shorter Form (p) Proclus Constant Epist de traditione divin Missae ap Bonav de rebus Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 9. And though that and S. Chrysostoms had made this Liturgy to be laid aside at Constantinople yet the famous Council of Trullo (q) Concil Constan â—in Trullo can 32 An. Dom â—80 there cites it under S. James his name as Authentic evidence in a dispute It is therefore most notoriously false in our Adversary to say Balsamon declares in his notes upon this Canon of Trullo that the Greeks under the Patriach of Constantinople and those of the Diocess of the Orient utterly disclaimed this Liturgy 1200 years after Christ (r) Disc of Liturg p. 149. For Balsamon there affirms that S. James the Brother of our Lord being the first Bishop of Jerusalem first delivered an holy Liturgy but the Church of Constantinople having another Form in his time did not receive it nor would he permit the Patriarch of Alexandria to use it in his great Church as he desired though Balsamon confess it was used by those of Jerusalem and Palestine on great Festivals even in his time (s) Balsam not in 32. can Concil in Trull Bever Tom. 1. pag. 193. So that the Greek Church did not utterly disclaim this Liturgy they owned S. James to have been the first Author of it and held Communion with those Churches which used it only having for some Ages used other Forms they thought not fit to permit this Liturgy to be read in their great Church and this confirms my Position viz. That there was anciently such a Form of Prayers used in the Church of Jerusalem But our Adversary objects (t) Disc of Liturg pag. 149. c. ad p. 154. First That this Liturgy is not mentioned by any Fathers or Councils I reply The matter of it and the very Words are mentioned by many Fathers and the very name and Title as we have shewed are found in Proclus and in the Council of Trullo Secondly If S. James made it he saith it ought to be accounted Apostolical and ought never to be added to diminished or altered Answer If S. James had made it for his Church of Jerusalem other Apostles might make other Forms for other Apostolical Churches so that S. James his Liturgy would not have ben necessary for all places But he knows we hold that S. James and the other Apostles Celebrated the Sacrament at first by very short Forms probably using only the Lords Prayer the Words of Consecration and an Hymn of praise and while there were inspired Bishops they added divers Collects Responses and Prefaces which being writ down and remembred brought forth the Primitive Liturgies in the next Age after those Miraculous Gifts of Prayer ceased Now since all Liturgies retain those things which are essential and were certainly Apostolical in other parts of the Office every Church may vary as they find expedient Thirdly He objects that there are many Corruptions and gross Superstitions in this Liturgy Answer We freely confess it and as freely own that none of these are either Apostolical or so much as Ancient But let it be noted these Corruptions crept in by the itch of altering which hath infected every Age and all Churches and by this means brought in all the Corrupt Opinions of every Age into the service of God thus the names of Saints and Ora pro nobis got into the Roman Litanies about the ninth Age or somwhat later but he would be an odd Logician who should argue that the Roman Church had no Litany before the ninth Age because the invocation of Saints came in about that time Since in their Litany there are other Petitions very Pious and agreeable to the Doctrin of the pure and Primitive Church yea the very Phrases are found in the most ancient and Orthodox Fathers and there are yet extant some Manuscript Litanies without any names of Saints So as to this Liturgy there are many Corruptions in it which are modern Additions but there are also many Pious and excellent Prayers agreeable to Scripture and to the best Antiquity yea the very Words of which are found in the Orthodox and elect Fathers Fourthly Therefore whereas he objects that we had better wholly reject this Liturgy because we know not how to separate the Corruptions from what is pure and Orthodox I reply We can easily distinguish between them for we desire to justify no more of this Liturgy than what is agreeable to the Scriptures and to the Doctrin and Practice of the first four Centuries And there is enow of those Primitive passages in this Liturgy to convince any reasonable Man that there was a Form of public Prayers and Praises prescribed and used in the Church of Jerusalem long before S. Cyrils time and therefore I place this Liturgy here as being an Authentic Evidence there were Forms of Prayer allowed in this Age which is all that I am concerned to prove I conclude with Causabon's observation that the Liturgy under the Title of S. James which is now extant is partly true and partly false (u) Causab Exerc. in Baron xvi §. 41. pag. 384. And truly all Du-Plessis his Arguments which our Adversary hath Transcribed do only shew that S. James was not Author of all that Liturgy which now goes under his name (w) Du-Plâ—ssis 〈◊〉 he Mass 〈◊〉 1. chap. 2. but that learned Man never inferred from thence as this Author doth that there were no public Forms used in the Fourth Century for Du-Plessis acknowledges there was an Order and Form for the Celebration of the Sacrament in this Age and shews wherein it differed from the Modern corrupted Roman Mass (x) Idem ibid. Book 1. chap. 4. p. 30. c. and this may suffice to say concerning this Liturgy of S. James § 7. There is another Liturgy in the Apostolical Constitutions ascribed to Clement Clement's Constitutions circ An. Dom. 360. and though the Author to make the Forms and Rites of his own Age look more Venerable falsly claps the Apostles Names upon them yet he is owned by all Judicious Men to have been a Person Learned and well Skilled in Ecclesiastical Offices and is allowed to be worthy of Credit even by our Adversary (y) Disc of Liturg. p. 39. marg p. 110. in that which he relates concerning that time wherein he lived which as we will presently shew must be at least as early as the middle of this Century Wherefore so early we have a clear and undeniable Evidence that there was a prescribed Liturgy and Forms of Prayer used upon all public occasions The particulars are too long to insert but the several Heads are these These Constitutions have the Form of the Deacons warning those who were to Communicate noâ— to come with Malice or Hypocrisy (z) Constit Apostol lib. 2. cap. 58. They mention the alternate Singing of Davids Psalms (a) Ibid. cap. 61. begun at Antioch not long before A
of Charity that the Lapsed may obtain the Remedy of Repentance and lastly that the Catechumens being brought to the Sacrament of Regeneration may have the Gate of the Divine Mercy opened unto them (l) Obsecrationum quoque Sacerdotalium sacramenta respiciamus quae ab Apostolis tradita in toto mundo atque in omni Ecclesiâ Catholicâ uniformitèr celebrantur c. Celest Ep. pro Presp Hilar. inter opera Prosper p. 894. This is that famous Passage which our Adversary labours to misinterpret but in vain since nothing can more clearly prove the use of a prescribed Form than these Words For Celestine is here arguing against Hereticks and he confutes them by the Forms then used in the Church producing the very Words and affirming that the Apostles had delivered these Prayers to them at first and that there was an Uniformity in these Petitions between all the National Churches in the World that is all their Litanies had these Requests differing only in the Order and some few Phrases but the Roman Form was this which he here sets down bids the Hereticks look upon it and tells them this was the Rule for Prayer and therefore they ought to believe suitably to these Prayers which might be a Rule for their Faith as well as for their Devotion Now if these Prayers only agreed in the persons and things to be prayed for but were daily varied as every Minister pleased might not the Hereticks have asked him Where they could see Extempore and invisible Prayers or how he could make those Prayers fix a Rule for their Faith which were as various and uncertain as their Ministers Fancies They might except justly against any Argument taken from Prayers which were varied every day and differed so exceedingly in every â—everal Church But since they could be looked on transcribed and urged as an Argument and were so ancient in this Age that even Hereticks durst not â—xcept against the Authority of them we are sure they must be prescribed â—orms made long before this time I will not deny but that both Innocent and Celestine might stretch their Tradiâ—ion something too far when they â—scribed the Original of these Forms to â—he Apostles themselves but even that Assertion especially here in a dispute with Hereticks shews they were so ancient then that there was no Memorial of the first Composer left and â—t is usual among the Fathers to call that Apostolical which was generally observed and had so early a beginning that its first Author was not known As for my Adversaries pretence That this Testimony only affirms an Uniformity as to the order the persons and things to be prayed for I must observe that S. Augustine useth this very Argument against the same Hereticks and when he comes to cite the Words of the Prayer he repeats these very Words without altering any thing either in the Phrase or Order We have cited the place in the First part and if there be any verbal difference in the Translation from what is here set down out of Celestine I assure the Reader there is none in the Latin as will appear by comparing both places together (m) Celestin Ep. apud Prosp Et Aug. de Eccles dogmat cap. 30. See this History Part. l. Cent. 4. §. 21. pag. 231. Now when Celestine at Rome some years after quotes the same Form of Prayer verbatim which S. Augustine in Africa had cited before this shews that the Words as well as the Matter and Order were agreed on and it follows that both the Roman and African Church had a certain prescribed Form of Litany at this time and that the same Form was used in both Churches and was so Ancient and of so good Authority then as to be quoted for Evidence in a dispute with Hereticks And who can imagine there was no more but such an Uniformity as he speaks of that is that every Priest in every several Church in Rome used several Phrases every day which is more properly a Multiformity since we see the same Form of Words quoted for Evidence by two great Bishops the one in Italy the other in Africa and this also at two different times Or how can such a liberty and variety in Praying as he dreams of be called legem supplicandi a Rule of Praying How can such an uncertain thing which daily appears in a new and different shape fix the legem credendi the Rule of Believing We conclude therefore that the Words as well as the Method of this Litany was fixed at Rome long before the Time of this Pope § 6. Which will appear more plainly Prosper Aquitan An. D. 430 if we consult Prosper in whose behalf the Pope writ this Epistle For he being to Expound that place of S. Paul 1 Tim. II. 1. I exhort therefore that Prayers Supplications c. refers to the same Litany only supposing that the Form was well known he doth not quote the Words in their order but describes them so plainly that any one may discern it is the same Form which he S. Augustine and Pope Celestine do all appeal to His Words are these Which Law or Rule of Prayer the Devotion of all Priests and Faithful People so unanimously observe that there is no part of the World wherein the Christians do not celebrate such Prayers For the Church every where prays to God not only for the Saints and those already Regenerated in Christ but for all the Infidels and Enemies of his Cross For all Idolaters and all that persecute Christ in his Members for the Jews to whose blindness the Gospel gives no light for Hereticks and Schismaticks who are estranged from the Vnity of Faith and Charity And what doth it ask for these but that leaving their Errors they may be converted to God and receive the Faith embrace Charity and that being freed from the darkness of Ignorance they may come to the acknowledgment of the Truth (n) Prosper de Vocat Gent. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 798. We see he is discoursing gnerally of this Litany and breaks the Sentences first running over the persons prayed for and then the things asked for them yet even in this lax way of discourse it is easie to discern that he refers to Celestine's Form and with him affirms That this Prayer was a Rule unanimously observed by all Priests and People whereas if every Priest had daily varied the Words in every Assembly of the People there could be neither Certainty in the Rule nor Uniformity in the observing it I may add that Prosper did so highly reverence S. Augustine that we cannot doubt but he imitated him in the Approbation and use of public Forms and he explains one of those public Forms viz. the Preface of Sursum Corda in his Sentences taken out of S. Augustine's Works (o) Prosp sent ex Augustin sent 153. pag. 434. And in another place he mentions and commends that ancient Custom prescribed in the old Liturgies for the People
before (s) Usher Rel. of anc Irish Chap. 4. pag. 26. So that Bishop Vsher beleived that at first both Britons and Irish had one Form one Liturgy And the variety which my Adversary calls an ancient Liberty was an Innovation and a Corruption of the truly ancient way of Serving God by one and the same Liturgy And the Reader must have seen this to have been Bishop Vsher's Opinion if he had not cut off half his Discourse and begun in the midst of a Sentence But to make this still more Evident Bishop Vsher in another Tract produces a very ancient Manuscript called A Catalogue of the Irish Saints Wherein they are reckoned up in three Orders and the Chronology is so very exact that we may reasonably believe it was writ by a very good hand The words are these The first Order was that of Catholic Saints in the time of Patricius and they were famous Bishops full of the Holy Ghost in number 350 Founders of Churches having one Head even Christ and one Leader S. Patric one Mass and one manner of Celebration The Second Order were Catholic Presbyters among whom were few Bishops and many Priests 300 in number having one Head even our Lord they Celebrated divers Masses and had divers Rules The Third Order of Saints were Holy Presbyters and a few Jew Bishops 100 in number and they had divers Rules and Masses (t) Usherii Antiqu. Britan Eccles pag. 473 474. Then a little after he recokons the time that these Orders cotained The First which was most Holy continued from An. 433. to An. 534. The second which was Holy of Holies continued from 544. to 572. The 3d Order which was Holy continued from 598 to 665 (u) Vid. Ibid. pag. 490. Now by this account we see That the First and best Times from S. Patric had only one Form of Divine Service and thus it contiued for above 100 year from towards the midst of the Fifth Century that is from their first Conversion till toward the middle of the 6th Century And then about the time that Monkery came into request in the Western Church as Superstition encreased variety of Rules were made and in them were prescribed various Forms of Prayer and Divine Service or as they called it of Masses For as Bishop Vsher tells us The public Liturgy and Service of the Church was of old named the Mass even then also when Prayers were only said and so the Evening Mass signifies no more than that which we call Evening-Prayer (w) B. Usher Rel. of anc Irish Chap. 4. pag. 26. So then when Variety was brought in it was not as he falsly pretends a liberty to pray Arbitrarily it was various Forms prescribed in each Diocess or Monastery And every Clerk and Monk was bound to the Form of his own Diocess or Monastery and so were Strangers too when they came among them which occasioned Gillibert to complain That it was Indecent and Schismatical to see a very Learned Man of one Order to be like a private Lay man when he came to the Church of another Order (x) Gillibert in Usher Relig. anc Irish pag. 24. That is because he could not make Responses nor Vocally joyn in their strange Form Wherefore when Superstition had destroyed their Ancient and Original Uniformity they had no Liberty but were as much under Forms as ever only different Churches had divers Forms which I will make still more evident For Bishop Vsher expounding the aforesaid Passage of divers Masses and divers Rules shews it was meant of divers Forms and reckons up four several Rules written down by these Irish Saints all differing from each other (y) Uâ—â—er Antiq. Briâ— Eccles pag. 476. And two more one writ by Daganus approved of by Pope Gregory the Great Another made by Columbanus who flourished Anno Dom. 614. which is yet extant and differs in some things from the Rule of S. Benedict (z) Id. Ibid. pag. 476 477. of which Ordericus Vitalis saith That though his Scholars followed the Rule of S. Benedict yet they forsook not the Orders of their Master For from Columbanus they learned the Manner and Order of Divine-Service and a Form of Prayers for all Orders of Men that are in the Church of God (a) Orderie â—ital Hist Eccles lib. 8. ad An. 1094. So that this Learned Primate took all these Varieties to be various Forms of Prayer and my Adversary shamefully abuses his great Name to give colour to a false and groundless device of his own of Praying Arbitrarily and Extempore which he would dress up as one of the General Usages of the ancient Church whereas there is not one Syllable in Bishop Vsher tending to prove That the Irish retained this liberty of Praying for 1100 years and the Britons and Scots for a long time after Augustin This is his own Invention and is as false as his Reflections upon the present Church of England in that Page are malicious and without ground (b) Disc of Lit. pag. 89. As for the Britons he saith They were Enemies to the Roman use in the Eucharist in Gildas 's time but he produces an Author there which saith They followed the Asian Manner in Preaching Baptizing and celebrating Easter (c) Ibid. pag. 88. Spelm. Concil Tom. I. pag. 107. Now the Asian and Eastern Churches had Forms of celebrating the Eucharist and Baptizing in the Fourth Age as we shewed before out of the Apostolical Constitutions and many other Authors therefore if they followed the Eastern Manner then they had Forms for the Eucharist and Baptism and though they had no Uniformity with Rome yet if they followed the Asian Manner he hath no Reason to assert That they were averse to and unacquainted with any Vniformity and that they had no prescribed Liturgies for such Vniformity long after A pitiful piece of Sophistry to conclude from their not receiving the Roman Liturgy and agreeing to be Uniform with them to infer that the Britons had no Uniformity or Liturgy at all If we may believe Bishop Vsher Saint Patric was the Apostle both of the Irish and Welsh and brought the same Liturgy into Wales that he brought into Ireland and therefore he saith of the Britons That their Form of Liturgy was the same with that which was received by their Neighbours the Gauls (d) Usher Rel. of anc Irish pag. 26. for which he cites the fore-mentioned Ancient Manuscript And if they had any variety among them it was a variety of Forms not his Arbitrary liberty For Baleus informs us That Kentigern who was Bishop of that Church which was afterward called S. Asaph Writ a Manual of his Ministrations (e) Balaeus de script Brit. mihi fol. 32. That is the Forms by which he celebrated Divine Service and Bishop Vsher shews That he and S. Columba meeting together their Disciples alternately sang Forms of Praises to God and the latter Company with Hallelujah (f) Usher
These are like those in Isaiah Chap. lxv 5. which say Stand by thy self come not near for I am holier than thou these are saith the Lord a Smoke in my Nose That is They vehemently stir up my Wrath against them God grant they may return to a better mind (h) Id. ibid. Thes 50 51. pag. 670. Thus that pious and learned Author concludes his Learned Theses and I will only make one Remark more of his concerning this Sort of Men viz. That nothing seems to incite them so studiously to condemn all Forms of Liturgy like the love of Innovation and the design of introducing Corruption that under the specious veil and pretence of liberty of Praying and Prophecying they may bring in all kind of Sects into the Church and therefore they make Men believe that vain false and erroneous Opinion viz. That in our Times as well as the Apostles the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication is to be poured out on the present Church according to Joel ii 28. and Zech. xii 10. which is the common and most pestilent Error of all Phanaticks about the Comforter which Christ was to send (i) Id. ibid. Thes 28. p. 663. It is a Reformed Divine of the French Church Second to none of his Time for Learning Piety and Judgment a famous Professor in an Eminent Protestant University who gives this Character of that Party of our Dissenters who are against all Prescribed Forms and by it we may discern what Notion Forein Churches have of them and of our Liturgy also I shall end these Forein Testimonies with a Paper delivered to me Signed by two Exiled French Pastors of great Piety and good Learning now residing in this City We whose Names are hereunto Subscribed being asked what we thought of Liturgies have expressed our Opinion in these Words We think a Liturgy in the Church is not only useful but also necessary For as there is and ought to be One Rule of Faith so also there ought to be One and the same Form of Gods public external Worship And it manifestly appears That the Protestants of the French Churches never were against such Forms because they had a Form for Administring the Sacraments for celebrating Matrimony and certain other Prescribed Prayers which none of us were allowed to recede from †Carol. Daubuz Minist Gal. Johan Costebadeus Minist Gal. Dated at York April 8. 1690. And now I will produce only two Domestick Testimonies of Men most entirely Unexceptionable and so conclude The first is that of Bishop Ridley who died a Martyr for the Protestant Faith and he in a Letter writ to his Friends a little before his Martyrdom saith This Church had of late i. e. in K. Edwards days the whole Divine Service all common and public Prayers Ordained to be said and heard in the common Congregation not only framed and fashioned to the true vein of Holy Scripture but also set forth according to the Commandment of the Lord and S. Pauls Doctrin for the Peoples Edification in their Vulgar Tongue (k) Bish Ridlies Farewell An. 1555. in Fox Acts Monum Vol. 2 pag. 1940. This was the Opinion of this great and glorious Martyr concerning our Common-Prayer before it was so refined as it hath since been And as to the Liturgy as it was Corrected by Queen Elizabeth the incomparable Bishop Juell in his never enough to be admired Apology gives this Testimony of it We have come as near as ever we could to the Church of the Apostles and to that of the old Catholic Bishops and Fathers while we know it was yet pure and as Tertullian saith an uncorrupt Virgin not stained hitherto with any Idolatry or any grievous or notorious Error And we have directed not only our Doctrin but also our Sacraments and our Form of public Prayers by their Rites and Institutions (l) Juelli Apolog Lat. edit Lond. 1591. pag. 170. I need add no more Evidence in a matter so plain for this will shew to all whom Interest and wilful Prejudice doth not blind both that all Foreign Churches and Eminent Writers do approve of prescribed Forms and that they as well as our own Reformers generally esteem our Liturgy as a most excellent Form of Service Wherefore I will now conclude with a charitable and compassionate Address to those unhappy but well meaning Dissenters who are designedly imposed on by their interested Teachers I doubt not but many of them sincerely desire to worship God in the most acceptable way and the reason why they separate from our Worship is because they have been industriously prejudiced against Forms as a Novel Corruption a Popish Superstition a Method of Praying contrary to Scripture and to the Judgment and Practice as well of the Primitive and Ancient as of the Protestant and Modern Churches But now my Brethren when all this is proved to be nothing else but Falshood and Malice I hope you will suffer your selves to be undeceived and joyn with us in that way of Praying which was used by the Saints in the old Testament enjoyned by Christ in the New practised by all those Holy Bishops and Devout Christians who lived ever since the first setling of the Church and now allowed and observed in all Regular Protestant Churches And especially since we have a Liturgy so generally approved by them all You have heard their Judgments of it and you may see the Practice of these Foreign Protestants who come hither from France and Holland Germany and Denmark they all like our Worship and as soon as they understand our Language joyn with us in it There never saith Mons Bochart was any of us in England who did not freely come to your Divine Service as soon as they had learned your Tongue none of us who did not receive the Holy Sacrament from Presbyters ordained by Bishops or if occasion were from Bishops themselves which I my self profess I often did with great profit while I studied Divinity at London and Oxford (m) Samuel Bochart Ep. ad Claris Morleum ap Durel p. 64. Foreign Protestants joyn with us and wonder at you for separating from us And can you still be made to believe our Service is Popish or that it is the Protestant interest either for us to cast off this our Protestant way of Serving God or you by continuing in your Separation to divide and weaken the most famous and best established Protestant Church in the World I do in the Bowels of Jesus Christ beseech you to cast off your Roman-like implicite Faith in those who have so evidently deluded you and to lay aside your prejudices which you may here see are so ill grounded For if once you discern your Error and can conquer your unfortunate Mistakes I doubt not but all of you who have no other ends to serve but those of Piety may come to our Churches and will find great comfort and benefit by our rational pure and Primitive Forms and will
Extempore Way there ought to have been an express abrogation of the Old Way and a positive institution of the New one left upon Record either in the Gospels or Epistles But it is so far from that that we can prove our Lord and his Apostles allowed made and used Forms of Prayer For according to the custom of the great Rabbies of that Age Jesus taught his Disciples a divine Form of Prayer to be added to their other Forms as the peculiar mark of their being his Scholars (n) Dr Lightf Vol. 2. p. 158. And it is observed by learned Men that Christ took every sentence of this Form out of the Jewish Prayers then in use (o) Idem Exp. in Math. vi 9. Grotii Com. in locum So far saith Grotius was the Lord of the Church from all affectation of unnecessary Innovation And we may note that when they desired he would teach them to pray that was a proper occasion to have reformed the old method of praying by Forms if Christ had intended such a thing but instead of any such intimation he gives them a new Form and copies the several Petitions out of the Jewish Liturgy shewing thereby his approbation of praying to God in a prescribed Form Which is also manifest from our Lords Hymn which he and his Apostles sang together after his last Supper p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Math. xxvi 30. and if this were not the Paschal Hymn as the best Authors think (q) Du-Plessis of the Mass lib. I. chap. I. pag. 4. yet it could not be an Extempore Psalm as Grotius fancies because the Apostles sang with him and so must know the words of it before (q) Vid. Bez. not in Matth. xxvi 30. Again His Prayer in the Garden which was offered up as S. Paul notes (r) Hebr. v. 7. with extraordinary Devotion was a Form because he thrice repeated the very same Words (s) Math. xxvi 44. and by the way this shews the folly of those who pretend None can pray devoutly unless they vary the phrase every time they pray To proceed It is very probable that our Saviour used a Form of Prayer on the Cross extracted out of the XXIIth Psalm which begins My God my God why hast thou forsaken me (t) Math. xxvii 46. yet he had the same Spirit in the highest Manner by which those Psalms were indited and therefore of pure choice used Forms even on extraordinary occasions The Apostles observed the Jewish hours of Prayer and worshiped God with them both in their Temple and their Synagogues but there is no account that they set up a New way of Praying or disliked the old and S. Augustine affirms that they used the Lords Prayer even after they had received the Spirit of God and repeated that Form every day even when they were in their greatest state of perfection (u) Aâ—g Hilar. Ep. 89. p. 82. G. And Beza whose Authority will sway much with our Adversaries tells us That S. Paul promised to come and settle Forms of Prayer at Corinth in the Church which he had planted there for when he expounds those words The rest will I set in order when I come he saith That is to settle those things which pertained to order as Place Time and FORMS OF PRAYER (w) Beza not minor in 1 Cor. xi 34. I only note he had this Exposition out of S. Augustine (x) Aug. Januar. Ep. 118. p. 116. c. who saith S. Paul intimates It was too long for an Epistle to set down that whole order of Celebration which the Vniversal Church observes so that he would leave that to be setled till he came And hence the Dutch Divines who writ to the Assembly at London in the Civil Wars say They dare not condemn all those godly Churches who from the Apostolical and Primitive times celebrated Gods public Worship by prescribed and certain Forms (y) Class Walach ap Falkn libert Eccles pag. 111. So that they also thought Forms were setled in some Churches even from the Apostles times which I could prove by many other Authorities but these may suffice § 3. There are some Objections against these Proofs from the New Testament dispersed up and down the discourse of Liturgies and other Writings of that party which I will here consider before I proceed First Our Adversary brings many Quotations to prove that the Ancients did not believe the Lords Prayer was intended for a Form but for a direction what things they should pray for (z) Discourse of Lit. p. 3 4. But all that heap of Authors which he cites affirm no more than that it was not only to be a Form but also a direction Which we freely grant for if it were intended at all to be used as a Form then Forms are agreeable to the Gospel way of Worship and the using it as a Form doth not hinder it from being a direction to draw up other Forms by for all Authentic Liturgies and ours especially are grounded on and drawn up by the Lord's Prayer The Collects for Grace being grounded on the three first Petitions The Prayers for all Earthly Blessings are grounded upon the Request for our daily Bread The Confessions and Litanies for pardon and deliverance from Sin and all other kinds of evil upon the three last Petitions and The Thanksgivings Hymns and Praises upon the Doxology So that I cannot but wonder at this Authors impertinent filling a whole Page with Quotations to prove it lawful to use other Words in Prayer while he is disputing against us who allow and use Liturgies which are other Words but such as are agreeable to it both as to the Form and Matter of them His business was to prove the Lord's Prayer was never intended by Christ nor used by the Church as a Form But almost every one of his Authors grant it was a Form even in the places he produces Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom do so in him and in an hundred places more as I shall shew when I come to them in Order Calvin in his Quotation calls it A Form dictated by Christ and elsewhere saith That holy Men daily repeat it by Christ's Command (a) Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 1. § 23. Maldonat only tells us We are not always bound to use these very Words Grotius owns it may profitably be repeated in those very Words Causabon in the place cited is not speaking of the Lord's Prayer (b) Causab exercit 14. num 14. p. 235. And it was hardily done to cite Mr. Mede for his Opinion who in the place which he cites doth not only prove the Lord's Prayer was a Form but also that the use of Forms under the Gospel is lawful and profitable (c) Mede Diatrib 1. on Math. vi 9. Jansenius doth not dislike the use of the Words of our Lord's Prayer as a Form but the minding only the Words and not the Sense he justly reproves I shall add