the manner of praying to the Father that we may be heard more easily are those Instructions that spiritual and true Prayer pronounced by Christ's mouth are they Christ's prayer which ascends to his Fathers ears and are owned by him as his Sons words when we pray is our following his Instructions asking forgiveness in his own words and by his own Prayer Alas to what absurdities hath his Resolution to defend an ill cause reduced him 'T is true S. Cyprian digresseth a little as Tertullian had done to explain the directions which our Lord gave about the manner of praying but he soon returns to the Form it self repeating it verbatim and as he explains every single Petition affirming that the Christians said so and so in their Prayers And it is clear from him that they both used this Prayer and others formed by this pattern wherefore alitèr orare praying otherwise in S. Cyprian which he so severely censures cannot be designed to condemn those Churches who framed other Forms by this pattern and always used this Form for one as our Church hath done it is levelled at those who either wholly omit the Lords Prayer or in their arbitrary Composures take no care to suit them to this Heavenly pattern of both which some Dissenters are guilty He concludes with observing that I noted Origen's phrase of using Prayers imported they were composed by others and he wonders what I would note upon Cyprian's phrase of making Prayers And I have a Note upon that which will not please him viz. That S. Cyprian saith a Man makes his Prayer when he uses the very words of the Lords Prayer the Form of Christ's making And if Mr. S. B. would infer from hence That they prayed extempore or arbitrarily he cannot draw that conclusion from S. Cyprian where he that prays by a Form is said precem facere to make a Prayer So that using Prayers in Origen plainly supposes them made before-hand but making Prayers here do not at all suppose them to be Extempore nor can they infer that from the words of S. Paul who would have prayers c. to be made for all men 1 Tim. ii 1. Pag. 44. I brought that passage in S. Cyprian Publica est nobis communis oratio to prove that the Congregation vocally joyned with the Priest in prayers which doth suppose a Set Form Mr. S. B. saith common-Common-prayer signifies no more than that we must pray for all People Now S. Cyprian indeed doth make this one sense of Common-prayer as appears by the words he cites but then the Father goes on to shew that the Lords Prayer for it is of that he speaks is a Common prayer because it is said as that of the Three Children was Who saith he all agreed in their prayer in voices as well as in hearts and sung their Hymn as it were with one mouth note here the meaning of that phrase And so saith he did the Apostles who are said to pray with one accord Thus far S. Cyprian Mr. S. B. wholly omits this sense of a Common-prayer and which is worse denies that this is any meaning of it But let it be considered that the people then vocally repeated the Lords Prayer the Common-prayer here spoken of and let it be remembred what I said about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon pag. 20. and then I hope it will be granted this is one sense of a Common-prayer that is a Form in which Priest and People may vocally joyn Yea this seems the only sense in the second Quotation which I cited Cypr. ad Cler. Pleb ep 8. We must pray for all as the Lord taught there where he enjoyned not every one a single Prayer but commanded us to pray for all men with a Common-prayer in which all agree For here S. Cyprian saith The Lords Prayer was a Prayer for all Men and then adds it was a Common-prayer Now this would be a tautology If the only sense of a Common-prayer were a Prayer for all Men this had been as if he had said We must pray for all men in a Prayer for all men if that were all S. Cyprian might have left out Orare pro omnibus or communi prece but his using both these phrases shews not only that the subject of the Lords Prayer was general for all men but the way of using it was by the peoples joyning with the Priest and reciting it in common And if S. Cyprian believed Christ taught us to pray thus by vocal joyning in one common Form then they who will have the Minister alone make all the prayers Extempore while the people silently sit by and hear teach another manner of praying than Christ taught Pag. 45. The Preface Lift up your hearts with the Response We lift them up unto the Lord in Cypr. de orat § 22. I still take to be a firm proof of the use of alternate Forms in the public Service and think it probable he cited them out of the Liturgy A Versicle and Response is an alternate Form and S. Cyprian mentions it as a thing known and daily used in public The Centuriators infer hence That there were Forms in his time and Goulartius a learned Protestant in his Notes on the place Owns it was a Form used of old at the Eucharist where it continued to be used in S. Augustin ' s days Goular not in Cypr. p. 322. I might produce innumerable eminent Authors who are of the same Opinion but Mr. S. B. saith He is not to enquire into the Inferences which others make form this place yea he threatens me with Reflections for my observing them Which minds me of that Saying of old Fabius related by S. Hierom ad Pammach ep 26. It were happy for Arts if none but Artists might judge of them However his Reflections could not have hurt me in so good Company if he had vented them they must have returned on his own head for he that despises such Evidence brings both his learning and modesty into question Again he retires to his old Fallacy That I should first have proved there was then a Liturgy before I had supposed this passage was cited out of it I hope I have proved this to every body but Mr. S. B. who will not allow any proof to be the first and by that politick Supposition hopes to persuade such as take his word there can be no second proof but whatever become of my former Evidence in his Opinion I am sure there was one in this place which he could not answer viz. That this very Preface in so many words is found in all Liturgies of the African Eastern and Western Churches To which I add now that S. Aug. saith All Mankind as with one voice used these words de ver Rel. c. 3. And the Liturgies wherein these words are prescribed must be elder than S. Cyprian's time for S. Aug. believed this Form came from the Apostolical Age. S. Cyril who explained this Form in S.
good evidence That the same Spirit directed them all to appoint Forms from the very beginning § 3. pag. 7. His own loose consequences do not discourage him from censuring me as discoursing too loosly Wherefore having passed by our Saviours Hymn and his Prayer in the Garden clear instances of his choosing allowing and using Forms both of Prayer and Praise He gives our Saviours Prayer on the Cross which I said was probably taken out of Psal xxii as an instance of my loose discoursing asking me Who put the petitions in Form for Christ and obliged him to use no other words I reply to his Insinuation That if my Conjecture be too loose he should and might have confuted it but his not attempting that shews it was close enough To his Question I answer David by the Spirit of Prophecy long before composed this Prayer for Christ as appears by his voluntary choosing of this Form when he could have made a New prayer and if my Examiner will allow he prayed by the Spirit when he used this Form then it is no loose inference to say We may pray by the Spirit in using Forms and to affirm It is no hardship to enjoyn men to serve God in that way which Jesus chose as the best when he was free from all constraint and infinitely more able than any of us to have prayed otherwise In my 8th page I proved by S. Austin and Beza That the Apostles both used and setled Forms and from others that prescribed Forms had been used from the Apostolical times Mr. S. B. I doubt thought this too close and so never offers to answer it But when I had granted the Lords Prayer to be both a Form and a Direction to draw other Forms by And That Liturgies are other words indeed but such as are agreeable to it i. e. to the Lords Prayer both as to the Form and Matter of them The Examiner first adds No to my words and cites them thus Liturgies are No other words c. and then insinuates they are Non-sense and an odd Expression to fall from a learned Doctor But I am sure 't is an odd Trick of a Non-conforming Conformist to put No into the midst of a Sentence to be so greedy of making reflections after his promise to the contrary that he falfies my words to get an opportunity The adding No to Scripture it self may make it non-sense or blasphemy and if I should add it to his Preface and say He is no Conformist he useth not the Liturgy some think I had not done him much wrong though he would no doubt have resented it Well leave out No then here and my sense is plain That Liturgies are other words different in syllables from the Lords Prayer but agreeing to it both as to the Form or method of the Petitions and as to the Subject matter of them which I proved by an induction of particulars pag. 10. to which he doth not vouchsafe any answer But upon my granting the Lords Prayer was a Direction as well as a Form he asks a notable Question and repeats it again pag. 9. viz. Why may not à Minister keeping to the words of the Lords Prayer use other words than those in the Liturgy as well as the Liturgy-men use other words than those in the Lords Prayer this had been close if he had not forgot our Ministers circumstances The Church hath drawn up a Liturgy very carefully following the direction of the Lords Prayer and for such Reasons as he may find in my 2d Part pag. 325 enjoyned all Ministers to use it constantly and they have sincerely I hope consented thereto Now to ask his Question in our case is to ask why every Captain who thinks himself wiser than his superior Officer may not cross the Orders given by his General or a Council of War and give new ones to his own Company He must find out some Reason as New as an Extempore prayer to prove that private Ministers in a setled Church ought to have liberty to do all those Acts which their Governors may do before his Question can concern us or be worth answering To go on Mr. Cl. brought many Authorities to shew that the ancient Christians used the Lords prayer not out of any apprehension that it was enjoyned Math. vi These Quotations I examined particularly and shewed they were not sufficient for his purpose Mr. S. B. who loves not to meddle with reading instead of examining my Answers refers the Reader to examine them himself only among eight Authors he picks out Maldonat whose sense without citing his very words I said was only That we are not always bound to use the very words of the Lords Prayer And Maldonat doth not only say Non his necessariò verbis but ut quotiescunque oramus omnia aut aliqua aut nihil certe his contrarium peteremus However Mr. S. B. conceives his Sense to be That we are not absolutely bound to use those very words at any time Which not only contradicts Maldonat's words but shews my Examiner did not know this Author was a Jesuit and a rigid Papist bound by the Rules of his Church and Order to say so many Paternosters every Day otherwise he could not have asserted this Jesuit so openly turned Fanatick as to affirm in a Book which was to pass the Censors That no man is bound at any time to say a Pater-Noster He follows this with a notable Question which Examiners and some others claim a priviledge to ask viz. If we be not always bound to use the Lords words how we came to be bound to use always other peoples words I reply We of this Church are bound to use the Lords Prayer as often as we use the Liturgy in public and sincere Conformists deliberately bound themselves to use the Lords words and the Churches too in all their public Administrations believing them to be fitter for those occasions than any they can invent How Mr. S. B. came to be bound he knows best perhaps Advantage drew him to do that which he now dislikes but he should have asked this Question before and then he had escaped the Snare of making enquiry after Vows Prov. xx 25. § 4. pag. 8. I had owned there was an extraordinary Gift of Prayer in the Apostles times and long after which I observed none could claim by Scripture in this Age and answered all the places produced by some for this claim in four or five Pages To which Mr. S. B. gives no Answer but is very large in giving us his own Notion of the Gift of Prayer which he defines An ability to represent the sentiments of a Soul duly affected with the general and particular matter of prayer in suitable Expressions proper to beget and improve such affections and resentments in those who shall hear and joyn in the use of them to that purpose A Logician can no more reduce this definition to his Rules of Art than he can give a regular
Analysis of an Extempore prayer yet if I admit it for a description my Cause is not hurt since according to this Character he that reads the Liturgy doth exercise the Gift of prayer as well or better than the Extempore man For our Clergy and well instructed People upon rational grounds believe the Expressions of the Liturgy to be more proper than they or any can invent or utter on the sudden without the extraordinary assistance of the Holy Ghost So that every pious Minister of our Church hath his Soul duly affected with the general and particular matter of Prayer and an ability to represent the sentiments of his Soul in expressions suitable and proper to beget and improve such affections and resentments in all the true lovers of Common-Prayer who hear and joyn with him Wherefore by his account the Dissenters have no monopoly of this Gift of Prayer and if our hearts be duly affected we have more title to it than they for our Expressions have been all duly weighed by Admirable men and we may know the general and particular matter of them before-hand by meditating whereon our Souls may be more affected than any can rationally be supposed to be by an Expression that flies by like a flash of Lightning 'T is true Mr. S. B. denies that such as pray Extempore expect the assistance of the Spirit only to teach them new words and phrases for their daily prayers But as he states the point the only difference between their exercise of this Gift and ours is this They frequently or daily vary the phrases and we use the same As to the propriety of expressions affections and resentments we and our people have the advantage And say what he will he lays great weight upon new phrases for he affirms The exercise of this Gift cannot well consist with an obligation constantly to use the same words The absurdity of which appears First By the censure this passes upon him who if this be true when he subscribed and declared renounced the use of one of Gods gifts Secondly By the sentence it passes upon all sincere Conformists who by this account do never pray by the Spirit meerly for want of new expressions though their expressions be never so proper their Souls never so much affected and their People never so devout So that I may refer it to the Reader whether he hath abused himself or his Brethren more by this rash expression Now when he had made new phrases the distinguishing Character of the Gift of prayer he did well to say It is no extraordinary Gift For it is a meer natural faculty depending on mens parts and temper attained by confidence and use like the Art of making Speeches An easie Observer may see that the fluency the variety and the style follow the complection and disposition of the Speaker the Sanguin are brisk and aiery in these prayers the Flegmatic slow and flat the Choleric bold and fierce the Melancholy sad and dismal yea the same man is quicker or slower as his Body or Mind is well or ill-disposed So that no considering person will ascribe such a Quality as this to the Spirit of God There being no promise that God will assist us in public Prayer with new phrases and it is a great presumption to expect that which God never promised and a greater to ascribe the effects of mens natural tempers to the operation of the Holy Ghost What he adds That Men have ordinarily a readiness to express their Sense in proper words is not true in the case of public Prayer for many pious and learned Ministers who have a very affectionate sense of the matter of Prayer cannot express themselves suitably to their inward resentments as he calls it yet many Ignorants or Hypocrites who have no sense of him they speak to or that they pray for can express themselves fluently on any occasion Pag. 9. It is a Paradox to me when there are very pertinent words how other words only equally pertinent should contribute more to the ends of public Worship His instance of the Lords Prayer and Liturgies will not make it out the Lords Prayer is more pertinent for those occasions for which Christ made it than any human Composure can be But our Lord designed not this short Prayer for the whole Service but to be added to our other Prayers and to direct the Church to frame other Prayers by it and our Church hath observed both these orders He hath been told already why every private Minister cannot have the same liberty that the Governours of a setled Church have As for his supposing these Ministers would vary no more from the Lords Prayer if they had liberty than the Liturgy doth first this is very unlikely because some of those who take this liberty neither use the Lords Prayer as a Form nor mind it as a direction for their Extempore prayers And secondly the project is impracticable among 10000 Clergy-men for some are unwilling to have a liberty of varying others are unfit to be trusted with it in which number are many who through a conceit of their own abilities desire it and there are but very few who are fit to be allowed such a liberty that do press for it Wherefore since this liberty cannot be granted to all the distinguishing would be so difficult and the denying it to some so exasperating that it is better to restrain a few from the exercise of their needless gifts where we have already properer Expressions than any of them can invent than to bring all those mischiefs on a setled Church which either a general allowance or a distinguishing dispensation must create His second illustration of the aforesaid Paradox is by my Paraphrases on the Common-Prayer by which I thought to further devotion And if they be of real use he asks why may not other variations be in their measure useful too I reply That Commentaries and Paraphrases on Scripture for private use are very advantagious But if Dr. Hammond or the Assembly had drawn up their Paraphrases and Notes on purpose to be read in Churches to exclude the reading of Scripture there out of a conceit they were more useful than reading Chapters of the Bible they would have been ridiculous and deserved a severe Censure So in Human Composures Durandus and Cabisila's explications of the Liturgies and the exposition of the Canons by Balsamon and Zonaras are useful in private But if these Authors had designed to have their Expositions publicly used so as to justle out the old Liturgies and Canons they would have been despised for their insolence as much as they are now commended for their industry Now his Extempore men would have their variations only and always used in public instead of the Liturgy so as utterly to exclude it which utterly spoils the parallel This he perceived and therefore owns That my Variations are not to be used publicly pag. 10. I ask why then did he instance in them since he
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-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
Praises He only catches at one Expression pag. 24. and saith Pliny ' s account of the Christians doth not exactly agree with that of Eusebius concerning the Essenes He singles out Eusebius only to cavil whereas I did not name Eusebius here but referred to the whole account given before of the Essenes by Josephus Philo and Eusebius pag. 20. Where it appears that those Essenes exactly agreed with Pliny's Christians first in the use of Forms secondly in using them alternately and thirdly in using them early in the morning This is all the agreement I mentioned and all my Question obliged me to consider for this still confirms the early use of Forms and makes it probable those Essenes were Christians who had used them even from the time of S. Mark § 4. pag. 16. Ignatius testifies that the Christians in their Assemblies had One Prayer and one Supplication Mr. S. B. saith I take this for a solid proof of a fixed Liturgy But I infer no more from this and another place pag. 26. than that it is probable from hence there was then one Form of prayer and administring the Sacraments approved by the Bishop And this Consequence will be plain if we consider that Ignatius is speaking of public Prayer and in that would have the Magnesians do nothing without the Bishop and Presbyters and not to make trial of all things agreeing to their own fancy this Passage Mr. S. B. leaves out because it censures Extempore Prayers But when they met to pray they must have all one Prayer and one Supplication in common so Mr. S. B's Edition reads it Now then The Prayer they were to use was allowed by the Bishop and not such as agreed to private Ministers fancies it was One Prayer and Supplication used by all in common all which is the proper description of a Liturgy Whereas an Extempore Prayer is so various it cannot be approved that agrees to private and single Ministers fancies it is daily varied and so not one spoken by the Minister alone and so not repeated by all in common But a Form is properly one and the same Prayer And so S. Chrysostom when he describes the Priest and People vocally repeating the Form of Confession useth this very phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 18 in 2 Cor. They all repeat One Prayer As to the Bishops approbation the second Quotation makes that necessary to every Authentic celebration of the Eucharist and Baptism and I know not how a Bishop can tell whether he shall approve or disapprove of any Form of celebration made Extempore he must see it written down before he can judge of it So that here we have very fair evidence of Prayers Litanies and Sacramental Administrations in Forms approved by the Bishop Mr. S. B. would evade this by saying One Prayer implies no more than a Prayer in which all joyned But if that were true it might be a Form still because the most apparent method for all to joyn in One prayer is for all to pray by one Form and they who come together daily to say a different prayer rather joyn in several prayers than in One besides Ignatius his One Prayer was not the product of private Fancies it was some Fixed known thing capable of being considered and approved by the Bishop and the constant use of it is made the mark of one who was in communion with his Bishop that is in S. Chrysostom's sense One Form repeated in common between the Bishop or Priest and the People I only add that when Mr. S. B. took notice that Ignatius would have all that live under an Orthodox and Sound Bishop joyn in Communion with him in the use of that Prayer and way of Administration which he approved he had a fair occasion to have seen some Faults on the Dissenters side who now cannot deny but their Bishops are Orthodox and yet separate from their Communion Pag. 17. I proved both by Socrates and Photius that Ignatius first brought the way of singing Hymns by way of Antiphone into the Church of Antioch Valesius's Notes on this passage enable Mr. S. B. to quarrel at this and say That the Learned generally count this Relation of Socrates to be fabulous and that Theodoret is positive that Flavianus and Diodorus first brought in this way there I reply He despises the Opinion of Learned men when it is not on his side See pag. 37. and here he appeals to it but mistakes it for it is the Vision of Angels who taught Ignatius thus to sing as Socrates saith which some of the Learned count Fabulous but divers Learned men think it very probable that Ignatius might set up this way of Singing at Antioch For Moses by the Spirit of God taught the Israelites to sing thus in the Wilderness Exod. xv Thus they sang in the Temple-service The Choir of Angels in the Vision of Isaiah sang by way of Antiphone Isai vi So did the Essenes in Philo and the Asian Christians in Pliny before Ignatius's time and can it be unlikely he should set up this way at Antioch especially since Flavianus and Diodorus as Mr. S. B. grants had it from the Syrians the old Inhabitants of that Country where Antioch stood As for Theodoret he speaks not of Hymns but saith Flavianus and Diodorus first brought in the alternate singing of David's Psalms at Antioch which may be true though Ignatius had begun to sing Hymns there by way of Antiphone long before Nor am I so concerned for this proof as my Examiner thinks because he may see I have sufficient Evidence without it to shew That Hymns were prescribed Forms and sung alternately in this first Century And he passes over in silence a plain Testimony of mine pag. 28. proving That Hymns were prescribed in Forms almost from the beginning of Christianity and were so known as to be cited for good Authority in points of Faith in the next Century Wherefore I have shewed That in this Age wherein there were so many extraordinarily Inspired they chose to use Forms both of Prayer and Praise and if they who needed not Forms used them of choice as the best way of Worship Our Age which needs them may well enjoyn them The Second Century § 1. FRom that Prayer which began with the Father and ended with the Hymn of many Names in Lucian where he describes and derides a Christian Assembly I inferred That the Christians then had Prayers and Hymns known by their proper Titles which implies they used Forms in public Mr. S. B. first questions whether this were a Christian Assembly and perhaps he is the first and only man that ever did question it Mr. Mede cites this very place to prove the Christians had Churches in Lucian's time See his Disc of Churches Tom. l. pag. 22. and the learned Notes of Wooverus and Heraldus on Minutius Foelix cite this Dialogue of Lucian to prove the Christians of that Age were pale with Fasting Not. in Min. Foel pag.
The Examiner Examined BEING A VINDICATION OF THE HISTORY OF LITURGIES By T. C. D. D. LONDON Printed for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-end of S. Pauls 1691. Imprimatur Jan. 29. 1690 1. C. Alston R. P. D. HEN. Episc Lond. à Sacris The Examiner Examined CHAP. I. Of the Title and Preface § 1. AFter my Second Part of the History of Liturgies had been Public near Six Months comes out An Examination of Dr. C's Scholastical History of Liturgies by S. B. Which Title was designed to make the Book look like and pass for an Answer to both Parts which consist of 600 Pages whereas the Examination reaches no further than to 76 Pages of the First Part and in that compass 23 whole Pages and a great part of 10 more pass Unexamined so that there is an odd Synechdoche in this General Title I will not enquire whether Mr. S. B. be so Eminent that all Men know him by that Cypher or so obscure that he may be concealed under those two Letters Only I wish when he design'd to garnish his Title-page with Causabon's Sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he had not fixed upon his account of the remote and general meaning of that word and purposely omitted the only sense of that word which is proper to our Question which he might have found in the same Page of Causabon That Liturgy signifies a description of the Order for celebrating Divine Offices as in the Liturgies of Peter and James Exercit. pag. 384. § 2. If the Preface were writ by Mr. S. B. it was politicly done to give us his own Character under another Name if it were writ by the Publisher 't is strange that his Friend who tells us His Sayings his Judgment his Wishes yea his very Thoughts should so hastily put out this inconsiderable part of the Controversie without the Authors knowledge But his Zeal to serve a Party in a Critical Juncture and the rare Character he gives of Mr. S. B. will expiate for that seeming Rudeness He tells us Mr. S. B. is a Conformist and it is well the Preface saith so otherwise nothing in the Book discovers it probably he is one of those Mr. Clarkson calls Prudential Conformists who comply to avoid the Lash of the Law but care no more for the Liturgy than the Philosophers of old did for the Vulgars Notions about the Gods Disc of Lit. pag. 19. But the Preface saith He Conforms upon Principles he thinks he can justifie It seems he can Dispute probably of all sides for he justifies Nonconformity in this Tract 'T is said He uses the Liturgy as fully as the Law requires in his public Administrations I wonder how he can justifie that since his Book declares he thinks he can pray better by his own Expressions and there is a Curse upon the Deceiver who hath in his Flock a Male yet offereth to the Lord a corrupt thing Malach. I. 14. He hath tied himself up to an invariable use of the Common-Prayer yet counts them not only Pious but Judicious who will not be so tied up therefore he must now doubt the piety and the prudence of his Subscription I perceive he joyns with Dissenters in their public Worship And I would gladly know how many of them this open allowance of their way hath brought over to joyn with him in the Liturgy He accounts the Established Church a Party and is not wedded to it neither Probably he gave Her his Hand against his Will and thinks the Contract null ab initio He thinks there is somthing to be rectified in every Party but in this Book he finds no faults with one Party and complains of none but the Churches Friends It is not he alone but all Men think that which is good in every Party should be approved and what is not so laid aside or amended But who must be the indifferent Judge over all Parties Mr. S. B. whatever his Friend thinks will never be chosen to this Office The real Conformists will not like a man who writes against Liturgies and the Dissenters will never trust one that reads Common-Prayer 'T is pretended He is sorry to see such an aversion to the general Union of Protestants and that old Animosities are awakned Yet he widens the Breach by increasing the Dissenters ill Opinion of all prescribed Forms which no well ordered Church can want and he defends Mr. Clarkson's Book which first awakned this Controversie after it had slept for many years Perhaps in his Opinion none prejudice the Church of England so much as those who seem most zealous for Her But others see she is far more prejudiced by such as are so indifferent what become of Her that they expose her Constitutions and while they enjoy her Revenues combine with those that are for removing her very Foundations He that states Matters so falsly is no fit Judge how others state their Questions and I shall neither value the Censures or Reflections of one so manifestly partial that he never speaks ill of the Dissenters nor well of the Church He told the Prefacer it seems his Thoughts That in a History of Liturgies notice should have been taken of the various use of the Word and the time it came first to be used in the strict Modern sense as Mr. Cl. hath rightly done This aims at me whom he supposes to have omitted this but I spent Five Pages together from pag. 121 to pag. 125. Part I. in considering the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and shewing Mr. Carkson had stated the time of its being taken in the Modern sense very falsly Now if he read my First Book over why doth he not confute this If he never read so far Solomon will tell him He that answereth a Matter before he heareth it it is folly and shame to him Prov. XVIII 13. However Mr. S. B. conceives this is not the signification of a Liturgy as used and enjoyned by the Church of England Right for no Man ever said that Liturgy without some Epithet signified a Liturgy enjoyned by this or that Church But it hath from some of the earliest Ages signified a Public Form of Prayer and we have now such an one enjoyned But he thinks that 's proof enough instead of proving the Antiquity of Liturgies in that Sense we should rectifie the Mistakes that have arisen concerning a Liturgy as used and enjoyned in our Church He forgets that Mr. Cl. was the first who gave occasion to prove their Antiquity and the first who questioned it Smectymnuus and all that Party formerly owned them to be 1300 year old and must we let so new so false and so singular an Opinion pass without controul As to rectifying Mistakes Mr. Cl. and Mr. S. B. do not charge the Dissenters with any both of them justifie their way so that it seems the Church alone is mistaken either in using or enjoyning her Liturgy and they would have her give it up for their sakes who would
never make one step towards her for the sake of Peace But Men so wofully mistaken as Mr. Cl. and Mr. S. B. are very unfit to rectifie the practice of this and all other regular Churches since they cannot make out any mistake in this Matter The mistakes lie on the Dissenters side which also had been long since removed if their own Pastors and some of ours had not flattered and supported them in their Errors That false representation of the state of the Question with which the Preface concludes must be charged upon Mr. S. B. who misled his Friend and therefore it shall be considered in the Discourse I have now done with the Armour-bearer and proceed to the Champion who fights against that side under which 't is said he takes double Pay CHAP. II. Of the grounds for Liturgies in Scripture § 1. Pag. 1. MAster S. B. begins with an assurance He hath read my Book and a promise that he will forbear Reflections I have given a Reason already why I doubt the First and his whole Book confutes the Second for it abounds with Reflections not only on my Cause but on my Person my Office my Qualifications c. but they are so groundless I can easily forgive them Pag. 2. But I cannot excuse him for telling his Prefacer and the World that I undertook to prove Liturgies were only and invariably used in the first Three Centuries For this was not needful for me to undertake either to Answer Mr. Cl. who gave me the liberty of the first Five or Six Centuries to prove this Or to carry on my main design which was as I declared in my Introduction to collect in every Century such Testimonies of the Original Use and Antiquity of Liturgies as the Argument needed Now every proof of a Form frequently or constantly used in the Three first Centuries the Ages of Inspiration before the Church was setled tends to illustrate the History of Liturgies which began first by the voluntary use of Forms and by degrees as the Church drew nearer to a Settlement to the constant and invariable use of many Forms even to the use of a whole Liturgy before these Three Centuries were ended Which had so few Writers and those say so little of the Forms themselves that I declared beforehand this Evidence must be made up of particular and probable Proofs all which put together would amount to these Conclusions That Forms were used from the beginning and so were ancient and lawful which some Dissenters deny and that it is very probable whole Liturgies were both prescribed and used before the end of this Period Which is a sufficient foundation for the Evidence in the Fourth Century That when the Church was setled Liturgies were then enjoyned and invariably used I am forced to be the larger in the discovery of this Fallacy because nothing he hath said would look like an Answer if he did not every where repeat this piece of Sophistry and set aside my Proofs only because they did not reach his Point as he had falsly stated it Again He supposes I was only to Answer Mr. Cl. and on that occasion determines what I was to prove and what not He saith Mr. Cl. doth not assert Forms to be intrinsically Evil but some Dissenters do tho this Opinion reflect upon Jesus who taught a Form to his Disciples and Forms being the parts of Liturgy to confute those who condemn all Forms and justifie the foundation of Liturgies in a History of them it is not improper to prove Forms lawful 2ly Mr. Cl. denies not that there were arbitrary and particular Forms of old And did not I disprove all his particular Instances of arbitrary Forms and shew they were constantly used and fixed in every Eminent Church 3dly Mr. Cl. owns the Lords Prayer was used anciently though far otherwise than of late This I considered also proving the use of it as a Form and the annexing it to all solemn Offices as it is used now 4ly He grants divers Churches agreed in a certain Order to administer the several parts of Worship And I proved this Order could be nothing but a prescribed Liturgy Par. II. Chap. 4. pag. 201. Now if he will be answering a Book before he have read it over I cannot help that 5ly Mr. Cl. saith They prayed for the same things but not in the same words But I shewed his Instances were mistaken and that in the same Church many parts of Service were in the same words 6ly Mr. Cl. declares he meant by prescribed Forms such as are imposed on the Minister so as those and no-other must be used without adding detracting or transposing This is indeed the strictest Notion of an enjoyned Liturgy yet I agreed with Mr. Cl. as to this definition only we differed about the time when Forms began to be thus enjoyned he affirmed it was not sooner than the end of the Fifth Century I proved many Forms were invariably used in the first Three Centuries and enjoyned in the Fourth and beginning of the Fifth Centuries which sufficed to confute Mr. Cl. So that Mr. S. B. calls on me to do that which I had done before and though he meddle with nothing but the first Three Centuries where I was only to shew what steps were made towards enjoyned Forms in this strict Sense he most disingenuously brags That my Quotations reach not my Point unless they prove Forms enjoyned in the strictest Sense in these Centuries which were Ages of Inspiration and before the Church was setled Now this bare-faced Fallacy takes away two whole Centuries which Mr. Cl. had freely given me to prove such enjoyned Forms and starts a New Question being designed meerly to prepossess his Reader against all my probable Proofs and all my Instances of the constant use of Forms of all kinds yea against the invariable use of a whole Liturgy under the false pretence That I undertook to prove by every particular Quotation that Forms yea Liturgies were strictly enjoyned throughout these Ages But I appeal to my Introduction to Par. I. pag. 77. and to all my Inferences whether I undertook to do this in this Period or no and the Candid Reader shall judge whether it was necessary for me to do all this to confute Mr. Cl. who said such enjoyned Forms came not in till 200 years after Mr. S. B's Period was ended though after all to compleat my History I have found divers Proofs that shew enjoyned Forms in the strictest sense in these Ages Before I proceed to examine his Particulars I shall requite these general Observations of his by some general Remarks on the proceedings of both my Adversaries First Neither of them hath produced one positive Evidence so much as of the use of arbitrary or extempore Prayer they offer nothing but remote Conjectures and very slender Probabilities for it in this Period Now I have brought express proof of the use of Forms in this time and more as well as clearer Probabilities of
the invariable use of Forms So that doubtless the advantage is on my side and 't is not fair to demand such Evidence as the Times do not afford and such as they cannot bring either against my Opinion or for their own Secondly Tho' there be not many Proofs of a Whole Liturgy prescribed before the 4th Century yet then divers Liturgies were written down and at that time claimed an Original much elder either from the Apostles or very ancient Tradition And the Authors who speak of them or any parts of them suppose them to have been in use long before this time Wherefore according to S. Augustine That which is observed by the whole Church and was not instituted by Councils but hath been always kept this is accounted to be of Apostolical Institution De Bapt. contr Donat. l. 4. c. 23. which being applied to Liturgies will go a great way to prove their Original was from the Apostles however they must be elder than this Fourth Century Thirdly When Mr. Cl. and my Examiner have granted Forms ancient and lawful it seems to me very needless to enquire when the Church first enjoyned them For if the Church have power to enjoyn any thing in Gods Service it cannot be in things unlawful so that whatever is in it self lawful especially if it be Primitive and in her Opinion useful she may enjoyn to her own Members and then it becomes necessary to them and if they forsake her Communion for this they are Schismaticks So that they should have denied the lawfulness of Forms if they designed to quarrel at the enjoyning them Fourthly Since Mr. S. B. sets up for an Examiner he should have enquired into all those Pages where my probable Proofs and Inferences are strengthned with explicatory and collateral Evidence To let all these pass by unanswered and tell us He thinks the Author meant otherwise without confuting my Reasons and Instances or confirming his own Thoughts is something too assuming Fifthly He often appeals to his Friend whom he knew to be of his side or to the Reader to judge between Mr. Cl. and me upon his bare Insinuation that I am in the wrong referring them to both our Books Out of which no doubt the indifferent Reader would have judged more impartially if no Examiner had appeared But if they must have this trouble still especially in the most difficult Cases I would fain know to what purpose did Mr. S. B. write his Examination Sixthly He boasts as if the Cause were lost when he thinks he hath run down but one of my particular Instances or probable Proofs But there are so many Evidences and such variety of this kind of Proofs which being put together make out the general Conclusion That the Cause cannot suffer much though some particular Instance should fail Lastly He rejects all my clear Proofs That Hymns â—nd Praises were in prescribed Forms as wholly impertinent to the Question accusing me of needless Tautologies for urging them Whereas the greatest part of Liturgies are Praises and whatever proves the Praises were prescribed Forms undeniably proves at least one half of the Public Service was prescribed and makes it probable the petitionary part of the same Service was so also as I shewed before Par. I. pag. 24 25. Nor can he evade this consequence till he give a substantial Reason why the Laudatory part of a Liturgy should be in Forms prescribed and the Prayers left arbitrary Which will be very hard to do because Prayers and Praises are so intermixed as to be inseparable Daniel's Devotions were Prayers and Thanksgivings Dan. vi 10. The Apostles praying sang a Hymn Acts xvi 25. Our Lord joyned a Doxology to his Prayer Math. vi 13. S. Paul often puts Prayer and Praise together 1 Cor. xiv 15. Philip. iv 6. 1 Thess v. 17 18. 1 Tim. ii 1. The most ancient Forms of Prayer like the Lords Prayer end with a Doxology and the most famous Hymns the Te Deum Gloria in excelsis the Trisagion and those in Prudentius c. And the Psalms of David are so mixt of Prayers and Praises that none can sing or say them but they bless God and pray to him by the same Form So that Praises and Prayers being essential parts of the same Worship so like each other so often inseparably mixed together and so constantly united What reason can be given why the Hymns and Praises being certainly prescribed the Prayers should not be so also And to reject all that proves the Praises were prescribed Forms as impertinent to a History of Liturgy shews much Ignorance or Inconsideration unless it be a politick invention to cover his inability to answer so much and so clear Evidence as there is on that subject These general Remarks will help to shorten my Answer and so I hope may obtain the Readers pardon though they look like a digression § 2. Pag. 3. My aim from Scripture was to prove Forms were not only used but also enjoyned as an acceptable way of praising God and praying to him And I produced three Forms one of Praise Exod. xv 1. another of Blessing Numb vi 23. a third of Prayer Deut. xxvi 5 c. ver 13. Mr. S. B. objects nothing to any of the particulars but saith I should prove they did not or might not use any Prayers or Praises but those very Forms And surely this appears sufficiently as to the occasions upon which these words were prescribed because they were all composed by Moses upon the several occasions mentioned in the Text and that by Gods direction Now can we suppose that any private Priest durst make another Form of Blessing or any Jew offer his Tithes and First-fruits with a new Form of his own Composing Fagius saith They were so strict as to the Blessing that in after-Ages they kept the very Hebrew Original words Vid. Crit. Sacr. in Numb 6. And when God by his inspired Prophet Hos xiv 2 3. not only directs the penitent Jews what sort of words to use but sets down the Form it self No doubt if any of them had presumed to alter those words his presumption would have caused him to be rejected Wherefore Forms which no private Man may vary are a way of serving God justified by the Scriptures of the Old Testament Pag. 4. The same appears by the Psalms indited by the Spirit of God for the public service of the Temple which I proved by Scripture and Mr. S. B. denies it not only he saith From Gods enjoyning these we cannot infer that Men may devise Prayers and oblige the Church to use them and no other But can Men find out a better way of serving God than that which God himself chose that is by Forms enjoyned 'T is true they had Inspired men to compose those Forms then but though the Authors of ours were not Inspired yet if their Composures do agree in all things with Holy Scripture and contradict it in nothing they cannot offend supposing the Forms
unexceptionable by imitating that Method which God and inspired Ages have set them which is enjoyning Forms taken out of the Psalms and other places of Holy Scripture and out of such ancient Composures as are no way repugnant to it But further I cited six learned Authors in the Margen and two in the Text to prove the Jews anciently had a Liturgy Mr. S. B. knew the thing could not be denied wherefore he politickly pretends It would be too great a diversion to enquire whether their proofs are solid and intimates he could shew that two of my Authors build their proof for some things upon unjustifiable Authorities This is to evade not to answer Surely it was the business of an Examiner to enquire and to say he can do that which he doth not when there was a just occasion for it is an intimation he cannot answer their proofs So that I shall take it for granted the Jews had a Liturgy till the contrary be better made out and refer the Reader to the consequences deduced from that Truth Hist of Lit. pag. 4. and at last Mr. S. B. supposes that Forms might have been of general use among the Jews And then the next question is Whether this way of serving God was abrogated in the New Testament I I gave divers Reasons why such an abrogation was necessary if Christ had disliked that way to which the Jews had been generally and long accustomed and intended to set up a new one He answers that he sees no necessity of such an abrogation to warrant People to address themselves to God in another way for he supposes both ways lawful Now if he grant that First Then the way of stinted Forms is not unlawful nor unsuitable to Gospel-worship Secondly This way was never disliked by Christ nor hath he brought any proof that he instituted any other way Thirdly Therefore it is most likely the Jewish Converts would keep to their old way of stinted Forms and that implies them to be very ancient Fourthly If both ways were now equally lawful yet the Church having chosen and enjoyned the Liturgick way as the most ancient universal and profitable way and rejected the other Her determination makes this way which was only lawful before to become necessary to us till that determination be revoked Pag. 5. But Mr. S. B. foresees a dreadful consequence which he hopes I never thought of from my arguing That the Jews worshiped God acceptably by set Forms and that Christ and his Apostles joyned in that way and never reproved it Ergo Christians now must use none but the Jewish Forms This gives occasion to his pity for those who by Reading learned Books entertain Notions destructive of Christianity I wish this Examiner had read more or writ less for then the World had not been troubled with long Harangues upon his own imaginations He cannot deny the Antecedent all learned Men assert it but this Consequence is a Mormo of his own dressing up which vanishes by considering That when Christ and his Apostles joyned in the Jewish Forms the Temple and Synagogue-worship was the lawful established way of serving God But when the Levitical part of their Religion was altered that part of their Liturgy which related to it became unpracticable to Christians and fell of it self yet still the Psalms and the Moral part of the Jewish Forms suited the Christian Doctrin and our Lord had approved of that way therefore these Forms might be and were retained and imitated by the Primitive Church and they did this the rather to win the Jews who as I noted never objected that Christ or his Apostles or the first Christians had set up a new way of praying and praising God Wherefore to make so many spiteful Reflections upon those great men from whom I borrowed the Antecedent for the shadow of a sham Consequence that no Logick can infer from the premisses discovers neither a Christian spirit nor common Ingenuity For no man who considers will think that Christ and his Apostles joyning in the Jewish worship before it was fully abrogated can oblige us to copy out their whole Service after the Ceremonial Law is dead and long since buried Pag. 6. That Christ did collect his Prayer out of the Jewish Forms and order his Disciples to add it to their other prayers as a badge of their relation to him is too so true and so well proved by variety of learned Men that Mr. S. B. instead of disproving the premisses terrifies us with another dangerous consequence which is that this is a reflection on the infinite wisdom of the Son of God This makes me think of him David speaks of Psal L. 21. who thought wickedly God was even such an one as himself Some men fancy it is a reflection on their gifts and great parts not to be at liberty to shew them in Extempore Composures and will needs apply this to the Blessed Jesus who indeed had the Spirit without measure and was infinitely able to make what new Prayer he pleased Extempore But our Dear Lord designed not on all occasions to shew his infinite ability he came to teach us humility and submission to innocent Establishments and so might judge it more expedient for his Disciples to collect a Prayer out of the practical part of the Jewish Liturgy endited at first by men who had the Spirit of God than to make a new one And if they were really endued with his Spirit who pretend to it they would follow his Example herein and not for ostentation of their imaginary abilities reject our lawful enjoyned Forms disturb our peace and leave our Communion However since it is certain our Lord did collect his Prayer out of the Jewish Forms it is they who make frivolous consequences from hence who reflect upon him not they who relate the Matter of Fact for which doubtless our Saviour had excellent Reasons and far better perhaps than we are able to assign Like to this is his laft frightful consequence That this would prove our Saviour would have his Followers compose Forms only out of the Liturgy of the Jews If he means this of the Ceremonial part of it 't is evidently false for Christ did not collect one Petition from thence if he means from the Moral part of it I see no harm in the consequence at all and it is certain the Primitive Christians did use the Psalms the Hosannah Hallelujah Holy Holy Holy c. and other Old Testament-Forms in their Service which were parts of the Jewish Liturgy But it could never be the intent of Christ to oblige us to collect our whole Liturgy from thence because he taught New Doctrins and instituted new Rites and gave his Apostles a miraculous Gift on purpose to suit new Administrations to that which was New in the Christian Religion and the early agreement of those distant Churches which they planted in these Administrations not only as to the method but the main words of them is a
who knew the Essenes better affirms they had Forms of Prayer so that the thing is certainly true and sufficiently proved And Philo adds They were wont every day to pray Morning and Evening De vit contemp pag. 893. which Eusebius leaves out as he also doth many other things about the Essenes in Philo contenting himself to tell us That this Book of Philo's which describes their practices contains all the Rules and Canons of the Church in his time and refers the Reader to the Book it self for fuller satisfaction So that the most he can make of this Objection is That Eusebius doth not expresly mention their Prayers in Forms but he mentions their Hymns in Forms which are so near of kin to Prayers and generally contain Petitions as well as Praises that the one makes it probable both were Forms however Josephus puts it past all doubt and therefore my Point is gained which is That the first we read of who were taken to be Christians had and used Forms both of Prayer and Praise § 2. pag. 14. Clemens Romanus is my next Author who useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for an Order or Form of Divine Offices and speaks of a determined Rule of Ministration Mr. S. B. pretends I mistook the sense of this word which he saith signifies a business office or work and in his false and forced Paraphrase of this place applies it to the work of Lay-mens ordinary Calling To confute which designed mistake I shall give this brief account of the Author and submit it to their Judgment who can read the Original There was a Schism at Corinth some of the Pastors despising the People and some of the People intruding into the Pastors Office which gave occasion to this Epistle wherein Clemens adviseth them to leave Divine Administrations to the Clergy and to submit to them as Souldiers to their Captain and the Members to their Head He orders the Inferiors to be submissive and the Superiors not to be proud and then comes in the first place cited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all things be done in Order whatever the Lord hath commanded us to perform and let the Oblations and Liturgies be celebrated at the certain or appointed Times Clemens imitates S. Paul 1 Cor. xiv 40. and speaks of Divine Offices as well as he advising that in them all things should be done in order for these are the things about which our Lord hath given commands and appointed the set-times for Oblations that is either the Eucharist in general which is often so called or the Alms then offered up appointed at Corinth on the First day of the Week 1 Cor. xvi 2. and then also they Celebrated Liturgies that is the solemn Offices of Prayer and Praise But Mr. S. B's Paraphrase of this place which he durst not cite at large is this God hath provided for every man an office and work to which he must attend and do every part of his work or Liturgy in the manner God hath prescribed and at the Season he hath appointed c. he leaves the word Oblations wholly out because he could not well wrest that word to his feigned Sense of ordinary business which the whole Period contradicts for where did Christ require Lay-men to do all their business in order Where hath he prescribed the manner and set-time for Lay-mens Work And the next Sentence in Clemens baffles this pretence also for he goes on thus The Lord hath not only determined the seasons for these but also where and by whom they must be performed Is this true of mens ordinary Callings So that they who make their Oblations at the set-time are accepted and blessed and cannot err since they obey God Even as the Chief-Priest had his proper Liturgy appointed the Priests and Levites theirs and the Laity were obliged to Lay-duties 't is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there We see he compares the Order of the Christian Church to that of the Jews where there was a prescribed Rule for the High Priest Priests and Levites to officiate by which he calls a Liturgy as he had named the Rule for Christian Priests performance of Divine Offices before and the comparison shews as well the same word That the Christians were prescribed as well as the Jews as also he supposes Lay-men might not meddle with these Offices now having duties of their own as well as under the Law And from this Order in the Mosaick Oeconomy Clemens infers That the Christian Clergy were every one of them in his proper place to offer up the Eucharist to God keeping a good Conscience and with all gravity keeping close to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the determined Rule of his Liturgy Which refers to those various parts of the Offices which were performed some by the Bishop others by the Priests or Deacons and every ones part was allotted by the Liturgy which therefore must at least be as I noted before a fixed Rule or Order for Divine Administrations And if they needed such a prescribed Order then and had one as well as the Sons of Levi in this Inspired Age we need a compleat Liturgy enjoyned now when Inspiration is ceased Clemens goes on to shew what Christ had determined about the place where and the persons by whom Divine Offices were to be performed pag. 95 97. And the whole Discourse shews the shameful prevarication of Mr. S. B. in explaining these passages of all Christian People and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ordinary work when in one Page viz. pag. 92. it is thrice used For the Rule for celebrating Divine Offices which was fixed and prescribed and that was a good step towards an enjoyned Liturgy invariably to be used if it were not the very thing it self § 3 pag. 15. Pliny relates That the Christians said an Hymn carmen alternately to Christ as God early in the Morning My Examiner saith this only relates to Psalms or Hymns and I would draw in Prayers with them which Pliny speaks not of But he should not have said this till he answered the proof I brought in my 23d Page that Carmen among the Romans signified any solemn Form and is often used for a Prayer and till he had confuted the Observation I made that Pliny doth not express it that they sang but said this Carmen which makes it probable it might be a Prayer and we know the Christians used Prayers as well as Hymns to Christ Moreover Pliny evidently describes all the Service by this word and whatever it notes Prayers or Praises 't is certain they were in Forms because they said them alternately And finally if it do signifie Hymns I gave many Reasons why the Prayers and the Hymns might be alike All which to pag. 25. though fit enough to be examined Mr. S. B. wholly passeth by which is to me a Confession that he could give no reason why this testimony should not be evidence for the use of Forms both in their Prayers and
109. Lugd. Bat. 1672. Secondly The Examiner thinks Lucian here design'd to ridicule Pagan as well as Christian Religion I reply He begins the Dialogue with a Jocular representation of the Arguments used by Christians against Swearing by the Heathen gods with design only to render Christianity odious to the Pagans but the latter part whence this passage is cited is wholly taken up in a direct exposing of Christianity witness his Jeer upon the Name of Christ his mention of Catechumens his Scoffing at the Doctrins of the Trinity Providence and a Future-state with his intimating the Christians were a sort of Magicians Yea at last Mr. S. B. grants He might design this as a reflection on their way of praying to one person first and then concluding as if they prayed to many he should have said praised many For the end was an Hymn of many Names And if this be Lucian's sense That they had a Prayer beginning with the Father and a Hymn in the conclusion called the Hymn of many Names then Christians used some certain Forms both of Prayer and Praise which had certain beginnings and proper Titles so as such as heard them might give them the Names by which they were commonly known The Prayer had a certain beginning and the Hymn if it were not the Trisagion must be in Form as all Hymns generally were As for his wonder how a Jeering Pagan could be admitted to hear the prayers which were then concealed from Heathens It may be News to him what Suidas and others say of Lucian That he was a Christian yea a Preacher at Antioch before his Apostacy and that enabled him to know all the Doctrin and Worship of the Christians Thought it is not improbable that the Blasphemy and Railing of this and other Apostates contributed to make them still more cautious to conceal their Mysteries of which the next Age affords store of Evidence § 2. pag. 19. I observed Justin Martyr shews some inclination this way for though he write of the Christian Worship yet he gives no account of the particular words used in celebrating it The Examiner saith He doth not so much as say they had Forms I reply I have proved by other Evidence they had Forms and both Jews and Gentiles then worshiped God by Forms so that his silence argues the Christians had not altered that point whereas a new way would have needed some Apology But he finds me in a great mistake about Baptism the words of which he saith Justin Martyr relates viz. In the Name of the Father of all things the Lord God and of our Saviour Christ and of the Holy Ghost But the mistake will prove on his side for I saw these words but I affirm they are not the very words by which they did Baptize but a paraphrase on them as the learned Vossius declares See Hist Lit. par 2. ch 4. pag. 252. So that this description as well as that cautious Expression of regenerating new Converts as we were regenerated are intended to disguise the mysterious Form which no sober man can imagine the Christians of this early and pure Age should alter so much from that which Jesus prescribed And to confirm my Opinion that Justin Martyr was for concealing the words of their worship I observe that he saith The Catechumens were taught to pray Now they could not pray without a Form we may be sure yet Justin doth not tell us what this Form was though the practice of the next Ages assure us it was the Lords Prayer which the Catechumens learned just before Baptism Again he doth not mention divers Ceremonies of the Eucharist and Baptism such as the Kiss of Charity repeating the Creed renouncing the Devil c. though learned Men believe these were in use in his time but he writ to Heathens and would not give them an account of the particular Rites in Christian worship And though his general Expressions and former Evidence make it out they used Forms then yet I said I would not insist upon that general account he gives of their Supplications though these Phrases are found in ancient Litanies The modesty of this seems to offend him who is very rarely guilty of offending on that side and he asks Whether such things cannot be pray'd for but in prescribed words and how it-appears Justin M. borrowed this from any Litany A man would think he could expresly prove these things were then prayed for extempore because he will not allow this for a probable Evidence But impartial men will consider there are other evidences of Forms in this Age and One Supplication in Ignatius as also that there were Litanies soon after which were so old in the Fourth Century as to pretend to be composed by the Apostles Also in them these very things are prayed for in Forms viz. The Conversion of the Jews and the Deliverance of the Gentiles from their Errors c. almost in Justins very words who cites them here for a proof of the Christians Charity in a dispute with a learned Jew who would scarce have taken arbitrary uncertain or extempore Expressions for a solid proof of Christian usages All this I hope will pass with most men for a probable Evidence That Justin did refer to a Form of Supplication Pag. 20. Again I expounded Justin Martyr's phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common-Common-Forms in which all might joyn proving it by S. Cyprians stiling the Lords Prayer in which all the Congregation vocally joyned a Common Prayer and this I shewed agreed to Ignatius his One Prayer and Supplication in common And to justifie my Exposition I now add That Justin M. himself seems thus to explain it in the next page where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. pag. 98. We all rise and in common send up our Prayers And S. Chrysostom acurately explains the Phrase where he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. Common-Prayers are made between the Priest and People Mr. S. B. without any Evidence to support him rejects this sense and will have them called Common-Prayers because as the next words import they extended to all Mankind But the very Reason he gives for his Explication confutes it The next words say They were made for all men and if Common-Prayer had signified the same thing here had been a plain tautology and Justin as he expounds must say They made Prayers for all men praying for all men Wherefore as the latter words imply the subject of them was general so the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shew they were common both to Priest and People each having their known share which can only be in the use of Forms and this is the true sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Criticks derive from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and say it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which lies before all and every one shares in Hence the Ancients Common Meal of which all their Friends there assembled had a portion
was called Coena wherefore this Phrase applied to Prayers signifies that the Congregation had a share in the Service and shews they were Forms for themselves and for all others And Justin would rather have called them General or Universal than common-Common-Prayers if he had meant by that Epithet to signifie they were made for all Men. Pag. 21. But the most famous passage in Justin M. is that of the Presidents offering up Prayers and in like manner Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he is able Mr. Clarkson first produced this place to prove that they used Extempore prayers then at the Eucharist and spent near Ten pages in Quotations to make out that to be the import of this Phrase To this I made two general Replies First If this were the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would not follow from the Clergies praying so in the Inspired Ages that we must pray so now Secondly That Mr. Cl. was hard put to it for proofs when he laid so much stress on a Phrase that at least is very ambiguous These two Replies Mr. S. B. takes no notice of Thirdly I answered all Mr. Cl's pertinent Quotations and brought others to shew that this Phrase signifies no more than praying and praising God with all possible fervency the Examiner interposes to judge between us and without enquiring into either of our Quotations gives sentence against me and his pretended Reasons for it are these First Because Justin M. for the understanding this Phrase refers us not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I affirmed but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little before where he saith The President offers up prayers and praises to God c. and gives thanks for the benefits vouchsafed in the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for any thing he yet knows signifies distinctly and with variety of Expression I reply This passage where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found speaks only of giving thinks he hath added Prayers of his own head Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies for a long time and not as he fancies distinctly or with variety of Expression as appears by Acts xxviii 6. where when the Viper hung on Paul's Hand the Barbarians expected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a long time that he should have fallen down dead but surely they did not expect this distinctly or with variety of Expression So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Sense But Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of the prayers after Baptism which no doubt were agreeable to those at the Eucharist and as I shewed it signifies they were made earnestly devoutly and affectionately which is the import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the prayers and praises at the Communion So that still it appears Justin M. by both these phrases intended to express the fervency of him that officiated not his using new and various words Pag. 22. Again Secondly Mr. S. B. understands not why it s signifying fervently should exclude the other sense of the Presidents using his ability as to Expressions It seems there are many things he doth not and some he will not understand I doubt the latter is the case here for there is an obvious Reason why this one phrase cannot signifie both in this place viz. because it is not usual for an Author in the same place to use the same phrase in two so different senses and I have shewed the most usual and probable sense is fervently and therefore Mr. Cl. must not build a new Notion upon his new and false Exposition As to the Examiner he would make that sense necessary by a Case which he refers to me to decide viz. Whether a Minister using a prescribed Form with all the fervency he can may be said to pray as well as he is able if he think he can represent his Resentments better by his own Expressions Which Case I thus resolve If the Form he use be our Liturgy and he goes on still to use it notwithstanding the spirit of Pride suggests to him great things of his own abilities He prays better than he is able to do on the sudden in his own Expressions And I cannot believe any considering man of tolerable modesty will say that he is able to express the wants of a public Congregation better especially without study than they are expressed in our acurate Forms drawn up by so many learned and pious Men with great care and judgment wherein all ordinary cases are provided for and to which when public Affairs require it New occasional Forms are added in better Expressions than most of us can put together by study and our utmost care He therefore who prays fervently by such Forms certainly prays as well as he is able Thirdly He adviseth me to look over my Quotations again and see whether they mean no more than vigorous affections Which is a fine way of covering his ill success in examining them He never slips any advantage and from his silence I may conclude he found none here wherefore my proofs for this Sense stand good till he offer something to invalidate them Pag. 23. A further proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates only to the Affections is because it is frequently applied to praises which I have proved generally were in Forms And I justly taxed Mr. Cl. for applying the phrase only to Prayers since in this and another place of Justin it chiefly if not only relates to the Hymns c. Mr. S. B. falsly cites my words as if I said It only related to the Hymns c. whereas I do think it relates to Prayers but not only nor chiefly to them because in the former place of Justin M. p. 60. it is joyned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praising God as well as we are able and in the latter place pag. 98. it immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 offering praises as well as we are able And so it doth also in three of those four places which I produced pag. 36 37. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so often applied to Praises and chiefly relating to them in these two places of Justin M. and they being for the most part in prescribed Forms it must signifie something which is proper to those who praise God by a Form that is not making new Expressions but fervency But if he will have it in Justin M. equally relate to Prayers it is certain the Prayers and Praises were both alike for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. pag. 98. He offereth up Prayers and in like manner Thanksgivings c. So that if the Praises were Forms the Prayers were so also Now the Hymns at the Eucharist were one sort of praises instituted by Christ and surely not omitted by this pure Age so near their first appointment and these must be Forms yet these among other Praises were offered up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fervently but not with new
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-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
it self and so may those phrases also viz. Orandi disciplina ordinata religio Orationis yet if he will expound them of the Directions about Prayer it will not hurt my Cause since there is sufficient evidence that the Lords Prayer was called a Form and used as such in Tertullian's time Pag. 31. I next observed Tertullian's Saying The Christians set upon God in prayer with a grateful violence quasi manu factâ as if they were drawn up to battel and inferred from thence That it seems to intimate their use of Forms Mr. S. B. is confident the phrase implies no more than joyning in heart with him that officiates I reply Manus conserere in Ovid is to joyn battel wherein all hands are employed and if the phrase be applied to Prayer it notes every ones bearing a part in his own rank No man can properly say the two Armies of Israelites and Philistins joyned battel when they stood looking on their Champions David and Goliah though they joyned in heart with them and each party wished success to their own Friend And when Tertullian describes the Christians going in a Body to their Persecutors and every one of them declaring he would die for his Religion they are said to go quasi manu factâ ad Scap. cap. ult Wherefore this phrase imports vocal joyning in prayers Again it may pass as a probable proof of an African Litany that Tertullian appeals to the Petitions usually made for the Emperors safety and the good of the State to prove the Christians Loyalty For various and arbitrary Expressions daily differing are no good evidence And though Tertullian writing to Infidels might not use the very words yet he comes so near the Petitions on the like occasion found in ancient Liturgies one of which was so old An. 360. viz. that in the Constitutions as to challenge an Apostolical Original that it is probable enough there was an African Form in this Age to which Tertullian alludes Pag. 32. The passage out of Tert. de anima cap. 9. was that where he calls the celebration of the Eucharist Dominica Solennia Mr. Cl. denies that these words intimate the Office was performed by a Form I thought I had sufficiently answered him by proving that the Latins used Solennes preces for invariable Forms as Brissonius tells us whose learned Commentary of the Romans solemn Forms declare he was a very fit Judge of the import of this word Mr. S. B. gives no reply to this but falsly asserts That I said not one word to Mr. Cl ' s vindication of this place whereas I said more to it pag. 44. than he can answer yet I shall now add that though Scripture was read Psalms sung Sermons made and Petitions delegated in the Assembly where the Christians met yet the Virgin spoke of in Tertullian only took the matter of her Visions from thence but her Raptures were after these were done inter Dominica solennia At the Feast of our Lord the Eucharist the last of all the public Offices after which always followed the dismission of the People as Tertullian here tells us Transacta solennia dimissâ plebe So that Mr. Cl. is mistaken in applying Dominica solennia to the Reading Singing and other Offices which went before For these words only denote the Eucharist as they do also in S. Cyprian who useth Solennibus adimpletis for the Solemn prayer of Consecration And I must note further that Tertullian often useth Solennia for Festivals of all sorts Pagan Apol. c. 35. ad ux l. 2. c. 6. Jewish ad ux cap. 4. Christian de Idol cap. 14. and so it is properly enough applied to the great Christian Feast of the Lords Supper But the reason why Solennia is used for Festivals seems to be because the time and solemn Rites of them were all prescribed and from thence Solemn prayers or Verses came to signifie stated fixed and prescribed Forms according to Brissonius Wherefore Solennia both in Tertullian and S. Cyprian do import the use of solemn and prescribed words in the solemn Feast of the Lords Supper And it is plain from Tertullian they used the Form prescribed by Christ himself in Baptism the other Sacrament as appears by Mr. Cl. who cites these words of Tertullian de Bap. cap. 13. in his Disc of Lit. pag. 94. to prove the ancients thought the Form of Baptizing was prescribed by Divine Authority but Mr. S. B. outfaces Tertullian and Mr. Cl. as well as me and affirms that forma praescripta doth not signifie a prescribed Form but only the manner in which Baptism is to be administred Let the Reader consult the place and he will be amazed to see this Father so wilfully perverted to serve a Turn For Tertullian sets down the words of the Form viz. In the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost cites the Gospel and saith this Form is prescribed there Yet his Exposition is not more false than his Inference is disingenuous He knows I brought this only to prove one part of the Liturgy was a Form yet he bids his Friend try his faculty if he can draw a conclusion from hence for the use of such a Liturgy as we are discoursing of This is the old Cramben bis coctam the dull Fallacy so often used before 'T is plain Liturgies consist of divers parts and some of my Proofs shew the Prayers some the Praises some the Sacramental Administrations were in Forms every one of these Proofs are fit to be inserted in a History of Liturgy although the general conclusion doth not arise from that single proof but from an induction of all the particulars So that if he or his Friend will be trying their Faculties they may do it by shewing That all my Proofs put together do not make out a prescribed Liturgy or that a proof brought for one part doth not make out that part was a Form Pag. 33. I cannot wonder that he who can deny that Forma praescripta is a prescribed Form should say that my Instance out of Tert. ad ux l. 2. is not to our present purpose because it only concerns Singing But are not Psalms and Hymns which are sung one main part of Liturgy he may as well affirm that to discourse of the Veins and Arteries is nothing to the purpose of an Anatomy-Lecture The laudatory part was at least one half of the Service and that being alternate was certainly in Forms and the Prayers will be thought Forms also till he can give a good reason why one part of their Offices should be different from the other or why they might not pray as well as sing by Forms But he saith This passage relates to Singing in the Family Suppose it do yet if the Husband and Wife sang alternately that is by a Form it is very likely they did sing by Forms in public where so many were to joyn in the same Psalm or Hymn that the words must be known before He is
in too much haste for an Examiner otherwise he would not have asked how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to be a proof of Liturgies he should have said of one Form of Praise If he will stay for my answer I will tell him Tertullian proves That Christians must not go to Pagan shews because of the indecency of using the same words and actions in a vain Theatre and at the Church to clap those hands to a Stage-player which had been lifted up to God in prayer to give testimony to a Gladiator with that mouth which had pronounced Amen in the Sacrament to say World without end 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 't is in the best Copies de spect p. 83. Here is a plain comparison between Words and Actions to be used in the Church and in the Theatre by persons who went to both places they clapped and lifted up the same hands they shouted and said Amen with the same mouth to very different objects and on occasions that did no way agree In the Theatre they said in a solemn Form of acclamation World without end to a mortal yea to a wicked man that is to Commodus the Emperor for Xiphiline notes the Romans a little before this had used those words in a solemn Exclamation to Commodus Epist Dion in Com. p. 383. But in the Church these very words were in a Form of praise to God and Christ as out of Irenaeus and Clemens Romanus I noted before wherefore it would be little less than Blasphemy to apply the words of a Christian Hymn proper to an Eternal Being unto a lewd mortal Man Thus Tertullian argues and if his Comparison be truly made as it was a Form used by all the people at the Theatre so it must be in some Form which the People repeated at Church that is probably in the Gloria Patri because it still stands in that part of this Hymn which the People say but it serves my purpose as well since it must be a Form said by the People as if it were the end of any other Hymn But he wonders that the Africans who belonged to the Latin Church should say the Gloria Patri in Greek Whereas it doth not follow from Tertullian that they said it in Greek his Argument is as good if they had said it in Latin Only the Romans used many solemn Forms in Greek both in their Theatres and their Temples and Xiphiline sets down this in Greek so that probably Tertullian refers to that passage in the Historian and only means it was used in Greek in the Theatre He might also read it in Greek in Clemens Romanus and in Irenaeus and so cite it in Greek but that will no more prove the African Service was in Greek than that the Roman or Gallican Churches used to say it in Greek in Clemens or Irenaeus times Only from this and many other Greek words left uninterpreted in Tertullian and other African Fathers we may be sure the African People knew some Greek especially short and common Forms and Phrases Pag. 34. Mr. Cl. had produced three places of Tertullian to justifie the Extempore way all which I answered For the two first Mr. S. B. refers the Reader to Mr. Cl. because I said so little concerning them though I said so much indeed that he is not able to answer it nor clear Mr. Cl. who is evidently mistaken in referring that Singing which was used after the Love-feast to the Christians public Devotions 'T is known that they were always fasting till after their Morning solemn Service of which this Singing could be no part because it was after the Common Meal Secondly I shewed there is nothing in Tertullian which hinders us from believing that the Hymns made de proprio ingenio were composed at home and if so then they were Forms as well as those taken out of Scripture Thirdly The use of private Composures in an Inspired Age will not justifie the use of them now As to the second place I proved expresly out of Tertullian and S. Cyprian that the Christians did often look down in Prayer and so shewed Mr. Cl. was mistaken when from their constant looking up to Heaven in prayer he argued they used no Books to pray by Which I think is as full an Answer to Mr. Cl. as can be desired And the true Reason why Mr. S. B. doth examine nothing of all this is because he could find no evasion Pag. 35. But Mr. Cl's main proof for Extempore Prayer is Thirdly from Tertullian's saying they prayed de pectore which phrase I shewed in four pages was capable of several more proper Interpretations Mr. S. B. replies not to any of these Proofs but diverts his Reader by telling him what he conceives and apprehends to be Tertullian's meaning First He resets to a place of S. Paul 1 Tim. ii 8. where though the Apostles first words Lifting up holy hands may explain Manibus expansis c. yet how without wrath and doubting should expound Tertullian's praying Bare-head and without a Monitor I cannot imagine Secondly He would explain this place by another in the same Author a few Lines after which speaks of a Prayer proceeding from a chaste Body an innocent Soal and from the Holy Spirit Yet here again a chaste Body and an innocent Soul doth not explain praying with Lifted-up hands and a Bare-head and none but the worst of Enthusiasts will pretend that a Prayer out of our own Breast is the same with one proceeding from the Holy Spirit Besides if his bad Edition do not mislead him he is much to blame in reading and pointing this place majorem hostiam quà m ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudicâ c. which makes the sense or non-sense to lie that the good Christian offers a greater Sacrifice than God hath commanded But the true reading is Ei offero opimam majorem hostiam quam ipse mandavit orationem de carne pudicâ de animâ innocenti de Spiritu Sancto profectam Apol c. 30. He speaks here of the Lords Prayer the very same Prayer which Christ commanded which was a greater and better Sacrifice than any that the Heathen offered when it was offered up with a chaste Body a holy Soul and those devout affections which are excited by the holy Ghost Now let him try his faculty how the purity innocence and devotion of Christians saying the Lords Prayer a Form commanded by Christ can prove that praying out of the breast in praying for the Emperors in the former place signifies Praying extempore as he and Mr. Cl. pretend I will only add to my former Exposition that the Breast signifies the Memory these Notes A Monitor is properly to help memory but the Christians who could say their Forms by heart or out of their breast needed no Monitor as the Pagans did in reciting their Forms So of a person fixed in the Memory Persius Sat. 5. saith sinuoso in pectore fixi And Socrates clearly uses Tertullian's
Phrase in this sense where he saith Theodosius could repeat the Holy Scriptures 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of his Breast or as the Latin Version hath it Memoritèr pronunciavit He could repeat them by Heart or out of his Memory When Mr. S. B. can bring so good Evidence that de pectore signifies Extempore it will then be time enough to say more to that feigned Exposition in the mean while I shall conclude that this Phrase is no ground for Extempore Prayer no not in this Second Century wherein there were miraculous Gifts and probably that of Prayer The Third Century § 1. pag. 36. I Entred on this Age with the Reasons why we could not expect any full Evidence of the very words used in their Liturgies during this Period Hist Lit. p. 51 c. Mr. S. B. passes by these three pages because it was not easie to confute this Account and because the bare mention of my declaring this had spoiled his main Fallacy of my undertaking to produce express proof of a perfect Liturgy invariably used in these early Times My first Author Hippolitus he confesseth he hath never read yet he attempts to correct my Exposition of those words of the Martyr When Antichrist shall come Liturgy shall be extinguished Singing of Psalms shall cease and reading of Scripture shall not be heard which he expounds as importing no more than that Antichrist would suppress the public pure Worship of God But it might have been more probable that was celebrated by a common Form if I had produced any proof before that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had born this sense I reply I have proved out of Clemens Romanus that Liturgy is put for a prescribed Form of Divine Service Yet if this were the first Author who used the word in this sense his Testimony is not to be rejected especially since there are good Reasons to convince us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here doth signifie a Form of public Prayer For though this word sometime signifie the whole Service yet here it is put for one essential part of it S. Aug. rightly divides the public Worship into three parts Prayer Praise and Reading Holy Scripture de Civ Dei l. 2 c. 28. and when Liturgy is joyned with Psams and Readings it can signifie nothing but Prayer and the use of the word before and since shows that Prayers were by a prescribed Form and the word Extinguished confirms this Sense for written Forms may be and actually were extinguished by Persecutors as I shewed Par. 2. pag. 217 c. Mr. S. B. saith Antichrist may suppress the public exercise of Ministers gifts as well as the use of Forms I reply the word is not Suppress but Extinguish which cannot be applied to Ministers gifts for they are not extinguished by a prohibition to use them the Extempore man retains his faculty and for all the Prohibition is ready on the sudden to exercise it in any place He adds That he doth not remember Antichrist has shewed any dislike of Forms Now this it is to expound an Author he never fead Hippolitus's Notion of Antichrist is That it should be a Jewish Deceiver who should labour to extinguish Christian Liturgy But Mr. S. B. dreams all this while of the Pope who he thinks the only Antichrist and so poor man guesses at random and quite mistakes this Fathers meaning Yet I can tell him of two Emissaries of his Roman Antichrist Comin and Heath who first set up the Extempore way in England and were as professed Enemies to Forms and to our Liturgy as any of our Dissenters are at this day See Foxes and Firebrands pag. 7 17. § 2. pag. 37. My first proof out of Origen is so plain that it convinced the learned Centuriators That set-Forms were certainly used in his time The Examiner intimates That the Conviction of these Learned men is nothing to the matter in debate but whether it be a substantial proof Very modest But I pray whether are these Historians who had read and digested all the Records of that Age or Mr. S. B. and his Friend fitter Judges what is a substantial proof And what have Mr. Cl. and the Examiner to prove it no solid Proof They both suggest without any Evidence That this Passage might be added by Origen's Translators because these Homilies are in Latin only But still this is but a possibility and the contrary as I shewed is more probable because the Matter of the Prayer is pure and grounded on Scripture being more suitable to Origen's own Time and Notions than to the Age and Opinions of his Translators one of the latest of which as I noted was â—uifinus and if he had put in this Form of Prayer it had proved the use of Forms long before Mr. Cl's fixed Period And here I must note the disingenuity of Mr. Clarkson who frequently cites places out of these Latin Homilies as good Evidence on his side Disc of Lit. p. 56 105 121 140 but when we cite them against him he flies to this poor refuge of Supposing this might be added by the Translators But it will be always a rule in Equity That the Witness we produce for us is good Evidence against us and Mr. S. B. will get no credit by vamping up this baffled Objection nor by Mr. Cl's other weak pretence That this Passage imports no more than the preferring one or two Petitions in the same words which is common with them that pray Extempore For Origen's words are not We do ordinarily pray as he falsly translates them pag. 39. nor We say sometimes or to this effect but We frequently say in the Prayer which is Origen's phrase when he cites any thing out of the Liturgy as I shall shew on pag. 41. and then he sets down the very Form O Almighty God grant us a part with the Prophets c. wherefore this was a known Form of prayer frequently used by the People and that made it so necessary for Origen to expound it to them Besides Mr. S. B. p. 39. saith The People used frequently to say Lord give us a part c. Now I would know Whether they prayed Extempore in public He formerly affirms they were not called to this yet here being pinched he contradicts himself and will have these words which the People used to imply no more than what may be done by those who pray Extempore As for his pretence That the People said these words in the time of the Discourses or Homily that contradicts Origen who affirms It was said in the Prayer therefore not in the Sermon Finally Mr. S. B. saith If the matter be well enquired into Origen's Explication is a reproof of the Prayer it self and it may be questioned whether we may pray for what he saith those Petitions import And why did not the Examiner ex officio enquire well into it especially since I had proved the Prayer was Orthodox Again If Origen reprove the Prayer it self then it
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
James's Liturgy not above 70 year according to S. Hierom after Cyprian's time tells us so early that he had this and other mystical Forms from the Tradition of his Fathers The Author of the Constitutions who writ as I have shewed in the middle of the next Century hath also this Preface in the Eucharistical Office which was so old then that it challenged an Apostolical Original And since the Form was so ancient and not only in these Churches but in those which followed the Liturgies of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom and in the West the same words were used it is evident the Form must be so very old that none presumed to alter it Let Mr. S. B. before he despise this Evidence give an instance of some Extempore or arbitrary Prayer or Exhortation wherein so many distant Churches did so universally or could so exactly agree till then his Harangues about a possibility of exhorting or praying in various words is nothing to the purpose Nor is his Objection material that Cyprian doth not speak of it as being used in the Eucharist For he speaks of it as used so oft as the Priest and people met at solemn Prayer that is daily and he saith § 13. that they then received the Eucharist every day wherefore this Preface was used daily in the Eucharist where all the Liturgies and where all the Fathers Cyril Ambrose Augustin Chrysostom c. expresly say it was used yea S. Chrysostom reckons it up as one eminent part of the Liturgy in Coloss hom 3. Tom. 4. pag. 106. So that this Preface which also gives name to the Lauds that follow it was a part of the Communion Office in Form as early at least as S. Cyprian's time and we have proved the Lords Prayer was so also which is a good step toward a prescribed Liturgy both these being always and invariably used Pag. 46. The next Quotation was not produced for a more evident proof of Liturgies than the Preface Lift up your hearts c. as he fuggests but to shew the agreement of the African and Greek Churches in another Form Give holy things to the holy The Examiner alters the main word on which my Observation was grounded and cites this place Sanctum quoque jubeamur c. but my Edition 〈…〉 lart Genev. 1593. reads it Sanctum quotidiè jubeamur c. which implies there was a daily charge given to the Christians who then daily received the Eucharist to give holy things only to the holy And S. Cyprian doth not cite the Gospel Math. vii 6. for the charge it self but only he shews it was grounded on that piece of the Gospel Give not that which is holy to the Dogs And I hope Mr. S. B. doth not think this piece of the Gospel was every day read to them therefore S. Cyprian refers to a daily charge in the Eucharistical Office in Africa and there being the same charge found in all the ancient Eastern Liturgies as I shewed it shews an agreement between the Greek and African Offices which was the only thing to be proved and which proves Forms usedin both these ancient Churches Pag. 47. Again I did not pretend to find a Christian Litany in the same Tract but the general heads of one the words of which as I noted they concealed from Pagans but the resemblance between Tertullian's and Cyprian's heads and those in the Litanies whose Original is so ancient we cannot positively assign it This I say is at least a probable proof they were then in Litanick Forms especially if with S. Chrysostom we believe these Forms were made at first by Inspired persons preserved by some and imitated by following Ages with no more variation than must be occasioned by the difference of time and distance of places I grant this is but probable Evidence but in these early times we must be content with such and though Mr. S. B. can see no strength in this way of arguing for Liturgies yet he discerns a mighty strength in Mr. Cl's most remote Conjectures for extempore Prayer So he doth in that of Cyprian's Epistle to P. Lucius wherein there is an account that they at Carthage prayed for Pope Lucius in his banishment and this in their Prayers and Sacrifices whence Mr. Cl. infers they were at liberty to put up-any occasional Petition in the Eucharist and so could not be confined to a set Form The weakness of which Inference I shewed by observing 1st That these are not the Petitions put up for us by Lucius but the general purport of them described in a Letter 2ly That a constant liberty for inferior Ministers in this Age when Inspiration is ceased which is that Mr. Cl. would have can by no means follow from the Chief Primate of Africa's making a new Petition or two in the times while Inspiration continued 3dly Nor a daily liberty in ordinary cases be inferred from some variety on so extraordinary occasion as the exile of the chief Patriarch of the West For if one of the most eminent Bishops at Liberty in the late Reign had put up one or two new Petitions for his Seven Brethren in the Tower none could infer from thence that all our Clergy were always at liberty to pray in what words they pleafed As to Mr. Cl's Note That if this had been the African Form for Confessors Cyprian need not have told Lucius of it I replied The distance between Rome and Africa was so great that Lucius might probably be ignorant of that Churches Forms but however this Letter is rather to acquaint Lucius they did pray for him than to give him an account of the very words Mr. S. B. saith very little to all this but with respect to my 2d Answer he scoffingly reflects upon my supposing a Primate had more liberty than an inferior Clergy-man as if this liberty were to be exercised only by such as could climb up to the top of Ecclesiastical Dignity and not in proportion to mens Gift To which I shall only say That though there be some such as Mr. S. B. who have extraordinary Abilities and are not advanced according to their merit to be Governors of the Church the public Peace requires these Persons to forbear exercising these Abilities unless their Superiors command them for even in the very Apostles Age God himself ordered the spirit of the Prophets to be subject to the Prophets to prevent confusion in the Churches of the Saints 1 Cor. xiv 32 33. The like proof for Extempore Prayer is that our of Cypr. epist ad Mos Max. which is only the general account Cyprian gives these Confessors in a Letter of prayers made for them but there is no intimation the Petitions were Extempore So that they must either refer to the common Form for Confessors or some Form made by this great Primate on this great occasion but a daily liberty for the inferior Priests to vary then doth not follow from this place and if all the Priests in
Cyprian's Diocess had made their own Forms for Moses and Maximus or had daily prayed for them in various phrases it had been impossible for Cyprian to pretend to set down in a Letter what was the substance of those many various prayers So that whether it were the old Form or a new one such as our Bishops make and send us on extraordinary occasions it was a Form and that sufficiently confutes Mr. Cl. and secures the point in question Indeed Mr. Cl. had not cited this place at large in his Disc of Lit. pag. 68. and I thought he had referred to the beginning of that Epistle where S. Cyprian desires the prayers of Moses and Maximus but Mr. S. B. hath obliged me by citing the true place at large by which I perceive I was mistaken before and I shall freely own it wishing he may follow my Example so oft as I convince him he was in an Error and then our Controversie will soon be at end and he may see by this Reply now that it was more difficult for me to find Mr. Cl's Quotation than to answer it Pag. 50. Instead of repeating Mr. S. B's partial account of the dispute between Mr. Cl. and me about the liberty the ancients took to alter Christs own Form of Baptizing I shall refer the Reader to my Hist Lit. par 2. pag. 247. where that matter is fully considered and all Mr. Cl's pretended Evidence disproved As to the last place out of Cypr. ep 73. ad Jub Both Mr. Cl. and Mr. S. B. cite it falsly and fraudulently Mr. Cl. hath it Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt modo in nomine Jesu Christi c. Mr. S. B. adds nothing but these words foris extra Ecclesiam But the true reading in Pamelius in a later Paris Edition in Goulartius and the Oxford Edition is Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt for is extra Ecclesiam ims contra Ecclesiam modo in nomine Jesu Christi c. So that Mr. Cl. leaves out all and Mr. S. B. half the Character of those persons who said Baptism was valid if it were administred only in the Name of Jesus Christ they were such as were out of the Church and against the Church that is Schismaticks and Hereticks Which being evident I beg the liberty to examine First Whether it were not fraudulent in both my Adversaries to omit the Character of those men by whose opinion and practice they would prove an usage of the Church 2ly Whether they might not as well prove the antiquity and lawfulness of Extempore Prayers from the notions and practice of Montanus and the Messalians 3ly Whether they believe the present Church is obliged now to follow their Examples who were out of the ancient Church and Enemies to it When Mr. S. B. hath considered well of these Questions I hope he will be satisfied that this place doth not prove that the true Church then took liberty to vary Christs Form nor can any thing be inferred from it to justifie the granting such liberty now § 4. Pag. 51. That clear instance of a Liturgy left to them of Naeocaesarea by Greg. Thaumaturgus from which for a long time after they would not vary in a Ceremony a word or a mystical Form looks so like a proof of Forms invariably used that Mr. S. B. labours by all means to evade it and 1st He pretends this passage of not varying c. relates only to Doctrin 2dly He saith S. Basil mentions not Gregory ' s appointing a Form of Prayer for that Church Both which I shall disprove For first this passage cannot refer to Gregory's Doctrin any further than that must be supposed agreeable to the Forms of Worship he left behind him because the things they would not vary from nor add to were Actions Words and Mystical Forms 'T is true if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had stood single as it doth Ep. 75. it might have been applied to Doctrins but what Actions or Mystical Forms are there in Articles of Faith these can relate to nothing but Divine Worship Again S. Basil saith Many things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their Administrations were now become defective by the antiquity of their Institution and yet they would not vary from them Now let Mr. S. B. consider whether Gregory could institute any new Orthodox Doctrins or whether true Doctrins can ever become defective by their antiquity and then he must confess this Answer was a meer shuffle to cover a bad Cause Doctrins can be instituted by none but Christ and his Apostles and are the better for being old but a Liturgy is capable of growing obsolete and it is that of which S. Basil here evidently and undeniably speaks which answers his second Objection For though he do not use the very words Liturgy or Form of Prayer yet he mentions Administrations and declares they would not add to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not an Action a Word nor a mystical Form These are the main parts of a Liturgy which consists of Rubrics for Ceremonies the words of ordinary Prayers and Praises and the mystical Forms of Administring the Holy Sacraments Now if they added nothing in any of these particulars to the Administrations he left them doubtless they made no new Extempore Prayers nor varied at any time therefore they confined themselves invariably to what he had prescribed them in Ceremonies Words and mystical Forms and these words of S. Basil evidently suppose he left them a Liturgy consisting of all these particulars prescribed Besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had it stood alone signifies a Form for the Mysteries so very clearly that it would suffice to have proved the Sacraments were administred by such a prescribed Form When S. Luke writes down the very words of a Letter he saith it contained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts xxiii 25. so Nazianzen S. Basil's Friend calls Divine Offices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the prescribed Forms of the Church which were preserved and Julian imitated these by making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Form of Prayers Naz. orat 3. p. 101 102. Cedrenus in the Life of the Emperor Zeno calls the Imperial Edict sent to Alexandria 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Form And Zonaras informs us that the Fathers assembled in the Council of Trullo call the Emperors Edicts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the public or political Forms Can. 38. vid. Beveridg Concil Tom. I. p. 201 202. In the Euchologion the Priest is directed to do all things as he is directed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Formularies Euch. p. 11. And the learned Dr. Duport in his Greek Version of our Common-prayer useth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Title-page and elsewhere for our prescribed invariable Forms of Ordination of Administring the Communion of solemnizing Matrimony c. So that if these Authors understood Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a prescribed Form for the Sacrament and S. Basil implies they had such an one and would not make a new one
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-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.