CHAP. I. Of LITƲRGIES in the Fifth Century.

AFTER so full and clear Evi­dence for LITURGIES in the former Ages, wherein the Church was so Pure and the Fathers so very Eminent, the main Point, as to their Antiquity is gained; and if my Adversary could prove there were no prescribed Forms in this Century, it would only follow that the Primitive way was changed for a new sort of Liberty; and then Extempore Praying, or such a freedom as he pleads for, would be an Innovation, which crept into the Church in an Age of which he gives the worst Character imaginable [...] of Li [...] pag. 1 [...].. [Page 2] But it is as certain, that the use of Litur­gies continued in this Century, as it is, that they had their Original in the Fore­going Ages; and therefore though all his odious Representations of the corrupt state of the Church in this Time were true, yet that could not blemish their continuing to use those holy Forms which they received from their Fore­fathers; if they added any of the Cor­ruptions of the Age to them, they are blame-worthy for that, and we do not defend them therein; but the Method it self of Praying by prescribed Forms (about which we dispute) is ancient, and therefore not liable to any Exceptions from those Additions, all which also are now put out of our Churches Forms, and so we are not to excuse or answer for them. Now that this Century fol­lowed the former, in the use of Liturgick Forms, is plain from the Centuriators, who (as was shewed) not only own, That Forms of Prayer were prescribed in the Third and Fourth Ages; but de­clare concerning this Fifth Century, that The Bishops ordained holy Prayers for all things necessary Magdeb. Cent. [...] cap 7. pag. 742.: And, that there was frequent use of Litanies and [Page 3] Supplications in this time Ibid. cap. 6. pag. 651.. And what these Litanies were, Du Plessis (one often cited by my Adversary) doth inform us, The form and manner (saith he) of Lita­nies was this, They contrived and drew into certain Articles the public Necessities and Calamities that did press or threaten them, unto every one whereof as it was uttered by the Priest or Bishop which went before them, the People answered, [...]. Lord have mercy on us, or, Lord hear us Mornay of the Mass, lib. 1. chap. 7. pag. 54, & 55. ▪ So that they had Forms of Prayers and Litanies, not invented by private Mini­sters, but ordered by the Bishops, even as we have proved they had also in for­mer Ages: But because my Adversary labours hard to find out some passages in the Writers of this Century, which give countenance to his arbitrary and unprescribed way; I will consider all that he produces in the Order of Time, and (as I go on) take notice of such other Testimonies as are omitted by him, and do assure us of the continu­ance of Liturgies in this Century also.

[Page 4] Innocent. l. Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 402.§. I. Pope Innocent the First begins this Age, in whom we cannot expect much Evidence in our Question, because he hath nothing extant but only some few Epistles, which treat of different Subjects. Yet first he argues against the Pelagian Doctrin, of our not needing the assistance of Gods Grace, from that old Roman Form, taken out of the Psalms, which still is the beginning of their Mass, Deus in adjutorium, &c. The Priest saying, O God make speed to save us, O Lord make haste to help us. Now saith he) Pelagius and Celestius would set aside this whole Response out of the Psalms, and abdicating this Doctrin, hope to perswade some, that we neither want, nor ought to seek the help of God; whereas all the Saints bear witness, that they can do nothing without it — seposita omni responsi [...]re Psalmorum aliquid abdicatâ doctrinâ, sua­suros se aliqui­bus esse confi­dunt nos Adju­torium Dei nec debere quaerere nec egere, &c. Innoc. ep. 24. B n. Tom. 1. par. l pag. 622.. Where we see he argues from this Form, used in the Liturgy by all the Saints or holy Men, against the false Doctrin of these Hereticks; which shews it was a known and usual Response in that Age. The same Author, though he was shie in writing Mysteries in a Letter, yet plainly enough describes The Prayer for [Page 5] all Estates of Men, in which the Names of the Offerers were recited, and God was desired to accept their Alms and Oblations, as also those Prefaces, of which we spake before Prius ergo oblationes sunt com­mendandae, ac tunc eorum nomina quorum sunt oblationes, edicenda, ut inter sacra mysteria nominentur, non inter alia quae ante praemittimus. Id. Ep. 1. cap. 2. ibid. pag. 609.. And, which is most considerable in the Preface of the same E­pistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, Innocent declaresSi instituta Ecclesiastica, ut sunt à 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 estimat esse tenen­dum, inde diversa, in diversis locis vel Ecclesiis teneri aut celebrari videntur. Id. ibid., That if those Ecclesiastical Institutions which the Apostles deli­vered had been kept in­tire by the Bishops, we should not have had any diversity or variety, in the order of Worship or Consecration. But while every one thinks he must hold, not that which was delivered; but which best pleases him, thence we see divers ways of celebration are used in divers Churches. Now, from hence we note, First, That this Pope believed there was one way of Worship and Consecration (that is, one Form of Prayer and administring the Sacrament) setled by the Apostles at first, and delivered to all the Churches they planted. Secondly, That the variety [Page 6] which then appeared (not in the same Church, but) in divers Churches, was an Innovation proceeding from several Bishops (called here S [...]cerdotes) who forsook that one Original Rule, and fol­lowed their own Devices. Thirdly, That this variety was not a liberty taken by private Ministers in the same Church, but by divers Bishops in their several Diocesses. Fourthly, That this diversity (as Innocent there adds) was a scandal to the People, who not knowing that human Presumption had corrupted the ancient Traditions, fancied either there was no good agreement among the Churches, or that the Apostles and Apostolical Men set up this variety. Fifthly, For remedy hereof he advises all those Churches, which had their Original from Rome, to follow those Customs which S. Peter had delivered to that Church, and were kept there ever since. Which place, so clear for the Antiquity and Necessity of Uni­formity, our Adversary cites over and over, and spends many Pages, to shew that this very Epistle proves there were no Forms prescribed at Rome in those daysDisc. of Liturgies. p. 40, 41. & pag. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82.: For (saith he) when the Bi­shop of Eugubium enquired of divers [Page 7] particulars concerning the Church-Ser­vice, he doth not refer him to any written Orders, but to what he had seen practised at Rome; and he will not write down the Words used in the Office of Chrism, calling the Words of Con­secration, Those things which he might not publish: Adding, That it was matter of enquiry then, whether the Kiss of Peace should be given before or after the Con­secration? and whether the Names of the Offerers should be recited before or after the Prayer over the Oblation? Concluding from these passages, That there could be then no setled Order or Form at Rome; and that which Innocent would have fixed was no more than a Rubric or Direction, and this for Imi­tation, not for strict Conformity; so that in Innocents Time, every one in Italy Consecrated as he thought fit. This is the sum of his Inference.

In Answer to which I must observe, First, That those particulars which the Bishop of Eugubium enquired about, and for which Innocent refers him to what he had seen used at Rome, were Rites and Ceremonies, as appears by the several Matters treated of in this [Page 8] Epistle, viz. Cap. 1. Of the Kiss of Peace. Cap. 2. Of reciting the Offerers Names. Cap. 3. Of the Anointing the Baptized. Cap. 4. Of the Saturday Fast. Cap. 5. Of the Leavened Bread. Cap. 6, 7. Whether a Priest might lay Hands on the Possessed, and the Penitents. Cap. 8. Whether he might not Anoint the Sick. Now these things being all external Rites, which he might see and hear at Rome, and so commit to his Memory the Method used there, it was not necessary to refer him to the Roman Liturgy; nor doth it follow, there was no such Liturgy for the Prayers themselves, because when the Pope was ask'd about the Rites and Customs of Rome, he doth not (as my Adversary saith) refer him thither for satisfaction in these Matters. Yet, Secondly, this very Epistle makes it plain, they had certain Forms at Rome for their several Offices; for when he speaks of Anointing the Baptized, he saith, Verba verò dicere non possum, ne magis prodere videar quam ad consulta­tionem respondere, Ibid. Cap. 3. I cannot tell you the words, lest I betray the Church under pretence of answering your Question. And so about the Forms used [Page 9] in the Communion-Office, he thus ex­presseth himself. Post omnia quae aperire non debeo, &c. The Kiss of Peace comes after those things which I must not pub­lish: And a little after, Quae scribi sui non erat — Those things which it is not lawful for me to write down, Ib. Cap. 8. All which places necessarily suppose, they had certain and fixed Words, which were capable of being written down; but since in that Age divers (as he notes out of Chamier, pag. 41. Marg.) were not initiated, some being then Pagans, and others as yet but Catechumens; Innocent would not set down the Forms in a Letter, which might be intercepted or fall into the hands of such as ought not to know these Sacred Mysteries. But now, if at Rome every Priest had prayed Extem­pore, and not only differed from others, but daily varied from himself; then Innocent could not have discoursed at this rate, but must have said, As for the Words I cannot write them down, (not because it is unlawful, but) because it is impossible; for you know every Priest va­ries them daily as he pleases. Wherefore this Notion of keeping the Words secret [Page 10] (which was strictly observed in that Age) proves they were stated Forms, capable of being writ down, and learned by Un­believers, if they had been published to them. And nothing can be weaker (to say no worse) than to argue, as he doth, Innocent would not write the Forms in a Letter which might miscarry; there­fore they were not written down in Books closely kept by the Bishops and Priests at Rome. Thirdly, For his Ob­jection, That it was matter of Enquiry then, what place in the Eucharistical Office should be assigned to the Kiss of Peace, and to the recital of the Offerers Names Disc. of [...]it. pag. 78.; which he thinks could not be, if there had been setled Forms at Rome; It is very frivolous, For the Bishop of Eugubium doth enquire of these Matters, because he knew there was a certain Order at Rome; and though he had seen it (and perhaps knew it very well) yet his Neighbouring Bishops having different ways, as to the order of these, He desires to have it under the Popes hand, what was the Custom at Rome, hoping by this to bring his Neighbouring Bishops to an Uni­formity in these Matters. For Eugubium was a small Bishopric under the imme­diate [Page 11] Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops, as he was a Metropolitan; (being but 70 Miles distant from Rome it self) and he having no power over his Equals, gets the Popes Letter, under whose Jurisdiction all these Neighbour Bishops of his were, thereby to unite them all, by conforming to their Mother Church, which (as Innocentius affirms) had one certain Form in these Offices received from S. Peter. Fourthly, Since this Bishop was so desirous to settle Unifor­mity even in these Ceremonies of far less concernment, we may reasonably believe there was no difference in the Forms themselves, that is, in the Prayers used in all Divine Offices by these Bi­shops who lived so near to Rome; be­cause, if they had varied in the substan­tial parts of the Office, Decentius must have complained principally of that Variety, and Innocents chief labour would have been to have agreed and setled that Matter, it being ridiculous for them to be so earnest for Uniformity in Order and Ceremonies, if these seve­ral Diocesses, had differed in the main, and had infinite variety in the Offices themselves: so that both Innocent and [Page 12] Decentius being silent as to any such variety, gives us Reason to believe, they had all the same FORMS. Fifthly, What he saith of Innocents de­sign being only to settle a Rubric, is easi­ly answered. For the difference was on­ly in Rubrics which my Adversary at last confesseth, when he saith, this Epistle is most concerned about Ri [...]es and Order Disc. of Lit. pag. 83.; he might have said (as appears by the several Chapters before,) only concerned about Rites and Order, the Preface alone excepted; For there is not one Answer nor Question, that supposes any diffe­rence in the Words or Forms of these Offices; therefore it was enough for In­nocent, to settle that wherein the only dif­ference lay, which was variety of Rites, not of Prayers. Sixthly, He adds that Innocent setled this Rubric rather for I­mitation than strict conformity Disc. of Lit. pag. 80.. I An­swer, This is not setling any thing at all, for where every Priest is Arbitrary, no­thing is fixed. But Innocent, when he hath declared the custom of Rome, ex­presly requires of this Bishop; First to take care that his own Diocess and Mini­string Clergy, were well instructed in it; and then that he should give a Form to [Page 13] other Bishops, which they ought to imitate or follow—ut tuam Ecclesiam, & Clericos nos­tros, qui sub tuo Pontificio divi­nis famulantur officiis, bene in­stituas, & aliis formam tribuas quam debeant imitari. Innoc. Ep. 1. vers. fin.. Where we see he requires he should carefully instruct his own Clergy, in order to their strict con­formity no doubt; for otherwise, to what end did he teach them these Rules? And then he doth expect he should give this Form to others, that is, to his neighbor Bishops, and affirms it is their Duty to observe it; For since he is speak­ing of Acts and Ceremonies, there is no way to imitate them, but by doing them; there is no Medium between strict Conformity, and total Non-conformity in these cases; so that his distinction be­tween Imitation and strict Conformity, is nothing but Words without Sense. I conclude this passage, with my Adver­saries censure of Pope Innocent out of Erasmus Disc. of Lit. p. 81. & 82., as if he were fierce in his Nature and no good Orator. And shall note, that Erasmus doth not censure him, for pressing an Uniformity, nor doth he give any ill Character of him for this E­pistle, but for others, which he Writ in the Pelagian ControversieVid. Aug. ep. 91. & ep. 96. cum notis Erasm. & Coci censura. p. 111.. And what Erasmus saith of two other Epistles, if it be never so true, cannot prove that in this Epistle (wherein he Writes of [Page 14] the Customs of his own Church) he is not a good Evidence for matter of Fact; and if that be granted, then we have here this Popes Testimony, that the Metropolis of Rome had certain Forms of Words, for their several Offices, and one way and Method, both in their Service and Rites; and that all Churches under her immediate Jurisdiction, ought to be uni­form even in their Ceremonies by con­forming to their Mother Church; which is sufficient to shew how falsly my Ad­versary affirms, that in Italy in Inno­conts time, every one Consecrated as he though fit. For the Question was not about all Italy, but only about Eugu­bium, and the neighboring Diocesses; not about private Ministers, but Bi­shops; not about the Words or Forms of Consecrating, &c. but about Rites and Ceremonies in the Eucharist and o­ther Offices; yet even in these he la­bours to settle an Uniformity; and gives sufficient indication, not only that they ought to have, but then had, one prescribed Liturgy for the Offices them­selves, differing only in some Rubrics.

[Page 15]§ 2. Prudentius the Famous Christi­an Poet,Aurelius Pru­dentius, Ann. Dom. 405. is but once cited by my Ad­versary; who speaks of his Catheme­rinon, that is, Hymns or Forms of Praise and Prayer, suited to the several Hours of the Day and Night, wherein the Christi­ans then Solemnly worshiped God; and he might have noted of many of them, what he saith of one, That they were afterwards made use of as Church Hymns Disc. of Lit. marg. p. 161.: Now that which I shall ob­serve from hence is this, That these Hymns consist of Petitions and Prayers, as well as Praises; and are drawn up in the Plural Number, suitable to their in­tended use for a public Assembly; to which soon after they were applied. But if Prudentius had been of my Ad­versaries mind, and thought Forms pre­scribed were unlawful, it had been Ridiculous in him to draw up, and sin­ful for the Christians in public, to use these Written Forms of Praise and Pray­er. Again, if the Gift of Extempore making Prayers and Praises, for the se­veral Hours of Devotion had then re­mained in the Church, it had been not only lost labour, but a very bold thing [Page 16] for Prudentius to compose Forms; and if that Age (as my Adversary pretends) were utter strangers to prescribed Forms; doubtless Prudentius had not answered his name, rashly to undertake so novel and daring a thing, without making any Apology. We conclude therefore, that Forms even in these very Hours of Prayer, were customary and used in his time. I could also here particularly shew, that this Divine Poet frequently alludes to divers passages in the greater Offices and Liturgies then in use, viz. The Amen, Hallelujah, the Trisagion, which he calls the Hymn, Sung by Che­rubins and Seraphins, &c. But since Po­etical strains are not so solid proofs in our Case, I will only mention one placeSi quid tre­centi bis novenis additis Possint (figurâ noverimus my­sticâ) Mox ipse Chris­tus qui sacerdos verus est, Parente natus alto & ineffa­bili Cibum beatis offerens Victori­bus, Parvam pudici cordis intrabit casam. Prud. praef. ad Psycomad. pag. 228. where (in a Mysterious way) he inti­mates the repeating of the Nicene Creed, immediately before the Celebration of the Eucharist, comparing the 318 Fa­thers, who composed this Creed, to A­brahams 318 Servants, with whom he met Melchisedec; and the Sacramental Elements, to the Bread and Wine, which Abraham then received from that High Priest. And Ant. Nebrissensis hath shewed that this passage is not any o­therwise [Page 17] intelligible, than by thus ex­pounding it. Not. in Prudent. pag. 118. Which implies they used then (as we do now,) to repeat the Nicene Creed, in the Communion Office.

§ 3. My Antagonist had diligently Read Isidore of Pelusium, Isidor. Peleusi­ota. Ann. Dom. 412. as appears by his citing him for golden SentencesDisc. of Lit. p. 2. & Title. P., and also by his weeding this Author, for all the hard things he saith of some bad Bishops in that timeIbid. p. 182, 185. &c. ad pag. 195., and Ma­liciously applying it, as the Character of the whole Order in this Age, which I shall confute hereafter; and now only observe, that since he disparages Litur­gies, by their beginning (as he pretends) in so bad and corrupt a Time, as he makes this to be, it must follow that he believes Liturgies are as old, as Isi­dore's Time, or else his Allegations must be not only spiteful, but impertinent. And for his baffled Argument from Isi­dore's concealing the Words of the Myste­ries, and appealing to the Faithful, as be­ing acquainted with them [...]. Isid. lib. 4. ep. 162. & lib. eod. ep. 40. cited under Synesius name Disc. of L. p. 34.; This plainly proves, they did not Officiate then Extempore, but in plain Words, con­stantly used, and well known to the Faith­ful, [Page 18] who daily heard them repeated. Again he cites this Father, to prove that those who were Baptized were taught the Words of the Lords PrayerIsid. lib 4. ep. 24. Disc. of Lit. pag. 2.; Which shews that Forms, were not held unlawful in that Age. But if my Ad­versary had not been obliged to keep back all that makes for Liturgies, it is not easy to be imagined, why he should never mention that Famous Epistle, which Isidore Writ on purpose to ex­pound that old piece of Liturgy, Pro­nounced by the Bishop in the public Forms; (as we saw in the Constitutions, S. Chrysostom, and others) that is, Peace be with you, unto which (as Isidore tells us) the people answered, and with thy Spi­rit [...]. Isid. lib. 1. ep. 122.. This Form so well explained by this Father, gives us reason to believe, that the rest of those Liturgies where­in this known Form is found, were used in his time; and that when he advises a Clergy-Man not to abuse the Holy Li­turgy [...]. Id. lib. 1. ep. 313., he means, that he ought not to profane, and desecrate the sacred Forms, by a most unholy Life and Conversation; especially since he was not only a Scholar of S. Chrysostoms, who made a Liturgy, but also tells usId. lib. 1. ep 90., [Page 19] that the Women in his time Sung their part of the Church Service; and when they were deservedly Excommunicate, they were not all wed this great Privi­ledge; which sufficiently shews there were Forms prescribed in his days, wherein all the People had their share.

§. 4. His Contemporary was the Learned Synesius, Synesius, An. Dom. 412. who lived also in the same Country; he was bred among the Gentile Philosophers, and not Con­verted till he was come to be of a good Age: So that he had learned, be­fore he became a Christian, what silence and secrecy was due to Myste­ries, and therefore he furnishes my Adversary with divers Passages con­cerning the Heathens care to conceal themDisc. of Lit. pag. 34.; but since he hath owned the Pagans writ their Mysteries down, He must not conclude, that the Christians had no written Prayers in this Age, wherein they called them Mysteries; for though they were concealed from the Infidels and Uninitiated, they were daily used among the Faithful: And that they were Forms prescribed hath been fully proved. However, though [Page 20] we cannot expect that Synesius should write down the Sacred Words in his Books or Epistles, which might fall into common or profane Hands; yet there are intimations in him, that there were Forms of Prayer in his time, and long before: For when he speaks of the Worship of God, he saith, The Sacred Prayers of our Fore-fathers, in the holy Mysteries, do cry unto that God who is above all; not so much setting forth his Power, as reverencing his Providence [...]—&c. Synes. de Regno, pag. 9.. Now these Sacred Prayers could not be Extempore, since they were delivered down to them by their Fore-fathers, therefore they must be ancient Forms: Extempore Devotions are properly our own Prayers; but the Prayers of our Fathers, are Forms received from the Ages before us. Besides, we may note, that he describes the Service in which these Prayers were used by this Phrase ( [...]) and else­where he styles it, The hidden Myste­ries [...], Synes. Ep. 57. pag. 194.. And Nicephorus his Scholiast explains ( [...]) to be, such things as are mystically delivered both as to the words and actions [...] N [...]ceph. Scholia id Synes. p. 401.; That is, in a Form [Page 21] of Words and an order of Ceremonies, which are the two essential parts of a Liturgy: Which Name also we have in Synesius, where he is reciting the Inju­ries done to him by Andronicus; for he saith, The Devil endeavoured by this Mans means, to make him fly from the Liturgy of the Altar [...] Ep. 67. p. 193.; that is, (as he explains himself afterwards) to make him omit the celebration of the Sacra­ment, and give over reciting the public Offices; which were then performed by a Liturgy in all regular Churches. And though he be very nice of writing down any of the Forms in his common Writings, yet he gives us either the Substance or the Words of one of his Prayers, which he used not only in private, but in the public Offices; viz. That Justice might overcome Injustice, and that the City might he purged from all Wickedness [...]. Id. Ep. 121. p. 258.: Which Passage probably was a part of the Liturgy then used in his Country, there being something very like it in other ancient Liturgies, which were used elsewhere in that Age. However, our Adversary (who cites Synesius so often, and to no purpose, about Mysteries) could not, or would [Page 22] not see any of these places, which shew there were ancient and prescribed Forms in his days.

Celestinus Ep. Rom. A.D. 423.§. 5. Pope Celestine (as is affirmed by many Authors) ordered the Psalms to be sung in the Communion Office by the whole Congregation in the way of Anti­phoneVita Celest. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. par. 1. pag 732. Bena. rerum Liturg. lib. 2. cap. 3. p 502.: That is, as Isidore expounds it, with reciprocal Voices, each side of the Choir, alternately answering the o­ther Is [...]r. Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19.. And Platina adds, That he put some particulars into the Offices then in use Platin vita Celest. pag. 61.. Which shews, That the Ro­man Church was accustomed to Forms in his days. Yet my contentious Ad­versary twice produces this Popes Te­stimony to shew, that in his Time at Rome there was no more than an Order and Uniformity as to the persons and things prayed for; but that they did not pray for them in the same WordsDisc. of Lit. pag 6. & p 29.; and he cites the same place again to prove, that Forms cannot be justified from that PassageIbid. p. 138.. But to manifest his Mistake, I will first transcribe and then explain these Words of Celestine, from whence he makes this false Con­clusion: The Words are these, Let [Page 23] us look upon the Mysteries of the Priests Prayers, which being delivered by the Apostles, are uniformly celebrated in all the World, and in every Orthodox Church: That so the Rule for Praying may fix the Rule of Believing. For when the Bishops of the Faithful perform their enjoyned Embassy, they plead with the Divine Mercy for all Mankind, the whole Church Praying with them: They intreat and pray, That Faith may be granted to Ʋn­believers; that Idolaters may be deli­vered from their impious Errors; that the light of Truth may appear to the Jews, by the removing of the Veil from their Hearts; that Hereticks may repent and receive the Catholic Faith; that Schis­matics may be revived by the Spirit of Charity; that the Lapsed may obtain the Remedy of Repentance; and lastly, that the Catechumens being brought to the Sa­crament of Regeneration, may have the Gate of the Divine Mercy opened unto them Obsecratio­num quoque Sacerdotalium sacramenta re­spiciamus, quae ab Apostolis tradita, in toto mundo, atque in omni Ecclesiâ Catholicâ uni­formitèr cele­brantur, &c. Celest. Ep. pro Presp. & Hilar. inter opera Prosper. p. 894.. This is that famous Passage which our Adversary labours to mis­interpret, but in vain, since nothing can more clearly prove the use of a pre­scribed Form than these Words: For Celestine is here arguing against Here­ticks, [Page 24] and he confutes them by the Forms then used in the Church, pro­ducing the very Words, and affirming that the Apostles had delivered these Prayers to them at first, and that there was an Uniformity in these Petitions between all the National Churches in the World, that is, all their Litanies had these Requests, differing only in the Order and some few Phrases; but the Roman Form was this, which he here sets down, bids the Hereticks look upon it, and tells them this was the Rule for Prayer; and therefore they ought to believe suitably to these Prayers, which might be a Rule for their Faith, as well as for their Devotion. Now if these Prayers only agreed in the persons and things to be prayed for, but were daily varied as every Minister pleased; might not the Here­ticks have asked him, Where they could see Extempore and invisible Prayers? or how he could make those Prayers fix a Rule for their Faith, which were as various and uncertain as their Ministers Fancies? They might except justly against any Argument taken from Prayers which were varied every day, [Page 25] and differed so exceedingly in every [...]everal Church: But since they could be looked on, transcribed and urged as an Argument, and were so ancient in this Age, that even Hereticks durst not [...]xcept against the Authority of them, we are sure they must be prescribed [...]orms made long before this time. I will not deny, but that both Innocent and Celestine might stretch their Tradi­ [...]ion something too far, when they [...]scribed the Original of these Forms to [...]he Apostles themselves; but even that Assertion (especially here in a dispute with Hereticks) shews, they were so ancient then, that there was no Me­morial of the first Composer left, and [...]t is usual among the Fathers to call that Apostolical, which was generally observed, and had so early a beginning that its first Author was not known. As for my Adversaries pretence, That this Testimony only affirms an Unifor­mity, as to the order, the persons and things to be prayed for; I must ob­serve that S. Augustine useth this very Argument against the same Hereticks, and when he comes to cite the Words of the Prayer, he repeats these very [Page 26] Words, without altering any thing either in the Phrase or Order. We have cited the place in the First part, and if there be any verbal difference in the Translation from what is here set down out of Celestine, I assure the Reader, there is none in the Latin, as will appear by comparing both places togetherCelestin. Ep. apud Prosp. Et Aug. de Eccles. dogmat. cap. 30. See this History Part. l. Cent. 4. §. 21. pag. 231.. Now when Celestine at Rome, some years after, quotes the same Form of Prayer verbatim, which S. Au­gustine in Africa had cited before, this shews that the Words, as well as the Matter and Order were agreed on; and it follows, that both the Roman and African Church had a certain prescribed Form of Litany at this time, and that the same Form was used in both Churches, and was so Ancient and of so good Authority then, as to be quoted for Evidence in a dispute with Here­ticks: And who can imagine there was no more but such an Uniformity as he speaks of; that is, that every Priest in every several Church in Rome, used several Phrases every day (which is more properly, a Multiformity) since we see the same Form of Words quoted for Evidence by two great Bishops, the [Page 27] one in Italy, the other in Africa, and this also at two different times? Or how can such a liberty and variety in Praying as he dreams of, be called legem supplicandi, a Rule of Praying? How can such an uncertain thing, which daily appears in a new and different shape, fix the legem credendi, the Rule of Believing? We conclude therefore, that the Words as well as the Method of this Litany, was fixed at Rome long before the Time of this Pope.

§. 6. Which will appear more plainly,Prosper. Aqui­tan. An. D. 430 if we consult Prosper, in whose behalf the Pope writ this Epistle: For he being to Expound that place of S. Paul, 1 Tim. II. 1. I exhort therefore, that Prayers, Supplications, &c. refers to the same Litany; only supposing that the Form was well known, he doth not quote the Words in their order, but describes them so plainly, that any one may discern it is the same Form which he, S. Augustine and Pope Celestine do all appeal to: His Words are these, Which Law (or Rule) of Prayer, the Devotion of all Priests and Faithful People so unanimously observe, that there is no part [Page 28] of the World, wherein the Christians do not celebrate such Prayers: For the Church every where prays to God, not only for the Saints and those already Regenerated in Christ, but for all the Infidels and Enemies of his Cross: For all Idolaters, and all that persecute Christ in his Members; for the Jews, to whose blindness the Gospel gives no light; for Hereticks and Schismaticks, who are estranged from the Ʋnity of Faith and Charity: And what doth it ask for these, but that leaving their Errors they may be converted to God and receive the Faith, embrace Charity, and that being freed from the darkness of Ignorance, they may come to the acknowledgment of the Truth Prosper. de Vocat. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 798.? We see he is discoursing gnerally of this Litany, and breaks the Sentences, first running over the persons prayed for, and then the things asked for them; yet even in this lax way of discourse, it is easie to discern that he refers to Celestine's Form, and with him affirms, That this Prayer was a Rule unanimously observed by all Priests and People; whereas, if every Priest had daily varied the Words in every Assem­bly of the People, there could be nei­ther [Page 29] Certainty in the Rule, nor Uni­formity in the observing it. I may add, that Prosper did so highly reverence S. Augustine, that we cannot doubt but he imitated him, in the Approbation and use of public Forms; and he explains one of those public Forms, viz. the Preface of Sursum Corda, in his Sentences taken out of S. Augustine's WorksProsp. sent. ex Augustin. sent. 153. pag. 434.. And in another place he mentions and com­mends that ancient Custom prescribed in the old Liturgies, for the People to say AMEN, when they received the holy EucharistProsp. de promiss. & praed. par. 1. cap. 6. pag. 7.: So that my Adversary had no reason to cite him as an Evidence, That there was no more but a meer Order of things in his timeDisc. of Lit. pag. 6., since it is impossible that such an Order could have been uniformly and unani­mously observed by all: For this liberty of varying Expressions would soon have blundered that Order, and made strange differences in the subject Matter, as well as the Method of these Prayers.

[Page 30] Johan. Cassia­nus eod. Anno, viz. 430.§. 7. The Contemporary and Anta­gonist of Prosper, was John Cassian who had been Educated under S. Chry­sostom (the Author of a Liturgy) and was come to live in one of the Gallican Monasteries, where he recommended divers of the Eastern Opinions and Pra­ctices. His Writings indeed are about the private Devotions of Monks in their Cells and Oratories, and therefore he hath no occasion to describe the Forms then used in Cathedral or other Churches, supplied by the Secular Clergy; yet he plainly implies, that the public Wor­ship was performed by prescribed Forms, and expresly affirms that the Monks used such in their Oratories: Hence he calls Our Father, The Form of the Lords Prayer Jo. Cassian. collat. 9. cap. 18., and that Model and Form which was made by the Judge whom we are to intreat Ibid. cap. 24.. He also from those words, Our daily Bread; notes, That we ought to use this Prayer every day Ibid. cap. 21.; yea, he assures us, that the Words of it were daily sung in the Church by all the People, at which time some Persons who were not in Charity, wickedly left out that part of it, As we forgive them that [Page 31] trespass against us Nonnulli cum in Ecclest h [...]c Oratio ab universà plebo concinitur, hunc locum tacui praetermittunt. Ibid. cap. 22.. He mentions also that Litany for the Catechumens, which was wont to be said by a Deacon, the Form of which we have set down before, out of his Master S. Chrysostom Id de Spirit. Cenod. lib. XI. cap. 15.: He saith, That the People sung the Gloria Patri aloud in France after the Psalms, and in the East after the Anti­phonId. lib. 2. de Canon. noc. modo, cap. 9.; and describes one of his Monks in a Journey, going into a Country Church, and celebrating the Evening-Office with the accustomed PsalmsId. Collat. 8. cap. 16.. As for the Monks Devo­tions in their Monasteries, it is very plain from him that they had prescribed Forms for every hour of the Day and Night in which they met to pray; which Forms Cassian calls, The Offices of the Canonical Prayer Id. de Can­diurn. Oration. lib. 2. cap. 12.; and, The Ca­nonical Mass Ibid. lib. 3. cap. 3.: Which word [Missa] doth not signifie in him (as it doth now at Rome) The Communion-Office; but any prescribed Service, consisting of a cer­tain number of Psalms with Prayers intermixed, after the recital of which they were dismissed. Thus he relates how the Egyptian Monks (by ancient Tradition) repeated at their Hours of Prayer, Twelve Psalms, distinguished by [Page 32] a Collect placed and used between each Psalm Id. de Can­diurn. Orat. lib. 2. cap. 5.: And for the Psalms, they sung them by way of Antiphon, putting a melodious Tune to themId. ib. cap. 2., like our Cathedral-way. In France they only sang three Psalms at the Morning-hour for PrayerId. ib. lib. 3. cap. 4., and answered Hallelujah at no other Psalms, but those which began with Hallelujah Ibid. lib. 2. cap. 11.: But so little did they affect Variety, that they sung the same Psalms at the same Hours of Prayer, viz. O God, thou art my God early will I seek thee; with some othersIbid. lib. 3. cap. 3.. And there were not only certain Psalms appointed for the several Hours in all ChurchesIbid. lib. 3. cap. 6., But the Forms of Prayer (both for Morning and Night) were the very same Sed eodem ordine missam quo prius in nocturnis con­ventibus cele­bratam. Id. ibid., excepting only some which were appropriate to the Season. But neither in them, nor any other of these Monastick Prayers, did these holy Monks pretend to exercise any Gift of Prayer, to shew how long they could hold out in one long-winded Address to God: No (he saith) They utterly disliked such long Prayers, and thought the short Prayers (which they frequently inter­mixed with their Psalms) were far more profitable Utiliùs cen­sent breves quidem Oratio­nes, & creberri­mas fieri. Id. ibid. lib. 2. cap. 10.: Which were not only like [Page 33] the short Collects in our Liturgy, but in Cassian's Time bore that Name, be­cause in them the Minister collected that which was sit for the Congrega­tion to desire, into one of these brief Forms, which they all said together with him, and none were allowed then to be putting up any private PrayersId ib. lib. 2. cap. 8.. Finally, The ancient Fathers (whom he so much admires) were such lovers of holy Forms, that when they directed a Monk how to pray, always they or­dered him to use this Form, O God, make speed to save us; O Lord, make haste to help us Id. Collat. 10 cap. 10. p. 848.; which was then, and is still the Preface to the Western Office for public Assemblies. It would be too tedious to remark upon all these In­stances; which are so plain Proofs of the use of Forms of Prayer and Praise in the Service of God, both in and long before Cassian's Time, that my Adversary (in his very diligent search of Antiquity) foreseeing he could no way evade them, thought it his safest way to overlook them, and therefore he scarce ever cites this Author.

[Page 34] Concil. 3. Oec. Ephesinum, An. Dom. 431.§. 8. In the Acts of the Third Ge­neral Council at Ephesus, we have also many Evidences of Liturgick Forms both of Praise and Prayer: For in them we read, That when the Messenger from the Orthodox Fathers there, ar­rived at Constantinople with their Letter to the Emperour, the Monks went with him in a Body to the Palace, Singing of Antiphones [...] in [...]s [...]r [...] Con­sta [...]. Bin. Tom. l. par. 2. pag. 289.; which those who stayed at the Gate continued to Sing, till the rest came out with the Emperours Answer, and then all went in Procession to the Church of S. Mochus, and sang the Last Psalm [...] Ibid. pag. 290.. By which we see they were so constantly used to praise God by Forms of Antiphones and Psalms, that even in the Streets they could perform this Office, and the very People (by long Custom) could also sing their part with them. In the same place it is Recorded of one eminent Monk named Dalmatius, that when Constantinople was shaken with an Earth­quake, he was frequently desired by the Emperour to come out of his Cell and say the Litany (being thought to be one whom God would hear [...] ibid. p. 290.). Now [Page 35] if the Litany had not been a stated Form, proper only to be used in a great Assembly, because of the great share the People bare in it (as Du-Plessis before hath described it); this Monk might as effectually have said it in his Cell, and need not have done it in so formal a Procession. And that it was usual thus to sing or say the Litany in times of common danger or calamity in the Eastern Church, long before Mamertus brought that Usage into the West, may appear from what Nice­phorus and Cedrenus both, relate con­cerning Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, An. Dom. 434. That Theodosius the Em­perour requested him thus to use the Litany when the City was in danger of an Earthquake: Yea, the very Manner of the Procession is described by So­crates, when he shews how that City was delivered from a dreadful Tempest, in the Time of the younger Theodosius, by a solemn Litany Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 49.. Now, that must be a known prescribed Form, wherein so many Thousands can make their Responses, and bear their part. Again, The dissenting Bishops in this Council complain to the Emperour, [Page 36] that Cyril (Bishop of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus) by the help of the Rabble, would neither suffer them to keep the Feast of Pentecost, nor to per­form the Morning or the Evening Liturgy [...] Ep [...]. ad Impe­rat. B [...]. Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 228. and if my Adversary (to serve his Cause) would translate this. The Morning and Evening Administration, that would not hurt me; because there is such plain proof, That the Eastern Church then performed this Administration by a Form, and called that Form a Liturgy also. Again, it is Recorded in these Acts, That Cyril (in his Letter to John Bishop of Antioch) used these words, We have been taught also to say in our Prayers, O Lord [...]ur God, Give us Peace, f [...]r thou art the Giver of all things to us — [...] Ibid. pag 428.. Nothing can be plainer th [...]n that this was a Liturgick Form, which S. Cyril had not made of his own Head, but had been taught it by his Fore­fathers; and it was so generally known and used, that he Quotes it to another Bishop, as an Argument why they should agree, who both used the same Form of praying for Peace. I should here have concluded this Section; but I will briefly remark, That Nestorius (who [Page 37] lived in this Time, and his Master Theodorus of Mopsvestia (who flourished twenty years before it) are accused, for impiously presuming to alter the Churches usual Liturgy, and without any Reverence either for that of the Apostles, or for S. Basils, made a new and a blasphemous Office of his ownLeontius Byzan: adver. Nestor. lib. 3., which in these early days no doubt was accounted a very bold Undertaking; and yet still this is only changing one Form for another nor setting up for Extempore Prayers, of which there is not any mention in this Age.

§. 9. This Section shall continue the same Evidence in a few Passages out of some Lesser Fathers: as first,Petrus C [...]ryso­logus, An. Dom. 433. Petrus Chrysologus (the most elegant Preacher of this Age) tells us, That the Form of the Apostles Creed was taught to the Catechumens by Heart, a little before their BaptismPetr. Chrysol. Ser. 56.: And he bids them commit it, not to Paper, but to their Breasts; not to their Table, but their Memory Id. Serm. 60. pag. 187.. Where by the way we may note, that the Breast is put for the Memory, even as De pectore in Tertul­lian) signifies, saying a Prayer by heart, [Page 38] or by Memory. Again, the same Author explains the Words of the Lords Prayer, after he had delivered it as a Form to the Catechumens Chrysol. Serm. 6 [...], &c.: And he notes, That before his Sermon he had saluted them, by praying to God to give them Peace Id Ser. 138. pag. 354.: Which we have seen was prescribed in the old Liturgies, of the use whereof there are divers other In­timations in his Works. Secondly, The next place shall be assigned to a Galli­can Monk of great Fame,Linceri [...]ius, Ia­rinens. An Dom. 434. who saith concerning The Common-Prayer-Book, which he calls there Sacerdotalem Li­brum, The Priests Book, that None of them dared to alter it, because it was then Signed and Consecrated by the Con­fessors, and many of the Martyrs Librum Sa­c [...]r [...]talem, quis vestrum resignare au­deat, signatum a Comessori [...]s, & multerum [...]am Martyrio cons [...]cratum. I [...]r. n. adv. hae­res. cap. 7. p. 12, & 13.. But whatever his Opinion were, we have some who would not only alter, but utterly cast away our Priestly Book, though the Compilers of it were all either Confessors or Martyrs: How­ever we learn from hence, That in this Age there was a Book of Offices in France, believed to have been originally Composed by the ancient Confessors and Martyrs.L [...]o I. Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 440. Our next Witness shall be Leo, Bishop of Rome, whose Works [Page 39] afford many Instances of the use of prescribed Forms both of Praise and Prayer: For he mentions the Singing of Psalms with harmonious and agree­ing VoicesSerm. 2. in assump. Pontif. pag. 4.. He Comments twice upon that eminent Preface, Lift up your hearts, noting, that it is just and right so to do Serm. 2. in Nat [...]v. pag. 37. Ser. 2. in Ascens. pag. 207.; and observing, that if we comply with this Exhortation, earthly things cannot depress our Minds. He calls the Creed, That Rule of the Ca­tholic and Apostolic Faith Serm. 4. de Nativ. pag. 48. Ser. 11. de Pass. Dom. pag. 164., allowing no variation from it. In him we find the same Epistles and Gospels always read upon the same Festivals; and ge­nerally the same which we read in our Church at this daySerm 3. de Epiph. pag. 76. Ser. 5. de Epiph. pag 84. Ser. 6. pag. 88. item. Serm 4 de Quadrag. pag. 105, 107. & Serm. 3. de Pentec. p. 218.. In him also we find that ancient Use prescribed by the Liturgies of reading the Names of the Offerers, and others, at the Al­tarDecretal. Ep. 41. cap. 3. pag. 355.. Finally, he mentions the Prayer for the Jews on Good Friday, used in our Liturgy at this daySerm. 19. de Pass. Dom. pag. 191.: And he gives us this description of the public Fasting and Prayer then in use; What can be denied (saith he) to so many Thousand People, joyning in the perfor­mance of the same service, and unani­mously beseeching God with one Spirit? [Page 40] It is a great thing in Gods sight— when the whole Christian People are in­stant upon the same Offices together, and when all orders and degrees of both Sexes unite their Affections for the same end Id. Serm. 3. [...] Sept. [...] pag 240.. These must be Prayers made [...] such Forms, as made up one Office wherein all the People could bear a part, and all joyn in the Responses, &c. And these Forms thus unanimously recited he thinks must needs be very prevalent with Almighty God. At the same Time lived Abbot Nilus, Nilus Abbas, An Dom. 440. who calls the public Prayers, The fixed Laws of the Church [...] N [...] [...]aenes. 10 [...].: So that in his days doubt­less they were not left arbitrary, to the Fancy of every Man who was to Offi­ciate: He would have his Monks re­ceive the Sacrament in the Church; but if there was not any celebration of the Eucharist, he allows them to depart after the singing of the Epistle and Gospel [...] ibid. 105. Bibl. Patr. edit. Paris. Tom. 2. p. 1172.: Which shews, they used at that Time to Sing those portions of Scripture in the Communion-Office; and implies, that the rest of that Service was agreeable to our Forms, in other things, as well as in the Epistles and Gospels; but these Passages fell not under my Ad­versaries observation.

[Page 41]§ 10.Socrates, Sozo­menus, Theodo­ritus, Histor. Encles. Cire. Ann. 440. The Church Historians who writ after Eusebius, within little more than one hundred year, after the setling of Christianity, viz. Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, are next to be consi­dered. And in them we find divers passages to confirm us, that prescribed forms were used both in, and long be­fore their Times; and this we shall make out by some instances, both as to Praises and Prayers, contenting our selves, of many, to select only a few Testimonies. And First, No sort of Prayer is more ancient, nor more certainly a Form, than the Litany: Yet of this, we have express Testimony in Socrates, who re­lates the Story of that great Storm, which happened at Constantinople, when The­odosius the younger, and the People were beholding the sports of the Hip­podrome, saying, that the Emperor Com­manded the People to give over their sport, and to joyn all of them in one Common Li­tany to God; adding, that they obeyed him, and all of them with great ala­crity, said the Litany, and with agreeing Voices sent up Hymns to God: So that the whole City was but as one Church; [Page 42] and the Emperor began the Hymn him­self; After which devout recital of these Offices the Storm ceased [...] — pp. [...] Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 749.. Where we see the Litany and Hymns were such known Forms, that all the People on a sudden could say and sing their part of them; which can be no Wonder; be­cause we have shewed before, that in the elder Theodosius his time, it was usual to repeat the Litany in proces­sion at Constantinople, in times of Com­mon Danger; Yea, I doubt not, but Litanies are mentioned by Eusebius, as used in Constantine's Time; For he saith, the Bishops at Jerusalem offered up ( [...]) Supplicatory Prayers; For the Peace of the whole World; For the Church of God; For the Emperor him­self, and for his Children beloved of God [...] Euseb. vit. Con­stant. lib. 4. cap. 45. p. 405.. Which are almost the very Words of those ancient Litanick Forms, yet extant in the Constitutions, and allu­ded to by many of the ancient Fathers, although Eusebius here rather describes, than cites these ancient Forms. Theodo­ret speaking of the same Emperor, saith; Constantine prepared a Chappel in his Camp, where they might Sing Hymns to God, and Pray, and receive the Mysteries; [Page 43] For there were Priests and Deacons fol­lowing the Army,— who according to the Law of the Church, performed the Order for these things [...]. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 205.. In which passage, we have express mention of an Order for Hymns, for Prayers, and for the Eucharist, which was setled by the Law of the Church; and this amounts to no less than a Common Prayer en­joyned by Law. For this ( [...]) Con­stitution or Order, no doubt contained those prescribed Prayers which Socrates calls ( [...])Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 15., that is, prescribed Forms of Prayer; which we may learn from Sozomen also, who speaking of Nectarius (that from a Lay-man, was suddenly advanced to be Bishop of Constantinople,) saith, He was sent to Ciriacus, an ancient Bishop of Ada­na, that he might learn ( [...]) the Order of officiating used by the Bishops, which plainly signifies learn­ing his Book of offices Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 10. p. 420., it being one Requisite in a Bishop to be very exact in that point. As for those short Prayers which the Monks of Egypt used, (men­tioned in my Adversary) it is Evident they were Forms, though he is not wil­ling to confess so muchSozomen. p. 397. in the Disc. of Liturg. pag. 75.. For that place [Page 44] of Sozomen which he cites, concerning Paulus, who said 300 Prayers in a day, and was forced to use 300 little Stones, for Beads, (Foreheads, saith his front­less Editor) to count them by, is taken from Palladius, who writ Anno Dom. 401. and tells us that he had 300 prescribed Prayers [...] Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. cap. 23.; and because they were short Forms committed to Memo­ry, Paulus was constrained to use these ( [...]) little Stones that so he might know when he had repeated them all. And since we have mentioned Palladius (who wrote at the very begining of this Century,) we may Note here, that he also affirms, Ma [...]arius another Monk, said an hundred prescribed Prayers every day [...] Pallad. ib. cap. 24.. And another, called from his Charity Eleemon, used to go to the Church to say the accustomed Prayers [...] Id. c. 115.. By which we may see that the ancient Monks, who lived before this Century began, (of whom Palladius Writes,) were accustomed to Forms of Prayer both in their Cells, and in the Churches when they went thither; nor can I find in any of these Historians, an account of any that pretended to Pray in public, in the Extempore way by the Spirit, [Page 45] except those Hereticks called Euchites, and Enthusiasts; upon whom Theodoret is so severe, as to say he believes, they were inspired by the Devil Theodoret. lib. 4. cap: 10. pag. 116.. And this may suffice for the Prayers. Secondly, As to the Praises, the last cited Author assures us, there was a known Form of Gloria Patria at Antioch, concluding (as it doth now) World without end; and this as early as the time of Leontius, who be­cause he altered the ancient Form, re­peated it with a low Voice, but was soon discovered by the People, who were well acquainted with the Orthodox way of saying that HymnTheodoret. lib. 2. cap. 24.. Sozomen also relates how the Arians in S. Chryso­stoms time at Constantinople, being di­vided into two Companies, Sung Hymns after the manner o [...] Antiphones, adding such Responses to them as favoured their Heresy Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 8.. I confess the Hymns them­selves were corrupted, but as they were Forms and sung alternately, they were agreeable to the Churches method of praising God; and therefore in that they were imitated by S. Chrysostom. For thus the same Historian tells us, Those Christians Sang their Hymns by way of Antiphone, who Translated the [Page 46] Bones of Bubylas the Martyr, in the time of Julian Sozomen, lib. 5. cap. 18.. And another saith, The holy Virgins Sang the Psalms in that man­ner, even in defiance of that Apostate Theodoret. lib. 3. cap. 17.. So also Theodosius the Younger, and his Sisters arose early to recite the Morning Hymns alternately [...] Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22.. Now these Anti­phones which were thus Sung alternately, could be no other than prescribed Forms of Praise; and so was that usual Hymn collected out of those Psalms, beginning with Hallelujah, from whence it had the name of The Hallelujah, and was Sung both in the Eastern and Western Churches so frequently, that a Pagan Philosopher knew it to be a sign, the Christian Wor­ship would be set up in Serapis Temple, when in the middle of the night, he heard that Hymn Sung there, no per­sons visible, being in the TempleVide Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 15. pag. 426.. We may also here remember, what hath been said of the Trisagion, which was so known a Form, in the time of Ana­stasius the Emperor, that there was a dangerous Sedition at Constantinople, upon his attempting to add a few Words to itEvagr. lib. 3. cap. 44., which is sufficient to satisfie us, that Forms of Praise as well as Prayer, were then generally used in the Chri­stian Churches.

But my Adversary, (who overlooks all this Evidence) hath picked up some few passages out of these Historians, to make out his imaginary liberty of Pray­ing. First, He notes out of Socrates, That Athanasius Commanded the Deacon to publish the Prayer, or to bid it; but to Read the Psalm [...]. Socr. lib. 2. c. 8. [...]. Theodo. lib. 2. cap. 13. Disc. of Lit. pag. 8.. From whence he in­fers, that the Prayers then could not be Forms Read out of a Book. But this in­ference is easily bafled, by observing the true meaning of these Phrases, to publish or bid the Prayer; Which is meant of the Preface to that ancient Litanick Form, repeated of old by the Deacon: And before he began, He summoned the People to be ready with their Re­sponses after every Period, by Crying out aloud, Let us Pray, or Let us Pray earnestly; Which Form is found in the beginning of the Greek Litanies to this very day. So that this Phrase, supposes a Form in which all the People bore a part; and was Read or repeated by heart, by the Deacon (no matter whe­ther.) And it was not only a Form it self, but the Preface to a known Form; nor is the repeating of the Prayer called publishing, or bidding it, but the prepa­ration [Page 48] for it, and the notice which the Deacon gave of it, with a loud Voice. Wherefore this Phrase confutes his Opi­nion, and confirms ours. Secondly, He twice quotes Socrates, as saying, That generally in all places and among all sorts of Worshipers, there cannot be found two agreeing to use the same Prayers Disc. of Liturg p. 89. & 133.. And by this he would prove, that all Mini­sters might Pray as they pleased; and that there was no agreement, in using the same Prayers in any place. But I will first set down the Words, both of Socra­tes and Sozomen, and then explain them: The former saith, And generally you can­not find two agreeing together in all pla­ces, and in all the kinds of Worship, as to their Prayers [...]. Scorat. lib. 5. cap. 21.. The latter tells us, It cannot be found, that the same Prayers, Psalms, or Lessons were used by all at the same time [...]. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19. cited Disc. of Lit. pag. 9.. Now both these Historians are speaking, not of single Congregations, but of several Nations, and several Dio­cesses; among which there was not in­deed so exact an agreement, but that you might find some difference in some Offices; Which signifies no more, but only that in the Order of placing the se­veral Parts of Worship, and in the very [Page 49] Words of the Prayers, different Coun­tries differed so far, that they could not be said to agree in all things: but both the Hist [...]rians suppose, that in many things they did agree: And Socrates gives the reason of this variety; saying, The cause of which diversity (as I judge) hath been, the Bishops, who in several Ages, have presided over their several Churches, from w [...]om their Successors did rece [...]ve this variety, and Writ it down for a Law to those who should come after them [...]. [...]crat. ut supr. pag. 698.: So that these differences were not Arbitrary Variations of private Pastors, proceeding from Extempore Gifts, as my Adversary fallaciously pre­tends; they were such Varieties, as were Written down, and prescribed by anci­ent Bishops, in their several Diocesses, as a Law and Rule, for the Worship of that Diocess: Which plainly shews, that though there was not the same Liturgy used all the World over; yet that every Country had one Liturgy, which was a Law and Rule to Guide them, received from their Primitive Bishops, who had, long before this Age, introduced some things into the Liturgies for their own Churches, and those under their Juris­diction; [Page 50] and by that means it came to pass, that the Liturgies did not a­gree so exactly, as to use the same Psalms, Prayers and Lessons, however not in the same Order in all places. Which cleer and genuine Sense of these Authors, is so far from justifying his Notion of variety of Arbitrary Prayers in single Congregations, that it proves there were prescribed Liturgies every where, differing only in some few things, which were differently Writ down and enjoyned by the ancient Bishops, who had formerly presided o­ver these several Churches. Had Socrates and S [...]zomen been of my Adversaries side, they must have told us in short, that there could be no agreement in Pray­ers any where b [...]cause all Ministers were at liberty to Pray as they pleased. Had that been the custom, these Historians need not have set it down as a Memor­able thing, That no places agreed in all points; for the Wonder would have been, if they had agreed in any thing Nor could Socrates have ascribed the variety to the Orders of divers ancient Bishops; he must (according to my Adversaries No­tion) have ascribed it to the Various [Page 51] Gifts and Elocution of every several Minister; but it is plain, that Fancy of Ministers exercising such Gifts in public Prayers, was not so much as thought of in that Age; it is a Novel invention of Modern Enthusiasts, and utterly un­known to these ancient Times. Thirdly, He cites Socrates about the Prayers used at the time of Candles lighting [...] Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21., which he saith were accomodated to the Sea­sonDisc. of Lit. pag. 161.: But I must ask who it was, that suited these Prayers to the Season? Was it private Ministers by their Gifts, who daily varied them? If not, it is no­thing to his purpose: For if they were fixed written Forms, fitted by the Bishops of several Countries, and prescribed to those under their charge for constant use, then they justisie prescribed Forms, which will be plain enough when we consider, what Socrates saith of these Evening Prayers, in this very place ci­ted, viz. That in Greece, Jerusalem and Thessaly, the Prayers at Candle-lighting were made after the same manner, which was used by the Novatians at Constan­tinople. So that this passage, if my Ad­versary durst have produced it a large, shews, First, that the three several Pro­vinces, [Page 52] did all Pray alike at this hour of Prayer, and all of them followed the way of the N [...]vatians at Constanti­nople: Now if the Novatians, there had daily varied these Prayers Extempore, No Provinces nor places could have ex­actly used the same Prayers as they did, and every one of these places must have differed from another. So that when so many distant Churches agreed in the same way, and made the same Prayers, no doubt they all Prayed by prescribed Forms. And this is all that is needful to say as to these Historians.

Concil. Vinet. Ann Dom. 453.§ 11. Though there passed neer an hundred years between the Council of Laodicea and this of Vanues; yet my Adversary was so unfortunate, that he could find nothing for Liturgies in all this space of Time; for he tells us, the next Authority he meets with after the Council of Laodicea, is the Synod at VannesDisc. of Lit. pag 173., which he labours both to disparage and pervert; because it hath a Canon for uniformity in the Liturgy: But we will first cite the Words of it at large, and explain the sense of it: And then Answer all his Allegations; The [Page 53] Words are these; We also think it fit, that at least within our Province, there should be one usage for holy Offices, and for the Order of Singing: That as we hold one Faith, in the confession of the Trinity, so we may hold also one Rule in our Offices; lest by various usages, our Administrations be thought to differ in some things Rectum quoqu [...] d [...]ci­ [...], [...] v [...]l in­ [...] [...], Sac [...] [...] [...]rdo [...]. Ut sicut [...] c [...]m Tri­nitatis c [...]nf [...]ssi­on [...] [...] tene­ [...]at [...] [...] & Osp [...] [...] re­ [...]ul [...]m t [...]nea­m [...] variatâ observ [...]tione, in al [...] no ob­servatio nostra discrepare cre­aa [...]ur. Concil. Vi [...]tet. Can. 15. Bin. Tom 1. par. 2. p. 422.. This Canon is as plain an Injunction of one Liturgy as can be expressed▪ one Custom in Administring the Sacraments, and one Order of Singing Hymns; Which is afterward called, one Rule for the Offices, which was to be observed by all the Clergy in this Province. Again, they compare this to one Creed; Now the Creed was one known Written Form of Words, in which they all confessed their Faith; and they think it reasonable that their Prayers and Hymns should be so also, that is, performed by one prescrib­ed Rule, and in the same Forms. Lastly, The reason they give, why they would have but one Form or Liturgy in all their Province, is to prevent the Scan­dal and Offence which might be given, by variety in these Offices, as if there were no good agreement among these Bishops, which might easily be believed, [Page 54] if every Diocess varied in the manner of Worshiping God; but if every pri­vate Minister at that time, had daily varied his Prayers and Praises, it had been very ridiculous in these Bishops, to be affraid of seeming to differ in any thing: And in vain had they setled an agree­ment in the Rubries, if the substance and Words of the Prayers had been changed every day. However my Ad­versary tries all his Art to undervalew, and pervert this plain Decree For first, he falsly thrusts this Council down, to the latter end of the Fifth Century; where­as it was held but three years after the midst of it.Ann. Dom. 453 Then he saith, this Canon was made only by Six Bishops in one Province, where there were Fifteen or Seventeen; and this not till the latter end of the Fifth Age, when all things were grown very badDisc. of Lit. pag. 176.. To which I reply, That this Council supposes there was an Order in every Diocess of this Province; only, whereas there was (as Socrates observed in the East,) some dif­ference between them, they now reduce all to one Form, those under the juris­diction of the Metropolitan of Tours, of which Perpetuus was now the Bishop, [Page 55] and came to Vannes, with five of his Suffragans to ordain a Bishop there; and being assembled they made this and o­ [...]her Canons, and Writ to Victurius Bi­ [...]hop of Mans, and Thalassius Bishop of Anjou, (two absent Bishops of this Pro­vince) to see this and the rest of these Canons observed in their Diocesses. And in all probability, these Eight were all the Bishops of that Province, in those early Times; for Miraeus reckons now, (in this Age) but Eleven Bishops, who are under the Metropolitan of Tours Miraei. no­titia Episc. lib. 4. p. 194., so that my Adversary is mistaken to say, there were Fifteen or Seventeen: And he is as grosly out, in his calling this a late Decree: For it must be considered that France was overrun by Barbarous, and Pagan Nations within less than an hundred Years before, so that it need­ed a new Conversion a little before this Century began; and therefore Lidorius was the first setled Bishop of Tours, who had a Church Builded there for Christian Worship; and he died, (as Gregory Tu­ronensis relates) Ann. Dom. 370. that is, only 80 Years before this Council. S. Martin also the great Apostle of this part of France, and Bishop of Tours, died on­ly [Page 56] 50 Years, before this C [...]non was made; and Perpetuus the President of this Council, was the Fifth Bishop after [...]. M [...]rtin [...] §. 14. p. [...]., and hold this Synod at least 30 Years before the Conversion of Cl [...]vis, the first Christian King of France. So that it is very frivolous, (to say no worse) for my Adversary to call this a late De­cree with respect to the whole Church. Since as to this Province, and with re­spect to France, it is a very early De­cree, made soon after their Conversion to the Faith; and considering each great City, after the Barbarous inundation, was Converted by a several Bishop, it is no wonder if there were some variety in their Liturgies: But we see, as soon as they had setled Christianity it self, their very next care was to settle one Liturgy; and probably other Provinces made the like Decree, though this only for this Age be now extant in the Councils. And if (as he saith) all things were so had here in this Country, in the very beginning of their Conversion; I would fain know, when things were better there, than when this Canon for an Uniform Liturgy was made; and I de­sire it may be Noted, that Gregory of [Page 57] Tours, who lived within little more than [...]n hundred Years, of this Council, assures us, That many of these very Bishops had the Gift of Miracles; Yet did not pretend to that Gift of Extem­pore Praying, (which our Dissenters boast of) but bound themselves, and all their Subordinate Clergy, to one and the same Rule of holy Offices; and a Man would hope this Country was not so very bad, nor this Age so wicked, where the Bishops were enabled to work Miracles, and while many of them were Confessors and Martyrs. Thus much for the Authority of this Council: And as to the meaning of the Canon, my Ad­versary leaves out one half of it, and recites no further than una sit consue­tudo: So that his Reader may not see the unam Officiorum Regulam, One Rule for holy Offices; nor observe their re­solution to have one Form for their Offices, as well as they had for their Creed; nor discern their fear of having any remarks made, if there were the least variation in their Worship. This was all to be clapt under Hatches. Then he puts Sacrorum Ordo together; where­as Ordo is joyned with Psallendi. But [Page 58] that is no great matter, if he had not also falsly expounded this Word, Ordo, and told us, it signifies no more than the disposing the Responsals, Pray­ers, Hymns and Psalms, each in its pro­per place; which he would prove by the Council of Agatho, (held, he saith, not long after) where Ordo Ecclesiae is used only for a Rubric or Directory; and there­fore he thinks it cannot be inferred from hence, that the same Expressions were used by them that did Officiate Disc. of Lit. pag. 174. This is the sum of his Arguing against the plain and genuine meaning of this Canon: But I shall easily shew it is all mistake: For first, all those Prayers which had Re­sponsals in them, must necessarily be in known Forms, otherwise the People could not make certain Answers to them in their proper places; and that the Hymns and Psalms were Forms also▪ is most certain. Well then accord­ing to him, Ordo must be the disposal of all the Responsory Prayers and Praises, together with the Hymns and Psalms, in that very Form of Words in which they were prescribed, into their proper places: So that according to him, Ordo will signifie not only a [Page 59] bare Rubric, but a direction containing [...]he Forms themselves, as well as the Order of them: He can except nothing but the Prayers, and gives no shadow of a Reason why they should not be put into Forms, as well as the Respon­sals, Hymns and Psalms. And this is certain, that The Litany, which was the [...]ongest Prayer in all the Offices, and was in use at the Time of this Council (as I will shew in the next Section) was a Responsory Form; so that if this Ordo, did dispose of that into its proper place, no doubt it also contained the very Form it self; and he must need Hellebore who can imagine, that when the Litany, and the Hymns and Psalms, were all prescribed Forms, other Prayers should be left arbitrary. Again, I hope this Canon may be allowed to expound it self, and then this Order is enjoyned to be done in one manner, and after one Custom; there was to be no more variety in it, than in their Creed, which was one constant Form of Words; yea, it is called One Rule of holy Offices, and so made, that none might observe the least variety in any Church throughout the Province. Therefore if we joyn Ordo [Page 60] to Sacrorum, it can mean nothing but a Prescription both of the Order and Forms also, to be used in [...]cred Ad­ministrations: And that this is generally the sense of Ordo, when it is applied to Divine Offices, appears in those very Councils of Agatho and [...]amiers, which he cites here (but were not held till after the Sixth Century was begun): In the former The Order of the Church equally to be observed by all, is one Li­turgy consisting of Antiphones and Col­lects with proper Hymns and Prayers for Morning and Ev [...]ingConcil. Agat [...] Can. 30. B [...]n. Tom. II. par. 1. pag. 555.. In the latter of these Synods it signifies so also, for there all the Clergy of the Province are commanded to use the same Liturgy (or Order of Prayer) which was used in their M [...]tropolitan ChurchConcil. Epanu. Can. 27. ibid. pag. 53., as I shall more at large demonstrate when I come to these Councils, in order of Time. In the mean season I will here observe, that Causab [...] tells us, the Latins call the Liturgy, Ordinem agendi Causab. ex­ercit. 1 [...]. ad Annal. Eccles. pag. 384.: and every Man knows, that Ordo Romanus, is the Roman Missal: And it is the proper Latin Word for ( [...]), which we have seen used by Sozomen and others in this Age for a Liturgy [...] Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 10.; [Page 61] and this Order is that Liber Sacerdo­talis, which Vincentius Lirinensis speaks ofVincent. Li­rin. adv. haeres. cap. 7. pag. 12.; it was called sometimes Ordinale, and (as Spolm [...]n defines it) signified, That Book wherein was appointed the manner of saying, singing and celebrating the Divine Office, after the manner of the Roman Church Ordinale: Liber quo Or­dinatur modus dicendi, decan­tandi, celebran­dique divinum Officium, ex more Romanae Ecclesiae. Spelm. Glossar. pag. 440.; yea, after the manner of any other Church: For the Missal of Sarum, Composed by Osmund, who was Bishop of that See, is called, The Ordinal of SalisburyHic quoque comp [...]suit li­brum Ordina­lem Ecclesiastici officii, quem Consuetudina­rium vocant. Ranulf. Poly­chron. An. 1077. Item Knighton de event. Angl. lib. 2. cap. 3. col. 2351., and did not agree in all things with the Roman Missal: Yet these Orders or Ordinals had prescribed Forms of Prayers and Hymns, as well as Rubrics, to shew when and where to use them. I confess there are some ancient Breviaries of the old Liturgies, where the first words only of the Hymns and Prayers are set down, and the order in which they are to be used is directed; but these are an undeniable Proof, that the Forms themselves were by long use become known and familiar in those days: But for any such Order, as is a bare Rubric for Method, and hath no Forms, neither largely set down, nor briefly hinted at in it; no Man ever saw such a Book, or [Page 62] any thing like it, in all Antiquity; only when the New-fashion Directory ha [...] got possession of a Mans fancy, he may dream, that an Order, or an Ordinal, mus [...] needs signifie some such thing.

Voconius Episc. & Musaeus Presb. Marscil. An. Dom. 458.§. 12. It was in the same Country and much about the Time of this Council, that Voconius a Bishop, and Musaeus a Priest of Marseilles, did Com­pose very famous Volumes of Sacraments and Offices, as Gennadius, who lived also at Marseilles, and flourished not above 30 years after this, doth testifieGennad. lib. de Script. Eccl. in Musaeo.. Which still confirms my Observation, That upon this Second Conversion of France (after the Northern Pagans had over­spread it) the most Learned and Eminent of the Clergy began to reduce the several Provinces to one Form of Divine Service. For it was not long after that the eloquent Bishop of Auvergne, Sidonius Apol­lin. Ep. Avern. An. Dom. 472. Sidonius, Composed a Book of Masses, that is (as the Phrase then signified) a Book of Forms of Prayer, &c. Vid. vit. Sidonii praefix. oper.; and Gregory of Tours (who writ his History in the next Century) tells us, That he had written a Preface to this Liturgy, and published it, as Sidonius had reform'd itGreg. Turon. lib. 2. cap. 22.. And [Page 63] not long before this, viz. about the Year 458, Mamercus (Bishop of Viennè) had set up the use of Litanies after the manner of the Eastern Church, order­ing all the People with Fasting and great Devotion, to use them in a public Pro­cession, when they were pressed with heavy CalamitiesGreg. Turon. lib. 2. cap. 34. Sidon. Epist. lib. 7. ep. 1.. And Sidonius tells us, That there were Litanies used in the Gallican Church before; but they were not said with that fervency, vigour and frequency, no nor with such strict Fasting, as Mamercus had appointed Sidon. lib. 5. ep. 14.. And therefore as the Diocess of Viennè had been delivered by this devout use of the Litany, so he thought fit to appoint it should be repeated in the same manner in his City, when the Goths broke into that Province. From which Relation we learn, That Litanies were used in France before this Age, though not with so much devotion and success; and there­fore we must by no means think Ma­mercus was the first Author of these Prescribed Forms of public Supplication. There is another memorable Passage in the Life of Sidonius, which confirms the general use of Written Forms in his Time; which is, That being to celebrate [Page 64] a Festival in his Church, some wicke [...] persons had stollen away the Book by which he was wont to Officiate; but h [...] was so ready a Man, that even without Book he went through the whole Office for the Feast, to the wonder of all the Con­gregation, who thought he spake rather like an Angel, than a Man Vit. Sidonii Praef. oper. Greg. Turon. lib. 2. cap. 22.. Now here we have express Testimony of a Common-Prayer, which this excellent Bishop was wont to use; and it seems it was a Wonder in this Age to see any Clergy-man perform the public Office without a Book, which could not have been strange, if my Adversaries way of Extempore Prayer had been usual: For if every Bishop and Priest (as he pre­tends) had daily prayed without Book, it had been ridiculous to have written this as a singular Excellency in Sidonius, to be able to repeat the Office by the strength of his Memory without that Book, which used to guide him therein. And if it be Objected, That this Re­lation seems rather to suppose he made a new Office Extempore: I Reply, That still makes out my Assertion. Since it could not be the common way to pray on the sudden, because it was thought [Page 65] almost a Miracle in Sidonius to do so; therefore other Clergy-men generally used written Forms, and made use of Common-Prayer-Books, as we do now. The same Sidonius tells us in one of his Epistles, That the Monks and the Clergy celebrated the Vigils, together with the Chanters of Psalms, in Tunes which they sang alternately Sidon. lib. 5. ep. 17.: And it was in his Time (as that Historian remarks) they used to sing the Antiphons in the Church of S. Martin at ToursGreg. Turon. histor. pag. 83.. Now these were Forms of public Worship, and (as we have often noted) must be either written, or however certainly known before, to those who make use of them: and therefore prescribed Forms were the way by which God was worshiped in this Age; Not only in France, but also in Africa, where Victor relates, That it was the Custom at Carthage to bring up Boys in the skill of Music for the pub­lic Service of the Church, Twelve of which Boys fell into the hands of Hun­nericus the Vandal KingVictor. hi­stor. persec. Vandal. lib. 5. Ad. Dom. 478.. Now these Singing-Boys were not capable of bear­ing a part in the public Service, if it had not been in Prescribed Forms.

[Page 66] Petrus Cna­pheus Eplsc. An ioc [...]. An. Dom. 483.§. 13. And the same way was con­tinued in the East; for Petrus Cnapheus about this Time, ordered the Creed to be daily repeated in the public Office at Antioch, as my Adversary doth con­fessDisc. of Lit. pag. 102., and other Authors testifieTheod. Lect. lib 2. pag. 189. Bona, de rebus Liturg. p 537.: And no opposition was made to this, it being a known Form as well as the rest of the Service. But when the same Bishop, being infected with Heresie, did attempt to make an addition to the ancient Hymn called the Trisagion, and would have put in these Words [Which was Crucified for us], the People who had been long accustomed to that Or­thodox Form delivered down to them from their Fore fathers, would not en­dure itBaron. Annal. An 483. p. 381.; and when others at Constan­tinople added this Sentence to the Re­sponse, as the Chanter was singing the Hymn in the accustomed way, there was a very great Tumult made upon that occasionTheodor. Lect. Synops. pag 187. Disc. of Lit. pag. 2 [...]. com­par'd with pag. 25.. And here I cannot but wonder at my Adversaries rare dex­terity, who when he had undertaken to prove, that there could be no Litur­gies in these Ages, because we never read of any change or alterations made in [Page 67] them, pag. 25. within two Pages relates. The great tumult at Constantinople, and the wise which was made through the World▪ by attempting to alter this ancient Hymn. Which was an eminent part of the Communion-Service, to which the People had been so long used, that they soon perceived and highly resented this Alteration of their Sacred Forms: Which strongly proves, not only that they used prescribed Forms now, but had done so long before: And as to this very Trisagian, he mistakes in saying it was first used in the Time of Theodosius the YoungerDisc. of Lit. pag. 177.: For we have proved by divers Testimonies, that it was used in the Third, and in the beginning of the Fourth Century, in all the Churches of the World. 'Tis true, there was an Orthodox Addition made to it in the Time of that Theodocius, grounded on a Miracle, as Nicephorus reportsNiceph. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 46.: But the Original of this Hymn is taken from the Prophet Isaiah, and it was used in that Form long before this Em­perour was born; yea, it seems it was accounted to be a Form very Sacred, since they durst not alter it, but by the direction of a Miracle: so tenacious was [Page 68] that Age of their ancient Forms of Wor­ship.

Gela [...] us Episc. Rom. A.D. 492.§. 14. Pope Gelasius was one of the most Learned of the Roman Bishops, and though (as we have seen in the Life of Damasus and of Innocent) there was a Liturgy at Rome before, yet he took great pains to polish and reform it: For all Authors affirm, That he made Hymns for his Church like to those of S. AmbroseP [...]ntifical. vit. [...] las. item Plat [...]na in vit. Cent. Mag [...]eb. 5 Cent. p. 1271. &c.: And, that he Composed some Graduals, Prefaces, and Collects Pontif cal. ut supr. item C [...]s [...]andr. Li­turg.. And Durandus affirms, that this Gela­sius (the One and filtieth Bishop from S. Peter) was he that principally put the Canon into that Order wherein we now see itDurand. [...]at. lib. 4. fol. 67. i [...]em Burnes. v a Gelas. pag. 55.; and some add, that he enlarged the Preface and put in, It is meet and right so to do. But let us hear the Learned Du-Plessis; Gelasius came in the Year 490, and he ranged and set in order the Collects and Com­pl [...]nds, amongst the which are some that do yet stand and continue pure and un­corrupted M [...]rnay of the Mass, Book l. cap. 60. So that if we regard the account which we had before in the Life of Pope Innocent See the beginning of this Century, §. 1., or the full Evidence of these Authors, ancient and [Page 69] modern, we must grant there were prescribed Forms at Rome long before Gelasius Time; but being by continu­ance of Time, and frequent Transcribing, become somewhat imperfect, he under­takes to rectifie them by some Altera­tions, and by adding something of his own, made the Offices more compleat. His putting the Canon into Order, adding to the Prefaces, and his ranging the Collects into a Method, shews there were Collects, and a Preface, and a Canon before; so that the use of pre­scribed Forms did not begin in his Time; and yet because he took so much pains about the Liturgy, of the Roman Church, That Book which he had Corrected and put in Order was called Codex Ge­lasianus, The Gelasian Book: And John the Deacon, who writ the Life of Pope Gregory, saith, that He contracted this Gelasion Book, and out of it compiled the Gregorian Office Johan. Diac. vit. Gregor. 1. lib. 2. cap. 17.; yet so, as it seems, the Book still remained in some places; for the Chronicle of the Abby of Saint Richerius Chronic. S. Richerii apud Dacherii Spi­cileg. Tom. 4. reckons up Nine­teen Missals of Gelasius among the Vo­lumes in their Library. And it is plain enough, that Pope Gregory took the [Page 70] same liberty with this Gelasian Office, that he had done with those our of which he first extracted it: For there were Forms from the beginning, and none but great Bishops presumed to alter them; which had been a very im­pertinent labour, if after they had thus Corrected the Offices, they had not imposed the use of them on their sub­ordinate Clergy; and doubtless they would never have taken this pains, if every private Minister might vary the Office every day at his pleasure: Which fancy, this Book of Gelasius utterly con­futes, and proves there was a Canon for the Consecration of the Eucharist, written down in a Book at least an hundred years before S. Gregories Time; yea, we see this very Book of Gelasius was taken out of elder Forms, which makes it to be somewhat strange▪ that my Adversary should cite and own this Gelasian Book, and at the same time, and in the same Page affirm, There was no setled Form of Consecration at Rome before Gregory's time Disc. of Liturgies, p 83.. But of this I shall have occasion to say more in the next Century: And shall conclude this Age with observing, That Clovis the [Page 71] first Christian King of France, soon after his Conversion, placed certain Monks in the City of Rheims, giving them great Priviledges and Possessions; and the Rule which they were governed by, was that which Macarius had Com­posed about One hundred years before for his Monks of Nitria, the Ninth Ar­ticle whereof enjoyns them, To love the Course of their own Monastery above all things Cursum Monasterii su­per omnia di­ligas. Reg. S. Macar. art. 9. ap Cointe An­nal. Eccles. Franc. Tom. 1. pag. 178. An. [...]96.: That is, That they should delight in that Form of Service which was prescribed for their Monastery; for a Course, signifies an Office for Divine-Service: And therefore Gregory of Tours saith, That he himself writ a Book of Ecclesiastical Courses Gregor. Turon lib. 10. cap. 31.; that is, of Divine Offices; and the same Author calls Saying the whole Service, Fulfilling the Course Post imple­ [...]m in Oratione C [...]r [...]um. id. de glor. Confess. cap. 38.: So the Roman Course, is put for the Roman Missal Sp [...]lm Con­cil Tom. I. pag 177. An. 680.: And in one of our ancient Saxon Councils it is Or­dained, That in all Churches the Course shall be reverently performed at the Ca­nonical hours Concil. Cal­cuth. Can 7. An 787. ibid. p. 295.. From which use of the word we may learn, That the most ancient Monks, long before the Time of Benedict, had their prescribed Forms of Prayer, which they used in their [Page 72] own Oratories; though among these Men, who did a little incline to Raptures and some degrees of Enthusiasm (if any where) we might have expected to have found Extempore Prayers. I shut up this Century with the Words of Du-Plessis, Thus we are come to the Five hundredth year after Christ, finding in all this time One Service, consisting of Con­fessions and Prayers, Psalms, Reading, Preaching, Blessing and Distributing the Sacraments, according to the Institution of our Lord. Mornay of the Mass, Book I. Chap. 6. pag 44. So that he did not think this Age was much corrupted: And yet we have proved, and he owns that Pre­scribed Forms were now generally used.

CHAP. II. Of LITƲRGIES in the Sixth Century.

WE need go no Lower for Au­thorities to prove the Use of LITURGIES, because our Adver­sary freely and frequently grants, that they began in the end of the Former and the beginning of This Century: But I must here note in general, con­cerning this Concession, First, That if they began no sooner, yet they pre­scribe to at least Twelve-hundred Years, and to universal Practice and Appro­bation for all that space of Time, which cannot be proved concerning any thing that is a notorious Corruption. Se­condly, That the gross Mistake of laying the Original of them so late, is all along supported by perverting those places, which speak of reducing some Countries, which had been over-run by the Goths and Vandals, Hunnes and Franks, with other different sorts of [Page 74] People, to one Form of Liturgy; As if these were meant of the first imposing of Forms of Prayer in the Christian Church. Whereas it is plain, that some of these Countries needed a New Con­version, and the various and different Inhabitants of other Provinces had brought in great variety of Rites; which this Age strove to reduce to an Unifor­mity, not by inventing a New Way, but by following the Primitive Way of establishing One Liturgy for every Kingdom or Province. Thirdly, I must note, That my Adversary frequently repents of this despicable Concession, and after he hath granted the use of Liturgies in this Age, he omits all those Authorities, which clearly prove the continuance of this ancient Practice, and with all his might strives to wrest those Passages which he doth produce in this Period, as if they did not prove so much as he hath granted: So that I must first supply the wilful Omissions of his Discourse by setting down the Evidence which he conceals, and then rescue the Places he doth cite, from his Misinterpretations. And, first, we will see what the industrious Centuriators [Page 75] say of this Age: They have (as was shewed) owned, that Forms of Prayer were generally used in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries; and in this they take notice, That the Nicene Creed was re­peated in their Divine Service; that The Lords Prayer was sung by all the People together in the Greek Church: That the People at Constantinople did frequently use Litanies: That Antiphons were usually Sung in the Gallican Church: That we may see by the Histories of this Age, that solemn Masses had now filled all places: That they had public Prayers in their Temples, and sometimes cele­brated Litanies in the Night. And they add, That they had many Forms of Prayers; One of which they reckon to be, That Litany used in the Eastern Church, wherein the Peoples part was to Sing, Lord have mercy upon us Magdeb [...]. Cent. 6. cap. 6. pag. 330, &c. ad pag. 339.. This was their Opinion of the Way of Praying and Praising God, which had begun in former Ages, and was conti­nued in this, to be performed by Pre­scribed Forms.

[Page 76] Caesarius Are­lat. An. D. 503.§. 1. The first eminent Writer of this Age is Caesarius, Bishop of Arles in France, who was present at most of those Gallican Councils, which enjoyn an Uniformity in the Public Offices, and settle one and the same Liturgy; and thence we may conclude, he was for the use of Forms of Prayer. Which may appear also by his Homilies, where he intimates, That the whole Service for the Communion, the Prayers, Lessons, &c. took up an hour or two; yet he reckons those are very Criminal, who for their Souls good will not stay till the whole Office was compleated; that is, till they had received the final Blessing after the Lords Prayer; with which (as we have shewn in former Centuries) the Com­munion-Service was concludedCaesarii, hom. 8. edit. a. Baluz. pag. 60.. Now since the Office ended exactly as it had done in former Ages, we may from thence infer, it was the same ancient Form: And we will observe further, that when the Admonition given by a single Bishop, would not reform this vile Custom of the Peoples going out of the Church before the Prayers were fully ended; The Councils of this time [Page 77] began to make Canons to forbid the People, to depart from the Divine Service before the Blessing was pronounced Concil. 1. Aurel. Can. 28. An. 507. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 562. item Concil. 3. Aurel. Can. 28. An. 540. ibid. par. 2. p. 29.: Which Blessing was an ancient and well known Form, as also was the whole Office. For this same Caesarius very clearly witnesseth in another place, That the Preface, Lift up your Hearts, &c. was still used in the Communion Office, a Form, which had been in all Churches down from the days of S. Cyprian, and probably long beforeCaesar. hom. 14. vid. Bona, rer. Liturg. pag. 552., and yet con­tinued without any variation.

§. 2. But because we have mentioned some Gallican Councils,Concil. Aga­theus. A.D. 506. we must here observe, that after the Kings of France had received the Faith, That Church was every where restored to that good Order and Regularity, from which under Pagan Princes and in difficult Times it had fallen; and this was the occasion of the many Councils held about this Time, and of those Canons that do labour to reduce all the Gal­lican Church to one Order of Service. So in the Council of Agatho, of which Caesarius was President, one of the Canons is in these Words; Since it is [Page 78] convenient that the Order of the Church be equally kept by all, We Ordain (as it is every where), That after the Antiphons, the Collects shall be said in order by the Bishops or Priests: And that the Morning and Evening Hymns shall be sung every day; and in the conclusion of the Mattins, Vespers and Masses, the Sentences out of the Psalms shall be read: And the People (after the Common Prayer) shall be d [...]s­missed in the Evening with the Bishops Benediction Et quia convenit Ordi­nem Ecclesiae, ab omnibus aequaliter cu­studiri, &c. Concil. Agath. Can. 30. Bin. Tom. II. par. I. pag. 556,. Before which Blessing the People are forbid to go out of the ChurchIbid. Can. 47.. Here then we see there is an Order of the Church, that is, (as the word then signified) A Liturgy, enjoyned to be observed by all in that Province, as it seems it was now by other Councils setled every where: Which Liturgy con­sisted of the Antiphons and Collects, every one set in its proper place, as also of Morning and Evening Hymns and Prayers, together with the Communion-Service (then called the Mass) and the Responsory reading of the Psalms, with a common or general Prayer for all Estates of Men, and all was concluded with the Bishops Benediction. Now it is certain, that these Antiphons, Collects, [Page 79] Hymns, and this General Prayer, were Forms; and the Canon supposes them all written down at large in that Order they were to be used by all Bishops and Priests; and this is plainly a prescribed Liturgy: But my Adversary, who cites this Canon at large, after he had falsified the Words of itDisc. of Lit. pag. 174. where he set down Collationes for Collectiones, and leaves out per ordinem., attempts to pervert the Sense, and would per­swade us it amounts to no more, than a Rubric or Directory; which is a gross, and I doubt a wilful Mistake. For though we should grant, That the Canon it self do only direct the Order in which these several parts of the Service shall be used, and forbid the altering that Order; yet withal it refers to these several parts of the Service, and calls them by their proper Names, supposing a Book well known, in which they were written down in the same order which is prescribed by this Canon. It is plain, the Antiphons, Hymns, Collects, &c. were certain fixed Forms, not made in this Council, but supposed to be com­monly known by all long before; and since some variety in the reciting these Forms had crept in, so as one Diocess differed somewhat from another, that [Page 80] Variety (though it were but in the order of using these Forms) is forbid here; and the same Uniformity esta­blished in this Province, which had been setled every where else: And in­deed this Canon convinces me, there was no difference in the Forms them­selves, the same Antiphons, Hymns, Col­lects, &c. were used every where, that needed not any regulation, only they were differently placed in the Liturgies of divers Churches; and this they Re­form, by setling one Liturgy for the whole Gallican Church, which is called Ordo Ecclesiae; and This Order con­tained not only the Rubrics, or disposal of these several parts of Service, but also The Forms themselves so disposed and set in Order: And doubtless, if any had then been so bold to vary the Hymns and Forms of Prayer, these Fathers (who would not suffer any Variety in the method and placing them) would much less have endured the pre­sumption of altering the Words and Expressions: but that was a piece of Confidence, that was not heard of in this Age.

The next Year was held the first Council of Orleance, Concil. Aurel. I. An. Dom. 507. which again for­bids Any of the People to go out of the Church, before that final Blessing after the Lords Prayer, in the end of the Com­munion Service Concil. Aurel. I. Can. 28. Bin. Tom. II. par. l. pag 562.; and enjoyns the Lita­nies shall be used three days before Ascension day, and orders the People (who had so large a share in this ancient Form) to leave Work, and joyn in pre­senting this general Supplication to Al­mighty God Ibid. Can. 29.. Agreeable to which is that Passage in Caesarius his Homilies, where he tells us. That the whole Church throughout the World, then celebrated these Three Days with Litanies; and then no Christian ought to be absent from that Religious Assembly In tribus istis diebus, quas regulari­ter in toto mun­do celebrat Ec­clesia, nullus se à sancto Con­ventu subaucat. Caesar. hom. 1.. Now, can any man doubt of the use of Prescribed Forms, when these Litanies were so generally observed both in the Eastern and Western Churches? Is it not plain, the Communion Service was the same in all these Provinces, since so many Authors and Councils agree, That that Office every where ended with the Lords Prayer and the Blessing? An Order, now, must signifie more than a Rubric: For undoubtedly they had a [Page 82] prescribed Rule, containing both the Forms and the Method also. And the better to secure this Liturgy from being altered,Concil. Epaun. An. Dom. 509. the Council of Pamiers Or­dains, That all Churches in the Province shall observe the same Order in celebrating Divine Offices, which was used by the Metropolitan Bishop Ad celebrandum divina Officia, [...]dinem quem Metropolitani tenent, Provinciales observare debent. Con­cil. Epaun. Can. 27. Bin. Tom. II. par. I. pag. 553.. And a few years after, the same Order was made in Spain, where Variety of Nations and Opinions had made some difference in their Liturgies: But at Girone in Cata­lonia it was decreed, That as to the ap­pointing of Divine Service, as it was performed in the Metropolitan Church, so in Gods Name let that same Ʋsage be observed through the whole Province of Catalonia, as well in the Communion-Office, as in that of Sing­ing and Ministring De institutione Missarum, ut [...]u [...]modo in Metropolitanâ Ecclesiâ fuer [...]t, ita in Dei nomine, in omni Tarraconensi Provinciâ, tam ipsius Misa Orao, quam psallenai & mi­nistrandi consuetudo servetur. Con­cil. Gerund. An. 517. Can. 1. Bin. ibid. pag. 618.; that is, The Order of Divine Offices, which by a prescribed Rule was setled in the Metropoli­tan Church; for the Communion-Service, the Hymns, and other Administrations, were to be the [Page 83] Guide to all the Diocesses under the Jurisdiction thereof: Which supposes that the Original Liturgy was written and kept carefully there, by which all the Books of Divine Offices, transcribed for the several Diocesses of his Suffra­gans, were to be corrected; which was a very fit Means to preserve that Unity both as to the Forms and Order, which they now laboured to restore in all these parts of the VVorld. The last named Council also mentions Litanies in two Canons, Can. 2, and Can. 3. And informs us, That the Lords Prayer was there repeated daily, in the end both of Morning and Evening Prayer, Can. 10. And all this leaves us no room to doubt of their using those ancient Forms, which (after these great Confusions) began to be restored in these Countries, upon the Conversion of both Pagans and Hereticks to the Faith, and their beginning to incorporate with the People which they had Conquered in the last Age. And I have a little transgressed the Order of Time, that I might lay these Canons together, which were all made upon the same Occasion, and do mutually explain one another.

[Page 84] Fulgentius Ep. Ru [...]pens. Ann. Dom. 508.§ 3. We must now step into Africa, where that Pious Bishop Fulgentius flouri­shed, who was the most Eminent Cham­pion, for the true Faith against the Arians, then very numerous in that Country. And this holy Confessor hath left us, sufficient Evidence of the continuance of the ancient African Forms. For he largely expounds that Primitive Petition, so generally used at the Consecration, in all the old Liturgies, viz. That God would send down the holy Spirit upon the Ele­ments, to sanctifie them, and make them the Body of his deer Son Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. 2. cap. 6. p. 79.. Yea, he confirms the Orthodox Faith, from this ancient and well known Form of Prayer. He also discourses very fully upon that general conclusion of the Col­lects, which the Arians cavilled at, Through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and Reigneth with thee in the unity of the holy Spirit Per univer­sas pene Africae regiones Catho­lica dicere con­suevit Ecclesia Per Jesum. &c. Fulg. ad Fer­rand. Diac. Resp. ad Quaest. 4. pag. 266.; Assuring us that the Catholick Church, in almost all the Regions of Africa, concluded their Prayers in this Form; which he proves is agreeable to Scripture, to the usage of the Primitive Church, and to the Doctrin of the Orthodox Fathers. [Page 85] And that must be a very ancient piece of Liturgy which is of Authority in dispute with Hereticks: And so much was he in love with Forms, that he made such for private and extraordinary occasi­ons. For when any came to him un­der outward afflictions, and desired his Prayers, he used this Form, Lord thou knowest what is best for our Souls, and therefore when we ask for such things as our necessity compels us to desire, do thou only grant that which conduces to our Spiritual welfare; therefore if our humble Prayer be expedient, then let it be heard, so that thy Will may happily be Accomplished Vita Ful­gent. cap. 25. pag. 30.. Another Form fre­quently repeated by this holy Bishop, in his last Sickness, was this, O Lord give me patience here, and thy Pardon at my End Ibid. cap. 30. pag. 93.. And the Writer of his Life, remarks that these Prayers of his were graciously heard, and answered by Al­mighty God, who it seems is well pleased with Forms, that are said with true Devotion; and if he accept them, we may justly despise the Censures of ignorant and prejudiced Men. I must not conclude this Period till I observe, that there is in the Works of this Ful­gentius, [Page 86] a Book dedicated to him by Peter the Deacon; which this holy Bi­shop highly commends, wherein (as we shewed before) it is affirmed, That the Liturgy of S. Basil was generally used in the Eastern Church; and of so great Au­thority was it accounted, that he cites a passage out of it against the Hereticks In libel. Pe­tr: Diac. de in­carn. & grat. Jesu. Chr. inter op. Fulg.. Moreover in that same Book, is quoted also that same Prayer for all Estates of Men; as an Argument to confirm the Catholic Faith, which we produced at Large before, out of S. Augustin and Pope Celestine Ibid. cap 8. pag 281. See Cent. 5. §.; and since so many Fathers produce it in dispute, it is Evi­dent it was a part of the Churches Li­turgy, and had been so for many Ages; otherwise it had been to no purpose to bring it for Evidence, against the Ene­mies of the Catholic Faith: And this may suffice, to shew the continuance of Liturgy in the African Church, in the time of Fulgentius.

Concil. Valentin Ann. Dom. 524.§ 4. To return into the West, there is a Canon made at the Council of Valentia in Spain; Which saith, Before the Catechumens go out, and the Office of the Faithful begin; let the Epistle and [Page 87] Gospel be Read, and the Sermon be Preached, because by hearing of these, many had been converted to the Faith Concil. Va­lent. Can. 1. Bin. Tom. II. par. 1. pag. 629.. By which wee see the Offices of the Catechumens and the Faithful, yet re­mained in two distinct Forms, as they had been in the Primitive Ages; but this Canon made way for joyning those Offices, and admitting all sorts of Peo­ple to the whole Service, excepting on­ly the holy Cummunion; so that after this we rarely hear of dismissing the Catechumens, or of keeping Myste­ries secret; because these parts of the World, were now generally become pro­fessed Christians. In France a little be­fore this, Sigismund one of their Kings, had instituted a Society of Monks, to sing the Daily Office Gregor. Tu­ron. lib 3. cap. 5. pag. 95. vid. Cointe An­nal. An. 522.: Now that Of­fice which is Sung by each side of a Choir, can be no other than a pre­scribed Form: And we shall shew pre­sently, that the Monks of France, had a peculiar Office made up of ancient Forms, of Praise and Prayer. In the mean time, we shall look upon the Canons of the Council of Vaison; Concil. Vasent. 3. Ann. 529. by which we shall see, that Liturgick Forms were used at this time, also in [Page 88] all the Churches of the World, and believed to have descended down to them, from the most ancient Times: For the Bishops in this Council say, That since it was the custom in the East, at Rome, and in all Italy to repeat the Kyrie Eleeson [Lord have Mercy upon us]; Therefore in all our Churches, this holy Custom shall be introduced, to say it in the Morning Prayer, at the Commu­nion, and at Evening Prayer — ut in omnibus Eccle­siis nostris ista consuetudo sanct. ad Matu­tinum & Mis­sas, & ad Ves­peram (Deo propitiante) in­tromittatur. Concil. Vas. Can. Bin. Tom. II. par. 1. pag. 641.. The Form was ancient and used in all the Primitive Litanies, but in these Churches they had not begun to repeat these Words in the Daily Offices, at the three great Hours of Prayer: But since it was become a Custom in all other Countries, so to use this holy Form, they now prescribe it shall be so used in their Churches, as it is still in our Liturgy, immediately before the Lords Prayer. Again, the same Coun­cil ordains, That the Communion Service, shall never be said without the Hymn, of Holy, Holy, Holy, that is, the Tri­sagion; which though it was prescribed by their Liturgy before, yet some, in the time of Lent, and in private Com­munions, had thought fit to omit itIbid. Can. 4.; [Page 89] so that the variations which Bishops had made from the old way, were re­gulated by the Councils of this Age. The next Canon affirms, That at Rome, in the East, in Africa and Italy, they had for preventing Heresie, added to the Gloria Patri, these Words, As it was in the beginning, &c. Wherefore they ordain that this Hymn shall be repeated with that addition in their Churches Ibid. Can. 5. p. 642.. The Form, with this enlargment also, had been long in use in other Churches, but this Addition was first Established in France, after its second Conversion, by this Canon. And we gather from hence, that in this Age there is not only an assurance, that every Nation had a Li­turgy; but that the lesser Churches, laboured to imitate the greater and more famous Churches, in order to the making as great an Uniformity as was possible, in all the Liturgies then in the World: And we shall finally note, from this Councils Orders about these ancient Forms; that private Bi­shops themselves, in this Age, were not allowed to correct or alter any thing relating to the Liturgy; Nothing less than a Council might presume to [Page 90] make Orders in those Cases. Where­fore we cannot imagin that Liturgies, were lately set up in the end of the last Age, or the beginning of this, (as my Adversary affirms) much less, can we think that private Ministers, had leave to vary the Offices as they plea­sed.

Benedictus, Monach. An. Dom. 529.§ 5. About this time Flourished Be­nedict, the Father of that numerous Order of Monks, who within an Age or two, had filled all the Western World; and he writ his Rule, (not as my Ad­versary pretends, in the middleDisc. of Lit. p. 178., but) towards the beginning of the Sixth Age, viz. Ann. Dom. 530.Vid. Dr. Cave Cartoph. Eccles. p. 109.: Which Rule is still extantVid. Cointe Annal. Eccles. An. 536.. And as to that part of it, which concerns the Divine Service, that he prescribed to his Monks; We have an Abstract of it in Card. Bona Bona de divin. Psal­mod. c. 18. pag. 895.. And thereby it is mani­fest, that although this Founder of Monastick Societies, inclined to Enthu­siasm in some things; Yet he durst not presume to make a new Office, con­sisting of new Forms, nor did he leave his Monks to make Extempore Pray­ers, but takes his Office wholly out of [Page 91] the Liturgies then in use; Only be­cause these Monks had nothing else to do but to serve God, he allots more hours of Prayer, and orders many of the Forms to be oftner repeated, than was Customary in the Cathedral, and Coun­try Churches. For this Rule enjoyns the frequent repeating of the Lords Prayer, The Apostles Creed; The Responses, O Lord make speed to save us, &c. The Hymns and Antiphons, particularly the Te De­um, Benedictus and Magnificat, The Col­lect for the Day, the Kyrie Eleeson, or Lord have Mercy upon us, (by which sometimes is meant the Litany) the Allelujah, and the like, ordaining the Psalter to be Read over in their Office once every Week. But all these are known parts of ancient Liturgy, and every one of them prescribed Forms; which by this time, had gained so great Veneration for their Antiquity, and ge­neral use, all over Christendom, that none durst presume to omit nor alter them; And Benedict's prescribing them to his Monks, shews that he took them, out of the received Liturgies of his Time: And by long usage the Forms themselves were so well known, that [Page 92] they are described in the original Rule, only by the first words of the several Forms. In like manner at the same time that Benedict was Famous in Italy, Te­tradius Nephew to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, Flourished in France; and he al­so writ a Rule for his Monks, where­in we have the same Method observed; that is, to oblige them to repeat the Psalms, and all the ancient Forms, di­vers of which are there briefly called by the two first words, as Gloria in Excel­sis, is put to signifie, that well known Hymn, Glory be to God on High: And so for the restBibl. Patr. Tom. V. p. 866. & Bona, de reb. Liturg. l. 1. c. 4. §. 4. pag. 512.. The same is also to be observed in another Rule, made within less than twenty Years after this, by Valerianus Bishop of Arles Bona, ibid. & Cointè Annal. Ann. 550.. Now though these Orders of Monks did miserably degenerate afterwards; Yet at this time they were the best Men of the Age, Renouncing the World Sincerely, and Serving God with Extra­ordinary Devotion; yet every Order had its prescribed Forms of Praise and Prayer, none of them differing much from others; and all taken out of the public Liturgies then in use in the Coun­try, where they were first planted, af­ter [Page 93] the Example of those Egyptian Monks in the Fourth Century, whom Cassian before described to us.

§ 6. Let us now pass into the East,Justinianus, Aug. Ann. Dom. 530. and see what Laws the famous Empe­ror Justinian made concerning the Litur­gies, which we have proved to have been established there, long before his Time. And First He was much dis­pleased at some who had been admit­ted into the inferior Orders of the Clergy, though they were Illiterate; Wherefore he requires that none shall for the future be ordained Priests and Deacons, unless at least, they be able to Read, and can both instruct others in the holy Pray­ers, and Read the Books of Ecclesia­stical Canons Authent Collat. 1. Tit. 6. Nov. 6. cap. 4. pag. 13.. Again the Religious Prince complains, that by the neglect of frequent Synods, which would have obliged all the Clergy, to be well skil­led in the holy Liturgies; some, even of the highest Order, were not perfect in the holy Office for the Communion, nor in the Prayer for Baptism. And there­fore he appoints, that before any Bishop be Consecrated, He shall publicly Read over the Communion Office, The Pray­ers [Page 94] for Baptism, and all the other Suppli­cations [...] Idem. Authent. Collat. 9. Tit. 20. Nov. 13 [...]. Praef. cap. 1. & 2.. Now here we may observe, that the Prayers then in use, were cal­led holy Liturgies; and were such as could be Read, Learned and Taught: And the Qualification of Persons to be Ordained, was not to be able to make new Prayers, but to Read the ancient Forms, which it seems, were used also in the Nunneries; and therefore this Emperor orders the Bishop to take care, that the Nuns might have one grave old Man, to make the necessary Responses in their Service; and that they should have a Priest, and a Deacon of unblame­ble Lives, to perform the Divine Li­turgies, and give them the holy Commu­nion [...] Cod. l [...]b. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. & cler. l. 44. pag 19.. But if any had Built a pri­vate Oratory in his House, though he might perform his Ordinary Devo­tions, yet he Ordains, that according to the Laws, delivered in the Ecclesiastical Acts, touching the Worship of God, in public, they do not presume there, to do any of those things, which are appointed by the holy Liturgy [...] Authent. Coll. 5. T [...]t. 13. Nov. 58. p 91.. Moreover as to the public Offices, the Emperor De­crees, that Stripes and Banishment, shall be inflicted upon any that come into [Page 95] a Church, and injure the Bishop or other Clergy; while the Divine Mysteries, or the holy Offices are performing: But to disturb the Liturgy it self, is to be pu­nished with Death. And because Li­tanies were then said in the open Streets in procession, the Emperor enjoyns the Bishops and Clergy, to be always pre­sent at them, and makes it capital to affront or disturb them, in that part of Divine Service [...], &c. Authent. Col. 9. Tit. 6. Novel. 123. cap. 31. & 32. p. 174.. All which Laws, suppose a prescribed Form of Service, and have the very name of Liturgy for that Service, as every one will grant, who considers that the Liturgies of S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, were constant­ly used in the Eastern Church, both in and long before Justinians time. I know my Adversary pretends ( [...]) Liturgie, in these Laws, signifies no more, than the exercise of any Divine MinistrationsDisc. of Lit. p. 157. 158.: But if we grant that, it will not help his cause, nor hurt ours, because in that Age and those Churches, it is certain all those Divine Ministra­tions were performed by prescribed Forms; so that it is all one as to our dispute, whether we translate ( [...]) [Page 96] Liturgy or Ministration, because we are sure they Ministred by Liturgies, as we now call them. For proof where­of, we have a Memorable passage in the Council of Constantinople, under the Patriach Menna, in this Emperors Reign; where it seems the Peoples extraordi­nary Zeal gainst Hereticks, could not be satisfied, unless the Bishops would put in the Names of the four General Councils, into the Dyptics, to be Read at the Altar: And when these Names were put in as they desired, the whole Multitude came together to observe, and hear this new and grateful Addi­tion: And dividing themselves into two parts, they Sang, (for a long time) the Benedictus [Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,] until the Choir began the Tri­sagion; to which they all listned, and after the Reading of the holy Gospel, the Liturgy was performed according to the Custom, (that, is the Office for Ca­techumens.) Then the Doors being shut, and the holy accustomed Lessons read; At the time for Reading the Dyptics, all the People with silence drew neer to the Altar; and upon hearing the Dea­con recite those Names, they all Cried [Page 97] with a Loud Voice, Glory be to thee, O Lord; and then through Gods help, the rest of the Liturgy was finished with all Decency [...] Concil. Con­stant. sub Men. Act. 5. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 733.. Now here we have not only the Name of Liturgy used, in the sense we now take it, but the several parts of it are set down, and particular notice of divers Forms therein contain­ed, viz. The Benedictus, The Trisagion, and the Gloria tibi Domine: The Prayers for the Catechumens, the Dyptics, &c. And the Prayers themselves are called, the accustomed Liturgy, and said to be performed ( [...]) with all good Order; that is, according to that excellent Order appointed, by the an­cient Liturgies.

§ 7. Pope Vigilius lived in the time of this Emperor,Vigilius Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 540. and writes an Epistle to him, wherein he blesseth God, for that Princes Religious care of the Church; which requited him by her daily Prayers for him: And Vigilius notes, that Justinians affection to the Church, was a sign that their usual Prayer for it was heard, and Answer­ed. And when he comes to describe that Prayer, he doth it in these Words, [Page 98] All Bishops by an ancient Traditi [...]n, in the Communion Office desire and Pray that the Lord would please, to Ʋnite, Govern, and Preserve the Catholic Faith, throughout the whole World Omnes Pontifices anti [...]uâ in of­ferendo s [...]cripcio Traditione aepe [...] ­mus, excrantes, ut Catholicam fi­dem aduna [...]e, regere, Donamus & custodire toto or [...]e dignetu [...]. Vigil. ep. 4. ad. Justin. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 5.. Which Words are certainly the Roman Form, as it was in the days of Vigilius, being according to the Book of Gelasius his Correct­ing, not much altered from the Litur­gy ascribed to S. Clement, or the old Ro­man Form before Gela­sius Pro Sanctà tuà Cat [...]olicà & Apostolicâ Ec [...]lesiâ, ut pacificare, custodire, & gubernare digneris, omnes fines terrae, Liturg. S. Clem. Bib. Patr. Tom. 2. edit. Paris. p. 119.. And when Gre­gory the Great in the next Century, correct­ed the Gelasian Office, he evidently made his Form, out of both those elder LiturgiesPro Eccles â tuâ Sancta Catho­licâ, quam pacificare, custodire, a­dunare & reg [...]r [...] [...]igneris toto ter­rarum erbe. Off [...]c. Gregorian. ibid. pag. 128.; As the Reader will see by com­paring the several ways of expressing this, in these several Offices, in divers Ages used in the Roman Church. Which shews not only, that there was a Form of Prayer for the Church, pro­fessing the Catholic Faith, in the time of Vigilius; but that the Form was then [Page 99] believed to be from ancient Tradition, and was made almost in the very Words, which had been used for many hundred Years before. Had Liturgies been newly set up, (as my Adversary pretends) nothing had been more false, nor more Ridiculous, than to alledge an ancient Tradition for this Form; and had all Ministers before this had the liberty to Pray, in what Expressions they pleased, nothing had been more imposible, than this Harmony between these Offices, which only differ in divers Ages, by reason of the several Corre­ctions of the Forms, but were always in every Age done by a prescribed Form. Which will be still more plain by the same Vigilius his Answer to the Con­sultations of Etherius, whom he first informs concerning the certain Time on which Easter was to be kept for that year: And because this Bishop was placed in a Country newly converted to the Catholic Faith, and not yet well instructed in the regular way of per­forming Divine Offices, he had (it seems) desired to know how they celebrated the Service at Rome on the greater Festivals: To which Vigilius gives this Answer, We [Page 100] also acquaint you, that as to the Order of Prayer in celebrating the Communion, it is not different at any time, nor upon any Festival; but we always consecrate the Gifts offered to God after the same Manner — Then he goes on to tell him, That they had indeed proper Pre­faces, for commemorating the Mercy pecu­liarly to be remembred in each of the greater Festivals — And then adds these Words, — But the rest of the Service we perform according to the accustomed Order: And therefore we have herewith sent you the Text it self of that Canonical Prayer, which by Gods Mercy we have received from Apostolical Tra­dition. And that you may know in what place to add proper things for each Fe­stival, we have also added the Prayers for Easter-dayO [...]dinem qu [...]que precum in celebritate M ssarar nullo n [...]s t [...]mpore, nu [...]â [...] sign [...]ua­ca [...] habere a [...]v [...], sed semper [...]aem tenore oblata Deo munera consecrare — & pp.— Caetera vero Ordine consueto pro­sequimur. Qua prepter & ipsius Canonicae precis textum direximus subter ad [...]ect [...] qua [...] (Deo propitio) ex Apostolicâ traditione suscepimus, &c. V [...]g [...]l. Ep. 2. ad Ether [...]um, Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 4.. Here we see the Communion-Service, and especially the Prayer of Consecration, was an ancient Form derived from Apostolical Tradi­tion, and the whole Office was written down in a Book, and sent into that Country where Etherius was Bishop, [Page 101] which some suppose to have been some parts of Spain, lately Converted from HeresieBaron. An­nal. An. 538. pag. 278, 279.. And if so, probably this was the foundation of that Office which is called the Mosarabick, and was Composed by S. Leander about Fifty year after, out of the old Gothic and African Forms, compared with this Roman Office. However it appears, that though in some places, where the Faith was newly planted, they needed help to settle and correct their Offices; yet both the New and Ancient Churches did all agree in the use of Forms: And when a new Liturgy was to be made for a Newly Converted Nation, the Bishops consulted the most Ancient Forms they could find in other Churches, choosing out of them what they thought proper for their own Country, and that Form they enjoyned upon all that were under their Jurisdiction. We must also observe further, That the Roman Office which was writ down, and the very Words of it sent to this Bishop, is called, An Order of Prayer: Which therefore doth not signifie a bare Rubric for Method, but a Book containing the Pre­faces, Hymns and Prayers themselves: [Page 102] And thus it is used in the Life of S. Laetus a Monk, who about this Time was ordained Deacon: and He in a short time learned the Psalter, and all that the Ecclesiast cal Order required; so as to be more perfect in them than many were, who had been longer used to them Cointè An­nal. E [...]les. [...]ra [...]. An 533. pag 413.. This Ecclesiastical Order was a Book as well as the Psalter, and this ingemous Monk got to say the very Words of them both, by Heart. But to return to Pope Vigilius; He was so tena­cious of Forms, that he warns Etherius not to permit one Syllable to be altered in the Gloria Patri: Which the Catholics by ancient Custom use to say after the Ps [...]ms, thus, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; but some Heretics a little before presumed to leave out the last [and] saying it thus, — and to the Son, the Holy Ghost; which he co [...]demus as an Heretical Varia­tion V [...] Ep. 2. ibid. pag 4.. But it had been impossible to secure the Orthodox Forms, if my Ad­versaries pretended liberty of varying the Words of their Prayers and Praises had then been allowed in the Church: Nay, if that had been permitted in former Ages, there would have been no certain [Page 103] Primitive Forms left, by which they could have corrected these Heretical In­novations.

§ 8. In the East we have further Evi­dence of the continuance of Liturgick Forms;Concil. Mopse­vest. An. D. 550 for in the Council of Mopsve­stia, the Fathers there assembled pray for the Emperour in that ancient and generally received Form, O Lord, save the Emperour; And hear him whensoever he calls upon thee Salvum fac Domine Imperatorem, & exaudi eum quacunque die te invocaverit. Vid. Synod. Quint. collat. 5. apud Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 83. Anastasius Sinaita, Pa­triar. Antioch. An. Dom. 560.. But soon after this we have sufficient Proof, that the whole Liturgy transcribed in the Apo­stolical Constitutions, and shewed to have been the Antiochian Office some Ages before, was still in use there: For Anastasius, who had been a Monk of Mount Sinai, being now Patriarch of Antioch, hath some Homilies (owned to be genuine) still extant, wherein he refers to, and expounds the Words and Actions prescribed by that ancient Liturgy. As first, He bids them mind the Deacons Voice when he crieth, Stand with reverence; stand with fear—; bow down your Heads. And again, The Priest (saith he) engages you to attend when he bids you, Lift up your Hearts: And what do you Answer? Do [Page 104] you not Reply, We lift them up unto the Lord? Adding, That the Peoples joyning their part to the Priests, made the Prayers to be more effectual. He goes on to tell them —The Angels minister at the holy Liturgy— The Cherubins stand round about, and with sweet Voices sing the Trisagion, Holy, Holy, Holy; and the Seraphins bow and adore. He mentions also the Lords Prayer, as being daily repeated by all in the Communion-Office; and Com­ments upon that ancient Form, Give holy things to those that are holy Arastas. Sin. Orat de sacr. Synaxt in Auctario Bib. Pati. Tom. 2. col 9, & 10.. Now these Passages, and in this Order, may be seen in divers ancient Liturgies, particularly in that which is set down in the Constitutions; which shews, that the same Forms were used at Antioch in this Age, which had been used there in divers of the fore-going Centuries: And though in these Homilies he doth transcribe no more of them, but only such parts of the Liturgy as were pro­per to move the People to come to the Communion with Devotion and Reve­rence. Charity and holy Resolutions; yet by those which he occasionally mentions, and by the Order of them, we [Page 105] may discern the ancient Forms were still in use there, with little or no Variation.

§. 9. By this Time divers Parts of Spain had embraced the Catholic Faith,Concil. Bra­car. I. An. Dom. 563. and therefore now the Orthodox Bi­shops met in a Council at Braga; and after they had caused the Book of ancient Canons to be publicly read be­fore them, they gather out of them some that were of present use, and re­vive them by a fresh imposing them. The first thing they labour to regulate, is that variety of Forms and different ways of Divine Service, which the mix­ture of divers Nations and Opinions had produced among them; therefore the first Canon is, That one and the same Order of Singing shall be kept in Morning and Evening Prayer, and that no different Customs, either of private Men or of Monasteries, shall be mixed with the Ecclesiastical Rule Ut unus atque idem Psallendi ordo in Matutinis vel Vespertinis officiis teneatur, & non diversae ac privatae neque Monaste­riorum consue­tudines cum Ecclesiasticâ regulà sint permixtae. Concil. Brac. Can 1. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 211.. The Morning and Evening Offices consisted chiefly of Psalms and Hymns, with some proper Collects, and were all (or the most part of them) chanted and sung; which cannot be in a public Congregation, unless the Form and Words be known [Page 106] before. Wherefore for these Mattens and Vespers, they had established One Order. Besides these, there was the Communion-Office before Noon, and for that they had also a Prescribed Form; which they call here, The Ecclesiastical Rule; and since some private Persons presumed to alter this, and others fol­lowed some of the Forms prescribed by the Rules of certain Monasteries, they utterly reject these Variations, and bind them all to the public Liturgy. This is the plain sense of the Canon, and therefore Ordo Psallendi, and Ecclesiastica Regula, must be more than a Rubric; for these confined them to Sing the Mattens and Vespers in the same words, and to celebrate the Communion-Service by such a certain Rule as admitted of no Varia­tion. And the following Canons make this still more plain: The Second is, That on the Vigils of Feasts, and at the Communion, all shall read the same, and not different Lessons in the Church. The Third orders, That Bishops and Priests shall use the same Form of Saluting the People, viz. The Lord be with you; To which they shall Answer, And with thy Spirit; even as the whole East hath [Page 107] retained it from the Apostles, and not as the Priscillianists have altered it. The Fourth Canon is, That the Communion-Office shall by all be celebrated, by that same Order which Profuturus, formerly Bishop of this Church, received in Wri­ting from the Apostolical See. The Fifth enjoyns, That none pass by that Order of Baptizing which the Church of Braga anciently used; and which, to avoid all doubts concerning the same, Profuturus had received in Writing from the See of S. PeterConcil. Bracar. l. Can. 2, 3, 4, & 5. apud Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 212.. Here we have one Kalen­dar fixed, appointing the very same Lessons; one Form of Salutation, de­rived from the Apostles; one Written Form for the celebration of the Eucha­rist; and another, being the Order of Baptism, which in the days of a Bishop (who was dead some years before this Council) were sent in Writing from Rome, and had been ever since used in these Provinces; which can be nothing else but a Liturgy, from which they will not suffer any Minister to vary in the least. And it signifies nothing to alledge, That this is one of the first Injunctions for such Uniformity in this Country, that had been for an Age and [Page 108] more over-run with Barbarous People, and overspread with Heresies; because there are evident Supposals, That the Ancient Churches, which had not been renversed by these Calamities, but kept to their old accustomed Ways, fur­nished the New regulated Churches with ancient Forms, which had been used among them from the Primitive Ages; and that sufficiently proves the Anti­quity of Liturgies. My Adversary, who conceals all this Evidence, cites the 30th Canon of this Council, but very falsly; for he reads it thus, Besides the Psalms of the Old Testament, let nothing Poetically Composed be Sung in the Church; and he false dates it alsoDisc. of Lit. pag. 179. Concil. Bracar. Can. 30. An. 565.. But the Words of the Canon are a Translation of the Canon of Laodicea, made 200 years before, Forbidding the Singing of any Poetical Compositions in the Church, except the Psalms, and what Hymns were taken out of the Canonical Books of the Old and New TestamentVid. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 212.; which was designed, to set aside the late composed Hymns of the Arians, used among the Heretical Goths, and other corrupt modern Com­posures: Not to reject the Magnificat, [Page 109] the Benedictus, Nunc dimittis, and other Canonical Hymns, which our Dissenters now totally disuse. He adds, That Ordo Psallendi, in the Council of Tours, signifies not what, but how many Psalms shall be SungDisc. of Lit. pag. 174.: But let the Canon be consulted, and any Man who knows the Custom of the Age will see, that the design of that Canon was to esta­blish a Kalendar, which did appoint and prescribe the very Psalms, as well as the Number, which were to be Sung at the certain Seasons there mentio­nedVid. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. in Concil. Tu­ron. 2. An. 570. Can. 19. p. 228.: And he unfortunately forgot one Canon of this Council of Tours, which enlarges the former Canon of Braga, and takes in all the ancient Hymns, which he pretends are rejected by that Canon; for it says, Though we have the Hymns of Ambrose in the Canon; yet since we have other Forms worthy to be Sung, we willingly receive them, unless they have no Authors Name in the Title; because, if they be agree­able to the Faith, they ought not to be left out of use Ib. Can. 24. pag. 230.. So that we see, this Canon owns the Te Deum, the Bene­dicite, and other Hymns, provided they be Orthodox, and the Authors were [Page 110] known Friends to the Catholic Faith; and here are Forms supposed as gene­rally used, and a Council to allow them, after which the Church may use them, though they be not taken out of Canonical Scripture. I have no more to add here, but a scattered Passage or two, to confirm the continuance of the old Forms in the Gallican Church. First, Whereas there was a necessity of leaving the Priest at liberty, to put the Names of those who Offered, into the Prayer for all Estates of Men, some ventured to take more freedom, and in that part of the Office varied from their Mother Church: Which occasion'd a Council at Arles to Decree, That the Oblations made at the Holy Altar, should not be offered up by any of the Bishops of that Province, otherwise than according to the Form used in the Church of ArlesConcil. Arelat. An. Dom. 554. Can. 1. apud Cointe Annal. pag. 799.. Or if (with some) we expound this Canon of the Prayer of Consecration, still it proves, That the Forms used in the Metropolitan Church, were to be an invariable Rule to all the Churches in that Province. The Council of Tours also (before cited) mentions Litanies, Antiphons, and the Hallelujah Concil. Tu­ron. 2. An. 570. Can. 18, &c.: And [Page 111] we have a farther account of the Use of Litanies there, in the first Council of Lions Concil. Ludg. 1. eod. An. Can. 6. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 232.: All which are the Forms which we have shewed were in use in the preceding Centuries. And when Chilperic (a King of France) about this Time pretended to Compose new Hymns and Prayers, our Author tells us, They would by no means receive them into the Churches Offices Greg. Turon. lib. 6. cap. 46. pag. 308.; for those were fixed before, and none but a Council of Bishops could be permitted to alter or add to them. I had almost forgot Martin, Bishop of Braga, Martin Episcop. Bracar. An. Dom. 572. who came into that See very soon after the fore-mentioned Council, and being a Grecian by Birth, he collected and translated divers Canons of the Greek Church into Latin for the use of Spain; in which Collection of his we have very many plain Indications of a Liturgy. One of these Canons obliges every Clergy-man in a City, or any place where there is a Church, to be present at the daily Office of Singing Mattens and VespersCanones Martin. Bracar. Can. 63. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 246.: And another forbids New composed Psalms, made by some of the Vulgar, to be said in the Church Ib. Can. 67.. For indeed the Hours of [Page 112] Prayer, and the Offices appointed for them, were then so fixed, that as none might neglect them, so none were allowed to change them, or add to them, in any sort whatsoever. And I must note (by the way) that this very Martin, who collected these Ca­nons, was he that had Converted the Suevians in Spain to the Catholic Faith, that so we may be satisfied, that part of Spain a little before this, had a second and New Conversion; and that gave occasion to divers of these Canons for an Uniformity in the Divine Service, which was to be established there.

Pelagius II. Ep. Rom. An Dom. 577.§. 10. To proceed with the Western Church; the Bishops of France and Germany about this Time desired Pope Pelagius the Second, to inform them what were the Prefaces then used in the Roman Church; that is, what Festivals there were upon which they made a peculiar Addition to the Primitive Form of Lift up your Hearts, &c. suitable to the occasion of that particular Fe­stival: And his Reply is this, Having diligently read over the holy Roman Order, and the sacred Constitutions of [Page 113] our Predecessors, we find only these Nine Prefaces to be received into the Sacred Catalogue, which for many Ages past the Roman Churches Truth hath hitherto observed Sacrum Or­dinem Roma­num, sacraque constituta no­strorum Ante­cessorum solertèr relegentes inve­nimus has no­vem Praesa­tiones in sacro Catalogo tan­tuminodo reci­piendas, quas longa retro ve­ritas in Roma­nâ Ecclesià ha­ctenus servavit. Pelag. Ep. 11. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 259.: And then he proceeds to reckon up the particulars, viz, The first at Easter, The second at Ascension-day, The third at Pentecost, The fourth at Christmass, The fifth at the Epiphany, The sixth on the Festival of the Apostles, The seventh on Trinity Sunday, The eighth, on the Feast of the Cross; The ninth in Lent, and time of Fasting. From which Answer, it appears the holy Roman Order was a Written Book; a Liturgy, containing not only the Me­thod in which the several parts of the Offices were disposed, but the very Forms themselves at large, and particu­larly the several proper Prefaces for the great Festivals: As also it is affirmed, That these proper Prefaces, of which he hath here occasion to treat, had been prescribed in this Roman Liturgy long before this Time, and for divers Ages had been preserved therein: Which shews there were Written Forms at Rome in very early Times, and that they were no invention of this or the [Page 114] last Age. And we may give the more credit to this Assertion, because even to this very Time the Church of Rome was wholly free from the corrupt and superstitious Worship, which since they have given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, there being not to be found at this Time, one Festival dedicated to her Honour, which had a special Preface appropriate to it in the Offices then used at Rome, to the shame of the later Popes, who have made the Worship of the Virgin, the main part of all their Offices.

Leander Episc. H [...]pal. An. Dom. 588.§. 11. After the Steps made toward one uniform Liturgy, among the Sue­vians in the Province of Gallicia, by the Consultation of Vigilius and the Council of Braga; Leander, the famous Bishop of Sevil, Converted Reccaredus (King of the Goths) from Arianism, within a few years after these Goths had Conquered the Suevians, and were become Lords of all Spain: And the first Care he took was to purge out the Errors from the Gothic Office, and to take away the various Forms used in the several Provinces of Spain, which [Page 115] had been Peopled with several Nations, governed by different Kings, and had held divers Opinions in Religion; but he now composes one. Office for the whole Kingdom, which his next Suc­cessor Isidore perfected and fully setled there: For which Reason the Writers of this History generally ascribe it to them both. Roderic of Toledo calls it, The Office of the Mass, instituted by the Bishops Leander and IsidoreRoderic. Tolet. de reb. Hispan. lib. 6. cap. 25.. And Jo. Vasaeus in his Chronicle saith, The Christians who lived among the Arabians were called Mozarabes, that is, Mixt with the Arabians; and therefore they used that Ecclesiastical Office then, which S. Leander and Isidore composed, and all Spain used it until the days of Alfonso the Sixth Jo. Vasaei Chron. Hispan [...] pag. 579.. But that Leander first put this Office into order, is plain from the Testimony of Isidore himself; who faith, Leander took no small pains in the Ecclesiastical Offices; and in the Hymns at the Communion and Psalms, he Com­posed many sweet things Isidor. de script. Eccles. in Leandr. vict. Bona de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 364.. Another Historian saith, Leander writ one Book of Prayers, and another of the Commu­nion Fran. Taraph, de reg. Hisp. pag. 704.. Wherefore we conclude, that this Leander having before him the [Page 116] Liturgy used by the Arian Goths, the Order made for the Suevians in Galli­cia: And probably the Gallican. Roman, and African Forms, made up one Office out of them all, which afterwards (when the Moers (who spake Arabick) came into Spain, and were some of them Converted to the Faith) was cal­led the Mozarabic Liturgy; which is extant to this day in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and elsewhereBib. Patr. edit. Colon. Tom. 15 p. 777. vid. Ben. de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11, & 12. & in Appen­dice.. For that this was not the first time that pre­scribed Forms were used in these Parts of the World, is evident from what hath been shewed before concerning the Goths and Suevians both in France and Spain, and may further appear by these few Observations, viz. That the old Gothic Office, yet retains a Collect on S. Martins-day, wherein he is called, A Man whom our Age hath produced. Now S. Martin died An. Dom. 402. and there­fore the Missal from whence Leander or Isidore took this Form, must have been composed in the Fifth century, that is, as soon as the Goths in France became Christians: And Gregory of Tours mentions an Embassador coming from Leonigild (the Father of Reccaredus) [Page 117] who was an Arian, and so was this Embassador, for he would not Commu­nicate with them in France, because they did not say, Glory be to the Father by the Son, as they did in their Offices in Spain Greg. Turon. lib. 6. cap. 48. pag. 289.: And in the Third Council of Toledo, under Reccaredus the First Orthodox Gothish King, when Leader had begun to correct the Arian Forms, they pronounce an Anathema against all that say, Glory be to the Father by the Son; and will not say, To the Father and the Son Concil. Tolet. 3. An. 589. ap. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 276.. So that we see the Goths had Forms suited to their Heresie while they were Arians; but made Orthodox as soon as they embraced the Catholic Faith. Moreover, this same Council (which was before Isidore's Time) in order to discover those who yet secretly favoured Arianism, Ordain, That the Creed shall be repeated by all the People with an audible Voice, before the Lords Prayer in the CommunionConcil. Tol. t. 3. Can. 2. ibid.; Which Usage still is kept in the Moza­rabic Liturgy, and is peculiar to that Office. From all which we may infer, That Leander compiled this Office, but did not first invent the Forms; only he collected them out of more ancient [Page 118] Liturgies, especially the old Gallican Missal, which the Arian Goths had cor­rupted, but he now restored it to its ancient Purity; and therefore there is a very great Agreement between the old Gallican and Mozarabic Missals; and they are nearer to each other, than either of them are to the ancient Roman Forms: Which confirms our Observa­tion, That this Age did not first Wor­ship God by Liturgies, but continued the ancient Way; only by the New Conversion of divers Countries from Paganism or Heresie, one pure Liturgy was collected, and published for the use of that Country or Province, from which none of their Ecclesiastics were allowed to vary. The Orthodox and Heretics agreed in the use of Forms, none so much as thought of Extempore Prayers; no Nation pleaded for, expe­cted or enjoyed such a Liberty; nor did any of the Clergy or Laity complain, That the imposing there Forms was an Innovation, or hindrance to their Gifts, or an invading of their Christian Li­berty.

[Page 119]§. 12. There is nothing clearer in all History,S. Gregor. Mag. Episc. Roman. An. Dom. 590. than that there was a Canon or Form of Consecrating the Communion at Rome, long before the Time of S. Gregory the Great. The very Words of it have been produced out of S. Ambrose his Book of Sacra­ments, An. 374. and we have proved it cited by the Author of the Questions out of the Old and New Testament, who writ in the Fourth Century: We have also brought in the plain Testi­monies of Innocent, Celestine, Leo, Gela­sius and Vigilius, all of them Bishops of Rome long before Gregory's Time: And we now add, That Johan. Moschus de­clares, there was a certain Form of the Canon at Rome, in the Time of Pope Agapetus, who lived An. 535Joan. Mosch. pratum Spirit. cap. 150. Bib. Patr. Tom. pag. 1121.: And that the Lord Du Plessis (whom my Adversary cites often) shews very largely, that there was a Canon of the Mass at Rome, which was very pure and Orthodox, before Gregory's Time; yea, he sets down divers parts of it, and assures us it was common to all, both Priests and PeopleMornay of the Mass, Book I. Ch. 7. pag. 53.: And John the Deacon, who writ S. Gregory's Life [Page 120] saith, That he corrected the Gelasian Book for the Communion-Office, taking away some things, altering some few, and adding other things to explain the Gos­pels, putting it all into one Volume Johan. Diac. vit. Gregor. lib. 2. cap. 17.. Which shews there was a Canon before, written down in the Gelasian Book, which S. Gregory only altered in some few things; and it doth not appear he added any more to it, except these Words, O Lord, order our days in thy Peace, deliver us from Eternal damna­tion, and make us to be numbred among the Flock of thine Elect: For these are the only Words that all Writers say were of his Making, and which he added to the CanonJohan. Diac. ut supr. Item Pedae histor. lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 53 Naucler. Gener. 20. pag. 743. ita Platina vit. Greg. pag. 82.; wherefore he was only the Corrector of the Old Canon, not the Maker of a New one. And whereas some Authors of later Times ascribe the Composing of the Roman Offices to him, we have seen it is usual in most Writers to call such as only corrected and reformed Liturgies, The Authors of them; by which they mean no more, than those who published them in a more compleat Form than before. But my Adversary, who can prove any thing, undertakes [Page 121] to make out two difficult things in rela­tion to this Pope Gregory: First, That there was no Form of Consecration at Rome before his time. Secondly, That when another had made this Form, he did not impose it on others Disc. of Lit. pag. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87.. The former of these Assertions he proves from a Passage in Saint Gregory his Epistles, which the ignorant editor of the Discourse of Liturgies hath put into a wrong Page: But I shall cite it at large, and then will examine the true meaning of it: We therefore say the Lords Prayer immediately after the Prayer (of Consecration), because it was the custom of the Apostles with that Prayer alone to Consecrate the Host; and it seems to me very inconvenient, that we should say over the Host that Prayer which a Scholastical Man had composed, and not say that Form which our Lord himself composed, over his Body and Blood Ut precem quam Schola­sticus compo­suerat super Oblationem diceremus—&c. Greg. Epist. 63. lib. 7. pag. 230.. Now from hence he gathers, that Scholasticus is a Mans Name, who was Contemporary with S. Gregory; and since he affirms, this Scholasticus com­posed the Canon, therefore the Canon (as he pretends) could not be made before Gregory's Time: The weakness [Page 122] and mistakes of which Inference we shall easily perceive, if we consider the occasion and the sense of these Words: S. Gregory was accused for imitating the Custom at Constantinople, In ordering the Lords Prayer to be repeated imme­diately after the Canon; and these Words are his defence of his bringing in this Custom. Now doubtless it had been more rational, to object his setting up a New Canon made by a late obscure Author, if he had done any such thing, than to alledge his only adding the Lords Prayer to it; and if he had first brought in this Canon of Scholasticus, that had been an imitation of Constan­tinople too, so far as it was a Canon; for they had long used the Canon of S. Basil, and that of S. Chrysostom there; but of this the Objectors take no notice, which makes it probable, that the Canon was setled long before; it was a Prayer which he found, and added the Lords Prayer to it. But my Adversary urges S. Gregory's Saying, That the Apostles only Consecrated with the Lords Prayer, and therefore Scholasticus his Canon must be composed about S. Gregory's Time. Why so? was there not above [Page 123] Five hundred years between the Apo­stles and S. Gregory? If this Canon were not extant in their Time, might it not be made in some of the intervening Ages, and yet be long enough before S. Gregory? And indeed there is a Mi­stake (as learned Men think) in the Popes premises; for he is supposed to refer to S. Hierom, who only saith, Christ taught his Apostles, that the Faithful might daily say in the Sacrifice of his Body; Our Father Hieren. adv. Pelag. Tom. 2. pag. 469.. But neither he, nor any Ancient Writer before this Gre­gory, did ever affirm, That the Apostles themselves used no other Form of Con­secration, but only the Lords Prayer, it being generally believed they used the Words of Institution (recorded in the Gospel) and the Lords Prayer when they Consecrated, to which long before S. Basil's and S. Ambrose his Time (as we have shewed) other parts of the Canon were added: And for the Roman Canon, whatever Du-Moulin and my Adversary sayDisc. of Lit pag. 84, & 85., Du-Plessis, and other both ancient and modern Writers do agree, That several of the old Popes made the several Parts of it, in divers Ages, long before the Time of Gregory Mornay of the Mass, B.I. Chap. 6. p. 44.: [Page 124] But Gelasius gathered together all these Additions, and put them into that Form wherein Gregory found it; and he (as Cassander thinks) is called by the Title of Scholasticus, because he was first a Scholastical Man before he was chosen PopeGelasius ex Scholastico Papa factus. Exp. vet. Miss. ap. Cassand. de Liturg. lib. 1.. And if this be so (as it is very probable), then Scholasticus is not any Mans proper Name, but a Title used in that Age for any Learned and Well-read Man, and so applied to Ge­lasius, who lived near an Hundred years before S. Gregory: So the word Schola­sticus is taken, I am sure, in many ancient AuthorsAug. Tract. 7. in Johan. Hieron. de vir. illustr. & Salvian. praef. ad libr. de gub. Dei, ap. Bon. rerum Liturg. p. 557.. And in that Sense of an elegant and learned Man it is, that we find Capitolinus use itCapitolin. in vit. Maximin. junior., and so doth Sulpitius Severus Sulpic. Sev. dial. 1., and Maca­rius Macar. hom. 15.; so Suidas calls Agathias by the Title of Scholasticus Suid. in A­gathiâ.; and Pru­dentius is called Hispaniarum Scholasti­cus, by Walafridus Strabo Walafr. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 25.; yea, Sy­nesius long before gives that Title to a learned Friend of hisSynes. op. 155, 156., and Elpidius hath the Name of Scholasticus, in Leon­tius Leont. Me­chan. de Arat. sphaer.: Which is enough to prove, That for divers Ages this had been a Title; and in S. Gregory he plainly opposeth a Prayer, composed by a [Page 125] Divine Person, such as the Lords Prayer is, to one made by an human Author, by a Learned and Scholastical Man; by which he means either in general, all the old Popes who first put in the several Parts; or rather Gelasius, who setled the Canon made up of those Parts, and so may be said to be the Author thereof: And thus all my Ad­versaries dreams of a Man called Scho­lasticus, contemporary to S. Gregory, fall to the ground. But still he persists in this Notion, and saith, Bellarmin thinks it is not improbable, that Scholasticus was a Mans Name then alive. I Reply, Bellarmin Bellarm. de Miss. lib. 2. c. 19. only recites this as Chem­nitius's Opinion, but disputes against it; and yet adds, if he should yield this to gratifie his Adversary, it would not follow that the Canon was made by him, because S. Gregory's Words may be expounded, not of the Canon, but of some lesser Collects, of later composure, used in the Communion-Office; and then adds, Ʋtraque probabilis, both Opinions, viz. of the Canon being made by an ancient Learned Father, entituled Scho­lasticus, and of the Words signifying other Prayers, are probable: But my [Page 126] Adversary wilfully perverts Bellarmin, as if he affirmed, it was probable that Scholasticus (Author of the Canon) lived in Gregory's Time; which the Cardinal utterly and with good Reason denies, because there was a Canon at Rome divers Ages before; and that which Gregory here speaks of, was writ down by Gelasius before the End of the last Century. And here let it be noted, That though S. Gregory prefer the Lords Prayer, whose Authority was Divine, before this Prayer of Ecclesiastical and Human Composition, yet he gives great regard to it; for he calls the Elements only, The Host, or The Oblation, before this Canon be repeated; but after the pronouncing this Prayer over it, he calls it Christs Body and Blood: Which shews, That he thought the Consecration was made by this very Prayer, though it were only an Human Composure. And this was not his Opinion alone, but was believed generally in that Age, as may appear by the Case of Januarius (proposed to Gregory) who was some­times taken so ill, even at the Sacra­ment, that he was a great while before he could go on at the same place of [Page 127] the Canon, where he left off; which made many doubt, whether or no they might receive the Communion from him, because they feared, that a Mistake in this Prayer would make the Conse­cration nullGregor. Epist. 56. lib. 11. pag.. Now it is no way probable, that a Prayer lately made by an obscure and private Man, should so suddenly gain the reputation of being a necessary part of the Office: And therefore we may conclude this first Assertion of his to be false, and no way deducible from S. Gregory's Words, since it opposes so much Reason and so great Authority. But Secondly, Who­ever made this Canon, or whensoever it was made, my Adversary saith, That S. Gregory was not for imposing it; which he hopes to prove by his not imposing this Canon upon Augustine the Monk, whom he had sent to Convert the Saxons then in this Island; For he advised him to a Course inconsistent with any restraint. Now all this is to insi­nuate, that it is ill done of our Church to impose her Liturgy upon her own Clergy, because (as he pretends) Bede saith, S. Gregory did not impose the Roman Canon on Austin the Monk. [Page 128] An heavy Charge this, and well proved, as we shall see by the true Quotation of Bede's Words, half of which my Adversary hath left out: Augustine had enquired, why since there was but One Faith, there were divers Liturgies, and in this case, which he should chuse to establish here? And Bede thus relates S. Gregory's Answer: Your Brotherhood knows the Custom of the Roman Church, in which you were brought up; but I am content, that whatever you can find in the Roman, the Gallican, or any Church, which may best please Almighty God, you do carefully chuse that — [here He fraudulently draws a Line] — [But Bede goes on thus—] And infuse into your New Converted Church of Eng­land, by a special Institution, what you so gather from several Churches [— Here he comes in again—] For things are not to be beloved for the places sake, but places are to be beloved for the good things that are there; wherefore out of every Church choose such things as are pious, religious and right — [Here he concludes, but S. Gregory goes on] — and gathering these into one Collection, deposit them for Customs in the Minds of [Page 129] the English. Never was poor Author so mangled, to serve an ill Cause; two long Sentences left out, one in the Middle, and another at the End; to find out which base and disingenuous Fallacy, I desire the Reader will com­pare Gregory's full Answer as it is Re­corded in Bede, and Sir Henry Spel­man Bed. hist. lib. 1. cap 27. & Spelm. Concil. Vol. l. pag., with his circumcised Citation thereofDisc. of Lit. Marg. pag. 85 [...]; and then he will discern his Fraud in concealing the directions for Augustin, to make a special insti­tution of the things he had so Colle­cted into one Body of a Liturgy; and then by a New Form daily to be used, to fix them in the Minds of the English, by a Custom; Which utterly over­throws his pretended Liberty? For S. Gregory supposes every Church had a Written Liturgy, which Augustin might read over and compare: And he advises Augustin, to read over the several Li­turgies of several Churches, the Roman, the Gallican, &c. and out of all these, to compose One Form, and then to enjoyn it on the English, and by daily use to accustom them to it. This is all the Restraint that is practised now: Our Reformers did read over all Liturgies, [Page 130] and chose out the best things from each, put them together in one Volume, and then required these Forms should be daily used, so that both Priests and People might be accustomed to them. And as S. Gregory did not impose the Roman Liturgy or Canon upon Augustin the Monk, who lived in a distant Country and in a distinct National Church; so we do not impose ours upon Denmark or Sweden, upon the Dutch or the Helvetians: But to argue from hence, We are not for imposing our own Liturgy upon our own Clergy, is so weak, so obvious a Fallacy, as deserves to be laughed at rather than seriously confuted. Again, because Gre­gory (the Patriarch of the West) took the liberty to correct the Roman Offices, by that which he approved of, in the Forms of other National ChurchesDisc. of Liturgies, p. 87.: And because he would not impose the Trine Immersion used at Rome, upon Leander's New Converted, distant Church in Spain Gregor. Ep. 41. ad lae­anat. lib. 1.; Therefore every Parish-Priest and private Minister may vary from the Liturgy of his own Church daily, if he please: And there­fore no Bishops ought to impose any [Page 131] Liturgy upon their own Clergy, living under them in the same Diocess or Nation. This is such woful Sophistry, that I am sure he cannot impose this sort of Arguing upon any rational Men; yet if these Inferences be not drawn from S. Gregory's Answer, it makes no­thing to his purpose, unless it be to prove, there were no Forms imposed in Gregory's Time. But how can that be squeezed out of any of these Passages? The Epistle first cited, supposes a Form of Prayers extant, and imposed at Rome before S. Gregory's Time, wherein the Hallelujah was never sung but between Easter and Pentecost, which ordered the Sub-Deacons to wear Surplices when they sang the Litany in Processions; in which Litany by the old Form they did not repeat the Kyrie Eleeson often; nor was the Lords Prayer in the Commu­nion Office of that old Book, pre­scribed to be used immediately after the Canon: But this Epistle shews, that Gregory had altered the ancient Liturgy of Rome in all these Particulars, and made it agreeable to the Liturgy at Constantinople, from which place he was lately come: And this he was censured for [Page 132] by some; this he excuses in the whole EpistleGregor. Ep. 63. lib. 7. pag. 230.. Wherefore here was a Form imposed before his Time, and he im­poses it again (with his Corrections) upon his own Church, or else what need the Clergy under his Jurisdiction complain? Indeed he did not impose it on Spain, France or Britain, which were not (in that Age) under his Au­thority; but he was strict enough at Rome, and in the Churches then subject to that See: He corrected the Book of Gelasius, and imposed that there; He compiled Hymns and Antiphons, and brought in a New way of Singing them, teaching Boys to do it with skill, so that soon after all the West imitated that Way Johan. Diac. vit. Greg. lib. 2. cap. 6.: He compiled that Book for the Communion-Service, which still is called his Sacramentary, wherein are all the Forms used at Rome for the Eucha­rist Id. ib. c. 17.: He brought in the Sevenfold Litany, and prescribed how and when it should be usedNaucler. Gen 20. p. 743. Platin. pag. 82. & Johan. Diac. in vit.. And all these Parts of Liturgy were by him imposed on the Roman Church; and will my Adversary still pretend, he was against the imposing Forms of Praise and Prayer? Did he take all this pains for [Page 133] his own private use? Did all the West voluntarily conform to this, and yet was it not used and observed at Rome, any further than the Clergy pleased? These are wild Conjectures. But he saith, Cassander publishes the Ordo Romanus, in which there are no Forms of Prayer, but only the Order wherein they pro­ceeded. I Reply, Those Copies which Cassander publisheth, are only a Breviat of S. Gregory's Liturgy; and therefore the Hymns and Prayers he composed are not set down at large there; yet when this was writ out, these Forms were so well known that they are named often, only by two words of the be­ginning of each Form: Ex. gr. Gloria Patri —, Kyrie Eleeson —, Gloria in excelsis —, Dominus vobiscum —, &c. Cassander de Liturg. lib. [...].. Which shews the Forms were then well known, and had been so long used, as to be understood by short hints in this Epitome of the Gregorian Office: But my Adversary knew well, that the Sacramentary of Gregory is extant in his Works, wherein all the Prayers and Antiphons, &c. are set down at large which Gregory made and imposed on the Roman Church, and therefore it is [Page 134] disingenuous in him, to argue for his pretended liberty from this Epitome. There is but one thing more in my Adversary relating to this Matter, which is, That Augustin being not imposed on by S Gregory, would not impose it on the Britains Disc. of Lit. pag. 87, & 88.; which he gathers from this, viz. That the Britains and Scots were Enemies to the Roman Use in Gil­das his Time, and had no Uniformity in Worship long after. Now to his Posi­tion, I say, That if Augustin followed Gregory's Advice (as no doubt he did) then he did impose, not the Roman Forms, but those of his own collecting, upon the Saxons, which I shall prove more largely afterwards: But as for the Britains, they were a distinct Chri­stian Church then, and did owe no manner of subjection to Augustin; so that it had been ridiculous i [...] him to have imposed a Newly comp [...]d Li­turgy upon them. They were no more obliged to receive his Forms, than we are to receive those of Geneva, or they to observe ours. Again, as to his Proof, How doth the Britains rejecting the Roman Use in Gildas's Time, prove, That they had no Forms imposed on them [Page 135] by Augustin? Gildas died (according to Bishop Ʋsher) An. 570. that is, Thirty years before Augustin the Monk came inCave Car­toph. Eccles. in Gild. Badon. pag.; so that their dislike of the Roman Usages then, is nothing to Augu­stin's Impositions. Besides, The Roman Liturgy and Augustin's were two diffe­rent things, and therefore it is very weak to prove, they did not receive Augustin's Liturgy from their rejecting the Roman Usage, since they were different things: So that this would be a good Argument, if it were not as destitute of Logic and Chronology, as it is of Truth; For Augustin did make a Form, and impose it on the Saxons under his Jurisdiction, and they received it, and used it long after. As for the Bri­tains, Scots and Irish, in that Age, they belonged not to him, and so he could impose nothing on them: And for their Uniformity, I shall clear that Point after a little while. For what hath been ob­served (I hope) may suffice to prove, That imposed Liturgies were in use in all Churches, long before the Time of Gregory the Great.

[Page 136] Leontius Bizan­tin. An. D. 594.§. 13. Toward the End of this Cen­tury, Leontius of Bizantium writ his Books against Nestorius and Eutyches; wherein he complains of Theodorus of Mopsevestia, the Master of Nestorius, That he not only corrupted the Scrip­ture but presumed to do another Evil equal to that, viz. That he foolishly invented a New Liturgy, besides that which the Fathers delivered to the Churches, neither reverencing that of the Apostles, nor that which the Great S. Basil writ by the same Spirit; in which Liturgy of his, he filled the My­stery of the Eucharist with Blasphemies rather than Prayers: And can we now (saith Leontius) reasonably expect any other Antichrist, since this Man so despe­rately hates Christ, and changes the things that are ChristsLeont. Bizan. adver. Nestor. & Eutych. lib. 3. §. 18. Bib. Patr. Auctar. Tom. 2. col. 619.? I briefly pointed at this beforeCent. V. §. 8.: But I produce this place here at large, because it shews, That in the Greek Church, the Liturgy of S. James (which is here called, that of the Apostles) and the Liturgy of S. Basil, were believed in this Age, to gave been endited by Inspiration, and to deserve a Reverence almost equal to Holy Scripture: So that for a private [Page 137] Bishop to despise or disuse them on conceit of his own Fancies, was adjudged to be Blasphemy; and he who did so, was in this Century thought to be an Enemy to Christ himself. Now this extraordinary Veneration for these Li­turgies could proceed from nothing, but their having been long used in the Eastern Church, and their assurance of their great Antiquity and Excellency. And if private Ministers had then enjoyed such a liberty in varying the public Prayers, according to their own Fancies and Conceptions; This Author could not have been so ridiculous, as to represent this as so heinous a Crime in a Bishop. So that we may conclude this Century also, wherein we find the Use of Liturgies every where continued, and by all the Fathers and Councils of this Age they are spoken of with much Reverence, and represented as delivered from the Apostles and Primitive Bishops, and as the ancient way of Serving God; being no where first introduced in this Period, but only in Countries newly Converted: And the great business of many Councils in this Time was, to reduce those Nations which had variety [Page 138] in their Offices, to a Regular Uni­formity.

CHAP. III. Of LITƲRGIES in the Seventh, and other Later Centuries.

TO gather up all the Evidence for LITURGIES in this and the following Ages, would be a needless Trouble to the Reader and my self; both because what I have so clearly made out to begin much sooner, can receive no great strength from the Writers of this declining Age; and because my Adversary doth confess, they began to be imposed above one whole Century before the beginning of this: Yet since he will go on to lower Times, to plead for the continuance of his imaginary Liberty, I shall follow him, and not only confute his Objecti­ons, but collect also (which he hath omitted) some of the most remarkable [Page 139] Proofs for the continuance of Liturgies in these Ages.

§. 1. He that considers the Autho­rities before produced, to prove,Isidorus Ep. Hispalens. An. Dom. 603. That Isidore (who succeeded his Brother Leander in the Archbishopric of Sevil) did perfect the Mozarabic Liturgy, will not question but there was a setled Form of Prayer in Spain in his Time: But if it be needful further to prove so plain a Matter, we find in his Book of the Original of things, one Chapter of Di­vine Offices, wherein he explains the meaning of the several Liturgick Phra­ses; such as, The Evening Office, The Morning Office, The Mass, A Choir, An­tiphons, Responsals, Canticles, Psalms, Hymns, Allelujah, Amen, Hosanna, the Offertory, &c. Isidor. orig. lib. 6. cap. 19. pag. 80.. Now these (as we have seen) are all parts of ancient Liturgy, and he (supposing the things to be known to all) here gives the reason of the Names. Moreover, he hath also extant another Tract concern­ing The Offices; wherein he shews, what was the Original of every one of the Ecclesiastical Offices; wherein he shews, who were the Inventers of [Page 140] Canticles, to be sung with Voices; and Psalms, to be sung to Musical Instru­ments; as also, who were the Authors of the Hymns used in the Church, both Di­vine (among which he reckons the Bene­dicite) and Human; the latter Composed by S. Hilary and S. Ambrose, whose Hymns were used in all the Western Church. He goes on to inform us, That the Greeks first Composed Antiphons, and that the Responsals were made in Italy in old Time. As for Prayers, he saith, Christ was desired by his Disciples, to compose them a Prayer, which he did; and thence the Church learned to use Prayers like to that which Christ made; The Greeks being the first that composed such Forms of Supplication. And a little after he treats of the Alleluja, which by ancient Tradition was sung always in Spain, ex­cept on Fasting-days and in Lent. He explains also the Offertory, which use to be made with Singing in his Time: Then he reckons up, Seven Prayers in the Mass, that is, (saith he) The Order of those Prayers by which the Sacrifice is Consecrated, which being instituted by S. Peter, is celebrated in one and the same Manner throughout the whole World. [Page 141] The first is an Exhortation to the People, to entreat the Lord (that is, a Litany:) The second is a Prayer, That God would receive the Prayers and Alms of the Faithful: The third respects the Offerers and Faithful, deceased: The fourth re­lates to the Kiss of Charity: The fifth is for Sanctifying the Oblation, and setting out Gods Praise, exciting Heaven and Earth to joyn in it, in which Hosannah is sung: The sixth is the Prayer for the Holy Spirit, to descend on the Sacrament: The last is the Lords Prayer: After which follows the Nicene Creed, and the Benediction of the People Isidor. de Offic. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 4.5, 6, 7, 8, 9.13, 14, 15, 16, & 17. pag. 581, 582, &c.. All which several Prayers and Forms are yet to be seen in the Mozarabic Office, to which Isidore here refers, and so ex­actly follows the Order of it, even where it differs from other Forms and Liturgies, (as particularly in giving the Benediction before the Distribution Vid. Offic. Mozarab. in Bib. Patr. Tom. xv. edit. Colon. cap. 27. pag. 779. Item vid. Con­cil. Tolet. 4. Can. 17. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 350.), that no Man can doubt, but that Office was Extant then, with all the Parts now contained in it, except those which mention the Virgin Mary (added since) of which there is no mention in him. I must transcribe this whole Book of Isidore's, if I should produce all the [Page 142] other particulars about the Hours of Prayer, the Vespers, Completorium, Vi­gils, Matius, &c. In all which, and all the rest of those Books, such plain and express mention is made of prescribed and known Forms, then setled in the Spanish Church, that it is impossible to deny or evade so manifest a Truth. To which may further be added his Epistle to Ludifredus Bishop of Corduba, about the several Ecclesiastical Officers and their Duties; wherein he mentions, The known Forms of Lauds and Re­sponsals; the Office of Prayers, and re­citing of the Names; the giving of Peace, and indeed all other Parts of Liturgy; so that nothing is more clear, than that he hath respect to the pre­scribed Forms then in useIsidor. Ep. ad Ludifred. pag. 615.. And the like Reference he makes to the particular Offices and Forms used by the Monks in their private Oratories within their Monasteries, where they also prayed by FormsIdem in reg. Monach. cap. 6. de Offic. pag. 701.: So that it is impossible there should be any thing more evident, than that a Liturgy, and prescribed Forms of Prayer and Praise were used in this Country of Spain, in Isidore's Time, who was Bishop of Sevil [Page 143] Thirty three years together, and the most learned Man that can be found in the Western Church, in this Age.

§. 2.Concil. Toletan. 4. An. Dom. 633. This very Isidore was President of the Fourth Council of Toledo, called by King Sisenandus, wherein there were Sixty two Bishops, and seven more sub­scribed by Proxy, being Summoned out of all the Provinces in France and Spain, then subject to the Gothic Kings; who had much enlarged their Empire, since the Mozarabic Office was first compo­sed: Wherefore many of the Canons of this Council were made, to settle the use of that one Liturgy, every where in Sisenandus his Dominions; for it seems before this National Coun­cil, it was not universally received, or at least not used without some variety; but here the Second Canon saith, We Decree, that as we Bishops are joyned, in the Ʋnity of the Catholic Faith; So will we do nothing differently or disso­nantly in the Sacraments of the Church, lest any difference of ours, among the Ignorant and Carnal, should give suspi­cion of Schism; and the variety of se­veral Churches, prove a Scandal to ma­ny. [Page 144] Therefore one Order of Praying and Singing shall be observed by us, through all Spain and France, one manner of Communion Service, one manner of Morn­ing and Evening Prayer; nor will we, who are Ʋnited in one Faith, and one Kingdom, have any longer, divers Eccle­siastical Customs; For the ancient Canons also Decree this, That every Country shall have the same way of Singing and Ministring — Unus igitur ordo Orandi at­que psallendi nobis per omnem His­paniam atque Galliam Conservetur, Unus modus in Missarum solennita­tibus, Unus in vespertinis matutinis­que officiis, nec diversa sit ultra in nobis Ecclesiastica consuetudo, qui in una fide continemur & Regno, hoc enim & antiqui Canones decreve­runt, ut unaquaeque Provincia & psallendi & ministrandi parem con­suetudinem contineat. Concil. Tolet. 4. Can. 2. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. p. 345.; From which Canon we may Observe, First, That the different ways of celebrating Divine Ser­vice was looked on, as a Corruption broken in upon them, contrary to the ancient Canons, that is, those of Laodicea, Mi­levis, Vannes, Pamiers, Gyrone, and o­thers cited before. Secondly, That these differences were occasioned by the Bi­shops, having been formerly of differ­ent Opinions in matters of Faith, and lived under different Kings; but being now all of one Faith, and under one Prince, it was necessary to have one Form of Service. Thirdly, That these [Page 145] Differences were Scandalous to the Bi­shops, and an Offence to the People, while they did continue. Fourthly, Therefore they settle one Form of Morn­ing and Evening Prayers, and one Form of Communion-Service, through­out all the Dominions of Sisenandus, who Ruled all Spain; and in some Parts of France, lately gained by his Ancestors, they now will have but one Order, that is, One Liturgy (as that Word signifies) without the least diffe­rence. And since Isidore had so lately corrected and compleated Leander's Of­fice, and was President here, we may conclude, that this Canon was to settle that very Liturgy: And because some Bishops might be so much in love with their former ways of Service, that with­out the Authority of so great a Council they would not change them, there fol­low divers Canons to forbid the Par­ticulars wherein they differed, and to settle those prescribed in the Mozarabic Office; of which being many, I will only repeat the Heads, which are these: The 5th Canon forbids the Trine Immer­sion in Baptism, and orders it to be done but once: The 6th enjoyns all to [Page 146] observe the Office for Good-Friday: The 8th orders, that on Easter-Even there shall be Tapers Consecrated in the Churches of France, as had been anciently done in the Churches of Spain: The 9th Canon Commands the Lords Prayer to be said every day, and not only on Sundays: The 10th forbids the singing Allelujah in Lent, since the Ʋniversal Church omitted it in that time of Fasting: The 11th enjoyns the singing, Glory be to thee. O God, after the Gospel, according to the Old Canons, and not after the Epistle, as some used: The 12th condemns those who rejected all Hymns not found in Scrip­ture, and orders the use of those made by S. Ambrose, S. Hilary, and other Ec­clesiastical Doctors: The 13th Censures those who would not sing the Benedicite, or Song of the Three Children in the Communion-Office on Sundays and Festival-days, being an Hymn used all over the Catholic Church: The 14th directs the Singing of Glory and Honour be to the Father, &c. (exactly as it yet pre­scribed in the Mozarabic Liturgy, and in no other): And the 15th is about the Gloria after the Responsals, that it be always used alike: The 16th asserts the [Page 147] Revelations of S. John to be Canonical, and orders them to be read between Easter and Pentecost: The 17th orders the Benediction of the People as well as the Lords Prayer, to be used before the distribution of the Sacrament Concil. Tolet 4. Can 5. & Can. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag 346, 347, &c.: An Usage which (as we noted before) is also peculiar to the Mozarabic Liturgy. Now from these Canons we may ga­ther, First, what were the Particulars wherein the several Diocesses had dif­fered, viz. not that some of them had no Liturgy and others had; but that whereas all of them used prescribed Forms, there was some variety in the use of some of the particular Parts of Liturgy, at least in the Order or the Time of using them; but as for my Adversary's pretended Liberty for Pri­vate Ministers, to vary daily these Offices, here is nothing can be meant of that; it was several Diocesses which differed, not by reason of Extempore or Arbitrary Prayers, but only about some Liturgic Forms, or the manner of using them; Every Bishop and Diocess had an Order; and Now they Decree, there shall be but one Order, without the least Variation, and that one Order [Page 148] was (as we see plainly) the Old Spanish Liturgy, the very Words of which are yet extantVid Bi [...]. Pati. Tom. xv. ut supr. Item Bona de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 365.; which was that Office whereby all the little Varieties, occa­sioned by diversity of Religion, mixture of People, and division of Kingdoms were happily taken away for many Ages; and this is the true state of this Matter. But my Adversary generously undertakes from this very Council, and these Canons to prove: First, That the Spanish Churches at this time were not subject to Imposed Orders, for one Form of Worship; no, not in the Sacraments, which were celebrated there, not only variously, but unduly Disc. of Lit. pag. 133.. And this he proves by the Preface to this Council, which in a detached Sentence saith, The Divine Sacraments in the Churches of Spain, are celebrated in a different and unlawful manner In S [...]cramentis [...] v [...]nis qu [...] verso [...] medo in Hispania [...]um [...]sas cele­brantur. Ba [...]. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 345.. And this he pretends shews some remaining Ruins of the ancient Liberty, even after the Imposing Spirit was rouzed and active: But alas, the History and Occasion of this diversity, shews it was a modern Corruption, no ancient Liberty; and this very place which he cites calls this diversity Ʋnlawful, as being contrary [Page 149] to the ancient Canons: For one Liturgy in one Country was the Old Rule and Original Practice; the Variety (which yet was no liberty of Praying without Forms) was the Innovation; yea, the same Preface there calls it, An Ʋsurpa­tion, assuming licence to it self from Mens negligence, contrary to the Ecclesiastical Ʋsage Quae dum per negligen­tiam in usum venerunt, con­tra Ecclesiasti­cos meres [...] ­tiam libi de usur atione [...]. Praelat. ibid.. 'Tis plain, they had divers Kings, different Creeds, and all had been confused for some time past; but now they had broke through those un­happy Circumstances, they resolve to cast out this seemingly Schismatical, and really Scandalous Diversity, and reduce all to the ancient Uniformity. Secondly, he saith, One of the first Books for public Service, that he meets with, is the Libellus Officialis in the 25th Canon of this Council, which seems rather a short Directory than a compleat Liturgy, given to every Presbyter at his Ordination, to instruct him how to Administer the Sacraments, lest through ignorance of his Duty herein he should offend Disc. of Lit. pag. 15.. And to make this out, he quotes (as usually) only half that 25th Canon. But the whole Canon is this, When Priests are Ordained for Parishes, let them receive [Page 150] a Book of Offices from their Bishop, that they may succeed in their Cures duly instructed, lest by Ignorance in the Di­vine Mysteries they offend Christ Quando Presbyteri in Parochiis ordinantur, libellum Officialem à Sacerdete suo accipiant, ut ad Ec­clesias sibi deputatas instructi suc­cedant, ne per ignorantiam, etiam in ipsis divinis Sacramentis Chri­stum offendant; ita ut quod Quando ad Litanias, vel ad Concilium ve­n [...]rint rationem Episcopo suo reddant, qualit [...]r susceptum Officium cele­brant, vel baptizant. Bin. ibid. Can. 25. pag. 351. — Here he breaks off, but the Canon goes on — So that when they come to Litanies, or to a Council, they may give an account to their Bishop, how they have performed the Offices they have undertaken, and how they have Baptized. This is the Canon entire: And to his Objections I Reply, First, That he did meet with the Codex Gelasianus almost 150 years before this; and with Gregory's Ordo Romanus, which was made made Thirty year beforeDisc. of Lit. pag. 83.; yea, he had met with Written Prayers in the Third Council of Carthage, An. 398.Ibid pag. 44.. And he might have met with a Common-Prayer-Book in Sido­nius Apollinaris; with Sacerdotalem li­brum, in Vincentius Lirinensis cited before; with [...], in Sozomen, with a whole Liturgy in the Apostical Con­stitutions, with the Books of enjoyned Prayers in Constantine's Time: These, [Page 151] and many more Books for public Ser­vice he might have met with; but that none is so blind as he that will not see. He affirms, Secondly, That the Book of Offices mentioned in this Council, was rather a short Directory, than a compleat Liturgy. But this is to outface the Sun, when it is certainly meant of the Moza­rabic Office, wherein all the Hymns and Prayers are writ out at large: And it argues a Mind strangely possessed with the Notion of a Directory, to tell us, That all those Canons (which we cited before) viz. Can. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16th and 17th. had been needless, if those Churches had been furnished with such a Liturgy, as provided sufficiently for the Severals there mentioned Disc. of lāt. pag. 16.. For those Canons do all suppose there had been divers Liturgies, appointing a various use of those Forms; but since now one Liturgy was established (as the Second Canon shews) they add the Au­thority of a National Council to that One Order agreed on, and forbid all former ways which did in the least vary from it; and considering how apt Men are to be tenacious of their own Way, which they have long used, all [Page 152] these Canons were little enough to secure and restore the ancient Uniformity; yea, the very Reason given in this 25th Canon, why the Bishop delivered this Book of Offices to every Parish-Minister at his Ordination, is, that they might Officiate by none of the Old Liturgies, but by this alone; and when these Country-Ministers came to their Bishop, either upon occasion of the Grand Pro­cession used when the Litany was pub­lickly said by the whole Clergy of the Diocess, or at those Synods which were then held at least once a year; Then he might bring this Book along with him to certifie the Bishop, that he had used no other Forms, but these esta­blished, in any Offices of his Ministra­tion. Now had this been only a Di­rectory, according to my Adversaries extravagant Fancy, some might offend Christ out of Ignorance, by not choosing or making proper Forms; and it had been impossible they should all have agreed so exactly in every Office (as the Second Canon requires) that the People could not observe the least difference. To conclude, The Fathers of this Council tell us in the 13th Canon, That divers [Page 153] Hymns used in the Church were composed by the Ecclesiastical Doctors; and if any for that Reason would not use them, they must also reject the Forms of Prayer: For (say they) these Hymns are composed, as Masses, or Supplications, or Prayers, or Commendations (that is, Intercessions for all Estates of Men) or Impositions of Hands, are Composed: Which, if they might not be said in the Church, all Ecclesiastical Offices must cease: And therefore they conclude, That as none of them did refuse such Composed Prayers; so none of them for the future ought to reject Hymns, so Composed for the Praise of God Componantur ergo Hymni sicut componuntur Missae, sive Preces vel Orationes, sive Commendationes seu Manus impositiones, ex quibus si nulla dicantur in Ecclesia, vacant Officia Ecclesiastica, &c. Concil. Tulet. 4. Can. 13. Bin. ut supià, pag 349.. I suppose he will grant the Hymns were Forms of Praise in Words at large, made by ancient Holy Fathers: And they declare, that their Communion-Service, their Prayers, their Collects, Intercessi­ons, and Forms of Absolving Penitents, were composed just as the Hymns were composed, viz. in Words writ down at large by Ancient Doctors; so that if any Men had then been of our Dissen­ters Principle, to use no Human Com­posures [Page 154] in the Church (except their own) all Divine-Service must have ceased; because they had no other way to per­form it by, but by a fixed Liturgy, in which these Old Forms were set down: But they were so happy, that none scrupled to use these Prayers then, either because they were Forms, or because they were made by Ancient Doctors; and thence the Council Argues very firmly, That it was ridiculous for them to use prescribed Forms of Prayer of Human Composure, and at the same time to scruple the use of Hymns, that were Composed after the same manner. This sufficiently proves, it was a Liturgy at large, which was writ in this Book of Offices; and so we may dismiss him and his Directory, as having no Foundation in, or Encouragement from this Council. Thirdly, He cites a Rule of Pope Gregory's, said to be praised in this Synod of Toledo, viz. That where there is one Faith, there's no hurt to the Church by diversity of Ʋsages Disc. of Lit. pag. 86 & 87.. His blundering Editor refers this to a place in Eusebius about diffe­rent ways of Fasting in divers Churches, and puts the true Quotation into the [Page 155] next Page. But to let him pass, We grant that S. Gregory hath such a Rule in his Epistle to Leander Gregor. Epist. 41. ad Leand lib. 1.; and it is quoted with Approbation, both by this CouncilConcil. Tolet. 4. Can. 5., and by Walafridus Strabo Walafrid. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 26.. But Gregory himself, and these who cite him, apply this Rule only to a Ceremony in Baptism, which he thought might be used variously in divers Churches, without any prejudice to that One Faith wherein they agreed; and therefore though Trine Immersion was used at Rome, he would not im­pose it on Spain: But what is this, or the Censure upon Victor in Eusebius, for imposing the Roman way of Fasting upon the Eastern Church, to our Question about the lawfulness of a National Churches imposing one Liturgy upon her own Members? Gregory did most certainly impose Trine Immersion at Rome, and Leander and this Council imposed Single Immersion on Spain; Nor did any blame Victor for imposing his way of Fasting, and keeping Easter, upon his own Church of Rome, and its Dependants. This sort of imposing Ceremonies and Liturgies, always was thought very lawful, and was practised [Page 156] in all Ages and Countries: And this is all we desire, viz. to impose the English Liturgy and Ceremonies upon the Eng­lish Church, leaving other National Churches to their Liberty in both cases. Fourthly, My Adversary saith, He can no where di [...]c [...]ver the Song of the Three Children before this Council of Toledo; where it is mentioned as used before, but then first imposed Disc. of Lit. pag. 178.. I Reply, The Words of the Canon shew this to be a Mistake: For they say, That the whole Catholic Church through­out the World celebrates this Hymn, and that only some of the Spanish Clergy neglected to sing it at some solemn Times, viz. On Sundays and Holy-days; there­fore they Decree it shall be sung in all the Churches of France and Spain in all solemn Masses, and that they who omitted this ancient Custom, and broke this De­cree, should be deprived of the Communion. Now how could the whole Catholic Church agree in the use of this Hymn, if it had not been imposed? Had all Churches been at liberty (as he fancies) some of them would have used it, and others not. Again, how comes this Council to call it, an ancient Custom, [Page 157] if this were the first time it was pre­scribed? Or why do they say, it was Negligence in those few who omitted it, if it were not a Duty before? It is plain enough, that this Hymn was an­ciently prescribed; but some Scrupu­lous persons, by mistaking the Canons of Laodicea and Braga, as if they for­bad all Hymns, which were not taken out of holy Scripture, would not obey the Injunction, nor use this Hymn at solemn Times: This indeed may prove that some of the Clergy then did neg­lect to read the whole Office, (and yet it shews that to be a great fault,) but it doth not prove that this Hymn was never enjoyned be­fore, it rather supposes the Con­trary. And indeed the Canon of Lao­dicea, only forbids ( [...]) Psalms composed by private Persons, which cannot reach this Hymn. And that Canon of Braga, is a Translation of that made at Laodicea, and forbids private Mens Poetry to be used in the Church: Yet perhaps, some did abuse this into the rejecting Hymns, compo­sed by the Ancients; and therefore seven years after, The Second Council [Page 158] at Tours, made a Canon to justifie and allow the use of the Hymns, made by the Ecclesiastical Doctors Concil. Turon. 2. Can. 24. An. 570.. And what was Decreed then in that Council, the last Century, is confirmed in this Cen­tury by this Fourth Council of Toledo; which contains as we see, cleer Evi­dence for the use of Liturgies, both now, and in ancient Time also.

Before I leave Spain, let me briefly note; That the Fifth, and Sixth Coun­cils of Toledo, do strictly enjoyn Li­tanies to be used Solemnly, upon the Ides of December Concil. Tol. 5. Can. 1. An. Dom. 636. Concil. Tolet. 6. can. 12. An. 638. Bin. ut supr. pag. 365. & 370.: And all Men know Litanies were put into prescribed Forms, many Ages before. The Eighth Council of Toledo Concil. Tolet. 8. can. 8. An. 653. Bin. ut supr. p. 491., complains of some Clergy Men, who were not throughly acquainted with those Orders, (or Forms) which were daily used; And they Decree that none hereafter shall be ordained, but such as have perfectly Learned the whole Psalter, The usual Hymns, and Canticles, and the way of Baptizing: And if any such be already admitted, they are compelled to exercise themselves in Reading these Offices. Which is a Demonstration, they were in written Forms, which might be read over by [Page 159] them. Another Council about twelve Years after, makes a Canon for ob­serving the Method prescribed, in the Mozarabic Liturgy, about the place of that Psalm, O come let us Sing unto the Lord; in the Evening OfficeConcil. Emeritan. Can. 7. vid. Notas Bin. ut supr. pag. 540.. And upon the creeping in of some variety, about ten Years after that into some lesser Churches, The Eleventh Coun­cil of Toledo, renews the old Canon, That all shall Celebrate the public Offices, that is, Vespers, Mattins and Mass, as was done in the Mother Church Concil. Tol. xi. Can. 3. An. 675. Bin. ut supr. p. 549.; So great was their care to preserve that Uni­formity in their Worship, which they had restored and Established.

§ 3. Now that other parts of the World kept to their ancient way of serving God, as well as Spain, Concil. Con­stant. in Trullo An. Dom. 680. appears by a Famous Council, held at Con­stantinople in this Century, where the Liturgies of S. James, and S. Basil, are cited for very good Au­thority, against such as were then ac­counted Heterodox, if not Heretical; even the Armenians, who did not mix Water with their Wine, in the Sacra­ment. For when they haved cited [Page 160] Scripture and cleered S. Chrysostom from the aspersion of holding that Opinion, They add, That both James the Bro­ther of our Lord according to the Flesh, who was first placed in the See of Jeru­salem, and S. Basil the Arch-Bishop of Caesarea, whose praise is spread over all the World; Delivering to us in writing, the way of Mystical Consecration, have appointed us in the holy Liturgy, to con­secrate the sacred Chalice, both with Water and Wine — [...]. Concil. Con­stant. in Trull. Can. 32. Bever. Tom. 1. p. 192.. Here then we see a great Council, accounted the Sixth of the General Councils, Twenty years before the year of Christ 700, expresly owning the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil, to have been delivered to them in writing, the one by an Apostle, the other by an Eminent Bishop, who lived above 300 year before this Coun­cil; And quoting them in dispute, with those they accounted very Erroneous, which assures us, that they not only owned, and used these Liturgies them­selves; but that they had been so long received among them, as to gain an Authority in matters of Controversy, next to the Holy Scriptures. And withal it must be supposed, that the [Page 161] Armenians also owned these Liturgies to be ancient, genuine and Authentic; for if they had thought them to be impostures, or inventions of later Ages, it had been ridiculous in this Council, to press them with Evidence [...]aken from Thence. Which makes me admire at my Adversaries Confidence, who pretends to have searched all An­tiquity; and yet asks, What Greeks they are which own the Liturgy of S. James? and tells us, he can find no Greek, own­ning it till 700 years after Christ Disc. of Lit. pag. 149.; And a litte after, These Liturgies were not known, nor used before the seventh or eigth Century— if they had, some Fathers or Councils, would have menti­oned them Disc. of Lit. pag. 150. & 151.. We see if he had plea­sed, he might have found a whole Council of Greek Bishops, and a whole Country of Eastern Christians, own­ing these Liturgies before the year 700. But further, we have before shewed that divers Fathers do mention them before this Age; And we must here add, that a general Council cannot be supposed, to cite these Liturgies for E­vidence in dispute, in the very same Age, wherein they were first known [Page 162] and used: We must suppose them ex­tremely impudent, and their Adver­saries strangely soft and easy, to fancy such a thing; Wherefore this Testimo­ny though produced only in this Age, undeniably proves that these Liturgies, had been used and owned for many Ages past, and that no body in this time doubt­ed of their Authority or Antiquity.

Ecclesiae Bri­tannie [...]e & Saxon. ab An. Dom. 450.§ 4. We will now return into the West, and as we have given an account, of the original of the famous Spanish Liturgy in one intire History; So we will now treat of the Liturgies used in Britain, France, and Germany, not tying our selves strictly to the Order of Time, that we may put together the scattered Memoirs relating to each of these Countries. We shall begin with the British, and their imitators the Irish and Scots, of whom my Adversary boldly pronounces thus, In Ireland (with whom the Britons and Scots symbolized,) we shewed before out of the great Usher, 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 [Page 163] was brought in by the Popes Le­gates Disc. of Lit. p. 134. 135.. In which words he refers to a former Quotation, which he made out of Bishop Ʋsher in these words; It is sure (saith he, i. e. B. Usher) 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 Gillebertus Malachias, and Christianus, who were the Popes Legates here about 500 years ago Disc. of Lit. p. 88. Usher Relig. of anc Irish. Chap. 4. mihi. pag. 24.. Now hence he infers, that the Irish, for above 1100 years, (and the Bri­tains, and Scots, if not so long, yet long after Austin, retained such liber­ty herein, as the Church anciently in­joyed, in all corners of the World. In which account he equally wrongs that learned Primate, and the Truth it self: For Bishop Ʋsher in the place cited saith concerning Ireland, As for the Form of Liturgy, and public Ser­vice of God, which S. Patrick brought into this Country; it is said that he re­ceived it from Germanus and Lu­pus, and that it originally descended from S. Mark the Evangelist; For [Page 164] which he quotes an old Manuscript, written neer 900 years ago, extant in Sir. Robert Cottens Library Us [...]er, Relig. o [...] anc. Ir sh. Chap. 4. p. 24.: Which Manuscript is since Printed, (but very imperfectly) in Spelmans Councils, and therein it is said, That their Form of Liturgy was the same, with that which was received by the [...]r Neighbors the GaulsSp [...]m. Con­cil. Tom. I. An. 80. p. 177, 178.; and it is there said to have been delivered from Germanus and Lupus, and supposed to have come at first from S. Mark: Now of this last Point, (viz. that S. Mark was the Au­thor of the Gallican Liturgy,) Bishop Ʋsher seems doubtful, and then goes on thus, But whatsoever Liturgy was used here at the first, this is sure, that in succeding Ages, no one general Form of Divine Service was retained, &c. and so goes on in the words cited by my Adversary: Who according to his wonted Fraud, conceals all that the Primate saith of the ancient Liturgy; which he affirms was but one, and was brought in by S. Patric, both among the Irish and Britons; for in the next Page he saith of the Britons, That their Form of Liturgy was the same, with that which was received by their Neigh­bors [Page 165] the Gauls, is intimated by the Au­thor of that ancient Fragment alledged before Usher Rel. of anc. Irish Chap. 4. pag. 26.: So that Bishop Ʋsher, be­leived that at first, both Britons and Irish had one Form, one Liturgy. And the variety which my Adversa­ry calls an ancient Liberty, was an Innovation and a Corruption of the truly ancient way of Serving God by one and the same Liturgy. And the Reader must have seen this to have been Bishop Ʋsher's Opinion, if he had not cut off half his Discourse, and be­gun in the midst of a Sentence. But to make this still more Evident, Bishop Ʋsher in another Tract, produces a very ancient Manuscript, called A Ca­talogue of the Irish Saints: Wherein they are reckoned up in three Orders; and the Chronology is so very exact, that we may reasonably believe, it was writ by a very good hand: The words are these, The first Order was, that of Ca­tholic Saints, in the time of Patricius, and they were famous Bishops full of the Holy Ghost, in number 350, Founders of Churches, having one Head, even Christ, and one Leader S. Patric; one Mass, and one manner of Celebration,— [Page 166] The Second Order were Catholic Presbyters, among whom were few Bishops and many Priests, 300 in number, having one Head, even our Lord; they Celebrated divers Masses, and had divers Rules, — The Third Order of Saints, were Holy Pres­byters, and a few Jew Bishops, 100 in number — and they had divers Rules and Masses Usherii Antiqu. Bri­tan. Eccles. pag. 473, 474.. Then a little after he recokons the time that these Orders cotained; The First, which was most Holy, continued from An. 433. to An. 534. The second, which was Holy of Holies, continued from 544. to 572. The 3d Order which was Holy, continued from 598 to 665Vid. Ibid. pag. 490.. Now by this account we see, That the First and best Times from S. Pa­tric, had only one Form of Divine Service; and thus it contiued for above 100 year, from towards the midst of the Fifth Cen­tury, (that is, from their first Conversion,) till toward the middle of the 6th Century. And then about the time that Monkery came into request in the Western Church, as Superstition encreased, variety of Rules were made, and in them were prescrib­ed various Forms of Prayer and Divine Service, or (as they called it) of Masses: For as Bishop Ʋsher tells us, The public [Page 167] Liturgy and Service of the Church, was of old named the Mass, even then also, when Prayers were only said; and so the Even­ing Mass signifies no more than that which we call Evening-Prayer B. Usher Rel. of anc. Irish, Chap. 4. pag. 26.. So then, when Variety was brought in, it was not (as he falsly pretends) a liberty to pray Arbitrarily, it was various Forms prescribed in each Diocess or Monastery: And every Clerk and Monk was bound to the Form of his own Diocess or Monastery, and so were Stran­gers too, when they came among them; which occasioned Gillibert to complain, That it was Indecent and Schismatical to see a very Learned Man of one Order, to be like a private Lay man when he came to the Church of another Order Gillibert. in Usher. Relig. anc. Irish, pag. 24.: That is, because he could not make Responses, nor Vocally joyn in their strange Form: Wherefore when Super­stition had destroyed their Ancient and Original Uniformity, they had no Liberty, but were as much under Forms as ever, only different Churches had divers Forms, which I will make still more evident: For Bishop Ʋsher ex­pounding the aforesaid Passage of di­vers Masses and divers Rules, shews it [Page 168] was meant of divers Forms, and rec­kons up four several Rules written down by these Irish Saints, all differing from each otherU [...]er Antiq. Bri [...]. Eccles. pag. 476.: And two more; one writ by Daganus, approved of by Pope Gregory the Great: Another made by Columbanus, who flourished Anno Dom. 614. which is yet extant, and differs in some things from the Rule of S. Benedict Id. Ibid. pag. 476, & 477.; of which Ordericus Vitalis saith, That though his Scholars followed the Rule of S. Benedict, yet they forsook not the Orders of their Ma­ster: For from Columbanus they learned the Manner and Order of Divine-Service, and a Form of Prayers for all Orders of Men that are in the Church of God Orderie. [...]ital. Hist. Eccles. lib. 8. ad An. 1094.. So that this Learned Primate took all these Varieties, to be various Forms of Prayer; and my Adversary shamefully abuses his great Name, to give colour to a false and groundless device of his own, of Praying Arbitrarily and Extempore, which he would dress up as one of the General Usages of the ancient Church, whereas there is not one Syllable in Bishop Ʋsher, tending to prove, That the Irish retained this liberty of Praying for 1100 years, and the Britons and Scots for [Page 169] a long time after Augustin. This is his own Invention, and is as false as his Reflections upon the present Church of England in that Page are malicious, and without groundDisc. of Lit. pag. 89.. As for the Britons he saith, They were Enemies to the Ro­man use in the Eucharist in Gildas's time; but he produces an Author there, which saith, They followed the Asian Manner in Preaching, Baptizing, and celebrating EasterIbid. pag. 88. Spelm. Concil. Tom. I. pag. 107.. Now the Asian and Eastern Churches had Forms of celebrating the Eucharist, and Baptizing in the Fourth Age, as we shewed before out of the Apostolical Constitutions and many other Authors; therefore if they fol­lowed the Eastern Manner, then they had Forms for the Eucharist and Bap­tism; and though they had no Unifor­mity with Rome, yet if they followed the Asian Manner, he hath no Reason to assert, That they were averse to, and unacquainted with any Ʋniformity; and that — they had no prescribed Litur­gies for such Ʋniformity long after. A pitiful piece of Sophistry! to conclude from their not receiving the Roman Liturgy, and agreeing to be Uniform with them, to infer, that the Britons [Page 170] had no Uniformity or Liturgy at all. If we may believe Bishop Ʋsher, Saint Patric was the Apostle both of the Irish and Welsh, and brought the same Li­turgy into Wales, that he brought into Ireland; and therefore he saith of the Britons, That their Form of Liturgy was the same with that which was received by their Neighbours the GaulsUsher Rel. of anc. Irish, pag. 26.; for which he cites the fore-mentioned An­cient Manuscript: And if they had any variety among them, it was a variety of Forms, not his Arbitrary liberty: For Baleus informs us, That Kentigern, who was Bishop of that Church which was afterward called S. Asaph, Writ a Manual of his Ministrations Balaeus de script. Brit. mihi, fol. 32.; That is, the Forms by which he celebrated Divine Service; and Bishop Ʋsher shews, That he and S. Columba meeting together, their Disciples alternately sang Forms of Praises to God, and the latter Company with Hallelujah Usher An­tiq. Brit. Eccles. pag. 370. An. Dom. 560.. Moreover, Baleus further tells us, That S. Asaph, the Scho­lar and Successor of Kentigern writ a Book, Of the Ordinations of his Church Balaeus de script. Brit. fol. 34. An. Dom. 590.; which seems to be the Forms used there in Ordaining Presbyters and Dea­cons, and perhaps in Admitting of [Page 171] Monks. This may suffice to shew us, the Britons had written and prescribed Forms, before my Adversary will allow them to have been used any where; and if any require further satisfaction, he may consult the Learned B. Ʋsher's Antiquity of the British Churches, where there are divers Evidences of this Truth.

We proceed therefore to the Saxons, who were Converted by Augustin the Monk about the end of the Sixth Cen­tury: And He (no doubt) according to S. Gregory's direction, made a Liturgy for them, taken out of the Roman, the Gallican, and other Forms, which conti­nued in use for some time: But after Gregory's Roman way of Singing began to be so generally admired in all these Parts of the World, That was also laboured by Augustin's Successors to be brought in here: For Bede mentions one James a Deacon, who was skilled both in the Roman and the Canterbury way of Song; saying of him, That Paulinus leaving York, and returning to Rochester, left this James behind him in the North, who when that Province had Peace, and the Number of the Faith­ful encreased, being very skilful in Sing­ing [Page 172] in the Church, became a Master of Ecclesiastical Song to many, after the way either of Rome or of CanterburyBedae histor. lib. 2. cap. 20. circ. A. D. 640.: Which must signifie his teaching Clerks how to recite Gregory's or Augustin's Forms of Service; because in that Age they chanted their Prayers and Praises both. About Thirty years after this, in Theodorus his Time, They learned to Sing the Office all England over, and one Eddi (after the aforesaid James) was their Master in the Churches, on the North of HumberBeda ibid. lib. 4. cap. 2. circ. An. 670.. And a little after, those who Instructed Men in Ecclesiastical Offices, are called Masters of Singing Idem lib. 5. cap. 20.; because the Offices were set to some certain Notes; and that alone is enough to prove, they then Prayed by certain prescribed Forms, it being impossible to set Arbitrary or Extempore Prayers to Notes; which though some have affirm­ed liable to be Canted, yet none ever thought them capable to be Chanted. But we proceed: I doubt not but the Gregorian Forms, as well as his way of Singing, came into use here before the Year 700: For in the late elaborare Collection of Old Saxon Books and Manuscripts, put out by my Worthy [Page 173] Friend Dr. Hicks, there is a Sacramentary of S. Gregory, which is at least a Thou­sand years oldGrammatica Maeso-Gothic. D. Hick. p. 148.; and then it must be Written about the Year 690. But this is more plain in the Famous Council of Clovesho, which sat 24 year after, where­in there is not only clear Testimony for the use of Forms, but a full Evidence of the prevailing Interest of the Roman Offices: For there it is appointed, That All Priests shall learn to repeat the whole Office by Law, appointed for their Order; and shall be able to interpret the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the holy Words pronounced in the Mass, into the Vulgar Tongue; Can 10th. As also, That all Priests shall perform all their Offices after the same way and manner, Can. 11th. And further it is Decreed, That the Festivals in memory of our Lord, be celebrated in one and the same manner, in all Offices belonging to them; as to Baptism, Administring the Commu­nion, and the manner of Singing, according to the Written Form, which we have received from the Roman Church; and that the Festivals of the Martyrs shall be observed on the same day, according to the Roman Martyrology, with the Psalms [Page 174] and Hymns proper to each of them, Can. 13th. And finally, That the Seven Canonical Hours of Prayer be observed, with the proper Psalms and Hymns, and that the Monasteries shall all Sing alike, and shall neither Sing or Read any thing, but what is generally used, and is derived from Scripture, or permitted by the Custom of the Roman Church, that so all may with one Mind and one Mouth glorifie God, Can. 15thConcil. Clovesho. Can. 10, 11, 13, & 15. apud Spelm. Concil. Tom. l. p. 249. circ. An. D. 714.. From which Canons it is very plain, that the Saxons, within one Century after their Conversion, had Written Forms of Prayer for all Offices, and that the Roman Liturgy was now beginning to be generally received in this Land. I shall make but one Remark more in so clear a case, which is, That Venerable Bede dying on, Ascension-day, is (by ancient Histo­rians) said to have repeated the Col­lect for the Day, in these Words, O King of Glory, and Lord of Hosts, who as on this day didst ascend triumphantly into the Heaven of Heavens, leave us not comfortless, but send us the Promise of the Father, even the Spirit of Truth Gul. Malms. de gest. reg. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 12. & Sim. Dunelm. lib. 1. cap. 15.; and soon after he gave up the Ghost. Now this is the Collect in the Old [Page 175] Roman Forms, and is yet continued in our Liturgy almost Verbatim, which gives that Collect the honour of having been received in this Nation for near a Thousand years: But since my Adver­sary dares not attempt the Saxons; and Spelman's Councils afford so many un­deniable Proofs of prescribed and im­posed Forms used here from the Time of their Conversion, I shall not heap up needless Instances, but proceed to the Kingdoms and Churches in France and Germany, where the same Order and Method of Praying was observed.

§. 5. I have so fully proved,Ecclesia Galli­cana, ab An. Dom. 450. that there was a Form of Service peculiar to the Gallican Church, that I need not have added any thing on that Subject, but that my Adversary hath the confi­dence to say, In France they had Books for public Service in the 8th Century, yet they were used at the discretion of those that officiated, who added and left out as they thought fit, till Charlemain, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, would have them Reformed after the Roman guise. And this he proves by a Passage cited out of the Chronicle of Engolism, related in Mornay of the MassDisc. of Lit. p. 134.; but [Page 176] the whole Story is nothing else but Falshood and Fallacy. For,

First, He speaks of Books for public Service in France in the 8th Century, as if they had none before: Whereas we have made it appear, That S. Hilary made a Book of Hymns for the Gallican Church in the Fourth Age, An. 354. That Museaus of Marseils composed a Book of Prayers for Consecrating the Sacrament in the Fifth Century, An. 458. We have shewed, That the Gallican Office, which is still extant, was made at least as early as the Age in which S. Martin livedBona, rerum Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 12. & in Append.: And that in the Time of Sidonius Apollinaris the Clergy there generally used a Common-Prayer-Book, in that same Fifth Century, An. 475. We have proved, That in the end of the Sixth Age, Gregory the Great directed Augustin the Monk, to read over the Gallican Liturgy, as well as the Roman; which shews it was then Written in a Book: Yea, my Adver­saries own Author, Mornay, in the place cited by him (which he must needs see) affirms, That before the Time of Gregory, there was another manner of Service in France than there was at Rome, and [Page 177] that Innocent and Gelasius (who were Popes in the Fifth Century) as well as Gregory, had used their utmost endea­vours to bring them to conform to the Roman Order Mornay of the Mass, Book I. chap. 8. pag. 63.. Which supposes plainly, they had a Service of their own differing from the Roman, in Inno­cents and in Gelasius his Time, that is, in the Fifth Century; and that Epistle of Hildewinus to Lewes the Gentile, An. 825. (mentioned in Mornay) implies the same thing: For Hildewinus saith, We have still divers very ancient Mass-Books almost consumed with extreme Age, containing the Order of the Gallican Service, which was used from the time that the Faith was first received in this part of the West, until we admitted the Roman Order Hildevinus Abb. praefat. ad opera Dionys. Areop.. Where we see, He not only affirms they had a Form of Service from their first Conversion; but that in the beginning of the Ninth Age some of the Copies of that Service were worn out with extreme Antiquity, so that probably these Copies were writ in the Sixth Age: And from hence we may discern the falshood of my Adver­saries Pretence, That there were no Service-Books in France before the 8th Century.

Secondly, He affirms, That these Books were used at the discretion of him that Officiated. But this is as false as the former; for we have proved by divers French Canons, in the Fifth and Sixth Ages, That all the Clergy in one Pro­vince were bound to use the same Form of Service, which was used by their Metropolitan. And in the Eighth Cen­tury, Theodulphus (Bishop of Orleance) enjoyns his Clergy, When they came to his Synod, to bring their Common Prayer-Books with them, and two or three Clerks who assisted them in the celebrating Divine Service, that so it might appear hour exactly and diligently they had per­formed their Duties Theodulph. Aurel. Ep. ad Cler. cap. 4. ap. Bon. rer. Liturg. p. 349.; which is a stricter course, than is now taken in our Church. But my Adversary pretends he hath Evidence for this Liberty out of an ancient Chronicle in Mornay Mornay of the Mass, Book I. chap 8. pag. 64., which saith, That every one at his pleasure had depraved the Book of Offices, by adding and diminishing. To which I Reply, That these Words are not in Mornay, and if they be in the Chronicle of Engolism, as the Margen recites them, The meaning is plainly this, That those who writ out these Forms, had [Page 179] depraved them by leaving out some things; and putting in others. Not that those who used these Books altered or added at their pleasure; for he who officiates cannot properly be said to have depraved a Book, by not reading it aright; it was the Scribes, who writ the Copies falsly and variously, that had depraved the Old Office so much, that it gave a good Pretence to French Kings, to bring in the Roman Service: Herein therefore he hath no ground for his false Assertion, That these Books were used at the discretion of him that did Officiate.

Thirdly, He mistakes again in saying, That Charlemaign, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, reformed them after the Roman guise. For first, his own Author Mornay affirms, That King Pepin, for reverence of Pope Steven, received the whole Order of Rome, and cites two Capi­tulars for this, wherein Charles the Great declares, That his Father Pepin first put down the Gallican, and set up the Roman Service in FranceCapit. lib. 1. cap. 80 & lib. 5. cap. 219. in Mornay ut supr. pag 64.. Now Pope Steven died An. 755. which is near Fifty years before the Ninth Age began. Moreover, the Centuriators out of Sige­bert, [Page 180] and divers ancient Historians, tell us, That it is apparent, there was a diffe­rent way of Singing in the Roman and the Gallican Churches, till Pepin, upon his being made King of France by the Pope, brought in the Roman Rites and way of Singing into the Gallican Church Magdebur. Cent. 8. cap. 6. pag. 342, 343. Now this was in the year 751. that is, in the midst of the Eighth Age. 'Tis true, Charles the Great did go on with the same work, but then it was before the beginning of the Ninth Age, which is the Period that my Adversary assigns to this Matter: For finding still that some Churches kept up the Old way of Singing, he sent two Clerks to Rome, to learn there the Authentic way of Singing, and they first taught the Church of Metz, and then all France Magdeb. ibid & Sigeb. Chron. An. 774.. But this was in the year 774, Six and twenty years before the Ninth Age began. Again, He owns this Unifor­mity was brought in by his Father Pepin, and enjoyns it once moreCapitul. Franc. Tom. I. in Cap. An. 788. pag. 203., about the Year 788. The next Year, in another Capitular. Charles the Great obliges the Monks also to follow that Roman Order of Singing, which his Father appointed, when he put down the [Page 181] Old Gallican way Capitul. ibid. An. 789. cap. 78. p. 239.. In the same year also was this Law made, That the Clergy should have Orthodox Books very well Corrected, lest those who desire to pray to God aright, by Ill written Books should ask amiss; and therefore none was to write out the Gospel, the Psalter, or Missal, but a Man of mature Age Capitul. ibid. Tom. I. cap. 70. p. 237.. And finally, The last Persons sent from Rome about compleating this Unifor­mity were Adrian's two Chanters, who came into France An. 790Magdeb. Cent. 8. cap. 6. pag. 343. & Sigebert. An. 790.. Where­fore he is out in his Chronology as to this Matter, because the Roman Order was brought into the Gallican Church by Pepin first, and then universally setled there by Charles the Great, before the Ninth Age began. But to let that pass, it is certain there was no more liberty allowed to any Ministers in the Gallican Church, before the Roman Offices came in there, than there was afterward; because it is plain they had a Liturgy before, imposed strictly by divers Ca­nons of several Councils; and while that Gallican Office was in Force, the Clergy were as much bound to use those Forms, as they were to use the Roman Forms afterward; and therefore [Page 182] his pretended liberty of Praying Ex­tempore in public, or changing the public Forms at pleasure, hath no Foun­dation among the French of those Ages, and is grounded only upon false and wrested Quotations; for in fact and reality there was no such liberty in the Gallican Church, since the second fa­mous Conversion of that People, no nor before, as far as we can find by those few Memoirs we have of those obscure Times.

Ecclesia Ger­monica ab An. Dom. 600.§. 6. My Adversary is as much mista­ken in the Proofs which he brings for his Imaginary liberty in Germany: For he saith, Long after Boniface had been stickling to reduce it to the Roman Ʋni­formity, the whole Country was so far from submitting to any one prescribed Order of Service, that in one Diocess there were various Modes of Admini­string: Which he proves by a Decretal, and by a Passage in the Life of Bruno, Archbishop of Colen, in the Midst of the Tenth Age, who was then to correct the diversity of Divine-Service in his Pro­vince Disc. of Lit. [...]ag. 13 [...].. To shew the weakness and mistakes of which Argument and In­stances, [Page 183] let us Note, That Germany (as well as other of its Neighbouring Countries) was early Converted to the Christian Faith; for Irenaeus mentions the Churches founded in Germany, which believed as other Orthodox Churches didIren. adv. haer. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 53.: And in a Council held at Colen, An. 347. Six of the German Bishops were presentBin. Tom. I. par. 1. pag. 460.; And from their near­ness to, and Correspondence with the French, we may conclude they used the same Method in Divine-Service which was used there: But when the Northern Nations broke into these parts of Europe, many of the Germans re­lapsed to Paganism; yet not so gene­rally, but that some of them were still Christians, and retained one Form of Divine-Service, using it in their Mother-Tongue. Now Boniface was sent thither in the Year 722; and though his Pre­tence was to convert Pagans, yet his main business was to bring those who were already Christians, to submit to the Roman Service in the Latin Tongue; in this he was stoutly opposed by divers Bishops of Germany, who would not part with their old way of Serving God; but by the help of the Popes and [Page 184] the French Kings, he was so successful in his Attempts, That (as his great Author saith) he induced the People of Franconia, Hessia, Bavaria, Saxony, Frisia, &c. to receive the Roman Order, oppressing such as did oppose him, by Force: But after this, an holy Man named Methodius, turned the Scripture into the Sclavonian Tongue, and re­established the Ancient Service in all the Churches of this Language, attempting also to do the same in Bavaria, Austria, Suevia, &c. Abolishing the Latin Mass, and the Ceremonies of RomeMornay of the Mass, Book I. chap. 8. pag. 65.. Or as the Centuriators relate itMagdeb. Cent. 9. cap. 10. pag. 491., He began to persuade some, That casting away the Latin Tongue, they should celebrate Divine Service in the Vulgar Tongue, for the edification of the Church, and return to their former Ʋsage, which they had before the Time of Charles the Great. From which Relation, and from the good Agreement between the Old Gallican and German Churches, we may see there were Forms of Prayer before Boniface came into Germany, and Methodius restored the use of those Forms, and rejected the Roman Liturgy: So that here were Forms used by all, [Page 185] and no Side desired or expected any liberty from them; None pleaded for Extempore Prayer, the change being no more than exchanging one Liturgy for another. And in this Boniface did prevail, and Methodius did not prevail much in Germany, being soon after banished from thence into Moravia, where he died. But my Adversary cites the Canon Law, to prove, there were afterwards various Modes of Admi­nistring in one Diocess. Now this Decretal is generally ascribed to Pope Celestine the Third, who died An. 1198. above 450 Years after Boniface; and B. Bilson thinks it was made by Innocent the Third, in his Lateran Council, An. 1215. near 500 Years after: The Words are these, Because in many Parts, there are in the same City and Diocesses, mixt People of divers Languages, having but one Faith, and yet divers Rites and Manners; We strictly Charge the Bishops of such Places, to provide fit Men, who (according to the diversity of Rites and Tongues) may celebrate Divine Offices, and minister the Sacraments of the Church unto them Decret. lib. 1. Tit. 3 1. de Offic. Jud. cap. 14. mihi pag. 452.. Now this Decretal only provides for such Cities wherein there [Page 186] were Merchants from all Nations of Christendom, some of which (suppose) might be Greeks, others Armenians, others Sclavonians, others Spaniards; all which had different Forms of Li­turgy, and some of them in different Languages: Now in this case they were to be allowed so many several Priests of their own, to Officiate by their own Liturgy: But this no more proves, that Priests who Officiate to their own Nation, then had a liberty to vary, or that there were various Offices for People of the same Country, than the allowing of French, Dutch, or Greek Churches, to serve God after their several ways in London, proves, That the Clergy of London are not enjoyned to Read one Liturgy, or that the Church of England hath divers Forms of Common-Prayer. This Fallacy is so gross, that to be imposed on by it would shew as little Judgment, as the pressing it expresses of Modesty in him who would put such Shams upon this Age. His second Instance is about Bruno, Bishop of Colen, who, as he cites the Relation (not out of Rotgerus, but) out of the Centuriators; Correcting the [Page 187] diversity of celebrating Divine Offices in his Province, appointed there, that the same Order should be every where obser­ved Diversita­tem sacra per­agendi in totâ sua Provinciâ corrigens, ac ut eadem ubi­que esset ratio constituens. Mag. Cent. x. pag. 608. But, first he fraudulently leaves out the Word [Totâ], which signifies this Diversity was not in any one Diocess, but in the Archbishop of Colens whole Province, to whom all Germania Secunda of old was subjectHeylin Cosm. lib. 2. pag. 47.. And even at this day Miraeus doth reckon up five Diocesses beside that of Colen, all under this great MetropolitanMirai noti­tiae Episcopat. pag. 300.: So that whereas in these several Diocesses there were some differences in the Divine-Service; This famous Bishop reduced them all (according to the Old Canons) to that one Order which was used at Colen. Now this makes nothing for that liberty of private Clergy-men, to vary the Offices as they please, which my Adversary pleads for; espe­cially if what Du-Plessis say of this Matter be true, That Bruno then re­formed the Order of the Mass in his Diocess (he should say Province) according to that of RomeMornay of the Mass, Book I. chap. 9. pag. 74.: For then it follows, That the ancient German Offices were still used in some Parts that were subject to the Archbishop of Colen: So that [Page 188] still this is exchanging one Form for another, and no proof at all of liberty in Praying; a thing unknown in this Age.

Agobardus Episc. Lugdun. An. 831.§ 7. We have little more in this Dis­course against Liturgies out of Antiquity excepting only some few pretended proofs from late Ages, to shew, that they used various words in the distribution of the Eucharist. As First, he tells us, that Agobardus the Famous Arch-Bishop of Lions, could not well like that Common Roman Form, The Body of our Lord Je­sus Christ, &c. since he was only for Scripture Expressions in the public Offices. And then he intimates, that Agobardus was censured for this by Baronius and his Epitomator Disc. of Lit. pag. 90. & 91.; To which I reply, First, That Baronius never censures this great Bishop at all; for this passage is not in Baronius, but only in Spondanus the Epitomator, and from him alone my Adversary cites itVid. Baron. Tom. 9. An. 831. p. 797. & 798.. Secondly, Spon­danus speaks not one word of Agobar­dus his correcting the Communion-Office; but only that he took great pains in restoring the ancient Antipho­nary, or Book of HymnsSpondan. Epitom. An. 831. Num. 2.. And Ba­luzius [Page 189] hath now put out the very Tract, which Spondanus refers to, and there is not one Syllable in all that Book, expressing, any dislike at the Words used in the distributionAgobardi lib. de divin. Psalmod. & lib. de correct. An­tiph. oper. Tom. 2. edit. Paris 1666.: Yea there is a peculiar discourse of this Bishop, against Amalarius his Comment on the Mass; wherein he speaks of the Ro­man Canon, Te igitur, &c. yet never makes the least exception against the Roman Order, or any thing contained in itIbid. lib. contr. Amal. pag. 101.. So that this pretended dislike of the Roman Form of distribution is a meer Fiction of his own Brain. And if it were true, that Agobardus did not like any thing in Sacred Offices, but what was Scripture; Yet there is no cause, he should for that cause dislike this, which he calls the Roman, but was the Primitive, and is now our Pro­testant Form; since the words are taken out of, and grounded on express places of Holy Scripture: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a Scripture Expre­sionMath. xxvi. 26. Luk. xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24., and the next words, Preserve thy Body and Soul to Eternal Life, are grounded on Scripture PromisesJohn. vi. ver. 50.51.53.54. & 58.; so that if Agobardus were never so scru­pulous, he might very well like and [Page 190] use this Form. But because my Ad­versary deals only in Epitomes, I will now give a full Account of this matter. We must observe therefore that Lei­dradus, the Predecessor of Agobardus, in the year 799. according to the de­sire of Charles the Great, had brought in the Roman Order of Singing, into the Church of Lyons; and had put out an Antiphonary, with an Epistle before it, the Hymns whereof were generally taken out of the Holy ScriptureLeidradi. Ep. ad Carol. Mag. inter oper. Agob. Tom. 2. p. 127.. But about 30 years after, Amalarius a busy Monk, pretends to bring a new Antiphonary from Rome, Corrected after the Roman Office, in the time of Gre­gory the Fourth; which he presented to Lewis the Godly, and hoped by his Authority, to impose it on all the Galli­can Church. But Agobardus the Primate of France, rejects this new Antiphonary, and writ a Book to prove there were Heresies, Blasphemies and Nonsense, in these Hymns of Amalarius, and keeps to the old Roman Antiphonary, established by his Predecessor, the Hymns of which were for the most part taken out of the Psalms, and o­ther parts of Holy Scripture, com­mending [Page 191] this to his Clergy, and giving them his Reasons, why he would not admit of the other: And this Book of Agobardus concludes with these words, As the Church hath a Book of Mysteries, for Celebrating the Solemnity of the Mass, digested Orthodoxly, and with convenient Brevity, and hath a Book of Lessons, collected Judiciously out of the Divine Books; so they ought to have this Third Book, the Antiphonary, purged from all Human Figments and Lies, sufficiently ordered out of the pure words of Scrip­ture, through the whole Circle of the year: That so in performing sacred Offices, according to the most approved Rule of Faith, and the Authority of ancient dis­cipline, there may be kept among us, one and the same Form of Prayer, of Lessons and of Ecclesiastical Songs Agobard. de correct. Antiphon. §. 19. Tom. ii. p. 100.. This is the whole Story, and the passage which Spondanus ignorantly, or at least rashly Censures, and my Adversary Ridi­culously brings in, to shew Agobardus his dislike of the words of distribution: Whereas these words refer only to the Hymns, which yet probably were not all, the very words of Scripture: but were either Transcribed thence, or a­greeable [Page 192] thereto, much more than the new Hymns of Amalarius. And since Agobardus received and used the Roman Canon, and the whole Roman Missal, wherein were many things, which are not the words of Scripture; we must not expound these words, (cited but now) so strictly as Spondanus doth, as if he would not use any words in Di­vine Offices, but those of Scripture: For Agobardus means no more, than that the Hymns ought to be, either taken out of Scripture, or agreeable to the Doctrine thereof; for he proves that the Hymns of Amalarius were He­retical and Blasphemous, contrary in many things to the Holy Scripture, and therefore he rejected them. But as to any Liberty in varying the Pray­ers, Lessons or Hymns that were esta­blished, or altering the Roman Forms; This great Bishop was so far from it, that he enjoyns the old Gregorian Office, and imposes that prescribed Form, together with the Lessons and the Hymns, and opposes those Inno­vations and Alterations, which some attempted to make, because the Forms and Order then established, were agree­able [Page 193] both to the Rule of Faith, and to the acient Ecclesiastical Laws; upon which occasion, he produceth that Af­rican Canon before citedPart. i. Cent. 4. §. 24. pag. 257., in these Words, viz. That no Supplications and Prayers be said, unless they have been ap­proved in a Council; nor shall any of these, at all be Sung in the Church, till they have been considered by the Pru­dent, and approved of in a Synod, lest any thing against the Faith be composed, either my mistake or by design Canon. Afric. ap. Agob. de correct. An­tiph. §. ii p. 92.. And now the Reader shall judge, whether this Author be for my Adversaries purpose or no, since he imposes Books of prescribed Prayers, Lessons and Hymns, and thinks the keeping strict­ly to them, is necessary to make the Clergy Uniform, and the use of them agreeable both to Scripture and Anti­quity.

§ 8.Adrian. ii. E­pisc Rom. An. Dom. 8 [...]8. Another instance of Liberty taken in varying the prescribed Form of the words of distribution, is a Re­lation, of Pope Adrians adding divers Solemn words to the usual Form, when he gave the Sacrament to Lotharius the French King and his Attendants; [Page 194] Which Lotharius had been Excommuni­cated by Pope Nicolas, for living in Adultery with one Waldrada, and Lo­tharius came to Rome for Absolution, and promised for ever to Renounce her; for the security of which promise, this Pope obliges him to take the Sa­crament upon it, together with his Nobles: And upon that Extraordinary Occasion, post Missarum Solennia, after the usual Consecration, the Pope ad­ded some words for that once only; which was to let them know their Danger, if they did Dissemble in so Solemn an Ordinance; but so, that probably either before or after, he used the old Form of distribution, which the Historians also intimate; though since this is only an Historical Narration, they have not perhaps so clearly expres­sed it: However, what can my Adversary infer from hence to his purpose, sup­posing Adrian mixed the Form of distri­bution, for this once, with his occasi­onal ComminationDisc. of Lit. p. 91, 92.? First doth he think the Pope did well or ill in this? If he did ill, why doth he urge it for a Precedent? It seems to be a varying not only from the Churches Form, but [Page 195] from the design of Christ; who did not institute this Sacrament to be a Rite, to purge Men from Accusations, or Seal Curses on Men, who brake their Leagues; and therefore this is not a good Example for our Church to fol­low; nor ought the Dissenters to desire the same Liberty, till they have pro­ved the Fact was not Evil. Yet if it were well done, what consequence can they draw from it? may private Ministers do all that the great Bishop of the West may do? Or because he did take this Liberty, once upon a very Extraordinary occasion, ought they to have it always, when there is nothing Extraordinary in the Case? I dare say, my Adversary could not imagin, that this Pope gave his Clergy Liberty to vary this Form as they pleased, nor to draw this Act of his into an Example; and therefore I cannot see any reason, why he should urge it.

The like may be said of his next in­stance, of one Leuthericus Leuthericus Episc. Senon. An. Dom. 1004. Arch Bishop of Sens, who used these Words in the delivery of the Sacrament, Receive if thou art Worthy. And my Adversary saith, Robert K. of France Checkt him for [Page 196] it, not because he Transgressed the Esta­blished Order, but because the King (by mistake) supposed none were Worthy to Re­ceive Disc. of Lit. pag. 92.. I shall easily Answer this, when I have First set Right the Matter of Fact. For Spondanus tells us out of an old Author, That this Leuthericus held not a right Opinion of Christ; and seeking to prove some whom he hated, by the Body of the Lord; the King sharply reproved him, for that whereas the Priest who gave the Communion, use to say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul, he with a Rash and polluted Mouth said, If thou be Worthy Receive it: Whereas indeed none can be truly said to be Worthy Spondan. Epit. ad An. 1004. §. 2. p. 798. è Helgald. in vit. Roberti Regis.. Here we see the old Author, (for these are his Words,) brings in an Irregular Fact of an Hereti­cal Bishop, which ought to be no Pre­cedent, and is no Evidence, what was the Custom of the Orthodox Clergy in that Age. Again, this instance shews, that the old Form was generally used then, and that his not using it, was the True Reason, why the King reproved him, viz. for daring to alter the Esta­blished Form; For the last Words, that none are truly Worthy, are not the [Page 197] Words of the King, but of the Writer of his Life. Wherefore the usage of that Time was, for all to Administer by the ancient and Established Form; and that when an Eminent Arch Bishop presumed to vary from it, he was sharply reproved for it, by a Religious King, and is censured by an ancient Historian, as one that did not amend, but deprave the Office by this pretend­ed Correction. As for Spondanus, his supposing Leuthericus refused the old Form, out of a dislike of Transub­stantiation, it is wholly groundless; For this Form was used in the Roman Church, long before Transubstatiation came in, and is retained in those Pro­testant Churches, which have rejected that false Doctrin.

He tells us also of Pope Gregory Gregorius Sept. Episc. Rom. An. Dom. 1077. the 7th, who having been accused of great Crimes, and being about to receive the Sacrament, made a Solemn Protesta­tion of his Innocence, holding the Eu­charist in his HandsDisc. of Lit. pag. 93.. But the Histo­rian cited by him, doth not say he o­mitted or altered the usual Form; he rather supposes the Pope First said these Words, for clearing of his Inno­cence, [Page 198] and then after those terrible Words, he did receive it, probably with the Common Form. But how­ever it was, we say, that this Extraor­dinary, and perhaps unlawful Fact of a Pope on that occasion, is no Evidence of the Custom of that Age; nor is it to be alledged to justifie any private Ministers taking Liberty to vary the Forms as he please: Besides, we see that in this Corrupt Age, the Holy Sacra­ment came to be used for a Cano­nical Purgation, as in this Case; And in confirming secular Leagues, as in the next; and it is no great wonder, if when they used the Eucharist to new purposes, they were forced to invent new Forms, as in his next Instance, Pope Pascal the Second did, when he de­livered the Sacrament to the Emperor, Hen. 5th, as a Confirmation of the Peace and League then made between them Disc. of Lit. pag. 93. e Sig [...]b [...]rto.. Now if this matter of Fact be true, it is nothing to our Question, which is about the Forms commonly used in Divine Service: As for odd and Ex­traordinary Cases, and especially when the Ordinances of Christ were prosti­tuted to secular Ends and Purposes, [Page 199] they ought not to be alledged in an en­quiry about the Custom of those Ages, which all grant, was to Pray, and Ad­minister the Sacraments by prescribed and imposed Forms; and no Liberty was allowed to any, in the least, to vary from them: And those who did vary, were either so great as to believe themselves above Rules, or so irregular as to be censured for it; wherefore these few Cases do not at all prove, that the Clergy had, or ought to have a Liberty to vary from the prescribed and established Forms, in the Ordinary Ser­vice of God.

I find nothing more in my Adver­sary out of Antiquity; and had he not started these trifling Objections, I should not have descended so low; but since his Fancy for a bad Cause, puts him upon these poor shifts, I was not wil­ling to leave any thing, that might a­muse a common Reader: But now as to these later Ages, the Point is clear, certain and undeniable, that Liturgies were every where imposed, and no Church permitted its own Clergy, to vary from their own way: It is true, many Corruptions and Superstitions in [Page 200] these Ages, crept into the Liturgies of all Churches; but they grafted still upon the old Stock, kept the Primi­tive way of Praying; Yea, retained so many of the ancient and pure Forms, as do frequently confute divers of these Corruptions and Innovations. So that it is no difficult thing to dis­prove many of the Romish Modern Opinions, by some parts of their anci­ent Missals; but that is not my busi­siness: It is sufficient to my purpose, that I have made it Evident, there were prescribed Forms, used in the public Service, even from the begin­ning of Christianity, and that the way of Serving God by Liturgies, was the Practice of all Regular Churches, and had the Approbation of all Eminent Fathers, and of very many Councils all along in every Century, since the time of the Apostles, and from the beginning of setling Christianity.

CHAP. IV. Of the Arguments against the Anti­quity of LITƲRGIES.

THERE are some things relating to the Antiquity of Prescribed Forms and Liturgies, which are dis­persed up and down my Adversary's Book, and would not easily be brought under the order of Time in the History; and yet must be considered, that no Scruple may remain concerning this great Truth: And though some of these have been briefly examined before, yet we will here put them together, and give a fuller Answer to all that looks like an Objection.

§. 1. First, He thinks to disprove the ancient use of Prescribed Forms, by affirming, That of old they had no more, but a certain Order, wherein divers Churches agreed, to administer the several Parts of Worship, particu­larly the Severals in the Sacrament, so as each had its known and fixed place: [Page 202] This he finds in many Fathers, and he saith, the 19th Canon of Laodicea, An. 365. was a Rule for this OrderDisc. of Lit. pag. 4, & 5., which elsewhere he makes to be no more than a Rubric or a Directory Ib. pag. 174.. But this should have been proved, not only by the word Ordo, (which we have shewed signifies a Liturgy, con­taining not only the Method, but the very Forms themselves); He should have produced some such ancient Rubric or Directory, which had nothing but the Method of the several Parts of Divine-Service without any Forms. For we have produced Liturgies, at least as ancient as that Canon of Laodicea, viz. That of Jerusalem, and that in the Apostolical Constitutions, having all the Forms at large; and if he cannot shew one of these Directories, he only dreams of such a thing. Now though it be hard to make out a Negative, yet we may go far to prove there was no such thing, distinct from a Liturgy: For these Severals in the Sacrament, were Prayers, Intercessions, Giving of Thanks, Prefaces, Hymns, and the like: Now these must be called by some distin­guishing Names in this pretended Rubric; [Page 203] and that they could not well be, unless they were Forms: Now if the Severals were all Forms, as the Prefaces and Hymns certainly were, then they might have proper Names for each of them, and might easily describe them by some of the first words; as, Our Father, Lord have mercy, Lift up your Hearts, &c. and then if the Forms were known by those short Names, that makes this Ru­bric become a shorter Liturgy. Besides, He tells us, This Order was certain, and agreed on by several Churches, and made some kind of Ʋniformity among them in praying for the same things. But it is hard to conceive, how Extempore Prayers could be agreed on by distant Churches, to be used in one certain Order; or how this agreement could produce Uniformity, if the Words of the Prayers every where differed, and the Phrases in the same place daily varied: No Canons of Councils, not written Rule, nor [...], can suffice to make an Uniformity out of such diversity. He finds but one Canon till the beginning of the Sixth Age, to direct this Order, viz. the 19th Canon of Laodicea, and that is a very short one, which only [Page 204] mentions Six Prayers, as known by their proper Names; therefore to be sure, that Canon was not all the Rule the Church had for this Agreement and Uniformity: And for the [...], it was that which the Deacon lifted up at the end of every Collect, when the Bishop or Priest came to say, Through Jesus Christ our Lord; to give Notice to the People, to say Amen, or to make some Response: And sometimes to call them off from their Knees, to joyn in Hymns, or the like; which supposes known Forms, when so slight a Signal served a great Congregation, to make them ready for all Parts of the Service, in which they had any share: There­fore there must be more, to make this Uniformity in distant Churches, and in very large Congregations, and that was Prescribed Liturgies, which we have made out, to be much elder than his imaginary Rubric or Directory. But for once let us suppose, That they had in those Early Ages no more than some Canons or Written Rubric, prescribing and enjoyning the certain Order of the several Parts of Worship, and this so exact, as to make divers Churches agree [Page 205] to pray for the same things, and in the same Method; Would not this be as much an abridgment of the Liberty which is claimed, and a stinting of the Spirit, as if the Words were prescribed? If Ministers then had the Gift of Prayer, could not that one Spirit which inspired them, teach them the Order and Me­thod, as well as the Words and Phrases? Would not this Gift have made them as Uniform, as Written Canons or Ru­brics, and rendred a Directory as need­less as a Liturgy? It must be so, unless my Adversary will say, the only use of the Spirit is to furnish Men with Phrases and Expressions in Prayer; but that he cannot say (without contradicting him­self, and blaspheming the Spirit) because he saith, God minds not so much the Ex­pressions, as the inward Affections Disc. of Lit. pag. 132.; and proves this by a Set of Golden-Sayings out of the FathersIbid. pag. 50.: Where­fore at this rate, the Gift of Prayer would only enable Men for that part of our Prayer, which God doth not much mind: So that this imaginary Order of his, devised to protect the Gift of Pray­ing Extempore, overthrows it as much as a Common-Prayer-Book; And if he [Page 206] could make it out, Wise Men could not but see, That so soon as there was need, to agree upon his sort of Order, and to write down the Method and the Things to be prayed for, so soon the Gif of Prayer was ceased, and so soon there was need also to agree upon the Words in which these Things should be asked, if they would have any solid Agreement or Uniformity between di­stant Churches.

§. 2. He Argues, There were no Li­turgies in the first Four or Five Ages at least, because no Writers of that Time have any such Phrase, as Reading of Prayers, though they do speak of Reading the Lessons and the Passions of the Mar­tyrs Disc. of Lit. pag. 7.. I Reply, First, the force of this Argument turns upon himself: For I may Argue, There were no Extempore Prayers in all that time (at least after the miraculous Gift of Prayer ceased) because in all that Space, he (who hath so diligently searched Antiquity) cannot produce any Writer, who speaks plainly of Extempore Prayers. He finds several Testimonies of the Fathers Preaching Extempore, wherein that very Phrase [Page 207] is usedDisc. of Lit. pag. 56, 57, & 58.: And since it would have been more to his purpose, we may be sure, had he met with Preces Extem­porales, or Extemporaneae, or found [...], or [...], or [...], (which Phrases he meets with for their Sermons) He would have produced them very triumphantly; but his Silence assures us, there are no such Phrases concerning Prayers; and there­fore (in his way of Arguing) we con­clude, there were no such Prayers in those Ages. But Secondly, It is certain there were Written Forms of Prayer very Early in the Church of God: This we have proved out of many Writers of the first Four or Five Ages. Now if there were Written Forms then, doubt­less they might be Read; nay, they must either be Read when used in public, or be gotten by Heart; and so in Ter­tullian's Phrase be repeated de Pectore, by Memory; even as Socrates (saith the younger Theodosius) could recite the Scripture out of his Breast [...] Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 748.. And it appears in S. Basil, That the ancient Monks used to get both their Prayers and the Psalms by Heart: Wherefore, [Page 208] if they took this Method, he cannot conclude from their not Reading Pray­ers, that they had no prescribed Written Forms. He himself hath cited the Hymns written by the Holy Brethren from the beginning Disc. of Lit. pag. 23.; He found Written Forms of Prayer in the Council of Carthage Ib. pag. 84., and cites the Prefaces before the Com­munion out of S. Cyril Ib. pag. 147., and might have cited them out of S. Cyprian, had he so pleased. These he found in the Primitive Ages; and we have found Litanies, Prayers for all Estates of Men, and Forms of Consecration within this Period: So that being so sure of Writ­ten Forms, whether they were Read or no, is nothing to our purpose. But, Thirdly, The Phrase for Offering up Our Desires to God, both in these and the following Ages, when Forms were most used and most common, were, To Pray, To Make, or To Say Prayers Disc. of Lit. ex Origen. pag. 139.; Which Phrases are more applicable to those who Pray by Forms, than to such as Pray without them: yet we do not urge them against the Extempore Way, and he must not alledge them against Forms; because we know the Jews certainly prayed by Prescribed [Page 209] Forms; and yet I do not remember the Phrase of Reading Prayers is to be found in the Old Testament, any more than in these ancient Writers: And these Fathers imitated the Scripture-Phrase, where Reading was appropriated to the Reading the Law and the Prophets; as among these it was, to the Reading of Lessons, which were only Read, and no more; but using Holy Forms of Suppli­cation, though they were also Read, is called Praying, from the Principal de­sign of them, which was to petition Almighty God, or ask him for what they wanted. But whereas he would prove, That the Primitive Christians could not Read their Prayers, because while they Prayed, they had their Eyes lifted up to Heaven Disc. of Lit. p. 9.: This hath been answered before; and I have proved, That neither the Priest nor the People did always look upwards when they Prayed; sometimes they Prayed with their Eyes looking downSee my 1st Part, Cent. 2. §. 4. p. 46, & 47.. And all Men know, that after we are accustomed to a Form, we may look upwards when we Repeat it, for the greatest part of the time; and many, yea, most of our Ministers do so, in the use of the [Page 210] Common-Prayer; and therefore the Primitive Bishops and Priests might Read their Prayers, and yet look up­wards frequently. Though I must also note, that there is not one of his Quotations brought, to prove this to be the Posture of Prayer, which relate to the Priest who did Officiate, they all relate to the whole Congregation, to the Christian People; and I hope their looking upwards frequently will not be allowed for a good Proof, that they (much less that the Priest) never looked on a Book of Prayers, or read any prescribed Forms of Prayers or Re­sponses: And for the Presbyters and Deacons, which (he says) could not Read (if there were any such) no doubt they got their Office by Heart; for such Men (he grants) were not fit to make Extempore Prayers.

§. 3. In the next place he goes about to disparage Reading of Forms of Prayer, as a way which wants Life and Action, and that is apt to dull the Auditory; and this he proves, by Pliny's refusing to read over one of his Orations to his Friends in private, since he could not [Page 211] read it over with that life and vigour, with which it was spoken at first in the CourtDisc. of Lit. pag. 11.. But to this I Answer, That he twice mentions that Commen­dation which Pliny gave his Servant Zosimus (and puts it in, both in the Text and Margen of his BookIbid. pag. 8. & p. 11. Marg.) whom his Master there praises, Because he could read a thing with as much life and vigour, as either the Inventer of it, or he who had got it by Heart could shew Plin. epist. l. 5. ep. 19.: Adding, That he did this so rarely well, as if he had learned to do nothing else. Now this Instance confutes his Argument, and shews, it is possible for a Man to read a thing with great life and vigour, and so as to affect his Auditory very much thereby: And why should he uncharitably suppose, that a Pagan Slave should take more care to read a Play, or an Oration, vigorusly before his Master, than a Christian Priest to read a Prayer before his God? Experience confutes this un­worthy Reflection, because many Clergy­men do read the Common-Prayer with as much spirit and life, and as true Devotion, as any of his Friends say their Extempore Prayers; and I am [Page 212] sure, their Tautologies, Incoherences, and tedious length, tyre a Judicious Hearer, much more than a well-read and acurate Form can do. As for Pliny, his Oration was a Form, composed with great Art, and committed to Memory before it was first spoken, and was designed to work upon the Affecti­ons of a Croud of Men in a Secular Court, and in a Temporal Cause; and in that Case even Theatrical Gestures, and the Artificial Acting of it, were apt to move the Auditory, more than the bare Reading it in a private Room to a few FriendsPl [...]n epist. lib. 2. Ep. 19.. But what is this to the Case of Prayers? Pliny durst not have come before that Audi­tory with an Extempore Harangue, such as our Dissenters dare come into the presence of God and a great Congre­gation with: He designed no more by his Action, but only to work upon the Frailties of Men; but our Adversaries (I hope) will not own, That their only design in Prayer, is, to move the Affe­ctions of their Hearers, by Tone, Ge­stures, Noise, and Fluency. We who use Forms, as Pliny did, and generally have them by Heart, as he had, can [Page 213] repeat them as vigorously as he did the first time, and thereby do keep all pious Men in our Congregations very attentive. But still we remember, we speak to the Most High God, before whom our Words ought to be well weighed, and our Desires properly expressed; because he is not wrought upon by Noise and Action, as silly Men and Women are. If our Petiti­ons be sincere and hearty, prudently Worded in proper Phrases, and repeated with new Devotion every day; the God we pray to, likes them no worse for being daily in the same Words: And Pliny could not have wondred at us, for Reading daily the same Forms of Prayer; for He, and all the Priests of his Religion, prayed so to their Gods, and did not believe the Deities affected Change and Variety, or were moved with Gesticulations and Tones; Nor would that Judicious Heathen have been so weak, as to compare his po­pular Orations, to the Prayers he offered up to his Gods. And since he appeals to Pliny, to judge between Forms and Extempore, we will hear what he and others say of these two Ways, even [Page 214] with respect to Civil Pleadings; Pliny brings in Pollio, saying, Pleading agree­ably, I pleaded often; but by Pleading often, I came to plead not so well; for by too often using this, I got an easiness rather than a faculty; and not so much an assurance, as a sort of rashness —ass [...]dui­tate nimià, fa­cilitas magis quam facultas, nec fiducia, sed temiritas para­tur Plin lib. 6. ep. 29.. And if our Dissenting Brethren had the modesty to confess it, I fear they find the same effects of using this Gift, when they plead at another Bar. The Grave Tacitus also derides Q. Huterius, an Orator, who was very ready at Ex­tempore Speeches, saying, His Orations did not survive him: For whereas other Mens Labour and Meditation lasted to Posterity, his Noisy fluent way died with him Huterii Ca­norum illud & pr [...]ns, cum ipso s mul ex­tinctum est. Tic [...]t. Annal. lib. 4. §. 61. pag. [...]13.. So despicable was this kind of Eloquence in those days. Again, Lampridius saith, The Wise Emperour Alexander Severus, Suffered not any of his Counsellors to answer him concerning great Affairs, till they had well thought upon them Ne ince [...]i­tati dicere co­gerentur de re [...]us ingenti­bus. Lam­pr [...]d in vit. Al. Sev. p. 524.. Plutarch also Arguing against Extempore Orations, tells us a Story of a young Painter, who shewed Apelles a piece of his Work, and bragged how little time he had done it in: To whom that great Master [Page 215] Replied, I saw by the Work, it was done in haste [...]. Plut. de liber. educ. pag. 6.. But none is more severe than Seneca, upon a Philosopher of quick Invention, who used this way; This Rapid and Copious way of Speaking (saith he) is much fitter for a Jugler or Mountebank, than one that is about a great and serious Matter Istam vim docendi rapidam atque abundantem, aptiorem esse circulatori, quam agenti rem mag­nam & seriam. Senec. Ep. 40. pag. 101.. And I suppose it will be granted, That Praying is as great and serious a Matter, as a Philosophical Lecture. I shall conclude with S. Hierom's Opinion of Gregory Nazianzen's Extempore Preaching which he had heard, and could well judge of it: Nothing is so easie, as to deceive the Vulgar People, and an Illiterate Assembly, with the Volubility of the Tongue; because they do most admire that which they least un­derstand Nihil tam facile est, quam vilem plebeculam & indoctam con­cionem linguae volubilitate dec [...]pere, quae quicquid non intelligit plus ad­miratur. Hicron. ad Nepot. Ep. 2 pag. 16.. This he spake of his Master; and thus he censured the Extempore Preaching of an Eminent Father in that Age: And if any had then pre­tended to Pray at that rate, it is more than probable he would severely have [Page 216] exposed the Boldness and Folly of hoping to please God by that contempti­ble Faculty, which was admired only by that ignorant Croud, who were decei­ved by it. To conclude this Point, I dare refer it to any Man, who duly considers the Majesty of God, Whether the grave and affectionate Reading of a well-studied and judicious Form of Prayer, expressed in proper and pious Words, be not more fit to be pre­sented to him, and more likely to be accepted by him; than a rash unpre­meditated Rhapsody, without Method, strength of Reason, or Propriety of Phrase: The latter, by Noise and Action, may operate more upon the Passions of Weak Men; but the for­mer is more suitable to the infinite Majesty of him, whom we only desire to please when we Pray.

§ 4. After this he Argues, that the ancien [...] Church had no Liturgies, or Books of public Prayers, and therefore could have no prescribed or imposed Forms. And he would prove they had no Books, by the Case of Athanasius his not be­ing accused, for abusing the Liturgy, [Page 217] nor the Arians, for Burning any thing but Bibles; by Constantin's employing Euse­bius, only to Transcribe the Scripture; by the Council of Carthage's Decree, for only holding a Book of the Gospels over the Bishops Head; And by the Perse­cutors finding no Liturgy, in their Sear­ches after the Christians Books Disc. of Lit. p. 12, 13, 14, 15. &c. —to the 20th.. To which I answer, First in general, that I have made it so Evident, that there were prescribed Forms, and Books of Hymns and Prayers in these Ages; that a negative Argument, taken from some few Authors, in some places, not mentioning them, is of no Force against plain and positive proof. But Secondly, We will examin his particulars, and shew that they do not make out his Point. First, His own Quotation con­cerning Athanasius, expresly saith that Macarius (who was employed by Athana­sius) did Burn ( [...]) the Holy Books [...] Socrat. l. 1. cap. 20. p. 539., he Translates it frau­dulently in the Singular Number, the Holy Bible; to make his Reader sup­pose, it was meant alone of that Book. But the Original speaks of more Books; and therefore since a Liturgy was then in use at Alexandria; no doubt that [Page 218] was one of the Holy Books, which they here falsly, accused Macarius for Burning. And since the Author calls them, [Holy] not [Divine Books], it is more probable he meant it, of the Books of Offices, which were counted only Sacred; than of the Scripture, which they generally call Divine, or Divinely inspired Books: Which distinction is very evident in Eusebius, where he re­lates, how in the Persecution under Dioclesian, They Burnt the Divine and Sacred Books in the M [...]rket places [...] Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 217.. In which place, the Divine Books are the Holy Scriptures, and the Sacred Books, those which contained the Ser­vice of the Church. The same Au­thor in the Life of Constantine, makes a plain distinction between these Books, as being several Volums; For he saith the Emperor took the Books, for the ex­plaining the Divinly inspired Scriptures, and after for repeating the prescribed Prayers, with those who dwelt in his Roy. al Palace [...]. Euseb. vit. Const. lib. 4. cap. 17.. First he took the Bible into his Hands, and then after that, (it seems) he took the other Book, where­in the usual Established Prayers were written. For ( [...]) the Books, [Page 219] implies more Books than one. Secondly, As to the Books, which Constantine sent to Eusebius into Palaestine, to pro­cure for his Churches at Constantinople, he calls them, Those Divine Books, which he knew most necessary, according to the Ec­clesiastical Catalogue, to be prepared and used [...] Ibid. l. 4. cap. 35.. And this might be expounded of Books of Offices, as well as Bibles; but suppose we grant, this Catalogue here mentioned to be the Canon of Scrip­ture, agreed on by the Church; and so the Books he sent for, were only the Canonical Books of Scripture: His in­ference, that the Churches in Constan­tine's Time, had no other Book, will by no means follow: Eusebius lived in Palaestine, where the Scriptures were first written and best understood, and there the best Copies were to be had; and Eusebius who lived there, was the fittest Judge of them; therefore Constan­tine sent thither, and to him, perhaps for no more but Bibles; Not because Churches were furnished then with no other Books, but because we know, Constantine had Prayer-Books at home, and could get acurate Copies of the Service, writ out at Constantinople, and [Page 220] need not send so far as Palaestine for those Books; but it was most proper, to send thither for Copies of Canonical Scripture. Thirdly, The Council of Carthage also doth mention a Book of the Gospels, held over the Bishops Head, a Book of Exorcisms to be given to the Exorcist, and a Book of Lessons to be delivered to the Reader, at their Ordination: But doth not mention the Service-Book, delivered to any that entred into Or­dersConcil. 4. Carthag. can. 1. 7, 8.. But it is too much from thence to conclude, there was no Service-Book there in the year [498]; because we have proved by many Testimonies, which are Positive, that they had prescribed Prayers there long before. And he may as well argue, that we have no Common-Pray­er-Book in England, since it is not delivered either to any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, at their Ordination, that is, there is no more done here, than was there; and yet, both we have, and they had a Book of Offices for all that; Optatus, S. Augustin and others before cited, do fully attest it: Moreover, these Books of Exorcisms, were Forms of Prayer, and of Catechising, Collected out of Holy Scripture— [...] Cyril. praef. ad Catech., for those [Page 221] who were newly Converted to Chri­stianity. And such Books had been long time used in the Church before this Council, though this formal deli­very of them, is not mentioned till this Council Orders it. Fourthly, As to the Persecutors not enquiring for, or finding, or the Christians delivering no other Books to them but only Bibles; I reply, the matter of Fact is not True, and therefore his Consequence, viz. that they had no Prayer-Books then, is false. Indeed the Bible was the most Eminent of all the Christian Books, and the Foundation of their Faith, their Worship and their Manners: And in those Ages, the Bible was in all Chri­stians Hands, the People Read it at Home; whereas the Liturgy was only in the Priests Hands; and upon the Notion they had of the necessity of concealing Mysteries from Pagans, was kept very close. By which means, no doubt, Bibles were oftner found by the Persecutors, and better known to them than the Book of Offices, the Dyptics, the Book of Exorcisms, the Book of Anthems written and composed to the Honour of Christ. Yet we are sure [Page 222] they had these Books then, though they are rarely or never mentioned singl [...], only they come under the general Titles of Christian Writings, Divine, Sacred or Holy Books, &c. and no doubt some­times the Persecutors found and Burn­ed these, as well as Bibles: For we may observe, that all Authors generally speak in the Plural Number, The Divine and Holy Writings, and the Writings. The Books of the Church (in Eusebius) are said to be Burnt, and Destroyed by the Persecutors [...] Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 2. [...] ibid. cap. 3. [...] Id. lib. 10. cap. 4.; Why do our Wri­tings deserve to be committed to the Flames? saith Arnobius N [...]str [...] qui­dem Scripta cur ignibus me­rueru [...]t dari? Arnob. l 4.. They De­manded the Divine Books for the Fire, Saith Augustin Peterent divinos c [...]dices exurendos A [...]. brevic. C [...]l. l. 3.: So they ask the Holy Martyrs, if they had any Writings in their keeping Dicas, ali­quas Scripturas habeas? [...]ron. An. 30 [...]. §. 53.? And the Canon of Arles is general, against all that had de­livered up the Holy Writings De his qui Scripturas San­ctas tradidisse dicuntur. Concil. Arcl. can. 13. An. 316.. Now, why should they so Constantly and Unanimously speak of more Books, if there had been no Book but a Bible? But further, some of the Acts of the Mar­tyrs mention Volumes of Parchment, and other folded Books, besides the Bi­ble Baron. An. 303. §. 10.. In the Acts under Zenophilus, the Persecutors demanded, If they had [Page 223] any Writings of their Law, or any thing else in their Library Ibid. §. 13. & 14.? Now they had removed the Books before they came, conveying them to the Readers House, where at last they found 24 great and small Volums, and in another House 8 Books, and 4 fold­ed Tomes. Now certainly these were not all Bibles; no doubt, some of them were Books of Prayers, Hymns and Pas­sions, or Names at least of Martyrs Writ out, as S. Cyprian had directed. Another of them was asked, If he had any Writing in his House Habes ergo Scripturam ali­quam in domo tuâ? Baron. An. 303. §. 50.? Another was charged, to give up those Books, and whatsoever Parchments he had Baron. An. 302. §. 120.: Finally, in the Examination of Irene, they charge her, with preserving a great many Parchments, Books, Tablets, Codi­cils, and Pages of Scripture, which had belonged to the Christians from the be­ginning. And she owns, that since the Edict to Burn all these, the Christians, to their great Grief, could not use them, Night and Day, as they had formerly done, but were forced to hide them Baron. An. 303. §. 44. & 46.. Now when we consider the Christians Praying Thrice a Day at least, Morn­ing, Noon and Night; and see so ma­ny [Page 224] sorts of Books reckoned up, which had belonged to them from the begin­ning, and were used Night and Day, before this cruel Edict; We cannot but imagin they were, the Catalogues of Martyrs, the Prayer-Books and Anti­phonaries, Litanies and other Offices, used in their Divine Service, because they are reckoned up here distinct from the Pages of Holy Scripture. We conclude therefore, that it is a meer Dream of our Adversaries, to Fancy, the Christians then had no Books, but the Bible, since he Argues against matter of Fact; his Premisses are utter­ly false, and therefore his Conclusion falls to the ground. As for his long Ramble, about the Heathens, tolerating very odd Opinions, concerning their Gods, but prohibiting new ways of Worship Disc. of Lit. p. 17. &c.; It is well known, that every Country then, had a several way of Worship­ing their proper Gods; and many of these ways were allowed, and used in Heathen Rome: And so was the Chri­stian Worship, under some Emperors; but I grant, and have proved, that when Persecution came, the Pagans searched for Liturgies, as well as Bibles; [Page 225] So that all his random Guesses, have on­ly given me the occasion of clearing this Point, That the Christians had prescrib­ed Forms, writ in Books and Parch­ments, folded or rolled up, even under the Heathen Persecuting Emperors.

§ 5. We are now come to Finally, (which one would think was his last Argument,) If there had been any such Liturgies, they would have been made use of against the Errors, and for decid­ing the Controversies, with which the Church was exercised in those Ages, wherein we are concerned especially those two, that which opposed the Godhead of Christ, and that which asserted the Faith­ful, to be wi hout Sin Disc. of Lit. p. 22. &c.: Which Ar­gument I thus turn upon himself; If they were made use of against Here­ticks, and in these two Points, and by my Adversaries own Confession; then he must grant, there were Liturgies in those Ages. Now, my Adversary him­self, in the same Page confesses, that S. Augustin mentions the public Pray­ers against Pelagius; and though he pre­tends, he doth not speak of them as a Form; I have under the title of Augu­stin, [Page 226] before, shewed the falshood of that pretence, and proved that he cited, and referred to the African FormsPart. I. Chap. IV. §. 21.. A­gain, my Adversary in the next Page, produces a passage out of Eusebius, to shew, that Artemon an Heretick, who held Christ was a meer Man, was con­futed by those Hymns, which were com­posed by the Brethren, in the beginning of Christianity, wherein Christ was prai­sed as very God Disc. of Lit. pag. 23.. Now Hymns were a great part of the Christian Li­turgy, and therefore my Adversary hath utterly spoiled his own Argument, and proved that some parts of Liturgy were used to confute both the Heresies, he instances in. And since he Argues negatively, one or two positive Exam­ples are enough to confute him, if there were no more; But I have shewed, (and must not tire my Reader, with that kind of Repetition, which I blame in him) That divers other Fathers, did use the words of the public Litur­gies, against these and other Heresies; so doth Optatus Milevitanus cite them, to confute the Donatists See this Hist. Part. I. Chap. 4. §. 10.; S. Augustin to convince the Pelagians Ibid. §. 21. pag. 228.; S Hierom brings in the Gloria in excelsis, to ex­pose [Page 227] the same HereticksHieron. cont. Pelag. lib. 2. pag. 447.; Cele­stin cites the Prayers for all MenSee Part. II. Chap. I. §. 5., and Petrus Diaconus in Fulgentius, the Pray­er of Consecration, to decide the Con­troversies of their TimesIbid. Chap. II. §. 3.. So that his Antecedent is a notorious Falshood, confuted by his own Confession, and by matter of Fact; and therefore his Consequence must be false. Yea, from these and other instances, we firmly prove, that there must be Liturgies in those Ages, in written Forms and cer­tain words; which were generally own­ed to be of great Antiquity and Autho­rity, at the time when they were pro­duced in Controversies of Faith; be­cause Extempore Prayers cannot be cited at all; and Novel Inventions must have been quoted to little purpose a­gainst obstinate Hereticks, who openly opposed the Faith of the Church. But some perhaps may wonder, there are not more passages cited in the three first Ages, against the Hereticks of those Times, our of Liturgies. To which I answer. There are but very few Writers of these Ages; and of those who did write, few of their works are come to our hands, and their Arguments are [Page 228] generally so obscure, that probably they may more frequently refer to their Li­turgies, than we can easily observe; Besides, the Church was then unsetled, and it is probable those Hereticks, who opposed its Doctrins, would not allow its Liturgy for a competent Judge, as we see in Paulus Samosatenus, who despised the Solemn Forms of Praise used at Antoch; as being made not long before his Time: and therefore the Fathers of those Ages, cited not the Liturgies so often, as they of the Fourth and Fifth Century did; when the long and Universal use of them had given them a greater Reputation, and a firm­er Authority. However in the Second Century, we have shewed that Irenaeus, brings in some Hereticks, arguing from the Churches FormsSee Part. I. Chap. II. §. 3., which proves prescribed Forms were then used as clearly, as if they had been cited against Hereticks: We have also proved, that Gregory Thaumaturgus made a Liturgy in the midst of the Third AgeIbid. Chap. III. §. 5.; and by divers other Evidences, we have shewed there were Liturgies, in these first three Centuries; which Point be­ing fixed, we need not enquire nicely, [Page 229] how often they were cited against Hereticks, who (for any thing I know) in those early Times, valued a passage of the Liturgies then in use, no more than our Dissenters do a Proof from our Common-Prayer-Book. But we see in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries in both which he affirms, they had no Li­turgies, there are Quotations good store out of the public Forms, which is enough to spoil his Cause.

§ 6. After his Finally, Page 22th, I thought he had done Arguing; but as if he knew not how to make an end, and could not stop in his full Career, we heave Further, after that Finally. And now he goes on, If there were such Li­turgies, how comes it to pass, we meet with no Intelligence of any changing them, or alterations made in them [...] Lit. pag. 25.? But as if he had forgot his own Argument, he immediately tells us, he had met with Intelligence; That Paulus Samosatenus cast out from the Church of Antioch, those Hymns or Psalms, which were used to be sung there, in honour of Christ, (he might have added) and made new Forms of his own. Now this made a very great [Page 230] change in the Liturgy there; because wc may remember, the whole Christi­an Worship in Pliny, is described by Singing Hymns to Christ as God; so that some think, the greatest part of these Primitive Liturgies, consisted in these Hymns; and therefore, his casting out all these, was chaning more than half the Liturgy: And since these Hymns were written Forms, it is very proba­ble, the Prayers were suitable to them, and were Forms also. Again, my Ad­versary meets with more Intelligence, viz. that the Arians altered the Gloria Patri, the Form of Baptism, and the Universally received Confession of FaithDisc. of Lit. pag. 26.. Are not all these ancient Forms, and parts of Liturgy? And did not the Orthodox Fathers blame the Arians, for these bold attempts? More­over, in the next Page, he finds that the Eutychians attempted to add two or three words to the Trisagion, an ancient and known Form, and a part of the Prmitive Liturgy, which the People were so unwilling to have al­tered, that the very attempting it, made a Tumult at Constantinople, and a Noise throughout the World. Why then, doth [Page 231] he pretend, he meets with no Intelli­gence? His Fallacy is this, he supposes a Liturgy, containing nothing but Forms of Prayer, (which is a meer Chimaera, a thing that never was in those Ages,) and because there is no mention of altering this Liturgy, but most of the Instances happen to be in Hymns and Forms of Praise, he sup­poses, that they never changed the Li­turgy; that is, as he expounds it, the Prayers. But in this he is mistaken too; For the Reader may remember, how stifly the Clergy and People of Naeo­caesarea, opposed the making any change in their old Liturgy, drawn up by Gregory Thaumuturgus. He hath owned that Epiphanius, his changing the Form, by which they usually prayed for the Bishop before Sermon, made a very great Noise. And I have told him, that it is remembred how S. Basil changed and altered divers things in S. James his Liturgy, even in the Pray­ers; I have shewed that Theodorus of Mopsevestia, rejected both those Litur­gies, and made a new Office for the Communion, filled with Blasphemies in­stead of Prayers; and this in the begin­ning [Page 232] of the Fifth Century. So there were changes and alterations both in Prayers and Praises, and that suffici­ently proves they had prescribed Forms: For Extempore and Arbitrary Prayers are daily varied, yea they are nothing else, but change and variety, so that it is impossible for any to observe any alterations in them; If the change be a thing taken notice of, and opposed or censured, it must be the change, or al­teration of a known Form; and since such changes are noted, and were ob­served in those Ages, it evidently fol­lows, they did use Forms, and no Ex­tempore Prayers or Praises. And we may note by the way, that the Arians and other Hereticks, did allow Christ to be our Mediator, and made Prayers to God the Father in his Name, which was the way of all ancient Liturgies: so that they had not so much Quarrel to that part of Liturgy, which was Petitionary or Deprecatory, as they had to the Laudatory parts, where they set out our Saviour, in the glory of his Divinity, and paid direct Worship to him; and for this reason, we meet with more attempts upon the Praises, than [Page 233] the Prayers. As for Maldonate's Saying, That such as changed Religion, did also change the Prayers, and every Heresie invented its own Prayers; which my Adversary cites pag. 25. He speaks only by guess, for if ever any old Heresie had any peculiar Forms of Prayer, the Fathers long since burnt and destroyed them in a pious Zeal against their Errors: So that there are no Footsteps of them remaining, no nor any mention of the thing (that I can now remember) excepting the afore-mentioned Instance of that Heretick, Theodorus of Mopse­vestia, who made a New Liturgy: And the Arian Goths, who (as we have shewed) had so corrupted the Primitive Orthodox Liturgy, that Leander and Isidore had very great Trouble to Cor­rect those Errors, and bring the People to change their Heretical for Orthodox Forms: But both the Nestorian and Arian Liturgies are long since abolished, and no Memory remains of them, but only that once there were such things. To conclude, There is intelligence of many Alterations made, or attempted to be made, either in whole Liturgies, or in eminent parts of them, even in [Page 234] the first Four or Five Centuries, and those Changes were noted, opposed and censured: Which shews, their Service could not be then in the Extempore, or Arbitrary way, because none could blame any Man for changing Prayers and Praises, if the Church gave Liberty to every Minister to vary every day, if he pleased, as my Adversary vainly supposes. This observation of, and opposition to Changes, is an undeniable Proof of known and prescribed Forms, that had been long and constantly used.

§. 7. Though all these Arguments have been against Liturgies in general, and not one of them particular; yet he begins afresh with In general, and so falls to his topping Reason against Liturgies; viz. That they took them­selves obliged to conceal the Symbols, Rites and Prayers, used in these Admi­nistrations from the sight of the Ʋn­initiated, and therefore to be sure did not commit them to Writing Disc. of Lit. p. 28. &c.. Now this Argument I have often considered, and sufficiently confuted in the First Part, under the Heads of those several [Page 235] Fathers (especially S. Basil) whom he brings to make out this gilded Sophistry; and therefore I will be the briefer in exposing it. We grant the Premisses, and he need not have stuffed so many Pages to prove it; but he himself suffi­ciently confutes the Conclusion: For after he hath spent much time to prove, That the Heathens concealed their My­steries and Religious Administrations, as well as the ChristiansDisc. of Lit. pag. 30, & 31.; And said expresly, concerning the Greeks and Romans, That they would not commit them to Writing Ibid. p. 32.: At another place (needing a good Memory) he saith, That Among the Greeks Prayers were read out of a Book Disc. of Lit. p. 122.; and, That the Persian Magi read their Prayers out of a Book Ibid. p. 123.; That the Romans (besides the Sybils Books, their extraordinary Ritual) had also a Liturgy sent to them in Writing, by Apollo: He also mentions a Public Table wherein their usual Prayer was writ, and saith, That Scipio reformed their Common-Prayer-Book Ibid. p. 124.. We leave him or his Friends to reconcile these Contradictions: But being sure the Heathens did conceal their Myste­ries, and yet write them in Books, and [Page 236] read them out of them: He must infal­libly grant, That the Christians might both conceal their Mysteries, and yet write them in Books also, and read them out of them; and if the Christi­ans (as he saith) learned of the Hea­thens to conceal their Administrations, they might also learn of them to write them in Books, and deliver those Books to the custody of the Clergy, to keep them from the sight of such as were not Initiated: And this sufficiently shews the weakness and falshood of his Consequence, viz. That the Christians could have no Written Liturgies, be­cause they concealed their Mysteries from the Uninitiated: But since he hath filled so many needless Pages upon this Subject, I will give some short Touches upon all that looks like Objection in each of them.

First, He discourses, as if this Silence and concealing of Mysteries were to be restrained, especially to the Fourth and Fifth Ages Disc. of Lit. pag. 28.. And the two Authors which furnished him with these Quo­tations, Dailé Dail. de ob­ject. cult. lib. 2. cap. 25., and Chamier Chamier. Panstrat. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 8., both say, This sort of Niceness did not begin till the Fourth or Fifth Age. Now if [Page 237] this be so (and his Quotations gene­rally fall within this Period) then for all this doughty Argument, the Chri­ans might have Written Liturgies for Three hundred years or more at the first, since they did not endeavour in those first and best Times, to conceal their Mysteries, as these Men think: Therefore we may have Precedents of prescribed Forms in the first Ages, though all this were true.

Secondly, Their calling the Sacraments Mysteries, did not hinder them from Administring them in an audible Voice before the Faithful every day; and therefore this doth not prove, That they durst not commit them to Writing; for daily reading or speaking these Words in public with so loud a Voice, that all the Faithful might hear and answer, was much more a publishing them, than Writing them in Books committed to the custody of the Clergy: So that all that Margen which he heaps upDisc. of Lit. pag. 29., only proves. That they concealed them from the Unbaptized, who were turned out when these Mysteries began, as well as kept from seeing the Books, and so remained ignorant of the Solemn Words; [Page 238] but the Faithful were so well acquainted with the very Phrases and Expressions, that if the least hint were but given them in a Sermon before a promiscuous Auditory, it put them in mind of that Passage in the Offices which the Preacher hinted at: Which undeniably proves, they were known and usual Forms; and being such, they must of necessity be written down, otherwise such Variations would have been made, that no Appeal could have been made to the Faithful, concerning any part of the Office; because no Extempore Man now can appeal to his Congregation for his Words or Phrases, used some time before: Therefore they were My­steries only with respect to the Un­initiated, but well-known Forms to the Faithful, and written down to prevent all Variation.

Thirdly, As to the tedious Proofs of the Gentiles SecrecyDisc. of Lit. pag. 30, 31, 32, & 33., I have noted, that he owns they writ down these Mysteries; and pag. 32. he saith, That the Romans had a Book of their public Rites as old as King Tarquin's Time; and that Valerius Max. mentions one, who was punished for letting an uncon­cerned [Page 239] Person Transcribe it: Which shews, how impertinent all these Quo­tations are to prove his Point; which is, That Mysteries must not at all be com­mitted to Writing. Indeed, fearing this Consequence, he adds in the next Page, 33. If they did commit them to Writing, it was in such a Character, as none of the Ʋninitiated understood: But then he makes out nothing, but that the Egyptians described their Mysteries in such unintelligible Hieroglyphicks; which doth not prove, that either Greeks or Romans writ them in such Figures; much less doth it shew, that the Chri­stians used any Hieroglyphicks, to con­ceal their Mysteries; and therefore there is no reason, to argue from that Custom peculiar to Pagan Egypt, as if we might learn the Christian Usage from thence.

Fourthly, The excluding the Catecha­mens from hearing the Prayers, and refusing to recite any Phrases of them in a Sermon made to a promiscuous Auditory, which he speaks ofDisc. of Lit. pag. 35, 36., are very good Arguments, That these Offices were celebrated by prescribed Forms; which Words had they been [Page 240] suffered daily to hear in the Church, when the Administration was perform­ed, or had often heard them in Ser­mons, they might easily learn and remember them. And it was, because they were prescribed, constant, inva­riable Forms, that they durst neither let them stay in the Church when they repeated them, nor openly mention them in a Sermon. Had they Officiated variously, and in his Extempore way, they might have stood by for Seven years, and heard the Sermons, in which some part of them was referred to; and there had been no danger of their learning them. And since we see the Heathens did write down their Myste­ries, and make them known to the Initiated, the Christians might do so also, and yet keep them secret enough from the Unconverted, or Unbaptized; for they might as well keep them from seeing their Books of Mysteries, as to turn them out of the Church, to pre­vent their hearing them. And his instance of the Creed, pag. 37. proves this; for the Creed was written down and expounded in the Time of Cyril and Ruffinus, and yet then, and long [Page 241] after, it was kept secret from the Cate­chumens, till some small time before the Day of their Baptism; therefore every thing that was written was not published to the Uninitiated.

Fifthly, Baronius doth not say, the Primitive Literae formatae were not drawn up in Writing: Spondanus indeed, his Epitomator, doth say something to that purposeDisc. of Lit. pag. 38. c Spondan [...]pit. An. 325. H. 44.; but Baronius himself only saith, That the Council of Nice would not put the Words of these Formed Epistles (the private Cognizances by which Stranger-Christians were known to be Catholics where-ever they came) into the Canons of their Council. But he adds, They agreed upon a Form there, and setting down what it was, he saith, Such was the Form prescribed by the Fathers, for these Formed Epistles Baron. An. 325. §. 166, 167. pag. 32 [...].. But still it was a Secret, writ down then, but not pub­lished among the Canons, for fear the Hereticks might get Copies, and deceive the Catholic Bishops thereby: Which was the very Case of Liturgies then; they were writ down, but kept secret from the Unbelievers, though at the same time they were known to all the [Page 242] Faithful. And for his alledging, pag 42. That Writing them out for many Ch [...]es must needs divulge them; The Formed Epistles also were written out for every Bishop, and a Copy tran­scribed as often, as any of his Diocess was to Travel into a strange Country, by shewing which to the Bishop of that remote City (who had a like Form written down beside him) this Stranger was admitted to Catholic Communion: So that these were Written often out, and yet kept secret from Hereticks, as the Liturgies were also written out frequently, yet still kept from the sight and hearing of the Catechumens; or if any of them by chance came to the sight or knowledge of the Litur­gick Forms (he confesseth pag. 43) that Man was immediately Baptized, and so obliged to keep all secret from those without: And as to what he saith there of the Pagans torturing Christians, to get out the Secrets of their Worship, that proceeding was over long before the Age wherein he saith this Secrecy was so strictly practised: And there­fore he should not urge those Methods: But if we grant this Concealing My­sterios [Page 243] began sooner, there is no doubt, but the Faithful were taught to be as resolute not to publish their Mysteries, as they were not to deny their Faith; so that there was no danger of their being published by Tortures. Finally, If the People had all their Responses, and their part of the Liturgy by Heart (as they might easily have) there was no need of Writing out the Forms for them, as he insinuates, pag. 44. and so, that could be no occasion of publishing the Forms to Unbelievers. To con­clude, There is nothing in this tedious Ramble of my Adversaries for 16 Pages together, which doth in the least prove, That the Christian Mysteries were not celebrated by Written Forms; and therefore there is nothing in it to his purpose, but on the contrary much of it tends to prove, That the Divine-Service was then performed by Prescribed Forms.

§. 8. The next thing which looks like an Argument, is his deducing the Fathers Extempore Praying from their Extempore Preaching: For when he hath spent many Pages in proving, [Page 244] That Origen, Cyril, Nazianzen, Chry­sostom, Atticus, Hierom and Augustin, Preached [...], or Extempore: He concludes at last in these Words, Thus they did Preach, and thus they might Pray Disc. of Lit. pag 50 — to pag. 60.. I Answer, He seems very dubious; he dare say no more, than It is possible they might Pray so: But still it is possible also, they might pray by Forms; and it is more than probable they did so, because this Au­thor hath ransacked every Corner of Antiquity▪ and cannot produce one plain Evidence wherein any of these, or other Fathers, who are commended for Preaching thus, are either affirmed to have Prayed [...], or Extem­pore, or commended for that Gift, which our Adversaries think was then, and is now one of the main Qualifications for the Ministry. We need not doubt, but if he had found any such thing, he would have brought it out with all imaginable Triumph and Ostentation: He that is forced to spend so much Paper to force two obscure Phrases into a Sense for his purpose, viz. [...], and de Pectore; which do but remotely [Page 245] hint, That in the Ages of Inspiration, when Justin Martyr and Tertullian lived, they prayed without Book; How would he have triumphed, if he could have met with any plain Evidence of their Praying Extempore? This would have done his business at once, and gon far toward ending the Controversie: But when this Author cannot find one word of this, but is forced here to falsifie Nazianzen most grosly, and pervert the Meaning of S. Ambrose (as was shewed before) to make out a re­mote Conjecture; but he hath not one Positive Proof, no not here, where his Cause needed it so extreamly; We may conclude there is no Evidence, that any of these Fathers did pray Extempore in Public; and thence it will follow, that after the Fourth Century began, the Gift of Prayer was ceased, and the Usage of the Church was to pray by Forms; yea, these very Fathers who preached Extempore, and so could have invented their Public Prayers as well as their Public Sermons, having acquired that Faculty; yet did not see fit to use it in their Addresses to God, because they considered the Greatness of His [Page 246] Majesty, and the Care and Caution to be used in speaking to Him, before whom Angels voil their Faces; their Sermons were only spoken to mortal Men, but their Prayers addressed to a Glorious, Immortal God; there­fore they took freedom in the one, but durst not in the other: There they used holy and known Forms, not out of necessity, but choice; which shews their Judgment was, That Forms were the best way of Serving God, in public especially; and though they were bet­ter Qualified than our Dissenting Bre­thren for Extempore Praying, they rejected that Method. All this we have reason to believe from the Uni­versal Silence, concerning Extempore Prayer in all these Ages, wherein we see, they do observe there was an use of Extempore Preaching; and if this Gift of Praying on the sudden had been so admirable a thing, and so necessary, to qualifie a Man for the Ministry, 'tis im­possible but there would have been some memorial of the use of it, and some of the Fathers must have been commended for excelling in it; but no such matter appearing, while yet there are plain [Page 247] and express Proofs of Liturgies; we conclude, that none then did use to pray Extempore in a Public Congre­gation.

§. 9. After this he Argues from the Liberty the Ancients took, to use several Forms in Baptism with great variety; That they also used as much Liberty in their Prayers Disc. of Lit. pag. 93.; yet he tells us at first, That Tertullian saith, The Law of Baptism is imposed, and the Form pre­scribed by Christ Lex namque tingendi impo­sit [...] est, & F [...]rma prae­scripta. Tertul de Bapt. cap. 13., viz. in those words, Matth. xxviii. 19. Go teach all Nations, and baptize them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now it will not easily be believed, that the Holy Fathers, who took this pre­scribed Form to be a Law bound upon them by the Authority of Christ him­self, should think themselves at liberty to alter this Form as they pleased, espe­cially since we know the Ancients gene­rally declared those Hereticks Baptism to be null and void, who did not Baptize in this very Form of WordsCan. Apost. Can. 49. Cy [...]r ad Jubai. Epist. 73. Concil Ni [...]end. Can. ult item Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 26.: Which is a strong Proof, that these Holy Fathers believed this Form to be invariable. Let us therefore see how he makes out the [Page 248] contrary. Why, First, his Text and Margen are full of Instances, to shew, That the Fathers used the Word Bap­tizo in all Three Persons; I baptize thee, Be thou baptized, He is baptized; and that they use, Tingo, Mergo, and Mergito, as well as Baptizo (e). Having borrowed all his Quotations by Whole­sale from Vossius and Vice comes Voss Theses de Bapt. disp. 2. pag. 372. [...]c [...]m. de v [...]t. Bapt. pag. 608.: But indeed the Inference, That there­fore they took a Liberty to vary Christs Form, is of his own inventing. And it is like the rest of his Sophistry: For the first Word, viz. Baptize, Christ doth not determine the Person in which it shall be used; for he speaks not to one that he was Baptizing, but to his Disci­ples, and so expresses it by the Parti­ciple, viz. Baptizing them, &c. upon which the Latin Churches used the First Person (when they performed this Office) I baptize thee; the Greeks generally used the Third Person, viz. M. or N. is Baptized, as Theodorus notes; but this was no altering Christ's Form; for that very Author there tells us, That the Water vanished out of the Font, when an Arian Bishop altered the Gospel Form, in Baptizing one BarbasTheodor. Lect. collect. pag. 187.. [Page 249] Nor is this difference of the Greek and Latin Church, any ground for the liberty which my Adversary pleads for, viz. the liberty for private Ministers to vary the Forms of their own Church, as they please: For no Bishop or Priest in the Latin Church was allowed to use the Third Person, nor did any in the Greek Church use the First; so that every Clergy-man was bound to use the Forms prescribed in his own Country, and the Church of England doth not impose any more. Then as for his ridiculous ugring of the Fathers using, Tingo & Mergo, &c. for Baptizo, we must note, that not one of his Instances, are any account of the words used in the Actual Administration of Baptism; he cannot shew they used any word but [Baptizo] then: But his Proofs are out of the Fathers occasional Discourses concerning Baptism, which they describe in their own words and phrases as it happens; even as we call this holy Action, Christ­ning or Sprinkling the Child, as well as Baptizing, in our ordinary Discourse: But would any Man, whose Head were right, infer from thence, That our Mi­nisters, in the Act of Baptizing, took [Page 250] liberty to say, I Christen thee, or, I Sprinkle thee, &c. I am ashamed to confute such mean Sophistry! yet must add, That our Lord neither spake Latin nor Greek, but a Language which was Hebrew mixt with Syriack; and it is strange, when His Words are to be turned into any other Language in our common Discourse, that we may not translate them by any significant Words: But this Liberty in ordinary Converse or Writing, is no manner of proof, That the private Ministers of any Church, may vary the Words used in their Offices, when they Administer the Sacrament of Baptism But he goes on to prove this liberty of Variation, by the Fathers sometimes saying, [...], sometimes [...], and so also In nomen, or In nomine; In, or Into the Name of the Father, &c. Disc. of Lit. pag. 96.; wherein the Fallacy is the same as before: For his Authors cited are only discoursing of Baptism, not citing or reporting the very Words which they used in Bap­tizing, and therefore they take this liberty: As if a Preacher or Catechist should in a Sermon or Exposition, say, [Page 251] Our Church Baptizes Men into the Faith of the Holy Trinity, or in the Name of the Father the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier of all Men: This would not prove, that this Preacher or Cate­chist did not use the Words of the Churches Form when he actually Bap­tized, nor shew that we have here no prescribed Form of Baptism. This is meer trifling. But his next Proof is disingenuous; for he Argues, That some Ancients thought they were not obliged to name the Persons of the Trinity, for if it was done in the Name of Christ it was sufficient; from whence he gathers, That such Fathers would neither impose Forms of Prayer on others, nor would observe what others had imposed on them Disc. of Lit. pag 97, & 98.. Now here I must observe, that he hath again taken all his Instances by which he proves this, out of Vossius Voss. Thes. de Baptism. Disp. 2. Thes. 5. pag. 370, ad pag. 379.: But that Learned Author was too generous to make any such false and frivolous Inference from those Premisses, and doth not represent even the Premisses them­selves as my Adversary doth; for he tells us, That Irenaeus is not speaking of Baptism in that place (ad [...]. haer. lib. 3 c. 20.) [Page 252] which my Adversary cites, and that Justin Martyr (another of my Adver­saries Witnesses, pag. 99.) is not repeating, but only paraphrasing the Form of Bap­tism; so that there are no Ancient Fa­thers who allow this, but only S. Basil, and S Ambrose (who generally follows S. Basil in all things); nor do they speak of any Church, where such an Omission was permitted, or where Men were left at liberty to Baptize in what words they pleased: Only they put the case, if a man were so Baptized in Christs name, whether he ought to be Bapti­zed again; these two think he ought not; because Factum valet quod fieri non debet. But these two do not advise any so to Baptize, nor doth it appear, that ever they took this Liberty; they only Argue for the validity of such a Baptism, though it was done irregularly: There­fore these Fathers, and such later Men as followed them, were not for any Mans having liberty to alter the Form of Bap­tism, or the Prayers of the Church, as my Adversary pretends: Besides, Vossius there declares (which my Ad­versary conceals,) that more and greater Fathers, held that this alteration of the [Page 253] Form, made the Baptism invalid, viz. Tertullian and Cyprian, (who saith they were Hereticks who altered the Form thus,) as also Didymus, S. Augustin, Fulgentius, Epiphanius and others Vossij Thes. de Bapt. disp. 2. &c. p. 374, 375.. Now then, the most and best of the Fathers held it utterly unlawful to alter the Form of Baptism, and consequently (by his way of Arguing,) to alter the Liturgy or Prayers; and therefore most of the Fathers were against his pretended Liberty. And from this mat­ter of Fact, Vossius observes, First, That mentioning the three Persons, is now, and hath been of old, the usage of the whole World; by which it is very probable, that it came at first from the Apostles Vossius, ibid. p. 371.. Again, he notes, Though Baptism should be valid, though the words of this Form were altered; Yet, the old Form ought not to be innovated or changed, at every Mans pleasure. And if Christ had not tied us to a certain Form of Words; Yet it is much better to retain the old Form, which all Agree to be certainly right; but it is disputable and uncertain, whether any other Form be so or no: And surely, certain things are much to be pre­ferred before uncertain idem ibid. pag 379.. Thus this [Page 254] learned Man represents the Matter; and if my Adversary, who transcribed his Instances, had imitated his Ingenuity He could not have framed any Argu­ment from hence, for his Liberty of varying Prayers; because he reckons his Liberty a Priviledge, a Duty, and an advantage to the Worship: But this variation in Baptism was an irre­gular Fact, generally disliked, and cen­sured, so as to make the very Office Null, or at least very liable to be coun­ted so; it was an Illegal thing, seldom done, never commanded nor directed to be done; only when it was done, it was condemned by many and ex­cused by very few: And suppose now, varying the Prayers, be such a Fact as this, is it Advisable or Eligible? No, the Comparison shews the taking such Liberty, would be an ill thing, for which scarce any would undertake to make an Apology: And so I have done, with his Comparison between Forms of Prayer, and the Form of Baptiz­ing.

[Page 255]§ 10. His next Excursion is about the Creeds, and being deckt in the Plumes he hath borrowed from Grotius, Vossius and Bishop Ʋsher, he fills Four Pages with Pompous Margens, to dress up this Argument, viz. That in the Primitive Times, there was an Agree­ment in sense, not in Words as to the Creed it self; and he thinks, that they who left themselves and others, at so much Liberty in Forms of Creeds, would not limit themselves nor others, by Forms of Prayer. If the Apostles Creed be objected, he looks on Ruffinus his Relation to be a Fable; and saith, that no Writer for 300 years took notice of it: And since the Ancients would not be confined to this Creed, it argues, they would never be confined to Forms of Prayer composed by others; and he notes, that the Author of the Apostolical Con­stitutions hath set down a Form of Creed, different from that of the Apostles Disc. of Lit. pag. 99, 100, 101, 102, & 103.. This is the sum of his Reasoning; Which when it is strictly examined, will all appear to be either mistaken or fallaci­ous. He first directs us to Grotius up­on Math. xxviii 19. where that Author [Page 256] brings in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cle­mens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. using various Expressions, when they give an account of its several Articles. But Grotius his Inferences, which he cites in his Margen, pag. 100. are two. First, That when they say the Rule of Faith was immutable, they do not respect one certain Form of words, received in all places, but they respect the Force and meaning of the Interrogations. And Se­condly, That Cyprians words seem to him to shew, that the Creed or Rule of Faith in his time, was not yet tied to those words, in which it was afterwards found written; and yet it cannot be doubted, but the Sense of it was always the same Grot. Com. in Math. XXVIII. 19. p. 288, & 289.. Now though Grotius here be not so just, (perhaps) as he ought to be, to the An­tiquity of Creeds, and being a Modern Author, his Affirmation in this weighs no more, than his Instances prove: Yet, I will wave that Dispute, and for the present admit what he saith were true, and then make Parallel between Creeds and Liturgies. And in his First Inference, he only saith, That when the Ancients use various ways of expressing their Faith, they do not refer to one [Page 257] certain Form of Words, received in all places, but only to the force and mean­ing of the Interrogations: Which shews, Grotius did not think (as my Adver­sary grosly doth,) That every one of the Ancients in the places cited, pre­tended to repeat the very Form of the Creed; but only to shew the main Do­ctrins of it, which in these occasion­al Discourses, is all that we can ex­pect: And therefore the variety of expressions doth not prove, there was not one Form of Creed, but that these Fathers, in these places do not refer to that Form. Yet, Secondly, These Fathers all lived within 250 years af­ter Christ; and if we grant to Grotius▪ that then there was not one Form of Creed, every where received, we may allow the Parallel with Liturgies, and suppose that in Cyprian and Novatian's Time, and so upwards to Tertullian, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, there was not one Form of Liturgy, every where received; yet for all this Liturgies might be used and received before the year 300, that is, before the quiet settlement of the Christian Church 1400 years ago, and above 200 years before my Ad­versary [Page 258] allows them to have come in. And this also is all that can be inferred from his words, in the second Passage, viz. That in S. Cyprians time, the Creed was not tied to that Form of words, where­in it is found written down afterwards. Though▪ he speak this modestly and only say, it s [...]ems so to him: Yet let it be supposed true and certain, and then make the Parallel, and no more will follow from thence but this, That the Liturgies of the Church, were not written down in so many words, in the year 250, as we find them written in af­terwards. Now this being in the Ages of Persecution, and while the Miracu­lous Gifts lasted; it will not prove, that because the Church then had no such Form of written Liturgy, there­fore, now when the Church is setled, and Inspiration ceased, we neither need, nor ought to have such a Form.

In the next Page, in the Margen he grants, the Creeds had more stated Forms in the Fourth Century; though even then, the Creeds of several Cities, in the same Country, were not Ʋniform, and he in­stances in Rome, Aquileia, and Raven­na in Italy, referring us to Vossius and [Page 259] Bishop Ʋsher Disc. of Lit. Marg. p. 101.. And a little after he saith, it was not put into set Form till the Fourth Age or neer it, but the Forms varied in several places, in the same Country. Now because the Antiquity of Creeds, is not our business here, we will also for the present suppose this to be true: And then if I may Argue from the History of Creeds to that of Liturgies, (as he evidently doth) the Consequence will be, That Liturgies were put into set Forms, somwhat be­fore the beginning of the Fourth Age, though those great Churches, which were at that time independent of one another, (though in the same Country) as Aquileia, and Ravenna in Italy, which then were not subject to Rome, had some difference in the Words and Phrases, as also in the Order and Method of their Liturgies. But as the Roman Creed, was imposed upon all those Churches, which were under the Popes Jurisdicti­on, properly so called; and the Aqui­leian Creed, and that of Ravenna, were re­spectively imposed upon all the Churches subject to these two great Metropoli­tans; So it must follow, (if Liturgies and Creeds kept pace, as he supposes) [Page 260] that the Roman Liturgy was imposed on the Roman Clergy, and those of Aquileia and Ravenna upon the Clergy subject to those Churches: And then my Adversaries whole Book, (which is written to assert, that Liturgies were not imposed before the end of the Fifth, or beginning of the Sixth Age, that is, 200 year after) is false and utterly wrong: And then also the Church of England, both in composing a Form and imposing it, imitates a very pure Age of the Church; viz. The time a little before the begining of the Fourth Centu­ry, or thereabouts, and hath the Pre­scription of 1400 years, to justifie her in both: But because his main Author is Vostius, we will here observe, what that learned Man freely owns as to Creeds, viz. That there was a [...]orm in the Oriental Church, very like to that which is called the Apostles Creed, long before the Council of Nice. And this which we call the Apostles Creed, was the Roman Form, b [...]f [...]re the time of that same Coun­cil; and the Creed of Aquileia differed from this, but very little Vos [...]. de trib. [...]ymb diss. 1. §. [...]0. pag. 24.. Again, he saith, these Forms were not made by any General Council, and were so old in [Page 261] Ruffinus his time, that they were taken to be Apostolical Ibid. §. 45. pag. 31.. And the Church of Jerusalem had a Form which seems to have been elder than any of them, being explained by S Cyril, An. 350. and then delivered as from a very ancient Tradition Ibid. §. 51. pag. 34.. And both he and Grotius (who fancy the Creed consisted at first of no more Articles than those of the Tri­nity) do believe the remaining Articles about the Catholic Church, the Remis­sion of Sins, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Life everlasting, were added as early as Tertullian's Time: So that if these Authors Conjectures be allowed, then there were Forms of Creeds in every great and eminent Church before the Third Century began. From whence I thus Argue in my Adversaries own way, and almost in his very words; It is not probable that they, who had a Creed in a Set Form in every Principal Church, and did impose this Form to be learned and used by all that were Ad­mitted Members of that Church by Bap­tism, even before the Third Century, should not also have their Set Forms of Prayer, to the use of which all the Members of that Church, and all under [Page 262] its Jurisdiction were obliged. How credible and likely is it, that they who did not leave their Creed at liberty, also did not allow Arbitrary Prayers? Since Heresies might creep in by the way of Extempore Prayers and Hymns, as easily as by the use of various and arbitrary Creeds; If they thought it re­quisite to limit the Rule of Faith, for this Reason, there was the very same Reason to Limit the Prayers, Supplica­tions, Lauds and Litanies See the Disc. of Lit. p. 102, & 103.. This is his way of Arguing upon a false Sup­position, That the Creed was not in a Set Form in the First Ages: Wherefore since it appears by his own Authors, that it was in a Set Form, in or before the Third Century, he must allow this to be a firm Argument against him.

It is nothing to my Question, to enter into the Controversie, Whether the Apostles themselves made that Creed which goes under their Name: But after I have considered all that Vossius, &c. have said in this Matter, I am verily persuaded, That the Apostles themselves did make one Form of Faith at first, but did not commit it to writing, because it was to be taught orally to [Page 263] every Christian at his Baptism, and kept as the Cognizance, to distinguish between Hereticks and true Believers: and the likeness of all the ancient Forms to one another, shews, they had one and the same Original at first, and were derived from the first Planters of Chri­stianity: As for the variety between these ancient Forms in several Churches, it was the natural and necessary effect of delivering it Orally, which in distant Countries, and in tract of Time by passing through divers hands, must needs produce some small difference in the Order and Words; and that shews, That Oral Tradition is not so safe a way to convey Articles of Faith, as Writing; and though the Apostles had left the Scripture to be a standing Rule, to secure the Creed from any dangerous Corruption, yet it was necessary to have this short Form besides, to teach the Candidates for Baptism: But if the Reader desire to see this more fully proved, I refer him to a Learned Book writ by a very Worthy Author, Mr. G. Ashwell, Wherein (both by Arguments and evidence of Antiquity) it is strongly and clearly made out, that this Creed was [Page 264] made by the Apostles themselves [...] Apo­ [...], or [...] D [...]scourse a [...] ­ [...]ting the An­t [...]s and Au­t [...] [...] Creed, P inted at O­ [...]a, 1683.. And there it may be seen how bold my Adversary is, to give Ruffinus the Lye, since all the Writers of that Age gene­rally agree in the same thing: There also it appears, that my Adversary is grosly mistaken in affirming, that the Ancients took no notice of this Creed for above 300 Years. As for his Arguing, That the subsequent Creeds varying from it, shews, they did not own that to be Apo­stolical, especially since they preferred their own Forms before it, on the most solemn occasions Disc. of L [...]t. [...], it proceeds upon a Mistake: For Vossius owns, that the later superadded Creeds were only taken to be Commentaries on the For­mer, and clearer explications of such Articles as the Hereticks had attempted to pervert; and he shews, that they did not cast off, nor disuse the ancient Form when they made these New ones: They kept the Apostles Creed still, and used that in the most solemn Office of Baptism: Yea, they gave it the prece­dence before all other Creeds; and therefore the Third General Council says, They received in the first place, the Creed delivered to them by the most Holy [Page 265] Apostles, and then the Confession made by 318 Holy Fathers in the City of Nice [...] &c. Act. Concil. Ephesin. Bin. Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 415.. Wherefore this was used and reckoned in the first place, even after other Creeds came in. Finally, He need not wonder, that the Creed in the Constitutions, is not the same with that which we call the Apostles; because no Man pretends now, that the Apostles made those Constitutions. The Creed found there (as we have shewed) is the Apo­stles Form, as it was varied at Antioch about the Year 330, which Daillé owns to be the Time when that Clemens writ the ConstitutionsDaill. praef. ad Dissert. de relig. cult. objecto., (not the Year 500, as my Adversary falsly pretendsDisc. of Lit. pag. 111.. Now it is no wonder that the same Form in 300 Years time should be varied as much in two several Churches so far distant, as Rome and Antioch; especially when it was conveyed for the most part of that time only by Oral Tradition. To conclude, The Apostles shewed the way of making Forms of the things to be believed, and if the Parallel hold between Creeds and Liturgies, then we have reason to believe they first Com­posed Forms also, for the things to be asked of God in Prayer, and to be [Page 266] spoken to his Honour in Praises: Which first and Apostolical Forms are the foun­dation and ground of all the several Liturgies in great and eminent Churches, which (like their Creeds) agree in the main Essential parts, and have so much likeness, as to persuade us they all came from one Original Form at first; but tract of Time and distacne of Place caused some differences in the Order and Phrases in distant Churches: But so, that all the Members of every great Church were obliged to learn the Creed of that Church where they re­ceived their Baptism, and also to use the Forms of that same Church, in whose Communion they lived. And this may suffice for his Consequences drawn from the Primitive Creeds; be­cause it is nothing to our purpose when they came to be used first in the Com­munion Office, forasmuch as he grants they were used in the Office of Baptism from the beginning.

[Page 267]§ 11. He concludes this Set of Ar­guments by a large and tedious digres­sion, about the Variety used in the Form of Renouncing the Devil in Baptism; and here again he fills his Margen with the Names of near twenty Ancients, who speak of this Form of Renuncia­tion in different Words, by which he hopes to prove, That this Form was arbitrary, since not only divers Churches differed therein, but the Authors who lived in the same Church, yea, the same Author in several places of his Works expresses it variously. And then comes his Inference, That if they were not limited to a Set Form of Words in this Sentence, none can believe they were, or would have suffered themselves to be confined to an invariable Form of Words in Praying at Baptism Disc. of Lit. pag. 105, 106, 107, 108, & 109.. Now, if we should grant his Consequence did fol­low from these Premisses, then we must expect at least, that the Premisses shall be fully proved; but we shall shew, that he hath not made them out suffi­ciently: For first, the greater part of his Authors do not pretend to recite the Form, but are only applying the [Page 268] Duty, in occasional Discourses; for which I need no other Evidence, but to desire the Reader to consult the Places he produceth out of Origen, Ephrem Syrus, S. Basil, Cyril of Alexan­dria, Pseudo Dionysius, Justinian, Optatus, S. Cyprian, S. Augustin in the two later places, and S. Hierom: These Fathers in Homilies and practical Discourses speak of the thing, and press the Obligation; but do not pretend to repeat the words; they express them in their own Phrases, and therefore no wonder if they differ. Secondly, Many of these Witnesses do not speak of the whole Renunciation, but some of the Renouncing the Devil only, others only of Renouncing the World, as the Subject, upon which they were treating, required; and it is strange that he should cite these Authors, to make out a difference in the whole Form, when one speaks of one part of it, and another Author treats of another part. Thirdly, Most of these Authors not only lived in several Ages, but belonged to several distant Countries, and were Members of Churches which had some difference in the Phrases and Order of their whole Liturgy; and [Page 269] therefore their differing in the Words or Syllables of this Renunciation, doth not prove they had no Set Forms of Prayer in any Church; but only that several great Churches had some Variety in their Forms, which we freely grant, and it cannot hurt our Cause, since all were limited to use the Forms of their own Church: Thus Origen belonged to Alex­andria, Constantine's Edict was forged at Rome, Cyril was of Palaestina, Basil of Cappadocia, Salvian of France, Pseudo-Dionysius of Laodicea, Clemens of An­tioch, Justinian of Constantinople, Ter­tullian of Africa, and S. Ambrose of Milan. Now we have proved, that there was a Variety between the Liturgies of these distant Churches in many parti­culars, and therefore it is not strange they should differ in expressing the Syllables of the Renunciation, suppo­sing every one of them had been re­peating the Form of his own Church. Yet, Fourthly, Those of the same Country, and espcially those of the same Church do either agree, or come as near one another, as can be expected from Men, who are rather describing than repeating the Form. Thus Ephrem-Syrus [Page 270] and Cyril of Jerusalem do agree exactly, both of them, no doubt, re­ferring to the Form used in Palaestina: Salvian twice mentions this Form in the same words, referring to the Liturgy of the Gallican Church; and S. Chrysostom differs very little from Justinian, because both had respect to the Constantinopolitan Form, and that of Antioch related in the Constitutions, is very near it: So Tertullian and S. Augustin, where they speak closely, do exactly agree in the African Form. And it is very probable, that Constantine's Edict refers to the Ro­man Form, Basil to that of Naeocoesarea, and S. Ambrose to that of Milan. Now if each of these great Churches had a certain Form, to the use of which all that belonged to it were obliged, then probably they had also such a Form for other Prayers. And, Fifthly, it is very plain that every great Church had such a Form, because the Fathers do very often charge those who were Baptized, to remember the very words in which they made this Renunciation; so doth S. Ambrose Quid inter­rogatus es, recognosce; Quid responde­ris. Ambros. de iis quae ini­tiant. cap 2., and S. Chrysostom [...]. Chrys. in 2 Cor. hom. 2. p. 555.. [Page 271] Now this Charge had been ridiculous, and had required an Impossibility, if the Words were arbitrary, and every one of them had made the Renuncia­tion in a different Form of Words. I conclude therefore, That every Great Church had one certain Form, and all of them were so like, that they must come from one Original at first; and it was only length of Time, and distance of Place, that had made the small Variations between the Forms of several eminent Churches: Which also was the Case of Liturgies in general, and of the whole Baptismal Office, as well as of this peculiar part of it. We have now done with all his Arguments of this kind, and will leave the Reader to judge of the Modesty and Truth of those mighty Brags, which he makes of the narrow search he hath made into Antiquity, and the full Answer he hath given to all that either he could meet with, or that others had produced on Behalf of Liturgies, whose Primitive Original and general Use is but more cleared by all his Objections against them.

[Page 272]§. 12. My Adversary concludes his Book, first, by fixing the Period when Liturgies did come in; and, secondly, by a most odious Representation of that Age: For the first, he concludes, That for Five hundred years after Christ (if not more) the ordinary way of Wor­shiping God in public Assemblies, was not by prescribed Liturgies Disc. of Lit. pag. 181.. The falshood of which Conclusion, this whole Discourse hath sufficiently disco­vered: And his not being able to pro­duce one clear Proof, That Extempore Prayer was the way of Worshiping God in public in all this Period, gives me reason more justly to conclude, That for Five hundred years and more after Christ, that kind of Praying was not used in Christian Assemblies; Be­cause (to use his own words) if there had been such a Way of Praying used constantly in all Churches, for so long a time together, there would have been such clear Evidence of it in many of the Ancients, that there might have been had as full proof thereof, as of any one thing; and especially when this Author and his party have been searching so [Page 273] narrowly in Antiquity for this, and are sensible how much their Cause is concerned in it; and yet here is nothing produced that is positive or express Disc. of Lit. pag. 179, 180.. However, let us (for once) suppose that Extempore or Arbitrary Praying was the Usage of the Church for Five hundred years to­gether, or more, and that then Litur­gies began to be imposed: This was a remarkable and mighty change in the Public Service of God, the restraining of a Liberty, which we must suppose the Christian Priests and People had enjoyed down from the Time of the Apostles. Now this could not have been done in an Age wherein there were so many eminent Writers, and so many zealous Assertors of Apostolical Usages, but it must have made a great noise in the World; some would have complained of and written against this daring Innovation, and (as our Dissen­ters count it) bold usurpation upon Mens Consciences, and manifest quench­ing of the Spirit. But my Adversary (though very quick sighted) can find nothing of this Matter, he hath not one Quotation to this purpose: There is an absolute Silence in all Authors of [Page 274] these Ages; none claimed this pretend­ed ancient Right, none complained that it was taken from them; nor did any so much as take notice of this emi­nent and public Alteration; which undeniably proves there was no such Change then made; and shews, that prescribed Forms had been used in the foregoing Ages, and continued in this Century as they were before. My Ad­versary hath noted what Seditions hap­ned in divers Churches, and what Noise was made over all the Christian World, upon a small alteration in an ancient Form; and is it likely all People would be so quiet and silent, when the whole Manner of God's public Service was changed at once? When we charge the Roman Church with the novelty of her Corruptions, we prove that Accu­sation, by shewing, That such as lived before that Corruption came in, be­lieved or practised otherwise: That such as lived when it was coming in, opposed it and writ against it; and many refused to submit to it, after it was come in, as in the case of Images. But in this unjust Charge no such thing is made out; wherefore we conclude, [Page 275] That Liturgies are neither a Corruption, nor an Innovation; but the Pure and Primitive Way of the Christians public Worship.

But, Secondly, he is so confident that Liturgies were brought in and imposed about the Year 500, that he spends 17 Pages together (which is all the rest of his Book) in vilifying that Age; and to this end he rakes together a mighty heap of Quotations, to expose the Bishops and Clergy, and indeed all the People of those Times, the design of which is (besides the gratifying his Ill-will to the Sacred Order of Episcopacy) to shew, That since the Governours of the Church, and the whole Age, was so extreamly bad and degenerate, when Li­turgies first were imposed; therefore they are a Corruption, and the Ʋse of them is by no means to be approved. But he hath managed this odious Charge with so much Spite, and so many Fallacies, That though his gross misdating the Original of Liturgies, makes all this to be nothing to our Question, yet I cannot shut up this Discourse, till I have shewed, First, the weakness of this Argument, suppo­posing the Premisses were true; And, [Page 276] Secondly, the many Fallacies and Mi­stakes that appear in his managing of it, and in the Instances which he brings to make it out.

First, The Argument it self is trifling, and the Reasoning very frivolous upon Two Accounts. For,

First, No wise Man will say, that every thing must be Evil which is be­gun in an ill Age: No Times were worse than those wherein our Lord began to Preach the Gospel; no People wickeder than the Jews at that Time. The Northern Nations were bloody and barbarous, cruel and persidious to the highest Degree, when the Scripture was first Translated into the Gothic Tongue: And King Alfred's Age was extreamly Ignorant, and notoriously Vitious; yet then the Gospels, and other excellent Books, were translated into Saxon. The Reformation it self was begun in an Age when the generality of the Clergy and Laity both were as destitute of Learning as they were of Vertue: But how ridiculous would he be, that should disparage the Reforma­tion, the Translating of Holy Scripture, and the Gospel it self, by haranguing [Page 277] upon the Times when these things first appeared in the World? There have been many Ill things brought in even in good Times, and many Good things in bad Times; so that there is no Arguing from this Topic with any solidity or certainty; indeed, if he had proved, that these Evil Men brought in Litur­gies, and none but Evil Men used them, and submitted to them; that had been something to the purpose. Now this we might do, as to his Dear Way of Extempore Prayer: For the Directory was first set up and enjoyned here in a Time of Rebellion and Sacriledge; in a Time wherein there were more vile Hypocrites, and profligate Wretches, under the Mask of Religion, than ever were known in this Nation in any Age before; which is largely made out by very many Books then Writ, which beyond contradiction declare the Mat­ter of Fact to be trueSee Ed­ward's Gan­grena, in three Parts. History of In­dependency. Mercurius Ru­sticus, &c.. Yea, I could prove, That divers who pro­moted this New Way of Praying, and pretended to the Gift in a most extra­ordinary degree; were tried, and upon full proof convicted of the blackest Crimes that Men or Women could [Page 278] possibly commit, such as Witchcraft, Incest, and other Sins not to be named, and suffered Death for themMrs [...] in the Counte [...]n me, [...]he [...]. M [...]r Weer in Ra [...] real­rivus.; which is more concluding against Directories, and Extempore Praying, than any thing he urges against Liturgies. But I will not insist upon so odious and ungrateful a way of Arguing.

Secondly, There never was any Age, of which the Good Men then alive did not complain, as much degenerated, and represent as worse than any of those that went before it; which is very learnedly proved, and the Reasons of it shewed in the ingenious Apology of Dr. Hakewell Hakewel's Apol. Book 4. chap. 1. §. 1, &. 2.. Now though the Zeal of the Complainers, and their good Design, may go far to excuse them; and the general Depravity of too many in all Ages, make these Invectives to be in a great measure true; yet it is very weak or malicious, from these Pious Complaints heaped up together (with­out any mention of what was good) to pretend to give a just Character of any one Age: For I will undertake, by this fallacious Method, to represent any Age since our Saviour was born, as ill as he hath done this, wherein he (by [Page 279] mistake) supposes Liturgies did come in: But I rather choose to Answer him with the excellent Remarks of Seneca; who told Lucilius, You are mistaken (my Friend) if you think Luxury and neglect of Good Manners, which every one objects to his own Times, are peculiar to our Age: These are the Faults of Men, not of Times. No Age hath been free from Crimes; and if you could judge of the Badness of any Times by this; I blush to say it, but it is true, there were never bolder Wickednesses done, than in Cato's Age Erras, mi Lucili, si existi­mas nostri seculi esse vitrum luxuriam & negligentiam boni moris, & alia quae objicit quisque suis temporibus, Hominum sunt ista, non tempo­rum, &c. Senec. Ep. 97. pag. 177.. And again he saith, Our Fore­fathers complained of this, we complain of it, and our Posterity will complain of it also Hoc majores nostri questi sunt, hoc ros qu [...]r [...]mur, hoc pesteri nostri querentur. Senec. de benef. lib. 1. cap. 19.. I shall add to this the like account, which one of our own VVriters gives of this way of Arguing, which some of the Romanists used against him. I mean the Pious and Learned Bishop Juel, We know (saith he) that in the Times of the Apostles, there were Christians who made the Name of our Lord be blasphemed, and abused among the Gen­tiles. The Emperour Constantius, in Sozomen, complains, That many were worse after they became Christians, than ever they were before. Cyprian also in [Page 280] a doleful Discourse, sets out the Corrup­tions of his own Times thus: That Disci­pline (saith he) which the Apostles deli­vered, is corrupted by Idleness and a long Peace: All study to enlarge their Patrimony, and forgetting both what the Believers under the Apostles did, and what they always ought to do, mind no­thing, but to gratifie their insatiable desire of increasing their Estate: There is no Religion in the Priests, no sincere Faith in the Deacons, no Charity in their Deeds, no regularity in their Manners; Men disguise their Beards, and Women paint their Faces. And before him, Ter­tullian saith, O how miserable are we who are called Christians, and yet to this very hour act like Pagans under the Name of Christians Juelli Apo­logia. pag. 65.! By this, and much more which might be added upon the same Subject, it appears to be a poor shift and woful piece of Sophistry, to pick up all the Complaints of any one Age, made by Good Men, thereby to disparage that Time, and expose those Institutions which were then begun or continued; at this rate we see the best Ages and wisest Practices may be mis­represented, by any one whose interest [Page 281] it is, to reflect either upon the Persons or Things relating to any Century, since our Saviour's Days.

In the next place we will consider his managery of this Argument, which looks so big upon unwary Readers; and this we will examine first in the general, and then in the several particulars.

First, In the general, He assigns the Year 500, or some time, after that for the true Point when Liturgies began to be imposed; but the poor Gentleman was so blinded by his Prejudice, and so rash in the choice of his Instances, by which he would make out the corrupt state of that Age wherein he supposes Liturgies first came in, that all the particular Authors cited in these 16 or 17 Pages (except S. Gregory, quoted in the last Page) were dead before the Year 500, or at least writ before that Period of 500 Years after Christ (which falls in the Year of our Lord 533): Which will be best made out by a particular Catalogue of his Authors and their Ages, in this Order:

• [Page 282]Damasus, An. Dom. 366, cited pag. 192
• Basil— An. Dom. 30, cited—192
• Nazianzen, An. Dom. 370, cited—192
• S. Ambrose, An. Dom. 374, cited p. 192, 193
• Theophilus Alex. An Dom. 385, cited p. 194
• S. Augustin, A. D. 396, cited p. 184, 185, 196
• S. Chrysostom, A. D. 398, cited p. 181, 182, 183, 186 187, 193, 198.
• Aurelius Carthag A. D. 401, cited p. 195
• Isidor. Peleusiota, A. D. 412, cited p. 182, 185, 186, 187, 193, 195
• Zosimus Papa, A. D. 417, cited pag. 189
• Theodoretus Hist. A.D. 423, cited p. 184
• Socrates Hist. An. Dom. 440 cited p. 188
• Prosper Aquitan. A.D. 444, cited p. 190, 191
• Concil. Chalcedon. A.D. 450, cited p. 196
• Leo Imperator, An. Dom. 460, cited p. 197

By this Table it appears, that the eldest of his Authors lived in the mid­dle of the Fourth Age, and the last in the middle of the Fifth; the first was 134 years, and the last 40 years before the Year 500: So that unless they had the Spirit of Prophccy, they could not give any account what would be the state of the Church in that Age, which he designs to expose: And therefore all this is random Shot, or aimed at a wrong Mark, and can serve no other [Page 283] end, but only to gratifie those who take pleasure in hearing of the Ignorance or Vices of the Clergy. For if that Age, which these Authors describe, were not the Age when Liturgies were first im­posed, then all this Harangue is wholly impertinent to the matter in question: Only thus much perhaps we might infer from it, That if these Centuries which my Adversary hath so blackned, were before the imposing of Liturgies; then he (no doubt) believes there were no other Prayers used at that time, but such as were either Arbitrary or Extempore: whence it will follow, that all these proud, tyrannical, ignorant, vicious, superstitious and scandalous Priests and Bishops (ac­cording to his calculation) prayed Arbi­trarily and Extempore, which will be as little for the credit of his Method of Praying, as he meant it should be for the honour of our Way. I have only one thing more to add, viz. That in other parts of his Book, and in a better humor, he gives a tolerable good Cha­racter of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, which he so grosly disparages here; for he saith, Many there were excellently accomplished in the Fourth Age, and some [Page 284] till about the middle of the Fifth: So that it would be much for the Credit of Liturgies if they could be found, while there was any thing of such Eminency in the Church Disc. of Lit. pag. 155.. And again a little after, Dili­gent and frequent Preaching was the hap­piness of the Fourth, and part of the Fifth Age, and its security was the excellency of those Bishops, who were the lights and ornaments of those Times Disc. of Lit. p. 190.. So that for ought I know, this Age was a good one, for all this long Character of its degene­racy, and (if I had a mind) I could fill as many Pages in its commendation, as he hath done in its disgrace; and there­fore if Liturgies had come in then, it had been no hurt, no nor any disreputa­tion to them: However this Argument, thus managed, could not injure them.

Secondly, As to his formidable num­ber of invidious Quotations, I have taken the pains to examine them all; and besides, that jumbling of Authors and Times, and repeating the same In­stances twice or thrice, which is his usual way of proceeding, I dare assure the Reader, there are some of them falsly cited, more of them misapplied, and most of them impertinent; and though I [Page 285] doubt it will be a little tedious, yet I will make some short Remarks upon them, by which it will appear, that these Instances thus cited and applied, give a worse Character of him that produces them, than they do of the Age intended to be blackned by them.

Pag. 181, &c. If the Church were in so bad a state, in, and long before S. Chry­sostom's Time (as that Father piously complains) I would fain know when it was in a good state? Wherefore this must be taken for Rhetoric, and the effect of his Zeal against divers evil Men, not for a strict and universal Character of the Age; As we may learn from Isidore of Peleusium (who Wrote within 20 years after S. Chrysostom's Time, and was his Scholar) in an Epistle cited by my Ad­versary very often (though he omits this Passage) who admires this Age which S. Chrysostom condemns, and saith, There were Bishops then, who were lovers of Ver­tue, averse to Honour, delighting in Po­verty, and Fearing God Isidor. Pel. lib. 5. epist. 21. pag. 559.. So that these holy Men blamed their own Times, and commended the former, and no Argu­ment can be drawn from these pieces of popular Oratory.

Pag. 182. Isidore of Peleusium (who is so often cited) was a pious, but discon­tented Monk, living under the Jurisdi­ction of Theophilus; his dear Master, S. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy; and he was further provoked by one Eusebius, a very ill Man, who was Bishop of that Diocess where his Monastery stood, and by the profligate Lives of Zosimus and two other wicked Priests, ordained by the said Eusebius; and therefore he doth not speak of the Church in gene­ral (which a retired Monk could not be supposed to know) but in most of the Quotations he refers only to Theophilus and Eusebius, and some ill Clergy-men in that Province; yet my fraudulent Adversary still applies these Passages, as if he spake of all the Bishops and Priests in the World. As for the place here cited first, Isidore blames a Schism which had then hapned for all the Evils which were broken in upon the Church; and he adds, that they had now lost all the ( [...]), Gifts of former Ages Isid. Pel. lib. 3. ep. 480. pag. 410.; so that it seems the Gift of Prayer was then gon. The next Quotation out of Isidore Id. lib. 2. ep. 5. pag 128. only shews, that the Apostles Times were far better than those he lived in, [Page 287] nor doth he there blame any body, but himself, and so it is nothing to the purpose.

Pag. 183. The next Page contains nothing but his affirmation, That the Service of God was more corrupt than when it was first instituted. Origen in­deed shews, how the Pagans had cor­rupted it by their Idolatry, &c. which he applies to the Christian Church above 200 years after Origen's Death; and S. Chrysostom is not at all speaking of Religious Worship: In Matth. hom. 50. pag. 323.

Pag. 184. S. Augustin is twice cited, as if he blamed the Church of his Time, for prescribing numerous Rites and im­posing them; yet he lived 100 years before my Adversary allows there was any thing prescribed or imposed: But if we consult his Words, it will appear that S. Augustin is only speaking of Cor­rupt Practices, observed with great ex­actness by the Superstitious Vulgar not enjoyned by the Church: Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 119. cap. 19. idem de morib. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 34. It was these ignorant and super­stitious People who began to venerate Pictures and Sepulchres, for which the [Page 288] Church reproved them: And if Petrus Gnapheus did (as he pretends) put in the name of the Virgin into the Prayers, An. 483. He was a declared Heretick, and his Fact ought not to be charged upon the Orthodox, who did not imitate him therein: But Forms had found En­tertainment long before this.

Pag. 185, 186. He fills his Margen with Isidore's Complaints of Theophilus and Eusebius, and some others in those parts, as if Prelacy had degenerated, and the Bishops grown Tyrannical all the World over: And he generally breaks off his fraudulent Quotations just at those Words, which Isidore puts in, to declare, he doth not speak of all the Bishops and Clergy, no not in that Pro­vince: So he leaves out — [...] Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 21. which place is again so cited. pag. 187., These things I do not speak of all. Thus he writes horrid Corruption of the ClergyIbid. lib. 5. ep. 131.; but will not quote those words — [...] For all are not fallen into this Gulf. Again, he cites another Epistle for a general Accusation; where he might have found a large Encomium of one Clergy-man, and this limitation. [Page 289] — [...] I do not accuse all Idem lib. 3. ep. 223.. And he might, if he pleased, have seen a very high Character of Hermogenes, a Bishop of that Age and that CountryIdem lib. 5. ep. 448. p. 466.: But his omitting all these, shews he designedly perverted this Author to represent the Bishops and Clergy of this time, as being generally depraved; which argues my Adversary, to be as destitute of Integrity, as he was of Charity. I need not observe, that his Quotation out of S. Chrysostom; is no more but a just description of the Epis­copal Office, without any complaintChrysost. hom. 37. Tom. 6.. Nor that Isidore in the next place cited, is only speaking of the fore-mentioned evil Bishops and Clergy-menIsid. Peleus. lib. 5. ep. 272.: And it is not he (as the blundering Editor thought) but Nazianzen who adds the next words. And as for that Good Man, 'tis well known, he was angry and highly disobliged when he made the Oration here Quoted. And yet he doth not (as my Adversary saith) wish there were no Prelacy; that is, No Bishops at all: But only that there were no precedence of one Bishop before another, on the ac­count of the Dignity of their Sees; but that their Honour might be only [Page 290] according to their desert and vertueNazianz. Crat. [...]8.. And in his Rhetorical way of praising Athanasius, he plays the Orator in set­ing out the Character of an evil Bishop, and then shews, how unlike Athanasius was to suchNazianz. Crat. 21. in land. Athan.: But no man can think, that a true description of all the Bishops of that Age, is to be taken from such an occasional strain of Rhetorick.

Pag. 187. S. Jerom in his Cell, held Correspondence with, and paid Respect to all the eminent Bishops of the World, and was far from thinking the whole Order was degenerated into Tyranny: S Chrysostom doth not say, He was afraid of all the Bishops, or of the Bishops in general (as he pretends); but only of those who opposed him, which were in number but 36: And at that very time he had far more Bishops for him; but his Enemies oppressed him by the favour of the CourtChrysost. Ep 13. Tom. 7. pag 95. See his Life in Dr. C [...]ve. p. 485. And Arcadius the Emperour was very angry, by the In­formation which some banished Monks had given him, when he saith those hard Words of Theophilus of Alexandria, and his PartyGeorg. Al. vit. Chrysost. c. [...]9. Tom. 8. pag. 212., who had done many evil Things; but this must not be applied as the Character of all Bishops in that Age: [Page 291] And it is of those Bishops only that Isidore speaks, which (as appears by his very words here cited) refer only to some of the Bishops of that Country. For all under Theophilus his Jurisdiction did neither joyn with him, nor follow his Examp [...]eIsid. Pel. lib 2. ep. 125. and (which was ci [...]ed [...]e [...]e) lib. 5. ep. 21.: And how disingenuous is it (to say no worse) from his complaint of a Few, to affirm, That Episcopacy it self was become a tyrannical Licentiousness, y [...]a, and was turned into Tyranny. Besides, he cannot find one Complaint, that imposing Liturgies was then called or accounted any part of Tyranny; none accused any Bishops for that, which is the only Point we now dispute about.

Pag 188. After a long description of evil Bishops and Clergy in general, he comes in a Marginal Note to own, that Isidore confesseth there were some Bi­shops (in that Country, and at that time) who lived up to the Apostolical Character: So that still, he cannot con­clude from hence the whole Church was degenerated. And his next Quotation relates only to the Tyranny of Theophi­lus, and his Party, at Alexandria; yet Isidore saith that then in that Church there were famous Doctors, and approved [Page 292] Disciples Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 126., which my Adversary omits; and here again quotes divers Epistles, which he had cited beforeId lib. 3. [...]p. 223. & lib. 5 ep. 21, &c.; and at last quotes an Epistle, wherein Isidore only reproves one single Clergy-manId. lib. 4. ep. 229.; yet all these his careless Reader is to believe are good Evidence, to prove the whole Church was then depraved.

In the same Page, Socrates blames no more but two Bishops, and that too in his Partiality for the Novatians. And the Canon of Ephesus is a very good Law, made to prevent one Bishops usurp­ing over another, as is also that of Chal­cedon Concil. Eph. Can. 8. Bever. Tom. I. p. 104. Item Concil. Chal. Can. 12. ibid. pag. 126.. Now, though this shew there were some Bishops then, who aimed at evil Things, (as there ever was, and ever will be); yet the Major part of them in two General Councils) who carried the Vote for these Canons, disliked the thing, and took care to prevent it. So that these Laws shew, the greatest part of the Bishops were free from these Faults, and laboured to reform the rest; and can this be a Proof of the Dege­neracy of the whole Church?

Pag. 189. What he observes concerning the Popes, who begun to aim at the Supremacy about the Year 400, or soon [Page 293] after, is true in Fact; but this only shews the corruption of one See, and he knows, the greatest part of the Christian World (in that Age, and in di­vers succeeding) opposed these Attempts; which shews, the Church was not de­generated. And besides, this is nothing to the Point of Liturgies, because the very Popes Two hundred years after this, did not pretend to shew their Su­premacy by imposing their Liturgy on distant Churches, (as we have seen in Pope Gregory's Epistle to Augustin the Monk); and the Bishops of Lesser Sees, who did not pretend to this Supremacy, yet imposed their own Churches Liturgy on their own Members. He adds to this a pious Sentence or two out of S. Chry­sostom, which are only general Com­plaints in popular Discourses: But since this Supremacy began to be aimed at, in the Time of Chrysostom, I wonder why he should say, That a Sentence of his levelled against it, was forgot in his own Time, since it was more likely that it was never known to those at Rome, who were designing then to be Su­pream.

Pag. 190. Prosper, whom he cites for the evil Practices of Inferiour Bishops, declares he speaks only of some Bishops; and the Words are the Complaint of a very Pious Bishop of that AgeProsper de v [...] [...]tempt. cap 21.: Which Complaint Prosper answers very well in the next ChapterIb. cap. 22.; and a little alter he hath a lovely description of such as were good BishopsIb. c [...]p. 25.; and finally, he adds, And even at this time there is no doubt, but there are many among us full of all those good Episcopal Qualities, which you have truly described Pros [...]. ibid [...] 2. cap 2. & 3. Now, is it not a vile Artifice of my Adversary, to cite the Complaint only, as a general Character of all the Clergy of that Age, and not to mention those many Commendations of the better sort of them, though the same Author in the same place mentions both? as also, to talk of the suitableness of Liturgies to such Pastors? Since, according to him, that way of Worship did not come in till almost 60 Years after, when all these Pastors were dead; and by his Computation, these Men all prayed Arbitrarily or Extempore.

Pag. 191, 192. He next goes about to set out the lamentable Insufficiency of those who ministred by Liturgies (as he reckons) in the Year 500, by the Testi­monies of S. Basil S. Ambrose, and Na­zianzen, who all died above an Hundred years before that time: And S Ambrose only speaks of some few Simoniacks, who in his Time were a disgrace to their OrderAmbr. de Sacerd. dig. c. 5.. Nazianzen is only giving a Rhetorical Character of a Bad Bishop, to set off the glory of Athanasius (as we noted but nowNaz. Orat. 24. p. 378.). And in the next quoted Oration, he saith expresly, I neither dare, nor can justly accuse all Idem Orat. [...]0. in laud. Basilii, p. 335.; which Words in the same Page my Adversary must see, and yet he omitted them on purpose, to Arraign the whole Age. S. Basil doth not charge the We­stern Bishops with Ignorance in general, but only, That they did not, or would not understand the case and condition of the Eastern Church Basil. ep. pag. 285.: Yet this Man pro­duces this Passage, to prove, that the Bishops of the West, and the Chief of them, were a sort of Ignorant Fellows. His Margen applies it to Damasus, and he attempts to prove, Siricius and I [...]no­cent deserved the same Character, whose [Page 296] Vindication I leave to their own Friends, it being no hurt to my Cause, if two or three Bishops of one See were not so great Clerks, since that Age was full of Learned Men and Famous Scholars: And he can have no advantage to his Cause, if he could prove the most of these were ignorant, because Innocent (the last of them) lived almost an Hun­dred years before he will own Liturgies were imposed.

Pag. 193. That which he cites out of S. Chrysostom, relates only to some few Evil Men, as the Places will shewChrysost. de Sacerd. Orat. 3. pag. 24.: And (as we noted before) S. Ambrose is speaking of such only as came in by Simony Ambros de dign Sacerd. cap. 5.. That Epistle of Isidore's, which he cites thrice in this Page, seems plainly to refer only to one Simoniack Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 276.: And his next Quotation speaks only of some Corruption in one small Diocess, occasioned by an Evil Bishop newly admitted to Rule thereId. lib. 3. ep. 245.. And I appeal to any Man whether these be fit Proofs, that the whole Clergy were then depraved and corrupted.

Pag. 194. The like Appeal I may make concerning his next Quotations. The first place out of Isidore is only about Zosimus, one Ill Priest, Ordained by one Evil BishopIsid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 426.. The next Epistle expresly owns, that there were many Good Men remainingId. lib. 3. ep. 259.. The third place divides those Bishops into two Ranks, Good and Bad, and advises him to whom the Epistle is writ, to be of the former numberLib. 5. ep. 481.. The fourth Quotation shews how some, especially the Bishop of Peleusium, abused their AuthorityLib. 2. ep. 50.. The last Epistle saith no more, but that some were much worse by their high PlacesIbid. lib. 2. ep. 71.. In the same Page his Editor hath blundered the Text, by referring to wrong places in the Margen. But we will follow the order of the Margen; and, First, Sozo­men is only relating the History of S. Chrysostom's Deposing 13 Bishops in the Lesser Asia, and Palladius reckons them to be but six who suffered this SentenceSozom. lib. 8. cap. 6. pag. 452. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrysost.; yet even these were thought to have so hard measure, and their Crimes to be so small, that Chrysostom was very much censured for itSee Doctor Cave's Life of S. Chrysost. pag. 476.. The Character of Theophilus of Alexandria's [Page 298] Ordination, is cited from his bitter Enemies, who hated him upon the ac­count of Persecuting S. Chrysostom; Yet it if it be trueGeorg. Alex. vit. Chrysost. & Pallad., the whole Church ought not suffer, by the Facts of one evil Bishop. Nor must Chrysostoms ac­count, of those few Churches in Asia, which he saw in his ExileChrysost. Ep. 2., pass for an account of the whole World.

Pag. 195. The first place in this Mar­gen relates to the same thing, of which he discoursed in the last Page; and here he saith, Eusebius of Peleusium, (a crea­ture of Theophilus, and Isidore's Enemy) Ordained ( [...],) in the Plural number; but Isidore speaks only of one Zosimus ordained by him, who was ( [...]) an Ignorant FellowIbid. Pel. lib. 3. Ep. 81.. And the three next Epistles, concern only Zosimus and two more ill Priests, which Eusebius had ordainedId. lib. 5. Ep. 51, 52, & 53.; The two next Epistles also, only con­cer that single Bishop, and some few whom he had ordainedId. lib. 5. Ep. 140. & 147.. Only the Editor hath here made a woful jumble, and in the midst of a word ( [...]) Ep. 147. hath broken that word to pieces, and put down [...]— and [Page 299] then goes on with a whole Sentence, out of Epistle 140th, as far as to ( [...].) And then puts in the rest of the broken word, and Prints ( [...],) Epistle 147th, making it neither good Greek, nor so much as good Sense. In the same Page, we have an account of the Ignorance of the Af­rican Church, in the year of Christ 401. But this was 100 years before he will allow the use of Liturgies; and by his account, these Men were all to Pray Extempore, for which they do not seem to be very well Qualified; so that a Man who Reads this, must be apt to think, he hath dated the Original of Liturgies wrong, because it is no way Credible, that Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, and S. Augustin here also cited, would allow Men to Pray after that manner, who were so void of Learning and Judgment, that they neither could avoid Solecisms nor discern Heresy. But as to the matter of Fact, we have suffici­ent Testimony, (for all this good Bi­shops complaint) that there were at that time, many very Learned Men in Africa, and therefore this must be un­derstood, [Page 300] only of some few Churches.

Pag. 196. He rakes into the Subscrip­tions of Councils, to find out some Bishops who could not Write their own Names, but got others to Sub­scribe for them; and hence he seeks to confirm his Notion, of the Igno­rance of the Clergy in this Age. But to this I must reply, that the Subscripti­ons of some Councils, are not of any great Credit, nor void of Suspicion of ForgeryExistimo [...] subscriptiones illas quae hodie circumferuntur, fictas esse. Whitak. de Concil. Q. 4.. But if we do allow those of Ephesus and Chalcedon to be genuine, and his Quotations to be true, though I can find but one of them in Binius, (and have not Crabs Edition of the Councils besides me); There are but 4 Bishops in both these general Coun­cils, who are put to Subscribe by o­thers, because they could not Write their own Names: But there were near 200 Bishops at the Ephesine Council, and 630 at that of Chalcedon: Now suppose among 800 Bishops, there were 4 who could not Write, I hope (since there were 796 who could Write), it will not follow that the Age was Ignorant, or the most of the Bi­shops unlearned. And besides, he grants [Page 301] that these unlearned Bishops, were not fit to be trusted with making Extem­pore Prayers, and therefore it seems necessary that these Bishops should have Forms prescribed, which they either Read, or got them by Heart; and if so, then such Forms were used above 50 years before the Period he assigns. As for his last Instance of Leo's not ad­mitting any one to be a Bishop, unless he were perfect in the Psalter; I observe that this Emperor intended to prevent that Scandal, which had been given by those few unlearned Bishops in former Times; and therefore would have none admitted, but such as well understood the Psalter, which was a great part of the Liturgy, and part of it to be Read every day among the Prayers; so that it is very probable, that the usual Forms of public Prayer, were put into one Volume with the Psalter, as our Common Prayer is at this day. And I under­stand the Historians meaning to be, That Leo would admit no Man into any Order of the Clergy, who was not perfect in the public Book of Offices Theodor. Lector. Col. lib. 1. p. 182.; and if it be so Expounded, then it proves a constant and common use of Liturgies, [Page 302] An. 460. However it is well known, that (whatever was the lowest measure for qualifying a Man to be Ordained), there were very many Learned Clergy-Men in that Age; Yea, and in the fol­lowing Century also. But if the Church were so depraved as he represents it, some time before, and a little after the year 500; We have sufficiently shewed, it doth not hurt the cause of Liturgies, which were certainly come into use, many Ages before. And thus I will dismiss these Fraudulent and Invidious Reflections, upon the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, desiring the Readers Pardon, for following my Adversary in so Te­dious a Digression.

CHAP. V. Of the Agreement of the Refor­med Churches, in the Appro­bation and use of Liturgies.

§ 1. THere remains nothing now to make out prescribed Forms of Prayer, to be agreeable to Vincentius, Lirinensis his Golden-Rule; that is▪ to have been used always▪ by all Churches, and every whereVincent. Lirin. contra. Haeres. cap. 3. pag. 6.; But only to prove the Reformed Divines, do generally allow and commend Liturgies, and all the Eminent Protestant Churches use them. Now since the Learned and Pi­ous Promoters of the Reformation, did so narrowly examine into, and so Unanimously reject all those Doctrins, and Practices of the Roman Church, which did not agree to Holy Scripture and pure Antiquity; and yet none of them, did ever reckon prescribed Forms among those Corruptions, but appro­ved and established them, in those Churches which they had reformed; [Page 304] we may conclude, That Set Forms of Prayers and Liturgies are ageeable to Gods Word, and to the usage of the best Ages of the Church. And we have at this time, a more particular reason to make out this Consent of all setled Protestant Churches, as to the use of prescribed Forms: Because our Adversaries are perpetually calling upon us, to conform our selves to the Example of Foreign Reformed Churches; and pretending, that to al­low their way, will be a certain means to unite all Protestants, both at home and abroad. We confess, the end is a thing (at this Juncture) very desirable; but that which they suppose, is so far from being a probable means to obtain it, That if we should cast off our pre­scribed Forms, and set up their Extem­pore and Arbitrary way of Praying, we should act contrary to the Judg­ment of the best Protestant Writers, and to the Practice of the most famous Protestant Churches every where; but by continuing the use of our excellent Litur­gy, and binding all our Clergy to it, we follow the advice and example of all our Sister Churches: And can they imagin, that [Page 305] to oblige a few obstinate and singular leading Men, and their Ignorant and Enthusiastical followers; we will bring such a reproach upon our Church, as to cast away that Method of Praying, which is so consonant to Scripture and Antiquity, and so agreeable to the Opinion and practice of the best Protest­ants? It would be madness in us to do this, and it is little less in them to expect it: However because some of them are to this day, deluded with this gross mistake; That prescribed Forms are some of the remains of Popery, and a Liturgy established, is not allowed in other Protestant Churches; I shall conclude this Discourse, with some few proofs of the Opinion, and Practice of the most Eminent Divines and Churches of the Reformation, both Foreign and Domestic; and that in re­lation as well to Liturgies in general, as to our Liturgy in particular, when I have first observed, that the Learned and Industrious Mons. Durell, hath Col­lected a great number of these Testi­monies; some of which I have here in­serted, and added others of my own observation, referring the Reader for [Page 306] fuller satisfaction, to his elaborate BookDurell, View of the Gov. and public Worship of God, in the Reformed Churches be­yond the Seas Print. L [...]nd. 1662.. I begin with the Lutheran Churches, among whom the Reforma­tion first began, and who at this day do far exceed in number the Churches, which follow Calvins Method, and afford the greatest number of Foreign Protest­ants.

§ 2. And First, for Luther himself; There is no Man, can or dare Question his Approbation of Liturgies, and pre­scribed Forms of Prayer, it being well known, that he appointed such Forms, for all those Churches which he Re­formed; and in his works, we have a Form of Common Prayer for the Church of Wittenburgh, drawn up by himself out of the Mass-Book; but so, as to leave out that, which he thought to be Superstitious and CorruptedForma Mist. pro Ec­cles Wittenburg Ep. Luther. Tom. II. p. 384.. And all the Churches of his Commu­nion at this day, have and use a Litur­gy containing Collects, Epistles and Gospels, for every Sunday in the year: And also Set Forms of Hymns and Can­ticles, Prayers and Litanies; toge­ther with prescribed Offices, for all other parts of Ecclesiastical Ministra­tions, [Page 307] for Baptism, and the Lords Sup­per, for Matrimony, Visiting the Sick, Burying the Dead, &c. One of which lately Printed in a large Quarto, in the Danish Tongue, imposed on and used in the Churches of Denmark, was lately shewed, and in divers places intepret­ed to me, by an ingenious Pastor of that Country, Mons. Ivarus de Brinch, who came over with the Forces into England the last Winter, An. 1689. And besides the Agreement between our Collects, Epistles and Gospels, and theirs, I observed that their Litany is, almost Verbatim, the same with ours. And the Churches in upper Germany, which are Lutheran, have all such Li­turgies; I have one Book Dedicated to Joachim, Marquesse of Brandenburgh, Collected by Christopher Cornerus, Print­ed at Leipsick, An. 1588. with this Title, The select Canticles of the Old and New Testament, with the pure Hymns and Collects, which are wont to be sung, in the Orthodox and Catholic Church: He means of the Lutherans, who do all to this day, Chant or Sing their public Prayers, as we do in our Cathedrals. Now this Book contains their Canticles [Page 308] and Hymns, as also the Versicles, Re­sponses and Collects for every Sunday, and Holy-day in the year; very like to those in our Common-Prayer, and a Litany exactly agreeing with ours; in the Petitions, the Order and the Responses. And all these Offices are paraphrased by Cornerus Cantica sel [...]cta cum Hymn [...] & Col­lect [...]s pur [...]ri­bus, &c. per [...]r. Corn [...]rum. [...]. 1588., To which Litany aforesaid, I doubt but not Rivius alludes in his directions to a Parish-Priest; when as to Praying in times of Calamity he saith, you have ready, a Litany in the Vulgar Tongue, which you may use on that occasion; for all that is necessary, to be asked both in public and private are briefly contained there Jo. R [...]vii opera. Lib. de Officio pastorali pag. 705.. Besides, I have also lately seen another Book published by Jo. Federus, with this Title, A Book containing the Doctrine, Administration of the Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical Rites, &c. used in the Ter­ritories of the Dukes of MecklenburgLiber con­tinens Doctri­nam, Admi­n [...]strat. Sacram. &c. in ditione Duc. Megapo­lensium. [...]ranc­fera An. 1562.. In which there are Forms of Prayer and Praise, and prescribed Offices, for all sorts of Christian Service, especial­ly under the Title of Ceremonies Ibid. pag. 189, &c.. And in a word, all the Lutheran Churches every where impose, and con­stantly use these Set Forms in their [Page 309] public Worship; and their most Emi­nent Divines approve of this, as may be seen in Melanchton, who enjoyns the reciting the express Words of the Holy Forms Melancht. oper. Tom. 3. exp. in 6 Math. pag. 323.. Chemnitius saith, The Roma­nists unjustly condemn our Churches, be­cause in the Celebration of the Lords Supper, they choose as did the Ancients, to use Forms of Prayer, which are Ana­logous to the Faith; and tend to edifie the Church suitably to these Times; in which are comprehended all the substantial things, which were used in the Prayers of the Ancients Mart. Chem­nitii, exam. Concil. Trid. par. 2. pag. 91.. He grants indeed, they are not the very same with the Primi­tive Liturgies in all things, but affirms that they agree with them in the Es­sential parts. I will name but one more, viz. a Learned Danish Divine, who hath writ a general System of Theology; And he upon this Question, Whether it be lawful to use prescribed Forms of Prayer? Determines, That it is lawful for all, and necessary for many, to use a certain and prescribed Form of Words in Prayer Caspari Brochmondi Theol. System. vniv. Par. 2. cap. 3. Casu. 15. pag. 494.. To go on, The Protestant Churches in Poland and Lithuania, in two Synods held there, Ann. 1633. & 1634. enjoyned one certain Liturgy, [Page 310] to be used in all those Dominions; The Preface to which is printed at large by Mons. Durell Durel. vt su [...] in app [...]nd. pag. 321., to which Author, I shall also refer the Reader, for an ac­count of the several Liturgies used in Bremen Hessen, Transilvania, Hungary, Bohemia, &c. Id ibid. S [...]. 1. Num. 3. & 37, [...]8 39, &c. p. [...]. & p. 34 [...] [...]5, &c.. And I will only add that Memorable passage, in the Con­fession of Augsburgh; All those Rites are to be observed, which can be performed without Sin, and which conduce to good Order in the Church, such as certain Holy days, certain Holy things to be Sung, and other such Rites C [...]nf [...]ss. [...]. Art. 15. pag. 25.: By Holy things to be Sung, They mean their Prayers, which are all Sung in the Lu­theran Churches, as we noted but now.

§ 3. But perhaps some may Imagin, that those Churches who were Reform­ed by Calvin, Zuinglius or others, are not so much for prescribed Forms as the Lutherans; I will therefore here add a brief account of the Churches and Divines of Geneva, France, Helvetia, Holland▪ &c. I begin with the Famous Calvin, whose words have been often repeated, but must be set down once [Page 311] more, because our obstinate Adversa­ries, who pretend so much Reverence for him, do not regard them. As to the Form of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites, I do highly approve, it should be certain, from which it may not be lawful, for any Minister to vary in the exercise of his Function; as well in Consideration of the Weakness and Ignorance of some, as that it may more certainly appear, how all the Churches agree among them­selves; And lastly, that there may be a stop put to the giddy Lightness of some, who affect some kind of Novelties; and I have shewed before, that a Form of Ca­techism also is good on the same account: So therefore, There ought to be, A sta­ted Form of Catechizing, a stated Form of Administring the Sacraments, and a public Form of Prayers Calvin. ad Protect. Angl. Epist. 87. pag. 165.. This was Calvins advice, to the great Manager of the Reformation in England, under the Pious King Edward 6th. Whereby we may discern, that he highly approves of making and strictly imposing one certain Liturgy; and gives three weighty Rea­sons, why it must be imposed upon all the Clergy, which Reasons continue in full force even to this very day, and [Page 312] therefore if our Adversaries will allow him, for an Umpire in this Case, they must conform to this Liturgy, which is much more pure now, than it was in Calvins days, and all those Tolerabiles ineptiae (as he boldly called them) are now wholly left out. But to proceed, Calvin himself also made a Form of Divine Service, which is used to this day in the Churches of France, and in that of Geneva, and their Ministers are bound to the use of those Forms, in all their public Administrations. And I observe that Beza cites this Form of Prayer, and particularly that part of it, which is concerning the Ministra­tion of the Lords Supper, made (as he tells us) by Mr. Calvin; wherein, he saith, they had retained the Primitive Form, Lift up your Hearts, with a proper Paraphrase upon it, and also kept many ancient RitesTheodor. Ie [...] [...]esp. ad [...]ranc bald. inter Tract. Theol Tom II. pag. 229.. And Moses Amyraldus speaks of this Litur­gy, when he saith, And here for Ex­ample sake, I will Commemorate that great Wisdom and Temper, with which those public Forms of public Prayer were first composed which the Churches of France and Geneva do use — so that the very [Page 313] Papists, have put some of them into those several little Prayer Books, which they publish in the Vulgar Tongue, and deli­ver to their own People Amyrald. de secess. ab. Eccles. p. 225.; assuring us he had seen this with his own Eies, otherwise he could scarce have believed it. And a little before, this Author wishes that all Reformed Churches, would con­tribute their several Symbols; so as all Protestants might agree in one Common Form of Prayer Id. ibid. p. 224.. And not he a­lone, but all the Calvinists do general­ly allow, and use prescribed Forms of Prayer, as Mons. Durell hath very largely made out; to whose Observa­tions I will add two very Learned Men of the French Church, who free­ly own, that Liturgies and stated Forms, are of very ancient use in the Chri­stian Church, and these are the Lord Du-plessis, and Mons. Daillè, both which my Adversary often cites, as if they were of his Opinion, concerning the late Original of Prescribed Forms: But, first, Mornay Lord Du-Plessis, in his Book of the Mass, having shewed, That the Jews had Forms of public Service, adds — the First Christians then framed themselves after this manner of Service Mornay of the Mass. Book 1. pag. 19., [Page 314] and so runs the parallel between the Jewish and the Primitive Liturgy— And a little after he tells us. That those Authors who lived about the Year 800, declare, That some Forms were used from the beginning, and that they had indu­striously searched out the ancient Service of the Church—and they might also in their days possibly find the Books of Rites or Prescribed Forms used in the Church, before the Pope, assisted by the Power of Great Princes, had abolished the use and memory thereof Id. ib. pag 22.. Again, he owns a very ancient Form of Prayer used at the OffertoryIb chap 5. pag. 36.; and saith, there was a General Prayer for the whole World, and the Estate of the Church, which the Greeks call [...], and [...]— The Form whereof continued (as we have seen it) since the time of the Primitive Church, and is to be found and read in the Writers of that time Ib. pag 37.. He also confesseth in the same place, that there was anciently One Form of Salutation and Prefaces: Yea, in this whole Book he every where owns there were Primitive Forms, long before the Roman Church had cor­rupted their Service; and speaking of [Page 315] the Liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches, he doth not so much as pre­tend they had no prescribed Forms; only he notes, That though in substance the Service of these Churches do agree toge­ther; yet we must not imagine there was one and the same prescript Form observed and kept in them all Mornay, ut supr. chap. 6. pag. 43.. We see he grants Forms in all Churches, but so as there was some Variety between the Forms of several Churches. And now, how is it possible that this Great and Learned Man (had he not been misinterpreted) should be Evidence for my Adversaries Opinion of Liturgies, coming in after the Year 500? The like may be said of M. Dailé, who understood Antiquity, as well as any Writer that ever was of the French Reformed Church. Now, he frequently cites the Book, which goes under the Title of the Apostolical Constitutions, ascribed to S. Clement, wherein there is a very ancient Form of Liturgy used (as we have shewed) in the Church of Antioch; wherein there are prescribed Forms for all the Parts of Divine Service at large. Now this Learned Man thus speaks of that Writer, He seems to have compiled his Work a little before the [Page 316] Nicene Council Dailé de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 120.: And in another place he saith, In this Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, I think no man who under­stands any thing of Antiquity, can deny, but that the Author hath painted out the Form of Ecclesiastical Worship, such as it really was in those Times when he Writ Idem de Relig. cultus objecto, lib. 3. cap. 12.. By which we see, that he believed, The Ecclesiastical Worship was performed by a prescribed Liturgy, even before the First Council of Nice: Which appears also to have been his Opinion, by his citing this Liturgy of the Constitutions, with divers other ancient Liturgies; and then con­cluding thus; We our selves truly do not deny, but that very many of these Litur­gies which we have produced are ancient, and written about the very beginning of the Fourth Century, though we think that they were corrupted by Additions and Alterations at several times after their first Original Dailé de cult. Latin. relig lib. 3. cap. 13. p. 359.. Wherefore this studi­ous Searcher into Antiquity can be no Witness for my Adversary, since he very expresly affirms, That these Litur­gies were written out for Public use, in the very beginning of the Fourth Cen­tury; that is, as soon as the Church became setled, by the Conversion of [Page 317] Constantine the Great. To these we may add the Testimony of the Helvetian Divines, and others, who did not Re­form after Luther's Pattern: Bullenger saith, The Church hath Supplications, she also hath Holy days and Fasts; the Church celebrates the Sacraments according to certain Laws, at certain times, in a certain place, and by a prescribed Form, which is according to the received Rules and Ʋsage of the Church Bulleng. Decad. 2. Serm. 1. pag. 38.. In which Words he evidently justifies a prescribed Form, and owns, That the Church hath power to make such a Form, and that all her Members are obliged to use it. The eminent Lud. Lavater himself pub­lished the Common-Prayer-Book of the Tigurine Church, which I have seen and read: The Title of which is this, A Little Book of the Rites and Institutions of the Trigurine Church; Wherein is contained, The whole Order of their Divine Service, with the several Forms by which they Administer the Sacraments, and all other Offices which belong to the Mi­nisterial FunctionDe ritib. & institutis Eccles. Tigu­rinae Opuscu­lum, Edit. à Ludovic. La­vatero, An. 1559.; so that they also have stated and prescribed Forms. And Zanchius, one of the most Learned of the Divines of that Age, tells us, That Con­cord, [Page 318] and Decency or Order, cannot be observed in the Church, nor can all things be done decently and in order (as S. Paul commands) without Rules and Traditions, by which, as by certain Bonds, Order and Decorum is preserved; because there is such diversity in Mens Manners, such variety in their Minds, and such opposition in their Judgments, that no Polity is firm unless it be constituted by certain Laws; and without a Stated Form no Rites can be preserved Hieron: Lanch. Tom 7. In Com. praecip. cap. Doctrin. Christ. Loc. 16.. So that he pleads for the necessity of such a Form, and ac­cordingly all setled Protestant Churches have composed a Liturgy, and made Forms of Divine Service for their Clergy to Officiate by: So have the Churches of Holland, whose Common-Prayer-Book I have seen Translated into the Greek Tongue, with this Title [...]. Impres. Ludg. Bat. An. 1648., The Christian and Orthodox Doctrin and Order of the Belgick Churches, viz. Their Con­fession of Faith, their Catechism, their Liturgy, and their Ecclesiastical Canons. And in that Part which is their Liturgy, there are the Forms of Prayer pre­scribed for Baptism, for the Lords Sup­per, and for all the Occasional Offices; which Book so translated was Printed [Page 319] at Leiden, An. 1648. To this I may add another Book, put out by Jo. Alasco, a Noble Polonian Protestant, in the days of King Edward the Sixth; the Title whereof runs thus, The Form and Manner of the whole Ecclesiastical Ministration in the Church for Strangers, and especially Germans, appointed at London by the most Religious King Edward the Sixth, An. 1550Forma & ratio tota Ec­clesiastici mi­nisterii, &c. Lond. An. 1550.: Wherein there are also divers Set Forms of Prayer and Thanks­giving, to be used in the several Offices of their Church. And (to name no more) I have in my possession a Scotch-Common-Prayer-Book, said to be Com­posed by Mr. Knox, containing, A Ka­lendar with Holy-days, The Psalms of David in Meeter, Forms of Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick, Forms of Con­fession of Sin, A Form of Intercession for all Estates of Men, A Form of Prayer for the King, Forms for Admi­nistring the Lords Supper, and Baptism, The Form of Matrimony, and other occasional Offices, &c. for the use of the Kirk of Scotland; Imprinted at Middle­burgh, An. 1594. I do not cite these Books, as if there were no other, or no more Protestant Liturgies; but because [Page 320] I have seen all these lately, and have most of them by me; and because these are sufficient to convince any man, That all established Protestant Churches do approve of, and use Prescribed Forms; so that if we should cast off ours, to oblige that sort of Dissenters whom Mr. Clarkson Patronizes, we must act contrary to the judgment and practice of the most famous Protestant Churches abroad, and the most eminent Reformed Divines of all Nations; and therefore I refer it to any Man to consider, if this be a probable way to unite us with all Fo­rein Protestants, as some vainly discourse.

§. 4. I know nothing can remain to be objected now, unless it be, That there are some great and just Exceptions lye against our Liturgy in particular. To which I shall not now Reply, by Repeating what I have said in my Larger Discourses upon the Common-Prayer, where every one of the Obje­ctions, that I have ever met with, are considered and answered already: But I shall now shew, what esteem our Common-Prayer-Book hath been in among the most learned and judicious [Page 321] Protestant Writers, ever since it was first Compos'd. And I begin with Alexander Alesius, an eminent Scotch Divine, who Translated King Edward's Common-Prayer Book into Latin; and in his Preface to it, he saith, He did this, that it might be seen and read by many for the honour of the English Church, whose care and diligence herein he doubted not would be for the example and comfort of some, and for the shame of others; and he hoped it might provoke the rest of the Reformed, to imitate this most noble and divine Work, in setling the Church — believing, that God put it into his hands to publish it at that time for the General Good Praef. ad Libr. precum per Alex. A [...]es. inter Buceri script. Anglica [...], pag. 373, 3 [...]5, &c.; with much more to the same purpose. And here I must note, that probably this was that Inter­pretation of our English Service Book, which the judicious and modest Mr. Bu­cer looked over so diligently, to satisfie himself whether he ought to conform to it: And upon this he saith, When I throughly understood it, I gave Thanks to God, who had granted to this Church to Reform her Rites to that degree of Purity: For I found nothing in them which was not taken out of the Word of [Page 322] God, or at least which was contrary there­unto, if it were candidly expounded Buceri cen­sura super Libr. S [...]cro [...] praef. pag. 456.. And when by Archbishop Cranmer's special Command he had perused the whole Book, in order to his censuring what he thought was to be amended; He declares his Judgment thus, In the prescript Form for the Communion, and the daily Prayers, I see nothing writ in this Book, which is not taken out of the Word of God, if not in express Words, as the Psalms and Lessons, yet in Sense, as the Collects; and also the Order of these Lessons and Prayers, and the Times when they are to be used, are very agree­able to the Word of God, and to the Con­stitution observed in the Ancient Church Buceri cen­sura, &c. cap. 1. p. 457.. And afterwards, he is for writing down all holy Rites, and the Words of the sacred Administrations; and he owns, that the Church of England hath done this very purely, and conformable to Christ's Institution. As for the things which he modestly supposed might be altered for the better, it is evident, That most of them were regulated after­wards, and many of them were rectified according to his Advice there; so that we not only see, he was clearly for the [Page 323] use of prescribed Forms, but liked the Book of King Edward, with some few Amendments; and had he seen our present Common-Prayer, no doubt he would have wholly approved it. The next Evidence shall be the most learned Archbishop of Spalato, who affirms against Suarez, That the English Liturgy containeth nothing in it, which is not holy, which is not pious, and truly Christian as well as Catholic Ant. de Dom. Spalat. osteus. error. Fran. Suarez. cap. 6. §. 82. pag. 340.. And a little after, — The Form of Divine Offices, that is, of Public Prayers for all England, which (as I have said) is taken out of the most ancient and most laudable Li­turgies (approved even by the Roman Church) collected with great Judgment; so as to leave out those things which the Romanists themselves are not very ready to defend Ibid §. 37. pag. 342.. Thus this Great Man stops the Mouth of a Malicious Enemy to our Liturgy: And Causabon at the same time had as great an esteem for it. For in his Epistle to King James the First he saith, Your Majesty hath such a Church in your Kingdoms, partly so instituted of Old, and partly so regulated by your Endea­vours, that none at this day comes nearer to the Form of the most Flourishing Ages [Page 324] of the Ancient Church, following a middle way between those who have offended, both in the Excess and the Defect Causa [...] Ep. ad Reg. jac. prae [...]ix. ad exerc. Baron.. And in an Epistle to Salmasius he saith, If his Conjecture do not fail, the soundest part of the whole Reformation is in EnglandId. Ep. ad Salmas. qu. 709.. Moreover, Salmasius him­self, though in some Points he differed from our Church, yet relates it as a Reason of King Charles the Martyrs constancy to our Liturgy, That the Form of it was long since approved by most of the Reformed Pastors, and those, Men of the first Rank both in France and else­where; and as being a Book which seemed to contain nothing, but what agreed to Piety, and to the Evangelical Doctrin Salm [...]s. defens. reg. cap. 8.. To him I will add another Man of incomparable Learning, who had no Obligations to this Church of England, but rather the contrary; which is the Famous Hugo Grotius, who saith, I am sure the English Liturgy, the Rite of Laying Hands on Children in memory of their Baptism, the Authority of Bishops, of Synods consisting of none but the Clergy, and many such like things, do sufficiently agree to the Orders of the Ancient Church, from which we cannot deny, but [Page 325] that we have departed both in France and HollandGrot. ad Boetslaer. ep. 62. pag. 21.. And whoever considers these most Eminent Writers great Judg­ment in Antiquity, may very well allow them to be sufficient Witnesses in this Question. But none of the Forein Di­vines are more full or more clear in deter­mining this Matter than the deservedly famous Lud. Capellus, who lived to hear of this very Independent Sect, who rejected our English Liturgy, and all prescribed Forms; and writ a most claborate Thesis, on purpose to answer and expose their frivolous Objections; a Thesis deserving to be read by all English Divines, and to be wholly translated into English for the Common Good, out of which at present I will only recite a few Passages, viz. That as soon as Miraculous Gifts ceased, and Hereticks began to infest the Church, there was a necessity for Liturgies, which wise and pious Bishops composed for the use of all the Presbyters in their Diocesses Theses Sal­murienses Prae­sid. Lud. Capello, par. 3. De Liturg. Formulis con­ceptis, Thes. 3. pag. 657.. This was done chiefly in the Great Churches, as that of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, &c. and followed by Lesser Churches Ibid. Thes. 4▪. These Forms were short and plain at first, consisting of some [Page 326] few Prayers, and Lessons, cut of the Psalms and other Scripture, with the Blessing, Consecration, and distribution of the Communion, &c. And such was the Roman Office in the first Four Ages till Damasus's time; but augmented and corrupted by the following Popes Ibid. Thes. 5.. And then he hath these Words, which I will transcribe at large; But about 140 years ago, when there was a Departure from the Roman Church, and the People came out of Babylon, and withdrew themselves from the Pope's Tyranny; The Authors of the Reformation, then purged the Holy Liturgy from all the Superstition and Popish Idolatry, and took away all that was burthensom, and that did not tend to Edification: And thus at that time there were divers prescribed Forms of Liturgies simple and pure, Composed by the several Authors of the Reformation in Germany, France, England, Scotland, Holland, &c. which differed as little as could be from the ancient Forms of the Primitive Church, which Liturgies the Protestants have used hitherto happily, and with good success, in their several Nations and Districts: Ʋntil very lately there arose in England a sort of morose, [Page 327] scrupulous, and too nice (that I say not, down-right superstitious) Men, who for many trifling Reasons of no moment, not only dislike the Liturgy hitherto used in that Church, but would have both it and the whole Order of Bishops to be utterly abrogated and abolished, in place whereof they would substitute that which they call their Directory — To which some wild and frantick Men add this Opinion, That it is unlawful to use any prescribed Form, either in public or private Prayers, and that no good Man can with a safe Conscience be present at these Prayers Id ibid. Thes. 6, & 7. pag. 658.. After this he acurately states the Controversie, by distinguishing about the several Parts of the Public Service, and proves Forms may lawfully be used in any part of it; but as to Prayers, he reckons it is most requisite they be made by FormsThes. 9. ad Thes. 23. pag. 659, &c. And then he brings in all their Obje­ctions against Forms, and all their little Reasons for their Arbitrary way, and very learnedly and solidly confutes them all. I shall only mention the Heads (and refer the Reader to the Discourse it self for his full satisfaction) viz. 1. He shews, this is not an imita­tion of the Papists: 2. Not a burden [Page 328] to Mens Consciences: 3. Not worse, because it was not the way in the Apostles Times: 4. A Directory is not sufficient security against Heresie: 5 He shews. That though Forms are most necessary for the Unlearned, yet the Learned ought not to be left free in the Public Prayers: 6. He proves, this is not that Will-worship which is forbidden in Scripture: 7. He confutes those who say, These are not our own Prayers: 8. And those who pretend, they are against Christian Liberty: 9. Or that they spoil Ministers Gifts: 10. Or do not profit the Auditory: And lastly, He answers that Objection, That the use of Forms hinders our lifting up our Eyes in PrayerId. ibid. Thes [...]4 &c. ad pag. 669.. And after he hath called all these, light and frivolous little Rea­sons and petty Objections, He concludes the whole Question with five Positions: First, That Forms are not absolutely necessary for all Persons, in all Times and Places: Secondly, That they would not be generally necessary, but only because all things are to be done de­cently and in order: Thirdly, That where there are Unlearned Pastors, there Forms are absolutely necessary: Fourth­ly, [Page 329] Even where there are Learned Pastors, a public Form is very useful and necessary for the common Edifica­tion of the Church: Fifthly, The use of these Forms cannot justly be condemned or disliked, since always and every where it is most convenient, and hath obtained in the whole Christian Church throughout all the World perpetually for above 1300 years, and it is now every where used, but only amongst these Ʋpstart Independents Id. ibid. Thes. 49. p. 669: So that truly, the Moroseness or Scru­pulousness, and Superstition, or rather the petulant and obstinate boldness of these Men, is senseless and prodigious, supersti­tiously to condemn, and foolishly to compare to an Idol (forbid in the Second Command­ment, to be avoided by all) a Thing, which is in it self most innocent, whose use is most profitable, and its observation most convenient, which hath so long been pra­ctised in the Ʋniversal Church, and never was yet rejected by any Church; and which all the Churches of God every where now use to their great benefit; but they reject it out of meer Whimsey, or out of a Vile design, to bring in an unbridled Licentiousness and intolerable Disorder into the Church. But amongst them such [Page 330] are most to be detested, who either will not use the Lords Prayer, or none but that Form, and that without joyning it to any other Prayers public or private; and hold it a Sin for any good Man to be in a Church or a Family where they use prescribed Forms, and account this to be a just cause of Separating from such Worship, lest they should be defiled with their Sin, who use such Forms. These are like those in Isaiah, Chap. lxv. 5. which say, Stand by thy self, come not near, for I am holier than thou; these are (saith the Lord) a Smoke in my Nose; That is, They vehemently stir up my Wrath against them. God grant they may return to a better mind Id. ibid. Thes. 50, & 51. pag. 670.. Thus that pious and learned Author concludes his Learned Theses, and I will only make one Remark more of his, concerning this Sort of Men, viz. That nothing seems to incite them so studiously to condemn all Forms of Liturgy, like the love of Inno­vation, and the design of introducing Cor­ruption, that under the specious veil and pretence of liberty of Praying and Pro­phecying, they may bring in all kind of Sects into the Church; and therefore they make Men believe that vain, false, and [Page 331] erroneous Opinion, viz. That in our Times, as well as the Apostles, the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication is to be poured out on the present Church, according to Joel ii. 28. and Zech. xii. 10. which is the common and most pestilent Error of all Phanaticks about the Comforter which Christ was to send Id. ibid. Thes. 28. p. 663.: It is a Reformed Divine of the French Church, Second to none of his Time for Learning, Piety, and Judgment, a famous Professor in an Eminent Protestant University, who gives this Character of that Party of our Dissenters, who are against all Pre­scribed Forms, and by it we may discern what Notion Forein Churches have of them, and of our Liturgy also. I shall end these Forein Testimonies with a Paper delivered to me, Signed by two Exiled French Pastors of great Piety and good Learning, now residing in this City: We, whose Names are hereunto Sub­scribed, being asked what we thought of Liturgies, have expressed our Opinion in these Words: We think a Liturgy in the Church is not only useful, but also necessary; For as there is, and ought to be One Rule of Faith, so also there ought to be One and the same Form of Gods public exter­nal [Page 332] Worship: And it manifestly appears, That the Protestants of the French Churches never were against such Forms, because they had a Form for Administring the Sacraments, for celebrating Matri­mony, and certain other Prescribed Prayers which none of us were allowed to recede from Carol. Daubuz. Minist Gal. Johan. Costeba­deus Minist. Gal.. Dated at York, April 8. 1690. And now I will produce only two Domestick Testimonies of Men most entirely Unexceptionable, and so conclude: The first is that of Bishop Ridley, who died a Martyr for the Pro­testant Faith, and he in a Letter writ to his Friends a little before his Martyr­dom saith, This Church had of late, (i. e. in K. Edwards days) the whole Divine Ser­vice, all common and public Prayers, Or­dained to be said and heard in the common Congregation, not only framed and fashioned to the true vein of Holy Scripture; but also set forth according to the Commandment of the Lord, and S. Pauls Doctrin, for the Peo­ples Edification in their Vulgar Tongue Bish. Rid­lies Farewell, An. 1555. in Fox, Acts & Monum. Vol. 2 pag. 1940.. This was the Opinion of this great and glorious Martyr, concerning our Com­mon-Prayer, before it was so refined as it hath since been. And as to the Li­turgy, as it was Corrected by Queen [Page 333] Elizabeth, the incomparable Bishop Juell in his never enough to be admired Apo­logy, gives this Testimony of it; We have come as near as ever we could, to the Church of the Apostles, and to that of the old Catholic Bishops, and Fathers, while we know it was yet pure, and (as Tertullian saith) an uncorrupt Virgin, not stained hitherto with any Idolatry, or any grievous or notorious Error. And we have directed not only our Doctrin but also our Sacraments, and our Form of public Pray­ers by their Rites and Institutions Juelli Apo­log. Lat. edit. Lond. 1591. pag. 170.. I need add no more Evidence in a mat­ter so plain, for this will shew to all, whom Interest and wilful Prejudice doth not blind, both that all Foreign Churches, and Eminent Writers do approve of prescribed Forms, and that they as well as our own Reformers, gene­rally esteem our Liturgy, as a most ex­cellent Form of Service.

Wherefore, I will now conclude with a charitable and compassionate Address, to those unhappy, but well meaning Dissenters, who are designedly imposed on by their interested Teachers; I doubt not but many of them, sincerely desire to worship God in the most acceptable [Page 334] way; and the reason why they sepa­rate from our Worship, is because they have been industriously prejudiced a­gainst Forms, as a Novel Corruption, a Popish Superstition, a Method of Praying contrary to Scripture, and to the Judgment and Practice, as well of the Primitive and Ancient, as of the Protestant and Modern Churches. But now, my Brethren, when all this is proved to be nothing else but Falshood and Malice, I hope you will suffer your selves to be undeceived, and joyn with us in that way of Praying, which was used by the Saints in the old Te­stament, enjoyned by Christ in the New, practised by all those Holy Bishops and Devout Christians, who lived ever since the first setling of the Church, and now allowed and observed in all Re­gular Protestant Churches; And espe­cially since we have a Liturgy so gene­rally approved by them all. You have heard their Judgments of it, and you may see the Practice of these Foreign Protestants, who come hither from France and Holland, Germany and Den­mark; they all like our Worship, and as soon as they understand our Lan­guage, [Page 335] joyn with us in it, There never (saith Mons. Bochart) was any of us in England, who did not freely come to your Divine Service, as soon as they had learn­ed your Tongue; none of us who did not receive the Holy Sacrament from Pres­byters ordained by Bishops, or if occasi­on were, from Bishops themselves; which I my self profess, I often did with great profit, while I studied Divinity at London and OxfordSamuel Bochart Ep. ad Claris. Morleum. ap. Durel. p. 64.. Foreign Protestants joyn with us, and wonder at you for separating from us; And can you still be made to believe our Service is Po­pish, or that it is the Protestant inter­est, either for us to cast off this our Protestant way of Serving God; or you, by continuing in your Separation, to divide and weaken the most famous and best established Protestant Church in the World? I do in the Bowels of Jesus Christ beseech you to cast off your Roman-like implicite Faith, in those who have so evidently deluded you, and to lay aside your prejudices, which you may here see, are so ill grounded; For if once you discern your Error, and can conquer your unfortu­nate Mistakes, I doubt not but all of [Page 336] you, who have no other ends to serve but those of Piety, may come to our Churches, and will find great comfort and benefit by our rational, pure and Primitive Forms; and will soon see the Danger and Emptiness of that way of Praying, which you have admired; Which will tend to your own Happi­ness, as well as to the Peace and Esta­blishment both of our Church and State. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. II. 7. To the only wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, Domi­nion and Power, both now and ever, Amen. Jude, ver. 25.

CHAP. I. Of Liturgies in the first Cen­tury.

§ 1. This first Period is very ob­scure, because the Bishops and Pastors being almost wholly employed in converting the Nations, did write very little; and scarce any thing of that which they did write is come to our Hands: So that we cannot expect much evidene for Litur­gies in this Century, wherein how­ever, this Author could find nothing that made against them, and so hath past it over in silence; but we shall observe,

[...]lo judaens, Ann. Dom. 60. First, That Philo and Josephus do both so describe the Essenes, that not only Eusebius of Old, but divers learned Men of these Ages, believe them to have been Christians; or however that the first Christians ex­actly imitated their RitesPhilo de vit. Contem­plat. Joseph. bell. jud. lib. 2. cap. [...]. Euseb. hist. lib. 2. cap. 16.: Among which was this, to rise before the ari­sing of the Sun, and to Worship God by certain Prayers received from their Fore-fathers, as Josephus tells us. Now these Prayers could be no other than Forms, because they were delivered down to them from their Fathers. Philo also relates that they had a Choir of two sides, singing alternately, so that when one had begun to Sing, the rest answered him, by repeating the ends of the Verses, in imitation of those at the Red Sea: Now this way of alternate Singing, must be by some prescribed and known Forms, or else the Choir could never answer one another: Yet these kind of Prescrib­ed Hymns, sung in this manner, Eu­sebius here calls, The Hymns used among us Christians [...]. Euseb.: And that ex­cellent Historian labours to prove these Essenes were Christians, by this [Page 21] Argument, among some others, be­cause they Prayed and Sung Hymns, in set Forms, early in the Morning as the Christians use to do: Wherefore Eusebius who knew the first Age bet­ter than we, did believe this at least, that the Christians then had Forms of Prayer and Praise, which are the main parts of a Liturgy.

Secondly, Clemens Romanus Clemens Roma­nus, An. Dom. 90. in his Genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, (for we need not cite any spurious Tracts) intimates they then had a Litur­gy, for he saith, We ought to do all those things in order, which our Lord hath Commanded us to perform, viz. To Celebrate our Oblations and Litur­gies at certain times; —and a little after— Let every one of you in his Order offer his Eucharist to God, keep­ing a good Conscience with all Gravity, and not Swerving from the Determi­ned Rule of his Ministration; [...]. Epist. ad Co­rinth. edit. Oxon. 1669. pag. 92. which Golden Remain of true primitive An­tiquity shews, that the public Service was then performed in order by our Lords own Command; and that there was a determined Rule for the Admi­nistrations, from which no Man [Page 22] might swerve: which Rule being men­tioned by this Writer, who was a Companion to the Apostles, could be setled by none but by our Lord himself, or at least by the Apostles. And if our Adversaries say, this was only a Method, not a prescribed Li­turgy: I r [...]ply, they cannot prove this; and yet if they could, suppo­sing they needed an order, even while the Gifts of Prayer and Inspi­ration remained, when these are ceased, the Church may well be supposed to stand in as much need of prescribed Forms now, as they did of a deter­mined Order then.

P [...]n [...] [...]ua [...]r, An. Dom. [...]3.§ 2. Soon after this, we have an account of the Christian Worship, from the Pen of Pliny, who Writ to the Emperor Trajan, what he had ex­torted by Methods of Severity, from some of that profession, viz. That the Christians used to meet on a certain day, before it was Light, and alternately sang an Hymn to Christ as God; b [...]ding them [...]elves by a Sacrament, (not to any wicked thing, but) that they would not Steal, nor Rob, nor commit [Page 23] Adultery, nor break their Faith, nor with-hold the Pledge; Carmenque Christo, quasi Deo dicere secum in vicem, Plin. lib. 10. ep. Now if we remember Pliny was a Roman and a Heathen, we must suppose him to speak in their Phrases, and among them Carmen dicere, was to repeat a Prayer in a set form of Words: Vossius saith it was called [Carmen] though it were not Sung; for the Romans called every thing [Carmen,] which was in a set form of Words. Vossius com­ment. in dictam Epist. Plin. pag. 47. Brissonius also in­forms us, That they Prayed to the Gods [Solenni Carmine] with a set Form of Words, Brisson. de formul. p. 97. and that the Prayer for the Comitia was called Solenne Carmen, The solemn Prayer, though it were not composed by any Poetick measures: Id. ibid. pag. 137. And Livy speaks of the Solemn Form of Prayer in the same Phrase.Solenne Carmen pre­cationis, Liv. lib. 39. cap. 15. Wherefore since Pliny uses the Word Dicere, and not Canere, he may well be thought to have meant, They said a Prayer to Christ as God, in a set Form of Words. Yet because Tertullian, when he cites this passage, Paraphrases it, by Singing to Christ and to God. Ad canen­dum Chr sto & Deo. Tertul. Ap. cap. 2. We will allow it to be Expounded of an Hymn: but even so, since it was [Page 24] sung alternately, it is certain it must be a prescribed Form; and since Chri­stians were to Sing, as well as to Pray by the Spirit, we may be sure Forms are no hindrance to the Spirit; because if they were, it would be as unlawful to Sing, as (they pretend it is) to Pray by a Form. We also add, that this account exactly agrees with that of the Essenes, both in their be­ginning before Sunrising, and their Singing by Turns: Wherefore since those Essenes had Forms of Prayer as well as praise, we must conclude the Christians had so also: And we must either suppose, that Pliny gave a very imperfect account of the Chri­stian worship, and absurdly imagine, that Christians only sang praises with­out any Prayers in their Assemblies: Or we must grant he speaks of Hymns by a Synechdoche, putting them for the whole Christian Service; of which the Hymns were the greater and more Eminent part, and so mingled with the Prayers, that the one could not be separated from the other: For the Christians imitated Paul and Silas, who Praying, sang Hymns to God in [Page 25] the Prison [...] Act. xvi. 25.. They therefore mixed Hymns and Prayers, and the Hymns were so great a part of the Service, that to be present at the Morning Hymns Synod. Vinet. can. 14. An. 453. signifies, to be at the Morning Pray­er; And to be forbid to Sing in the Church, [...]. Isidor. Peleus. lib. 1. ep. 90. imports Excommunication from the whole Service: Wherefore if the Hymns were certainly in Forms prescribed, it is more than probable, the Prayers were so also; because it would have been very odd and pre­posterous to break off from Forms of praise, and run out into Extem­pore Prayers, in the ordinary Public Worship; one part of which at this rate, must have had no kind of Con­gruity to the other. Wherefore this Testimony proves that the greatest part of the Christians public Service, was performed by prescribed Forms in the first Century, and shews it is very probable, that their Prayers also were set Forms, even in that early Age.

§. 3. We have no Writer remaining in this Century but Ignatius, Ignatius Anti­och. An. Dom. 99. who lived also in some part of the next: [Page 26] And from him it seems very probable, that the Bishop did appoint one Form of Prayer and Supplication for the public Worship, especially for the Ad­ministration of the Sacraments; for he charges all those to whom he Writes, to do nothing without the Bishop; and orders them of Magnesia, to do nothing without the Bishop and the Presbyters, nor to make tryal of things which seemed agreeable to their private Fancies; but when they met together he tells them, they must have one Prayer and one Supplication: — [...] ep. ad Magnes. p. 34. declaring to those at Smirna, that the only Authentic Celebration of the Eu­charist and of Baptism, was that which the Bishop either performed or allowed. Ignat. Epist. ad Smirn. pag. 6. Now if their Prayers were varied every day, they could not properly be called one Prayer; And if every private Minister, might order the Form of Baptism and the Lords Sup­per as he pleased, (as our Extempore Men take on them to do;) how could Ignatius say none was Authentic un­less the Bishop allowed it? Therefore it is likely, they then had approved and uniform composures, both for [Page 27] Prayers and Sacraments. And as for their Praises, Socrates saith, Igna­tius first brought the usage of Singing by way of Antiphone, into the Church of Antioch;Socrat. histor. lib. 6. cap. 8. and the same is attested by Photius. In Dr. Ham. view of the Directory, pag. 145. Now if we consider, that this was the Method of Sing­ing Hymns among the Jews and Es­senes; and also among the Christians in this Age in other places, it can be no ways improbable, that Ignatius did set up this custom of Singing alternate­ly at Antioch. I know, some take excep­tions at the Vision of Angels, from whom he is said to learn this Me­thod: but let it be Noted, that this was an Age of Miracles, and that the Holy Scripture, represents the glori­ous Seraphins Singing in this Alter­nate manner.Isai. vi. 3. So that it is not unlikely, that so great a Saint and Martyr might have such a Vision; and Theodorets silence of this, (which is all this Author pretends against it,Disc. of Liturg. p. 167.) may proceed from his taking it for granted, and supposing it was ge­nerally owned and known. So that this will prove, Forms of Prayer approved by the Bishop, and Alter­nate [Page 28] Singing, which must be in pre­scribed Forms, was used in this Age: Wherein it seems there were Psalms and Hymns, written and composed by the Faithful, to glorify Christ, the Word of God. As that Primitive Author (cited by Eusebius) testifies, who Writ against the Heresy of Artemon; and among other Mediums, confutes it, by citing these very Hymns, which had been made almost from the beginning of Christianity, and were of so great Authority, that in the Reign of Per­tinax, Circ. An. 193. they were quoted as good Evidence in a matter of FaithEuseb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 28. pag. 145.. Now an Extempore Hymn, could not be cited, nor be produced as a Testi­mony; and therefore we conclude, there were Written Hymns, or Forms of Praise composed and allowed as E­vidence in points of Faith, from the very beginning of Christianity. And therefore we have reason, to suppose there was a Liturgy and Forms of Prayer also; and this may be suffici­ent for this dark Century.

CHAP. II. Of Liturgies in the Second Cen­tury.

§ 1. WE have not many Writings of this Age, and none that had occasion to write particular­ly of the Church Service; which they cared not to publish, lest the Pagans, under whom they lived, should deride or blaspheme their sacred Mysteries; and for this reason, we must not look for any clear Evidence of Liturgies as yet; though considering the Gospel was in planting, and Churches were but begun to be setled, there is as plain indication of the use of Forms as can be expected.

First, Lucian the Jeering Pagan, Lucian. An. Dom. 112. (who certainly had some knowledge of the Christian Rites,) describes his coming into a Religious Assembly, which by all the Circumstances must be a Christian Church; and he saith, he there heard That Prayer which be­gan with the Father, and ended with [Page 30] the Hymn of many Names. [...]. Lucian Philo­pat. p. 1128. Where we see the Christians had a certain Prayer known by its beginning, which therefore must be an usual Form: We may also perceive there was an Hymn at the end of this Prayer, commonly called the Hymn of many Names: which therefore probably was a Form also, or else this was no pro­per or certain description of it. I need not determine whether he means this of the Lords Prayer, and the Doxology only; though it is not likely so short a Form of Praise, (in which are only the Attributes, not the Names of God,) should be called the Hymn of Many Names. I rather think it might be meant of the Communion Office, which probably began with Our Father, &c. and after some other less remarkable Prayers, they added the Tricagion, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts: But whatever the parti­cular Forms were, this is certain, they were Forms of Prayer and Praise, known by their proper Titles, and that suffices to prove That Forms were then used in the Christian Wor­ship.

[Page 31]§ 2. Justin Martyr doth often speak of the Christian Assemblies,Justin Matyr An. Dom. 140. and of the several Duties there performed, Prayers and Hymns, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist; but gives no account in what Words they celebrated these Offices; for when he mentions. Bap­tism, he only saith, They are taught to Fast and Pray, and ask of God the forgiveness of their former Sins. And being brought where Water is, they are Regenerated in the same manner, as we were Regenerated, Just. M. Apol. 2. p. 93. which shews, that even in his time, they began to conceal the particular manner of Ce­lebrating these Mysteries. So that we cannot expect much light from him, as to the Christian Forms: Yet we must remember he lived in Palestina, and conversed much with the Jews, who then used Forms of Prayer and Praise, for which he never reproves them, nor doth he speak of any dif­ference between the Jewish and Chri­stian Worship, in this particular. But he hath some general expressions, which incline me to believe they had Forms in his time. I shall not insist [Page 32] upon his saying, they prayed for the Conversion of the Jews, and the deli­verance of the Gentiles from their Er­rors, and for all Men Just. M. dialog. cum Tryph. p. 363. & p. 335.; Though these are pieces of ancient Litany: But I will observe that when he speaks, of the bringing the Newly-baptized Person to the place where the Faithful worshiped God, he saith, They there made Common-Prayers for themselves, for the Person Baptized, and for all other Men every where, with great fervency. [...] Apoli. 2. p. 97. Now Common-Prayers do signify Forms that are known to all, and in which all may joyn; and therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Lords Prayer, which was that Form, which all the Christians used and re­peated together, calls it, a public and Common-Prayer Publica est nobis, & Com­munis Oratio. Cypr. de Or. Dom.; and to such Forms which all locally joyned in, Ignatius (before cited) refers, when he speaks of One Prayer and one Supplication. But our Adversary, who will not al­low this plain and natural exposition of Justin's Common-Prayer, stretches another ambiguous Phrase of his most extremely, to make it signifie Extempore Prayer, viz. ( [...]) [Page 33] The first place, he cites for this is in the next Page; The President offers up Pray­ers, and in like manner Thanksgivings as well as he is able [...] Apol. 2. p. 98.; this, he gives us twice overDisc. of Li­turg. p. 68. & p. 115., and most extremely glories, in it, spending ten Pages in Quotations, (most of which are nothing to the pur­pose) to strain it to his Sense of invent­ing Words as the Spirit enabled them, or Praying Extempore. To all which I answer, First, That if this were the Sense, it will not follow that because the [...]ishops in Justin Martyrs time, were inspired to make Extempore Prayers, therefore every private Minister in this Age, when Inspiration and that Gift of Prayer is ceased, hath the same ability now. Secondly, It seems he is hard put to it for proofs, when he is forced to lay so great stress on a single ambiguous Phrase, which may be otherwise inter­preted, since this Phrase can be no solid proof, unless his were the only Sense of it. But, Thirdly, I shall make it out, that it doth signify otherwise in this place. For [...] here, answers to [...] in the place before cited; That declares the Prayers at Baptism [Page 34] were made Fervently, or with all their might [...] apud Hesych. [...].. And this shews that the Prayers at the Eucharist were made (as Du-plessis Translates it) by the Pre­sident, with all the power and might that was in him. And thus in Scrip­ture the same Phrase is used by the LXX. (which version, Justin both uses and imitates,) for doing a thing with all our might [...] Eccles. 9.10.. For Solomon advises us, to do what we are about with all Application of Mind; and when the Phrase is applied to Prayer, it must signify to Pray as Fervently and devoutly as we are able: And doubtless when we desire the several things Prayed for in a Form with all the Earnestness and Vigour we can, we may properly be said to pray [...], as well as we are able, or to the utmost of our power: As in Plautus, Orare opere maximo, sig­nifies to intreat or beg a thing with ex­traordinary importunity Nunc te hoc orare jussit opere maxi­mo. Plaut. Mostel. iii. 2. Maximo te orabat opere. Eunuch. iii. 3.. So that the power here spoken of, refers to the affections, and not to the Phrases or expressions of him that prays; And therefore it hath no relation to Extem­pore Praying: Yea, if we review the [Page 35] place of Justin Martyr again, we shall see, that this Phrase doth not follow ( [...]) Prayers, but ( [...]) Thanksgivings; So that it doth chiefly, if not only, relate to the Hymns used in the Eucharist, which the Bishop of­fered up with all his might, that is, with all Fervency. Now these Hymns, as we have proved before, were known Forms, and yet Justin Martyr saith, they were offered up [...]. Wherefore this Phrase cannot be expounded here, that they made the Hymns Extempore. And our Adversary is forced to false point and miserably wrest a parallel place in this Author, to make it seem to belong only to Extempore PrayerDisc. of Liturg. p. 114. 115. he leaves out the stop between [...] & [...] vid. loc.; whereas there, this Phrase is very evidently joyned to the Word Praising, with the Words of Prayer and Thanksgiving in all our oblations, praising him ( [...]) as well as we are able [...] Just. M. Apol. 2. p. 60.. And withal it must be noted, that in this latter place, the Phrase is not, (as he pretends) applied to the Minister, but to all the Christian People, who no doubt joyned in the Hymns in public, with all possible Fervency and [Page 36] Devotion; (and that was [...],) yet did not make those Hymns Extem­pore. I suppose when the Son of Syrach said to the Jews, when you glorify the Lord, exalt him as much as you can — and when you exalt him, put forth all your strength — [...], (where the Greek Phrase is almost the same,) no man will be so absurd to imagin,— [...]. Ecclus. Cap. xliii. Ver. 30. he bid them e­very one make Extempore Hymns; For he plainly means, They should recite the Forms (used in their Nation,) with all imaginable Vigour and Devotion. And thus Origen (cited by him) applies the like Phrases; For he saith, all Christians in their own Tongues prayed to God, and praised him as well as they were able [...] Orig. in Cels. l. 8. p. 402.. And again speaking of all Christians, he saith, they Worshiped God and his only Son — according to their ability with Prayers and Praises [...] Ibid. pag. 386.: Not that every private Christian invented his Prayers and Praises Extempore, but used the Forms made for them (in public, especi­ally) with Vigorous affections, and Fervent Devotion; And if these places of Origen, do at all belong to Christians public Worship, (as they must do, if they be to the purpose in this dispute;) then [Page 37] we may be sure, private Christians were not allowed to make their own Pray­ers and Praises Extempore there; that would have bred such confusion, as St. Paul forbids expresly1 Cor. xiv. 26.; and yet Ori­gen assures us, they offered them up [...], therefore that Phrase must not be restrained to Extempore Prayer. No nor ( [...]) which he cites out of Nazianzen, where also all Christians are exhorted As well as they were able to Sing that Triumphant Hymn, (upon Julians being cut off,) which Israel Sang when the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea [...], &c. Naz. Orat. 3 pag. 54.. For Nazianzen there sets down the very Words, which he would have them all Sing, being indeed that same Hymn which is Recorded, Exod. xv. only a­dapted and fitted for this Occasion: Now if this Form was to be Sung ( [...]) as well as they were able; then the Phrase means no more here, but as Devoutly as they could, and can­not be applied to Extempore inventi­ons, to which he would gladly restrain it. I grant when this Phrase is applied to another subject matter, such as wri­ting [Page 38] Books, or Preaching, it sometimes signifies doing these things, as their Fancy and parts enable them; but all his Quotations of this kind are nothing to this dispute, where we are only to consider the Phrase, as it is applied to praying and praising God.So pro viri­bus in S. Augu­stine, signifies the strength of Devotion, not the strength of Fancy. And there we have shewed it never signifies doing these Extempore, but doing them very Devoutly; wherefore (that we may not tire the Reader (as he doth,) with num­berless Quotations, which are not to the point,) we conclude that the Bishop in Justin Martyr, did pray as earnestly as he was able, but not Extempore. I have been the larger in refuting this Exposi­tion because it is his main Argument, which he repeats and urges over and over, and triumphs in, as sufficient to carry the whole Cause; whereas for any thing appears, it rather proves the Chri­stians had Forms of Prayer and Praise at the Celebration of the Eucharist in Justin Martyrs time.

[Page 39]§. 3. Irenaeus is as wary as Justin Martyr, S. Irenaeus, An. Dom. 179, not to publish any of the Words used in the Christian Offices, though he speak both of Baptism and the Eucharist, and of the Prayers and Praises there, in general. Only when some of those Hereticks made an Argu­ment from the conclusion of a Form of Doxology to prove their Fancies by, on that occasion he is forced to mention it, and say, They alledge (saith he) also, that we in our Thanksgivings do say World without end [...] Iren. adv. haer. l. 1. c. 1. p. 16.. Now these words are the very Conclusion of the Gloria Patri— and being urged by the Here­ticks in way of Argument against the Orthodox, it must be a known, con­stant and never varied Form, of com­mon use in the Church; and therefore we may infer from thence, that in Ire­naeus his time, the Christians praised God in public by this very Form which we now use, Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. And (as we shall shew presently) the same Argu­ment, and grounded upon the same [Page 40] public Form is mentioned in Tertul­lian Tertul. de spe [...]ac. p. 83., in this same Age; which proves, that the Gloria Patri — was a Form not only in the Gallican, but also in the African Church.

Clemens Alex. An. Dom. 192.In this Century lived Clemens of Alexandria, who tells us, The Church is not only the Name of the Place for public Worship; but the Congregation prostrating themselves in Prayers, having all as it were one common Voice, and one Mind [...]. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.; alluding no doubt to those words of S. Paul, That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorifie God Rom. xv. 6.; that is (saith Grotius) That when ye praise God and pray to him, ye may do it not only with the same sound of Words, as Doxologies and Litanies use to be said; but also with a Mind full of mutual Love Grot. in loc.. So that praying and praising God as it were with one Mind and one Mouth, signifies performing these Offices by responsory Prayers and Praises, as they did in their Litanies and Doxologies of old, which must be in known Forms, because the People not only joyned in heart with the Minister, but vocally answered in their turns, they and the Priest often making up the Sentence between them, [Page 41] and therefore are said to have as it were One common Voice: So that this passage is a Paraphrase upon Ignatius his One Prayer and One Supplication, and upon Justin Martyr's Common Prayers; and it shews there were Forms mutually re­peated between Priest and People in Clemens Alex. his Time. Our Adversary would evade this by pretending, This one common Voice is meant of the Minister, who is the Peoples Mouth to God Discourse of Liturg. p. 136.; but let it be noted, that Clemens is not speak­ing of the Minister alone, but of him and the whole Congregation together; and if the Minister had said all the Prayers, he must save said plainly, They had one common Mouth, or Voice; but his Words are, Having as it were one com­mon Voice; which notes, that they joyned Voices in responsory Forms, and so made many Voices like unto one Voice; and this uniting of the Minister and People in putting up their Common-Prayers, shewed also the union of their Minds and Affection. Moreover, we may the more reasonably believe, that the Christians had Forms in Clemens his Time, because he saith, They allotted certain hours for Prayer, the Third, the Sixth [Page 42] and the Ninth, in imitation of Daniel and the Jews Clem. Alex. Strom. 7.. Now the Jews used Forms, and it is likely those who imi­tated them in the Times, would do it also in the Manner of Praying. Nor can we think that they who prayed so often, would vary the Phrase every time: What were the Words of their Forms then, Clemens no way relates; but the main Petitions were, First, For the par­don of Sin; Secondly, For deliverance from Temptation; Thirdly, For ability to do good Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 6.. Now these being the con­stant and common wants of all Men, and things daily needful for every one, it was most fit to ask them in a set Form of Words; and if they had pray'd for these things Extempore, Clemens could not have been so positive in the Method, as he seems to be. I had almost forgot one of his Objections, which is, That the Christians then lifted up their Hands and Eyes to Heaven in Prayer, which shews they had no Books Discourse of Liturg. pag. 9. & Clem. Alex. ibid.. I reply, It proves no such matter, be­cause though the Priest did read his part out of a Book, the People might lift up their Hands and Eyes, so long as he prayed alone; and by frequent use of [Page 43] the common Forms, both they and he would be so ready at the accustomed Words, as to have liberty enough to look off from their Books and look up to Heaven, as we in this Church often do in the use of our Liturgy.

§. 4. At the same time flourished Tertullian, Tertullian, An. Dom. 192. in whose Works we have sufficient evidence that they used Forms of Prayer and Praises: For he declares, That Christ hath fixed a new Form of Prayer for us, who are his Disciples, viz. The Lord's Prayer, which he expounds in a peculiar TractTertul. de Orat. cap. 1.; And in divers places calls it, The lawful and the ordinary Prayer De Orat. cap. 9. & de Jejun. cap. 15. pag. 553. de fuga in persec. cap. 2.; there being clear proof in him, that the Christians daily repeated this very Form. Now, if they used but one Form in their Devotions, they could not think Forms were unlawful, nor imagine that Forms stinted the Spirit, as our Dissenters now believe: Yea, that they used in public to pray by Forms, seems to be intimated in that Passage, That the Christians met together, and as if they were drawn up to Battel, did joyntly set upon God with their Prayers, which Violence was acceptable to [Page 44] the Almighty Quasi ma­nu factâ pre­cationibus am­biamus; haec vis Deo grata est. Tertul. Apol. cap. 39.; for this implies their joyning Voices as well as Hearts. And though he do not give us the very words of their Litany, because he writ to the Unbelievers; yet he describes some of the things which they desired of God to bestow on the Emperours, viz. That they might have a long life, and a quiet Empire; that their Family might be safe, their Armies valiant, their Senate faithful, their People virtuous, and that the whole World might be in peace Tertul. Apol. cap. 30.: And it must be noted, that Tertullian could not have quoted these particulars as a proof of the Christians Loyalty, if they had not generally asked these very things; Extempore Prayers would have been so various, that they could have been no evidence in this or any other case. Moreover, he calls the Offices used in the celebration of the Eucharist, Divine and Solemn Rites; and adds, That after these solemn Rites were finished, the People were dismissed — Dominica solennia — transacta so­lennia & di­missa plebe. Tert. de anim. cap. 9.; where, though he studiously avoid reciting any part of the Office, yet he intimates by that Phrase, it was a Form, because Solennes Preces, Solemn Prayers among the Ro­mans, were those certain and solemn words [Page 45] in Prayer, from which they might not vary Brisson. de formul. lib. 1. pag. 61.. He also saith concerning Baptism, That Christ had not only imposed the Law of Bap­tizing, but also prescribed the Form of it Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 13.. So that Baptism doubtless was performed then by a certain and set Form; and though our Adversary argues, that Tertullian uses variety of Words concerning this FormDiscourse of Liturg. pag. 94. & 95.; yet it is to be noted, that this is only in his discoursing concerning it, where Tertullian doth not pretend to cite the words, but mentions the thing occasionally: As to the Laudatory part of the Service, it appears from him, that they sang Psalms and Hymns alternately, and therefore in FormsTert. ad uxor. lib. 2. pag. 172., one of which Forms was the Gloria Patri, which he describes, as Irenaeus did, by the last words, World without end, Amen. For he asks the Christians, If they could give testi­mony to a Gladiator in the Theatre with that Mouth which said Amen in the Church; or if they could say, World without end to any but God or Christ Ex ore que Amen in san­ctum protuleris, gladiatori testi­monium reddere [...], alii omnino di­cere nisi Deo & Christo. Tert. de spectac. pag. 83.? From whence we may infer, that the Glory be to the Father, &c. which was a Form in the Gallican Church in Irenaeus his time, was also a Form used in Tertullian's time in Africa, and so may be justly taken for one of the primitive and universal Forms by which [Page 46] all Churches did glorifie God: And it will be very hard for our Adversary to give a Reason why they might not use Forms in their Prayers, as well as in their Praises. He urges against this one passage of Tertullian, where describing their Love-Feasts he saith, After they have washed their hands and brought in Lights, they called for some to sing either Psalms, or somewhat of their own Com­posing Tertul. Apol. cap. 39. Discourse of Liturg. p. 126, & 143.. But if we look on the place, we shall find this was after the public Worship was done, at their common Meal; and if this Hymn was taken out of the Psalms, then it was a Form most certainly; or if it were of their own Composing, probably it was made at home; however, it will not follow, that now those miraculous Gifts of Inspiration are ceased, we may compose Extempore Hymns, because they did it in an Age when many had those Gifts. Some other slight Objections he raises out of this Author against Forms of Prayer: As, First, That Christians then looked up to Heaven when they prayed Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. Disc. of Liturg. p. 9.. But this was answered before, and yet we must add, that Tertullian affirms, they did not always look up to Heaven in [Page 47] Prayer; For sometimes he saith, They did not look up with confidence toward Heaven, but imitated the Publican, who prayed with an humble and down-cast Coun­tenance Idem de Oratione, c. 13.. And S. Cyprian observes, That the Christians did not impudently lift up their Eyes to Heaven Cypr. de Orat. Dom. §. 4. p. 310: So that no Argument can be drawn from the one posture or the other. But his main Objection out of Tertullian is that Phrase of Sine monitore, quia de pectore, viz. That the Christians prayed without a Monitor, because they prayed out of their Breast, that is, as he expounds it, prayed Extempore Tertul. Apol. cap. 30.. To which I cannot yield, because a dark phrase of an ob­scure Author, which is capable of many Interpretations, must not be allowed for a proof of a new Method of Praying. I confess Bishop Bilson modestly saith, This seemeth to be meant of the miracu­lous Gift of Prayer, which dured in the Church unto his time Bilson's Christian Sub­ject, part 4. pag. 411.. But then he supposes this Gift ceased soon after, and believes that Liturgies came into use long before the time of S. Basil or S. Chrysostom Id. ibid. pag. 437.: So that if we allow this Bishops Exposition, none of our Adversaries Consequences will follow; [Page 48] for it doth no way prove, that Ministers may now pray Extempore after the mi­raculous Gift of Prayer is ceased, be­cause those who had that Gift, prayed in that manner. Though I confess I see no need thus to expound the Phrase; For allowing Rigaltius his ingenious ob­servation, that Tertullian here opposes the Christians way of praying to the Pagans, who had a Monitor standing by them when they recited their Solemn Forms, who prompted every Sentence to them that made the Prayer. But the difference lies in this, That the Christians had their Prayers by heart, and could repeat them out of their Memory, and he who can remember a thing needs no MonitorMemini tametsi nullus moneas. Terent. Eu­nuch. II. 1. ver. 10.. Whereas it seems the Gentile Priests were not very perfect in their Prayers, and had not committed them to their Memory, because they stood in need to have a Monitor for every Sentence. Now if this be the sense, then it supposes the Christians had Forms which they could say by heart, or repeat de pectore, and then it makes for us, and utterly discards Ex­tempore Prayers. Secondly, Another Learned Man explains this Phrase of [Page 49] those Secret and Mental Prayers, which every private Christian used in the so­lemn Assemblies on the stationary days, in the intervals between the public Offices, while all the Congregation kept silence. Now these Prayers being not Vocal, there needed no Monitor for them, being only made (as S. Cyprian expresses it) silently and modestly within the secrets of their own Breasts Tacitè & modestè intra ipsas pectoris latebras. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. See Falkner's Libert. Eccles. pag 117.; and if we consider how long they stayed at these stations, viz. for Nine hours toge­ther, and how certain it is that all the time was not taken up in the public Offices of Reading, Expounding, Sing­ing and Common Prayer, it will not be improbable that some space was allowed there for these Mental PrayersAlbaspin. lib. 1. obs. 16.; and if these be the Prayers Tertullian speaks of, then they are nothing to the Public Offices about which we dispute. But Thirdly, Upon a due survey of the place it appears, Tertullian is here proving the Christians sincere Loyalty, and shew­ing they exceeded the Heathens in this Vertue, and therefore made better Prayers for the Emperours, than their Pagan Subjects: For the Pagans had imbrued their hands in their Emperours [Page 50] Blood; But the Christians (saith he) lift up their Hands to Heaven, as being innocent. The Pagans veiled their Faces in Prayer, and might well do so, to hide their blushing at the contradiction be­tween their Actions and their Prayers; but Christians prayed bare-faced, and without any Guilt to make them blush: Pagans had a Monitor, because they had not laid their Petitions much to heart, nor could they think of them so rea­dily as the Christians, who needed no Monitor, because they prayed from their HeartsOratio de Conscientia procedit. Tertul. Exhort. ad cast. cap. 10. p. 513. most sincerely, affectionately, and with a true concern for the Empe­rour's safety: So that to pray out of the Breast, is to pray ex animo, from the Heart and Soul, the Breast (in all Authors) being usually put for the Mind and Soul Manibus expansis, quia innecuis; capite undo, quia non crubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectere era­mus pro omni­bus imperato­ribus, &c. Tertul. Apol. cap. 30.. Thus then we see there are three ways of expounding this ob­scure Phrase, each of which is more likely to be Tertullian's sense than his, and one of them must be expounded of Forms of Prayer; wherefore we cannot fear any Argument to be raised from hence against the use of Liturgies in public, which undoubtedly began to be generally received before the end of this Century.

CHAP. III. Of Liturgies in the Third Cen­tury.

§. 1. THough we have more Writers, and consequently more Evi­dence in this than in the former Age, concerning Common and prescribed Forms, yet there are several Reasons why the Fathers of this Century do not frequently mention the Words of those Forms: First, Because their business was chiefly to convert Heathens and confute Hereticks, and most of their Writings being upon those Subjects, they had little occasion to Mention their Ways of Worship, which in those days of Persecution was performed generally in private. Secondly, They knew the Heathens derided their Worship, and would ridicule and blaspheme it, if they had known it; and the Hereticks who disowned the Churches Authority which composed these Offices, would not allow any Argument drawn from [Page 52] the public Service; so that it was not fit to quote their Liturgy when they writ either to the one or the other of these two sorts of Adversaries. Thirdly, They kept the Knowledge of these Forms from their very Catechu­mens, till they were actually baptized, and kept them as a secret and sacred Mystery among the Faithful, and there­fore cautiously forbore the Mention of them in such Writings as were to come into all hands. I know Daileé pretends this opinion and practice of keeping these Mysteries secret, did not obtain till after the end of these three Centu­riesDail. de relig. cultus object. l. 2. c. 25. pag. 321, &c.. But he is grosly mistaken, as I could prove by many passages; but I will only instance in two, viz. Tertullian in the last Age, and S. Cyprian in this: the former argues, that the Heathens could not know what the Christian Worship was, because the Faithful would not discover it, since it was customary to keep all Mysteries secret—especially such as were punished, if they were disco­vered. And Strangers (he saith) could have no knowledge of them, since even pious Initiations ever keep out the pro­fane Ex formâ omnibus my­steriis silentii fides debeatur— & pp.—unde extraneis noti­tiae, cum etiam piae initiationes arceant profa­nos. Tert. Apol. cap. 7. p. 8.; that is, not only the Heathens, [Page 53] but the Christians in their pious ways of Worship kept out all Strangers, and such as were not fit to know them. Thus Tertullian and S. Cyprian tells an Heathen, who reviled Christianity, he ought not to answer him; because that which is holy is to be kept in our own Breast; for our Lord saith, we must not declare it to Swine, and expose it to Dogs Sanctum quotidie jubea­mur intra Con­scientiam no­stram tenere. Cypr. ad De­metr. §. 1. p. 324.: And from that same Text of Matth. VII. 6. the same Author proves, That the Mysteries of our Faith are not to be profaned by publishing them to those without Idem lib. 3. test. ad Quirin. §. 50. p. 429.. Wherefore since it is so clear even in these early Ages, that they were scrupulous of publishing their ways of Worship, we may conclude that no full and clear account of their Forms at large can be expected among these Writers: And it is sufficient that they mention some, and darkly hint at others of those Mysterious Forms some­times, and that they do plainly attest they had a prescribed Liturgy, though they had but seldom an occasion or an inclination to tell us what it was.

[Page 54] Hippolytus, Mar. An. Dom. 220.§. 2. Among the Writers of this Age, the first is Hippolytus a Bishop and Mar­tyr, who in his discourse of the End of the World, and the Coming of Antichrist, puts it among the Signs of those evil Times, That Liturgy shall be extinguished, singing of Psalms shall cease, and reading of Scripture shall not be heard [...]. Hippol. de Consum. Mund. Bib. Patr. T. 2. p. 357.. Which shews that the public Service (of which he there speaks) consisted then of three parts, The ministration of Prayers, Sing­ing of Psalms, and Reading the Scripture: And the first of these is called Liturgy, which though it signifie any public Ser­vice in general, and be sometimes ap­plied to the whole Public Worship; yet where it is limited only to Prayers (as it is here) it implies a Common Form used generally, which will be more pro­bable to be this Fathers Sense, if we consider that he saith, Liturgy shall be extinguished, that is, the public Forms shall not be permitted to be used, which cannot be properly said of Extempore Prayers, they being an inward Gift (as our Adversaries pretend): And Anti­christ himself hath no power to extin­guish or put out Mens Gifts: He may [Page 55] suppress the use of Forms of Prayer; but the Extempore Mens faculty was not liable to any such interdict, as could extinguish it: And why may we not believe the Prayers in this Age were suitable to the rest of the Offices? They sang by a Form out of a Book, and read the Lessons out of a Book, so that they scrupled not the use of Forms; wherefore there is no ground to believe they disliked Forms of Prayer, and con­sequently nothing to hinder us from expounding [...] in the usual sense, viz. of the Public Liturgy, which Anti­christ would not allow the Christians to use.

§. 3. Our next Author is the Famous Origen, Origen, Adam. An. Dom. 230. who hath so clear and convincing a Testimony for the use of a Liturgy in his Homilies on Jeremy, that the Learned Centuriators were convinced by it, that Set Forms of Prayer were used in his time, for they thus cite the place, It is (say they) without question, that they had some Set Forms of Prayer (in this Age); for Origen in his XIth Homily on Jeremy, seems to allude to those we now call Collects, where he tells us; We [Page 56] frequently say in our Prayers, Grant, O Almighty God, grant us a part with thy Prophets, and with the Apostles of thy Son Christ; grant that we may be found at the Feet of thy only begotten Formulas domque quas­dam precatio­num absque dubio habue­runt. Cent. Magdeb. cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 135.. And if we consider, that our Saviour pro­mised to such as were effectually Con­verted, that they should sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God Matth. viii. 11; and that the Holy Apostles and Prophets are describ'd in Scripture as rejoyc­ing together in Heaven Revel. xviii. 20., we shall be con­vinced this Form of Prayer is grounded upon Christ's Promise, and upon the Word of God, and consequently must own the Prayer to be pure and primi­tive. Indeed our Adversary uses many Artisices to wrest this Testimony from usDiscourse of Liturg p. 141., but all in vain: First, he saith, Ruffinus made many additions to Origens Homilies, so that possibly this may be one of his Additions. I Answer, If he were sure Ruffinus added this, yet since he lived in the next Century, that would serve to confute him, who maintains there were no prescribed Forms till the Fifth or Sixth Age: But we can make it very probable Ruffinus did not add this passage; First, because there is nothing [Page 57] in it, but what agrees, well enough to Origen's time, and to his Doctrin. Secondly, In Ruffinus his time they had made some steps towards Invocation of Saints, and therefore had it been a Prayer composed by him, there would have been some footsteps of that Super­stition; some Address to, or expectation from the Apostles and Prophets; where­as this Prayer only supposes them to be in Heaven, and desires God to grant us a part with them. Again, Our Adver­sary saith, These Words (if they be Ori­gens) will no more prove this was a pre­scribed Form, than S. Paul's was, Ephes. I. 16, 17. where he saith; He ceased not to make mention of the Ephesians in his Prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ — might give them tht Spirit of Wisdom, &c. I Reply, His Parallel will by no means hold, since the Apostle only relates and reckons up the things he asked for them; and speaking to the Ephesians, gives them an account of the Subject of his Petitions for them. But Origen is repeating the Words of a Prayer, and speaks directly to God, therefore this must be a Form of com­mon use, as the Magdeburg Divines [Page 58] believed it to be. Having thus detected his Sophistry and answered his Cavils, and so cleared this Evidence for a Set Form, we shall more easily understand that Origen refers to an usual Liturgy in another place, where he saith, They who serve God, through Jesus, in the Chri­stian way, and live according to the Gos­pel, use frequently (as becomes them) night and day the enjoyned Prayers [...]. Orig. in Cels. lib. 6. pag. 302.. Whence we infer, that the Christian way was to serve God night and day with prescribed Prayers; for the Participle ( [...]) signifies not only a thing enjoyned or commanded in gene­ral, as Isocrates and Aeschines use the word [...], Isocr. — [...], Aeschin. ita Math. i. 24., but so enjoyned, that the very order and manner of doing it is set down and particularly appointed: So those directions concerning the Leper's offering his Gift, which Moses prescribed in the Old Law, Levit. xiv. 4. is called, doing that which Moses ( [...]) commanded them; that is, which he pre­scribed how they should doMath. viii. 4. Mark i. 44. Luke v. 14.; and the Word whence it is derived, signifies to methodize, put in order, and to place Souldiers in their RanksCor. 15.23:; so [Page 59] to do all things [...], according to Order 1 Cor. xiv. 40., is to act according to a pre­scribed Rule; which Rule S. Paul saith, he will make or prescribe when he came1 Cor. xi. 34. [...].. This then being the proper and natural signification of this Word, we may reasonably expound it of Pre­scribed Forms of Prayer both for Morning and Evening, of which (as the Centuriators observe,) Origen speaks in other pla­cesMagdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 134.. But our Adversary would shift off this proof also, First, By asking, If these were not private Prayers Disc. of Li­turg. pag 140.? I Answer, The Words are general, not restrained either to public or private Pray­ers expresly; but it being certain the Chri­stians had a custom to assemble Morn­ing and Evening to Prayers, the phrase of using these Prayers, Night and Day, seems chiefly to be referred to public Offices. Secondly, He asks, If no Prayers can be commanded but in Set Forms? I Reply, The Word doth not barely signifie Prayers commanded, but enjoyned ac­cording to a prescribed Order (as I have proved). Now Prayers left to the In­vention of Men to be daily made new, cannot properly be called Ordered Pray­ers. And therefore though Christian [Page 60] Ministers were commanded to preach, yet the Words and Method being left to their invention or choice, our Adver­sary can no where find ( [...]) made use of as an Epithet for a Sermon or Homily. Note also, Origen doth not say, The Christians made these enjoyned Prayers, but used, them; which supposes they were made, into a prescribed Form before. Thirdly, He enquires, If there be no Commands for Praying frequently, but Human Prescriptions? and I must ask, what is this to the purpose? Origen is not speaking of Commanding Men to pray, nor declaring whether the Duty of Prayer be prescribed by God or the Church: He is speaking of the Prayers themselves, and gives them this Character that they were Ordered or Prescribed: so that he is very imper­tinent to tell us of Divine Commands to pray frequently, since Origen's Words are not about Obeying a Precept to Pray; but using ordered, enjoyned or prescri­bed Prayers, which all ingenuous Men must own to be in Forms, and that proves a Liturgy, because it is [Prayers] in the plural Number. Thirdly, in the same Books against Celsus, when Origen cites [Page 61] some certain passages out of the Psalms, [...]e brings them in with these Prefaces, We [...]nd in the Prayers — or, We say often in the Prayer [...]. Orig. in Cels. lib. 4. p. 178 [...], ibid. pag. 197.. And thus — it is said in the Prayer —; or, The prudent when he prayeth, [...]aith—Idem lib. 6. pag. 285. lib. 7. pag. 354.. Now when we consider, that the Psalms were the main part of the Jewish Liturgy, and that the Christians in the first Ages inclined to imitate their Forms; and above all the Old Testament, admired and frequently used the Book of Psalms, and took their Forms of Praise from thence, we may conclude, they borrowed many Forms of Prayer also from the Psalms, and transcribed them into their Liturgy, so that Origen appeals to these passages, as being known by the Christians to be a part of their Prayers: Which will still be clearer, when we observe, that the Abassine Christians, who are very tena­cious of primitive Rites, and derived most of their Usages from the Ancient Church of Alexandria, (as Ludolfus re­lates) Take most of their daily Prayers out of the Psalter Ludolf. hist. Ethiop. lib. 2. cap. 12.. And therefore Origen, who belonged to Alexandria, no doubt refers by these Prefaces to the public and known Liturgy, then used in that famous Church. Our Adversary is not [Page 62] pleased at this Inference; and whereas his own Eyes are so blinded with his Ex­tempore Way, that he cannot see the clearest light for Forms, he saith it argues a Fancy deeply tinctured with Liturgies, to suppose this to be any proof of them: But let it be noted, he barely asserts it is no proof, and most falsly represents the matter; for he saith, When Origen quotes any passage out of the Psalms, he thus speaks, &c. Discourse of Liturg. p. 139.. Now this is not true, because, first, Origen in that very Book cites an hundred passa­ges out of the Psalms without any such Preface, without saying, They are found in the Prayers, &c. Secondly, The places which he doth cite with such a Preface, are always very proper to be used in a Liturgy, as Forms of Praise or Prayer: Such as these, The Earth is full of the Goodness of the Lord; and, Open thou mine Eyes, that I may see the wondrous things of thy Law: Create in me a clean Heart, O God; and the like. So that these and no other passages being said, to be found in the Prayers, &c. no doubt we have all imaginable cause to think, that these very words of the Psalms were in Origen's time used in the Churches [Page 63] Liturgy, and prescribed in the Forms of Public Prayer. Especially since he can ascribe no sufficient Reason, but the peculiar use made of these Select places in the public Offices, which made Ori­gen quote them with such a Preface, and cite other passages of the Psalms, as he doth other Scriptures, without any Pre­face at all Fourthly, Our Adversary cites another place out of Origen's Ho­milies (taken at the second hand from Dailé) to prove, they used no Forms of Prayer in that Age; because it is said, Our Thoughts must not wander after our Senses in Prayer, but be wholly intent and fixed on God, not being disturbed by the Idea of any External appearance Orig. in Num. hom. XI.. I shall not here need to fly to his help at a dead lift, that possibly Ruffinus the Translator did put in these Words: For allowing them to be genuine, it must be more unlawful to let our Minds wander after new Phrases, and our Fancy rove about for Matter, Order and Words, which is the case in Extempore Prayer, than it is to repeat the Words of a known Form, which we can say by heart, or read without disturbance; because the actings of the Fancy and [Page 64] Invention in Extempore Prayer, do much more hinder the Mind from sted­dy thinking upon God, than having a Book before us in the recital of a com­mon and usual Form. Lastly, I hope it is needless to repeat what was shewed before, viz. That Origen's Phra­ses of Praising God as well as we are able [...] Orig. in Cels. l. 8. pag. 402., and Praying to him with all the might we have [...]. Id. ib. pag. 386. See the Dis­course of Li­turg. p. 127, &c., do not at all prove Extempore Praising or Praying was then in use: Or shew, That Ministers then used no Forms in the public Worship, both because Origen saith this of all the People, who cannot be supposed uni­versally to have had this Gift of Prais­ing God and Praying to him Extem­pore; nor, if any of them had it, were they allowed ordinarily to exercise it in public Assemblies: And also, because the Phrases do signifie no more than Praying or Praising God by Forms, with all possible fervency and devotion. Origen therefore is a good Witness for Liturgies, and all his Sophistry cannot draw one Argument from him against the use of them in his time.

[Page 65]§. 4. The holy Martyr S. Cyprian S. Cyprian. An. Dom. 248. witnesseth the very same thing: For that he was not against the use of Forms of Prayer, may appear from his allow­ing the Lords Prayer to be used, as a Form of Prayer, which Christ himself gave us Cypr. de orat. Dom. §. 1. pag. 309.. And he would have us repeat the very Words of it, because we may be assured, The Father will know the Words, which were made by his own Son Id. ibid. § 2.; Yea from the manner of drawing up this Prayer, so as all the Peo­ple are supposed to repeat it with the Mi­nister, he justifies the use of Set Forms, wherein the Congregation bears a part, for he observes, That the Christians had a public and Common-Prayer Publica est nobis & com­munis oratio. ibid. §. 5. p. 310.; and that Christ Commanded us to Pray for all Men, in a Common Prayer wherein all agreed Oratione communi, & concordi prece, pro omnibus jussit orare. Cypr. ad cler. & pleb. ep. 8. pag. 24.. Now suppose we grant that he speaks this of the Lords Prayer, yet since all other Prayers, were to be drawn up by this pattern, this will prove, that their other Prayers were in all things like to this, that is, that they were not made Extempore, but were put into a Form as the Lords Prayer is; and repeated by all the Congrega­tion, [Page 66] either with, or after the Minister. But there are still more evident Proofs in him, not only of Forms, but of a Liturgy, viz. where he cites and explains those very Words of Common-Prayer in the Prefaces, which were used in all Churches in the same Words: for he persuades Christians to attend to their Prayers in public, by putting them in mind that the Priest before the Prayer, prepares the Hearts of the Brethren, by a Preface premised, saying; Lift up your Hearts; so that when they answer, We Lift them up unto the Lord, they may be admonished to think upon God alone Ideo & sa­cerdos ante Ora­tionem, praefa­tione praemissà, parat fratrum mentes dicendo, Surium corda, ut dum respon­deat plebi, ha­benus ad Do­minum, admo­ [...]eatur se nihil aliud quam Dominum de­bere cogitare. Id de orat. Dom. §. 22.. Now here we have a Form of Words used in the Eucharist, not only in Africa, but both in the Eastern and Western Churches; and this also used by way of Response, and divided be­tween the Priest and People, which is impossible to be done in any thing that the Priest saith Extempore. And though he cites no more of this Preface than the first Words, yet other Authors, both in the African and Greek Church, mention the rest of this primitive Form, viz. It is meet and right so to do, &c. Even as it is yet, (in so many [Page 67] Words) Transcribed in our Communion Service; wherefore the Judicious Centu­riators do rightly infer from hence, That there were undoubtedly Set Forms of Prayer in S. Cyprians time Magd. Cent. 3. cap. 6 p. 135., which they prove by citing this Preface. Yea B. Bilson concludes from this and other passages, that Christs Church, taking her direction from S. Pauls Doctrin, framed her public Prayers in such order, that the Pastor and People both joyntly and in­terchangeably, Praised God and Prayed to him, each with other, and each for other Bilson of Christian Sub­jection. Part. 4. pag. 435. Now how could there be these fixed places for Responses, if the Priest had made only one long Extem­pore Prayer (as our Dissenters do?) It is plain from this very method of Re­sponses, that there were then public Forms allowed and used. And we may observe not only by this Preface, but also by another passage, that the African Church and the Eastern, did hugely agree in these Liturgick Forms; because as the Greeks say, Give holy things, to those that are holy [...] Lit. [...]. Basil. Chrysost. & Clem. Con­stit.. So it seems they did at Carthage, where (as S. Cyprians Notes) they were daily charged to keep that which was holy in a pure Conscience, [Page 68] according to our Lords command, not to cast that which is holy to Dogs Cypr. ad Demetr. p. 324.. That is, in the Eucharist (which they then daily celebrated) they used that Phrase, Give holy things to holy Persons. For though S. Cyprian writing to a Heathen, will not express the very Form it self, yet he comes so near it, that he can mean nothing else, being obliged to con­ceal the sacred Offices from Demetrian. And that is the reason also why, when he hath occasion to mention the Chri­stian Litany, he doth it only by setting down these general Heads of things de­sired therein, viz. For driving away Ene­mies, for procuring Rain, and either for removing or moderating adversities; we always pour out our Supplications and Prayers, as well as for your peace and safety Cypr. ad Demetr. p. 324.; so that our Adversary is very weak, in despising those who urge this of as a Form of PrayerDisc. of Liturg. p. 137.; because none of us think it was the very Words of the African Liturgy; and we know Tertullian describes it, (when he also writes to Heathens) in different Words; but if we compare the two Fathers, or both of them with the ancient Litanies, wherein the general Heads of Evils [Page 69] which were to be Prayed against, were named by the Priest, and the People answered, O Lord hear us, or O Lord de­liver us; we may conclude, they had a certain Form, but concealed the Phrases of it from Unbelievers. But the disputer against Liturgies, who fraudulently con­ceals all but the last of these Testimo­nies, picks up another passage or two, by which he hopes to shew there were no Forms used in S. Cyprians time. The first is in his Epistle to Pope Lucius, where he saith we cease not in our Pray­ers and Sacrifices, to give thanks to God the Father, and to his Son Christ our Lord, Praying and requesting, that he who is per­fect, and makes us perfect, would keep for you, and perfect in you, the glorious Crown of a Confessor Cypr. Epist. 58. p. 163.. Hence he in­fers, that being at liberty, to put up any occasional Petition in the Eucharist, they could not be confined to any Set Form Disc. of Liturg. p. 66.; and that it had been a vain thing to tell him of this, if it had been the common Form, which he knew before Ibid. p. 68.. To the first I answer, he must learn to distin­guish between reciting the Words of a Form, which are addressed to God; and relating in a Letter the sum and sub­stance [Page 70] of the things desired, when the speech is directed to a Man. Now these Words are no Prayer, nor addressed to God; S. Cyprian is only telling Pope Lucius, what things in general they ask­ed for him. Yet if these had been the Words of this Prayer and made by S. Cyprian, the Primate of Africa, on this great occasion of the chief Bishop of the Wests, being banished; it would not follow, that because a Primate of Africa, on an extraordinary occasion put in one new Petition into the usual Office, there­fore in ordinary times private Ministers may vary their Prayers every day. To his second inference, viz. that supposing this were the common Form, he need not have told Lucius of it: I reply, if this were then the African Form to suppli­cate for Confessors, yet Cyprian might rationally give Lucius an account of it; First, because it is not certain that they at Rome knew the Form of Praying for a Confessor at Carthage; or if they did, Lucius could not know, till he was thus informed, that it was used for him: So that whether it was the com­mon Form or no, it will not serve out Adversaries purpose; for let it be noted, [Page 71] if S. Cyprian had Prayed to God for Lucius every day Extempore in various and other Words, he had told him a manifest Untruth, when he said he Pray­ed for him in these words, That he who is perfect, &c. So that if these had been the words which S. Cyprian used for Lucius, (as he supposes,) they must have been a Form, and were prescribed for that occasion by S. Cyprian, to his sub­ordinate Clergy. His second allegation out of S. Cyprian for such occasional Prayers, is that there are also mention of such occasional Prayers, in the Epistle to Moses and MaximusDisc. of Liturg. p. 68.; but he durst not cite the place at large, which on­ly speaks of private Prayers made by these Confessors in Prison, in which S. Cyprian desires to be remembred, be­lieving God would grant them whatever they prayed for: But there are no pe­titions mentioned, nor any account whe­ther they prayed with or without a Form; so that this Quotation is as im­pertinent, as his third instance is frau­dulent; For he cites S. Cyprian, to prove that the Form of Words used in Baptiz­ing was varied by some; but he leaves out those Words, which utterly spoil his [Page 72] Argument; Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt — (there he draws a line) — modo in Nomine Jesu Christi, &c. Disc. of Liturg p. 98.. But S. Cyprians Words are these, How then do some say, who are out of the Church, yea against the Church; that if a Pagan, be any where or any ways Baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, he may obtain Re­mission of Sins Cypr. ad Jubai. Epist. 73.? Therefore it was manifest, Schismaticks and Hereticks, varied from the Form; and S. Cyprian disputes against the practice, and proves that it makes the Baptism null and void. So that our Adversary is at a low Ebb, when he would prove an usage of the Church, by the practice of its Enemies, and founds their Extempore variations, upon the Opinions and the use of Schis­maticks and Hereticks.

Gregorius Thaumaturgus An. Dom. 253.§. 5. Gregory Thaumaturgus Bishop of Naeocaesarea was Contemporary with S. Cyprian; and though he had so extraor­dinary a measure of the Spirit, that he did many Miracles; yet he was so much for a Liturgy, that we have the Testi­mony of S. Basil (an Unquestionable Witness) concerning him, that he appoint­ed a Form of Prayer for that Church of [Page 73] Naeocaesarea, from which they would not vary, in one Ceremony, or in a Word; Nor would they add any one Mystical Form in the Church, to those which he had left them; yea, when their Offices grew to be deficient by reason of their Antiquity, the Bishops who succeeded this Gregory, would allow no addition to be made unto that which he had established [...] Basil. de Spir. S [...]cto, cap. 29. pag. 221.; and it seems he had appointed also a way of singing the Psalms, of which the Naeocaesarean Clergy were so extremely tenacious, that when S. Basil would have brought in a better Way, they opposed him in it, and objected that it was not so in the Days of Gregory the GreatBasil. Epist. 63. ad Cler. Naeocaes. pag. 843, 844.. Now, how is it possible to have a clearer proof in the World for prescribed Forms than this, That in an Age while Mira­culous Gifts lasted, a Bishop full of the Spirit, Appoints a Form of praising God by Psalms, and prescribes a Liturgy, con­taining the Ceremonies, the words of Prayers, and the Form of Consecrating the Holy Sacrament, and this Liturgy used for above an Hundred Year without any variation or addition, by the Bi­shops of that Province and all their Clergy? This is not like his Arguments, [Page 74] squeezed out of misconstrued Phrases, or built upon vain Suppositions and re­mote Conjectures. It is plain and un­deniable Matter of Fact, of which I shall say no more but this, That S. Basil doth not relate this as any thing extra­ordinary in Gregory, nor remark it as a thng strange and done no where else; so that it is probable, most of the Emi­nent Bishops of each Diocess, did com­pose or collect a Form of Prayer for their several Churches before the ceasing of Miraculous Gifts; but our Adversary (alas) could find nothing of this kind in all his search for Antiquity, or at least he was so wise to conceal what he could not pretend to Answer.

§. 6. Not long after this Paulus Samo­satenus, Paulus Samo­satenus, Episc. Antioch. An. Dom. 269. an Heretical Bishop of Antioch, was offended at those Hymns which were sung there in honour of our Saviour Christ, and composed others, pretend­ing that those Hymns which he rejected, were written but lately, and composed by Persons that lived but a little before his time [...] Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24.. From whence it appears, that there were prescribed Forms of glorifying and praising our Lord Jesus, used at An­tioch, [Page 75] and written at least as early as the beginning of this Century, and some of them perhaps long beforeSee Chap. I. §. 3. of this History.. Now Psalms and Hymns (as we have proved) were a very great part of the Primitive Worship, and S. Paul had commanded all, to Sing as well as to Pray with the Spi­rit; therefore if they Sung by Forms, it is probable they prayed by Forms also, there being no reason why the one should be performed Extempore more than the other, and it being very fit one part of the public Service should be like the other: But our Adversary asks, Why this Bishop did not alter the Liturgy also Discourse of Liturgy, p. 26.? And though I am not bound to answer all his random Questions and suppositions, grounded upon this Negative, that Eu­sebius doth not say, He did alter the Liturgy: Yet I shall Reply, That Hymns are more proper than Prayers are, to set out and magnifie our Saviour's Divinity, and so were much more offensive to this Heretick, than the Prayers, which were only addressed to the Father in the Name of Christ, as our Mediator, which the Arians allowed him to be: And therefore Paulus began to reject the Hymns; but probably he might have [Page 76] proceeded further, if he had not been so early discovered and expelled before he could make any more Alterations. Nor is it unlikely, that the Liturgy was so ancient at Antioch, being extant in Ignatius's Time, that he durst not venture upon that at first.

I shall add no more in this Century, but to observe, That in the Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, recorded by Eusebius, it appears to have been the general usage of the Church for every one of the People to say, Amen, when they heard the Priest offer them the Sa­crament and say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 35. p. 180.. Which was a Form so universally used in all Churches of the World, that we may conclude it was enjoyned by all Liturgies; other­wise it had been impossible that all Chri­stians should have so exactly agreed in that Form, at that place, and on that occasion. We proceed now to Times of greater Light, and more clear Evidence.

CHAP. IV. Of Liturgies in the Fourth Cen­tury.

§. 1. THat the Use of Forms and stated Liturgies did not be­gin, in the end of the Fifth, nor in the entrance of the Sixth Century, is very plain from the preceding Testimonies, which sufficiently confute our Adver­saries Assertion. Yet if we had no Evi­dence of setled Forms of Prayer before this Age, it had been enough to justifie our use of them, because this is the first Century wherein the miraculous Gifts were ceased, and the Church was setled under Christian Magistrates. Wherefore since we plead for the use of a prescribed Liturgy in an established Church, it is as much Antiquity as our Cause needs, to shew we have Prece­dents for it from this Age; that is, as soon as the Primitive Churches Circum­stances and ours did agree. Now the Centuriators tell us, that upon the Settle­ment [Page 78] of the Church, The Bishops ap­pointed Prayers for all things necessary, for the happy state of the Empire, for the Emperours, for the safety of the Church, for public Peace, and for the Ʋnconverted Episcopi­preces Sacras ordinarunt pro omnibus rebus necessariis, &c. Magd. Cent. 4. §. 7. pag. 498.. Now if the Bishops appointed such Prayers, doubtless the Inferiour Clergy did use them, and that shews there was a prescribed Liturgy: Yet our Adversary strives by all kinds of Artifice to hide this plain Truth, and the first Authors he produces in this Century are Arnobius and Lactantius, to prove the Christians looked up to Heaven when they prayedDiscourse of Liturg. pag. 9.. Which we freely grant; but reject his conse­quence of their having no Written Forms, since Experience shews, that both Priest and People, by frequent use of our Common Prayer, may and do often look up to Heaven, when they pray by this Form. And as for one of these very Fathers,ARNOBIUS, An. Dom. 303. viz. ARNO BIƲS, though he writ against the Gentiles, a little before the Settlement of the Church, and therefore speaks very cau­tiously of the Christian RitesIta de Eu­charistid loqui­tur — viz. ut ad illud quod dabitur, possint esse pa­ratae. Arnob. lib. 2. pag. 65., yet there are some Intimations in him of the use of Forms: We adore (saith he) [Page 79] him that is higher than all, and pray to him by a Venerable Service —, we sup­plicate him with Daily Prayers—, and vocally call on him for that which we need—. To venerate this supreme King is the end and design of these Di­vine Offices—: To him, according to custom, we all prostrate our selves, adoring him with our joynt Prayers, and request­ing of him things, just, honest and fit for his holy Ears Hic proposi­tus terminus divinorum Of­ficiorum, hic finis est. Huic omnes ex more prosternimur, hunc Collatis Precibus adora­mus, &c. Id. lib. 1. pag. 13, 14, & 15.. Now this Venerable Service of Daily Prayers, vocally per­formed in Divine Offices, wherein all the Christians joyned and bore a part, can be no other than stated Forms, known before to the Congregation; and unless the Ministers and People had used such Forms, Arnobius could not be sure they should always ask things fit for Gods holy Ears. The same Author in another place evidently points to that Litany which Tertullian had briefly de­scribed in his Apology, saying, In our Conventicle we Invocate the Supreme God, praying for Peace and Pardon to all Men; For the Magistrates, the Armies; for the Emperours, for our Friends and our Ene­mies; for those that are alive, and those that are dying Arnob. adv. gent. lib. 4. pag. 152.; which are the very [Page 80] Heads that other Fathers set down, when they do not design to quote the Words of their Litany, but only to describe it in a public Discourse.

Constantin. M. An. Dom. 312.§. 2. The first Christian Emperour, Constantine the Great (who now esta­blished by Secular Laws the true Wor­ship of God) is our next Evidence for the use of prescribed Forms: For Euse­bius, who was an Eye and Ear witness of those Transactions which he relates concerning him, gives us an Account, That he ordered his Palace after the man­ner of a Church, and that when the Chri­stians were assembled, he would begin to take the Books into his hands, either for explaining the Holy Scripture, or re­peating the prescribed Prayers, in his Royal Family [...]. Euseb. vit. Const. l. 4 c. 17. p. 395.. He also relates, That he made a Form of Prayer for his Guards, which they were to use every Sunday Id. ib. c. 18.; and he taught them to recite this Prayer, with hands lifted up to Heaven, and with the Eyes of their Minds lifted up still higher, even to the King of Heaven Id. ib. c. 19.. The very Words of which Form, Eusebius sets down Id. ib. c. 20.; and commends the pious Emperour, because he was a Teacher of [Page 81] the Words of Prayer [...]. Euseb. de laud. Con­stantin. p. 465. Now we learn from hence, First, That repeating Pray­ers out of a Book was the usage of Christians in the Church; because when this was done in Constantine's Family, it made his Court to resemble a Church. Secondly, That it was reckoned a pious thing to compose and learn a Form of Prayer; which Eusebius would not have commended, if Forms had not been esteemed lawful, and commonly used in public; And, Thirdly, That those who use Forms of Prayer, either by committing them to memory, or by frequent use, might often lift up their Eyes to Heaven in the repeating of them. So that we may grant his Instance of Constantine's Effigies on his Coin, re­presented as in a praying posture, with Hands and Eyes lifted up to Heaven Disc. of Li­turg. pag. 10.. For since we are sure he used Forms, this only shews the folly of his arguing from that posture, that such as did use it could not pray by a Form. I shall therefore conclude this Evidence with this further Observation, That we can­not doubt that Christians had accu­stomed themselves to pray by Forms in Public before the time of this Religious [Page 82] Prince, who was guided by those Bi­shops who had been Confessors for the Faith, and yet composed and used Forms of Prayer, and was highly commended for it; nor did any of that Age object this, as any Innovation in the Christian Worship; but Eusebius particularly rec­kons it as an Instance of his Piety, that He ordered all his Army at a certain Signal given by one Man, to send up one and the same premeditated Prayer to God [...] Vita Constant. lib 4. cap. 19.. Which shews, That the Chri­stians did then worship God by pre­meditated and prescribed Forms, and not in the Extempore way, which our Adversaries pretend to be the ancient Mode.

S. Athanasius, An. Dom. 326.§. 3. Soon after flourished the Great Athanasius, in whom there are evident marks of a public Liturgy; for we have noted before, That the People can never make certain and vocal Responses, but only where the public Prayers are made in a known Form; but nothing can be plainer, than that they made such Re­sponses in the Diocess of Alexandria. For he alluding to the ancient Litanick way of Praying, declares, when he said, Let [Page 83] us pray for the safety of the most Religious Emperour Constantius; that all the People immediately answered with one Voice, Christ help Constantius Athanas. Apol ad Con­stant. pag. 156 & 157.. In another Tract he tells us, The People mourned and groaned to God in the Church; all of them crying to the Lord and saying, Spare thy People, good Lord spare them; give not thine Heritage for a reproach to their Ene­mies Idem Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 239.; which is an original piece of Litany, and a known Form prescribed in Scripture, retained in the Primitive Church, and continued still in use a­mong us. Athanasius also speaks of the Prayers at the Communion, as a distinct Office; affirming, That the People offered up these Prayers with one Voice, and without any manner of disagreement; ad­ding, That in that great multitude there was but one Voice, when they unanimously answered, AmenIdem Apol. ad Constant. pag. 159.. From these and other Testimonies the Centuriators con­fess there were Forms of Prayer used at Alexandria in his timeMagdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. pag. 412.; and the Learned Bishop Bilson observes, That the Church (in that Age) thought it not enough, for the Simple to say Amen they knew not to what; but requiring and appointing their devout, distinct and intelligent An­swers, [Page 84] Confessions, Blessings and Thanks­givings, as well in the ministration of the Lords Supper, as in other parts of their public Service Bilson's Christ Subje [...]t. part 4. p. 435.. So that it is plain, he believed there was a Form wherein the Peoples part of all Offices was appoint­ed by the Church, which could not be done in the Extempore way. I shall only further note, That Athanasius orders the People, to sing the Psalms in the very Words wherein they are written: Affirm­ing, That he who thus repeats them may be confident God will hear these Supplicati­ons Ath [...]n. de inter. Psalm. pag. 303.. Which confirms that which was observed before out of Origen, That the Church of Alexandria had many Forms of Prayer out of the Psalms.

As for my Adversary, He omits all these passages, and (as is usual with him) he mentions nothing of this Father but two places, out of which he hopes to raise some Objections against Forms of Prayer. First, He saith, The Arians, who charged Athanasius with burning the Bible, do not mention any Indignity done to the Liturgy; whence he gathers, there was no Liturgy used there ourse of pag. 13.. But let it be noted, that he falsifies the Historian who saith, they charged him with burning The [Page 85] Holy Books [...] Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 539. (in the plural Number) which may very well take in the Li­turgy as well as the Bible, being rec­kon'd also an Holy or Sacred Book: And we have shewed, That in the Em­perour Constantine's Court, there were Books of Prayers, as well as of Holy Scripture, and therefore it is likely there was so also at Alexandria: For even in the relation of the Arians Cruelty there, He writes of a Virgin who was very ill treated by them, who had her Psalter (wherein were many of their Forms of Prayer) in her hand Athan. ad Orthod. de per­fec. Arian. pag. 171.. Secondly, He alledges a place out of Theodoret, which affirms (as he saith) That the Devils were more afraid of Athanasius his Prayers, than of others; and thence concludes, that he prayed Ex­tempore Discourse of Liturg. p. 129.. I Reply, That Theodoret makes no comparison between his pray­ing and others; and if he had, it would utterly have spoiled his Cause; because, if the Devils feared Athanasius Prayers more than any others, as being Extem­pore, then it would follow, that all others had prayed by Forms; so that upon that supposition Athanasius had prayed Extempore, contrary to the gene­ral [Page 86] use of the Church. But indeed, Theodoret is only saying, That the Devil hated him for his fervent Praying, and rational Preaching, by which he converted many Theoderet. hist lib. 3. cap. 8.; he makes no comparison be­tween him and others, nor doth he say one word to prove, that Athanasius did not pray by a Form; we therefore will freely grant our Adversary, That not Phrases, but Devotion of Mind is the Fountain of Prayer. And we argue from thence, That it was Athanasius his Devotion, not his Phrases, that was so terrible to the Devil: That crafty Spirit is not afraid of new Words, or Extem­pore Phrases; it is the inward Devotion of Mind which he dreads, and that Atha­nasius did doubtless exercise, to a very high degree, even in the use of those Forms, which were then allowed and prescribed by the Church. Wherefore our Adversary gains nothing by this Father.

[...]vianus Antioch. An. Dom. 348.§. 4. In the time of Athanasius, Le­ontius an Arian was Bishop of Antioch, who having altered some few Words in the ancient Form of the Gloria Patri, used to repeat it in a low Voice to con­ceal [Page 87] that alteration; but as soon as the Orthodox perceived the Fraud, Flavia­nus and Others would not communicate with this Leontius, but worshiped God in a separate Congregation. And in this As­sembly, Flavianus and Diodorus divided the Choir into two parts, and made them sing the Psalms of David alternately; which Custom (as Theodoret saith) beginning first at Antioch, was soon received all the World over Theodoret. hist. lib. 2. c. 24.. Now from hence our Adversary infers, that the way of sing­ing alternately (which necessarily sup­poses a Form to sing by) came but late into the Church; and he charges So­crates with downright Falshood, who ascribes the Original of this way of Singing to Ignatius Discourse of Liturg. p. 167.. But first, if all our Adversary saith were true, this Age cannot be accounted very late, for Chri­stianity had not been setled Twenty years in Peace when this practice began at Antioch. But he wrongs Theodoret by his Inference; the Historian doth not say this way of Singing began then; for we have shewed out of Eusebius con­cerning the Essenes, and out of Pliny, Tertullian, &c. that Hymns and Anthems were sung alternately, and therefore in [Page 88] Forms from the very beginning of Chri­stianity, and the Gloria Patri (as Theo­doret here notes) was at this time so ancient, and so known a Form at An­tioch, that the Orthodox would not endure the least word of it to be changed. Wherefore he only saith, That the Cu­stom of singing David's Psalms alternate­ly, did then first begin at Antioch; which may be true, and yet Ignatius (for all that) might long before bring in the way of singing Hymns alternately [...]. apud [...]. lib. 6. [...]. And, if we consider that Paulus Samosatenus had put down the Hymns made in Ho­nour of Christ soon after Ignatius his time, and that divers of Leontius his Predecessors in this See of Antioch were Hereticks [...]doret. [...] 22. [...]. [...]ap. 10.; it is not improbable these Bishops might alter (not only the Hymns, but) the Old way of singing them; so that Flavianus did rather restore than invent this Alternate Singing. However this is certain, that he applied it to David's Psalms, and that S. Basil, S. Am­brose, and all eminent Bishops every where began to sing the Psalms that way [...] we still do in our Cathedral [...] nor did any Christians (before [...] [...]ssenters appeared) ever find any [Page 89] fault with it: Yea, this way of Singing by turns, was so taking at Antioch, that it drew all the People from Leontius; so that he was forced to beg of Flavia­nus to come back to the Church, And perform the same Liturgy there — [...] Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 24.. For we must observe, that in these separate Assemblies the Orthodox did more than barely sing Psalms, they had all the public Service, which is here called A Liturgy: And that consisted of Praise and Prayer; The Praises were the Psalms, Gloria Patri, and other ancient Hymns which were restored by this Congrega­tion of True Believers, and were all certainly in Forms, as we may conclude from the way of singing them: The Prayers are not mentioned here by either of these Historians; But Socrates relates, that soon after this (in opposi­tion to the Arians) S. Chrysostom enlarged the Evening Prayers [...] Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 7., which must be by adding to the Forms; because, if it had been in every Ministers Breast to make those Evening Prayers longer or shorter, as he pleased in his Extempore Way, there could have been no addition made to them. And if Flavianus in his time used Prayers as well as Psalms in [Page 90] his Congregation (as the word Liturgy imports) it is very unlikely that the Prayers should be of one fashion, and the Praises of another; therefore we shall conclude, That both their Prayers and Praises were celebrated by known Forms, as they were wont to be in other Orthodox Churches, where we have seen that the People had their Responses and bore their parts, as well in the Prayers as they did in the Praises: Nor can we think the Arians would have omitted to charge the Orthodox with Innovation, both in Praises and Prayers, if they had now first begun in so divi­ded a Church as Antioch, to use pre­scribed Forms in either of these Duties.

Cyrillus, Hieros. An. Dom. 350.§. 5. S. CYRIL was made Bishop of Jerusalem in the midst of this Century, but his Catechetical Discourses were composed long before. And they are of two sorts; First His Catecheses to the Unbaptized, wherein we can expect no account of Liturgy, because in that Age they thought it profaned the Mysteries of Divine Worship, to teach Unbelievers the Things or Words used there, which they conceived none but the Baptized or [Page 91] the Faithful ought to know: So that our Adversary is very impertinent to cite these Discourses to the Unbaptized, to prove, There could be no Written Forms then used, because they kept their Worship close, as being a MysteryDiscourse of Liturg. pag. 34. For S. Cyril only saith, They spake of these things covertly to the Catechu­mens, that the Faithful who knew them might understand, and those who knew them not, might not be prejudiced [...] Cyril. Catec. 6. pag. 60.. Now if the Father speak of the Christian Wor­ship (as he supposes, who cites him in this Dispute) this only shews, that the Strangers did not know it; but it seems by Cyril, that the Faithful knew it so well (being a known Form of Words) that if it were but darkly hinted at, they presently understood the Ministers meaning, which they could not have done if the Prayers used among the Faithful had been made Extempore, and varied every day. So again, where he cites a Caution that S. Cyril gives the Faithful in his Preface, Not to tell any thing to the Catechumens, who as yet were out of the Church [...] Cyril. [...]. Disc. of Liturg. pag. 41.: I would only ask, how the Faithful could re­member the various and uncertain Phra­ses [Page 92] of Extempore Prayers, so as to be able to repeat them again? Indeed there might be danger of their doing this in constantly used Forms, and the very Caution supposes they used such in those days. But we need not fly to Sup­positions, we have our Adversaries Con­cessions, as to the Second sort of Cyril's Catechetical Discourses, viz. those to the Faithful, which are called, His Mysta­gogical Catechisings: Our Author grants, It appears by S. Cyril, that the People had of old some part in the public Ser­vice Disc of Li­turg. pag. 44. citing Cyril. Catech. mystag. 5.. Now we have shewed that can­not be, unless the Public Service be in known Forms; so that it is an un­parallelled Insolence in him to cite this very place of S. Cyril again afterwardsDiscourse of Liturg p. 138., and challenge any Judicious Eye, to dis­cover any thing of a Form therein: For, if the Reader have not S. Cyril's Works to consult, let him look upon Mr. Clarkson's own BookDiscourse of Liturg. Marg. of pag. 14 [...]. and of pag. 175, 176., where he himself cites out of this very place of S. Cyril very many Ancient Forms, which then were almost generally used in all Churches, and particularly in the Church of Jeru­salem, in their public Office. And all of those Forms and Responses (which he [Page 93] cites) being put together, make up as clear and full a Liturgy (as to the Peo­ples part especially) as can be set down in Writing: But since he is so confident, we will first observe one thing, and then set down the particulars. The Observa­tion is this, That S. Cyril was here ex­pounding the Liturgy (not to Priests, who are presumed to understand their part of the Office;) but to the Faithful, who knew the Words of these public Forms, which required their distinct Answer, but perhaps might not fully understand the Sense; and therefore S. Cyril here briefly passeth over the Priests part, and only enlarges upon the Peoples share of the Office. This being premised, Let it be noted, that S. Cyril saith to his Auditors, That in the Eucharistical Office, The Priest cries, Lift up your hearts, and saith he, You answer, We lift them up unto the Lord — Then the Priest saith, Let us give thanks unto the Lord; and you reply, It is meet and just Cyril. Cate­ches. Mystag. 5.; which are the very Forms that we meet with in S. Cyprian, &c. above 100 years before. But S. Cyril goes on to the Priests part, and there indeed only mentions the general Heads, for which he gave God Thanks in an Eucharistical Collect.

Next he mentions The Seraphic Hymn, viz. Holy, Holy, Holy; and speaks of their singing together with Angels and Archangels. Then he briefly describes The Prayer of Consecration, and The Prayer for all Estates of Men, which were said by the Priest alone. And, after this (saith he) you say the Lords Prayer, (which being the Peoples part, is there largely expounded:) And then the Priest said, Give Holy things to those that are holy; And the People Answered, There is one Holy, even one Lord Jesus Christ. Then one begins to sing that Psalm, O tast and see how gracious the Lord is, &c. And when they receive the Bread and the Cup, they are to say at each of them, Amen. Finally, after they have Communicated they must stay for that Prayer, Wherein God is praised for making us partakers of these Mysteries Cyril. Ca­tech. Mystag. 5. à pag. 240. — ad pag. 245. Vide locum.. Now if we compare this with those Accounts already produced out of the FATHERS, or those that follow; or, if we examine it by the Ancient Li­turgies, or by our own Communion Office, This is so full a proof of a pre­scribed Form being then used at the Eucharist, in the Church of Jerusalem [Page 95] at that Time, that he must have a Fore­head of Brass who can deny it. Indeed, being a popular Discourse made by a Catechist, he doth not presume to set down and explain the Priests part; but that is made up by the Ancient Liturgy, which goes under S. James his Name, the Ancient part of which I will now prove was the public Service of the Church at Jerusalem, long before S. Cyril's time.

§. 6.The Liturgy of S. JAMES. I have often wondred to see many Learned Protestants dispute ear­nestly against those Ancient Liturgies, which now appear to the World under the Name of S. JAMES, or others of the Apostles, and level all their Argu­ments against the Titles, and the Mo­dern Corruptions of these Liturgies: Since neither those of the Roman nor Reformed Church, who (in this Age) defend them, are so vain to pretend, either that the Titles imposed on them are true, with respect to all that is con­tained in these Liturgies; or, that all passages in the Modern Copies are Apo­stolical. So that to go about to prove, That S. James did not compose that whole Office which is now extant under [Page 96] his Name is highly impertinent, since no Body in this Age of any Note hath affirmed it. Bellarmin and Card. Bonaven­ture, with others of the Romanists; Dr. Hammond, and divers Learned Reformed Divines do confess, That the Title doth not belong to all that which is now found in this Liturgy, and own, that divers things have been added to it in later Times: But that which we main­tain is this, That the Liturgy now ex­tant under S. James his Name, doth con­tain many Primitive Prayers and Re­sponses, which were the public Forms used at Jerusalem long before S. Cyril's Time: And though S. James be not the undoubted Author of this Office, yet if it were made and used at Jerusalem before the beginning of this Century, that is sufficient to confute him (who ascribes the Original of all Liturgies to the Fifth and Sixth Centuries) and will fully prove Liturgies to be as Ancient as the setling of Christianity it self; which is all that I am obliged to make out. Now that the main of this Office was used long before at Jerusalem, I think is very clear from the harmony and agreement which we find between [Page 97] S. James his Liturgy, and that describ­ed by S. Cyril, and expounded to the Catechumens of that Church; The ac­counts differ only in some Words and Phrases, but agree in many places in the very Syllables, and in all places in Method and in the Sense; the difference being not so great, but it may be well imputed to variety of Copies, and to the divers Ages, in which the Liturgy was Transcribed; every Age delighting to alter somthing in its Ancient Forms, as we see in our own incomparable Liturgy, which hath been more than once revised, and altered in some places. But let it be considered, First, that there were public Forms at Jerusalem in S. Cyrils time, and that he who ex­pounded part of them, while he was a Catechist, could not be supposed to make these Forms, therefore they were in use long before him; and to prove this, let us note, that S. Cyril pretends not to be Author of these Offices; but when he hath delivered them and ex­pounded them, he calls them Traditi­ons, (that is, somthing conveyed down to them from their Fore Fathers,) and charges them to keep them [...] Cyr. Cat. Mystag. 5. pag. 245.. So that [Page 98] at least they were made by some Bishop of Jerusalem before that Age; Tis true, Cyril doth not mention S. James his name, but he having been the first Bishop of that See, and probably laying the Foun­dation of this Liturgy there, soon after Cyrils time, (viz. within 80 years,) Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, An. 434. calls this Liturgy by S. James his name; saying, it was so large, that Men who were engaged in secular business could not attend it, and so desired S. Basil to compose a shorter Form Proclus Constant. Epist. de traditione divin. Missae, ap. Bonav. de rebus Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 9.; And though that, and S. Chrysostoms, had made this Liturgy to be laid aside at Constantinople; yet the famous Council of Trullo Concil. Con­stan. [...]in Trullo can. 32 An. Dom [...]80., there, cites it under S. James his name, as Authentic evidence in a dispute: It is therefore most notoriously false, in our Adversary to say Balsamon declares in his notes upon this Canon of Trullo, that the Greeks under the Patriach of Con­stantinople, and those of the Diocess of the Orient, utterly disclaimed this Litur­gy, 1200 years after Christ Disc. of Li­turg. p. 149.. For Bal­samon there affirms, that S. James the Brother of our Lord, being the first Bi­shop of Jerusalem, first delivered an holy Liturgy; but the Church of Constantino­ple [Page 99] (having another Form in his time) did not receive it, nor would he permit the Patriarch of Alexandria to use it in his great Church, as he desired, though Balsamon confess it was used by those of Jerusalem and Palestine on great Festi­vals, even in his time Balsam. not in 32. can. Concil. in Trull. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 193.. So that the Greek Church did not utterly disclaim this Liturgy; they owned S. James to have been the first Author of it, and held Communion with those Churches which used it; only having for some Ages used other Forms, they thought not fit to permit this Liturgy, to be read in their great Church; and this confirms my Position, viz. That there was anciently such a Form of Prayers used in the Church of Jerusalem: But our Adversary objectsDisc. of Li­turg. pag. 149. &c. ad p. 154.. First, That this Liturgy is not mentioned by any Fathers or Councils: I reply, The mat­ter of it, and the very Words are men­tioned by many Fathers, and the very name and Title, (as we have shewed) are found in Proclus, and in the Coun­cil of Trullo. Secondly, If S. James made it (he saith,) it ought to be ac­counted Apostolical, and ought never to be added to, diminished or altered. [Page 100] Answer, If S. James had made it for his Church of Jerusalem, other Apostles might make other Forms for other A­postolical Churches; so that S. James his Liturgy would not have ben neces­sary for all places. But he knows, we hold that S. James, and the other Apostles Celebrated the Sacrament at first, by very short Forms, probably using only the Lords Prayer, the Words of Conse­cration, and an Hymn of praise: and while there were inspired Bishops, they added divers Collects, Responses and Pre­faces, which being writ down and remem­bred, brought forth the Primitive Litur­gies in the next Age, after those Miracu­lous Gifts of Prayer ceased. Now since all Liturgies retain those things which are essential and were certainly Apo­stolical, in other parts of the Office, every Church may vary as they find expedient. Thirdly, He objects that there are many Corruptions and gross Superstitions in this Liturgy. Answer, We freely confess it, and as freely own, that none of these are either Apostoli­cal, or so much as Ancient; But let it be noted these Corruptions crept in by the itch of altering, which hath infected [Page 101] every Age, and all Churches; and by this means brought in all the Corrupt Opinions of every Age, into the service of God; thus the names of Saints and Ora pro nobis got into the Roman Lita­nies, about the ninth Age, or somwhat la­ter; but he would be an odd Logician, who should argue that the Roman Church had no Litany before the ninth Age, because the invocation of Saints, came in about that time; Since in their Litany, there are other Petitions very Pious and agreeable to the Doctrin of the pure and Primitive Church; yea, the very Phrases are found in the most an­cient and Orthodox Fathers; and there are yet extant some Manuscript Lita­nies, without any names of Saints. So as to this Liturgy, there are many Cor­ruptions in it, which are modern Additi­ons; but there are also many Pious and excellent Prayers, agreeable to Scripture, and to the best Antiquity; yea, the very Words of which are found in the Or­thodox and elect Fathers. Fourthly, Therefore whereas he objects, that we had better wholly reject this Liturgy, be­cause we know not how to separate the Cor­ruptions from what is pure and Orthodox. [Page 102] I reply, We can easily distinguish be­tween them; for we desire to justify no more of this Liturgy, than what is agree­able to the Scriptures, and to the Do­ctrin and Practice of the first four Cen­turies. And there is enow of those Pri­mitive passages in this Liturgy, to con­vince any reasonable Man, that there was a Form of public Prayers and Praises prescribed and used in the Church of Jerusalem, long before S. Cyrils time; and therefore I place this Liturgy here, as being an Authentic Evidence, there were Forms of Prayer allowed in this Age, which is all that I am concerned to prove. I conclude with Causabon's observation, that the Liturgy under the Title of S. James, which is now extant, is partly true and partly false Causab. Exerc. in Baron. xvi. §. 41. pag. 384.: And truly all Du-Plessis his Arguments, (which our Adversary hath Transcribed) do only shew, that S. James was not Author of all that Liturgy, which now goes under his nameDu-Pl [...]ssis [...] he Mass. [...] 1. chap. 2.; but that lear­ned Man never inferred from thence, (as this Author doth,) that there were no public Forms used in the Fourth Century; for Du-Plessis acknowledges, there was an Order and Form, for the [Page 103] Celebration of the Sacrament in this Age; and shews wherein it differed from the Modern corrupted Roman Mass Idem ibid. Book 1. chap. 4. p. 30. &c., and this may suffice to say concerning this Liturgy of S. James.

§. 7. There is another Liturgy in the Apostolical Constitutions ascribed to Clement; Clement's Con­stitutions, circ. An. Dom. 360. and though the Author to make the Forms and Rites of his own Age look more Venerable, falsly claps the Apostles Names upon them; yet he is owned by all Judicious Men, to have been a Person Learned and well Skil­led in Ecclesiastical Offices, and is allow­ed to be worthy of Credit, (even by our AdversaryDisc. of Liturg. p. 39. marg. & p. 110.), in that which he relates concerning that time wherein he lived, which (as we will presently shew,) must be at least as early as the middle of this Century. Wherefore so early, we have a clear and undeniable Evi­dence, that there was a prescribed Li­turgy, and Forms of Prayer used upon all public occasions. The particulars are too long to insert, but the several Heads are these. These Constitutions have the Form of the Deacons warning those who were to Communicate, no [...] to come [Page 104] with Malice or Hypocrisy Constit. Apostol. lib. 2. cap. 58.; They men­tion the alternate Singing of Davids Psalms Ibid. cap. 61., begun at Antioch not long before. A short account of the general Litany, made by the Deacon, for the whole World and every part of it, for Priests and Princes, for the Bishop and the Emperor, and the Peace of allId. ibid.; and also the Form of the Bishops Blessing, and of the final PrayerId. ibid. pag. 45, probably to be used in ordinary Assemblies. In these Constitutions, we find private Christians enjoyned to say the Lords Prayer, as a Form thrice in a DayIbid. lib. 7. cap. 25.; and we have Forms drawn up for their use, both before and after the SacramentIbid. cap. 26.27., and upon divers other occasionsIbid. cap. 34, 35 &c.; There is also an Office of Baptism, with Forms of Renunciation of the Devil, and con­fessing the Faith, as also a Form for Consecrating the Water, &c.Ibid. cap. 41, 42, 43.: An Office for the Ordination of a BishopLib. 8. cap. 3., and also for the Ordaining Priests and Deacons, &c.Ibid. cap. 24, 25.. But most particularly there is the Office at the Communion, with all those Forms, used at those most Solemn AssembliesIbid. lib. 8. [...] 5. ad [...] ▪. That is to say, The Litany said by the Deacon, for the Catechumens (the Faithful answering to [Page 105] each Petition Domine miserere,) with the Bishops Prayer for them. The like Litany and prescribed Prayers, for those that were possessed, those who were to be Baptized, and for the Penitents. And after these were all gon out, there is also prescribed a Litany by the Dea­con, and a Prayer by the Bishop, for the Faithful. After which follows Forms prescribed for the Salutation, the first Benediction, the offering of their Gifts, the invitation, the Preface, Lift up your Hearts, &c. The Hymn called Tri­sagion, (to be sung by all the People:) And also a Form for consecrating the Elements; An intercession for all Estates of Men; The order for receiving and saying Amen, when they do receive; The singing of the xxxiv. Psalm, O tast and see how Gracious the Lord is. Finally, there is a public Form of Pray­er after the Communion, and the con­cluding Benediction, with many other Forms, on other less Solemn occasions, Particularly there are Forms, for Morn­ing and Evening Prayer, (as our Adver­sary confessethDisc. of Liturg. pag. 162. Marg..) Now if all this will not amount to a Liturgy, then there is no such thing in the World; and if it be [Page 106] a Liturgy, then prescribed Forms must needs be used when this Author writ: yea and long before, otherwise he could not have pretended, that the Apostles were Authors of these Forms; his very pretending that, shews, that those of that Age had lost the memory of the first composers of these Forms; and this Au­thor took advantage from their Imme­morial use, to ascribe them to the Apostles. Now our Adversary being aware of this, though he dare not deny these Constitutions to be good Evidence for that time wherein they were writ­ten, yet labours to disparage, and baf­fle this clear Witness, by several Crafty Cavils and Objections.

First, He thrusts this Writer down a­bove one whole Century, and pretends he lived in the end of the Fifth, or the be­gining of the Sixth Age Disc. of Liturg. p. 110, & 111.. But this is most notoriosly false, as may be prov­ed. First, Because the Fathers of the Fourth Century cite it, as a known Book in this Age. Secondly, Because the matter of these Forms are exactly agreeable to the Doctrin and Practice of the Third and Fourth Centuries. For the first point, Athanasius reckons this Book, (which [Page 107] he calls the Doctrin of the Apostles,) among those which the Fathers allowed [...]o be Read in the Church; therefore it was extant long before his timeAthan. Epistol. ad Ammam. Mo­nach.. Eusebius also computes it among those Writings, which, though they were not Canonical Scripture, yet were approved by the Ancients, and distinguishes it from the Books, which the Hereticks had ForgedEuseb. Hist. lib. Cap. 19. pag. 71.. S. Cyril in the middle of this Century, cites that passage a­bout the Phaenix out of it, and ascribes [...]t by name to Clemens Cyril. Ca­tech. 18. p. 213. Collat. cum Constit. Clem. lib. 5. cap. 8.; which he would not have don, if it had not been then accounted an approved Book, and well known to those of his Age. Epi­phanius quotes it very often, (in his Book against Heresies,) by the express name of the Apostolical Constitutions, as an Author of eminent Credit, and whose Testimony was sufficient, as to what was a Primitive usageEpiphan. Panar. lib. 1. Tom. 3. Haer. 45 & Lib. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 75.; and he gives this Character of them, That many doubted of them, but did not reject them. For (saith he) all regular Order is con­tained in them, and there is nothing con­trary either to Faith or Worship, or to the Rule of Church Government Epiphan. Ibid. lib. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 70.; that is, they contain all necessary directions, [Page 108] as to Doctrin, Divine Offices and Discipline. Now if this Book had this Re­putation in this Fourth Century, we must believe it was written sooner, and we may well allow it as good Evidence, for Matter of Fact at least in this Age, where we are content to place it; and we hope our Adversaries will not be able to except against our modest assignation of the Constitutions to the later part of this Century, because Mr. Cook thinks their true Author was Contemporary with S. Basil, who died An. 378Discou se of L [...]turg. p. 110. Ma [...]g.. And Monsieur Dailé reckons these Constituti­ons among the most ancient Books which are Apocryphal and confesseth, They were published soon after the year of Christ 330, and therefore he cites them as good Evi­dence for the Usages of this Century and the formerD [...]le p ae­fat. ad l [...]run. de Relig. [...]tus obj [...]o, p [...]o [...]e [...]nem.; for which reason he must allow them to be a sufficient Wit­ness for the use of Forms and Liturgy in these two Ages. And truly, Secondly, We may prove this Book to be at least thus ancient by the Matter of it, which is Primitive, pure and pious, and the Forms are taken out of Scripture, or the Writings of the most genuine Fathers, and are proper to the several occasions, [Page 109] and agreeable to the Opinion and Pra­ctice of these Ages, being free from those grosser Corruptions of the later Times, such as Invocation of the Virgin Mary, the Saints and Angels; Adoration of Images, Crosses and Relicks; the Sacrifice Propitiatory of the Mass; the Popes Infallibility and Supremacy, with such like: Yea, this Liturgy being al­lowed to have been used in this Cen­tury, and not mentioning any of these things, is a good proof, That they are all notorious Corruptions and Innovations; there is nothing but some Charitable Prayers for the Dead, without any re­spect to Purgatory, which can be ex­cepted against in these Offices; because we see in Arnobius and others, that this Usage was crept into the Christian Wor­ship, at least as early as the beginning of this Century. Wherefore we conclude, that these Constitutions, and the Forms contained therein are a clear and con­vincing Evidence, that a prescribed Li­turgy was used in this Age.