THE Reputation of prescribed Liturgies depends on their supposed Antiquity; this is their great, their best support. They pretend not to Scripture, nor will their Advocates maintain, that the Apostles either used such, or left any order for the composing and prescribing of them.

And it will seem strange to those that reverence Antiquity, that good Reason should be found for them; if the Antients for four or five Ages could see none, in such circumstances as might render it equally visible to them and us.

If they had seen it, it would appear in their pra­ctice, there especially where the Reason is thought to be most cogent, viz. in the administration of the Sacraments. It is presumed, ^a that there first [Page 2] of all, there especially, forms of Prayer were (and are to be) prescribed; and so it will be granted, that if Antiquity be not for them there, it owns them no where.

By prescribed Forms are meant such as are impo­sed upon the Administrator, so as those must be used, and no other, nor otherwise, without adding, detract­ing, or transposing. The Favourers of such Forms suppose, they have been the constant usage of the Church, every where, ever since extraordinary gifts ceased. Their Opposites judge this hath been ra­ther taken for granted, then proved; and suspect they are [...]; and that this opinion had not got entertainment, but upon a pre­sumption, that things were so of old, because they are so now; ^b and that the mistake had not so long prevailed, if it had been sooner examined.

It is not denyed, but there were some Forms of Prayer of old, viz. arbitrary and particular, such as this or that Person composed himself, or made choice of composed by others, for his use in pub­lick. There is an intimation of this later sort, Can. 23. Con. Carthag. 3. held in the conclusion of the fourth Age; and it is the first that I meet with. But common Forms (though arbitrary) viz. such as ma­ny Churches made use of in the same words, I can­not discover till many years after; unless the Lords Prayer be made an instance hereof ^c. This in­deed [Page 3] was used antiently, but far otherwise then of late, not more then once at one Assembly, not in Prayers before or after Sermon, not at all in the Ca­techumens office, ^d no where in their ordinary Service; but [...] (in 2 Cor. hom. 3.) as Chrysostom calls the Eucharistical Office; and there commonly in the conclusion of the Prayer for the blessing of the Elements.

But though they used the words of it there, yet not out of any apprehension, that Christ did injoin them there to use it. Augustine declares it plain­ly ^e that Christ in the delivery of those Petitions, did not teach his Disciples what words they should use in Prayer, but what things they should pray [Page 4] for; and understands it to be a direction for secret and mental Prayer, where no words are to be used. The coherence in Matth. 6. led him to explain it of such Praying, as Christ is speaking of ver. 6. which he took to be mental, and none deny to be secret.

It is granted also, that divers Churches had a certain order, wherein they agreed to administer the several parts of Worship, and particularly the se­verals in the Sacraments; so as each had its known [Page 5] and fixed place. An order there is visible in Chry­sostom, in 2 Cor. hom. 18. p. 647. and in Augustine to Paulinus, epist. 59. quaest. 5. p. 340, 341. This was setled in some Churches by Custom; and in some there was in time a Rule for it, such is that, Can. 19. Syn. Laodicen. whose Title in the Latin Copies is, de ordine orationum Catechumenorum atque fidelium. And in the West, the 27 Canon of the Synod of Pau, in the beginning of the sixth Age. And 'tis provided for in general terms by the Coun­cil of Vens Can. in the latter end of the fifth Age.

Besides such direction as is in those Canons, other written Rubricks were not needful. For the actual disposing of the severals in their proper place, the [...] served them, of which Can. 22. and 23. Conc. Laodic. ^f This managed by a Deacon, acquainted with the usages of the Church where he ministred, was sufficient, without other Rubrick for that purpose, supposing it answered that de­scription of its antient use, which we have in Bal­samo.

There was also some kind of Uniformity in their Sacramental Prayers; that is, a general agreement to pray for the same things, though not in the same words. They might have said thereof, quamlibet alia verba dicamus, nihil aliud dicimus. This ap­peared especially in the general Prayer before the Eucharist. Therein for whom, and for what they prayed, very many of the Antients give some ac­count. Thereby it is manifest, that they prayed for the same persons, (for all of all sorts) and for [Page 6] the same things, with respect to the various condi­tions of those several sorts of persons; and this in variety of expressions. So that herein was exem­plified that of Augustine, Liberum est aliis atque aliis verbis, eadem tamen in orando dicere, Epist. 121. And this is the Uniformity in Prayer which Caele­stine urgeth against the Pelagians; Epist. pro Prosper. & Hilar. c. 11. All Churches through the World agreeing to pray for those persons, and those things, which were inconsistent with their Tenets. And that mode of Praying, which as the Author of the Books, de vocatione Gentium, ^g says, the Lord, by the Apostle, having prescribed, the devotion of all sorts did concorditer observe.

Such particular and voluntary Forms, such an order in Administring, such an uniformity in Pray­ing, is not in question; nor am I concerned in com­mon Forms if arbitrary, though setled by custom. But this is it which is denyed, that in the antient Church, for many Ages after Christ, such Litur­gies, or Forms of Prayer, were commonly imposed on those who administred the Sacraments, as are before described.

Or that in the antient Church, while its condition was tolerable, or its practice imitable, the common and ordinary way of administring the Sacraments, was by such prescribed Liturgies and Forms of Prayer, as are before described; wherein the Ad­ministrators had no liberty left to change words or order, to abridge or inlarge, or otherwise vary from the imposed Models.

If there had been such Liturgies antiently, as are contended for, and are now in use; Prayers would have been read then, as they are now. But [...], or preces legere, or de scripto recitare, or any Forms of Speech equivalent, are Phrases unknown, and not to be found, so far as I can yet discover in any Writers of the four or five first Ages at least; and therefore the thing was in all probability not known, nor practised in those times.

We meet not only with the Reading of Psalms, Theod. l. 2. c. 13. p. 63. Reading of Lessons; but Reading of the Narratives of the Martyrs Suffer­ings. ^h Passiones Martyrum, Con. 3. Carth. Can. 47. Carranz. p. 116. liceat it aque legi passiones Martyrum, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur, ut in Cod. Can. 46. Reading of Epistles from some Eminent Persons or Churches; as Dionysius Corinth. says Clemens Epistle had been Read, as it was wont to be in their Lords days Assemblies, Euseb. l. And Athanasius wills those of Antioch to read the Epi­stle sent from the Synod at Alexandria, [...], ad Antioch. p. 451. to 1. [Page 8] And Cornelius was wont to read Cyprians Epistles to the Church at Rome, Cyp. p. 12. Reading of the Diptyches, [...], Dionys. eccl. Hist. c. 7. [...]. Heyl. antid. 342.

In a word, of the reading of every thing that was wont to be read; but of the reading of Prayers, not a syllable. We may as soon find a saying of Mass, as reading of Prayers. None had then the opportunity till since it has been the happyness of many to merit the commendation which Pliny gave of his Servant Zosimus, ep. 19. 15.

If their Prayers had been written, and they con­fined precisely to the words and syllables of the Writing, as in prescribed Forms, this would have obliged them to have had the Writing before them, and to have read the Prayers out of it, to prevent varying from the prescribed Model, since there had been as much necessity to read then, as there is now.

Besides, Reading and Praying are still represent­ed as distinct things, and such as were not then co­incident. The Deacon, when he called to Read­ing, was said, [...]; but when to Prayer, [...]. Prayer began in Justin Martyrs time [...], when the Reader had done, Apol. 2. So Anthanasius calls to Praying and Reading in terms quite different; [...]. So Socrates, l. 2. c. 8. p. 545. which in Theo­doret is, [...].Vide D. H. Preface to Psalms, in him Tertull. l. 2. c. 13. p. 63, 64. And Sozomen, where he shows there was an uniformity in his time [Page 9] in publick Worship; tells us, [...]. Vide Just. nov. 6. Soz. l. 7. c. 19. It cannot be found p. 36. c. 4. that the same Prayers or Psalms, yea or the same Readings were used by all at the same time.

Indeed it cannot be apprehended how they could read their Prayers, who, while they prayed, had their eyes lift up to Heaven. And that this was the posture of the antient Christians in Prayer, there is abundant evidence.

Tertullian thus represents them praying; illuc perspicientes Christiani, Apol. cap. 30.

And Clemens Alexandrinus strom. 7. [...]: We raise our heads (in Prayer) and lift up hands to Heaven.

To whom we might add Cyprian ad Deme­trium.

Arnobius, l. 1. p. 28. Ad Sydera sublevavit & Coelum, & cum Domino rerum Deo, suppli­cationum fecit verba, atque orationum colloquia mis­cere.

And Lactantius. Oculos eo dirigamus, quo illos naturae suae conditio direxit, lib. 6. Cur igitur oculos in coelum non tollitis, l. 2. c. 2.

So Dionysius of Alexandria, representing to Xy­stus of Rome the case of that troubled person, and that, amongst other scruples, he durst not joyn with them in Prayer, does it in these terms, [...]. Euseb. l. 7. c. 8. p. 188. Lifting up the eyes to Heaven, [Page 10] is a phrase, by which Prayer is understood in this third Age ⁱ.

In the fourth Age, this was [...]. And when they represented Constantine in a praying po­sture, it was with eyes lift up to Heaven. So his Effigies in his Coins, [...]. Euseb. de vita Constantini, l. 4. c. 15. p. 394. So in his Palace; [...], id. ibid. Others, [...], in Praises. Vit. constant. l. 4. cap. 29.

Chrysostom observes, from Christs posture in prayer expressed, Jo. 17. 1. These words spake Jesus, and lift up his eyes to Heaven; that thereby we are taught, when we pray, to lift up both eyes of Body and Mind: [...] p. 890. So Hil­lary, Euthymius, Theophylact, Leontius, Ammonius, in Maldonat. on Mat. 14. 19. c. 302.

And Augustine intimates as much, when he tells us upon the same place, Ita se Patri exhibere voluit precatorem, ut meminisset nostrum se esse Doctoren; he so prayed, as minding to teach us how we should pray, Tract. in Joh. 103. Tom. 9. p. 621.

Yea Damascen, upon those words, Joh. 11. 41. Jesus lift up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee, &c. observes, propterea oculos sustulisse ut formam nobis traderet orandi.

Whereby it appears, that, not only, this de facto was their posture in Praying; but that they thought themselves obliged to it by Christs Ex­ample.

Some Bishops (what may we think of Presby­ters and Deacons) could not read, Blondel. 500. 501.

So that in Damascens time, when set Forms were grown common, this reading was not in fa­shion ^k; I will not inquire into the reasons: It may be, that which made Pliny loath to read his Pleadings, might hinder them from reading their Prayers. What he suggests, is obvious to each ones reason, and common sense; and whether to some it be not applicable to pleaders at another Bar, let others judge. Neque enim me praeterit actiones. Then he says, they are thereby bereaved of many advantages, which render the plea fervent and available, ut quas soleant commendare, and the want of which must needs dull the Auditory; quo minus mirum est, auditorum intentio languescit.

Hortaris ut orationem amicis pluribus recitem, fa­ciam quia hortaris: quamvis vehementer addubitem, neque enim me praeterit, actiones quae recitantur, im­petum omnem caloremque, ac prope nomen suum per­dere, ut quas soleant commendare, simul & accen­dere,—dicentis gestus, incessus, discursus etiam, [Page 12] omnibusque motibus animi consentaneus vigor cor­poris,—Recitantium vero praecipua pronuntiationis adjumenta, oculi, manus praepediuntur; quo minus mirum est si Auditorum intentio languescit, nullis ex­trinsecus aut blandimentis capta aut aculeis excitata. Plin. ep. 9. l. 2. What would he have said; how would this wise and judicious Person have aggrava­ted these disadvantages, how intolerable would this great Orator have accounted the motion; if Cerea­lis had moved him, to read the same Oration to his Friends whenever they met, at every solemn Meeting?

Chrysostome tells us, that in his judgment, it re­quired a greater confidence, then Moses and Elias had, to pray as they were wont to do before the Eucharist. [...] De Sa­cerd. orat. 3. p. 46. Now why such boldness was needful, if they had the Prayer in a Book before them, and no more to do then read it, I apprehend not. I never heard of any, who were Masters of the Art of Reading, that found so much confidence necessary to exercise their faculty upon any Prayer whatsoever. [...] ^† in him is equivalent to [...], as Phavorinus, a boldness to express ones self freely, Epist. [...] 186. No freedom is left him, who must only read what is prescribed him. Vid. in Eph. hom. ult. p. 892. where [...] is [...]. Vid. D. H. N. T. 319. 1. Idem tam commode orationes legit, ut hoc solum didicisse videatur. Plin. ep. 19. l. 5.

If the Antient Churches had no written Liturgies, no Books of publick Prayers; they could have no [Page 13] prescribed, no imposed, no nor any common Li­turgies, (viz. the same in many several Congrega­tions) though not imposed. And if there had been any such Service Books, it is not imaginable, but there would have been some notice of them in some of the Writers of those Ages; yet for this, both we, and those who are most concerned to find it, are still to seek.

We meet not with any mention of such Books, upon such occasions, where it might be expected they would be mentioned, if any where; and where we might justly look to find them, if they had been to be found.

Those who give a particular account of the Books, Vessels, and several Utensils, which were to be found in the Church, make no mention of any such thing as this. Vid. Dall. de objecto cultus.

Amongst other things, wherewith Athanasius was falsely charged by the Arrian faction, to make way for his condemnation: Macarius (with reflection upon that great Person who imployed him) is accu­sed, to have leapt upon the Altar, overthrown the Table, broke the Communion Cup, burnt the Bible; [...]. Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 20. p. 539.

Now it may well be presumed that Ischyras, the false accuser, incouraged with hopes of a Bishoprick (which was his reward afterward) and so concern­ed to swell the charge as big, and render it as odious as he could, would have added to the rest some in­dignity offered to the Sacred Liturgy. This had been as easily alleadged as the rest (if the subject had been extant) and might have been as hainously resented, if there had been such Liturgies, or [Page 14] such opinion of them, as in our times.

When Gregorius the Arrian Bishop came to take possession of the Bishoprick of Alexandria, and en­tered a Church by force, of what abuses were offered to all things therein, Athanasius gives a particular account; the Table, [...], the Scriptures, [...], the Font, [...], the Wine, the Oyl, the Doors and latticed Parti­tions, [...], the Candlesticks, the Tapers, [...]. Ad Africanos ep. tom. 1. p. 729. But not a word of a Service Book, no more then of a Book of Homilies.

When the multitude of Christians so increased at Constantinople, that it was thought necessary to dis­pose of them in several Churches; Constantine takes care, that those Churches should be respectively furnished with Bibles; and writes to Eusebius of Caesarea to have them prepared accordingly. Now (let those that are for prescribed Liturgies be Judges) would it not have been requisite, that those Chur­ches should have been also furnished with Service Books; and care taken, that these should have been likewise writ out for them, if any such had been then in use? Would Constantine have omitted this, if he had been of their mind; or would not Euse­bius (who overlooks nothing of that nature) have added this in commendation of him, if he had made any such provision?

Does it not hence appear, that Churches were then thought sufficiently provided with Books, ne­cessary for Divine Service, when they were fur­nished with Bibles? And can it be supposed that Constantine, whose generousness towards the Church is known to have run out in many superfluities, [Page 15] would have been deficient in things accounted in any degree necessary?

Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 34. 'O [...]; and cap. 36. p. 401. where we have that [...].

In the fourth Council of Carthage, it is provi­ded; when the Bishop is ordained, the Book of the Gospels shall be held over his head, teneat Evangelio [...]um codicem super caput & cervicem ejus, c. 2. When the Exorcist is ordained, a Book of Exorcisms is to be given him; accipiat de manu Episcopi libellum, in quo scripti s [...]nt exorcismi, c. 7. When the Reader is ordained, the Bible, out of which he is to read, is to be delivered him, can. 8. tradet ei codicem, de quo lecturus est, dicens ad eum; accipe, & esto lector verbi Dei.

But no Book of publick Prayers, either used, or delivered, or mentioned, in the Ordination of Bishop, Presbyter or Deacon, (the only persons who ministred in the Prayers of the Church) or any other Officer. Yet here, if any where, we might reasonably have expected to have met with a Service Book, if there had been any at that time.

One of the first Books for publick Service, which I meet with, is the Libellus officialis in Conc. Tol. 4. Can. 25. an. 633. which seems rather but a short Directory, then a compleat Liturgy, given to eve­ry Presbyter at his Ordination, to instruct him how to administer the Sacraments; least, through ignorance of his Duty herein, he should offend. Quando Presbyteri in Parochiis ordinantur, libellum officialem a suo Sacerdote accipiant, ut ad Ecclesias sibi deputatas instructi accedant, ne per ignorantiam [Page 16] etiam in ipsis divinis Sacramentis Christum offen­dant. And many of the Canons of that Council had been needless, if those Churches had been be­fore furnished with such a Liturgy; since that would have provided sufficiently for the severals there decreed. Can. 2. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

To ascend a little higher; in the times of the Churches Persecution, in the beginning of the fourth Age; if there had been such Service Books, why did not their Persecutors call for the delivery of them, as they did, not only for the Bible, but for other Church Utensils? (Vid. Conc. Arelat. Can. 13. in Caranz. p. 65.) Why hear we of no traditores upon this account? It was not the Chri­stians belief contained in the Scripture concerning the true God, or the Gentiles false Gods, that did more exasperate the Heathen against them, then their Worship. The Jews, whose belief was as opposite to theirs, had a toleration many times, when the Christians were destroyed. And Origen ^l observes, that they were not wont to perse­cute any for their Opinions, [...], adv. Cel [...]. l. 2. p. 68. There were opinions amongst their persecutors concerning God as scandalous to the Heathen, as those which the Scripture taught the Christians. The Epicureans wholly denying Di­vine [Page 17] Providence ^m, which is Origens instance, Ibid. [...], holding that their Gods were composed of Atoms, [...] l. 4. p. 169. That there were no rewards nor punishments after Death; nor any true good, but what is sensible: The Stoicks maintaining, that a Wise Man was equal to their great God Jupiter. Senec. Ep. 73. 74. p. 672. 673. Solebat Sextius dicere, Jovem plus non posse quam bo­num virum.—Deus non vincit sapientem felicita­te, etiamsi vincit aetate.—Sapiens tam aequo animo omnia apud alios videt contemnitque, quam Jupiter: & hoc se magis suspicit, quod Jupiter uti illis non potest, sapiens non vult. Et Ep. 53. 54. Est aliquid, quo sapiens antecedat Deum: ille naturae beneficio non suo sapiens est; suo sapiens. [...]. Origen. adv. Cels. l. 6. p. 309.

And the Peripateticks, with other ^* Philoso­phers, curtailing and confining the Providence of God to generals, or to the Orb of the Moon, so as Humane affairs were not regarded by him; and all Humane addresses to him, were to no purpose; [...], Or. p. 156. Or as Ju­stin Martyr represents them, Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 1. [...].

Nor was it their opinions concerning Worship, delivered in the Scripture, so much as the exercise of their Worship, which incensed the Gentiles a­gainst them. For divers of the Heathen held and published opinions highly derogatory to their Wor­ship; as that of Heraclitus to pray before Images, was as wise an act, as to talk to a Wall, related, b. 1. Clem. Alexandrin. protrept. [...] ⁿ And Celsus in Orig. l. 1. p. 6. and l. 7. p. 373. And that of the Pythago­reans, who thought it not fit to pray, because it was uncertain what was profitable, and so fit to be prayed for, [...], Laert. in Pythag. Or that of the Philo­sophers [Page 19] in Justin Martyr, who, denying a particu­lar providence, conceived God would take no no­tice of any person, though he sought him night and day, [...] Dial. cum Tryph. princip. And that of the Peri­pateticks, that Prayers and Sacrifices were good for nothing, as Origen represents ^o them, l. 2. p. 68. [...]. Who have studied to deserve Aristippus Cha­racter, [...], Diogen. Laert. Aristipp. And that of the Platonists, that there was no immediate intercourse betwixt Mortals and the Caelestial Gods; but all addresses were to be made by the mediation of Demons, which was cross to the practice of the generality of the Heathen, in their Devotions. And what more vilifies their Worship, then that of Seneca, Quae omnia sapiens servabit, tanquam legibus jussa, non tanquam Diis grata. And that, sic adorabimus, ut meminerimus cultum magis ad morem, quam ad rem pertinere ^p. Just such apprehensions as many prudential Confor­mists have of our Formality and Ceremonious Wor­ship, yet both complying with the present Modes injoyned, and making some shew of liking what they secretly derided; for which feigned consent, and not setting up any other way of Worship, they (several sorts of the Philosophers) escaped then, and ours now well enough.

Now if the exercise of the Christian Worship, which lay, as is supposed, in the pretended Litur­gy, were as odious to the Heathen, as their Te­nets concerning God and his Worship, which lay in the Bible; if there had been any such Liturgies, why would not the Gentiles have been as zealous, to destroy them as the Scriptures?

However it may well be supposed, that the de­livery of the Christians Liturgies, if there had been any, would have been required, if not as much as that of their Bibles, yet more then that of their other Church Utensils. Torti Prodosis, Euseb. l. 8. p. 242. Since 'tis observable, that the Romans, who forced the Christians upon that crime, for which they were denominated Traditores, were more zealous against new Liturgies, though Hea­thenish, then against new Gods. These they did more then tolerate, those they would not endure. An instance hereof we have in Livy, Dec. 3. lib. 5. p. 111. Some at Rome made bold to Sacrifice and Pray in a way not conformable to the Roman Mode. Mulierum turba erat, nec sacrificantium nec pre­cantium Deos patrio more. This was hainously re­sented by all sorts; primo secretae bonorum indigna­tiones [Page 21] exaudiebantur, deinde ad Patres etiam, & ad publicam querimoniam excessit res. The inferiour Magistrates are sharply taken up by the Senate, because they did not hinder it; accusati graviter ab Senatu aediles, triumvirique capitales, quod non prohiberent. And when their endeavours were not effectual to suppress it; the Praetor is imployed therein by the Senate; who, by their order, com­mands all the new Liturgies to be delivered in to him by such a day,—Edixit ut quicunque libros vaticinos, precationesve, aut artem sacrisicandi con­scriptam haberet, eos libros omnes literasque ad se ante C [...]lend. Apriles deferret.

We see, they would not tolerate Heathenish Li­turgies, differing from what they used only in Mode and Rites, though conformable as to the substance and object of their Worship. Would they not be more violent for the delivering up of Christian Li­turgies, more opposite to them every way, if there had been any? But there's not a word, in the An­tients, of any such demand, or any complyance therewith, or any censure of such complyance; when the demand and delivery of other things less material, less offensive to them, and proceed­ing against the Traditors, are frequently men­tioned.

Augustine alleadges some things frequently pray­ed for in publick, but not as in the words of any written Liturgy, but of the Administrator, Quan­do audis Sacerdotem Dei ad altare, &c. Ep. 107. p. 567. And the same Petitions he afterwards sets down in other words; which signifies, he had them not out of any prescribed or written Liturgy; for then they (would, they) must have been the same; Pro incredulis, ut eos Deus convertat ad [Page 22] fidem; but p. 577. Ʋt incredulas Gentes ad fidem suam venire compellat. Pro fidelibus, ut in eo quod esse ceperunt, munere suo perseverent; and p. 578. Ʋt proficiant in eo quod esse ceperunt.

Augustine mentions the publick Prayers against Pelagians; but no otherwise, then as he might have alleadged the extemporary petitions of such, who seeking the same things that Christians usually do, use not the same words; and agreeing in the subject, vary other ways in the expressions; with­out any intimation, that they were prescribed or in variable Forms. And elsewhere with some note of uncertainty, whether they did so pray, or whe­ther those were their words in publick; whereas if they had been in a common written Liturgy, he would have known it, and might have been posi­tive; or some intimation of liberty they had to use those words or not, those or others; si volue­rimus.

Finally, it cannot with any reason be supposed, but, if there had been such Liturgies, they would have been made use of against the Errours, and for deciding the Controversies, wherewith the Church was exercised in the Ages we are concern­ed in. To wave others, there were two especially as to which they might have been this way appa­rently serviceable; viz. That concerning the God­head of Christ, opposed in the first, second, third and fourth Age especially. And that concerning the [...] of the faithful; and other errors, with which Pelagius and his adherents troubled the Chur­ches in the beginning of the fifth Age, and after­wards. His Tenet see August. contr. 2 ep. Pelag. l. 4. c. 2. p. 239.

None will fancy a Christian Liturgy, wherein [Page 23] there is not some acknowledgment of, or some ad­dress to Christ as God, or wherein there is not some confession of sin, or some petition for pardon, in Prayers proper to the faithful, something equi­valent to petition in the Lords Prayer, forgive us our Trespasses, and so no Liturgies, wherein there was not evidence enough against both those errours, and others also of the Pelagians, inconsistent with the necessity of the grace of God.

And it will be granted, that if those who were judicious had the managing of those Controversies, if they thought it requisite to make use of Humane Testimony, they would make choice of that which is most cogent and convictive.

Now they did make use of Humane Testimony, as we find both that unnamed Author in Eusebius, l. 5. c. [...]. p. 145. who confuting Artemons error, who maintained Christ was only [...], al­leadges Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Tatian, Clemens, Irenaeus, Melito, and the Hymns composed by the Brethren of old, [...]; but not a word of any Prayers, antient or written, by Brethren or Fathers; which yet (by one who, as it is apparent, industriously sought out all sorts of confirmations) would not have been omitted; as tending as much, if there had been some written of old; but contributing much more, to the confirming of that truth, if there had been any injoyned to be publickly and generally used. Also Athanasius against the Arrians, and Augustine against the Pelagians ^*, two of the [Page 24] most judicious Writers that those Ages afforded, make use of the Testimonies of their Predecessors and Contemporaries; but alledge not one passage out of a Service-Book, or any Prayers written, or so as to give us occasion to think there were any such used publickly, and authorized; whereas they could not but apprehend as well as we, that one clear allegation out of an antient and commonly re­ceived Liturgy would have been more cogent and convictive, then any, or all the particular Testi­monies, they produce; (since the judgment of whole Churches, in several Ages too, is far more considerable, then of many particular persons).

Augustine, and others alleadge, against the Pe­lagians, divers things, which were frequently pray­ed for in publick; but without signifying in the least wise, that the Prayers were written or anti­ent, (which he in Eusebius thought it requisite to express, concerning the Hymns he mentions) or that they were generally received, or the same Form, or authorized for the publick Service, or prescribed to be invariably used. Yet in these par­ticulars lay the force and the advantage of such an allegation; and that which would render it most considerable, and of far more weight then the Te­stimony of single Writers: And therefore undoubt­edly would have been insisted on (if there had been any such thing to urge) by any, who knew how to manage an Argument, or to make use of a very ob­vious advantage.

So that we may conclude, either the greatest wits and judgments of those times were not wise enough to discern the best advantages they had from [Page 25] Humane Testimony, such as were obvious to eve­ry eye; and either could not manage them, as those of ordinary capacities amongst us can do; or would not improve them, as the interest of the truth they contended for, and their faithfulness to it required; and so were either injudicious or unfaithful; or else that they had no such advantages to make use of, and so no such Liturgies.

Further, if there were such Liturgies, how comes it to pass, that we meet with no intelligence of any changing of them, or alterations made in them, up­on such occasions, as we may well conceive would necessarily draw on such changes, and in all proba­bility bring us some account thereof. Quisquis un­quam, says one, Religionem mutavit, & orandi ra­tionem mutavit: nulla unquam Haeresis fuit, quae non continuo suas essinxerit preces. Mald. in Luc. 11. This being so, we may expect to meet with fre­quent mention of rejecting old Liturgies, and com­posing new, of altering or correcting them, if the antient mode of Praying was by prescribed Litur­gies. But I have not yet met with any mention thereof, no not in those circumstances, wherein, if any where, it might be expected.

The Heresie of Artemon, holding that Christ was a meer Terrene Creature, having siezed on Paulus Samosatenus ( [...]) Bishop of Antioch; the Fathers of the Council held there, up­on that occasion, tell us, in their circular Epistle, that he prohibited the use of the Psalms sung in the ho­nour of Christ. [...]. Euseb. l. 7. cap. [...]. lib. 24. And would he have tolerated a Liturgy, whose contents were [Page 26] as much for the honour of Christ? Or can there be supposed a Liturgy, which had nothing in it for the honour of Christ [...]. And if he had made as bold with a Liturgy, would this have been con­cealed by those Fathers, who are so large and par­ticular, in giving an account of all his impieties, innovations, presumptions, (that the justice of their proceeding against him might be clear to the world), not omitting those Hymns, which were of less mo­ment?

When the Arrians so far prevailed, as they had possessed themselves of all the publick Churches, in a great part of the Christian World, the East especially (so as the Orthodox, reduced to Conven­ticles, were glad to keep them in private Houses, Fields, Woods, or where else they could or durst) they had power and opportunity to make what changes they would; and no less will and forward­ness, shewing sufficiently how much they were given to change, and that no respect would restrain from altering any thing, which crost their tenet, by the alterations they made in the Doxology, in the words of Christ for administring Baptism, yea in the Scriptures themselves, as Ambrose tells us, de Spiritu Sancto. 3. 11. And remarkably in the universally received Confession of Faith, since they made a new Creed almost every other year. So­crates gives a particular account of three in little more then twenty years, Hist. lib. 4. c. 32. p. 604.

And what could restrain this innovating humour (when they had power enough) from abolishing or altering the supposed Lituries, if they were but tempted to it, by what they would count a just [Page 27] occasion? And such occasion they had, if those Li­turgies contained any thing in favour of the Eternal Godhead of Christ, or his equality with the Fa­ther, or the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (which the Semi-Arrians opposed). And some things (if not many) of this tendency they contained, if they were Christian Liturgies. Why is it then, that we hear not a word of their changing any old Liturgy, or composing any new; when we hear of their making bold both with that of greater moment and less? And how is it that their Antagonists, who thought themselves and their cause concerned, to give a full account of their innovations, (conceiv­ing their Novelties to be one of the great advanta­ges they had against them, and improving it, by publishing them to the World) make no mention of any such thing? In all reason this must be, because there was no such thing, no occasion for it, no such Liturgies then in fashion.

We hear also afterwards, when Eutychianism was prevailing, what a tumult was made in Con­stantinople, what a noise through the World by the adding of one word or two, [...], to the Trisagion, the Hymn so called. Theodor. Lect. collect. l. 2. p. 187.

And could more changes be made in setled Litur­gies (with whose Forms and Prayers the people are presumed to have been as well acquainted, and longer accustomed to them, then to that Hymn) without any noise, without any notice?

Certainly, if they had been abolished, or such alterations made in them, we should have heard of [Page 28] it, some where or other. And if there were no changes made therein, upon so great changes of the Christian Religion, it was because there was none to be changed, no such Liturgies extant.

In general, that they had no such publick Litur­gies for the administration of the Sacraments, ap­pears by this; that they thought themselves obli­ged, with all care to conceal the Symbols, the Rites, the Prayers used in these administrations, from the sight and knowledge of all that were not initiated. The Christians, in the fourth and fifth Ages espe­cially, counted it a hainous crime, to have any of the Heathen or Catec [...]umens acquainted therewith; some of them make it no less ^* then Sacriledge, ^† one of the greatest crimes, and ^‖ worthy of the highest censure, prolixiori anathemate.

Hence they durst not administer them in the sight of the [...], nor discourse of them intelligibly in the hearing of such, nor commit them to writing for common use; that being the way to have them divulged.

They called Baptism, and the Lords Supper, and the Prayers used therein, with some other Rites, [...] ^r, and used them according to the import [Page 29] of the word, which in Phavorinus is [...], and derived [...] as concerned to keep those secrets to them­selves, and confine them to their own breasts, with­out communicating them to others, either by acti­on, word, or writing. It is not at all a mystery, sayes Basil, if it be exposed to common notice; [...]. de Spiritu Sancto, p. 273. 'Tis a mystery, sayes Chrysostom, therefore keep all close, &c. [...]. in Math. hom. [...]. p. 451. using a like phrase to that, wherewith Orpheus begins the dis­course of his Mysteries, for the divulging of which [Page 30] Diagoras (amongst other crimes of the like nature) was prescribed.

Indeed the Christians came not far short of the Heathen herein, if they had not a design to over­take them.

Celsus objecting the secrets of Christianity, [...], as matter of accusation. Origen an­swers, it was not peculiar to Christians ( [...]) to have some things reserved from common knowledge ( [...]). The Heathen had their Mysteries also, and those both Philosophical and Devotional. He instanceth in both. For the former, Pythagoras (who himself was obliged to be circumcised, that he might pro­cure admission to the Aegyptian secrets. Clem. Alexandr. strom. 1.) had some hearers who learnt in secret, such things as were not fit for profane Ears, nor yet purified; [...], lib. 1. contr. Cels. p. 7. And for the latter, he sayes, all the mysteries every where, both in Greece, and amongst the barbarous were not bla­med for being kept secret, [...], p. 8. ^s. And Seneca before him mentions both, where he will have Lucilius observe the dif­ference [Page 31] between [...] & praeceptum, ep. 95. Idem dicere de praeceptis possum, aperta sunt; decreta vero sapientiae in abdito, sicut sanctiora sacrorum tantum initiati sciant, ita in philosophia arcana illa admissis receptisque in sacra ostenduntur; at praecepta & alia hujusmodi profanis quoque not a sunt, p. 794. None were admitted to the sight of their Mystical Rites, but the initiated; others were warned to with­draw ^t.

‘ [...].’

And if they would venture to be present, it was at their peril ^u. As Pentheus in Pausanias ^w; and those of Acarnania in Livy found it. Nero durst not venture, eleusiniis sacris, quorum initiatione impii & scelerati voce praeconis submoverentur, in­teresse non ausus est. Sueton. ner. c. 34.

They would not speak of them in the hearing of others, [...]; He is [Page 32] impious that speaks of the mysteries to those that are not initiated, sayes Chrysippus in Laertius. This was part of Alcibiades crime, mysteria Cereris enun­tiavisse ^x. And Augustus, when he was to hear a Cause, wherein these mysteries were touched, would not let it be opened, till the Company was dismissed ^y.

They would not commit them to Writing. And so we may observe, that when the Antient Wri­ters have occasion to deliver any thing particularly concerning them, they wave it with an [...]: So Apollonius of the Samothracian mysteries.

Numenius ^z venturing to write of them. under­stood by a Dream, he had incurred offensam numi­num, [Page 33] as Macrobius tells us. But M. Atelius fared worse, suffering as a Parricide, for permitting the Sibylls Books in his custody (containing secreta ci­vilium sacrorum, and used by the Romans as their extraordinary Ritual) to be transcribed; [...]. Dionys. Halicarnass. l. 4.

If they trusted them to Writing, it was in secret Character, such as could not be understood by those, from whom they were to be concealed ^a. Literis ignorabilibus, as Apuleius of the Rites of Isis ^b; Ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur, sayes Macrobius; & figuris defendentibus a vilitate secre­tum, Somn. Scip. l. 1. c. 2. p. 23. Such were the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks, and used on purpose for such concealment; they could not be understood without a [...] to interpret them; and he explained them not, but in secret; and there but to some few select Hearers, as the Author of the Quaest. ad Orthod. tells us; [...] p. 146.

I will not say, the Christians imitated the Gen­tiles herein, especially if the practice began so ear­ly as Tertullian (which some suppose, because he waves the mention of the Sacrament, when he had occasion to give the Heathen an account there­of, in such circumstances, as Justin Martyr before [Page 35] him had plainly described it). For there is a great zeal visible in his Writings against complyances with the Heathen. Yet will I not deny, but that this custom amongst the Gentiles might have some influence upon Christians in after Ages; when it was thought a good expedient (how rightly experience afterwards shewed) for drawing the Pagans over to the, to meet them in some of their observances. And it is evident, that many usages amongst the Antients were continued upon other considerations then those, to which they owed their original.

However, it is undeniable, that such conceal­ments were in use amongst them, and particularly as to the Prayers which were made in the admini­stration of the Sacraments, and some other Rites counted mysterious.

None, but the initiated, were permitted to be present at these Prayers; [...], as Chrysostom, having said before, [...]; none but the faithful were to be present, when they began Eucharistical Prayers. Those that were not fit to partake of the My­steries, were not fit to hear the Prayers, [...]; they were warned to depart, [...]. And this was done in reference to the Prayers, [...]. Those that were unworthy to see, were unworthy to hear; [...] in Ephes. Hom. 3. p. 778, 779.

^* So elsewhere he says, the Catechumens were forced away from these Prayers, [...]; they never heard those concealed Mysteries, [...], applying that of the Apostle to them, [...], &c. in 2 Cor. hom. 2. p. 553.

So for Baptism, the first Council of Orange de­crees, the Catechumens should not come at the Font, Caetechumeni ad Baptisteria nequaquam admittendi, Can. 13. And the pretended Dionysius begins his discourse of Baptism with [...], Hier. eccl. c. 2. §. 1. p. 21. conforma­bly enough to the usage of his times, though not of the Apostle.

When they have occasion to speak of these Prayers in their Sermons to a promiscuous Audi­tory, they decline any recital of them, with their usual Aposiopesis, Norunt fideles, [...], or [...], so frequent in Augu­stine, Chrysostom, Theodoret, as to the Eucharist. [Page 37] For the Prayers in Baptism, see Chrysostom in Gal. 4. 15. p. 748. in 1 Cor. 15. 29. hom. 40. p. 514. in 2 Cor. 1. hom. 2. p. 555.

Nor might they commit them to Writing; that was the way to divulge them. Writing was count­ed a publishing, though but in an Epistle to a pri­vate Friend. So Basil to Meletius, [...]. that what he was intimating, might not be divulged by Writing it, he would acquaint Theophrastus therewith, who should declare to him all particularly, by word of Mouth, p. 307. As they had their mysteria chartis non committenda, in Origens phrase; (in Ep. ad Rom. c. 2.) so these mysterious Prayers were to be kept as secret. To write them, so as strangers might come to the sight thereof, was not [...], to use them as mysteries, no more then to recite them in their hearing. What they durst not plain­ly pronounce, they would not venture to write; according to that of Clemens Alexandrinus, strom. 1. [...] By this means they might come to the knowledge of Aliens. Ruffinus puts this in the account he gives, why the Creed was at first not written, (idcirco denique haec non scribi chartulis atque membranis) it was to be used as a watch-word, whereby they might know Friends from Foes, (interrogatus symbolum, prodat, si sit hostis an Socius.) But if it had been written, and the Christians got it by reading; the design might have been frustrated; for this way, the In­fidels might have got the word, hac ex lectione, quae interdum pervenire etiam ad infideles solet. Expos. in Symb. in Cypr. opera. p. 4.

That which they would have kept secret, they did not commit to Writing, for the view or use of others. Therefore Baronius sayes, the way of drawing up their literae formatae, was not in Wri­ting; because they were concerned to keep it se­cret, least it should be counterfeited, existimamus ejusmodi formulam nequaquam ab eis fuisse scripto traditam—sed penes Episcopos Catholicos retentam esse secretam. Ad an. 325. n. 44.

And there wants not direct evidence, that they had not any Prayers thus writ. Basil says ex­presly, the words they used in blessing the Elements, [...] were not written, they had them not [...]; and that what they said, both before and after the Consecration, they had not from any Writing, [...]. As much he says of the Prayers in Baptism; (the words we shall have occasion to produce hereafter): And so having reckoned the Prayers made in the Administration of the Sacraments; amongst other things, which of old were kept secret and unwritten; he tells us the Antients were well instructed to reserve them, as mysterious things, in great secrecy, [...]; and adds, those administrations, at which the non-initiated might not be present; how could it be lawful, to expose the notice thereof by writing them? [...], de Spir. Sancto. c. [...]. p. 273. And all along these Prayers with the other Arcana there mentioned, [Page 39] are [...], and p. 274. [...] ^d.

Dionysius (who, though he belyed his name, and would have been thought elder by some hundred of years then he was, yet hath credit in reporting the usages of the times wherein he really lived) de­claring why he, writing of other Rites and Pra­ctices of the Church, declined ^* to give an account in Writing concerning the Sacramental Prayers; ( [...]) assigns this Reason, [...]; it is not lawful to declare [Page 40] them in Writing, being mystical and secret, [...], as Pachymeres, being secret, and not to be divulged. To deliver them in Writing would have been, [...] to bring them out of secrecy into common view, as he expresseth it afterward, Hierarch. cul. fin.

For the Latin Church, Innocentius 1. Bishop of Rome may satisfie us. Decentius of Eugubium con­sulting him about divers particulars concerning the Church Service; Innocent ^e in his Epistle in an­swer thereto, refers him, not to any written or­ders or prescriptions, which may well be presumed he would have done, if there had been any; but to what he had seen practiced at Rome, when he was there. But more particularly and expresly, Can. 3. he determines that the Presbyter might anoint the Baptized with Chrism, non tamen fron­tem ex eodem oleo signare; but not anoint their Fore­heads with it; that being reserved by him (and first by him) to Bishops: But what words should be used in that Rite, he might not tell him in wri­ting; verbo vero dicere non possum, ne magis pro­dere videar, quam ad consultationem respondere; least he should seem a Betrayer (of the Churches Arca­na) rather then an Adviser. Now if they were thus reserved and cautious in a Baptismal Rite; as much or more caution would be thought requisite as to the Lords Supper, which was antiently, in [Page 41] their stile and account, secretum ^f, and [...]. And indeed he shews himself no less reserved about the Eucharist; so we find him, Cap. 1. Cum post omnia quae aperire non debeo, pax sit necessario in­dicenda; Those things, which past in the celebra­tion of the Eucharist, before the salutation of Peace (before which were all the Prayers) he might not open to him in Writing; and in reference to the whole ^†, thus, towards the conclusion, cap. 8. Reliqua vero quae scribi fas non erat, quum adfueris, interrogati, poterimus edicere. For the rest, which it is not lawful to write, when thou art here, we may, being desired, declare them. Now, if to write this in an Epistle to a particular person, who was not only [...], but, as Nyssen speaks, [...] (de Christi Baptism.) would have been no less then prodere, no better then treachery, a betraying the arcana ecclesiae; what would it have been to have had them written for publick use, and exposed in Common Prayer Books?

I suppose it is hereby manifest, that they were not wont, in those times, to commit their Sacra­mental Prayers to such Books or Writings; and I cannot apprehend, how the Prayers requisite to make up a Liturgy for the Sacraments could be either prescribed, or of common invariable use, in many Churches, if they were not so written.

Finally, since they thought themselves obliged to keep the things we speak of ^g secret, making account, the order of the Churches, and the reve­rence due to those mysteries could not be otherwise secured; we cannot suppose they would take a course, which would make it next to impossible to conceal that, which they deemed themselves so much concerned to keep secret.

Now, if their Prayers had been written out, for the use of many thousands, or many hundred Churches, (indeed the supposition must be for all in the World; for many are supposed to have some or other, though not all the same) would not this have been a divulging of them, and a ready way to make them [...]? could all, of such multitudes of Copies, be kept either from the [Page 43] Heathen, who were so inquisitive after the [...] of the Christians, as they used all means fair and foul ^h (sometimes tortures, sometimes odious misinterpretations, sometimes subtle insinuations) to get the knowledge of them? Or from the Cate­chumens, passionately eager to be acquainted with these secrets, any way ⁱ though surreptitiously; as for other reasons, so because their acquaintance herewith would have advanced them immediately into the higher form of the fideles.

It is no way probable, these Prayers and their other [...] could have been concealed, if they had been written for common use; and therefore, since they thought it their duty, to keep them se­cret; [Page 44] we may conclude, they had them not thus written, and consequently they could have no pre­scribed Liturgies for the administration of the Sa­craments.

And the impossibility of concealment, will be more evident, if Liturgies were to be not only in the hands of the several Ministers, Bishops, Pres­byters, Deacons; but also in the peoples hands; as it was necessary they should be, unless they were quite other things, then either the modern now im­posed, or the pretended antient Liturgies; for then the people bear such a part in the Prayers, as shews their direction by a Book necessary. And some part they had of old, as appears by Cyril, Catech. my­stag. 5. And Chrysostom in 2 Cor. hom. 18. p. 647. Though nothing so much, as in the written Litur­gies, nor what they might not have by custom with­out Book.

This may suffice for the Sacraments in general, to shew how far those that administred them were from being confined to prescribed Forms.

For the Eucharist in particular, let us view the 23 Canon of the Third Council of Carthage: Ʋt nemo in precibus, vel Patrem pro Filio, vel Filium pro Patre nominet, & cum ad altare assistitur, sem­per ad Patrem dirigetur oratio—& quascunque sibi preces aliquis describit, non eis utatur, nisi prius eas cum instructioribus Fratribus contulerit. That no man, in Prayers, shall name, either the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father. And when they are at the Altar, the Prayer shall always be direct­ed to the Father. And what Prayers soever any [Page 45] shall copy out for himself, he shall not use them, unless he first debate them with his discreeter Bre­thren.

The middle Clause of this Canon evidently con­cerns the Eucharistical Prayers; the first and last respect both these, and the Prayers also in other parts of the administrations; each of them make it plain, that in those times, they were not under any restraint by imposed Forms.

For the first. Those, who in their Prayers na­med the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Fa­ther, used not prescribed Forms; for sure the Church would not prescribe what the Council for­bids. And as they used none before, so these Fa­thers leave them at liberty, for the future, to use what they thought fit, only imposing this on them, not to name the Father for the Son, &c.

For the next Clause. If no prayers were used, in the administration of this Sacrament, but what were prescribed by the Church (and consequently allowed by the Synod, as duely directed already) it was vain and ridiculous, to make such an Order, ut semper ad Patrem, that the prayers be alwayes directed to the Father. This is clearly a restraint upon those, who before had liberty, in celebrating this Ordinance, to address their prayers to any Person of the Sacred Trinity; ordering that from henceforth they should direct such prayers only to the Father. And as it clearly supposes, they were neither limited nor directed, by any prescribed Forms before; so it leaves them free, to use what prayers they judged meet, cum ad altare assistitur, [Page 46] provided that they were addressed only to the Father.

Yea the weaker and indiscreeter sort, of those that officiated, are allowed, by the next Clause, to use what prayers they would any where make choice of, with this limitation only, that their more discreet Brethren should first be conferred with about them. That of Augustine, who was a great part of the African Councils, at this time, de Bap­tism. contra Donat. l. 6. c. 25. p. 568. is the best Comment, which can be desired, upon this passage. Having shewed, that divers of his Brethren had many things against the Faith, in prayers which they used in Sacramental administrations; he gives this account of it; Multi irruunt in pr [...]ces, non solum ab imperitis loquacibus, sed etiam ab Haereticis composi­tas; & per ignorantiae simplicitatem, non eas va­lentes discernere, utuntur iis, arbitrantes quod bonae sint. Many light upon Prayers, not only which are composed by unskilful Bablers, but also by He­reticks; and through the simplicity of their igno­rance, not being able to discern, they use them, judging that they are good. Here we have persons as fit to be confined to prescribed Forms, as any we can expect to meet with; (such as could neither make prayers themselves, nor make tolerable choice of prayers made by others; being so ignorant, as they could not discern an Heretical prayer, when they met with it). These are circumstances, which might justifie the imposition of set forms, if any could do it. And yet the African Fathers ^k saw [Page 47] no sufficient reason, to prescribe such Forms to per­sons so lamentably insufficient. But, as they did make choice of what prayers they thought good before; so they leave them at liberty, to use what they made choice of; providing only, they should first confer with their more able Brethren about them, that so what was therein erroneous might be [Page 48] amended. And accordingly Augustine, in the same place, tells us, multorum enim preces emendantur quotidie, si doctioribus fuerint recitatae; the prayers of many are amended daily, if they be recited to the more Learned.

There had been no occasion for any part of this Canon, if such Liturgies, as we speak of, had been in use; or if they had thought fit to have imposed any. A few words would have served the turn, instead of those they multiply; (Let no Prayers be used, in Celebrating the Sacrament, but what the Church prescribes). But the wisdom of Africa, and the great Augustine, thought that course more adviseable, which is utterly inconsistent with such restraint, and which left the most insufficient of their Ministers at greater liberty; for such evident­ly is the course they take in this Canon. The seve­rals of which, if they can be reconciled with any kind or degree of confinement to prescribed Forms; then may we reconcile light and darkness.

That no Ministers were limited to any prescribed Forms, in the administration of the Lords Supper, is manifest also, by the Seventieth Canon in the Col­lection called the African Council; which being the same in effect with that which passeth for the twelfth Canon of the Council of Milevis, runs thus.

Placuit etiam hoc, ut preces quae probatae fuerint in Concilio, sive praefationes, sive commendationes, seu manus impositiones, ab omnibus celebrentur; nec aliae omnino contra fidem proferantur; sed quaecunque ⁴² [Page 49] cum prudentioribus fuerint collatae dicantur. This also seemed good, that the Prayers which shall be allowed in a Council, whether Prefaces, or Com­mendations, or Imposition of Hands, may be used by all; neither may any other, against the Faith be used; but all whatsoever, which shall be commu­nicated with the more discreet, may be used. Where it is observable, that,

1. As much liberty in Praying is left to Ministers by this Canon, as by that but now insisted on (tho some, upon a conceit it is otherwise, have sh [...]wed more favour to this, then that): Those that were so indiscreet, as they could not discern an Heretical Prayer from another, and so gave occasion of jea­lousie, least the Prayers they made choice of might have something in them against the Faith; were not, by the Decree of that Council, to use such Prayers, till they were approved by some prudent Brethren: By this Canon, they were not to use them, unless they were allowed, either by such prudent persons, or else by a Synod. So that, here they have more liberty, in the choice of their approvers, and no less upon any other account at all. I have shewed already, as much liberty is granted by the former Canon, as those that are most for freedom in Prayer do desire; no restraint in either, but upon persons so insufficient, as should not be suffered to officiate at all, but in ^l extream necessities. In both, the prudent are allowed to use what Prayers, or mode [Page 50] of praying they thought fit. For they who are esteemed competent judges of others Prayers, are thereby presumed fit to judge of their own.

2. No Prayers at all are forbidden, but such as were against the Faith; nec aliae omnino, contra fidem, proferantur; by which we may judge what Prayers both the Synod and the prudent would al­low. They were not so scrupulous about words, if wholesome, though not accurate; they could better bear with some incommodious expressions or incongruities of speech, if the prayer was affecti­onate, and had such oratory as the great ^m God is pleased to listen to, though the niceness and curio­sity of a vainly critical ear would not be pleased [Page 51] with it. Noverint (sayes Augustine) etiam non esse vocem ad aures Dei, nisi animi affectum, ita enim non irridebunt, si aliquos Antistites & ministros ec­clesiae forte animadverterint, vel cum barbarismis vel solaecismis Deum invocare. De catechizand. ru­dibus c. 9. tom. 4. pars poster. p. 330. Let them understand, that God attends not so much to the voice, as the inward affection; and so they will not jeer, if perhaps they observe some Bishops and Mi­nisters of the Church do call upon God with some (were these prescribed?) barbarisms and solecisms.

3. Any Prayers that were approved, either by a Synod, or other discreet persons, might be used, as in other Church administrations, (and in which of them were not ⁿ Imposition of Hands used?) so particularly in the Lords Supper, (as the title of the [Page 52] [Page 53] Canon, de precibus ad altare dicendis, shews) in what Mode, or by what Person soever they were made. And hence it follows, that either those African Churches had no common form of Service at all; or else (which serves my purpose as well) they had none, but such, as with the good leave of those Fathers, might never have been used by any, either at the Lords Supper, or other parts of Wor­ship; since any other Prayers, which either a Sy­nod, or other prudent Ministers should approve, have the placet of this Council.

The inference is just, and cannot be evaded, un­less any will say, by the preces quae probatae fuerint is meant a Liturgy established in those Churches. But that this would be an unreasonable shift, the Canon it self (a little further examined) will dis­cover. For

1. An established Liturgy (if there had been any such) was used and approved already. But the Prayers, here mentioned, were not yet approved, nor were they to be used, till approved. So the brief of the Canon tells us, ut preces & orationes compositae, nisi probatae fuerint in Concilio, non di­cantur. In Crab. Concil. tom. 1. p. 482. It is provided that the Service to be used, be first ap­proved in the usual Synod, says a Learned Advocate for such Liturgies, upon this Canon. Then

2 What is meant by (quaecunque, what Prayers soever shall be debated with the more prudent, may be said) in the last clause of the Decree.

1. If we understand by it the supposed Liturgy, [Page 54] it is added vainly, and no tolerable account can be given why. And besides, some prudent Brethren were to be conferred with about these Prayers, who were to approve them before they might be said. (This is clearly and unquestionably the design of quaecunque cum prudentioribus fuerint collatae, di­cantur.) So that if hereby the African Liturgy be understood, it was such a one, as was not yet allow­ed to be used, and possibly never might be. It was at the arbitrament of such Judges, as those, who were concerned to use them, would choose; whe­ther it should ever take place in the Church, or no, It might be disused or abolished, either in part, or wholly; as they thought fit. Such was the Liturgy of these Churches, no other established, nor other­wise prescribed, if the Canon here speak of it.

But 2. If we understand hereby other Prayers, then such as the imaginary Liturgy contained; then so much liberty is hereby granted, for the use of those other Prayers, that the pretended Liturgy might never be used: For these Fathers authorize any other (with a quaecunque) which prudent Bre­thren might think fit for publick use. And so leave none under the restraint of any prescribed Forms, either in other parts of Worship, or (in precibus ad altare dicendis) in the Eucharistical Service ^o

In the 12th Canon of that Council, which pas­seth for the 2d of Milevis, for cum prudentioribus collatae, we have a prudentioribus tractatae ^p. A phrase of the same import, signifying the Prayers handled by the more prudent, i. e. debated, dis­coursed of, and so examined by them, in order to approbation ^q, if they were found good, or to amendment, if otherwise. And this sense of tra­ctatae agrees best, both with the other constitutions of those African Churches, and their practice also declared to us by Augustine. But if any notwith­standing will thereby understand the Prayers com­posed by the more prudent, tractatus being a Ser­mon in Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Optatus, in Thornd. 176. and I will thence inferr, the more prudent had no more liberty in Praying then in [Page 56] Preaching. If I should yield this, it would be no great disadvantage. For, as they were not tyed to use Sermons composed by others, being much be­low those Worthies, orationes alieno formare inge­nio, to owe their publick Discourses to anothers invention; so they had and took liberty to Preach, either ex tempore, or upon premeditation; and the former way commonly.

Jerom tells us many Homilies of Origen ^r, which he Translated, were Preached, delivered in the Church by the Author ex tempore. Oratiuncu­las has 26. ex tempore in ecclesia peroravit Adaman­tius Senex. Prolus. in Hom. Orig. in Jes. nav. And Ruffinus speaks the same of Origens Homilies upon Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Romans.

All that we have of Cyrils Bishop of Jerusalem are extemporary Discourses; as Vossius observes, from the inscription of them, nonne cogitant cate­cheses [...] sive extemporales, ut inscriptio indi­cat? De Symb. p. 38.

And such probably were those, whose occasion and subject was the same sung before Sermon; as, to omit others, that of Nazianzen, in Ps. 114.

Chrysostom, while Presbyter at Antioch, was ad­vised by Flavianus the Bishop, to use his extempo­rary faculty in Preaching, [...], as one of the Writers of his Life relates it. And he complyed with Flavia­nus herein, [...], they all saw him Preaching to them ex tem­pore. Georg. Alexand. vita Chrysost. p. 179. c.

And such were many of his Sermons at Constan­tinople, when he was Bishop there; particularly those upon the Epistles ^s to the Ephesians, and Philippians; as Sir Hen. Savill, (who deserves so well of him, and of the World for him) conceives; as also those upon both the Epistles to Timothy, and that to Philemon; and more then these he intimates to have seen, [...].

Atticus, Presbyter at Constantinople in Chryso­stoms time, and afterwards Bishop there, though far short of his Predecessors accomplishments; yet, by industry and practice, as Socrates tells us, he attained the faculty of delivering himself ex tem­pore to his Auditory; [...]. Hist. eccles. l. 7. cap. 2. p. 733.

Jerom had no cure, and so left us no Sermons. But of divers of the pieces, which survive him, he [Page 58] was as easily and speedily delivered, as the fore­mentioned of their popular Discourses. Of one piece of his, he tells us, Epist. 47. Extemporalis ^t est dictatio, it was dictated ex tempore, and faster then it could be well taken in short-hand. And his interpretation (as he calls it) of the three Books of Solomon, Proverbs, Canticles and Ecclesiastes, was ^u tridui opus; in which time, one would think the quickest Pen could scarce write out the Text.

Augustine also, not only in his Conflicts with Ad­versaries, but also in his Sermons to the people, used extemporali dictione, as Erasmus ^w observes, in whose judgment, he no where more appears ad­mirable then in this; not that these Discourses are more excellent then his more elaborate Works (as if he had been, what the Historian sayes of Tibe­rius, ex tempore quam a cura praestantior), but be­cause he could do better on a sudden, then others [Page 59] (though well accomplished) with time and study. One remarkable instance we have in Possidonius ^x, who tells us in Augustins words, of Firmus a Ma­nichee converted by such a Discourse, as he never designed before he had begun the Sermon, Vit. August. c. 15. And that seems another, which is in­tituled concio super gestis cum Emerito Donat., be­ing occasioned by an acclamation of the people at the Assembly, Tom. 7. pars 1. p. 770.

And those, who having much more work as Pa­stors, did Preach ordinarily every day, and some days twice; yea sometimes twice in a forenoon, and thrice in one day; (as Bishops in those and for­mer times did) it cannot be thought, but many of their Sermons were born as soon as conceived. Such were their tractates: Nor was it then thought cant­ing, to ascribe such Discourses to the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Nazianzen being to discourse of the Holy Ghost, prays for his assistance, that he might thereby be enabled for the expressions, [...]. That I may open the mysteries of the Spirit, let me have the presence of the Spirit, to give such expressions as I desire; or if not so much, yet what may be agreeable to the season, Orat. 44. and says also, they both studied and spoke, inspired by it. The Spirit, as he adds, blowes where it listeth, and inspires whom, and where, and how [Page 60] much he will, [...]; accordingly we are inspired, both to meditate and speak by the Spirit, p. 709.

Thus they did Preach, and thus they might Pray. Nazianzen having given an account how his Father prayed, in celebrating the Eucharist, adds, [...]. Orat. 19. p. 305.

Answerably Ambrose to Forentianus, Epist. 23. l. 4. Docet autem Spiritus Christi (sicut & Christus) or are discipulos suos; quis autem post Christum doce­ret, nisi Spiritus ejus, quem ipse misit ut doceret & dirigeret orationes nostras? Oramus enim Spiritu, ora­mus & mente, ut bene possit mens orare, praecedit Spi­ritus, & deducit eam in viam rectam, ne obrepant carnalia, ne minora ac etiam majora viribus. Novit enim bonus Medicus quae esca cui apta sit infirmitati, & cui tempori ad perfectum valetudinis; interdum opportunitas escae sanitatem reddit, quod si importune aliquis accipiet, aut non convenienter implicatur peri­culo. Ergo quia nos nescimus quid oremus, & quo­modo oporteat, postulat pro nobis Spiritus Sanctus.

Their affections excited by the Spirit could help them to expressions without a Book, and did form their words in Prayer, as Augustine tells us, Quam­libet alia (quam oramus dominica) verba dicamus, quae affectus orantis, vel praecedendo format ut clareat, vel consequendo attendit ut crescat. Epist. 121. Probae, 721. c. 12. And if their affections were not always so active, their judgment and invention, (which with divine assistance) served them so well on a sud­den with expressions in Preaching, might much more easily help them to words in Praying.

Let us shew this more particularly, in the seve­ral Prayers made in the celebration of the Eucha­rist. It appears by the 18 Canon of the Council of Laodicea, that in the latter end of the fourth Century three sorts of Prayers were used in that administration, [...], after the dismission of Catechu­mens and Penitents, [...]; the first of these silently, [...]; the other two pronounced, [...]. Of which two, one must be the Prayer for all sorts in general, and the Church in particular, called [...], the general Prayer; for that such a Prayer was then made, there is evidence enough in Authors both of Greek and Latin Churches of that Age; the other must be the blessing of the Elements, called the Prayer of Consecration; for this was never omit­ted, so Optatus, Legitimum quod in Sacramentorum mysterio praeteriri non potest. l. 2. advers. Parmenianum.

Now for the first of these three, viz. That [...], I find no mention of it elsewhere. Proba­bly ^y it consisted only of some secret ejaculati­ons, used by the faithful, while the offerings or the elements were preparing, to raise their Souls to a posture fit for that most solemn and sacred Ordi­nance. However, being a Mental Prayer, there was no place, and can be no pretence for prescri­bing words and expressions for it. Chrysostom ^z directs to something of this nature, Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. p. 399.

As to the second, the general Prayer, that this was not made in a set and invariable form, appears by the Epistle of Epiphanius to John Bishop of Je­rusalem, in Jeromes the 60. p. 466. There was some clashing betwixt these two Bishops; he of Cyprus being a great zealot against Origen; (as ano­ther John of Constantinople found by troublesome experience). And he of Jerusalem being an admi­rer of Origen, and under suspicion to be tainted with his erroneous Opinions. John had heard, that Epiphanius should intimate, in the Eucharistical Prayers, that he by name was warped from the Faith; he complains of it; and that Epistle is Epi­phanius's Answer and Apology, in reference to this and other particulars he was charged with. As to this, he admires, that any should report, quod in oratione quando offerimus sacrificia Deo, soleamus pro te dicere, Domine praesta Johanni ut recte credat. This is the occasion. And hereby it evidently ap­pears, they used occasional Petitions in this Prayer; for such a Petition is that complained of; and the occasion a suspicion, that John was inclined to Ori­gens errours. If such liberty had never been used, to pray in this place as occasion required, who would have been so impudent, as to raise such a report; or so foolish as to affirm what none would believe, as being against the constant and unvariable custom of those that celebrated? Who can think, that the Bishop of Jerusalem would have brought such a charge against Epiphanius, as would have ap­peared false to the World at first sight, and might have been convicted of impudent slander, by the known unalterable usage of Christians? And why does not he, who designed to burthen his Adversary as much as might be, charge him with transgressing [Page 63] the orders of the Church, to vent his particular spleen at a Christian Bishop? Is it not evident upon the whole, that there were no such orders, confine­ing them to any unvariable form, in that admini­stration; but that they might, and did, vary in their expressions, as there was occasion.

This will yet further appear, by Epiphanius's answer. Noli nos in tantum putare Rusticos, ut hoc tam aperte dicere poterimus, &c. He takes no no­tice, that what was objected, was inconsistent with the custom and practice of that Church, and so groundlesly suggested. He appeales not to the known form, to which they were precisely confi­ned, refers him not to their Service Book for his satisfaction; which yet, if there had been any such thing, a duller person then Epiphanius would have discovered, to have been the best way, to stop the mouth of his Accuser. He denyes not, but they ordered their Prayers according to such occasions; but only tells him, they were not so rustical, as to do it so bluntly.

We have, in the English Service Book, a Prayer for the whole state of Christs Church, pretended to be answerable to this Prayer we are upon; and indeed the only Prayer in the Book, that can pre­tend to any footsteps of Antiquity, so high as the fourth Age. Now suppose the Bishop of L. should be accused, in that prayer to prefer such a petition for the Primate of Ireland, Domine praesta I., ut recte credat; what course would the Bishop take, to clear himself of this accusation? Would not the dullest of his Chaplains appeal to the prayer it self, being invariably used, as the best way to demon­strate [Page 64] the charge was false; which yet the Bishop of Cyprus, supposed to be just in the same circum­stances, did not offer at? Nay he denies not, &c. ut supra.

But let us proceed with his answer; quando au­tem complemus orationem secundum ritum mysterio­rum, & pro omnibus, & pro te quoque dicimus, cu­stodi illum qui praedicat veritatem. Vel certe ita, tii praesta Domine, & custodi, ut ille verbum praedicet veritatis; sicut occasio Sermonis se tulerit, & habu­erit oratio consequentiam: He sayes, they prayed for all Pastors (all that preached) which shews it to be the general prayer, wherein they were wont [...]. Clem. Const. l. 2. c. 51. vid. Lest 190) and for him also; but in what expressions they did it, he is doubtful. It is but one article of this prayer he gives an account of. It is the same thing (preaching the truth) and the same persons, (those that preached) he is telling us they prayed for. And they prayed but for the same persons and things once in the same prayer; and yet he cannot tell de­terminately what words they used, as appears evi­dently, by his disjunction vel.

Now Epiphanius celebrated the Eucharist himself thrice a week, as he thought by Apostolical order; so he tells us, expos. fidei, p. 110. [...]. Vid. Albas.

And if he had celebrated it in a set form, could he have been to seek for the words he used so often? since if either his Memory, or the Prayer-Book [Page 65] would have helped him; and one of them would have helpt him to the precise words, if they had then confined themselves to any, and had had their Prayers either by heart or in a book; he would ne­ver have writ so doubtfully of them, when his business was to satisfie a captious Adversary.

Would there be any need, for one who has the prayer for all states by heart, or has the Service-Book before him, to express by a distinction, what is there desired for Bishops, Pastors and Curates? No more would Epiphanius, if the same mode of praying had been then in use.

To this prayer we may refer what we find of Jerom, who complains that in his time, the obla­tions ^a were publickly mentioned by the Deacon, and the names of the offerers recited, yea and the quantity of what they offered, and also of what they promised to offer, in Ezek l. 6. c. 18. Pub­lice in ecclesia Diaconus recitat Offerentium nomina, tantum offert ille, tantum ille pollicitus est. Which he sharply censures, Placent sibi ad plausum Populi torquente eos Conscientia; they delight in the ap­plause of the people, whiles their Conscience tor­ments them. The like complaint he makes in Jer. c. 11. Nunc publice recitantur offerentium nomina, & Redemptio peccatorum recitatur in laudem. Now [Page 66] who can believe, that a practice, worthy of so sharp a rebuke, was publickly prescribed; or if it had been prescribed for common use, would have been so severely censured? And therefore, what can be thought, but that those, who officiated, were left to their liberty, to use what expressions they thought fit? If there had been a rule or pre­scription, limiting them to any thing better; he would have taken notice of it; and of this usage, as a transgression of the established order.

Pertinent to which is this passage of Augustine; August. de Civit. l. 22. c. 8. Vir Tribunitius Hes­perius qui apud nos est, habet in territorio Fussulensi fùndum Zabedi appellatum, ubi cum (afflictione ani­malium & servorum suorum) domum suam Spirituum malignorum vim noxiam perpeti comperisset, rogavit nostros (me absente) Presbyteros, ut aliquis eorum illo pergeret, cujus orationibus cederent. Perrexit un [...], obtulit ibi sacrificium corporis Christi, orans, quan­tum potuit, ut cessaret illa vexatio; Deo protinus miserante cessavit. Bl. 286. Vid. in Aug. tom. 2. p. 686.

As also what Chrysostome saith, viz. [...]. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom. 41. p. 524. And elsewhere, [...], and after, [...]. Chrys. in Hebr. hom. 15. p. 515.

Those who had liberty, when they were offer­ing supplications and praises, in the celebration of the Eucharist, to pray as occasion was offered, and to put up such Petitions as they thought fit, upon [Page 67] particular emergencies, were not confined to set forms in that administration.

Cyprians occasional Praises and Prayers, in sacri­ficiis, upon Lucius return from banishment; Hic quoque in sacrificiis atque orationibus nostris, non cessantes, Deo Patri, & Christo filio ejus Domino nostro, gratias agere, & orare pariter & petere, ut qui Perfectus est atque proficiens, custodiat & persi­ciat in vobis confessionis vestrae gloriosam Coronam, qui & ad hoc vos fortasse revocavit, ne gloria esset occulta, si foris essent confessionis vestrae consummata martyria. Cypr. epist. l. 3. ep. 1. p. 53.

Add to this, what may be observed in Ambrose, Epist. 33. Ad Marcellinam sororem. He, whiles he was celebrating, about 387. Spond. p. 2. (missam facere caepi) and imployed, as I suppose, in this Prayer ^* (dum offero) understanding what the Arrians were doing, and what had befallen Castu­lus; he orders the Prayer suitably to that occasion; Orare in ipsa oblatione Deum caepi, ut subveniret. [Sequente die, erat autem dominica, post lectiones at­que tractatum, dimissis catechumenis, symbolum ali­quibus competentibus in Baptisteriis tradebam basilicis, illic nunciatum est mihi comperto, quod ad Portianam Basilicam de palatio Decanos misissent (Ariani) ut vela suspenderent, Populi partem eo pergere. Ego tamen mansi in munere; missam facere cepi. Dum offero, raptum a Populo cognovi Castulum quendam, quem Presbyterum dicebant Ariani, orar [...] in ipsa obla­tione Deum caepi, ut subveniret.]

He celebrating this Ordinance, and while he was praying before the distribution, dum offero, having notice what the Arrians were doing at another Church; he applyes himself in this Prayer to that particular occasion; Orare in ipsa oblatione Deum caepi, ut subveniret; which one, that had been fet­tered with prescribed Forms, could not have liber­ty to do.

Such occasional Petitions, with Thanksgivings of like nature, were used by Cyprian, in sacrificiis, in these administrations, as appears (Ep. 4. l. 2. Ad Mosem & Maximum, p. 41.) Nor can this be un­derstood, of some general expression constantly used, comprizing Lucius with others; for the oc­casion was particular, and such as was not incident every day. And besides, as it had been a vanity, to tell him of that, which he knew before, being well acquainted with the supposed common form. So it had been something worse, to speak of that as a particular respect to him, when it no more re­spected him, then others.

Proceed we to the third prayer, viz. that for Blessing or Sanctifying the Elements, (called the prayer for Consecration) which consisted much of Thanksgiving; and from thence this Sacrament, as is thought, came to be called the Eucharist. It is of this, that Justin Martyr gives an account, in the words alleadged by others, [...]; the President, in like manner, as before, prays and gives thanks, according to his ability. This praying, according to his ability, or as he was able, plainly excludes all praying by Forms prescribed, or composed for [Page 69] him by others, if he either had ability; (which none question in the ^b Pastors of those times) to compose, or was able to conceive a prayer himself.

Many several ways are taken to evade this; no way of one, it seems, satisfying another amongst themselves; by which we may guess, what satis­faction they are like to give to others.

^c One tells us, it is a complement of Civility, as when we say, Ago gratias, non quas debeo, sed quas possum; or quantas possum maximas. But, not well pleased with this (it seems) himself, (at which we need not wonder) he tells us (which will no more please others) of some, (Learned too) who understand it of giving God thanks, with as loud a voice, as he is able; [...].

^d Another brings an instance, where [...] is thought to be applyed to a Form; This is in Gre­gory Nazianzen, [...], come let us, as we are able, sing a Triumph, the Song which Israel sometimes sung, upon the overthrow of the Egyp­tians in the Red Sea. But here, by [...], the Song which Israel sung, we need no more un­derstand the very same words of that Song, then Rev. 15. 3. We are to understand the same by the Song of Moses. Which Song of Moses, those [Page 70] who had got the Victory over the Beast, are said as expresly to sing, ( [...]): And yet, that which they sing, consists quite of other words, as appears, ver. 3. 4. And therefore well might D. H. give us leave, (as he doth) to conceive, by the Song of Moses, ano­ther Song after that pattern. And so we may war­rantably, by the Song, which Israel sung, in Na­zianzen.

The Learned Remonstrant sayes, in answer to this, that in Justin Martyrs time, they prayed ac­cording to their ability, and yet had a publick Li­turgy, as we have, though ours pray according to their ability: (meaning, I suppose, before and after Sermon.) And so he grants (if I understand him) that they used no publick Liturgy, in cele­brating or consecrating the Eucharist; (for of the Prayer for sanctifying the Elements the Holy Mar­tyr speaks it); and thereby yields all that we now alleadge it for, and in effect all that we desire: Since it will be easie to satisfie the World, that, if they used no publick Liturgy, no prescribed Forms of Prayer, in this part of Worship, they used none, in any. And [...],Anonym. p. 16. in this very passage, rendered by them­selves in like manner as before; gives us notice, that as they prayed here, so in like man­ner they prayed in the other parts of Worship, which he had given account of immediately be­fore, in Baptism, in the Lords Supper, in all [...], according to their ability, without any pub­lick, any prescribed Liturgy.

Another, of great Learning, apprehending, it seems, that, to grant they prayed according to their ability, is to yield all; makes much difference betwixt [...] and [...] And to shew it, explains the Greek by Hebrew, and Justin Mar­tyr by Maimonides. I suppose, it will satisfie others as well, to have an account of this phrase, by the Greek Glossaries, or Justin Martyr himself. How much difference there is between them, Pha­vorinus shews, when he explains [...] by [...]. His words are [...]. So that, ac­cording to him, [...] is a defective phrase, which, when it is represented intire, must be ex­pressed by [...]. Let me add that, in [...], likewise [...] is to be understood, when not expressed, and all our abilities (as to parts, though not to degrees) there included; for when any of our abilities, for a work we undertake, is not ex­ercised, and so contributes not to it, we do it not [...]. Answerably, Chrysostome uses [...] and [...],page 206. ver. 20. as phrases equivalent, in Gen. hom. 27. And elsewhere in these words, [...]. Tom. 6. p. 759. edit. Savil. What he had expressed by [...], he explains by [...]. And so they differ, no more then the Latin phrases, pro viribus, and pro facultate; by which Camerarius and Donnaeus render [...], and quantum possum, or quantum in me est, by which others render [...].

But Maimonides may make the difference evi­dent: Let us see how. He tells us of one pro­ceeding in discourses, tending to the humiliation of the people, according to his ability, until he hum­ble their hearts, and they return perfectly.

It is supposed, that if Justin Martyr had been to express this, he would have used the phrase [...] not [...]: (Rambams Preacher, ma­king use of his own abilities and expressions in his Discourses, which the former phrase, it seems, may include, but not the latter). Well, but J. Martyr, in this very Apology, hath a passage just parallel to this; where heApol. 2. p. 157. speaks of the discourses the Christians used, tending to the Conversion of the Heathen; and they proceeded therein [...], not [...]. Therefore, both by the word and the figure of him that appeared, we ex­horting you, as we are able, know we are unac­countable for the future, although you believe not. So Justin Martyrs [...], is no other, then our Authors [...]; and the [...] in him prayed, just as he in Maimonides preached; using his own abilities, invention, expressions in praying, as the other did in preaching. And thus much our Author must yield, if he will stand to Justin Mar­tyrs, or his own Discourse.

And others in reason will be content, that the Eminent Martyr shall shew us his own meaning. The Christians, in those Discourses (he mentions) [Page 73] whereby they endeavoured to bring the Heathen to the Faith of Christ, used their judgment, their in­vention, and certainly their own expressions. They imployed all their abilities in this work; and this was [...]; by which we may un­derstand, if we will admit him to explain him­self, what he means, by [...]. And how well, they represent his meaning, who will have him to intend hereby, neither less nor more, then earnestness in praying.

Hereby I suppose it clear enough, notwithstand­ing all endeavours to obscure it; that the princi­pal Prayer, in the most solemn part of publick Worship, in those times, was no prescribed Form. Nor was it any such Form Two Hundred Years after, as appears by that of Basil; who tells us plainly (in the latter end of the fourth Age) that no words of such a Prayer were left in writing by any Holy Men. [...]. Thus rendered by Erasmus; Invocationis verba, cum conficitur panis Eucharistiae, & poculum benedictionis, quis Sancto­rum in scripto nobis reliquit? Which of the Holy Men have left us in Writing the words of a prayer, at the Consecration of the Eucharistical Bread, and the Cup of Blessing ^e? By this it is evident, they were so far from having any prescribed Forms, in Consecrating the Eucharist, as they had not so much as the words of any such Form in Writing, [Page 74] to his time, who lived, according to Petavius, till 379.

It will be easily granted, by the Zealots for pre­scribed administrations, that there never was any Liturgy, wherein there was not a Form for Con­secration (since they think any part of a Liturgy may be more tolerably omitted then this; and those that officiate had better be left at liberty any where, then here) and they will shew us such a Form, in all Liturgies extant, Modern or Antient, or pre­tended to be Antient) therefore they cannot reason­ably deny, while there were no such Forms in Wri­ting, there were no such Liturgies; and so none in Basils time.

By this also we may discern, what sentence ought to be passed upon those Liturgies, which go under the names, of Peter, Mark, James, Clemens and Basil himself too. In them, the mysteries are clearly described; which, he sayes, the Ancients thought themselves highly concerned to keep se­cret. And there we have (as a most necessary part of them) the Form of Consecration in Wri­ting; which, he sayes, no Holy Man ever left in Writing.

In that, ascribed to him, the forgery is more im­pudent. He having declared his high approbation of the Antients practice, in not committing any such thing to Writing; and upon such reasons, as obliged himself, as much as any, not to run counter to them herein. He, with them, thought the [...], the reverence due to these my­steries [Page 75] hereby secured; and another course the way to render them despicable, [...]; as is evi­dent by his discourse, in the place alleadged; [...].

Their Prayers at the Eucharist were long ordi­narily, so in Justin Martyrs time, [...] Apol, 2. p. 162. Not like those of the Monks in Egypt. Pauli 300 a day [...] forheads. Soz. 397. Moy­ti [...] 50. p. 396. So in Chrysostom, [...]. De Sacerd. orat. 3. p. 16. And elsewhere he says, it required a greater confidence then Moses and Helias had, to pray in this ministration, [...], p. 46. And why such bold­ness was needful, if they had the Prayer in a Book before them, I apprehend not. However, those that were usually large in this Prayer, were some­times brief, when there was occasion; and perform­ed it, [...]; which is a clear evidence, they were not tyed to a set Form, but were left to use their discretion; and ordered their Pra [...]er over the Elements, so as to be briefer or more inlarged therein, according as they were disposed, and as occasion required.

Marcion imitated the Christians herein, [...], &c. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 9. in Epipha. l. 1. tom. 3. Hier. 34.

This Prayer, of old, consisted much of Thanks­giving. Chrysostom gives an account of some par­ticulars, for which they gave thanks. And having mentioned as many, or more, then are to be found in any Eucharistical Form, either in the Mass Book, or our Service Book, adds, cum his & cae­teris hujusmodi gratiarum actionibus accedimus, in 1 ad Corinth. Homil. 24. implying, they were not confined to those specified, but inlarged themselves in such like particulars according to discretion. But I insist not on this, the former evidence is sufficient.

[...], p. 396. After he had said, [...]

Gregory Bishop of Nazianzen, Father of Gre­gory called the Divine, having been much weaken­ed by a Feaver, but very desirous to partake of the Lords Supper; by the help of his Maid, he gets to Church, [Narrat Nazianzenus, Patrem suum Sa­cerdotem ardentissima & diuturna febri exhaustum, ab ancilla aliquando Synaxis tempore deductum manu in coetum ecclesiasticum, in quo pro more caenam, sed paucissimis & quibus tum per morbum potuit, verbis consecratam, aliis & distribuerit, & ex ea partici­parit ipse quoque. Reversum vero ad lectum, ciboque parumper ac somno refectum melius statim habuisse, &c. Orat. in funere patris, cent. 4. p. 421.] and there [...]. [Page 77] [...] ^f; lifting up his feeble hands in Prayer, he chearfully celebrates the mysteries, with and for the people, with very few words, such as his weakness would admit; but (as seems to me) with a most vigorous soul; and afterwards, [...], &c. And this he had from the Holy Ghost, perceived by him, but not discerned by those that were present: Where, if [...] refer to [...], which seems most congruous, he tells us those few words, wherewith he celebrated, were suggested to him by the Holy Ghost; and so nei­ther by a Book, nor by his Memory. But I need not insist on that. By the former expression it is evident, that he was briefer, and used fewer words in his Prayers, at this time, before the administra­tion, then he was wont to do, when in Health. Now they that, in celebrating this Ordinance, and Blessing the Elements, do pray sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, as their strength will serve them, are far from confinement to a certain number of words, which is the thraldom of prescribed Forms.

For further evidence, that these, and other parts of the Eucharistical administration, were not under the restraint of prescribed orders, in the beginning of the fifth Age; let that be observed, which we meet with in the Epistle of Innocent the 1. to De­centius, [Page 78] written an. 416. to satisfie him (who was Bishop of Eugubium) concerning many severals, which were then, it seems, not determined, but under consultation and inquiry; so c. 8. San [...] quia de hoc, sicuti de caeteris consulere voluit dilectio tua.

Particularly, it was inquired, what place in the Eucharistical office should be assigned to the osculum pacis; whether ante, or post confecta mysteria, be­fore or after the Consecration of the Elements. Which Innocent satisfies, not by wondering that he took no notice of the prescribed order, though (since he was a Bishop in his Precinct, and calls Decentius Clergy Clericos nostros, c. 8.) he might justly have wondered at it, if there had been any such prescript. But by reason, cap. 1. Pacis oscu­lum dandum est post confecta mysteria, ut constat po­pulum ad omnia, quae in mysteriis aguntur, atque in ecclesia celebrantur, praebuisse consensum, ac finita esse pacis concludentis signaculo demonstrantur.

It was also matter of consultation and inquiry, whether the names of the Offerers should be reci­ted before or after Prayer, made over the oblation, cap. 2. Whereby it appears there was not then, so much as any common authorized direction for the order and method of their Eucharistical admini­stration; (much less any prescribed Forms or Modes; for if they had not so much as a directory, how far were they from such a Liturgy as is now contended for?) If Decentius had known any such established order, his enquiry had been needless, and so had Innocents determination been. He might have referred him to the prescribed order, as our [Page 79] Prelates would have done in the like case; and said to him, as he does to two other Bishops, ep. 5. in Crab. 410. concerning the Canons of the Church, Ecclesiasticorum Canonum norma nulli debet esse in­cognita Sacerdoti, quia nesciri haec a Pontifice satis est indecorum; maxime quia a Laicis religiosis vi­ris & sciatur, & custodienda esse ducatur: Yea, and judged him unworthy to be a Prelate in his Province, who would make a question of that, which the Wisdom and Authority of the Church had already determined. But there is neither men­tion of, nor reference to any such order, nor any resentment of his calling it in question. He tells him indeed, it was superfluous; not because it was already determined, but because his own prudence might discern, what was most convenient to be done in the case; quod superfluum sit, & ipse per tu­am prudentiam recognoscis.

In the conclusion, he hopes, that in these, and other such like particulars, which, if determined, amount to no more then the directive part, or Ru­brick of a Liturgy; Decentius may instruct, and give some order to others, which they may imitate, not strictly conform to; Erit autem Domini poten­tia, id procurare, ut tuam ecclesiam, & Clericos nostros, qui sub tuo Pontisicio divinis famulantur officiis, bene instituas, & aliis formam tribuas, quam debeant imitari.

Where it is observable; 1. At this time, there was no setled Form or Order in that Church. 2. The Order he hopes for, if it comprize all the particulars in the Epistle, comes to no more then a [Page 80] Direction or Rubrick. And 3. This designed for imitation, not for strict Conformity.

And what liberty there was in those times; and how far they were from uniformity, appears by the beginning of that Epistle. Si instituta Ecclesi­astica, [...]t sunt a beatis Apostolis tradita, integra vellent servare Domini Sacerdotes, nulla diversitas, nulla varietas, in ipsis ordinibus & consecrationibus haberetur. Sed dum unusquisque, non quod traditum est, sed quod sibi visum fuerit, hoc aestimat esse te­nendum; inde diversa in diversis locis vel ecclesiis aut teneri aut celebrari videntur; in Crab, tom. 1. p. 452. While every one judges, that is to be kept, not which is delivered, but which seems good to him; here are seen various tenets, and modes of Celebrating, in the several places or Churches. He speaks as if there were as many ways of Celebra­ting, An. 416, (when this Epistle was writ,) as there were places or Churches; and this variety, in Ordinibus & Consecrationibus, which are his words immediately before, and is (if I understand him) both in Ordering their Worship, and Conse­crating the Mysteries.

It seems, this pleased not Innocent; the chara­cter given him by Erasmus makes that no wonder; Saevus potius, quam eruditus, & ad damnandum po­tius, quam docendum instructior; in Epist. 96. in 2 tom. August. Those of least worth, when they get power, are usually most narrow spirited and imperious.

As for the traditum est, which he opposes; if he mean by it any Apostolical Tradition; he al­leadges it with the same fidelity, as he mentions Antient Tradition for the Roman Supremacy, Epist. 91. to the African Fathers; and as his next Successors, Zosimus, Boniface, Caelestine, alleadged a Canon of Nice to a Council at Car­thage, for the same purpose.

Object. You take notice of traditum est, which was something that ought to have been observed, and would have left no such liberty.

Answer. Whatever be meant by his tra­ditum est; it was no authoritative general or­der, injoyning all to use the same words in Prayer; for if there had been any such thing, it would not have been universally dis­regarded.

If there had been any thing delivered, against such freedom in Celebrating, by Antient or Mo­dern Authors, worthy of observance; it would have been taken notice of, by some of those who used this liberty, as well as by Innocent; who had many contemporaries not inferiour to him­self: Else that Age was very unhappy; since nothing of eminency appeared in him, (nor in the Roman Bishops generally of those times) but his great place, if that impartial Critick mistake him not, & dictionem, & ingenium, & eruditio­nem tali dignam Praesule desiderare cogimur.

Yet he, ambitious to have all dance after the Roman Pipe, though as yet it gave herein no cer­tain sound; (and indeed their stickling about this and the Supremacy, was to little purpose for one Age or two) makes that matter of com­plaint, which was far from being so with his bet­ters, both then and in better times. (Vid. Cypr.) But however he resented it; he hath left us evi­dence, that in his dayes, as elsewhere, so in Italy, every one held his own way, even in ^g Consecrationibus, and Consecrated as he thought fit. And in fine, there is reason to think, this Bishop was not so much offended, because they did not use the same words in Celebrating and [Page 83] Consecrating; as because they did not use the same Rites and Order; for in these, that Epistle of his is most concerned.

And further, I can see no probability, that at Rome it self, there was any setled, (much less imposed) Form of Consecration, before ^h that mentioned by Gregory, lib. 7. epist. For if any of the former Bishops had left behind them any such Prayer, and commended it to be used by that Church for this purpose; it is not credible, that it would have been recited for the novel composition of such an obscure person, of whom we can know nothing by knowing his name. Gregory tells us, that Prayer, (or Canon, as he also calls it) was made by Scholastious, who, as it is most probable, ⁱ lived about his own time. Some Writers of the Popes Lives, and others, [Page 84] ascribe indeed several parcels of that Canon to Bishops before Gregories dayes; one to Alexan­der, another to Siricius, another to Leo, (nor find I more) but whether they knew better, at such a distance, or ought to have more credit then Gregory, is easie to determine. And if those parcels be examined, it will appear, they are nothing to the purpose, or else later then the sixth Age. This form of Scholasticus, Gregory having ^k altered it as he thought fit, and add­ed the Lords Prayer to it; (which, though it were used no where publickly, but in the Eu­charistical Office, in any place; yet not in that it seems, at Rome, till he introduced it) made use of it in that Church; where, by custom, it came to be setled, but not by rule, in his time at least. For, that he neither imposed it, nor had a mind to impose it, is apparent, by what he writes to our Austin; who, having men­tioned [Page 85] the various ^l modes of Celebrating the Eucharist in several Churches, particularly the Roman and the French; with a design to know his sense thereof, and which he would have him follow.

That part ascribed to Alexander by Platina and Durand, hath nothing of Prayer in it; be­ing only a rehearsal of the words and actions, used in the institution of this Sacrament; and so is impertinent.

That fathered upon Siricius, Communicantes &c. is not found in the Roman order; which Bellarmine sayes contains the antient Canon in­tirely, de miss. l. 2. c. 20. p. 828. and so is a patch added some hundreds of years after Syri­cius; when Rome was so degenerated, as to pre­fer Mary before Christ.

That attributed to Leo, Hanc igitur oblatio­nem servitutis nostrae, &c. is a patch added long after, as M. Moulin of Mass, p. 295. observes. These words, of our Servitude, for we thy [Page 86] Servants, shew manifestly, that this Prayer was added unto the Mass in a barbarous Age, where­in they did say, Placuit nostrae mediocritati subti­liter intimare vestram fraternitatem; of which phrases are stuffed the Epistles of the Bishops, and Clergy-men of the seventh Age, and others following.

Gregory, in his answer to Austin, (who was his Creature, and whom he might have led into any conformity with a beck,) is so far from in­joyning him, to conform to what was used at Rome, that he does not so much as advise it; nay he perswades him to a course inconsistent with any restraint; and will have him use his liberty, in making choice of what he saw best, in any of the differing Churches, and if he found any thing, which might be more pleasing to God, plus omnipotenti Deo possit placere, then what was used at Rome, to prefer that. (Which was suitable to his Maxim, in una fide, nihil efficit sanctae ecclesiae diversa consuetudo): Where there is one Faith, there's no hurt to the Church by diversity (m) of usages; intimating, that he was not so fully satisfied with the Roman mode; but that he had room to think, the way of ano­ther Church might be more pleasing to God; which was in reason sufficient, to restrain him from imposing it on Austin, or others. And the⁶⁹ [Page 87] free course he would have Austin take, was not only his advice, but his practice: For when it was objected to him, that he followed, even in this administration, the customs of some other Churches, particularly of the Greek; his answer signifies, that he would not be so circumscribed by the customs of Rome, but when he saw any thing ⁿ good, in any other of the inferiour Churches, he was ready to imitate it.

And, as Gregory did not impose the Roman Canon, or form of Consecration on Austin, nor would have him prescribe it to others: So Au­stin, though rigid and imperious enough, did not offer to impose it on the Brittains. He re­quires of them, but conformity in three things only, as Beda relates that transaction, whereof this was none ^o. But, if he had insisted on [Page 88] this, he had found no more complyance herein, then in the other: For the Brittains and Scots, were not only ^p enemies to the Roman use in the Eucharist in Gildas time; but were adverse to, and unacquainted with any uniformity, as in Celebrating the Lords Supper, so in other parts of Worship; and had no prescribed Li­turgies for such uniformity long after. Which is manifest, by what Bishop Ʋsher, the most Learned of our Bishops, affirms of the Irish, (who with the Scots,) as he tells us, (Epist. Dedic.) differed little or nothing from what was maintained by their Neighbours the Britains ut p. 98. ‘It is sure (says he) that in the suc­ceeding Ages, no one general form of Divine Service, was retained; but divers rites and manners of Celebration, in divers parts of this Kingdom; until the Roman use was brought in at last, by Gillibertus, and Mala­chias, and Christianus, who were the Popes Legates here, about five hundred years ago. Relig. of Irish, cap. 4. p. 31.’So that the Irish [Page 89] for above eleven hundred years (and the Brit­tains and Scots, if not so long, yet long after Austin) retained such liberty herein, as the Church antiently injoyed in all ^q quarters of the World. And when Gillibert, one of those Roman Legates, rails at those various ^r modes of administring Worship as Schismatical, and such wherewith all Ireland had been deluded: He does no more, then those (whom a better prospect of things, in later and clearer times, might have made wiser) who are ready still to brand that as Schism, which agrees not with their own novel conceits or orders, how corre­spondent soever it be to the general usages of the antient Churches. And whether of old, the Churches had any such custom, as to confine the administration of the Lords Supper to prescribed Forms of Prayer; let those, who are disinteres­sed, judge by the premises.

To proceed; The words in their delivery of the Elements were not of old prescribed, nor used in any unvariable Form. We need not go so high, for proof of this, as the sixth Age. Later and worse times afford evidence [Page 90] enough to satisfie us. Only, in our way, the observation of truly noble Du Plessis, as to the former Ages, is true beyond contradiction, inter dandum vero verba hujus mysterii significativa, [...] quaeque praeferebant, ita tamen, ut certis & statis sese non alligabant. De Miss. p. 145. And the vanity used herein, both by Greeks and Latins Churches, is worth our notice, as he tells us, Contra adversariorum Superstitionem, qui Sacramentorum, tum distribu­tionem tum Consecrationem, certis verbis adli­gare voluerunt; in reference to the Superstition of the Papists, (which it were to be wished they had kept to themselves,) who would have both the consecration and distribution of the Sacraments, confined to a set of words. p. 155.

Yet how Superstitious soever they were, in using their Canon as a charm, so as a word, a syllable might not be changed; more liberty was left and used, as to the words in the distri­bution of the Eucharist; even after Charles the Great had suffered himself to be abused, as the Popes Executioner, in forcing some uniformity according to the Romish orders, on some of his Subjects.

Agobardus, Arch-Bishop of Lions (famous, as for his opposition to Images, so for his indea­vours to reform the corrupt Service of those times) could not well like that common Roman Form. The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. since he was only for Scripture expressions [Page 91] in the publick offices; Cum praeter Scripturas ad­mittere in sacris officiis nihil vellet. Whether he was wisely or piously disliked for this; they, who have a due reverence for the Scripture, are more fit to be judges, then either Baronius or his Epitomator; ob nimiam suam scrupulositatem haud quam put avit consecutus gloriam. Sp. ad an. 831. n. 2.

The words, which Adrian the 2d. used in giving the Communion to Lotharius, were far from any prescribed Form. Post missarum so­lennia, sanctam ei Communionem porrigens, in haec verba illum allocutus est. Sp. ad an. 868. n. 4. Si innoxium te recognoscis a prohibito & interdicto tibi a Nicolao adulterii scelere; & hoc sixa mente statutum habes, ut nunquam diebus vitae tuae Wal­dradae pellicis tuae dudum a te repudiatae miscea­ris nefario concubitu; fiducialiter accede, & Sa­cramentum salutis aeternae tibi ad remissionem pec­catorum per futurum percipe: sin autem tua con­scientia te accusat, teque lethali vulnere saucia­tum proclamat, aut iterum redire mente disponis in maechtae volutabrum, nequaquam sumere prae­sumas, ne forte ad judicium & condemnationem tibi adveniat, quod fidelibus ad remedium praepara­vit divina providentia. In Regino & Aimonius. l. 5. c. 21.

The words, with which, the same Adrian delivered the Sacrament to the rest of the French, are neither the same with these now de­scribed, nor with those in the Missal (the words in that being but the tale of these) and the form [Page 92] changed (too as well as the matter) being ex­pressed hypothetically. Si Domino & Regi tuo Lothario in objecto adulterii crimine favorem non praestitisti, neque consensum tribuisti, & Waldradae aliisve ab hac sede Apostolica Excommunicatis non Communicasti; Corpus & Sanguis Domini nostri Jesu Christi prosit tibi in vitam aeternam. Id. ibid.

Long after this, Leuthericus Archiepiscopus Se­nonensis, in the delivery of the Sacrament, used these words; Accipe, si dignus es. Robert King of France checkt him for it, not because there­by he transgressed any established order; but because the King, (not well enough acquainted with the Apostles discourse, 1 Cor.) supposed there were none worthy to receive; cum tamen sit nullus qui habeatur dignus; whereas Leuthe­ricus his mode of distribution implyed, none that were not worthy should receive. As for Spondanus his inference, that this Bishop was no friend to Transubstantiation, because he deli­vered not the Eucharist in the words of the Missal, Corpus Domini Jesu Christi sit tibi salus animae & corporis, the Body of our Lord Jesus, &c. upon a supposition, it seems, that the Mon­ster they are in love with, is thereby countenanc­ed. Whether it is just or no, I leave those to consider, whom it concerns. Spond. ad an. 1004. n. 2.

To add no more, sure the words, wherewith Gregory the seventh took the Sacrament himself, and would have delivered it to the Emperour, [Page 93] cannot be found in any Mass-Book. They are thus represented by Spond. ad ann. 1077. n. 2. out of Lambertus, cumque Sacratissimam Eu­charistiam sumpturus, manu eam teneret, vocato Rege ac universa adstantium multitudine, conte­statum esse, eam se sumere in judicium criminum, quae Schismatici adversus ipsum promulgassent; ut si innocens esset, absolveretur ab omni suspicione; si vero reus, subitanea periret morte.

Or those of Paschal 2. who, cum in celebra­tione missae traderet Henrico Imperatori 5. Corpus & Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi: Do­mine Imperator, inquit, hoc corpus Domini naetum ex Maria Virgine, passum in cruce pro nobis, sicut Sancta & Apostolica tradit ecclesia, damus tibi; in confirmationem pacis, inter me & te, idque factum an. 1111. idibus Aprilis, teste Sige­berto. Cent. 12. c. 6. p. 886.

For Baptism, there is not any, the least rea­son to imagine, they were more confined to set Forms, in administring it, then the Eucharist. And therefore, where so little need to endeavour for a copious proof, we may be briefer.

The liberty the Antients took, to use seve­ral Forms in Baptism, with great variety, to the invariable use of which, those, that are for freedom in Praying, are willingly confined; signi­fies they used as much liberty in those Prayers.

I can find no more uniformity, in their Cele­brating this Sacrament, then the other. But [Page 94] enough may be easily found, to shew, that they were not, they would not be, tyed up to words and syllables. Even where varying might seem dangerous; they used variety of words, and thought an agreement in sense sufficient. And this is observable, as to the terms, wherein Christ delivered the Form of Baptizing, Matth. 28. Where sure, if any where, they would have been patient of confinement to all puncti­lios. This was accounted a Form prescribed by Divine Authority, Lex namque tingendi im­posita est, & forma praescripta est. Ite, docete Nationes, tingentes eas in nomen Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, sayes Tertullian, de Baptism. cap. 13. It was not thought, that any had so much authority to prescribe, as Christ; nor that any prescriptions were so punctually to be ob­served. And yet, even in this, they made ac­count, some liberty was left, and might be used; and used it was accordingly, as is manifest in their practice.

The first word, Baptizing, some used in the first person, ego Baptizo te, I Baptize thee; some in the second person, [...], be thou Baptized; some in the third person, [...], this Person, or this Servant of Christ is Baptized. Vid. Theod. lect. p. 167. Also they thought it as fit, to use in the Latin Churches tingo (a Native of the Latins) as Baptizo (an adopted word) So Cyprian, ep. 3. l. 4. Ite ergo, & docete Gentes omnes, tingentes eas in no­mine Patris, &c. & Epist. 3. l. 2. Yet some­times Baptizo, ep. ad Jobaian, p. So Tertul­lian [Page 95] ^s, in the place fore quoted, de Bapt. c. 13. and ad Praxeum, cap. 26. Novissime mandavit, ut tingerent in Patrem, &c. So Jerom and Au­gustine ^t render the words of Christ by tin­gentes. Voss. So they use mergo, or mergito for baptizo. Thus Hierom ^u advers. Luciferian. Velut in lavacro, ter caput mergitare; where the Greeks express by [...]. Basil de Sp. Sancto, c. 27. And Tertullian, ^w dehinc ter mergitamur, [...] ^x, Dionys. Eccles. Hier. c. 11. in Voss. They did not think, it seems, [Page 96] that Christ himself (whatever others take upon them) would tye them so precisely to his own words, but that they might have leave to change them for others, which changed not the sense.

The like liberty was taken, in changing the next phrase, [...] into [...], as 'tis in Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. p. 159, 160.

And the Latins, for in nomen (as it is in Tertull. de Baptis. c. 13.) in nomine, as in Cyprian, supra. A difference, which some count more then sylla­bical. Yet Tertullian varies more, when he leaves it (the name) quite out; which he does more then once: Novissime mandavit, ut tingerent in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, adv. Prax­eum, cap. 26. Ite ad docendas & tingendas nati­ones in Patrem, Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, de praescrip. c. 8. They thought it no variation of the rule, where the sense and design of it was observed, to change something of the expression. And would they presume to exact a more pun­ctual conformity to rules of their own making, then what they thought Christ required to his? Or would they pay more to any Humane Con­stitution, then they made account was due to the Divine? Their practice obliged them, to leave others as much, or more liberty then here they took; and neither to fetter others, nor be fet­tered by them, with words and syllables, when the great Law-giver had left them so free.^{80 81 82}

But proceed we to what may seem yet more con­siderable. Some thought themselves, not obliged to Baptize expresly in the Name of the sacred Tri­nity, [...], so as to name every Person as they are mentioned, Matt. 28. 19. but in the Name of Christ, or of the Lord Jesus, or of the Lord.

And this, supposed to be the Practice of the best times, hath great Advocates; Basil, l. de Spiritu Sancto cap. 16. defends it thus, [...], the naming of Christ is an ac­knowledgment of the whole Trinity: [...], p. 257. which are almost the words of Irenaeus be­fore him, Adv. Haeres. 1. 3. c. 20. p. 209. In Christi enim nomine subauditur, qui unxit, & ipse qui unctus est, & ipsa unctio in qua unctus est, & unxit quidem Pater, unctus est vero Filius, in Spiritu qui est unctio. For in the Name of Christ is understood, he that anoints, and he that is anointed, and the Unction with which he is anointed. And the Father indeed anoints, but the Son was anointed with the Spirit, who is the Unction.

Add to these, Theophylact, who affirms, [...], in Act. 2. That he, who is Baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ, is Baptized into the Trinity; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost being not parted. To the same purpose Ambrose also following Basil in the defence of it, Qui unum dixit, Trinitatem signavit. Si Christum dicas, & Deum Patrem, à quo unctus est Filius, & ipsum, qui unctus est, Filium, & Spiritum, quo unctus est, designasti.—si tamen id etiam corde comprehendas, &c. de Spiritu [Page 98] Sanct. l. 1. c. 3. If the Person was Named, so as the rest were understood, they thought the prescribed form sufficiently observed, tho' it was not verbatim repeated, but liberty taken, to change either the Words, or their order; so these great Persons following. And can we think they would take upon them to prescribe more imperiously, or would more punctually observe it, if others had imposed? So these excellent Persons judged, in reference to the form of Baptizing, which our great Lord delivered to us: And can we think, &c.—especially in Prayers, where varying is more tolerable, and the Prescribers of no Authority, in comparison of him who authorized the Form before us.

Some used it in Cyprian's time, Quomodo ergo qui­dam dicunt—modo in nomine Jesu Christi, ubi­cunque & quomodocunque Gentilem Baptizatum, re­missionem peccatorum consequi posse, p. 225. Ep. 73. ad Jubaianum. He allows it not indeed, but it seems those that were not of his opinion, for Re­baptizing of the Baptized by Hereticks, some of them differed from him in this; and before, p. 224. Non est autem quod aliquis ad circumveniendam Christianam veritatem Christi nomen opponat, ut di­cat, In nomine Jesu Christi, ubicunque & quomodo­cunque Baptizati, gratiam Baptismi sunt consecuti, &c. Fortasse Stephanus Romae Episcopus.

Others, tho' they expressed the three Persons in administring Baptism, yet did they not tie them­selves precisely herein to the ^a words of Christ, [Page 99] but inlarged upon them, adding something thereto, as the former detracted. This is evident in Justin Martyr, who thus represents the words they used in Baptizing, Apol. 2. p. 159. [...], In the Name of the Father of all things, and of our Lord God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, this washing with Water is perform­ed; and afterwards, with some variety in the latter clauses thus, p. 160. [...], ^b And in the Name of Jesus Christ, who was Crucified by Pontius Pilate, and in the Name of the Holy Ghost, who by the Prophets foretold all things concerning Jesus, he that is to be illuminated is Baptized. In which words are con­tained the regula fidei, the sum of the Confession of Faith, as he expressed it. And if they used the words of that rule in Baptizing, they tied not themselves to one Form of words in that admini­stration. [Page 100] For a Consession of Faith, in a common unvariable Form they had not in that Age, nor long after. All the Uniformity to be found herein, is a harmony in ^c

sense, while there is in words a great diversity. The variety of expressions, used by the Ancients (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. which you may see in Grotius upon Matth. 28. 19.) in giving an account of it's several Articles, make this manifest, they were not so strict and severe in any thing, as in the Rule of Faith. In other matters, tho' Ecclesiastical, they allowed more variableness and greater Lati­tude. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, says Tertullian, de Virgin. veland. and yet in these, were satisfied with such an Uniformity as consisted only in Sense, not in Words. To one Form of words in this nicest point, and where varying was [Page 101] most hazardous; they neither ^d limited others, nor would be confined by others, no nor by them­selves: We have seen this before in Justin Martyr, (Tertullian) and Ir [...]naeus (with others in Grotius) is also a very pregnant instance of it. ^e He gives several accounts of the rule of Faith, de Veland. Virg. which neither agree with what is given by others, in mode of expression, neither with one another; there being no coincidence in any one phrase obser­vable through the whole. And is it probable, that [Page 102] they who left themselves and others so much liberty about formulas of Creeds, would deprive others of it, or be bereaved of it themselves, in Forms of Prayer (in Baptism, or elsewhere) where there is much more reason for more liberty? How incredi­ble [Page 103] is it, That their Prayers were limited to a set of Words, when the regula fidei, which more re­quired it, had no such confinement? Sure, if they had judged any such limits requisite in any thing of this nature, they would have given them to that rule of Faith. No Prayers, Supplications, Lauds, Litanies, &c. could in their judgment require such strict, and precise, and unalterable bounds, as that which they counted and stiled immobilem & irreformabilem.

The Apostles Creed may be objected, but is sufficiently removed by the premisses. Those who can believe what pleaseth them, may receive the story of Ruffinus concerning it; but his faithfulness and credit is not so much with others, as to advance it above a Fable. And it seems incredible, that there should be such a Form among Christians, of the Apostles composing, and yet the Ancients, for above Three hundred Years, take no notice of it, yea take the boldness to vary from it; and, which is more, to prefer those of their own conception before it, on the solemnest occasions.

Or, if there were such a Form of the Apostles, and the Ancients would not confine themselves to it, as it is apparent they did not; much less would they be confined to Forms of Prayer, composed by ordinary Persons.

In the constitutions ascribed to the Apostles, the Creed to be used in Baptism, is exceeding ^f different from that called the Apostles, not only in Words, Phrases, Order, but in the omission of divers Articles, and the addition of others, vid. l. 7. c. 42.

Moreover, Basil ^g tells us, The Confession of Faith is conformable to the delivery of Baptism, and the Doxology conformable to the Confession of Faith; That they are all three much alike. That they Baptized as they had received, and believed accordingly as they Baptized, and gave glory just as they believed; that there was a necessary and inviolable coherence betwixt these, and that an in­novation in any of these, would destroy the whole, [...]; lib. de Sp. Sanct. cap. 27. p. 274. But he does not think the change of Phrase and Words therein is such an innovation, if it remain the same in sense, [...], for he himself used the Doxology very va­riously, and would not be bound up to one Form, in the expressing of but four or five Words. And by what liberty he took in this, shews, what might be taken in the rest. Two days before the writing of this Book, in Prayer with the People, [...], he used the Doxology two ways (both differing from that which is usual) as he tells us cap. 1. [...], Glory to God and the Fa­ther (adding) sometimes with the Son, together with the Holy Ghost; sometimes by the Son, in the Holy Ghost; but this is but a taste of his variety. He that will observe how it is used in this Book, and in the end of his Homilies, may find it diversified [Page 105] near forty several ways, and run almost into so many Changes, as so few words are capable of. One may think they are put to hard shifts for proof of the prescribed Forms in question, who are glad to make the antient Use of the Doxology one of their Arguments. We see it would not serve their turn, if it could be proved, that they were as much li­mited to Forms of Prayer in Baptism, as they thought themselves confined to the words of Christ, delivering the Form of Baptizing. Those that thought a [...], a conformity in sense sufficient, where Christ gives the direction, might with much reason judge this enough, or too much, when men only prescribe; and in cases too, where a greater Latitude is safer. Their practice, in the severals premised, shew, they knew no such pre­scriptions, nor would have honoured them with any more observance, or so much.

To proceed, There was a mode of Renunciation generally used in Baptism, and a general agreement to use the same in sense; and yet, as to Words and Syllables, a strange variety: When as here, if any where, a common rule injoining uniformity in Words might have been expected, and in such a Case, if in any, would have been observed. I have taken notice of more than twenty ^h varia­tions of this so short a sentence; and find no two of the many Antients who used it, to represent the usage of it to us, agreeing therein as to Words and [Page 106] [Page 107] Syllables; nor yet have I met with two instances, where the difference is not more than Syllabical: It may be others may meet with more; yet if [Page 108] more than two, amongst so many intending to ex­press the same thing, had used exactly the same Words, (and where other things besides a Rule might have rendered their expressions Uniform) it would have been no proof, that the Words had been prescribed; it would rather be strange, if in such circumstances, they should not casually fall into such an agreement without the conduct of any pre­scription. But since they are so far from observing the punctilios of a prescribed Uniformity, and va­ry herein so much, as one may wonder how so few Words could be contrived into such variety; it proves sufficiently, that they were not under any Orders, obliging them, to use precisely the same Words.

And thus we find not only those of the Greek and Latin Churches differing, or such as lived at a greater distance, and in the parts of the Empire, remotest one from another, but those of the same Country and the same Church, where, if any where, Uniformity is to be lookt for: We may observe it in Tertullian, Cyprian, Optatus, and Augustin.

Nor do several Persons only differ herein a­mongst themselves, but we may see in divers in­stances, one and the same Person express this usage variously; whenas, he that is not circumscribed by others, nor will be imposed on by the imperious, is constant to himself, many times, and varies not in the use of as many, or more Words, than this Form consisted of; and so it is represented by Cypri­an, Chrysostom, Jerom, Augustin, Ambrose, Origen.

Now, if in so short a sentence as this, and that universally used in some terms or other, with a ge­neral harmony as to the sense, and wherein also there is nothing of Prayer, and so none of that [Page 109] reason which there is for freedom in Praying, they were not limited, nor did tie themselves to a Sett of Words: Who can believe they were, or would have suffered themselves to be confined to an unva­riable Form of words, in Praying at Baptism?

And that there were none limited to any Forms of Prayer, is made evident, more directly by that of Basil, lib. de Spir. Sanc. cap. 27. where, men­tioning the several Prayers used in Baptizing, he declares there were none of them to be found in writing, [...], p. 271. We bless the Water in Baptism, and the Oyl used in Ʋnction, and the Party also Baptized; but out of what Writings? They had no Prayers for these se­verals, in or before his times, written; none found, none set down in writing; and how there could be prescribed Forms of Prayer, and yet no Prayers in writing, is not intelligible. There were no wri­tings injoyning them, That Prayers should be used for these purposes; much less therefore, what Prayers should be made use of, or in what Form of Words. For where the existence of a thing is not supposed, there's no giving rules for the mode of it, amongst those who are regulated by reason. They had then no Rules nor Prescriptions in Scrip­ture, or Councils, or Fathers, or any Church Li­turgies, for the use of such Prayers (much less for the Words of them) [...] reaches all. There was nothing for them in his time, but [...], silent and secret Tradition, in opposition to ( [...]) what is ⁱ Written; [Page 110] which is utterly exclusive of, and inconsistent with any such Rules or Prescriptions, and so quite clears the Church for all such prescribed Forms in Baptism, in all Ages till that day. And clear of them it was long after; for,

The Impostor, ^k who forged these Constituti­ons, under the name of Clemens, many Hundred years after the Apostles, and one Age atleast after Basil, tho' he set down Prayers for the Baptismal [Page 111] Office, yet he ties none to those Forms (no not when he pretends they were of the Apostles com­posing) nor to any other; but leaves all at liberty to Pray as they saw good, only to the same effect he would have them Pray. He requires not, that they should use those Prayers (of his) but such Prayers with a [...], his words are, l. 7. c. 45. [...]. For if some such Prayer be not made by the Godly Minister at each of these, he that is to be Baptized, goes into the Water only as the Jews, and parts with only the Impurity of the Body, not the Impurity of the Soul.

By which we may discern, what was the freedom, as to Prayer at Baptism (and consequently else­where) in those times when he writ (probably a­bout the latter end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth Age) when Forms through necessity were growing more common. Prayers to the same ef­fect [Page 112] would then serve the turn, as they now serve the Reformed Churches. He that appeared to the World about that time, in the vizard of Apostolical ^l Authority, would not by vertue thereof pre­sume to tie any, in administring Baptism, strictly to one Form, any one Form of Words; No, not to those Words, which he would have them believe, were formed by the Apostles themselves. The Apo­stles, as he personates them, gave liberty to wave their own supposed Forms, and think it well enough, if Prayers to the same purpose be used instead thereof. In all probability, if this Actor had laid his Scene in places and times, where more restraint had been tolerable, he would have represented it otherwise.

But there needs no other evidence, for this liber­ty in Baptismal Prayers, to any who are willing to see, than that in Augustin, de Bapt. contra Donat. l. 6. c. 25. where, examining the Allegations of the several Bishops in the Council under Cyprian, to Sedatus of Tuburbis, who pleads thus for the Re­baptizing of those Baptized by Hereticks; in quan­tum aqua, sacerdotis prece, in ecclesia sanctificata ab­luit peccata, in tantum Haeretico sermone, velut can­cere infecta, cumulat peccata: As the Water, by the Prayer of the Priest, in the Church is Sanctified to the washing away of sin; so by an Heretical Prayer, as by a Cancer, it is infected, to the increasing of sin.

Augustin Answers, Si non sanctificatur aqua, cum aliqua erroris verba per imperitiam precator effundit, multi non solum mali, set etiam boni fratres in ec­clesia [Page 113] non sanctificant aquam. If the Water be not Sanctified when he that Prayes, through unskil­fullness, utters some erroneous words; then, not only many evil, but good Brethren, in the Church do not sanctifie the Water. Multorum enim preces emendantur quotidie, si doctioribus fuerint recitatae, & multa in iis reperiuntur contra Catholicam fidem. For the Prayers of many are daily amended, if they be recited to the more Learned, and many things are found in them contrary to the Catholick Faith; (they were vitiosae preces, & in quibus aliquid per­versum, as he afterwards.) Now such prayers can­not be supposed to have been any common Forms, commanded, or used, much less prescribed by the Church. The course taken to redress this, was not a total prohibition of the Prayers they had chosen; nor the tying of such Ministers to the use of any common Form; no nor the commending of any such to their use: But (what divers Synods (of which before) had decreed) the Prayers, which such indiscreet persons made choice of, being re­cited to the more learned, were by them amended, and the errors being left out, they are left to use them still, (for the amending of them cannot be otherwise interpreted, than in order to future use:) And this course, as it is inconsistent with the impo­sition of any set Forms, so it argues forcibly, the Churches then had not in the administration of Bap­tism, so much as any common Form in free use; otherwise, instead of daily trouble to others and themselves, about correcting their very faulty Prayers; Why are not persons so intolerably in­discreet (who could not discern when a Prayer was Heretical) so much as advised to make use of the common Form? And finally, under what restraint [Page 114] can any fancy the more discreet and learned to have been in Baptizing; when the weakest and most imprudent had so much liberty therein? Nothing needs be more manifest, than that neither the pru­dent nor indiscreet, were then confined to prescri­bed Forms in the Ministration of Baptism.

And thus we have made it sufficiently evident, that in the Antient Church, the order for Admini­string the Sacraments (the Prayers especially used in their Consecration) were not prescribed; nor the Administrators thereof under any such restraint, as later and worse times thought fit for them. I might indeavour to give the like satisfaction con­cerning other parts of Worship, which were Ad­ministred by Prayers; and might do it now with more ease than this already done. But it is not needful, since those, who shew the greatest passion for the Forms in question, affirm, that in the Sacra­ments they were and are most necessary, and were first there used; and so must acknowledge, that when they were not in use there, they were no where used, nor any where counted needful: And besides, this Discourse grows long, (and so may be tedious) beyond what I expected or designed. I will therefore only add some few testimonies, which give evidence against such Forms in general, and will reach the particulars, as therein involved; easing my self and others thereby of a tedious and superfluous labour.

Begin we with Justin Martyr, one of the first Writers left us of unquestioned credit, after the Apostles times: Who, Apol. 2. p. 139. hath these words, [...] [Page 115] [...]. ‘We are not Athe­ists since we worship the Maker of all things, affirming, as we are taught, that he hath no need of Blood, Drink-offerings, or Incense; in all our Oblations, with Prayer and Thanksgi­ving, according to our ability praising him.’ In his time, they Prayed and gave Thanks according to their ability. Now certainly, theChrysost. in Eph. Hom. 6. p. 792, 793. abilities of the Pastors, at least, of those times, reached further without stretching, than the reading or re­citing of some Prayers, composed for them by others. They were persons ordinarily of greatest abilities amongst the Christians. When ordinary Christians were superiour to the Pastors of after times, they wanted not the knowledge of Divine things, nor the sense of their Spiritual condition, or their Peoples, nor a faculty to express tolerably what they knew and felt. They were not besot­ted by intemperance, nor had lost the use of their faculties for want of exercise, nor were their gifts shrivled up by a curse, because they did not im­ploy them: They had ability to frame their own Prayers, as well as to make their own Sermons; and if they confined themselves to Prayers made by others, they did not give Thanks and Pray, as the Holy Martyr says they did, [...], according to their ability, or as they were able. The phrase hath been sufficiently vindicated before; but be­cause it here occurs again, let this be added for fur­ther satisfaction. It is said, that it denotes not the exercise of abilities for Prayer, but earnestness in Praying, neither less nor more: But this is only said, without any proof, without any instance where it is so taken, either in Justin Martyr, or any o­ther. [Page 116] The best way to discern the import of it, will be to observe, how this and other of the same signification are used commonly in this or other Authors. Now Five hundred instances might be produced, wherein this expression, and others of the same import, do clearly denote the exercise of abilities for the work, to which they are applied. I will but give a taste hereof in a like case, preach­ing or writing, pastoral works, as Prayer is. In Justin Martyr, where he says, they did ^m exhort the Brethren [...], and when he tells Trypho he would make a collection of all the places of Scripture which concerned the millennium, he would make a ⁿ collection [...]. In Origen, when he says, the Christians instructed ^o many [...], and what Celsus alledged he would examine [...]. So in ^p Eusebius, when he tells us, the Bishops made panegyrical Orations [...], & de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 29. Likewise in Basil, when he speaks of Praising Gor­dius [...], forgetting his own ^q weakness, [Page 117] and says, he will explain ^r the words of the Apostle [...], and that the impiety (he is men­tioning) was elsewhere refuted [...], and that he had preached the day before [...]. Also in ^ſ Chrysostom, when he says it was ne­cessary he should [...], discourse of Prayer; and frequently ^t elsewhere.

It is evident, that in these passages, the phrases signifie, they used their own abilities, judgment, invention, expressions; in preaching, expounding, disputing, &c. And it would not be imagined, but that they denote the same when applyed to Prayer, in Justin Martyr and others, had not custom setled another mode of Praying than was used in those times, when abilities to Pray were counted a qualification as requisite for a Pastor, as ability to Preach; and more thought necessary to accomplish a Minister for publick Prayer (so great a part of his work) than a Child is capable of.

Who ever imagined, that by writing [...], or pro viribus, they meant no more, than the trans­cribing another man's Discourse; or by expounding or preaching [...], &c. no more was to be understood, than their reading or reciting another mans Sermon, &c. with what earnestness soever? This would be no better, than to offer plain vio­lence to their Words, and unpardonable injury to the Authors. And why is it not as intolerable, when they speak of Praying [...], to say they meant no more, than their reading or rehear­sing another mans Prayers with all earnestness; let those who are not [...], judge.

Nay, it cannot be denied, but these phrases do sometimes denote, when applyed to Prayer or Thanksgiving, the Exercise of personal abilities for Prayer; as when Chrysostom tells us, in Gen. Hom. 26. that Noah gave Thanks [...], (sure it was in no Form com­posed [Page 119] for him by another) and then exhorts to imitate him; and in the application shews how, viz. taking account every day and hour, not only of Mercies common to others, but particular and personal; yea and those which we observe not, [...]. (for all this could not be done in a stated Form) [...] p. 202. he adds, God made us rational, [...], therefore he gave us faculties, Souls and Tongues, [...], that he might be sensible of his favours, and [...], p. 203. And in the next Homily 27. we should endeavour [...], having always his bene­fits in our minds ( [...] that our memory may be helpful to us therein) tho' they be more than we can recount, [...], &c. For who can ( [...];) reckon up those which we have, those which are promised, and [...], those which we meet with every day, (so every day there's new matter of Thanksgiving) then enumerating abundance of particulars, p. 204, 205. and adding still [...], they can never be numbred. [...]; how can any Tongue of Man express them? [...], they transcend all human apprehension; yet will have us notwithstanding, remember, con­ceive, reckon them up, and express them as we are able, and would have us imploy mind, memory, tongue, all faculties, therein, as much as we can: for he adds again after all, we must [...], such Thanksgivings are according to the abilities of him who offers them. [...] (which I proved before to be the [Page 120] same with [...]) signifies that which is in­consistent with any confinement to a set Form, by our selves or others.

Basil also, giving directions how [...] cap. 1. p. 554. to Pray, premises, That there are two sorts or parts of Prayer, Thanks­giving or Praise of God with self abasement, and petition; then he adviseth to begin with the former, and therein to make choice of Scripture-expressions ( [...], which it seems was Basil's Formulary) after he has given something by way of Example, he adds [...], when thou hast Praised him (with expressions selected) out of the Scriptures, as thou art able (or according to thy ability) the same phrase with [...], and [...], then begin with self abasement; in which, after thou hast been large ( [...], p. 555.) then proceed to Petition. There he would have him beware of Praying for the severals he mentions, but to seek that which is prescribed or enjoyned; not in any Liturgy (for if there had been such, these directions had been needless, and if they should, and might use no other, ridiculous (yet some Mens fancies are so strong, as to stretch these, even to private Devotions;) but in the Scripture, and the Words of Christ (seek first the Kingdom of God, &c.) [...], and will have him careful in any wise, that his whole mind be ^u intent upon [Page 121] God, and him alone, and no where else ( [...]) which will be very hard for him, who, Praying in publick or private, hath his Book to mind.

By this we may also judge, what it is to Pray [...], or which is all one [...]. And to add no more, it cannot be supposed, that there was any prescribed Form of Prayer, for the Case which Augustin mentions, viz. ^w A House pos­sessed by the Devil; for the relief of which, he tells us, one of the Presbyters of Hippo Prayed, quantum potuit, a phrase equivalent to [...], and therefore it may be presumed, he Prayed there according to his ability. And why [...], in Justin Martyr, should not signifie the same, as in these forementioned instances, and be rendred ac­cording to their abilities, so as their Prayers should be understood to be the product of them; I can discern no reason at all, but because they who deny it, are loth it should be so.

Let us proceed; That of Tertullian, Apol. 1. c. 30. sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus, hath [Page 122] been pleaded by others, and not without reason. Bishop Hall in Answering it, when he was con­cern'd to be most reserved and cautious, so as to yield nothing, but what the words would extort, grants, The mode of Praying was not then under any superiour injunction, and so not prescribed. Bishop Bilson concluded from this passage (before it came into debate by the differing parties) that extemporary Praying was used in Tertullian's time, Christian Subject. Part 4. p. 617. rendering it with­out any ^x Prompter, as coming from the free motion of our own Hearts, and ascribing it to the extraordinary gift of Prayer then continued. (How reasonably may be considered elsewhere;) and this shews, it is not for want of evidence in the expres­sion, that this sense of it is since rejected by his followers, but from something else. I doubt not, but if it would have been serviceable another way, there would be no question, but this was Septimius's meaning, the Christians did Pray without any such Prompter, as the Heathen, because their hearts were their Prompters: or, as Bishop Bilson, because they Pray as their hearts move them. Prayers suggested to the Heathen by their Monitors, were suggested to the Christians by their own hearts; they had not their Petitions out of a writing, but out of their own Breasts.

The Gentiles Monitor, as Rigaltius on the place observes, did praeire preces de scripto. Amongst the Greeks, their Prayers were read out of a Book, as appears by Apuleius, describing a great solemnity [Page 123] amongst them, where their Monitor, whom they called ^y Grammatea, from a high Pulpit, de libro fausta vota precatus, Prayed out of a Book.

Amongst the Persians, Pausanias representing the rites of their Pyretheia, as they were used in Hiero­caesarea and Hypaepae, brings in the [...] ^z (who was a Priest, a Sacred person amongst them) thus Praying: ^a He coming into a place in the Temple, and having laid Wood on the Altar, first puts on his Sacred Habit, and then Prays to some God; and this Prayer he says [...], out of a Book.

For the Romans, Livy tells us, Numa gave them in writing, all that belonged to their Wor­ship; eique (viz. to Marcus the Chief Priest) om­nia sacra exscripta exsignataque attribuit, Dec. 1. l. 1. p. 16. Upon special occasions, the Decemviri transcribed their Prayers out of the Sibyls Books, (their extraordinary Ritual) Dec. 5. l. 1. p. 15. Pa­cem Deorum peti precationibus, quae editae ex fatali­bus libris essent. When they were distressed by Han­nibal [Page 124] sending Fabius's Picture to ^b Delphos, Apol­lo Pythius prescribed them a Liturgy in Writing; which he returning, recited out of that Writing; in which was contained, what Gods they should supplicate, and in what mode; and the Senate in­joyned an accurate observance of it. When Sci­pio Aemilianus was ^c Censor, the Scribe (their Prompter) at a Lustration, reads the usual Prayer, Ex publicis tabulis; Scipio misliking an expression therein, alters it, and orders the alteration to be made in the publick Writing, out of which it was to be read; and so reforms their Common Prayer Book.

Thus were the Devotions of the Heathen regu­lated; but the Christians, says Tertullian, (de­scribing them in opposition to the Gentiles) had no such Monitor, did need no such Prompter; their Prayers are not de Scripto, but de Pectore. In An­swer to this, thus much is granted, That the Chri­stians in those times prayed without Book; and so it is acknowledged, that those who read their pub­lick Prayers out of a Book, are therein nothing like the Antient Christians, but more resemble the Pa­gans in that mode of Praying, for which Tertullian [Page 125] here derides them. This cannot be denied, it seems; yet, which is the only shift left them, de Pectore, they will have to be no more than saying their Prayers by heart.

But this is not to Pray de Pectore, but de Memo­ria, not as their heart moves and prompts them, but as their memory serves them.

And this supposes, that in those times they had written Liturgies, and were wont to get their Prayers by heart; for which they should produce some expression, or intimation, or shew of proof, from some credible Author of that Age, before they take it for granted. I have yet seen no proof of it, and I am confident never shall.

Certainly, it was a hard task (and required so good a memory, as all cannot be supposed to have had, who were imployed therein) to get all the Prayers they then used by heart. Since the Chri­stians then continued, and principally in Prayer, sometimes Nine hours (and this twice every Week) in their ^d Stations; sometimes Twelve [Page 126] hours, as at their Fasts, besides what were usual at their Vigils, Festivals, and Lords-days Assemblies, at their Baptizings, Ordinations, reconciling Peni­tents, and other occasions; all requiring variety of Prayers.

And who can believe, their Pastors were then limited to written Forms in Praying, when the or­dinary sort of Christians were not tied to any Forms at all in Singing? There seems more reason for a restraint in Hymns, than in supplications; and those who are earnest for liberty in the latter, are well enough content to be confined to Scripture-Forms in the former. It's evident by Tertullian, that in his time, Christians had the liberty in their Church-Assemblies, to choose either such Hymns as they collected out of the Scripture, or such as were of their own conception. So heThornd. Serv. p. 293. tells us, describing their Love-Feasts; at which we are told, the Eucharist was Celebrated, Post aquam manualem, & lumina, ut quisque de Scriptura, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere, Apol. cap. 39. 9. And these, if we believe Grotius, extemporary ^e Hymns, and such used by others, both before, and after those times.

It is excepted, that Tertullian, in the place we have insisted on, speaks of private Devotions: But if they will have it of private only, any that considers [Page 127] the words, will see it evidently mistaken, Illuc suspicientes Christiani, manibus expansis, quia in­nocuis; capite nudo, quia non erubescimus. He shews Christians were unlike the Pagans, in their mode of Praying, for such reasons, as would not admit them to be alike any where, either in private or publick; since they thought themselves concerned to signifie, they were more innocent, and less con­scious of what was shameful, than the Heathen, as well in publick as in private.

This manner of Praying was continued in the following Age, as is evident in Origen, who de­clares it both of the Greek and Latin Churches, which divided betwixt them theContr. Cels. l. 8. p. 402. whole Christian World. They Pray­ed in his time, not only in their own Language, but also according to their ability, [...]. The Grecians in Greek, the Romans in Latin; and so every one in his own dialect, Prays to God, and Praises him, as he is able. Precan­tur Deum, & celebrant pro viribus. TheB. H. H. T. most learned and judicious, that have ap­peared in this Question for prescribed Liturgies, do yield, that if [...] in J. Martyr were duly rendred according to his ability, and be of the same import with [...], then the Prayers there mentioned were such as we say, viz. the issue of the Administrators abilities, not formed for him, nor imposed on him by others. Now [...], in Origen, is exactly correspondent to, and of the very same signification with, [...]: nor can it be better rendered than by, according to his ability, or which is all one, as he is able; and there­fore, [Page 128] that those Prayers mentioned in Origen were such, may be taken for granted; and those also which we find in the same Book, p. 386. where the expression is of the same sense, but comes near­er to the Form and sound of the other, which they yield is for us, [...], that one God, and his only Son both in Word and Image, we worship with Prayers, according to our ability, and honours, offering Prayers unto the God of the Universe, by his only Begotten. It is acknowledged, by the most zealous Friends of these Liturgies, that in the Apostolical times, there was a [...], an ability or gift of Prayer, inabling those who had it, to conceive their Prayers themselves; and the exercise of this gift or ability, in the New Testament,D. H. in Jud. 20. is [...], Jude, v. 20. and [...], Eph. 6. 18. But this, so expressed, they will have to have been an extraor­dinary and miraculous gift, as those of healing, pro­phesying, tongues, &c. Now the former (that there was a gift of Prayer) we acknowledge with them; but the latter (that it was extraordinary and miraculous) should not be granted without proof, being also inconsistent with other principles equally acknowledged, and with those Scriptures too now alledged. Not to take notice, that the gift of Prayer is not reckoned amongst those that were miraculous, where we have a particular account of them, Mark ult. 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10. 1 Cor. 14. It is granted by them, that, as all extra­ordinaryD. H. 586. 385. gifts were not conferred upon any one Person, except the Apostles; so [Page 129] no one gift was conferred upon all; this is plain in the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. 8, 9, 10, 11. particularly this gift of Prayer, is asserted to have been bestowed upon some one of the multitude, [...]. Soin Ro. 8. Chrysost. (whom alone, amongst the Antients, they have to alledge for it, as an extra­ordinary grace:) But all the believing Hebrews (all that are sanctified, to whom Jude writ, ver. 1.) are required to exercise this gift: ( [...]) and all the converted Gentiles at Ephesus to whom Paul writ, are exhorted by him, to exercise it, Eph. 6. 18. (and all other Christi­ans in them, if those Epistles be of general concern­ment.) Now it could not be their Duty to exer­cise it, if they had it not; and if they all had it, it was an ordinary gift, and continued to the Church in all Ages. And so Origen, in reference to this gift or ability, might well say, every one Prayed, [...], and [...], according to his ability: However, he that was able to con­ceive a Prayer himself, yet made use of Prayers formed by others, did not Pray as he was able.

Proceed we to the times ^f following: Basil [Page 130] in the beginning of his Tract de Spiritu Sancto, tells Amphilochius, that he lately Praying with the People, and concluding his PrayersHook. pol. l. 5. §. 42. with a Doxology, used variety of ex­pressions therein; (sometimes to the Father with the Son, together with the Holy Ghost; sometimes by the Son, in the Holy Ghost) and that offence was taken at one mode of his, expres­sing it, [...], cap. 1. p. 248. Hence it appears, Basil was not, would not be limited to the same words, in any the least part of publick Prayers, not in one clause, so short a clause, not in the con­clusion [Page 131] of a Prayer, where those, who vary in other parts, many times agree; not in a Doxology, where, those that are for more liberty elsewhere, can be content with less. He varies in this once and again, in several Prayers, and none of his va­riations fall in with the usual mode, (to the Father, and the Son, aend the Holy Ghost); nor did the fear of offence restrain him from using this liberty.

Now, if in such circumstances he would not be confined, in the part of a Prayer, to the invariable use of so short a clause, as the half of the Doxo­logy now used; would he be confined ^g himself, or confine others to the invariable use of whole Prayers? No, it is hereby evident, his times knew no such bonds; he used expressions, as to his Au­ditory seemed strange and unusual, which the words of a Common-Prayer Book could not have been.

Augustin, giving directions, how the Catechu­mens are to be instructed, adviseth the Catechists (Deo gratias particularly) to accomodate themselves to their several capacities; and when they are to [Page 132] deal with those of some learning and eloquence, to let them understand, that God minds not so much the expressions, as the inward affection; ita enim non irridebunt, si aliquos Antistites & ministros ecclesiae forte animadverterint, vel cum barbarismis & soloecismis Deum invocare, de Catechiz. rudib. cap. 9. p. 330. Tom. 4. pars poster. So they will not jeer, if perhaps they take notice, that some Bishops and Ministers of the Church, do invocate God with Barbarisms and Solecisms. Prayers, wherein there were Barbarisms and Solecisms, none will imagin them to have been prescribed by the Church; yet such were the Prayers both of Bishops and Ministers, in Austin's time.

Socrates, who lived in the middle of the Fifth Century, ^h and whose History reaches an. 439. gives us an account of the variety then used in Prayers, altogether inconsistent with any common [Page 133] prescribed Liturgy, l. 5. c. 21. p. 698. [...]. Generally, in any place whatsoever, and amongst all (the sorts of) Worshippers, there cannot two be sound agreeing to use the same Prayers. Now where there was diversity of Prayers every where, How could there be the use of one common Liturgy? where there was no [...], no agreement or concur­rence, in using the same Prayers in any place; How could there be one prescribed model? when there could not be found two, any where, using the same Prayers; Where were they to be found, that used the same Service-Book?

For the West, we may understand by Innocent's Epistle to Decentius formerly alledged, how far they were in the same Age, from being confined to one Form of Church-Service; when he tells us, every one celebrated, as pleased him.

And long after this, something of the Antient liberty is discernable, in the several Countries, which was retained in some of them, even after the imposing Spirit was rouzed and active. And by the remaining ruins, we may guess what it was, when it stood intire. At the time, when the Fourth Council of Toledo was held, an. 633. the Spanish Churches were not subject (tho' forwarder for such subjection than others) to imposed orders, for one Form of Worship; no not in the Sacraments. Even these in the said Churches, were cele­bratedCrab. Tom. 2. p. 196. in various modes, and in some of them unduely; as is expressed in the Preface to that Synod, In sacramentis divinis, quae diverso atque illicito modo in Hispaniarum Ec­clesiis celebrantur.

In France ⁱ they had Books for publick Ser­vice, in the Eighth Century; yet were they used at the discretion of those that officiated, who added or left out, what they thought fit; till Charlemaine, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, would have them reformed after the Roman guise; unusquisque pro arbitrio suo vitiaverat, vel addens vel minuens.

And in Germany, long after Boniface had been stickling to reduce it to the Roman uniformity, the whole Country was so far from submitting to any one prescribed order of Service, that in one ^k Diocess there were various modes of admini­string, particularly in that of Colen. And ^l Bruno, Bishop there in the middle of the Tenth Age, was indeavouring to reform this, as Church­matters, in those days, were wont to be reformed; diversitatem sacra peragendi in sua provincia corri­gens, ac ut eadem ubique esset ratio constituens.

And in Ireland, (with which the Britans and Scots symbolized) we shewed before, out of the [Page 135] great Ʋsher, That till the Twelfth Century, no one general Form of Service was retained; but divers rites and manners of Celebration were observed, till the Roman use was brought in, by the Popes Legates.

So that all along it is manifest, the uniformity aimed at, in the common prescribed Liturgies, was only the issue and darling of late, dark and degenerate times; an innovation upon the Churches usages, in better times, and an invading of her Antient Liberty; for which the Bishops of Rome were the greatest Zealots, designing therein the subjection of all other Churches to that of Rome; and gaining thereby, both an acknowledgment of the Papal Authority, from those who submitted to this Yoke, and an advantage of diffusing the Poy­son of her Superstitions, through the body of the Western Empire, where uniformity in Liturgy and Rituals, became a chief part of the uniform Apostasie of the latter times.

Thus we have gone through the disadvantages, of proving a ^m Negative: Let us now see, how they acquit themselves, upon whom the proof lies; affirming, That the Liturgies they contend for, have been ever, from the beginning. And here, if any where, it would be an easie matter, to give the [Page 136] World abundant satisfaction, that what they as­sert is true, if indeed it were so: He that takes notice, what clear and full evidence may be easily had, from the Writers of some one Country, in a part of the last Age, for prescribed Liturgies; or what convincing and unanswerable proof may be brought for them, from the few Writers, which were in part of the Eighth or Ninth Centuries, when they had got place in the World; may justly expect, that, from that multitude of writings, in those many Ages, which this question concerns; such ample and evident testimony, for imposed Forms, would be found by those who have laboured for it, as would have no place for the least doubt, but there were such in use all along, if they had been really, as is pretended, the usage of the Churches, from the Apostles times. And if no such thing be produced, by those, whose interest led them to ransack all antiquity for it; even this, if there were no more, will be a convincing argu­ment, that the antient Church had no such Custom. Let us then view, what the learned Advocates for these Liturgies, have collected out of the Antients, and published for the satisfaction of the World, in this point; and impartially examin, whether it a­mount to such proof, as may be reasonably looked for in those circumstances, or whether it came not short of any just and competent proof at all.

Clemens Alexandrinus is one of the antientest Au­thors produced for this purpose; and he in these words, Strom. 7. [...], thus rendred, The Congregation addicted to their Prayers, having as it were, one mind, and one voice common to all. Now (says my Author) a Congre­gation [Page 137] cannot have one voice in their Prayers, with­out a set Form for them to joyn in. But this is very strange and mysterious; I had thought, as others do, that the Congregation had one voice, in respect of the Minister speaking in their stead, one for all, and therefore accounted the [...], the mouth of the People in Praying, (as when he Preaches in the name of Christ, he is [...], in Clemens's stile, Strom. or [...], as Basil calls Nazianzen, Ep. 141. Now who can imagin, why he should not be their mouth, in uttering a conceived Prayer, as well as in reading a Prayer out of a Book. He had told us im­mediatelyL'Estr. allianc. of Lit. cap. 1. p. 19. before (and it is general­ly, by those of his perswasion ac­knowledged) that while the gift of Prayer lasted, viz. in the Apostolical Age, there was no Form setled; and therefore, if the People cannot have one voice in their Prayers, without a set Form; an Apostle, or other primitive Minister, Praying with a Congregation (since he used no set Form) was not their mouth; nor did any Church Pray with one voice, all that Age.

As insufficient for this purpose, is that of Ter­tullian, Apol. c. 39. Oramus pro Imperatoribus, pro Ministris eorum ac potestatibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. And that of Cyprian, Epist. ad Demetr. Pro arcendis hostibus, & imbri­bus impetrandis, & vel auferendis vel temperandis adversis, rogamus semper & pr [...]ces fundimus: & pro pace ac salute vestra, &c. And that of Basil, Epist. 141. (which, tho' in the Age following, we joyn with these, because of the same import.) A friend of his, gone to Travel, had written to him, that he would be mindful of him in his [Page 138] Prayers; to whom his Answer is this, [...], &c. ‘To forget thee in my Prayers is impos­sible, for thou rememberest, [...], &c. that in the Church we make Prayers for all our Brethren that travel, for all that are inrolled Soldiers, for all that con­fess freely the name, for all that bring forth Spi­ritual fruits,&c. Anonym. Ʋse of daily publick Prayers, p. 6. 8.’

Here is, in these severals, some account for what, and for whom they Prayed; but not a syllable to signifie, that they did it in set or prescribed Forms. If those that Pray without such Forms, were to give an account of the scope and import of their usual Prayers, and to express for what persons and things they ordinarily do pray; they would do it in such terms, as might be as just a ground for our Author's inference, as any alledged. Indeed, these allegations are so far from proving an imposed Li­turgy, with set Forms of Prayer; that they do not prove so much as a Directory: For, in that which was composed for these Nations, we have more than the Persons for whom, and the things for which we should Pray; yet no more is speci­fied in, or can be collected from any, or all the places now mentioned. I dare offer many more, of this nature, to any judicious Eye, without fear that he will see any such thing therein, as the pro­ducer of these three would fain have seen. Let him that is minded, look Cyril Catech. 5. Tertull. Apol. cap. 30. Chrysost. in 1 Tim. p. 271. and in 2 Cor. p. 557. and Hilary—in Cant. 4. p. 414. Author de vocat. Gent. l. 1. c. 12. p. 798. Coelestin. Epist. in Prosper. p. 894. pro Prosper. & Hilario. cap. 11.

The same Author thinks he hath discovered a Church Common-Prayer Book in Origen; but without any ground at all, save his desire to dis­cover one so Antient: his words are, ‘Origen, in his Fourth Book against Celsus, quotes Three or Four several passages of Scripture, out of their [...], or Prayers; by Prayers meaning, that which the Grecians now call their Euchologium, or Prayer-Book.’ But if he had consulted a little more with Origen, he might have discerned, that by [...] he means the Psalter, or Psalms of David, and no other Church Service Book, besides the Scripture. For, in that Book against Celsus, quo­ting any passage out of the Psalms, he says, so it is found [...], so lib. 6. p. 285. edit. Cantabr. 1658. where alledging, Ps. 130. v. 1, 2, 3. he says, [...], it is said in the Prayer, [...], &c. Lord, my heart is not lifted up, &c. So alledging Ps. 50. 10. [...], therefore it is said of him, Praying understandingly, viz. the Psalmist, [...], create in me, O God, a clean heart, lib. 7. p. 354. So lib. 4. p. 178. [...], who find in the Prayers what the prudent ought to say, [...], that the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord; which, being found in two Psalms, 33. 5. and 119. 64. may be the reason he quotes it in the plural [...]. And this may be the place my Au­thor intends; for he had not the confidence to trans­cribe it, nor direct particularly to it; having, it's like, no hopes that any, whose fancy was not deeply tinctured with his conceits of such Liturgies, looking upon the place, would mistake the Psalms of David, for a Greek Prayer Book

Origen is again produced by him; Who, says he, gives this description of a true Christian, [...] (lib. 6. against Cels.) that is, as he renders it; ‘They that serve the God of all, through Christ, and live according to his Gos­pel; who also frequently and duly, both night and day, use those Prayers that are (prescribed, as he will have it, or, which is all the word im­ports) Commanded.’ There needs not many words, to shew the impertinency and unserviceable­ness of this passage, for the purpose, for which it is alledged; when it appears, ⁿ that those were not private Prayers, which were to be put up night and day, at any hour of either. And 2. That there are no Prayers Commanded, but in set Forms; or that, if it had been [...], any one would have understood thereby, prescri­bed and set Forms of Sermons; And 3. That there are no Commands for frequent Praying, but humane inventions or prescriptions: Then this allegation may be thought pertinent, and further considered; but the producer of it would not judge it worthy so much, professing his distrust of its sufficiency to prove what he desires; Yet I profess, saith he, I do not alledge this passage, as an infallible proof, because I know the word [...] may be also otherwise Interpreted. If he had said, the word, [Page 141] when applyed to Prayers, in Origen, or any near his time, could never be but otherwise interpreted, he had spoke with more ingenuity, and no less truth.

Another place in ^o Origen is more commonly insisted on, viz. in Homil. 11. upon Jeremy; and for imposed Forms, they argue from the mode of an expression there, which, what it was in Origen, no man can tell; since in those Latin commentaries, we never have his words, and can never know (as his Translators have used him) when we have his sense, or whether we read him or them. How­ever, these are the words alledged, Ʋbi frequenter in oratione dicimus, Da omnipotens, da nobis partem cum Prophetis, da cum Apostolis Christi tui, tribue ut inveniamur ad vestigia unigeniti tui; ‘When we often say in Prayer, Grant Almighty, grant us a lot with thy Prophets, with the Apostles of thy Christ, give us that we may be found at the steps of thy only Son.’ Here it is presumed, that these are Origen's words, and not his Transla­tors; and that the Form of his expression (on which alone the reasoning is grounded) is exactly and faithfully transferred to us, by those who declare they used no such exactness or faithfulness in read­ing him. It is presumed also, that, this was his meaning, that they frequently used, not only those Petitions, but in those very words, which there is no need we should grant: Yet if all these [Page 142] were yielded, no more can hence be concluded, than what is common with those who Pray Extem­pore, viz. That they often in Prayer, preferred one or two Petitions, in the same words. Or, if I should grant, that this was a Form of Prayer, when there is nothing to perswade it, more than that the Apostles was a set Form, Eph. 1.2 Thess. 1. 11, 12. 16, 17, 18, &c. ( [...] there being no less than frequenter here) yet what shadow of a proof is there, that it was a pre­scribed Form?

Another very learned man thinks there is suffi­cient evidence for the Forms in question, from one or two words (Dominica solennia;) in Tertullian, de anima, cap. 9. But what Tertullian means by those solennia, himself particularly declares in the same place; Iam vero prout Scripturae leguntur, aut Psalmi canuntur, aut petitiones delegantur, aut allocutiones proferuntur, ita inde visionibus materiae subministrantur, The reading of the Scriptures, the singing of Psalms, the Prayers, and the Sermons, are the Dominica solennia mentioned. Now, if he, who alledges this, can perswade the World, that at every Assembly, the same Chapters were still Read, the same Psalms always Sung, and the same Sermons still Preached; he may perswade us, that the same Prayers in the same Form and Words, were always made; because forsooth, these (as the other, and no more, no otherwise than the other) are solennia, in Tertullian's stile. Yet, if we were so credulous, as to be perswaded into such a Paradox, his work would not be done; for Prayers might be, (and are frequently) the same, [Page 143] and yet not prescribed. In ^p Tertullian's time, neither the order of reading, nor singing, nor preaching, was prescribed; and yet they were in his stile and account, solennia; and that Prayers must be concluded to have been in prescribed Forms, meerly because he reckons them, as the other, inter dominica solennia, will seem wonder­ful to an ordinary reason.

By this we may judge, how reasonably the same word in Cyprian is made use of, for the same pur­pose, Ʋbi vero solennibus adimpletis dare calicem Diaconus praesentibus coepit, Serm. de Lapsis; ‘When the things wont to be done, before the distribution, being performed, the Deacon be­gan to give the Cup to those who were present.’ Prayers were some of those things, which were wont to be performed before, and so may be in­cluded in solennibus. But that solennia should here [Page 144] denote prescribed Forms of Prayer, or such Forms as were generally frequented, or indeed, any Forms whatsoever; there is not the least shew of reason (which we made evident by Cyprian's Ma­ster, even now.) Nor could it have fallen into any imagination, but of one only, fully possessed with a conceit, that none but such Forms were then in use. The learned Person producing those words, tells us a little before, p. 240. the Eucharist was celebrated with Solemn Prayers, in the Apostles times; and yet ^q acknowledges, these were not set Forms, but such as were suggested by the Spirit, and made by vertue of the extraordinary gift; which, with Chrysostom, he calls [...]: So that Solemn Prayers were not set Forms then; and who can divine, why they must needs be so in Cyprian?

But in Answer to these testimonies, this may suffice. I will add no more, [...], to use Chrysostom's words, in 1 Cor. 15. p. 514. Hitherto we meet with no evidence, for so much as any arbitrary Forms of Prayer, in the first and best Ages of the Church; much less for prescribed Forms. And [Page 145] yet this is the very best evidence, that I can meet with (produced by any that have laboured in this argument) for the First Three hundred years; and indeed all, that hath any shew of proof, if so be all that hath been examined, may seem to have somuch. I should shew too much contempt of the Reverend Authors judgment, if I should offer with more words, to satisfie him, that the pretended Ignatius, his [...], Epist. ad Magn. or Justin Martyr's [...], Apol. 2. or the antient Preface, or Tertulli­an's mode of renunciation, de Corona Militis, sur­sum corda, or the use of a Doxology (of these two last, see what is said before) have not so much as the face of a proof for the Liturgies in question. And I might be suspected of some design, to ren­der their Advocates contemptible; if I should in­sinuate, that any of them rely upon that, in this cause, which yields not the shadow of a support. I am much mistaken, if those that are judicious and disinteressed, can count any thing proved hereby, more than this, that those who make use of such allegations, are at a great loss for want of proofs: But I must not overlook what I met with, when I had thus far proceeded. I was not a little amazed, to see some Protestants willing to alledge that impu­dent forgery, called the Liturgy of St. James, as evidence for prescribed Liturgies; a piece stuff'd with many ^r Superstitions and Novelties, such as were never dreamt of in the Apostles times, nor [Page 146] long after; and not without some strictures of Blas­phemy and Idolatry (offering Incense to God, for remission of Sins, and invocating the Virgin Mary.) So that Bellarmin himself (tho' the interest of a desperate cause, needing such supports, might have tempted him (as well as others) to it; many cor­ruptions, which he is ingaged to defend, being therein countenanced) durst not say, it was his, on whom it is Fathered. De Jacobi Liturgia sic sentio, eam aut non esse ejus, aut multa à posteriori­bus eidem addita. He instances in divers particulars, not known in the First times, and then adds, Mul­ta sunt alia, quae redolent novitatem, ‘There are many other things therein, that favour of No­velty.’

All that Baronius hath to ^ſ say for it, is, some passages in the CatechismsAd. an. 63. N. 17. called Cyril's, agreeable to somewhat in [Page 147] the said Missal, as he will have it; (Quam verè ejus esse plane cognoscet, qui eam conferat cum iis, quae Cyrillus ejusdem Ecclesiae Hierosolymorum Episcopus in suis mystagogicis orationibus habet, quae quidem ipse non aliunde quam ex Jacobi Liturgia cognosci­tur accepisse, ad An. 63. N. 17.) which is a very serviceable argument, and may happily prove as well, that Cyril was the Author of the Liturgy as­cribed to James, or that James was the Writer of the Catechisms attributed to Cyril. How it is known, that Cyril could not have these passages any where else, but from James his Liturgy, I ap­prehend not; we must take the Cardinal's word, nor is it capable of better proof: But, that those particulars might be transferred out of the Cate­chisms into that Liturgy, we may well understand another way.

It was some disparagement to the Church of Rome, not to have a Liturgy, which might pretend to be Apostolical, as well as the Church of Jerusa­lem and Alexandria. A Missal is formed, wherein the Prayer for Consecration, is verbatim the same [Page 148] with that called, The Canon of the Roman Mass: This Missal, for the reputation of that Canon, must pass for St. Peter's. But Gregory Bishop of Rome, who Six hundred Years after Christ, knew no Apo­stolical Liturgies, and says, in the Apostles times, there were no Forms used in the Eucharist, no not for Consecration, but only the ^t Lord's Prayer: Tells us also unhappily, that one Scholasticus made the Canonical Prayer used in the Roman Church, for Consecration of the Eucharist; so that if we will believe Gregory (who knew the original of the Roman Liturgies, as well as most Parents know their Children) their St. Peter must be beholding, for the said Prayer, to Scholasticus (even as James was to a Catechism for the forementioned passages) unless we can imagin, that Gregory ^u by Scho­lasticus, understood the Apostle Peter. But even this should not seem strange; since to Bellarmin, in his Zeal for the Canon of the Mass, it is proba­ble; and yet ^w probable too, that Gregory, by Scholasticus, understood some person who lived in [Page 149] his own time. How hard is it, for the greatest persons, to manage the defence of Apostolical Li­turgies, without rendering themselves ^x ridi­culous?

But these, whom I deal with, seem not to own this Missal of James directly, speaking of it only, as the opinion of some Greeks, who tell of such a Liturgy. What Greeks these are, I know not; not finding any Greeks owning it, till Seven hun­dred Years after Christ: Yea the Greeks under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those in the Diocess of the Orient also, did utterly disclaim that Litur­gy One thousand Two hundred Years after Christ, as ^y Balsamon the Patriarch of Antioch declares.

^z Those that own it, or others, as Apostoli­cal, or did so heretofore, never did, never will, give any account thereof to the World, to clear them from imposture.

To wave the Arguments usually insisted on, (that we may not actum agere) these Liturgies were not known (nor used) before the Seventh or Eighth Century. For if they had been ^a known in the foregoing Ages,

[Page 151]1. Certainly there would have been some men­tion of them, by some Fathers, Councils, or other Writers; by those sure, who give an account of all Apostolical Writings, both questioned and un­questionable; or those who lived upon the place, where these Counterfeits, assuming those great names, are said to have been entertained, particu­larly for that of James, by Eusebius, Cyril, or Je­rome, who resided in P [...]laestine.

2. Undoubtedly they would have been general­ly admitted, as other Apostolical Writings were. None would have seen reason, to have composed other Liturgies, nor would any other have been preferred before them.

3. Finally, none would have presumed, or would have been suffered without controul, to have inlarged, curtailed, inverted them, and made all kind of alrerations therein, as some have done, so as they are quite transformed from what they were once; insomuch as their Favourers can shew us no one part of them, which may with any assurance be ascribed to the first Authors, whoever they were. This is acknowledged, and said to be done in seve­ral Ages, by the Guides of those Churches, where they had entertainment: Who by thus using them, evidently declared, either that they did not believe them to be Apostolical, nor would have had them so accounted; or else, that themselves were im­pious wretches, in making so bold with that which should have been preserved inviolable as the Scrip­ture; and wretched Impostors too, who would thrust their own patches, and others no better than their own, upon Christians, under Apostolical names: And so, one of these ways, all the credit is lost, upon which they are recommended to the World as Apostolical.

But, if they were not known (as is manifest by the premisses they were not) for so many Ages; then, neither were they extant, and so, owe not their Original to the Apostles, or any near their times. For it is impossible, that, if they had been extant, and composed by the Apostles, for the constant and daily use of the Churches, they should not be known to the generality of Christi­ans, supposed to have so used them: Or, if any will say, the Churches used them not, he must con­demn them as highly impious, living in willful dis­obedience to the Apostles orders, and open con­tempt of their Authority, from Generation to Generation: And further, if they were not known to be Apostolical, before the Seventh or Eighth Ages, there's no way left to know it after. Innate Arguments there are none, in those pieces, to evidence it, but many which shew the contrary; no features or lineaments truly Apostolical, but much of the scurf and luxuriousness of corrupt and decrepit Ages. So that there is nothing but testi­mony to rely on; and he that will admit writings to be Apostolical, upon the testimony of times, wherein delusion and degeneracy prevailed, with­out the least attestation of the First Churches, and so many intermediate Ages, is well disposed to be deluded, or delude others.

To conclude, if those ^b who alledge them, [Page 153] did know any Prayers, in that of James, or the rest, which they really believed to be Apostolical, they would use those themselves, they would imploy their Authority and Interest to have them used by others; they would not be so arrogant, as to think their own models, or so weak, as to judge the Forms of others better; or so perverse, as to make choice of the worse; they would not shew such contempt of the Apostles, as to preferr others before them; or such disobedience, as ne­ver to observe what they prescribed. All the writings of the Apostles (they being universal Officers, divinely Inspired) oblige all; so that I see not what room there is for excuse, unless they will say, that tho' the Apostles composed these Liturgies, yet they did not injoyn the use of them, but left it arbitrary, imposing on none. Yet even thus, tho' there be less disobedience, there is no less contempt. For those that will have Prayers of others composing used, when there is also choice of them; Do they not offer an affront to the Apostles, with the aggravations forementioned, if they neglect theirs, and use and impose others?

And if the Apostles did not injoyn the use of their supposed Liturgies, nor would impose them on any, Why are they not imitated herein? Why, having less Authority, (to say nothing of Wisdom) do our Liturgists take more upon them, than the Apostles would do, in imposing on those, whom they thought best to leave free; and imperiously prescribing their own weak inventions, or others, weaker and worse than their own, when the Apostles, Divinely Inspired, did not so much as advise the use of their supposed Forms?

But if they do not know, nor really believe, (as the premisses perswade me they do not) that those Forms and Prayers, or any of them, are the Apostles; Is it ingenuous to offer that for proof, which they do not themselves believe?

Let us then leave them to those who can believe them, which I shall wonder if any can, but those who have a Faith at Command, (when it will serve a turn) wide enough to swallow a Jacobus de Vo­ragine without mincing.

If I have stayed the longer here, they will, I hope, bear with me, who tender the honour of the Apostles, and of the Divine and Infallible Spirit, to whose inspirations we owe all their writings; and would not have them lie under the unsufferable reproach, of having such deformed Brats fathered on them; which indeed were the issue of darkness and degeneracy, and the Ages wherein those pre­vailed; but borrowed those great and sacred names, to hide their shame, and gain them reputation, in a World much under the power of delusion, where alone it was to be hoped for.

Thus we have cleared the first Three hundred Years after Christ, from all suspicion of Worship­ping God publickly, in the way under debate; having examined all that is alledged, either for pre­scribed or arbitrary Forms; and finding nothing of weight therein, to sway a disinteressed person, to believe there was any such thing, or to procure the assent of any, but those who are disposed to yield it without proof: And since that is not found to have been the way of the Three First Ages of Christianity, it is not very considerable, nor scarce worth the inquiry, in what times else this may be found, a way of worshipping God in publick Assem­blies, [Page 155] for which there is nothing in the Apostles writings or practice, or in the practice of the First Churches, and those after them for Three hundred Years; and so, neither rule, nor reason, nor ex­ample, in the best and most imitable Ages; where also, their way of Worshipping is deserted, who served God most regularly and acceptably: If it find any thing to excuse it, it will have nothing to commend it to any, unless we will admit those of such Palates to be our Tasters, who like a Puddle better than either the Spring or the Streams while they run any thing clear.

In the two next Ages, [...], things grew worse and worse, Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. p. 277. as he tells us, who resolutely set himself against the Stream of the then prevailing corruptions, but found it too violent for him, and warned others by what besel him, that to strive against it, was the way to be sunk. Those, who have no great affection for these Liturgies, will not envy them the honour of having their rise in such degeneracy, as the best Writers of those days saw so much cause to lament. The chief, if not the only ornament of those times, were those great persons, who had such reason to complain thereof. And many there were excellently accomplished, in the Fourth Age, and some till about the middle of the Fifth. It may seem something for the cre­dit of these Liturgies, if they can be found in the Church, while there was any thing of such eminen­cy in it; let us therefore view what is produced, as a discovery thereof.

The Eighteenth Canon of the Council of Lao­dicea is alledged for prescribed Liturgies, p. 374. Titulus in Crab. de Orationibus quotidianis, [...] [Page 156] [...], ‘That the same mi­nistration of Prayers, ought to be both at Evening, and at the Ninth hour, viz. Three in the Afternoon.’

Hence it is argued, The same Prayers are to be used, both at Nones and Vespers; therefore Forms of Prayer are imposed. But this is a very lame inference; for, neither is the Consequence good, neither is the Antecedent true.

The inconsequence is apparent, since the same Prayers may be used often, and yet not the words thereof prescribed or imposed. We have in­stances enough, to clear this, in our Pulpits; where many, before their Sermons, and after, use the same Prayers Morning and Evening, whereas none prescribe the words, or impose those Forms on them, but themselves. And so we might dismiss this Canon, as making nothing for prescribed Forms. If this Synod would have had the same Prayers used; yet here's not a Syllable for pre­scribing the words thereof, or injoyning what Forms should be used.

But indeed here's nothing to signifie, that it was the intent of the Synod, to have the same Prayers used, at the times specified; neither the whole phrase ( [...]) nor any word in it imports such a thing; and they make the Fathers absurd, who fix such a sense on their De­cree. [...] will not serve the turn; for it does not here (as in later times) signifie a Book or Model of prescribed and stinted Forms of Prayer, and other Administrations. Indeed, as some Pa­pists, where they meet with this word, conclude they have found their Mass; so others, when they [Page 155] find it, may fancy they have discovered a Service-Book: But both ridiculously, to those who under­stand the Antient use of the word.

For, no instance hath yet been produced, nor can be, wherein it is used in this sense, by any of the Antients, before this Council, or long after: And therefore none will believe it is so taken here, but such, whose desire to have it so, will serve for reason enough to believe it.

But ^c [...], according to the Notation and Antient known use of the word, denotes some­times a publick Function or Office, most common­ly the Exercise and Administration of it, [...], exercise of their Function, Synod. Epist. Nic. in Theodoret. l. 1. c. 9. vid. Con. Anti­och. can. in cod. 97. and then it is not the Forms of Action, but the Action it self, the publick use, imployment, exercise, or ministration of that, to which it is applyed, Civil or Religious, applyed to Worship; it is not the Forms of Worship, but the Ministration of it; so, [...], in Theo­doret, is not a model of prescribed Hymns, but the singing of Hymns; so [...], in ^d Justinian, is the Holy exercise of [Page 158] reading the Scripture, not a Rubrick prescribing what Lessons should be read; of which the An­tient Church knew nothing: And, (which com­prizes all) he will have him capitally punished, [...], whosoever [...], Anth. Coll. 9. tit. 6. c. 31. the disturbance sure is of the Exercises of Divine Ministrations, not of any Written Models. So [...], in Theophylact and others, is Preaching; which Ex­ercise will not be denied to have been performed without any prescribed Forms, for many Hundred years.

So, applyed to Prayer, [...], here is not a Model of prescribed Prayers, but the Exer­cise of Praying; and therefore, unless we will per­fer a sense of the word then utterly unknown to Christians, before the proper and ^e usual accep­tion of it, [...], is not the same prescribed Forms of Prayer, or the same of any sort; but the same Exercise of Prayer, when [Page 159] long, was better performed, and may be such without such Forms.

If [...] had been put by the Synod in the place of [...] ^f (a word apt to be mistaken, since it was applyed to a later invention) nothing would have been understood hereby, but a Holy Exercise, or as it is in Hesychius, [...] a Sacred Im­ployment; and by the whole, no other, than the same Holy Exercise of Prayer, instead of what is now made of it, the same Prayers: And yet these two words were of the same import Antiently. The Apostle expresses his acting as a [...] by [...], Rom. 15. 16. and Chrysostom useth them as Synonyma's, in the place forecited, Hom. 29. in Rom. p. 221. and Balsamon in Syn. Ancyr. ex­plains [...] by [...].

Again, for the phrase, let it be observed, that the expression is not [...]: this indeed might have signified the use of the same Prayers. But [...] is no more here the Praying of the same Prayers, at Three and Six Afternoon, than [...] would have been the Preaching of the same Sermon Twice in one Afternoon. And as there might have been [...], the same exercise of Singing at Nones and Vespers, without Singing the same Psalms at both Hours; and the same Service [Page 160] or Exercise of reading the Scripture, tho' the same Chapters had not been read, or any by the pre­script of a Rubrick; and the same Ministry or Ex­ercise of Preaching, tho' the same Sermons had not been Preached twice over within Three hours, or without using any set Forms of Homilies: As well might there be [...], the same exercise of Praying at the Third and Sixth hours, without using the same Prayers, or any set Forms at all.

Besides, no rational account can be given, why the same Prayers must be used at Six, which were used at Three Afternoon. No Decree, parallel to this (if so taken) can be produced; nor any thing, in the practice of the Church, before or after, agreeable to it. Where can it be shewed, that the same Prayers, without variation, were always u [...]ed, at several hours of the same day, the same invariably at the Sixth hour, as at the Ninth, &c. Even after unalterable Forms were introduced, their several hours had their different Offices; each of them, in the Latin Church, did statui tempo [...]is respondere, and were suited to the time, for which they were appointed, as ^g Durandus tells us: And in the Greek Church, they did [...], as Leo, ac­comodate the Service to the season.

Beda speaks of a Hymn sung, po­tius In Durand. l. 5. c. 9. p. 162. in vespertinis, quam in aliis Officiis, Vita Chrysost. p. 288. rather at Ves­pers than in any other Office. And Bas [...]l, long be­fore him, mentions one, which he calls [...], which was used at ^h Candle-light, [...], de Spir. Sanct. cap. 29. p. 276. And such a one we have set down, by the Learnedest of Primates, de Symb. p. 35. called, [...]: so proper for the Evening, as it could not be congruously used at any other hour of the day. What reason is there to doubt, but their [...], as Epiphanius calls them, [...] or those [...], Pray­ers at Candle-light, in Socrat. Hist. l. 5. c. 22. were also accommodated to the time, from whence they are denominated, and at which they were used, as well as their Hymns? To conclude, there is no need to make the Canon thus confound the Offices, which were always distinct, and with­out all reason, to run counter to all the Christian World; nor to force a sense upon the phrase, which it is impatient of; nor to put a construction upon [...], which those times were utterly strangers to. The design and import of it is but this; That those in that Province, should assemble [Page 162] for Worship Twice after Noon; and as they had Prayers at one of the hours, so should they have the same holy Imployment or Exercise at the other; or as it is more briefly expressed, in the Latin Editions of that Council, Quod semper supplicati­ones orationum, & ad horam nonam, & ad ⁱ vesperam oportet celebrari, Caranz. Quod id ipsum ministerium orationum, & in nonis & vesperis fieri debeat, Cod. Justell. p. 73. Quod id ipsum officium precum & nona & vespera semper debeat exhiberi, in Crab. t. 1. p. 377.

This Canon of the Laodicean Synod (which I have been the longer in examining, because I see some apt to mistake it, who have not so much byass as others, to mislead them) is all considerable, that I find alledged for prescribed ^k Liturgies, in the Fourth Age. For I would not disparage all, with the unadvisedness of those, who produce the Twenty third Canon of Con. Carth. 3. (and also the Twelfth of Milevis) to support that, which we have seen, they utterly overthrow.

Only I must not forget, that some make an offer at the Liturgies, which go under the names of Basil and Chrysostom; as tho' these would help their cause. But they do this but faintly, as know­ing them to be, by Protestants, generally branded for counterfeits; and that for many reasons, such [Page 163] as their opposites count very cogent, in like case: Such being the order and matter of them, such rites there used, such persons there mentioned, many words, many things therein, that they can­not but ridiculously be ascribed to those great Persons, or to any, in, or near their times. Our English Prelates formerly had no more favour for them; take a taste thereof in Bishop White's censure of them: ‘The Liturgies, saith he, Fa­thered upon St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, have a known Mother (to wit, the late Roman Church;) but there is (besides many other just exceptions) so great dissimilitude between the supposed Fa­thers and the Children, that they rather argue the dishonest dealing of their Mother, than serve as lawful witnesses, of that which the Adversary intendeth to prove by them. Against Fisher p. 377.’ Indeed the Romanists are the great sticklers, for the Legitimation of these Missals, seeing them full of those sores, which they count the beauty of their Church. They are made use of, to counte­nance the worship of Images and Altars, the In­tercession and Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Immaculate Con­ception of the Virgin Mary, &c. And yet none of them have the confidence to affirm, that as we have them now, they were the issue of those, on whom they are Fathered. Only some, very loth quite to lose the advantages they would make of them, are willing to supppose, that tho' they have suffered very great changes, by additions, inter­polations, inversions, substractions, &c. yet some­thing may yet remain therein of Basil's and Chry­sostom's. But they give no reason, why they sup­pose this, when it is necessary they should do it, [Page 164] in this case, if any; since there are the same grounds, for the intire rejection of these Liturgies, which they count (and many more than they count) sufficient for the total rejecting of some others. If such groundless surmizes may be admitted, no Brat, tho' evidently spurious, but will procure a Legitimation, in part at least, if any can expect thereby to serve a turn; a way is hereby opened, for an equal defence of the most impudent and pernicious forgeries, that the Church hath been pestered with. Some will be apt to suppose the like of the Liturgies, Fathered upon Peter, James, Mark, and all the Apostles, in their pretended Constitutions. Something therein may be theirs, and they may as reasonably suppose it; for the Gospels, which went under the names of Peter, ^l James, Thaddeus, Thomas, Andrew, tho' they were changed and corrupted, yet what was found therein consentient to Primitive and Catholick Doctrine, might be the Apostles, and the substance of them of their composing. It's true, those Gospels were not received by the first Churches, but that makes no difference; since neither were those Liturgies received by them, no nor known, or mentioned, as we shewed before, (and so not extant) till many Hundred years after the Apo­stles times; and upon this account, their pretence to Apostolicalness, is more ridiculous than that of the other. And they, who received those spurious Liturgies so late, might, upon the same terms, [Page 165] have admitted the forged Gospels, viz. changing and patching them, as they listed. But enough of this before.

As for the Liturgies before us; those who will suppose something of them to be Basil's or Chry­sostom's, do not, cannot sh [...]w us, what that is; nor do they, nor can they, give us any Rule by which we may know it; and so it is not, it cannot be known, that any Prayer in them is theirs, to whom the whole is intituled: And therefore it cannot be hereby proved, that ever either of them composed any Prayers, for the publick use of others; much less that they prescribed any to be used, in the same Form and Words. And so, if this shift were honest, and safe, and reasonable; yet is it wholly unserviceable for the proof of pre­scribed Liturgies. To be brief, It is manifest, in the genuine Writings of both those Fathers, that they judged it necessary, to conceal and keep se­cret the Sacramental Rites and Prayers (which is all that is considerable in those Liturgies) from all but the Communicants: Now, they did not take the course to conceal, but divulge them, if they writ and published those Liturgies, tho' but for the common use of the Province or Diocess, where each of them presided; and therefore, since we cannot conceive, that they would run counter to their declared principles, it cannot be believed, that they were the Authors and divulgers of those, or any other such Liturgies, or of any such Prayers in them; and consequently, it is injurious to them, to Father these Missals (if they were not other­wise so Leprous, and every way unlike them) up­on these Worthies.

And so I leave them, stufft so full with the cor­ruptions of later times, that none but those who are fond of such corruptions, and would fain have them, right or wrong, of Antient generous extract, can believe them to be the issue of those Fathers; only let me interpose my conjecture, how it came to pass, that Basil, Chrysostom, and Ambrose too, were accounted the Authors of Li­turgies, tho' neither themselves, nor any that lived with them, or near the time in which they flourished, mention any such thing. It is recorded of each of these persons, signally and peculiarly, that they introduced a new mode and order of Singing, into the respective Churches, where they presided, never there used before. Basil's new Psalmody, brought in by him to Caesarea, was made more remarkable, by the offence taken thereat by the Clergy of Neocaesarea, as an innovation in the Worship of God: He defends it, and gives an ac­count what it was, Epist. 63. [...]: If the cause be asked of this implacable and perpe­tual quarrel, they say, It is the Psalms, and the mode of singing, altering the custom, which hath been retained amongst us. And afterwards, [...], There was none of this (say they) in the time of Gregory the Great. Now Basil denies not, but he had begun another way of singing, than they had been accustomed to; but that it might appear, how little reason there was to quarrel with him for it, he declares what it was, [...], &c. finally, rising from Prayer, they betake [Page 167] themselves to singing, and sometimes the Company being distributed into two parts, they answer one another in singing. The First who brought up this mode of singing, ^m was Flavianus and Diodorus at Antioch, using it in their Conventicles, when the Arians had possest themselves of the publick Churches, as Theodoret relates it l. From thence it past to other places, and was first at Caesarea, practised by Basil.

Ambrose, who borrowed many other things of Basil, liked his Psalmody so well, as he introdu­ced it into the West, first using it in his Church at ⁿ Milan, and this when Augustin was there, who assures us, from his own knowledge, that it was not long since the practice there begun; Ni­mirum annus erat, aut non multo amplius, cum Justina Valentiniani Regis pueri Mater hominem tuum Ambrosium persequeretur haeresis suae causa; ‘it was but a Year, or little more (before Au­stin was leaving those parts) when Justina the Mother of the young Emperour Valentinian per­secuted [Page 168] the servant of God Ambrose, for her He­resies sake (she being an Arian.)’ Excubabat pia plebs in ecclesia mori parata cum Episcopo suo. Tunc Hymni & Psalmi, ut canerentur secundum mo­rem orientalium partium, ne populus moeroris [...]aedio contabesceret, institutum est, ‘The Godly multi­tude did watch in the Church, ready to die with their Bishop; then, lest the People should lan­guish through the tediousness of their grief, was the singing of Psalms and Hymns, after the mode of the Orient, instituted.’ And from Milan, where Ambrose ^o began it, did it pass into other Churches of the West. Paulinus testifies as much in the Life of Ambrose.

And Chrysostom was the first that brought in this order of singing amongst the Orthodox, in the Church at Constantinople, tho' the Arians had a little the start of him in practising it in the Streets; for there, in the Nights of the Weekly Festivals, as Socrates calls Saturday and the Lord's day, l. 6. c. 8. & [...] (which Sozomen adds) [...], they sung by course, l. c. [...], in Socrat. ibid. Chry­sostom, lest any of his Flock should be hereby inticed from him, puts his People upon singing in the same manner, [...] [Page 169] [...]; and upon such an occasion the Orthodox, first taking up this mode of singing, continued it till now, says he; [...], Soz. Hist. lib. 8. cap. 8. Now, as these three Fathers were the first intro­ducers of that way of singing, in their several Churches; so it is further observable, that singing was antiently called [...]. So Chrysostom him­self calls singing of Psalms, [...], Homil. in Psal. 41. And Theodoret calls that very mode of singing, which they in their respective places first used, [...]. Leontius his desire, that the Meletians would sing by course in publick, is thus expressed, [...], Hist. lib. 2. c. 24. p. 78.

So in Justinian's Code, [...], is said to be [...]. And thus [...] is there [...], L. 42. §. 10. de Episc. & Cler.

Now, they being found Authors of that which is called Liturgia, this might seem a sufficient ground, to account them the formers of Liturgies; and [...] in after Ages, being used for a model of set Forms of Prayer and other Administrations, those that found them accounted the Authors of Liturgies, might easily mistake them to be the Authors of such a thing, as the word then sig­nified.

Nor will this seem improbable, if it be observed, that a Liturgy was actually fathered upon James (called [...]) meerly because Hegesippus in Eusebius stiles him [...], Ʋnde quidam putant opinionem natam, quod Jacobus primus missae ritum [Page 170] instituerit, quem Hegesippus apud Eusebium pri­mum ab Apostolis constitutum fuisse Episcopum, & Liturgum dicit, says Cassander, ^p in Liturgic. c. 6. Hence, some think, came the opinion, that James was the first Author of a Missal; Hegesippus in Eu­sebius affirming, that he was by the Apostles first made Bishop and Liturgus. And this might incou­rage those, whose inclinations led them to father their own conceptions upon great and eminent Persons; to compose such Forms, as are the Con­tents of those Liturgies, and expose them under their Names.

Add hereto, that amongst the Latines in those Ages, when the framing and counterfeiting of Li­turgies was in fashion, almost every part of them went under the name of Cantus, not the Prayers excepted. So ^q Syn. Tolet. 4. can. 12. all the several Offices and Prayers by name, pass under the notion of Singing. The Law of Charles the Great, imposing the Gregorian Office upon the Churches in his Dominions, is in these terms, Ʋt secundum ordinem & morem Ecclesiae Romanae fiat cantatus, Capit. l. 6. c. 225. So when Duran­dus would tell us what Liturgies they had in the primitive Church, all is comprised under Cantare; In primitiva tamen Ecclesia diversi diversa quisque [Page 171] pro suo velle cantabant, Rational. l. 5. c. 2. p. 139. In the primitive Church, several Men sung several things, according as every one would. And Be­lethus after him, in primitiva Ecclesia diversi di­versa cantabant, quisque pro suo libitu. Expl. diver. Offic. cap. 19.

Now those, who were the introducers of a par­ticular way of singing in their Churches, might thus come to be accounted the Authors of Litur­gies for them, when these were expressed and un­derstood by cantus, and cantare became equivalent with [...] in its modern signification. And it will be hard for them, who ascribe a Liturgy to Jer [...]me, to give any better account to the World than this, why they do so. It was believed, that by his means, the same mode and order of singing was first used at Rome. That ^r Alleluiah, after the Eastern mode, was by his advice there sung; and the Doxology, secundum usum ^ſ Antiochiae, where, as I shewed before, Singing by course was first invented; and that Pope Damasus writ to him for his direction, how the Grecians mode of sing­ing might be practised at Rome. Hence Durandus [Page 172] says, cantum ordinavit, and nothing else, but an Order for reading the Scripture. So, upon these grounds, an Ecclesiasticum Officium is ascribed to him, and he is made the Author of a Liturgy, made up in time of a Lectionary, an Antiphonary, and a Sacramentary, as Pamelius represents it.

These forementioned, were the most eminent Persons, both in East and West, in those times, when the Church flourished with Persons of greatest eminency, for Learning and Oratory. Now, when Liturgies were all in all, (the happiness of the antient Church, and the excellency of its Pastors in Preach­ing and Praying, being turned by the lamentable degeneracy of the following Ages, into ^t Chant­ing and Reading) it behoved those, who were Zealous for their honour, they having no worth of their own, to borrow or ^u steal some for them, from great names; and to have them thought of noble descent, that the meanness of their true and lawful Parents might not discredit them. In these circumstances, a smaller matter, than I have insisted on, would serve to prove their title and pretence to an extract so honoura­ble. This might well incourage some to intitle their Liturgies to those Worthies, and call them their Fathers, and might perswade others, who were [Page 173] willing enough to have it so (for the credit of their Churches that used them) to believe it was so indeed. But this, as I said, is but my con­jecture; but whether it were so or otherwise, let others judge, as they see reason. It suffices me, that these Liturgies are spurious, and so ge­nerally accounted, in a manner by all, but those, who are engaged in a cause that needs such a de­fence; and to uphold their trade, must deal in false Wares, and so see cause to plead for them, against very much of that reason, a little of which they themselves count a sufficient evidence of forgery, in cases, where such an interest is not concerned.

The next Authority I meet with, is the Fifteenth Canon of the Vinetick Synod, in which Six Bishops, towards the conclusion of the Fifth Age, made this Decree, Rectum quoque duximus, ut vel intra Provinciam nostram, sacrorum ordo & psallendi una sit consuetudo; ‘We have also thought it right, that, as to the order of Sacred Admini­strations and Singing, there be ^w one custom through our Province.’ What is intended here by ordo sacrorum, may be best understood by the Council of Agatha, being a Synod of the same Country, held not long after this of Vannes, that in the beginning of the Sixth Age, an. 506. this [Page 174] in the latter end of the Fifth. There Can. 21. ^x Ordo ecclesiae ab omnibus aqualiter custodiendus, is the disposing of the Responsals, Prayers, Hymns, and Psalms, each in the place thought most fit (according to Augustin's definition of Ordo, est parium dispariumque rerum, suae cuique loca tri­buens, dispositio, Civ. Dei. l. 19. c. 13.) and so, applyed to Sacred Administrations, Ordo, esta­blished by a Synod, if it reached all particulars, will amount to no more, than a Rubrick or Di­rectory. One and the same might be observed by all the Churches in a Province, in all Offices, yea and in Prayers too; tho' the same expressions were not used, nor those that officiated, at all tied up to Words and Syllables: For example; If, in the common Office (at which all might be pre­sent) they began with Psalms, and then read some part of the Law, or Prophets, and next some part of an Epistle, or of the Gospels, and after­wards proceeded to the Sermon; the same order was observed, ^y tho' the same Psalms were not always sung, nor the same Lesson twice in a Year, and the same Sermon never twice Preached: So [Page 175] for the Prayers, if according to the order speci­fied, Con. Laodic. Can. 18. first Prayers were made for the Catechumens, then for the Penitents, after that for the Faithful. And, if in that office pecu­liar to the Faithful, the Prayers be ordered, as Augustin thought the Apostles method was, Epist. 59. so as first Prayer be made for all sorts; then the ^z Elements be Consecrated; after that the Peo­ple [Page 176] Blessed; and the Elements being distributed, all be concluded with Thanksgiving: The same order of Prayer is observed, tho' the same Pray­ers be no more used, than the same Psalms or Lessons always, or the same Sermon more than once. And the same is to be understood of the 27. Can. Con. Epam. an. 517. in Bl.

But, if I minded not the discovery of the truth, more than upholding of my opinion, or dispro­ving of yours; I would grant, that by Ordo is understood a Liturgy with prescribed Prayers; and it would be a great disadvantage to your cause, to grant it; for here's a plain signification, they had no such Liturgy before, and the Original hereof from Six Bishops, in one Province of France, where Fifteen or Seventeen, and this not till the latter end of the Fifth Age, when all [...].

And this is all, which I can find alledged in be­half of these Liturgies for Five hundred Years after Christ, that is considerable, unless the Hymns Benedicite and Te Deum may be counted worthy of consideration: And so perhaps they may be ac­counted, if not otherwise, yet in respect of the Persons, that so make use of them.

But the inference is not good, from Forms of Hymns to Forms of Prayer; much less from arbitrary Forms of Hymns, to prescribed Forms of Prayer, or Liturgies. Hymns are more elaborate, require more Art and Ornament than Prayers: and therefore, those who are not for set Forms of Prayer, if they admit Hymns of humane and ordinary composition, see reason to have them in Forms, and not without preme­ditation. And their Opposites will not deny them here more needful.

Nor will the Inference hold, from prescribed Hymns to prescribed Liturgies, from a small part (for which there is a different reason) to the whole Ex. Gr. If Nicephorus his report were true, lib. 14. cap. 46. that Theodosius Junior, with his Sister Pul­cheria, injoyned the [...] (a Hymn of six or eight Words) to be sung throughout the World (which yet he makes questionable, by adding such a Legend of its miraculous original) could it be in­ser'd from thence, that they injoyned the whole World the same Liturgy? Besides, Hymns there were prescribed and so used (viz. the Psalms of David, and others of Divine Inspiration) in the Apostles times, when all our Liturgists in a manner, acknowledge there were no prescribed Liturgies.

As for those two Hymns alledged, there is no evidence, that they were imposed, or so much as used, in any time, which will serve to prove the Antiquity of those Liturgies, which is pretended, or any which is for their reputation. That which be­gins with Te Deum, is found by the great ^a Ʋsher, [Page 178] in some Antient Manuscripts ascribed to Nicetius (who, if it be he of Triers, lived till after an. 565.) He concurs herein with Menardus, that it is not mentioned in any Author antienter than the Rules which Benet writ for the Monks of his Order, which was about the middle of the Sixth Age, as may be collected from Baronius; and those Rules had their first publick approbation, an. 595. How long after this, that Hymn came to be used in the Church, and when it was thought fit to be imposed, is not worth the inquiring.

The other, called the Song of the Three Chil­dren, I have no where discovered, before the Fourth Council of Toledo. It is mentioned, Can. 13. as used before, but then first imposed, an. 633. Such like Hymns were so far from being generally prescribed in the former Ages, that the use of them is forbidden in Publick, by Synods, both in the Greek and Latin Church. Conc. Laod. Can. ult. [...]: that private (or uncanonical) Psalms ought not to be used in the Church, neither Books that are not Canonical, but only the Canonical (Books) of the Old and New Testament. Where [...] seems by the clause following, to be op­posed to [...], as writings [...] are, by the Apostle, 2 Pet. 1. 20, 21. opposed to those of Divine Inspiration. So that the Fathers of Lao­dicea, as they prohibit any Books but those that were Canonical; so do they forbid any Psalms or Hymns, save such as were of Divine Inspiration, to be used in the Churches; and the Canons of this Synod were received by the Church, amongst [Page 179] her universal Rules. Add hereto, Conc. Boncar. 1. an. 565. can. 30. Extra Psalmos ve [...]eris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in Ecclesia psallatur, Be­sides the Psalms of the Old Testament, let nothing Poetically compos'd be sung in the Church.

Thus I have given an account of the Testimo­nies produced for the Antiquity of the Litur­gies in question, and of all that I have met with, after indeavours to meet with all, having waved none, wherein there might be conceived to be any strength, or wherein I could perceive any shew of it. What opinion others may have hereof, I will not conjecture: For my own part, after a careful observance of whatever might seem to have any force or evidence, for that purpose; I may profess, that (as this was it, which First swayed my Judgment to that part of the question, wherein it now rests; so still) I am very well satisfied, even by these Testimonies, ^b that there was no such thing, as that for which they are alledged. To me there needs no more Arguments, nor (if I much mistake not) will more be very needful to any other, whose minds are not prepossessed with some­thing too hard for their reason. For if there had been such Liturgies used constantly in all Churches through the World, for Five hundred or Six hun­dred Years next after Christ, it is not imaginable, but there would have been such remarkable traces, [Page 180] yea such clear evidence in some, yea in many of the Antients (especially the Writers being so nu­merous, their Writings left us so full and Volu­minous, and the occasions of mentioning them so very frequent) that there might have been had as full and clear proof thereof, and with as much ease, as of any one thing, whose antiquity hath been questioned. Now, when many have curiously searched antiquity for this, and being prickt on by opposition, have pursued the search with great in­dustry, under a quick sense too how much they are concerned herein, and being withal, Persons of as great ability for the discovery, as any we can expect will attempt it, divers of them seeming as well acquainted with what is obvious in antiquity (which is all that is needful in this case) as with their own Lodgings, and some of them no strangers to her in her Retirements and less traced Recesses; after they have, (as they tell us, and we might have believed it, if they had not said so) made the fairest proof thereof they can, yet produce nothing, which any that are impartial can account, or which I am apt to think they themselves can believe to be sufficient proof, (if their belief were beholding to nothing but their reason:) May it not be hence reasonably concluded, that what, in these circumstances, is not now discovered, was not then extant? Such Liturgies used every where, for so many Hundred years, are a matter of that nature, which would have been obvious at a su­perficial view, and of easie proof to such as have no intimate acquaintance with antiquity. If then, we can have no intelligence thereof from those who may think themselves wronged, if they be not counted her Secretaries; if no discovery there­of [Page 181] be made by that diligence which has ransacked all the corners, penetrated the inwards, and di­ved to the bottom of antiquity for it: What ground is there to expect any discovery thereof hereafter? What reason is there left us to believe any other, but that such search hath been for a thing that was not, and that the supposed Liturgies of those Ages had no being, but in the imagination of later times?

And now, I may from the premises conclude, That for Five hundred Years after Christ (if not more) the ordinary way of worshipping God in publick Assemblies, was not by prescribed Li­turgies.

Instead of a more particular discovery of their introduction, this may suffice, and is enough for my purpose, that they were not the common usage, while the state of the Church was any thing tolerable, nor till it was sunk deep into de­generacy, and was much worse than when Chry­sostom complained, [...], Hom. 29. in Act. p. 776, 777. The Church is in an exceeding bad posture; and compares it to one laid out for dead, [...], &c. in 2 Cor. Hom. 7. p. 692. And again to a House quite burnt down, having taken Fire at the Pillars, which should have supported it, in Ephes. Hom. 10. p. 816. where he says, it was many a day since the Church through the World was overturned, and laid flat on the Ground, all being equally involved in evil, but those that were its Rulers more guilty than others; [...] [Page 182] [...], p. 817. And elsewhere represents it to us, by a Woman ^c robbed of her Jewels and Trea­sure, having nothing left, but [...], some poor empty significations of what precious things once she had, in 1 Cor. Hom. 36. p. 487, 488. In which he is followed by ^d Isidore of Peleusium, lib. 3. Epist. 408. Zenoni.

Particularly the degeneracy of the Church was lamentable, as on many other accounts, so (to wave those that are less pertinent to the business in hand) in respect of Worship, and the Persons who or­dered and administred it.

The Worship of God was First fearfully cor­rupted; the native plainness and simplicity of it ( [...]) most amiable to God, and all that are like him [...], Orig. ^e contr. Cels. l. 8. p. 418. was vitiated and defaced with the Paint and Patches of bold and wanton Fancies.

The Law of God, the only Rule and Standard of Divine Worship, was overlooked in the re­gulating of it; and that offered to God at a ven­ture, whether it pleased him or no, which was pleasing to Men; without consulting his word, by which alone is known, what is ^f acceptable to him.

There were more compliances with the Hea­thens, than with the Scripture; and so the Church too far from being, as, Origen says, what God, in sending Christ and the Gospel, designed them to be, [...], Con­gregations opposite to the Assemblies of the super­stitious, Contr. Cels. l. 3. p. 123.

The Christian Worship was made more Cere­monious than that of the Jews, and clogged oneri­bus servilibus, with more badges of Thraldom; [Page 184] whereby the state of Christians was rendred far more intolerable, than theirs under the Law: Their impositions being from the Pleasure of God, but these from the Will of presumptuous Men, inthralling that Religion, which God in mercy would have had free. As ^g Augustin, com­plaining thereof, expresseth it; For one Institution of God's, there were Ten of Man's, and their pre­sumptuous Devices more rigorously pressed, than the Divine prescripts: So that, if the whole had been denominated, from what was predominant therein, it was in danger to lose the name of Di­vine Worship.

Nay, some of the most horrid ^h abuses were invading it; Invocation of Saints, Adoring of [Page 185] Pictures, and giving Divine Honours to the Crea­tures. After such company, those Forms found enter­tainment. So was the Worship of God adulterated, and the corruptions still increasing and growing worse, before these became the high way of Wor­shipping. And by it, the rest became general and incurable errors and abuses, before but private and voluntary; being hereby Authorized and Inforced.

This was, after all the great Lights of the Church were extinct. Such Liturgies were not [...], but [...], as Basil in ano­ther case, de jejun. Hom. 1. a later invention; af­ter those, whom we honour under the notion of Fathers, were dead and gone, [...] (Clem. Alex. strom. 1.) Their Successors (who may glory therein) were nothing like them, but too commonly under the Character of Boniface, Lignei Sacerdotes; ⁱ and tho' so much of ano­ther temper than those that went before them, yet served the better for this turn, being imperious, or slothful, or insufficient.

Prelacy was declining into tyranny long before; and Bishops in many places, grew insolent and in­tolerable, forgetting that they were or­dainedNaz. Orat. 1. p. 3. [...], not to exercise dominion over the Flock, but to take charge of Souls. The stir­rings of this domineering humour were complained of in part of the Fourth, and beginning of the Fifth Ages; and shooting up daily and speedily, we may guess to what height it might come by an Hundred years growth. Nazianzen complains in his time of Prelates, who, when they had over­run all things else with violence, in fine tyrannized over piety it self, [...],Orat. 21. in Laud. Arbanas. and wishes, that there were no Pr [...]lacy in the Church, not only under [Page 187] the notion of local preheminence, [...], but of tyrannical prerogative,Orat. 28. [...].

Their tyranny was one thing, if Erasmus mistake not, which drave Jerome out of the World into a Cell. To be sure Chrysostom, so rigorously per­secuted for endeavouring to reform the then pre­vailing corruptions, professed that he feared none so much as Bishops, [...],vid. Ep. 2. p. 64. Epist. 13. p. 95. And Arcadius puts one of them in mind, viz. Theophilus of Alexandria, that the audacious­ness and tyranny of the Bishops before him had ruined the Nation, and dispersed the people through the World, [...], in Georg. Alexand. vit. Chrysost. c. 39. p. 212.

So in Isidore Pelusiota ^k Episcopacy, as di­vers exercised it, is [...], a ty rannical licentiousness, because they turned it into domina­tion, or rather to speak freely, into tyranny; [...], Epist. (ad Theodos.) 125. lib. 2.

The chiefest of them made bold to leap over the just bounds of their Place and Office, [...], to secular domination, as So­crates tells us, Hist. lib. 7. c. 7. &c. 11. And as there is his Testimony for those of Rome and Alex­andria, so have we the Fear of the Fathers at Ephesus for others, [...], lest under the pre­tence of a sacred Function, the pride (haughtiness) of secular power should creep in, Can. in Cod. 178. Also the observation of the Council of Chalcedon, [Page 189] [...], Can. 12. that some, against the Ecclesiastical Rules, did affect domination.

^l The Bishops of Rome affected it with a witness, asserting and contending for a Supremacy over all other Churches; and were so impotently zealous for it, as they attempted to get it acknow­ledged by a gross forgery used by Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine, to aTom. 2. Conc. Council in Africa; by Leo also in his Letters to Theodosius the Emperour; and by his Legate to the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 16. Tom. 2. Conc.

Nor did the Bishops of Rome domineer alone in the West; other Prelates acted, in lower ca­pacities, [Page 190] answerably, as appears by Prosper, com­plaining of the Bishops in his time, as if they made account, that for this alone they had their power, that they might exercise aDe vit. contempl. l. 1. c. 21. tyrannical dominion over those who were under them, Ad hoc potentes tantùm facti, ut nobis in subjectos tyrannicam domina­tionem vendicemus. Such and worse was the tyranny and imperiousness of Bishops, before they conspired to take order, that none should use a word in pub­lick Prayers, at the most solemn administrations, but what, and as they thrust it into their Mouths.

Nor was this, before those who ordered and administred the publick Worship, were grown negligent, and slothful, easing themselves of the chief duties of Pastors, viz. Those which were laborious and required any intense exercise of their faculties. Particularly, it was, after diligent and frequent peaching (which was the happiness, even of the Fourth, and part of the Fifth Age, and their security too, (some stop being hereby put to that degeneracy into which all was sliding down) and the excellency also of those Bishops, who were the lights and ornaments of those times,) was growing out of fashion. When that of Maximus was too true, Qui reipsa doceant aut doceantur admodum pauci. When those, who had the charge of Souls, declined the work, but were eager after the pow­er, profits and dignity of the place; and so re­taining the name of Pastors, were really no such thing: Which Prosper thus bewails, ‘But we (mo­destly including himself, that they who were guilty might take less exception) delighted with things present, while we hunt after the advantages and [Page 191] honours of this life, make all hast to be Prelates, not ^m that we may be Better, but Richer; nor that we may be more Holy, but more Honoured. Neither do we regard the Lord's Flock, which is committed to us, to be fed and preserved; but we carnally (mind) our pleasures, domination, riches, and other allurements. We will be called Pastors, but we strive not to be such. We de­cline the labour of our office, affecting (only) the profit and dignity,’ &c. This way of Worship was well suited to the humours of such Pastors; and they were more thoroughly and generally of this temper, in Prosper's time, before it could have free entertainment.

The lamentable insufficiency of those, who took up this Ministration, we may judge of, by the [Page 192] noted ⁿ defectiveness of those times, part where­of were in this respect, incomparably better. The unworthiness of those who were preferred, is noted by Ambrose, Nazianzen, ^o and almost every one, who was not obnoxious. Not only the Pride, but the Ignorance of the Western Bishops, and some of the chief of them, is cen­sured by Basil, ^p [...] Epist. p. 285. [...]; What belief can be ex­pected from the superciliousness of the West, where they neither know the truth, nor will learn? [Page 193] The condition of the East was not much better, for a little after we hear from Sozomen and others, that Asia and the parts about it were sick of their unworthy Bishops, [...], and languish­ed under the want of such as were really Pastors.

In the Diocess of the Orient, Chrysostom ^q com­plains that the unworthy were preferred, and those fitly qualified cast out; [...], a double misery equal­ly grievous; [...], de Sacerdot. Orat. 3. p. 24, 25. Tom. 6. vid. Isidor. l. 5. p. 276. [...]; not because there are none such, [...], Isid. lib. 5. ep. 276. l. 3. ep. 245. If they endeavour to reduce but a mean person, they are hissed at, as those who are guilty of greater evils themselves. [...], ibid. ep. 27. &c. Ancient Discipline neg­lected, the Vertuous oppressed, the Wicked in­dulged, [Page 194] ep. 426. l. 3. ep. 259. [...], because he must ei­ther be evil, or hated and indangered if good, by those who observed pernicious custom as a Divine Law, and expelled those that lived well, ep. 481. l. 5. How Episcopacy degenerately abused, l. 2. ep. 50. Those Rulers generally worst, ep. 71.

In Egypt, ^r it was the custom of Theophilus of Alexandria (without whom no Bishop was to be ordained in those parts) to consecrate not knowing Men, [...], unless he miss'd of his aim; choosing rather to have the order­ing of them, as of Fools, than to be liable to the control of any that were prudent: A thing which would scarce have past as credible upon the word of George of Alexandria, had not Pal­ladius said as much before him.

And, as he in Egypt would have none, so they in Africa could scarce get any that were sit to be Pastors: For so Aurelius Bishop of Carthage, in a Council there Assembled, An. 401. complains, That so great was their want of Ministers, as many Churches were found to have not so much as one ^ſ illiterate Deacon; and leaves them to consider, at what a loss they must needs be, for persons qualified to be superiour Officers, when they could not find such as were fit to be ^t Deacons.

And Augustin tells us, there were many good Pastors, who could not discern, per ignorantiae sim­plicitatem, [Page 196] through their ignorance and simple­ness, when there was Heresie in a Prayer; but made use of such as were Heretical, accounting them to be good, de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 6. c. 25.

Yea many Bishops there were, (and many more consequently of lower rank,) who knew ^u no Letters, and could not so much as write their own Names, but were glad to get others to subscribe for them, even in Councils, where, we may think, such insufficiency would have been ashamed to shew it self, if it had not been too common.

Not to be tedious, Leo the Emperour, about An. 460. is commended, as having well provi­ded, that the Church should have able Bishops, because he would have none Ordained, but those who had learnt their Psalter; [...].Theodor. lect. collect. lib. 1. Such was the state of the Church, as to the sufficiency of her prime Guides before the Sixth Age, and much worse afterwards, when they steered this course in their Worship; all sorts of Learning, together with Holiness, de­clining apace. And Barbarism, Ignorance and Vitiousness more and more prevailing. Under such Planets were those Liturgies born, and by their influence nourished.

To conclude, They were not entertained, till nothing was admitted into the Church, de novo, but Corruptions, or the issues thereof; no change made in the Antient Usages, but for the worse; no motions from its Primitive Posture, but down­wards into degeneracy! Till such orders took place, as respected not what was most agree­able to the rule and primitive Practice, or what was best to uphold the life and power of Religi­on in its solemn exercises, or what might secure it from that dead heartless formality, into which Christianity was sinking, and which is at this day the sediment of Popery: But what might shew the Power, and continue occasion for exercise of Authority to the imperious and tyrannical; or what might comport with the ease of the lazy and slothful; or what might favour the weakness [Page 198] and insufficiency, and not detect the lameness and nakedness of those, who had the Place ^w and Name, but not the real accomplishments of Pastors and Teachers. In a word, nor till the state of the Church was rather to be pitied than imitated; and what was discernable therein, different from preceding times, were Wrecks and Ruines, rather than Patterns.