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
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
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
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