Roman Forms afterward and therefore his pretended liberty of Praying Extempore in public or changing the public Forms at pleasure hath no Foundation among the French of those Ages and is grounded only upon false and wrested Quotations for in fact and reality there was no such liberty in the Gallican Church since the second famous Conversion of that People no nor before as far as we can find by those few Memoirs we have of those obscure Times Ecclesia Germonica ab An. Dom. 600. § 6. My Adversary is as much mistaken in the Proofs which he brings for his Imaginary liberty in Germany For he saith Long after Boniface had been stickling to reduce it to the Roman Vniformity the whole Country was so far from submitting to any one prescribed Order of Service that in one Diocess there were various Modes of Administring Which he proves by a Decretal and by a Passage in the Life of Bruno Archbishop of Colen in the Midst of the Tenth Age who was then to correct the diversity of Divine-Service in his Province (c) Disc of Lit. â—ag 13â— To shew the weakness and mistakes of which Argument and Instances let us Note That Germany as well as other of its Neighbouring Countries was early Converted to the Christian Faith for Irenaeus mentions the Churches founded in Germany which believed as other Orthodox Churches did (d) Iren. adv haer lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 53. And in a Council held at Colen An. 347. Six of the German Bishops were present (e) Bin. Tom. I. par 1. pag. 460. And from their nearness to and Correspondence with the French we may conclude they used the same Method in Divine-Service which was used there But when the Northern Nations broke into these parts of Europe many of the Germans relapsed to Paganism yet not so generally but that some of them were still Christians and retained one Form of Divine-Service using it in their Mother-Tongue Now Boniface was sent thither in the Year 722 and though his Pretence was to convert Pagans yet his main business was to bring those who were already Christians to submit to the Roman Service in the Latin Tongue in this he was stoutly opposed by divers Bishops of Germany who would not part with their old way of Serving God but by the help of the Popes and the French Kings he was so successful in his Attempts That as his great Author saith he induced the People of Franconia Hessia Bavaria Saxony Frisia c. to receive the Roman Order oppressing such as did oppose him by Force But after this an holy Man named Methodius turned the Scripture into the Sclavonian Tongue and re-established the Ancient Service in all the Churches of this Language attempting also to do the same in Bavaria Austria Suevia c. Abolishing the Latin Mass and the Ceremonies of Rome (f) Mornay of the Mass Book I. chap. 8. pag. 65. Or as the Centuriators relate it (g) Magdeb. Cent. 9. cap. 10. pag. 491. He began to persuade some That casting away the Latin Tongue they should celebrate Divine Service in the Vulgar Tongue for the edification of the Church and return to their former Vsage which they had before the Time of Charles the Great From which Relation and from the good Agreement between the Old Gallican and German Churches we may see there were Forms of Prayer before Boniface came into Germany and Methodius restored the use of those Forms and rejected the Roman Liturgy So that here were Forms used by all and no Side desired or expected any liberty from them None pleaded for Extempore Prayer the change being no more than exchanging one Liturgy for another And in this Boniface did prevail and Methodius did not prevail much in Germany being soon after banished from thence into Moravia where he died But my Adversary cites the Canon Law to prove there were afterwards various Modes of Administring in one Diocess Now this Decretal is generally ascribed to Pope Celestine the Third who died An. 1198. above 450 Years after Boniface and B. Bilson thinks it was made by Innocent the Third in his Lateran Council An. 1215. near 500 Years after The Words are these Because in many Parts there are in the same City and Diocesses mixt People of divers Languages having but one Faith and yet divers Rites and Manners We strictly Charge the Bishops of such Places to provide fit Men who according to the diversity of Rites and Tongues may celebrate Divine Offices and minister the Sacraments of the Church unto them (h) Decret lib. 1. Tit. 3 1. de Offic. Jud. cap. 14. mihi pag. 452. Now this Decretal only provides for such Cities wherein there were Merchants from all Nations of Christendom some of which suppose might be Greeks others Armenians others Sclavonians others Spaniards all which had different Forms of Liturgy and some of them in different Languages Now in this case they were to be allowed so many several Priests of their own to Officiate by their own Liturgy But this no more proves that Priests who Officiate to their own Nation then had a liberty to vary or that there were various Offices for People of the same Country than the allowing of French Dutch or Greek Churches to serve God after their several ways in London proves That the Clergy of London are not enjoyned to Read one Liturgy or that the Church of England hath divers Forms of Common-Prayer This Fallacy is so gross that to be imposed on by it would shew as little Judgment as the pressing it expresses of Modesty in him who would put such Shams upon this Age. His second Instance is about Bruno Bishop of Colen who as he cites the Relation not out of Rotgerus but out of the Centuriators Correcting the diversity of celebrating Divine Offices in his Province appointed there that the same Order should be every where observed (i) Diversitatem sacra peragendi in totâ sua Provinciâ corrigens ac ut eadem ubique esset ratio constituens Mag. Cent. x. pag. 608. But first he fraudulently leaves out the Word Totâ which signifies this Diversity was not in any one Diocess but in the Archbishop of Colens whole Province to whom all Germania Secunda of old was subject (k) Heylin Cosm lib. 2. pag. 47. And even at this day Miraeus doth reckon up five Diocesses beside that of Colen all under this great Metropolitan (l) Mirai notitiae Episcopat pag. 300. So that whereas in these several Diocesses there were some differences in the Divine-Service This famous Bishop reduced them all according to the Old Canons to that one Order which was used at Colen Now this makes nothing for that liberty of private Clergy-men to vary the Offices as they please which my Adversary pleads for especially if what Du-Plessis say of this Matter be true That Bruno then reformed the Order of the Mass in his Diocess he should say Province according to that
of Rome (m) Mornay of the Mass Book I. chap. 9. pag. 74. For then it follows That the ancient German Offices were still used in some Parts that were subject to the Archbishop of Colen So that still this is exchanging one Form for another and no proof at all of liberty in Praying a thing unknown in this Age. Agobardus Episc Lugdun An. 831. § 7. We have little more in this Discourse against Liturgies out of Antiquity excepting only some few pretended proofs from late Ages to shew that they used various words in the distribution of the Eucharist As First he tells us that Agobardus the Famous Arch-Bishop of Lions 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 public Offices And then he intimates that Agobardus was censured for this by Baronius and his Epitomator (n) Disc of Lit. pag. 90. 91. To which I reply First That Baronius never censures this great Bishop at all for this passage is not in Baronius but only in Spondanus the Epitomator and from him alone my Adversary cites it (o) Vid. Baron Tom. 9. An. 831. p. 797. 798. Secondly Spondanus speaks not one word of Agobardus his correcting the Communion-Office but only that he took great pains in restoring the ancient Antiphonary or Book of Hymns (p) Spondan Epitom An. 831. Num. 2. And Baluzius hath now put out the very Tract which Spondanus refers to and there is not one Syllable in all that Book expressing any dislike at the Words used in the distribution (q) Agobardi lib. de divin Psalmod lib. de correct Antiph oper Tom. 2. edit Paris 1666. Yea there is a peculiar discourse of this Bishop against Amalarius his Comment on the Mass wherein he speaks of the Roman Canon Te igitur c. yet never makes the least exception against the Roman Order or any thing contained in it (r) Ibid. lib. contr Amal. pag. 101. So that this pretended dislike of the Roman Form of distribution is a meer Fiction of his own Brain And if it were true that Agobardus did not like any thing in Sacred Offices but what was Scripture Yet there is no cause he should for that cause dislike this which he calls the Roman but was the Primitive and is now our Protestant Form since the words are taken out of and grounded on express places of Holy Scripture The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is a Scripture Expresion (s) Math. xxvi 26. Luk. xxii 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. and the next words Preserve thy Body and Soul to Eternal Life are grounded on Scripture Promises (t) John vi ver 50.51.53.54 58. so that if Agobardus were never so scrupulous he might very well like and use this Form But because my Adversary deals only in Epitomes I will now give a full Account of this matter We must observe therefore that Leidradus the Predecessor of Agobardus in the year 799. according to the desire of Charles the Great had brought in the Roman Order of Singing into the Church of Lyons and had put out an Antiphonary with an Epistle before it the Hymns whereof were generally taken out of the Holy Scripture (u) Leidradi Ep. ad Carol. Mag. inter oper Agob Tom. 2. p. 127. But about 30 years after Amalarius a busy Monk pretends to bring a new Antiphonary from Rome Corrected after the Roman Office in the time of Gregory the Fourth which he presented to Lewis the Godly and hoped by his Authority to impose it on all the Gallican Church But Agobardus the Primate of France rejects this new Antiphonary and writ a Book to prove there were Heresies Blasphemies and Nonsense in these Hymns of Amalarius and keeps to the old Roman Antiphonary established by his Predecessor the Hymns of which were for the most part taken out of the Psalms and other parts of Holy Scripture commending this to his Clergy and giving them his Reasons why he would not admit of the other And this Book of Agobardus concludes with these words As the Church hath a Book of Mysteries for Celebrating the Solemnity of the Mass digested Orthodoxly and with convenient Brevity and hath a Book of Lessons collected Judiciously out of the Divine Books so they ought to have this Third Book the Antiphonary purged from all Human Figments and Lies sufficiently ordered out of the pure words of Scripture through the whole Circle of the year That so in performing sacred Offices according to the most approved Rule of Faith and the Authority of ancient discipline there may be kept among us one and the same Form of Prayer of Lessons and of Ecclesiastical Songs (w) Agobard de correct Antiphon §. 19. Tom. ii p. 100. This is the whole Story and the passage which Spondanus ignorantly or at least rashly Censures and my Adversary Ridiculously brings in to shew Agobardus his dislike of the words of distribution Whereas these words refer only to the Hymns which yet probably were not all the very words of Scripture but were either Transcribed thence or agreeable thereto much more than the new Hymns of Amalarius And since Agobardus received and used the Roman Canon and the whole Roman Missal wherein were many things which are not the words of Scripture we must not expound these words cited but now so strictly as Spondanus doth as if he would not use any words in Divine Offices but those of Scripture For Agobardus means no more than that the Hymns ought to be either taken out of Scripture or agreeable to the Doctrine thereof for he proves that the Hymns of Amalarius were Heretical and Blasphemous contrary in many things to the Holy Scripture and therefore he rejected them But as to any Liberty in varying the Prayers Lessons or Hymns that were established or altering the Roman Forms This great Bishop was so far from it that he enjoyns the old Gregorian Office and imposes that prescribed Form together with the Lessons and the Hymns and opposes those Innovations and Alterations which some attempted to make because the Forms and Order then established were agreeable both to the Rule of Faith and to the acient Ecclesiastical Laws upon which occasion he produceth that African Canon before cited (x) Part. i. Cent. 4. §. 24. pag. 257. in these Words viz. That no Supplications and Prayers be said unless they have been approved in a Council nor shall any of these at all be Sung in the Church till they have been considered by the Prudent and approved of in a Synod lest any thing against the Faith be composed either my mistake or by design (y) Canon Afric ap Agob de correct Antiph §. ii p. 92. And now the Reader shall judge whether this Author be for my Adversaries purpose or no since he imposes Books of prescribed Prayers Lessons and Hymns and thinks the keeping strictly to them is
Singular Number the Holy Bible to make his Reader suppose it was meant alone of that Book But the Original speaks of more Books and therefore since a Liturgy was then in use at Alexandria no doubt that was one of the Holy Books which they here falsly accused Macarius for Burning And since the Author calls them Holy not Divine Books it is more probable he meant it of the Books of Offices which were counted only Sacred than of the Scripture which they generally call Divine or Divinely inspired Books Which distinction is very evident in Eusebius where he relates how in the Persecution under Dioclesian They Burnt the Divine and Sacred Books in the Mâ—rket places (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 217. In which place the Divine Books are the Holy Scriptures and the Sacred Books those which contained the Service of the Church The same Author in the Life of Constantine makes a plain distinction between these Books as being several Volums For he saith the Emperor took the Books for the explaining the Divinly inspired Scriptures and after for repeating the prescribed Prayers with those who dwelt in his Roy. al Palace (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb vit Const lib. 4. cap. 17. First he took the Bible into his Hands and then after that it seems he took the other Book wherein the usual Established Prayers were written For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Books implies more Books than one Secondly As to the Books which Constantine sent to Eusebius into Palaestine to procure for his Churches at Constantinople he calls them Those Divine Books which he knew most necessary according to the Ecclesiastical Catalogue to be prepared and used (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 4. cap. 35. And this might be expounded of Books of Offices as well as Bibles but suppose we grant this Catalogue here mentioned to be the Canon of Scripture agreed on by the Church and so the Books he sent for were only the Canonical Books of Scripture His inference that the Churches in Constantine's Time had no other Book will by no means follow Eusebius lived in Palaestine where the Scriptures were first written and best understood and there the best Copies were to be had and Eusebius who lived there was the fittest Judge of them therefore Constantine sent thither and to him perhaps for no more but Bibles Not because Churches were furnished then with no other Books but because we know Constantine had Prayer-Books at home and could get acurate Copies of the Service writ out at Constantinople and need not send so far as Palaestine for those Books but it was most proper to send thither for Copies of Canonical Scripture Thirdly The Council of Carthage also doth mention a Book of the Gospels held over the Bishops Head a Book of Exorcisms to be given to the Exorcist and a Book of Lessons to be delivered to the Reader at their Ordination But doth not mention the Service-Book delivered to any that entred into Orders (k) Concil 4. Carthag can 1. 7 8. But it is too much from thence to conclude there was no Service-Book there in the year 498 because we have proved by many Testimonies which are Positive that they had prescribed Prayers there long before And he may as well argue that we have no Common-Prayer-Book in England since it is not delivered either to any Bishop Priest or Deacon at their Ordination that is there is no more done here than was there and yet both we have and they had a Book of Offices for all that Optatus S. Augustin and others before cited do fully attest it Moreover these Books of Exorcisms were Forms of Prayer and of Catechising Collected out of Holy Scripture (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril praef ad Catech. for those who were newly Converted to Christianity And such Books had been long time used in the Church before this Council though this formal delivery of them is not mentioned till this Council Orders it Fourthly As to the Persecutors not enquiring for or finding or the Christians delivering no other Books to them but only Bibles I reply the matter of Fact is not True and therefore his Consequence viz. that they had no Prayer-Books then is false Indeed the Bible was the most Eminent of all the Christian Books and the Foundation of their Faith their Worship and their Manners And in those Ages the Bible was in all Christians Hands the People Read it at Home whereas the Liturgy was only in the Priests Hands and upon the Notion they had of the necessity of concealing Mysteries from Pagans was kept very close By which means no doubt Bibles were oftner found by the Persecutors and better known to them than the Book of Offices the Dyptics the Book of Exorcisms the Book of Anthems written and composed to the Honour of Christ Yet we are sure they had these Books then though they are rarely or never mentioned singlâ— only they come under the general Titles of Christian Writings Divine Sacred or Holy Books c. and no doubt sometimes the Persecutors found and Burned these as well as Bibles For we may observe that all Authors generally speak in the Plural Number The Divine and Holy Writings and the Writings The Books of the Church in Eusebius are said to be Burnt and Destroyed by the Persecutors (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb lib. 8. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. lib. 10. cap. 4. Why do our Writings deserve to be committed to the Flames saith Arnobius (n) Nâ—â—strâ— quidem Scripta cur ignibus merueruâ—t dari Arnob. l 4. They Demanded the Divine Books for the Fire Saith Augustin (o) Peterent divinos câ—dices exurendos Aâ—â— brevic Câ—l l. 3. So they ask the Holy Martyrs if they had any Writings in their keeping (p) Dicas aliquas Scripturas habeas â—ron An. 30◠§. 53. And the Canon of Arles is general against all that had delivered up the Holy Writings (q) De his qui Scripturas Sanctas tradidisse dicuntur Concil Arcl. can 13. An. 316. Now why should they so Constantly and Unanimously speak of more Books if there had been no Book but a Bible But further some of the Acts of the Martyrs mention Volumes of Parchment and other folded Books besides the Bible (r) Baron An. 303. §. 10. In the Acts under Zenophilus the Persecutors demanded If they had any Writings of their Law or any thing else in their Library (s) Ibid. §. 13. 14. Now they had removed the Books before they came conveying them to the Readers House where at last they found 24 great and small Volums and in another House 8 Books and 4 folded Tomes Now certainly these were not all Bibles no doubt some of them were Books of Prayers Hymns and Passions or Names at least of Martyrs Writ out as S. Cyprian had directed Another
of them was asked If he had any Writing in his House (t) Habes ergo Scripturam aliquam in domo tuâ Baron An. 303. §. 50. Another was charged to give up those Books and whatsoever Parchments he had (u) Baron An. 302. §. 120. Finally in the Examination of Irene they charge her with preserving a great many Parchments Books Tablets Codicils and Pages of Scripture which had belonged to the Christians from the beginning And she owns that since the Edict to Burn all these the Christians to their great Grief could not use them Night and Day as they had formerly done but were forced to hide them (w) Baron An. 303. §. 44. 46. Now when we consider the Christians Praying Thrice a Day at least Morning Noon and Night and see so many sorts of Books reckoned up which had belonged to them from the beginning and were used Night and Day before this cruel Edict We cannot but imagin they were the Catalogues of Martyrs the Prayer-Books and Antiphonaries Litanies and other Offices used in their Divine Service because they are reckoned up here distinct from the Pages of Holy Scripture We conclude therefore that it is a meer Dream of our Adversaries to Fancy the Christians then had no Books but the Bible since he Argues against matter of Fact his Premisses are utterly false and therefore his Conclusion falls to the ground As for his long Ramble about the Heathens tolerating very odd Opinions concerning their Gods but prohibiting new ways of Worship (x) Disc of Lit. p. 17. c. It is well known that every Country then had a several way of Worshiping their proper Gods and many of these ways were allowed and used in Heathen Rome And so was the Christian Worship under some Emperors but I grant and have proved that when Persecution came the Pagans searched for Liturgies as well as Bibles So that all his random Guesses have only given me the occasion of clearing this Point That the Christians had prescribed Forms writ in Books and Parchments folded or rolled up even under the Heathen Persecuting Emperors § 5. We are now come to Finally which one would think was his last Argument If there had been any such Liturgies they would have been made use of against the Errors and for deciding the Controversies with which the Church was exercised in those Ages wherein we are concerned especially those two that which opposed the Godhead of Christ and that which asserted the Faithful to be wi hout Sin (y) Disc of Lit. p. 22. c. Which Argument I thus turn upon himself If they were made use of against Hereticks and in these two Points and by my Adversaries own Confession then he must grant there were Liturgies in those Ages Now my Adversary himself in the same Page confesses that S. Augustin mentions the public Prayers against Pelagius and though he pretends he doth not speak of them as a Form I have under the title of Augustin before shewed the falshood of that pretence and proved that he cited and referred to the African Forms (z) Part. I. Chap. IV. §. 21. Again my Adversary in the next Page produces a passage out of Eusebius to shew that Artemon an Heretick who held Christ was a meer Man was confuted by those Hymns which were composed by the Brethren in the beginning of Christianity wherein Christ was praised as very God (a) Disc of Lit. pag. 23. Now Hymns were a great part of the Christian Liturgy and therefore my Adversary hath utterly spoiled his own Argument and proved that some parts of Liturgy were used to confute both the Heresies he instances in And since he Argues negatively one or two positive Examples are enough to confute him if there were no more But I have shewed and must not tire my Reader with that kind of Repetition which I blame in him That divers other Fathers did use the words of the public Liturgies against these and other Heresies so doth Optatus Milevitanus cite them to confute the Donatists (b) See this Hist Part. I. Chap. 4. §. 10. S. Augustin to convince the Pelagians (c) Ibid. §. 21. pag. 228. S Hierom brings in the Gloria in excelsis to expose the same Hereticks (d) Hieron cont Pelag. lib. 2. pag. 447. Celestin cites the Prayers for all Men (e) See Part. II. Chap. I. §. 5. and Petrus Diaconus in Fulgentius the Prayer of Consecration to decide the Controversies of their Times (f) Ibid. Chap. II. §. 3. So that his Antecedent is a notorious Falshood confuted by his own Confession and by matter of Fact and therefore his Consequence must be false Yea from these and other instances we firmly prove that there must be Liturgies in those Ages in written Forms and certain words which were generally owned to be of great Antiquity and Authority at the time when they were produced in Controversies of Faith because Extempore Prayers cannot be cited at all and Novel Inventions must have been quoted to little purpose against obstinate Hereticks who openly opposed the Faith of the Church But some perhaps may wonder there are not more passages cited in the three first Ages against the Hereticks of those Times our of Liturgies To which I answer There are but very few Writers of these Ages and of those who did write few of their works are come to our hands and their Arguments are generally so obscure that probably they may more frequently refer to their Liturgies than we can easily observe Besides the Church was then unsetled and it is probable those Hereticks who opposed its Doctrins would not allow its Liturgy for a competent Judge as we see in Paulus Samosatenus who despised the Solemn Forms of Praise used at Antoch as being made not long before his Time and therefore the Fathers of those Ages cited not the Liturgies so often as they of the Fourth and Fifth Century did when the long and Universal use of them had given them a greater Reputation and a firmer Authority However in the Second Century we have shewed that Irenaeus brings in some Hereticks arguing from the Churches Forms (g) See Part. I. Chap. II. §. 3. which proves prescribed Forms were then used as clearly as if they had been cited against Hereticks We have also proved that Gregory Thaumaturgus made a Liturgy in the midst of the Third Age (h) Ibid. Chap. III. §. 5. and by divers other Evidences we have shewed there were Liturgies in these first three Centuries which Point being fixed we need not enquire nicely how often they were cited against Hereticks who for any thing I know in those early Times valued a passage of the Liturgies then in use no more than our Dissenters do a Proof from our Common-Prayer-Book But we see in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries in both which he affirms they had no Liturgies there are Quotations good store out of the public Forms which is enough to
that part of it which concerns the Divine Service that he prescribed to his Monks We have an Abstract of it in Card. Bona (c) Bona de divin Psalmod c. 18. pag. 895. And thereby it is manifest that although this Founder of Monastick Societies inclined to Enthusiasm in some things Yet he durst not presume to make a new Office consisting of new Forms nor did he leave his Monks to make Extempore Prayers but takes his Office wholly out of the Liturgies then in use Only because these Monks had nothing else to do but to serve God he allots more hours of Prayer and orders many of the Forms to be oftner repeated than was Customary in the Cathedral and Country Churches For this Rule enjoyns the frequent repeating of the Lords Prayer The Apostles Creed The Responses O Lord make speed to save us c. The Hymns and Antiphons particularly the Te Deum Benedictus and Magnificat The Collect for the Day the Kyrie Eleeson or Lord have Mercy upon us by which sometimes is meant the Litany the Allelujah and the like ordaining the Psalter to be Read over in their Office once every Week But all these are known parts of ancient Liturgy and every one of them prescribed Forms which by this time had gained so great Veneration for their Antiquity and general use all over Christendom that none durst presume to omit nor alter them And Benedict's prescribing them to his Monks shews that he took them out of the received Liturgies of his Time And by long usage the Forms themselves were so well known that they are described in the original Rule only by the first words of the several Forms In like manner at the same time that Benedict was Famous in Italy Tetradius Nephew to Caesarius Bishop of Arles Flourished in France and he also writ a Rule for his Monks wherein we have the same Method observed that is to oblige them to repeat the Psalms and all the ancient Forms divers of which are there briefly called by the two first words as Gloria in Excelsis is put to signifie that well known Hymn Glory be to God on High And so for the rest (d) Bibl. Patr. Tom. V. p. 866. Bona de reb Liturg. l. 1. c. 4. §. 4. pag. 512. The same is also to be observed in another Rule made within less than twenty Years after this by Valerianus Bishop of Arles (e) Bona ibid. Cointè Annal. Ann. 550. Now though these Orders of Monks did miserably degenerate afterwards Yet at this time they were the best Men of the Age Renouncing the World Sincerely and Serving God with Extraordinary Devotion yet every Order had its prescribed Forms of Praise and Prayer none of them differing much from others and all taken out of the public Liturgies then in use in the Country where they were first planted after the Example of those Egyptian Monks in the Fourth Century whom Cassian before described to us § 6. Let us now pass into the East Justinianus Aug. Ann. Dom. 530. and see what Laws the famous Emperor Justinian made concerning the Liturgies which we have proved to have been established there long before his Time And First He was much displeased at some who had been admitted into the inferior Orders of the Clergy though they were Illiterate Wherefore he requires that none shall for the future be ordained Priests and Deacons unless at least they be able to Read and can both instruct others in the holy Prayers and Read the Books of Ecclesiastical Canons (f) Authent Collat. 1. Tit. 6. Nov. 6. cap. 4. pag. 13. Again the Religious Prince complains that by the neglect of frequent Synods which would have obliged all the Clergy to be well skilled in the holy Liturgies some even of the highest Order were not perfect in the holy Office for the Communion nor in the Prayer for Baptism And therefore he appoints that before any Bishop be Consecrated He shall publicly Read over the Communion Office The Prayers for Baptism and all the other Supplications (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Authent Collat. 9. Tit. 20. Nov. 13â— Praef. cap. 1. 2. Now here we may observe that the Prayers then in use were called holy Liturgies and were such as could be Read Learned and Taught And the Qualification of Persons to be Ordained was not to be able to make new Prayers but to Read the ancient Forms which it seems were used also in the Nunneries and therefore this Emperor orders the Bishop to take care that the Nuns might have one grave old Man to make the necessary Responses in their Service and that they should have a Priest and a Deacon of unblameble Lives to perform the Divine Liturgies and give them the holy Communion (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. lâ—b 1. Tit. 3. de Episc cler l. 44. pag 19. But if any had Built a private Oratory in his House though he might perform his Ordinary Devotions yet he Ordains that according to the Laws delivered in the Ecclesiastical Acts touching the Worship of God in public they do not presume there to do any of those things which are appointed by the holy Liturgy (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent Coll. 5. Tâ—t 13. Nov. 58. p 91. Moreover as to the public Offices the Emperor Decrees that Stripes and Banishment shall be inflicted upon any that come into a Church and injure the Bishop or other Clergy while the Divine Mysteries or the holy Offices are performing But to disturb the Liturgy it self is to be punished with Death And because Litanies were then said in the open Streets in procession the Emperor enjoyns the Bishops and Clergy to be always present at them and makes it capital to affront or disturb them in that part of Divine Service (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Authent Col. 9. Tit. 6. Novel 123. cap. 31. 32. p. 174. All which Laws suppose a prescribed Form of Service and have the very name of Liturgy for that Service as every one will grant who considers that the Liturgies of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were constantly used in the Eastern Church both in and long before Justinians time I know my Adversary pretends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgie in these Laws signifies no more than the exercise of any Divine Ministrations (l) Disc of Lit. p. 157. 158. But if we grant that it will not help his cause nor hurt ours because in that Age and those Churches it is certain all those Divine Ministrations were performed by prescribed Forms so that it is all one as to our dispute whether we translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgy or Ministration because we are sure they Ministred by Liturgies as we now call them For proof whereof we have a Memorable passage in the Council of Constantinople under the Patriach Menna in this Emperors Reign where it seems the Peoples extraordinary Zeal gainst Hereticks
Prefaces to be received into the Sacred Catalogue which for many Ages past the Roman Churches Truth hath hitherto observed (o) Sacrum Ordinem Romanum sacraque constituta nostrorum Antecessorum solertèr relegentes invenimus has novem Praesationes in sacro Catalogo tantuminodo recipiendas quas longa retro veritas in Romanâ Ecclesià hactenus servavit Pelag. Ep. 11. Bin. Tom. 2. par 2. pag. 259. And then he proceeds to reckon up the particulars viz The first at Easter The second at Ascension-day The third at Pentecost The fourth at Christmass The fifth at the Epiphany The sixth on the Festival of the Apostles The seventh on Trinity Sunday The eighth on the Feast of the Cross The ninth in Lent and time of Fasting From which Answer it appears the holy Roman Order was a Written Book a Liturgy containing not only the Method in which the several parts of the Offices were disposed but the very Forms themselves at large and particularly the several proper Prefaces for the great Festivals As also it is affirmed That these proper Prefaces of which he hath here occasion to treat had been prescribed in this Roman Liturgy long before this Time and for divers Ages had been preserved therein Which shews there were Written Forms at Rome in very early Times and that they were no invention of this or the last Age. And we may give the more credit to this Assertion because even to this very Time the Church of Rome was wholly free from the corrupt and superstitious Worship which since they have given to the Blessed Virgin Mary there being not to be found at this Time one Festival dedicated to her Honour which had a special Preface appropriate to it in the Offices then used at Rome to the shame of the later Popes who have made the Worship of the Virgin the main part of all their Offices Leander Episc H â—pal An. Dom. 588. § 11. After the Steps made toward one uniform Liturgy among the Suevians in the Province of Gallicia by the Consultation of Vigilius and the Council of Braga Leander the famous Bishop of Sevil Converted Reccaredus King of the Goths from Arianism within a few years after these Goths had Conquered the Suevians and were become Lords of all Spain And the first Care he took was to purge out the Errors from the Gothic Office and to take away the various Forms used in the several Provinces of Spain which had been Peopled with several Nations governed by different Kings and had held divers Opinions in Religion but he now composes one Office for the whole Kingdom which his next Successor Isidore perfected and fully setled there For which Reason the Writers of this History generally ascribe it to them both Roderic of Toledo calls it The Office of the Mass instituted by the Bishops Leander and Isidore (p) Roderic Tolet. de reb Hispan lib. 6. cap. 25. And Jo. Vasaeus in his Chronicle saith The Christians who lived among the Arabians were called Mozarabes that is Mixt with the Arabians and therefore they used that Ecclesiastical Office then which S. Leander and Isidore composed and all Spain used it until the days of Alfonso the Sixth (q) Jo. Vasaei Chron. Hispanâ— pag. 579. But that Leander first put this Office into order is plain from the Testimony of Isidore himself who faith Leander took no small pains in the Ecclesiastical Offices and in the Hymns at the Communion and Psalms he Composed many sweet things (r) Isidor de script Eccles in Leandr vict Bona de reb Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 364. Another Historian saith Leander writ one Book of Prayers and another of the Communion (s) Fran. Taraph de reg Hisp pag. 704. Wherefore we conclude that this Leander having before him the Liturgy used by the Arian Goths the Order made for the Suevians in Gallicia And probably the Gallican Roman and African Forms made up one Office out of them all which afterwards when the Moers who spake Arabick came into Spain and were some of them Converted to the Faith was called the Mozarabic Liturgy which is extant to this day in the Bibliotheca Patrum and elsewhere (t) Bib. Patr. edit Colon. Tom. 15 p. 777. vid. Ben. de reb Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11 12. in Appendice For that this was not the first time that prescribed Forms were used in these Parts of the World is evident from what hath been shewed before concerning the Goths and Suevians both in France and Spain and may further appear by these few Observations viz. That the old Gothic Office yet retains a Collect on S. Martins-day wherein he is called A Man whom our Age hath produced Now S. Martin died An. Dom. 402. and therefore the Missal from whence Leander or Isidore took this Form must have been composed in the Fifth century that is as soon as the Goths in France became Christians And Gregory of Tours mentions an Embassador coming from Leonigild the Father of Reccaredus who was an Arian and so was this Embassador for he would not Communicate with them in France because they did not say Glory be to the Father by the Son as they did in their Offices in Spain (u) Greg. Turon lib. 6. cap. 48. pag. 289. And in the Third Council of Toledo under Reccaredus the First Orthodox Gothish King when Leader had begun to correct the Arian Forms they pronounce an Anathema against all that say Glory be to the Father by the Son and will not say To the Father and the Son (w) Concil Tolet. 3. An. 589. ap Bin. Tom. 2. par 2. pag. 276. So that we see the Goths had Forms suited to their Heresie while they were Arians but made Orthodox as soon as they embraced the Catholic Faith Moreover this same Council which was before Isidore's Time in order to discover those who yet secretly favoured Arianism Ordain That the Creed shall be repeated by all the People with an audible Voice before the Lords Prayer in the Communion (x) Concil Tol. t. 3. Can. 2. ibid. Which Usage still is kept in the Mozarabic Liturgy and is peculiar to that Office From all which we may infer That Leander compiled this Office but did not first invent the Forms only he collected them out of more ancient Liturgies especially the old Gallican Missal which the Arian Goths had corrupted but he now restored it to its ancient Purity and therefore there is a very great Agreement between the old Gallican and Mozarabic Missals and they are nearer to each other than either of them are to the ancient Roman Forms Which confirms our Observation That this Age did not first Worship God by Liturgies but continued the ancient Way only by the New Conversion of divers Countries from Paganism or Heresie one pure Liturgy was collected and published for the use of that Country or Province from which none of their Ecclesiastics were allowed to vary The
Liturgies and chose out the best things from each put them together in one Volume and then required these Forms should be daily used so that both Priests and People might be accustomed to them And as S. Gregory did not impose the Roman Liturgy or Canon upon Augustin the Monk who lived in a distant Country and in a distinct National Church so we do not impose ours upon Denmark or Sweden upon the Dutch or the Helvetians But to argue from hence We are not for imposing our own Liturgy upon our own Clergy is so weak so obvious a Fallacy as deserves to be laughed at rather than seriously confuted Again because Gregory the Patriarch of the West took the liberty to correct the Roman Offices by that which he approved of in the Forms of other National Churches (w) Disc of Liturgies p. 87. And because he would not impose the Trine Immersion used at Rome upon Leander's New Converted distant Church in Spain (x) Gregor Ep. 41. ad laeanat lib. 1. Therefore every Parish-Priest and private Minister may vary from the Liturgy of his own Church daily if he please And therefore no Bishops ought to impose any Liturgy upon their own Clergy living under them in the same Diocess or Nation This is such woful Sophistry that I am sure he cannot impose this sort of Arguing upon any rational Men yet if these Inferences be not drawn from S. Gregory's Answer it makes nothing to his purpose unless it be to prove there were no Forms imposed in Gregory's Time But how can that be squeezed out of any of these Passages The Epistle first cited supposes a Form of Prayers extant and imposed at Rome before S. Gregory's Time wherein the Hallelujah was never sung but between Easter and Pentecost which ordered the Sub-Deacons to wear Surplices when they sang the Litany in Processions in which Litany by the old Form they did not repeat the Kyrie Eleeson often nor was the Lords Prayer in the Communion Office of that old Book prescribed to be used immediately after the Canon But this Epistle shews that Gregory had altered the ancient Liturgy of Rome in all these Particulars and made it agreeable to the Liturgy at Constantinople from which place he was lately come And this he was censured for by some this he excuses in the whole Epistle (y) Gregor Ep. 63. lib. 7. pag. 230. Wherefore here was a Form imposed before his Time and he imposes it again with his Corrections upon his own Church or else what need the Clergy under his Jurisdiction complain Indeed he did not impose it on Spain France or Britain which were not in that Age under his Authority but he was strict enough at Rome and in the Churches then subject to that See He corrected the Book of Gelasius and imposed that there He compiled Hymns and Antiphons and brought in a New way of Singing them teaching Boys to do it with skill so that soon after all the West imitated that Way (z) Johan Diac. vit Greg. lib. 2. cap. 6. He compiled that Book for the Communion-Service which still is called his Sacramentary wherein are all the Forms used at Rome for the Eucharist (a) Id. ib. c. 17. He brought in the Sevenfold Litany and prescribed how and when it should be used (b) Naucler Gen 20. p. 743. Platin. pag. 82. Johan Diac. in vit And all these Parts of Liturgy were by him imposed on the Roman Church and will my Adversary still pretend he was against the imposing Forms of Praise and Prayer Did he take all this pains for his own private use Did all the West voluntarily conform to this and yet was it not used and observed at Rome any further than the Clergy pleased These are wild Conjectures But he saith Cassander publishes the Ordo Romanus in which there are no Forms of Prayer but only the Order wherein they proceeded I Reply Those Copies which Cassander publisheth are only a Breviat of S. Gregory's Liturgy and therefore the Hymns and Prayers he composed are not set down at large there yet when this was writ out these Forms were so well known that they are named often only by two words of the beginning of each Form Ex. gr Gloria Patri Kyrie Eleeson Gloria in excelsis Dominus vobiscum c. (c) Cassander de Liturg. lib. â— Which shews the Forms were then well known and had been so long used as to be understood by short hints in this Epitome of the Gregorian Office But my Adversary knew well that the Sacramentary of Gregory is extant in his Works wherein all the Prayers and Antiphons c. are set down at large which Gregory made and imposed on the Roman Church and therefore it is disingenuous in him to argue for his pretended liberty from this Epitome There is but one thing more in my Adversary relating to this Matter which is That Augustin being not imposed on by S Gregory would not impose it on the Britains (d) Disc of Lit. pag. 87 88. which he gathers from this viz. That the Britains and Scots were Enemies to the Roman Use in Gildas his Time and had no Uniformity in Worship long after Now to his Position I say That if Augustin followed Gregory's Advice as no doubt he did then he did impose not the Roman Forms but those of his own collecting upon the Saxons which I shall prove more largely afterwards But as for the Britains they were a distinct Christian Church then and did owe no manner of subjection to Augustin so that it had been ridiculous iâ— him to have imposed a Newly compâ—â—â—d Liturgy upon them They were no more obliged to receive his Forms than we are to receive those of Geneva or they to observe ours Again as to his Proof How doth the Britains rejecting the Roman Use in Gildas's Time prove That they had no Forms imposed on them by Augustin Gildas died according to Bishop Vsher An. 570. that is Thirty years before Augustin the Monk came in (e) Cave Cartoph Eccles in Gild. Badon pag. so that their dislike of the Roman Usages then is nothing to Augustin's Impositions Besides The Roman Liturgy and Augustin's were two different things and therefore it is very weak to prove they did not receive Augustin's Liturgy from their rejecting the Roman Usage since they were different things So that this would be a good Argument if it were not as destitute of Logic and Chronology as it is of Truth For Augustin did make a Form and impose it on the Saxons under his Jurisdiction and they received it and used it long after As for the Britains Scots and Irish in that Age they belonged not to him and so he could impose nothing on them And for their Uniformity I shall clear that Point after a little while For what hath been observed I hope may suffice to prove That imposed Liturgies were in use in all Churches long before the Time of
was a Form composed with great Art and committed to Memory before it was first spoken and was designed to work upon the Affections of a Croud of Men in a Secular Court and in a Temporal Cause and in that Case even Theatrical Gestures and the Artificial Acting of it were apt to move the Auditory more than the bare Reading it in a private Room to a few Friends Plâ—n epist lib. 2. Ep. 19. But what is this to the Case of Prayers Pliny durst not have come before that Auditory with an Extempore Harangue such as our Dissenters dare come into the presence of God and a great Congregation with He designed no more by his Action but only to work upon the Frailties of Men but our Adversaries I hope will not own That their only design in Prayer is to move the Affections of their Hearers by Tone Gestures Noise and Fluency We who use Forms as Pliny did and generally have them by Heart as he had can repeat them as vigorously as he did the first time and thereby do keep all pious Men in our Congregations very attentive But still we remember we speak to the Most High God before whom our Words ought to be well weighed and our Desires properly expressed because he is not wrought upon by Noise and Action as silly Men and Women are If our Petitions be sincere and hearty prudently Worded in proper Phrases and repeated with new Devotion every day the God we pray to likes them no worse for being daily in the same Words And Pliny could not have wondred at us for Reading daily the same Forms of Prayer for He and all the Priests of his Religion prayed so to their Gods and did not believe the Deities affected Change and Variety or were moved with Gesticulations and Tones Nor would that Judicious Heathen have been so weak as to compare his popular Orations to the Prayers he offered up to his Gods And since he appeals to Pliny to judge between Forms and Extempore we will hear what he and others say of these two Ways even with respect to Civil Pleadings Pliny brings in Pollio saying Pleading agreeably I pleaded often but by Pleading often I came to plead not so well for by too often using this I got an easiness rather than a faculty and not so much an assurance as a sort of rashness (y) assâ—duitate nimià facilitas magis quam facultas nec fiducia sed temiritas paratur Plin lib. 6. ep 29. And if our Dissenting Brethren had the modesty to confess it I fear they find the same effects of using this Gift when they plead at another Bar. The Grave Tacitus also derides Q. Huterius an Orator who was very ready at Extempore Speeches saying His Orations did not survive him For whereas other Mens Labour and Meditation lasted to Posterity his Noisy fluent way died with him (z) Huterii Canorum illud pr â—â—â—ns cum ipso s mul extinctum est Ticâ—t Annal. lib. 4. §. 61. pag. â—13 So despicable was this kind of Eloquence in those days Again Lampridius saith The Wise Emperour Alexander Severus Suffered not any of his Counsellors to answer him concerning great Affairs till they had well thought upon them (a) Ne inceâ—itati dicere cogerentur de reâ—us ingentibus Lamprâ—d in vit Al. Sev. p. 524. Plutarch also Arguing against Extempore Orations tells us a Story of a young Painter who shewed Apelles a piece of his Work and bragged how little time he had done it in To whom that great Master Replied I saw by the Work it was done in haste (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. de liber educ pag. 6. But none is more severe than Seneca upon a Philosopher of quick Invention who used this way This Rapid and Copious way of Speaking saith he is much fitter for a Jugler or Mountebank than one that is about a great and serious Matter (c) Istam vim docendi rapidam atque abundantem aptiorem esse circulatori quam agenti rem magnam seriam Senec. Ep. 40. pag. 101. And I suppose it will be granted That Praying is as great and serious a Matter as a Philosophical Lecture I shall conclude with S. Hierom's Opinion of Gregory Nazianzen's Extempore Preaching which he had heard and could well judge of it Nothing is so easie as to deceive the Vulgar People and an Illiterate Assembly with the Volubility of the Tongue because they do most admire that which they least understand (d) Nihil tam facile est quam vilem plebeculam indoctam concionem linguae volubilitate decâ—pere quae quicquid non intelligit plus admiratur Hicron ad Nepot Ep. 2 pag. 16. This he spake of his Master and thus he censured the Extempore Preaching of an Eminent Father in that Age And if any had then pretended to Pray at that rate it is more than probable he would severely have exposed the Boldness and Folly of hoping to please God by that contemptible Faculty which was admired only by that ignorant Croud who were deceived by it To conclude this Point I dare refer it to any Man who duly considers the Majesty of God Whether the grave and affectionate Reading of a well-studied and judicious Form of Prayer expressed in proper and pious Words be not more fit to be presented to him and more likely to be accepted by him than a rash unpremeditated Rhapsody without Method strength of Reason or Propriety of Phrase The latter by Noise and Action may operate more upon the Passions of Weak Men but the former is more suitable to the infinite Majesty of him whom we only desire to please when we Pray § 4. After this he Argues that the ancienâ— Church had no Liturgies or Books of public Prayers and therefore could have no prescribed or imposed Forms And he would prove they had no Books by the Case of Athanasius his not being accused for abusing the Liturgy nor the Arians for Burning any thing but Bibles by Constantin 's employing Eusebius only to Transcribe the Scripture by the Council of Carthage 's Decree for only holding a Book of the Gospels over the Bishops Head And by the Persecutors finding no Liturgy in their Searches after the Christians Books (e) Disc of Lit. p. 12 13 14 15. c. to the 20th To which I answer First in general that I have made it so Evident that there were prescribed Forms and Books of Hymns and Prayers in these Ages that a negative Argument taken from some few Authors in some places not mentioning them is of no Force against plain and positive proof But Secondly We will examin his particulars and shew that they do not make out his Point First His own Quotation concerning Athanasius expresly saith that Macarius who was employed by Athanasius did Burn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Books (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 1. cap. 20. p. 539. he Translates it fraudulently in the
Secondly That it was reckoned a pious thing to compose and learn a Form of Prayer which Eusebius would not have commended if Forms had not been esteemed lawful and commonly used in public And Thirdly That those who use Forms of Prayer either by committing them to memory or by frequent use might often lift up their Eyes to Heaven in the repeating of them So that we may grant his Instance of Constantine's Effigies on his Coin represented as in a praying posture with Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven (l) Disc of Liturg pag. 10. For since we are sure he used Forms this only shews the folly of his arguing from that posture that such as did use it could not pray by a Form I shall therefore conclude this Evidence with this further Observation That we cannot doubt that Christians had accustomed themselves to pray by Forms in Public before the time of this Religious Prince who was guided by those Bishops who had been Confessors for the Faith and yet composed and used Forms of Prayer and was highly commended for it nor did any of that Age object this as any Innovation in the Christian Worship but Eusebius particularly reckons it as an Instance of his Piety that He ordered all his Army at a certain Signal given by one Man to send up one and the same premeditated Prayer to God (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vita Constant lib 4. cap. 19. Which shews That the Christians did then worship God by premeditated and prescribed Forms and not in the Extempore way which our Adversaries pretend to be the ancient Mode S. Athanasius An. Dom. 326. § 3. Soon after flourished the Great Athanasius in whom there are evident marks of a public Liturgy for we have noted before That the People can never make certain and vocal Responses but only where the public Prayers are made in a known Form but nothing can be plainer than that they made such Responses in the Diocess of Alexandria For he alluding to the ancient Litanick way of Praying declares when he said Let us pray for the safety of the most Religious Emperour Constantius that all the People immediately answered with one Voice Christ help Constantius (n) Athanas Apol ad Constant pag. 156 157. In another Tract he tells us The People mourned and groaned to God in the Church all of them crying to the Lord and saying Spare thy People good Lord spare them give not thine Heritage for a reproach to their Enemies (o) Idem Epist ad Solitar pag. 239. which is an original piece of Litany and a known Form prescribed in Scripture retained in the Primitive Church and continued still in use among us Athanasius also speaks of the Prayers at the Communion as a distinct Office affirming That the People offered up these Prayers with one Voice and without any manner of disagreement adding That in that great multitude there was but one Voice when they unanimously answered Amen (p) Idem Apol. ad Constant pag. 159. From these and other Testimonies the Centuriators confess there were Forms of Prayer used at Alexandria in his time (q) Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. pag. 412. and the Learned Bishop Bilson observes That the Church in that Age thought it not enough for the Simple to say Amen they knew not to what but requiring and appointing their devout distinct and intelligent Answers Confessions Blessings and Thanksgivings as well in the ministration of the Lords Supper as in other parts of their public Service (r) Bilson's Christ Subjeâ—t part 4. p. 435. So that it is plain he believed there was a Form wherein the Peoples part of all Offices was appointed by the Church which could not be done in the Extempore way I shall only further note That Athanasius orders the People to sing the Psalms in the very Words wherein they are written Affirming That he who thus repeats them may be confident God will hear these Supplications (s) Athâ—n de inter Psalm pag. 303. Which confirms that which was observed before out of Origen That the Church of Alexandria had many Forms of Prayer out of the Psalms As for my Adversary He omits all these passages and as is usual with him he mentions nothing of this Father but two places out of which he hopes to raise some Objections against Forms of Prayer First He saith The Arians who charged Athanasius with burning the Bible do not mention any Indignity done to the Liturgy whence he gathers there was no Liturgy used there ourse of pag. 13. But let it be noted that he falsifies the Historian who saith they charged him with burning The Holy Books (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. hist lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 539. in the plural Number which may very well take in the Liturgy as well as the Bible being reckon'd also an Holy or Sacred Book And we have shewed That in the Emperour Constantine's Court there were Books of Prayers as well as of Holy Scripture and therefore it is likely there was so also at Alexandria For even in the relation of the Arians Cruelty there He writes of a Virgin who was very ill treated by them who had her Psalter wherein were many of their Forms of Prayer in her hand (w) Athan. ad Orthod de perfec Arian pag. 171. Secondly He alledges a place out of Theodoret which affirms as he saith That the Devils were more afraid of Athanasius his Prayers than of others and thence concludes that he prayed Extempore (x) Discourse of Liturg. p. 129. I Reply That Theodoret makes no comparison between his praying and others and if he had it would utterly have spoiled his Cause because if the Devils feared Athanasius Prayers more than any others as being Extempore then it would follow that all others had prayed by Forms so that upon that supposition Athanasius had prayed Extempore contrary to the general use of the Church But indeed Theodoret is only saying That the Devil hated him for his fervent Praying and rational Preaching by which he converted many (y) Theoderet hist lib. 3. cap. 8. he makes no comparison between him and others nor doth he say one word to prove that Athanasius did not pray by a Form we therefore will freely grant our Adversary That not Phrases but Devotion of Mind is the Fountain of Prayer And we argue from thence That it was Athanasius his Devotion not his Phrases that was so terrible to the Devil That crafty Spirit is not afraid of new Words or Extempore Phrases it is the inward Devotion of Mind which he dreads and that Athanasius did doubtless exercise to a very high degree even in the use of those Forms which were then allowed and prescribed by the Church Wherefore our Adversary gains nothing by this Father â—â—vianus Antioch An. Dom. 348. § 4. In the time of Athanasius Leontius an Arian was Bishop of Antioch who having altered some few Words in the
out the main Words the same Liturgy and only Reads it That supplications ought always to be Celebrated at the Ninth hour and in the Evening (w) Caranz in the Disc of Liturg. p. 162. But not trusting to any of these shifts he spends five or six Pages together in Labouring to pervert the Sense of it and I must beg the Readers patience while I follow him His first device is that The same Liturgy of Prayers may signify only the same Prayers used often but the Words not prescribed or imposed on them by others I Reply the Words of the Canon are not used often but the same Liturgy of Prayers to be used always So that if he grant us as here he seems to do that they were the same Prayers then it will follow that the Synod imposed and prescribed them to be used always And there is nothing in the Canon to import that these Prayers were of their own composing no such Word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or de pectore yea we see Balsamon and Zonaras say this Canon expresly forbids such Prayers and yet if the Priests of that Age had made them the Council enjoyns them never to make any more but always to use the same Prayers but if they had been at Liberty to make new Forms these could not be called the same Prayers But Secondly He shews all his learning to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not then signify a Book or Model of prescribed Forms of Prayer But he might have spared all those Quotations which are brought to make out that it signifies The Administration of a public Function or Office since we grant that is the general signification of this Word But we are to consider it only as it is applied to Prayers and Praises and then I affirm it signifies a Form of Prayer Thus Causabon tells us that beside the general Notion of a public Function it also signifies The prescribed Order for Celebrating divine Offices of which kind are those published under the Titles of Peter James Andrew Basil and Chrysostom partly true and partly false The Latins call it The Order or Office the Greeks sometimes the Method c. (x) Causab exercit in Baron xvi p. 384. And since it doth signify a prescribed Order sometimes we may reasonably judge it doth so in this Council because we see the Hymns which were a great part of the public Service were written Forms as the xvth Canon cited before shews and because Liturgies were then very usual in the Eastern Church where this Council was held And we can prove 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used for a prescribed Form of Service not only after this Council but before it So when Flavianus sung Davids Psalms alternately at Antioch before this Council the Bishop desired That the same Liturgy might be used in the Church (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tâ—eoâ—â—ret lib. 2. cap. 2. which may fitly be interpreted that they would bring those Psalters so distinguished for alternate Singing and use them in the Church And in the Council of Sardica An. 347. a Bishop coming to a strange City is ordered To assemble and perform his Liturgy there (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Sard. Can. 12. Here saith Balsamon Liturgy is not put for Prayers And Zonaras saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to send up the accustomed Hymns to God (a) Balsam Zonar in Loc. Bever Tom. 1. pag. 500. Our Adversary also grants that the Heathens had written Forms and prayed out of a Book yet Julian calls the Times when they officiated in their Temples by these Forms The time of their performing Liturgies And when their course was expired that he calls The time when they were not using Liturgy in the Temples (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian ep Fragm pag 552. So we may explain Nazianzen whose Father as we shall prove prayed by a Form that he was very ill when he came to Church and was often cured only by saying his Liturgy (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 19. pag. 313. and thus we must explain Synesius where he saith Andronicus made him so unfit to pray that he was forced to omit the Liturgy of the Altar (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes epist 57. pag 193. that is the Communion Office which was usually performed there In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus An. 431 we read of The Morning and Evening Liturgy which can be meant of nothing else but the Forms of Prayer appointed for public Assemblies in the Morning and Evening (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Ephes Bâ—n Tom. 1. par 2. So also in an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian a Bishop beginning the Prayers is said To begin his Liturgy (f) Theâ—dor Lect. pag. 188. And in Theodoret That place of S. Paul's Epistles viz. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ c. (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodorâ—t p. 128. epist 46. vâ—xit An. 423. is said to be The Preface of the Mystical Liturgy and accordingly we find it in the Apostolical Constitutions placed just in the beginning of the Communion-Service or in Theodoret's Phrase of the Liturgy for the Sacrament I confess I cannot but wonder at my Adversaries citing Justinian also as if Liturgy in him did not signifie a Form of Prayer though all men know the Greek Church had a Form of Liturgy in his time and the very places cited by him have that signification As when he allows the Nuns one grave old Man to make the necessary Responses and One Priest to perform the Liturgy and give them the Holy Communion (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God no â— tit 3. de Episc Câ—â—r L. 44. So also to sing the Night the Morning and Evening Prayers and Hymns which were in prescribed Forms then is called the performing the Divine Liturgies (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. L. 43. And this is distin guished in another Law from private Devotions where he permits men to have a place in their Houses for Prayers Provided they do none of those things there which the holy Liturgy doth prescribe (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent coll 5 tit 13. Nov. 58. where the Holy Liturgy can mean nothing else but the Book or Office wherein the Forms of administring the Holy Sacraments was contained and therefore my politick Adversary only names this place but durst not cite it at large But those places which he doth quote may properly enough be so expounded For to exclude a Clerk from the Liturgy (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. lib. 1. tit 4. L. 33. is to suspend him from saying the Public or Common Prayer And the penalty upon those who disturb Mysteries or Liturgy (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent coll 9. tit 6. Nov. 123. cap. 31. is no doubt to be inflicted upon those who disturb a Priest in administring
Praise wherein they gave Thanks to God for these Mercies and all such like those very Forms being a Recapitulation of all Gods Mercies to Mankind and therefore this place which so plainly refers to the Forms then used is so far from helping him that it consutes him and he gets nothing by it but the honour of grounding an Argument on a false Translation Sixthly He cites S. Chrysostom as the only Father who mentions the Gift of Prayer as an extraordinary Gift and he insinuates that this Gift of Prayer made Forms needless in this Age (r) Discourse of Liturg. p. 129. Had he quoted this place at large it had spoiled his Cause again For S. Chrysostom is expounding that place of S. Paul The Spirit helpeth our Infirmities Rom. viii 26. And saith There was a miraculous Gift of Prayer in the Apostles Times which was ceased so long ago that as it was not easie for the People in his days to understand the meaning of S. Paul Only he observes Those Forms of Litany wherein the Deacon goes before and reckons up what the People shall pray for to which they make their Responses These Prayers he saith are an Emblem of that Apostolick Custom when the new Converts not knowing what to pray for the Inspired Man by the Gift of Prayer went before them and made Petitions for them (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 14 â—n Rom. viii pag 120 This is the sum of what Chrysostom there saith So that S. Chrysostom believed the Gift of Prayer was ceased long before his Time and therefore they used Forms recited between the Minister and the People and if that Holy Father believed this Gift were ceased then what would he think of those who boldly pretend to it in our days could he live again upon Earth This is certain He did not think Praying or Singing by the Spirit was doing so Extempore for he saith To sing with with the Spirit is to sing not only with the M uth but with attention of Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 9 in Coloss edit Frâ—nt Tom. 11. p. 227. So that according to S. Chrysostom whensoever we devoutly mind even our Forms of Praise and Prayer then we sing and pray by the Spirit Lastly He cites the Life of S. Chrysostom to prove That the Greek Church accommodated the Service to the Season insinuating as if every Priest Officiated as he thought suitable to the Time u But first (x) Disc of Liturg. p. 160 161. his Editor ignorantly cites for this Bede in the Life of Chrysostom which should be Leo for Bede never writ this Fathers Life Yet the Authors Mistake is worse for he falsifies Leo in Chrysostom's Life who doth not say They accommodated the Service to the Season but That upon Easter Even they used the Hymns proper for that Night Baptized such as had been Catechised and performed the Liturgy which was accustomed to be used at that Season (w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leo in vit Chrysost Tom. 8. p. 288. So that my Adversary egregiously prevaricates in turning accustomed Offices and a Liturgy prescribed for the most famous primitive Vigil before Easter into his new way of accommodating Prayers to it by private Ministers Fancies Which was not allowed in any Regular Church since the setling of Christianity My Adversary makes no particular Objections against S. Chrysostom's Liturgy but what are answered in my Reply to his Exceptions against S. Basil's So that I might here conclude my Vindication of this Holy Father but that I have met with a Manuscript Collection of Objections against this Liturgy taken out of Du-Plessis (x) Mornay of the Mass Book I. Chap. 6. pag. 50. which I will briefly Answer First The Variety of Copies is objected I Reply This shews the Antiquity and large extent of this Liturgy and if there be some differences in these Copies there are so in the very Books of Scripture And considering the many hands which had transcribed this Liturgy in all the Diocesses of the Syrian and Greek Churches during the space of 1100 years before it was printed the greatest wonder is that there were not more Differences Object 2. Some Copies mention Praying for the Dead and Invocating the Blessed Virgin others do not Answ It is certain those Copies which have least in them come nearest to the Original which as we have heard was at first Composed for abbreviating the Office and we justifie nothing which is not very agreeable to S. Chrysostom's unquestioned Works and to the Doctrin of that Age there being enough of that kind to assure us there were Forms of Prayer in this Time Object 3 The Trisagion is mentioned in this Liturgy which came not into use till one Hundred years after S. Chrysostom's Time Answ This is false for the Hymn of Holy Holy Holy or Trisagion is mentioned by S. Chrysostom in his undoubted Works and by divers Fathers before him 'T is true that addition to it of Holy God Holy Strong Holy Immortal came up one Hundred year after this and some later Copies put in this Addition but in the best Editions after the purest Manuscripts This Hymn is found in the simple and primitive Way (y) Eucholog Graec. Lit. Chrysost pag. 76. Lit. Basil pag. 166. without any addition Yet Du-Plessis may be excused for making this Objection because he never saw Goar's Edition Object 4. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Mother of God came not in till long after the Time of S. Chrysostom and if it had been originally in his Liturgy no doubt it would have been urged against the Hereticks Answ This is very true but the genuine Inference is not therefore all the Liturgy is corrupted but therefore all those Prayers to the Blessed Virgin and Hymns wherein she is glorified are later Additions to the old genuine Office which we freely acknowledge Object 5. In this as well as in S. Basil we find Incense offered up for the Remission of Sins which is Blasphemy Asw This also is a Modern Addition which hath no foundation is S. Chrysostom's Works and that we may be sure it is so Jac. Goar the acurate Editor of this Liturgy tells us That the ancient and truly genuine Liturgy begins after this Preface and all the Ceremony of offering Incense is over (z) Eucholog pag. 64. so that it is no wonder to find a Corruption in a part added to it in later times Object 6. Divers Persons are named in this Liturgy which lived long after S. Chrysostom's Time viz. Alexius the Emperour and Nicholas not Pope of Rome but Bishop of Constantiple and S. Chrysostom himself is there invoked Answ The old Latin Copy printed at Antwerp An. 1560. which was taken out of some Manuscript writ in the Age of that same Emperour and Patriarch had these Names But that is no Argument that this Liturgy was first made in that Time because the Transcribers put in such as in