But to this we answer, That learned men are very much Introduct. divided in their opinions, concerning the Doxology in St. Matthew; some thinking it is, and others that it is not, a part of the original text. Whether it be or be not, we need not here dispute, but argue with our adversaries upon either supposition.

For, 1st, if they think it is not a part of the original text, then their objection is groundless: for there is nothing found in one Evangelist, but what is also found in the other; and the form, as to the sense of it, is exactly the same in both: for though one or two expressions may differ, yet the Syriac words, in which we know our Lord delivered it, are equally capable of both translations.

But, 2dly, if they think the Doxology is a part of the original text; we answer, The addition of it is as good an argument against the Lord's prayer being a directory for the matter of prayer, as it can be against its being an established set form of prayer. For we may say, in the language of our adversaries, if Christ had intended his prayer for a directory for the matter of prayer, he would not have given such different directions, ordering us to add a Doxology to the end of our prayers at one time, and omitting that order at another. If therefore the addition of the Doxology be (as they must grant upon their own principles) no objection against its being a directory for the matter of prayer; then certainly it is no objection against its being an established set form. For the difference of our prayers will be every whit as great in following this pattern, by sometimes omitting and sometimes adding a Doxology at the end of our prayers, as it can possibly be, by using the Lord's prayer, sometimes with, and at other times without, the Doxology. The utmost therefore that can be concluded from the Doxology's being a part of the original text in St. Matthew, is this: That our Lord, though he commanded the use of the Lord's prayer, does not insist upon the use of the Doxology, but leaves it indifferent; or at most, orders it to be sometimes used, and sometimes omitted, as our established Church practises. But the other essential parts of the prayer are to be used notwithstanding; it being very absurd to omit the use of the whole, because the latter part of it is not enjoined to be used constantly with the rest.

But it is farther objected, 1st, That, "supposing our Sa"viour did prescribe it as a form; yet it was only for a time, "till they should be more fully instructed, and enabled to pray by the assistance of the Holy Ghost." And to urge

Introduct. this with the greater force, they tell us, 2dly, "That be"fore Christ's ascension, the Disciples had asked nothing "in his name's, whereas they were taught, that after his "ascension they should offer up all their prayers in his "name". Now this prayer, say they, having nothing "of his name in it, could not be designed to be used after "his ascension." Accordingly they tellus, 3dly, "That "though we read in the Acts of the Apostles of several prayers made by the Church, yet we find not any inti"mation, that they ever used this form"."

66

Whatever resemblances of truth these objections may seem to carry with them at first sight, if we look narrowly into them, we shall find them to be grounded upon principles as dangerous as false.

For, 1st, If, because our Saviour hath not in express words commanded this form of prayer to be used for ever, we conclude, that it was only prescribed for a time; we must necessarily allow, that whatever Christ hath instituted without limitation of time does not always oblige; and, consequently, we may declare Christ's institutions to be null without his authority; and at that rate cry down Baptism and the Lord's Supper for temporary prescriptions, as well as the Lord's prayer.

In answer to the second objection, we may observe, that to pray in Christ's name, is to pray in his mediation; depending upon his merits and intercession for the acceptance of our prayers; and therefore prayers may be offered up in Christ's name, though we do not name him. And as for the Lord's prayer, it is so framed, that it is impossible to offer it up, unless it be in the name of Christ: for we have no right or title to call God our Father, unless it be through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ; who hath made us heirs of God, and joint-heirs with himself. And therefore Christ's not inserting his own name in his prayer, does by no means prove, that he did not design it for a standing form.

And, 3dly, as to the objection of the Scriptures not once intimating the use of this prayer, in those places where it speaks of others; we might answer, that we may as well conclude from the silence of the Scripture, that the Apostles did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as that they did not use this prayer; since they had as strict a command to do the one

15 John xvi. 24.

16 John xiv. 13. and chap. xvi. 23.

17 Chap. i. 24. ii. 42. iv. 24. vi. 6. viii. 15. xii. 12. xiii. 3. xx. 36.

as the other. But besides, in all those places, except Introduct. two, there is nothing else mentioned, but that they prayed; no mention at all of the words of their prayers; and therefore there is no reason why we should expect a particular intimation of the Lord's prayer. And as for those prayers mentioned in the aforesaid places, I do not see how they can prove from thence, that they were offered up in the name of Christ.

But, lastly, it is objected, that "the words of this "prayer are improper to be used now; because therein "we pray that God's kingdom may come now, which came many ages since, viz. at our Saviour's ascension into "heaven.'

But in answer to this, I think it sufficient to observe, that though the foundations of God's kingdom were laid then, yet it is not yet completed. For since we know that all the world must be converted to Christianity, and the Jews, Turks, and Infidels still make up the far greater part of it, we have as much reason upon this account to pray for the coming of God's kingdom now as ever. And if we consider those parts of the world which have already embraced Christianity, I cannot think it improper to pray, that they may sincerely practise what they believe; which conduces much more to the advancement of God's kingdom, than a bare profession does without such practice.

Since therefore, from what has been said, it appears that our Saviour prescribed the Lord's prayer as a standing form, and commanded his Apostles and other Disciples to use it as such; it is not to be suspected, but that they observed this command; especially since the accounts which we have from antiquity do (though the Scriptures be silent in the matter) fully prove it to have been their constant custom; as appears by a numerous cloud of witnesses, who conspire in attesting this truth: of which I shall only instance in a few.

And first, Tertullian was, without all doubt, of opinion that Christ delivered the Lord's prayer, not as a directory only, but as a precomposed set form, to be used by all Christians. For he says, " 19 The Son taught us to pray, “Our Father, which art in heaven;" i. e. he taught us to use the Lord's prayer. And speaking of the same prayer, he says, "20 Our Lord gave his new Disciples of "the New Testament a new form of prayer." He calls

6620

18 Acts i. 24. and chap. iv. 24.
19 Adv. Praxeam, c. 23. p. 514. A.

20 De Orat. c. i. p. 129. A.

Introduct. it, "21The prayer appointed by Christ," and "The prayer appointed by Law," (for so the word legitima must be rendered,) and "the ordinary" (i. e. the usual and customary) "prayer, which is to be said before our other prayers; and upon which, as a foundation, our other 66 prayers are to be built:" and tells us, that "23 the use of "it was ordained by our Saviour."

Next, St. Cyprian24 tells us, that "Christ himself gave "6 us a form of prayer, and commanded us to use it; be"cause, when we speak to the Father in the Son's words, "we shall be more easily heard ;" and that "25 there is no prayer more spiritual or true than the Lord's prayer." And therefore he most earnestly 26 exhorts men to the use of it as often as they pray.

66

Again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls it, "27 the prayer "which Christ gave his Disciples, and 28 which God hath "taught us."

About the same time Optatus takes it for granted that it is commanded 29.

After him, St. Chrysostom calls it, "30 the prayer en"joined by laws, and brought in by Christ.'

us,

In the same century St. Austin tells 66 31 that our "Saviour gave it to the Apostles, to the intent that they "should use it; that he taught it his Disciples himself, " and by them he taught it us; that he dictated it to us, "as a Lawyer would put words in his client's mouth; "that it is necessary for all, i. e. such as all were bound 66 to use; and that we cannot be God's children, unless we use it."

66

Lastly, St. Gregory Nyssen says, "32 that Christ shewed "his Disciples how they should pray, by the words of "the Lord's prayer." And Theodoret assures us, that "33 the Lord's prayer is a form of prayer, and that Christ "has commanded us to use it." But testimonies of this kind are numberless.

If therefore the judgment of the ancient Fathers may be relied on, who knew the practice of the Apostles much

better than we can pretend to do; we may dare to affirm, Introduct. that the Apostles did certainly use the Lord's prayer: and if it be granted that they used it, we may reasonably suppose that they joined in the use of it. For, besides that it is very improbable that a Christian assembly should, in their public devotions, omit that prayer which was the badge of their discipleship; the very petitions of the prayer, running all along in the plural number, do evidently shew, that it was primarily designed for the joint use of a congregation.

That the Christians of the first centuries used it in their assemblies, is evident from its being always used in the celebration of the Lord's supper34, which for some ages was performed every day35. And St. Austin tells us in express words, that "36it was said at God's altar every "day." So that, without enlarging any more, I shall look upon it as sufficiently proved, that the Apostles and primitive Christians did join in the use of the Lord's prayer; which is one plain argument that they joined in the use of precomposed set forms of prayer. Another argument I shall make use of to prove it, is,

2. Their joining in the use of Psalms. For we are told, that Paul37 and Silas, when they were in prison, prayed and sang praises to God. And this we must suppose they did audibly, because the prisoners heard them, and consequently they would have disturbed each other, had they not united in the same prayers and praises.

Again, St. Paul blames the Corinthians, because, when they came together, every one had a psalm, had a doctrine, &c.38 Where we must not suppose that he forbad the use of psalms in public worship, any more than he did the use of doctrines, &c. but that he is displeased with them. for not having the psalm all together, i. e. for not joining in it; that so the whole congregation might attend one and the same part of divine service at the same time. From whence we may conclude, that the use of psalms was a customary thing, and that the Apostle approved of it; only ordering them to join in the use of them, which we may reasonably suppose they did for the future; since

34 Cyril. Hieros. (as before quoted in Note 27 and 28, page foregoing) Hieron. adv. Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 5. tom. ii. p. 596. C. August. Epist. 149. tom. ii. col. 505. C.

35 Cyprian. de Orat. Dom. p. 147.

Basil. Epist. 289. tom. iii. p. 279. A.B.
36 Serm. 58. cap. 1o. tom. v. col.
342. F.

37 Acts xvi. 25.
38 1 Cor. xiv. 26.