<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2013-04-25</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Colm MacCrossan</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="A28584">
<STC T="W">B3479</STC>
<STC T="C">R18212</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">12212258</BIBNO>
<VID>56330</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. <HI>COMBER</HI>'s SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY OF THE Primitive and General U&s;e OF LITURGIES IN THE <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> By <HI>S. B.</HI></P>
<Q><GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> e&s;t quodcun&abque; pietatis officium, etiam&s;i &agrave; privato prae&s;tetur. <BIBL><HI>I&s;. Ca&s;aub. exercit. in Baron. xvi. p. 383.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<Q>Nemo autem ver&s;atus in Graecorum Patrum lectione, ignorat, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> per&s;aepe illis dici quicquid fit ad Deum colendum. <BIBL><HI>Id. p. 384.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<P><HI>LONDON,</HI> Printed for <HI>Richard Janeway</HI> in <HI>Queens Head Ally</HI> in <HI>Pa|ter no&s;ter Row.</HI> MDCXC.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>Reader,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>THE following Papers were writ &s;ome months &s;ince, and if the Author had known they would have been publi&s;hed at this time, I do not doubt but they would have been accompanied with the like account of what Doctor <HI>Comber</HI> hath produced for <HI>Liturgies</HI> in the Fourth <HI>Century.</HI> The Author is not one who is wedded to a <HI>Party;</HI> He hath often &s;aid, he knows not any one Party of a <HI>particular De|nomination,</HI>
<PB REF="3"> but it hath &s;ome things which either do, or by rea&s;on of an alte|ration of circum&s;tances, may de&s;erve to be <HI>rectified.</HI> He thinks what is really good and commendable in every Party &s;hould be <HI>approved:</HI> And he wi&s;hes that what is not &s;o, in every Party, might be univer|&s;ally under&s;tood, and laid a&s;ide, or amend|ed. He is a <HI>Conformi&s;t,</HI> upon Princi|ples he thinks he can ju&s;tifie, but which are more <HI>comprehen&s;ive</HI> than tho&s;e which &s;ome appear to be influenced by in their <HI>Conformity.</HI> He u&s;eth the <HI>Liturgy of the Church of England in his</HI> Offici|ating in the Publick Wor&s;hip, as fully as the <HI>Law</HI> requires. And he is &s;o far from condemning the Publick Wor&s;hip of <HI>Pious and Judicious Prote&s;tants</HI> who do not tye up them&s;elves to <HI>Pre&s;cribed Forms,</HI> that he joins with them in their <HI>Publick Wor&s;hip,</HI> as he hath opportu|nity. He is troubled to &s;ee &s;o great an <HI>aver&s;ion</HI> to a General &V;nion of Prote|&s;tants in this Land, and that old <HI>Ani|mo&s;ities</HI> are awakened out of their <HI>late Slumber.</HI> He is of opinion that the
<PB REF="3"> <HI>Church of England</HI> is much prejudiced by the <HI>Indi&s;cretions</HI> of many who pretend an <HI>extraordinary Zeal</HI> for <HI>Her.</HI> The matters we differ about are very &s;eldom rightly <HI>Stated.</HI> Arguments are not well adju&s;ted to what is in debate. What is offered for proof, is too ordinarily put upon the <HI>Rack,</HI> and by over&s;training it, it &s;erves only for a <HI>Pompous Show,</HI> and is of no real u&s;e at all. Though Doctor <HI>Comber</HI> hath often expre&s;&s;ed him&s;elf in &s;uch a manner, as would ju&s;tifie &s;ome <HI>keen Reflections,</HI> yet this Author hath forborn them, becau&s;e he would not willingly <HI>ex|a&s;perate</HI> any man of <HI>Learning</HI> or <HI>Inge|nuity.</HI> And therefore he hath mainly de|termined him&s;elf to a fair Repre&s;entati|on of the <HI>Doctor's Authorities,</HI> which he hopes can yield no offence to any man of a &s;ober and hone&s;t mind.</P>
<P>The Author of the following Papers doth think, that to do. <HI>Liturgies</HI> right in a full Di&s;cour&s;e (e&s;pecially Hi&s;tory) of that matter, &s;ome notice &s;hould be ta|ken of the various u&s;e of the word <HI>Litur|gy</HI> in the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church,</HI> and of the
<PB REF="4"> time when it was fir&s;t u&s;ed with that &s;trictne&s;s of &s;ignification, Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> hath a&s;&s;igned it, in his &s;tating the point. For he &s;aith, It was at fir&s;t of a very general importance, and was not limited to <HI>Publick Offices.</HI> That when it came to be u&s;ed in a more <HI>appropriate</HI> &s;en&s;e, it was applied particularly to every <HI>Pub|lick Office.</HI> And that after it was in a &s;pecial manner appropriated to <HI>Forms of Prayer,</HI> it had not for a long time, that &s;trictne&s;s of &s;ignification it has in Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI>'s &s;tating the matter. And he further conceives, that this is not the proper &s;ignification of a <HI>Liturgy</HI> as u&s;ed and enjoined in the <HI>Church of England.</HI> Therefore he thinks, that in&s;tead of endea|vouring to prove the <HI>Antiquity</HI> of <HI>Liturgies</HI> in that &s;en&s;e, we &s;hould rather endeavour to rectifie the <HI>mi&s;take</HI> which hath unhap|pily ari&s;en concerning a <HI>Liturgy,</HI> as in|joyned and u&s;ed in our <HI>Church.</HI></P>
<P>Having given you this account of the Au|th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">r, and his de&s;ign in the following Papers, I leave you to peru&s;e the Papers them|&s;elves, and to judge as you &s;hall &s;ee &s;it, whe|ther
<PB REF="4"> the Doctor have produced &s;ub&s;tantial Proof, that Liturgies, or Pre&s;cribed Forms of Prayer, were only, and unvariably u&s;ed in the Chri&s;tian Church during the Three Fir&s;t Centuries.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="5">
<HEAD>ERRATA.</HEAD>
<P>P 2. l. <HI>ult.</HI> r. <HI>pre&s;cribed.</HI> p. 4. l. 29. for <HI>truly,</HI> r. <HI>freely.</HI> p. 6. l. 22. after <HI>out,</HI> r. <HI>of.</HI> p. 16. marg. r. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. p. 18. l. 11. r. <HI>Lucian.</HI> p. 29. l. 9. for <HI>truth,</HI> r. <HI>proof.</HI> p. 36. l. 6. dele <HI>as.</HI> p. 37. l. 29. after <HI>&s;ubject,</HI> r. <HI>matter.</HI> p. 38. l. 11. after <HI>any,</HI> r. <HI>other.</HI> p. 40. l. 26. r. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>AN EXAMINATION OF Dr. <HI>COMBERS</HI> Te&s;timonies FOR LITURGIES (During the three Fir&s;t Centuries) <HI>&amp;c.</HI></HEAD>
<OPENER><SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE></OPENER>
<P>ABOUT the middle of the la&s;t month, I received, by your order, <Q REND="inline">Dr. <HI>Combers</HI> Schola&s;tical Hi&s;tory of the Primitive and General u&s;e of Liturgies in the Chri&s;tian Church, together with an An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>David Clark&s;on</HI>'s late Di&s;cour&s;e concerning Litur|gies.</Q> I now return you my thanks for it; and I would have done it &s;ooner, but that &s;ome bu&s;ine&s;&s;es call|ed me from home immediately after I received it, even before I had time to peru&s;e it. I now certifie you that I have read it: And I do herewith &s;end you what I take to be a true account of the meaning of tho&s;e Te&s;timonies the Doctor doth alledge in the three fir&s;t <HI>Centurys,</HI> for Liturgies. I forbear many Reflections, which &s;everal pa&s;&s;ages in the Doctor's Book would give
<PB N="2" REF="6"> abundant occa&s;ion for. My de&s;ign is little more than ju&s;t to pre&s;ent you with the Doctor's quotations in their plain and entire &s;en&s;e. Your opinion of the Doctor's performance, I per&s;wade my &s;elf, is not &s;uch, as will prejudice you again&s;t evidence. I therefore leave you to judge, whether his Authorities be to his purpo&s;e, and whether his Inferences be &s;o <HI>rational</HI> as he pretends his Hi&s;tory is <HI>Schola&s;tical;</HI> and whether his Book may properly be &s;aid to contain an An&s;wer to Mr <HI>Clark&s;on</HI>'s Di&s;cour&s;e of Liturgies.</P>
<P>You will make the ea&s;ier and more ju&s;t determina|tion, if the matter be fir&s;t a little &s;tated: for then you will perceive what the Doctor &s;hould prove; And whether what he offers for proof, do reach the point he hath undertaken to di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P>Therefore you mu&s;t be &s;ure to remember, that Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> is far enough from a&s;&s;erting, that Forms of Prayer are intrin&s;ically evil.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 2.</NOTE> <Q REND="inline">He does not deny but there were &s;ome Forms of Prayer of old, <HI>viz.</HI> Arbitrary and particular, &s;uch as this or that per&s;on compo&s;ed him&s;elf, or made choice of, compo&s;ed by others,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 3.</NOTE> for his u&s;e in publick. He owns the Lords Prayer was u&s;ed anciently, tho far otherwi&s;e than of late.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 4.</NOTE> He grants that divers Churches had a certain order, wherein they agreed to admini&s;ter the &s;everal parts of wor&s;hip, and particularly the &s;everals in the Sacraments, &s;o as each had its known and fixed place. That this order was &s;etled in &s;ome Churches by cu|&s;tom, and in &s;ome there was in time a Rule for it. He &s;aith there was al&s;o &s;ome kind of uniformity in their Sacramental Prayers,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 5.</NOTE> that is, a general agree|ment to pray for the &s;ame things,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem.</NOTE> tho not in the &s;ame words.</Q></P>
<P>He expre&s;ly relates what it is, which is the point in di&s;pute.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 2.</NOTE> And declares <Q REND="inline">That by pre&s;cribing Forms
<PB N="3" REF="6"> are meant, &s;uch as are impo&s;ed upon the Admini&s;tra|tor, &s;o as tho&s;e mu&s;t be u&s;ed, and no other, nor otherwi&s;e, without adding, detracting, or tran&s;po|&s;ing. This (&s;aith Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI>) is it which is deni|ed.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 6.</NOTE> That in the Ancient Church, for many ages after Chri&s;t, &s;uch Liturgies and Forms of Prayer were com|monly impo&s;ed on tho&s;e who admini&s;tred the Sacra|ments, as are before de&s;cribed.</Q></P>
<P>Thus you &s;ee what was denied, as well as what was granted by Mr <HI>Clarkson,</HI> and therefore what the Do|ctor was to prove. If the Doctor's quotations be not home to this point, they do not reach that for which he doth pretend to produce them. And whether for the fir&s;t three <HI>Centuries</HI> his Authorities do amount to a proof of what is in di&s;pute; yea or &s;o much as of Forms of Prayer, you may conclude as you &s;hall &s;ee fit, when you have con&s;idered the following account of them.</P>
<P>Before I enquire into the pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor doth quote for the proof of Liturgies in the particular <HI>Cen|turies,</HI> as they come in their order, I will take notice of a few pa&s;&s;ages which occur in his <HI>Di&s;cour&s;e concern|ing the Grounds for Liturgies in Holy Scripture,</HI> which takes up &s;ome Pages, before he makes his entrance on the Fir&s;t <HI>Century.</HI></P>
<P><Q REND="inline">The Doctor &s;aith the Holy Bible makes it appear,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 2.</NOTE> that the People of God, from the beginning, did ge|nerally u&s;e Forms of Prayer and Prai&s;es in their Pub|lick wor&s;hip.</Q> Now &s;uppo&s;ing this to be true, to make it reach the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, he &s;hould prove they did not, nor might not u&s;e any Prayers or Prai&s;es, but tho&s;e very Forms;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Idem.</NOTE> <Q REND="inline">Yea (&s;aith the Doctor) God pre&s;cribes a Form of Prayer for the penitent <HI>Jews,</HI> and charges them to take words with them, and turn to the Lord and &s;ay, <HI>Take away all Iniquity,</HI> &amp;c.</Q> Ho&s;.
<PB N="4" REF="7"> 14.2, 3, 4. 'Tis true, God doth command them to u&s;e words in their Prayers, and directs them what &s;ort of words to u&s;e; but let the Doctor an&s;wer when he thinks fit, whether God doth bind them to u&s;e no words but what are there mentioned? <Q REND="inline">But further, Forms of Prayer and Prai&s;e were indited by the Spirit of God for the publick &s;ervice of the Temple, and commanded by the Lord to be u&s;ed there.</Q> Is the in|ference from hence plain and ju&s;t; Therefore men may devi&s;e Prayers of their own, and oblige the Church to u&s;e the&s;e, and none but the&s;e.</P>
<P>The Doctor refers to Doctor <HI>Hammond</HI> and Doctor <HI>Lightfoot,</HI> for proof that the Jews had a fixed Liturgy; whether their proof be &s;olid touching that matter, would be too great a diver&s;ion to inquire. But if oc|ca&s;ion required, I &s;hould not be afraid to undertake to produce the Authorities tho&s;e two Learned Doctors build their proof, upon, for &s;ome things, the Learn|ed will not allow we mu&s;t acquie&s;ce in upon their te&s;timony.</P>
<P>I will not in&s;i&s;t on the difference betwixt the Jew|i&s;h and Chri&s;tian Church-State. For we may &s;uppo&s;e, Forms might be of general u&s;e among the Jews, and yet there be no nece&s;&s;ity of an expre&s;s abrogation of that way, to warrant peoples addre&s;&s;ing them&s;elves publickly to God in another way than by &s;tinted Forms. For Prayer being commanded, and there being two ways wherein this duty might be performed, <HI>viz.</HI> by &s;tinted Forms, and by expre&s;&s;ing them&s;elves truly, ac|cording to general Occa&s;ions, and particular Emergen|cies. There appears not any nece&s;&s;ity that the u&s;e of Forms, as to the Lawfulne&s;s thereof, mu&s;t of nece&s;&s;ity be abrogated, in order to it's being Lawful to u&s;e the other way.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 5, 6.</NOTE> But if we would pro&s;ecute the Doctors way of Arguing on this occa&s;ion, aright, &s;omthing
<PB N="5" REF="7"> el&s;e will follow than what the Doctor doth conclude, even what the Doctor, I am per&s;waded, would not be very willing to &s;tand to. <Q REND="inline">For &s;eeing the Jews did wor&s;hip God acceptably, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> by &s;et Forms, and Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles did joyn in the&s;e Forms, and never reprove the Jews for u&s;ing them.</Q> The mo&s;t obvious inference will be, That Chri&s;tians mu&s;t now u&s;e tho&s;e very Forms, and none but them, unle&s;s tho&s;e Forms be abrogated, and a po&s;itive in&s;titution of o|ther Forms be left upon Record, either in the Go&s;pels, or Epi&s;tles. For by the Doctors di&s;cour&s;e, the Di&s;ci|ples had Forms of Prayers, which mu&s;t certainly be Jewi&s;h Forms, and Chri&s;t only taught them another Form, which they were to add to tho&s;e they had be|fore; yea, according to what the Doctor relates, the Lord Je&s;us, when he provided his Di&s;ciples a New Form to be added to the re&s;t, was not only &s;o far from di&s;charging people, and &s;etting his Di&s;ciples free from the &s;tinted way of Liturgies, but from their obligation to the Jewi&s;h Forms, <Q REND="inline">That he would con&s;ine him&s;elf in the very Prayer he made them (whereby they were to be known from all others, to be his Di&s;ciples) to the Jewi&s;h Liturgy; &s;o that there &s;hould not be one &s;entence in his Prayer, but what he took out of the Jewi&s;h Prayers then in u&s;e.</Q></P>
<P>Now tho&s;e who devote them&s;elves to &s;uch notions as the&s;e, may do well to con&s;ider, whether if it be &s;o (as the Doctor reportes) that Chri&s;t took every &s;entence of his Prayer out of the Jewi&s;h Prayers, and taught it his Di&s;ciples, that they might add it to their other Forms (which were Jewi&s;h) the obligation to u&s;e this as a Form of Prayer, and to u&s;e tho&s;e other Forms, to which they were to add it, be not of equal durati|on? But alas! whether will &s;ome mens pretences to reading hurry them? What work will be made of Chri|&s;tianity,
<PB N="6" REF="8"> if the forced conceptions of &s;ome men who would be thought to have read much mu&s;t be enter|tained? Some do repre&s;ent matters in &s;uch a manner, as if they had a mind to per&s;wade people, that the Lord Je&s;us was anointed with the Spirit, only to &s;up|ply the meanne&s;s of his education, not to inable him to form and compo&s;e a Prayer him&s;elf, but only to col|lect and cull &s;entences out of other peoples Prayers, and then put them together into one form. Not many years ago other matters were repre&s;ented at &s;uch a rate, by another hand, as if the Spirit had been given to the Apo&s;tles to furni&s;h them immediately (becau&s;e they had not been bred to &s;uch matters) with Philo|&s;ophical notions, and &s;ome critical niceties, and parti|cularly was given to St. <HI>John</HI> to inable him to write his Epi&s;tle in a Platonick &s;train. How far this &s;ort of deal|ing may &s;erve a particular intere&s;t for a while, I will not inquire. But it hath no probable tendency to pro|mote the main de&s;ign of Chri&s;tianity.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">The Doctor &s;aith that Chri&s;t in giving his Di&s;ci|ples a new Form (when they de&s;ired him to teach them to pray) and Coppying the &s;everal Petitions out the Jewi&s;h Liturgy,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 6.</NOTE> in&s;tead of intimating that he in|tended to reform the old method of praying by Forms, did &s;hew his approbation of praying to God in a pre&s;cribed Form.</Q> But he might with as much clearne&s;s have pu&s;ht his inference from tho&s;e premi|&s;es further, <HI>viz.</HI> That he did &s;hew his approbation (at lea&s;t) of his Followers compo&s;ing Forms of Prayer (if they are to compo&s;e any for con&s;tant pub|lick u&s;e) only out of the Jewi&s;h Liturgies. I may fur|ther mind you that the Doctor doth ordinarily di&s;|cour&s;e too loo&s;ely concerning Forms of Prayer, as not being mindful of what he hath undertaken to di&s;cour&s;e of. For if he find any words u&s;ed in Prayer, which
<PB N="7" REF="8"> were to be met with any where el&s;e before, tho&s;e words he alledges for proof that the whole Prayer was a Form. Thus <Q REND="inline">Chri&s;t u&s;ed a Form of Prayer on the Cro&s;s (&s;aith the Doctor) extracted out of the 22d.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 7.</NOTE> P&s;alm, which begins, <HI>My God, my God, why ha&s;t thou for&s;aken me?</HI></Q> But pray who did extract the Petitions, and put them into a Form for him, and oblige him e|ven on that occa&s;ion to u&s;e no other words, but what were ready provided to his hand.</P>
<P>In the next Paragraph the Doctor freely grants,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 9.</NOTE><Q REND="inline">that the Lords Prayer is not only a Form, but al&s;o a direction to draw other Forms by; &s;o that we are not confined to the u&s;e of this Prayer, but have Liturgies which are drawn up by the Lords Prayer.</Q> But if we are not limited to the Lords Prayer, but may u&s;e <HI>Li|turgies which are no other words, but &s;uch as are agreeable to it, both as to the Form and Matter of them</HI> (which is but an odd &s;ort of expre&s;&s;ion to fall from a Learn|ed Doctor) why may not Mini&s;ters, keeping to the di|rection of the Lords Prayer, u&s;e other words than tho&s;e which are in the Liturgy, as well as tho&s;e who are for Liturgies may u&s;e other words then tho&s;e which are in the Lords Prayer? This Conce&s;&s;ion we have from the Doctor upon his taking notice that Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI> had &s;aid, that the Lords Prayer was antiently u&s;ed, but not out of any apprehen&s;ion that Chri&s;t did,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 3, 4.</NOTE> in <HI>Mat.</HI> 6. injoyn his Di&s;ciples to u&s;e it. Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> &s;hews that &s;ome eminent per&s;ons, both antient and more late Writers, were of this opinion; whether his quoting &s;o many for that particular, was to the pur|po&s;e, I leave the indifferent Reader to determine. But becau&s;e the Doctor &s;aith, <HI>Maldonat only tells us,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 11.</NOTE> <HI>we are not always bound to u&s;e tho&s;e very words.</HI> I would de|&s;ire you to take notice, that <HI>Maldonat</HI>'s words are, <HI>Non his nece&s;&s;ario verbis,</HI> &amp;c. Which I conceive do rather
<PB N="8" REF="9"> &s;ignifie, we are not ab&s;olutely bound to u&s;e tho&s;e very words at any time. But take the words if you plea&s;e, according to the Doctors interpretation, if he think <HI>Maldonat</HI> in the right, provided &s;uch a con&s;truction may be borrowed for his words, that is, That we are not always bound to u&s;e our Lords very words; I would gladly know then, how we came to be bound to u&s;e always other people's words.</P>
<P>The Doctor next &s;peaks of a Gift of Prayer, which he repre&s;ents, as if we were to under&s;tand by it, <Q REND="inline">an extraordinary a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Spirit to teach men new words and phra&s;es in ordinary ca&s;es, and for their dai|ly prayers.</Q> Whereas by the gift of Prayer, no more is meant, than an Ability to repre&s;ent the &s;entiments of a Soul duly affected with the general and particu|lar &s;ubject matters of Prayer, in proper and &s;uitable expre&s;&s;ions, and &s;uch as are proper to beget, and excite, and improve &s;uch Re&s;entments, and Affections in tho&s;e who &s;hall hear and join in the u&s;e of them, for that purpo&s;e. The gift of Prayer, &s;oberly con&s;idered, does not imply any nece&s;&s;ity (as the Doctor hints) con&s;tantly to vary, and u&s;e all new words. Indeed the exerci&s;e of this gift cannot very well con&s;i&s;t with an obligation con&s;tantly to u&s;e the very &s;ame words. Nor is it u&s;ually pretended, that this is an extraordi|nary gift of the Spirit; but as by the ble&s;&s;ing of the Spirit, the Heart or Soul comes to have a lively appre|hen&s;ion, and affectionate &s;en&s;e of what is to be &s;ubject matter of prayer; &s;o the per&s;on, who is thus inward|ly di&s;po&s;ed, hath ordinarily a readine&s;s to expre&s;s him|&s;elf in words, which bear &s;ome proportions to the di&s;po|&s;ition of his Soul and Spirit, and which are very proper to kindle and excite the like affections, di&s;po&s;itions, and inclinations in others who do &s;eriou&s;ly attend unto
<PB N="9" REF="9"> them. <Q REND="inline">Tho there are &s;ome particular words very per|tinent to be u&s;ed in prayer for general or particular mercies, yet there may be other words every jot as pertinent, which being u&s;ed as occa&s;ion offers, may be more &s;erviceable, and contribute more, to further the common or more appropriate end of Publick Prayer, than the con&s;tant u&s;e of the other words.</Q> The Lords Prayer doth comprehend the whole of Prayer. But yet tho&s;e who are mo&s;t for Liturgies, are for having other Forms framed, wherein the &s;ame things are asked in other words. Now tho&s;e ju|dicious per&s;ons who pray for the &s;ame things which are prayed for in pre&s;cribed Forms, without tying them&s;elves up &s;trictly to the words u&s;ed in tho&s;e Forms, do differ no more from the Forms which have not their words in them, than tho&s;e Forms do from the Lords Prayer. And if the variation of Forms from the Lords Prayer may be truly be|neficial and advantagious unto the people, why may not the like variations from Humane Forms be equally advantagious? I will propound one thing the more to explain this matter, which more nearly relates to the Doctor. He hath paraphra&s;ed the &s;eve|ral Prayers in our <HI>Common-Prayer Book,</HI> &s;o that the particular Prayers in that <HI>Book,</HI> are by his labour, and indu&s;try, and gift, made larger, and expre&s;&s;ed in o|ther words. The &s;ame things are reque&s;ted, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in his larger Prayers, which are reque&s;ted in the &s;horter Prayers in our <HI>Common Book.</HI> Now let him con&s;ider whether he had not &s;uch apprehen&s;ions, and affecti|ons in his mind and &s;oul, relating to the particulars petitioned, and confe&s;&s;ed, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> in the Prayers contain|ed in our <HI>Common Book,</HI> at that time, as he thought might be more commodiou&s;ly and advantagiou&s;ly ex|pre&s;&s;ed and repre&s;ented, than they were by the words
<PB N="10" REF="10"> u&s;ed in the <HI>Book?</HI> Or whether &s;uch expre&s;&s;ions did not occur to him, as he thought would, if duly at|tended to, help peoples devotions more, than the ve|ry words of the <HI>Common Prayers</HI> would by them&s;elves? He certainly had &s;ome de&s;ign in varying and altering the words; and I am willing to believe he had an ho|ne&s;t de&s;ign. Now if his u&s;ing other expre&s;&s;ions about the &s;ame matter, and altering Forms of Prayer, &s;o as to make of &s;hort Prayers long ones, is of real u&s;e to promote devotion, why may not others variations be in their mea&s;ure u&s;eful too? If it &s;hould be &s;aid, that his variations are not to be u&s;ed publickly, I ask whe|ther they be ever the better for that? Or whether his variations are the more u&s;eful, becau&s;e only for private u&s;e? What hinders, but if tho&s;e variations are pro|per to an&s;wer the ends for which they were devi|&s;ed, <HI>viz.</HI> the helping of people to perform the duty of Prayer with more under&s;tanding, and better affe|ctions, other variations in publick may be equally u&s;e|ful?</P>
<P>If,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 16.</NOTE> as the Doctor doth grant, <Q REND="inline">every good man may by the ordinary a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the &s;pirit be moved to pray with <HI>Devotion</HI> and <HI>Fervency:</HI></Q> That is (as I con|ceive) may have his &s;oul enlightned, and po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with a true apprehen&s;ion and knowledge of his &s;piri|tual concernments, and vigorou&s;ly affected with them, and carried out towards God in fervent de&s;ires, incli|nations, and affections &s;uitably to his pre&s;ent occa&s;i|ons; What rea&s;on can be rendered why he may not by the ordinary a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the &s;pirit be inabled to expre&s;s his inward re&s;entments in proper expre&s;&s;ions? The gift of utterance being the gift of the &s;pirit, as well as other gifts. Mens di&s;cour&s;es are u&s;ually an&s;werable to their apprehen&s;ions and affections. What we dark|ly apprehend, we expre&s;s ob&s;curely: and what we un|der&s;tand
<PB N="11" REF="10"> di&s;tinctly and clearly, we di&s;cour&s;e of plainly.</P>
<P>The principal thing, indeed, in Prayer is the frame and actings of our Souls; the inward exerci&s;e of Faith, Repentance, Love, and other Graces. <Q REND="inline">But, &s;aith the Do|ctor, any good man may act the&s;e in the u&s;e of a Form.</Q> And therefore may pray in, or by the Spirit in the u&s;e of a Form. But I &s;ay it mu&s;t &s;till be noted, that if a man be to pray with others, (and that which we are now di&s;|cour&s;ing, is concerning one that by way of Office is to perform this duty in the hearing of others) &s;o as to have them joyn with him in this performance, he mu&s;t u&s;e words, and if he re&s;train him&s;elf to the words devi&s;ed and put together by others, and the&s;e words do not &s;o well expre&s;s and repre&s;ent the &s;en&s;e he hath, and which others &s;hould have of what is the matter of Prayer, as others which do occur unto him, and which he could very pertinently make u&s;e of for that purpo&s;e; he cannot be truly &s;aid to pray in or by the Spirit, according to the full import of that phra&s;e. <Q REND="inline">But, &s;aith the Doctor, then no man in the Publick A&s;&s;emblies, doth pray in the Spirit, but the Mini&s;ter, for the Mini&s;ter alone conceives the Prayer, and it is a Form to the whole Congregation, who mu&s;t pray in his words.</Q> To which I an&s;wer, That the matter in di&s;pute at pre&s;ent, is only concerning him that offi|ciates. Be&s;ides, it is not a Form to the Congregation, taking a Form in the &s;en&s;e we are now di&s;cour&s;ing of. But the Congregation may joyn in the Spiritual Per|formance of this Duty, acting graces &s;uitably to the occa&s;ions which are admini&s;tred, and improving for this purpo&s;e; the Abilities God hath be&s;towed upon others, in order to the furthering and promoting of their devotion. This is the work which pertains unto the Congregation at that time; they not being called to expre&s;s vocally their inward re&s;entments, (during
<PB N="12" REF="11"> the Mini&s;ters officiating in this performance) in the fitte&s;t expre&s;&s;ions they are able.</P>
<P>The Doctor &s;eems to be of the opinion, that in the Apo&s;tles days, there was an extraordinary gift of Prayer which &s;ome did partake of, and that their Prayers were Divine Revelations. <Q REND="inline">They being imme|diately furni&s;hed by the Spirit, both with the Matter and Words of their Prayers; and that the&s;e Prayers were written down, and after that gift failed, they were pre&s;erved and u&s;ed by the Church, and were tran&s;mitted down to us by their Succe&s;&s;ors.</Q> So that by this &s;ort of di&s;cour&s;ing, our Liturgies are Divine Revelations. But the Doctor hath none of the Anci|ents but St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> to vouch for an Extraordinary Gift of Prayer in the Primitive Times. This is cer|tain, before the Liturgies now extant, or any part of them which is not expre&s;ly contained in the Books of the <HI>Old</HI> and <HI>New Te&s;tament,</HI> will be owned by good Chri&s;tians and &s;ound Prote&s;tants for Divine Revelati|ons, very &s;ub&s;tantial particular proof mu&s;t be made of their being &s;uch. To father Liturgies in &s;uch an arrogant pre&s;umptuous manner, on the Holy Spirit, is not the way to bring them into credit with judicious and &s;erious people. It may effectually provoke God to pour forth in a little time &s;o much contempt upon them, they &s;hall never get into repute any more. This is further certain, that our late&s;t Liturgies have &s;ome prayers in them, which by the very make of them, any ordinary per&s;on may perceive they were not compo&s;ed by Divine In&s;piration. And if the o|ther could be proved to be of &s;uch an original, &s;ure|ly the&s;e will not de&s;erve to be thought the more ve|nerable, meerly becau&s;e they have been added unto them. Having &s;aid thus much concerning &s;ome pa&s;|&s;ages in the Doctors Introduction, before he enters
<PB N="13" REF="11"> upon the Fir&s;t Century: I will now briefly con&s;ider the Te&s;timonies he doth alledge for Liturgies</P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>In the Fir&s;t Century.</HEAD>
<P>And he labours fir&s;t of all to prove what he hath undertaken,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 28, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> by a&s;&s;erting that <Q REND="inline">the <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> (who have been believed by divers learned men to be Chri|&s;tians) had Forms of Prayer, for <HI>Jo&s;ephus</HI> &s;aith they u&s;ed Prayers which they received from their Forefa|thers, which mu&s;t be Forms; and <HI>Philo</HI> &s;aith they did &s;ing alternately; and <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> calls the&s;e, the Hymns &s;ung among&s;t us Chri&s;tians. And that ex|cellent Hi&s;torian labours to prove the&s;e <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> were Chri&s;tians by this Argument among&s;t &s;ome others, Becau&s;e they prayed and &s;ung Hymns in &s;et Forms, as the Chri&s;tians u&s;e to do.</Q><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;cb Hi&s;t. lib. <HI>2.</HI> c. <HI>17.</HI></NOTE> Thus far the Doctor. And I do readily acknowledge that <HI>Fu&s;ebius</HI> doth indeavour from what he &s;inds in <HI>Philo,</HI> to prove the <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> to be Chri&s;tians: And particularly from their way of &s;inging P&s;alms, and Hymns. But he doth not &s;ay one word of their having &s;et Forms of Prayers: That <HI>they prayed in &s;et Forms, as the Chri|&s;tians u&s;e to do,</HI> is the Doctor's own &s;aying, for <HI>Fu&s;e|bius</HI> doth neither &s;ay the <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> had Forms of Prayers, nor that the Chri&s;tians did u&s;e any. And yet <HI>Eu&s;ebi|us</HI> doth &s;ay, That <HI>Philo</HI>'s Book doth comprehend in it the Rules of the Church. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. <HI>Valefius</HI> thinks this doth import, that that Book did contain in it all the Rules or Canons which were ob|&s;erved by the Chri&s;tian Church in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s time. Further, <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> doth gather out of that Book what he thought was proper to &s;hew how exactly the&s;e <HI>E&s;&s;e|nes,</HI> and the Chri&s;tians did agree in their Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Affairs, as he him&s;elf a&s;&s;ures us in the Chapter before
<PB N="14" REF="12"> referred unto; And yet &s;aith not one word of praying by &s;et Forms; which rather intimates there were no &s;et Forms of Prayer u&s;ed by the Chri&s;tians in his time, &s;eeing he omits the mention of the Forms the <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> u&s;ed, if as <HI>Jo&s;ephus</HI> reports the <HI>E&s;&s;enes</HI> had Forms of Prayer.</P>
<P>In the next place the Doctor thinks he hath a proof of Liturgies in <HI>Clemens Romanus.</HI> But whoever con&s;i|ders <HI>Clemens,</HI> will &s;oon perceive that the pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor hath been plea&s;ed to quote, are nothing at all to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e. For <HI>Clemens</HI> had been per&s;wa|ding the <HI>Corinthians</HI> to lead a godly life, and to ab&s;tain from all kinds of vices, and to behave them&s;elves with &s;uch re&s;pect and kindne&s;s one towards another, as did become them: And particularly he pre&s;&s;es them all to ob&s;erve the Offices and Duties which did pertain to them according to their particular &s;tations, capacities, conditions, places, gifts, endowments and acquirements, certifying them, that whatever &s;tate and condition any man was in, whether he were rich or poor, &s;trong or weak, he had &s;ome &s;pecial bu&s;ine&s;s to mind; or what|ever his endowments and acquirements were, whe|ther he were wi&s;e, humble, cha&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> the&s;e were re|ceived from the Lord, and he mu&s;t give God thanks for them. He &s;aith that there is &s;ome bu&s;ine&s;s and work God hath obliged every man unto, an&s;werable to the &s;tate and circum&s;tances he is in; and this ap|pearing to be &s;o, by the Holy Scriptures, we all ought to do the Offices God hath enjoined us, according as our circum&s;tances are, in the order and manner he hath appointed them to be done. In &s;hort, he tells them that people have a dependance one upon ano|ther, and God hath provided every man, whatever his condition is, a bu&s;ine&s;s, office and work, (which <HI>Clemens</HI> names <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">) which he is to attend unto,
<PB N="15" REF="12"> doing every part of his Work, or Liturgy, in the man|ner God hath pre&s;cribed, and in the &s;ea&s;on he hath ap|pointed, and what ever good he doth enjoy, or excel|lent qualification he is endued with, he is wholly be|holden to God for it, and mu&s;t therefore be careful to give thanks unto him for it. This he confirms, and illu&s;trates by &s;hewing that among the Jews, the High-prie&s;t had his bu&s;ine&s;s, and the Prie&s;ts had theirs, and the Levites theirs, and the People had their works, which they were all in their &s;everal &s;tations to at|tend unto and perform; from whence he inforces his exhortation to the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> that they would all mind their own bu&s;ine&s;s, do the work which God had appointed them in their places, be content with their own &s;tation, give God thanks for what they had, keep|ing a good con&s;cience, ordering them&s;elves mode&s;tly, decently, not tran&s;gre&s;&s;ing the bound God had fixed for every per&s;ons Work, Office, or Liturgy;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. ad Co|rinth. edit. Hel|me&s;t. <HI>pag. 53.</HI></NOTE> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">.</P>
<P>What the Doctor alledgeth from <HI>Pliny,</HI> refers only to &s;inging of P&s;alms, or Hymns. Indeed he would fain draw in Prayers along with them, though his Author &s;ay never a word concerning their Prayers, much le&s;s that they prayed con&s;tantly in the u&s;e of Forms, which were impo&s;ed upon them. The Doctor &s;ays that <Q REND="inline"><HI>Plinies</HI> Account agrees exactly with that of the <HI>E&s;&s;enes,</HI> and they having Forms of Prayer, we mu&s;t conclude the Chri&s;tians had al&s;o.</Q> I inquire not what nece&s;&s;ity there is to conclude thus. Concerning the <HI>E&s;&s;enes,</HI> and their agreement with the Chri&s;tians, I have &s;poken already. Nor is <HI>Plinies</HI> Account exact, if we believe the Account <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> doth give of the <HI>E&s;&s;enes.</HI></P>
<PB N="16" REF="13">
<P>The Doctor hath but one Author more to quote in this Century for Liturgies, and that is <HI>Ignatius.</HI> And becau&s;e <HI>Ignatius</HI> hath the&s;e words,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, &amp;c.</NOTE> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">: He con|cludes he hath a &s;olid proof of a fixed Liturgy. But if you con&s;ult <HI>Ignatius</HI> his Epi&s;t. <HI>ad Magnes.</HI> You will find that the Doctor hath not given the plain &s;en&s;e of the place. He is per&s;wading them of <HI>Magne&s;ia,</HI> not to be offended with, or contemn their Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e of his youth, but to reverence him, and adhere firm|ly to his Communion, and come all together <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> (tran&s;late it how you plea&s;e) to Prayer,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ignat. ad Magnes. <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Id.</NOTE> that &s;o their Prayer and Supplication might be one. <HI>Ignatius</HI> doth not call their Prayer and Supplication one, becau&s;e they u&s;ed one Form of Prayer, but on the account of their joyning together in the performance of that Duty. His next quotation out of <HI>Ignatius ad Smirn.</HI> is no more to his purpo&s;e than the former. Such ex|pre&s;&s;ions there are in the Epi&s;tle as the Doctor doth mention; but I think, if you con&s;ider the Epi&s;tle you will readily perceive that they do import no more than his declaration, that their Bi&s;hops Communion was Orthodox and Sound, Divine Ordinances being celebrated in his Church as they ought to be; there|fore he would have them adhere firmly to his Com|munion, who will not perform him&s;elf, or allow o|thers to perform the Celebration of the Euchari&s;t or Bapti&s;m, otherwi&s;e than the Scripture doth warrant, And all that he &s;aith of this kind, is only to &s;ecure the people from partaking in any admini&s;trations which might be corrupted by tho&s;e who were infected, accord|ing to the account he gave in the former part of the Epi&s;tle. But there is not a word of pre&s;cribed Forms that I can find in the whole Epi&s;tle.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 27.</NOTE> It &s;eems a little &s;trange to me, the Doctor &s;hould be &s;o concerned to have <HI>Ignatius</HI> (according to <HI>Socrates</HI> his Relation) own|ed
<PB N="17" REF="13"> to be <HI>the fir&s;t that brought the u&s;age of &s;inging by way of Antiphone into the Church of</HI> Antioch; And that he &s;hould pretend that <HI>Theodoret's &s;ilence, concerning this matter, might proceed from his taking it for granted, and &s;uppo&s;ing it was generall owned and known</HI> For the re|port of this matter, as it is in <HI>Socrates</HI> is generally, by Learned men, pa&s;&s;ed over as Fabulous and Chimerical; and <HI>Theodoret</HI> is as po&s;itive, and expre&s;s that <HI>Flavi|anus</HI> and <HI>Diodorus</HI> were the fir&s;t that brought that way of Singing into that Church, as an Hi&s;torian can well be. His words are the&s;e (&s;peaking of <HI>Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Diodorus</HI>) <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">.<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Theodor.</HI> Ec|cles. Hi&s;t. lib. <HI>2.</HI> cap. <HI>24.</HI></NOTE> And <HI>Va|le&s;ius</HI> certifies that <HI>Theodorus M<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">p&s;ue&s;tenus</HI> who lived at the &s;ame time with <HI>Flavianus</HI> and <HI>Diodorus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Annot.</HI> in lib. <HI>6.</HI> Hi&s;t. Eccles. <HI>Socrat.</HI> p. <HI>78.</HI></NOTE> doth te&s;tifie the very &s;ame thing, declaring that they had it from the <HI>Syrians.</HI> Having given you this account of the Doctors Quotations out of the Writers in the fir&s;t Century, I will con&s;ider what Evidence he hath for Liturgies</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>In the Second Century.</HEAD>
<P>The fir&s;t pa&s;&s;age he alledgeth in this Century is out of <HI>Lucian</HI> (as he truly &s;aith) <HI>a jearing Pagan</HI> The Doctor is of opinion that the Religious A&s;&s;embly he de&s;cribes, was a Chri&s;tian Church. I think he had a de&s;ign to ridicule all Religious Wor&s;hip, and the bet|ter to effect his de&s;ign, he jumbles &s;ome things in the Chri&s;tian Wor&s;hip, and &s;ome things in the Pagan Wor|&s;hip together, adding al&s;o what did occur to him, which he thought would contribute to the rendering of a Religious A&s;&s;embly thoroughly diverting, and grateful to a prophane Gentus.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Lucian <HI>Phi|lopat.</HI></NOTE> The pa&s;&s;age the Do|ctor quotes out of this Author is this; <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">.
<PB N="18" REF="14"> <HI>That Prayer which began with the Father, and ended with the Hymn of many Names.</HI> Now <HI>Lucian</HI> doth not &s;ay, that he heard this Prayer in that A&s;&s;embly which hath been de&s;cribed in that Dialogue. But acquaints him, he had brought in relating what pa&s;&s;ed there, that he had not patience to hear any more of that &s;ort of &s;tuff, and that a further di&s;cour&s;e about &s;uch matters, would have the &s;ame effect on him, as a &s;tory would, con|cerning a Prayer beginning and ending as is before men|tioned. Which though <HI>Julian</HI> might de&s;ign as a re|flection on the Chri&s;tians way of Praying, yet for ought I know, it imports no more, than if you &s;hould tell me a Story of peoples beginning their Prayer, as if they wor&s;hipped but one per&s;on, and yet &s;hould conclude their Prayer in &s;uch a manner, as if they had been Pray|ing all the while to a great many per&s;ons. The Do|ctor thinks that <HI>Lucian</HI> doth by this Prayer mean the whole Communion Office. But this is only conjecture. I will &s;ay no more of that, but only mind you, that when the Doctor &s;u&s;pected his evidence for Liturgies in this Century would not be very clear,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 29.</NOTE> he a&s;&s;igned this for his Rea&s;on; <Q REND="inline">We have no Authors, who had occa&s;ion to Write particularly of the Church Service, which they cared not to publi&s;h, le&s;t the Pagans un|der whom they lived, &s;hould deride or bla&s;pheme their Sacred My&s;teries.</Q> And yet in the next Page, to &s;erve a turn we mu&s;t have the mo&s;t jearing Pagan that Age did afford admitted to take a view of their Admini|&s;tration during their whole Communion Office. But &s;uppo&s;e <HI>Lucian</HI> was really at a Chri&s;tian A&s;&s;embly, and did hear there a Prayer which began with the Fa|ther, and ended with an acknowledgement of, and an a&s;cription of Glory and Honour, in variety of expre&s;&s;i|ons, to every Per&s;on in the Trinity (as is very u&s;ual with
<PB N="19" REF="14"> tho&s;e who do not bind them&s;elves in all their Prayers, to a preci&s;e number of words) might not he give that de|&s;cription of that Prayer, which is before related, and yet there be no pre&s;cribed Liturgy impo&s;ed on that A&s;&s;embly?</P>
<P>The next Author, the Doctor hath recour&s;e unto, is <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr.</HI> Whether <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> undertaking to write an Apology for the Chri&s;tians, and in par|ticular for their Church Service, had not occa&s;ion to write particularly of their Church Service, I leave the indi&s;&s;e|rent and unprejudiced Reader to judge.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 31.</NOTE> The Doctor doth acknowledge that <Q REND="inline">he doth often &s;peak of the Chri&s;ti|an A&s;&s;emblies, and of the &s;everal Duties there per|formed, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> Now if they were tied up to the con&s;tant u&s;e of a preci&s;e number of Words in their Prayers, tho he might not think it convenient to re|port their words, yet what can be imagined to ob|&s;truct his declaring they did celebrate their Offices in &s;tinted Forms?<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ibid.</NOTE> But (&s;aith the Doctor) <Q REND="inline">when <HI>Ju&s;tin Mar|tyr</HI> mentions Bapti&s;m, he only faith, They are taught to Fa&s;t and Pray, and ask of God the forgivene&s;s of their former Sins, and being brought where water is, they are Regenerated in the &s;ame manner as we were Regenerated; from whence the Doctor infers, that even in his time they began to conceal the particular manner of Celebrating the&s;e My&s;teries.</Q> Now I con|ceive the Doctor is under &s;ome mi&s;take, as to this Pa&s;&s;age: for <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> doth immediately relate in what manner they were Regenerated.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ju&s;t. Mar. Apol. <HI>2.</HI></NOTE> <HI>They are Re|generated in the &s;ame manner as we were Regenerated; for</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI>) <HI>they are then wa&s;hed in Water, in the Name of the Father of all things, and Lord God, and of our Saviour Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and of the Holy Spirit.</HI> And then he proceeds to &s;ome extent, in explaining and &s;hewing the rea&s;on of all this; &s;o that here appears not any intent that he had, to conceal any thing that
<PB N="20" REF="15"> was in u&s;e among&s;t them. But notwith&s;tanding <HI>Ju|&s;tin Martyr</HI>'s re&s;ervedne&s;s, in the Doctor's opinion, the Doctor meets <Q REND="inline">with &s;ome general expre&s;&s;ions which incline him to believe they had Forms in his time. He will not in&s;i&s;t upon his &s;aying they prayed for the Conver&s;ion of the Jews, and the Deliverance of the Gentiles from their errors, and for all men, though the&s;e are pieces of Antient Litany.</Q> I only ask whe|ther the&s;e things cannot be prayed for, unle&s;s people be bound up to the con&s;tant u&s;e of particular pre&s;crib|ed words? And whether there be any evidence that <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> borrowed this account from any Litany?</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">The Doctor next ob&s;erves that when <HI>Ju&s;tin Mar|tyr</HI> &s;peaks of the bringing the newly Baptized per&s;on to the place where the Faithful Wor&s;hipped God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 32.</NOTE> he &s;aith they there made Common Prayers for them|&s;elves, for the per&s;on Baptized,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ju&s;t. Mar. <HI>Apol.</HI> 2.</NOTE> and for all other men every where with great fervency.</Q> Now (&s;aith the Doctor) <HI>Common Prayers do &s;ignify Forms that are known to all, and in which all may joyn.</HI> But I an&s;wer, the que&s;tion is not, what Common Prayers do &s;ignifie now; but whether <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> by <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> did mean &s;et pre&s;cribed Forms, which they mu&s;t con&s;tantly u&s;e, and from which they mu&s;t not on any account vary? Here doth not appear any thing to incline us to think he meant pre&s;cribed Forms. But his very next words intimate the Rea&s;on why he called them Common Prayers [They made Common Prayers for them&s;elves, for the per&s;on Baptized, and for all other men every where] <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e they did all hold Communion in offering up Prayers to God, and their Prayers were not limited to them&s;elves, but did extend to the whole Community of Mankind. What the Doctor doth here alledge out of <HI>Ignatius,</HI> hath been con&s;idered already; what he produceth out of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;hall be con&s;idered
<PB N="21" REF="15"> when I come to his quotations out of that Author, where you will meet again with this &s;ame pa&s;|&s;age.</P>
<P>In the next place the Doctor reports a pa&s;&s;age which Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> cites out of <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 33.</NOTE> about which they do both make &s;ome &s;tir. The pa&s;&s;age is this; <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. <HI>The Pre&s;ident in like manner offers up Prayers and Thank&s;givings, as well as he is able.</HI> Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> urges this as a proof, that he who did officiate in the Publick Wor&s;hip, was not tied up to the u&s;e of Pre|&s;cribed Forms, but did pray and give thanks according to his ability. And he produceth many te&s;timonies to prove that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> here u&s;ed doth import &s;o much. The Doctor undertakes to prove that that phra&s;e doth &s;ignifie otherwi&s;e in this place. <Q REND="inline">For (&s;aith the Do|ctor) <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> an&s;wers to <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> in the place before cited, and that declares the Prayers at Bapti&s;m (He &s;hould have &s;aid after Bapti&s;m) were made &s;ervently, or with all their might.</Q> He endeavours to confirm this interpretation by producing &s;ome other pa&s;&s;ages, where the phra&s;e &s;eems to be of this importance. And then determines. that <Q REND="inline">When we de&s;ire the &s;everal things prayed for in a Form, with all the earne&s;tne&s;s and vigor we can, we may properly be &s;aid to pray <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, as well as we are able, or to the utmo&s;t of our power. So that the power here &s;poken of, refers to the affections, and not to the phra&s;es and ex|pre&s;&s;ions of him that prays.</Q></P>
<P>To all this I have the&s;e things to &s;ay; 1. <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> doth not refer us to the pa&s;&s;age the Doctor hath recour&s;e to, for the explaining of this phra&s;e by <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, but doth expre&s;ly refer us to what he had re|lated a little before, where he &s;aith the Pre&s;ident of|fereth up Prayers and Prai&s;es to God, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> and gives
<PB N="22" REF="16"> thanks for the benefits and gifts he vouch&s;afeth in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> which, for any thing I do yet under&s;tand to the contrary, may &s;ignifie <HI>largely, di&s;tinctly, and with variety of ex|pre&s;&s;ions.</HI> So that if we mu&s;t interpret <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> by what goeth before in <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> we mu&s;t explain it by this: For this is what <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> doth ex|pre&s;ly refer us unto in this place. 2. Tho this phra&s;e doth &s;ignifie fervently, and &s;o refers to the affections, I do not under&s;tand any rea&s;on that can pertinently be alledged, why this &s;hould exclude him who officiates, from u&s;ing his utmo&s;t ability to expre&s;s his inward devotion, in the be&s;t manner and fitte&s;t words he can, to help the devotion of tho&s;e per&s;ons who join with him in the Service. Put the Ca&s;e, a Mini&s;ter doth in Publick u&s;e a Pre&s;cribed Form of Prayer, and de&s;ires the &s;everal things prayed for in that Form, with all the earne&s;tne&s;s and vigour he can; but yet perceives the words of that Form do not repre&s;ent and expre&s;s his inward re&s;entments and devout affections in &s;o vi|vid and proper a manner, for the helping and a&s;&s;i&s;ting of his hearers devotion, as he is able to repre&s;ent them by his own expre&s;&s;ions; I dare refer it to the Doctor, whether he may properly be &s;aid to pray in the u&s;e of that Form, as well as he is able, and to the utmo&s;t of his power. I will allow he doth pray fervently and de|voutly; but I think it will be hard to per&s;wade any man of &s;en&s;e, that he doth pray as well as he is able; unle&s;s we mu&s;t be forced to grant, that a man may properly be &s;aid to pray as well as he is able, tho at the &s;ame time he is able to pray better than he doth. 3. As for all the quotations the Doctor alledgeth to prove that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> doth note fervency and vigorous affecti|ons: I leave the Doctor to look them over again, and
<PB N="23" REF="16"> con&s;ider whether his Authors do mean no more than vigorous affections, and had any de&s;ign to exclude peoples u&s;ing their be&s;t abilities, for the mo&s;t advan|tagious outward performance of their Work and Duty.</P>
<P>The Doctor further ob&s;erves,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 35.</NOTE> with reference to this pa&s;&s;age, <Q REND="inline">That this phra&s;e doth only relate to the Hymns u&s;ed in the Euchari&s;t, and the&s;e Hymns were known Forms.</Q> To which I an&s;wer? 1. I think it equally relates to the Prayers and Thank&s;givings which were celebrated on that occa&s;ion; and I leave any in|different per&s;on, who under&s;tands the pa&s;&s;age, to con|clude (when he looks upon it as it lies in the Author) as lie &s;hall &s;ee rea&s;on, whether it doth relate more to the one, than to the other. 2. Tho Hymns may be, and often are u&s;ed for celebrating the prai&s;es of God, yet that is not the only way whereby we may offer up our Prai&s;es and Thank&s;givings to God. 3. <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> &s;peaks here expre&s;ly of the Pre&s;idents offering up particular thanks for the benefits exhibi|ted and vouch&s;afed in the <HI>Euchari&s;t;</HI> and &s;peaks of his performing the Offices of Prayer and Prai&s;e him&s;elf, without any audible concurrence of the people during the whole Service. Yea, he further acquaints us, that when the Pre&s;ident hath fini&s;hed the&s;e Offices, then it is the people do &s;peak, te&s;tifying their joyful approbation by &s;aying <HI>Amen.</HI> This is the account he gives us him&s;elf of this matter but a very little before the pa&s;&s;age now in&s;i&s;ted on, and whither he refers us in this very place, for the more di&s;tinct apprehending of his meaning here.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">But, &s;aith the Doctor,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 36.</NOTE> all Chri&s;tians are &s;aid to wor|&s;hip God and his Son, according to their ability, with Prayer and Prai&s;e; and private Chri&s;tians we may be &s;ure were not allowed to make their own Prayers
<PB N="24" REF="17"> and Prai&s;es in Publick Wor&s;hip <HI>extempore.</HI></Q> To this I an&s;wer, That the matter in di&s;pute at pre&s;ent, is concerning him that Officiates. And all the &s;tir which is made about this phra&s;e, in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, amounts (I think) to no more than this, whether a Mini&s;ter may properly be &s;aid to pray to the utmo&s;t of his ability, when he doth not pray to the utmo&s;t of his ability: Which in my apprehen&s;ion is a very plain ca&s;e, if people were free from prejudice. Well, but it may be enquired how the people can be &s;aid in the Publick Wor&s;hip to pray according to the utmo&s;t of their abilities? I an&s;wer their circum&s;tances are not the &s;ame with his, who is to officiate; And therefore this phra&s;e hath not the &s;ame importance when appli|ed to the one, and when extended to the other. The people are &s;aid to pray to God, and to prai&s;e him ac|cording to the utmo&s;t of their ability in the Publick Wor&s;hip, when they do make the be&s;t improvement they can, of the u&s;e he who doth officiate, doth make of the abilities he is indued with for the celebrating of the&s;e Offices, to the furthering of their own de|votion.</P>
<P>There is one thing more the Doctor doth take no|tice of, with reference to the phra&s;e we have been di&s;cour&s;ing of.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 38.</NOTE> And that is this; He &s;aith, <Q REND="inline">We are on|ly to con&s;ider this phra&s;e here, as it is applied to pray|ing and prai&s;ing God. And there it never &s;ignifies doing the&s;e things <HI>extempore</HI></Q> (he &s;hould have &s;aid according to the be&s;t of tho&s;e abilities with which God hath endued them, who are to celebrate the&s;e Offices) <Q REND="inline">but doing them very devoutly.</Q> Now whe|ther inward devotion in the&s;e Services be all this phra&s;e doth import, with reference to them who are to Officiate, I refer to what I have already &s;aid about that matter. I will further only mind you, that tho
<PB N="25" REF="17"> the Doctor hath taken notice of &s;ome of the quotati|ons Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> hath produced for the &s;ignification of this phra&s;e in other ca&s;es, yet he hath not &s;aid one word here by way of reply to tho&s;e in&s;tances Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI> hath given, expre&s;ly relating to the ca&s;es where|in he doth acknowledge the phra&s;e is at pre&s;ent to be con&s;idered. The in&s;tances Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> hath produ|ced, relating to Prayer and Prai&s;e, you may find in the 118, 119, 120 pages of his Di&s;cour&s;e concern|ing Liturgies.</P>
<P>The Doctor having done with <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> pro|ceeds to <HI>Ireneus,</HI> out of whom he alledgeth only one pa&s;&s;age, which is,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 39.</NOTE> that <Q REND="inline"><HI>Ireneus</HI> relates that the He|reticks, to prove their phancies, did alledge that we (that is, the Orthodox) in our Thank&s;givings, do &s;ay world without end.</Q> From hence the Doctor con|cludes, that <Q REND="inline">the&s;e words being the very conclu&s;ion of the <HI>Gloria Patri,</HI> the Chri&s;tians prai&s;ed God in publick by this very Form which we now u&s;e; Glo|ry be to the Father, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> Now, allowing the Chri|&s;tians did u&s;ually in his time u&s;e this Doxology, how will this prove they were &s;tinted in their Publick Wor&s;hip to a pre&s;cribed Liturgy? But according to my apprehen&s;ion, this is no proof, that this Doxolo|gy was then in u&s;e; unle&s;s it can be made appear, that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, cannot conclude any Prai&s;e and Thank&s;giving but this Doxology. The bu&s;ine&s;s in &s;hort is thus; <HI>Ireneus</HI> is &s;hewing how ab&s;urdly tho&s;e Hereticks did endeavour to prove their conceit of their <HI>Aeones,</HI> which was by urging every &s;entence where they found the word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, or <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, as a proof of what they a&s;&s;erted. Among&s;t other things they pleaded that the Orthodox did u&s;ually conclude their Prai&s;es with &s;aying, for ever and ever, or as the Do|ctor will have it, world without end.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Iren. adv. H<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s. lib. <HI>1.</HI> c. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">.
<PB N="26" REF="18"> Now all that can fairly be inferred from hence, I think, is this, that the Chri&s;tians did u&s;ually conclude their Prai&s;es with the&s;e words, for ever and ever. And if no Prayers or Prai&s;es but pre&s;cribed Forms can conclude with the&s;e words, I am contented that this &s;hould pa&s;s for a proof of &s;tinted Forms in <HI>Ireneus</HI> his time. But if Prayers and Prai&s;es, which are not Pre&s;cribed Forms, may conclude, and ordinarily are concluded with the&s;e words, I leave the Doctor to con&s;ider whether his alledging this for a proof of a fixed Liturgy, be not a way of arguing very like that which was u&s;ed by tho&s;e <HI>Ireneus</HI> did write again&s;t? <HI>Tertullian</HI> &s;hall be con&s;idered when he comes in order, and then you may judge of the Doctors Inference.</P>
<P>The next Author the Doctors makes u&s;e of,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 40.</NOTE> is <HI>Cle|mens</HI> of <HI>Alexandria:</HI> Out of whom a pa&s;&s;age is quoted, concerning which he and Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> do differ, touch|ing the meaning of it.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Clem. Alex. Strom. <HI>7.</HI></NOTE> The pa&s;&s;age is this; <HI>The Church is not only the name of the place for Publick Wor&s;hip, but the Congregation pro&s;trating them&s;elves in Prayers, having all, as it were, one common voice, and one mind.</HI> The di&s;pute is concerning the meaning of <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> thought the Congre|gation had one voice in re&s;pect of the Mini&s;ters &s;peak|ing in their &s;tead, one for all. <Q REND="inline">The Doctor thinks it &s;ignifies the performing the Offices of Prayer and Prai&s;e in a re&s;pon&s;ory way, which mu&s;t be in known Forms, becau&s;e the people not only joined in heart with the Mini&s;ter, but vocally an&s;wered in their turns, they and the Prie&s;t often making up the &s;entence be|tween them; and therefore they are &s;aid to have, <HI>as it were.</HI> one common voice.</Q> I leave the Learned to determine which of them is in the right, as to the &s;en&s;e of this phra&s;e: And will only acquaint you, that
<PB N="27" REF="18"> I think, if the way of Re&s;pon&s;ory Prayers, and Prai|&s;es, had been antecedently proved to be the ordinary way of the Chri&s;tian Church in the Primitive Ages, there would have been &s;omething to countenance the Doctors interpretation. But to interpret this place thus, can be no proof for Liturgies, becau&s;e the inter|pretation is built upon a &s;uppo&s;ition, and takes that for granted, which it is alledged to prove. Be&s;ides, if the people did vocally an&s;wer in their turns, and they and the Prie&s;t did often make up the &s;entence be|tween them, as the Doctor affirms; I think in thus do|ing, they could hardly be &s;aid to have, as it were, one common voice, for they would evidently have two common voices. The Prie&s;t having one common voice for him&s;elf and them, in his part of the &s;entence, and the People another common voice, for them&s;elves and the Prie&s;t, in their part of the &s;entence. It does indeed exceed my reach to comprehend a Rea&s;on why the Congregation may not be &s;aid to have one com|mon voice in Prayer and Prai&s;e, when they have ap|pointed or cho&s;en a Prie&s;t to officiate in their name, and do concur and join with him in tho&s;e Offices. No nor why they may not be &s;aid to have, as it were, one common voice, in the Doctors notion of that phra&s;e, when they do te&s;tifie their approbation of what he hath &s;aid (as <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> a&s;&s;ures us they did) by &s;aying <HI>Amen.</HI> But, &s;aith the Doctor <Q REND="inline">If the Mini&s;ter had &s;aid all the Prayers, he, (i. e. <HI>Clemens</HI>) mu&s;t have &s;aid plainly, they had one common mouth, or voice, but his words are, having, <HI>as it were,</HI> one common voice.</Q> I leave you to con&s;ider, whether their an&s;wering <HI>Amen</HI> is not enough to remove this &s;cruple. Only you may take notice that the Doctor is of opinion that <HI>Clemens</HI> doth allude here to tho&s;e words of St. <HI>Paul, Rom.</HI> 15.6. And St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;peaks
<PB N="28" REF="19"> there of glorifying God with one mouth, not, <HI>as it were</HI> with one mouth. The Doctor further ob&s;erves from <HI>Clemens,</HI> <Q REND="inline">that the Chri&s;tians allotted &s;everal hours for Prayer, in imitation of <HI>Daniel</HI> and the <HI>Jews,</HI> and hence concludes it likely, that becau&s;e the <HI>Jews</HI> had Forms of Prayer, they did imitate them in the&s;e too.</Q> I think it needle&s;s to make any Reply to this, becau&s;e it is a forced way of rea&s;oning, and is at be&s;t, all over meer conjecture. But, &s;aith the Doctor, <Q REND="inline">would tho&s;e who prayed &s;o often, vary the phra&s;e every time?</Q> Now this is not at all to the point, for that which the Doctor &s;hould prove, is, that they were obliged con&s;tantly to u&s;e the very &s;ame words. The Do|ctor further tells us, <Q REND="inline">That <HI>Clemens</HI> doth not relate what were the words of their Forms.</Q> There the Doctor &s;peaks very right, but withall I mu&s;t add, he never re|lates that they had any Forms. But <HI>Clemens</HI> tells us what were their main Petitions. And the Doctor &s;aith, <Q REND="inline">The&s;e matters they asked, were &s;uch, it was mo&s;t fit to ask them in a &s;et Form of words.</Q> That is one Doctors opinion. But if the Chri&s;tians of that Age were of another opinion, what becomes of the Do|ctors argument? And he mu&s;t give &s;ome evidence they were of his opinion, before what he a&s;&s;erts will pa&s;s for proof in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e. But, &s;aith the Doctor, <Q REND="inline">If they had prayed for the&s;e things <HI>extempore, Cle|mens</HI> could not be &s;o po&s;itive in the method as he &s;eems to be.</Q> To which I make this reply, <HI>viz. Clemens</HI> reports the methods of Chri&s;tians private de|votions every jot as particularly, as that quotation he in&s;i&s;ts on, with relation to Publick Prayers, doth re|late their method: Whether that I &s;peak of be the ve|ry &s;ame the Doctor refers unto, I will not affirm, but it &s;eems to have &s;ome affinity, and I am &s;ure it is in the &s;ame Book his Margin refers to. If it &s;hould be
<PB N="29" REF="19"> the &s;ame the Doctor means, you will ea&s;ily perceive how little it is to his purpo&s;e. And why &s;hould the Doctor think it &s;trange. <HI>Clemens</HI> could be &s;o po&s;itive (as naming three general heads of Prayer doth amount to) in the method of their Publick Prayers: tho they did not u&s;e a fixed pre&s;cribed Liturgy? Seeing he is every jot as po&s;itive in the method of their Private Prayers, unle&s;s they all u&s;ed the &s;ame Forms in private too? The truth of which I am per&s;waded the Doctor hath no inclination to undertake.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Strom. lib. <HI>6.</HI> p. <HI>665.</HI></NOTE> Now <HI>Clemens</HI> tells us that the true Chri&s;tian, [or as he terms him, <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">] <HI>doth pray every hour. And that he doth fir&s;t ask remi&s;&s;ion of &s;in; then that he may not &s;in again; then, that he may do well, and under&s;tand both Creation and Providence; and that his Heart being made clean by the Knowledge which he hath by the Son of God, he may attain to &s;ee God face to face.</HI> Such a pa&s;&s;age as this relating to Publick Prayers out of one of the Anci|ents, would be look'd on by &s;ome men, as a &s;wing|ing proof of a pre&s;cribed Liturgy. I leave you to divert your &s;elf with the Doctor's dextrous device, to furni&s;h people with an Expedient to enable them to Pray by Book, with their Eyes and Hands lift up to Heaven.</P>
<P>The Doctor hath one Author more, whom he quotes in this <HI>Century,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 43.</NOTE> and that is <HI>Tertullian</HI> <Q REND="inline">In who&s;e works (he &s;aith) we have &s;ufficient evidence that they u&s;ed Forms of Prayer and Prai&s;e.</Q> The pa&s;&s;ages he is concerned with out of this Author, are of two &s;orts. 1. Such as he alledgeth to prove the u&s;e of a Liturgy at that time. 2. Such as Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> produceth to prove the contrary, which the Doctor endeavoureth to make appear, do not an&s;wer the end for which that Author brings them. I will fir&s;t con&s;ider the pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor alledgeth
<PB N="30" REF="20"> as &s;ufficient evidence that the Chri&s;tians u&s;ed Publick Forms of Prayer and Prai&s;e in his time. His fir&s;t proof is this; That <Q REND="inline"><HI>Tertullian</HI> declares, That Chri&s;t hath fixed a new Form of Prayer for us, who are his Di&s;ciples, <HI>viz.</HI> The Lords Prayer, which he expounds in a peculiar Tract, and in divers places calls it <HI>The Lawful and the Ordinary Prayer.</HI></Q> I do acknow|ledge <HI>Tertullian</HI> near the beginning of his Book, <HI>De Oratione,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. de Orat. p. <HI>788.</HI></NOTE> hath this pa&s;&s;age; &mdash; <HI>Je&s;us Chri&s;tus Demi|nus No&s;ter, nobis Di&s;cipulis Novi Te&s;tamenti, Novam Orationis Formam determinavit.</HI> The Great Que&s;tion is, What <HI>Tertullian</HI> did mean by <HI>Novam Orationis For|mam?</HI> The Doctor &s;aith it was the Lords Prayer, which he expounds in a peculiar Tract. I think his meaning was otherwi&s;e; And that he did intend no more by that Phra&s;e, than a new In&s;truction or Di|rection how to perform the Duty of Prayer, which he &s;aith was nece&s;&s;ary to the Go&s;pel State or Ad|mini&s;tration: <HI>Oportebat enim in hac quoque &s;pecie No|vum Vinum novis utribus recondi.</HI> And though <HI>Tertul|lian</HI> doth expound the Lords Prayer in that Tract, yet he doth con&s;ider it in his explaining of it, not as the whole he under&s;tands by his <HI>Nova Forma,</HI> but as an in&s;tance and example of one of the General In&s;tructions our Saviour had laid down for the gui|ding of us in the performance of this Duty. He doth in a little time, even before he begins his ex|planation of the Lords Prayer, alter his phra&s;e, and calls it <HI>Orandi Di&s;ciplina.</HI> And then tells us this New Way or In&s;truction for Prayer, did con&s;i&s;t of &s;everal parts. The third he mentions is <HI>Brevity:</HI> Which he explains by our not laying any &s;tre&s;s on the u&s;e of a confu&s;ed heap of words, but our u&s;ing &s;uch words as are proper and very comprehen&s;ive. And then he certifies us, that our Lord hath given us an ad|mirable
<PB N="31" REF="20"> example of this Brevity, which is the third part of his <HI>Nova Orationis Forma,</HI> or the Third Pre|cept Chri&s;t injoined to be ob&s;erved in the perfor|mance of this Duty. <HI>Et tamen Brevitas ista, quod ad tertium Sophiae Gradum faciat, magnae ac beatae in|terpretationis &s;ub&s;tantia &s;ulta e&s;t.</HI> And his principal bu&s;ine&s;s in his expounding the Lord's Prayer, (which he immediately &s;ubjoins) is to &s;hew how compre|hen&s;ive our Saviour was in this Prayer, tho it was &s;o &s;hort, or con&s;i&s;ted of &s;o few words. But not|with&s;tanding <HI>Tertullian</HI> doth expound every part of the Lords Prayer, yet he doth not &s;trictly tie him|&s;elf to the method ob&s;erved in the Lord's Prayer. As for <HI>Tertullians Legitima &amp;, Ordinaria Oratio,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Id. p. <HI>791.</HI></NOTE> it &s;eems to be ju&s;t the &s;ame with his <HI>Ordinata Religio Orationis.</HI> Which I conceive is another phra&s;e of the &s;ame import with his <HI>Nova Orationis Forma,</HI> and his <HI>Orandi Di&s;ciplina.</HI> Which (I think) do only &s;igni|fie the General In&s;tructions Chri&s;t gave for the dire|cting of his Di&s;ciples, or the directing of Chri&s;tians, in their performing of this Duty of Prayer.</P>
<P>The Doctors next quotation out of <HI>Tertullian</HI> is of no u&s;e to the pre&s;ent purpo&s;e, till it be proved that people cannot join in prayer with him who officiates, unle&s;s they do u&s;e their voices, during that perfor|mance, as audibly, as he doth his, or at lea&s;t till the pretended implication of their joining voices be bet|ter cleared, than by bare a&s;lertion. But, &s;aith the Doctor, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Tertullian</HI> de&s;cribes &s;ome of the things,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P 44.</NOTE> which they de&s;ired of God to be&s;tow on the Empe|rors, <HI>viz.</HI> that they might have a long Life, a quiet Empire, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> To which I an&s;wer, that this may pa&s;s for a proof of a fixed Litany, when it &s;hall be made evident, that the particulars mentioned by <HI>Tertullian</HI> cannot be prayed for, but in pre&s;cribed words, or that
<PB N="32" REF="21"> an account cannot be given of the things which are con&s;tantly prayed for, unle&s;s tho&s;e matters be con|&s;tantly prayed for in the &s;ame preci&s;e words. But you may take notice that <HI>Tertullian,</HI> when he relates what the Chri&s;tians prayed for, doth not always u&s;e the &s;ame words, nor make the &s;ame enumeration of particulars. For a proof of this I refer you to <HI>Ter|tullian</HI> him&s;elf, in the places of his Apology. The Do|ctor refers to, <HI>p.</HI> 44. But if you con&s;ult <HI>Tertullian,</HI> according to the wor&s;er Edition, which is that I am nece&s;&s;itated to u&s;e, you mu&s;t look <HI>p.</HI> 876, and 867. As for the Doctors quotation out of <HI>Tertullian, De Anima.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 142.</NOTE> I need not &s;ay any thing concerning it, be|cau&s;e Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> hath expre&s;ly an&s;wered the Plea made from that place, and the Doctor hath not thought fit to &s;ay one word to his vindication of that place. The Doctor's next quotation is out of <HI>Tertullian De Bapti&s;mo.</HI> Concerning which I &s;hall only tell you, that <HI>Tertullian</HI> is replying to tho&s;e who pretended that Bap|ti&s;m is not nece&s;&s;ary, becau&s;e Faith is &s;ufficient. Now among&s;t other things <HI>Tertullian</HI> doth urge the nece&s;|&s;ity of Bapti&s;m from Chri&s;ts in&s;tituting of it. <HI>Lex e|nim tingendi impo&s;ita e&s;t, &amp; forma prae&s;cripta,</HI> &s;aith he. And this he proves by producing what is &s;aid touch|ing this matter in the la&s;t Chapters of St. <HI>Mat|thew</HI> and St. <HI>Mark.</HI> What he &s;aith amounts to this; Bapti&s;m is nece&s;&s;ary, now under the Go&s;pel, becau&s;e the Lord Je&s;us hath commanded it, and told us in what manner it is to be admini&s;tred. You may try your own faculty, and &s;ee whether from the&s;e premi&s;es, Chri&s;t hath in&s;tituted Bapti&s;m, and hath &s;hewn in what manner it mu&s;t be celebrated, you can draw &s;uch a conclu&s;ion as this, Therefore Prayer and Prai&s;es are to be performed in the Church by pre&s;cribed Forms, or that <HI>Tertullian</HI> did think &s;o, or
<PB N="33" REF="21"> that in his days, the Church did wor&s;hip God in the u&s;e of &s;uch pre&s;cribed Liturgies, as is the Subject of our pre|&s;ent di&s;cour&s;e. What the Dr. refers us to in <HI>Tertul ad ux|or.</HI> it only concerns &s;inging, which is not to our pre&s;ent purpo&s;e. Be&s;ides, if I mi&s;take not, it only relates to &s;ing|ing in the Family. The words in <HI>Tertullian</HI> are the&s;e; <HI>So|nant inter duos P&s;almi &amp; Hymni,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 534.</NOTE> <HI>&amp; mutuo provocant quis me|lius Deo &s;uo canet. Tertullian</HI> is repre&s;enting &s;ome of the ad|vantages which accrue from Chri&s;tians Marrying with Chri&s;tians, and this is one of them.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P 35.</NOTE> But &s;aith the Do|ctor, <Q REND="inline">One of the&s;e Forms was the <HI>Gloria Patri,</HI> which he de&s;cribes as <HI>Ireneus</HI> did by the la&s;t words, <HI>World without end.</HI></Q> Now you mu&s;t take notice that <HI>Tertulli|an</HI> in this la&s;t quotation is quite upon another Subject. And the quotation is out of another Book, his Di&s;|cour&s;e <HI>de Spectaculis.</HI> I will not &s;tay to con&s;ider <HI>Ter|tullians</HI> &s;en&s;e exactly in this place. He is di&s;&s;uading the Chri&s;tians from frequenting the Heatheni&s;h Games, Exerci&s;es, and Shows, and repre&s;ents to them how un|becoming them it mu&s;t needs be, yea how &s;inful to concur with them in what did ordinarily pa&s;s on tho&s;e occa&s;ions.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertul. <HI>de Spect.</HI> p. 700.</NOTE> <HI>Avertat Deus &agrave; &s;uis tantam voluptatis exiti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;ae cupiditatem. Quale e&s;t enim, de Eccle&s;ia Dei in diaboli eccl &s;iam terd<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">re? de coelo (quod aiunt) in coe|num? illas manus quas ad Dominum extuleris, p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;tm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">dum laudando hi&s;trionem fatigare, ex ore quo Amen in &s;anctum pretuleris, gladiatori te&s;timonium reddere,</HI> <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> <HI>alii omnino dicere ni&s;i Deo Chri&s;to?</HI> Now how come the&s;e words of <HI>Tertullian</HI> to be a proof of Liturgies in the Chri&s;tian Church? Why the Doctor tells us we here find <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">; therefore there mu&s;t needs be a Form, and this Form mu&s;t be the <HI>Gloria Patri,</HI> becau&s;e <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> is in the end of that Doxology. the Doctor had told us before that <HI>Irenius</HI> had reference to the
<PB N="34" REF="22"> <HI>Gloria Patri,</HI> becau&s;e he found in him <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">; and here <HI>Tertullian</HI> mu&s;t needs refer to the &s;ame, becau&s;e in him we have nothing but <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. Can <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> be never u&s;ed but in the <HI>Gloria Patri?</HI> I think <HI>Tertullian</HI> is not minding them that this was an expre&s;&s;ion the Chri&s;tians did con&s;tantly u&s;e in their pub|lick Wor&s;hip, though it might be con&s;tantly u&s;ed in their publick Wor&s;hip, and their Wor&s;hip not be per|formed in pre&s;cribed Forms; but he rather intimates that this was an expre&s;&s;ion which was ordinarily u&s;|ed at tho&s;e &s;ights and exerci&s;es he is di&s;&s;uading them from, and that it is not an expre&s;&s;ion fit for them to u&s;e with reference unto any but God and Chri&s;t. But becau&s;e the Doctor doth lay &s;uch &s;tre&s;s on this Phra&s;e, he may con&s;ider whether the Latin Church did u&s;e the <HI>Gloria Patri</HI> in Greek in <HI>Tertullians</HI> days?</P>
<P>The&s;e are the pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor thought fit to alledge out of <HI>Tertullian</HI> for what he propounds. The other &s;ort of pa&s;&s;ages he is concerned with, are &s;uch as Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> alledged for what he had a&s;&s;erted. There are two of the&s;e the Doctor doth take notice of, but &s;aith &s;o little concerning them, I will pa&s;s them over without &s;aying any thing of them one way or another; for any one who con&s;iders what Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> &s;aith with reference to them, and what the Doctor &s;aith of them here, may ea&s;ily determine whether the pa&s;&s;ages do make more for the one or for the other. But there is one pa&s;&s;age Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI> doth quote from this Author, about which the Doctor takes a great deal of pains,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 47, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> to &s;hew it is capa|ble of an interpretation which will not &s;erve Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI>'s purpo&s;e. I will relate the pa&s;&s;age, and without reflecting on the laboured con&s;tructions the Doctor
<PB N="35" REF="22"> hath heaped together, to render it u&s;ele&s;s to Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;ons</HI> de&s;ign, I will plainly acquaint you with what I conceive to be the &s;ure&s;t way to find out <HI>Tertullians</HI> meaning. The pa&s;&s;age is this; <HI>Manibus expan&s;is,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Tertul</HI> Apol.</NOTE> <HI>quia innocuis, capite undo, quia non erube&s;cimus, denique; &s;ine monitore, quia de pectore oramus. Tertullian,</HI> I appre|hend, doth here give an account of the Chri&s;tians Prayers, that they were not &s;uch as the Heathens were, but &s;uch as did &s;uit and agree with the advice and direction the Apo&s;tle had given concerning this bu&s;ine&s;s. His words &s;eem to give an account, of what he under&s;tood to be the Apo&s;tles meaning, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 2.8. where he <HI>willeth men to Pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.</HI> But the Doctor thinks the pa&s;&s;age is ob&s;cure. If &s;o, then cer|tainly <HI>Tertullian</HI> is &s;itte&s;t to give an account of his own meaning; and I think he doth &s;o, in a very few lines after: For having &s;hewed why he, and &s;o all Chri&s;tians could not pray to any but God, he &s;eems very plainly to explain in other words, the &s;e|veral branches of the forementioned account concern|ing the Chri&s;tians Prayers. &mdash; <HI>Ei offero opimam &amp; majorem ho&s;tiam, qu&agrave;m ip&s;e mandavit, orationem de car|ne pudica, de anima innocenti, de &s;piritu &s;ancto profectam.</HI> This I take to be the true account of this contro|verted pa&s;&s;age; whether I am in the right or not concerning it, I leave you to judge, as al&s;o whether this pa&s;&s;age &s;o under&s;tood, do make more for or a|gain&s;t pre&s;cribed Forms of Prayer. The&s;e being the pa&s;&s;ages made u&s;e of from the Authors in the &s;econd Century about Liturgies, I proceed to the</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<PB N="36" REF="23">
<HEAD>Third Century.</HEAD>
<P>In which the fir&s;t Author the Doctor doth quote is <HI>Hippolytus.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 54.</NOTE> The pa&s;&s;age is this; <HI>Liturgy &s;hall be extingui&s;hed, &s;inging of P&s;alms &s;hall cea&s;e, and reading of Scripture &s;hall not be heard.</HI> What <HI>Hippolytus</HI> his mean|ing here is, I will not undertake to affirm po&s;itively, becau&s;e I never read that Author. But as &s;eeing the Doctor doth argue from the word <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, I am wil|ling to mind you that the Doctor doth acknowledg it is but probable, that this Father meant a common Form of Prayer generally u&s;ed. And I do acknow|ledge it would be more probable that that Father un|der&s;tood the word in the Doctors &s;en&s;e, if he had produ|ced any proof that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> did either before, or in the days of this Father ever &s;ignifie a common Form of Prayer generally u&s;ed in the Chri&s;tian Church. In|deed I am not aware that any thing more can be warrantably concluded from this expre&s;&s;ion, than that Antichri&s;t would &s;uppre&s;s the publick pure Wor&s;hip of God. And why Antichri&s;t may not as well &s;up|pre&s;s the publick exerci&s;e of Mini&s;ters gifts and abi|lities in the Wor&s;hip of God, as the u&s;e of pre&s;crib|ed Forms of Prayer, doth not yet occur unto me. But if Antichri&s;t have already made any attempts again&s;t the publick Wor&s;hip of God, I mu&s;t needs &s;ay, I do not remember any evidence he hath given of his extraordinary di&s;like of Forms of Prayer, meerly as Forms. Nor do I mind any proof that hath been pro|duced that <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF"> did about the Year 220. &s;ignifie publick pre&s;cribed Forms.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">Our next Author (&s;aith the Doctor) <HI>is the Famous Origen,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 55.</NOTE> in who&s;e eleventh Homily on <HI>Jer.</HI> we have
<PB N="37" REF="23"> &s;o expre&s;s a Form of Prayer, which was wont to be u&s;ed in his days, the learned <HI>Centuriators</HI> were con|vinced by it, that &s;et Forms of Prayer were u&s;ed in his time.</Q> The matter in debate is not whether tho&s;e learned men were convinced from that pa&s;&s;age, that &s;et Forms of Prayer were u&s;ed in his time; But whether that pa&s;&s;age is a &s;ub&s;tantial proof, that the Chri&s;tian Church did in <HI>Origens</HI> time wor&s;hip God only by a pre&s;cribed Liturgy. Now the Argument from this Homily to prove a &s;tated Liturgy, depends (as Mr <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> &s;aith) on the Mode or Form of expre&s;&s;ion here u&s;ed;<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 141.</NOTE> and what <HI>Origens</HI> way of expre&s;&s;ing him|&s;elf in this place was, we have not any certainty, be|cau&s;e we have not his own words here, but his Tran|&s;lator's, who have certified us they did not tie them|&s;elves to an exact and &s;trict tran&s;lation. This argu|ment therefore cannot be convincing in the pre&s;ent ca&s;e, becau&s;e we have no a&s;&s;urance of the truth and certainty of that, on which the Argument de|pends, and from which it mu&s;t derive its whole &s;trength. The Doctor doth not take notice of this, but &s;ugge&s;ts it is pretended that <HI>Ru&s;&s;inus</HI> might add this Prayer him&s;elf. But the doubt is not &s;o much whe|ther he added the Prayer, as whether he did not alter the Mode of expre&s;&s;ion, and in his Tran&s;lation put that into the Form of a Prayer, which <HI>Origen</HI> pro|pounded in another Form? For tho <HI>Origen</HI> might only relate, as St. <HI>Paul</HI> doth, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1.16, 17. what was the ordinary &s;ubject of their Petitions on &s;uch occa&s;ions, <HI>Ruffinus</HI> might in his Tran&s;lation deliver it in the Form of a Prayer. And till we have &s;ome a&s;&s;urance that <HI>Origen</HI> is here faithfully tran&s;la|ted, and did expre&s;s him&s;elf exactly in the &s;ame Mode the Tran&s;lator reports this matter, the Ar|gument
<PB N="38" REF="24"> cannot be convincing to the purpo&s;e for which it is brought. Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> further adds, <Q REND="inline">That allow all that can be pretended fairly from this place, no more can be concluded from it, than what is common with tho&s;e who do pray <HI>extempore, viz</HI> that they often in Prayer preferred one or two Petitions in the &s;ame words.</Q> To which the Doctor hath not thought fit to make any reply. If tho&s;e who do officiate, do frequently u&s;e the &s;ame words in Prayer concerning the &s;ame matter, is the inference thence ju&s;t, that therefore they may not u&s;e any words, or that they are bound up to a pre&s;cribed Liturgy in their whole wor&s;hip? But having &s;aid thus much con|cerning the Di&s;pute betwixt the Doctor and Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI> touching this pa&s;&s;age, I will relate the matter it &s;elf more di&s;tinctly. <HI>Origen</HI> having taken notice in the fore|mentioned Homily, that the Prophets having &s;uffered many hard&s;hips from the People, on the account of the me&s;&s;ages they did bring them, and the threatnings they denounced again&s;t them from the Lord, it was expe|dient that tho&s;e who hear the word &s;hould be briefly admoni&s;hed what manner of lives the Prophets did lead, and what benefits did appertain unto them, and what their own duty is, <HI>viz</HI> that if they would partake of the happine&s;s the Prophets have arrived at, they mu&s;t diligently endeavour to do the works they did. And in &s;hort, he adds, his meaning is thus;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig. Hom XI. in Jer.</NOTE> <HI>Frequenter in Oratione dicimus. Da Omnipotens, Da nobis partem cum Prophetis, &amp;c. O Almighty, grant, grant unto us a part with the Prophets, grant us a part with the Apo&s;tles of thy Chri&s;t, grant that we may be found at the foot&s;teps of thy only begotten.</HI> But (&s;aith he) when we &s;peak the&s;e things, we do not under&s;tand, or we have not a due &s;en&s;e of what the&s;e Petitions do im|port.
<PB N="39" REF="24"> For in reality, when we &s;peak thus, we do ask that God would make us to be hated as they were hated, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now the matter &s;eems very plain, <HI>viz.</HI> That <HI>Origen</HI> expounding the Scripture popularly, took occa&s;ion to mind the people how careful they &s;hould be, if they de&s;ired to be happy as the Prophets are, to live &s;uch lives as they did, and not content them|&s;elves with &s;aying (as was very u&s;ual for them when they heard affectionate di&s;cour&s;es concerning the Pro|phets and Apo&s;tles, <HI>&amp;c.</HI>) Lord give us a part with them, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> For, &s;aith he, the&s;e Petitions or Prayers we are &s;o prone to u&s;e when our affections are mo|ved at the reports which are made to us concerning the Prophets, do properly &s;ignifie what we do not at all think of, or really intend, when we u&s;e tho&s;e ex|pre&s;&s;ions. For the&s;e Prayers do really &s;ignifie our de|&s;iring of God, that we may be hated as the Prophets were, and fall into the &s;ame calamities they did en|dure. <HI>Re enim hoc dicimus, fac nos &s;ic odio haberi, ut edio habiti &s;unt Prophetae; &mdash; Da in i&s;tas incidere ca|lamitates quas Apo&s;toli &s;u&s;tinuerunt.</HI> Is it any proof that he who admini&s;ters Divine Ordinances is tied up to a fixed Liturgy, becau&s;e in his popular di&s;cour&s;es on par|ticular occa&s;ions, in his pre&s;&s;ing people to a good life, he tells them, we do ordinarily pray, O Almighty, grant us this, or that, or the other thing, and that the&s;e Petitions are of &s;uch importance as to ingage our endeavours to lead &s;uch lives as we are per&s;ua|ded unto? Yea, it may be, if the matter be well in|quired into, it will be found that <HI>Origen</HI>'s explication of this Prayer, is a more ju&s;t reproof of the Prayer it &s;elf, than his relating it, is a proof of the Admini|&s;trators being tied up to the u&s;e of Forms in his time. For it may be very well que&s;tioned, whether Chri&s;ti|ans
<PB N="40" REF="25"> may pray for what he &s;aith tho&s;e Petitions do properly import.</P>
<P>The next pa&s;&s;age the Doctor doth quote out of <HI>Origen,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 58.</NOTE> is in his &s;ixth Book again&s;t <HI>Cel&s;us;</HI> And he places the force of this quotation on the Participle [<GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">] which he finds in it, and of which he gives this account, that <Q REND="inline">it &s;ignifies not only a thing injoined or commanded in general, but &s;o injoined that the very order and manner of doing it, is &s;et down and particularly appointed.</Q> And I may truly &s;ay that all this may be with reference unto Prayers, and yet the very words to be u&s;ed, not be &s;et down, and particularly appointed, without which there is no Liturgy in our pre&s;ent acceptation of that word. But, &s;aith the Doctor, <Q REND="inline"><HI>Origen</HI> is &s;peaking of the Prayers them&s;elves, and gives them this Character, that they were ordered or pre&s;cribed, and therefore mu&s;t be in Forms.</Q> To which I an&s;wer, that all he &s;aith (except his inference) doth amount to no more than an order for the method of the performance, but doth not reach to the pre&s;cribing of the words. And if God have not only commanded us to pray, but hath al&s;o given Rules for the manner of performing this Duty, when we perform this Service according to the Rules he hath appointed, we may properly be &s;aid to u&s;e <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">. But if we con|&s;ider the pa&s;&s;age intirely as <HI>Origen</HI> hath it (for the Doctor hath left &s;omething out) it will clear it &s;elf. <HI>We do affirm for a certain truth</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Origen</HI>) <HI>that they who do wor&s;hip God,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Orig. in Celf. lib <HI>6.</HI></NOTE> <HI>the Lord of all things through Je&s;us in the Chri&s;tian manner or way, and hee according to the Go&s;pel, u&s;ing frequently, as they ought night and day</HI> [<GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">] <HI>&s;uch Prayers as are appoint|ed or commanded, are not vanqui&s;hable, or cannot beover|come
<PB N="41" REF="25"> either by Magicians or Devils.</HI> The&s;e la&s;t words the Doctor thought fit to leave out. Now let any one judge, whether by u&s;ing appointed Prayers, <HI>Origen</HI> meant offering up to God Prayers in &s;uch way as he had appointed, or u&s;ing &s;uch prayers as were compo&s;ed by Men, and &s;aying them over in &s;uch order as they had pre&s;cribed; which of the&s;e do you imagine <HI>Origen</HI> thought to be the Chri&s;tian's effectu|al &s;ecurity from Magicians and Devils? Can it enter into any Mans head, who knows any thing of <HI>Origen,</HI> that he was for Chri&s;tians to u&s;e Prayers, as others did Spells? How came the u&s;e of pre&s;cribed Forms to be better &s;ecurity from Magicians and Devils, than any other way of praying?</P>
<P>There is further a Di&s;pute betwixt the Doctor and Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on,</HI> whether <HI>Origen,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 61.</NOTE> quoting &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages which are in the P&s;alms, did, by &s;aying, we find them <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, or <GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, mean the publick Liturgy, or the P&s;alter? To which I &s;hall only &s;ay, That I do not perceive that there is any Antecedent proof, that they had a publick Liturgy, but it is certain they had the Book of P&s;alms among&s;t them. I leave you to determine whether it is mo&s;t probable that <HI>Origen,</HI> being to quote Pa&s;&s;ages which were in the Book of P&s;alms, would rather refer his Reader to another Book, than unto that which was acknow|ledged to be divinely in&s;pired?</P>
<P>St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> is next brought by the Doctor as a Witne&s;s for Liturgies. And I might &s;uppo&s;e,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 65.</NOTE> <Q REND="inline">That he did allow the Lord's Prayer to be u&s;ed as a Form of Prayer, and that he would have us repeat the very words of it:</Q> And yet this will not amount to any re&s;emblance of a proof for Liturgies, as they are here to be under|&s;tood.
<PB N="42" REF="26"> But the Pa&s;&s;ages in St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> the Doctor al|ledgeth, do not (I think) import what he pretends they do. St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> in his Sermon concerning the Lord's Prayer, &s;eems to have the very &s;ame Notions about it, his Ma&s;ter <HI>Tertullian</HI> had expre&s;&s;ed in his Tract concerning the &s;ame matter, of which I have &s;poken: before. There are indeed &s;ome Pa&s;|&s;ages in St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s Sermon, from which the Doctor doth draw his own inferences. The enquiry mu&s;t be, whether St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s meaning in tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages was what the Doctor pretends?</P>
<P>St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> hath this Pa&s;&s;age:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. Serm. de Orat. Dom.</NOTE> <HI>Orandi ip&s;e formam dedit, ip&s;e quid precaremur monuit &amp; in&s;truxit.</HI> I con|ceive he means no more than this, That the Lord Je&s;us hath taught People in what manner they &s;hould pray, and what things they &s;hould pray for. I think if we con&s;ider St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s Di&s;cour&s;e, we cannot warrant|ably under&s;tand any thing el&s;e by his <HI>Orandi forma,</HI> than tho&s;e In&s;tructions our Saviour gave for our Di|rection in performing of this duty of Prayer. St. <HI>Cy|prian</HI> doth al&s;o certifie, that the &s;ure&s;t way to ob|tain acceptance and audience with the Father, is to govern our &s;elves in the performance of this Duty by the directions the Son hath given for this pur|po&s;e: <HI>&V;t dum prece &amp; oratione quam filius docuit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Id.</NOTE> <HI>apud patrem facili&ugrave;s audiamur.</HI> If we &s;trictly con&s;ider this Father's &s;en&s;e and meaning, there doth not appear any ground to conclude that he laid any &s;tre&s;s on our u&s;ing the very words of which the Lord's Prayer doth con&s;i&s;t. And be&s;ides &s;everal pa&s;|&s;ages which might be in&s;tanced in, which do &s;trong|ly intimate that what I have already mentioned, is the &s;ub&s;tance of this Father's meaning here, there is one
<PB N="43" REF="26"> &s;hort Pa&s;&s;age, at a little di&s;tance from the&s;e al|ready mentioned, which, to me, &s;eems to put the matter out of all doubt: <HI>&V;t aliter orare qu&agrave;m docuit,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Id.</NOTE> <HI>non ignorantia &s;ola &s;it, &s;ed &amp; culpa.</HI> Now let any man, who knows any thing at all of St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> judge whe|ther he thought that it was a &s;in to u&s;e any other words in Prayer, than ju&s;t tho&s;e which were expre&s;&s;ed in the Lord's Prayer; and whether his meaning was not, that it is a &s;in or fault to govern our &s;elves in the performing of this duty, by other In&s;tructions, than tho&s;e the Son had given for our guidance in this Duty? This I take to be the meaning of that other Pa&s;&s;age, <HI>Agno&s;cat pater filii &s;ui verba, cum precem fa|cimus.</HI> By <HI>cerba filii &s;ui,</HI> I conceive is not meant the words of the Lord's Prayer, but the In&s;tructions and Directions the Son gave for the right performing of this duty. Here I may mind you, that the Doctor in his Di&s;cour&s;e on one of his Quotations out of <HI>Origen,</HI> hath this Pa&s;&s;age: <Q REND="inline">Note al&s;o <HI>Origen</HI> doth not &s;ay,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 60.</NOTE> the Chri&s;tian made the&s;e injoyned Prayers, but u&s;ed them; which &s;uppo&s;es they were made into a pre|&s;cribed Form before.</Q> Now what doth the Doctor think might be noted here (according to his way of making notes) upon <HI>precem facimus?</HI> But for my part I think the Ancients, by making Prayers, and by u&s;ing Prayers, meant much what the &s;ame thing, <HI>viz</HI> performing the duty of Prayer. Moreover, St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> hath this Expre&s;&s;ion, <HI>Si petamus ip&s;ius ora|tione;</HI> And this he immediately interprets (I think) by our governing our &s;elves in this Duty by the Di|rections he had laid down about it. And his account of the&s;e Directions is very like that <HI>Tertullian</HI> had given of them before him:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Id.</NOTE> <HI>Sit autem orantibus &s;ermo
<PB N="44" REF="27"> &amp; precatio cum di&s;ciplina, quietem continens, &amp; pudo|rem.</HI> There are two Pa&s;&s;ages more relating to this matter, which the Doctor quotes out of this Author, in which he con&s;iders the words the Author u&s;eth, but neglects the &s;en&s;e and meaning the Au|thor had, in his u&s;ing of tho&s;e words. The fir&s;t is this, <HI>Publica e&s;t nobis &amp; communis oratio.</HI> Now St. <HI>Cy|prian</HI>'s meaning is neither more nor le&s;s than this; That Chri&s;tians mu&s;t not be &s;o confined and narrow-&s;pirited, in their Prayers, as to pray only for them&s;elves, but they mu&s;t extend their Prayers to others, and pray for all People. He does not call the Chri&s;tians Prayer <HI>publick and common,</HI> becau&s;e he &s;peaks of the Lord's Prayer, as the Doctor pretends, nor as intimating that there was one fixed pre&s;cribed form, which all were to u&s;e, but becau&s;e their prayers were not to be confined to them&s;elves, but to be general or univer&s;al extending to all Men. That this is the plain and ob|vious &s;en&s;e of this place, I appeal to any one, who will con&s;ider what goes a little before, and what im|mediately follows the&s;e words, <HI>Ante omnia pacis doctor, atque unitatis magi&s;ter &s;ingulatim noluit &amp; privatim precem fieri, ut quis cum precatur, pro &s;e tantum pre|cetur &mdash; publica e&s;t nobis, &amp; communis oratio, &amp; quum oramus, non pro uno, &s;ed pro populo toto oramus.</HI> This is al&s;o the plain meaning of his next Quotation, as you will ea&s;ily perceive when you &s;ee the &s;entence entire which is thus;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. Ep. ad Cler. &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>&V;nu&s;qui&s;que oret dominum non pro &s;e tant&ugrave;m, &s;ed &amp; pro omnibus fratribus, &s;icut Dominus Je&s;us orare nos docuit, ubi non &s;ingulis privatam precem mandavit, &s;ed communi &amp; concordi prece orare pro om|nibus ju&s;&s;it.</HI></P>
<PB N="45" REF="27">
<P>The Doctor &s;aith there are &s;till more evident Proofs in this Author, not only of Forms,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 66.</NOTE> but of a Liturgy. And his fir&s;t In&s;tance is out of the fore|mentioned Sermon concerning the Lord's Prayer. I forbear a great many Reflections I might ea&s;ily make on what the Doctor &s;aith concerning this Pa&s;&s;age; I will only mind you, that a <HI>Common Prayer</HI> in the pre&s;ent &s;en&s;e of that Phra&s;e, mu&s;t be proved to be in St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s time, before it can be owned that he cited <HI>Sur&s;um Corda,</HI> out of that Com|mon Prayer. And notwith&s;tanding this Phra&s;e is to be found in Liturgies framed long after St. <HI>Cy|prian</HI>'s time, it doth not appear there was any &s;uch Liturgy then; nor does St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;ay a word here of this Phra&s;e being u&s;ed in the Euchari&s;t, though Litur|gies &s;ince framed, have in&s;erted it in that Office. Now the whole St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith about this matter amounts but to this; He having exhorted the People to keep their minds and hearts very intent upon what &s;hould be their bu&s;ine&s;s when they are offering up their Prayers unto God; he explains to them the de|&s;ign of an Exhortation the Prie&s;t did u&s;ually give them, before he began his prayer.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. de Orat. Dom.</NOTE> <HI>Ideo &amp; &s;acerdos ante orationem praefatione praemi&s;&s;a, parat fratrum mentes dicendo, Sur&s;um corda, ut dum re&s;pondet plebs, Habe|mus ad Dominum, admoneatur nihil aliud &s;e qu&agrave;m Do|minum cogitare debere.</HI> And from hence he inforces on them his former In&s;truction or Exhortation. Now if a Mini&s;ter cannot pray but in a pre&s;cribed Form, af|ter that he hath de&s;ired the People to lift up their hearts to God, and they have declared their readine&s;s to concur with him therein, this may pa&s;s for a proof of pre&s;cribed Liturgies. The pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s
<PB N="46" REF="28"> is not to enquire what inferences others have made from this Pa&s;&s;age, but whether a pre&s;cribed Liturgy be de|duceable from a Mini&s;ters de&s;iring the People before he begins to pray, to lift up their hearts to God, and attend to what &s;hould be the main bu&s;ine&s;s of Prayer, or from their an&s;wering that they are ready and willing to concur with him in what he de&s;ires of them?</P>
<P>Here appearing &s;o little evidence for Liturgies in this Pa&s;&s;age, I proceed to the Doctor's next more evi|dent proof for a Liturgy out of this Author.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 67.</NOTE> <Q REND="inline">We may ob&s;erve (&s;aith the Doctor) not only by this Preface, but al&s;o by another Pa&s;&s;age that the <HI>Afri|can</HI> Church and the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> did hugely agree in the&s;e Liturgick Forms, becau&s;e, as the <HI>Greeks</HI> &s;ay, <HI>Give holy things to tho&s;e that are Holy.</HI> So it &s;eems they did at <HI>Carthage,</HI> where (as St <HI>Cyprian</HI> notes) they were daily charged to keep that which was Holy in a pure Con&s;cience, according to our Lord's Command, not to ca&s;t that which is Holy to Dogs, that is, in the Euchari&s;t (which they then daily cele|brated) they u&s;ed that Phra&s;e, Give Holy things to Holy Per&s;ons.</Q> Now the truth, with reference to this pa&s;&s;age, is this; St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> in the beginning of his Di&s;cour&s;e again&s;t <HI>Demetrian,</HI> acquaints him why he had &s;o long cho&s;en rather to keep &s;ilence, than to make a formal an&s;wer to his Calumnies and Railery; And for his warrant in doing thus, he quotes &s;ome places of Scripture, and immediately in&s;erts the&s;e words;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. ad Demet.</NOTE> <HI>Et Sanctum quoque jubeamur intra cen&s;cientiam no&s;tram tenere, nec conculcandum porcis &amp; canibus ex|ponere:</HI> For the proof of which command or charge, he refers, not to their Communion Service, or their
<PB N="47" REF="28"> Office at the Euchari&s;t, (as the Doctor hints) but to a Pa&s;&s;age of our Saviour's, as it is laid down expre&s;ly in the Go&s;pel: <HI>Loquente Domino, &amp; dicente, ne de|deritis &s;anctum canibus, neque mi&s;eritis margaritas ve&s;tras ante porcos, &amp;c.</HI> In this &s;ame Tract the Doctor pretends to find a Chri&s;tian Litany;<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 68.</NOTE> he re|fers to the &s;ame page he had quoted for the former Pa&s;&s;age, but you will find the Pa&s;&s;age he &s;peaks of, towards the latter end of this Tract. Here St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;aith, That notwith&s;tanding Chri&s;tians can rejoyce in every Condition, and patiently bear the mo&s;t adver&s;e occurrences, becau&s;e of the re&s;pect they have unto the happy and ble&s;&s;ed E&s;tate which is to come; yet they do as occa&s;ion requires offer up their Prayers to God for temporal ble&s;&s;ings, and the removing or moderating of Adver&s;ities, <HI>&amp;c. Et tamen pro arcendis ho&s;tibus, &amp; imbribus impe|trandis,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Cypr. Cont. Demet.</NOTE> <HI>&amp; vel auferendis vel temperandis adver&s;is rogamus &s;emper, &amp; preces fundimus, &amp;c.</HI> Now becau&s;e St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> and <HI>Tertullian</HI> do give an ac|count of &s;ome things which were the &s;ubject mat|ter of the Chri&s;tians con&s;tant or occa&s;ional Peti|tions, (for I &s;uppo&s;e the Doctor doth hardly think the Chri&s;tians did every day pray for the procuring of Rain) therefore the Doctor con|cludes they had a Liturgy; And becau&s;e the par|ticulars mentioned, were prayed for in the Ancient Litanies, (though much younger than either of the&s;e two Authors) therefore in the times of the&s;e Authors, they had a certain Form, though they concealed the phra&s;es of it from unbelievers. If any Man can &s;ee any &s;trength in this way of ar|guing, before it be proved that the&s;e things cannot
<PB N="48" REF="29"> be prayed for but in pre&s;cribed words, I mu&s;t ac|knowledge he can &s;ee farther than I can.</P>
<P>The Doctor having produced the&s;e Te&s;timonies from St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 69.</NOTE> to evidence a Liturgy in his days, ap|plies him&s;elf to an&s;wer &s;ome Pa&s;&s;ages Mr. <HI>Clarkson</HI> had offered from this Author, to prove that in his days, tho&s;e who did officiate were at liberty to expre&s;s them&s;elves in their Prayers as they thought mo&s;t convenient. The fir&s;t Quotation for this purpo&s;e is out of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s Epi&s;tle to Pope <HI>Lu|cius,</HI> where he gives him an account of their pray|ing to God for him &s;uitably to the pre&s;ent occa&s;ion which was offered them. This occa&s;ion of offering up their prayers for him was particular, and &s;uch as was not incident every day. The Que&s;tion now is this, Whether &s;eeing they did pray for him with a particular regard to what is related in that Epi&s;tle, the Petitions they offered up were pre&s;cribed, or whether they were expre&s;t freely according as the occa&s;ion required? I &s;hall leave the indifferent Reader, when he peru&s;eth what the Doctor hath &s;aid about this matter, to conclude as he &s;hall &s;ee fit, whether the Doctor hath cleared this Pa&s;&s;age to his &s;atisfaction. For I think the Que&s;tion is not, whether tho&s;e words he relates there, were the very words they con&s;tantly u&s;ed on that occa&s;ion; but whether there was a Prayer ready pre&s;cribed for that occa&s;ion? If there were not, and they did ordinarily pray for the things mentioned without being confined to u&s;e the &s;ame words every time, do you judge whether this Pa&s;&s;age do make more for the Doctor or Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on.</HI> It is in my judgment, but a poor an&s;wer for the Doctor to
<PB N="49" REF="29"> in&s;inuate,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 70.</NOTE> that a Primate may occa&s;ionally pray without a pre&s;cribed Form, but inferiour Prie&s;ts may not, unle&s;s Mini&s;terial abilities are not to be exerci&s;ed proportionably to the mea&s;ure in which God hath conferred the &s;ame, but ac|cordingly as tho&s;e who have them can climb up towards the top of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Dignity and Pre|ferment.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">His &s;econd Allegation (&s;aith the Doctor) out of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> for &s;uch occa&s;ional Prayers is,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 71.</NOTE> that there are al&s;o mention of &s;uch occa&s;ional Pray|ers in the Epi&s;tle to <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> and <HI>Maximus;</HI> but he dur&s;t not (&s;aith the Doctor) cite the place at large, which only &s;peaks of private Prayers made by the&s;e Confe&s;&s;ors in pri&s;on, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></Q> Now becau&s;e the Doctor hath &s;uch a mind to have the place cited at large, I will do it, and then leave you to judge whether it only &s;peaks of private Prayers, or whether the Pa&s;&s;age do &s;peak at all of the Prayers of the&s;e Confe&s;&s;ors? Mr. <HI>Clark|&s;on</HI> refers to the particular Epi&s;tle, and the words are the&s;e, <HI>Et nos quidem ve&s;tri, diebus ac noctibus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cypr.</HI> epi&s;t. ad <HI>Mo&s;.</HI> &amp; <HI>Maxim.</HI></NOTE> <HI>me mores, &amp; quando in &s;acrificiis precem cum pluribus facimus, &amp; cum in &s;ece&s;&s;u privatis precibus oramus, coronis ac laudibus ve&s;tris plenam domini faventiam po&s;tulamus.</HI></P>
<P>There is one in&s;tance more,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 71.</NOTE> the Doctor takes notice of, and &s;eems to be in &s;ome pa&s;&s;ion with Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> about it. Now the matter &s;tands thus; Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> in one part of his Book is &s;hewing that the Ancients were not &s;o wedded to particu|lar words and phra&s;es, as &s;ome have been in lat|ter years. And to give &s;ome proof of this, he
<PB N="50" REF="30"> doth &s;hew among&s;t other in&s;tances, that they did not conceive Chri&s;t had &s;o tied them up in the Admini&s;tration of Bapti&s;m, that they mu&s;t ne|ce&s;&s;arily u&s;e ju&s;t tho&s;e very words he had &s;et down relating to this matter in the Go&s;pel; but that they had leave to vary their expre&s;&s;ions, and change tho&s;e words related in the Go&s;pel for o|thers, provided they did not change the &s;ence. He &s;hews they did ordinarily vary in &s;everal par|ticulars, and among&s;t the re&s;t he &s;aith &s;ome thought them&s;elves not obliged to Bapti&s;e expre&s;ly, in the name of the Sacred Trinity, &s;o as to name every per&s;on, as they are mentioned <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.19. but in the name of Chri&s;t, or of the Lord Je&s;us, or of the Lord. He farther adds, and this &s;up|po&s;ed to be the practice of the be&s;t times, hath great Advocates. He names &s;everal, who are, and were far enough from being lookt upon as Hereticks. Afterwards he quotes this very Pa&s;|&s;age in St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> which creates the Doctor &s;o much di&s;turbance. The Doctor &s;eems to be di&s;plea&s;ed becau&s;e Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> did not quote the Pa&s;&s;age entire,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 72.</NOTE> without leaving out any words; and then tells us St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> words are the&s;e: <Q REND="inline">How then do &s;ome &s;ay, <HI>who are cut of the Church, yea again&s;t the Church,</HI> that if a Pagan be any where, or any way Bapti&s;ed in the name of Chri&s;t Je&s;us, he may obtain the Remi&s;&s;ion of Sins?</Q> And hereupon the Doctor falls into a warm &s;ort of &s;hort talk about Hereticks and Schi&s;maticks. Now St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> words are the&s;e; <HI>Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cypr.</HI> ad. Jubai.</NOTE> <HI>foris extra eccle&s;iam, modo in nomine Je&s;u Chri&s;ti ubicun&abque; &amp; quemodocun&abque;
<PB N="51" REF="30"> gentilem Baptizatum Remi&s;&s;ionem peccatorum con&s;equi po&s;&s;e?</HI> I will not di&s;pute whether the Doctor hath tran&s;lated this Pa&s;&s;age as it ought to be tran&s;lated, though I do not know any nece&s;&s;i|ty that there is, that <HI>foris extra eccle&s;iam,</HI> mu&s;t be u&s;ed as explanatory of <HI>quidam.</HI> But all that Mr. <HI>Clark&s;on</HI> brought this Pa&s;&s;age for, was to prove that &s;ome in St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> days were of the above mentioned opinion And I think the quotation is full to that point. He did not produce this place to prove they were Orthodox in St. <HI>Cy|prians</HI> Judgement, but he doth expre&s;ly declare St <HI>Cyprian</HI> did not allow it; yet I am not &s;en&s;i|ble that it doth follow they were either Here|ticks or Schi&s;maticks, becau&s;e <HI>foris extra eccle&s;iam,</HI> is in this &s;entence.</P>
<P>The Doctors next proof for Liturgies is from the account St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> gives concerning <HI>Gregory Thau|maturgus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 72.</NOTE><Q REND="inline">who was &s;o much for a Liturgy that we have the te&s;timony of St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> (&s;aith the Doctor) concerning him, that he appointed a Form of Pray|er for that Church of <HI>Noeoce&s;area,</HI></Q> from which they would not vary in one Ceremony, or in a Word; nor would they add one my&s;tical Form to tho&s;e which he had left them. Now the Ca&s;e was thus. St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> was proving the Divinity of the Holy Spirit,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ba&s;il.</HI> de Spir. &s;ancto. <HI>cap. 29.</HI></NOTE> from the Ancients <HI>A&s;cribing Glory and Power to the Father, and the Son, with the Holy Spirit.</HI> And having named &s;everal of the Ancients who had taught that Glory and Power were to be A&s;cribed to the Spirit, as well as to the Father, and the Son, he at la&s;t mentions <HI>Gre|gory</HI> the Great, and proves that he was of the
<PB N="52" REF="31"> &s;ame mind, from the pre&s;ent practice of that Church. And to make it appear they had not varied from the Doctrine of that great man, he reports the profound re&s;pect the people of that Country &s;till had for him.<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 73.</NOTE> So that [<GAP LANG="grc" DESC="foreign" RESP="OXF">, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> as the Doctor relates in his Margin] they would not add any Practice, any Word, or any my&s;tical Form in the Church to what he had left with them. By which I conceive he means, that they did &s;trictly ob&s;erve that way and me|thod for their ordinary Wor&s;hip, and kept &s;trict|ly to tho&s;e Doctrines, and that way of Admi|ni&s;tring the Sacrament which were in u&s;e in <HI>Gre|gories</HI> time. <HI>But he doth not &s;ay one word of</HI> Gre|gorie's <HI>appointing a Form of Prayer for that Church.</HI> Nor does it follow that becau&s;e they Wor&s;hiped God in the &s;ame manner, a great many years after <HI>Gregory,</HI> wherein they wor&s;hipped him in his time, that therefore they u&s;ed the very words he u&s;ed. Whereas, it is &s;aid they did not add a word to what he left with them, that doth not relate to their Prayers, but to the Do|ctrine he taught; for here St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> is &s;peaking of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and proving that Doctrine. And in other places St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> takes no|tice how tenacious they were of the Words in which <HI>Gregory</HI> did deliver the Doctrines of Chri|&s;tianity unto them, particularly to prove his own Doctrine to be the &s;ame with what <HI>Gregory</HI> did teach,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. 75.</NOTE> he alledged his having learned from <HI>Mac|rina</HI> the Doctrines of Faith in the very words wherein <HI>Gregory</HI> had delivered them. If it &s;hall be &s;aid he is here proving the Divinity of the
<PB N="53" REF="31"> Holy Spirit by a part of their Wor&s;hip, <HI>viz.</HI> their a&s;cribing Glory and Power to God, what can be inferred from thence is but this; That <HI>Gregory</HI> had taught them when they did a&s;cribe, Glory and Power to the Father and Son, to add al&s;o, <HI>With the Holy Spirit.</HI> St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> farther adds, They were &s;o tenacious of what <HI>Gregory</HI> had taught and practi&s;ed among&s;t them, they would not depart from that &s;implicity in the Celebrating of the Wor&s;hip of God, which he ob&s;erved, though a more Pompous and Ceremonious way did pre|vail in other Churches, and which &s;ome thought did better &s;uit with the alteration of their cir|cum&s;tances. But here you may take notice that St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> doth not alledge any Liturgy, <HI>Gregory</HI> had compo&s;ed for them, but only pleads the pre|&s;ent u&s;age of that Church, and argues it was the &s;ame in <HI>Gregories</HI> days, not becau&s;e they had a Liturgy of his Compo&s;ing, but becau&s;e their re&s;pect to him all along to the pre|&s;ent time was &s;uch, they would not &s;uffer any addition to be made, to the method or order he ob&s;erved, or to the Doctrines he had taught. To me it appears plain, that there was not any Liturgy of <HI>Gregories</HI> Compo&s;ing, St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> could produce for his pre&s;ent purpo&s;e; but finding &s;ome|thing in the u&s;e of that Church which was per|tinent to his bu&s;ine&s;s, he alledges that, and the better to inforce that allegation, he urges the great probability there was that they received it from him; and to put the more colour upon this, he breaks forth into a Rhetorical <HI>Encomium</HI> on that Father, and the great re&s;pect the people of that
<PB N="54" REF="32"> Country had for him. So that the &s;entence the Doctor quotes, only entertains us with an Hy|perbolical account of the re&s;pect the people had for <HI>Gregory.</HI> For St, <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> him&s;elf doth &s;peak much otherwi&s;e of this matter when it comes in his way upon a di&s;&s;erent occa&s;ion. And par|ticularly in that very Epi&s;tle the Doctor refers us to, in the next place, for a proof <Q REND="inline">that this <HI>Gregory</HI> had appointed that Church a particular way of &s;inging the P&s;alms,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 73.</NOTE> of which the <HI>Noeo|ce&s;arean</HI> Clergy were &s;o extreamly tenacious, that when St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> would have brought in a better way, they oppo&s;ed him in it, and objected that it was not &s;o in the days of <HI>Gregory</HI> the Great.</Q> 'Tis true, it was objected again&s;t that way of &s;inging St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> would have introduced, that it was not in u&s;e there, in the time of <HI>Gregory,</HI> But if you con&s;ider the An&s;wer St. <HI>Ba&s;il</HI> makes to this Objection, you will find him giving an account of the <HI>Noeoce&s;areans</HI> very different from that we have in his Book <HI>de Spiritu Sancto.</HI> Among&s;t other things which he &s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ba&s;il</HI> Epi&s;t. <HI>63.</HI> ad Cler. <HI>Noeoce&s;.</HI></NOTE> he peremptorily enquires <HI>By what Te&s;timonies will they make it evident, that tho&s;e things; which he recommends to them, were not in u&s;e in the time of</HI> Gregory? Now a&s;&s;uredly this was a very &s;trange &s;ort of que&s;tion, if he knew they had a <HI>Liturgy</HI> of <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Compo&s;ing, which they con&s;tantly made u&s;e of. Or if they had but an <HI>Order</HI> of his framing, which they were &s;trictly to ob&s;erve in the &s;everal parts of their Wor|&s;hip. Yea, he tells them to whom he Writes, that they had not pre&s;erved any of tho&s;e in&s;tances then u&s;ed pure and uncorrupt unto that time.
<PB N="55" REF="32"> moreover he very plainly intimates, that there was no way to make a true judgment of what <HI>Gregory</HI> did, but by con&s;ulting the Holy Scriptures. When he mentions &s;everal particulars, which he affirms concerning <HI>Gregory,</HI> he doth not quote his Liturgy, his Rubrick, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> but expre&s;s words of Scripture: particularly he &s;aith, That <HI>Gregory Prayed with his Head uncovered.</HI> Now how doth he prove this? Not from any order <HI>Gregory</HI> had made concerning this matter, but becau&s;e the Apo&s;tle had &s;aid, <HI>Every man Praying or Prophe|cying, with his Head covered, di&s;honoureth his Head;</HI> And <HI>Gregory</HI> (&s;aith he) was <HI>a genuine Di&s;ciple of the Apo&s;tles.</HI> Thus you have an account of tho&s;e two Pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor doth quote out of St. <HI>Ba|&s;il.</HI> And you may now judge whether <HI>it be po&s;|&s;ible to have a clearer proof in the World for Pre|&s;cribed Forms than this;</HI> And whether the Doctor had any occa&s;ion given him from the&s;e Allegati|ons, to break forth into &s;uch a Vaunting Di&s;|cour&s;e as he entertains his Reader with, upon his having produced the&s;e quotations?</P>
<P>As for what the Doctor quotes out of <HI>Eu&s;ebi|us</HI> concerning <HI>Paulus Samo&s;atenus;</HI> It only con|cerns Hymns; and I am not &s;en&s;ible that the way of arguing is cogent, That becau&s;e people do &s;ing Hymns compo&s;ed to their hands, therefore they do or mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily pray by pre&s;cribed Forms. One might think the <HI>Precentor of York</HI> &s;hould un|der&s;tand the difference there is, betwixt praying, and &s;inging, if any knowledge of the nature, and u&s;e of &s;inging, of framing the voice into a regu|lar, melodious, tunable &s;ound, in order to the
<PB N="56" REF="33" MS="y"> rai&s;ing of the affections, be at all nece&s;&s;ary to that <HI>Character.</HI> And a due con&s;ideration of that, might have prevented a great many tautologies which are to be found in his Schola&s;tical Hi&s;to|ry, and would have made his Di&s;cour&s;e much &s;horter than it is, though it mu&s;t have deprived the Reader of many of tho&s;e flights (which it may be) the Doctor conceits are very graceful. But if you have a mind to peru&s;e the Pa&s;&s;age (the Doctor &s;peaks of) in <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> if you con|&s;ult <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> his Edition, you mu&s;t not look for it where the Doctor's Margin directs, but in <HI>lib.</HI> 7. <HI>cap.</HI> 30.</P>
<P><Q REND="inline">I &s;hall add no more (&s;aith the Doctor) in this <HI>Century,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 76.</NOTE> but to ob&s;erve, that in the Epi|&s;tle of <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> recorded by <HI>Eu|&s;ebius,</HI> it appears to have been the general u&s;age of the Church, for every one of the People to Say <HI>Amen,</HI> when they heard the Prie&s;t offer them the Sacrament,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t. Ec|cle&s;. lib. <HI>6.</HI> cap. <HI>35.</HI> p. <HI>180.</HI></NOTE> and &s;ay, The Body of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> which was a Form &s;o uni|ver&s;ally u&s;ed in all Churches of the world, that we may conclude it was enjoyned by all Liturgies.</Q> What Edition of <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> the Doctor made u&s;e of, I do not know. But his Margin gives me no a&s;&s;i&s;tance for the finding of the place he &s;peaks of. The <HI>Form,</HI> the Doctor &s;aith, was &s;o uni|ver&s;ally u&s;ed, I &s;uppo&s;e is the&s;e words, <HI>The Bo|dy of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. Now I do not remember that <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> doth any where in his Sixth Book report, either from <HI>Diony&s;ius,</HI> or any other, that tho&s;e words were univer&s;ally u&s;ed on the occa&s;ion the Doctor mentions. But there is
<PB N="57" REF="33"> a pa&s;&s;age in his Sixth Book which hath &s;ome|thing of what the Doctor mentions; whether that be the place the Doctor means, I know not. I will give you the Engli&s;h of it, and refer you to the Author, to &s;ee whether you can find any thing there for the Doctor's purpo&s;e.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t. Ec|cle&s;. lib. <HI>6.</HI> cap. <HI>43</HI> p. <HI>245.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;e|bius</HI> &s;aith that <HI>Cornelius</HI> relates to <HI>Fabius</HI> the wor&s;t of all the wickedne&s;&s;es which <HI>Novatus</HI> was guil+ty of, which was this. <HI>When he hath con&s;ecrated the Elements, dividing unto every one a Portion, and giving it unto him, he compels tho&s;e wretch|ed per&s;ons to &s;wear in&s;tead of giving thanks, for catching the hands of him who receiveth, with|in both his hands, he doth not loo&s;e them till he hath &s;worn in this manner (for I will report his words) Swear to me by the Body and Blood of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, that thou wilt never for|&s;ake me, and turn to</HI> Cornelius. <HI>And the mi&s;era|ble man doth not ta&s;te of the Elements, till he hath fir&s;t pronounced a Cur&s;e upon him&s;elf; and when he receives that Bread, in&s;tead of &s;aying,</HI> Amen, <HI>He &s;aith I will not return to</HI> Cornelius. If this be the pa&s;&s;age the Doctor means, here is nothing &s;aid of the peoples hearing the Prie&s;t &s;ay the&s;e par|ticular words, <HI>The Body of our Lord Je&s;us,</HI> &amp;c. Be&s;ides, this pa&s;&s;age is not in <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> his Epi|&s;tle, but in <HI>Cornelius</HI> his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Fabius.</HI> But yet there is in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI>'s Seventh Book an Epi|&s;tle of <HI>Diony&s;ius,</HI> which hath &s;omething in it that hath &s;ome re&s;emblance to &s;ome part of that the Doctor relates; I will give you an account of that, and then I have done with the Doctors quotations for this <HI>Century. Diony&s;ius</HI> in his Epi|&s;tle
<PB N="58" REF="34"> to <HI>Xy&s;tus,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Eu&s;eb. Hi&s;t. Ec|cle&s;. lib. <HI>7.</HI> cap. <HI>9.</HI> p. <HI>255.</HI></NOTE> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> relates how one who had been e&s;teemed, or reckoned a great while for one of the Faithful, upon his ob&s;erving how Bapti&s;m was celebrated among&s;t the Ortho|dox, was in very great trouble, becau&s;e having been Bapti&s;ed among&s;t the Hereticks, his Bapti&s;m was not the &s;ame, nor had not any thing com|mon with the Bapti&s;m of the Orthodox; And therefore he was very de&s;irous to be Bapti&s;ed again. <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> dur&s;t not do it, but told him, that his long continued Communion with the Church was &s;ufficient. <HI>For I may not Bapti&s;e him again, who hath often heard the Prai&s;es which are offered unto God, and hath an&s;wered with the re&s;t,</HI> Amen; <HI>who hath &s;tood at the Table, and hath &s;tretched forth his hands to take the Sacred Food, and hath received the &s;ame, and hath for a conveni|ent time been partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t.</HI> If this be the pa&s;&s;age the Doctor means, you will ea&s;ily perceive, that he gives not a fair account of it, and that it is not at all for his purpo&s;e. I do not &s;ee how a pre|&s;cribed Liturgy can be inferred from either of the&s;e pa&s;&s;ages related out of <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> no nor (&s;up|po&s;ing good evidence that the Prie&s;t did con&s;tant|ly u&s;e the&s;e words, <HI>The Body of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t,</HI> &amp;c. in di&s;tributing and giving the Bread unto the people) how we can ju&s;tly conclude there was a pre&s;cribed Liturgy, from the words of which, the Prie&s;t mu&s;t never vary in any of his Prayers and Prai&s;es in Publick?</P>
<PB N="59" REF="34">
<P>Sir, I think I have now given you a true account of all tho&s;e pa&s;&s;ages the Doctor hath produced out of the Ancients, for Liturgies, in the three Fir&s;t <HI>Centuries.</HI> It is ea&s;ie for any man, who lays a&s;ide prejudice, and will form a judgment of matters only in proportion to the evidence which is offer|ed for them, to determine whether His Quotati|ons be a &s;olid proof of that for which he produ|ceth them.</P>
<P>I have con&s;ined my &s;elf to what the Doctor alledgeth for Liturgies in the three Fir&s;t <HI>Centu|ries,</HI> becau&s;e I think this pretended Antiquity of Liturgies is de&s;igned, not to ju&s;tifie their <HI>lawful|ne&s;s</HI> (and would we content our &s;elves with that, and effectually prove their expediency, the breach betwixt us, and the greate&s;t part of our Fellow-Prote&s;tants relating to this matter, would &s;oon be made up) but to introduce, or &s;upport an Opinion of their <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity</HI> in the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> And I conceive the three Fir&s;t <HI>Centuries,</HI> is a peri|od of &s;ufficient extent for an enquiry, concern|ing a matter &s;o circum&s;tanced. The <HI>lawfulne&s;s</HI> of Liturgies may be argued from more Rational Topicks, than Humane Authority. Their <HI>Expe|diency</HI> mu&s;t be judged of, upon a ju&s;t weighing of circum&s;tances; Their <HI>Nece&s;&s;ity</HI> cannot be pro|ved by any Topick.</P>
<P>Tho&s;e who attempt to advance the Nece&s;&s;ity of Liturgies, do not only oppo&s;e them, who were wont to be called Di&s;&s;enters, but are appa|rently managing a De&s;ign again&s;t the mo&s;t Learn|ed, Judicious, and Moderate, who are in the Communion of the <HI>Church of England:</HI> And there|fore
<PB N="60" REF="35"> it may be proper enough, for one of the Church of <HI>England</HI> to mind &s;uch Per&s;ons, That to catch up &s;ome words and Phra&s;es, which are to be found in the Writings of the Ancient Fa|thers in the Chri&s;tian Church, leaving their &s;en&s;e behind, and then tacking them together in Di&s;|cour&s;es about Liturgies, will no more prove Li|turgies to be as Ancient as they pretend, than the Artificial Fa&s;tning of a <HI>Long Gray-Beard</HI> to a Youth's <HI>Chin,</HI> will prove him to be a very Old Man.</P>
<P>Sir, With reference to the following Part of the Doctor's Book, I &s;hall only tell you at pre|&s;ent, That I take it to be of a <HI>Piece</HI> with that Part I have already con&s;idered. And if you are de&s;irous to have a more di&s;tinct account of the Greate&s;t Part of his more Numerous Quotations in the Fourth <HI>Century,</HI> you need not give your &s;elf any further trouble, than to &s;ignifie your plea&s;ure to</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><HI>Your Mo&s;t Affectionate Friend, and Faithful Servant,</HI> &amp;c.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>THE END.</TRAILER>
<PB REF="35">
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
