plenty for deliverance from Sedition and for the prosperity of the Public He mentions also the Prayers for those in divers Necessities and the Thanksgivings for all the Mercies we daily receive from God (g) Ambros Com. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. Tom. 3. pag. 574. Which are the Heads of general Intercession used in all ancient Liturgies and come as near the Words of some of them as can be expected in a Commentary where he doth not cite the very Words but shew the agreement of these Forms to the Apostolical Rule In another place he refers to this Prayer briefly and notes that immediately before the Prayer of Consecration there is premised a Prayer for Kings and all others (h) Oratio praemittitur pro râ—gibus pro caeteris Id. de Sacram. l. b. 4. c. 4. p. 366. But as to the Prayer of Consecration it self He gives us the very Form of it Would you know saith he with what Heavenly Words it is consecrated Hear the very Words The Priest saith Make this Oblation ratified rational and acceptable that it may be for a Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ who the day before he Suffered taking Bread into his holy Hands c. Then reciting the Words and Actions of the Institution He goes on to tell us that the Priest adds Wherefore we being mindful of his most glorious Passion of his Resurrection from the Dead and of his Ascension into Heaven do offer unto thee this immaculate rational and unbloody Sacrifice this holy Bread and Cup of Eternal Life desiring and praying thou wilt accept this Oblation upon thy Heavenly Altar by the hands of thy Angels as thou didst accept the gifts of thy Servant the Righteous Abel and the Sacrifice of our Father Abraham which was offered to thee by thy High-Priest Melchisedec (i) Ambros de Sacr. lib. 4. c. 5 6. pag. 367 c. Which is an express Form and the same with the primitive Roman Canon till the New Doctrins of a Propitiatory Sacrifice and Transubstantiation compelled them to alter their old Forms to suit it with their later Opinion He also declares the Form of Administration The Priest saith The Body of Christ and Thou saist Amen (k) Id. ib. p. 368. vide Const Apostol lib. 8. cap. 20. Ubi habemus eandem Formulam He also tells us That the Lord's Prayer concluded the Office (l) Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 4. pag. 370. And concerning that Ancient Hymn the Trisagion He saith That in most of the Eastern and divers Western Churches in the Oblation of that Sacrifice which is presented to God the Father the People and the Priest with one Voice say Holy Holy Holy Lord God of Hosts all the Earth is full of thy Majesty * Lib. de Spir. Sanct. Tom. 5. pag. 525. Moreover He mentions the old Form of the Bishops Saluting the People by Praying Peace might be with them (m) Ambr. de dign Sacerd. cap. 5. We have also in him The Form of renouncing the Devil (n) Id. de Sacr. lib. 1. c. 2 p. 354. and of Consecrating the Water in Baptism (o) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 359. and a Form of asking those who were to be Baptized concerning their Faith in the Holy Trinity (p) Ibid. cap. 7. pag. 360. He informs us also That the Church had ordered a Prayer for the Bishop (q) Id. Com. in Rom xv Tom. 3. pag. 331. And he prescribes the LI Psalm as a very proper Form of Prayer for a sincere Penitent to use in private (r) Tract ad Viâ—g laps T. 4. pag. 455. and recommends some Verses of the XLI Psalm as fit to be said when we go to Visit those that are Sick (s) Com. in Psal xli Tom. 2. pag 755. So that it is not only past all contradiction that S. Ambrose used and approved Forms but we might collect almost an intire Liturgy out of his Works And we have the Testimony of Walafridus Strabo who lived almost 900 year ago That S. Ambrose made not only a Communion Office but Composed all other Offices for his own Church and others which the Church of Milan retains to this very day (t) Walafrid Strab. de â—eb Ecclâ—s cap. 22. An 840. There is also other ancient Evidence that he made such a Liturgy in Card. Bona de reb Liturg lib. 1. cap. 10. but this like all other ancieâ—t Liturgies hath also been mixed with â—ome of the Modern Corruptions however his genuine Works give us Evidence enough that there were prescribed Forms of Prayer and Praise in his time Let us now examine what our Adversary hath gathered out of S. Ambrose to oppose this plain Proof First He is one of those Authors who calls the Prayer of Consecration A Mystery and this he tells us twice over (a) Discourse of Liturgy p. 28 29. But yet we have shewed that he hath actually writ it down so that it could not be his meaning That it was such a Mystery as might not be committed to Writing and that shews that our Author gets no advantage to his Cause by citing this place (b) Ambros de Fide ad Grat. lib. 4. cap. 5. Secondly He would prove that S. Ambrose counted Praying Extemporè to be praying by the Spirit and for this he quotes his Epistle to Horontianus (c) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 60. I Answer S. Ambrose is not speaking of the Public Service but of private Prayer in that place and therefore the Allegation is impertinent Besides He doth not say the Spirit furnishes us with Words and Phrases but helps us to apply our Minds to pray and keeps out Carnal thoughts making us content with such things as we naturally wish to be quit of because they are for our good And both here and elsewhere he explains that Phrase of the Spirits helping our infirmities Rom. viii 26. to be meant of the Spirits giving us such patience that we shall not desire to be presently freed from our Afflictions (d) Ambros ad Horont lib. 5. ep 4. pag. 290. Com. in Rom. viii Tom. 3. p. 293. which is nothing at all to his Notion of Extempore Prayer In another place He expounds those Words Praying always in the Spirit to signifie Praying with a pure Conscience and a sincere Faith which he who prays by a Form may do (e) Com. in Ephes vi p. 516. And certainly he who knew it was always his Duty to pray by or with the Spirit and yet used and approved a Form must believe it possible to pray in or by a Form and yet to pray by or with the Spirit Thirdly My Adversary objects a Passage out of S. Ambrose his Epistle to his Sister Marcellina viz. That while he was Celebrating he heard that the Arians had seized upon one Castulus just as he was performing the general Collect whereupon he ordered the Prayer suitable to that Occasion which one that had
when we consider the exact agreement betwixt this and the ancient Litanies this eminent Instance out of the genuine Works of so great a Bishop in these early Times wherein we see he refers his Friend to known and public Offices both proves those parts of the ancient Litanies to have been Primitive and shews that there was a Litany in S. Basil's time Thirdly There are many Evidences that he approved of Forms of Prayer for he commends the way of praying by conjoyned Voices in Responses where he saith That a Prayer wherein there are not conjoyned Voices is not half so strong as otherwise it would be (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. 68. pag. 856. So that he thought Forms of Prayer in which the People joyned their Responses to the Priests Words were the most effectual way of praying and he saith Their bearing a part or share in any Prayer made it far more profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas Ep. 392. pag. 1174. Therefore he esteemed this way of praying which can only be performed in prescribed Forms would be soonest heard by Almighty God And for this Reason he made a Canon or Form of Prayer for his Monks charging them whensoever they prayed to use their Voices and also to continue until the last Prayer of the Canon (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas asciet Tom. 2. p. 243 244. and he orders them to reject those thoughts whith took off their Minds from the Canon of Prayer that is the prescribed Form which was to be the Canon or Rule by which he appointed they should always pray And so great a lover he was of Forms that he ordered those Monks should be rejected who would not learn the Psalms by Heart (e) Basil regul brev pag. 549. which no question were to be some of their Forms of Prayer and Praises We will conclude with one Observation viz. That our Adversary grants there was an Hymn for Candle-lighting in S. Basil's time (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Disc of Liturg p. 361. but he omits that the Father there saith It was a certain Form of Words used by the People so long before his time that he knew not which of the Ancients composed it but yet none blamed the People for using this old Form which was Let us praise the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit of God (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 29. pag. 220. All which Passages do abundantly prove the Use of Forms in S. Basil's Time but this Author concealing most of these and misrepresenting the rest hath sought out some other places of S. Basil by which he would confute this our Assertion § 14. Which Objections we will first fairly produce and then plainly answer Objection first S. Basil saith he was against writing down Mysteries and so could not be for written Forms and this he proves by his Epistle to Meletius wherein S. Basil saith he will not fully write his Message having a trusty Messenger who might relate it (h) Disc of Liturg. p. 37. I reply This was only private business to a friend and no way concerns Divine Offices wherefore the Allegation is impertinent Secondly He cites his Book de Spiritu Sancto where he saith The words of Consecration upon the taking up of the Eucharistical Bread and the Cup of Blessing which of the Saints hath left in writing We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostle and Gospels but we say other things before and after as having great efficacy in the Mystery taking these things from unwritten Tradition (i) Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. Tom. 2. p. 210. 211. And hence he infers that there were no written Forms in S. Basil's time yea he calls this direct Evidence that there could be no such Forms in writing and repeats this fraudulent Argument four several times according to his custom when he thinks he hath gotten a considerable testimony (k) Dâ—sâ— of Lituâ—g p. 38. pag. 73. pag. 7â— pag. 109. wherefore I shall answer it fully And First it doth not well become our Adversary who gives such Odious names to those who cite any spurious Writings to lay such mighty stress upon a Tract which he himself suspects to be none of S. Basils works (l) Ibid p. 110. and which all those Authors whom he cites to prove his Liturgy to be Forged do generally reject as a Forged piece (m) Eraâ—m praes ad suam veâ—s istius libri loci censura p. 121. Riveâ—i censur p. 305. Scultet medul pag. 1054. Ush e Dailè in isto Authore pag. 110. it is no great proof of his own sincerity to fetch his topping Argument and urge it over and over till the repetition become Nauseous out of a Tract that he believed to be suspicious at least But Secondly I will take no advantage from hence for after all I see no Reason to deny the piece to be Genuin but let it be as he pleases it maks nothing for his purpose For S. Basil doth not affirm that these Eucharistical Prayers were not written in his time but that they were derived from an unwritten Tradition Now this sufficiently proves that anciently they were Forms because it is impossible for an Extempore Prayer that is to be daily or often varied to be conveied down from our Fore-Fathers by Tradition whatever is so delivered must be a Form of words either written or learned by heart and so taught by the Elder to the younger Priests Wherefore even in this Sense these additional Prayers in the Sacramental Administrations were Forms made by the most Primitive Fathers and taught to their Successors and so conveyed down by oral Tradition But Thirdly this is his Fallacious perverting of S. Basils Words and not the true Sense of them For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten Traditions here spoken of by S. Basil are not things which never were written down by the Fathers as he falsly pretends Because both he and divers of the Ancients had written about many of the Rites and Usages which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwrirten Traditions an Hundred times As for instance about the hours of Prayer turning to the East when they prayed and about the Prefaces before the Eucharist c. But S. Basil only saith these things were not written in Scripture they were not enjoyned there those Saints or holy Men viz. the Apostles and Evangelists had not left Orders in Scripture for these Rites and Forms which must be his meaning because he goes on and saith We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostles and the Gospels That is besides the words of institution there were Forms of Prayer and Praise before and after in the Sacraments delivered down from the Primitive Fathers which he doth not say were never writ down by them but were not writ in Scripture For S. Basil calls the Scripture by
agreement among the Churches or that the Apostles and Apostolical Men set up this variety Fifthly For remedy hereof he advises all those Churches which had their Original from Rome to follow those Customs which S. Peter had delivered to that Church and were kept there ever since Which place so clear for the Antiquity and Necessity of Uniformity our Adversary cites over and over and spends many Pages to shew that this very Epistle proves there were no Forms prescribed at Rome in those days (h) Disc of Liturgies p. 40 41. pag. 78 79 80 81 82. For saith he when the Bishop of Eugubium enquired of divers particulars concerning the Church-Service he doth not refer him to any written Orders but to what he had seen practised at Rome and he will not write down the Words used in the Office of Chrism calling the Words of Consecration Those things which he might not publish Adding That it was matter of enquiry then whether the Kiss of Peace should be given before or after the Consecration and whether the Names of the Offerers should be recited before or after the Prayer over the Oblation Concluding from these passages That there could be then no setled Order or Form at Rome and that which Innocent would have fixed was no more than a Rubric or Direction and this for Imitation not for strict Conformity so that in Innocents Time every one in Italy Consecrated as he thought fit This is the sum of his Inference In Answer to which I must observe First That those particulars which the Bishop of Eugubium enquired about and for which Innocent refers him to what he had seen used at Rome were Rites and Ceremonies as appears by the several Matters treated of in this Epistle viz. Cap. 1. Of the Kiss of Peace Cap. 2. Of reciting the Offerers Names Cap. 3. Of the Anointing the Baptized Cap. 4. Of the Saturday Fast Cap. 5. Of the Leavened Bread Cap. 6 7. Whether a Priest might lay Hands on the Possessed and the Penitents Cap. 8. Whether he might not Anoint the Sick Now these things being all external Rites which he might see and hear at Rome and so commit to his Memory the Method used there it was not necessary to refer him to the Roman Liturgy nor doth it follow there was no such Liturgy for the Prayers themselves because when the Pope was ask'd about the Rites and Customs of Rome he doth not as my Adversary saith refer him thither for satisfaction in these Matters Yet Secondly this very Epistle makes it plain they had certain Forms at Rome for their several Offices for when he speaks of Anointing the Baptized he saith Verba verò dicere non possum ne magis prodere videar quam ad consultationem respondere Ibid. Cap. 3. I cannot tell you the words lest I betray the Church under pretence of answering your Question And so about the Forms used in the Communion-Office he thus expresseth himself Post omnia quae aperire non debeo c. The Kiss of Peace comes after those things which I must not publish And a little after Quae scribi sui non erat Those things which it is not lawful for me to write down Ib. Cap. 8. All which places necessarily suppose they had certain and fixed Words which were capable of being written down but since in that Age divers as he notes out of Chamier pag. 41. Marg. were not initiated some being then Pagans and others as yet but Catechumens Innocent would not set down the Forms in a Letter which might be intercepted or fall into the hands of such as ought not to know these Sacred Mysteries But now if at Rome every Priest had prayed Extempore and not only differed from others but daily varied from himself then Innocent could not have discoursed at this rate but must have said As for the Words I cannot write them down not because it is unlawful but because it is impossible for you know every Priest varies them daily as he pleases Wherefore this Notion of keeping the Words secret which was strictly observed in that Age proves they were stated Forms capable of being writ down and learned by Unbelievers if they had been published to them And nothing can be weaker to say no worse than to argue as he doth Innocent would not write the Forms in a Letter which might miscarry therefore they were not written down in Books closely kept by the Bishops and Priests at Rome Thirdly For his Objection That it was matter of Enquiry then what place in the Eucharistical Office should be assigned to the Kiss of Peace and to the recital of the Offerers Names (i) Disc of â—it pag. 78. which he thinks could not be if there had been setled Forms at Rome It is very frivolous For the Bishop of Eugubium doth enquire of these Matters because he knew there was a certain Order at Rome and though he had seen it and perhaps knew it very well yet his Neighbouring Bishops having different ways as to the order of these He desires to have it under the Popes hand what was the Custom at Rome hoping by this to bring his Neighbouring Bishops to an Uniformity in these Matters For Eugubium was a small Bishopric under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops as he was a Metropolitan being but 70 Miles distant from Rome it self and he having no power over his Equals gets the Popes Letter under whose Jurisdiction all these Neighbour Bishops of his were thereby to unite them all by conforming to their Mother Church which as Innocentius affirms had one certain Form in these Offices received from S. Peter Fourthly Since this Bishop was so desirous to settle Uniformity even in these Ceremonies of far less concernment we may reasonably believe there was no difference in the Forms themselves that is in the Prayers used in all Divine Offices by these Bishops who lived so near to Rome because if they had varied in the substantial parts of the Office Decentius must have complained principally of that Variety and Innocents chief labour would have been to have agreed and setled that Matter it being ridiculous for them to be so earnest for Uniformity in Order and Ceremonies if these several Diocesses had differed in the main and had infinite variety in the Offices themselves so that both Innocent and Decentius being silent as to any such variety gives us Reason to believe they had all the same FORMS Fifthly What he saith of Innocents design being only to settle a Rubric is easily answered For the difference was only in Rubrics which my Adversary at last confesseth when he saith this Epistle is most concerned about Riâ—es and Order (k) Disc of Lit. pag. 83. he might have said as appears by the several Chapters before only concerned about Rites and Order the Preface alone excepted For there is not one Answer nor Question that supposes any difference in the Words or Forms of these Offices therefore it was
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
one thing in this Canon which makes it more than probable that the Prayers for the Faithful were Forms and that is the Reason why as this Canon speaks they dismissed the Catechumens which seems to be for fear by daily hearing these Forms they should remember the Phrases of these Mysteries and discover them to profane and common Ears For if these Prayers had been Extempore and the Phrases varied every day as my Adversary pretends the Catechumens might safely have stayed there it being impossible they should so learn or remember those various Expressions as to relate them to any body after they were gone home Finally Why should we not believe this Order was the Method of the public Forms of Prayer there being the same Order exactly observed in all those Ancient Forms which are extant at this day and not one word that intimates any such thing as an Extempore Prayer or frequent variation of the Forms either in this Council or in any Father or Council about this time And this may suffice for these Canons which after all his shuffling Objections are good Evidence for a stated Liturgy in this Age. Optatus Milev An. Dom. 368. § 10. Optatus Milevitanus though he writ on a different Subject yet he hath divers Expressions which suppose and imply that there was in his time a Liturgy used in Africa For he mentions the Peoples joyning with the Priest in the Divine Service and blames the Donatists for shutting the mouths of all Christian Nations and forcing all the People to be silent (u) Optat. Milev lib. 2. pag. 47. which shews they used alternate Singing and Responses among the Orthodox and that Method cannot be but by Form Yea he declares there were some certain Words so established and enjoyned by Law in the celebration of the Sacrament that the Donatists themselves could not pass them by (w) Illud legitimum in Sacramentorum mysterio praeterire non posse Id. ibid. pag. 53. and from their using these Words he draws an Argument against their Schism which he could not have done if they had not been fixed and a Set Form My Adversary mistakes this passage and fancies that Optatus refers to the Prayer of Consecration which could never be omitted (x) Discourse of Liturgy p. 61. but the holy Father explains himself in the same Page and shews us that he means the Prayer For the Holy Catholic Church You say saith Optatus that you offer for that One Church which is diffused over the whole World (y) Offerre vos dicitis pro una Ecclesia quae sit in toto terrarum orbe diffusa Optat. ibid. Thus he saith the Orthodox prayed and this was so established that the Donatists in this exceeding our Dissenters that they had not thrown off the Churches Forms could not omit it And thus the Learned Fr. Baldwin expounds it He means saith he that Solemn Form of the Canonical Prayer in which it is said We offer unto thee this Sacrifice for that One Church which is diffused over all the World (z) Fr. Bald. notis in Optat. pag. 185. Which Words also are in the Mystical Prayer set down by the Author of the Apostostolical Constitutions (a) Constit Apostol lib. 8. cap. 13. cap 18. and are found with little variation in that very Prayer in all the ancient Liturgies Now by Legitimum Optatus cannot mean that these Words were enjoyned by the Law of Christ because this Form being not enjoyned by any Scripture therefore it must signifie a Form enjoyned by the Laws of the Church which in that Age did so strictly enjoyn this very Prayer that it seems None might omit or pass it by And there is another Form of Ecclesiastical Appointment in the same Author brought in with the same Preface You cannot omit saith he again to the Donatists that which is established by Law for certainly you say Peace be with you (b) Et non potuistis praetermittere quod legittimum est utique dixistis Pax vabiscum ic lib. 3. pag. 73. Now this was the Form of Episcopal Benediction we have it in all old Liturgies and it is plain by Optatus his raising an Argument from these Words That the African Church had them in their Liturgy which was so firmly established that none could omit any part of it No not so much as alter the order For Optatus again saith After you have absolved the Penitents presently you turn to the Altar and cannot omit the Lords Prayer (c) Mox ad altare conversi Dominicam Orationem praetermittere non potestis Idem lib. 2. pag. 57. So that the very order of repeating the Lord's Prayer at the Altar in the beginning of the Prayers for the Faithful which was but of Ecclesiastical Institution could not be changed Moreover we find in Optatus That there was a Rumor spread upon the coming of some from the Emperour that Alterations would be made in the Communion Service which startled the People but they were quieted again when they saw The Solemn Custom and wonted Rite observed and discerned that nothing was changed added or diminished in the Divine Sacrifice (d) Cum viderent in divinis Sacrificiis nec mutatum quicquam nec additum nec ablasum Id. lib. 3. pag. 75. From whence it appears there was a known Form for the Communion an Office so well understood by the People that they could perceive when it was altered in any particular So that doubtless those Christians were not used to variety of Phrases nor accustomed to the Extempore Man's Fancy to celebrate in a longer or shorter Form as he pleased Again he repeats the very Form of Exorcising those who came to be Baptized (e) Maledicte exi foras Optat. lib. 4. pag. 79. and the Form of the Responses when they renounced the Devil and repeated their Creed at Baptism (f) Id. lib. 5. pag 86 89. And when we put all this together concerning known Forms of Words which could not be altered nor omitted and were enjoyned by Law we may conclude they had a written Liturgy in Africa in his time And it is very probable that this Book of Prayers was one of those Books in the Plural Number which the Donatists as he complains took away from the Holy Altar from whence the Peoples Prayers were wont to be sent up to God (g) Idem lib. 7. pag. 98. And since they had a written Form as the Fore-cited passages shew it is probable that the Liturgy as well as the Bible was then lying upon the Altar Epiphanius An. Dom 369. § 11. We can expect no great account of the Sacred Forms in Epiphanius since he is so very nice in speaking of Mysteries that he will not repeat the Words of our Saviour's Institution but thus expresses them He took these things and giving Thanks said This is that of mine c. (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eâ—â—phan in Anâ—orat p. 432. And he reckons it
imitated an innovation or a Method taken up lately or only by few And Nazianzen tells us That Julian saw Christianity was Famous for its Doctrins but more Famous and remarkable for those Forms of the Church anciently delivered and still preserved (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 3. pag. 101. which Forms most certainly were Forms of Prayer and of Administration of the Sacraments derived as Nazianzen believed from Ancient Tradition and retained to his very time and to imitate the Doctrins we see Julian set up Schools and Lectures to imitate these Forms he appointed a Form of Prayers in parts Secondly Nazianzen did believe this way of Praying by Forms to be very agreeable to the Gospel because he there saith That these Forms of Prayer and other things before mentioned were clearly belonging to the good Order of the Christians (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ibid. So that we may be sure both of the use of Forms of Prayer in this time and of Nazianzens approving them This Evidence for the Antiquity of Liturgies my Adversary suppresseth but cites two other places out of Nazianzen which he would perswade us will make out the use of Extempore Prayers First he tells us that Nazianzen being to discourse of the holy Ghost prayeth that he may be enabled thereby for the expressions (t) Disc of Liturg. p. 59. The words are these That being to speak of the Spirit he may have the presence of the Spirit and that it may give him such a faculty of discoursing as he desires at least such as is suteable to the occasion (u) Nazianz. Orat 44. p. 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he translates in the plural number Give me such expressions But let it be noted that this is not properly a Prayer but a Rhetorical Apostrophe in the middle of an Homily by the polite style whereof we may conclude it was composed in his Study before he he came to the Church and therefore both the Prayer and Homily were made in his Closet however being part of a Sermon this is nothing at all to the Churches public Prayers about which we dispute For many Conformists do use such Apostrophes to God or Christ or to the holy Ghost in their Sermons yet none will argue from thence that we have no Liturgy in England Secondly He pretends that Nazianzens Father prayed at the Eucharist by the Spirit and shortned the usual Prayers there when he was sick And of this he his so proud that he quotes it twice (o) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 60 pag. 76 77. But he gives us only the Epitome of this story out of the Centuriators which he imagined sounded more to his purpose Therefore we will give the Fathers own Words who saith His sick Father awaking the Night before Easter first moved himself a little and then more strongly soon after he called on his Servant by Name with very low Voice to give him his Garments and lend him his Hand the Man came with amazement and did readily obey him and leaning on him as on a Staff he imitated Moses upon the Mount and staying up his Hands in the posture of Prayer he readily performed the former and latter part of the Mysteries of the People in few words indeed because he was weak in Body but with a Mind it seems very perfect O admirable Without a Pulpit on the Pulpit a Sacrificer without an Altar a Priest at a distance from the things to be consecrated but these things were made present to him by the Holy Spirit as he knew though those who were present did not see them After this repeating the accustomed Words of the Eucharist and Blessing the People he went to Bed again (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Nazâ—â—at 19. pag. 305. After which he relates how he Recovered and went to Church and solemnly celebrated the Sacrament with the whole Church on the first Sunday after Easter Where I think the Centuriators and our Adversary both mistake the point in supposing the old Bishop to do all this in the Church for there is nothing in the Relation to shew that he went out of his Chamber and his being without a Pulpit an Altar and the things to be consecrated viz. the Oblations of the People brought to the Church do make it plain this was a private Communion celebrated in his Chamber to some few that were about him yet he performed that as nigh the public Forms as he was able And though he abbreviated the long Prayers before the Consecration out of meer necessity yet he kept strictly to the Words of Consecration as he was wont to do he did not alter that Form in the least So that a Man may as well argue We have no larger Office for the Communion in our Liturgy because we have a shorter Office for the Sick as our Adversary can infer from this short way of private Communicating in a case of necessity and in a Chamber That there was no Form of Prayers for public Communions in that Age yea we see by the weak old Bishop 's coming as near the Public Form as he was able and in the most Essential part keeping close to it that there was a Public Liturgy then And Secondly Our Adversary both in his Greek * Note that in citing the Greek after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he draws a Line to conceal his being without a Pulpit c. and goes on thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. See the Marg. of Discourse of Liturg. pag. 77. and Latin omits all those Words viz. of his being without a Pulpit an Altar and things to be consecrated on purpose first to abuse this Reader into the mistake of the Bishops being in the Church to which we see he did not come till a Week after And then secondly he would make us believe that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things refers to his abbreviation of the Office to his Short Words that so he may pretend Those Words were given to him by the Inspiration of the Spirit which is a manifest falsifying of the Father who saith The Pulpit Altar and Consecrated things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These things were made present to him by the Holy Ghost as Nazianzen believed though no Body there saw them which is a flight of Rhetorick usual in him but upon the gross perverting this Expression all our Adversaries Argument of Expressions and Words in Prayer being given by the Holy Ghost doth depend I beg the Readers Pardon for this Excursion which clearly demonstrates that this Adversary of mine did wilfully misinterpret the Greek after he had read it and cited it with a designed omission to hook in an Argument for his false Notion of praying Extempore by the Spirit but when genuine Antiquity affords no better Testimonies than this They have more use of their Wit than of their Integrity But I doubt not all impartial Men will gather from this very
or you remember the Words of my Prayer this day Twelve-month or indeed this day Seven-night Under this Head we may place all his needless Quotations to prove that Catechumens and Penitents were excluded from these Mysteries (c) Discourse of Lit. p. 35. c. For we grant the Matter of Fact but the natural Inference from thence is not that they durst not write Forms as he weakly pretends but that they used constant Forms and these being Mysteries above the Capacity of the Unbaptized they feared by often hearing they might learn them which they fancied was a profanation of their Mysteries But had their Prayers been in new Phrases every day there had been no need to exclude any Body they might have challenged them all that were present to remember any thing if they could This silence and secrecy therefore was to secure their Forms from the knowledge of the Unbaptized Though as the Heathens writ their Mysterious Prayers and yet concealed them by charging the Priests to keep both Books and Forms from the knowledge of the Un-iniated so might the Christians also well enough keep their Written Forms secret by charging the Priests and Faithful not to discover them and excluding the Catechumens whensoever these Forms were used Secondly He would prove that he who Officiated was left to his liberty by some general Expressions in S. Chrysostom â—â—scourse of 〈◊〉 pag. 66. viz. The Priest in the Mysteries offered up Prayers for them (e) Chrysost Hom. 41. in 1 Câ—r p. 524. and The Priest of God stands to offer the Prayers of all he trembles when he offers up Prayers for thee (f) Id. hom 15. in Hebr. p. 515. I Answer That S. Chrysostom in the former place cites the Words of those Prayers and in the second evidently supposeth a Set Form And when he hath made it clear there can be no Prayers offered up to God but Extempore then this will be an Argument till then it is extremely frivolous Thirdly He thinks the Prayers at the Eucharist were not written and could not be gotten by heart being ordinarily very long which he proves by Chrysostom's saying The Priest stands not bringing Fire but the holy Spirit and makes a long Supplication that the Grace of God might fall upon the Sacrifice (g) Chrysost de Sacerd. Orat. 3. p 16. To which I Reply that it is nothing to the purpose how long this Prayer was because it is certain it was a Form and was written in so many Words in the Apostolical Constitutions where we find this very Petition to which S. Chrysostom alludes placed in the middle of the Prayer of Consecration That God would send his Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit Apost lib. 8. cap. 17. Lit. Chrysost in Eucholog p. 77 Lit. Basil ibid. pag. 169. which is also in S. Cyril and both in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom and S. Basil So that this Long Prayer being written before Chrysostom's Time need not to be got by Heart and therefore all his Inferences from that false Supposition do fall to the ground Nor can he pretend that the Priests bringing the Holy Spirit here mentioned is meant of his praying by the Spirit that is as he thinks Extempoâ—è because the Spirit here is the thing prayed for and that which the Priests Prayers brought down upon the Christian Sacrifice as Elijah's Prayer of old brought down Fire upon the Legal Sacrifice Fourthly He tells us that S Chrysostom saith It required greater confidence than Moses and Elias had to pray over this Sacrifice from whence he gathers that there was no need of such Confidence if their Prayer were written in a Book before them (i) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 75. But if the Reader consult the place in the Father (k) Chryâ—â—st de Sacerd. lib. 6. Tâ—m 6. pag. 46 He will easily discern how this Passage is perverted to serve an ill Cause S. Chrysostom is setting out the dignity of the Gospel Priesthood who are to intercede with God to have Mercy not upon one City but upon the whole World even upon all Men. Now he thinks that the confidence of Moses and Elias who prayed but for one Nation would not suffice to fit a Man for this Intercession alluding to the Litany where as he notes they pray That Wars may cease in all places and all Troubles be removed and that Peace and Prosperity and a deliverance from all Evils public and private may be obtained (l) Chrysost ibid. Who afterwards treats of the Priests praying over the Sacrament These are plainly Litanick Supplications which were written down long before this Age as we have shewed and therefore the Confidence was not needful to invent Words Extempore but to enable a Mortal sinful Man to ask so many and so great things from so glorious a God for so many persons As for the Confidence of his Party it is indeed greater than that of Moses and Elias for they were really inspired miraculously and so might intercede for the Jews for ought I know Extempore on some extraordinary occasions but these Men who are not inspired dare upon ordinary occasions daily vent their Extempore Conceits before God and their Congregation but whether there be not more Boldness than Prudence in this let him judge who considers that Solomon saith Be not rash with thy Mouth and let not thine Heart be hasty to utter any thing before God for God is in Heaven and thou upon Earth (m) Eccles V. 2. Fifthly He cites a place of S. Chrysostom where he shews what is meant by the Cup of Blessing and reckoning up some of the Heads of those things for which they gave Thanks He adds with these and other such like Thanksgivings we approach whence he infers That the Priests enlarged themselves in such like particulars according to discretion (n) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 76. But first he was forced to translate the place falsly or else it would not have been for his purpose S. Chrysostom saith after he had reckoned up divers general Heads of Mercies For these and all such things as these giving Thanks so we approach (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 24. in 1 Cor pag. 396. He doth not say With these and other such like Thanksgivings that is his perverting the Father Secondly S. Chrysostom being making a popular Discourse doth not repeat any part of the Thanksgivings but describes some of those Mercies for which they gave Thanks at the Sacrament One principal Head of which was For delivering Mankind from Error and for bringing them to be Heirs of his Kingdom Which is one of those Heads for which God is praised in that large Form of Thanksgiving in the Constitutions (p) Non permisit genus humanum perire Constit Apost lib. 8. cap. 17. as it is also in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom (q) Liturg. Chrysost Euchol p. 75 Therefore they were Forms of
which assures us they were Forms of Prayer And that Common-Prayer properly signifies such a Form in which both Minister and People have their several parts Of this Litany or Common-Prayer there are divers Petitions mentioned in S. Augustin upon occasion and though being writing Letters he doth not always cite them in the same Words yet the Phrases are so very much alike and the Sense and Order of them is so exactly the same that we may be sure he alludes to some known Form Thus he saith in one of the places afore cited the Church prays That Faith may be granted to unbelievers that Idolaters may be delivered from their ungodly Errors that the Vail may be taken away from the Hearts of the Jews so that the light of Truth may shine unto them that Hereticks may by Repenting receive the true Faith that Schismaticks may be restored by the Spirit of Charity that the lapsed may partake of the remedies of Repentance and that the Catechumens being brought to the Sacrament of Regeneration may have the Treasures of Heavenly mercy opened to them (k) Aug. de Eccles dogm cap. 30. p. 46. ut supra f In another place he describes so many of these Petitions more briefly as concern his present Question The Minister saith he prays For unbelievers that God would convert them to the Faith for the Catechumens that God would inspire them with the desire of Regeneration and for the Faithful that by his Gift they may persevere in that which they have begun (l) Idem ad Vital Epist 107. pag. 102. H and a little after The Faithful pray for themselves that they may presevere in that which they have begun (m) Id. ibid. pag. 103. H. eadem verba iterum ibid. p. 104. I. which Sentence is twice mentioned in one Epistle where also he saith When do you hear Gods Minister Praying with a loud Voice That God would make the unbelieving Gentiles come over to the Faith and do not answer Amen (n) Id. pag. 104. G. And in another Book When did not the Church use to Pray That unbelievers may believe And for the Faithful that God would grant they may persevere in him even to the End To which saith he the People answer Amen (o) Aâ—g de 〈…〉 7. â—â—g â—â—â— Now my Adversary makes it an Argument against Liturgies that S. Augustin here speaking of the same Prayers cites them in various Words (p) Disc of 〈◊〉 pag. 21 22. But I have already observed he is writing Epistles and doth not pretend to quote the very Words but yet he describes the things Prayed in Phrases so very like each other that we may be sure he referred them to a common Form the Words of which were so well known that he need not strictly tye himself to repeat them As if I were writing to two several Persons and should prove the Church of Englands Charity by saying in one Letter that on Good Fryday she prays for the Conversion of Jews Turks Infidels and Hereticks and in another Letter by saying she Prays that God would convert the Jews convince the Turks and make Infidels and Hereticks become true Believers Supposing those I writ to were well acquainted with the Collect for Good Fryday None but such an Arguer as I have to deal with would gather from thence That the Church of England had no prescribed Collect for this day and this occasion And there is the less regard to be given to this Scruple because there are so many other clear Proofs in S. Augustin that there were certain Forms in his Time in the African and in other Churches He tells us That all Nations Grecians Latins and Barbarians used that Form Lord have mercy upon us (q) Aug. Pascentio Ep. 178. pag. 164. Now this we know was the Response in the ancient Litany And that same Preface before the Trisagion which we have anciently met with in S. Cyprian and many others is often mentioned and expounded in S. Augustin's Works So often as the Priest saith Lift up your Hearts the Spiritual Man can boldly and safely say We lift them up unto the Lord (r) Ei quoties Sacerdos dixerit sursum corda securè fidelitèr dicunt se habere ad Dominum De Temp. ser 54. pag 153. In another place Our Heart saith he is in Heaven and therefore it is not without cause that we hear those Words Lift up your Hearts (s) Id Com. in Psal 148. pag. 377. And again to shew it was of universal as well as daily use he saith All Mankind throughout the World do daily as it were with one Voice answer That they lift up their Hearts unto the Lord (t) Quotidiè per universum orbem genus humanum unà penè voce respondet sursum Corda se habere ad Dominum Id. de verâ Relig c. 3. p. 158. Moreover he gives us as clear Testimony of the rest of this Preface You know saith he to Dardanus in what Sacrifice it is said Let us give Thanks to our Lord God (u) Aug ad Dardan ep 57. pag. 57. and the like he writes to Honoratus (w) Id. ad Honorat ep 120. pag. 124. To which the Answer was then as it is now in our Common-Prayer It is meet and right so to do For thus S. Augustin discourses That which is said in the Sacrament by the Faithful Lift up your Hearts And We lift them up unto the Lord is intimated to be the Gift of God and therefore the Priest admonisheth those to whom he had spoken To give Thanks to our Lord God and they Answer It is meet and right (x) ut Gratias agant Domino Deo nostro Et dignum justum esse respondent Aug. de bon persev lib. 2. Tom. 7. p. 276. Item Aug de bono videit cap. 16. There can be nothing plainer therefore than that this very Form was used in the very same Words both in the Eastern and African Churches and it was also used in the Western Church so exactly in the same Form that we may justly look upon this as a piece of Primitive Liturgy which no Church presumed to alter He also speaks of a Prayer of Consecration by which the holy Elements were blessed The Petitions of which were concluded almost in every Church with the Lord's Prayer (y) Quam totam petitionom fere omnis Ecclesia dominica Oratione concludit Aug. Paulino ep 59. pag. 62. and he tells us that the Sacrament was delivered to the Faithful in these Words The Body or The Blood of Christ to which they always answered Amen (z) Aug. de verb. Ap. Ser. 31. pag. 87. enar in Psal 32. pag. 49. which very Form had been used in Africa ever since Tertullian's Time as we shewed before and we have also found it in the Eastern Churches and at Milan as well as here Finally He mentions a certain Vow in the Post-Communion wherein the Faithful do