Gregory the Great 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 Christs (f) Leont Bizan adver Nestor Eutych lib. 3. §. 18. Bib. Patr. Auctar. Tom. 2. col 619. I briefly pointed at this before (g) Cent. 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 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 in their Offices to a Regular Uniformity CHAP. III. Of LITVRGIES 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 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. (h) 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 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 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 (i) 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 (k) 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 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
of Rome (m) Mornay of the Mass Book I. chap. 9. pag. 74. For then it follows That the ancient German Offices were still used in some Parts that were subject to the Archbishop of Colen So that still this is exchanging one Form for another and no proof at all of liberty in Praying a thing unknown in this Age. Agobardus Episc Lugdun An. 831. § 7. We have little more in this Discourse against Liturgies out of Antiquity excepting only some few pretended proofs from late Ages to shew that they used various words in the distribution of the Eucharist As First he tells us that Agobardus the Famous Arch-Bishop of Lions could not well like that Common Roman Form The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. since he was only for Scripture Expressions in the public Offices And then he intimates that Agobardus was censured for this by Baronius and his Epitomator (n) Disc of Lit. pag. 90. 91. To which I reply First That Baronius never censures this great Bishop at all for this passage is not in Baronius but only in Spondanus the Epitomator and from him alone my Adversary cites it (o) Vid. Baron Tom. 9. An. 831. p. 797. 798. Secondly Spondanus speaks not one word of Agobardus his correcting the Communion-Office but only that he took great pains in restoring the ancient Antiphonary or Book of Hymns (p) Spondan Epitom An. 831. Num. 2. And Baluzius hath now put out the very Tract which Spondanus refers to and there is not one Syllable in all that Book expressing any dislike at the Words used in the distribution (q) Agobardi lib. de divin Psalmod lib. de correct Antiph oper Tom. 2. edit Paris 1666. Yea there is a peculiar discourse of this Bishop against Amalarius his Comment on the Mass wherein he speaks of the Roman Canon Te igitur c. yet never makes the least exception against the Roman Order or any thing contained in it (r) Ibid. lib. contr Amal. pag. 101. So that this pretended dislike of the Roman Form of distribution is a meer Fiction of his own Brain And if it were true that Agobardus did not like any thing in Sacred Offices but what was Scripture Yet there is no cause he should for that cause dislike this which he calls the Roman but was the Primitive and is now our Protestant Form since the words are taken out of and grounded on express places of Holy Scripture The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is a Scripture Expresion (s) Math. xxvi 26. Luk. xxii 19. 1 Cor. xi 24. and the next words Preserve thy Body and Soul to Eternal Life are grounded on Scripture Promises (t) John vi ver 50.51.53.54 58. so that if Agobardus were never so scrupulous he might very well like and use this Form But because my Adversary deals only in Epitomes I will now give a full Account of this matter We must observe therefore that Leidradus the Predecessor of Agobardus in the year 799. according to the desire of Charles the Great had brought in the Roman Order of Singing into the Church of Lyons and had put out an Antiphonary with an Epistle before it the Hymns whereof were generally taken out of the Holy Scripture (u) Leidradi Ep. ad Carol. Mag. inter oper Agob Tom. 2. p. 127. But about 30 years after Amalarius a busy Monk pretends to bring a new Antiphonary from Rome Corrected after the Roman Office in the time of Gregory the Fourth which he presented to Lewis the Godly and hoped by his Authority to impose it on all the Gallican Church But Agobardus the Primate of France rejects this new Antiphonary and writ a Book to prove there were Heresies Blasphemies and Nonsense in these Hymns of Amalarius and keeps to the old Roman Antiphonary established by his Predecessor the Hymns of which were for the most part taken out of the Psalms and other parts of Holy Scripture commending this to his Clergy and giving them his Reasons why he would not admit of the other And this Book of Agobardus concludes with these words As the Church hath a Book of Mysteries for Celebrating the Solemnity of the Mass digested Orthodoxly and with convenient Brevity and hath a Book of Lessons collected Judiciously out of the Divine Books so they ought to have this Third Book the Antiphonary purged from all Human Figments and Lies sufficiently ordered out of the pure words of Scripture through the whole Circle of the year That so in performing sacred Offices according to the most approved Rule of Faith and the Authority of ancient discipline there may be kept among us one and the same Form of Prayer of Lessons and of Ecclesiastical Songs (w) Agobard de correct Antiphon §. 19. Tom. ii p. 100. This is the whole Story and the passage which Spondanus ignorantly or at least rashly Censures and my Adversary Ridiculously brings in to shew Agobardus his dislike of the words of distribution Whereas these words refer only to the Hymns which yet probably were not all the very words of Scripture but were either Transcribed thence or agreeable thereto much more than the new Hymns of Amalarius And since Agobardus received and used the Roman Canon and the whole Roman Missal wherein were many things which are not the words of Scripture we must not expound these words cited but now so strictly as Spondanus doth as if he would not use any words in Divine Offices but those of Scripture For Agobardus means no more than that the Hymns ought to be either taken out of Scripture or agreeable to the Doctrine thereof for he proves that the Hymns of Amalarius were Heretical and Blasphemous contrary in many things to the Holy Scripture and therefore he rejected them But as to any Liberty in varying the Prayers Lessons or Hymns that were established or altering the Roman Forms This great Bishop was so far from it that he enjoyns the old Gregorian Office and imposes that prescribed Form together with the Lessons and the Hymns and opposes those Innovations and Alterations which some attempted to make because the Forms and Order then established were agreeable both to the Rule of Faith and to the acient Ecclesiastical Laws upon which occasion he produceth that African Canon before cited (x) Part. i. Cent. 4. §. 24. pag. 257. in these Words viz. That no Supplications and Prayers be said unless they have been approved in a Council nor shall any of these at all be Sung in the Church till they have been considered by the Prudent and approved of in a Synod lest any thing against the Faith be composed either my mistake or by design (y) Canon Afric ap Agob de correct Antiph §. ii p. 92. And now the Reader shall judge whether this Author be for my Adversaries purpose or no since he imposes Books of prescribed Prayers Lessons and Hymns and thinks the keeping strictly to them is
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 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 Mâ—rket places (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 Orders (k) Concil 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 (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril praef ad Catech. for those 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 they had these Books then though they are rarely or never mentioned singlâ— 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 (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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) Nâ—â—strâ— quidem Scripta cur ignibus merueruâ—t dari Arnob. l 4. They Demanded the Divine Books for the Fire Saith Augustin (o) Peterent divinos câ—dices exurendos Aâ—â— brevic Câ—l l. 3. So they ask the Holy Martyrs if they had any Writings in their keeping (p) Dicas aliquas Scripturas habeas â—ron An. 30◠§. 53. And the Canon of Arles is general against all that had delivered up the Holy Writings (q) 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 (r) Baron An. 303. §. 10. In the Acts under Zenophilus the Persecutors demanded If they had any Writings of their Law or any thing else in their Library (s) 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
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 all (b) Id. ibid. and also the Form of the Bishops Blessing and of the final Prayer (c) Id. 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 Day (d) Ibid. lib. 7. cap. 25. and we have Forms drawn up for their use both before and after the Sacrament (e) Ibid. cap. 26.27 and upon divers other occasions (f) Ibid. 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. (g) Ibid. cap. 41 42 43. An Office for the Ordination of a Bishop (h) Lib. 8. cap. 3. and also for the Ordaining Priests and Deacons c. (i) Ibid. cap. 24 25. But most particularly there is the Office at the Communion with all those Forms used at those most Solemn Assemblies (k) Ibid. lib. 8. 〈…〉 5. ad 〈…〉 That is to say The Litany said by the Deacon for the Catechumens the Faithful answering to 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 confesseth (l) Disc 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 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 (m) 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 he calls the Doctrin of the Apostles among those which the Fathers allowed â—o be Read in the Church therefore it was extant long before his time (n) Athan. 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 Forged (o) Euseb 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 â—t by name to Clemens (p) 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 usage (q) Epiphan 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 (r) Epiphan Ibid. lib. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 70. that is they contain all necessary directions 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. 378 (s) Discou se of Lâ—turg p. 110. Maâ—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 former (t) Dâ—â—le p aefat ad l â—run de Relig. â—â—â—tus obj â—o pâ—oâ—eâ—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 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
when we consider the exact agreement betwixt this and the ancient Litanies this eminent Instance out of the genuine Works of so great a Bishop in these early Times wherein we see he refers his Friend to known and public Offices both proves those parts of the ancient Litanies to have been Primitive and shews that there was a Litany in S. Basil's time Thirdly There are many Evidences that he approved of Forms of Prayer for he commends the way of praying by conjoyned Voices in Responses where he saith That a Prayer wherein there are not conjoyned Voices is not half so strong as otherwise it would be (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil Ep. 68. pag. 856. So that he thought Forms of Prayer in which the People joyned their Responses to the Priests Words were the most effectual way of praying and he saith Their bearing a part or share in any Prayer made it far more profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas Ep. 392. pag. 1174. Therefore he esteemed this way of praying which can only be performed in prescribed Forms would be soonest heard by Almighty God And for this Reason he made a Canon or Form of Prayer for his Monks charging them whensoever they prayed to use their Voices and also to continue until the last Prayer of the Canon (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas asciet Tom. 2. p. 243 244. and he orders them to reject those thoughts whith took off their Minds from the Canon of Prayer that is the prescribed Form which was to be the Canon or Rule by which he appointed they should always pray And so great a lover he was of Forms that he ordered those Monks should be rejected who would not learn the Psalms by Heart (e) Basil regul brev pag. 549. which no question were to be some of their Forms of Prayer and Praises We will conclude with one Observation viz. That our Adversary grants there was an Hymn for Candle-lighting in S. Basil's time (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Disc of Liturg p. 361. but he omits that the Father there saith It was a certain Form of Words used by the People so long before his time that he knew not which of the Ancients composed it but yet none blamed the People for using this old Form which was Let us praise the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit of God (g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 29. pag. 220. All which Passages do abundantly prove the Use of Forms in S. Basil's Time but this Author concealing most of these and misrepresenting the rest hath sought out some other places of S. Basil by which he would confute this our Assertion § 14. Which Objections we will first fairly produce and then plainly answer Objection first S. Basil saith he was against writing down Mysteries and so could not be for written Forms and this he proves by his Epistle to Meletius wherein S. Basil saith he will not fully write his Message having a trusty Messenger who might relate it (h) Disc of Liturg. p. 37. I reply This was only private business to a friend and no way concerns Divine Offices wherefore the Allegation is impertinent Secondly He cites his Book de Spiritu Sancto where he saith The words of Consecration upon the taking up of the Eucharistical Bread and the Cup of Blessing which of the Saints hath left in writing We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostle and Gospels but we say other things before and after as having great efficacy in the Mystery taking these things from unwritten Tradition (i) Basil de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. Tom. 2. p. 210. 211. And hence he infers that there were no written Forms in S. Basil's time yea he calls this direct Evidence that there could be no such Forms in writing and repeats this fraudulent Argument four several times according to his custom when he thinks he hath gotten a considerable testimony (k) Dâ—sâ— of Lituâ—g p. 38. pag. 73. pag. 7â— pag. 109. wherefore I shall answer it fully And First it doth not well become our Adversary who gives such Odious names to those who cite any spurious Writings to lay such mighty stress upon a Tract which he himself suspects to be none of S. Basils works (l) Ibid p. 110. and which all those Authors whom he cites to prove his Liturgy to be Forged do generally reject as a Forged piece (m) Eraâ—m praes ad suam veâ—s istius libri loci censura p. 121. Riveâ—i censur p. 305. Scultet medul pag. 1054. Ush e Dailè in isto Authore pag. 110. it is no great proof of his own sincerity to fetch his topping Argument and urge it over and over till the repetition become Nauseous out of a Tract that he believed to be suspicious at least But Secondly I will take no advantage from hence for after all I see no Reason to deny the piece to be Genuin but let it be as he pleases it maks nothing for his purpose For S. Basil doth not affirm that these Eucharistical Prayers were not written in his time but that they were derived from an unwritten Tradition Now this sufficiently proves that anciently they were Forms because it is impossible for an Extempore Prayer that is to be daily or often varied to be conveied down from our Fore-Fathers by Tradition whatever is so delivered must be a Form of words either written or learned by heart and so taught by the Elder to the younger Priests Wherefore even in this Sense these additional Prayers in the Sacramental Administrations were Forms made by the most Primitive Fathers and taught to their Successors and so conveyed down by oral Tradition But Thirdly this is his Fallacious perverting of S. Basils Words and not the true Sense of them For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwritten Traditions here spoken of by S. Basil are not things which never were written down by the Fathers as he falsly pretends Because both he and divers of the Ancients had written about many of the Rites and Usages which he there calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unwrirten Traditions an Hundred times As for instance about the hours of Prayer turning to the East when they prayed and about the Prefaces before the Eucharist c. But S. Basil only saith these things were not written in Scripture they were not enjoyned there those Saints or holy Men viz. the Apostles and Evangelists had not left Orders in Scripture for these Rites and Forms which must be his meaning because he goes on and saith We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostles and the Gospels That is besides the words of institution there were Forms of Prayer and Praise before and after in the Sacraments delivered down from the Primitive Fathers which he doth not say were never writ down by them but were not writ in Scripture For S. Basil calls the Scripture by
way of Eminence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and all Rites and Forms not set down there though they were writ down by the Fathers he calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not written things which is further clear by the occasion of this whole Chapter wherein S. Basil is vindicating himself for using a Phrase and Form of Doxology which was not written in Scripture and his Argument is That the Church used many Rites and Forms which were not written in the Bible such as renouncing the Devil and Praying toward the East and the Forms used in Sacramental Administrations Now Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian Cyprian and many others as we have shewed had written concerning every one of these things but still they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not written in Scripture but derived from Tradition and therefore they ought not saith S. Basil to blame me if I used a Form of Doxology not written in Scripture Now this clear exposition of the place alledged shews our Authors base disingenuity who to serve a turn and patch up an Argument against Liturgies wilfully perverts S. Basil's words which being rightly understood are so far from condemning Forms or proving they were not written that they prove they were composed long before S Basil's time and then owned for Catholic Traditions Finally whereas he insinuates that S. Bosil counts these Forms to be Mysteries not to be published and thence infers that to write them down was to publish them and therefore doubtless they were not written down I reply That these Forms were daily used among the Faithful and they were not nice to publish them to these it was only the Catechumens and Infidels from whom they kept these Mysteries and considering the charge they laid upon the Faithful and the Priests not to divulge them to those who were without the Church there was no need to be afraid to write them down since the Books were only in their custody who then believed it was a damnable Sin to let the Unbaptized see these Books or hear the words of them And he hath answered this Argument himself by shewing us that the Heathens who also counted their Forms of worship to be Mysteries not to be divulged to the uninitiated did write these Forms in Books which were kept by their Priests (n) Compare Disc of Liturg. pag. 28 with 122. 123. Therefore writing is very consistent with concealing Mysteries from Strangers And there is nothing in this place of S. Basil which proves there were no written Prayers in his time Thirdly He alledges that S. Basil in Prayer with the People used the Doxology two ways both Glory be to God and the Father with the Son and with the holy Ghost and by the Son in the holy Ghost (o) Basil de Sp. Sanct cap. 1. pag. 144. and though the same Father say that the Form of Baptizing the Creed and the Doxology ought to agree yet he varied this short Form twice in one day from whence he infers more than once that S. Basil would not be bound up by any Form (p) Disc of Liturgies pag. 104. pag. 130. I answer This Objection is taken out of the same suspected Tract but I will let that pass and observe that though S. Basil saith this was done in the Prayers with the People yet it doth not follow that this was in any part of the Office it might be in the conclusion of his Forenoon and Afternoon Homily which being performed at the usual hours of Morning and Evening Prayers and when the People were met to Pray yea the Prayers both going before and following the Homily he may properly enough say this was done in the Prayers with the People Now these Homilies or Sermons being S. Basil's own composures he thought he might vary the Doxology there as he used to do at other times but fortuning to use an expression that savoured of the Arian Heresy The Orthodox People who had been used to a right Form of Doxology in their Liturgy ever since the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus as was shewed before were able by that to censure these new and strange ways of expressing himself (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil dc Sp. S. cap. 1. And were so angry at him for this Variation that he was forced to write this Book to vindicate those Phrases Wherefore this variety of Doxology being not used in the Liturgy but the Sermons or Homilies is nothing to his purpose nor will it prove that S. Basil varied from the prescribed Forms much less will it make out there were no prescribed Forms since our Clergy use variety of Doxologies at the end of their Sermons but it would be Ridiculous to Argue from thence that they will not be bound to say the Gloria Patri in that Form wherein it is set down in the Liturgy If it be again objected that S. Basil hath great variety of Doxologies yet extant in the end of his Homilies and therefore had this variation been after Sermons the People could hardly have perceived it I answer The latter of these Forms was used by the Arians in a very ill Sense to intimate the inequality of the Father and the Son and though no doubt S. Basil meant well yet it did so evidently tend towards Heresy and was so very different from the Old Orthodox Form in the Liturgy that the People who could digest various Phrases in unprescribed Composures provided the Sense was Orthodox took check at this dangerous Variation and by the way we may learn from hence how great a security it is to the Faith for the People to be accustomed to Orthodox Forms which doth enable them to observe yea and correct any kind of dangerous Innovations But if my Adversaries will not allow this variation to have been any where but in the Prayers though there is no Reason to allow that yet supposing it were so Then this was an Action of S. Basil which is not to be imitated and since he had like to have run into Heresy by taking this undue liberty it will make nothing for the Credit of Extempore Prayers that they expose such as use them to the danger at least of venting Heretical expressions involuntarily And S. Basils being forced to beg Pardon for it shews it ought not to be quoted for a Precedent yet after all it this variation were in the Prayers it shews there were then Forms well known to the People and confirms us in the necessity of prescribing and imposing such Forms to prevent Heresy from creeping into the Church which otherwise may get ground even by the well meant expressions of some Eminent Extempore Man Fourthly He affirms that S. Basil did not teach his Monks to pray by any Liturgy but to choose their Expressions out of Scripture (r) Basil Constit monast cap. 1. p. 668. 669. I answer Divers of the learned deny this Book to be genuin (s) Scultet medul p. 1056. See Discourse of Liturg. p. 120.
Liturgy was imposed on the Roman Clergy and those of Aquileia and Ravenna upon the Clergy subject to those Churches And then my Adversaries whole Book which is written to assert that Liturgies were not imposed before the end of the Fifth or beginning of the Sixth Age that is 200 year after is false and utterly wrong And then also the Church of England both in composing a Form and imposing it imitates a very pure Age of the Church viz. The time a little before the begining of the Fourth Century or thereabouts and hath the Prescription of 1400 years to justifie her in both But because his main Author is Vostius we will here observe what that learned Man freely owns as to Creeds viz. That there was a â—orm in the Oriental Church very like to that which is called the Apostles Creed long before the Council of Nice And this which we call the Apostles Creed was the Roman Form bâ—fâ—re the time of that same Council and the Creed of Aquileia differed from this but very little (r) Vosâ— de trib â—ymb diss 1. §. â—0 pag. 24. Again he saith these Forms were not made by any General Council and were so old in Ruffinus his time that they were taken to be Apostolical (s) Ibid. §. 45. pag. 31. And the Church of Jerusalem had a Form which seems to have been elder than any of them being explained by S Cyril An. 350. and then delivered as from a very ancient Tradition (t) Ibid. §. 51. pag. 34. And both he and Grotius who fancy the Creed consisted at first of no more Articles than those of the Trinity do believe the remaining Articles about the Catholic Church the Remission of Sins the Resurrection of the Body and the Life everlasting were added as early as Tertullian's Time So that if these Authors Conjectures be allowed then there were Forms of Creeds in every great and eminent Church before the Third Century began From whence I thus Argue in my Adversaries own way and almost in his very words It is not probable that they who had a Creed in a Set Form in every Principal Church and did impose this Form to be learned and used by all that were Admitted Members of that Church by Baptism even before the Third Century should not also have their Set Forms of Prayer to the use of which all the Members of that Church and all under its Jurisdiction were obliged How credible and likely is it that they who did not leave their Creed at liberty also did not allow Arbitrary Prayers Since Heresies might creep in by the way of Extempore Prayers and Hymns as easily as by the use of various and arbitrary Creeds If they thought it requisite to limit the Rule of Faith for this Reason there was the very same Reason to Limit the Prayers Supplications Lauds and Litanies (u) See the Disc of Lit. p. 102 103. This is his way of Arguing upon a false Supposition That the Creed was not in a Set Form in the First Ages Wherefore since it appears by his own Authors that it was in a Set Form in or before the Third Century he must allow this to be a firm Argument against him It is nothing to my Question to enter into the Controversie Whether the Apostles themselves made that Creed which goes under their Name But after I have considered all that Vossius c. have said in this Matter I am verily persuaded That the Apostles themselves did make one Form of Faith at first but did not commit it to writing because it was to be taught orally to every Christian at his Baptism and kept as the Cognizance to distinguish between Hereticks and true Believers and the likeness of all the ancient Forms to one another shews they had one and the same Original at first and were derived from the first Planters of Christianity As for the variety between these ancient Forms in several Churches it was the natural and necessary effect of delivering it Orally which in distant Countries and in tract of Time by passing through divers hands must needs produce some small difference in the Order and Words and that shews That Oral Tradition is not so safe a way to convey Articles of Faith as Writing and though the Apostles had left the Scripture to be a standing Rule to secure the Creed from any dangerous Corruption yet it was necessary to have this short Form besides to teach the Candidates for Baptism But if the Reader desire to see this more fully proved I refer him to a Learned Book writ by a very Worthy Author Mr. G. Ashwell Wherein both by Arguments and evidence of Antiquity it is strongly and clearly made out that this Creed was made by the Apostles themselves (w) 〈◊〉 Apoâ—â—â— or â— Dâ—scourse aâ—â—â—ting the Antâ—â—s and Autâ—◠〈…〉 Creed P inted at Oâ—â—a 1683. And there it may be seen how bold my Adversary is to give Ruffinus the Lye since all the Writers of that Age generally agree in the same thing There also it appears that my Adversary is grosly mistaken in affirming that the Ancients took no notice of this Creed for above 300 Years As for his Arguing That the subsequent Creeds varying from it shews they did not own that to be Apostolical especially since they preferred their own Forms before it on the most solemn occasions (x) Disc of Lâ—t 〈…〉 it proceeds upon a Mistake For Vossius owns that the later superadded Creeds were only taken to be Commentaries on the Former and clearer explications of such Articles as the Hereticks had attempted to pervert and he shews that they did not cast off nor disuse the ancient Form when they made these New ones They kept the Apostles Creed still and used that in the most solemn Office of Baptism Yea they gave it the precedence before all other Creeds and therefore the Third General Council says They received in the first place the Creed delivered to them by the most Holy Apostles and then the Confession made by 318 Holy Fathers in the City of Nice (y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Act. Concil Ephesin Bin. Tom. I. par 2. pag. 415. Wherefore this was used and reckoned in the first place even after other Creeds came in Finally He need not wonder that the Creed in the Constitutions is not the same with that which we call the Apostles because no Man pretends now that the Apostles made those Constitutions The Creed found there as we have shewed is the Apostles Form as it was varied at Antioch about the Year 330 which Daillé owns to be the Time when that Clemens writ the Constitutions (z) Daill praef ad Dissert de relig cult objecto not the Year 500 as my Adversary falsly pretends (a) Disc of Lit. pag. 111. Now it is no wonder that the same Form in 300 Years time should be varied as much in two several Churches so far distant as Rome and
Salmâ—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 that we have departed both in France and Holland (*) Grot. 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 (a) 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 (b) Ibid. Thes 4 These Forms were short and plain at first consisting of some 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 (c) 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 Vntil very lately there arose in England a sort of morose 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 (d) 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 Forms (e) Thes 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 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 Prayer (f) Id. ibid. Thes â—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 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 Vpstart Independents (g) 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 Vniversal 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 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
rate concerning it As to what relates to stinted Forms of Prayer the Judicious Mr. Clerkson in his excellent Dicourse of Liturgies having so Learnedly and fully discussed it he needs only commend its perusal to the Candid Reader with an Assurance That until it be cleared that stinted Liturgies are Ancienter than that Learned Person represents them to be they shall be Freed from a strict Imposition Thus far he Who hath been so grosly mistaken in his Character of this Discourse that I know not how he can make satisfaction for being so Confident in his Error but by giving us another assurance that if we prove Liturgies are much more Ancient than his Friend represents them to be He and those who have been misled with him will no longer disturb the peace of the Church and Nation by opposing them but will quietly submit to the strict imposition of them since it is no more but to be obliged to Serve God in public by the most Primitive and Prudent way of Worship ERRATA PAg. 3. lin 13. Marg. read Philo p. 34. l. 20. Marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 28. Marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 48. l. 9. r. of praying 〈◊〉 the Pagan way p. 63. l. 3. r. assign no p. 85. l. 23. r. this cause p. 96. l. 3. r. Cardinal Bona p. 101. l. 25. r. eldest Fathers p. 109. l. 16. r. cannot be p. 115. l. 22. stop thus parts for the Heathen Worship p. 123. l. 8. r. Liturgy is put for p. 139. l. 22. Marg. verbum praedicet p. 154. l. 28. Marg. r. pag. 161. p. 156. l. 24. Marg. r. Coci censura p. 176. l. 27 177. l. 16. r. Constitutions p. 190. l. 7. r. Public Service p. 195. l. 3. stop thus provâ—â— before there p. 202. l. 19. r. is in the Manner p. 207. l. 19. Marg. r. de bapt Servator p. 211. l. 21. r. that the words p. 212. l. â— r. giving us many p. 228. l. 8. Marg. r. mundo p. 243. l. 18. r. a Solecism p. 251. l. 17. r. such Mistakes With some other literal Errors which the Judicious Reader can easily correct A Scholastical History OF THE PRIMITIVE ORIGINAL And general Use of LITURGIES IN THE Christian Church The Introduction concerning the Grounds for Liturgies in Holy Scripture § 1. THough LITURGIES have great reputation from their Ancient use in the Church and the principal design of this Tract be to prove that yet since a late Author is so bold to say They pretend not to Scripture (a) Discourse concerning Liturgy p. 1. I shall introduce my Discourse by shewing That Liturgies have a great reputation also for the testimony which the Scripture bears to them not only as the Phrases and main parts of them are the words of Scripture but because the Holy Bible makes it appear That the People of God from the beginning did generally use Forms of Prayer and Praises in their public Worship The Learned Fagius thinks they are as old as the time of Enosh when Men began publickly to call upon the Name of the Lord (b) Gen. iv 26. but it is certain that the first piece of solemn Worship among the Israelites recorded in Scripture is a Form of Praise sung in parts by the Men and Women after their deliverance from the Egyptians (c) Exod. xv ver 1. compar'd with ver 21. Soon after God himself prescribed a Form of Words by which the Priest was to bless the People (d) Num 6.23 and Forms of Prayer for those who offered their First-fruits and Tithes (e) Deut. xxvi ver 5 13. yea God prescribes a Form of Prayer for the Penitent Jews and charges them to Take words with them and turn to the Lord and say Take away all Iniquity c. and upon their using this Form He promises to heal their backslidings c. (f) Hos xiv 2 3 4. The Psalms of David were Forms of Prayer and Praise endited by the Spirit of God not only for his private use but for the publick service of the Temple (g) 1 Chron. xvi 7. 2 Chro. xxix 30. Chap. v. 13. And I could bring innumerable Proofs both out of Jewish and Christian Writers if it were needful to shew that the Jews did worship God by Set Forms and had a fixed Liturgy (h) Josephus Philo P. Fagius Scaliger Buxtorf Synag Seld. in Eutych but I shall only refer to two Great Men Doctor Hammond who proves both that they had Forms and that their Forms were in the same Method with our Common-Prayer (i) Dr. Hamm. View of Direct p. 136. Oxford Papers p. 260. Vol. 1. And Dr. Lightfoot who not only asserts they had stated Forms (k) Dr. Lightfoot Vol. 2. p. 158. p. 1139. but sets down the order both of their Hymns and Supplications gives us the Words which they used (l) Idem Vol. l. p. 922 942 946. and learnedly demonstrates that these Forms continued even to our Saviours time and long after (m) Ibid. p. 157 Exp on Mutiâ— vi 9. Now from this short but full Evidence we thus argue If the Jews who were Gods only People and the best among them even such as were inspired and in the purest times of that Church did worship God acceptably by Set Forms of Prayer in their public Devotions then a Liturgy is no argument of a corrupted Church no hindrance to servency no way displeasing to God nor unfit for public Assemblies as our Adversary pretends But neither he nor his Friends are able to produce one instance where either God disliked Forms or good Men complained of them under the legal Dispensation Therefore I may conclude That Liturgies are very agreeable to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and may be justified from many places thereof § 2. To this it may be objected That though this Method of Praying was agreeable to the old Law it is not suitable to Gospel-times To which I reply First That this yields the Cause as to the Jewish Church and is a clear acknowledgment that the Faithful did then Worship God by Forms But Secondly Since the Duties of Prayer and Praise are grounded on the same Reason now that they were then and neither are nor were intended to be abrogated they who say this must assign some satisfactory Reason why these Duties may not be performed now in the same manner that they were performed then otherwise it is not probable that a Form as such is unsuitable to the Gospel way of Worship especially since Christ and his Apostles who duly frequented the Temple-Worship where these Men grant Forms were used did never shew any dislike of that way of Worshiping and though they taxed their other Corruptions very freely they joyned in these Forms and never reproved the Jews for using them Thirdly This way of serving God having been so anciently and universally used if Jesus had designed to alter it and set up the new
That his Friend Du-Plessis saith The Lord's Prayer was commended to the Apostles for their ordinary Prayer (d) Du-Plessis of the Mass Book I. chap. 1. pag. 9. I have been more particular in clearing this point that I may shew the Reader to how little purpose this Author usually fills his Margen and may now conclude That Christ did intend this Prayer for a Form and so it was used by the Church in all Ages Secondly We are often told of a Gift of Prayer which was in the Apostolick Church and this Gift enabling Persons as they suppose to express their wants in Extempore Phrases made Forms in that Age however useless I Answer That this Gift is not expresly mentioned in Scripture nor in any ancient Author but S. Chrysostom and he holds it was a Miraculous Gift peculiar to the Pastors of the Church and saith it was ceased long before his time so that in S. Chrysostom's Opinion our Dissenters Extempore Prayers cannot proceed from this Gift and it is plain they pervert all the places of Scripture which they produce to prove their claim to this Gift of Prayer Christ indeed saith When the Apostles Martyrs or Confessors were brought before their Enemies and Persecutors They need take no thought how or what they should speak for it should be given them in that hour what they should speak (e) Math. x. 19. But What is this saith a Learned Father to speaking before our Friends where premeditation is enjoyned (f) Isidor Peleus lib. 4. ep 218. or what reason is there to apply this to the Prayers we make to God to whom we must not say any thing which we have not well considered on before we speak it (g) Eccles v. 1 2. Secondly They alledge that place of S. Paul Rom. VIII 26. The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities for we know not what to pray for as we ought c But this place cannot be meant of the infirmity of wanting Words because it is here said The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be uttered and the Context shews that S. Paul is speaking of the infirmity of Impatience under present Afflictions and praying for immediate deliverance even when it is not pleasing to God nor profitable for us Now this Infirmity the Spirit helpeth and teacheth us to bear them patiently and submit to Gods Will yea to pray his Will may be done yet in the mean time the Spirit pleads with God to deliver us and that with inexpressible ardency So that this place is no ground for any to expect the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit to teach them new Words and Phrases in ordinary Cases and for their daily Prayers Thirdly They tell us S. Paul speaks of praying with the Spirit and praying with understanding (h) 1 Cor. xiv 15. I Answer He is discoursing of praying in an unknown Tongue which since none of our Adversaries can do now this place is nothing to their purpose and I much question whether they who pray Extempore can be said to pray with understanding as to their own particulars because they neither know before what they are to say nor can remember afterward what they have said However the strict Meaning of this place is no More but that if a Man who had the Gift of Tongues prayed in a Congregation which understood not the Language he prayed in he must Make the People understand the meaning of his Prayer or be silent but whether his Prayer were a Form or Extempore is not said in this place which refers to the Gift of Tongues and not to the Gift of Prayer But our Adversary hath a peculiar Notion of this Gift of Prayer viz. That it was an ordinary Gift common to all Christians and continuing to this day which he proves because all to whom the Apostles writ are exhorted to Pray in the Spirit (i) Ephes vi 18. and to pray in the Holy Ghost (k) Jude ver 20. by which he understands that they were all able to conceive their own Prayers and therefore he thinks if they made use of Prayers formed by others they did not exercise their own Gift nor pray as they were able (l) Discourse of Liturg. p. 128 129. To which I Reply That the absurd consequences of this Exposition ought to make our Author ashamed of it since it would follow from hence That no Man in their public Assemblies except the Minister did Pray in the Spirit because the Minister alone conceives the Prayer and though it be Extempore to him yet it is a Form to the whole Congregation who must pray in his Words and not exercise their own Gift of Praying by the Spirit in his Sense which is to invent the Words by the Spirit Rejecting therefore this absurd Exposition that leads to so ridiculous a Conclusion we shall note That praying with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit Ephes vi 18. signifies no more than praying fervently and heartily as loving in the Spirit (m) Coloss I. ver 8. is put for loving fervently ex animo from the Heart Thus Grotius expounds it Praying not only with the Voice but from the Heart (n) Grot. Com. in Ephes vi 18. And thus Praying in the Holy Ghost Jude ver 20. implies Praying with that devotion and fervency which we are moved to by the Holy Spirit but then this is no extraordinary Gift this is no more than what both Then and Now every good Man by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit might and may do even by a Form for he that repeats that so as to attend the Sense and heartily desires every Petition may be granted he prays by the Spirit or in the Spirit as these Scriptures exhort and thus the People as well as the Priest in public or private may and ought to pray in the Spirit Which shews that these places rightly expounded are nothing at all to our Dissenters pretended gift of Inventing new Words every time they Pray We will grant there was such a Gift in the Apostles times But we judge St. Chrysostom knew much better than they what it was and he thinks it was as Miraculous as the gift of Tongues with which St. Paul joyns it He saith it was given only to one and affirms it was ceased long before his time and seems to imply that the Forms which were made in his Days had their Original from the Prayers which were made at first by these inspired Men Whose Prayers thus conceived were written down and so preserved and used when the Gift it self failed And when we consider the agreeableness of all Ancient Liturgies in the Method and even in many of the Phrases and Forms and their neer Resemblance to each other we may Rationally believe they were all derived at first from that One Spirit which directed all Inspired Men in their new planted Churches to ask fit and proper things almost in the very same Words And thus the
is to be kept in our own Breast for our Lord saith we must not declare it to Swine and expose it to Dogs (c) Sanctum quotidie jubeamur intra Conscientiam nostram tenere Cypr. ad Demetr §. 1. p. 324. And from that same Text of Matth. VII 6. the same Author proves That the Mysteries of our Faith are not to be profaned by publishing them to those without (d) Idem lib. 3. test ad Quirin §. 50. p. 429. Wherefore since it is so clear even in these early Ages that they were scrupulous of publishing their ways of Worship we may conclude that no full and clear account of their Forms at large can be expected among these Writers And it is sufficient that they mention some and darkly hint at others of those Mysterious Forms sometimes and that they do plainly attest they had a prescribed Liturgy though they had but seldom an occasion or an inclination to tell us what it was Hippolytus Mar. An. Dom. 220. § 2. Among the Writers of this Age the first is Hippolytus a Bishop and Martyr who in his discourse of the End of the World and the Coming of Antichrist puts it among the Signs of those evil Times That Liturgy shall be extinguished singing of Psalms shall cease and reading of Scripture shall not be heard (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hippol. de Consum Mund. Bib. Patr. T. 2. p. 357. Which shews that the public Service of which he there speaks consisted then of three parts The ministration of Prayers Singing of Psalms and Reading the Scripture And the first of these is called Liturgy which though it signifie any public Service in general and be sometimes applied to the whole Public Worship yet where it is limited only to Prayers as it is here it implies a Common Form used generally which will be more probable to be this Fathers Sense if we consider that he saith Liturgy shall be extinguished that is the public Forms shall not be permitted to be used which cannot be properly said of Extempore Prayers they being an inward Gift as our Adversaries pretend And Antichrist himself hath no power to extinguish or put out Mens Gifts He may suppress the use of Forms of Prayer but the Extempore Mens faculty was not liable to any such interdict as could extinguish it And why may we not believe the Prayers in this Age were suitable to the rest of the Offices They sang by a Form out of a Book and read the Lessons out of a Book so that they scrupled not the use of Forms wherefore there is no ground to believe they disliked Forms of Prayer and consequently nothing to hinder us from expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the usual sense viz. of the Public Liturgy which Antichrist would not allow the Christians to use § 3. Our next Author is the Famous Origen Origen Adam An. Dom. 230. who hath so clear and convincing a Testimony for the use of a Liturgy in his Homilies on Jeremy that the Learned Centuriators were convinced by it that Set Forms of Prayer were used in his time for they thus cite the place It is say they without question that they had some Set Forms of Prayer in this Age for Origen in his XIth Homily on Jeremy seems to allude to those we now call Collects where he tells us We frequently say in our Prayers Grant O Almighty God grant us a part with thy Prophets and with the Apostles of thy Son Christ grant that we may be found at the Feet of thy only begotten (f) Formulas domque quasdam precationum absque dubio habuerunt Cent. Magdeb. cent 3. cap. 6. pag. 135. And if we consider that our Saviour promised to such as were effectually Converted that they should sit down with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God (g) Matth. viii 11 and that the Holy Apostles and Prophets are describ'd in Scripture as rejoycing together in Heaven (h) Revel xviii 20. we shall be convinced this Form of Prayer is grounded upon Christ's Promise and upon the Word of God and consequently must own the Prayer to be pure and primitive Indeed our Adversary uses many Artisices to wrest this Testimony from us (i) Discourse of Liturg p. 141. but all in vain First he saith Ruffinus made many additions to Origens Homilies so that possibly this may be one of his Additions I Answer If he were sure Ruffinus added this yet since he lived in the next Century that would serve to confute him who maintains there were no prescribed Forms till the Fifth or Sixth Age But we can make it very probable Ruffinus did not add this passage First because there is nothing in it but what agrees well enough to Origen's time and to his Doctrin Secondly In Ruffinus his time they had made some steps towards Invocation of Saints and therefore had it been a Prayer composed by him there would have been some footsteps of that Superstition some Address to or expectation from the Apostles and Prophets whereas this Prayer only supposes them to be in Heaven and desires God to grant us a part with them Again Our Adversary saith These Words if they be Origens will no more prove this was a prescribed Form than S. Paul 's was Ephes I. 16 17. where he saith He ceased not to make mention of the Ephesians in his Prayers that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ might give them tht Spirit of Wisdom c. I Reply His Parallel will by no means hold since the Apostle only relates and reckons up the things he asked for them and speaking to the Ephesians gives them an account of the Subject of his Petitions for them But Origen is repeating the Words of a Prayer and speaks directly to God therefore this must be a Form of common use as the Magdeburg Divines believed it to be Having thus detected his Sophistry and answered his Cavils and so cleared this Evidence for a Set Form we shall more easily understand that Origen refers to an usual Liturgy in another place where he saith They who serve God through Jesus in the Christian way and live according to the Gospel use frequently as becomes them night and day the enjoyned Prayers (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels lib. 6. pag. 302. Whence we infer that the Christian way was to serve God night and day with prescribed Prayers for the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies not only a thing enjoyned or commanded in general as Isocrates and Aeschines use the word (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Isocr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aeschin ita Math. i. 24. but so enjoyned that the very order and manner of doing it is set down and particularly appointed So those directions concerning the Leper's offering his Gift which Moses prescribed in the Old Law Levit. xiv 4. is called doing that which Moses 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 commanded them that is which he prescribed
how they should do (m) Math. viii 4. Mark i. 44. Luke v. 14. and the Word whence it is derived signifies to methodize put in order and to place Souldiers in their Ranks (n) Cor. 15.23 so to do all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to Order (o) 1 Cor. xiv 40. is to act according to a prescribed Rule which Rule S. Paul saith he will make or prescribe when he came (p) 1 Cor. xi 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This then being the proper and natural signification of this Word we may reasonably expound it of Prescribed Forms of Prayer both for Morning and Evening of which as the Centuriators observe Origen speaks in other places (q) Magdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 134. But our Adversary would shift off this proof also First By asking If these were not private Prayers (r) Disc of Liturg pag 140. I Answer The Words are general not restrained either to public or private Prayers expresly but it being certain the Christians had a custom to assemble Morning and Evening to Prayers the phrase of using these Prayers Night and Day seems chiefly to be referred to public Offices Secondly He asks If no Prayers can be commanded but in Set Forms I Reply The Word doth not barely signifie Prayers commanded but enjoyned according to a prescribed Order as I have proved Now Prayers left to the Invention of Men to be daily made new cannot properly be called Ordered Prayers And therefore though Christian Ministers were commanded to preach yet the Words and Method being left to their invention or choice our Adversary can no where find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of as an Epithet for a Sermon or Homily Note also Origen doth not say The Christians made these enjoyned Prayers but used them which supposes they were made into a prescribed Form before Thirdly He enquires If there be no Commands for Praying frequently but Human Prescriptions and I must ask what is this to the purpose Origen is not speaking of Commanding Men to pray nor declaring whether the Duty of Prayer be prescribed by God or the Church He is speaking of the Prayers themselves and gives them this Character that they were Ordered or Prescribed so that he is very impertinent to tell us of Divine Commands to pray frequently since Origen's Words are not about Obeying a Precept to Pray but using ordered enjoyned or prescribed Prayers which all ingenuous Men must own to be in Forms and that proves a Liturgy because it is Prayers in the plural Number Thirdly in the same Books against Celsus when Origen cites some certain passages out of the Psalms â—e brings them in with these Prefaces We â—nd in the Prayers or We say often in the Prayer (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels lib. 4. p. 178 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. pag. 197. And thus it is said in the Prayer or The prudent when he prayeth â—aith (t) Idem lib. 6. pag. 285. lib. 7. pag. 354. Now when we consider that the Psalms were the main part of the Jewish Liturgy and that the Christians in the first Ages inclined to imitate their Forms and above all the Old Testament admired and frequently used the Book of Psalms and took their Forms of Praise from thence we may conclude they borrowed many Forms of Prayer also from the Psalms and transcribed them into their Liturgy so that Origen appeals to these passages as being known by the Christians to be a part of their Prayers Which will still be clearer when we observe that the Abassine Christians who are very tenacious of primitive Rites and derived most of their Usages from the Ancient Church of Alexandria as Ludolfus relates Take most of their daily Prayers out of the Psalter (u) Ludolf hist Ethiop lib. 2. cap. 12. And therefore Origen who belonged to Alexandria no doubt refers by these Prefaces to the public and known Liturgy then used in that famous Church Our Adversary is not pleased at this Inference and whereas his own Eyes are so blinded with his Extempore Way that he cannot see the clearest light for Forms he saith it argues a Fancy deeply tinctured with Liturgies to suppose this to be any proof of them But let it be noted he barely asserts it is no proof and most falsly represents the matter for he saith When Origen quotes any passage out of the Psalms he thus speaks c. (w) Discourse of Liturg. p. 139. Now this is not true because first Origen in that very Book cites an hundred passages out of the Psalms without any such Preface without saying They are found in the Prayers c. Secondly The places which he doth cite with such a Preface are always very proper to be used in a Liturgy as Forms of Praise or Prayer Such as these The Earth is full of the Goodness of the Lord and Open thou mine Eyes that I may see the wondrous things of thy Law Create in me a clean Heart O God and the like So that these and no other passages being said to be found in the Prayers c. no doubt we have all imaginable cause to think that these very words of the Psalms were in Origen 's time used in the Churches Liturgy and prescribed in the Forms of Public Prayer Especially since he can ascribe no sufficient Reason but the peculiar use made of these Select places in the public Offices which made Origen quote them with such a Preface and cite other passages of the Psalms as he doth other Scriptures without any Preface at all Fourthly Our Adversary cites another place out of Origen's Homilies taken at the second hand from Dailé to prove they used no Forms of Prayer in that Age because it is said Our Thoughts must not wander after our Senses in Prayer but be wholly intent and fixed on God not being disturbed by the Idea of any External appearance (y) Orig. in Num. hom XI I shall not here need to fly to his help at a dead lift that possibly Ruffinus the Translator did put in these Words For allowing them to be genuine it must be more unlawful to let our Minds wander after new Phrases and our Fancy rove about for Matter Order and Words which is the case in Extempore Prayer than it is to repeat the Words of a known Form which we can say by heart or read without disturbance because the actings of the Fancy and Invention in Extempore Prayer do much more hinder the Mind from steddy thinking upon God than having a Book before us in the recital of a common and usual Form Lastly I hope it is needless to repeat what was shewed before viz. That Origen's Phrases of Praising God as well as we are able (z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cels l. 8. pag. 402. and Praying to him with all the might we have (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ib. pag. 386. See the Discourse of Liturg