A Discourse Concerning Liturgies, Part 50-100
2. No Prayers at all are forbidden, but ſuch as were againſt the Faith; nec aliae omnino, contra fidem, proferantur; by which we may judge what Prayers both the Synod and the prudent would allow. They were not ſo ſcrupulous about words, if wholeſome, though not accurate; they could better bear with ſome incommodious expreſſions or incongruities of ſpeech, if the prayer was affectionate, and had ſuch oratory as the great mforeign. Chryſoſt. in Pſ. 8. p. 527, 524. Baſil. foreign. Dii non tam accuratis adorantium precibus, quam innocentia & ſanctitate laetantur: gratiorque exiſtimatur, qui de labris eorum puram caſtamque mentem, quam qui meditatum carmen intu…erit. Plin. in Panegvr. ad Trajan. foreign. Iſ…dor. l. 1. ep. 386.God is pleaſed to liſten to, though the niceneſs and curioſity of a vainly critical ear would not be pleaſed with it. Noverint (ſayes Auguſtine) etiam non eſſe vocem ad aures Dei, niſi animi affectum, ita enim non irridebunt, ſi aliquos Antiſtites & miniſtros eccleſiae forte animadverterint, vel cum barbariſmis vel ſolaeciſmis Deum invocare. De catechizand. rudibus c. 9. tom. 4. pars poſter. p. 330. Let them underſtand, that God attends not ſo much to the voice, as the inward affection; and ſo they will not jeer, if perhaps they obſerve ſome Biſhops and Miniſters of the Church do call upon God with ſome (were theſe preſcribed?) barbariſms and ſoleciſms.
3. Any Prayers that were approved, either by a Synod, or other diſcreet perſons, might be uſed, as in other Church adminiſtrations, (and in which of them were not nBy Impoſition of Hands, here is meant, Prayers uſed when hands were impoſed; manus autem impoſitio non ſicut Baptiſmus, repeti non potest. Quid eſt enim aliud niſi oratio ſuper hominem. Auguſt. de Baptiſ. contra Donat. l. 3. c. 16. p. 406. Hands were impoſed almoſt in all Prayers, and all Church Adminiſtrations; the Prayers in the firſt were thoſe for the Catechumens and Penitents, Impoſition of Hands at both. On Catechumens. Vincentius a Tiberi in Ciprians connecut. primo per manus impoſitionem in exorciſmo, ſecundo per Baptiſmi regenerationem, poſſunt ad Christi pollicitationem pervenire. Vid. Auguſt. de Baptiſ. lib. 6. c. 44. Auguſtin, nam & Catechumeni, ſecundum quendam modum ſuum, per ſignum Chriſti, & orationum manus impoſitionis puto ſanctificari, de peccat. merit. l. 2. c. 26. tom. 1. pars 1. p. 875. In exorciſmis impoſitio manuum, Leo ep. 78. c. 1. Vid. Conc. Carth. 4. Can. 85, On Penitents, in admiſſion to Penance; Albaſpin. obſerv. p. 230. 233, 397. Vid. Cent. 5. p. 665. In exerciſe of it while under penitence, foreign, &c. Con. Laodic. c. 18. Con. Carth. 4. c. 80. In Abſolution, or reconciling penitents. Cypr. epiſt. Euſeb. l. 7. c. 2. Leo, non niſi per paenitentiae medium, & per impoſitionem epiſcopalis manus communionis recipiant unitatem, epiſt. 77. cap. 6. R…concilientur per manus impoſitionem. Con. Carth. 4. c. 76. In Confirmation. Tertull. Egreſſi de lavacro perungimur benedicta unctione de priſtina diſciplina, dehinc manus imponitur. Cypr. Qui in eccleſia baptizantur praepoſitis eccleſiae offeruntur, ut per noſtram orationem & manus impoſitionem Spiritum Sanctum conſequantur, epiſt. Joviano. Jerom, Ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per Preſbyteros & Diaconos baptiſati ſunt. Epiſcopus ad invocationem Spiritus Sancti manum impoſiturus excurrat, adv. Luciferian. In admiſſion of reduced Hereticks. Leo, quod ſi ab Haereticis baptizatum quempiam fuiſſe conſtiterit, erga hunc nullatenus Sacramentum regenerationis iteretur; ſed hoc tantum, quod ibi defuit, conferatur, ut per epiſcopalem manus impoſitionem virtutem Sancti Spiritus conjequatur, ep. 35. cap. 2. ep. 77. c. 7. foreign. Dionyſ. in Euſeb. l. 7. c. 1. In viſitation of ſick. Si ſorte ab aegrotantibus ob hoc peteretur, ut pro iis in praeſenti Deum rogaret, eiſque manus imponeret, ſine mora pergebat. Poſſidon. vita Auguſtini. He tells afterward of one healed by his laying on hands, who had a viſion for it. In celebrating Matrimony. Leſt applies that of Clem. Alexand. pedagog. l. 3. foreign. In Ordination, which needs no proof. Sed vid. Con. Carth. 4. can. 2. 3, 4. In exorciſing the poſſeſſed. Con. Carth. 4. can. 5. Omni die exorciſtae energumenis manus imponant. Vid. can. 7. In Baptizing. Clem. conſt. l. 7. c. 44. Vid. Vicec. de Bapt. p. 614. 620. and immediately before, Dionyſ. Areop. eccl. Hier. c. 2. Vicec. p. 581. Hence baptiſm is called impoſitio manus, p. 8. in abrenunciando ſub Antiſtitis manu, Tertullian de corona mil. c. 3. post confeſſionem Fidei. Dionyſ. Arcop. in Vicec. 325. eccleſ. Hierar. cap. 2. Hence Melitius is, by the Nicene Council, forbidden the exerciſe of his Function, in theſe terms: foreign. Synodica epiſt. Con. nic. in Theodoret, l. 1. c. 9.Impoſition of Hands uſed?) ſo particularly in the Lords Supper, (as the title of the Canon, de precibus ad altare dicendis, ſhews) in what Mode, or by what Perſon ſoever they were made. And hence it follows, that either thoſe African Churches had no common form of Service at all; or elſe (which ſerves my purpoſe as well) they had none, but ſuch, as with the good leave of thoſe Fathers, might never have been uſed by any, either at the Lords Supper, or other parts of Worſhip; ſince any other Prayers, which either a Synod, or other prudent Miniſters ſhould approve, have the placet of this Council.
The inference is juſt, and cannot be evaded, unleſs any will ſay, by the preces quae probatae fuerint is meant a Liturgy eſtabliſhed in thoſe Churches. But that this would be an unreaſonable ſhift, the Canon it ſelf (a little further examined) will diſcover. For
1. An eſtabliſhed Liturgy (if there had been any ſuch) was uſed and approved already. But the Prayers, here mentioned, were not yet approved, nor were they to be uſed, till approved. So the brief of the Canon tells us, ut preces & orationes compoſitae, niſi probatae fuerint in Concilio, non dicantur. In Crab. Concil. tom. 1. p. 482. It is provided that the Service to be uſed, be firſt approved in the uſual Synod, ſays a Learned Advocate for ſuch Liturgies, upon this Canon. Then
2 What is meant by (quaecunque, what Prayers ſoever ſhall be debated with the more prudent, may be ſaid) in the laſt clauſe of the Decree.
1. If we underſtand by it the ſuppoſed Liturgy, it is added vainly, and no tolerable account can be given why. And beſides, ſome prudent Brethren were to be conferred with about theſe Prayers, who were to approve them before they might be ſaid. (This is clearly and unqueſtionably the deſign of quaecunque cum prudentioribus fuerint collatae, dicantur.) So that if hereby the African Liturgy be underſtood, it was ſuch a one, as was not yet allowed to be uſed, and poſſibly never might be. It was at the arbitrament of ſuch Judges, as thoſe, who were concerned to uſe them, would chooſe; whether it ſhould ever take place in the Church, or no, It might be diſuſed or aboliſhed, either in part, or wholly; as they thought fit. Such was the Liturgy of theſe Churches, no other eſtabliſhed, nor otherwiſe preſcribed, if the Canon here ſpeak of it.
But 2. If we underſtand hereby other Prayers, then ſuch as the imaginary Liturgy contained; then ſo much liberty is hereby granted, for the uſe of thoſe other Prayers, that the pretended Liturgy might never be uſed: For theſe Fathers authorize any other (with a quaecunque) which prudent Brethren might think fit for publick uſe. And ſo leave none under the reſtraint of any preſcribed Forms, either in other parts of Worſhip, or (in precibus ad altare dicendis) in the Euchariſtical ServiceoI am the more ſatisfied with this evidence of the African Councils, becauſe Bellarmine hath nothing to oppoſe here, but what renders it more unqueſtionable. Chemnitius had alleadged, Con. Afric. can. 70. Milevit. c. 12. to prove, apud veteres ordine ne…lebrandi fuiſſe arbitrarium; the order of celebrating the Euchariſt of old was arbitrary. Hinc colligitur, ſayes Bellarmine, non fuiſſe antiquo tempore praeſcriptum certum canonem orationum, qui omnes obligaret, ſed permiſſum fuiſſe, ut quiſque componeret preces, modo eae analogae eſſent fidei, de miſſ. l. 2. c. 18. Chemnitius thus, Non enim conceptis verbis praeſcripta fuit una quaedam certa forma—ſed liberum fuit uti quacunque forma, modo analoga eſſet fidei. Examen pars 2. p. 358. Bellarmin anſwers, Canones Conciliorum citatorum non loquuntur de canone miſſae; ſed de collectis, quae ſemper fuirant multiplices & vari…, Id. ibid, p. 817. Where he denyes not, but that thoſe African Decrees ſhew, that all other Prayers, even in the Euchariſt, were then arbitrary; only the Canon of the Maſs, ſayes he, they ſpeak not of. And no wonder, ſince the Canon, which he is ſo tender of, was not in being till near two hundred years after theſe Decrees were made. And there's not a ſyllable in them, for the excepting of any other, more then that. Vid. Albaſpin. ante.
In the 12th Canon of that Council, which paſſeth for the 2d of Milevis, for cum prudentioribus collatae, we have a prudentioribus tractatae pScholium ad hunc locum in Cod. Pal. foreign. Gloſſa Baſilii a Carolo Lu…beo Cl. viro editae, foreign. Juſtell. obſ. in Cod. p. 8.. A phraſe of the ſame import, ſignifying the Prayers handled by the more prudent, i. e. debated, diſcourſed of, and ſo examined by them, in order to approbation qforeign. Cod. Afr. p. 50., if they were found good, or to amendment, if otherwiſe. And this ſenſe of tractatae agrees beſt, both with the other conſtitutions of thoſe African Churches, and their practice alſo declared to us by Auguſtine. But if any notwithſtanding will thereby underſtand the Prayers compoſed by the more prudent, tractatus being a Sermon in Cyprian, Ambroſe, Auguſtine, Optatus, in Thornd. 176. and I will thence inferr, the more prudent had no more liberty in Praying then in Preaching. If I ſhould yield this, it would be no great diſadvantage. For, as they were not tyed to uſe Sermons compoſed by others, being much below thoſe Worthies, orationes alieno formare ingenio, to owe their publick Diſcourſes to anothers invention; ſo they had and took liberty to Preach, either ex tempore, or upon premeditation; and the former way commonly.
Jerom tells us many Homilies of Origen rQuae ab Origine, in auditorio eccleſiae ex tempore, non tam explanationis, quam aedificationis intentione perorata ſunt: ſicut in Homillis, ſive in oratiunculis in Geneſin, & in Exodum, &c. Ruff. pe…orat. in ep. ad Rom. p. 634. In the Editions of Johannes Grodicius, the title is, Catech…ſes extemporant… ad illuminatos 18. & myſtagogicae 5. Vid. Riv. crit. …. p. 258., which he Tranſlated, were Preached, delivered in the Church by the Author ex tempore. Oratiunculas has 26. ex tempore in eccleſia peroravit Adamantius Senex. Proluſ. in Hom. Orig. in Jeſ. nav. And Ruffinus ſpeaks the ſame of Origens Homilies upon Geneſis, Exodus, Leviticus and Romans.
All that we have of Cyrils Biſhop of Jeruſalem are extemporary Diſcourſes; as Voſſius obſerves, from the inſcription of them, nonne cogitant catecheſes foreign ſive extemporales, ut inſcriptio indicat? De Symb. p. 38.
And ſuch probably were thoſe, whoſe occaſion and ſubject was the ſame ſung before Sermon; as, to omit others, that of Nazianzen, in Pſ. 114.
Chryſoſtom, while Presbyter at Antioch, was adviſed by Flavianus the Biſhop, to uſe his extemporary faculty in Preaching, foreign, as one of the Writers of his Life relates it. And he complyed with Flavianus herein, foreign, they all ſaw him Preaching to them ex tempore. Georg. Alexand. vita Chryſoſt. p. 179. c.
And ſuch were many of his Sermons at Conſtantinople, when he was Biſhop there; particularly thoſe upon the Epiſtles sHomiliae in Epiſt…las ad Epheſios, Philip. utramque ad, Timotheum & Philemonem, foreign, Conſtantinopolitanis (accenſendae) notae in Chryſoſt. hom. 8. p. 227. Commentarii certe mediocres ſunt & ut plurimum, quales illi in Epiſtolam ad Epheſios, conciſi, & foreign (ut puto). Id. ibid. p. 409.to the Epheſians, and Philippians; as Sir Hen. Savill, (who deſerves ſo well of him, and of the World for him) conceives; as alſo thoſe upon both the Epiſtles to Timothy, and that to Philemon; and more then theſe he intimates to have ſeen, foreign.
Atticus, Presbyter at Conſtantinople in Chryſoſtoms time, and afterwards Biſhop there, though far ſhort of his Predeceſſors accompliſhments; yet, by induſtry and practice, as Socrates tells us, he attained the faculty of delivering himſelf ex tempore to his Auditory; foreign. Hiſt. eccleſ. l. 7. cap. 2. p. 733.
Jerom had no cure, and ſo left us no Sermons. But of divers of the pieces, which ſurvive him, he was as eaſily and ſpeedily delivered, as the forementioned of their popular Diſcourſes. Of one piece of his, he tells us, Epiſt. 47. Extemporalis tExtemporalis est dictatio, & tanta ad lumen lucernulae facilitate profuſa, ut Notariorum manus lingua praecurreret, & ſignae ac furta verborum, volubilitas Sermonum obrueret, Ep. 47.eſt dictatio, it was dictated ex tempore, and faſter then it could be well taken in ſhort-hand. And his interpretation (as he calls it) of the three Books of Solomon, Proverbs, Canticles and Eccleſiaſtes, was uTridui opus nomini veſtro conſecravi, interpretationem videlicet trium Selomonis voluminum. Id. praef. in Prov.tridui opus; in which time, one would think the quickeſt Pen could ſcarce write out the Text.
Auguſtine alſo, not only in his Conflicts with Adverſaries, but alſo in his Sermons to the people, uſed extemporali dictione, as Eraſmus wPlerumque per Notarios ex …re loquentis excepta ſunt, cujuſmodi ſere ſunt enarrationes Scripturarum ad Populum, quas ipſe tractatus appellat, aut conflictationes cum Haereticis, quae olim publitatas apud plebem fieri conſueverant. Nec alibi mihi videtur admirabilior. Quibus medi…cre contigit ingenium, ſi lucubrandi curam adhibeatur, excudunt interdum aliquid non contemnendum. Caeterum in extemporali dictione, tantam adeſſe mentis perſpicaciam, tantam memori… praeſentiam, tam paratam orationis copiam, non ſine perpetua quadam jucunditate, quis non movetur? Quis hoc hodi… praeſtare queat, vel ex iſtis qui ſtudium omne collocarunt in paranda dictionis facultate? E…aſm. epiſt. ad Arch. Tolet. praeſixa operibus Auguſtini.obſerves, in whoſe judgment, he no where more appears admirable then in this; not that theſe Diſcourſes are more excellent then his more elaborate Works (as if he had been, what the Hiſtorian ſayes of Tiberius, ex tempore quam a cura praeſtantior), but becauſe he could do better on a ſudden, then others (though well accompliſhed) with time and ſtudy. One remarkable inſtance we have in Poſſidonius xCum propoſitae quaeſtionis latebras pertractarem, in alium Sermonis diſcurſum perrexi, atque it a non concluſa vel explicata quaeſtione, diſputat…onem magis▪ terminavi adverſ…m Manich. …oram errore…, unde nihil. dicere diereveram, diſputaus; quam de iis quae aſſerere propoſueram. Vit. Auguſt. c. 15., who tells us in Auguſtins words, of Firmus a Manichee converted by ſuch a Diſcourſe, as he never deſigned before he had begun the Sermon, Vit. Auguſt. c. 15. And that ſeems another, which is intituled concio ſuper geſtis cum Emerito Donat., being occaſioned by an acclamation of the people at the Aſſembly, Tom. 7. pars 1. p. 770.
And thoſe, who having much more work as Paſtors, did Preach ordinarily every day, and ſome days twice; yea ſometimes twice in a forenoon, and thrice in one day; (as Biſhops in thoſe and former times did) it cannot be thought, but many of their Sermons were born as ſoon as conceived. Such were their tractates: Nor was it then thought canting, to aſcribe ſuch Diſcourſes to the aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit. Nazianzen being to diſcourſe of the Holy Ghoſt, prays for his aſſiſtance, that he might thereby be enabled for the expreſſions, foreign. That I may open the myſteries of the Spirit, let me have the preſence of the Spirit, to give ſuch expreſſions as I deſire; or if not ſo much, yet what may be agreeable to the ſeaſon, Orat. 44. and ſays alſo, they both ſtudied and ſpoke, inſpired by it. The Spirit, as he adds, blowes where it liſteth, and inſpires whom, and where, and how much he will, foreign; accordingly we are inſpired, both to meditate and ſpeak by the Spirit, p. 709.
Thus they did Preach, and thus they might Pray. Nazianzen having given an account how his Father prayed, in celebrating the Euchariſt, adds, foreign. Orat. 19. p. 305.
Anſwerably Ambroſe to Forentianus, Epiſt. 23. l. 4. Docet autem Spiritus Chriſti (ſicut & Chriſtus) or are diſcipulos ſuos; quis autem poſt Chriſtum doceret, niſi Spiritus ejus, quem ipſe miſit ut doceret & dirigeret orationes noſtras? Oramus enim Spiritu, oramus & mente, ut bene poſſit mens orare, praecedit Spiritus, & deducit eam in viam rectam, ne obrepant carnalia, ne minora ac etiam majora viribus. Novit enim bonus Medicus quae eſca cui apta ſit infirmitati, & cui tempori ad perfectum valetudinis; interdum opportunitas eſcae ſanitatem reddit, quod ſi importune aliquis accipiet, aut non convenienter implicatur periculo. Ergo quia nos neſcimus quid oremus, & quomodo oporteat, poſtulat pro nobis Spiritus Sanctus.
Their affections excited by the Spirit could help them to expreſſions without a Book, and did form their words in Prayer, as Auguſtine tells us, Quamlibet alia (quam oramus dominica) verba dicamus, quae affectus orantis, vel praecedendo format ut clareat, vel conſequendo attendit ut creſcat. Epiſt. 121. Probae, 721. c. 12. And if their affections were not always ſo active, their judgment and invention, (which with divine aſſiſtance) ſerved them ſo well on a ſudden with expreſſions in Preaching, might much more eaſily help them to words in Praying.
Let us ſhew this more particularly, in the ſeveral Prayers made in the celebration of the Euchariſt. It appears by the 18 Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that in the latter end of the fourth Century three ſorts of Prayers were uſed in that adminiſtration, foreign, after the diſmiſſion of Catechumens and Penitents, foreign; the firſt of theſe ſilently, foreign; the other two pronounced, foreign. Of which two, one muſt be the Prayer for all ſorts in general, and the Church in particular, called foreign, the general Prayer; for that ſuch a Prayer was then made, there is evidence enough in Authors both of Greek and Latin Churches of that Age; the other muſt be the bleſſing of the Elements, called the Prayer of Conſecration; for this was never omitted, ſo Optatus, Legitimum quod in Sacramentorum myſterio praeteriri non poteſt. l. 2. adverſ. Parmenianum.
Now for the firſt of theſe three, viz. That foreign, I find no mention of it elſewhere. Probably yCyril in Junius nor. ad Clem. ep. p. 31.it conſiſted only of ſome ſecret ejaculations, uſed by the faithful, while the offerings or the elements were preparing, to raiſe their Souls to a poſture fit for that moſt ſolemn and ſacred Ordinance. However, being a Mental Prayer, there was no place, and can be no pretence for preſcribing words and expreſſions for it. Chryſoſtom zforeign. Chryſ. in Eph. hom. 3. p. 778.directs to ſomething of this nature, Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. p. 399.
As to the ſecond, the general Prayer, that this was not made in a ſet and invariable form, appears by the Epiſtle of Epiphanius to John Biſhop of Jeruſalem, in Jeromes the 60. p. 466. There was ſome claſhing betwixt theſe two Biſhops; he of Cyprus being a great zealot againſt Origen; (as another John of Conſtantinople found by troubleſome experience). And he of Jeruſalem being an admirer of Origen, and under ſuſpicion to be tainted with his erroneous Opinions. John had heard, that Epiphanius ſhould intimate, in the Euchariſtical Prayers, that he by name was warped from the Faith; he complains of it; and that Epiſtle is Epiphanius's Anſwer and Apology, in reference to this and other particulars he was charged with. As to this, he admires, that any ſhould report, quod in oratione quando offerimus ſacrificia Deo, ſoleamus pro te dicere, Domine praeſta Johanni ut recte credat. This is the occaſion. And hereby it evidently appears, they uſed occaſional Petitions in this Prayer; for ſuch a Petition is that complained of; and the occaſion a ſuſpicion, that John was inclined to Origens errours. If ſuch liberty had never been uſed, to pray in this place as occaſion required, who would have been ſo impudent, as to raiſe ſuch a report; or ſo fooliſh as to affirm what none would believe, as being againſt the conſtant and unvariable cuſtom of thoſe that celebrated? Who can think, that the Biſhop of Jeruſalem would have brought ſuch a charge againſt Epiphanius, as would have appeared falſe to the World at firſt ſight, and might have been convicted of impudent ſlander, by the known unalterable uſage of Chriſtians? And why does not he, who deſigned to burthen his Adverſary as much as might be, charge him with tranſgreſſing the orders of the Church, to vent his particular ſpleen at a Chriſtian Biſhop? Is it not evident upon the whole, that there were no ſuch orders, confineing them to any unvariable form, in that adminiſtration; but that they might, and did, vary in their expreſſions, as there was occaſion.
This will yet further appear, by Epiphanius's anſwer. Noli nos in tantum putare Ruſticos, ut hoc tam aperte dicere poterimus, &c. He takes no notice, that what was objected, was inconſiſtent with the cuſtom and practice of that Church, and ſo groundleſly ſuggeſted. He appeales not to the known form, to which they were preciſely confined, refers him not to their Service Book for his ſatisfaction; which yet, if there had been any ſuch thing, a duller perſon then Epiphanius would have diſcovered, to have been the beſt way, to ſtop the mouth of his Accuſer. He denyes not, but they ordered their Prayers according to ſuch occaſions; but only tells him, they were not ſo ruſtical, as to do it ſo bluntly.
We have, in the Engliſh Service Book, a Prayer for the whole ſtate of Chriſts Church, pretended to be anſwerable to this Prayer we are upon; and indeed the only Prayer in the Book, that can pretend to any footſteps of Antiquity, ſo high as the fourth Age. Now ſuppoſe the Biſhop of L. ſhould be accuſed, in that prayer to prefer ſuch a petition for the Primate of Ireland, Domine praeſta I., ut recte credat; what courſe would the Biſhop take, to clear himſelf of this accuſation? Would not the dulleſt of his Chaplains appeal to the prayer it ſelf, being invariably uſed, as the beſt way to demonſtrate the charge was falſe; which yet the Biſhop of Cyprus, ſuppoſed to be juſt in the ſame circumſtances, did not offer at? Nay he denies not, &c. ut ſupra.
But let us proceed with his anſwer; quando autem complemus orationem ſecundum ritum myſteriorum, & pro omnibus, & pro te quoque dicimus, cuſtodi illum qui praedicat veritatem. Vel certe ita, tii praeſta Domine, & cuſtodi, ut ille verbum praedicet veritatis; ſicut occaſio Sermonis ſe tulerit, & habuerit oratio conſequentiam: He ſayes, they prayed for all Paſtors (all that preached) which ſhews it to be the general prayer, wherein they were wont foreign. Clem. Conſt. l. 2. c. 51. vid. Leſt 190) and for him alſo; but in what expreſſions they did it, he is doubtful. It is but one article of this prayer he gives an account of. It is the ſame thing (preaching the truth) and the ſame perſons, (thoſe that preached) he is telling us they prayed for. And they prayed but for the ſame perſons and things once in the ſame prayer; and yet he cannot tell determinately what words they uſed, as appears evidently, by his disjunction vel.
Now Epiphanius celebrated the Euchariſt himſelf thrice a week, as he thought by Apoſtolical order; ſo he tells us, expoſ. fidei, p. 110. foreign. Vid. Albaſ.
And if he had celebrated it in a ſet form, could he have been to ſeek for the words he uſed ſo often? ſince if either his Memory, or the Prayer-Book would have helped him; and one of them would have helpt him to the preciſe words, if they had then confined themſelves to any, and had had their Prayers either by heart or in a book; he would never have writ ſo doubtfully of them, when his buſineſs was to ſatisfie a captious Adverſary.
Would there be any need, for one who has the prayer for all ſtates by heart, or has the Service-Book before him, to expreſs by a diſtinction, what is there deſired for Biſhops, Paſtors and Curates? No more would Epiphanius, if the ſame mode of praying had been then in uſe.
To this prayer we may refer what we find of Jerom, who complains that in his time, the oblations aAs M. Th. obſerves, it is called an Oblation (viz. the Elements, or the Offerings out of which they were choſen) according to the ſtile of the moſt antient Church Writers; not as conſecrated, but as preſented and offered (whether by the people, as the cuſtom was to him that miniſtred, or by him that miniſtred to God) to be conſecrated. Serv, p. 379.were publickly mentioned by the Deacon, and the names of the offerers recited, yea and the quantity of what they offered, and alſo of what they promiſed to offer, in Ezek l. 6. c. 18. Publice in eccleſia Diaconus recitat Offerentium nomina, tantum offert ille, tantum ille pollicitus eſt. Which he ſharply cenſures, Placent ſibi ad plauſum Populi torquente eos Conſcientia; they delight in the applauſe of the people, whiles their Conſcience torments them. The like complaint he makes in Jer. c. 11. Nunc publice recitantur offerentium nomina, & Redemptio peccatorum recitatur in laudem. Now who can believe, that a practice, worthy of ſo ſharp a rebuke, was publickly preſcribed; or if it had been preſcribed for common uſe, would have been ſo ſeverely cenſured? And therefore, what can be thought, but that thoſe, who officiated, were left to their liberty, to uſe what expreſſions they thought fit? If there had been a rule or preſcription, limiting them to any thing better; he would have taken notice of it; and of this uſage, as a tranſgreſſion of the eſtabliſhed order.
Pertinent to which is this paſſage of Auguſtine; Auguſt. de Civit. l. 22. c. 8. Vir Tribunitius Heſperius qui apud nos eſt, habet in territorio Fuſſulenſi fùndum Zabedi appellatum, ubi cum (afflictione 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 un…, obtulit ibi ſacrificium corporis Chriſti, orans, quantum potuit, ut ceſſaret illa vexatio; Deo protinus miſerante ceſſavit. Bl. 286. Vid. in Aug. tom. 2. p. 686.
As alſo what Chryſoſtome ſaith, viz. foreign. Chryſ. in 1 Cor. hom. 41. p. 524. And elſewhere, foreign, and after, foreign. Chryſ. in Hebr. hom. 15. p. 515.
Thoſe who had liberty, when they were offering ſupplications and praiſes, in the celebration of the Euchariſt, to pray as occaſion was offered, and to put up ſuch Petitions as they thought fit, upon particular emergencies, were not confined to ſet forms in that adminiſtration.
Cyprians occaſional Praiſes and Prayers, in ſacrificiis, upon Lucius return from baniſhment; Hic quoque in ſacrificiis atque orationibus noſtris, non ceſſantes, Deo Patri, & Chriſto filio ejus Domino noſtro, gratias agere, & orare pariter & petere, ut qui Perfectus eſt atque proficiens, cuſtodiat & perſiciat in vobis confeſſionis veſtrae glorioſam Coronam, qui & ad hoc vos fortaſſe revocavit, ne gloria eſſet occulta, ſi foris eſſent confeſſionis veſtrae conſummata martyria. Cypr. epiſt. l. 3. ep. 1. p. 53.
Add to this, what may be obſerved in Ambroſe, Epiſt. 33. Ad Marcellinam ſororem. He, whiles he was celebrating, about 387. Spond. p. 2. (miſſam facere caepi) and imployed, as I ſuppoſe, in this Prayer *The ſtile of this Prayer, in divers Liturgies, runs in the terms we offer. Tho…d. 380.(dum offero) underſtanding what the Arrians were doing, and what had befallen Caſtulus; he orders the Prayer ſuitably to that occaſion; Orare in ipſa oblatione Deum caepi, ut ſubveniret. [Sequente die, erat autem dominica, post lectiones atque tractatum, dimiſſis catechumenis, ſymbolum aliquibus competentibus in Baptiſteriis tradebam baſilicis, illic nunciatum eſt mihi comperto, quod ad Portianam Baſilicam de palatio Decanos miſiſſent (Ariani) ut vela ſuſpenderent, Populi partem eo pergere. Ego tamen manſi in munere; miſſam facere cepi. Dum offero, raptum a Populo cognovi Caſtulum quendam, quem Presbyterum dicebant Ariani, orar… in ipſa oblatione Deum caepi, ut ſubveniret.]
He celebrating this Ordinance, and while he was praying before the diſtribution, dum offero, having notice what the Arrians were doing at another Church; he applyes himſelf in this Prayer to that particular occaſion; Orare in ipſa oblatione Deum caepi, ut ſubveniret; which one, that had been fettered with preſcribed Forms, could not have liberty to do.
Such occaſional Petitions, with Thankſgivings of like nature, were uſed by Cyprian, in ſacrificiis, in theſe adminiſtrations, as appears (Ep. 4. l. 2. Ad Moſem & Maximum, p. 41.) Nor can this be underſtood, of ſome general expreſſion conſtantly uſed, comprizing Lucius with others; for the occaſion was particular, and ſuch as was not incident every day. And beſides, as it had been a vanity, to tell him of that, which he knew before, being well acquainted with the ſuppoſed common form. So it had been ſomething worſe, to ſpeak of that as a particular reſpect to him, when it no more reſpected him, then others.
Proceed we to the third prayer, viz. that for Bleſſing or Sanctifying the Elements, (called the prayer for Conſecration) which conſiſted much of Thankſgiving; and from thence this Sacrament, as is thought, came to be called the Euchariſt. It is of this, that Juſtin Martyr gives an account, in the words alleadged by others, foreign; the Preſident, in like manner, as before, prays and gives thanks, according to his ability. This praying, according to his ability, or as he was able, plainly excludes all praying by Forms preſcribed, or compoſed for him by others, if he either had ability; (which none queſtion in the bforeign. Chryſoſt. in Eph. hom. 6. p. 792.Paſtors of thoſe times) to compoſe, or was able to conceive a prayer himſelf.
Many ſeveral ways are taken to evade this; no way of one, it ſeems, ſatisfying another amongſt themſelves; by which we may gueſs, what ſatisfaction they are like to give to others.
cAnonym. p. 18. Uſe of dayly publick Prayers.One tells us, it is a complement of Civility, as when we ſay, Ago gratias, non quas debeo, ſed quas poſſum; or quantas poſſum maximas. But, not well pleaſed with this (it ſeems) himſelf, (at which we need not wonder) he tells us (which will no more pleaſe others) of ſome, (Learned too) who underſtand it of giving God thanks, with as loud a voice, as he is able; foreign.
dLeſtr. Liturg. cap. 7. p. 218.Another brings an inſtance, where foreign is thought to be applyed to a Form; This is in Gregory Nazianzen, foreign, come let us, as we are able, ſing a Triumph, the Song which Iſrael ſometimes ſung, upon the overthrow of the Egyptians in the Red Sea. But here, by foreign, the Song which Iſrael ſung, we need no more underſtand the very ſame words of that Song, then Rev. 15. 3. We are to underſtand the ſame by the Song of Moſes. Which Song of Moſes, thoſe who had got the Victory over the Beaſt, are ſaid as expreſly to ſing, (foreign): And yet, that which they ſing, conſiſts quite of other words, as appears, ver. 3. 4. And therefore well might D. H. give us leave, (as he doth) to conceive, by the Song of Moſes, another Song after that pattern. And ſo we may warrantably, by the Song, which Iſrael ſung, in Nazianzen.
The Learned Remonſtrant ſayes, in anſwer to this, that in Juſtin Martyrs time, they prayed according to their ability, and yet had a publick Liturgy, as we have, though ours pray according to their ability: (meaning, I ſuppoſe, before and after Sermon.) And ſo he grants (if I underſtand him) that they uſed no publick Liturgy, in celebrating or conſecrating the Euchariſt; (for of the Prayer for ſanctifying the Elements the Holy Martyr ſpeaks it); and thereby yields all that we now alleadge it for, and in effect all that we deſire: Since it will be eaſie to ſatisfie the World, that, if they uſed no publick Liturgy, no preſcribed Forms of Prayer, in this part of Worſhip, they uſed none, in any. And foreign,Anonym. p. 16. in this very paſſage, rendered by themſelves in like manner as before; gives us notice, that as they prayed here, ſo in like manner they prayed in the other parts of Worſhip, which he had given account of immediately before, in Baptiſm, in the Lords Supper, in all foreign, according to their ability, without any publick, any preſcribed Liturgy.
Another, of great Learning, apprehending, it ſeems, that, to grant they prayed according to their ability, is to yield all; makes much difference betwixt foreign and foreign And to ſhew it, explains the Greek by Hebrew, and Juſtin Martyr by Maimonides. I ſuppoſe, it will ſatisfie others as well, to have an account of this phraſe, by the Greek Gloſſaries, or Juſtin Martyr himſelf. How much difference there is between them, Phavorinus ſhews, when he explains foreign by foreign. His words are foreign. So that, according to him, foreign is a defective phraſe, which, when it is repreſented intire, muſt be expreſſed by foreign. Let me add that, in foreign, likewiſe foreign is to be underſtood, when not expreſſed, and all our abilities (as to parts, though not to degrees) there included; for when any of our abilities, for a work we undertake, is not exerciſed, and ſo contributes not to it, we do it not foreign. Anſwerably, Chryſoſtome uſes foreign and foreign,page 206. ver. 20. as phraſes equivalent, in Gen. hom. 27. And elſewhere in theſe words, foreign. Tom. 6. p. 759. edit. Savil. What he had expreſſed by foreign, he explains by foreign. And ſo they differ, no more then the Latin phraſes, pro viribus, and pro facultate; by which Camerarius and Donnaeus render foreign, and quantum poſſum, or quantum in me est, by which others render foreign.
But Maimonides may make the difference evident: Let us ſee how. He tells us of one proceeding in diſcourſes, tending to the humiliation of the people, according to his ability, until he humble their hearts, and they return perfectly.
It is ſuppoſed, that if Juſtin Martyr had been to expreſs this, he would have uſed the phraſe foreign not foreign: (Rambams Preacher, making uſe of his own abilities and expreſſions in his Diſcourſes, which the former phraſe, it ſeems, may include, but not the latter). Well, but J. Martyr, in this very Apology, hath a paſſage juſt parallel to this; where heApol. 2. p. 157. ſpeaks of the diſcourſes the Chriſtians uſed, tending to the Converſion of the Heathen; and they proceeded therein foreign, not foreign. Therefore, both by the word and the figure of him that appeared, we exhorting you, as we are able, know we are unaccountable for the future, although you believe not. So Juſtin Martyrs foreign, is no other, then our Authors foreign; and the foreign in him prayed, juſt as he in Maimonides preached; uſing his own abilities, invention, expreſſions in praying, as the other did in preaching. And thus much our Author muſt yield, if he will ſtand to Juſtin Martyrs, or his own Diſcourſe.
And others in reaſon will be content, that the Eminent Martyr ſhall ſhew us his own meaning. The Chriſtians, in thoſe Diſcourſes (he mentions) whereby they endeavoured to bring the Heathen to the Faith of Chriſt, uſed their judgment, their invention, and certainly their own expreſſions. They imployed all their abilities in this work; and this was foreign; by which we may underſtand, if we will admit him to explain himſelf, what he means, by foreign. And how well, they repreſent his meaning, who will have him to intend hereby, neither leſs nor more, then earneſtneſs in praying.
Hereby I ſuppoſe it clear enough, notwithſtanding all endeavours to obſcure it; that the principal Prayer, in the moſt ſolemn part of publick Worſhip, in thoſe times, was no preſcribed Form. Nor was it any ſuch Form Two Hundred Years after, as appears by that of Baſil; who tells us plainly (in the latter end of the fourth Age) that no words of ſuch a Prayer were left in writing by any Holy Men. foreign. Thus rendered by Eraſmus; Invocationis verba, cum conficitur panis Euchariſtiae, & poculum benedictionis, quis Sanctorum in ſcripto nobis reliquit? Which of the Holy Men have left us in Writing the words of a prayer, at the Conſecration of the Euchariſtical Bread, and the Cup of Bleſſing eBiſhop Jewels Ap…logy, p. 60. Baſil beſought God, that he might celebrate with Prayers of his own making.? By this it is evident, they were ſo far from having any preſcribed Forms, in Conſecrating the Euchariſt, as they had not ſo much as the words of any ſuch Form in Writing, to his time, who lived, according to Petavius, till 379.
It will be eaſily granted, by the Zealots for preſcribed adminiſtrations, that there never was any Liturgy, wherein there was not a Form for Conſecration (ſince they think any part of a Liturgy may be more tolerably omitted then this; and thoſe that officiate had better be left at liberty any where, then here) and they will ſhew us ſuch a Form, in all Liturgies extant, Modern or Antient, or pretended to be Antient) therefore they cannot reaſonably deny, while there were no ſuch Forms in Writing, there were no ſuch Liturgies; and ſo none in Baſils time.
By this alſo we may diſcern, what ſentence ought to be paſſed upon thoſe Liturgies, which go under the names, of Peter, Mark, James, Clemens and Baſil himſelf too. In them, the myſteries are clearly deſcribed; which, he ſayes, the Ancients thought themſelves highly concerned to keep ſecret. And there we have (as a moſt neceſſary part of them) the Form of Conſecration in Writing; which, he ſayes, no Holy Man ever left in Writing.
In that, aſcribed to him, the forgery is more impudent. He having declared his high approbation of the Antients practice, in not committing any ſuch thing to Writing; and upon ſuch reaſons, as obliged himſelf, as much as any, not to run counter to them herein. He, with them, thought the foreign, the reverence due to theſe myſteries hereby ſecured; and another courſe the way to render them deſpicable, foreign; as is evident by his diſcourſe, in the place alleadged; foreign.
Their Prayers at the Euchariſt were long ordinarily, ſo in Juſtin Martyrs time, foreign Apol, 2. p. 162. Not like thoſe of the Monks in Egypt. Pauli 300 a day foreign forheads. Soz. 397. Moyti… 50. p. 396. So in Chryſoſtom, foreign. De Sacerd. orat. 3. p. 16. And elſewhere he ſays, it required a greater confidence then Moſes and Helias had, to pray in this miniſtration, foreign, p. 46. And why ſuch boldneſs was needful, if they had the Prayer in a Book before them, I apprehend not. However, thoſe that were uſually large in this Prayer, were ſometimes brief, when there was occaſion; and performed it, foreign; which is a clear evidence, they were not tyed to a ſet Form, but were left to uſe their diſcretion; and ordered their Pra…er over the Elements, ſo as to be briefer or more inlarged therein, according as they were diſpoſed, and as occaſion required.
Marcion imitated the Chriſtians herein, foreign, &c. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 9. in Epipha. l. 1. tom. 3. Hier. 34.
This Prayer, of old, conſiſted much of Thanksgiving. Chryſoſtom gives an account of ſome particulars, for which they gave thanks. And having mentioned as many, or more, then are to be found in any Euchariſtical Form, either in the Maſs Book, or our Service Book, adds, cum his & caeteris hujuſmodi gratiarum actionibus accedimus, in 1 ad Corinth. Homil. 24. implying, they were not confined to thoſe ſpecified, but inlarged themſelves in ſuch like particulars according to diſcretion. But I inſiſt not on this, the former evidence is ſufficient.
foreign, p. 396. After he had ſaid, foreign
Gregory Biſhop of Nazianzen, Father of Gregory called the Divine, having been much weakened by a Feaver, but very deſirous to partake of the Lords Supper; by the help of his Maid, he gets to Church, [Narrat Nazianzenus, Patrem ſuum Sacerdotem ardentiſſima & diuturna febri exhauſtum, ab ancilla aliquando Synaxis tempore deductum manu in coetum eccleſiaſticum, in quo pro more caenam, ſed pauciſſimis & quibus tum per morbum potuit, verbis conſecratam, aliis & diſtribuerit, & ex ea participarit ipſe quoque. Reverſum vero ad lectum, ciboque parumper ac ſomno refectum melius ſtatim habuiſſe, &c. Orat. in funere patris, cent. 4. p. 421.] and there foreign. foreign fNaz. orat. in laudem Patris Gregor. p. 305. Afterwards uttering the words of Thanksgiving, as was uſual, and Bleſſing the People.; lifting up his feeble hands in Prayer, he chearfully celebrates the myſteries, with and for the people, with very few words, ſuch as his weakneſs would admit; but (as ſeems to me) with a moſt vigorous ſoul; and afterwards, foreign, &c. And this he had from the Holy Ghoſt, perceived by him, but not diſcerned by thoſe that were preſent: Where, if foreign refer to foreign, which ſeems moſt congruous, he tells us thoſe few words, wherewith he celebrated, were ſuggeſted to him by the Holy Ghoſt; and ſo neither by a Book, nor by his Memory. But I need not inſiſt on that. By the former expreſſion it is evident, that he was briefer, and uſed fewer words in his Prayers, at this time, before the adminiſtration, then he was wont to do, when in Health. Now they that, in celebrating this Ordinance, and Bleſſing the Elements, do pray ſometimes longer, ſometimes ſhorter, as their ſtrength will ſerve them, are far from confinement to a certain number of words, which is the thraldom of preſcribed Forms.
For further evidence, that theſe, and other parts of the Euchariſtical adminiſtration, were not under the reſtraint of preſcribed orders, in the beginning of the fifth Age; let that be obſerved, which we meet with in the Epiſtle of Innocent the 1. to Decentius, written an. 416. to ſatisfie him (who was Biſhop of Eugubium) concerning many ſeverals, which were then, it ſeems, not determined, but under conſultation and inquiry; ſo c. 8. San… quia de hoc, ſicuti de caeteris conſulere voluit dilectio tua.
Particularly, it was inquired, what place in the Euchariſtical office ſhould be aſſigned to the oſculum pacis; whether ante, or poſt confecta myſteria, before or after the Conſecration of the Elements. Which Innocent ſatisfies, not by wondering that he took no notice of the preſcribed order, though (ſince he was a Biſhop in his Precinct, and calls Decentius Clergy Clericos noſtros, c. 8.) he might juſtly have wondered at it, if there had been any ſuch preſcript. But by reaſon, cap. 1. Pacis oſculum dandum eſt poſt confecta myſteria, ut conſtat populum ad omnia, quae in myſteriis aguntur, atque in eccleſia celebrantur, praebuiſſe conſenſum, ac finita eſſe pacis concludentis ſignaculo demonſtrantur.
It was alſo matter of conſultation and inquiry, whether the names of the Offerers ſhould be recited before or after Prayer, made over the oblation, cap. 2. Whereby it appears there was not then, ſo much as any common authorized direction for the order and method of their Euchariſtical adminiſtration; (much leſs any preſcribed Forms or Modes; for if they had not ſo much as a directory, how far were they from ſuch a Liturgy as is now contended for?) If Decentius had known any ſuch eſtabliſhed order, his enquiry had been needleſs, and ſo had Innocents determination been. He might have referred him to the preſcribed order, as our Prelates would have done in the like caſe; and ſaid to him, as he does to two other Biſhops, ep. 5. in Crab. 410. concerning the Canons of the Church, Eccleſiaſticorum Canonum norma nulli debet eſſe incognita Sacerdoti, quia neſciri haec a Pontifice ſatis eſt indecorum; maxime quia a Laicis religioſis viris & ſciatur, & cuſtodienda eſſe ducatur: Yea, and judged him unworthy to be a Prelate in his Province, who would make a queſtion of that, which the Wiſdom and Authority of the Church had already determined. But there is neither mention of, nor reference to any ſuch order, nor any reſentment of his calling it in queſtion. He tells him indeed, it was ſuperfluous; not becauſe it was already determined, but becauſe his own prudence might diſcern, what was moſt convenient to be done in the caſe; quod ſuperfluum ſit, & ipſe per tuam prudentiam recognoſcis.
In the concluſion, he hopes, that in theſe, and other ſuch like particulars, which, if determined, amount to no more then the directive part, or Rubrick of a Liturgy; Decentius may inſtruct, and give ſome order to others, which they may imitate, not ſtrictly conform to; Erit autem Domini potentia, id procurare, ut tuam eccleſiam, & Clericos noſtros, qui ſub tuo Pontiſicio divinis famulantur officiis, bene inſtituas, & aliis formam tribuas, quam debeant imitari.
Where it is obſervable; 1. At this time, there was no ſetled Form or Order in that Church. 2. The Order he hopes for, if it comprize all the particulars in the Epiſtle, comes to no more then a Direction or Rubrick. And 3. This deſigned for imitation, not for ſtrict Conformity.
And what liberty there was in thoſe times; and how far they were from uniformity, appears by the beginning of that Epiſtle. Si inſtituta Eccleſiaſtica, …t ſunt a beatis Apoſtolis tradita, integra vellent ſervare Domini Sacerdotes, nulla diverſitas, nulla varietas, in ipſis ordinibus & conſecrationibus haberetur. Sed dum unuſquiſque, non quod traditum eſt, ſed quod ſibi viſum fuerit, hoc aeſtimat eſſe tenendum; inde diverſa in diverſis locis vel eccleſiis aut teneri aut celebrari videntur; in Crab, tom. 1. p. 452. While every one judges, that is to be kept, not which is delivered, but which ſeems good to him; here are ſeen various tenets, and modes of Celebrating, in the ſeveral places or Churches. He ſpeaks as if there were as many ways of Celebrating, An. 416, (when this Epiſtle was writ,) as there were places or Churches; and this variety, in Ordinibus & Conſecrationibus, which are his words immediately before, and is (if I underſtand him) both in Ordering their Worſhip, and Conſecrating the Myſteries.
It ſeems, this pleaſed not Innocent; the character given him by Eraſmus makes that no wonder; Saevus potius, quam eruditus, & ad damnandum potius, quam docendum inſtructior; in Epiſt. 96. in 2 tom. Auguſt. Thoſe of leaſt worth, when they get power, are uſually moſt narrow ſpirited and imperious.
As for the traditum eſt, which he oppoſes; if he mean by it any Apoſtolical Tradition; he alleadges it with the ſame fidelity, as he mentions Antient Tradition for the Roman Supremacy, Epiſt. 91. to the African Fathers; and as his next Succeſſors, Zoſimus, Boniface, Caeleſtine, alleadged a Canon of Nice to a Council at Carthage, for the ſame purpoſe.
Object. You take notice of traditum eſt, which was ſomething that ought to have been obſerved, and would have left no ſuch liberty.
Anſwer. Whatever be meant by his traditum eſt; it was no authoritative general order, injoyning all to uſe the ſame words in Prayer; for if there had been any ſuch thing, it would not have been univerſally diſregarded.
If there had been any thing delivered, againſt ſuch freedom in Celebrating, by Antient or Modern Authors, worthy of obſervance; it would have been taken notice of, by ſome of thoſe who uſed this liberty, as well as by Innocent; who had many contemporaries not inferiour to himſelf: Elſe that Age was very unhappy; ſince nothing of eminency appeared in him, (nor in the Roman Biſhops generally of thoſe times) but his great place, if that impartial Critick miſtake him not, & dictionem, & ingenium, & eruditionem tali dignam Praeſule deſiderare cogimur.
Yet he, ambitious to have all dance after the Roman Pipe, though as yet it gave herein no certain ſound; (and indeed their ſtickling about this and the Supremacy, was to little purpoſe for one Age or two) makes that matter of complaint, which was far from being ſo with his betters, both then and in better times. (Vid. Cypr.) But however he reſented it; he hath left us evidence, that in his dayes, as elſewhere, ſo in Italy, every one held his own way, even in gQua in parte nemini verecundia & modeſtia noſtra praejudicat, quo minus unuſquiſque, quod voluerit, ſentiat, & quod ſenſerit, faciat.—Oſtendi quid nos, quantum in nobis eſt, ſentiamus: Nomini praeſcribentes, quo minus ſtatuat, quod putat unuſquiſque praepoſitus, actus ſui rationem Domino redditurus. Cypr. ad magn. ep. 7. l. 4. Haec tibi breviter—reſcripſimus, nemini praeſcribentes aut prejudicantes, quo minus unuſquiſque Epiſcoporum quod putaverit faciat, habens arbitrii ſui liberam facultatem, Ep. ad Jubalan. p. 227. Auguſtine, without expreſſing any offence, ſays the varieties were more then could be well known. August. retract. l. 2. c. 20. Libri duo, quorum eſt titulus, ad inquiſitiones Januarii, multa de Sacramentis continent diſputata, ſive quae univerſaliter, ſive quae particulariter, i. e. Non peraeque in omnibus locis ſervat Eccleſia, nec tamen commemorari omnia potuerant. Si inſtituta Eccleſiaſtica, ut ſunt a beatis Apoſtolis tradita integra vellent ſervare Domini Sacerdotes, nulla diverſitas, nulla varietas, in ipſis Ordinibus & Conſecrationibus haberetur. Vid. Praef. ad Conc. 233.Conſecrationibus, and Conſecrated as he thought fit. And in fine, there is reaſon to think, this Biſhop was not ſo much offended, becauſe they did not uſe the ſame words in Celebrating and Conſecrating; as becauſe they did not uſe the ſame Rites and Order; for in theſe, that Epiſtle of his is moſt concerned.
And further, I can ſee no probability, that at Rome it ſelf, there was any ſetled, (much leſs impoſed) Form of Conſecration, before hOrdo Romanus continet haud dubie ordinem a B. Gregorio inſtitutum: Nam ut Author est Joannes Diaconus, codicem Gelaſianum, quem de miſſatum ſolennibus compoſuerat Gregorius, multa ſubtrahens, pauca convertins, nonnulla adjiciens, in unius libri volumen redegit, qui ordo poſtea per univerſum fere occidentem obtinuit. Caſſand. Liturgic. Praefa. ad ord. Rom. p. 92. In neither of thoſe orders, which Caſſander gives us for the antient Roman order, the ſhorter or longer, are there any preſcribed Forms of Prayer; but only a bare relation of the order wherein they proceeded.that mentioned by Gregory, lib. 7. epiſt. For if any of the former Biſhops had left behind them any ſuch Prayer, and commended it to be uſed by that Church for this purpoſe; it is not credible, that it would have been recited for the novel compoſition of ſuch an obſcure perſon, of whom we can know nothing by knowing his name. Gregory tells us, that Prayer, (or Canon, as he alſo calls it) was made by Scholaſtious, who, as it is moſt probable, iBellarmin denies not, but it is probable, that Scholaſticus then lived, utraque probabilis, de miſſ. l. 2. c. 19. p. 819. Gregorii igitur aetate, circa An. 590. vixit conſarcinator ille Canonis. Chemnit. exam. par… 2. p. 358. Si vero Gregorius per Scholaſticum intelligat certum aliquem hominem, qui aetate ipſius vixerit, ut adverſarii contendant. Bellarm. de miſſ. l. 2. c. 19. p. 819. The benediction, it ſeems to be in Auguſtin, Epiſt. 59. p. Vid. pag. alteram. Vid. Thornd. ſerv. 384. 385.lived about his own time. Some Writers of the Popes Lives, and others, aſcribe indeed ſeveral parcels of that Canon to Biſhops before Gregories dayes; one to Alexander, another to Siricius, another to Leo, (nor find I more) but whether they knew better, at ſuch a diſtance, or ought to have more credit then Gregory, is eaſie to determine. And if thoſe parcels be examined, it will appear, they are nothing to the purpoſe, or elſe later then the ſixth Age. This form of Scholaſticus, Gregory having kOrationem autem dominicam idcirco mox poſt precem dicimus, quia mos Apoſtolorum fuit, ut ad ipſam ſolummodo orationem, oblationis hoſtiam conſecrarent. Et valde mihi inconviniens 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. epiſt. 63.altered it as he thought fit, and added the Lords Prayer to it; (which, though it were uſed no where publickly, but in the Euchariſtical Office, in any place; yet not in that it ſeems, at Rome, till he introduced it) made uſe of it in that Church; where, by cuſtom, it came to be ſetled, but not by rule, in his time at leaſt. For, that he neither impoſed it, nor had a mind to impoſe it, is apparent, by what he writes to our Auſtin; who, having mentioned the various lNovit Fraternitas tua Romanae Eccleſiae conſuetudinem, in qua ſe nutritum meminit; ſed mihi placet, ut ſive in Romana, ſive in Gallicarum, ſeu in qualibet Eccleſia, aliquid invenisti, quod plus omnipotenti Deo poſſit placere, ſolicite eligas—Non enim pro locis res, ſed pro bonis rebus loca amanda ſunt. Ex ſingulis ergo quibuſque eccleſiis, quae pia, que religioſa, quae recta ſunt, elige, &c. Beda eccle. hiſt. l. 1. c. 27. In diverſis eccleſiis diverſas protulit conſuetudines; nec Romanus ipſe ubique voluit imponendus. Spelm. Concil. p. 110.modes of Celebrating the Euchariſt in ſeveral Churches, particularly the Roman and the French; with a deſign to know his ſenſe thereof, and which he would have him follow.
That part aſcribed to Alexander by Platina and Durand, hath nothing of Prayer in it; being only a rehearſal of the words and actions, uſed in the inſtitution of this Sacrament; and ſo is impertinent.
That fathered upon Siricius, Communicantes &c. is not found in the Roman order; which Bellarmine ſayes contains the antient Canon intirely, de miſſ. l. 2. c. 20. p. 828. and ſo is a patch added ſome hundreds of years after Syricius; when Rome was ſo degenerated, as to prefer Mary before Chriſt.
That attributed to Leo, Hanc igitur oblationem ſervitutis noſtrae, &c. is a patch added long after, as M. Moulin of Maſs, p. 295. obſerves. Theſe words, of our Servitude, for we thy Servants, ſhew manifeſtly, that this Prayer was added unto the Maſs in a barbarous Age, wherein they did ſay, Placuit noſtrae mediocritati ſubtiliter intimare veſtram fraternitatem; of which phraſes are ſtuffed the Epiſtles of the Biſhops, and Clergy-men of the ſeventh Age, and others following.
Gregory, in his anſwer to Auſtin, (who was his Creature, and whom he might have led into any conformity with a beck,) is ſo far from injoyning him, to conform to what was uſed at Rome, that he does not ſo much as adviſe it; nay he perſwades him to a courſe inconſiſtent with any reſtraint; and will have him uſe his liberty, in making choice of what he ſaw beſt, in any of the differing Churches, and if he found any thing, which might be more pleaſing to God, plus omnipotenti Deo poſſit placere, then what was uſed at Rome, to prefer that. (Which was ſuitable to his Maxim, in una fide, nihil efficit ſanctae eccleſiae diverſa conſuetudo): Where there is one Faith, there's no hurt to the Church by diverſity (m) of uſages; intimating, that he was not ſo fully ſatisfied with the Roman mode; but that he had room to think, the way of another Church might be more pleaſing to God; which was in reaſon ſufficient, to reſtrain him from impoſing it on Auſtin, or others. And theforeign. Irenaeus to Victor, in Euſeb. l. 5. c. foreign: free courſe he would have Auſtin take, was not only his advice, but his practice: For when it was objected to him, that he followed, even in this adminiſtration, the cuſtoms of ſome other Churches, particularly of the Greek; his anſwer ſignifies, that he would not be ſo circumſcribed by the cuſtoms of Rome, but when he ſaw any thing nEpiſt. 41. ad Leandrum, lib. praiſed. Syn. Tolet. 4. Can. 5. Walafr. Strab. de reb. eccleſ. cap. 26. Non de Conſtantinopolitana Eccleſia, quod dicunt; quis eam dubitat ſedi Apoſtolicae eſſe ſubjectam? Tamen ſi quid boni, vel ipſa, vel altera Eccleſia habet, ego & minores me, quos ab illicitis prohibeo, in bono imitari paratus ſum. Stultus eſt enim, qui eo ſe primum exiſtimat, ut bona que videret diſcere contemnat. l. 67. ep. 63.good, in any other of the inferiour Churches, he was ready to imitate it.
And, as Gregory did not impoſe the Roman Canon, or form of Conſecration on Auſtin, nor would have him preſcribe it to others: So Auſtin, though rigid and imperious enough, did not offer to impoſe it on the Brittains. He requires of them, but conformity in three things only, as Beda relates that tranſaction, whereof this was none oDicebat autem eis, quod in multis quidem noſtrae conſuetudini, imo univerſalis eccleſiae contraria geritis; & tamen, ſi in tribus his mihi obtemperare vultis, ut paſcha ſuo tempore celebretis; ut miniſterium Baptizandi, quo deo renaſcimur, ſecundum morem Romanae Sanctae Eccleſiae compleatis: ut Genti Anglorum una nobiſcum praedicetis verbum Domini, caetera quae agitas, quamvis moribus noſtris contraria, aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus. Bed. hiſt. lib. 1. c. Another thus: e Britonum & Scotorum Epiſcopis, in Synodo in Wigornienſi Provincia, poſtulavit, ut deinceps non Aſiano ſed Romano more, praedicarent, baptizarent, & paſcha celebrarent. In Spel. Concil. p. 107. 108. Where, by Conformity in Baptiſm, probably he means (as in that about Eaſter) the time of Baptizing, for which the Roman Biſhops were great Zealots. Vid. Leo epiſt.. But, if he had inſiſted on this, he had found no more complyance herein, then in the other: For the Brittains and Scots, were not only pBritanni moribus Romanis inimici, non ſolum in miſſa, ſed etiam in tonſura. Gildas in Uſh. Relig. of Iriſh. p. 34.enemies to the Roman uſe in the Euchariſt in Gildas time; but were adverſe to, and unacquainted with any uniformity, as in Celebrating the Lords Supper, ſo in other parts of Worſhip; and had no preſcribed Liturgies for ſuch uniformity long after. Which is manifeſt, by what Biſhop Ʋſher, the moſt Learned of our Biſhops, affirms of the Iriſh, (who with the Scots,) as he tells us, (Epiſt. Dedic.) differed little or nothing from what was maintained by their Neighbours the Britains ut p. 98. It is ſure (ſays he) that in the ſucceeding Ages, no one general form of Divine Service, was retained; but divers rites and manners of Celebration, in divers parts of this Kingdom; until the Roman uſe was brought in at laſt, by Gillibertus, and Malachias, and Chriſtianus, who were the Popes Legates here, about five hundred years ago. Relig. of Iriſh, cap. 4. p. 31. So that the Iriſh for above eleven hundred years (and the Brittains and Scots, if not ſo long, yet long after Auſtin) retained ſuch liberty herein, as the Church antiently injoyed in all qFor the Eaſt, Vid. Socrat. hiſt. l. c. foreign. The Weſt. Innocentius epiſt. ad Decentium. Diverſa in diverſis locis celebrari videntur. South. Augustin. lib. de Baptiſm. contra Donat. c.quarters of the World. And when Gillibert, one of thoſe Roman Legates, rails at thoſe various rƲt diverſi & Schiſmatici illi ordines, q…ibus Hibernia pene tota deluſa est, ubi Catholico, & Romano cedant officio. Uſher ibid.modes of adminiſtring Worſhip as Schiſmatical, and ſuch wherewith all Ireland had been deluded: He does no more, then thoſe (whom a better proſpect of things, in later and clearer times, might have made wiſer) who are ready ſtill to brand that as Schiſm, which agrees not with their own novel conceits or orders, how correſpondent ſoever it be to the general uſages of the antient Churches. And whether of old, the Churches had any ſuch cuſtom, as to confine the adminiſtration of the Lords Supper to preſcribed Forms of Prayer; let thoſe, who are diſintereſſed, judge by the premiſes.
To proceed; The words in their delivery of the Elements were not of old preſcribed, nor uſed in any unvariable Form. We need not go ſo high, for proof of this, as the ſixth Age. Later and worſe times afford evidence enough to ſatisfie us. Only, in our way, the obſervation of truly noble Du Pleſſis, as to the former Ages, is true beyond contradiction, inter dandum vero verba hujus myſterii ſignificativa, foreign quaeque praeferebant, ita tamen, ut certis & ſtatis ſeſe non alligabant. De Miſſ. p. 145. And the vanity uſed herein, both by Greeks and Latins Churches, is worth our notice, as he tells us, Contra adverſariorum Superſtitionem, qui Sacramentorum, tum diſtributionem tum Conſecrationem, certis verbis adligare voluerunt; in reference to the Superſtition of the Papiſts, (which it were to be wiſhed they had kept to themſelves,) who would have both the conſecration and diſtribution of the Sacraments, confined to a ſet of words. p. 155.
Yet how Superſtitious ſoever they were, in uſing their Canon as a charm, ſo as a word, a ſyllable might not be changed; more liberty was left and uſed, as to the words in the diſtribution of the Euchariſt; even after Charles the Great had ſuffered himſelf to be abuſed, as the Popes Executioner, in forcing ſome uniformity according to the Romiſh orders, on ſome of his Subjects.
Agobardus, Arch-Biſhop of Lions (famous, as for his oppoſition to Images, ſo for his indeavours to reform the corrupt Service of thoſe times) could not well like that common Roman Form. The Body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, &c. ſince he was only for Scripture expreſſions in the publick offices; Cum praeter Scripturas admittere in ſacris officiis nihil vellet. Whether he was wiſely or piouſly diſliked for this; they, who have a due reverence for the Scripture, are more fit to be judges, then either Baronius or his Epitomator; ob nimiam ſuam ſcrupuloſitatem haud quam put avit conſecutus gloriam. Sp. ad an. 831. n. 2.
The words, which Adrian the 2d. uſed in giving the Communion to Lotharius, were far from any preſcribed Form. Poſt miſſarum ſolennia, ſanctam ei Communionem porrigens, in haec verba illum allocutus eſt. Sp. ad an. 868. n. 4. Si innoxium te recognoſcis a prohibito & interdicto tibi a Nicolao adulterii ſcelere; & hoc ſixa mente ſtatutum habes, ut nunquam diebus vitae tuae Waldradae pellicis tuae dudum a te repudiatae miſcearis nefario concubitu; fiducialiter accede, & Sacramentum ſalutis aeternae tibi ad remiſſionem peccatorum per futurum percipe: ſin autem tua conſcientia te accuſat, teque lethali vulnere ſauciatum proclamat, aut iterum redire mente diſponis in maechtae volutabrum, nequaquam ſumere praeſumas, ne forte ad judicium & condemnationem tibi adveniat, quod fidelibus ad remedium praeparavit divina providentia. In Regino & Aimonius. l. 5. c. 21.
The words, with which, the ſame Adrian delivered the Sacrament to the reſt of the French, are neither the ſame with theſe now deſcribed, nor with thoſe in the Miſſal (the words in that being but the tale of theſe) and the form changed (too as well as the matter) being expreſſed hypothetically. Si Domino & Regi tuo Lothario in objecto adulterii crimine favorem non praeſtitiſti, neque conſenſum tribuisti, & Waldradae aliiſve ab hac ſede Apoſtolica Excommunicatis non Communicaſti; Corpus & Sanguis Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti proſit tibi in vitam aeternam. Id. ibid.
Long after this, Leuthericus Archiepiſcopus Senonenſis, in the delivery of the Sacrament, uſed theſe words; Accipe, ſi dignus es. Robert King of France checkt him for it, not becauſe thereby he tranſgreſſed any eſtabliſhed order; but becauſe the King, (not well enough acquainted with the Apoſtles diſcourſe, 1 Cor.) ſuppoſed there were none worthy to receive; cum tamen ſit nullus qui habeatur dignus; whereas Leuthericus his mode of diſtribution implyed, none that were not worthy ſhould receive. As for Spondanus his inference, that this Biſhop was no friend to Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe he delivered not the Euchariſt in the words of the Miſſal, Corpus Domini Jeſu Chriſti ſit tibi ſalus animae & corporis, the Body of our Lord Jeſus, &c. upon a ſuppoſition, it ſeems, that the Monſter they are in love with, is thereby countenanced. Whether it is juſt or no, I leave thoſe to conſider, whom it concerns. Spond. ad an. 1004. n. 2.
To add no more, ſure the words, wherewith Gregory the ſeventh took the Sacrament himſelf, and would have delivered it to the Emperour, cannot be found in any Maſs-Book. They are thus repreſented by Spond. ad ann. 1077. n. 2. out of Lambertus, cumque Sacratiſſimam Euchariſtiam ſumpturus, manu eam teneret, vocato Rege ac univerſa adſtantium multitudine, conteſtatum eſſe, eam ſe ſumere in judicium criminum, quae Schiſmatici adverſus ipſum promulgaſſent; ut ſi innocens eſſet, abſolveretur ab omni ſuſpicione; ſi vero reus, ſubitanea periret morte.
Or thoſe of Paſchal 2. who, cum in celebratione miſſae traderet Henrico Imperatori 5. Corpus & Sanguinem Domini noſtri Jeſu Chriſti: Domine Imperator, inquit, hoc corpus Domini naetum ex Maria Virgine, paſſum in cruce pro nobis, ſicut Sancta & Apoſtolica tradit eccleſia, damus tibi; in confirmationem pacis, inter me & te, idque factum an. 1111. idibus Aprilis, teſte Sigeberto. Cent. 12. c. 6. p. 886.
For Baptiſm, there is not any, the leaſt reaſon to imagine, they were more confined to ſet Forms, in adminiſtring it, then the Euchariſt. And therefore, where ſo little need to endeavour for a copious proof, we may be briefer.
The liberty the Antients took, to uſe ſeveral Forms in Baptiſm, with great variety, to the invariable uſe of which, thoſe, that are for freedom in Praying, are willingly confined; ſignifies they uſed as much liberty in thoſe Prayers.
I can find no more uniformity, in their Celebrating this Sacrament, then the other. But enough may be eaſily found, to ſhew, that they were not, they would not be, tyed up to words and ſyllables. Even where varying might ſeem dangerous; they uſed variety of words, and thought an agreement in ſenſe ſufficient. And this is obſervable, as to the terms, wherein Chriſt delivered the Form of Baptizing, Matth. 28. Where ſure, if any where, they would have been patient of confinement to all punctilios. This was accounted a Form preſcribed by Divine Authority, Lex namque tingendi impoſita eſt, & forma praeſcripta eſt. Ite, docete Nationes, tingentes eas in nomen Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, ſayes Tertullian, de Baptiſm. cap. 13. It was not thought, that any had ſo much authority to preſcribe, as Chriſt; nor that any preſcriptions were ſo punctually to be obſerved. And yet, even in this, they made account, ſome liberty was left, and might be uſed; and uſed it was accordingly, as is manifeſt in their practice.
The firſt word, Baptizing, ſome uſed in the firſt perſon, ego Baptizo te, I Baptize thee; ſome in the ſecond perſon, foreign, be thou Baptized; ſome in the third perſon, foreign, this Perſon, or this Servant of Chriſt is Baptized. Vid. Theod. lect. p. 167. Alſo they thought it as fit, to uſe in the Latin Churches tingo (a Native of the Latins) as Baptizo (an adopted word) So Cyprian, ep. 3. l. 4. Ite ergo, & docete Gentes omnes, tingentes eas in nomine Patris, &c. & Epiſt. 3. l. 2. Yet ſometimes Baptizo, ep. ad Jobaian, p. So Tertullian sEt poſt Reſurrectionem ſpondens, miſſurum ſe diſcipulis promiſſionem Patris, & noviſſime mandans, ut tinger…nt in Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum Sanctum, non in unum, non nec ſemel, ſed ter ad ſingula nomina in perſonas ſingulas tingimur. Tertull. adv. Prax. cap. 26. Neque quicquam refert inter eos, quos Johannes in Jordane, & Petrus in Tiberi tinxit. De baptiſ. cap. 1. & cap. 19. Diem baptiſmi ſolenniorem Paſcha praeſtat, cum & paſſio Domini, in quo tingimur, adimpleta eſt., in the place fore quoted, de Bapt. c. 13. and ad Praxeum, cap. 26. Noviſſime mandavit, ut tingerent in Patrem, &c. So Jerom and Auguſtine tIn hoc ergo fonte, antequam vos toto corpore ting…remus, interrogavimus, credis in Deum. Auguſt. hom. ad Neophyt. in Vicec. p. 608.render the words of Chriſt by tingentes. Voſſ. So they uſe mergo, or mergito for baptizo. Thus Hierom uMulta, quae per traditionem, in eccleſia obſervantur, autoritatem ſibi ſcriptae legis uſurpaverant, velut, in lavacro ter mergitare. Hieronym. adv. Luciferian.adverſ. Luciferian. Velut in lavacro, ter caput mergitare; where the Greeks expreſs by foreign. Baſil de Sp. Sancto, c. 27. And Tertullian, wDehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid reſpondentes, quam Domlnus in Evangelio determinavit. Tertull. de cor. mil. c. 3. Myſterium Trinitatis in Sacramento Baptiſmatis demonſtratur, dum tertia vice vetus homo mergitur. Auguſt. de temp. ſerm. 201. Quando in ſalutari lavacro tertio Chriſtiani merguntur. Hom. 91. de temp. Mira Dei pietas, peccator mergitur undis. Paulin. epigr. ep. 12. ad Severum. As great a change, as if any, amongſt us now, adminiſtring Baptiſm, inſtead of I baptize thee, ſhould ſay, I dip, or, I waſh thee, in the name, &c.dehinc ter mergitamur, foreign xforeign. Can. Apoſt. 50., Dionyſ. Eccleſ. Hier. c. 11. in Voſſ. They did not think, it ſeems, that Chriſt himſelf (whatever others take upon them) would tye them ſo preciſely to his own words, but that they might have leave to change them for others, which changed not the ſenſe.
The like liberty was taken, in changing the next phraſe, foreign into foreign, as 'tis in Juſtin Martyr, Apol. 2. p. 159, 160.
And the Latins, for in nomen (as it is in Tertull. de Baptiſ. c. 13.) in nomine, as in Cyprian, ſupra. A difference, which ſome count more then ſyllabical. Yet Tertullian varies more, when he leaves it (the name) quite out; which he does more then once: Noviſſime mandavit, ut tingerent in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, adv. Praxeum, cap. 26. Ite ad docendas & tingendas nationes in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, de praeſcrip. c. 8. They thought it no variation of the rule, where the ſenſe and deſign of it was obſerved, to change ſomething of the expreſſion. And would they preſume to exact a more punctual conformity to rules of their own making, then what they thought Chriſt required to his? Or would they pay more to any Humane Conſtitution, then they made account was due to the Divine? Their practice obliged them, to leave others as much, or more liberty then here they took; and neither to fetter others, nor be fettered by them, with words and ſyllables, when the great Law-giver had left them ſo free.Vicec. de bapt. p. 395.Zuingl. de bapt. tom. 2. p. 201.Piſcat. in Matth. 28.
But proceed we to what may ſeem yet more conſiderable. Some thought themſelves, not obliged to Baptize expreſly in the Name of the ſacred Trinity, foreign, ſo as to name every Perſon as they are mentioned, Matt. 28. 19. but in the Name of Chriſt, or of the Lord Jeſus, or of the Lord.
And this, ſuppoſed to be the Practice of the beſt times, hath great Advocates; Baſil, l. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 16. defends it thus, foreign, the naming of Chriſt is an acknowledgment of the whole Trinity: foreign, p. 257. which are almoſt the words of Irenaeus before him, Adv. Haereſ. 1. 3. c. 20. p. 209. In Chriſti enim nomine ſubauditur, qui unxit, & ipſe qui unctus eſt, & ipſa unctio in qua unctus eſt, & unxit quidem Pater, unctus eſt vero Filius, in Spiritu qui eſt unctio. For in the Name of Chriſt is underſtood, he that anoints, and he that is anointed, and the Unction with which he is anointed. And the Father indeed anoints, but the Son was anointed with the Spirit, who is the Unction.
Add to theſe, Theophylact, who affirms, foreign, in Act. 2. That he, who is Baptized into the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, is Baptized into the Trinity; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghoſt being not parted. To the ſame purpoſe Ambroſe alſo following Baſil in the defence of it, Qui unum dixit, Trinitatem ſignavit. Si Chriſtum dicas, & Deum Patrem, à quo unctus eſt Filius, & ipſum, qui unctus eſt, Filium, & Spiritum, quo unctus eſt, deſignaſti.—ſi tamen id etiam corde comprehendas, &c. de Spiritu Sanct. l. 1. c. 3. If the Perſon was Named, ſo as the reſt were underſtood, they thought the preſcribed form ſufficiently obſerved, tho' it was not verbatim repeated, but liberty taken, to change either the Words, or their order; ſo theſe great Perſons following. And can we think they would take upon them to preſcribe more imperiouſly, or would more punctually obſerve it, if others had impoſed? So theſe excellent Perſons judged, in reference to the form of Baptizing, which our great Lord delivered to us: And can we think, &c.—eſpecially in Prayers, where varying is more tolerable, and the Preſcribers of no Authority, in compariſon of him who authorized the Form before us.
Some uſed it in Cyprian's time, Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt—modo in nomine Jeſu Chriſti, ubicunque & quomodocunque Gentilem Baptizatum, remiſſionem peccatorum conſequi poſſe, p. 225. Ep. 73. ad Jubaianum. He allows it not indeed, but it ſeems thoſe that were not of his opinion, for Rebaptizing of the Baptized by Hereticks, ſome of them differed from him in this; and before, p. 224. Non eſt autem quod aliquis ad circumveniendam Chriſtianam veritatem Chriſti nomen opponat, ut dicat, In nomine Jeſu Chriſti, ubicunque & quomodocunque Baptizati, gratiam Baptiſmi ſunt conſecuti, &c. Fortaſſe Stephanus Romae Epiſcopus.
Others, tho' they expreſſed the three Perſons in adminiſtring Baptiſm, yet did they not tie themſelves preciſely herein to the aThoſe that will have the three Perſons to have been always named, deny not, but that their Names were uſed with ſome variation; vid. Vicec. de Baptiſ. rit. l. 4. c. 5. Non negaverim tamen, probabile videri, Chriſti, aut Jeſu, aut Jeſu Chriſti nomen aliquandiu appoſitum fuiſſe, addito item Domini noſtri, ſed non omiſſo Patris & Spiritus Sancti nomine, hac forma, Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, & Filii ejus Jeſu Chriſti Domini noſtri, & Spiritus Sancti. Cyprian, tho' for the other, rejects not this, opening Act. 2. Jeſu Chriſti mentionem facit Petrus, non quaſi Pater omitteretur, ſed ut Patri quoque Filius adjungeretur, &c. Epiſt. ad Jubaian.words of Chriſt, but inlarged upon them, adding ſomething thereto, as the former detracted. This is evident in Juſtin Martyr, who thus repreſents the words they uſed in Baptizing, Apol. 2. p. 159. foreign, In the Name of the Father of all things, and of our Lord God, and of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, and of the Holy Spirit, this waſhing with Water is performed; and afterwards, with ſome variety in the latter clauſes thus, p. 160. foreign, bforeign, Iren. l. 1. c. 1. p. 34. So Baſil, foreign, de Spir. Sanct. c. 27. p. 274. Facilius inveniuntur Haeretici, qui non baptizant, quam qui ſymboli verbis non baptizant, Auguſt. contr. Don. l. 6. c. 25.And in the Name of Jeſus Chriſt, who was Crucified by Pontius Pilate, and in the Name of the Holy Ghoſt, who by the Prophets foretold all things concerning Jeſus, he that is to be illuminated is Baptized. In which words are contained the regula fidei, the ſum of the Confeſſion of Faith, as he expreſſed it. And if they uſed the words of that rule in Baptizing, they tied not themſelves to one Form of words in that adminiſtration. For a Conſeſſion of Faith, in a common unvariable Form they had not in that Age, nor long after. All the Uniformity to be found herein, is a harmony incCur enim veteres, non apellatione profeſſionis variare potuerint, quando profeſſionis & regulae ipſius ſententiis, earumque ordine & verbis, tantopere diſcreparent? Voſſ. de 3. Symb. diſſ. 1. §. 20. p. 17. Horum locorum collatio docere nos poteſt, cum veteres regulam fidei aut baptiſmi immutabilem dicunt, non ad certam & receptam ubique verborum formulam eos reſpicere, ſed ad vim atque ſententiam interrogationum. Grot. in Matth. 28. 19. Quae, ipſa Cypriani verba oſtendere mihi videntur, ſymbolum ſive regulam fidei, ipſius aetate, nondum adſtrictam fuiſſe illis verbis, quibus poſtea ſcripta invenitur; cum tamen eandem fuiſſe regulae ſententiam, minime ſit dubitandum, Id. ibid. In Tertullian, lib. de praeſcript. cap. 13. lib. 2. contra Prax. & lib. de Veland. Virg. Vid. Two different Forms in Irenaeo, l. 3. c. 4. p. 172. and l. 1. cap. 2. p. 34, 35. edit. Galluſq.