« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
fame time a moft ftrict Injunction against the Cuftom of the Heathen, who thought they should be heard for faying the fame things over and over, and therefore he exprefly charges his Followers, v. 7. When ye pray ufe not vain Repetitions, as the Heathen do. And v. 9. After this Manner therefore pray ye, he doth not fay, In the fame Form of Words. Nor does it appear by Scripture, that the Disciples fo ufed it; who yet, as the Vicar fays, It cannot be fuppofed, did not make use of it as he commanded them.
OUR Opponent tells us, p. 188. that, Meaning of that Text of St. Paul, Rom. viii. • 26. Of the Spirit's helping our Infirmities, for we know not what we bould pray for as we ought; and of the Spirit it felf making Interceffion for us with Groanings which cannot be uttered, is, as ap८ pears from the Scope of the Place, that whereas we know not what we fhould pray for as we ought, as to what concerns the Matter of tem. poral Afflictions, and our Deliverance from them, whether that will be most profitable for us; the Spirit helps this our Infirmity and Ignorance, by inciting us to pray in general for that which in this Respect God shall see best for
If the Reader, upon perufing that Chapter with Care and Deliberation, can perceive the Scope of the Place to be concerning the Matter of temporal Afflictions and our Deliverances from them. Our Adverfary's Interpretation may have fome Weight with him. But to us, who can fee no fuch Scope, it appears to be a mere Perversion, to caft a Mift before his Readers Eyes, left he should discern the true Import of that Text.
To our Opponent's Query, p. 189. viz. Are we not required to watch unto Prayer? 1 Pet: iv. 7. And what is this but to wait for the feafonable Time to pray, when the Spirit moves thereunto? Robert Barclay's own Words in the Place cited are a fufficient Answer, (x) That there is a Neceffity of this inward Retirement of the Mind, as previous to Prayer, that the Spirit may be felt to draw thereunto, appears for that, in moft of thofe Places, where Prayer is commanded, Watching is prefixed thereunto as neceffary 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 fince we are to pray always in the Spirit, and cannot pray of our felves without it acceptably, this Watching muft be for this End recommended to us, as preceding Prayer, that we may watch and wait for the feasonable Time to pray, which is when the Spirit moves thereunto.
THE Vicar's next Query is, Ought we always to exprefs our thankful Acknowledgment of the Bounty and Goodness of God to us be⚫fore and after Meat; and to pray for his Blef& fing on what he affords us for the Support of our frail Bodies, without a particular Motion and Impulse of the Spirit to it?"
He anfwers, Yes, because it is our common
THAT it is our common Duty, who are always partaking of the Bounty and Goodness of God,
(*) Apol. p. 396.
to retain a deep and grateful Sense thereof upon our Spirits at all times, and to implore with humble Hearts his Bleffing upon all the Merits and Favours we receive, we do moft heartily acknowledge.
BUT that we must at fome fet Times and Places exprefs before Men a formal Thanksgiving in Words without any particular Impulfe and Motion of the Spirit to it, our Adverfary 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 Thankfgiving as himself; nor do the Examples of our Saviour, and St. Paul, which he produces, in the least strengthen his Caufe, unless he can make appear that they gave Thanks without a particular Impulfe and Motion of the Spirit to it, which we fuppofe he will not undertake. But he adds,
And he, St. Paul, fpeaks 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 fhew that it was a common Practice among Chriftians, to fay a formal Grace at Meals. It will neceffarily follow that they also faid a formal Grace, when they did not eat, for the Apoftle immedi ately adds, And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God Thanks. Such Abfurdi. ties our Opponent runs himself upon, by applying Texts of Scripture to Matters they have no Relation to.
Page 149. To this Queftion, Are we to of fer up all our Prayers and Petitions to God in Name of Jefus of Nazareth the Son of
We acknowledge, as well as our Adverfary, 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 in his Name, and that through him we have accefs to the Father; and that our Acceptance with the Father is through his Mediation and Interceffion; and whatsoever elfe the Scriptures declare concerning him, as that he took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, and was born at Bethlehem in Judea; that Jofeph, his reputed Father, afterward came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth; on Account of whose refiding there, he is frequently called in Scripture, Jefus of Nazareth; and that the Jews offended at the Meannefs of his Parentage, in way of Derifion, 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 chofe to deride him by, and which we find not any where else exprefly ufed in holy Writ. For though the Title of Mother of Jefus be there given in Honour to Mary, yet the Title of Son of Mary is not fo given to Jefus.
THE next Query propofed is, p. 191. May we offer up our Prayers directly, to Jefus the Son of Mary himself as a Perfon without us, now bodily exifting 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 in
deed, that Chrift taught his Difciples to pray, Our Father, &c. not to look at his Perfon, and pray to him as a Perfon without them, but bid them pray to their Father which feeth in fecret, who would reward them openly. So that what W. Bayley fays, viz. That Chrift in teaching his Difciples to pray, did not bid them look at his Perfon, and pray to him as a Perfon without them, is a moft evident Truth, and fuch as our Adverfary was not able to gainfay, without first disguifing it by Alteration and Addition of Terms.
As to our Adverfary's long Answer to this unfair Query, p. 191. 192. we can readily fubfcribe to all the Texts by him cited, which ought to be fufficient to fatisfy him, unless he mean fomewhat more than the plain Import of them; wherein, we are by no Means bound to follow him. 'Tis certain, none of thofe Texts do exprefly 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 Jefus Chrift our Lord.
Page 193. THE Vicar asks, • What do you think then of that Saying of a Quaker, Not to Jefus 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 Jefus Chrift.' For which he cites W. Shewen's Treatife of Thought, p. 37.
BUT what will the Reader think of him, if it fhall appear that he difingenuously takes Advantage from a fmall Typographical Error to mifreprefent the Quaker; and that he fo does, we shall evince, by tranfcribing the whole Paffage of W. Shewen as it ftands in his Treatife of Thoughts,