the occasions and improving others abilities to further their Devotion This he designs to prove That the Ministers prayer is not a Form to the People but I affirm the Congregation who joyn in the Common-Prayer do or may do all this yet I hope Mr. S. B. will not affirm that their joyning in the Spiritual performance acting Graces and using the abilities of the Liturgy-makers to further their Devotion proves the Common-Prayer is no Form to our People Lastly he affirms That the Congregation are not called to express vocally their inward resentments in the fittest words they are able I reply They are commanded to pray by the Spirit in public as well as in private and if they may not use their own Expressions there then they may pray by the Spirit without using their own words and praying fervently is the main import of that phrase Besides he runs from the point to tell us what is the duty of Ministers and what the Peoples For our Question here is Whether their being tied to their Ministers Prayer do not make it a Form to them not Whether they should be tied to his words or no If I grant they ought to be tied to his words that makes them not less a Form to them but I may note that he cannot produce one place of Scripture where as he phrases it Ministers are called to speak all the Office alone or to express their sense in new phrases daily or where the People are forbid to say any part of the Prayers If he cannot shew Scripture for these ways of the Dissenters he is highly to blame to apply the Canting-phrase of A Call which implies a Divine Command to meer human devices 'T is apparent from the best antiquity since the Apostles and from the Jewish Custom that the people joyned both in Praises and Prayers by Responses Repetitions c. contrary to which the Dissenters now confine the People wholly to the Ministers words throughout their Extempore Prayers and then by a wrong exposition of the praying by the Spirit abuse their own Congregations as much as they do those who use the Liturgy and exclude them as well as us from Praying by the Spirit Pag. 12. I granted there was an extraordinary Gift of Prayer in and after the Apostles days the Spirit furnishing some then both with words and matter This I proved by S. Chrysostom who notes it was ceased long before his time and I made it probable that the Original of Liturgies was from Prayers endited at first by these Inspired men and preserved in writing by some for the benefit of after-Ages Hist Lit. pag. 17. Mr. S. B. objects That I have none but S. Chrysostom to vouch for this Gift And is not he a good Evidence for a matter of Fact so near his own time when Mr. S. B. hath not one Father nor Argument to disprove him But he startles at a dreadful Consequence of his own dressing up viz. That this would make Liturgies to be Divine Revelations which he represents as little less than Blasphemy Now to put him out of his affright he must consider First That there is great difference between Holy Scripture written by Inspired men on purpose to be a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners and certainly delivered to us as the very Word of God and Forms occasionally used or composed by some Inspired man accidentally preserved as some Liturgick Forms and some Sayings of the Apostles not Recorded in the New Testament were So that the affirming the Primitive part of Liturgy was made at first by Inspired men doth not equal it to Scripture Secondly This Primitive part of Liturgy is either the very words of Scripture or so pious pure pertinent and agreeable to it that it is no reflection on the Spirit of God to say this was derived from the Prayers of Inspired men Thirdly The agreement of distant Churches so early in the same Forms cannot well be made out unless we allow these Forms were made at first by that one Spirit which inspired all the planters of these several Churches Lastly It is far more arrogant and nearer Blasphemy to ascribe modern extempore Prayers to Inspiration as the People are taught to do to charge the Holy Spirit with the blunders tautologies non-sense and impertinencies of this way must provoke God with a witness I might also here shew that two Popish Impostors first brought up this way of Extempore prayer in England and that many who were great admirers of it have fallen off to Quakerism c. but that is done by other hands I return therefore to the Examiner who adds That some of our latest Liturgies have some Prayers in them whose very frame shews they were not composed by Inspiration If he say this of the modern corrupt Additions to old Liturgies it is nothing to the purpose because we consider nothing here but the Primitive part of these Liturgies If he mean it of our Common-Prayer one of the best and latest Liturgies I affirm the meanest Collect there is fitter to be ascribed to Inspiration than the best Extempore Prayer I ever heard yet we do not equal them to Holy Scripture And now I hope it is plain my Examiner hath said nothing to lessen the value of Liturgies or raise the credit of the Extempore way I will next consider whether he hath any better skill of success in examining Authors than in refuting Scripture Arguments The First Century § 1. pag. 13. TO avoid all Cavil and prevent Fallacies I will first shew what I undertook to prove in this Century which was That the Christians had Forms of Prayer and Praise pag. 21. and a Liturgy or Order at least pag. 22. That their Hymns were certainly in prescribed Forms pag. 25. Their Prayer and Supplication one and approved by the Bishop their Singing alternate pag. 27. This was all I undertook to prove in an Age so full of inspired Pastors and so deficient in Writers wherein as I noted pag. 19 much evidence for Liturgies cannot be expected And if we find some steps made towards a Liturgy invariably used thus early we may be sure as Gifts decreased the use of Forms in every Age must proportionably increase My first proof is from Josephus who saith The Essenes used early in the Morning Prayers delivered them from their Fore-fathers De bell Jud. l. 2. c. 7. now these must be Forms Philo adds They sang Hymns alternately De vit contemp which must be known Forms also and Eusebius who from Philo's description took them to be Christians converted by S. Mark observes their Hymns were the same with those sung in the Church in his time All this the Examiner grants and this is enough for my purpose because it proves That such as were taken to be Christians by their agreement with the Primitive Rites certainly had and used Forms both of Prayer and Praise He only cavils about Eusebius's not mentioning their Forms of Prayer Suppose he do not Josephus
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
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
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.
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-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
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
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