« AnteriorContinuar »
fame time a most strict Injunction against the Custom of the Heathen, who thought they should be heard for saying the same things over and over, and therefore he exprefly charges his Followers, V. 7. When ye pray use not vain Repetitions, as the Heathen do.' And v.9. After this Manner therefore pray ye, he doth not say, In the same Form of Words. Nor does it appear by Scripture, that the Disciples so used it; who yet, as the Vicar says, It cannot be supposed, did not make use • of it as he commanded them.
Our Opponent tells us, p. 188. that, “The Meaning of that Text of St. Paul, Rom. viii. • 26. Of the Spirit's helping our Infirmities, for we
know not what we foould pray for as we ought ; and of the Spirit it self making Intercession for us with Groanings which cannot be uttered, is, as ap
pears from the Scope of the Place, that whereas « we know not what we should pray for as we < ought, as to what concerns the Matter of tem< poral Amictions, and our Deliverance from
thein, whether that will be most profitable for 6 us ; the Spirit helps this our Infirmity and Ig« norance, by inciting us to pray in general for « that which in this Respect God shall see best for
If the Reader, upon perusing that Chapter with Care and Deliberation, can perceive the Scope of the Place to be concerning the Matter of temporal Afictions and our Deliverances from them. Our Adversary's Interpretation may have some Weight with him.' But to us, who can see no such Scope, it appears to be a mere Perversion, to caft. a Mift before his Readers Eyes, lest he should discern the true Import of that Text.
To our opponent's Query, p. 189. viz. · Are s we not required to watch unto Prayer? į Pet: civ. 7. And what is this but to wait for the sea.
fonable Time to pray, when the Spirit moves
thereunto?' Robert Barclay's own Words in the Place cited are a sufficient Answer, (x) · That • there is a Necessity of this inward Retirement of 'the Mind, as previous to Prayer, that the Spirit
may be felt to draw thereunto, appears for that, in most of those Places, where Prayer is
commanded, Watching is prefixed thereunto as ' necessary to go before, as Matth. xxiv. 42.
Mark xiii. 33. and xiv. 38. Luke xxi. 36. from < which it is evident, that this watching was to go • before Prayer.
Now to what End is this Watching, or what is it, but a Waiting to feel · God's Spirit to draw unto Prayer, that so it
may be done acceptably ? For since we are to pray always in the Spirit, and cannot pray of
our selves without it acceptably, this Watching 6 must be for this End recommended to us, as pre• ceding Prayer, that we may watch and wait į for the seasonable Time to pray; which is when • the Spirit moves thereunto. THE Vicar's next Query is,
Ought we al. ' ways to express our thankful Acknowledgment < of the Bounty and Goodness of God to us be« fore and after Meat; and to pray for his Blef
sing on what he affords us for the Support of our
That it is our common Duty, who are always partaking of the Bounty and Goodness of God,
to retain a deep and grateful Sense thereof upon our Spirits at all times, and to implore with humble Hearts his Blessing upon all the Merits and Favours we receive, we do most heartily acknowledge.
But that we must at some fer Times and Places express before Men a formal Thanksgiving in Words without any particular Impulse and Motion of the Spirit to it, our Adversary has not proved to be our common Duty. The Texts he produces make nothing against us, who are as much for receiving theCreatures of God with Thanksgiving as himself ; nor do the Examples of our Saviour, and St. Paul, which he produces, in the least strengthen his Cause, unless he can make appear that they gave Thanks without a particular Impulse and Motion of the Spirit to it, which we suppose he will not undertake. But he adds,
And he, St. Paul, speaks of it as a common
Practice among Chriftians, when he says, He " that eateth, eateth to the Lord, or to his Glory, < for he giveth God Thanks, Rom. xiv. 6.' But if the giving God Thanks, in this Place, doth shew that it was a common Practice among Christians, to say a formal Grace at Meals. It will necessarily follow that they also said a formal Grace, when they did not eat, for the Apostle immediately adds, And be that eateth not, to the Lord be eateth not, and giveth God Thanks. Such Absurdi. ties our Opponent runs himself upon, by applying Texts of Scripture to Matters they have no Relation to
Page 149. To this Question, “ Are we to of• fer up all our Prayers and Petitions to God in < the Name of Jesus of Nazareth the Son of
We acknowledge, as well as our Adversary, that the Man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and Man, 1 Tim. ii. 15. that our Prayers and Praises to God are to be offered
up his Name, and that through him we have access to the Father; and that our Acceptance with the Father is through his Mediation and Intercession ; and whatsoever else the Scriptures declare concerning him, as that he took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, and was born at Bethlehem in Judea ; that Joseph, his reputed Father, afterward came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth ; on Account of whose residing there, he is frequently called in Scripture, Jesus of Nazareth ; and that the Jews offended at the Meanness of his Parentage, in way of Derision, or Contempt, faid of him, Is not this the Son of Mary? Mark. vi: 3. But that the Scripture requires of us to use that Epithet, the Son of Mary, in all our Prayers and Praises to God, the Vicar will never prove; certainly he might have found other Appellations given to Christ, more properly expreffive of the divine Honour due to him, than that of the Son of Mary, which the Jews chose to, deride him by, and which we find not any where else expresy used in holy Writ. For though the Title of Mother of Jesus be there given in Honour to Mary, yet the Title of Son of Mary is not so given to Fesus.
The next Query proposed is, P. 191. " May • we offer up our Prayers directly, to Jesus the • Son of Mary himself as a Person without us,
now bodily existing in Heaven without us, as
well as to the Father in his Name?' For this he cites W. Bayley's Deep to Deep, P: 30. Upon examining that Author we do not find the Terms of the Vicar's Question used by him; he says inS 3
deed, that Christ taught his Disciples to pray, Our Father, &c. not to look at his Perfon, and pray to him as a Person without them, but bid them pray to their Father which seeth in secret, who would reward them openly. So that what W. Bayley says, viz. That Christ in teaching his Disciples to pray, did not bid them look at his Person, and pray to him as a Person without them, is a most evident Truth, and such as our Adversary was not able to gainsay, without first disguising it by Alteration and Addition of Terms.
As to our Adversary's long Answer to this unfair Query, p. 191. 192. we can readily subscribe to all the Texts by him cited, which oug to be sufficient to satisfy him, unless he mean somewhat more than the plain Import of them ; wherein, we are by no Means bound to follow him, 'Tis certain, none of those Texts do expresly mention that Title, the Son of Mary, nor direct us to make use of it in our Prayers or Invocrations, when we call on the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Page 193. The Vicar asks, ' What do you " think then of that Saying of a Quaker, Not to Jesus the Son of Abraham, David, and Mary,
Saints or Angels, but to God the Father, all « Worship Glory and Honour is to be given,
through Jesus Christ. For which he cites W. Shewen's Treatise of Thought, p. 37.
But what will the Reader think of him, if it shall appear that he disingenuously takes Advantage from a small Typographical Error to mifrepresent the Quaker ; and that he so does, we shall evince, by tranfcribing the whole Passage of Il'. Shewen as it stands in his Treatise of Thoughts,