a ridiculous thing in the Marcionites to celebrate their Mysteries before the Catechumens (i) Epipâ—au Panar contr Marcion p 136. For his own part he will say no more when he comes to describe the celebration of the Sacraments but this The other Mysteries of the Laver i. e. Baptism and the internal Mysteries i. e. the Eucharist are performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel and of the Apostles only he saith There were in the Church constantly Morning Hymns and Morning Prayers as also Prayers and Psalms at Evening or Candle lighting (k) Id. ibid. prope finem Labri But though he do not tell us what the several Forms were yet we may be assured they used Forms then in the Churches of Cyprus First because they did so in all the other Churches wherewith Epiphanius held Communion Secondly Because he doth so highly commend the Apostolical Constitutions as containing all regular Order and being agreeable to the true and Orthodox way of Worship (l) Epiphan Panar lib. 3. Tom. 1. haer 70. and yet we have seen there is a prescribed Liturgy and complete Forms of Prayer for all occasions set down in those Constitutions Thirdly Because he derides Montanus and other Hereticks for pretending to inspiration and such extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit as were then ceased Now though this being added to other testimonies of this Age be proof sufficient to those that are unprejudiced that Epiphanius allowed and used Set Forms of Hymns and Prayers yet our Adversary hath picked up a passage out of an Epistle of his Recorded by S. Hierom and extant only in Latin to prove that the Prayer for all Estates of Men in the Communion Office was not a prescribed Form because when Epiphanius was accused for Praying in that part of the Office for John Bishop of Jerusalem thus O Lord grant that John may believe aright he is not very sure what Words he used nor doth appeal to any certain Form and thence he concludes there was no Set Form for this Prayer in the time of Epiphanus (m) â—isc of Lating pag. â—2 63 c. And this Argument he triumphs in extremely To which I shall now reply That if all he supposes were true the act of one single Bishop upon an extraordinary occasion would not weigh down all the Evidence we have produced to the contrary and if so Eminent a Bishop as Epiphanius upon so great an occasion as a Metropolitan 's falling into Heresy had altered two or three Words of the usual Form this will not prove that the inferior Clergy were always left at liberty to Pray Extempore yet that is the liberty this Author pleads for But Secondly The very accusation which John of Jerusalem brings against Epiphanius strongly supposes there was a known Form by which they prayed for the great Bishops and that made his varying from it to be easily discerned and ill taken And Thirdly The answer of Epiphanius clears the matter For he first denies that he used those Words which were charged on him saying it would have been a rude thing to use such an expression of that Bishop in public though he owns he always prayed so for him in his Heart And Secondly He doth appeal to the public Forms and so tells him what Words he did use for he saith when we make that Prayer according to the Communion Office we say for all Bishops and for you also Keep him who Preacheth the Truth Or certainly thus Hear us Lord and keep him that he may Preach the Word of Truth as the occasion required and as the Office for Prayer directed (n) Quando autem complemus orationem secundum ritum Mysteriorum pro omnibus pro te quoque dâ—cimut custodi illum qui pradicat veritatem Vel certè ita Tu praesta Domine custodi ut ille verbum pradicit veritatis sicut occasio Sermonis se tulerit habuerit Oratio consequentiam Epist Epiphan ad Johan Hieros ap D. Hieron The right understanding of which Answer depends upon observing three things First That he affirms he performed this Prayer secundum ritum mysteriorum according to the usual Office for the Sacrament had the Greek been extant probably there it would have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly That he saith it was one of the two ways mentioned as occasion required habuerit oratio consequentiam now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is literally translated here Consequentiam signifies an Order prescribed So that we must observe that there are two Prayers in Epiphanius his friend the Author of the Constitutions which are Forms by which they there pray for the Bishops at the time of the Sacrament (o) Constit Apostol lib. 8. cap. 13. cap. 18. Item in Liturg. D. Jacobi semel In Liturg. D. Basil â—is orant pâ—o Episcopis ut recte tractent verbum veritatis the Sense of both Forms being much of the same with what Epiphanius saith he prayed but the Words are somewhat different And very likely the Forms for Hierusalem and Cyprus were also two and had both these ways prescribed Custodi illum c. and Tu praesta Domine So that Epiphanius who strictly kept to the Words of his Form to his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturgy is confident he never prayed for John of Jerusalem but one of these ways either the former way in the beginning or the latter way in the midst of the Communion Service For Thirdly Had he taken that liberty which my Adversary pleads for and prayed Extempore or varied the Phrase dayly he could not be so confident that he never had used those Words which John of Jerusalem here charges him with Nor could he have been certain as we see he is that he did use one of these two Phrases each being part of a distinct Form in that Office So that this passage doth not disprove but confirm the use of a Liturgy by Epiphanius § 12. Greg. Nazianzen An. Dom. 370. We have very little in Gregory Nazianzen concerning Liturgy for he was very strict in requiring that none of the Christian Mysteries should be divulged to strangers and the most considerable of his works are Sermons made in the Church before the Catechumens went out so that there he is very cautious of publishing the Forms of Divine worship (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. Orat. 40 p. 672 Item Orat. 42. pag. 687. c. Yet that passage concerning the Apostate Julians designing to imitate the Christians in their way of serving God and so making a Form of Prayers in part for his Pagan Temples which is related by Nazianzen (q) See before §. 8. An. 361. shews that in his time the Christian worship was performed by Forms of Prayer which had Responses and of which the People bore a part And we may be assured of two things First That this way of worship was more ancient than Julians time for he would not have
against this evident Truth And the first is a manifest Falshood viz. That no ancient Author mentions it (d) Disâ—ourse of Litu g. p. 162 c. For we have seen many of the Ancients do attest it Secondly He saith Many Words Rites and Persons are spoken of in it which cannot belong to S. Basil 's time To which I Answer That the Modern Copies now extant have many late Corruptions in them and we do not defend any one of these but if these be cast out there remains many primitive pious and excellent Forms of Prayer and Praise which are very agreeable to the genuine Works and to the uncorrupted Age of S. Basil and these are all the Passages in it that we defend and account to have been the Composure of S. Basil And if there were but Five Pages of this kind that suffices to make out my Position viz. That S. Basil made a Liturgy and that these Forms of Prayer were generally used in public in his time but the Reader who will peruse this Liturgy will find the far greatest part of it to be holy pure and primitive Forms and the Prayers Responses Hymns and Doxologies most of them both for Matter and Style agreeable to this Age and attested by the Writings of the Fathers both of this and former Centuries As to the Persons mentioned in this Liturgy who lived after S. Basil their Names were taken out of Modern Manuscripts Copied from some Liturgy which was in use in those later Ages wherein such Persons lived But though these Names were not in S. Basil's Original yet they do no more prove He never made the Original Liturgy ascribed to him or that he made no Liturgy than our praying for the present King and Queen or our having Offices for the Fifth of November and the 30th of January prove That the Main substance of the Common-Prayer-Book was not Composed in the Time of King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth So that I cannot but blush at such Learned Men as for want of better urge such trifling Sophistry for Arguments Thirdly My Adversary objects That divers Learned Protestants count this Liturgy spurious To which I Answer That Many also count the main of it to be genuine but all Learned Protestants except my Adversary do grant enough for my purpose viz. That S. Basil did make a Liturgy which sufficiently proves the Use of Liturgies in This Age. Du Plessis himself out of whom my Adversary steals most of his Arguments confesseth There is some appearance and likelyhood that Basil and Chrysostom did ordain a prescript Form of the Administration in their Diocesses (e) Mornay of the Mass Book I. Chap. 6. pag. 50. The Learned Rivet will not affirm that it is wholly spurious though he think as we do that many things were added to it and some things altered afterward (f) Riveti censur pag. 310. And Causabon as we noted before accounts these Liturgies partly false and partly true (g) Causab exercit in Baron xvi p. 384. with these also the Famous Salmasius though no great Friend to ancient Forms doth agree (h) Salmas contra Grot. op posthum pag. 254. Bishop Bilson cites many Passages out of them and justifies them to be authentic so far as they agree to the genuine Works of S. Basil and other Fathers of that Age (i) Bilson Christian Subject part 4. pag. 437. And to name no more Chemnitius saith He will not deny but Basil and Chrysostom did make some such form of Prayer but he saith That what we read now under their Names is not all genuine sincere nor certain (k) Chemnit exam Concil Trident. part 2. pag. 191. Which we freely grant because it follows that some of that which now goes under their Names is genuine sincere and certain Fourthly He urges the many Corruptions which are in the Modern Copies such as praying to Saints and the Blessed Virgin Prayers for the Dead c. to which we have given an Answer before and shall now only say That these are added to the old Form and a judicious Antiquary may easily distinguish these Novel Additions from the old Primitive Forms which are not to be cast away because some have added Corruptions to them We do not justifie but reject these Additions and there is enough besides to prove our Position therefore I will only add that in these Liturgies there are many Passages which condemn the present Doctrins of the Roman Church and it would be pity to cast away these because of some Dross mixed with them which when we have separated the pure Primitive Silver will remain I conclude therefore That S. Basil made a Liturgy and that the Christians in his Days used to pray by prescribed Forms § 16. The Books which pass under the name of Dionysius Areopagita Dionysius Areopag or rather Apollinaris Laod. An. Dom. 370. and especially that of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy have in them many Indications of a Liturgy but were writ in this Age as is supposed by Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea who was a great Friend of S. Basil's and hath been noted not only for his High-flown Style but also for putting out Books under the names of the most Ancient Fathers (l) Dr. Caves Apostol life of Dionys Areop num 13. c. But whether he were the Author of them or no doubtless they must be ancienter than the sixth Century because many of the Rites here expounded were disused before that time and because there is express mention of them as cited by S. Cyril of Alexandria who lived in the beginning of the fifth Century (m) Liberati Brev. cap. 10. apud Bin. Tom. 2. par 2. pag. 182. Script An. 553. However Liberatus who Records this and allows Dionysius his Works to be good Evidence lived in the middle of the sixth Century and if these Books had been writ but little before it had been Ridiculous to have urged them for Evidence in dispute S. Gregory also the Great who lived in the same Century wherein Dailé pretends these Books were writ cites the celestial Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius Areopagita and calls him an Ancient and Venerable Writer (n) Greg. Mag. hom 34. in Evang. p. 138. yea in the very beginning of the sixth Century this Book is cited under the name of Dionysius by two Writers of the Greek Church (o) An. 527. Leont Byzant contr Nest lib. 2. Anastas Sinaita Anagog contempl in Hexam lib. 7. and Maximus writ Scholias upon these Books Anno Dom. 640. Wherefore this Author having such Credit and being mistaken for the true Dionysius in the fifth and sixth Ages could not live in later times than these wherein we now place him and we desire no more than our Adversary allows viz. that he may have Credit in reporting the usages of his own time p (m) Disc of Liturg. p. 39. Now though this Author is so very fearful of discovering Mysteries an evident
promise to remain in Christ and adds That the whole Office is concluded with a solemn Thanksgiving (a) Aug. Paulin. Ep. 59. pag. 62. that is with a known Form in Words prescribed as Solemn plainly imports Now this is exactly agreeing to our Liturgy wherein we have a Prayer with a Vow to offer up our selves to Christ and conclude with that solemn Thanksgiving Glory be to God on high And as for the Praises of God S. Augustin highly commends the Custom of Milan For the Priest and People to sing Hymns in the Church alternately which can be no otherwise than by Forms (b) Aug. Confess lib. 10. cap. 33. pag. 41. ad Januar. Ep. 119. p. 119. He also approves and defends the Custom of Carthage in singing Hymns at the Altar taken out of the Psalms of David (c) Id retract lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 10. And particularly he mentions the Usage of Singing the Hallelujah at the Altar every Lords-day (d) Id. ad Januar Ep. 119. pag. 119. ad Pascentium Ep. 178. p. 164. So that Africa in his Time had many Forms of Praise and therefore Possidonius among other effects of the Persecution that broke out after his Death laments this especially That it made the Hymns and Praises of God in the Church to cease (e) Pâ—ssâ—â—â— vit D. Aug. prope finem To conclude This Holy Father was so great a lover of Forms that there is yet extant in his Works a very pious Form of Prayer which he used after his Sermons (f) Aug Oper. Tom. 8. p. ult so that where the Church had not prescribed to him he saw fit there to use a Form And if we had time to make a narrower search in the Works of this Learned Father no doubt we might trace out the whole African Liturgy used in his Time but those who will be satisfied with Reason and Truth will be abundantly satisfied by the Instances here produced That there were Forms both of Prayer and Praise daily used in that Church § 22. My Adversary who pretends to a narrow search into Antiquity had the ill Fortune to miss most of these obvious Passages but he hath found out divers that are more obscure which he urges to prove there were no prescribed Forms First he saith The Ancients did not think Christ enjoyned them to use the Lords Prayer in the Eucharistical Office and that S. Augustin declares Our Lord in delivering this Prayer did not teach his Disciples what words they should use but what things they should pray for (g) Disc of Liturg. p. 3. As to the first part of this Objection The Ancients generally expound that Petition of our daily Bread to be meant of the Sacramental Bread and most of them testifie They used the Lords Prayer as a Form in this Office Many of them and particularly S. Augustin call it The Prayer enjoyned by Christs Law (h) Aug. hom 42. de temp ser 126. and S. Hierom expresly saith That Christ taught the Apostles to appoint it to be said in the Sacrifice of his Body (i) Hieron adv Pelag. lib. 3. So that this Assertion of our Adversaries is a manifest Untruth And for the second part of the Objection S. Augustin is speaking of Mental Prayer as his own Quotation shews (k) cum in penetralibus mentis orarent Aug. lib. de Mag. cap. 1. Tom. 1. p. 122. Disc of Lit. pag. 3. and in that sort of Prayer wherein no Words are to be used he saith Christ by the Words of this Form taught them to whom and for what they should pray in secret But how impertinent is it in my Adversary to cite this as S. Augustin's Opinion about the use of this Form in public Offices and in Vocal Prayer about which alone we now dispute There are innumerable places in this Father to assure us he believed Christ did teach it to be used as a Form in Vocal and Public Prayer He calls it The daily Prayer which the Lord taught by daily saying whereof our daily Sins are blotted out (l) Id. de Civ Dei lib. 21. cap. 27. p. 232. yea he affirms The Faithful used to say these Words every day (m) Id. Hom. 14. pag. 79. and repeated them with united Voices among the holy Brethren and therefore he charges all both Men and Women to learn this Form (n) Id. de Temp. Serm. 126. pag. 191. and tells the Catechumens They must say this Prayer daily when they are Baptized because it was daily Repeated at the Altar in the Church the Faithful hearing it (o) Id. Hom. 42. pag. 116. So that the truth of this Matter is that S. Augustin plainly declares Christ taught it as a Form and so the Primitive Christians used it and he only intimates that it is also a direction to draw up other Prayers by to the same sense in other Words and they made that use of it also in drawing up Liturgies by that Pattern and in modelling their private Devotions into Forms agreeing in sense with this Divine Form which is the true meaning of that place (p) Discourse of Lit. pag. 5 6. pag. 60. ex Aug. ad Prob. Ep 12. which he twice cites viz. that it was lawful to use other Words in Prayer if it were to the same sense Secondly He saith S. Augustin complains that some of his Brethren used Heretical Prayers in their Sacramental Administrations which he supposes could not have been if they had then any allowed Liturgy Which Argument according to his Custom he urges in two several places (q) Disc of Liturg. p. 46. p. 113. ex Aug. de bapt contr Donat. lib. 6. cap. 25. I Answer That he ought not to have brought this in to prove there were no Forms for the Eucharist as he here doth See Discourse of Liturg. pag. 44. because the Father is only speaking of Prayers made at Baptism not of Prayers made at the Lords Supper so that he abuseth his Reader and S. Augustin both in applying this to the Eucharist But Secondly These Prayers were no essential parts of the Office of Baptism there was as S. Augustin in this place assures us a certain Form besides which none might vary from and these Bishops did use this Form which made the Baptism to be valid notwithstanding these additional Prayers newly thrust into the Old Office which were composed by Hereticks or Babling Persons (r) Certa illa Evangelica verba sine quibus non potest Baptismus consecrari Non est Baptismus Christi si verba Evangelica quibus symbolum constat illic defuerint Aug. de bapt contr Donat. But it seems these weak Brethren who were also Bishops and therefore Augustin who was a Bishop calls them Brethren designed to make the Office of Baptism more compleat by adding some Prayers before and after the essential Form of Baptism and wanting Judgment chose either silly or Heretical Prayers for the use of their