the Lords Prayer should want any defence in England, had been in my thoughts. I profess, I see men take so much liberty, I have no great fancy to new interpretations. I had much rather (were I to write upon the Scripture) defend one old received interpretation upon good grounds of reason, than be the author of two new, though probable. This makes me to suspect the more, what I have to say, because I find it no where. But because it was in my thoughts, as I said before, long before I had any thought of this occasion; in that respect, I suspect it less. In those words of St. Peter, chap. 1. vers. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I have thought it very probable, that he might intent the Lords prayer. First, That the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth properly (and so commonly used in the New Testament) signify, To call upon in prayer; and generally, To pray, will easily be granted I know. Beza translates, Si cognominatis patrem: The words may be translated, If you call upon him as Father, or, If in praying, you call him Father. Well, here is no great alteration in this, from what is commonly received. But what can we infer upon this, that will more particularly concern the Lord's prayer? I ground chiefly upon the words following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which indeed seem to promise least: yea, to cross rather what we would have: but, if well examined, it may prove otherwise. I must here appeal to the Hebrew Idiotism, whereof the New Testament (though written in Greek) is full. As for example, Acts 8.20. (a common example) where the Original hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it is rendered very truly in the English, exceeding fair, without any mention of God, which is in the Original words, and might seem strange to them that are not acquainted with the Hebrew phrase: to them that are, not at all: and so of divers places. Upon this ground of the Hebrew Idiotism, I think it may be said, That to be in heaven, as in the Lord's prayer; (Our Father which art in Heaven:) and, To judge without respect of persous, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) according to every man's work: as in St. Peter, may amount to one and the same sense. For proof whereof, Psalm 115.2, 3. Wherefore should the heathen say, where is now their God? But our God is in the Heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleaseth. The Psalmist, out of doubt, and so expounded by some Ancients, intended by these words, that although God, for some secret causes, best known to himself, did defer the execution of his justice, or just vengeance upon them, who had used his people so and so: yet in heaven he was for all that: wanted neither power, nor will, but in due time would reward them, both them that had done, and them that had surfered wrong, according to their deserts. We say still, when we appeal to God, upon occasion of wrong and oppression, There is a God in Heaven. But if this be not express enough, I hope the next will be. Psalm 7.6, 7. Arise, O Lord, in thine Anger; lift up thyself, because of the rage of mine enemies; and awake for me to the judgement, that thou hast commanded. So shall the congregation of the people compass thee about: for their sakes therefore return thou on High. Return thou on high, that is, to heaven: (so the sense doth require; and all the Rabbins agree:) from whence God, as to the apprehension of men, is supposed to absent himself, when he doth not execute judgement, but suffers the wicked to prevail in this world, as we see he doth often. The Reason of this speech, is, Heaven is, properly, the Throne of God. Heaven is my Throne, the earth is my footstool, (Psalms 66.1.) Now Thrones among men, are chief established for, and by Justice; therefore when God's Justice doth not appear among men, they suppose him, for a time, not to be in his Throne, that is, in Heaven. There be many phrases in Scripture, in the Psalms especially, that have reference to this, which we have spoken of elsewhere (Annot. upon Psalm 7. v. 7.56.2.68.18. & alibi.) Interpreters that observe not this Idiotism, are put to it. I only observe more, that presently after these words in the Psalm, Return thou on high: it follows, The Lord shall judge the people: judge me, O Lord, as if he had said, No sooner is God returned to his place, his Throne, his Heavens, but we shall be sure to hear of Justice, and just judgements executed. The truth is, God is always in Heaven: always just: nay, always doing justice. For what is more just and reasonable, than to suffer them to be exercised in this world, for a while, with temporary afflictions and oppressions; whom he hath destinated to eternal happiness in the Kingdom of heaven? And to suffer them to prevail and prosper, for a while, (though not always so neither: And God knows, how inconsiderable a time, compared to Eternity) who for their wickedness and infidelity, are to undergo such an eternity of darkness and misery? Which is a manifest Token, saith the Apostle, of the righteous judgement of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer, seeing it is a righteous thing with God, etc. And in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Son, remember that thou in thy life time, receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. But these things, though certain and true to the eye of Faith, (confirmed also by sound and solid Reason, if well looked into) yet, not so apprehended, ordinarily. Therefore the Psalmist saith in a place, That God is known (in the world) by the judgements which he executeth. So then, God (in one sense, for we exclude not others, as we shall say by and by;) is said, To be in heaven, to return on high; or, to Heaven: when he doth administer Justice, or just Judgements: or (to speak yet more particularly) When by those judgements he executeth; viz rewarding the good and bad, faithful and Infidels, according to their deeds: he doth manifest himself a just God. According to this sense, those words in the Lord's prayer, Our Father which art in Heaven, are not only alluded unto, but fully paraphrased by St. Peter, when he saith, And if ye call on the Father (or, as we said the words may be rendered, If ye call him Father, when ye pray) who without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time, etc.  
Besides this, the coherence is much better by this interpretation. The Apostle, immediately before, used an argument to press to holiness, because God is holy: and to make his argument more weighty, he quotes Scripture for it: For it is written, be ye holy, etc. He proceeds here, and grounds another duty, to wit, holy fear, upon our relation to God, as a Father. Now though it be true that impartial justice, may belong to a Father: yet the ground of this dependence, and St. Peter's inference, is somewhat obscure, except he allude and ground upon the words in the Lord's prayer, and their connexion there, Our Father, which art in heaven: according to that interpretation, we have spoken of, which to them that St. Peter wrote unto, could not but be familiar enough. And this is as much, as if he had, here also, quoted Scripture. As if he had said: Remember and consider well, that in your daily prayer, prescribed unto you by Christ himself: as you call God, your Father, Our Father; which may seem to promise indulgence: so you add, which art in heaven: to put you in mind, that God is just; impartial, who without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man's work, which as I said, is equivalent to that quotation of Scripture in the former ver. Which nevertheless if it be granted, or supposed to have been St. Peter's meaning, it doth not follow, that those words in the Lord's prayer, which art in heaven: admit of no other sense; or that St. Peter would have it so. It is enough, if the words will bear this sense also, without any violence offered unto them. But this, as I said at first, I propose as not improbable, and no otherwise; not so much in answer to what is objected (which needs it not:) as to contribute somewhat, (occasion being given) towards the right, or at least, probable understanding of a place of Scripture.  
Another Objection is: If those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say ye; must be understood literally, than we must never pray otherwise, but use those very words always: and so, no other prayer, but the Lords prayer, shall be lawful. But this we know is against the practice of all Churches, from the beginning: whence they would infer, etc. Here I shall say, what common sense might suggest, unto any man; It is one thing to underand words literally; another thing, precisely peevishly: or to speak more plainly, maliciously. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: pray always, or without ceasing, 1 Thes. v. 16. But this we know, precisely taken, cannot be: nay, contrary to other places and expressions of Scripture. Therefore the Apostle doth not mean it, of real and literal praying. The Apostle saith: Children, obey your parents in all things. Col. 3.20. but this we know, precisely taken, ought not to be. For Parents may command many things, and do often, contrary to the law of God. Therefore the Apostle intended it not of literal real obedience: or, not of carnal parents. A hundred such places we might produce: but these may suffice to show the absurdity and iniquity of this kind of argumentation. But, I say still: When, and where, there is good evidence for the literal meaning. In doubtful places, a man may use his discretion.  
I say Secondly: By the very circumstances of the Text, it may be gathered, that Christ's answer did not tend unto this, to forbid men other prayers. Teach us to pray, as john did his Disciples, not, teach us to pray; barely, and absolutely. Or, what we shall say when we pray: but, as John taught his Disciples; so teach us also some particular form, whereby we may be known unto others thy Disciples: and which ourselves may use with confidence at all times as an unquestionable, unparallelled form. Teach us: us: in common: such a prayer therefore, that may sit all men, at all times. But we know, that as the condition of men upon earth, (some rich: some poor: some married, etc.) is very different: so must their occasions of praying: nay, the same men have not always the same occasions. Very unlikely therefore, that such a prayer should either be expected by the Disciples, or intended by Christ that should be of such an extent, as should include all particular occasions. But however, if the emphasis of the word used by Christ, to endear this prayer unto us, and to prevent all evasions, had any ambiguity in it: yet God be thanked, there be Scriptures enough, (besides the constant use of the Church,) to take it away, and to satisfy the most scrupulous. Neither, indeed, do I hear of any, (what future times may produce, I know not) that makes any scruple, to pray in a Church with the Assembly; (Quakers, and Anabaptists, I meddle not with:) or in his house, with his family; because Christ hath said, When thou prayest, enter into thy Closet: and when thou hast shut thy door, etc. So that this is a mere cavil. I wish some would take more notice of those words there: Use not vain Repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. The words, I think, are express enough; and I know no inconvenience, that would come of it, but that some men would lose somewhat of that contentment they find in the length of their prayers, upon a pleasing conceit of immediate inspiration.  
But yet after all this, let me add, though the Lords prayer, doth not exclude other prayers, private, or public, not upon particular occasions only, but at no time: and that we have warrant enough from Scripture for such: and that to be able to express himself, upon all occasions, both publicly, and privately (many can privately, who have not the confidence to do it publicly) readily and fluently: but, pertinently, and reverently withal; is to be accounted a great gift: which though all men have not, (not the best; the learnedst sometimes:) yet all men should desire, and honour it in others, that are Orthodox and Religious, (for it is well known, that some that were neither, have had it in a large measure:) yet after all this, I say, I must add, that the Lords Prayer, with little, or no alteration at all, may be used upon particular occasions, whether public or private; yea, and repeated (for which we have Christ's warrant and example: Mat. 26.44. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time saying the same words; O my Father, if 〈◊〉 be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt, verse 39 and 42.) to very good purpose, as I conceive. For when we have once opened our case before God, and what our hearts incline us to desire, being of itself lawful and warrantable: this done, if presently we betake ourselves to the Lords Prayer: Thy Will be done in earth: or as Christ himself, to the same effect; Nevertheless, not my will, but thy Will be done: I think our prayers might prove more acceptable to God, more profitable to us, than often, when we long insist upon our desires. For God knows, such is our ignorance, we seldom know, what is best, or expedient: and it often falls out, that when we have obtained what we prayed for, we have afterwards occasion to curse the hour, that it ever came into our hearts to pray for such things. This is a point that hath been handled by Poets and Philosophers, (as was before intimated:) but very little understood and practised by many Christians: not by them, I am sure, who not only prescribe and press, very peremptorily, what God shall grant: but also are ready to quarrel and expostulate with him, if they have not what they ask. And this is called zeal; when it is done by way of prayer: which would be little better than Blasphemy, in ordinary reasoning.  
We see daily, how many things fall out contrary to expectation. I would ask our brethren, the Scots, (without offence, I hope) when they prayed so zealously in their Churches, for the success of their own, and the English Armies against their Sovereign, they then thought or believed, they prayed for their own confusion: and that the time would come, within few years after, and the same Parliament yet sitting, that we should give God thanks in our Churches, for killing them in the field? Or that Politic noble man, who when trusted by the King to reconcile differences in Scotland, did foment them under hand; would he have thought, when he saw his policy to succeed, and hugged himself in his bosom for it; that the end of it within a while, would be, the losing of his head upon a Scaffold, by those men, whom his plots had raised, and his hands strengthened? There is store of such public examples, which every man may suggest unto himself. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Thus did he pray; but, O the blindness of his mind! In that he prayed, and had; his death and woe did find. Hom] But to insist in more & samiliar private experience. One main subject of private devotions, are Children: Ut sint superstites, that they may live; and according to the course of nature, outlive us. The very word Superstitio, once a good word, (taken for Religion, in general) had its Original from thence, as Cicero somewhere doth teach. Whatsoever is objected by Lactantius, or any other against it, is very impertinent; as to them that are versed in these things, will appear. Most ancient Heathens, when they treat of Superstition, insist upon this particular of Parents. Now if we shall appeal to dauly experience: How many Fathers and Mothers, who prayed for such and such Children, before they had them; or, when sick, or in danger, as the only thing almost that made them happy, and which they would expect from God, in this world at least; afterwards have thought both themselves, and those very Children, had been very happy, if they had never been born, or died young: and that God had been very merciful unto them, if he had not heard their prayers? It is so, of all worldly things. habet has vices conditio mortalium, ut adversa exsecundis; ex adversis, secunda nascantur. Occultat utrorumque semina Deus, & plerumque bonorum malorumque causae sub diversa specie latent. So the Orator, very wisely and truly. How then can it be otherwise? The Comic therefore, not less truly, than elegantly.  Stulti haud scimus, quam frustra simus, quum quod cupienter dari Petimus nobis; quasi quid in rem sit, possimus noscere. Certa amittimus, dum incerta petimus, atque hoc evenit In labour atque in dolore, ut mors obrepat interim. 
How much safer than (as we said before) when we have laid open our case and present apprehensions upon it, before God: to betake ourselves to this Holy Prayer, which from his authority, that commended it to us, and other good considerations that should endear it to us, will both teach and help us, to elevate our hearts from those worldly transitory petty things, Wives, Hu bands, Children, etc. in comparison) into better objects: The glory of our Creator in heaven: the advancement of his Truth, in the world: humble submission to his heavenly Will and Wisdom, in all things, from whom all that is truly good, and nothing but good doth proceed: from which things so thought upon and desired, as we are taught by this Holy Prayer, our own eternal happiness doth depend. And here it may be observed, that whereas; Mat 7.2. it is said, If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your Children: how much more shall your Father, which is in heaven, give things to them that ask him? In St. Luke we find it, If ye then being evil, know how to give good things unto your Children, how much more shall your heavenly Father, give the holy Spirit to them that ask him: as if, (heavenly things, increase of Grace,) that, the only thing either considerable, or that we can safely & securely pray for. And if we so use the Lords Prayer, with these thoughts; this preparation of heart; we may (I said before) if occasion be, use it often in one day, to our great comfort, and with less superstition I dare say, than some others their Battologies, or affected long prayers, condemned both in the Old and New Testament. All this while I have not forgotten what St. James saith, The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man, availeth much. Elias was a man, etc. Though somewhat might be said to that particular case: there be extraordinary times and occasions; yea, and persons too: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: of the same nature, as we are; Mortals, similes aliis (as the vulgar Latin very well, Acts 14.15. not Gods) yet endowed with extraordivary zeal, and raised of purpose sometimes, for some extraordinary Act: but we have said enough already, to prevent Calumny, as though we disliked others, whilst we commend and vindicate the Lords prayer.  
To tell us, that this prayer hath been, or is yet, (being mumbled upon beads, in an unknown language, and the like) much abused, and to make that an objection against the use of it, after it hath been so clearly proved, that no one duty of Christian Religion, can pretend to more evidence, of either Scripture-authority, or universal consent: every man that is not very simple and ignorant, must needs understand, what will be the consequent of such an argument. For what was ever, or is yet more abused, than the divine Scriptures; what more than praying or preaching? what more than Religion in genetal? under the mask whereof, what mischiefs? what miscarriages, both public and private have been contrived? What indeed is so generally abhorred among men, that hath not been acted under that sacred name? Neither is it so among Christianr only. Look into ancient stories, when Paganism was the Religion of the world: look into latter stories of the Turks, or any other Nation: even now the present divisions of the Turks among themselves (as our News books tell us) go under the name of Religion and Reformation: Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum: in every man's mouth, and observation. And of Christian Religion particularly, we are told in some late Relations, that the Turks themselves, (some of them, at least) confefs Christian Religion, to have been a good Religion for a long time, till it came to be corrupted, and abused by the Professors of it: which, they say, made God to send Mahomes, to establish a new. This may serve for a warning to others: sober men will not use such arguments.  
We did promise, Mr. Perkins before. his words are these, And whereas sundry men in our Church (I must appeal to the knowledge of them that know more than I; for in all my time, I never heard of any: except, Mr. Perkins understood, men that were borne of the Church of England; but since divided from it, by faction and singularity: such as the forenamed Johnson; and his adherents) 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, as will appear by their reasons. First, say they, it is Scripture; and therefore not to be used as a Prayer. I answer: that the same thing may be the Scripture of God, and also the prayer of man: else, the prayers of Moses, David, and Paul, being set down in the Scripture; cease to be prayers. again say they: That in prayer we are to express our Wants in particular, and the Graces which we desire. Now in those words, all things to be prayed for, are only in general propounded: I answer. That the main wants that are in any man, and the principal Graces of God to be desired, are set down in the petitions of this prayer in particular. Thirdly, they plead, that the pattern to make all prayer by, should not be used as a Prayer. I answer, that therefore the rather it may beused as a Prayer: & sure it is, that ancient, and worthy Divines, have reverenced it as a prayer, choosing rather to use these words, than any other: as Cyprian De Orat. Domini, and Tertul. lib. de sugâ in persecut. and August. serm. 12.6, de tempore. Wherefore this opinion is full of ignorance and error. So he. You may see by the beginning, that Mr. Perkins had no mind (by acknowledging them of the Church of England, in those days) to deal with them, as another man might have thought they had deserved. Yet it is somewhat, that even he did charge them of gross ignorance, and error.  
I have done with objections. There may be more, but I do not think them considerable: and there will be no end, if we must hear, or the Reader be told, what any man can say. I will conclude all with those excellent words (though indeed the substance of them is in St. Cyprian) I find in the book entitled, A Collection of Private Devotions etc. often printed: (and well deserving it:) in the preface of it: A prayer [the Lords prayer] whereby we have not only Christ's own name, to countenance our suits (in whose name if we ask any thing, we shall have it: saith the Gospel:) but Christ's own words also, who himself is our Advocate: and being best acquainted with the Laws, and phrases of his Father's Court, hath drawn up such a Bill for us, both for matter and form, as shall make our supplications acceptable and prevalent with Almighty God. And though men should speak with Angels tongues, yet words so pleasing to the ears of God, as those which the Son of God did compose, cannot possibly be uttered, nor any prayers so well framed, as those that are made by this pattern.  
FINIS.   

The Letter mentioned, and promised here, Pag. 84.  
Reverendo viro, D. Merico Casaubono, Presbytero, Canonico Ecclesiae Primitialis Cantuariensis.  
Vir Reverende,  
Animarum te curam gerere, nec Cantuariensium tantum & Anglicarum, sed & externarum, satis ostendunt, tot missa ad me munera, talia omnia, ex quibus & ego possim fieri melior, & alii qui per me beneficii tui participes fient. Theophylactus, Graecorum ante se compendium, velut vox est Graecae Ecclesiae, Pauli sensa bona fide custodita, nobis exhibens. Acta Regem vestrum optimum, Scotosque inter, non quidem efficient, ut ego motus illos feroces, imo feros, quos damnavi semper, magis damnem; sed ut quod mihi semper visum fuit, aliis etiam firmè persuadeam. Multum autem refert existimationis Regiae, haec acta verti in Gallicum sermonem, nec quiescam donec ei labori aliquem idoneum invenero, & ad id animavero. Richardi Hookeri scripta, ante annos multos vidi; & quanquam in sermone mihi non percognito, facile cognovi exactissimi operis utilitatem: quae tanta est, ut hunc quoque librunt verti, sed in latinum sermonem pervelim. Quaeram si quis hic est, qui idefficere cupiat. Caeterum & tibiid ipsum cordi esse velim. Anglicana versio libri nostri pro veritate Religionis Christianae, valde mihi placet, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ego eundem librum latine rursus nunc editurio, additis pro mantissa testimoniis, ad quae liber respicit. Paro & de jure belli ac pacis editionem novam, cum novorum testimoniorum, quos fine libri, annotationum vice, subnectam, ingenti accessione. Heinsiana ad Novum Testamentum ubi accepero, (expecto autem in horas) cogitabo, an aliquid nobis quod dicamus, reliqui fecerit. Quod Johannis Reigersbergii, hospitis quondam tui, memor esse pergis, in eo rem mihi pergratam, ac tua summa bonitate dignam facis: est is nunc in patria sua, quoquo iturus est, circumlaturus semper secum mentem plenam sensu beneficiorum tuorum. Literae viri supra omnem praedicationem positi, patris tui, multum hic leguntur. Si quas habes praeter editas, aut aliorum ad ipsum argumentosiores, eas si publico dones, multos demerearis, me autem potissimum, ejus quae in ipso eluxit, pietatis simul atque eruditionis, maximum admiratorem. Mitto tibi quas habet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut Patris, ita tui amantissimus, Labbaeus. Si qua repererim alia, etiam eorum te faciam participem, semperque aut ostendam, aut cupiam certe ostendere, quanti & maximum patrem fecerim, & faciam ejus vestigiis tam faeliciter insistentemfilium. Lutetiae, 19 Septembris: M. DC. XXXIX.  
Tuus toto animo, H. GROTIUS.