That his Friend Du-Plessis saith The Lord's Prayer was commended to the Apostles for their ordinary Prayer (d) Du-Plessis of the Mass Book I. chap. 1. pag. 9. I have been more particular in clearing this point that I may shew the Reader to how little purpose this Author usually fills his Margen and may now conclude That Christ did intend this Prayer for a Form and so it was used by the Church in all Ages Secondly We are often told of a Gift of Prayer which was in the Apostolick Church and this Gift enabling Persons as they suppose to express their wants in Extempore Phrases made Forms in that Age however useless I Answer That this Gift is not expresly mentioned in Scripture nor in any ancient Author but S. Chrysostom and he holds it was a Miraculous Gift peculiar to the Pastors of the Church and saith it was ceased long before his time so that in S. Chrysostom's Opinion our Dissenters Extempore Prayers cannot proceed from this Gift and it is plain they pervert all the places of Scripture which they produce to prove their claim to this Gift of Prayer Christ indeed saith When the Apostles Martyrs or Confessors were brought before their Enemies and Persecutors They need take no thought how or what they should speak for it should be given them in that hour what they should speak (e) Math. x. 19. But What is this saith a Learned Father to speaking before our Friends where premeditation is enjoyned (f) Isidor Peleus lib. 4. ep 218. or what reason is there to apply this to the Prayers we make to God to whom we must not say any thing which we have not well considered on before we speak it (g) Eccles v. 1 2. Secondly They alledge that place of S. Paul Rom. VIII 26. The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities for we know not what to pray for as we ought c But this place cannot be meant of the infirmity of wanting Words because it is here said The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be uttered and the Context shews that S. Paul is speaking of the infirmity of Impatience under present Afflictions and praying for immediate deliverance even when it is not pleasing to God nor profitable for us Now this Infirmity the Spirit helpeth and teacheth us to bear them patiently and submit to Gods Will yea to pray his Will may be done yet in the mean time the Spirit pleads with God to deliver us and that with inexpressible ardency So that this place is no ground for any to expect the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit to teach them new Words and Phrases in ordinary Cases and for their daily Prayers Thirdly They tell us S. Paul speaks of praying with the Spirit and praying with understanding (h) 1 Cor. xiv 15. I Answer He is discoursing of praying in an unknown Tongue which since none of our Adversaries can do now this place is nothing to their purpose and I much question whether they who pray Extempore can be said to pray with understanding as to their own particulars because they neither know before what they are to say nor can remember afterward what they have said However the strict Meaning of this place is no More but that if a Man who had the Gift of Tongues prayed in a Congregation which understood not the Language he prayed in he must Make the People understand the meaning of his Prayer or be silent but whether his Prayer were a Form or Extempore is not said in this place which refers to the Gift of Tongues and not to the Gift of Prayer But our Adversary hath a peculiar Notion of this Gift of Prayer viz. That it was an ordinary Gift common to all Christians and continuing to this day which he proves because all to whom the Apostles writ are exhorted to Pray in the Spirit (i) Ephes vi 18. and to pray in the Holy Ghost (k) Jude ver 20. by which he understands that they were all able to conceive their own Prayers and therefore he thinks if they made use of Prayers formed by others they did not exercise their own Gift nor pray as they were able (l) Discourse of Liturg. p. 128 129. To which I Reply That the absurd consequences of this Exposition ought to make our Author ashamed of it since it would follow from hence That no Man in their public Assemblies except the Minister did Pray in the Spirit because the Minister alone conceives the Prayer and though it be Extempore to him yet it is a Form to the whole Congregation who must pray in his Words and not exercise their own Gift of Praying by the Spirit in his Sense which is to invent the Words by the Spirit Rejecting therefore this absurd Exposition that leads to so ridiculous a Conclusion we shall note That praying with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit Ephes vi 18. signifies no more than praying fervently and heartily as loving in the Spirit (m) Coloss I. ver 8. is put for loving fervently ex animo from the Heart Thus Grotius expounds it Praying not only with the Voice but from the Heart (n) Grot. Com. in Ephes vi 18. And thus Praying in the Holy Ghost Jude ver 20. implies Praying with that devotion and fervency which we are moved to by the Holy Spirit but then this is no extraordinary Gift this is no more than what both Then and Now every good Man by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit might and may do even by a Form for he that repeats that so as to attend the Sense and heartily desires every Petition may be granted he prays by the Spirit or in the Spirit as these Scriptures exhort and thus the People as well as the Priest in public or private may and ought to pray in the Spirit Which shews that these places rightly expounded are nothing at all to our Dissenters pretended gift of Inventing new Words every time they Pray We will grant there was such a Gift in the Apostles times But we judge St. Chrysostom knew much better than they what it was and he thinks it was as Miraculous as the gift of Tongues with which St. Paul joyns it He saith it was given only to one and affirms it was ceased long before his time and seems to imply that the Forms which were made in his Days had their Original from the Prayers which were made at first by these inspired Men Whose Prayers thus conceived were written down and so preserved and used when the Gift it self failed And when we consider the agreeableness of all Ancient Liturgies in the Method and even in many of the Phrases and Forms and their neer Resemblance to each other we may Rationally believe they were all derived at first from that One Spirit which directed all Inspired Men in their new planted Churches to ask fit and proper things almost in the very same Words And thus the
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
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
of Charity that the Lapsed may obtain the Remedy of Repentance and lastly that the Catechumens being brought to the Sacrament of Regeneration may have the Gate of the Divine Mercy opened unto them (l) Obsecrationum quoque Sacerdotalium sacramenta respiciamus quae ab Apostolis tradita in toto mundo atque in omni Ecclesiâ Catholicâ uniformitèr celebrantur c. Celest Ep. pro Presp Hilar. inter opera Prosper p. 894. This is that famous Passage which our Adversary labours to misinterpret but in vain since nothing can more clearly prove the use of a prescribed Form than these Words For Celestine is here arguing against Hereticks and he confutes them by the Forms then used in the Church producing the very Words and affirming that the Apostles had delivered these Prayers to them at first and that there was an Uniformity in these Petitions between all the National Churches in the World that is all their Litanies had these Requests differing only in the Order and some few Phrases but the Roman Form was this which he here sets down bids the Hereticks look upon it and tells them this was the Rule for Prayer and therefore they ought to believe suitably to these Prayers which might be a Rule for their Faith as well as for their Devotion Now if these Prayers only agreed in the persons and things to be prayed for but were daily varied as every Minister pleased might not the Hereticks have asked him Where they could see Extempore and invisible Prayers or how he could make those Prayers fix a Rule for their Faith which were as various and uncertain as their Ministers Fancies They might except justly against any Argument taken from Prayers which were varied every day and differed so exceedingly in every â—everal Church But since they could be looked on transcribed and urged as an Argument and were so ancient in this Age that even Hereticks durst not â—xcept against the Authority of them we are sure they must be prescribed â—orms made long before this time I will not deny but that both Innocent and Celestine might stretch their Tradiâ—ion something too far when they â—scribed the Original of these Forms to â—he Apostles themselves but even that Assertion especially here in a dispute with Hereticks shews they were so ancient then that there was no Memorial of the first Composer left and â—t is usual among the Fathers to call that Apostolical which was generally observed and had so early a beginning that its first Author was not known As for my Adversaries pretence That this Testimony only affirms an Uniformity as to the order the persons and things to be prayed for I must observe that S. Augustine useth this very Argument against the same Hereticks and when he comes to cite the Words of the Prayer he repeats these very Words without altering any thing either in the Phrase or Order We have cited the place in the First part and if there be any verbal difference in the Translation from what is here set down out of Celestine I assure the Reader there is none in the Latin as will appear by comparing both places together (m) Celestin Ep. apud Prosp Et Aug. de Eccles dogmat cap. 30. See this History Part. l. Cent. 4. §. 21. pag. 231. Now when Celestine at Rome some years after quotes the same Form of Prayer verbatim which S. Augustine in Africa had cited before this shews that the Words as well as the Matter and Order were agreed on and it follows that both the Roman and African Church had a certain prescribed Form of Litany at this time and that the same Form was used in both Churches and was so Ancient and of so good Authority then as to be quoted for Evidence in a dispute with Hereticks And who can imagine there was no more but such an Uniformity as he speaks of that is that every Priest in every several Church in Rome used several Phrases every day which is more properly a Multiformity since we see the same Form of Words quoted for Evidence by two great Bishops the one in Italy the other in Africa and this also at two different times Or how can such a liberty and variety in Praying as he dreams of be called legem supplicandi a Rule of Praying How can such an uncertain thing which daily appears in a new and different shape fix the legem credendi the Rule of Believing We conclude therefore that the Words as well as the Method of this Litany was fixed at Rome long before the Time of this Pope § 6. Which will appear more plainly Prosper Aquitan An. D. 430 if we consult Prosper in whose behalf the Pope writ this Epistle For he being to Expound that place of S. Paul 1 Tim. II. 1. I exhort therefore that Prayers Supplications c. refers to the same Litany only supposing that the Form was well known he doth not quote the Words in their order but describes them so plainly that any one may discern it is the same Form which he S. Augustine and Pope Celestine do all appeal to His Words are these Which Law or Rule of Prayer the Devotion of all Priests and Faithful People so unanimously observe that there is no part of the World wherein the Christians do not celebrate such Prayers For the Church every where prays to God not only for the Saints and those already Regenerated in Christ but for all the Infidels and Enemies of his Cross For all Idolaters and all that persecute Christ in his Members for the Jews to whose blindness the Gospel gives no light for Hereticks and Schismaticks who are estranged from the Vnity of Faith and Charity And what doth it ask for these but that leaving their Errors they may be converted to God and receive the Faith embrace Charity and that being freed from the darkness of Ignorance they may come to the acknowledgment of the Truth (n) Prosper de Vocat Gent. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 798. We see he is discoursing gnerally of this Litany and breaks the Sentences first running over the persons prayed for and then the things asked for them yet even in this lax way of discourse it is easie to discern that he refers to Celestine's Form and with him affirms That this Prayer was a Rule unanimously observed by all Priests and People whereas if every Priest had daily varied the Words in every Assembly of the People there could be neither Certainty in the Rule nor Uniformity in the observing it I may add that Prosper did so highly reverence S. Augustine that we cannot doubt but he imitated him in the Approbation and use of public Forms and he explains one of those public Forms viz. the Preface of Sursum Corda in his Sentences taken out of S. Augustine's Works (o) Prosp sent ex Augustin sent 153. pag. 434. And in another place he mentions and commends that ancient Custom prescribed in the old Liturgies for the People
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
was a Form composed with great Art and committed to Memory before it was first spoken and was designed to work upon the Affections of a Croud of Men in a Secular Court and in a Temporal Cause and in that Case even Theatrical Gestures and the Artificial Acting of it were apt to move the Auditory more than the bare Reading it in a private Room to a few Friends Plâ—n epist lib. 2. Ep. 19. But what is this to the Case of Prayers Pliny durst not have come before that Auditory with an Extempore Harangue such as our Dissenters dare come into the presence of God and a great Congregation with He designed no more by his Action but only to work upon the Frailties of Men but our Adversaries I hope will not own That their only design in Prayer is to move the Affections of their Hearers by Tone Gestures Noise and Fluency We who use Forms as Pliny did and generally have them by Heart as he had can repeat them as vigorously as he did the first time and thereby do keep all pious Men in our Congregations very attentive But still we remember we speak to the Most High God before whom our Words ought to be well weighed and our Desires properly expressed because he is not wrought upon by Noise and Action as silly Men and Women are If our Petitions be sincere and hearty prudently Worded in proper Phrases and repeated with new Devotion every day the God we pray to likes them no worse for being daily in the same Words And Pliny could not have wondred at us for Reading daily the same Forms of Prayer for He and all the Priests of his Religion prayed so to their Gods and did not believe the Deities affected Change and Variety or were moved with Gesticulations and Tones Nor would that Judicious Heathen have been so weak as to compare his popular Orations to the Prayers he offered up to his Gods And since he appeals to Pliny to judge between Forms and Extempore we will hear what he and others say of these two Ways even with respect to Civil Pleadings Pliny brings in Pollio saying Pleading agreeably I pleaded often but by Pleading often I came to plead not so well for by too often using this I got an easiness rather than a faculty and not so much an assurance as a sort of rashness (y) assâ—duitate nimià facilitas magis quam facultas nec fiducia sed temiritas paratur Plin lib. 6. ep 29. And if our Dissenting Brethren had the modesty to confess it I fear they find the same effects of using this Gift when they plead at another Bar. The Grave Tacitus also derides Q. Huterius an Orator who was very ready at Extempore Speeches saying His Orations did not survive him For whereas other Mens Labour and Meditation lasted to Posterity his Noisy fluent way died with him (z) Huterii Canorum illud pr â—â—â—ns cum ipso s mul extinctum est Ticâ—t Annal. lib. 4. §. 61. pag. â—13 So despicable was this kind of Eloquence in those days Again Lampridius saith The Wise Emperour Alexander Severus Suffered not any of his Counsellors to answer him concerning great Affairs till they had well thought upon them (a) Ne inceâ—itati dicere cogerentur de reâ—us ingentibus Lamprâ—d in vit Al. Sev. p. 524. Plutarch also Arguing against Extempore Orations tells us a Story of a young Painter who shewed Apelles a piece of his Work and bragged how little time he had done it in To whom that great Master Replied I saw by the Work it was done in haste (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut. de liber educ pag. 6. But none is more severe than Seneca upon a Philosopher of quick Invention who used this way This Rapid and Copious way of Speaking saith he is much fitter for a Jugler or Mountebank than one that is about a great and serious Matter (c) Istam vim docendi rapidam atque abundantem aptiorem esse circulatori quam agenti rem magnam seriam Senec. Ep. 40. pag. 101. And I suppose it will be granted That Praying is as great and serious a Matter as a Philosophical Lecture I shall conclude with S. Hierom's Opinion of Gregory Nazianzen's Extempore Preaching which he had heard and could well judge of it Nothing is so easie as to deceive the Vulgar People and an Illiterate Assembly with the Volubility of the Tongue because they do most admire that which they least understand (d) Nihil tam facile est quam vilem plebeculam indoctam concionem linguae volubilitate decâ—pere quae quicquid non intelligit plus admiratur Hicron ad Nepot Ep. 2 pag. 16. This he spake of his Master and thus he censured the Extempore Preaching of an Eminent Father in that Age And if any had then pretended to Pray at that rate it is more than probable he would severely have exposed the Boldness and Folly of hoping to please God by that contemptible Faculty which was admired only by that ignorant Croud who were deceived by it To conclude this Point I dare refer it to any Man who duly considers the Majesty of God Whether the grave and affectionate Reading of a well-studied and judicious Form of Prayer expressed in proper and pious Words be not more fit to be presented to him and more likely to be accepted by him than a rash unpremeditated Rhapsody without Method strength of Reason or Propriety of Phrase The latter by Noise and Action may operate more upon the Passions of Weak Men but the former is more suitable to the infinite Majesty of him whom we only desire to please when we Pray § 4. After this he Argues that the ancienâ— Church had no Liturgies or Books of public Prayers and therefore could have no prescribed or imposed Forms And he would prove they had no Books by the Case of Athanasius his not being accused for abusing the Liturgy nor the Arians for Burning any thing but Bibles by Constantin 's employing Eusebius only to Transcribe the Scripture by the Council of Carthage 's Decree for only holding a Book of the Gospels over the Bishops Head And by the Persecutors finding no Liturgy in their Searches after the Christians Books (e) Disc of Lit. p. 12 13 14 15. c. to the 20th To which I answer First in general that I have made it so Evident that there were prescribed Forms and Books of Hymns and Prayers in these Ages that a negative Argument taken from some few Authors in some places not mentioning them is of no Force against plain and positive proof But Secondly We will examin his particulars and shew that they do not make out his Point First His own Quotation concerning Athanasius expresly saith that Macarius who was employed by Athanasius did Burn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Holy Books (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 1. cap. 20. p. 539. he Translates it fraudulently in the
the Sybils Books their extraordinary Ritual had also a Liturgy sent to them in Writing by Apollo He also mentions a Public Table wherein their usual Prayer was writ and saith That Scipio reformed their Common-Prayer-Book (q) Ibid. p. 124. We leave him or his Friends to reconcile these Contradictions But being sure the Heathens did conceal their Mysteries and yet write them in Books and read them out of them He must infallibly grant That the Christians might both conceal their Mysteries and yet write them in Books also and read them out of them and if the Christians as he saith learned of the Heathens to conceal their Administrations they might also learn of them to write them in Books and deliver those Books to the custody of the Clergy to keep them from the sight of such as were not Initiated And this sufficiently shews the weakness and falshood of his Consequence viz. That the Christians could have no Written Liturgies because they concealed their Mysteries from the Uninitiated But since he hath filled so many needless Pages upon this Subject I will give some short Touches upon all that looks like Objection in each of them First He discourses as if this Silence and concealing of Mysteries were to be restrained especially to the Fourth and Fifth Ages (r) Disc of Lit. pag. 28. And the two Authors which furnished him with these Quotations Dailé (s) Dail de object cult lib. 2. cap. 25. and Chamier (t) Chamier Panstrat Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 8. both say This sort of Niceness did not begin till the Fourth or Fifth Age. Now if this be so and his Quotations generally fall within this Period then for all this doughty Argument the Chrians might have Written Liturgies for Three hundred years or more at the first since they did not endeavour in those first and best Times to conceal their Mysteries as these Men think Therefore we may have Precedents of prescribed Forms in the first Ages though all this were true Secondly Their calling the Sacraments Mysteries did not hinder them from Administring them in an audible Voice before the Faithful every day and therefore this doth not prove That they durst not commit them to Writing for daily reading or speaking these Words in public with so loud a Voice that all the Faithful might hear and answer was much more a publishing them than Writing them in Books committed to the custody of the Clergy So that all that Margen which he heaps up (u) Disc of Lit. pag. 29. only proves That they concealed them from the Unbaptized who were turned out when these Mysteries began as well as kept from seeing the Books and so remained ignorant of the Solemn Words but the Faithful were so well acquainted with the very Phrases and Expressions that if the least hint were but given them in a Sermon before a promiscuous Auditory it put them in mind of that Passage in the Offices which the Preacher hinted at Which undeniably proves they were known and usual Forms and being such they must of necessity be written down otherwise such Variations would have been made that no Appeal could have been made to the Faithful concerning any part of the Office because no Extempore Man now can appeal to his Congregation for his Words or Phrases used some time before Therefore they were Mysteries only with respect to the Uninitiated but well-known Forms to the Faithful and written down to prevent all Variation Thirdly As to the tedious Proofs of the Gentiles Secrecy (w) Disc of Lit. pag. 30 31 32 33. I have noted that he owns they writ down these Mysteries and pag. 32. he saith That the Romans had a Book of their public Rites as old as King Tarquin 's Time and that Valerius Max. mentions one who was punished for letting an unconcerned Person Transcribe it Which shews how impertinent all these Quotations are to prove his Point which is That Mysteries must not at all be committed to Writing Indeed fearing this Consequence he adds in the next Page 33. If they did commit them to Writing it was in such a Character as none of the Vninitiated understood But then he makes out nothing but that the Egyptians described their Mysteries in such unintelligible Hieroglyphicks which doth not prove that either Greeks or Romans writ them in such Figures much less doth it shew that the Christians used any Hieroglyphicks to conceal their Mysteries and therefore there is no reason to argue from that Custom peculiar to Pagan Egypt as if we might learn the Christian Usage from thence Fourthly The excluding the Catechamens from hearing the Prayers and refusing to recite any Phrases of them in a Sermon made to a promiscuous Auditory which he speaks of (x) Disc of Lit. pag. 35 36. are very good Arguments That these Offices were celebrated by prescribed Forms which Words had they been suffered daily to hear in the Church when the Administration was performed or had often heard them in Sermons they might easily learn and remember them And it was because they were prescribed constant invariable Forms that they durst neither let them stay in the Church when they repeated them nor openly mention them in a Sermon Had they Officiated variously and in his Extempore way they might have stood by for Seven years and heard the Sermons in which some part of them was referred to and there had been no danger of their learning them And since we see the Heathens did write down their Mysteries and make them known to the Initiated the Christians might do so also and yet keep them secret enough from the Unconverted or Unbaptized for they might as well keep them from seeing their Books of Mysteries as to turn them out of the Church to prevent their hearing them And his instance of the Creed pag. 37. proves this for the Creed was written down and expounded in the Time of Cyril and Ruffinus and yet then and long after it was kept secret from the Catechumens till some small time before the Day of their Baptism therefore every thing that was written was not published to the Uninitiated Fifthly Baronius doth not say the Primitive Literae formatae were not drawn up in Writing Spondanus indeed his Epitomator doth say something to that purpose (y) Disc of Lit. pag. 38. c Spondan â—pit An. 325. H. 44. but Baronius himself only saith That the Council of Nice would not put the Words of these Formed Epistles the private Cognizances by which Stranger-Christians were known to be Catholics where-ever they came into the Canons of their Council But he adds They agreed upon a Form there and setting down what it was he saith Such was the Form prescribed by the Fathers for these Formed Epistles (z) Baron An. 325. §. 166 167. pag. 32â— But still it was a Secret writ down then but not published among the Canons for fear the Hereticks might get Copies and deceive the Catholic Bishops thereby Which
are full of Instances to shew That the Fathers used the Word Baptizo in all Three Persons I baptize thee Be thou baptized He is baptized and that they use Tingo Mergo and Mergito as well as Baptizo e Having borrowed all his Quotations by Whole-sale from Vossius and Vice comes (f) Voss Theses de Bapt. disp 2. pag. 372. â—â—câ—â—m de vâ—t Bapt. pag. 608. But indeed the Inference That therefore they took a Liberty to vary Christs Form is of his own inventing And it is like the rest of his Sophistry For the first Word viz. Baptize Christ doth not determine the Person in which it shall be used for he speaks not to one that he was Baptizing but to his Disciples and so expresses it by the Participle viz. Baptizing them c. upon which the Latin Churches used the First Person when they performed this Office I baptize thee the Greeks generally used the Third Person viz. M. or N. is Baptized as Theodorus notes but this was no altering Christ's Form for that very Author there tells us That the Water vanished out of the Font when an Arian Bishop altered the Gospel Form in Baptizing one Barbas (g) Theodor. Lect. collect pag. 187. Nor is this difference of the Greek and Latin Church any ground for the liberty which my Adversary pleads for viz. the liberty for private Ministers to vary the Forms of their own Church as they please For no Bishop or Priest in the Latin Church was allowed to use the Third Person nor did any in the Greek Church use the First so that every Clergy-man was bound to use the Forms prescribed in his own Country and the Church of England doth not impose any more Then as for his ridiculous ugring of the Fathers using Tingo Mergo c. for Baptizo we must note that not one of his Instances are any account of the words used in the Actual Administration of Baptism he cannot shew they used any word but Baptizo then But his Proofs are out of the Fathers occasional Discourses concerning Baptism which they describe in their own words and phrases as it happens even as we call this holy Action Christning or Sprinkling the Child as well as Baptizing in our ordinary Discourse But would any Man whose Head were right infer from thence That our Ministers in the Act of Baptizing took liberty to say I Christen thee or I Sprinkle thee c. I am ashamed to confute such mean Sophistry yet must add That our Lord neither spake Latin nor Greek but a Language which was Hebrew mixt with Syriack and it is strange when His Words are to be turned into any other Language in our common Discourse that we may not translate them by any significant Words But this Liberty in ordinary Converse or Writing is no manner of proof That the private Ministers of any Church may vary the Words used in their Offices when they Administer the Sacrament of Baptism But he goes on to prove this liberty of Variation by the Fathers sometimes saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so also In nomen or In nomine In or Into the Name of the Father c. (h) Disc of Lit. pag. 96. wherein the Fallacy is the same as before For his Authors cited are only discoursing of Baptism not citing or reporting the very Words which they used in Baptizing and therefore they take this liberty As if a Preacher or Catechist should in a Sermon or Exposition say Our Church Baptizes Men into the Faith of the Holy Trinity or in the Name of the Father the Creator the Son the Redeemer and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier of all Men This would not prove that this Preacher or Catechist did not use the Words of the Churches Form when he actually Baptized nor shew that we have here no prescribed Form of Baptism This is meer trifling But his next Proof is disingenuous for he Argues That some Ancients thought they were not obliged to name the Persons of the Trinity for if it was done in the Name of Christ it was sufficient from whence he gathers That such Fathers would neither impose Forms of Prayer on others nor would observe what others had imposed on them (i) Disc of Lit. pag 97 98. Now here I must observe that he hath again taken all his Instances by which he proves this out of Vossius (k) Voss Thes de Baptism Disp 2. Thes 5. pag. 370 ad pag. 379. But that Learned Author was too generous to make any such false and frivolous Inference from those Premisses and doth not represent even the Premisses themselves as my Adversary doth for he tells us That Irenaeus is not speaking of Baptism in that place adâ— haer lib. 3 c. 20. which my Adversary cites and that Justin Martyr another of my Adversaries Witnesses pag. 99. is not repeating but only paraphrasing the Form of Baptism so that there are no Ancient Fathers who allow this but only S. Basil and S Ambrose who generally follows S. Basil in all things nor do they speak of any Church where such an Omission was permitted or where Men were left at liberty to Baptize in what words they pleased Only they put the case if a man were so Baptized in Christs name whether he ought to be Baptized again these two think he ought not because Factum valet quod fieri non debet But these two do not advise any so to Baptize nor doth it appear that ever they took this Liberty they only Argue for the validity of such a Baptism though it was done irregularly Therefore these Fathers and such later Men as followed them were not for any Mans having liberty to alter the Form of Baptism or the Prayers of the Church as my Adversary pretends Besides Vossius there declares which my Adversary conceals that more and greater Fathers held that this alteration of the Form made the Baptism invalid viz. Tertullian and Cyprian who saith they were Hereticks who altered the Form thus as also Didymus S. Augustin Fulgentius Epiphanius and others (l) Vossij Thes de Bapt. disp 2. c. p. 374 375. Now then the most and best of the Fathers held it utterly unlawful to alter the Form of Baptism and consequently by his way of Arguing to alter the Liturgy or Prayers and therefore most of the Fathers were against his pretended Liberty And from this matter of Fact Vossius observes First That mentioning the three Persons is now and hath been of old the usage of the whole World by which it is very probable that it came at first from the Apostles (m) Vossius ibid. p. 371. Again he notes Though Baptism should be valid though the words of this Form were altered Yet the old Form ought not to be innovated or changed at every Mans pleasure And if Christ had not tied us to a certain Form of Words Yet it is much better to retain the
old Form which all Agree to be certainly right but it is disputable and uncertain whether any other Form be so or no And surely certain things are much to be preferred before uncertain (n) idem ibid. pag 379. Thus this learned Man represents the Matter and if my Adversary who transcribed his Instances had imitated his Ingenuity He could not have framed any Argument from hence for his Liberty of varying Prayers because he reckons his Liberty a Priviledge a Duty and an advantage to the Worship But this variation in Baptism was an irregular Fact generally disliked and censured so as to make the very Office Null or at least very liable to be counted so it was an Illegal thing seldom done never commanded nor directed to be done only when it was done it was condemned by many and excused by very few And suppose now varying the Prayers be such a Fact as this is it Advisable or Eligible No the Comparison shews the taking such Liberty would be an ill thing for which scarce any would undertake to make an Apology And so I have done with his Comparison between Forms of Prayer and the Form of Baptizing § 10. His next Excursion is about the Creeds and being deckt in the Plumes he hath borrowed from Grotius Vossius and Bishop Vsher he fills Four Pages with Pompous Margens to dress up this Argument viz. That in the Primitive Times there was an Agreement in sense not in Words as to the Creed it self and he thinks that they who left themselves and others at so much Liberty in Forms of Creeds would not limit themselves nor others by Forms of Prayer If the Apostles Creed be objected he looks on Ruffinus his Relation to be a Fable and saith that no Writer for 300 years took notice of it And since the Ancients would not be confined to this Creed it argues they would never be confined to Forms of Prayer composed by others and he notes that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions hath set down a Form of Creed different from that of the Apostles (o) Disc of Lit. pag. 99 100 101 102 103. This is the sum of his Reasoning Which when it is strictly examined will all appear to be either mistaken or fallacious He first directs us to Grotius upon Math. xxviii 19. where that Author brings in Justin Martyr Irenaeus Clemens Tertullian Novatian c. using various Expressions when they give an account of its several Articles But Grotius his Inferences which he cites in his Margen pag. 100. are two First That when they say the Rule of Faith was immutable they do not respect one certain Form of words received in all places but they respect the Force and meaning of the Interrogations And Secondly That Cyprians words seem to him to shew that the Creed or Rule of Faith in his time was not yet tied to those words in which it was afterwards found written and yet it cannot be doubted but the Sense of it was always the same (p) Grot. Com. in Math. XXVIII 19. p. 288 289. Now though Grotius here be not so just perhaps as he ought to be to the Antiquity of Creeds and being a Modern Author his Affirmation in this weighs no more than his Instances prove Yet I will wave that Dispute and for the present admit what he saith were true and then make Parallel between Creeds and Liturgies And in his First Inference he only saith That when the Ancients use various ways of expressing their Faith they do not refer to one certain Form of Words received in all places but only to the force and meaning of the Interrogations Which shews Grotius did not think as my Adversary grosly doth That every one of the Ancients in the places cited pretended to repeat the very Form of the Creed but only to shew the main Doctrins of it which in these occasional Discourses is all that we can expect And therefore the variety of expressions doth not prove there was not one Form of Creed but that these Fathers in these places do not refer to that Form Yet Secondly These Fathers all lived within 250 years after Christ and if we grant to Grotius that then there was not one Form of Creed every where received we may allow the Parallel with Liturgies and suppose that in Cyprian and Novatian's Time and so upwards to Tertullian Irenaeus and Justin Martyr there was not one Form of Liturgy every where received yet for all this Liturgies might be used and received before the year 300 that is before the quiet settlement of the Christian Church 1400 years ago and above 200 years before my Adversary allows them to have come in And this also is all that can be inferred from his words in the second Passage viz. That in S. Cyprians time the Creed was not tied to that Form of words wherein it is found written down afterwards Though he speak this modestly and only say it sâ—ems so to him Yet let it be supposed true and certain and then make the Parallel and no more will follow from thence but this That the Liturgies of the Church were not written down in so many words in the year 250 as we find them written in afterwards Now this being in the Ages of Persecution and while the Miraculous Gifts lasted it will not prove that because the Church then had no such Form of written Liturgy therefore now when the Church is setled and Inspiration ceased we neither need nor ought to have such a Form In the next Page in the Margen he grants the Creeds had more stated Forms in the Fourth Century though even then the Creeds of several Cities in the same Country were not Vniform and he instances in Rome Aquileia and Ravenna in Italy referring us to Vossius and Bishop Vsher (q) Disc of Lit. Marg. p. 101. And a little after he saith it was not put into set Form till the Fourth Age or neer it but the Forms varied in several places in the same Country Now because the Antiquity of Creeds is not our business here we will also for the present suppose this to be true And then if I may Argue from the History of Creeds to that of Liturgies as he evidently doth the Consequence will be That Liturgies were put into set Forms somwhat before the beginning of the Fourth Age though those great Churches which were at that time independent of one another though in the same Country as Aquileia and Ravenna in Italy which then were not subject to Rome had some difference in the Words and Phrases as also in the Order and Method of their Liturgies But as the Roman Creed was imposed upon all those Churches which were under the Popes Jurisdiction properly so called and the Aquileian Creed and that of Ravenna were respectively imposed upon all the Churches subject to these two great Metropolitans So it must follow if Liturgies and Creeds kept pace as he supposes that the Roman
Antioch especially when it was conveyed for the most part of that time only by Oral Tradition To conclude The Apostles shewed the way of making Forms of the things to be believed and if the Parallel hold between Creeds and Liturgies then we have reason to believe they first Composed Forms also for the things to be asked of God in Prayer and to be spoken to his Honour in Praises Which first and Apostolical Forms are the foundation and ground of all the several Liturgies in great and eminent Churches which like their Creeds agree in the main Essential parts and have so much likeness as to persuade us they all came from one Original Form at first but tract of Time and distacne of Place caused some differences in the Order and Phrases in distant Churches But so that all the Members of every great Church were obliged to learn the Creed of that Church where they received their Baptism and also to use the Forms of that same Church in whose Communion they lived And this may suffice for his Consequences drawn from the Primitive Creeds because it is nothing to our purpose when they came to be used first in the Communion Office forasmuch as he grants they were used in the Office of Baptism from the beginning § 11. He concludes this Set of Arguments by a large and tedious digression about the Variety used in the Form of Renouncing the Devil in Baptism and here again he fills his Margen with the Names of near twenty Ancients who speak of this Form of Renunciation in different Words by which he hopes to prove That this Form was arbitrary since not only divers Churches differed therein but the Authors who lived in the same Church yea the same Author in several places of his Works expresses it variously And then comes his Inference That if they were not limited to a Set Form of Words in this Sentence none can believe they were or would have suffered themselves to be confined to an invariable Form of Words in Praying at Baptism (b) Disc of Lit. pag. 105 106 107 108 109. Now if we should grant his Consequence did follow from these Premisses then we must expect at least that the Premisses shall be fully proved but we shall shew that he hath not made them out sufficiently For first the greater part of his Authors do not pretend to recite the Form but are only applying the Duty in occasional Discourses for which I need no other Evidence but to desire the Reader to consult the Places he produceth out of Origen Ephrem Syrus S. Basil Cyril of Alexandria Pseudo Dionysius Justinian Optatus S. Cyprian S. Augustin in the two later places and S. Hierom These Fathers in Homilies and practical Discourses speak of the thing and press the Obligation but do not pretend to repeat the words they express them in their own Phrases and therefore no wonder if they differ Secondly Many of these Witnesses do not speak of the whole Renunciation but some of the Renouncing the Devil only others only of Renouncing the World as the Subject upon which they were treating required and it is strange that he should cite these Authors to make out a difference in the whole Form when one speaks of one part of it and another Author treats of another part Thirdly Most of these Authors not only lived in several Ages but belonged to several distant Countries and were Members of Churches which had some difference in the Phrases and Order of their whole Liturgy and therefore their differing in the Words or Syllables of this Renunciation doth not prove they had no Set Forms of Prayer in any Church but only that several great Churches had some Variety in their Forms which we freely grant and it cannot hurt our Cause since all were limited to use the Forms of their own Church Thus Origen belonged to Alexandria Constantine's Edict was forged at Rome Cyril was of Palaestina Basil of Cappadocia Salvian of France Pseudo-Dionysius of Laodicea Clemens of Antioch Justinian of Constantinople Tertullian of Africa and S. Ambrose of Milan Now we have proved that there was a Variety between the Liturgies of these distant Churches in many particulars and therefore it is not strange they should differ in expressing the Syllables of the Renunciation supposing every one of them had been repeating the Form of his own Church Yet Fourthly Those of the same Country and espcially those of the same Church do either agree or come as near one another as can be expected from Men who are rather describing than repeating the Form Thus Ephrem-Syrus and Cyril of Jerusalem do agree exactly both of them no doubt referring to the Form used in Palaestina Salvian twice mentions this Form in the same words referring to the Liturgy of the Gallican Church and S. Chrysostom differs very little from Justinian because both had respect to the Constantinopolitan Form and that of Antioch related in the Constitutions is very near it So Tertullian and S. Augustin where they speak closely do exactly agree in the African Form And it is very probable that Constantine's Edict refers to the Roman Form Basil to that of Naeocoesarea and S. Ambrose to that of Milan Now if each of these great Churches had a certain Form to the use of which all that belonged to it were obliged then probably they had also such a Form for other Prayers And Fifthly it is very plain that every great Church had such a Form because the Fathers do very often charge those who were Baptized to remember the very words in which they made this Renunciation so doth S. Ambrose (c) Quid interrogatus es recognosce Quid responderis Ambros de iis quae initiant cap 2. and S. Chrysostom (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys in 2 Cor. hom 2. p. 555. Now this Charge had been ridiculous and had required an Impossibility if the Words were arbitrary and every one of them had made the Renunciation in a different Form of Words I conclude therefore That every Great Church had one certain Form and all of them were so like that they must come from one Original at first and it was only length of Time and distance of Place that had made the small Variations between the Forms of several eminent Churches Which also was the Case of Liturgies in general and of the whole Baptismal Office as well as of this peculiar part of it We have now done with all his Arguments of this kind and will leave the Reader to judge of the Modesty and Truth of those mighty Brags which he makes of the narrow search he hath made into Antiquity and the full Answer he hath given to all that either he could meet with or that others had produced on Behalf of Liturgies whose Primitive Original and general Use is but more cleared by all his Objections against them § 12. My Adversary concludes his Book first by fixing the Period when Liturgies did come
while there was any thing of such Eminency in the Church (n) Disc of Lit. pag. 155. And again a little after Diligent and frequent Preaching was the happiness of the Fourth and part of the Fifth Age and its security was the excellency of those Bishops who were the lights and ornaments of those Times (o) Disc of Lit. p. 190. So that for ought I know this Age was a good one for all this long Character of its degeneracy and if I had a mind I could fill as many Pages in its commendation as he hath done in its disgrace and therefore if Liturgies had come in then it had been no hurt no nor any disreputation to them However this Argument thus managed could not injure them Secondly As to his formidable number of invidious Quotations I have taken the pains to examine them all and besides that jumbling of Authors and Times and repeating the same Instances twice or thrice which is his usual way of proceeding I dare assure the Reader there are some of them falsly cited more of them misapplied and most of them impertinent and though I doubt it will be a little tedious yet I will make some short Remarks upon them by which it will appear that these Instances thus cited and applied give a worse Character of him that produces them than they do of the Age intended to be blackned by them Pag. 181 c. If the Church were in so bad a state in and long before S. Chrysostom's Time as that Father piously complains I would fain know when it was in a good state Wherefore this must be taken for Rhetoric and the effect of his Zeal against divers evil Men not for a strict and universal Character of the Age As we may learn from Isidore of Peleusium who Wrote within 20 years after S. Chrysostom's Time and was his Scholar in an Epistle cited by my Adversary very often though he omits this Passage who admires this Age which S. Chrysostom condemns and saith There were Bishops then who were lovers of Vertue averse to Honour delighting in Poverty and Fearing God (p) Isidor Pel. lib. 5. epist 21. pag. 559. So that these holy Men blamed their own Times and commended the former and no Argument can be drawn from these pieces of popular Oratory Pag. 182. Isidore of Peleusium who is so often cited was a pious but discontented Monk living under the Jurisdiction of Theophilus his dear Master S. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy and he was further provoked by one Eusebius a very ill Man who was Bishop of that Diocess where his Monastery stood and by the profligate Lives of Zosimus and two other wicked Priests ordained by the said Eusebius and therefore he doth not speak of the Church in general which a retired Monk could not be supposed to know but in most of the Quotations he refers only to Theophilus and Eusebius and some ill Clergy-men in that Province yet my fraudulent Adversary still applies these Passages as if he spake of all the Bishops and Priests in the World As for the place here cited first Isidore blames a Schism which had then hapned for all the Evils which were broken in upon the Church and he adds that they had now lost all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gifts of former Ages (q) Isid Pel. lib. 3. ep 480. pag. 410. so that it seems the Gift of Prayer was then gon The next Quotation out of Isidore (r) Id. lib. 2. ep 5. pag 128. only shews that the Apostles Times were far better than those he lived in nor doth he there blame any body but himself and so it is nothing to the purpose Pag. 183. The next Page contains nothing but his affirmation That the Service of God was more corrupt than when it was first instituted Origen indeed shews how the Pagans had corrupted it by their Idolatry c. which he applies to the Christian Church above 200 years after Origen's Death and S. Chrysostom is not at all speaking of Religious Worship In Matth. hom 50. pag. 323. Pag. 184. S. Augustin is twice cited as if he blamed the Church of his Time for prescribing numerous Rites and imposing them yet he lived 100 years before my Adversary allows there was any thing prescribed or imposed But if we consult his Words it will appear that S. Augustin is only speaking of Corrupt Practices observed with great exactness by the Superstitious Vulgar not enjoyned by the Church Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 119. cap. 19. idem de morib Eccles lib. 1. cap. 34. It was these ignorant and superstitious People who began to venerate Pictures and Sepulchres for which the Church reproved them And if Petrus Gnapheus did as he pretends put in the name of the Virgin into the Prayers An. 483. He was a declared Heretick and his Fact ought not to be charged upon the Orthodox who did not imitate him therein But Forms had found Entertainment long before this Pag. 185 186. He fills his Margen with Isidore's Complaints of Theophilus and Eusebius and some others in those parts as if Prelacy had degenerated and the Bishops grown Tyrannical all the World over And he generally breaks off his fraudulent Quotations just at those Words which Isidore puts in to declare he doth not speak of all the Bishops and Clergy no not in that Province So he leaves out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (s) Isid Pel. lib. 5. ep 21. which place is again so cited pag. 187. These things I do not speak of all Thus he writes horrid Corruption of the Clergy (t) Ibid. lib. 5. ep 131. but will not quote those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all are not fallen into this Gulf. Again he cites another Epistle for a general Accusation where he might have found a large Encomium of one Clergy-man and this limitation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not accuse all (u) Idem lib. 3. ep 223. And he might if he pleased have seen a very high Character of Hermogenes a Bishop of that Age and that Country (w) Idem lib. 5. ep 448. p. 466. But his omitting all these shews he designedly perverted this Author to represent the Bishops and Clergy of this time as being generally depraved which argues my Adversary to be as destitute of Integrity as he was of Charity I need not observe that his Quotation out of S. Chrysostom is no more but a just description of the Episcopal Office without any complaint (x) Chrysost hom 37. Tom. 6. Nor that Isidore in the next place cited is only speaking of the fore-mentioned evil Bishops and Clergy-men (y) Isid Peleus lib. 5. ep 272. And it is not he as the blundering Editor thought but Nazianzen who adds the next words And as for that Good Man 't is well known he was angry and highly disobliged when he made the Oration here Quoted And yet he doth not as my Adversary saith wish there were no Prelacy that is No
Bishops at all But only that there were no precedence of one Bishop before another on the account of the Dignity of their Sees but that their Honour might be only according to their desert and vertue (z) Nazianz. Crat. â—8 And in his Rhetorical way of praising Athanasius he plays the Orator in seting out the Character of an evil Bishop and then shews how unlike Athanasius was to such (a) Nazianz. Crat. 21. in land Athan. But no man can think that a true description of all the Bishops of that Age is to be taken from such an occasional strain of Rhetorick Pag. 187. S. Jerom in his Cell held Correspondence with and paid Respect to all the eminent Bishops of the World and was far from thinking the whole Order was degenerated into Tyranny S Chrysostom doth not say He was afraid of all the Bishops or of the Bishops in general as he pretends but only of those who opposed him which were in number but 36 And at that very time he had far more Bishops for him but his Enemies oppressed him by the favour of the Court (b) Chrysost Ep 13. Tom. 7. pag 95. See his Life in Dr. Câ—ve p. 485 And Arcadius the Emperour was very angry by the Information which some banished Monks had given him when he saith those hard Words of Theophilus of Alexandria and his Party (c) Georg. Al. vit Chrysost c. â—9 Tom. 8. pag. 212. who had done many evil Things but this must not be applied as the Character of all Bishops in that Age And it is of those Bishops only that Isidore speaks which as appears by his very words here cited refer only to some of the Bishops of that Country For all under Theophilus his Jurisdiction did neither joyn with him nor follow his Exampâ—e (d) Isid Pel. lib 2. ep 125. and which was ciâ—ed â—e â—â—e lib. 5. ep 21. And how disingenuous is it to say no worse from his complaint of a Few to affirm That Episcopacy it self was become a tyrannical Licentiousness yâ—a and was turned into Tyranny Besides he cannot find one Complaint that imposing Liturgies was then called or accounted any part of Tyranny none accused any Bishops for that which is the only Point we now dispute about Pag 188. After a long description of evil Bishops and Clergy in general he comes in a Marginal Note to own that Isidore confesseth there were some Bishops in that Country and at that time who lived up to the Apostolical Character So that still he cannot conclude from hence the whole Church was degenerated And his next Quotation relates only to the Tyranny of Theophilus and his Party at Alexandria yet Isidore saith that then in that Church there were famous Doctors and approved Disciples (e) Isid Pel. lib. 5. ep 126. which my Adversary omits and here again quotes divers Epistles which he had cited before (f) Id lib. 3. â—p 223. lib. 5 ep 21 c. and at last quotes an Epistle wherein Isidore only reproves one single Clergy-man (g) Id. lib. 4. ep 229. yet all these his careless Reader is to believe are good Evidence to prove the whole Church was then depraved In the same Page Socrates blames no more but two Bishops and that too in his Partiality for the Novatians And the Canon of Ephesus is a very good Law made to prevent one Bishops usurping over another as is also that of Chalcedon (h) Concil Eph. Can. 8. Bever Tom. I. p. 104. Item Concil Chal. Can. 12. ibid. pag. 126. Now though this shew there were some Bishops then who aimed at evil Things as there ever was and ever will be yet the Major part of them in two General Councils who carried the Vote for these Canons disliked the thing and took care to prevent it So that these Laws shew the greatest part of the Bishops were free from these Faults and laboured to reform the rest and can this be a Proof of the Degeneracy of the whole Church Pag. 189. What he observes concerning the Popes who begun to aim at the Supremacy about the Year 400 or soon after is true in Fact but this only shews the corruption of one See and he knows the greatest part of the Christian World in that Age and in divers succeeding opposed these Attempts which shews the Church was not degenerated And besides this is nothing to the Point of Liturgies because the very Popes Two hundred years after this did not pretend to shew their Supremacy by imposing their Liturgy on distant Churches as we have seen in Pope Gregory's Epistle to Augustin the Monk and the Bishops of Lesser Sees who did not pretend to this Supremacy yet imposed their own Churches Liturgy on their own Members He adds to this a pious Sentence or two out of S. Chrysostom which are only general Complaints in popular Discourses But since this Supremacy began to be aimed at in the Time of Chrysostom I wonder why he should say That a Sentence of his levelled against it was forgot in his own Time since it was more likely that it was never known to those at Rome who were designing then to be Supream Pag. 190. Prosper whom he cites for the evil Practices of Inferiour Bishops declares he speaks only of some Bishops and the Words are the Complaint of a very Pious Bishop of that Age (i) Prosper de vâ—â—â—â—tempt cap 21. Which Complaint Prosper answers very well in the next Chapter (k) Ib. cap. 22. and a little alter he hath a lovely description of such as were good Bishops (l) Ib. câ—p 25. and finally he adds And even at this time there is no doubt but there are many among us full of all those good Episcopal Qualities which you have truly described (m) Prosâ— ibid 〈◊〉 2. cap 2. 3 Now is it not a vile Artifice of my Adversary to cite the Complaint only as a general Character of all the Clergy of that Age and not to mention those many Commendations of the better sort of them though the same Author in the same place mentions both as also to talk of the suitableness of Liturgies to such Pastors Since according to him that way of Worship did not come in till almost 60 Years after when all these Pastors were dead and by his Computation these Men all prayed Arbitrarily or Extempore Pag. 191 192. He next goes about to set out the lamentable Insufficiency of those who ministred by Liturgies as he reckons in the Year 500 by the Testimonies of S. Basil S. Ambrose and Nazianzen who all died above an Hundred years before that time And S Ambrose only speaks of some few Simoniacks who in his Time were a disgrace to their Order (n) Ambr. de Sacerd. dig c. 5. Nazianzen is only giving a Rhetorical Character of a Bad Bishop to set off the glory of Athanasius as we noted but now (o) Naz. Orat. 24. p. 378. And in the next
scattered and dispersed Fourthly His Quotations are not faithful for he frequently disguises the Evidence which he produces both by false Translating divers Passages and Citing them wrong So in the Council of Carthage he reads Quascunque for Quicunque (n) Disc of Lit. pag. 44. And in that of Milevis Cum prudentioribus collatae for à prudentioribus collectae (o) Ib. p. 49. So he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cum his caeteris hujusmodi gratiarum actionibus (p) Ib. p. 76. pretending they used a diversity in their Praises whereas S. Chrysostom's Words only import That they did give Thanks for Variety of Blessings for these and all such like And it is very remarkable that he cites many Authors imperfectly drawing a Line thus and leaving out the most material Words if they seem to make against him So when he perverts Nazianzen as if he spake of Words in Extempore Prayer he draws a Line before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and applies it falsly to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in Nazianzen there are three Substantives The Throne the Altar and the Holy Things in that Sentence which he twice leaves out (q) Disc of Lit. pag. 60 pag. 77. to which Substantives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly belongs for it was not the Words but the Throne the Altar c. which were present to him by the Holy Ghost By the same Trick he draws a Line in S. Cyprian after Quidam dicunt (r) Ib. p. 98. to conceal the next Words which shew it was Hereticks only which said this My Answer hath variety of Instances of such like dealing which a Man might expect rather from the Disciples of Loyola than from Persons that pretend to Tenderness of Conscience Lastly Whereas he often saith He hath Answered all the Places of the Ancients which either others had alledged or He in his diligent search of Antiquity had met with which seem to make for Liturgies (s) Disc of Lit. p. 179 alibi I doubt not but to make it appear that he hath not only omitted but industriously concealed some Hundreds of Proofs for Liturgies which I shall produce in my Answer and by comparing that clear Evidence with the slight Testimonies which he produces to confute it will appear to every Intelligent Reader that he resolved to keep all Testimonies of this kind out of sight except only those which he hoped he could either blunder or pervert to some other Sense Having given this short but just Character of his Book I will say something of my own wherein I have taken Care that this Ill-dealing should not transport me into any Personal reflexions and am plainly content to shew my Adversary is either ignorantly or wilfully mistaken without giving the Epithets that properly belong to both kinds of Mistakes Nor will I make it my chief business to confute his Book but to render my Discourse more useful than it could possibly have been if I had only followed him through his various Windings and Turnings I have Collected in every Century as many Testimonies concerning Liturgies and their Antiquity Original and Use as my Time would permit or the Argument needs though not all which might have been found and I have placed these in the exact Order of time under the several Names of the Fathers and then reduced the scattered Pieces which he objects under every one of these Fathers as I go along giving a distinct answer to them all that are material which I judge to be the fairest way to find out the true Sense of Antiquity in this Question And by this distinct and regular proceeding I hope not only to discover the Weakness of my Adversaries pretended Evidence but to give a clearer and fuller account of the early beginning and general use of Liturgick Forms than hath yet been done by any who have Writ upon this Subject And the use hereof may be First to confirm the Devout Members of our own Church who are the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation in their just Veneration for those Holy Forms by which they daily serve God when they find them so very agreeable to pure and genuin Antiquity which the Romanists have deserted by new Additions to their Forms consonant to their Superstitious Innovations and Corruptions and so have our High-flown Separatists also by new pretences to a Gift of Prayer long since ceased and by Praying Extempore upon ordinary occasions in Public Assemblies a Method unknown to the Ancients ever since there was a setled Christian Church And Secondly I will not despair but those moderate Dissenters who honestly desire to serve God in the best manner and have been abused by False-Teachers into an ill Opinion of Forms may by perusing these Papers lay aside their Ill-grounded prejudices against Liturgies when they clearly discern that the most Pious and Learned of the Primitive Martyrs and Fathers in the best and purest Ages of the Church did always approve of and use prescribed Forms in their public Worship So that they cannot reject Liturgies as a corrupt carnal cold and formal way of Praying without condemming the Devotions of the best and dearest Servants of God in all Ages both of the Jewish and Christian Church Which is a censure as void of Truth and Modesty as it is of Charity and Humility It is certain Millions of Holy and Admirable Men have Prayed thus with wondrous Fervency and God hath heard such Prayers and if they be lawful in themselves aceptable to Heaven and sufficient to procure what we Pray for there can be no reason why this Church should not enjoyn them now as all other Modern regular Churches do and the Primitive Church also did I grant such as have had a false Notion of them cannot be expected to use them so devoutly as others do but if their Judgment were rectisied those prejudices would soon wear off and a little Time and Experience of the great benefit of Holy Forms would convince them That a Pure and Prudent Pious and proper Liturgie such as ours is the most rational and Advantageous way of Paying our public Service to Almighty God and the greatest help to true Devotion in the World I confess my first design was to have gon through every Century that can be called Ancient but my time not permitting me as yet to transcrible all my Observations in Vindication of the Antiquity of Liturgies from the unjust Cavils of my Adversary I have now published only the first Four Centuries till the rest be made ready because if we find them within that compass all Men must own they are Truly Primitive And it is not fit to delay a just Censure of this Fallacious Treatise Since that Party so extremely dote upon it as to think it unanswerable For one of them in his Book called The healing Attempt that is a project to heal the Dissenters by the Wounds of the established Church lately talks at this vain
Gift of Prayer was so far from making Liturgies to be useless that it really was the first ground and Original of them being Forms first endited by the Spiritual and Inspired Men in the Apostolical Age and Transmitted down to us by their Successors For which reason we ought to Reverence Ancient and Primitive Forms many of which as will be proved are yet in our Liturgy far before those Extempore Prayers made by a pretended Gift which hath been ceased above 1300 years And if we compare the proper Phrases acurate Method and judicious well-weighed Composure of our Forms with the impertinence Tautologies Hesitation and Confusion so visible in their Extempore Prayers we shall be convinced that the latter cannot proceed from the Spirit of God nor ought to come in Competition with our excellent Forms And this may suffice for the Scripture Period which gives great Reputation to Liturgies and no Countenance to such as now pretend to Extempore Prayers CHAP. I. Of Liturgies in the first Century § 1. This first Period is very obscure because the Bishops and Pastors being almost wholly employed in converting the Nations did write very little and scarce any thing of that which they did write is come to our Hands So that we cannot expect much evidene for Liturgies in this Century wherein however this Author could find nothing that made against them and so hath past it over in silence but we shall observe â—â—â—lo judaens Ann. Dom. 60. First That Philo and Josephus do both so describe the Essenes that not only Eusebius of Old but divers learned Men of these Ages believe them to have been Christians or however that the first Christians exactly imitated their Rites (o) Philo de vit Contemplat Joseph bell jud lib. 2. cap. â— Euseb hist lib. 2. cap. 16. Among which was this to rise before the arising of the Sun and to Worship God by certain Prayers received from their Fore-fathers as Josephus tells us Now these Prayers could be no other than Forms because they were delivered down to them from their Fathers Philo also relates that they had a Choir of two sides singing alternately so that when one had begun to Sing the rest answered him by repeating the ends of the Verses in imitation of those at the Red Sea Now this way of alternate Singing must be by some prescribed and known Forms or else the Choir could never answer one another Yet these kind of Prescribed Hymns sung in this manner Eusebius here calls The Hymns used among us Christians (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb And that excellent Historian labours to prove these Essenes were Christians by this Argument among some others because they Prayed and Sung Hymns in set Forms early in the Morning as the Christians use to do Wherefore Eusebius who knew the first Age better than we did believe this at least that the Christians then had Forms of Prayer and Praise which are the main parts of a Liturgy Secondly Clemens Romanus Clemens Romanus An. Dom. 90. in his Genuine Epistle to the Corinthians for we need not cite any spurious Tracts intimates they then had a Liturgy for he saith We ought to do all those things in order which our Lord hath Commanded us to perform viz. To Celebrate our Oblations and Liturgies at certain times and a little after Let every one of you in his Order offer his Eucharist to God keeping a good Conscience with all Gravity and not Swerving from the Determined Rule of his Ministration (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epist ad Corinth edit Oxon. 1669. pag. 92. which Golden Remain of true primitive Antiquity shews that the public Service was then performed in order by our Lords own Command and that there was a determined Rule for the Administrations from which no Man might swerve which Rule being mentioned by this Writer who was a Companion to the Apostles could be setled by none but by our Lord himself or at least by the Apostles And if our Adversaries say this was only a Method not a prescribed Liturgy I râ—ply they cannot prove this and yet if they could supposing they needed an order even while the Gifts of Prayer and Inspiration remained when these are ceased the Church may well be supposed to stand in as much need of prescribed Forms now as they did of a determined Order then Pâ—â—nâ—â—â—uaâ—â—r An. Dom. â—3 § 2. Soon after this we have an account of the Christian Worship from the Pen of Pliny who Writ to the Emperor Trajan what he had extorted by Methods of Severity from some of that profession viz. That the Christians used to meet on a certain day before it was Light and alternately sang an Hymn to Christ as God bâ—â—ding themâ—elves by a Sacrament not to any wicked thing but that they would not Steal nor Rob nor commit Adultery nor break their Faith nor with-hold the Pledge (r) Carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum in vicem Plin. lib. 10. ep Now if we remember Pliny was a Roman and a Heathen we must suppose him to speak in their Phrases and among them Carmen dicere was to repeat a Prayer in a set form of Words Vossius saith it was called Carmen though it were not Sung for the Romans called every thing Carmen which was in a set form of Words (s) Vossius comment in dictam Epist Plin. pag. 47. Brissonius also informs us That they Prayed to the Gods Solenni Carmine with a set Form of Words (t) Brisson de formul p. 97. and that the Prayer for the Comitia was called Solenne Carmen The solemn Prayer though it were not composed by any Poetick measures (u) Id. ibid. pag. 137. And Livy speaks of the Solemn Form of Prayer in the same Phrase (w) Solenne Carmen precationis Liv. lib. 39. cap. 15. Wherefore since Pliny uses the Word Dicere and not Canere he may well be thought to have meant They said a Prayer to Christ as God in a set Form of Words Yet because Tertullian when he cites this passage Paraphrases it by Singing to Christ and to God (x) Ad canendum Chr sto Deo Tertul. Ap. cap. 2. We will allow it to be Expounded of an Hymn but even so since it was sung alternately it is certain it must be a prescribed Form and since Christians were to Sing as well as to Pray by the Spirit we may be sure Forms are no hindrance to the Spirit because if they were it would be as unlawful to Sing as they pretend it is to Pray by a Form We also add that this account exactly agrees with that of the Essenes both in their beginning before Sunrising and their Singing by Turns Wherefore since those Essenes had Forms of Prayer as well as praise we must conclude the Christians had so also And we must either suppose that Pliny gave a very imperfect account of the Christian worship and absurdly imagine that
(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
is to be kept in our own Breast for our Lord saith we must not declare it to Swine and expose it to Dogs (c) Sanctum quotidie jubeamur intra Conscientiam nostram tenere Cypr. ad Demetr §. 1. p. 324. And from that same Text of Matth. VII 6. the same Author proves That the Mysteries of our Faith are not to be profaned by publishing them to those without (d) Idem lib. 3. test ad Quirin §. 50. p. 429. Wherefore since it is so clear even in these early Ages that they were scrupulous of publishing their ways of Worship we may conclude that no full and clear account of their Forms at large can be expected among these Writers And it is sufficient that they mention some and darkly hint at others of those Mysterious Forms sometimes and that they do plainly attest they had a prescribed Liturgy though they had but seldom an occasion or an inclination to tell us what it was Hippolytus Mar. An. Dom. 220. § 2. Among the Writers of this Age the first is Hippolytus a Bishop and Martyr who in his discourse of the End of the World and the Coming of Antichrist puts it among the Signs of those evil Times That Liturgy shall be extinguished singing of Psalms shall cease and reading of Scripture shall not be heard (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hippol. de Consum Mund. Bib. Patr. T. 2. p. 357. Which shews that the public Service of which he there speaks consisted then of three parts The ministration of Prayers Singing of Psalms and Reading the Scripture And the first of these is called Liturgy which though it signifie any public Service in general and be sometimes applied to the whole Public Worship yet where it is limited only to Prayers as it is here it implies a Common Form used generally which will be more probable to be this Fathers Sense if we consider that he saith Liturgy shall be extinguished that is the public Forms shall not be permitted to be used which cannot be properly said of Extempore Prayers they being an inward Gift as our Adversaries pretend And Antichrist himself hath no power to extinguish or put out Mens Gifts He may suppress the use of Forms of Prayer but the Extempore Mens faculty was not liable to any such interdict as could extinguish it And why may we not believe the Prayers in this Age were suitable to the rest of the Offices They sang by a Form out of a Book and read the Lessons out of a Book so that they scrupled not the use of Forms wherefore there is no ground to believe they disliked Forms of Prayer and consequently nothing to hinder us from expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the usual sense viz. of the Public Liturgy which Antichrist would not allow the Christians to use § 3. Our next Author is the Famous Origen Origen Adam An. Dom. 230. who hath so clear and convincing a Testimony for the use of a Liturgy in his Homilies on Jeremy that the Learned Centuriators were convinced by it that Set Forms of Prayer were used in his time for they thus cite the place It is say they without question that they had some Set Forms of Prayer in this Age for Origen in his XIth Homily on Jeremy seems to allude to those we now call Collects where he tells us We frequently say in our Prayers Grant O Almighty God grant us a part with thy Prophets and with the Apostles of thy Son Christ grant that we may be found at the Feet of thy only begotten (f) Formulas domque quasdam precationum absque dubio habuerunt Cent. Magdeb. cent 3. cap. 6. pag. 135. And if we consider that our Saviour promised to such as were effectually Converted that they should sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God (g) Matth. viii 11 and that the Holy Apostles and Prophets are describ'd in Scripture as rejoycing together in Heaven (h) Revel xviii 20. we shall be convinced this Form of Prayer is grounded upon Christ's Promise and upon the Word of God and consequently must own the Prayer to be pure and primitive Indeed our Adversary uses many Artisices to wrest this Testimony from us (i) Discourse of Liturg p. 141. but all in vain First he saith Ruffinus made many additions to Origens Homilies so that possibly this may be one of his Additions I Answer If he were sure Ruffinus added this yet since he lived in the next Century that would serve to confute him who maintains there were no prescribed Forms till the Fifth or Sixth Age But we can make it very probable Ruffinus did not add this passage First because there is nothing in it but what agrees well enough to Origen's time and to his Doctrin Secondly In Ruffinus his time they had made some steps towards Invocation of Saints and therefore had it been a Prayer composed by him there would have been some footsteps of that Superstition some Address to or expectation from the Apostles and Prophets whereas this Prayer only supposes them to be in Heaven and desires God to grant us a part with them Again Our Adversary saith These Words if they be Origens will no more prove this was a prescribed Form than S. Paul 's was Ephes I. 16 17. where he saith He ceased not to make mention of the Ephesians in his Prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ might give them tht Spirit of Wisdom c. I Reply His Parallel will by no means hold since the Apostle only relates and reckons up the things he asked for them and speaking to the Ephesians gives them an account of the Subject of his Petitions for them But Origen is repeating the Words of a Prayer and speaks directly to God therefore this must be a Form of common use as the Magdeburg Divines believed it to be Having thus detected his Sophistry and answered his Cavils and so cleared this Evidence for a Set Form we shall more easily understand that Origen refers to an usual Liturgy in another place where he saith They who serve God through Jesus in the Christian way and live according to the Gospel use frequently as becomes them night and day the enjoyned Prayers (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels lib. 6. pag. 302. Whence we infer that the Christian way was to serve God night and day with prescribed Prayers for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a thing enjoyned or commanded in general as Isocrates and Aeschines use the word (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschin ita Math. i. 24. but so enjoyned that the very order and manner of doing it is set down and particularly appointed So those directions concerning the Leper's offering his Gift which Moses prescribed in the Old Law Levit. xiv 4. is called doing that which Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded them that is which he prescribed
how they should do (m) Math. viii 4. Mark i. 44. Luke v. 14. and the Word whence it is derived signifies to methodize put in order and to place Souldiers in their Ranks (n) Cor. 15.23 so to do all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Order (o) 1 Cor. xiv 40. is to act according to a prescribed Rule which Rule S. Paul saith he will make or prescribe when he came (p) 1 Cor. xi 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This then being the proper and natural signification of this Word we may reasonably expound it of Prescribed Forms of Prayer both for Morning and Evening of which as the Centuriators observe Origen speaks in other places (q) Magdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 134. But our Adversary would shift off this proof also First By asking If these were not private Prayers (r) Disc of Liturg pag 140. I Answer The Words are general not restrained either to public or private Prayers expresly but it being certain the Christians had a custom to assemble Morning and Evening to Prayers the phrase of using these Prayers Night and Day seems chiefly to be referred to public Offices Secondly He asks If no Prayers can be commanded but in Set Forms I Reply The Word doth not barely signifie Prayers commanded but enjoyned according to a prescribed Order as I have proved Now Prayers left to the Invention of Men to be daily made new cannot properly be called Ordered Prayers And therefore though Christian Ministers were commanded to preach yet the Words and Method being left to their invention or choice our Adversary can no where find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of as an Epithet for a Sermon or Homily Note also Origen doth not say The Christians made these enjoyned Prayers but used them which supposes they were made into a prescribed Form before Thirdly He enquires If there be no Commands for Praying frequently but Human Prescriptions and I must ask what is this to the purpose Origen is not speaking of Commanding Men to pray nor declaring whether the Duty of Prayer be prescribed by God or the Church He is speaking of the Prayers themselves and gives them this Character that they were Ordered or Prescribed so that he is very impertinent to tell us of Divine Commands to pray frequently since Origen's Words are not about Obeying a Precept to Pray but using ordered enjoyned or prescribed Prayers which all ingenuous Men must own to be in Forms and that proves a Liturgy because it is Prayers in the plural Number Thirdly in the same Books against Celsus when Origen cites some certain passages out of the Psalms â—e brings them in with these Prefaces We â—nd in the Prayers or We say often in the Prayer (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels lib. 4. p. 178 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. pag. 197. And thus it is said in the Prayer or The prudent when he prayeth â—aith (t) Idem lib. 6. pag. 285. lib. 7. pag. 354. Now when we consider that the Psalms were the main part of the Jewish Liturgy and that the Christians in the first Ages inclined to imitate their Forms and above all the Old Testament admired and frequently used the Book of Psalms and took their Forms of Praise from thence we may conclude they borrowed many Forms of Prayer also from the Psalms and transcribed them into their Liturgy so that Origen appeals to these passages as being known by the Christians to be a part of their Prayers Which will still be clearer when we observe that the Abassine Christians who are very tenacious of primitive Rites and derived most of their Usages from the Ancient Church of Alexandria as Ludolfus relates Take most of their daily Prayers out of the Psalter (u) Ludolf hist Ethiop lib. 2. cap. 12. And therefore Origen who belonged to Alexandria no doubt refers by these Prefaces to the public and known Liturgy then used in that famous Church Our Adversary is not pleased at this Inference and whereas his own Eyes are so blinded with his Extempore Way that he cannot see the clearest light for Forms he saith it argues a Fancy deeply tinctured with Liturgies to suppose this to be any proof of them But let it be noted he barely asserts it is no proof and most falsly represents the matter for he saith When Origen quotes any passage out of the Psalms he thus speaks c. (w) Discourse of Liturg. p. 139. Now this is not true because first Origen in that very Book cites an hundred passages out of the Psalms without any such Preface without saying They are found in the Prayers c. Secondly The places which he doth cite with such a Preface are always very proper to be used in a Liturgy as Forms of Praise or Prayer Such as these The Earth is full of the Goodness of the Lord and Open thou mine Eyes that I may see the wondrous things of thy Law Create in me a clean Heart O God and the like So that these and no other passages being said to be found in the Prayers c. no doubt we have all imaginable cause to think that these very words of the Psalms were in Origen 's time used in the Churches Liturgy and prescribed in the Forms of Public Prayer Especially since he can ascribe no sufficient Reason but the peculiar use made of these Select places in the public Offices which made Origen quote them with such a Preface and cite other passages of the Psalms as he doth other Scriptures without any Preface at all Fourthly Our Adversary cites another place out of Origen's Homilies taken at the second hand from Dailé to prove they used no Forms of Prayer in that Age because it is said Our Thoughts must not wander after our Senses in Prayer but be wholly intent and fixed on God not being disturbed by the Idea of any External appearance (y) Orig. in Num. hom XI I shall not here need to fly to his help at a dead lift that possibly Ruffinus the Translator did put in these Words For allowing them to be genuine it must be more unlawful to let our Minds wander after new Phrases and our Fancy rove about for Matter Order and Words which is the case in Extempore Prayer than it is to repeat the Words of a known Form which we can say by heart or read without disturbance because the actings of the Fancy and Invention in Extempore Prayer do much more hinder the Mind from steddy thinking upon God than having a Book before us in the recital of a common and usual Form Lastly I hope it is needless to repeat what was shewed before viz. That Origen's Phrases of Praising God as well as we are able (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels l. 8. pag. 402. and Praying to him with all the might we have (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. pag. 386. See the Discourse of Liturg
ancient Form of the Gloria Patri used to repeat it in a low Voice to conceal that alteration but as soon as the Orthodox perceived the Fraud Flavianus and Others would not communicate with this Leontius but worshiped God in a separate Congregation And in this Assembly Flavianus and Diodorus divided the Choir into two parts and made them sing the Psalms of David alternately which Custom as Theodoret saith beginning first at Antioch was soon received all the World over (z) Theodoret. hist lib. 2. c. 24. Now from hence our Adversary infers that the way of singing alternately which necessarily supposes a Form to sing by came but late into the Church and he charges Socrates with downright Falshood who ascribes the Original of this way of Singing to Ignatius (a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 167. But first if all our Adversary saith were true this Age cannot be accounted very late for Christianity had not been setled Twenty years in Peace when this practice began at Antioch But he wrongs Theodoret by his Inference the Historian doth not say this way of Singing began then for we have shewed out of Eusebius concerning the Essenes and out of Pliny Tertullian c. that Hymns and Anthems were sung alternately and therefore in Forms from the very beginning of Christianity and the Gloria Patri as Theodoret here notes was at this time so ancient and so known a Form at Antioch that the Orthodox would not endure the least word of it to be changed Wherefore he only saith That the Custom of singing David's Psalms alternately did then first begin at Antioch which may be true and yet Ignatius for all that might long before bring in the way of singing Hymns alternately (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud 〈◊〉 lib. 6. â—â—â— And if we consider that Paulus Samosatenus had put down the Hymns made in Honour of Christ soon after Ignatius his time and that divers of Leontius his Predecessors in this See of Antioch were Hereticks â—â—â—â—doret 〈◊〉 22. 〈◊〉 â—ap 10. it is not improbable these Bishops might alter not only the Hymns but the Old way of singing them so that Flavianus did rather restore than invent this Alternate Singing However this is certain that he applied it to David's Psalms and that S. Basil S. Ambrose and all eminent Bishops every where began to sing the Psalms that way 〈◊〉 we still do in our Cathedral 〈◊〉 nor did any Christians before 〈◊〉 â—â—ssenters appeared ever find any fault with it Yea this way of Singing by turns was so taking at Antioch that it drew all the People from Leontius so that he was forced to beg of Flavianus to come back to the Church And perform the same Liturgy there (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 24. For we must observe that in these separate Assemblies the Orthodox did more than barely sing Psalms they had all the public Service which is here called A Liturgy And that consisted of Praise and Prayer The Praises were the Psalms Gloria Patri and other ancient Hymns which were restored by this Congregation of True Believers and were all certainly in Forms as we may conclude from the way of singing them The Prayers are not mentioned here by either of these Historians But Socrates relates that soon after this in opposition to the Arians S. Chrysostom enlarged the Evening Prayers (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 7. which must be by adding to the Forms because if it had been in every Ministers Breast to make those Evening Prayers longer or shorter as he pleased in his Extempore Way there could have been no addition made to them And if Flavianus in his time used Prayers as well as Psalms in his Congregation as the word Liturgy imports it is very unlikely that the Prayers should be of one fashion and the Praises of another therefore we shall conclude That both their Prayers and Praises were celebrated by known Forms as they were wont to be in other Orthodox Churches where we have seen that the People had their Responses and bore their parts as well in the Prayers as they did in the Praises Nor can we think the Arians would have omitted to charge the Orthodox with Innovation both in Praises and Prayers if they had now first begun in so divided a Church as Antioch to use prescribed Forms in either of these Duties Cyrillus Hieros An. Dom. 350. § 5. S. CYRIL was made Bishop of Jerusalem in the midst of this Century but his Catechetical Discourses were composed long before And they are of two sorts First His Catecheses to the Unbaptized wherein we can expect no account of Liturgy because in that Age they thought it profaned the Mysteries of Divine Worship to teach Unbelievers the Things or Words used there which they conceived none but the Baptized or the Faithful ought to know So that our Adversary is very impertinent to cite these Discourses to the Unbaptized to prove There could be no Written Forms then used because they kept their Worship close as being a Mystery (f) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 34 For S. Cyril only saith They spake of these things covertly to the Catechumens that the Faithful who knew them might understand and those who knew them not might not be prejudiced (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril Catec 6. pag. 60. Now if the Father speak of the Christian Worship as he supposes who cites him in this Dispute this only shews that the Strangers did not know it but it seems by Cyril that the Faithful knew it so well being a known Form of Words that if it were but darkly hinted at they presently understood the Ministers meaning which they could not have done if the Prayers used among the Faithful had been made Extempore and varied every day So again where he cites a Caution that S. Cyril gives the Faithful in his Preface Not to tell any thing to the Catechumens who as yet were out of the Church (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Disc of Liturg. pag. 41. I would only ask how the Faithful could remember the various and uncertain Phrases of Extempore Prayers so as to be able to repeat them again Indeed there might be danger of their doing this in constantly used Forms and the very Caution supposes they used such in those days But we need not fly to Suppositions we have our Adversaries Concessions as to the Second sort of Cyril's Catechetical Discourses viz. those to the Faithful which are called His Mystagogical Catechisings Our Author grants It appears by S. Cyril that the People had of old some part in the public Service (i) Disc of Liturg pag. 44. citing Cyril Catech. mystag 5. Now we have shewed that cannot be unless the Public Service be in known Forms so that it is an unparallelled Insolence in him to cite this very place of S. Cyril again afterwards (k)
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
Instance truly represented That Nazianzen's Father always used a Liturgy in the Church and that the Son means those public prescribed Forms when he tells us He was always better when he could get to the Church for the bare saying of the Liturgy cured him (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 19. pag. 313. And this may suffice for Gregory Nazianzen S â—ASIâ— An Dom. 370. § 13. His contemporary and dear Friend was S. Basil who is not only a good Evidence for Liturgies but composed one himself so that our Adversary is forced first to conceal most of his Proofs for Publick Forms and then to hunt about for Objections against both Forms in general and his Liturgy in particular but with how little success shall now be shewed in this Method First we will produce the Proofs which he hath suppressed or laboured to pervert Secondly we will reply to his Objections and Thirdly justifie the main part of his Liturgy to be a genuine composure of S. Basils First We begin with his Evidence for Public Forms and the first shall be his vindication of that way of praising God which he had set up at Naeocesarea which we will give at large in its due place because our Adversary hath but an imperfect account of it and places it in the latter end of his Book (r) Discourse of Liturg. p. 166. The Words are these As to the Psalmody for which we are accused I answer That the Custom now set up is consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God for the People rising while it is yet Night go early to the House of Prayer and with much pains and trouble yea with many Tears make their Confession to God and afterwards rising from Prayer they stand up to sing Psalms being divided into two parts they sing by Turns answering one another Then they comfort themselves by considering Gods Word and casting away all vain thoughts mind this alone After this one is ordered to begin the Hymn and the rest follow and thus with variety of Psalms and Prayers intermixed the Night is spent As soon as Day appears they offer to the Lord a Psalm of Confession all as it were with one Mouth and one Heart every one making these Penitential Words to be his own And if you reject this you must reject the Aegyptians those in both Lybia's in Thebais and Palestina the Arabians Phenicians Syrians and those near Euphrates yea in a word all among whom Watchings Prayers and common Psalmody is used (s) D. Basil Epist 63. ad Clor. Naeocâ—sar pag. 843 844. Now from hence it is plain that the People joyned with the Priest in the Prayers as well as in Singing of Psalms and Hymns and Bishop Bilson alledges this place to prove That the Service was common to the Priests and People and parted between them by Verses and Responds 〈◊〉 of Christ Subject paâ— 4 pag. 434. with pag. 453. But Extempore Praying and Singing cannot be performed by alternate Responses therefore these Christians had known and prescribed Forms both for their Prayers and Hymns Yet Secondly This Very way of Praying was used then in most Churches of the Christian World Therefore Thirdly Most Churches in the World had Used Liturgies before S Basil's time and he highly approved that way of public Worship It may be some will object However this shews that there was no Liturgy at Naeocesarea before I Answer if it were so That was a particular Church and this was not above Forty five year after the setling of Christianity But if the Reader look back into the last Century it will appear they had a Form of Prayers and Hymns in this very Church above an Hundred year before even in the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus and S. Basil did not so much alter the Method or Words of that Liturgy as the way of Singing and Saying it and this the Clergy of Naeocesarea Accused him for Secondly In this very Epistle S. Basil mentions a Litany with Approbation which was brought into the Church of Naeocesarea long before his Time though after the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus so that in this Age that Litany probably might be near one Hundred year old (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil ep 63. pag. 844. But Litanies were Forms of Supplication for pardon of Sin and averting Judgments wherein the People always bare a part and to which they Answered Lord have mercy on us c. or Lord hear us or Grant this good Lord yea there are two Passages of this very Litany or some other as ancient which are mentioned in S. Basil's Epistles The first is this We pray that the rest of our Days may continue in peace We request that our Death may also be in peace (w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil ep 68. pag. 856. We cannot be certain these are the very Words of the public Form because they are only occasionally spoken of in a Letter but they are certainly in the Litanick way and if we compare them with the Ancient Litanies we shall find them come so near the Words there used that we cannot doubt but he refers to some of these Forms Wherein they pray That they may pass the rest of their Life in peace and request That at their Death they may make a Christian end (x) Liturg. D. 〈◊〉 lio â—atr pâ—g 4 5. Liturg. 〈◊〉 â—â—d pag 70. Câ—â—râ—â—t Apostol â—iâ— 8. ca. 43. which are almost the very same Expressions differ no more than the Liturgies of several Churches are wont to do The second place in S. Basil is in an Epistle which he writ to a Friend that was gone into Seythia who feared he should be forgot in his Prayers S. Basil tells him This was impossible unless he should forget the Work which God appointed him for And you saith he being one of the Faithful cannot but remember the Offices of the Church wherein we intercede for our Brethren who are gone to Travel for the Souldiers for those who profess Christs Name and for them who bring fâ—rth the Spiritual fruit of good Works (y) 〈…〉 141. pag. 1014. Now all that are acquainted with the Ancient Forms of Litany know they always pray'd for Christians travelling in strange Countries for such as believed in Christ and for those who brought forth the fruit of good Works for the whole Army c. (z) Liturg. Jaâ—â—â— ut suâ—r â—â—g 89. item Condit Apoâ—â— â— 8. cap. 13. cap. 18. Lit. 〈◊〉 Chris 'T is true these are mixt with divers other Intercessions but S. Basil picks out those Passages of the Litany which belonged to this Mans circumstances who seems to have been a Souldier gone on an Expedition into Scythia and to have been not only a Christian but to have been eminent for Charity and good Works Our Adversary indeed boldly affirms this Passage is not sufficient to prove the Use of Forms (a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 137. 138. But
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
stand up and with great Decency (o) Id. hom 4. de natura Dei And that Holy things must be given to Holy persons (p) Idem hom 17. in Hebraeos Both which passages are in the Liturgy in the Constitutions in so many Words (q) Constit lib. 8. cap. 15. cap. 20. And also in every one of the ancient Liturgies which go under the names of S. James S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in all which also there is a Form of Prayer after the Holy Communion (r) Constit lib. 8. cap. 22. and S. Chrysostom hath a Homily to reprove those Who left the holy Liturgy unfinished and went out before the last Prayer which is the Title of that Homily (s) Chrys Tom. 5. edit Front Dac et p. 522. All which abundantly proves that there was a set and prescribed Liturgy at that time by which the Eucharist was Administred I might be much larger in my proof of this had I time to make a narrower search in the learned Volumes of this elegant Father but I take this to be sufficient especially if we consider the Evidence we have that S. Chrysostom did compose that Liturgy as to the main which now goeth under his name The Authorities and Arguments for which being much the same with those produced for the Liturgy of S. Basil (t) See before in this Chap. §. 15. we refer the Reader thither And shall here only observe First That Proclus who was S. Chrysostoms successor at Constanstinople and came into that See within 27 years after Chrysostoms Death affirms That this Holy Father like a good Pastor who was careful of his Flock resolved to root up all the pretences which human sloth was wont to make and therefore drew up a shorter Form of Prayers for the celebrating of the Eucharist lest Men who hate to be confined too long being deceived by the craft of the Devil should omit this Divine Ordinance (u) Proclus de traditione divinae Missae And the Greek Church hath ever since used this Liturgy as the genuin composure of S. Chrysostom Secondly The main part of this Liturgy is found either explicitly or by plain intimations in the genuin Works of S. Chrysostom who reckons up the same Ceremonies Hymns and Prayers and generally in the same order And also upon occasion comments upon and explains both the Rites and ancient Forms and covertly refers to many more passages in this Liturgy only he would not speak out because his Homilies were Preached to a promiscuous Auditory Thirdly There is a great part of this Liturgy very pure Primitive and worthy of this great Author even so much of it as is Recorded in his own Writings and in the Works of S. Cyprian S. Cyril S. Basil S. Augustin and others or so much of it as is taken out of Holy Scripture And in all this there is nothing of Praying to Saints to Angels or the blessed Virgin nothing of any Prayers for delivering the deceased from pain nothing of venerating the Cross or any other Image The passages which look this way are later Patches tacked to this holy Liturgy in corrupter times easily distinguishable from the Original composure both by the Stile and Matter wherefore these Parts we reject but must not throw away the Wheat with the Chaff there being no Father to which some corrupt Additions have not been made but we must not for the sake of these spurious Tracts reject that which is true and genuine Fourthly Since it is so clear that Forms had been long used in the Church and that the Gift of Prayer was ceased before this Century began it cannot but be very probable that so great a Bishop of so eminent a Diocess and with so large a Jurisdiction should model and correct the ancient Forms and adapt them to the use of the Churches under his care as S. Basil had done for those under his charge especially since no ancient Author did ever contradict this Universally received Notion That this Liturgy was made by S. Chrysostom Nor doth any Historian assign any other Person as the maker thereof or mention this Liturgy as coming into use in any other Age. § 20. And now we will consider those things which are objected both against the use of Forms in this Age and against the Authority of this Liturgy my Adversary produces divers places out of S. Chrysostom to prove that Words spoken in the Celebration of the Sacraments were Mysteries which S. Chrysostom thinks ought to be concealed and therefore he supposes there were no Written Forms in his time however none of his Wrting (w) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 29. pag. 35 36 37. I have often answered this Argument before But I shall now observe That this Notion of the great Sin of divulging Mysteries to the Unbaptized hinders S. Chrysostom in his Discourses which are generally Sermons Homilies and Orations made to a promiscuous Auditory from giving as many Passages of the Ecclesiastical Forms which he generally there wraps up in dark Expressions yet his appealing to the Faithful and telling them they knew and remembred such and such things is a certain sign that there were known and prescribed Forms For how could he appeal to the Initiated or tell them they knew or remembred such or such a Passage which he darkly hinted if Sacraments had been celebrated or Prayers made in the Extempore way by Phrases daily varied Thus in those Instances which my Adversary brings Speaking of the Litany used by the Faithful S. Chrysostom saith It is a Mystery but the Initiated know how it abounds with Mercy (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chry◠in Matth. hom 71. p. 451. Disc of Liturg. pag. 29. This must be some Form which they knew otherwise he could not have made this Appeal So when this Father speaks of the mystical Words in Baptism he doubts not but those who were baptized could remember what they Answered (y) Id. Hom. 40. in 1 Cor. p 514. Disc of Liturg. Marg. pag. 29. which shews they Answered in a certain Form of Words And it appears they also had a set and certain Form of renouncing the Devil because S. Chrysostom appeals to the Initiated and bids them Remember those Words by which they renounced the Devils Tyranny (z) Hom. 2. in 2 Epist ad Cor. pag. 555. yet our Adversary by a dexterity of arguing peculiar to himself cites this to prove there was no Form of Renunciation (a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 37. By which rare Art also he quotes S. Chrysostom's Exposition of Gal IV. 28. where he saith The Faithful knew the Divine Words pronounced by the Priest at their Baptism (b) Chrys hom in 4 Galat. p. 748. Disc of Liturg. p. 37. to prove there were no Forms and yet if there had not been known Forms this Appeal could not have been made For no Dissenting Pastor who Officiates Extempore can appeal to his Congregation and say You know
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
Christians only sang praises without any Prayers in their Assemblies Or we must grant he speaks of Hymns by a Synechdoche putting them for the whole Christian Service of which the Hymns were the greater and more Eminent part and so mingled with the Prayers that the one could not be separated from the other For the Christians imitated Paul and Silas who Praying sang Hymns to God in the Prison (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. xvi 25. They therefore mixed Hymns and Prayers and the Hymns were so great a part of the Service that to be present at the Morning Hymns (z) Synod Vinet can 14. An. 453. signifies to be at the Morning Prayer And to be forbid to Sing in the Church (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isidor Peleus lib. 1. ep 90. imports Excommunication from the whole Service Wherefore if the Hymns were certainly in Forms prescribed it is more than probable the Prayers were so also because it would have been very odd and preposterous to break off from Forms of praise and run out into Extempore Prayers in the ordinary Public Worship one part of which at this rate must have had no kind of Congruity to the other Wherefore this Testimony proves that the greatest part of the Christians public Service was performed by prescribed Forms in the first Century and shews it is very probable that their Prayers also were set Forms even in that early Age. § 3. We have no Writer remaining in this Century but Ignatius Ignatius Antioch An. Dom. 99. who lived also in some part of the next And from him it seems very probable that the Bishop did appoint one Form of Prayer and Supplication for the public Worship especially for the Administration of the Sacraments for he charges all those to whom he Writes to do nothing without the Bishop and orders them of Magnesia to do nothing without the Bishop and the Presbyters nor to make tryal of things which seemed agreeable to their private Fancies but when they met together he tells them they must have one Prayer and one Supplication (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ep ad Magnes p. 34. declaring to those at Smirna that the only Authentic Celebration of the Eucharist and of Baptism was that which the Bishop either performed or allowed (c) Ignat. Epist ad Smirn. pag. 6. Now if their Prayers were varied every day they could not properly be called one Prayer And if every private Minister might order the Form of Baptism and the Lords Supper as he pleased as our Extempore Men take on them to do how could Ignatius say none was Authentic unless the Bishop allowed it Therefore it is likely they then had approved and uniform composures both for Prayers and Sacraments And as for their Praises Socrates saith Ignatius first brought the usage of Singing by way of Antiphone into the Church of Antioch (d) Socrat. histor lib. 6. cap. 8. and the same is attested by Photius (e) In Dr. Ham. view of the Directory pag. 145. Now if we consider that this was the Method of Singing Hymns among the Jews and Essenes and also among the Christians in this Age in other places it can be no ways improbable that Ignatius did set up this custom of Singing alternately at Antioch I know some take exceptions at the Vision of Angels from whom he is said to learn this Method but let it be Noted that this was an Age of Miracles and that the Holy Scripture represents the glorious Seraphins Singing in this Alternate manner (f) Isai vi 3. So that it is not unlikely that so great a Saint and Martyr might have such a Vision and Theodorets silence of this which is all this Author pretends against it (g) Disc of Liturg. p. 167. may proceed from his taking it for granted and supposing it was generally owned and known So that this will prove Forms of Prayer approved by the Bishop and Alternate Singing which must be in prescribed Forms was used in this Age Wherein it seems there were Psalms and Hymns written and composed by the Faithful to glorify Christ the Word of God As that Primitive Author cited by Eusebius testifies who Writ against the Heresy of Artemon and among other Mediums confutes it by citing these very Hymns which had been made almost from the beginning of Christianity and were of so great Authority that in the Reign of Pertinax * Circ An. 193. they were quoted as good Evidence in a matter of Faith (h) Euseb Hist lib. 5. cap. 28. pag. 145. Now an Extempore Hymn could not be cited nor be produced as a Testimony and therefore we conclude there were Written Hymns or Forms of Praise composed and allowed as Evidence in points of Faith from the very beginning of Christianity And therefore we have reason to suppose there was a Liturgy and Forms of Prayer also and this may be sufficient for this dark Century CHAP. II. Of Liturgies in the Second Century § 1. WE have not many Writings of this Age and none that had occasion to write particularly of the Church Service which they cared not to publish lest the Pagans under whom they lived should deride or blaspheme their sacred Mysteries and for this reason we must not look for any clear Evidence of Liturgies as yet though considering the Gospel was in planting and Churches were but begun to be setled there is as plain indication of the use of Forms as can be expected First Lucian the Jeering Pagan Lucian An. Dom. 112. who certainly had some knowledge of the Christian Rites describes his coming into a Religious Assembly which by all the Circumstances must be a Christian Church and he saith he there heard That Prayer which began with the Father and ended with the Hymn of many Names (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lucian Philopat p. 1128. Where we see the Christians had a certain Prayer known by its beginning which therefore must be an usual Form We may also perceive there was an Hymn at the end of this Prayer commonly called the Hymn of many Names which therefore probably was a Form also or else this was no proper or certain description of it I need not determine whether he means this of the Lords Prayer and the Doxology only though it is not likely so short a Form of Praise in which are only the Attributes not the Names of God should be called the Hymn of Many Names I rather think it might be meant of the Communion Office which probably began with Our Father c. and after some other less remarkable Prayers they added the Tricagion Holy holy holy Lord God of Hosts But whatever the particular Forms were this is certain they were Forms of Prayer and Praise known by their proper Titles and that suffices to prove That Forms were then used in the Christian Worship § 2. Justin Martyr doth often speak of the Christian Assemblies Justin Matyr An. Dom. 140. and of
the several Duties there performed Prayers and Hymns Baptism and the Holy Eucharist but gives no account in what Words they celebrated these Offices for when he mentions Baptism he only saith They are taught to Fast and Pray and ask of God the forgiveness of their former Sins And being brought where Water is they are Regenerated in the same manner as we were Regenerated (d) Just M. Apol. 2. p. 93. which shews that even in his time they began to conceal the particular manner of Celebrating these Mysteries So that we cannot expect much light from him as to the Christian Forms Yet we must remember he lived in Palestina and conversed much with the Jews who then used Forms of Prayer and Praise for which he never reproves them nor doth he speak of any difference between the Jewish and Christian Worship in this particular But he hath some general expressions which incline me to believe they had Forms in his time I shall not insist upon his saying they prayed for the Conversion of the Jews and the deliverance of the Gentiles from their Errors and for all Men (c) Just M. dialog cum Tryph. p. 363. p. 335. Though these are pieces of ancient Litany But I will observe that when he speaks of the bringing the Newly-baptized Person to the place where the Faithful worshiped God he saith They there made Common-Prayers for themselves for the Person Baptized and for all other Men every where with great fervency (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoli 2. p. 97. Now Common-Prayers do signify Forms that are known to all and in which all may joyn and therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Lords Prayer which was that Form which all the Christians used and repeated together calls it a public and Common-Prayer (g) Publica est nobis Communis Oratio Cypr. de Or. Dom. and to such Forms which all locally joyned in Ignatius before cited refers when he speaks of One Prayer and one Supplication But our Adversary who will not allow this plain and natural exposition of Justin's Common-Prayer stretches another ambiguous Phrase of his most extremely to make it signifie Extempore Prayer viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The first place he cites for this is in the next Page The President offers up Prayers and in like manner Thanksgivings as well as he is able (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 98. this he gives us twice over (i) Disc of Liturg p. 68. p. 115. and most extremely glories in it spending ten Pages in Quotations most of which are nothing to the purpose to strain it to his Sense of inventing Words as the Spirit enabled them or Praying Extempore To all which I answer First That if this were the Sense it will not follow that because the â—ishops in Justin Martyrs time were inspired to make Extempore Prayers therefore every private Minister in this Age when Inspiration and that Gift of Prayer is ceased hath the same ability now Secondly It seems he is hard put to it for proofs when he is forced to lay so great stress on a single ambiguous Phrase which may be otherwise interpreted since this Phrase can be no solid proof unless his were the only Sense of it But Thirdly I shall make it out that it doth signify otherwise in this place For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place before cited That declares the Prayers at Baptism were made Fervently or with all their might (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Hesych 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this shews that the Prayers at the Eucharist were made as Du-plessis Translates it by the President with all the power and might that was in him And thus in Scripture the same Phrase is used by the LXX which version Justin both uses and imitates for doing a thing with all our might (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles 9.10 For Solomon advises us to do what we are about with all Application of Mind and when the Phrase is applied to Prayer it must signify to Pray as Fervently and devoutly as we are able And doubtless when we desire the several things Prayed for in a Form with all the Earnestness and Vigour we can we may properly be said to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as we are able or to the utmost of our power As in Plautus Orare opere maximo signifies to intreat or beg a thing with extraordinary importunity (m) Nunc te hoc orare jussit opere maximo Plaut Mostel iii. 2. Maximo te orabat opere Eunuch iii. 3. So that the power here spoken of refers to the affections and not to the Phrases or expressions of him that prays And therefore it hath no relation to Extempore Praying Yea if we review the place of Justin Martyr again we shall see that this Phrase doth not follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Prayers but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thanksgivings So that it doth chiefly if not only relate to the Hymns used in the Eucharist which the Bishop offered up with all his might that is with all Fervency Now these Hymns as we have proved before were known Forms and yet Justin Martyr saith they were offered up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherefore this Phrase cannot be expounded here that they made the Hymns Extempore And our Adversary is forced to false point and miserably wrest a parallel place in this Author to make it seem to belong only to Extempore Prayer (n) Disc of Liturg. p. 114. 115. he leaves out the stop between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. loc whereas there this Phrase is very evidently joyned to the Word Praising with the Words of Prayer and Thanksgiving in all our oblations praising him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as we are able (o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just M. Apol. 2. p. 60. And withal it must be noted that in this latter place the Phrase is not as he pretends applied to the Minister but to all the Christian People who no doubt joyned in the Hymns in public with all possible Fervency and Devotion and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet did not make those Hymns Extempore I suppose when the Son of Syrach said to the Jews when you glorify the Lord exalt him as much as you can and when you exalt him put forth all your strength (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Greek Phrase is almost the same no man will be so absurd to imagin * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclus. Cap. xliii Ver. 30. he bid them every one make Extempore Hymns For he plainly means They should recite the Forms used in their Nation with all imaginable Vigour and Devotion And thus Origen cited by him applies the like Phrases For he saith all Christians in their own Tongues prayed to God and praised him as well as they were able