was a Prayer in Origen's time and not added by his Translators But if Mr. S. B. dislike Origen's Explication of this Prayer because he thinks it imports a desire to suffer as the Prophets did 't is a sign he knows little of Origen who thirsted earnestly after Martyrdom and so was likely enough to give it this Sense and it is nothing to my purpose whether that be the true sense or no since I have sufficiently proved it was a known Form of Prayer Pag. 40. I had proved by Scripture and other Authors that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Origen lib 6. in Cels signifies Prescribed Forms of Prayer Mr. S. B. without examining my Evidence pronounces Sentence viz. that it means no more than praying according to the Rules God hath given for performing this Duty for that is to be the meaning right or wrong of any Phrase that seems to countenance Forms But he runs into that mistake which I had noted in Mr. Cl. that is he considers not that Origen is not speaking of the manner of praying but of the Prayers themselves They used prescribed or enjoyned Prayers At last he dreams of a Directory in Origen's days which he calls an Order for the method of performing Prayer without prescribing the words but if he impartially examine my Instances he will find they signifie more than so and I add now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a word of the same import Luke I. 1. signifies to write down an History and not barely to contrive a method by which others might compose it in their own words As to the last words of this Quotation That such as use these enjoyned Prayers cannot be overcome by Magicians or Devils Mr. Cl. left them out as well as I Disc of Lit. p. 140. both of us judging them nothing to our Question which is not about the effect of these Prayers but about their being Forms And now how scandalous is Mr. S. B's partiality If it be a fault to omit them why are we not both blamed if it be none why doth he blame me I perceive he fancies the Devil is more afraid of an Extempore Prayer than a Form But he forgets that Christ put Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil into his Form to secure us against the Devil and his Instruments The Devil hath often been afraid of our Lords Form but that he dreads not an Extempore Prayer appears from Conjurers and Witches who actually dealt with the Devil and yet were admired for this kind of praying Hist. Lit. par 2. pag. 278. Finally He that is so unhappy in expounding Origen's Writings is very unfit to tell us what he thought he himself admires Extempore Prayer and thence concludes Origen doted on it also but the Centuriaters who knew Origen's Sense better than he or Mr. Cl. declare expresly there were Forms in Origen's time Lastly The full proof I brought that Mr. Cl. was grosly mistaken in pretending that Origen cited those passages out of the Psalter which he brings in with this Preface We find we say in the Prayer as he did the Collect pag. 37. would have silenced any man but Mr. S. B. who takes no notice that I proved Origen cited many other passages out of the Psalms directly without this Preface that these were Sentences proper for Liturgies and that the Offices at Alexandria well known to Origen were taken chiefly out of the Psalms And though he can make no reply to this Evidence that he may not seem wholly silent he First flies to his old shift and calls for an antecedent proof of Liturgies Now had I brought none before the citing whole Sentences as known and certain parts of a Liturgy commonly used is a good proof if it were the first But I have brought divers before which want nothing to make them authentic but his allowance which he resolves never to grant and then hopes he is safe Secondly When he had stated the case wrong and kept all that makes for me secret he appeals to his partial and misinformed Friend But if that Friend will consider that Origen doth cite many passages out of the Psalter and other places which are also in the Psalter expresly out of the Prayer and refers to known words said and used in Prayer he shall then have liberty to judge whether there were not divers Forms taken out of the Psalms and used in the Prayers to which Origen doth refer in plain words There is another clear confutation of Mr. Cl's Exposition of Origen's Homily on Numb xi and a further confirmation of my Opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no more than Fervently pag. 63 64. both which Mr. S. B. passes over in silence § 3. pag. 41 c. That there were Forms of Prayer used in S. Cyprian's time I inferred first from his allowing the use of the Lords Prayer as a Form and his owning the repeating of the very words of it The Examiner first saith If this be supposed it will not amount to a proof of Liturgies in our Sense I answer If he grant this it proves praying by a Form lawful and ancient instituted by Christ and continued to be used in public yea repeated by the People among the primitive Christians it proves one main part of the public Service was an invariable Form and such a part as was to be the pattern of all other prayers which must be Forms also if they exactly imitated this Divine Exemplar the prospect of which Consequences make Mr. S. B. fly off again from his concession and labour for two whole pages to prove that S. Cyprian doth not intimate the use of those words but only our following the directions which Christ had given for the manner of performing the duty of Prayer But the bare reading the Father not only confutes but exposes this poor Evasion He is about to explain this Form and first saith Christ gave us a Form of Prayer and explains himself presently thus ut dum prece oratione quam filius docuit apud patrem Loquimur faciliùs audiamur Where we see the Form is those very words which Christ taught and which we speak to his Father and Mr. S. B. fallaciously leaves out loquimur the main word in the Sentence importing our repeating the very words on purpose to impose upon his Reader S. Cyprian adds This is the most spiritual and true Prayer which was pronounced by his mouth for when Christs Prayer ascends to Gods ears the Father will own the Sons words He saith also When we ask forgiveness we pronounce the words of our Advocate and not only ask in his Name but by his own Prayer Can any man now doubt that Forma orandi here signifies the words of our Lords Prayer or deny Cyprian's commending the use of that Form Let us apply the aforesaid passages to his Notion of Directions and Instructions and see how ridiculous it will appear Do we speak or say over Christ's directions about
he would think they did not scruple singing their Prayers but chose to do it with Discord rather than Harmony But still it appears that Singing is one way of performing the duty of Prayer among all sorts of Christians and he can find no more difference between singing and praying than between singing and saying a Prayer that is one way of praying and singing is another only we may sing a Form according to art but an Extempore Prayer cannot be sang harmoniously § 6. Pag. 56. My last Instance in this Period was to shew That the People used the Form of saying Amen upon receiving the Eucharist Now this matter of Fact is undeniably true I proved it before out of Justin M. and Tertullian and here Eusebius confirms it by the Epistle of Dionysius B. of Alexandria which should have been figured thus Lib. 7. cap. 8. pag. 188. and my Examiner makes the same thing plain from an Epistle of Cornelius B. of Rome recorded also by Eusebius wherefore since so many distant Churches did so exactly agree in the use of this Response at the very time of Receiving no doubt it was enjoyned by some prescribed Rule grounded at first upon that of S. Paul How shall he say Amen at thy Eucharist 1. Cor. xiv 16. For had it been arbitrary it would have been varied and neither the same word nor the same time of saying it could have been found in different Churches and distant Ages The consequence of which is that there were prescribed Forms directing a certain Response in one certain part of the Service for the People Mr. S. B. passes by this Inference very wisely and pretends I went about to prove here That the Form of Administring the Sacrament was prescribed Now this can be nothing but a wilful mistake because I said expresly This was a Form in which all Christians agreed at one certain time and place But the Christian People never repeated the words of Administration That Form indeed is very ancient grounded on Scripture and alluded to by both these Authors but I was not speaking of the Form of Administration but of the universal Custom of saying Amen just when they received which clears the use of prescribed Forms § 7. Pag. 59. I shall conclude with a brief review of the Particulars whereby I have made out either the ancient use of a Liturgy in general or of the several parts of it 1st The Prayers delivered from their Fore-fathers in Josephus the word Liturgy in Clemens Romanus and Hippolitus the One Prayer allowed by the Bishop in Ignatius the Common-prayers in Justin M. The Prayers made as with one common Voice in Cl. Alexandrinus The solemn Rites and praying by Memory in Tertullian the Christians using Prescribed or enjoyned Prayers and Forms taken out of the Psalms in Origen The Public and Common-Prayer in Cyprian And that Liturgy left by Gregory Thaumaturgus used without adding or altering a word for an hundred years after do prove a Liturgy in general And 2dly for the parts of it I have proved the Hymns were prescribed Forms sung alternately by Philo Pliny Ignatius and so very many others that I am censured for Tautology The Gloria Patria I have shewed to be as ancient as Irenaeus and Tertullian The Litany is plainly alluded to by Justin M. Tertullian and S. Cyprian There is a Collect in Form clearly proved from Origen The Lords Prayer was repeated by all the People in public in the time of Tertullian and S. Cyprian who also hath the Preface and Responses used at the Eucharist in a Form the answering Amen at the Receiving is a Form in Justin M. Tertullian and many others and S. Cyprian shews they did not vary Christs Form of Baptizing Now these Proofs in a dark Age wherein there were few Writers and those only accidentally and cautiously mention these things are sufficient to shew that Forms of Prayer and Praise are very ancient chosen as the best way of serving God in public even when many did not need them because divers were Inspired Now if this pure and early Age had and used Forms invariably then a setled Church after Inspiration is ceased who imitates their Example and uses Forms because she believes them ancient and lawful and enjoyns them strictly because she needs them and finds them expedient doubtless she doth well and they who can find nothing sinful in the Forms but refuse to Communicate with the Church meerly because she uses and enjoyns Forms these not only were wont to be called Dissenters as Mr. S. B. flatters them but ought now to be called Dissenters and Schismaticks also being guilty of an inexcusable Separation As to his Conclusion he first owns the Lawfulness of Liturgies but is afraid I design to make them thought necessary and it seems that made him labour so much to baffle my Proofs of them from the Three first Centuries Upon which I must assure him that I do not think every thing to be necessary which I can prove to have been used in the first Three Centuries I think Liturgies ten times more necessary now than they were then and my Proofs in this Period were chiefly designed to shew the Lawfulness and Antiquity of Forms in public Worship but that which makes the use of them necessary to us is the Churches Authority He adds Their Lawfulness may be argued from more rational Topicks than human Authority their Expediency must be judged upon a just weighing of Circumstances their Necessity cannot be proved by any Topick I reply Mr. Clarkson forced me to argue for Liturgies from human Authority because he first denied them to be Ancient and I hope if he argued falsly from that Topic I might argue truly especially since I urged also Scripture and other Topics in that History which Mr. S. B. hath not answered 2dly As to their Expediency the Church the proper Judge of that hath already upon weighty Reasons determined that point and I see no Reason why Mr. S. B. should desire to have this weighed over again unless he hope to hold the Seales The Church hath proved their Expediency many and many times and over and again confuted all the Dissenters Objections and I considered this Point as oft as Mr. Cl. gave me occasion as he will see when he hath read my whole Book For the necessity of Liturgies that follows from their being expedient and as such enjoyned by the Church For an ancient Lawful expedient way of public Worship enjoyned by lawful Authority becomes necessary And if there were any Men in the Communion of this Church who call one another Judicious Learned and Moderate and yet are so intent upon altering our Foundations as to count my defending the Established Way of Worship The managing a Design against them it would be more necessary than ever to keep close to our Ancient Way of Worship But I hope this is only a Dream of Mr. S. B's and believe there is really never a learned judicious moderate Man in our Communion but himself who thinks I had any design against them in writing my History of Liturgies As for Mr. S. B. he hath too visibly declared his aversation to the Establishment to make me value his Censure his Friend Mr. Cl. could pick up but two Phrases which he perverted as I shewed and that was all the Grey-Beard he had to fasten to the Juvenile Chin of Extempore praying without extraordinary Inspiration yet Mr. S. B. admires and defends him I have brought many Phrases and justified my exposition of them so that the durst not attack them besides some express proofs Yet all this is despised in his scurrilous Conclusion which is so clear a discovery of the Man and the Party he favours that till he come to examine more closely and judge more indifferently till he perform more and brag less I will neither trouble the world nor my self with any further Reply to him being assured that by this loose way of writing he will neither do my Cause any harm nor his any good among those that are truly learned moderate and judicious of what Communion soever they be FINIS See Foxes and Firebr pag. 7 17. Continuat of Friendly debate pag. 113.
himself affirms pag. 11. The matter now in dispute is only about him that officiates But my Paraphrases being not at all intended for the use of Ministers or others in public therefore they are nothing to the purpose of Variations designed for public use exclusive of the Liturgy His next Question is Whether my Paraphrases be ever the better for being only for private use I answer This makes his alledging them in an Argument about publick Variations appear frivolous and impertinent But if he delight in Comparisons a private Minister who makes Variations for private use to promote Uniformity and Devotion and to beget in all a just esteem of the established way of Worship doth much better than he who to shew his ability to vary uses his faculty in public to exclude the established way and thereby breeds a contempt of it and promotes separation from it Pag. 10. I granted pag. 16. That every good man might pray by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit devoutly and fervently even by a Form Mr. S. B. leaves out the main words even by a Form and falls to make Inferences from half my Sentence asking If Men may be so enlightned and affected c. why they may not by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit express their resentments in proper Expressions If he mean in private perhaps they may but that is nothing to our Question which is only about public Prayer if he mean in public I have already given him divers Reasons why this cannot be permitted much less established in a setled Church But in short I will give him here three Reasons First This liberty is needless because there are more proper Expressions already composed by Holy men who had the ordinary assistance of the Spirit than any of us can invent on the sudden Secondly This liberty would be pernicious occasioning Envy among the Clergy and Factions among the People some of the most learned and pious would be despised only for their modesty and others of the most ignorant and profane admired for their fluency and confidence Thirdly Supposing both ways of praying by enjoyned Forms and Extempore were equal yet when our Church being guided by antiquity reason and the practice of other modern Churches hath prohibited that way and prescribed Forms they are certainly the better way for us Pag. 11. He yields at last That the frame and actings of the Soul the exercise of Faith Repentance Love c. are the principal thing in Prayer Now when I had proved that a Minister may do all this and so pray by the Spirit in a Form why may he not be obliged always to use a Form in public Mr. S. B. can object nothing but this If the enjoyned Form do not so well express that sense which he and others have of the Matter of Prayer as other words which occur to him then he cannot be said to pray in or by the Spirit in the full import of the phrase Now this Supposition shews first That these men have a high opinion of their own Invention who think they can devise better words Extempore than our Reverend makers of the Liturgâ— could frame by much study Secondly 'T is plain That using these new Phrases is by his account the full and only import of Praying by the Spirit for he makes varying the phrase necessary to the exercise of it and his Extempore man is singular in nothing else But he should consider this is a Scripture-phrase and the import of it is to be learned from thence wherefore he should have brought some Text where Praying by the Spirit signifies Inventing new Phrases but that he can never do and reason is against his Exposition as well as Scripture for since he owns new Words not to be the principal thing in Prayer no man will believe the Spirits assistance is necessary for the less principal yea where we have proper Phrases already for a needless thing Wherefore when in the use of our Forms our Soul is in good frame and we exercise all proper Graces by the assistance of the Spirit we Pray by the Spirit in all Senses that the phrase is capable of but Two which are of Mr. S. B's own devising first that we do not daily invent new Words nor secondly do we vainly imagine we can invent more proper Words than the Church hath provided After this he runs back to my 15th Page where I had shewed That if Praying by the Spirit signifie making new Words and Phrases then none but the Minister in public prays by the Spirit since the people never invent new Words but the Ministers words are a Form to them The Examiner tugs hard to get off from this Rock and saith first The dispute is only about him that officiates But had he read over the place he pretends to confute he must have seen I was answering Mr. Clarkson who Disc of Lit. pag. 128 129. makes Praying by the Spirit a gift common to all Christians and yet afterwards saith He that was able to conceive a Prayer himself yet made use of prayers formed by others he did not pray as he was able which he makes to be all one with praying by the Spirit The absurdity of which Assertion I proved by this scandalous Consequence of it that then the People whom he affirms to have this Gift in all Ages did never pray by the Spirit because they make use of Forms made by others so that here our dispute was about the People For by this I made it appear how falsly they expounded the phrase of praying by the Spirit by inventing new Words which excludes the People from ever praying by the Spirit at all Secondly Mr. S. B. saith The Ministers prayer is not a Form to the Congregation in the Sense we are discoursing of I answer It is a prayer framed by another and that is Mr. Clarkson's sense of a Form and I think Mr. S. B's too who saith in this very Page if a man restrain himself to the words and phrases put together by others which express not their sense so well as some that occur to them c. Here a Form is defined Words and Phrases put together by others and the using it restraining ones self to those words Now the people are restrained to words and phrases put together by the Minister therefore his Prayer is a Form to them And if one of the Congregation conceive he can express his sense better than his Minister doth and yet sits by silent and uses the Ministers words to express his sense according to Mr. Cl. this man doth not pray as well as he is able and according to Mr. S. B. he prays not by the Spirit in the full import of the phrase which natural yet odious Consequence should make them ashamed of their explaining this phrase of Praying by the Spirit by inventing new Expressions Thirdly Mr. S. B. saith The Congregation may joyn in the spiritual performance of the duty acting Graces suitable to
the occasions and improving others abilities to further their Devotion This he designs to prove That the Ministers prayer is not a Form to the People but I affirm the Congregation who joyn in the Common-Prayer do or may do all this yet I hope Mr. S. B. will not affirm that their joyning in the Spiritual performance acting Graces and using the abilities of the Liturgy-makers to further their Devotion proves the Common-Prayer is no Form to our People Lastly he affirms That the Congregation are not called to express vocally their inward resentments in the fittest words they are able I reply They are commanded to pray by the Spirit in public as well as in private and if they may not use their own Expressions there then they may pray by the Spirit without using their own words and praying fervently is the main import of that phrase Besides he runs from the point to tell us what is the duty of Ministers and what the Peoples For our Question here is Whether their being tied to their Ministers Prayer do not make it a Form to them not Whether they should be tied to his words or no If I grant they ought to be tied to his words that makes them not less a Form to them but I may note that he cannot produce one place of Scripture where as he phrases it Ministers are called to speak all the Office alone or to express their sense in new phrases daily or where the People are forbid to say any part of the Prayers If he cannot shew Scripture for these ways of the Dissenters he is highly to blame to apply the Canting-phrase of A Call which implies a Divine Command to meer human devices 'T is apparent from the best antiquity since the Apostles and from the Jewish Custom that the people joyned both in Praises and Prayers by Responses Repetitions c. contrary to which the Dissenters now confine the People wholly to the Ministers words throughout their Extempore Prayers and then by a wrong exposition of the praying by the Spirit abuse their own Congregations as much as they do those who use the Liturgy and exclude them as well as us from Praying by the Spirit Pag. 12. I granted there was an extraordinary Gift of Prayer in and after the Apostles days the Spirit furnishing some then both with words and matter This I proved by S. Chrysostom who notes it was ceased long before his time and I made it probable that the Original of Liturgies was from Prayers endited at first by these Inspired men and preserved in writing by some for the benefit of after-Ages Hist Lit. pag. 17. Mr. S. B. objects That I have none but S. Chrysostom to vouch for this Gift And is not he a good Evidence for a matter of Fact so near his own time when Mr. S. B. hath not one Father nor Argument to disprove him But he startles at a dreadful Consequence of his own dressing up viz. That this would make Liturgies to be Divine Revelations which he represents as little less than Blasphemy Now to put him out of his affright he must consider First That there is great difference between Holy Scripture written by Inspired men on purpose to be a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and certainly delivered to us as the very Word of God and Forms occasionally used or composed by some Inspired man accidentally preserved as some Liturgick Forms and some Sayings of the Apostles not Recorded in the New Testament were So that the affirming the Primitive part of Liturgy was made at first by Inspired men doth not equal it to Scripture Secondly This Primitive part of Liturgy is either the very words of Scripture or so pious pure pertinent and agreeable to it that it is no reflection on the Spirit of God to say this was derived from the Prayers of Inspired men Thirdly The agreement of distant Churches so early in the same Forms cannot well be made out unless we allow these Forms were made at first by that one Spirit which inspired all the planters of these several Churches Lastly It is far more arrogant and nearer Blasphemy to ascribe modern extempore Prayers to Inspiration as the People are taught to do to charge the Holy Spirit with the blunders tautologies non-sense and impertinencies of this way must provoke God with a witness I might also here shew that two Popish Impostors first brought up this way of Extempore prayer in England and that many who were great admirers of it have fallen off to Quakerism c. but that is done by other hands I return therefore to the Examiner who adds That some of our latest Liturgies have some Prayers in them whose very frame shews they were not composed by Inspiration If he say this of the modern corrupt Additions to old Liturgies it is nothing to the purpose because we consider nothing here but the Primitive part of these Liturgies If he mean it of our Common-Prayer one of the best and latest Liturgies I affirm the meanest Collect there is fitter to be ascribed to Inspiration than the best Extempore Prayer I ever heard yet we do not equal them to Holy Scripture And now I hope it is plain my Examiner hath said nothing to lessen the value of Liturgies or raise the credit of the Extempore way I will next consider whether he hath any better skill of success in examining Authors than in refuting Scripture Arguments The First Century § 1. pag. 13. TO avoid all Cavil and prevent Fallacies I will first shew what I undertook to prove in this Century which was That the Christians had Forms of Prayer and Praise pag. 21. and a Liturgy or Order at least pag. 22. That their Hymns were certainly in prescribed Forms pag. 25. Their Prayer and Supplication one and approved by the Bishop their Singing alternate pag. 27. This was all I undertook to prove in an Age so full of inspired Pastors and so deficient in Writers wherein as I noted pag. 19 much evidence for Liturgies cannot be expected And if we find some steps made towards a Liturgy invariably used thus early we may be sure as Gifts decreased the use of Forms in every Age must proportionably increase My first proof is from Josephus who saith The Essenes used early in the Morning Prayers delivered them from their Fore-fathers De bell Jud. l. 2. c. 7. now these must be Forms Philo adds They sang Hymns alternately De vit contemp which must be known Forms also and Eusebius who from Philo's description took them to be Christians converted by S. Mark observes their Hymns were the same with those sung in the Church in his time All this the Examiner grants and this is enough for my purpose because it proves That such as were taken to be Christians by their agreement with the Primitive Rites certainly had and used Forms both of Prayer and Praise He only cavils about Eusebius's not mentioning their Forms of Prayer Suppose he do not Josephus
Expressions He objects There are other ways of praising God besides Hymns I grant it but still the Hymns which were not invented by the President were offered up according to his ability that is as fervently as he was able I grant also there was a large Thanksgiving used at the Eucharist but this was reduced to a written Form when the Apostolical Constitutions were writ and the Form was so old then that it was pretended to be made by the Apostles and so might be a Form in Justin's time As to his Objection That Justin speaks of no audible concurrence of the people in these Offices but only by saying Amen I reply Suppose he did not yet a Negative Argument from the silence of one Author is like an induction of one particular it proves nothing since other Writers of this Age do testifie that the Praises were made by Forms And yet I have shewed from the former place of Justin Martyr pag. 60. in my 35th page That the whole Congregation of Christian people did praise God in their Oblations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as they were able Therefore that Phrase doth signifie something that the People can do as well as the Priest which is praising God fervently and not by new Expressions Pag. 24. And this leads me to my next Argument why this Phrase must not be interpreted of new Expressions but Fervency because in the parallel place of Justin in Ecclesiasticus xliii 30. in two places of Origen and one of Nazianzen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or something of the same import is applied to the People who as my Adversaries grant are not allowed in public to pray or praise God in expressions of their own Mr. S. B. drops all the proofs of this according to his usual way and not being able solidly to answer the Argument he runs out into his old excursion That the dispute is about him that officiates and to talk of the Ministers and Peoples distinct Duties in public This I answered before upon pag. 11th and am not at leisure to repeat so often as he sees fit to say the same things therefore I will only say here That Mr. Cl. and S. B. expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a sense which makes it impossible to be applied to the People and which makes it improper to be said of any but him that officiates that is they make it signifie making the best new Expressions he was able which signification I do sufficiently disprove when I shew that in Justin and other Authors this phrase is attributed to the whole Congregation and therefore it must signifie something which the people do as well as the Priest that is it must signifie Fervency and refer to the affections not to the invention of new words and phrases As for Mr. Cl's numerous Quotations I answered all that related to Prayers and Praises in public but did not think fit to trouble the Reader or my self to answer his Instances where this or a like Phrase was applied to other Subjects such as Writing Preaching or private Devotion as those of S. Chrysostom p. 119. and S. Basil p. 120. And I think it not very modest in him who hath scarce answered one of my collateral proofs to triumph over me for omitting such Quotations as were not to the purpose in the mean time I hope I have satisfied all that are unprejudiced that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is applied to public Offices signifies Fervently and that it can be no foundation for arbitrary and extempore praying and praising God especially when they have nothing in this Age but this and another phrase to support so odd an Exposition § 3. pag. 25. I cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 World without end out of Irenaeus to prove they had Hymns then in Form and supposed this was the conclusion of the Gloria Patri Mr. S. B. understands not how this was a stinted Liturgy Very right But he knows I brought it not to prove a whole Liturgy but limited it for a proof of one Hymn and therefore he is unjust to put in more into the Conclusion than I did and from thence to invalidate my Argument Upon which occasion I would ask three Questions First Whether he or Mr. Cl. have brought so express a proof as this that any single part of the Service was Extempore Secondly Whether the proof of any one Primitive Form known and used so early as this which is mentioned also in Clem. ep ad Cor. pag. 98 104. doth not prove it ancient and lawful to use prescribed Words in public Worship Thirdly What reason can be given why other parts of the Service might not be in Form as well as this But still Mr. S. B. cannot apprehend how this proves the Gloria Patri unless no Doxology but that can end with these words His Apprehension would have been quicker if this had been a seeming proof of Mr. Cl's side but let it be considered by unbiassed persons That if these words be the conclusion of any other Form it serves my purpose as well as if they concluded the Gloria Patri And it is evident they were the certain and constant Conclusion of some Form because the Hereticks urge them and the Orthodox own them as usually said in their Eucharist They could not have charged nor would these have confessed an uncertain arbitrary phrase nor could Clemens Irenaeus and Tertullian have agreed in it if some of them sometimes only had used it And since we can prove the Gloria Patri to be an Hymn as early as this Age and Tertullian notes that these words World without end were then as they also are now repeated by the People I hope it is probable at least that this was a part of the Gloria Patri To conclude This way of Arguing is further from an imitation of the Hereticks in Irenaeus as he suggests than his pretending my Evidence for one Form was intended to prove a whole Liturgy is from mean Sophistry § 4. Pag. 26. When Clemens of Alexandria saith The Christians prayed as having one common Voice and one mind Strom. 7. he plainly alludes to that of the Apostle Rom. xv 6. of Glorifying God with one mind and one mouth Wherefore I expounded Clemens as Grotius doth the Apostle That One common Voice intimates their joyning Voices in responsory Forms Mr. Cl. and Mr. S. B. will have this One common Voice to be that of the Minister who speaks instead of all the People they mean in their New-fashioned Assemblies where contrary to the Ancients the Congregation is wholly silent and make no Responses But my account is not only agreeable to Antiquity where I have proved both by Scripture and Fathers alternate and responsory praises and prayers were used But also this very Phrase proves That the People joyned vocally in the public Worship which could not be without Forms Thus the Isralites Promise to keep Gods Law is expressed Exod. xix 3. by their
Saying this all together and Exod. xxiv 3. They answered it with one voice Baals Prophets did not choose one Foreman to speak for them when they all with one mouth prophecied good to Ahab 1 King xxii 35. Nor had the mutinous Ephesians one Spokesman when they cried out so long together with one voice Act. xix 34. but each man vocally joyned with the rest Thus when the Singers and those who played on Musical Instruments united their Notes to praise God they are said to make One sound 2 Chron. v. 13. or as the LXX read it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They made one Voice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. while they answered each other in singing with one voice their confession and praise to God And S. Basil expresly uses the phrase in this Sense where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Epist 63. They all in common as with one mouth and one heart offer up the Psalm of Confession every one making these penitential Words to be his own This Psalm probably was the LI however certainly it was a Form repeated vocally by Priest and People and this is the true Notion of a Common-prayer and a Prayer with one Mouth Having thus justified my Exposition I need not stand upon his petty Objections viz. 1st If the People answered there would not be one but two Voices I 'le grant if he please sometimes there were Two thousand Voices yet if they all repeated the same Form or all joyned by Turns to carry on the same Common-service as in responsory Prayers and alternate Hymns it is very proper to say All these have one Voice and glorifie God with one Mouth 2ly He notes That S. Paul saith expresly With one Mouth Rom. xv but Clemens ' s words are As it were with one mouth or voice I reply The Father only designs to soften the Apostles Expression because when many vocally joyn in public Forms they have not strictly one Voice but as it were one Voice Yet we see the phrase of One voice is properly and often applied to many joyning in the same words But Clemens phrase and S. Basils As it were with one mouth can never be properly applied to the Extempore man who is absolutely and throughout the only Mouth of his silent Auditors Pag. 28. It is no fault in Mr. Cl. to have nothing but Conjectures for his Opinion in this and the following Ages but he wonders I should insist upon Conjectures I gave divers Reasons why we must expect little more than probable Proofs in this time and supported my Conjectures with Arguments Mr. S. B. touches not either the Reasons or Arguments but censures my way of proceeding He doth not deny that the Christians imitated the Jews in the Hours of Prayer and I have proved by many Authors that they imitated them in alternate Singing and Praying by Forms so that though it be but a Conjecture from Clemens attesting they used the Jewish Hours of Prayer to infer a probability of their imitating them in Forms yet the thing is plainly proved elsewhere and so he ought not to expose this Notion as all over Conjecture and one Doctor 's Opinion especially since he cannot confute it but by saying If the Christians of that Age were of another Opinion what becomes of my Argument I am sure this is meer Conjecture Let him bring as many Proofs that these early Christians were for Extempore prayers and praises as I have done for Forms and then he shall have leave sometimes to suppose it till then his if is an evasion no answer As to the place I alledged out of Clemens which shews the Method of the Christians Prayers and the main things they pray'd for He is right as to the Quotation but mistaken in saying I applied it to public Prayer neither I nor Clemens limited it either to public or private Prayer If he please I will suppose this place refers to private Prayers and then I must ask how Clemens could know so well and so exactly describe the method and matter of mens private Prayers if they were not in Forms and if they used Forms in private 't is more than probable they used them in public also Mr. S. B. concludes with diverting his Friend By my dextrous device as he calls it of mens looking up to Heaven while they use the Common Prayer Now in this there is no device at all it is plain matter of Fact which I have done and seen a Thousand times it being as common for such as prayed by our Liturgy to look frequently up to Heaven in imitation of the primitive Christians as it is for Mr. S. B's Friends to wink when they pray Extempore and if he could prove they looked up to Heaven while their Eyes were shut that would be a dextrous device indeed § 5. Pag. 30. Tertullian is my next Witness and he first speaking of the Lords Prayer calls it A new Form of Prayer which Christ had given his Disciples which Mr. Cl. did not deny But the Conformist to shew himself a greater Enemy to Forms than Mr. Cl. boldly asserts that Tertullian means by Novam formam only A new direction how to perform the Duty of Prayer But his manifest perverting that Fathers Sense appears by considering That in this Tract Tertullian is expounding the very words of Christs Form and immediately after he had described it by the new Form he gave to his Disciples he parallels it with and prefers it before the Form which John taught his Scholars And doth he think John's was only a Directory Did not Christ and S. John both teach their Disciples a Form yea doth not Tertullian there observe that the very words of our Saviours Prayer were extant but Johns were not Nothing can be plainer than that he means the Lords Prayer by this New Form and that the Christians then used it as a Form for he introduces the words to be expounded thus We say Our Father c. we request his Name may be hallowed not saying let it be hallowed in us they varied not a word Then he also saith We add Let thy Will be done c. And after his Comment is finished which so fully declares they used those very words he is as clear that they joyned it to their other Prayers for he observes Christ allows us to ask other things after he had premised the legal and ordinary Prayer as a foundation This is the Lords Prayer which Christs Law enjoyns and Christians ordinarily or daily used making that the Foundation on which they built up their other Requests in their Liturgies and it is most likely the Superstructure was suitable to the Foundation that is a Form at least I confess Tertullian doth by way of Preface before he expounds the Form and as a conclusion after it touch upon some Passages in Math. VI concerning the manner of using this Form but the new Form the legitimate and ordinary Prayer which they said daily signifie the Lords Prayer