1

feems very probable to me that he did not. And this I am fure of that he might very well fulfil að the Righteousness of that Law, under which he was born, without it: So that there was no absolute Neceffity of his doing it, in order to acquit himself in that particular; which yet is all that can poffibly be faid of his Obligation to do so.

If we take in the rest of these 18 Forms, it will be ftill more Improbable, that ever our Bleffed Lord fhould join in them; for either they are proper for none but finful and guilty Creatures, of which Number he was not; or they speak of a Saviour to come, or have fome other Circumftance attending them, which renders it very Improbable that he fhould ever make use of them, as any one will fee who confults them.

The Evangelical Hiftory is wholly filent upon this Head: It does not fpeak one Word of his joining in their Prayers in the Synagogues. It tells us indeed of his going thither very frequently, and mentions several things which he did there, as reading, interpreting, teaching, preaching, and working Mi. racles, but fays not one Word of his praying with them there. And tho' I would not prefs this Argument too far, yet give me leave to fay, that it feems to me an unaccountable Silence, in Case he did join with the Jews in their Prayers; and efpecially if (as you must fuppofe to make any thing of your Argument from it,) he defigned thereby to fet After-Ages an Example of joining in Set Forms in the Worship of God. It is true, his Hiftory does not fay that he did not join in the Jewith Forms, any more than that he did. But certainly the matter would not have been left dubious, but plainly related; at least the Probabilities would not have been greater against his joining in them, if he had defigned to lead us by his Example to join in fuch Forms.

To

To conclude this Head, if he did join in them, I would ask, Whether he did it in their Way too? Which is to me a very material Queftion to be anfwered, in order to put an end to the Controversy between you and us. And here to omit other Cir

cumstances, that went along with the ufe of thefe Prayers, (as the going three Steps back, and bowing mohun at five times very low, viz. at the Beginning and End of m the First Benediction, at the Beginning and End of the Benedi&io Media, and at the Conclufion of all. Vitringa, p. 1086) let me ask only, whether be faid them over privately to himself, before they were faid publickly by the Legatus Ecclefia, or the Perfon that officiated in the reciting of them? It can hardly be fuppofed that he fhould, fince it was altogether needlefs, and withal fuperftitious. If he did not, what becomes of his Conformity, or how can it be urg'd upon us? He conformed but in part at moft to the Matter, and not at all to the Manner: Such Conformity our Churchmen, I believe, would not be fatisfy'd with from us. He ufed them, fay you; but it was not in their way; what is this then to us who are to ufe your Forms in your way exactly, or else not at all?

And now, if our Saviour did not conform to the Jewish Liturgy, as it is very probable he did not; the Diffenters will have all the Advantage of his Example on their Side, which you pretend to lie on your's; and we can turn this Argument against you, as you have done against us: And if we were difpos'd to triumph, could do it here with as good a Grace as ever you have done.

Thus much for the Ground-work of your Reafoning with us; which being render'd precarious, at leaft, the Confiderations you infer from it would not need to be examined, till that is better fupported. But, however, to fhew how good a Caufe we have, I will give you that which indeed you have C

no

no right to; and fuppofe, for Argument fake, that the bleffed Jefus did join with the Jews in their Liturgy's and proceed to examine the two Inferences you draw from it, for the Confideration of the Diffenters.

The First is this, That our Saviour disliked not Set Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship. But what this fignifies to us, I can't fee. For we don't dislike them neither, any farther than he; but are perfectly of the fame Mind with him, as far as we can judge, in this particular. And I am glad for your own Sake, as well as ours, that you have exprefs'd your felf with fo much Caution and Prudence here. You only fay, that he disliked not Set Forms, not that he approved of them intirely, or that they were his Choice, as fome have inferred from your very Premifes. But it was certainly more than they had Reafon for. For fuppofe that he joined in the ufe of Set Forms, all that can follow from thence by any neceffary Confequence, is, that he did not think Set Forms Unlawful, or at that time Inexpedient; not that he was fond of them, or preferred them to our way of Pray ing, by any Means. For if his actual joining in Set Forms fhowed his intire Approbation of them, in Oppofition to our way of Praying; then his actual joining in thofe mean Forms, as you call them, muft Thow his intire Approbation of mean ones too, and that in oppofition to Forms drawn up with more Judgment and Care.

But to apply this to the purpofe to which it is intended. If you defign here to reconcile the Dif fenters to the ufe of Set Forms as Lauful, and fometimes Expedient, it is needlefs; if you defign to reconcile them to the ufe of Set Forms as Preferable to that of Free Prayer, this Argument from the fuppofed Practice of our Lord will not ferve his Purpofe. For he disliked not our way of Prayer neither, as I fhall make to appear prefently by his Ufe of it. And therefore this is no Reason to quit our way

of

of praying for that: Because it ftands upon the fame foot with that, in refpect of Chrift's Example, whatever it may do upon other Accounts.

But to leave your First Inference, which concerns only Forms in General, about the Lawfulness or Expediency of which, in fome Cafes, we have no difpute with you; I proceed to your

Second Inference, which is this, That he was contènted to join with the Publick in the Meanest Forms, rather than feparate from it. For thofe 18 Forms, in comparifon of those now used in our Church, are very fejune and Empty Forms. And to prove this, you exhibit a Copy of them. Now the Defign of this, is to let us fee, that the Meannefs of any particular Forms is no fufficient Objection against Conformity to them, but that Perfons ought to be contented to join with the Publick in fuch, rather than feparate from it. I fay, that they ought to be fo, not only that they may be fo. For otherwife it will not ferve your Pur pose. Which is to reconcile the Diffenters to the Church Forms, even tho' they take them to be mean ones. Now to this I have the following Things to reply:

1. It does not appear that thofe Set Forms which the bleffed Jefus joined with the Publiek in, were so Mean as you reprefent them to be. Not those 18 particularly. And if we may judge of the reft by them, I can't but think they were far from defpicable, efpecially at that time of Day. And I cannot but fay with Vitringa * -dignam (Liturgiam Judaicam fcil.) que a Chriftianis cognofcatur: quorum plurimi utinam Sacra non multo tepidius & negligentiùs tractarent quam Judai. And I find him difpleafed with Buxtorf, for ridiculing fome others of their Forms as Mean C 2

as

* Tom. 2. Cap. 17, ad fin.

as thefe t, fo much as he has done. That they were Jejune and Empty indeed in Comparison of what our Saviour could have compofed himself, I readily allow: And that they were fo too in Comparison. of what the Forms of the Ch. of E. might be brought to. But that they are so in Comparison of what the English Forms are at prefent, I muft beg leave to diffent; tho' I would not allow my felf to difparage the Church Forms, out of Conscience as well as Prudence.

Suppofing them to have been fo Mean as you reprefent them, and that the bleffed Jefus was content to join with the Publick in them notwithstanding, rather than feparate, this can be no fufficient Argument for us to join with the Publick in thofe that we think fo, because fuch Forms would hinder our Edification more than they could his, who needed no fuch Helps for Edification as we do; and because they are more unfuitable to the Difpenfation under which we live, than those were to that under which he lived. And this Alteration of Circum. ftances makes a vast difference between his Cafe and our's.

3. It is here fuppofed, that our Lord was afraid of Separation, that he apprehended it to be bad, and therefore that it was better for him to submit to fome Inconveniences than to run into it, and that upon this Principle he was contented to join in the Pubnk in the Meanest Forms. But how does all this appear? What Foundation is there for it? It is all gratis dictum, and ought to be made out before it can affect us.

But

Videmus, quam fanctè & decorè secundum Instituta Vete rum Sacra Synagogaram exercita funt; que proin' nullam merentur Irrifionem aut Contemptum, cui illa fæpe exponit Cl. Buxtorfius, ceteroquin per Synagogam fuam de Ecclefia Meri tiffimus, fed potius attentè a nobis confidcrari. p.963.