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
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-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
relating what passed there that he had not patience to hear any more of that sort of stuff and that a further discourse about such matters would have the same effect on him as a story would concerning a Prayer beginning and ending as is before mentioned Which though Julian might design as a reflection on the Christians way of Praying yet for ought I know it imports no more than if you should tell me a Story of peoples beginning their Prayer as if they worshipped but one person and yet should conclude their Prayer in such a manner as if they had been Praying all the while to a great many persons The Doctor thinks that Lucian doth by this Prayer mean the whole Communion Office But this is only conjecture I will say no more of that but only mind you that when the Doctor suspected his evidence for Liturgies in this Century would not be very clear P. 29. he assigned this for his Reason We have no Authors who had occasion to Write particularly of the Church Service which they cared not to publish lest the Pagans under whom they lived should deride or blaspheme their Sacred Mysteries And yet in the next Page to serve a turn we must have the most jearing Pagan that Age did afford admitted to take a view of their Administration during their whole Communion Office But suppose Lucian was really at a Christian Assembly and did hear there a Prayer which began with the Father and ended with an acknowledgement of and an ascription of Glory and Honour in variety of expressions to every Person in the Trinity as is very usual with those who do not bind themselves in all their Prayers to a precise number of words might not he give that description of that Prayer which is before related and yet there be no prescribed Liturgy imposed on that Assembly The next Author the Doctor hath recourse unto is Justin Martyr Whether Justin Martyr undertaking to write an Apology for the Christians and in particular for their Church Service had not occasion to write particularly of their Church Service I leave the indisserent and unprejudiced Reader to judge P. 31. The Doctor doth acknowledge that he doth often speak of the Christian Assemblies and of the several Duties there performed c. Now if they were tied up to the constant use of a precise number of Words in their Prayers tho he might not think it convenient to report their words yet what can be imagined to obstruct his declaring they did celebrate their Offices in stinted Forms Ibid. But saith the Doctor when Justin Martyr mentions Baptism he only faith They are taught to Fast and Pray and ask of God the forgiveness of their former Sins and being brought where water is they are Regenerated in the same manner as we were Regenerated from whence the Doctor infers that even in his time they began to conceal the particular manner of Celebrating these Mysteries Now I conceive the Doctor is under some mistake as to this Passage for Justin Martyr doth immediately relate in what manner they were Regenerated Just Mar. Apol. 2. They are Regenerated in the same manner as we were Regenerated for saith Justin Martyr they are then washed in Water in the Name of the Father of all things and Lord God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit And then he proceeds to some extent in explaining and shewing the reason of all this so that here appears not any intent that he had to conceal any thing that was in use amongst them But notwithstanding Justin Martyr's reservedness in the Doctor 's opinion the Doctor meets with some general expressions which incline him to believe they had Forms in his time He will not insist upon his saying they prayed for the Conversion of the Jews and the Deliverance of the Gentiles from their errors and for all men though these are pieces of Antient Litany I only ask whether these things cannot be prayed for unless people be bound up to the constant use of particular prescribed words And whether there be any evidence that Justin Martyr borrowed this account from any Litany The Doctor next observes that when Justin Martyr speaks of the bringing the newly Baptized person to the place where the Faithful Worshipped God P. 32. he saith they there made Common Prayers for themselves for the person Baptized Just Mar. Apol. 2. and for all other men every where with great fervency Now saith the Doctor Common Prayers do signify Forms that are known to all and in which all may joyn But I answer the question is not what Common Prayers do signifie now but whether Justin Martyr by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did mean set prescribed Forms which they must constantly use and from which they must not on any account vary Here doth not appear any thing to incline us to think he meant prescribed Forms But his very next words intimate the Reason why he called them Common Prayers They made Common Prayers for themselves for the person Baptized and for all other men every where viz. because they did all hold Communion in offering up Prayers to God and their Prayers were not limited to themselves but did extend to the whole Community of Mankind What the Doctor doth here alledge out of Ignatius hath been considered already what he produceth out of St. Cyprian shall be considered when I come to his quotations out of that Author where you will meet again with this same passage In the next place the Doctor reports a passage which Mr. Clarkson cites out of Justin Martyr P. 33. about which they do both make some stir The passage is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The President in like manner offers up Prayers and Thanksgivings as well as he is able Mr. Clarkson urges this as a proof that he who did officiate in the Publick Worship was not tied up to the use of Prescribed Forms but did pray and give thanks according to his ability And he produceth many testimonies to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used doth import so much The Doctor undertakes to prove that that phrase doth signifie otherwise in this place For saith the Doctor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place before cited and that declares the Prayers at Baptism He should have said after Baptism were made servently or with all their might He endeavours to confirm this interpretation by producing some other passages where the phrase seems to be of this importance And then determines that When we desire the several things prayed for in a Form with all the earnestness and vigor we can we may properly be said to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as we are able or to the utmost of our power So that the power here spoken of refers to the affections and not to the phrases and expressions of him that prays To all this I have these things to
Doxology how will this prove they were stinted in their Publick Worship to a prescribed Liturgy But according to my apprehension this is no proof that this Doxology was then in use unless it can be made appear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot conclude any Praise and Thanksgiving but this Doxology The business in short is thus Ireneus is shewing how absurdly those Hereticks did endeavour to prove their conceit of their Aeones which was by urging every sentence where they found the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a proof of what they asserted Amongst other things they pleaded that the Orthodox did usually conclude their Praises with saying for ever and ever or as the Doctor will have it world without end Iren. adv Hâ—s lib. 1. c. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now all that can fairly be inferred from hence I think is this that the Christians did usually conclude their Praises with these words for ever and ever And if no Prayers or Praises but prescribed Forms can conclude with these words I am contented that this should pass for a proof of stinted Forms in Ireneus his time But if Prayers and Praises which are not Prescribed Forms may conclude and ordinarily are concluded with these words I leave the Doctor to consider whether his alledging this for a proof of a fixed Liturgy be not a way of arguing very like that which was used by those Ireneus did write against Tertullian shall be considered when he comes in order and then you may judge of the Doctors Inference The next Author the Doctors makes use of P. 40. is Clemens of Alexandria Out of whom a passage is quoted concerning which he and Mr. Clarkson do differ touching the meaning of it Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. The passage is this The Church is not only the name of the place for Publick Worship but the Congregation prostrating themselves in Prayers having all as it were one common voice and one mind The dispute is concerning the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. Clarkson thought the Congregation had one voice in respect of the Ministers speaking in their stead one for all The Doctor thinks it signifies the performing the Offices of Prayer and Praise in a responsory way which must be in known Forms because the people not only joined in heart with the Minister but vocally answered in their turns they and the Priest often making up the sentence between them and therefore they are said to have as it were one common voice I leave the Learned to determine which of them is in the right as to the sense of this phrase And will only acquaint you that I think if the way of Responsory Prayers and Praises had been antecedently proved to be the ordinary way of the Christian Church in the Primitive Ages there would have been something to countenance the Doctors interpretation But to interpret this place thus can be no proof for Liturgies because the interpretation is built upon a supposition and takes that for granted which it is alledged to prove Besides if the people did vocally answer in their turns and they and the Priest did often make up the sentence between them as the Doctor affirms I think in thus doing they could hardly be said to have as it were one common voice for they would evidently have two common voices The Priest having one common voice for himself and them in his part of the sentence and the People another common voice for themselves and the Priest in their part of the sentence It does indeed exceed my reach to comprehend a Reason why the Congregation may not be said to have one common voice in Prayer and Praise when they have appointed or chosen a Priest to officiate in their name and do concur and join with him in those Offices No nor why they may not be said to have as it were one common voice in the Doctors notion of that phrase when they do testifie their approbation of what he hath said as Justin Martyr assures us they did by saying Amen But saith the Doctor If the Minister had said all the Prayers he i. e. Clemens must have said plainly they had one common mouth or voice but his words are having as it were one common voice I leave you to consider whether their answering Amen is not enough to remove this scruple Only you may take notice that the Doctor is of opinion that Clemens doth allude here to those words of St. Paul Rom. 15.6 And St. Paul speaks there of glorifying God with one mouth not as it were with one mouth The Doctor further observes from Clemens that the Christians allotted several hours for Prayer in imitation of Daniel and the Jews and hence concludes it likely that because the Jews had Forms of Prayer they did imitate them in these too I think it needless to make any Reply to this because it is a forced way of reasoning and is at best all over meer conjecture But saith the Doctor would those who prayed so often vary the phrase every time Now this is not at all to the point for that which the Doctor should prove is that they were obliged constantly to use the very same words The Doctor further tells us That Clemens doth not relate what were the words of their Forms There the Doctor speaks very right but withall I must add he never relates that they had any Forms But Clemens tells us what were their main Petitions And the Doctor saith These matters they asked were such it was most fit to ask them in a set Form of words That is one Doctors opinion But if the Christians of that Age were of another opinion what becomes of the Doctors argument And he must give some evidence they were of his opinion before what he asserts will pass for proof in the present case But saith the Doctor If they had prayed for these things extempore Clemens could not be so positive in the method as he seems to be To which I make this reply viz. Clemens reports the methods of Christians private devotions every jot as particularly as that quotation he insists on with relation to Publick Prayers doth relate their method Whether that I speak of be the very same the Doctor refers unto I will not affirm but it seems to have some affinity and I am sure it is in the same Book his Margin refers to If it should be the same the Doctor means you will easily perceive how little it is to his purpose And why should the Doctor think it strange Clemens could be so positive as naming three general heads of Prayer doth amount to in the method of their Publick Prayers tho they did not use a fixed prescribed Liturgy Seeing he is every jot as positive in the method of their Private Prayers unless they all used the same Forms in private too The truth of which I am perswaded the Doctor hath no inclination to undertake
AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. COMBER's SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY OF THE Primitive and General Use OF LITURGIES IN THE Christian Church By S. B. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est quodcunque pietatis officium etiamsi à privato praestetur Is Casaub exercit in Baron xvi p. 383. Nemo autem versatus in Graecorum Patrum lectione ignorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 persaepe illis dici quicquid fit ad Deum colendum Id. p. 384. LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens Head Ally in Pater noster Row MDCXC TO THE READER Reader THE following Papers were writ some months since and if the Author had known they would have been published at this time I do not doubt but they would have been accompanied with the like account of what Doctor Comber hath produced for Liturgies in the Fourth Century The Author is not one who is wedded to a Party He hath often said he knows not any one Party of a particular Denomination but it hath some things which either do or by reason of an alteration of circumstances may deserve to be rectified He thinks what is really good and commendable in every Party should be approved And he wishes that what is not so in every Party might be universally understood and laid aside or amended He is a Conformist upon Principles he thinks he can justifie but which are more comprehensive than those which some appear to be influenced by in their Conformity He useth the Liturgy of the Church of England in his Officiating in the Publick Worship as fully as the Law requires And he is so far from condemning the Publick Worship of Pious and Judicious Protestants who do not tye up themselves to Prescribed Forms that he joins with them in their Publick Worship as he hath opportunity He is troubled to see so great an aversion to a General Vnion of Protestants in this Land and that old Animosities are awakened out of their late Slumber He is of opinion that the Church of England is much prejudiced by the Indiscretions of many who pretend an extraordinary Zeal for Her The matters we differ about are very seldom rightly Stated Arguments are not well adjusted to what is in debate What is offered for proof is too ordinarily put upon the Rack and by overstraining it it serves only for a Pompous Show and is of no real use at all Though Doctor Comber hath often expressed himself in such a manner as would justifie some keen Reflections yet this Author hath forborn them because he would not willingly exasperate any man of Learning or Ingenuity And therefore he hath mainly determined himself to a fair Representation of the Doctor 's Authorities which he hopes can yield no offence to any man of a sober and honest mind The Author of the following Papers doth think that to do Liturgies right in a full Discourse especially History of that matter some notice should be taken of the various use of the word Liturgy in the Christian Church and of the time when it was first used with that strictness of signification Mr. Clarkson hath assigned it in his stating the point For he saith It was at first of a very general importance and was not limited to Publick Offices That when it came to be used in a more appropriate sense it was applied particularly to every Publick Office And that after it was in a special manner appropriated to Forms of Prayer it had not for a long time that strictness of signification it has in Mr. Clarkson's stating the matter And he further conceives that this is not the proper signification of a Liturgy as used and enjoined in the Church of England Therefore he thinks that instead of endeavouring to prove the Antiquity of Liturgies in that sense we should rather endeavour to rectifie the mistake which hath unhappily arisen concerning a Liturgy as injoyned and used in our Church Having given you this account of the Authâ—r and his design in the following Papers I leave you to peruse the Papers themselves and to judge as you shall see sit whether the Doctor have produced substantial Proof that Liturgies or Prescribed Forms of Prayer were only and unvariably used in the Christian Church during the Three First Centuries ERRATA P 2. l. ult r. prescribed p. 4. l. 29. for truly r. freely p. 6. l. 22. after out r. of p. 16. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 18. l. 11. r. Lucian p. 29. l. 9. for truth r. proof p. 36. l. 6. dele as p. 37. l. 29. after subject r. matter p. 38. l. 11. after any r. other p. 40. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. COMBERS Testimonies FOR LITURGIES During the three First Centuries c. SIR ABOUT the middle of the last month I received by your order Dr. Combers Scholastical History of the Primitive and General use of Liturgies in the Christian Church together with an Answer to Mr. David Clarkson's late Discourse concerning Liturgies I now return you my thanks for it and I would have done it sooner but that some businesses called me from home immediately after I received it even before I had time to peruse it I now certifie you that I have read it And I do herewith send you what I take to be a true account of the meaning of those Testimonies the Doctor doth alledge in the three first Centurys for Liturgies I forbear many Reflections which several passages in the Doctor 's Book would give abundant occasion for My design is little more than just to present you with the Doctor 's quotations in their plain and entire sense Your opinion of the Doctor 's performance I perswade my self is not such as will prejudice you against evidence I therefore leave you to judge whether his Authorities be to his purpose and whether his Inferences be so rational as he pretends his History is Scholastical and whether his Book may properly be said to contain an Answer to Mr Clarkson's Discourse of Liturgies You will make the easier and more just determination if the matter be first a little stated for then you will perceive what the Doctor should prove And whether what he offers for proof do reach the point he hath undertaken to discourse Therefore you must be sure to remember that Mr. Clarkson is far enough from asserting that Forms of Prayer are intrinsically evil P. 2. He does not deny but there were some Forms of Prayer of old viz. Arbitrary and particular such as this or that person composed himself or made choice of composed by others P. 3. for his use in publick He owns the Lords Prayer was used anciently tho far otherwise than of late P. 4. He grants that divers Churches had a certain order wherein they agreed to administer the several parts of worship and particularly the severals in the Sacraments so as each had its known and fixed place That this order was setled in some Churches by custom and in some there was in time
a Rule for it He saith there was also some kind of uniformity in their Sacramental Prayers P. 5. that is a general agreement to pray for the same things Idem tho not in the same words He expresly relates what it is which is the point in dispute P. 2. And declares That by prescribing Forms are meant such as are imposed upon the Administrator so as those must be used and no other nor otherwise without adding detracting or transposing This saith Mr. Clarkson is it which is denied P. 6. That in the Ancient Church for many ages after Christ such Liturgies and Forms of Prayer were commonly imposed on those who administred the Sacraments as are before described Thus you see what was denied as well as what was granted by Mr Clarkson and therefore what the Doctor was to prove If the Doctor 's quotations be not home to this point they do not reach that for which he doth pretend to produce them And whether for the first three Centuries his Authorities do amount to a proof of what is in dispute yea or so much as of Forms of Prayer you may conclude as you shall see fit when you have considered the following account of them Before I enquire into the passages the Doctor doth quote for the proof of Liturgies in the particular Centuries as they come in their order I will take notice of a few passages which occur in his Discourse concerning the Grounds for Liturgies in Holy Scripture which takes up some Pages before he makes his entrance on the First Century The Doctor saith the Holy Bible makes it appear P. 2. that the People of God from the beginning did generally use Forms of Prayer and Praises in their Publick worship Now supposing this to be true to make it reach the present purpose he should prove they did not nor might not use any Prayers or Praises but those very Forms Idem Yea saith the Doctor God prescribes a Form of Prayer for the penitent Jews and charges them to take words with them and turn to the Lord and say Take away all Iniquity c. Hos 14.2 3 4. 'T is true God doth command them to use words in their Prayers and directs them what sort of words to use but let the Doctor answer when he thinks fit whether God doth bind them to use no words but what are there mentioned But further Forms of Prayer and Praise were indited by the Spirit of God for the publick service of the Temple and commanded by the Lord to be used there Is the inference from hence plain and just Therefore men may devise Prayers of their own and oblige the Church to use these and none but these The Doctor refers to Doctor Hammond and Doctor Lightfoot for proof that the Jews had a fixed Liturgy whether their proof be solid touching that matter would be too great a diversion to inquire But if occasion required I should not be afraid to undertake to produce the Authorities those two Learned Doctors build their proof upon for some things the Learned will not allow we must acquiesce in upon their testimony I will not insist on the difference betwixt the Jewish and Christian Church-State For we may suppose Forms might be of general use among the Jews and yet there be no necessity of an express abrogation of that way to warrant peoples addressing themselves publickly to God in another way than by stinted Forms For Prayer being commanded and there being two ways wherein this duty might be performed viz. by stinted Forms and by expressing themselves truly according to general Occasions and particular Emergencies There appears not any necessity that the use of Forms as to the Lawfulness thereof must of necessity be abrogated in order to it 's being Lawful to use the other way P. 5 6. But if we would prosecute the Doctors way of Arguing on this occasion aright somthing else will follow than what the Doctor doth conclude even what the Doctor I am perswaded would not be very willing to stand to For seeing the Jews did worship God acceptably c. by set Forms and Christ and his Apostles did joyn in these Forms and never reprove the Jews for using them The most obvious inference will be That Christians must now use those very Forms and none but them unless those Forms be abrogated and a positive institution of other Forms be left upon Record either in the Gospels or Epistles For by the Doctors discourse the Disciples had Forms of Prayers which must certainly be Jewish Forms and Christ only taught them another Form which they were to add to those they had before yea according to what the Doctor relates the Lord Jesus when he provided his Disciples a New Form to be added to the rest was not only so far from discharging people and setting his Disciples free from the stinted way of Liturgies but from their obligation to the Jewish Forms That he would consine himself in the very Prayer he made them whereby they were to be known from all others to be his Disciples to the Jewish Liturgy so that there should not be one sentence in his Prayer but what he took out of the Jewish Prayers then in use Now those who devote themselves to such notions as these may do well to consider whether if it be so as the Doctor reportes that Christ took every sentence of his Prayer out of the Jewish Prayers and taught it his Disciples that they might add it to their other Forms which were Jewish the obligation to use this as a Form of Prayer and to use those other Forms to which they were to add it be not of equal duration But alas whether will some mens pretences to reading hurry them What work will be made of Christianity if the forced conceptions of some men who would be thought to have read much must be entertained Some do represent matters in such a manner as if they had a mind to perswade people that the Lord Jesus was anointed with the Spirit only to supply the meanness of his education not to inable him to form and compose a Prayer himself but only to collect and cull sentences out of other peoples Prayers and then put them together into one form Not many years ago other matters were represented at such a rate by another hand as if the Spirit had been given to the Apostles to furnish them immediately because they had not been bred to such matters with Philosophical notions and some critical niceties and particularly was given to St. John to inable him to write his Epistle in a Platonick strain How far this sort of dealing may serve a particular interest for a while I will not inquire But it hath no probable tendency to promote the main design of Christianity The Doctor saith that Christ in giving his Disciples a new Form when they desired him to teach them to pray and Coppying the several Petitions out the Jewish
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
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
obvious sense of this place I appeal to any one who will consider what goes a little before and what immediately follows these words Ante omnia pacis doctor atque unitatis magister singulatim noluit privatim precem fieri ut quis cum precatur pro se tantum precetur publica est nobis communis oratio quum oramus non pro uno sed pro populo toto oramus This is also the plain meaning of his next Quotation as you will easily perceive when you see the sentence entire which is thus Cypr. Ep. ad Cler. c. Vnusquisque oret dominum non pro se tantùm sed pro omnibus fratribus sicut Dominus Jesus orare nos docuit ubi non singulis privatam precem mandavit sed communi concordi prece orare pro omnibus jussit The Doctor saith there are still more evident Proofs in this Author not only of Forms P. 66. but of a Liturgy And his first Instance is out of the forementioned Sermon concerning the Lord's Prayer I forbear a great many Reflections I might easily make on what the Doctor saith concerning this Passage I will only mind you that a Common Prayer in the present sense of that Phrase must be proved to be in St. Cyprian's time before it can be owned that he cited Sursum Corda out of that Common Prayer And notwithstanding this Phrase is to be found in Liturgies framed long after St. Cyprian's time it doth not appear there was any such Liturgy then nor does St. Cyprian say a word here of this Phrase being used in the Eucharist though Liturgies since framed have inserted it in that Office Now the whole St. Cyprian saith about this matter amounts but to this He having exhorted the People to keep their minds and hearts very intent upon what should be their business when they are offering up their Prayers unto God he explains to them the design of an Exhortation the Priest did usually give them before he began his prayer Cypr. de Orat. Dom. Ideo sacerdos ante orationem praefatione praemissa parat fratrum mentes dicendo Sursum corda ut dum respondet plebs Habemus ad Dominum admoneatur nihil aliud se quà m Dominum cogitare debere And from hence he inforces on them his former Instruction or Exhortation Now if a Minister cannot pray but in a prescribed Form after that he hath desired the People to lift up their hearts to God and they have declared their readiness to concur with him therein this may pass for a proof of prescribed Liturgies The present business is not to enquire what inferences others have made from this Passage but whether a prescribed Liturgy be deduceable from a Ministers desiring the People before he begins to pray to lift up their hearts to God and attend to what should be the main business of Prayer or from their answering that they are ready and willing to concur with him in what he desires of them Here appearing so little evidence for Liturgies in this Passage I proceed to the Doctor 's next more evident proof for a Liturgy out of this Author P. 67. We may observe saith the Doctor not only by this Preface but also by another Passage that the African Church and the Eastern did hugely agree in these Liturgick Forms because as the Greeks say Give holy things to those that are Holy So it seems they did at Carthage where as St Cyprian notes they were daily charged to keep that which was Holy in a pure Conscience according to our Lord's Command not to cast that which is Holy to Dogs that is in the Eucharist which they then daily celebrated they used that Phrase Give Holy things to Holy Persons Now the truth with reference to this passage is this St. Cyprian in the beginning of his Discourse against Demetrian acquaints him why he had so long chosen rather to keep silence than to make a formal answer to his Calumnies and Railery And for his warrant in doing thus he quotes some places of Scripture and immediately inserts these words Cypr. ad Demet. Et Sanctum quoque jubeamur intra censcientiam nostram tenere nec conculcandum porcis canibus exponere For the proof of which command or charge he refers not to their Communion Service or their Office at the Eucharist as the Doctor hints but to a Passage of our Saviour's as it is laid down expresly in the Gospel Loquente Domino dicente ne dederitis sanctum canibus neque miseritis margaritas vestras ante porcos c. In this same Tract the Doctor pretends to find a Christian Litany P. 68. he refers to the same page he had quoted for the former Passage but you will find the Passage he speaks of towards the latter end of this Tract Here St. Cyprian saith That notwithstanding Christians can rejoyce in every Condition and patiently bear the most adverse occurrences because of the respect they have unto the happy and blessed Estate which is to come yet they do as occasion requires offer up their Prayers to God for temporal blessings and the removing or moderating of Adversities c. Et tamen pro arcendis hostibus imbribus impetrandis Cypr. Cont. Demet. vel auferendis vel temperandis adversis rogamus semper preces fundimus c. Now because St. Cyprian and Tertullian do give an account of some things which were the subject matter of the Christians constant or occasional Petitions for I suppose the Doctor doth hardly think the Christians did every day pray for the procuring of Rain therefore the Doctor concludes they had a Liturgy And because the particulars mentioned were prayed for in the Ancient Litanies though much younger than either of these two Authors therefore in the times of these Authors they had a certain Form though they concealed the phrases of it from unbelievers If any Man can see any strength in this way of arguing before it be proved that these things cannot be prayed for but in prescribed words I must acknowledge he can see farther than I can The Doctor having produced these Testimonies from St. Cyprian P. 69. to evidence a Liturgy in his days applies himself to answer some Passages Mr. Clarkson had offered from this Author to prove that in his days those who did officiate were at liberty to express themselves in their Prayers as they thought most convenient The first Quotation for this purpose is out of St. Cyprian's Epistle to Pope Lucius where he gives him an account of their praying to God for him suitably to the present occasion which was offered them This occasion of offering up their prayers for him was particular and such as was not incident every day The Question now is this Whether seeing they did pray for him with a particular regard to what is related in that Epistle the Petitions they offered up were prescribed or whether they
were exprest freely according as the occasion required I shall leave the indifferent Reader when he peruseth what the Doctor hath said about this matter to conclude as he shall see fit whether the Doctor hath cleared this Passage to his satisfaction For I think the Question is not whether those words he relates there were the very words they constantly used on that occasion but whether there was a Prayer ready prescribed for that occasion If there were not and they did ordinarily pray for the things mentioned without being confined to use the same words every time do you judge whether this Passage do make more for the Doctor or Mr. Clarkson It is in my judgment but a poor answer for the Doctor to insinuate P. 70. that a Primate may occasionally pray without a prescribed Form but inferiour Priests may not unless Ministerial abilities are not to be exercised proportionably to the measure in which God hath conferred the same but accordingly as those who have them can climb up towards the top of Ecclesiastical Dignity and Preferment His second Allegation saith the Doctor out of St. Cyprian for such occasional Prayers is P. 71. that there are also mention of such occasional Prayers in the Epistle to Moses and Maximus but he durst not saith the Doctor cite the place at large which only speaks of private Prayers made by these Confessors in prison c. Now because the Doctor hath such a mind to have the place cited at large I will do it and then leave you to judge whether it only speaks of private Prayers or whether the Passage do speak at all of the Prayers of these Confessors Mr. Clarkson refers to the particular Epistle and the words are these Et nos quidem vestri diebus ac noctibus Cypr. epist ad Mos Maxim me mores quando in sacrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus cum in secessu privatis precibus oramus coronis ac laudibus vestris plenam domini faventiam postulamus There is one instance more P. 71. the Doctor takes notice of and seems to be in some passion with Mr. Clarkson about it Now the matter stands thus Mr. Clarkson in one part of his Book is shewing that the Ancients were not so wedded to particular words and phrases as some have been in latter years And to give some proof of this he doth shew amongst other instances that they did not conceive Christ had so tied them up in the Administration of Baptism that they must necessarily use just those very words he had set down relating to this matter in the Gospel but that they had leave to vary their expressions and change those words related in the Gospel for others provided they did not change the sence He shews they did ordinarily vary in several particulars and amongst the rest he saith some thought themselves not obliged to Baptise expresly in the name of the Sacred Trinity so as to name every person as they are mentioned Mat. 28.19 but in the name of Christ or of the Lord Jesus or of the Lord. He farther adds and this supposed to be the practice of the best times hath great Advocates He names several who are and were far enough from being lookt upon as Hereticks Afterwards he quotes this very Passage in St. Cyprian which creates the Doctor so much disturbance The Doctor seems to be displeased because Mr. Clarkson did not quote the Passage entire P. 72. without leaving out any words and then tells us St. Cyprians words are these How then do some say who are cut of the Church yea against the Church that if a Pagan be any where or any way Baptised in the name of Christ Jesus he may obtain the Remission of Sins And hereupon the Doctor falls into a warm sort of short talk about Hereticks and Schismaticks Now St. Cyprians words are these Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt Cypr. ad Jubai foris extra ecclesiam modo in nomine Jesu Christi ubicunque quemodocunque gentilem Baptizatum Remissionem peccatorum consequi posse I will not dispute whether the Doctor hath translated this Passage as it ought to be translated though I do not know any necessity that there is that foris extra ecclesiam must be used as explanatory of quidam But all that Mr. Clarkson brought this Passage for was to prove that some in St. Cyprians days were of the above mentioned opinion And I think the quotation is full to that point He did not produce this place to prove they were Orthodox in St. Cyprians Judgement but he doth expresly declare St Cyprian did not allow it yet I am not sensible that it doth follow they were either Hereticks or Schismaticks because foris extra ecclesiam is in this sentence The Doctors next proof for Liturgies is from the account St. Basil gives concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus P. 72. who was so much for a Liturgy that we have the testimony of St. Basil saith the Doctor concerning him that he appointed a Form of Prayer for that Church of Noeocesarea from which they would not vary in one Ceremony or in a Word nor would they add one mystical Form to those which he had left them Now the Case was thus St. Basil was proving the Divinity of the Holy Spirit Basil de Spir. sancto cap. 29. from the Ancients Ascribing Glory and Power to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit And having named several of the Ancients who had taught that Glory and Power were to be Ascribed to the Spirit as well as to the Father and the Son he at last mentions Gregory the Great and proves that he was of the same mind from the present practice of that Church And to make it appear they had not varied from the Doctrine of that great man he reports the profound respect the people of that Country still had for him P. 73. So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. as the Doctor relates in his Margin they would not add any Practice any Word or any mystical Form in the Church to what he had left with them By which I conceive he means that they did strictly observe that way and method for their ordinary Worship and kept strictly to those Doctrines and that way of Administring the Sacrament which were in use in Gregories time But he doth not say one word of Gregorie's appointing a Form of Prayer for that Church Nor does it follow that because they Worshiped God in the same manner a great many years after Gregory wherein they worshipped him in his time that therefore they used the very words he used Whereas it is said they did not add a word to what he left with them that doth not relate to their Prayers but to the Doctrine he taught for here St. Basil is speaking of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and proving that Doctrine And in other places St. Basil takes notice how tenacious they were