Liturgy P. 6. instead of intimating that he intended to reform the old method of praying by Forms did shew his approbation of praying to God in a prescribed Form But he might with as much clearness have pusht his inference from those premises further viz. That he did shew his approbation at least of his Followers composing Forms of Prayer if they are to compose any for constant publick use only out of the Jewish Liturgies I may further mind you that the Doctor doth ordinarily discourse too loosely concerning Forms of Prayer as not being mindful of what he hath undertaken to discourse of For if he find any words used in Prayer which were to be met with any where else before those words he alledges for proof that the whole Prayer was a Form Thus Christ used a Form of Prayer on the Cross saith the Doctor extracted out of the 22d P. 7. Psalm which begins My God my God why hast thou forsaken me But pray who did extract the Petitions and put them into a Form for him and oblige him even on that occasion to use no other words but what were ready provided to his hand In the next Paragraph the Doctor freely grants P. 9. that the Lords Prayer is not only a Form but also a direction to draw other Forms by so that we are not confined to the use of this Prayer but have Liturgies which are drawn up by the Lords Prayer But if we are not limited to the Lords Prayer but may use Liturgies which are no other words but such as are agreeable to it both as to the Form and Matter of them which is but an odd sort of expression to fall from a Learned Doctor why may not Ministers keeping to the direction of the Lords Prayer use other words than those which are in the Liturgy as well as those who are for Liturgies may use other words then those which are in the Lords Prayer This Concession we have from the Doctor upon his taking notice that Mr. Clarkson had said that the Lords Prayer was antiently used but not out of any apprehension that Christ did P. 3 4. in Mat. 6. injoyn his Disciples to use it Mr. Clarkson shews that some eminent persons both antient and more late Writers were of this opinion whether his quoting so many for that particular was to the purpose I leave the indifferent Reader to determine But because the Doctor saith Maldonat only tells us P. 11. we are not always bound to use those very words I would desire you to take notice that Maldonat's words are Non his necessario verbis c. Which I conceive do rather signifie we are not absolutely bound to use those very words at any time But take the words if you please according to the Doctors interpretation if he think Maldonat in the right provided such a construction may be borrowed for his words that is That we are not always bound to use our Lords very words I would gladly know then how we came to be bound to use always other people's words The Doctor next speaks of a Gift of Prayer which he represents as if we were to understand by it an extraordinary assistance of the Spirit to teach men new words and phrases in ordinary cases and for their daily prayers Whereas by the gift of Prayer no more is meant than an Ability to represent the sentiments of a Soul duly affected with the general and particular subject matters of Prayer in proper and suitable expressions and such as are proper to beget and excite and improve such Resentments and Affections in those who shall hear and join in the use of them for that purpose The gift of Prayer soberly considered does not imply any necessity as the Doctor hints constantly to vary and use all new words Indeed the exercise of this gift cannot very well consist with an obligation constantly to use the very same words Nor is it usually pretended that this is an extraordinary gift of the Spirit but as by the blessing of the Spirit the Heart or Soul comes to have a lively apprehension and affectionate sense of what is to be subject matter of prayer so the person who is thus inwardly disposed hath ordinarily a readiness to express himself in words which bear some proportions to the disposition of his Soul and Spirit and which are very proper to kindle and excite the like affections dispositions and inclinations in others who do seriously attend unto them Tho there are some particular words very pertinent to be used in prayer for general or particular mercies yet there may be other words every jot as pertinent which being used as occasion offers may be more serviceable and contribute more to further the common or more appropriate end of Publick Prayer than the constant use of the other words The Lords Prayer doth comprehend the whole of Prayer But yet those who are most for Liturgies are for having other Forms framed wherein the same things are asked in other words Now those judicious persons who pray for the same things which are prayed for in prescribed Forms without tying themselves up strictly to the words used in those Forms do differ no more from the Forms which have not their words in them than those Forms do from the Lords Prayer And if the variation of Forms from the Lords Prayer may be truly beneficial and advantagious unto the people why may not the like variations from Humane Forms be equally advantagious I will propound one thing the more to explain this matter which more nearly relates to the Doctor He hath paraphrased the several Prayers in our common-Common-Prayer Book so that the particular Prayers in that Book are by his labour and industry and gift made larger and expressed in other words The same things are requested c. in his larger Prayers which are requested in the shorter Prayers in our Common Book Now let him consider whether he had not such apprehensions and affections in his mind and soul relating to the particulars petitioned and confessed c. in the Prayers contained in our Common Book at that time as he thought might be more commodiously and advantagiously expressed and represented than they were by the words used in the Book Or whether such expressions did not occur to him as he thought would if duly attended to help peoples devotions more than the very words of the Common Prayers would by themselves He certainly had some design in varying and altering the words and I am willing to believe he had an honest design Now if his using other expressions about the same matter and altering Forms of Prayer so as to make of short Prayers long ones is of real use to promote devotion why may not others variations be in their measure useful too If it should be said that his variations are not to be used publickly I ask whether they be ever the better for that Or whether his variations are the more useful because
only for private use What hinders but if those variations are proper to answer the ends for which they were devised viz. the helping of people to perform the duty of Prayer with more understanding and better affections other variations in publick may be equally useful If P. 16. as the Doctor doth grant every good man may by the ordinary assistance of the spirit be moved to pray with Devotion and Fervency That is as I conceive may have his soul enlightned and possessed with a true apprehension and knowledge of his spiritual concernments and vigorously affected with them and carried out towards God in fervent desires inclinations and affections suitably to his present occasions What reason can be rendered why he may not by the ordinary assistance of the spirit be inabled to express his inward resentments in proper expressions The gift of utterance being the gift of the spirit as well as other gifts Mens discourses are usually answerable to their apprehensions and affections What we darkly apprehend we express obscurely and what we understand distinctly and clearly we discourse of plainly The principal thing indeed in Prayer is the frame and actings of our Souls the inward exercise of Faith Repentance Love and other Graces But saith the Doctor any good man may act these in the use of a Form And therefore may pray in or by the Spirit in the use of a Form But I say it must still be noted that if a man be to pray with others and that which we are now discoursing is concerning one that by way of Office is to perform this duty in the hearing of others so as to have them joyn with him in this performance he must use words and if he restrain himself to the words devised and put together by others and these words do not so well express and represent the sense he hath and which others should have of what is the matter of Prayer as others which do occur unto him and which he could very pertinently make use of for that purpose he cannot be truly said to pray in or by the Spirit according to the full import of that phrase But saith the Doctor then no man in the Publick Assemblies doth pray in the Spirit but the Minister for the Minister alone conceives the Prayer and it is a Form to the whole Congregation who must pray in his words To which I answer That the matter in dispute at present is only concerning him that officiates Besides it is not a Form to the Congregation taking a Form in the sense we are now discoursing of But the Congregation may joyn in the Spiritual Performance of this Duty acting graces suitably to the occasions which are administred and improving for this purpose the Abilities God hath bestowed upon others in order to the furthering and promoting of their devotion This is the work which pertains unto the Congregation at that time they not being called to express vocally their inward resentments during the Ministers officiating in this performance in the fittest expressions they are able The Doctor seems to be of the opinion that in the Apostles days there was an extraordinary gift of Prayer which some did partake of and that their Prayers were Divine Revelations They being immediately furnished by the Spirit both with the Matter and Words of their Prayers and that these Prayers were written down and after that gift failed they were preserved and used by the Church and were transmitted down to us by their Successors So that by this sort of discoursing our Liturgies are Divine Revelations But the Doctor hath none of the Ancients but St. Chrysostom to vouch for an Extraordinary Gift of Prayer in the Primitive Times This is certain before the Liturgies now extant or any part of them which is not expresly contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament will be owned by good Christians and sound Protestants for Divine Revelations very substantial particular proof must be made of their being such To father Liturgies in such an arrogant presumptuous manner on the Holy Spirit is not the way to bring them into credit with judicious and serious people It may effectually provoke God to pour forth in a little time so much contempt upon them they shall never get into repute any more This is further certain that our latest Liturgies have some prayers in them which by the very make of them any ordinary person may perceive they were not composed by Divine Inspiration And if the other could be proved to be of such an original surely these will not deserve to be thought the more venerable meerly because they have been added unto them Having said thus much concerning some passages in the Doctors Introduction before he enters upon the First Century I will now briefly consider the Testimonies he doth alledge for Liturgies In the First Century And he labours first of all to prove what he hath undertaken P. 28 c. by asserting that the Essenes who have been believed by divers learned men to be Christians had Forms of Prayer for Josephus saith they used Prayers which they received from their Forefathers which must be Forms and Philo saith they did sing alternately and Eusebius calls these the Hymns sung amongst us Christians And that excellent Historian labours to prove these Essenes were Christians by this Argument amongst some others Because they prayed and sung Hymns in set Forms as the Christians use to do Euscb Hist lib. 2. c. 17. Thus far the Doctor And I do readily acknowledge that Fusebius doth indeavour from what he sinds in Philo to prove the Essenes to be Christians And particularly from their way of singing Psalms and Hymns But he doth not say one word of their having set Forms of Prayers That they prayed in set Forms as the Christians use to do is the Doctor 's own saying for Fusebius doth neither say the Essenes had Forms of Prayers nor that the Christians did use any And yet Eusebius doth say That Philo's Book doth comprehend in it the Rules of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Valefius thinks this doth import that that Book did contain in it all the Rules or Canons which were observed by the Christian Church in Eusebius's time Further Eusebius doth gather out of that Book what he thought was proper to shew how exactly these Essenes and the Christians did agree in their Ecclesiastical Affairs as he himself assures us in the Chapter before referred unto And yet saith not one word of praying by set Forms which rather intimates there were no set Forms of Prayer used by the Christians in his time seeing he omits the mention of the Forms the Essenes used if as Josephus reports the Essenes had Forms of Prayer In the next place the Doctor thinks he hath a proof of Liturgies in Clemens Romanus But whoever considers Clemens will soon perceive that the passages the Doctor hath been pleased to quote are nothing at all to the present purpose
Strom. lib. 6. p. 665. Now Clemens tells us that the true Christian or as he terms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth pray every hour And that he doth first ask remission of sin then that he may not sin again then that he may do well and understand both Creation and Providence and that his Heart being made clean by the Knowledge which he hath by the Son of God he may attain to see God face to face Such a passage as this relating to Publick Prayers out of one of the Ancients would be look'd on by some men as a swinging proof of a prescribed Liturgy I leave you to divert your self with the Doctor 's dextrous device to furnish people with an Expedient to enable them to Pray by Book with their Eyes and Hands lift up to Heaven The Doctor hath one Author more whom he quotes in this Century P. 43. and that is Tertullian In whose works he saith we have sufficient evidence that they used Forms of Prayer and Praise The passages he is concerned with out of this Author are of two sorts 1. Such as he alledgeth to prove the use of a Liturgy at that time 2. Such as Mr. Clarkson produceth to prove the contrary which the Doctor endeavoureth to make appear do not answer the end for which that Author brings them I will first consider the passages the Doctor alledgeth as sufficient evidence that the Christians used Publick Forms of Prayer and Praise in his time His first proof is this That Tertullian declares That Christ hath fixed a new Form of Prayer for us who are his Disciples viz. The Lords Prayer which he expounds in a peculiar Tract and in divers places calls it The Lawful and the Ordinary Prayer I do acknowledge Tertullian near the beginning of his Book De Oratione Tertul. de Orat. p. 788. hath this passage Jesus Christus Deminus Noster nobis Discipulis Novi Testamenti Novam Orationis Formam determinavit The Great Question is What Tertullian did mean by Novam Orationis Formam The Doctor saith it was the Lords Prayer which he expounds in a peculiar Tract I think his meaning was otherwise And that he did intend no more by that Phrase than a new Instruction or Direction how to perform the Duty of Prayer which he saith was necessary to the Gospel State or Administration Oportebat enim in hac quoque specie Novum Vinum novis utribus recondi And though Tertullian doth expound the Lords Prayer in that Tract yet he doth consider it in his explaining of it not as the whole he understands by his Nova Forma but as an instance and example of one of the General Instructions our Saviour had laid down for the guiding of us in the performance of this Duty He doth in a little time even before he begins his explanation of the Lords Prayer alter his phrase and calls it Orandi Disciplina And then tells us this New Way or Instruction for Prayer did consist of several parts The third he mentions is Brevity Which he explains by our not laying any stress on the use of a confused heap of words but our using such words as are proper and very comprehensive And then he certifies us that our Lord hath given us an admirable example of this Brevity which is the third part of his Nova Orationis Forma or the Third Precept Christ injoined to be observed in the performance of this Duty Et tamen Brevitas ista quod ad tertium Sophiae Gradum faciat magnae ac beatae interpretationis substantia sulta est And his principal business in his expounding the Lord's Prayer which he immediately subjoins is to shew how comprehensive our Saviour was in this Prayer tho it was so short or consisted of so few words But notwithstanding Tertullian doth expound every part of the Lords Prayer yet he doth not strictly tie himself to the method observed in the Lord's Prayer As for Tertullians Legitima Ordinaria Oratio Id. p. 791. it seems to be just the same with his Ordinata Religio Orationis Which I conceive is another phrase of the same import with his Nova Orationis Forma and his Orandi Disciplina Which I think do only signifie the General Instructions Christ gave for the directing of his Disciples or the directing of Christians in their performing of this Duty of Prayer The Doctors next quotation out of Tertullian is of no use to the present purpose till it be proved that people cannot join in prayer with him who officiates unless they do use their voices during that performance as audibly as he doth his or at least till the pretended implication of their joining voices be better cleared than by bare aslertion But saith the Doctor Tertullian describes some of the things P 44. which they desired of God to bestow on the Emperors viz. that they might have a long Life a quiet Empire c. To which I answer that this may pass for a proof of a fixed Litany when it shall be made evident that the particulars mentioned by Tertullian cannot be prayed for but in prescribed words or that an account cannot be given of the things which are constantly prayed for unless those matters be constantly prayed for in the same precise words But you may take notice that Tertullian when he relates what the Christians prayed for doth not always use the same words nor make the same enumeration of particulars For a proof of this I refer you to Tertullian himself in the places of his Apology The Doctor refers to p. 44. But if you consult Tertullian according to the worser Edition which is that I am necessitated to use you must look p. 876 and 867. As for the Doctors quotation out of Tertullian De Anima P. 142. I need not say any thing concerning it because Mr. Clarkson hath expresly answered the Plea made from that place and the Doctor hath not thought fit to say one word to his vindication of that place The Doctor 's next quotation is out of Tertullian De Baptismo Concerning which I shall only tell you that Tertullian is replying to those who pretended that Baptism is not necessary because Faith is sufficient Now amongst other things Tertullian doth urge the necessity of Baptism from Christs instituting of it Lex enim tingendi imposita est forma praescripta saith he And this he proves by producing what is said touching this matter in the last Chapters of St. Matthew and St. Mark What he saith amounts to this Baptism is necessary now under the Gospel because the Lord Jesus hath commanded it and told us in what manner it is to be administred You may try your own faculty and see whether from these premises Christ hath instituted Baptism and hath shewn in what manner it must be celebrated you can draw such a conclusion as this Therefore Prayer and Praises are to be performed in the Church by prescribed Forms or that
pray but hath also given Rules for the manner of performing this Duty when we perform this Service according to the Rules he hath appointed we may properly be said to use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if we consider the passage intirely as Origen hath it for the Doctor hath left something out it will clear it self We do affirm for a certain truth saith Origen that they who do worship God Orig. in Celf. lib 6. the Lord of all things through Jesus in the Christian manner or way and hee according to the Gospel using frequently as they ought night and day 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such Prayers as are appointed or commanded are not vanquishable or cannot beovercome either by Magicians or Devils These last words the Doctor thought fit to leave out Now let any one judge whether by using appointed Prayers Origen meant offering up to God Prayers in such way as he had appointed or using such prayers as were composed by Men and saying them over in such order as they had prescribed which of these do you imagine Origen thought to be the Christian 's effectual security from Magicians and Devils Can it enter into any Mans head who knows any thing of Origen that he was for Christians to use Prayers as others did Spells How came the use of prescribed Forms to be better security from Magicians and Devils than any other way of praying There is further a Dispute betwixt the Doctor and Mr. Clarkson whether Origen P. 61. quoting some passages which are in the Psalms did by saying we find them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mean the publick Liturgy or the Psalter To which I shall only say That I do not perceive that there is any Antecedent proof that they had a publick Liturgy but it is certain they had the Book of Psalms amongst them I leave you to determine whether it is most probable that Origen being to quote Passages which were in the Book of Psalms would rather refer his Reader to another Book than unto that which was acknowledged to be divinely inspired St. Cyprian is next brought by the Doctor as a Witness for Liturgies And I might suppose P. 65. That he did allow the Lord's Prayer to be used as a Form of Prayer and that he would have us repeat the very words of it And yet this will not amount to any resemblance of a proof for Liturgies as they are here to be understood But the Passages in St. Cyprian the Doctor alledgeth do not I think import what he pretends they do St. Cyprian in his Sermon concerning the Lord's Prayer seems to have the very same Notions about it his Master Tertullian had expressed in his Tract concerning the same matter of which I have spoken before There are indeed some Passages in St. Cyprian's Sermon from which the Doctor doth draw his own inferences The enquiry must be whether St. Cyprian's meaning in those passages was what the Doctor pretends St. Cyprian hath this Passage Cypr. Serm. de Orat. Dom. Orandi ipse formam dedit ipse quid precaremur monuit instruxit I conceive he means no more than this That the Lord Jesus hath taught People in what manner they should pray and what things they should pray for I think if we consider St. Cyprian's Discourse we cannot warrantably understand any thing else by his Orandi forma than those Instructions our Saviour gave for our Direction in performing of this duty of Prayer St. Cyprian doth also certifie that the surest way to obtain acceptance and audience with the Father is to govern our selves in the performance of this Duty by the directions the Son hath given for this purpose Vt dum prece oratione quam filius docuit Id. apud patrem faciliùs audiamur If we strictly consider this Father's sense and meaning there doth not appear any ground to conclude that he laid any stress on our using the very words of which the Lord's Prayer doth consist And besides several passages which might be instanced in which do strongly intimate that what I have already mentioned is the substance of this Father's meaning here there is one short Passage at a little distance from these already mentioned which to me seems to put the matter out of all doubt Vt aliter orare quà m docuit Id. non ignorantia sola sit sed culpa Now let any man who knows any thing at all of St. Cyprian judge whether he thought that it was a sin to use any other words in Prayer than just those which were expressed in the Lord's Prayer and whether his meaning was not that it is a sin or fault to govern our selves in the performing of this duty by other Instructions than those the Son had given for our guidance in this Duty This I take to be the meaning of that other Passage Agnoscat pater filii sui verba cum precem facimus By cerba filii sui I conceive is not meant the words of the Lord's Prayer but the Instructions and Directions the Son gave for the right performing of this duty Here I may mind you that the Doctor in his Discourse on one of his Quotations out of Origen hath this Passage Note also Origen doth not say P. 60. the Christian made these injoyned Prayers but used them which supposes they were made into a prescribed Form before Now what doth the Doctor think might be noted here according to his way of making notes upon precem facimus But for my part I think the Ancients by making Prayers and by using Prayers meant much what the same thing viz performing the duty of Prayer Moreover St. Cyprian hath this Expression Si petamus ipsius oratione And this he immediately interprets I think by our governing our selves in this Duty by the Directions he had laid down about it And his account of these Directions is very like that Tertullian had given of them before him Id. Sit autem orantibus sermo precatio cum disciplina quietem continens pudorem There are two Passages more relating to this matter which the Doctor quotes out of this Author in which he considers the words the Author useth but neglects the sense and meaning the Author had in his using of those words The first is this Publica est nobis communis oratio Now St. Cyprian's meaning is neither more nor less than this That Christians must not be so confined and narrow-spirited in their Prayers as to pray only for themselves but they must extend their Prayers to others and pray for all People He does not call the Christians Prayer publick and common because he speaks of the Lord's Prayer as the Doctor pretends nor as intimating that there was one fixed prescribed form which all were to use but because their prayers were not to be confined to themselves but to be general or universal extending to all Men. That this is the plain and
of the Words in which Gregory did deliver the Doctrines of Christianity unto them particularly to prove his own Doctrine to be the same with what Gregory did teach Epist 75. he alledged his having learned from Macrina the Doctrines of Faith in the very words wherein Gregory had delivered them If it shall be said he is here proving the Divinity of the Holy Spirit by a part of their Worship viz. their ascribing Glory and Power to God what can be inferred from thence is but this That Gregory had taught them when they did ascribe Glory and Power to the Father and Son to add also With the Holy Spirit St. Basil farther adds They were so tenacious of what Gregory had taught and practised amongst them they would not depart from that simplicity in the Celebrating of the Worship of God which he observed though a more Pompous and Ceremonious way did prevail in other Churches and which some thought did better suit with the alteration of their circumstances But here you may take notice that St. Basil doth not alledge any Liturgy Gregory had composed for them but only pleads the present usage of that Church and argues it was the same in Gregories days not because they had a Liturgy of his Composing but because their respect to him all along to the present time was such they would not suffer any addition to be made to the method or order he observed or to the Doctrines he had taught To me it appears plain that there was not any Liturgy of Gregories Composing St. Basil could produce for his present purpose but finding something in the use of that Church which was pertinent to his business he alledges that and the better to inforce that allegation he urges the great probability there was that they received it from him and to put the more colour upon this he breaks forth into a Rhetorical Encomium on that Father and the great respect the people of that Country had for him So that the sentence the Doctor quotes only entertains us with an Hyperbolical account of the respect the people had for Gregory For St Basil himself doth speak much otherwise of this matter when it comes in his way upon a disserent occasion And particularly in that very Epistle the Doctor refers us to in the next place for a proof that this Gregory had appointed that Church a particular way of singing the Psalms P. 73. of which the Noeocesarean Clergy were so extreamly tenacious that when St. Basil would have brought in a better way they opposed him in it and objected that it was not so in the days of Gregory the Great 'T is true it was objected against that way of singing St. Basil would have introduced that it was not in use there in the time of Gregory But if you consider the Answer St. Basil makes to this Objection you will find him giving an account of the Noeocesareans very different from that we have in his Book de Spiritu Sancto Amongst other things which he saith Basil Epist 63. ad Cler. Noeoces he peremptorily enquires By what Testimonies will they make it evident that those things which he recommends to them were not in use in the time of Gregory Now assuredly this was a very strange sort of question if he knew they had a Liturgy of Gregory's Composing which they constantly made use of Or if they had but an Order of his framing which they were strictly to observe in the several parts of their Worship Yea he tells them to whom he Writes that they had not preserved any of those instances then used pure and uncorrupt unto that time moreover he very plainly intimates that there was no way to make a true judgment of what Gregory did but by consulting the Holy Scriptures When he mentions several particulars which he affirms concerning Gregory he doth not quote his Liturgy his Rubrick c. but express words of Scripture particularly he saith That Gregory Prayed with his Head uncovered Now how doth he prove this Not from any order Gregory had made concerning this matter but because the Apostle had said Every man Praying or Prophecying with his Head covered dishonoureth his Head And Gregory saith he was a genuine Disciple of the Apostles Thus you have an account of those two Passages the Doctor doth quote out of St. Basil And you may now judge whether it be possible to have a clearer proof in the World for Prescribed Forms than this And whether the Doctor had any occasion given him from these Allegations to break forth into such a Vaunting Discourse as he entertains his Reader with upon his having produced these quotations As for what the Doctor quotes out of Eusebius concerning Paulus Samosatenus It only concerns Hymns and I am not sensible that the way of arguing is cogent That because people do sing Hymns composed to their hands therefore they do or must necessarily pray by prescribed Forms One might think the Precentor of York should understand the difference there is betwixt praying and singing if any knowledge of the nature and use of singing of framing the voice into a regular melodious tunable sound in order to the raising of the affections be at all necessary to that Character And a due consideration of that might have prevented a great many tautologies which are to be found in his Scholastical History and would have made his Discourse much shorter than it is though it must have deprived the Reader of many of those flights which it may be the Doctor conceits are very graceful But if you have a mind to peruse the Passage the Doctor speaks of in Eusebius if you consult Valesius his Edition you must not look for it where the Doctor 's Margin directs but in lib. 7. cap. 30. I shall add no more saith the Doctor in this Century P. 76. but to observe that in the Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria recorded by Eusebius it appears to have been the general usage of the Church for every one of the People to Say Amen when they heard the Priest offer them the Sacrament Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap. 35. p. 180. and say The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. which was a Form so universally used in all Churches of the world that we may conclude it was enjoyned by all Liturgies What Edition of Eusebius the Doctor made use of I do not know But his Margin gives me no assistance for the finding of the place he speaks of The Form the Doctor saith was so universally used I suppose is these words The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Now I do not remember that Eusebius doth any where in his Sixth Book report either from Dionysius or any other that those words were universally used on the occasion the Doctor mentions But there is a passage in his Sixth Book which hath something of what the Doctor mentions whether that be the place the Doctor means I
Tertullian did think so or that in his days the Church did worship God in the use of such prescribed Liturgies as is the Subject of our present discourse What the Dr. refers us to in Tertul ad uxor it only concerns singing which is not to our present purpose Besides if I mistake not it only relates to singing in the Family The words in Tertullian are these Sonant inter duos Psalmi Hymni P. 534. mutuo provocant quis melius Deo suo canet Tertullian is representing some of the advantages which accrue from Christians Marrying with Christians and this is one of them P 35. But saith the Doctor One of these Forms was the Gloria Patri which he describes as Ireneus did by the last words World without end Now you must take notice that Tertullian in this last quotation is quite upon another Subject And the quotation is out of another Book his Discourse de Spectaculis I will not stay to consider Tertullians sense exactly in this place He is dissuading the Christians from frequenting the Heathenish Games Exercises and Shows and represents to them how unbecoming them it must needs be yea how sinful to concur with them in what did ordinarily pass on those occasions Tertul. de Spect. p. 700. Avertat Deus à suis tantam voluptatis exitiâ—sae cupiditatem Quale est enim de Ecclesia Dei in diaboli eccl siam terdâ—re de coelo quod aiunt in coenum illas manus quas ad Dominum extuleris pâ—stmâ—dum laudando histrionem fatigare ex ore quo Amen in sanctum pretuleris gladiatori testimonium reddere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alii omnino dicere nisi Deo Christo Now how come these words of Tertullian to be a proof of Liturgies in the Christian Church Why the Doctor tells us we here find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore there must needs be a Form and this Form must be the Gloria Patri because 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is in the end of that Doxology the Doctor had told us before that Irenius had reference to the Gloria Patri because he found in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and here Tertullian must needs refer to the same because in him we have nothing but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be never used but in the Gloria Patri I think Tertullian is not minding them that this was an expression the Christians did constantly use in their publick Worship though it might be constantly used in their publick Worship and their Worship not be performed in prescribed Forms but he rather intimates that this was an expression which was ordinarily used at those sights and exercises he is dissuading them from and that it is not an expression fit for them to use with reference unto any but God and Christ But because the Doctor doth lay such stress on this Phrase he may consider whether the Latin Church did use the Gloria Patri in Greek in Tertullians days These are the passages the Doctor thought fit to alledge out of Tertullian for what he propounds The other sort of passages he is concerned with are such as Mr. Clarkson alledged for what he had asserted There are two of these the Doctor doth take notice of but saith so little concerning them I will pass them over without saying any thing of them one way or another for any one who considers what Mr. Clarkson saith with reference to them and what the Doctor saith of them here may easily determine whether the passages do make more for the one or for the other But there is one passage Mr. Clarkson doth quote from this Author about which the Doctor takes a great deal of pains P. 47 c. to shew it is capable of an interpretation which will not serve Mr. Clarkson's purpose I will relate the passage and without reflecting on the laboured constructions the Doctor hath heaped together to render it useless to Mr. Clarksons design I will plainly acquaint you with what I conceive to be the surest way to find out Tertullians meaning The passage is this Manibus expansis Tertul Apol. quia innocuis capite undo quia non erubescimus denique sine monitore quia de pectore oramus Tertullian I apprehend doth here give an account of the Christians Prayers that they were not such as the Heathens were but such as did suit and agree with the advice and direction the Apostle had given concerning this business His words seem to give an account of what he understood to be the Apostles meaning 1 Tim. 2.8 where he willeth men to Pray every where lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting But the Doctor thinks the passage is obscure If so then certainly Tertullian is sittest to give an account of his own meaning and I think he doth so in a very few lines after For having shewed why he and so all Christians could not pray to any but God he seems very plainly to explain in other words the several branches of the forementioned account concerning the Christians Prayers Ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quà m ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudica de anima innocenti de spiritu sancto profectam This I take to be the true account of this controverted passage whether I am in the right or not concerning it I leave you to judge as also whether this passage so understood do make more for or against prescribed Forms of Prayer These being the passages made use of from the Authors in the second Century about Liturgies I proceed to the Third Century In which the first Author the Doctor doth quote is Hippolytus P. 54. The passage is this Liturgy shall be extinguished singing of Psalms shall cease and reading of Scripture shall not be heard What Hippolytus his meaning here is I will not undertake to affirm positively because I never read that Author But as seeing the Doctor doth argue from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am willing to mind you that the Doctor doth acknowledg it is but probable that this Father meant a common Form of Prayer generally used And I do acknowledge it would be more probable that that Father understood the word in the Doctors sense if he had produced any proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did either before or in the days of this Father ever signifie a common Form of Prayer generally used in the Christian Church Indeed I am not aware that any thing more can be warrantably concluded from this expression than that Antichrist would suppress the publick pure Worship of God And why Antichrist may not as well suppress the publick exercise of Ministers gifts and abilities in the Worship of God as the use of prescribed Forms of Prayer doth not yet occur unto me But if Antichrist have already made any attempts against the publick Worship of God I must needs say I do not remember any evidence he hath given
of his extraordinary dislike of Forms of Prayer meerly as Forms Nor do I mind any proof that hath been produced that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did about the Year 220. signifie publick prescribed Forms Our next Author saith the Doctor is the Famous Origen P. 55. in whose eleventh Homily on Jer. we have so express a Form of Prayer which was wont to be used in his days the learned Centuriators were convinced by it that set Forms of Prayer were used in his time The matter in debate is not whether those learned men were convinced from that passage that set Forms of Prayer were used in his time But whether that passage is a substantial proof that the Christian Church did in Origens time worship God only by a prescribed Liturgy Now the Argument from this Homily to prove a stated Liturgy depends as Mr Clarkson saith on the Mode or Form of expression here used P. 141. and what Origens way of expressing himself in this place was we have not any certainty because we have not his own words here but his Translator's who have certified us they did not tie themselves to an exact and strict translation This argument therefore cannot be convincing in the present case because we have no assurance of the truth and certainty of that on which the Argument depends and from which it must derive its whole strength The Doctor doth not take notice of this but suggests it is pretended that Russinus might add this Prayer himself But the doubt is not so much whether he added the Prayer as whether he did not alter the Mode of expression and in his Translation put that into the Form of a Prayer which Origen propounded in another Form For tho Origen might only relate as St. Paul doth Ephes 1.16 17. what was the ordinary subject of their Petitions on such occasions Ruffinus might in his Translation deliver it in the Form of a Prayer And till we have some assurance that Origen is here faithfully translated and did express himself exactly in the same Mode the Translator reports this matter the Argument cannot be convincing to the purpose for which it is brought Mr. Clarkson further adds That allow all that can be pretended fairly from this place no more can be concluded from it than what is common with those who do pray extempore viz that they often in Prayer preferred one or two Petitions in the same words To which the Doctor hath not thought fit to make any reply If those who do officiate do frequently use the same words in Prayer concerning the same matter is the inference thence just that therefore they may not use any words or that they are bound up to a prescribed Liturgy in their whole worship But having said thus much concerning the Dispute betwixt the Doctor and Mr. Clarkson touching this passage I will relate the matter it self more distinctly Origen having taken notice in the forementioned Homily that the Prophets having suffered many hardships from the People on the account of the messages they did bring them and the threatnings they denounced against them from the Lord it was expedient that those who hear the word should be briefly admonished what manner of lives the Prophets did lead and what benefits did appertain unto them and what their own duty is viz that if they would partake of the happiness the Prophets have arrived at they must diligently endeavour to do the works they did And in short he adds his meaning is thus Orig. Hom XI in Jer. Frequenter in Oratione dicimus Da Omnipotens Da nobis partem cum Prophetis c. O Almighty grant grant unto us a part with the Prophets grant us a part with the Apostles of thy Christ grant that we may be found at the footsteps of thy only begotten But saith he when we speak these things we do not understand or we have not a due sense of what these Petitions do import For in reality when we speak thus we do ask that God would make us to be hated as they were hated c. Now the matter seems very plain viz. That Origen expounding the Scripture popularly took occasion to mind the people how careful they should be if they desired to be happy as the Prophets are to live such lives as they did and not content themselves with saying as was very usual for them when they heard affectionate discourses concerning the Prophets and Apostles c. Lord give us a part with them c. For saith he these Petitions or Prayers we are so prone to use when our affections are moved at the reports which are made to us concerning the Prophets do properly signifie what we do not at all think of or really intend when we use those expressions For these Prayers do really signifie our desiring of God that we may be hated as the Prophets were and fall into the same calamities they did endure Re enim hoc dicimus fac nos sic odio haberi ut edio habiti sunt Prophetae Da in istas incidere calamitates quas Apostoli sustinuerunt Is it any proof that he who administers Divine Ordinances is tied up to a fixed Liturgy because in his popular discourses on particular occasions in his pressing people to a good life he tells them we do ordinarily pray O Almighty grant us this or that or the other thing and that these Petitions are of such importance as to ingage our endeavours to lead such lives as we are persuaded unto Yea it may be if the matter be well inquired into it will be found that Origen's explication of this Prayer is a more just reproof of the Prayer it self than his relating it is a proof of the Administrators being tied up to the use of Forms in his time For it may be very well questioned whether Christians may pray for what he saith those Petitions do properly import The next passage the Doctor doth quote out of Origen P. 58. is in his sixth Book against Celsus And he places the force of this quotation on the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he finds in it and of which he gives this account that it signifies not only a thing injoined or commanded in general but so injoined that the very order and manner of doing it is set down and particularly appointed And I may truly say that all this may be with reference unto Prayers and yet the very words to be used not be set down and particularly appointed without which there is no Liturgy in our present acceptation of that word But saith the Doctor Origen is speaking of the Prayers themselves and gives them this Character that they were ordered or prescribed and therefore must be in Forms To which I answer that all he saith except his inference doth amount to no more than an order for the method of the performance but doth not reach to the prescribing of the words And if God have not only commanded us to