of Rome (m) Mornay of the Mass Book I. chap. 9. pag. 74. For then it follows That the ancient German Offices were still used in some Parts that were subject to the Archbishop of Colen So that still this is exchanging one Form for another and no proof at all of liberty in Praying a thing unknown in this Age. Agobardus Episc Lugdun An. 831. § 7. We have little more in this Discourse against Liturgies out of Antiquity excepting only some few pretended proofs from late Ages to shew that they used various words in the distribution of the Eucharist As First he tells us that Agobardus the Famous Arch-Bishop of Lions could not well like that Common Roman Form The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. since he was only for Scripture Expressions in the public Offices And then he intimates that Agobardus was censured for this by Baronius and his Epitomator (n) Disc of Lit. pag. 90. 91. To which I reply First That Baronius never censures this great Bishop at all for this passage is not in Baronius but only in Spondanus the Epitomator and from him alone my Adversary cites it (o) Vid. Baron Tom. 9. An. 831. p. 797. 798. Secondly Spondanus speaks not one word of Agobardus his correcting the Communion-Office but only that he took great pains in restoring the ancient Antiphonary or Book of Hymns (p) Spondan Epitom An. 831. Num. 2. And Baluzius hath now put out the very Tract which Spondanus refers to and there is not one Syllable in all that Book expressing any dislike at the Words used in the distribution (q) Agobardi lib. de divin Psalmod lib. de correct Antiph oper Tom. 2. edit Paris 1666. Yea there is a peculiar discourse of this Bishop against Amalarius his Comment on the Mass wherein he speaks of the Roman Canon Te igitur c. yet never makes the least exception against the Roman Order or any thing contained in it (r) Ibid. lib. contr Amal. pag. 101. So that this pretended dislike of the Roman Form of distribution is a meer Fiction of his own Brain And if it were true that Agobardus did not like any thing in Sacred Offices but what was Scripture Yet there is no cause he should for that cause dislike this which he calls the Roman but was the Primitive and is now our Protestant Form since the words are taken out of and grounded on express places of Holy Scripture The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is a Scripture Expresion (s) Math. xxvi 26. Luk. xxii 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. and the next words Preserve thy Body and Soul to Eternal Life are grounded on Scripture Promises (t) John vi ver 50.51.53.54 58. so that if Agobardus were never so scrupulous he might very well like and use this Form But because my Adversary deals only in Epitomes I will now give a full Account of this matter We must observe therefore that Leidradus the Predecessor of Agobardus in the year 799. according to the desire of Charles the Great had brought in the Roman Order of Singing into the Church of Lyons and had put out an Antiphonary with an Epistle before it the Hymns whereof were generally taken out of the Holy Scripture (u) Leidradi Ep. ad Carol. Mag. inter oper Agob Tom. 2. p. 127. But about 30 years after Amalarius a busy Monk pretends to bring a new Antiphonary from Rome Corrected after the Roman Office in the time of Gregory the Fourth which he presented to Lewis the Godly and hoped by his Authority to impose it on all the Gallican Church But Agobardus the Primate of France rejects this new Antiphonary and writ a Book to prove there were Heresies Blasphemies and Nonsense in these Hymns of Amalarius and keeps to the old Roman Antiphonary established by his Predecessor the Hymns of which were for the most part taken out of the Psalms and other parts of Holy Scripture commending this to his Clergy and giving them his Reasons why he would not admit of the other And this Book of Agobardus concludes with these words As the Church hath a Book of Mysteries for Celebrating the Solemnity of the Mass digested Orthodoxly and with convenient Brevity and hath a Book of Lessons collected Judiciously out of the Divine Books so they ought to have this Third Book the Antiphonary purged from all Human Figments and Lies sufficiently ordered out of the pure words of Scripture through the whole Circle of the year That so in performing sacred Offices according to the most approved Rule of Faith and the Authority of ancient discipline there may be kept among us one and the same Form of Prayer of Lessons and of Ecclesiastical Songs (w) Agobard de correct Antiphon §. 19. Tom. ii p. 100. This is the whole Story and the passage which Spondanus ignorantly or at least rashly Censures and my Adversary Ridiculously brings in to shew Agobardus his dislike of the words of distribution Whereas these words refer only to the Hymns which yet probably were not all the very words of Scripture but were either Transcribed thence or agreeable thereto much more than the new Hymns of Amalarius And since Agobardus received and used the Roman Canon and the whole Roman Missal wherein were many things which are not the words of Scripture we must not expound these words cited but now so strictly as Spondanus doth as if he would not use any words in Divine Offices but those of Scripture For Agobardus means no more than that the Hymns ought to be either taken out of Scripture or agreeable to the Doctrine thereof for he proves that the Hymns of Amalarius were Heretical and Blasphemous contrary in many things to the Holy Scripture and therefore he rejected them But as to any Liberty in varying the Prayers Lessons or Hymns that were established or altering the Roman Forms This great Bishop was so far from it that he enjoyns the old Gregorian Office and imposes that prescribed Form together with the Lessons and the Hymns and opposes those Innovations and Alterations which some attempted to make because the Forms and Order then established were agreeable both to the Rule of Faith and to the acient Ecclesiastical Laws upon which occasion he produceth that African Canon before cited (x) Part. i. Cent. 4. §. 24. pag. 257. in these Words viz. That no Supplications and Prayers be said unless they have been approved in a Council nor shall any of these at all be Sung in the Church till they have been considered by the Prudent and approved of in a Synod lest any thing against the Faith be composed either my mistake or by design (y) Canon Afric ap Agob de correct Antiph §. ii p. 92. And now the Reader shall judge whether this Author be for my Adversaries purpose or no since he imposes Books of prescribed Prayers Lessons and Hymns and thinks the keeping strictly to them is
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
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
enough for Innocent to settle that wherein the only difference lay which was variety of Rites not of Prayers Sixthly He adds that Innocent setled this Rubric rather for Imitation than strict conformity (l) Disc of Lit. pag. 80. I Answer This is not setling any thing at all for where every Priest is Arbitrary nothing is fixed But Innocent when he hath declared the custom of Rome expresly requires of this Bishop First to take care that his own Diocess and Ministring Clergy were well instructed in it and then that he should give a Form to other Bishops which they ought to imitate or follow (m) ut tuam Ecclesiam Clericos nostros qui sub tuo Pontificio divinis famulantur officiis bene instituas aliis formam tribuas quam debeant imitari Innoc. Ep. 1. vers fin Where we see he requires he should carefully instruct his own Clergy in order to their strict conformity no doubt for otherwise to what end did he teach them these Rules And then he doth expect he should give this Form to others that is to his neighbor Bishops and affirms it is their Duty to observe it For since he is speaking of Acts and Ceremonies there is no way to imitate them but by doing them there is no Medium between strict Conformity and total Non-conformity in these cases so that his distinction between Imitation and strict Conformity is nothing but Words without Sense I conclude this passage with my Adversaries censure of Pope Innocent out of Erasmus (n) Disc of Lit. p. 81. 82. as if he were fierce in his Nature and no good Orator And shall note that Erasmus doth not censure him for pressing an Uniformity nor doth he give any ill Character of him for this Epistle but for others which he Writ in the Pelagian Controversie (o) Vid. Aug. ep 91. ep 96. cum notis Erasm Coci censura p. 111. And what Erasmus saith of two other Epistles if it be never so true cannot prove that in this Epistle wherein he Writes of the Customs of his own Church he is not a good Evidence for matter of Fact and if that be granted then we have here this Popes Testimony that the Metropolis of Rome had certain Forms of Words for their several Offices and one way and Method both in their Service and Rites and that all Churches under her immediate Jurisdiction ought to be uniform even in their Ceremonies by conforming to their Mother Church which is sufficient to shew how falsly my Adversary affirms that in Italy in Innoconts time every one Consecrated as he though fit For the Question was not about all Italy but only about Eugubium and the neighboring Diocesses not about private Ministers but Bishops not about the Words or Forms of Consecrating c. but about Rites and Ceremonies in the Eucharist and other Offices yet even in these he labours to settle an Uniformity and gives sufficient indication not only that they ought to have but then had one prescribed Liturgy for the Offices themselves differing only in some Rubrics § 2. Prudentius the Famous Christian Poet Aurelius Prudentius Ann. Dom. 405. is but once cited by my Adversary who speaks of his Cathemerinon that is Hymns or Forms of Praise and Prayer suited to the several Hours of the Day and Night wherein the Christians then Solemnly worshiped God and he might have noted of many of them what he saith of one That they were afterwards made use of as Church Hymns (p) Disc of Lit. marg p. 161. Now that which I shall observe from hence is this That these Hymns consist of Petitions and Prayers as well as Praises and are drawn up in the Plural Number suitable to their intended use for a public Assembly to which soon after they were applied But if Prudentius had been of my Adversaries mind and thought Forms prescribed were unlawful it had been Ridiculous in him to draw up and sinful for the Christians in public to use these Written Forms of Praise and Prayer Again if the Gift of Extempore making Prayers and Praises for the several Hours of Devotion had then remained in the Church it had been not only lost labour but a very bold thing for Prudentius to compose Forms and if that Age as my Adversary pretends were utter strangers to prescribed Forms doubtless Prudentius had not answered his name rashly to undertake so novel and daring a thing without making any Apology We conclude therefore that Forms even in these very Hours of Prayer were customary and used in his time I could also here particularly shew that this Divine Poet frequently alludes to divers passages in the greater Offices and Liturgies then in use viz. The Amen Hallelujah the Trisagion which he calls the Hymn Sung by Cherubins and Seraphins c. But since Poetical strains are not so solid proofs in our Case I will only mention one place (q) Si quid trecenti bis novenis additis Possint figurâ noverimus mysticâ Mox ipse Christus qui sacerdos verus est Parente natus alto ineffabili Cibum beatis offerens Victoribus Parvam pudici cordis intrabit casam Prud. praef ad Psycomad pag. 228. where in a Mysterious way he intimates the repeating of the Nicene Creed immediately before the Celebration of the Eucharist comparing the 318 Fathers who composed this Creed to Abrahams 318 Servants with whom he met Melchisedec and the Sacramental Elements to the Bread and Wine which Abraham then received from that High Priest And Ant. Nebrissensis hath shewed that this passage is not any otherwise intelligible than by thus expounding it Not. in Prudent pag. 118. Which implies they used then as we do now to repeat the Nicene Creed in the Communion Office § 3. My Antagonist had diligently Read Isidore of Pelusium Isidor Peleusiota Ann. Dom. 412. as appears by his citing him for golden Sentences (r) Disc of Lit. p. 2. Title P. and also by his weeding this Author for all the hard things he saith of some bad Bishops in that time (s) Ibid. p. 182 185. c. ad pag. 195. and Maliciously applying it as the Character of the whole Order in this Age which I shall confute hereafter and now only observe that since he disparages Liturgies by their beginning as he pretends in so bad and corrupt a Time as he makes this to be it must follow that he believes Liturgies are as old as Isidore's Time or else his Allegations must be not only spiteful but impertinent And for his baffled Argument from Isidore's concealing the Words of the Mysteries and appealing to the Faithful as being acquainted with them (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isid lib. 4. ep 162. lib. eod ep 40. cited under Synesius name Disc of L. p. 34. This plainly proves they did not Officiate then Extempore but in plain Words constantly used and well known to the Faithful who daily heard
Liturgy was imposed on the Roman Clergy and those of Aquileia and Ravenna upon the Clergy subject to those Churches And then my Adversaries whole Book which is written to assert that Liturgies were not imposed before the end of the Fifth or beginning of the Sixth Age that is 200 year after is false and utterly wrong And then also the Church of England both in composing a Form and imposing it imitates a very pure Age of the Church viz. The time a little before the begining of the Fourth Century or thereabouts and hath the Prescription of 1400 years to justifie her in both But because his main Author is Vostius we will here observe what that learned Man freely owns as to Creeds viz. That there was a â—orm in the Oriental Church very like to that which is called the Apostles Creed long before the Council of Nice And this which we call the Apostles Creed was the Roman Form bâ—fâ—re the time of that same Council and the Creed of Aquileia differed from this but very little (r) Vosâ— de trib â—ymb diss 1. §. â—0 pag. 24. Again he saith these Forms were not made by any General Council and were so old in Ruffinus his time that they were taken to be Apostolical (s) Ibid. §. 45. pag. 31. And the Church of Jerusalem had a Form which seems to have been elder than any of them being explained by S Cyril An. 350. and then delivered as from a very ancient Tradition (t) Ibid. §. 51. pag. 34. And both he and Grotius who fancy the Creed consisted at first of no more Articles than those of the Trinity do believe the remaining Articles about the Catholic Church the Remission of Sins the Resurrection of the Body and the Life everlasting were added as early as Tertullian's Time So that if these Authors Conjectures be allowed then there were Forms of Creeds in every great and eminent Church before the Third Century began From whence I thus Argue in my Adversaries own way and almost in his very words It is not probable that they who had a Creed in a Set Form in every Principal Church and did impose this Form to be learned and used by all that were Admitted Members of that Church by Baptism even before the Third Century should not also have their Set Forms of Prayer to the use of which all the Members of that Church and all under its Jurisdiction were obliged How credible and likely is it that they who did not leave their Creed at liberty also did not allow Arbitrary Prayers Since Heresies might creep in by the way of Extempore Prayers and Hymns as easily as by the use of various and arbitrary Creeds If they thought it requisite to limit the Rule of Faith for this Reason there was the very same Reason to Limit the Prayers Supplications Lauds and Litanies (u) See the Disc of Lit. p. 102 103. This is his way of Arguing upon a false Supposition That the Creed was not in a Set Form in the First Ages Wherefore since it appears by his own Authors that it was in a Set Form in or before the Third Century he must allow this to be a firm Argument against him It is nothing to my Question to enter into the Controversie Whether the Apostles themselves made that Creed which goes under their Name But after I have considered all that Vossius c. have said in this Matter I am verily persuaded That the Apostles themselves did make one Form of Faith at first but did not commit it to writing because it was to be taught orally to every Christian at his Baptism and kept as the Cognizance to distinguish between Hereticks and true Believers and the likeness of all the ancient Forms to one another shews they had one and the same Original at first and were derived from the first Planters of Christianity As for the variety between these ancient Forms in several Churches it was the natural and necessary effect of delivering it Orally which in distant Countries and in tract of Time by passing through divers hands must needs produce some small difference in the Order and Words and that shews That Oral Tradition is not so safe a way to convey Articles of Faith as Writing and though the Apostles had left the Scripture to be a standing Rule to secure the Creed from any dangerous Corruption yet it was necessary to have this short Form besides to teach the Candidates for Baptism But if the Reader desire to see this more fully proved I refer him to a Learned Book writ by a very Worthy Author Mr. G. Ashwell Wherein both by Arguments and evidence of Antiquity it is strongly and clearly made out that this Creed was made by the Apostles themselves (w) 〈◊〉 Apoâ—â—â— or â— Dâ—scourse aâ—â—â—ting the Antâ—â—s and Autâ—◠〈…〉 Creed P inted at Oâ—â—a 1683. And there it may be seen how bold my Adversary is to give Ruffinus the Lye since all the Writers of that Age generally agree in the same thing There also it appears that my Adversary is grosly mistaken in affirming that the Ancients took no notice of this Creed for above 300 Years As for his Arguing That the subsequent Creeds varying from it shews they did not own that to be Apostolical especially since they preferred their own Forms before it on the most solemn occasions (x) Disc of Lâ—t 〈…〉 it proceeds upon a Mistake For Vossius owns that the later superadded Creeds were only taken to be Commentaries on the Former and clearer explications of such Articles as the Hereticks had attempted to pervert and he shews that they did not cast off nor disuse the ancient Form when they made these New ones They kept the Apostles Creed still and used that in the most solemn Office of Baptism Yea they gave it the precedence before all other Creeds and therefore the Third General Council says They received in the first place the Creed delivered to them by the most Holy Apostles and then the Confession made by 318 Holy Fathers in the City of Nice (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. Concil Ephesin Bin. Tom. I. par 2. pag. 415. Wherefore this was used and reckoned in the first place even after other Creeds came in Finally He need not wonder that the Creed in the Constitutions is not the same with that which we call the Apostles because no Man pretends now that the Apostles made those Constitutions The Creed found there as we have shewed is the Apostles Form as it was varied at Antioch about the Year 330 which Daillé owns to be the Time when that Clemens writ the Constitutions (z) Daill praef ad Dissert de relig cult objecto not the Year 500 as my Adversary falsly pretends (a) Disc of Lit. pag. 111. Now it is no wonder that the same Form in 300 Years time should be varied as much in two several Churches so far distant as Rome and
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels l. 8. p. 402. And again speaking of all Christians he saith they Worshiped God and his only Son according to their ability with Prayers and Praises (r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. pag. 386. Not that every private Christian invented his Prayers and Praises Extempore but used the Forms made for them in public especially with Vigorous affections and Fervent Devotion And if these places of Origen do at all belong to Christians public Worship as they must do if they be to the purpose in this dispute then we may be sure private Christians were not allowed to make their own Prayers and Praises Extempore there that would have bred such confusion as St. Paul forbids expresly (s) 1 Cor. xiv 26. and yet Origen assures us they offered them up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore that Phrase must not be restrained to Extempore Prayer No nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he cites out of Nazianzen where also all Christians are exhorted As well as they were able to Sing that Triumphant Hymn upon Julians being cut off which Israel Sang when the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Naz. Orat. 3 pag. 54. For Nazianzen there sets down the very Words which he would have them all Sing being indeed that same Hymn which is Recorded Exod. xv only adapted and fitted for this Occasion Now if this Form was to be Sung 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as they were able then the Phrase means no more here but as Devoutly as they could and cannot be applied to Extempore inventions to which he would gladly restrain it I grant when this Phrase is applied to another subject matter such as writing Books or Preaching it sometimes signifies doing these things as their Fancy and parts enable them but all his Quotations of this kind are nothing to this dispute where we are only to consider the Phrase as it is applied to praying and praising God * So pro viribus in S. Augustine signifies the strength of Devotion not the strength of Fancy And there we have shewed it never signifies doing these Extempore but doing them very Devoutly wherefore that we may not tire the Reader as he doth with numberless Quotations which are not to the point we conclude that the Bishop in Justin Martyr did pray as earnestly as he was able but not Extempore I have been the larger in refuting this Exposition because it is his main Argument which he repeats and urges over and over and triumphs in as sufficient to carry the whole Cause whereas for any thing appears it rather proves the Christians had Forms of Prayer and Praise at the Celebration of the Eucharist in Justin Martyrs time § 3. Irenaeus is as wary as Justin Martyr S. Irenaeus An. Dom. 179 not to publish any of the Words used in the Christian Offices though he speak both of Baptism and the Eucharist and of the Prayers and Praises there in general Only when some of those Hereticks made an Argument from the conclusion of a Form of Doxology to prove their Fancies by on that occasion he is forced to mention it and say They alledge saith he also that we in our Thanksgivings do say World without end (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iren. adv haer l. 1. c. 1. p. 16. Now these words are the very Conclusion of the Gloria Patri and being urged by the Hereticks in way of Argument against the Orthodox it must be a known constant and never varied Form of common use in the Church and therefore we may infer from thence that in Irenaeus his time the Christians praised God in public by this very Form which we now use Glory be to the Father to the Son and to the Holy Ghost As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be world without end Amen And as we shall shew presently the same Argument and grounded upon the same public Form is mentioned in Tertullian (w) Tertul. de speâ—â—ac p. 83. in this same Age which proves that the Gloria Patri was a Form not only in the Gallican but also in the African Church Clemens Alex. An. Dom. 192. In this Century lived Clemens of Alexandria who tells us The Church is not only the Name of the Place for public Worship but the Congregation prostrating themselves in Prayers having all as it were one common Voice and one Mind (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. alluding no doubt to those words of S. Paul That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorifie God (y) Rom. xv 6. that is saith Grotius That when ye praise God and pray to him ye may do it not only with the same sound of Words as Doxologies and Litanies use to be said but also with a Mind full of mutual Love (z) Grot. in loc So that praying and praising God as it were with one Mind and one Mouth signifies performing these Offices by responsory Prayers and Praises as they did in their Litanies and Doxologies of old which must be in known Forms because the People not only joyned in heart with the Minister but vocally answered in their turns they and the Priest often making up the Sentence between them and therefore are said to have as it were One common Voice So that this passage is a Paraphrase upon Ignatius his One Prayer and One Supplication and upon Justin Martyr's Common Prayers and it shews there were Forms mutually repeated between Priest and People in Clemens Alex. his Time Our Adversary would evade this by pretending This one common Voice is meant of the Minister who is the Peoples Mouth to God (a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 136. but let it be noted that Clemens is not speaking of the Minister alone but of him and the whole Congregation together and if the Minister had said all the Prayers he must save said plainly They had one common Mouth or Voice but his Words are Having as it were one common Voice which notes that they joyned Voices in responsory Forms and so made many Voices like unto one Voice and this uniting of the Minister and People in putting up their Common-Prayers shewed also the union of their Minds and Affection Moreover we may the more reasonably believe that the Christians had Forms in Clemens his Time because he saith They allotted certain hours for Prayer the Third the Sixth and the Ninth in imitation of Daniel and the Jews (b) Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. Now the Jews used Forms and it is likely those who imitated them in the Times would do it also in the Manner of Praying Nor can we think that they who prayed so often would vary the Phrase every time What were the Words of their Forms then Clemens no way relates but the main Petitions were First For the pardon of Sin Secondly For deliverance from Temptation Thirdly For ability to
p. 127 c. do not at all prove Extempore Praising or Praying was then in use Or shew That Ministers then used no Forms in the public Worship both because Origen saith this of all the People who cannot be supposed universally to have had this Gift of Praising God and Praying to him Extempore nor if any of them had it were they allowed ordinarily to exercise it in public Assemblies And also because the Phrases do signifie no more than Praying or Praising God by Forms with all possible fervency and devotion Origen therefore is a good Witness for Liturgies and all his Sophistry cannot draw one Argument from him against the use of them in his time § 4. The holy Martyr S. Cyprian S. Cyprian An. Dom. 248. witnesseth the very same thing For that he was not against the use of Forms of Prayer may appear from his allowing the Lords Prayer to be used as a Form of Prayer which Christ himself gave us (b) Cypr. de orat Dom. §. 1. pag. 309. And he would have us repeat the very Words of it because we may be assured The Father will know the Words which were made by his own Son (c) Id. ibid. § 2. Yea from the manner of drawing up this Prayer so as all the People are supposed to repeat it with the Minister he justifies the use of Set Forms wherein the Congregation bears a part for he observes That the Christians had a public and Common-Prayer (d) Publica est nobis communis oratio ibid. §. 5. p. 310. and that Christ Commanded us to Pray for all Men in a Common Prayer wherein all agreed (e) Oratione communi concordi prece pro omnibus jussit orare Cypr. ad cler pleb ep 8. pag. 24. Now suppose we grant that he speaks this of the Lords Prayer yet since all other Prayers were to be drawn up by this pattern this will prove that their other Prayers were in all things like to this that is that they were not made Extempore but were put into a Form as the Lords Prayer is and repeated by all the Congregation either with or after the Minister But there are still more evident Proofs in him not only of Forms but of a Liturgy viz. where he cites and explains those very Words of Common-Prayer in the Prefaces which were used in all Churches in the same Words for he persuades Christians to attend to their Prayers in public by putting them in mind that the Priest before the Prayer prepares the Hearts of the Brethren by a Preface premised saying Lift up your Hearts so that when they answer We Lift them up unto the Lord they may be admonished to think upon God alone (f) Ideo sacerdos ante Orationem praefatione praemissà parat fratrum mentes dicendo Surium corda ut dum respondeat plebi habenus ad Dominum admoâ—eatur se nihil aliud quam Dominum debere cogitare Id de orat Dom. §. 22. Now here we have a Form of Words used in the Eucharist not only in Africa but both in the Eastern and Western Churches and this also used by way of Response and divided between the Priest and People which is impossible to be done in any thing that the Priest saith Extempore And though he cites no more of this Preface than the first Words yet other Authors both in the African and Greek Church mention the rest of this primitive Form viz. It is meet and right so to do c. Even as it is yet in so many Words Transcribed in our Communion Service wherefore the Judicious Centuriators do rightly infer from hence That there were undoubtedly Set Forms of Prayer in S. Cyprians time (g) Magd. Cent. 3. cap. 6 p. 135. which they prove by citing this Preface Yea B. Bilson concludes from this and other passages that Christs Church taking her direction from S. Pauls Doctrin framed her public Prayers in such order that the Pastor and People both joyntly and interchangeably Praised God and Prayed to him each with other and each for other (h) Bilson of Christian Subjection Part. 4. pag. 435. Now how could there be these fixed places for Responses if the Priest had made only one long Extempore Prayer as our Dissenters do It is plain from this very method of Responses that there were then public Forms allowed and used And we may observe not only by this Preface but also by another passage that the African Church and the Eastern did hugely agree in these Liturgick Forms because as the Greeks say Give holy things to those that are holy (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lit. â— Basil Chrysost Clem. Constit So it seems they did at Carthage where as S. Cyprians Notes they were daily charged to keep that which was holy in a pure Conscience according to our Lords command not to cast that which is holy to Dogs (k) Cypr. ad Demetr p. 324. That is in the Eucharist which they then daily celebrated they used that Phrase Give holy things to holy Persons For though S. Cyprian writing to a Heathen will not express the very Form it self yet he comes so near it that he can mean nothing else being obliged to conceal the sacred Offices from Demetrian And that is the reason also why when he hath occasion to mention the Christian Litany he doth it only by setting down these general Heads of things desired therein viz. For driving away Enemies for procuring Rain and either for removing or moderating adversities we always pour out our Supplications and Prayers as well as for your peace and safety (l) Cypr. ad Demetr p. 324. so that our Adversary is very weak in despising those who urge this of as a Form of Prayer (m) Disc of Liturg. p. 137. because none of us think it was the very Words of the African Liturgy and we know Tertullian describes it when he also writes to Heathens in different Words but if we compare the two Fathers or both of them with the ancient Litanies wherein the general Heads of Evils which were to be Prayed against were named by the Priest and the People answered O Lord hear us or O Lord deliver us we may conclude they had a certain Form but concealed the Phrases of it from Unbelievers But the disputer against Liturgies who fraudulently conceals all but the last of these Testimonies picks up another passage or two by which he hopes to shew there were no Forms used in S. Cyprians time The first is in his Epistle to Pope Lucius where he saith we cease not in our Prayers and Sacrifices to give thanks to God the Father and to his Son Christ our Lord Praying and requesting that he who is perfect and makes us perfect would keep for you and perfect in you the glorious Crown of a Confessor (n) Cypr. Epist 58. p. 163. Hence he infers that being at liberty to put up any occasional Petition
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
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
Diocesses which indeed shewed their want of Judgment but did not make the Baptism Null This is the true case From whence I observe First That no Argument can be drawn from hence for the inferior Clergies choosing their own Forms or being at liberty to Pray Extempore for if they Baptized any they were obliged to use the Forms which their own Bishop had chosen Secondly Let it be noted These Additional Prayers were Forms composed by others as S. Augustin plainly declares nor doth he censure these well-meaning Brethren of his for using Forms but for using silly or Heretical Forms which shews that the Churches way of Praying then even in occasional Offices such as Baptism was by Forms and had it been otherwise the putting these Forms to an Extempore Office had been like setting a piece of New Cloth into an Old Garment wherefore we may reasonably suppose the old Office which contained the Essentials of Baptism that is the Lords Prayer the Renunciation the asking them the Creed the Prayer of Consecration and the Hymns were all certain Forms but some Weak and Ignorant Bishops thought this not enough and would needs add new Composures to their ancient Office but they had so ill success in this attempt that I make no doubt this gave occasion to the African Church at this very time to Ordain that no more Prayers should be added to any part of the Liturgy which is the Sense of that Canon of Carthage as I will presently shew Thirdly I must remark also that the Gift of Prayer must have been ceased in Africa before this time because had there been such a Gift the Bishops must have had it and then neither would the Unskilful or Heretical have composed needless Forms nor these weak Bishops have wanted any sort of Forms their very chusing such composures shews they could not make Prayers Extempore Though they were Ignorant yet miraculous Gifts would have enabled these as well as those of greatest learning to make Orthodox Prayers on the sudden And if the Gift of Prayer was ceased as it was then and is much more so now it will follow they needed Forms as we also now generally do Lastly Let it be considered the Fact was irregular S. Augustin censures it and the Church saw the ill Consequences of it yea and made a Canon to restrain this mischievous liberty for the Future therefore this must not be urged for a precedent to us to leave Ministers at liberty either to Pray Extempore or choose their own Forms that were to make Faults and things of ill Consequence a pattern for our imitation Thirdly He objects that S. Augustin saith some Bishops and Ministers called upon God with Solecisms and Barbarisms and he Tauntingly asks if these Barbarisms were prescribed (s) Disc of Liturg. p. 51. again p. 132. But he forgets that the holy Father saith there None ought to deride them for this when he twice makes himself Merry with this Rare Argument The notorious Fallacy whereof will be exposed if we consider that he wilfully mistakes these Solecisms and Barbarisms for false Grammer and downright Non-sense that so he might fairly pretend that no Church could prescribe such Forms But S. Augustin explains his own meaning and discovers our Authors craft when he defines Solecism to be when we do not duly joyn Words that are rightly put together and a Barbarism to be the pronouncing a Word with other letters or another sound than the Latins used (t) Aug. de doctrin Christ lib. 2. cap. 1â— Tom. 3. pag. 7. and he instances in the Peoples singing Floriet for Florebit in the Latin Psalms Yea in the place cited by my Adversary he describes the Persons Guilty of these Solecisms and Barbarisms to be such as did not understand the Words they pronounced or could not rightly distinguish them (u) Aug. de Catec rudibus cap. 9. Tom. 4. pag. 218. Now this must refer to reading Prayers out of a Book which some of the Ignorant Africans could not do so acurately after the Roman mode but that as S. Augustin here observes Those who came from the Schools of Grammarians and Orators derided them for this false and harsh pronunciation of their Latin calling these mistakes Solecisms and Barbarisms But the devout Father excuses these Rustical Pastors and blames those who censured them because God minds the inward devotion more than the pronunciation So that upon the whole case we may determin That this instance is so far from proving Extempore Prayers were then used or that there was no written Liturgy that it first shews these could not be Extempore Prayers because such as could not pronounce Latin truly could certainly not Pray on the sudden in that Language Secondly It proves there was a Liturgy written in Latin so elegant that though the African Pastors and People too understood it yet by reason of their rough and harsh Dialect they could not Read and pronounce it so exactly as to please the learned Criticks However God did accept of these Forms thus Rustically pronounced when they were said with true Devotion So that when our Adversaries designed Sophistry is laid open this proves an Argument against himself Fourthly We are told out of S. Augustin that one of his Presbyters being desired in his absence to Pray in a House infested with evil Spirits Went and Celebrating the Sacrament there Prayed with all his Might that this Vexation might cease and by Gods mercy it ceased presently (w) Orans quantum potuit ut Cessaret illa Vexatio Deo protenus miserante Cessavit Aug. de Civ Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. Now from hence he draws two Inferences in two distant parts of his Book First That the Prayer for all Estates of Men at the Eucharist was not a Form (x) Disc of Liturg. p. 66. Secondly That there was no Form of Prayer for this occasion (y) Ibid. p. 121. And he twice Transcribes the passage at large supposing no doubt it is unanswerable But if the Reader look into his Quotation he will easily observe First That the Sacrament was over before this Prayer began and that this was not the Prayer for all Estates of Men beeause neither the House nor the Devil can be ranked under that head but it was a Prayer upon that particular occasion for he Prayed that God would cause that Vexation to cease I confess he puts a stop after Quantum potuit which makes it seem as if this Prayer was a part of the Eucharist but this pointing is false and his own invention For S. Augustin's Words shew that the Sacrament was first Celebrated and then came this Prayer wherein he desired as earnestly as he could that this Vexation might cease So that this passage is impertinently cited to prove that the Prayer for all Estates of Men in the Eucharist was not a Form Secondly If we grant that Quantum potuit signifies according to his Ability and intimates that he Prayed Extempore upon