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
was called Coena wherefore this Phrase applied to Prayers signifies that the Congregation had a share in the Service and shews they were Forms for themselves and for all others And Justin would rather have called them General or Universal than Common-Prayers if he had meant by that Epithet to signifie they were made for all Men. Pag. 21. But the most famous passage in Justin M. is that of the Presidents offering up Prayers and in like manner Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as he is able Mr. Clarkson first produced this place to prove that they used Extempore prayers then at the Eucharist and spent near Ten pages in Quotations to make out that to be the import of this Phrase To this I made two general Replies First If this were the sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it would not follow from the Clergies praying so in the Inspired Ages that we must pray so now Secondly That Mr. Cl. was hard put to it for proofs when he laid so much stress on a Phrase that at least is very ambiguous These two Replies Mr. S. B. takes no notice of Thirdly I answered all Mr. Cl's pertinent Quotations and brought others to shew that this Phrase signifies no more than praying and praising God with all possible fervency the Examiner interposes to judge between us and without enquiring into either of our Quotations gives sentence against me and his pretended Reasons for it are these First Because Justin M. for the understanding this Phrase refers us not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I affirmed but to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a little before where he saith The President offers up prayers and praises to God c. and gives thanks for the benefits vouchsafed in the Lords Supper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which for any thing he yet knows signifies distinctly and with variety of Expression I reply This passage where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is found speaks only of giving thinks he hath added Prayers of his own head Secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies for a long time and not as he fancies distinctly or with variety of Expression as appears by Acts xxviii 6. where when the Viper hung on Paul's Hand the Barbarians expected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a long time that he should have fallen down dead but surely they did not expect this distinctly or with variety of Expression So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot explain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Sense But Thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used of the prayers after Baptism which no doubt were agreeable to those at the Eucharist and as I shewed it signifies they were made earnestly devoutly and affectionately which is the import of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the prayers and praises at the Communion So that still it appears Justin M. by both these phrases intended to express the fervency of him that officiated not his using new and various words Pag. 22. Again Secondly Mr. S. B. understands not why it s signifying fervently should exclude the other sense of the Presidents using his ability as to Expressions It seems there are many things he doth not and some he will not understand I doubt the latter is the case here for there is an obvious Reason why this one phrase cannot signifie both in this place viz. because it is not usual for an Author in the same place to use the same phrase in two so different senses and I have shewed the most usual and probable sense is fervently and therefore Mr. Cl. must not build a new Notion upon his new and false Exposition As to the Examiner he would make that sense necessary by a Case which he refers to me to decide viz. Whether a Minister using a prescribed Form with all the fervency he can may be said to pray as well as he is able if he think he can represent his Resentments better by his own Expressions Which Case I thus resolve If the Form he use be our Liturgy and he goes on still to use it notwithstanding the spirit of Pride suggests to him great things of his own abilities He prays better than he is able to do on the sudden in his own Expressions And I cannot believe any considering man of tolerable modesty will say that he is able to express the wants of a public Congregation better especially without study than they are expressed in our acurate Forms drawn up by so many learned and pious Men with great care and judgment wherein all ordinary cases are provided for and to which when public Affairs require it New occasional Forms are added in better Expressions than most of us can put together by study and our utmost care He therefore who prays fervently by such Forms certainly prays as well as he is able Thirdly He adviseth me to look over my Quotations again and see whether they mean no more than vigorous affections Which is a fine way of covering his ill success in examining them He never slips any advantage and from his silence I may conclude he found none here wherefore my proofs for this Sense stand good till he offer something to invalidate them Pag. 23. A further proof that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relates only to the Affections is because it is frequently applied to praises which I have proved generally were in Forms And I justly taxed Mr. Cl. for applying the phrase only to Prayers since in this and another place of Justin it chiefly if not only relates to the Hymns c. Mr. S. B. falsly cites my words as if I said It only related to the Hymns c. whereas I do think it relates to Prayers but not only nor chiefly to them because in the former place of Justin M. p. 60. it is joyned to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praising God as well as we are able and in the latter place pag. 98. it immediately follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 offering praises as well as we are able And so it doth also in three of those four places which I produced pag. 36 37. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being so often applied to Praises and chiefly relating to them in these two places of Justin M. and they being for the most part in prescribed Forms it must signifie something which is proper to those who praise God by a Form that is not making new Expressions but fervency But if he will have it in Justin M. equally relate to Prayers it is certain the Prayers and Praises were both alike for he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. pag. 98. He offereth up Prayers and in like manner Thanksgivings c. So that if the Praises were Forms the Prayers were so also Now the Hymns at the Eucharist were one sort of praises instituted by Christ and surely not omitted by this pure Age so near their first appointment and these must be Forms yet these among other Praises were offered up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fervently but not with new
himself affirms pag. 11. The matter now in dispute is only about him that officiates But my Paraphrases being not at all intended for the use of Ministers or others in public therefore they are nothing to the purpose of Variations designed for public use exclusive of the Liturgy His next Question is Whether my Paraphrases be ever the better for being only for private use I answer This makes his alledging them in an Argument about publick Variations appear frivolous and impertinent But if he delight in Comparisons a private Minister who makes Variations for private use to promote Uniformity and Devotion and to beget in all a just esteem of the established way of Worship doth much better than he who to shew his ability to vary uses his faculty in public to exclude the established way and thereby breeds a contempt of it and promotes separation from it Pag. 10. I granted pag. 16. That every good man might pray by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit devoutly and fervently even by a Form Mr. S. B. leaves out the main words even by a Form and falls to make Inferences from half my Sentence asking If Men may be so enlightned and affected c. why they may not by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit express their resentments in proper Expressions If he mean in private perhaps they may but that is nothing to our Question which is only about public Prayer if he mean in public I have already given him divers Reasons why this cannot be permitted much less established in a setled Church But in short I will give him here three Reasons First This liberty is needless because there are more proper Expressions already composed by Holy men who had the ordinary assistance of the Spirit than any of us can invent on the sudden Secondly This liberty would be pernicious occasioning Envy among the Clergy and Factions among the People some of the most learned and pious would be despised only for their modesty and others of the most ignorant and profane admired for their fluency and confidence Thirdly Supposing both ways of praying by enjoyned Forms and Extempore were equal yet when our Church being guided by antiquity reason and the practice of other modern Churches hath prohibited that way and prescribed Forms they are certainly the better way for us Pag. 11. He yields at last That the frame and actings of the Soul the exercise of Faith Repentance Love c. are the principal thing in Prayer Now when I had proved that a Minister may do all this and so pray by the Spirit in a Form why may he not be obliged always to use a Form in public Mr. S. B. can object nothing but this If the enjoyned Form do not so well express that sense which he and others have of the Matter of Prayer as other words which occur to him then he cannot be said to pray in or by the Spirit in the full import of the phrase Now this Supposition shews first That these men have a high opinion of their own Invention who think they can devise better words Extempore than our Reverend makers of the Liturgâ— could frame by much study Secondly 'T is plain That using these new Phrases is by his account the full and only import of Praying by the Spirit for he makes varying the phrase necessary to the exercise of it and his Extempore man is singular in nothing else But he should consider this is a Scripture-phrase and the import of it is to be learned from thence wherefore he should have brought some Text where Praying by the Spirit signifies Inventing new Phrases but that he can never do and reason is against his Exposition as well as Scripture for since he owns new Words not to be the principal thing in Prayer no man will believe the Spirits assistance is necessary for the less principal yea where we have proper Phrases already for a needless thing Wherefore when in the use of our Forms our Soul is in good frame and we exercise all proper Graces by the assistance of the Spirit we Pray by the Spirit in all Senses that the phrase is capable of but Two which are of Mr. S. B's own devising first that we do not daily invent new Words nor secondly do we vainly imagine we can invent more proper Words than the Church hath provided After this he runs back to my 15th Page where I had shewed That if Praying by the Spirit signifie making new Words and Phrases then none but the Minister in public prays by the Spirit since the people never invent new Words but the Ministers words are a Form to them The Examiner tugs hard to get off from this Rock and saith first The dispute is only about him that officiates But had he read over the place he pretends to confute he must have seen I was answering Mr. Clarkson who Disc of Lit. pag. 128 129. makes Praying by the Spirit a gift common to all Christians and yet afterwards saith He that was able to conceive a Prayer himself yet made use of prayers formed by others he did not pray as he was able which he makes to be all one with praying by the Spirit The absurdity of which Assertion I proved by this scandalous Consequence of it that then the People whom he affirms to have this Gift in all Ages did never pray by the Spirit because they make use of Forms made by others so that here our dispute was about the People For by this I made it appear how falsly they expounded the phrase of praying by the Spirit by inventing new Words which excludes the People from ever praying by the Spirit at all Secondly Mr. S. B. saith The Ministers prayer is not a Form to the Congregation in the Sense we are discoursing of I answer It is a prayer framed by another and that is Mr. Clarkson's sense of a Form and I think Mr. S. B's too who saith in this very Page if a man restrain himself to the words and phrases put together by others which express not their sense so well as some that occur to them c. Here a Form is defined Words and Phrases put together by others and the using it restraining ones self to those words Now the people are restrained to words and phrases put together by the Minister therefore his Prayer is a Form to them And if one of the Congregation conceive he can express his sense better than his Minister doth and yet sits by silent and uses the Ministers words to express his sense according to Mr. Cl. this man doth not pray as well as he is able and according to Mr. S. B. he prays not by the Spirit in the full import of the phrase which natural yet odious Consequence should make them ashamed of their explaining this phrase of Praying by the Spirit by inventing new Expressions Thirdly Mr. S. B. saith The Congregation may joyn in the spiritual performance of the duty acting Graces suitable to
the invariable use of Forms So that doubtless the advantage is on my side and 't is not fair to demand such Evidence as the Times do not afford and such as they cannot bring either against my Opinion or for their own Secondly Tho' there be not many Proofs of a Whole Liturgy prescribed before the 4th Century yet then divers Liturgies were written down and at that time claimed an Original much elder either from the Apostles or very ancient Tradition And the Authors who speak of them or any parts of them suppose them to have been in use long before this time Wherefore according to S. Augustine That which is observed by the whole Church and was not instituted by Councils but hath been always kept this is accounted to be of Apostolical Institution De Bapt. contr Donat. l. 4. c. 23. which being applied to Liturgies will go a great way to prove their Original was from the Apostles however they must be elder than this Fourth Century Thirdly When Mr. Cl. and my Examiner have granted Forms ancient and lawful it seems to me very needless to enquire when the Church first enjoyned them For if the Church have power to enjoyn any thing in Gods Service it cannot be in things unlawful so that whatever is in it self lawful especially if it be Primitive and in her Opinion useful she may enjoyn to her own Members and then it becomes necessary to them and if they forsake her Communion for this they are Schismaticks So that they should have denied the lawfulness of Forms if they designed to quarrel at the enjoyning them Fourthly Since Mr. S. B. sets up for an Examiner he should have enquired into all those Pages where my probable Proofs and Inferences are strengthned with explicatory and collateral Evidence To let all these pass by unanswered and tell us He thinks the Author meant otherwise without confuting my Reasons and Instances or confirming his own Thoughts is something too assuming Fifthly He often appeals to his Friend whom he knew to be of his side or to the Reader to judge between Mr. Cl. and me upon his bare Insinuation that I am in the wrong referring them to both our Books Out of which no doubt the indifferent Reader would have judged more impartially if no Examiner had appeared But if they must have this trouble still especially in the most difficult Cases I would fain know to what purpose did Mr. S. B. write his Examination Sixthly He boasts as if the Cause were lost when he thinks he hath run down but one of my particular Instances or probable Proofs But there are so many Evidences and such variety of this kind of Proofs which being put together make out the general Conclusion That the Cause cannot suffer much though some particular Instance should fail Lastly He rejects all my clear Proofs That Hymns â—nd Praises were in prescribed Forms as wholly impertinent to the Question accusing me of needless Tautologies for urging them Whereas the greatest part of Liturgies are Praises and whatever proves the Praises were prescribed Forms undeniably proves at least one half of the Public Service was prescribed and makes it probable the petitionary part of the same Service was so also as I shewed before Par. I. pag. 24 25. Nor can he evade this consequence till he give a substantial Reason why the Laudatory part of a Liturgy should be in Forms prescribed and the Prayers left arbitrary Which will be very hard to do because Prayers and Praises are so intermixed as to be inseparable Daniel's Devotions were Prayers and Thanksgivings Dan. vi 10. The Apostles praying sang a Hymn Acts xvi 25. Our Lord joyned a Doxology to his Prayer Math. vi 13. S. Paul often puts Prayer and Praise together 1 Cor. xiv 15. Philip. iv 6. 1 Thess v. 17 18. 1 Tim. ii 1. The most ancient Forms of Prayer like the Lords Prayer end with a Doxology and the most famous Hymns the Te Deum Gloria in excelsis the Trisagion and those in Prudentius c. And the Psalms of David are so mixt of Prayers and Praises that none can sing or say them but they bless God and pray to him by the same Form So that Praises and Prayers being essential parts of the same Worship so like each other so often inseparably mixed together and so constantly united What reason can be given why the Hymns and Praises being certainly prescribed the Prayers should not be so also And to reject all that proves the Praises were prescribed Forms as impertinent to a History of Liturgy shews much Ignorance or Inconsideration unless it be a politick invention to cover his inability to answer so much and so clear Evidence as there is on that subject These general Remarks will help to shorten my Answer and so I hope may obtain the Readers pardon though they look like a digression § 2. Pag. 3. My aim from Scripture was to prove Forms were not only used but also enjoyned as an acceptable way of praising God and praying to him And I produced three Forms one of Praise Exod. xv 1. another of Blessing Numb vi 23. a third of Prayer Deut. xxvi 5 c. ver 13. Mr. S. B. objects nothing to any of the particulars but saith I should prove they did not or might not use any Prayers or Praises but those very Forms And surely this appears sufficiently as to the occasions upon which these words were prescribed because they were all composed by Moses upon the several occasions mentioned in the Text and that by Gods direction Now can we suppose that any private Priest durst make another Form of Blessing or any Jew offer his Tithes and First-fruits with a new Form of his own Composing Fagius saith They were so strict as to the Blessing that in after-Ages they kept the very Hebrew Original words Vid. Crit. Sacr. in Numb 6. And when God by his inspired Prophet Hos xiv 2 3. not only directs the penitent Jews what sort of words to use but sets down the Form it self No doubt if any of them had presumed to alter those words his presumption would have caused him to be rejected Wherefore Forms which no private Man may vary are a way of serving God justified by the Scriptures of the Old Testament Pag. 4. The same appears by the Psalms indited by the Spirit of God for the public service of the Temple which I proved by Scripture and Mr. S. B. denies it not only he saith From Gods enjoyning these we cannot infer that Men may devise Prayers and oblige the Church to use them and no other But can Men find out a better way of serving God than that which God himself chose that is by Forms enjoyned 'T is true they had Inspired men to compose those Forms then but though the Authors of ours were not Inspired yet if their Composures do agree in all things with Holy Scripture and contradict it in nothing they cannot offend supposing the Forms
unexceptionable by imitating that Method which God and inspired Ages have set them which is enjoyning Forms taken out of the Psalms and other places of Holy Scripture and out of such ancient Composures as are no way repugnant to it But further I cited six learned Authors in the Margen and two in the Text to prove the Jews anciently had a Liturgy Mr. S. B. knew the thing could not be denied wherefore he politickly pretends It would be too great a diversion to enquire whether their proofs are solid and intimates he could shew that two of my Authors build their proof for some things upon unjustifiable Authorities This is to evade not to answer Surely it was the business of an Examiner to enquire and to say he can do that which he doth not when there was a just occasion for it is an intimation he cannot answer their proofs So that I shall take it for granted the Jews had a Liturgy till the contrary be better made out and refer the Reader to the consequences deduced from that Truth Hist of Lit. pag. 4. and at last Mr. S. B. supposes that Forms might have been of general use among the Jews And then the next question is Whether this way of serving God was abrogated in the New Testament I I gave divers Reasons why such an abrogation was necessary if Christ had disliked that way to which the Jews had been generally and long accustomed and intended to set up a new one He answers that he sees no necessity of such an abrogation to warrant People to address themselves to God in another way for he supposes both ways lawful Now if he grant that First Then the way of stinted Forms is not unlawful nor unsuitable to Gospel-worship Secondly This way was never disliked by Christ nor hath he brought any proof that he instituted any other way Thirdly Therefore it is most likely the Jewish Converts would keep to their old way of stinted Forms and that implies them to be very ancient Fourthly If both ways were now equally lawful yet the Church having chosen and enjoyned the Liturgick way as the most ancient universal and profitable way and rejected the other Her determination makes this way which was only lawful before to become necessary to us till that determination be revoked Pag. 5. But Mr. S. B. foresees a dreadful consequence which he hopes I never thought of from my arguing That the Jews worshiped God acceptably by set Forms and that Christ and his Apostles joyned in that way and never reproved it Ergo Christians now must use none but the Jewish Forms This gives occasion to his pity for those who by Reading learned Books entertain Notions destructive of Christianity I wish this Examiner had read more or writ less for then the World had not been troubled with long Harangues upon his own imaginations He cannot deny the Antecedent all learned Men assert it but this Consequence is a Mormo of his own dressing up which vanishes by considering That when Christ and his Apostles joyned in the Jewish Forms the Temple and Synagogue-worship was the lawful established way of serving God But when the Levitical part of their Religion was altered that part of their Liturgy which related to it became unpracticable to Christians and fell of it self yet still the Psalms and the Moral part of the Jewish Forms suited the Christian Doctrin and our Lord had approved of that way therefore these Forms might be and were retained and imitated by the Primitive Church and they did this the rather to win the Jews who as I noted never objected that Christ or his Apostles or the first Christians had set up a new way of praying and praising God Wherefore to make so many spiteful Reflections upon those great men from whom I borrowed the Antecedent for the shadow of a sham Consequence that no Logick can infer from the premisses discovers neither a Christian spirit nor common Ingenuity For no man who considers will think that Christ and his Apostles joyning in the Jewish worship before it was fully abrogated can oblige us to copy out their whole Service after the Ceremonial Law is dead and long since buried Pag. 6. That Christ did collect his Prayer out of the Jewish Forms and order his Disciples to add it to their other prayers as a badge of their relation to him is too so true and so well proved by variety of learned Men that Mr. S. B. instead of disproving the premisses terrifies us with another dangerous consequence which is that this is a reflection on the infinite wisdom of the Son of God This makes me think of him David speaks of Psal L. 21. who thought wickedly God was even such an one as himself Some men fancy it is a reflection on their gifts and great parts not to be at liberty to shew them in Extempore Composures and will needs apply this to the Blessed Jesus who indeed had the Spirit without measure and was infinitely able to make what new Prayer he pleased Extempore But our Dear Lord designed not on all occasions to shew his infinite ability he came to teach us humility and submission to innocent Establishments and so might judge it more expedient for his Disciples to collect a Prayer out of the practical part of the Jewish Liturgy endited at first by men who had the Spirit of God than to make a new one And if they were really endued with his Spirit who pretend to it they would follow his Example herein and not for ostentation of their imaginary abilities reject our lawful enjoyned Forms disturb our peace and leave our Communion However since it is certain our Lord did collect his Prayer out of the Jewish Forms it is they who make frivolous consequences from hence who reflect upon him not they who relate the Matter of Fact for which doubtless our Saviour had excellent Reasons and far better perhaps than we are able to assign Like to this is his laft frightful consequence That this would prove our Saviour would have his Followers compose Forms only out of the Liturgy of the Jews If he means this of the Ceremonial part of it 't is evidently false for Christ did not collect one Petition from thence if he means from the Moral part of it I see no harm in the consequence at all and it is certain the Primitive Christians did use the Psalms the Hosannah Hallelujah Holy Holy Holy c. and other Old Testament-Forms in their Service which were parts of the Jewish Liturgy But it could never be the intent of Christ to oblige us to collect our whole Liturgy from thence because he taught New Doctrins and instituted new Rites and gave his Apostles a miraculous Gift on purpose to suit new Administrations to that which was New in the Christian Religion and the early agreement of those distant Churches which they planted in these Administrations not only as to the method but the main words of them is a
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
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