A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, Part 100-150

A Discourse Concerning Liturgies · Part 100-150

p. 100ſenſe, while there is in words a great diverſity. The variety of expreſſions, uſed by the Ancients (Juſtin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. which you may ſee in Grotius upon Matth. 28. 19.) in giving an account of it's ſeveral Articles, make this manifeſt, they were not ſo ſtrict and ſevere in any thing, as in the Rule of Faith. In other matters, tho' Eccleſiaſtical, they allowed more variableneſs and greater Latitude. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam diſciplinae & converſationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, ſays Tertullian, de Virgin. veland. and yet in theſe, were ſatisfied with ſuch an Uniformity as conſiſted only in Senſe, not in Words. To one Form of words in this niceſt point, and where varying was p. 101moſt hazardous; they neither ddAnd when the Creeds had more ſtated Forms, in the IV. Century; in the ſame Country the Creeds of ſeveral Cities were not uniform, v. g. in Italy, that of Rome much differed from that at Aquileia, vid. Ruſin. and Voſſ. de Symb. p. 29. &c. And that of Ravenna from both. Uſh. de Symb. p. 7. Petr. Chryſol. Serm. 57. &c. de Maximo Taurinenſiq.limited others, nor would be confined by others, no nor by themſelves: We have ſeen this before in Juſtin Martyr, (Tertullian) and Ir…naeus (with others in Grotius) is alſo a very pregnant inſtance of it. eeThe Creed (regula fidei foreign) was at firſt no more than the words, wherewith Baptiſm was to be delivered, Matth. 28. 19. Parker de deſcenſ. Voſſ. de Symb. p. 23. it was inlarged by degrees, and till it grew too large, probably was uſed in the delivery of Baptiſm, as we have it in Juſtin Martyr, no other than a commentary, inſtead of the Text; afterward the uſe of it was, to be rehearſed by the Competantes, before they were Baptized, ſo but once, or twice, or in ſome places thrice a year. Not put into ſet Form till the fourth Age, or near it: And thoſe Forms varied in ſeveral places in the ſame Country, vid. ſupra. It had no place in the Church Service, till near the ſixth Age; for as the Lord's Prayer was uſed no where but in the Euchariſtical Office, while the orders for the Catechumens were obſerved; ſo the Creed was not uſed but in Baptiſm, or in order to it, till late. The firſt who brought it into the Church Service, was (not as Voſſ. Timoth.) Petrus Gnapheus, a perſon ſtigmatized for more hainous crimes than one: part of his Character ſee in Evagr. l. 3. c. 17. He amongſt other innovations, introduced this, foreign, and which was more, foreign, Theod. lect. collect. l. 2. p. 189. This was about the latter end of the fifth Age at Antioch, obiit an. 486. Afterwards Timotheus, a flagitious perſon and a Heretick, vid. Spond. an. 511. n. 3. brought it into the ſame uſe at Conſtantinople, being made Biſhop there by Anaſtatius, according to Baronius, 511. till 517. foreign, Theod. lect. collect. l. 2. p. 188. The Weſtern Churches had it from the Eaſt (this not the firſt time the Church borrowed of Hereticks. The unguent from the Valentinians, Iren. l.... c.... ſtated Faſts from Montaniſts) Illud ſymbolum, quod nos ad imitationem Graecorum intra miſſas adſumimus, Walafrid. Strabo de reb. Eccleſ. c. 22. firſt in Spain, Conc. Toled. 3. c. 2. an. 589. per omnes Eccleſias Hiſpaniae & Galliciae, ſecundum formam orientalium eccleſiarum, Concilii Conſtantinopolitani ſymbolum recitetur. In France and Germany long after, Walafr. Strab. de reb. Eccleſ. cap. 22. Sed apud Gallos & Germanos, poſt dejectionem Faelicis Haeretici ſub Glorioſiſſimo Carolo, Francorum Rege, idem ſymbolum latius & crebrius in miſſarum coepit officiis iterari. And the Conſtantinopolitan Creed rather than the Nicene, for a very weighty reaſon, quod aptius videretur modulis muſicis; of which Baronius ſeems aſhamed, ad an. 809. n. 3. Felix condemned, an. 794. Baron. Not at Rome till an. 1014. when Berno Augienſis, lib. de miſſ. relates, he being at Rome, cum Romani Presbyteri ab eo interrogorertur, Cur poſt evangelium (ut in aliis eccl…ſiis ſiebat) ſymbolum non canerent? they gave him a reaſon, ſuch a one as it is; and adds, Imperatorem (Henric. 1.) Benedicto Papae perſuaſiſſe, ut ad publicam m…ſſ…m ſymbolum decantarent, in Spond. ad an. 1014. n. 3.Matt 28:19Sir 22He gives ſeveral accounts of the rule of Faith, de Veland. Virg. which neither agree with what is given by others, in mode of expreſſion, neither with one another; there being no coincidence in any one phraſe obſervable through the whole. And is it probable, that p. 102they who left themſelves and others ſo much liberty about formulas of Creeds, would deprive others of it, or be bereaved of it themſelves, in Forms of Prayer (in Baptiſm, or elſewhere) where there is much more reaſon for more liberty? How incredible p. 103is it, That their Prayers were limited to a ſet of Words, when the regula fidei, which more required it, had no ſuch confinement? Sure, if they had judged any ſuch limits requiſite in any thing of this nature, they would have given them to that rule of Faith. No Prayers, Supplications, Lauds, Litanies, &c. could in their judgment require ſuch ſtrict, and preciſe, and unalterable bounds, as that which they counted and ſtiled immobilem & irreformabilem.

The Apoſtles Creed may be objected, but is ſufficiently removed by the premiſſes. Thoſe who can believe what pleaſeth them, may receive the ſtory of Ruffinus concerning it; but his faithfulneſs and credit is not ſo much with others, as to advance it above a Fable. And it ſeems incredible, that there ſhould be ſuch a Form among Chriſtians, of the Apoſtles compoſing, and yet the Ancients, for above Three hundred Years, take no notice of it, yea take the boldneſs to vary from it; and, which is more, to prefer thoſe of their own conception before it, on the ſolemneſt occaſions.

Or, if there were ſuch a Form of the Apoſtles, and the Ancients would not confine themſelves to it, as it is apparent they did not; much leſs would they be confined to Forms of Prayer, compoſed by ordinary Perſons.

In the conſtitutions aſcribed to the Apoſtles, the Creed to be uſed in Baptiſm, is exceeding ffforeign, Athanaſ. contr. Sabell. orat. tom. 1. p. 513.different from that called the Apoſtles, not only in Words, Phraſes, Order, but in the omiſſion of divers Articles, and the addition of others, vid. l. 7. c. 42.

p. 104Moreover, Baſil ggforeign, de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. p. 274.tells us, The Confeſſion of Faith is conformable to the delivery of Baptiſm, and the Doxology conformable to the Confeſſion of Faith; That they are all three much alike. That they Baptized as they had received, and believed accordingly as they Baptized, and gave glory juſt as they believed; that there was a neceſſary and inviolable coherence betwixt theſe, and that an innovation in any of theſe, would deſtroy the whole, foreign; lib. de Sp. Sanct. cap. 27. p. 274. But he does not think the change of Phraſe and Words therein is ſuch an innovation, if it remain the ſame in ſenſe, foreign, for he himſelf uſed the Doxology very variouſly, and would not be bound up to one Form, in the expreſſing of but four or five Words. And by what liberty he took in this, ſhews, what might be taken in the reſt. Two days before the writing of this Book, in Prayer with the People, foreign, he uſed the Doxology two ways (both differing from that which is uſual) as he tells us cap. 1. foreign, Glory to God and the Father (adding) ſometimes with the Son, together with the Holy Ghoſt; ſometimes by the Son, in the Holy Ghoſt; but this is but a taſte of his variety. He that will obſerve how it is uſed in this Book, and in the end of his Homilies, may find it diverſified p. 105near forty ſeveral ways, and run almoſt into ſo many Changes, as ſo few words are capable of. One may think they are put to hard ſhifts for proof of the preſcribed Forms in queſtion, who are glad to make the antient Uſe of the Doxology one of their Arguments. We ſee it would not ſerve their turn, if it could be proved, that they were as much limited to Forms of Prayer in Baptiſm, as they thought themſelves confined to the words of Chriſt, delivering the Form of Baptizing. Thoſe that thought a foreign, a conformity in ſenſe ſufficient, where Chriſt gives the direction, might with much reaſon judge this enough, or too much, when men only preſcribe; and in caſes too, where a greater Latitude is ſafer. Their practice, in the ſeverals premiſed, ſhew, they knew no ſuch preſcriptions, nor would have honoured them with any more obſervance, or ſo much.

To proceed, There was a mode of Renunciation generally uſed in Baptiſm, and a general agreement to uſe the ſame in ſenſe; and yet, as to Words and Syllables, a ſtrange variety: When as here, if any where, a common rule injoining uniformity in Words might have been expected, and in ſuch a Caſe, if in any, would have been obſerved. I have taken notice of more than twenty hhOrigenes, Quid denunciaverit diabolo, non ſe uſurum pompis ejus, & voluptatibus pariturum, in ep. ad Rom. Univerſis denique aliis Diis & Dominis, Homil. 8. in Exod. Conſtantius, de ſe, Renuncians Satanae Pompis & operibus ejus & univerſis idolis manu factis, credere me in Deum profeſſus ſum, in Edict. ad Sylveſt. Cyril, Hieroſolym. Catech. 1. Myſter. foreign, p. 228, 229. Ephrem. Syrus, Abrenuncio tibi Satan, & cunctis operibus tuis, l. de poenit. c. 5. Baſil, foreign, de Spir. Sanc. cap. 27. no preſcription for it. Cyril Alexandrin. Ibi depoſuerimus tenebras a mente noſtra, & doemoniorum turbis valedixerimus, omnemque ipſorum pompam, & cultum prudentiſſime reſpuerimus, conſitemur fidem in Patrem, lib. 7. contra Julian. Salvian Maſſilienſ. Abrenuncio, inquis, Diabolo, Pompis, ſpectaculis & operibus ejus, de provid. lib. 6. p. 197. Quae eſt enim in baptiſmo ſalutari Chriſtianorum prima confeſſio, niſi ut renunciare ſe Diabolo, ac pompis ejus, atque ſpectaculis, & operibus, proteſtentur? p. 198. Dionyſius Areop. foreign, Eccleſ. Hierarch. The repeating of it ſingular. Clemens Conſtit. foreign, l. 7. c. 41. Juſtinian. foreign, c.... l. 33. §. 1. de Epiſcop. Audient. Tertullian, Sed & aliquanto prius in Eccleſia ſub Antiſtitis manu, conteſtamur nos renunciare Diabolo, & Pompae, & Angelis ejus, de Coron. Milit. c. 3. Optatus Milevit. Contra nos peccatores (ut vultis) interrogemus alterum Gentilem, an renunciet Diabolo, & credat Deo, &c. & dicat Renuncio & credo, Cohtr. Parmenianum, l. 5. p. 59. Cyprian, Seculo renunciavimus cum Baptizati ſumus, Epiſt. 5. l. 1. Stare illic potuit Dei ſervus, & loqui, & renunciare Chriſto, qui jam Diabolo renunciaret & ſeculo, Serm. de Lapſ. p. 151. Cujus (mundi) pompis & deliciis jam tunc renunciavimus, cum meliori tranſgreſſu ad Dominum venimus, de habit Virgin. p 107. Se carnis concupiſcentiis & vitiis renunciaſſe profitetur, id ibid. Auguſtin, Quiſquis huic aedificio conjungi deſiderat, renunciet Diabolo, Pompis & Angelis ejus, de ſymbol. ad Catechum. l. 3. c. 1. Omiſſa enim certiſſima cautione, qua vos abrenunciare omnibus Pompis Diaboli, & omnibus operibus ejus, & omni fornicationi diabolicae, ſpoſpondiſtis, Homil. 3. ad neophytos. Pro ipſis enim reſpondent, quod abrenuncient Diabolo, Pompis & Operibus ejus, & ideo pactum, quod, cum Christo in Baptiſmi Sacramento, conſcribunt, custodire contendant, nec unquam aliquid de Diaboli pompis, vel mundi istius luxurioſis oblect ationibus concupiſcant, de Temp. Serm. 116. Ambroſe, Dicens, abrenuncio tibi, Diabole, & Angelis tuis, & operibus tuis & imperiis tuis, Hexam. l. 1. c. 4. Quando te interrogavit Sacerdos; abrenuncias Diabolo, & Operibus ſuis? quid reſpondisti? Abrenuncio. Abrenuncias ſeculo & voluptatibus ejus? quid reſpondisti? Abrenuncio, de Sacrament. l. 1. c. 2. Quid interrogatus es, recognoſce, quid reſponderis, renunciasti Diabolo & operibus ejus, mundo & luxuriae ejus, lib. de iis qui Myſter. initiant. c. 2. Chryſoſtom, foreign, Homil. 21. ad pop. Antioch. p. 609. Savil. edit. foreign, in Coloſſ. 2. Hom. 5. p. 122. foreign, in Joh. Hom. 1. p. 558. Hieronym. Quidam coactius diſſerunt in Baptiſmate ſingulos pactum inire cum Diabolo & dicere, Renuncio tibi, Diabole, & pompae tuae & vitiis tuis, & mundo tuo, qui inmaligno poſitus est, in Matth. 5. Tom. 6. p. 6. Confeſſus es bonam confeſſionem in Baptiſmo, renunciando ſeculo & pompis ejus, in 1 Tim. 6. Tom. 8. p. 270. Secundo post Baptiſmum gradu, inisti pactum cum adverſario tuo, dicens ei, Renuncio tibi Diabole, & ſeculo tuo, & pompae tuae, & operibus (al. opibus) tuis, Epiſt. 7. ad Demetriad. p. 63. Abrenunciationem qua praeputiis denudamur, ante oculos collocemus—ſic namque dicimus, abrenunciare nos mundo & pompis ejus, Epiſt. ad Theraſiam, de vera Circumciſ. Tom. 9. No Writings mentioned the uſe of any Words whatſoever, any Prayer at all on thoſe occaſions, no…e injoyned any ſet Form of Prayer: But any Words were ſo far from being injoyned, that there were none ſo much as ſet down or mentioned in any Writing.Col 2Matt 51 Tim 6variations of this ſo ſhort a ſentence; and find no two of the many Antients who uſed it, to repreſent the uſage of it to us, agreeing therein as to Words and p. 106p. 107Syllables; nor yet have I met with two inſtances, where the difference is not more than Syllabical: It may be others may meet with more; yet if p. 108more than two, amongſt ſo many intending to expreſs the ſame thing, had uſed exactly the ſame Words, (and where other things beſides a Rule might have rendered their expreſſions Uniform) it would have been no proof, that the Words had been preſcribed; it would rather be ſtrange, if in ſuch circumſtances, they ſhould not caſually fall into ſuch an agreement without the conduct of any preſcription. But ſince they are ſo far from obſerving the punctilios of a preſcribed Uniformity, and vary herein ſo much, as one may wonder how ſo few Words could be contrived into ſuch variety; it proves ſufficiently, that they were not under any Orders, obliging them, to uſe preciſely the ſame Words.

And thus we find not only thoſe of the Greek and Latin Churches differing, or ſuch as lived at a greater diſtance, and in the parts of the Empire, remoteſt one from another, but thoſe of the ſame Country and the ſame Church, where, if any where, Uniformity is to be lookt for: We may obſerve it in Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, and Auguſtin.

Nor do ſeveral Perſons only differ herein amongſt themſelves, but we may ſee in divers inſtances, one and the ſame Perſon expreſs this uſage variouſly; whenas, he that is not circumſcribed by others, nor will be impoſed on by the imperious, is conſtant to himſelf, many times, and varies not in the uſe of as many, or more Words, than this Form conſiſted of; and ſo it is repreſented by Cyprian, Chryſoſtom, Jerom, Auguſtin, Ambroſe, Origen.

Now, if in ſo ſhort a ſentence as this, and that univerſally uſed in ſome terms or other, with a general harmony as to the ſenſe, and wherein alſo there is nothing of Prayer, and ſo none of that p. 109reaſon which there is for freedom in Praying, they were not limited, nor did tie themſelves to a Sett of Words: Who can believe they were, or would have ſuffered themſelves to be confined to an unvariable Form of words, in Praying at Baptiſm?

And that there were none limited to any Forms of Prayer, is made evident, more directly by that of Baſil, lib. de Spir. Sanc. cap. 27. where, mentioning the ſeveral Prayers uſed in Baptizing, he declares there were none of them to be found in writing, foreign, p. 271. We bleſs the Water in Baptiſm, and the Oyl uſed in Ʋnction, and the Party alſo Baptized; but out of what Writings? They had no Prayers for theſe ſeverals, in or before his times, written; none found, none ſet down in writing; and how there could be preſcribed Forms of Prayer, and yet no Prayers in writing, is not intelligible. There were no writings injoyning them, That Prayers ſhould be uſed for theſe purpoſes; much leſs therefore, what Prayers ſhould be made uſe of, or in what Form of Words. For where the exiſtence of a thing is not ſuppoſed, there's no giving rules for the mode of it, amongſt thoſe who are regulated by reaſon. They had then no Rules nor Preſcriptions in Scripture, or Councils, or Fathers, or any Church Liturgies, for the uſe of ſuch Prayers (much leſs for the Words of them) foreign reaches all. There was nothing for them in his time, but foreign, ſilent and ſecret Tradition, in oppoſition to (foreign) what is iiDuobus modis dici poſſe obſervationem aliquam eſſe ſcriptam: id enim ſcriptum cum ab aliquo vel ſcripta lege ſuiſſe praeſcriptum (qui proprius eſt & uſitatus horum verborum ſenſus) vel tantum in ſcripto libro commemoratum, Dall. de pſeudep. p. 334. He takes Baſil in the former ſenſe, ibid. Ob. But by Writings Baſil may underſtand the Scriptures only. Anſ. His words plainly deny it of all Writings, and not of the Scripture only, vid. Dall. p. 334. He alledges many expreſſions of Baſil in the ſame place, concluding, Ex quibus vel caecus videt, qua ista accepta erant, Traditionem, Baſilium non quibuſdam, ſed quibuſvis; non canonicis, ſed omnibus omnino libris opponere, ibid.Written; p. 110which is utterly excluſive of, and inconſiſtent with any ſuch Rules or Preſcriptions, and ſo quite clears the Church for all ſuch preſcribed Forms in Baptiſm, in all Ages till that day. And clear of them it was long after; for,

The Impoſtor, kkOb. Cook, p. 123. And others deny the latter part of this Book to be Baſil's. Anſ. The generality of Proteſtant writers do not queſtion it, Chamier, Caſaubon, Dalleus. Mr. Cook thinks it was writ by one living after Meletius, who ſurvived Baſil, and ſo after Baſil's time. The later he lived, the leſs Antient will preſcribed Forms appear to be by his Teſtimony, which in this cannot be ſuſpected; who will think him ſo impudent to affirm, what every one knew to be falſe? B. Uſher inclines to think, the interpolations of the ſix Antient Epiſtles aſcribed to Ignatius, with the ſix latter, and alſo Clemens Conſtitutions did ex eadem officina prodire, and yet the former not extant before the ſixth Age; and therefore the Conſtitutions are elder, in Dallaeus, de ſuppoſit. Ign. l. 2. c. 2. p. 237. cum 232, 233. After the Prayers in Baptiſm, in reference to the Oyl and Water, and Chriſm, c. 43, 44, 45. l. 7. having ſaid, c. 43. foreign, he adds, c. 45. foreign, haec atque alia his conſentanea dicat, foreign, &c. For the Catechumens, foreign, ſome ſuch, hujuſmodi benedictione, l. 8. c. 16. med. For the penitents, foreign, in ſome ſuch manner, in hunc modum, cap. 8. fin. In the bleſſing of Water and Oyl, foreign, c. 29. l. 8. foreign, l. 7. c. 26. pro primitiis collatis, foreign, l. 8. c. 39. pro mortuis foreign, l. 8. c. 41. post ſumptionem Eucharistiae, foreign, l. 7. c. 27. foreign, l. 7. c. 28. foreign, pro Eucharistia quidem in hunc modum, l. 7. c. 26. And by theſe inſtances, when he calls for Prayer or Praiſe, with foreign, or foreign, or foreign, or the like; we have warrant to underſtand foreign, or foreign, or foreign, and that ſuch liberty is allowed.who forged theſe Conſtitutions, under the name of Clemens, many Hundred years after the Apoſtles, and one Age atleaſt after Baſil, tho' he ſet down Prayers for the Baptiſmal p. 111Office, yet he ties none to thoſe Forms (no not when he pretends they were of the Apoſtles compoſing) nor to any other; but leaves all at liberty to Pray as they ſaw good, only to the ſame effect he would have them Pray. He requires not, that they ſhould uſe thoſe Prayers (of his) but ſuch Prayers with a foreign, his words are, l. 7. c. 45. foreign. For if ſome ſuch Prayer be not made by the Godly Miniſter at each of theſe, he that is to be Baptized, goes into the Water only as the Jews, and parts with only the Impurity of the Body, not the Impurity of the Soul.

By which we may diſcern, what was the freedom, as to Prayer at Baptiſm (and conſequently elſewhere) in thoſe times when he writ (probably about the latter end of the fifth, or the beginning of the ſixth Age) when Forms through neceſſity were growing more common. Prayers to the ſame effect p. 112would then ſerve the turn, as they now ſerve the Reformed Churches. He that appeared to the World about that time, in the vizard of Apoſtolical llWhere he preſumes to ſay, foreign, l. 8. c. 15.Authority, would not by vertue thereof preſume to tie any, in adminiſtring Baptiſm, ſtrictly to one Form, any one Form of Words; No, not to thoſe Words, which he would have them believe, were formed by the Apoſtles themſelves. The Apoſtles, as he perſonates them, gave liberty to wave their own ſuppoſed Forms, and think it well enough, if Prayers to the ſame purpoſe be uſed inſtead thereof. In all probability, if this Actor had laid his Scene in places and times, where more reſtraint had been tolerable, he would have repreſented it otherwiſe.

But there needs no other evidence, for this liberty in Baptiſmal Prayers, to any who are willing to ſee, than that in Auguſtin, de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 6. c. 25. where, examining the Allegations of the ſeveral Biſhops in the Council under Cyprian, to Sedatus of Tuburbis, who pleads thus for the Rebaptizing of thoſe Baptized by Hereticks; in quantum aqua, ſacerdotis prece, in eccleſia ſanctificata abluit peccata, in tantum Haeretico ſermone, velut cancere infecta, cumulat peccata: As the Water, by the Prayer of the Prieſt, in the Church is Sanctified to the waſhing away of ſin; ſo by an Heretical Prayer, as by a Cancer, it is infected, to the increaſing of ſin.

Auguſtin Anſwers, Si non ſanctificatur aqua, cum aliqua erroris verba per imperitiam precator effundit, multi non ſolum mali, ſet etiam boni fratres in eccleſia p. 113non ſanctificant aquam. If the Water be not Sanctified when he that Prayes, through unskilfullneſs, utters ſome erroneous words; then, not only many evil, but good Brethren, in the Church do not ſanctifie the Water. Multorum enim preces emendantur quotidie, ſi doctioribus fuerint recitatae, & multa in iis reperiuntur contra Catholicam fidem. For the Prayers of many are daily amended, if they be recited to the more Learned, and many things are found in them contrary to the Catholick Faith; (they were vitioſae preces, & in quibus aliquid perverſum, as he afterwards.) Now ſuch prayers cannot be ſuppoſed to have been any common Forms, commanded, or uſed, much leſs preſcribed by the Church. The courſe taken to redreſs this, was not a total prohibition of the Prayers they had choſen; nor the tying of ſuch Miniſters to the uſe of any common Form; no nor the commending of any ſuch to their uſe: But (what divers Synods (of which before) had decreed) the Prayers, which ſuch indiſcreet perſons made choice of, being recited to the more learned, were by them amended, and the errors being left out, they are left to uſe them ſtill, (for the amending of them cannot be otherwiſe interpreted, than in order to future uſe:) And this courſe, as it is inconſiſtent with the impoſition of any ſet Forms, ſo it argues forcibly, the Churches then had not in the adminiſtration of Baptiſm, ſo much as any common Form in free uſe; otherwiſe, inſtead of daily trouble to others and themſelves, about correcting their very faulty Prayers; Why are not perſons ſo intolerably indiſcreet (who could not diſcern when a Prayer was Heretical) ſo much as adviſed to make uſe of the common Form? And finally, under what reſtraint p. 114can any fancy the more diſcreet and learned to have been in Baptizing; when the weakeſt and moſt imprudent had ſo much liberty therein? Nothing needs be more manifeſt, than that neither the prudent nor indiſcreet, were then confined to preſcribed Forms in the Miniſtration of Baptiſm.

And thus we have made it ſufficiently evident, that in the Antient Church, the order for Adminiſtring the Sacraments (the Prayers eſpecially uſed in their Conſecration) were not preſcribed; nor the Adminiſtrators thereof under any ſuch reſtraint, as later and worſe times thought fit for them. I might indeavour to give the like ſatisfaction concerning other parts of Worſhip, which were Adminiſtred by Prayers; and might do it now with more eaſe than this already done. But it is not needful, ſince thoſe, who ſhew the greateſt paſſion for the Forms in queſtion, affirm, that in the Sacraments they were and are moſt neceſſary, and were firſt there uſed; and ſo muſt acknowledge, that when they were not in uſe there, they were no where uſed, nor any where counted needful: And beſides, this Diſcourſe grows long, (and ſo may be tedious) beyond what I expected or deſigned. I will therefore only add ſome few teſtimonies, which give evidence againſt ſuch Forms in general, and will reach the particulars, as therein involved; eaſing my ſelf and others thereby of a tedious and ſuperfluous labour.

Begin we with Juſtin Martyr, one of the firſt Writers left us of unqueſtioned credit, after the Apoſtles times: Who, Apol. 2. p. 139. hath theſe words, foreign p. 115foreign. We are not Atheiſts ſince we worſhip the Maker of all things, affirming, as we are taught, that he hath no need of Blood, Drink-offerings, or Incenſe; in all our Oblations, with Prayer and Thankſgiving, according to our ability praiſing him. In his time, they Prayed and gave Thanks according to their ability. Now certainly, theChryſoſt. in Eph. Hom. 6. p. 792, 793. abilities of the Paſtors, at leaſt, of thoſe times, reached further without ſtretching, than the reading or reciting of ſome Prayers, compoſed for them by others. They were perſons ordinarily of greateſt abilities amongſt the Chriſtians. When ordinary Chriſtians were ſuperiour to the Paſtors of after times, they wanted not the knowledge of Divine things, nor the ſenſe of their Spiritual condition, or their Peoples, nor a faculty to expreſs tolerably what they knew and felt. They were not beſotted by intemperance, nor had loſt the uſe of their faculties for want of exerciſe, nor were their gifts ſhrivled up by a curſe, becauſe they did not imploy them: They had ability to frame their own Prayers, as well as to make their own Sermons; and if they confined themſelves to Prayers made by others, they did not give Thanks and Pray, as the Holy Martyr ſays they did, foreign, according to their ability, or as they were able. The phraſe hath been ſufficiently vindicated before; but becauſe it here occurs again, let this be added for further ſatisfaction. It is ſaid, that it denotes not the exerciſe of abilities for Prayer, but earneſtneſs in Praying, neither leſs nor more: But this is only ſaid, without any proof, without any inſtance where it is ſo taken, either in Juſtin Martyr, or any other. p. 116The beſt way to diſcern the import of it, will be to obſerve, how this and other of the ſame ſignification are uſed commonly in this or other Authors. Now Five hundred inſtances might be produced, wherein this expreſſion, and others of the ſame import, do clearly denote the exerciſe of abilities for the work, to which they are applied. I will but give a taſte hereof in a like caſe, preaching or writing, paſtoral works, as Prayer is. In Juſtin Martyr, where he ſays, they did mmforeign, &c. Apol. 2. p. 157.exhort the Brethren foreign, and when he tells Trypho he would make a collection of all the places of Scripture which concerned the millennium, he would make a nnforeign, Dialog. cum Tryphon. p. 88. edit. Rob. Steph. Lutet. an. 1551.collection foreign. In Origen, when he ſays, the Chriſtians inſtructed ooforeign, contra Celſ. l. 8. p. 428. foreign, id. ibid. p. 395. vid. p. 409, 410, 411. edit. Cantabr. an. 1656.many foreign, and what Celſus alledged he would examine foreign. So in ppforeign, Hiſt. l. 8. c. 3. vid. vit. Conſt. l. 4. c. 29. infra.Euſebius, when he tells us, the Biſhops made panegyrical Orations foreign, & de vit. Conſt. l. 4. c. 29. Likewiſe in Baſil, when he ſpeaks of Praiſing Gordius foreign, forgetting his own qqforeign, Homil. in Gord. p. 204. edit. Baſil. an. 1551.weakneſs, p. 117and ſays, he will explain rrforeign. p. 142. foreign, lib. de Sp. Sancto, c. 17. p. 264. Preached foreign, Hexaem. hom. 3. initio.the words of the Apoſtle foreign, and that the impiety (he is mentioning) was elſewhere refuted foreign, and that he had preached the day before foreign. Alſo in ſſforeign, Tom. 6. p. 756. edit. Savil. & in Philip. Hom. 6. p. 34. in 2 Tim. p. 346. & Tom. 1. in Gen. p. 165. Hom. 17. initio. fin. Hom. 17. Hom. 25. Hom. 32. Hom. 48. Hom. 49, 117, 183, 254, 306, 452, 459, &c. foreign, 306. Hom. 38.Chryſoſtom, when he ſays it was neceſſary he ſhould foreign, diſcourſe of Prayer; and frequently ttAdd that in Cyprian, Propter hoc etiam libellum hunc de bono patientiae quantum valuit noſtra mediocritas, permittente & inſpirante Domino, conſcripſimus, Epiſt. ad Jubaian. and often, pro noſtra mediocritate. And Auguſtin, De quibus in aliis opuſculis, in quantum Domino adjuvante potuimus, ſatis nos diſſeruiſſe meminimus, de peccat. orig. l. 2. c. 34. Et hoc pro viribus ago, contra Creſc. l. 1. c. 9. Si autem miniſtri aſſint pro viribus quas eis Dominus ſubminiſtrat, omnibus ſubvenitur: alii baptizantur, alii reconciliantur, nulli dominici corporis communione fraudantur, omnes conſolantur, aedificantur, exhortantur, ut Deum rogent qui potens eſt omnia quae timentur averlere, &c. Epiſt. 180. Honorato, p. 928. edit. Lugduni an. 1561. And that Conſtantine exhorted his Subjects, foreign, to lead a pious Life, foreign. Athanaſius, about to give an account of Man's degeneracy, foreign, contr. Onuleſ. p. 3. And reciting too ſome paſſages of Scripture, foreign, de natura human. ſuſcept. Tom. 1. p. 465. init. Maximus in Athanaſ. Tom. 2. ſays he had confuted Hereticks, foreign, p. 255. Auguſtin, retract. l. 2. c. 1. in ſecund. libro tractantur caeterae quaeſtiones, & pro noſtra quantulacunque facultate ſolvuntur, p. 58.elſewhere.

p. 118It is evident, that in theſe paſſages, the phraſes ſignifie, they uſed their own abilities, judgment, invention, expreſſions; in preaching, expounding, diſputing, &c. And it would not be imagined, but that they denote the ſame when applyed to Prayer, in Juſtin Martyr and others, had not cuſtom ſetled another mode of Praying than was uſed in thoſe times, when abilities to Pray were counted a qualification as requiſite for a Paſtor, as ability to Preach; and more thought neceſſary to accompliſh a Miniſter for publick Prayer (ſo great a part of his work) than a Child is capable of.

Who ever imagined, that by writing foreign, or pro viribus, they meant no more, than the tranſcribing another man's Diſcourſe; or by expounding or preaching foreign, &c. no more was to be underſtood, than their reading or reciting another mans Sermon, &c. with what earneſtneſs ſoever? This would be no better, than to offer plain violence to their Words, and unpardonable injury to the Authors. And why is it not as intolerable, when they ſpeak of Praying foreign, to ſay they meant no more, than their reading or rehearſing another mans Prayers with all earneſtneſs; let thoſe who are not foreign, judge.

Nay, it cannot be denied, but theſe phraſes do ſometimes denote, when applyed to Prayer or Thankſgiving, the Exerciſe of perſonal abilities for Prayer; as when Chryſoſtom tells us, in Gen. Hom. 26. that Noah gave Thanks foreign, (ſure it was in no Form compoſed p. 119for him by another) and then exhorts to imitate him; and in the application ſhews how, viz. taking account every day and hour, not only of Mercies common to others, but particular and perſonal; yea and thoſe which we obſerve not, foreign. (for all this could not be done in a ſtated Form) foreign p. 202. he adds, God made us rational, foreign, therefore he gave us faculties, Souls and Tongues, foreign, that he might be ſenſible of his favours, and foreign, p. 203. And in the next Homily 27. we ſhould endeavour foreign, having always his benefits in our minds (foreign that our memory may be helpful to us therein) tho' they be more than we can recount, foreign, &c. For who can (foreign;) reckon up thoſe which we have, thoſe which are promiſed, and foreign, thoſe which we meet with every day, (ſo every day there's new matter of Thankſgiving) then enumerating abundance of particulars, p. 204, 205. and adding ſtill foreign, they can never be numbred. foreign; how can any Tongue of Man expreſs them? foreign, they tranſcend all human apprehenſion; yet will have us notwithſtanding, remember, conceive, reckon them up, and expreſs them as we are able, and would have us imploy mind, memory, tongue, all faculties, therein, as much as we can: for he adds again after all, we muſt foreign, ſuch Thankſgivings are according to the abilities of him who offers them. foreign (which I proved before to be the p. 120ſame with foreign) ſignifies that which is inconſiſtent with any confinement to a ſet Form, by our ſelves or others.

Baſil alſo, giving directions howforeign cap. 1. p. 554. to Pray, premiſes, That there are two ſorts or parts of Prayer, Thankſgiving or Praiſe of God with ſelf abaſement, and petition; then he adviſeth to begin with the former, and therein to make choice of Scripture-expreſſions (foreign, which it ſeems was Baſil's Formulary) after he has given ſomething by way of Example, he adds foreign, when thou haſt Praiſed him (with expreſſions ſelected) out of the Scriptures, as thou art able (or according to thy ability) the ſame phraſe with foreign, and foreign, then begin with ſelf abaſement; in which, after thou haſt been large (foreign, p. 555.) then proceed to Petition. There he would have him beware of Praying for the ſeverals he mentions, but to ſeek that which is preſcribed or enjoyned; not in any Liturgy (for if there had been ſuch, theſe directions had been needleſs, and if they ſhould, and might uſe no other, ridiculous (yet ſome Mens fancies are ſo ſtrong, as to ſtretch theſe, even to private Devotions;) but in the Scripture, and the Words of Chriſt (ſeek firſt the Kingdom of God, &c.) foreign, and will have him careful in any wiſe, that his whole mind be uuUt collectis & congregatis intra ſe ſenſibus, oret Deum, non …vagetur m…nte & cogitationibus evolet, ut ipſis Dei conſpectibus, atque ineffabili illi lumini ſe intelligat aſſiſtemem, ibique orationes, & obſecrationes, poſtulationeſque, & gratiarum actiones ſuas profundat, nullius extrinſecus Phantaſiae ſolicitatus imagine, Origen. vid. Dall. de objecto cult. p. 396.intent upon p. 121God, and him alone, and no where elſe (foreign) which will be very hard for him, who, Praying in publick or private, hath his Book to mind.

By this we may alſo judge, what it is to Pray foreign, or which is all one foreign. And to add no more, it cannot be ſuppoſed, that there was any preſcribed Form of Prayer, for the Caſe which Augustin mentions, viz. wwVir Tribunitius Heſperius, qui apud nos eſt, in territorio Tuſſalenſi, fundum Zabedi appellatum, ubi cum aflictione animalium & ſervorum ſuorum, domum ſuam Spirituum malignorum vim noxiam perpeti comperiſſet, rogavit noſtros, me abſente, Presbyteros, ut aliquis eorum illo pergeret, cujus orationibus cederent. Perrexit unus, obtulit ibi ſacrificium corporis Chriſti, orans quantum potuit, ut ceſſaret illa vexatio, &c. Auguſt. de civit. Dei, l. 22. c. 8. p. 686. edit. Lugdun.A Houſe poſſeſſed by the Devil; for the relief of which, he tells us, one of the Presbyters of Hippo Prayed, quantum potuit, a phraſe equivalent to foreign, and therefore it may be preſumed, he Prayed there according to his ability. And why foreign, in Juſtin Martyr, ſhould not ſignifie the ſame, as in theſe forementioned inſtances, and be rendred according to their abilities, ſo as their Prayers ſhould be underſtood to be the product of them; I can diſcern no reaſon at all, but becauſe they who deny it, are loth it ſhould be ſo.

Let us proceed; That of Tertullian, Apol. 1. c. 30. ſine monitore, quia de pectore oramus, hath p. 122been pleaded by others, and not without reaſon. Biſhop Hall in Anſwering it, when he was concern'd to be moſt reſerved and cautious, ſo as to yield nothing, but what the words would extort, grants, The mode of Praying was not then under any ſuperiour injunction, and ſo not preſcribed. Biſhop Bilſon concluded from this paſſage (before it came into debate by the differing parties) that extemporary Praying was uſed in Tertullian's time, Chriſtian Subject. Part 4. p. 617. rendering it without any xxSine monitore, not being urged by any ſuperiour injunction.Prompter, as coming from the free motion of our own Hearts, and aſcribing it to the extraordinary gift of Prayer then continued. (How reaſonably may be conſidered elſewhere;) and this ſhews, it is not for want of evidence in the expreſſion, that this ſenſe of it is ſince rejected by his followers, but from ſomething elſe. I doubt not, but if it would have been ſerviceable another way, there would be no queſtion, but this was Septimius's meaning, the Chriſtians did Pray without any ſuch Prompter, as the Heathen, becauſe their hearts were their Prompters: or, as Biſhop Bilſon, becauſe they Pray as their hearts move them. Prayers ſuggeſted to the Heathen by their Monitors, were ſuggeſted to the Chriſtians by their own hearts; they had not their Petitions out of a writing, but out of their own Breaſts.

The Gentiles Monitor, as Rigaltius on the place obſerves, did praeire preces de ſcripto. Amongſt the Greeks, their Prayers were read out of a Book, as appears by Apuleius, deſcribing a great ſolemnity p. 123amongſt them, where their Monitor, whom they called yyTunc ex his unus, quem cuncti Gramma…ea dicebant, pro foribus aſſiſtens, coetu Pastophorum (quod ſacroſancti collegii nomen eſt) velut in concionem vocato, indidem de ſublimi ſuggeſtu, de libro, de literis fauſta vota, praeſatus Apuleius metamorph. l. 11. p. 204.Grammatea, from a high Pulpit, de libro fauſta vota precatus, Prayed out of a Book.

Amongſt the Perſians, Pauſanias repreſenting the rites of their Pyretheia, as they were uſed in Hierocaeſarea and Hypaepae, brings in the foreign zzforeign in Heſychius, foreign, Phavorinus.(who was a Prieſt, a Sacred perſon amongſt them) thus Praying: aaforeign, Pauſan. lib. 1. Eliacor. Ammianus Marcellinus, Hiſt. l. 23. c. 8. The Magus by a ſet Form of Prayer—He coming into a place in the Temple, and having laid Wood on the Altar, firſt puts on his Sacred Habit, and then Prays to ſome God; and this Prayer he ſays foreign, out of a Book.

For the Romans, Livy tells us, Numa gave them in writing, all that belonged to their Worſhip; eique (viz. to Marcus the Chief Prieſt) omnia ſacra exſcripta exſignataque attribuit, Dec. 1. l. 1. p. 16. Upon ſpecial occaſions, the Decemviri tranſcribed their Prayers out of the Sibyls Books, (their extraordinary Ritual) Dec. 5. l. 1. p. 15. Pacem Deorum peti precationibus, quae editae ex fatalibus libris eſſent. When they were diſtreſſed by Hannibal p. 124ſending Fabius's Picture to bbQ. Fabius Pictor, Legatus a Delphis Romam rediit, reſponſumque ex ſcripto recitavit; Divi quoque in eo erant, quibus, quoque modo ſupplicaretur. Dec. 3. l. 3. p. 64.Delphos, Apollo Pythius preſcribed them a Liturgy in Writing; which he returning, recited out of that Writing; in which was contained, what Gods they ſhould ſupplicate, and in what mode; and the Senate injoyned an accurate obſervance of it. When Scipio Aemilianus was ccQui Cenſor, cum luſtrum auderet, inque ſolito fieri ſacrificio, ſcriba ex publicis tabulis ſolenne ei precationis carmen praeiret, quo Dii immortales, ut populi Romani res meliores amplioreſque facerent, rogabantur: ſatis inquit bonae ac magnae ſunt; itaque precor ut eas perpetuo incolumes ſervent. Ac protinus in publicis tabulis, ad hunc modum carmen emendari juſſit. Valer. Max. lib. 4. c. 1. p. 191.Cenſor, the Scribe (their Prompter) at a Luſtration, reads the uſual Prayer, Ex publicis tabulis; Scipio miſliking an expreſſion therein, alters it, and orders the alteration to be made in the publick Writing, out of which it was to be read; and ſo reforms their Common Prayer Book.

Thus were the Devotions of the Heathen regulated; but the Chriſtians, ſays Tertullian, (deſcribing them in oppoſition to the Gentiles) had no ſuch Monitor, did need no ſuch Prompter; their Prayers are not de Scripto, but de Pectore. In Anſwer to this, thus much is granted, That the Chriſtians in thoſe times prayed without Book; and ſo it is acknowledged, that thoſe who read their publick Prayers out of a Book, are therein nothing like the Antient Chriſtians, but more reſemble the Pagans in that mode of Praying, for which Tertullian p. 125here derides them. This cannot be denied, it ſeems; yet, which is the only ſhift left them, de Pectore, they will have to be no more than ſaying their Prayers by heart.

But this is not to Pray de Pectore, but de Memoria, not as their heart moves and prompts them, but as their memory ſerves them.

And this ſuppoſes, that in thoſe times they had written Liturgies, and were wont to get their Prayers by heart; for which they ſhould produce ſome expreſſion, or intimation, or ſhew of proof, from ſome credible Author of that Age, before they take it for granted. I have yet ſeen no proof of it, and I am confident never ſhall.

Certainly, it was a hard task (and required ſo good a memory, as all cannot be ſuppoſed to have had, who were imployed therein) to get all the Prayers they then uſed by heart. Since the Chriſtians then continued, and principally in Prayer, ſometimes Nine hours (and this twice every Week) in their ddJam horum conventuum proprius ac praecipuus finis erat oratio, atque deprecatio, unde factum, ut ſtationes dicerentur, quod foreign ſtatio Hebraeis ſit oratio. Dall. de jejuniis, l. 4. cap. 5. ex J. Capell. They began at Sun-riſing, Statim ab exortu ſolis. Rigalt. obſ. ad Tertull. id. orat. p. 43. Their Stations were continued till 3 Afternoon, foreign, Epiph. expoſ. fid. p. 110. others longer, arguunt nos, quod ſtationes plerumque in veſperam producamus, Tertull. de jejun. c. 14. Their Faſts till 6 Afternoon, foreign, Baſil. de jejun. foreign. p. 133. Diebus atque noctibus jugiter & inſtanter oramus, propitiantes Deum, Cypr. inſiſtamus per totam diem precibus, & oremus. Idem.Stations; ſometimes Twelve p. 126hours, as at their Faſts, beſides what were uſual at their Vigils, Feſtivals, and Lords-days Aſſemblies, at their Baptizings, Ordinations, reconciling Penitents, and other occaſions; all requiring variety of Prayers.

And who can believe, their Paſtors were then limited to written Forms in Praying, when the ordinary ſort of Chriſtians were not tied to any Forms at all in Singing? There ſeems more reaſon for a reſtraint in Hymns, than in ſupplications; and thoſe who are earneſt for liberty in the latter, are well enough content to be confined to Scripture-Forms in the former. It's evident by Tertullian, that in his time, Chriſtians had the liberty in their Church-Aſſemblies, to chooſe either ſuch Hymns as they collected out of the Scripture, or ſuch as were of their own conception. So heThornd. Serv. p. 293. tells us, deſcribing their Love-Feaſts; at which we are told, the Euchariſt was Celebrated, Poſt aquam manualem, & lumina, ut quiſque de Scriptura, vel de proprio ingenio poteſt, provocatur in medium Deo canere, Apol. cap. 39. 9. And theſe, if we believe Grotius, extemporary eeNon ſolebant pro re nata extempore hymnos quos foreign vocant, effundere Hebraei—nec dubito quin & hoc canendi genus vel praecipue commendat Paulus, Eph. 5. 9. Col. 3. 16. Manſit diuis mos in eccleſia vetere, Tertullianus meminit, & Plinius, &c.Eph 5:9Col 3:16Hymns, and ſuch uſed by others, both before, and after thoſe times.

It is excepted, that Tertullian, in the place we have inſiſted on, ſpeaks of private Devotions: But if they will have it of private only, any that conſiders p. 127the words, will ſee it evidently miſtaken, Illuc ſuſpicientes Chriſtiani, manibus expanſis, quia innocuis; capite nudo, quia non erubeſcimus. He ſhews Chriſtians were unlike the Pagans, in their mode of Praying, for ſuch reaſons, as would not admit them to be alike any where, either in private or publick; ſince they thought themſelves concerned to ſignifie, they were more innocent, and leſs conſcious of what was ſhameful, than the Heathen, as well in publick as in private.

This manner of Praying was continued in the following Age, as is evident in Origen, who declares it both of the Greek and Latin Churches, which divided betwixt them theContr. Celſ. l. 8. p. 402. whole Chriſtian World. They Prayed in his time, not only in their own Language, but alſo according to their ability, foreign. The Grecians in Greek, the Romans in Latin; and ſo every one in his own dialect, Prays to God, and Praiſes him, as he is able. Precantur Deum, & celebrant pro viribus. TheB. H. H. T. moſt learned and judicious, that have appeared in this Queſtion for preſcribed Liturgies, do yield, that if foreign in J. Martyr were duly rendred according to his ability, and be of the ſame import with foreign, then the Prayers there mentioned were ſuch as we ſay, viz. the iſſue of the Adminiſtrators abilities, not formed for him, nor impoſed on him by others. Now foreign, in Origen, is exactly correſpondent to, and of the very ſame ſignification with, foreign: nor can it be better rendered than by, according to his ability, or which is all one, as he is able; and therefore, p. 128that thoſe Prayers mentioned in Origen were ſuch, may be taken for granted; and thoſe alſo which we find in the ſame Book, p. 386. where the expreſſion is of the ſame ſenſe, but comes nearer to the Form and ſound of the other, which they yield is for us, foreign, that one God, and his only Son both in Word and Image, we worſhip with Prayers, according to our ability, and honours, offering Prayers unto the God of the Univerſe, by his only Begotten. It is acknowledged, by the moſt zealous Friends of theſe Liturgies, that in the Apoſtolical times, there was a foreign, an ability or gift of Prayer, inabling thoſe who had it, to conceive their Prayers themſelves; and the exerciſe of this gift or ability, in the New Teſtament,D. H. in Jud. 20.Judg 20 is foreign, Jude, v. 20. and foreign, Eph. 6. 18. But this, ſo expreſſed, they will have to have been an extraordinary and miraculous gift, as thoſe of healing, propheſying, tongues, &c. Now the former (that there was a gift of Prayer) we acknowledge with them; but the latter (that it was extraordinary and miraculous) ſhould not be granted without proof, being alſo inconſiſtent with other principles equally acknowledged, and with thoſe Scriptures too now alledged. Not to take notice, that the gift of Prayer is not reckoned amongſt thoſe that were miraculous, where we have a particular account of them, Mark ult. 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10. 1 Cor. 14. It is granted by them, that, as all extraordinaryD. H. 586. 385. gifts were not conferred upon any one Perſon, except the Apoſtles; ſo p. 129no one gift was conferred upon all; this is plain in the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10, 11. particularly this gift of Prayer, is aſſerted to have been beſtowed upon ſome one of the multitude, foreign. Soin Ro. 8.Rom 8 Chryſoſt. (whom alone, amongſt the Antients, they have to alledge for it, as an extraordinary grace:) But all the believing Hebrews (all that are ſanctified, to whom Jude writ, ver. 1.) are required to exerciſe this gift: (foreign) and all the converted Gentiles at Epheſus to whom Paul writ, are exhorted by him, to exerciſe it, Eph. 6. 18. (and all other Chriſtians in them, if thoſe Epiſtles be of general concernment.) Now it could not be their Duty to exerciſe it, if they had it not; and if they all had it, it was an ordinary gift, and continued to the Church in all Ages. And ſo Origen, in reference to this gift or ability, might well ſay, every one Prayed, foreign, and foreign, according to his ability: However, he that was able to conceive a Prayer himſelf, yet made uſe of Prayers formed by others, did not Pray as he was able.

Proceed we to the times ffAthanaſius was exerciſed with more conflicts than others: Theodoret calls him elegantly, foreign. After many before, he meets with a new incou… ter in Julian's time; of which that Hiſtorian gives this account, foreign, lib. 3. cap. 8. The Devils not able to indure the power of Athanaſius's Preaching and Praying; ſo that they could leſs bear his Prayer and Preaching, than that of others, and therefore they raiſed him more troubles than others met with. Now, if his Preaching had been but the Reading of the ſame Homilies which others Read, who could give a reaſon from thence, why Satan ſhould not indure it in him, as well as in others? So, if his Praying had but been the Reading of the ſame Prayers that others did Read, no account can be given, why the Devils ſhould be more troubled at his Praying, than of the reſt. The ordinary Deacons or Readers at Alexandria, and elſewhere, could read a Prayer as well as he. Certainly his power in Preaching, was ſomething elſe, than his reading another Mans Sermons; and was his power in Praying, no more than his reading another Mans Prayers? One would think it could denote no leſs, than that he had a more powerful (way or) faculty in Preaching and Praying. And if it be ſaid, that this lay only in his more devout or earneſt reading, &c. Anſ. If the diſintereſſed can be ſatisfied, that his powerful faculty, in Preaching, was but his fervency in reading other mens Sermons; I ſhall not contend, but that his powerful faculty in Praying, might be no more, than his devout reading of other mens Prayers. Athanaſius himſelf ſhews us, that Prayers were not then had from Prayer-Books, and preſcribed Forms, when he tells us, mens orationis fons eſt.following: Baſil p. 130in the beginning of his Tract de Spiritu Sancto, tells Amphilochius, that he lately Praying with the People, and concluding his PrayersHook. pol. l. 5. §. 42. with a Doxology, uſed variety of expreſſions therein; (ſometimes to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Ghoſt; ſometimes by the Son, in the Holy Ghoſt) and that offence was taken at one mode of his, expreſſing it, foreign, cap. 1. p. 248. Hence it appears, Baſil was not, would not be limited to the ſame words, in any the leaſt part of publick Prayers, not in one clauſe, ſo ſhort a clauſe, not in the concluſion p. 131of a Prayer, where thoſe, who vary in other parts, many times agree; not in a Doxology, where, thoſe that are for more liberty elſewhere, can be content with leſs. He varies in this once and again, in ſeveral Prayers, and none of his variations fall in with the uſual mode, (to the Father, and the Son, aend the Holy Ghoſt); nor did the fear of offence reſtrain him from uſing this liberty.

Now, if in ſuch circumſtances he would not be confined, in the part of a Prayer, to the invariable uſe of ſo ſhort a clauſe, as the half of the Doxology now uſed; would he be confined ggQui loquendi arte caeteris hominibus excellere videntur, but not to be reckoned inter illos doctiſſimos, quorum mens magnarum rerum eſt exercitata quaestionibus. Diſcant non contemnere, quos cognoverint morum vitia, quam verborum, amplius devitare, id. ibid. p. 329. His enim maxime utile est noſſe, ita eſſe praeponendas verbis ſententias, ut praeponitur animus corpori, id. p. 330. Baſil, In Praying publickly, uſed foreign, ſtrange or unuſual expreſſions, which could not be the words of a Common-Prayer Book, of ordinary, tho' free uſe, much leſs of one preſcribed and injoyned to be conſtantly, and unvariably uſed. If there had been any ſuch, you will not think, but Baſil would have been confined to them; but he is far from it, he would not be limited to the ſame words.himſelf, or confine others to the invariable uſe of whole Prayers? No, it is hereby evident, his times knew no ſuch bonds; he uſed expreſſions, as to his Auditory ſeemed ſtrange and unuſual, which the words of a Common-Prayer Book could not have been.

Auguſtin, giving directions, how the Catechumens are to be inſtructed, adviſeth the Catechiſts (Deo gratias particularly) to accomodate themſelves to their ſeveral capacities; and when they are to p. 132deal with thoſe of ſome learning and eloquence, to let them underſtand, that God minds not ſo much the expreſſions, as the inward affection; ita enim non irridebunt, ſi aliquos Antiſtites & miniſtros eccleſiae forte animadverterint, vel cum barbariſmis & ſoloeciſmis Deum invocare, de Catechiz. rudib. cap. 9. p. 330. Tom. 4. pars poſter. So they will not jeer, if perhaps they take notice, that ſome Biſhops and Miniſters of the Church, do invocate God with Barbariſms and Soleciſms. Prayers, wherein there were Barbariſms and Soleciſms, none will imagin them to have been preſcribed by the Church; yet ſuch were the Prayers both of Biſhops and Miniſters, in Auſtin's time.

Socrates, who lived in the middle of the Fifth Century, hhAnt…nius of Valentia, a Dominican (in the Council of Trent) ſaid that it was plain, by all Hiſtory, that antiently every Church had her particular Ritual of the Maſs, brought in by uſe, and upon occaſion, rather than by deliberation and decree; and that the ſmall Church did follow the Metropolitan, and the greater, which were near. The Roman rite hath been, to gratifie the Pope, received in many Provinces, tho' the Rites of many Churches are ſtill moſt different from it, &c. And that of Rome alſo hath had great alterations, and the true Roman rite, not that which is now obſerved by the Prieſts in that City, &c. Hist. of the Counc. of Trent, l. 6. p. 548, 549. Prayers in end of Antient Councils not premeditated, but as the Spirit did excite ſome Biſhops. In Trent, not giving way to the extemporary Spirit of any, but repeating it out of a paper, ibid. p. 813. Fid. Augustini retractat. l. 2. c. 20. of varieties in Sacraments, …c tamen commemorari omnia potuerunt.and whoſe Hiſtory reaches an. 439. gives us an account of the variety then uſed in Prayers, altogether inconſiſtent with any common p. 133preſcribed Liturgy, l. 5. c. 21. p. 698. foreign. Generally, in any place whatſoever, and amongſt all (the ſorts of) Worſhippers, there cannot two be ſound agreeing to uſe the ſame Prayers. Now where there was diverſity of Prayers every where, How could there be the uſe of one common Liturgy? where there was no foreign, no agreement or concurrence, in uſing the ſame Prayers in any place; How could there be one preſcribed model? when there could not be found two, any where, uſing the ſame Prayers; Where were they to be found, that uſed the ſame Service-Book?

For the Weſt, we may underſtand by Innocent's Epiſtle to Decentius formerly alledged, how far they were in the ſame Age, from being confined to one Form of Church-Service; when he tells us, every one celebrated, as pleaſed him.

And long after this, ſomething of the Antient liberty is diſcernable, in the ſeveral Countries, which was retained in ſome of them, even after the impoſing Spirit was rouzed and active. And by the remaining ruins, we may gueſs what it was, when it ſtood intire. At the time, when the Fourth Council of Toledo was held, an. 633. the Spaniſh Churches were not ſubject (tho' forwarder for ſuch ſubjection than others) to impoſed orders, for one Form of Worſhip; no not in the Sacraments. Even theſe in the ſaid Churches, were celebratedCrab. Tom. 2. p. 196. in various modes, and in ſome of them unduely; as is expreſſed in the Preface to that Synod, In ſacramentis divinis, quae diverſo atque illicito modo in Hiſpaniarum Eccleſiis celebrantur.

p. 134In France iiPercipiens de omnibus civitatibus Franciae Magistros Scholae, antiphonarios eis ad corrigendum tradere, & ab iis diſcere cantare: correcti ſunt ergo Antiphonarii Francorum, quos unuſquiſque pro arbitrio ſua vitiaverat, vel addens vel minuens, & omnes Franciae cantores didicerunt formam Ro…anam, Chron. Engoliſmenſe in Morn. de miſſ. l. 1. c. 8. p. 224.they had Books for publick Service, in the Eighth Century; yet were they uſed at the diſcretion of thoſe that officiated, who added or left out, what they thought fit; till Charlemaine, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, would have them reformed after the Roman guiſe; unuſquiſque pro arbitrio ſuo vitiaverat, vel addens vel minuens.

And in Germany, long after Boniface had been ſtickling to reduce it to the Roman uniformity, the whole Country was ſo far from ſubmitting to any one preſcribed order of Service, that in one kkDecret. Greg. (3. q.) tit. 31. de offic. jud. ord. cap. 14. Quoniam in pleriſque partibus intra eandem Civitatem atque Dioeceſim, permixti ſunt populi diverſarum linguarum, habentes ſub una fide varios ritus & mores: districte praecipimus, ut Pontifices hujuſmodi civitatum five Dioeceſium provideant viros idoneos, qui ſecundum diverſitatem rituum & linguarum, divina illis officia ce…ebrent, & eccleſiaſtica ſacramenta ministrent.Dioceſs there were various modes of adminiſtring, particularly in that of Colen. And llRotger. vit. Brunonis, apud Surium. Oct. 11. obiit an. 965.Bruno, Biſhop there in the middle of the Tenth Age, was indeavouring to reform this, as Churchmatters, in thoſe days, were wont to be reformed; diverſitatem ſacra peragendi in ſua provincia corrigens, ac ut eadem ubique eſſet ratio conſtituens.

And in Ireland, (with which the Britans and Scots ſymbolized) we ſhewed before, out of the p. 135great Ʋſher, That till the Twelfth Century, no one general Form of Service was retained; but divers rites and manners of Celebration were obſerved, till the Roman uſe was brought in, by the Popes Legates.

So that all along it is manifeſt, the uniformity aimed at, in the common preſcribed Liturgies, was only the iſſue and darling of late, dark and degenerate times; an innovation upon the Churches uſages, in better times, and an invading of her Antient Liberty; for which the Biſhops of Rome were the greateſt Zealots, deſigning therein the ſubjection of all other Churches to that of Rome; and gaining thereby, both an acknowledgment of the Papal Authority, from thoſe who ſubmitted to this Yoke, and an advantage of diffuſing the Poyſon of her Superſtitions, through the body of the Weſtern Empire, where uniformity in Liturgy and Rituals, became a chief part of the uniform Apoſtaſie of the latter times.

Thus we have gone through the diſadvantages, of proving a mmParker of Cr. l. 2. p. 125. Cum per rerum naturam factuna negantis probatio nulla ſit. d…cret. p. 2. cauſ. 6. q. 5. c. 2. Doth your diſcretion ſerve you to put us to prove the Negative? you cannot prove they had, and that is cauſe ſufficient for us to avouch they had not, Bilſ. apud. c. 4. p. 351.Negative: Let us now ſee, how they acquit themſelves, upon whom the proof lies; affirming, That the Liturgies they contend for, have been ever, from the beginning. And here, if any where, it would be an eaſie matter, to give the p. 136World abundant ſatisfaction, that what they aſſert is true, if indeed it were ſo: He that takes notice, what clear and full evidence may be eaſily had, from the Writers of ſome one Country, in a part of the laſt Age, for preſcribed Liturgies; or what convincing and unanſwerable proof may be brought for them, from the few Writers, which were in part of the Eighth or Ninth Centuries, when they had got place in the World; may juſtly expect, that, from that multitude of writings, in thoſe many Ages, which this queſtion concerns; ſuch ample and evident teſtimony, for impoſed Forms, would be found by thoſe who have laboured for it, as would have no place for the leaſt doubt, but there were ſuch in uſe all along, if they had been really, as is pretended, the uſage of the Churches, from the Apoſtles times. And if no ſuch thing be produced, by thoſe, whoſe intereſt led them to ranſack all antiquity for it; even this, if there were no more, will be a convincing argument, that the antient Church had no ſuch Cuſtom. Let us then view, what the learned Advocates for theſe Liturgies, have collected out of the Antients, and publiſhed for the ſatisfaction of the World, in this point; and impartially examin, whether it amount to ſuch proof, as may be reaſonably looked for in thoſe circumſtances, or whether it came not ſhort of any juſt and competent proof at all.

Clemens Alexandrinus is one of the antienteſt Authors produced for this purpoſe; and he in theſe words, Strom. 7. foreign, thus rendred, The Congregation addicted to their Prayers, having as it were, one mind, and one voice common to all. Now (ſays my Author) a Congregation p. 137cannot have one voice in their Prayers, without a ſet Form for them to joyn in. But this is very ſtrange and myſterious; I had thought, as others do, that the Congregation had one voice, in reſpect of the Miniſter ſpeaking in their ſtead, one for all, and therefore accounted the foreign, the mouth of the People in Praying, (as when he Preaches in the name of Chriſt, he is foreign, in Clemens's ſtile, Strom. or foreign, as Baſil calls Nazianzen, Ep. 141. Now who can imagin, why he ſhould not be their mouth, in uttering a conceived Prayer, as well as in reading a Prayer out of a Book. He had told us immediatelyL'Eſtr. allianc. of Lit. cap. 1. p. 19. before (and it is generally, by thoſe of his perſwaſion acknowledged) that while the gift of Prayer laſted, viz. in the Apoſtolical Age, there was no Form ſetled; and therefore, if the People cannot have one voice in their Prayers, without a ſet Form; an Apoſtle, or other primitive Miniſter, Praying with a Congregation (ſince he uſed no ſet Form) was not their mouth; nor did any Church Pray with one voice, all that Age.

As inſufficient for this purpoſe, is that of Tertullian, Apol. c. 39. Oramus pro Imperatoribus, pro Miniſtris eorum ac poteſtatibus, pro ſtatu ſeculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. And that of Cyprian, Epiſt. ad Demetr. Pro arcendis hoſtibus, & imbribus impetrandis, & vel auferendis vel temperandis adverſis, rogamus ſemper & pr…ces fundimus: & pro pace ac ſalute veſtra, &c. And that of Baſil, Epiſt. 141. (which, tho' in the Age following, we joyn with theſe, becauſe of the ſame import.) A friend of his, gone to Travel, had written to him, that he would be mindful of him in his p. 138Prayers; to whom his Anſwer is this, foreign, &c. To forget thee in my Prayers is impoſſible, for thou remembereſt, foreign, &c. that in the Church we make Prayers for all our Brethren that travel, for all that are inrolled Soldiers, for all that confeſs freely the name, for all that bring forth Spiritual fruits, &c. Anonym. Ʋſe of daily publick Prayers, p. 6. 8.

Here is, in theſe ſeverals, ſome account for what, and for whom they Prayed; but not a ſyllable to ſignifie, that they did it in ſet or preſcribed Forms. If thoſe that Pray without ſuch Forms, were to give an account of the ſcope and import of their uſual Prayers, and to expreſs for what perſons and things they ordinarily do pray; they would do it in ſuch terms, as might be as juſt a ground for our Author's inference, as any alledged. Indeed, theſe allegations are ſo far from proving an impoſed Liturgy, with ſet Forms of Prayer; that they do not prove ſo much as a Directory: For, in that which was compoſed for theſe Nations, we have more than the Perſons for whom, and the things for which we ſhould Pray; yet no more is ſpecified in, or can be collected from any, or all the places now mentioned. I dare offer many more, of this nature, to any judicious Eye, without fear that he will ſee any ſuch thing therein, as the producer of theſe three would fain have ſeen. Let him that is minded, look Cyril Catech. 5. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Chryſoſt. in 1 Tim. p. 271. and in 2 Cor. p. 557. and Hilary—in Cant. 4. p. 414. Author de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 12. p. 798. Coeleſtin. Epiſt. in Proſper. p. 894. pro Proſper. & Hilario. cap. 11.

p. 139The ſame Author thinks he hath diſcovered a Church Common-Prayer Book in Origen; but without any ground at all, ſave his deſire to diſcover one ſo Antient: his words are, Origen, in his Fourth Book againſt Celſus, quotes Three or Four ſeveral paſſages of Scripture, out of their foreign, or Prayers; by Prayers meaning, that which the Grecians now call their Euchologium, or Prayer-Book. But if he had conſulted a little more with Origen, he might have diſcerned, that by foreign he means the Pſalter, or Pſalms of David, and no other Church Service Book, beſides the Scripture. For, in that Book againſt Celſus, quoting any paſſage out of the Pſalms, he ſays, ſo it is found foreign, ſo lib. 6. p. 285. edit. Cantabr. 1658. where alledging, Pſ. 130. v. 1, 2, 3. he ſays, foreign, it is ſaid in the Prayer, foreign, &c. Lord, my heart is not lifted up, &c. So alledging Pſ. 50. 10. foreign, therefore it is ſaid of him, Praying underſtandingly, viz. the Pſalmiſt, foreign, create in me, O God, a clean heart, lib. 7. p. 354. So lib. 4. p. 178. foreign, who find in the Prayers what the prudent ought to ſay, foreign, that the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord; which, being found in two Pſalms, 33. 5. and 119. 64. may be the reaſon he quotes it in the plural foreign. And this may be the place my Author intends; for he had not the confidence to tranſcribe it, nor direct particularly to it; having, it's like, no hopes that any, whoſe fancy was not deeply tinctured with his conceits of ſuch Liturgies, looking upon the place, would miſtake the Pſalms of David, for a Greek Prayer Book

p. 140Origen is again produced by him; Who, ſays he, gives this deſcription of a true Chriſtian, foreign (lib. 6. againſt Celſ.) that is, as he renders it; They that ſerve the God of all, through Chriſt, and live according to his Goſpel; who alſo frequently and duly, both night and day, uſe thoſe Prayers that are (preſcribed, as he will have it, or, which is all the word imports) Commanded. There needs not many words, to ſhew the impertinency and unſerviceableneſs of this paſſage, for the purpoſe, for which it is alledged; when it appears, nnThe ſame Origen in Gen. Hom. 10. Sine intermiſſione orandum, Apoſtolus praecipit: vos qui ad orationes non convenitis, quomodo impletis ſine intermiſſione, quod ſemper omittitis?that thoſe were not private Prayers, which were to be put up night and day, at any hour of either. And 2. That there are no Prayers Commanded, but in ſet Forms; or that, if it had been foreign, any one would have underſtood thereby, preſcribed and ſet Forms of Sermons; And 3. That there are no Commands for frequent Praying, but humane inventions or preſcriptions: Then this allegation may be thought pertinent, and further conſidered; but the producer of it would not judge it worthy ſo much, profeſſing his diſtruſt of its ſufficiency to prove what he deſires; Yet I profeſs, ſaith he, I do not alledge this paſſage, as an infallible proof, becauſe I know the word foreign may be alſo otherwiſe Interpreted. If he had ſaid, the word, p. 141when applyed to Prayers, in Origen, or any near his time, could never be but otherwiſe interpreted, he had ſpoke with more ingenuity, and no leſs truth.

Another place in ooSatis conſtat, Origenis, quae latine tantum extant, a Ruſſ…no & aliis interpretibus ita fuiſſe interpolata, ut ex iis vix poſſit certo intelligi, quid vere ſit Origen…um, Dall. de lib. ſuppoſ. Dionyſ. &c. l. 2. c. 34. p. 440.Origen is more commonly inſiſted on, viz. in Homil. 11. upon Jeremy; and for impoſed Forms, they argue from the mode of an expreſſion there, which, what it was in Origen, no man can tell; ſince in thoſe Latin commentaries, we never have his words, and can never know (as his Tranſlators have uſed him) when we have his ſenſe, or whether we read him or them. However, theſe are the words alledged, Ʋbi frequenter in oratione dicimus, Da omnipotens, da nobis partem cum Prophetis, da cum Apoſtolis Chriſti tui, tribue ut inveniamur ad veſtigia unigeniti tui; When we often ſay in Prayer, Grant Almighty, grant us a lot with thy Prophets, with the Apoſtles of thy Chriſt, give us that we may be found at the ſteps of thy only Son. Here it is preſumed, that theſe are Origen's words, and not his Tranſlators; and that the Form of his expreſſion (on which alone the reaſoning is grounded) is exactly and faithfully transferred to us, by thoſe who declare they uſed no ſuch exactneſs or faithfulneſs in reading him. It is preſumed alſo, that, this was his meaning, that they frequently uſed, not only thoſe Petitions, but in thoſe very words, which there is no need we ſhould grant: Yet if all theſe p. 142were yielded, no more can hence be concluded, than what is common with thoſe who Pray Extempore, viz. That they often in Prayer, preferred one or two Petitions, in the ſame words. Or, if I ſhould grant, that this was a Form of Prayer, when there is nothing to perſwade it, more than that the Apoſtles was a ſet Form, Eph. 1.2 Theſſ. 1. 11, 12.2 Thess 1:112 Thess 1:12 16, 17, 18, &c. (foreign there being no leſs than frequenter here) yet what ſhadow of a proof is there, that it was a preſcribed Form?

Another very learned man thinks there is ſufficient evidence for the Forms in queſtion, from one or two words (Dominica ſolennia;) in Tertullian, de anima, cap. 9. But what Tertullian means by thoſe ſolennia, himſelf particularly declares in the ſame place; Iam vero prout Scripturae leguntur, aut Pſalmi canuntur, aut petitiones delegantur, aut allocutiones proferuntur, ita inde viſionibus materiae ſubminiſtrantur, The reading of the Scriptures, the ſinging of Pſalms, the Prayers, and the Sermons, are the Dominica ſolennia mentioned. Now, if he, who alledges this, can perſwade the World, that at every Aſſembly, the ſame Chapters were ſtill Read, the ſame Pſalms always Sung, and the ſame Sermons ſtill Preached; he may perſwade us, that the ſame Prayers in the ſame Form and Words, were always made; becauſe forſooth, theſe (as the other, and no more, no otherwiſe than the other) are ſolennia, in Tertullian's ſtile. Yet, if we were ſo credulous, as to be perſwaded into ſuch a Paradox, his work would not be done; for Prayers might be, (and are frequently) the ſame, p. 143and yet not preſcribed. In ppUt quiſque de ſcripturis, vel de proprio ingenio poteſt, provocetur in medium Deo canere, Tertull. Now, as concerning the antient and general courſe of God's praiſes, and reading the Scripture, it appears by Juſtin Martyr, and Tertullian, that the order of reading the Scripture in the Church was arbitrary in their time, as accommodated to the condition of the times and occaſions of their Aſſemblies, by the guides of ſeveral Churches. The one of them ſaith, That the Scriptures are read foreign: The others words are theſe, Apol. cap. 39. Coimus ad literarum divinarum commemorationem, ſi quid praeſentium temporum qualitas aut praemonere cogit aut recognoſcere; We aſſemble to repeat the Scriptures of God, what the condition of the preſent times inforceth, either to forewarn, or to recognize. The Order, which is accommodated to the condition of the times, cannot be certain and appointed afore, H. Thornd. Serv. at publ. Aſſem. p. 397, 398.Tertullian's time, neither the order of reading, nor ſinging, nor preaching, was preſcribed; and yet they were in his ſtile and account, ſolennia; and that Prayers muſt be concluded to have been in preſcribed Forms, meerly becauſe he reckons them, as the other, inter dominica ſolennia, will ſeem wonderful to an ordinary reaſon.

By this we may judge, how reaſonably the ſame word in Cyprian is made uſe of, for the ſame purpoſe, Ʋbi vero ſolennibus adimpletis dare calicem Diaconus praeſentibus coepit, Serm. de Lapſis; When the things wont to be done, before the diſtribution, being performed, the Deacon began to give the Cup to thoſe who were preſent. Prayers were ſome of thoſe things, which were wont to be performed before, and ſo may be included in ſolennibus. But that ſolennia ſhould here p. 144denote preſcribed Forms of Prayer, or ſuch Forms as were generally frequented, or indeed, any Forms whatſoever; there is not the leaſt ſhew of reaſon (which we made evident by Cyprian's Maſter, even now.) Nor could it have fallen into any imagination, but of one only, fully poſſeſſed with a conceit, that none but ſuch Forms were then in uſe. The learned Perſon producing thoſe words, tells us a little before, p. 240. the Euchariſt was celebrated with Solemn Prayers, in the Apoſtles times; and yet qqI acknowledge, that under the Apoſtles, the Prayers of the Church were not preſcribed, but conceived, by thoſe that were imployed in that Office, Thornd. Right of Church, 328. He makes it an argument for preſcribed Forms, that Deacons were imployed; yet ſays, they were not in Prayers at the Euchariſt, p. 329. but appropriates theſe to Presbyters, 328. And that which Deacons did in the other was foreign, bidding of Prayer, not Praying, which Clem. Constit. diſtinguiſhes. vid. foreign the Deacon, foreign the Biſhop, lib. 8. c. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.acknowledges, theſe were not ſet Forms, but ſuch as were ſuggeſted by the Spirit, and made by vertue of the extraordinary gift; which, with Chryſoſtom, he calls foreign: So that Solemn Prayers were not ſet Forms then; and who can divine, why they muſt needs be ſo in Cyprian?

But in Anſwer to theſe teſtimonies, this may ſuffice. I will add no more, foreign, to uſe Chryſoſtom's words, in 1 Cor. 15. p. 514. Hitherto we meet with no evidence, for ſo much as any arbitrary Forms of Prayer, in the firſt and beſt Ages of the Church; much leſs for preſcribed Forms. And p. 145yet this is the very beſt evidence, that I can meet with (produced by any that have laboured in this argument) for the Firſt Three hundred years; and indeed all, that hath any ſhew of proof, if ſo be all that hath been examined, may ſeem to have ſomuch. I ſhould ſhew too much contempt of the Reverend Authors judgment, if I ſhould offer with more words, to ſatisfie him, that the pretended Ignatius, his foreign, Epiſt. ad Magn. or Juſtin Martyr's foreign, Apol. 2. or the antient Preface, or Tertullian's mode of renunciation, de Corona Militis, ſurſum corda, or the uſe of a Doxology (of theſe two laſt, ſee what is ſaid before) have not ſo much as the face of a proof for the Liturgies in queſtion. And I might be ſuſpected of ſome deſign, to render their Advocates contemptible; if I ſhould inſinuate, that any of them rely upon that, in this cauſe, which yields not the ſhadow of a ſupport. I am much miſtaken, if thoſe that are judicious and diſintereſſed, can count any thing proved hereby, more than this, that thoſe who make uſe of ſuch allegations, are at a great loſs for want of proofs: But I muſt not overlook what I met with, when I had thus far proceeded. I was not a little amazed, to ſee ſome Proteſtants willing to alledge that impudent forgery, called the Liturgy of St. James, as evidence for preſcribed Liturgies; a piece ſtuff'd with many rrforeign, Euſeb. Hiſt. l. 3. c. 32. Lat. edit. foreign. Graec. The Dialogues betwixt Peter and Appion were condemned as counterfeit, upon this account. foreign—foreign, &c. Poſtea Mariae & omnium Sanctorum, ut precibus & interceſſionibus eorum miſericordiam conſequamur, ut oblatio ſit in requiem animarum, quae ante nos dormi…runt—foreign. Nam in ea jubet fieri mentionem Apoſtolorum, Martyrum, Conf…ſſorum, & alibi meminit Anachoretarum, & Chriſtianorum damna…orum ad metalla; cum tamen conſtat Anachoretas coepiſſe à Paulo primo Eremita, & Chriſtianos coepiſſe damnari ad metaila poſt tempora Apoſtolorum. Ibidem jubet recitari, Gloria Patri & …ilio, &c. quem hymnum compoſitum fuiſſe in Concilio Nicaeno, communis opinio eſt. Jubet & dici, Sanctus Deus, ſanctus Fortis, ſanctus & Immortalis, miſerere nobis, qui diu poſt tempora ſancti Jacobi inventus eſt. Multa ſunt alia, quae redolent novitatem. Vid. Rivet. crit. Sacr. p. 110. 271.Superſtitions and Novelties, ſuch as were never dreamt of in the Apoſtles times, nor p. 146long after; and not without ſome ſtrictures of Blaſphemy and Idolatry (offering Incenſe to God, for remiſſion of Sins, and invocating the Virgin Mary.) So that Bellarmin himſelf (tho' the intereſt of a deſperate cauſe, needing ſuch ſupports, might have tempted him (as well as others) to it; many corruptions, which he is ingaged to defend, being therein countenanced) durſt not ſay, it was his, on whom it is Fathered. De Jacobi Liturgia ſic ſentio, eam aut non eſſe ejus, aut multa à poſterioribus eidem addita. He inſtances in divers particulars, not known in the Firſt times, and then adds, Multa ſunt alia, quae redolent novitatem, There are many other things therein, that favour of Novelty.

All that Baronius hath to ſſThe Cardinal brings Five Inſtances, moſt he miſrepreſents; none ſerve his turn. 1ſt. is, Surſum corda, ſo in Cyril, foreign, but in the Liturgy not ſo, but foreign: and the Anſwer in Cyril is foreign, but in the Liturgy quite otherwiſe, viz. foreign. 2d. Orate pro vivis & defunctis, which words neither Prieſt nor Deacon uſeth, either in Cyril, or the Liturgy. 3d. is, Oſculemini invicem in oſculo ſancto; in the Liturgy, foreign, but in Cyril, foreign. 4th. is, Sancta Sanctis. Reſp. Unus eſt Spiritus, &c. So in the Liturgy, but with the Addition of foreign, which is not in Cyril. 5th. Guſtate & videte, quoniam ſuavis eſt Dominus, is in other Liturgies (as ſome of the former are) and ſo may as well prove James to be the Author of them, as of this.ſay for it, is, ſome paſſages in the CatechiſmsAd. an. 63. N. 17. called Cyril's, agreeable to ſomewhat in p. 147the ſaid Miſſal, as he will have it; (Quam verè ejus eſſe plane cognoſcet, qui eam conferat cum iis, quae Cyrillus ejuſdem Eccleſiae Hieroſolymorum Epiſcopus in ſuis myſtagogicis orationibus habet, quae quidem ipſe non aliunde quam ex Jacobi Liturgia cognoſcitur accepiſſe, ad An. 63. N. 17.) which is a very ſerviceable argument, and may happily prove as well, that Cyril was the Author of the Liturgy aſcribed to James, or that James was the Writer of the Catechiſms attributed to Cyril. How it is known, that Cyril could not have theſe paſſages any where elſe, but from James his Liturgy, I apprehend not; we muſt take the Cardinal's word, nor is it capable of better proof: But, that thoſe particulars might be transferred out of the Catechiſms into that Liturgy, we may well underſtand another way.

It was ſome diſparagement to the Church of Rome, not to have a Liturgy, which might pretend to be Apoſtolical, as well as the Church of Jeruſalem and Alexandria. A Miſſal is formed, wherein the Prayer for Conſecration, is verbatim the ſame p. 148with that called, The Canon of the Roman Maſs: This Miſſal, for the reputation of that Canon, muſt paſs for St. Peter's. But Gregory Biſhop of Rome, who Six hundred Years after Chriſt, knew no Apoſtolical Liturgies, and ſays, in the Apoſtles times, there were no Forms uſed in the Euchariſt, no not for Conſecration, but only the ttOrationem autem dominicam id…irco mox poſt precem dicimus, quia mos Apoſtolorum erat, ut ad ipſam ſolummodo orationem, oblationis hoſtiam conſecrarent, & valde mihi inconveniens viſum eſt, ut precem quam Scholaſticus compoſuerat, ſuper oblationem diceremus: & ipſam traditionem, quam Redemptor noster compoſuit, ſuper ejus Corpus & Sanguinem non diceremus, Greg. lib. 7. Ep. 63. Omnis Eccleſiastici Officii institutio veteris fuit Gregorii. Platina.Lord's Prayer: Tells us alſo unhappily, that one Scholaſticus made the Canonical Prayer uſed in the Roman Church, for Conſecration of the Euchariſt; ſo that if we will believe Gregory (who knew the original of the Roman Liturgies, as well as moſt Parents know their Children) their St. Peter muſt be beholding, for the ſaid Prayer, to Scholaſticus (even as James was to a Catechiſm for the forementioned paſſages) unleſs we can imagin, that Gregory uuAdmittere poſſumus totum canonem, exceptis verbis Domini, a Scholastico compoſitum, quia nimirum & Sanctus Petrus, & caeteri Sancti Pontifices Scholaſtici dici poſſunt, Bellarm. de Miſſ. l. 2. c. 19. p. 819. edit.by Scholaſticus, underſtood the Apoſtle Peter. But even this ſhould not ſeem ſtrange; ſince to Bellarmin, in his Zeal for the Canon of the Maſs, it is probable; and yet wwSi Gregorius, per Scholaſticum, intelligat certum aliquem hominem, qui aetate ipſius vixerit, ut Adverſarii contendunt, utraque probabilis eſt, id. ibid.probable too, that Gregory, by Scholaſticus, underſtood ſome perſon who lived in p. 149his own time. How hard is it, for the greateſt perſons, to manage the defence of Apoſtolical Liturgies, without rendering themſelves xxFlagrans cupido nobilitatis avitae cogit homines interdum delirare, ait Baronius.ridiculous?

But theſe, whom I deal with, ſeem not to own this Miſſal of James directly, ſpeaking of it only, as the opinion of ſome Greeks, who tell of ſuch a Liturgy. What Greeks theſe are, I know not; not finding any Greeks owning it, till Seven hundred Years after Chriſt: Yea the Greeks under the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and thoſe in the Dioceſs of the Orient alſo, did utterly diſclaim that Liturgy One thouſand Two hundred Years after Chriſt, as yyAttamen 85 Canon Sanctorum & omni laude celebrium Apoſtolorum, & 59 Canon Laodicenae Synodi, enumerantes veteris teſtamenti & novi, ipſoſque Apoſtolicos libros, qui in uſu nobis eſſe debent, nullam ſacrificii S. Marci, vel S. Jacobi mentionem faciunt, neque etiam Catholica ſanctiſſimi & oecumenici throni Conſtantinopolis eccleſia, ullo modo eas Liturgias agnoſcit. Pronunciamus igitur, non eſſe has recipiendas, Balſam. in reſponſ. ad quaeſt. Marci. Petr. Alex. writ as Baronius obſerves, an. 1204.Balſamon the Patriarch of Antioch declares.

zzThe laſt particular, of foreign, the Hypocriſie of Liers, I made to be counterfeit Writings, under the names of the firſt and beſt Antiquity; St. Peter's Liturgy, the Liturgy of St. James, Matthew, Mark, &c. Through which we need not doubt, but the Doctrin of Daemons was promoted, when we ſee ſome not aſhamed ſtill to maintain it, by thoſe counterfeit autorities, Mede, Apoſt. of Lat. time…, p. 139.Thoſe that own it, or others, as Apoſtolical, or did ſo heretofore, never did, never will, give any account thereof to the World, to clear them from impoſture.