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
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
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
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