Roman Forms afterward and therefore 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 Vniformity 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 (c) Disc of Lit. â—ag 13â— To shew the weakness and mistakes of which Argument and Instances 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 did (d) Iren. adv haer lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 53. And in a Council held at Colen An. 347. Six of the German Bishops were present (e) Bin. 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 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 re-established 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 Rome (f) Mornay of the Mass Book I. chap. 8. pag. 65. Or as the Centuriators relate it (g) Magdeb. 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 Vsage 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 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 (h) Decret lib. 1. Tit. 3 1. de Offic. Jud. cap. 14. mihi pag. 452. Now this Decretal only provides for such Cities wherein there 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 diversity of celebrating Divine Offices in his Province appointed there that the same Order should be every where observed (i) 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 subject (k) Heylin Cosm lib. 2. pag. 47. And even at this day Miraeus doth reckon up five Diocesses beside that of Colen all under this great Metropolitan (l) Mirai 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 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
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
stand up and with great Decency (o) Id. hom 4. de natura Dei And that Holy things must be given to Holy persons (p) Idem hom 17. in Hebraeos Both which passages are in the Liturgy in the Constitutions in so many Words (q) Constit lib. 8. cap. 15. cap. 20. And also in every one of the ancient Liturgies which go under the names of S. James S. Basil and S. Chrysostom in all which also there is a Form of Prayer after the Holy Communion (r) Constit lib. 8. cap. 22. and S. Chrysostom hath a Homily to reprove those Who left the holy Liturgy unfinished and went out before the last Prayer which is the Title of that Homily (s) Chrys Tom. 5. edit Front Dac et p. 522. All which abundantly proves that there was a set and prescribed Liturgy at that time by which the Eucharist was Administred I might be much larger in my proof of this had I time to make a narrower search in the learned Volumes of this elegant Father but I take this to be sufficient especially if we consider the Evidence we have that S. Chrysostom did compose that Liturgy as to the main which now goeth under his name The Authorities and Arguments for which being much the same with those produced for the Liturgy of S. Basil (t) See before in this Chap. §. 15. we refer the Reader thither And shall here only observe First That Proclus who was S. Chrysostoms successor at Constanstinople and came into that See within 27 years after Chrysostoms Death affirms That this Holy Father like a good Pastor who was careful of his Flock resolved to root up all the pretences which human sloth was wont to make and therefore drew up a shorter Form of Prayers for the celebrating of the Eucharist lest Men who hate to be confined too long being deceived by the craft of the Devil should omit this Divine Ordinance (u) Proclus de traditione divinae Missae And the Greek Church hath ever since used this Liturgy as the genuin composure of S. Chrysostom Secondly The main part of this Liturgy is found either explicitly or by plain intimations in the genuin Works of S. Chrysostom who reckons up the same Ceremonies Hymns and Prayers and generally in the same order And also upon occasion comments upon and explains both the Rites and ancient Forms and covertly refers to many more passages in this Liturgy only he would not speak out because his Homilies were Preached to a promiscuous Auditory Thirdly There is a great part of this Liturgy very pure Primitive and worthy of this great Author even so much of it as is Recorded in his own Writings and in the Works of S. Cyprian S. Cyril S. Basil S. Augustin and others or so much of it as is taken out of Holy Scripture And in all this there is nothing of Praying to Saints to Angels or the blessed Virgin nothing of any Prayers for delivering the deceased from pain nothing of venerating the Cross or any other Image The passages which look this way are later Patches tacked to this holy Liturgy in corrupter times easily distinguishable from the Original composure both by the Stile and Matter wherefore these Parts we reject but must not throw away the Wheat with the Chaff there being no Father to which some corrupt Additions have not been made but we must not for the sake of these spurious Tracts reject that which is true and genuine Fourthly Since it is so clear that Forms had been long used in the Church and that the Gift of Prayer was ceased before this Century began it cannot but be very probable that so great a Bishop of so eminent a Diocess and with so large a Jurisdiction should model and correct the ancient Forms and adapt them to the use of the Churches under his care as S. Basil had done for those under his charge especially since no ancient Author did ever contradict this Universally received Notion That this Liturgy was made by S. Chrysostom Nor doth any Historian assign any other Person as the maker thereof or mention this Liturgy as coming into use in any other Age. § 20. And now we will consider those things which are objected both against the use of Forms in this Age and against the Authority of this Liturgy my Adversary produces divers places out of S. Chrysostom to prove that Words spoken in the Celebration of the Sacraments were Mysteries which S. Chrysostom thinks ought to be concealed and therefore he supposes there were no Written Forms in his time however none of his Wrting (w) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 29. pag. 35 36 37. I have often answered this Argument before But I shall now observe That this Notion of the great Sin of divulging Mysteries to the Unbaptized hinders S. Chrysostom in his Discourses which are generally Sermons Homilies and Orations made to a promiscuous Auditory from giving as many Passages of the Ecclesiastical Forms which he generally there wraps up in dark Expressions yet his appealing to the Faithful and telling them they knew and remembred such and such things is a certain sign that there were known and prescribed Forms For how could he appeal to the Initiated or tell them they knew or remembred such or such a Passage which he darkly hinted if Sacraments had been celebrated or Prayers made in the Extempore way by Phrases daily varied Thus in those Instances which my Adversary brings Speaking of the Litany used by the Faithful S. Chrysostom saith It is a Mystery but the Initiated know how it abounds with Mercy (x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chry◠in Matth. hom 71. p. 451. Disc of Liturg. pag. 29. This must be some Form which they knew otherwise he could not have made this Appeal So when this Father speaks of the mystical Words in Baptism he doubts not but those who were baptized could remember what they Answered (y) Id. Hom. 40. in 1 Cor. p 514. Disc of Liturg. Marg. pag. 29. which shews they Answered in a certain Form of Words And it appears they also had a set and certain Form of renouncing the Devil because S. Chrysostom appeals to the Initiated and bids them Remember those Words by which they renounced the Devils Tyranny (z) Hom. 2. in 2 Epist ad Cor. pag. 555. yet our Adversary by a dexterity of arguing peculiar to himself cites this to prove there was no Form of Renunciation (a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 37. By which rare Art also he quotes S. Chrysostom's Exposition of Gal IV. 28. where he saith The Faithful knew the Divine Words pronounced by the Priest at their Baptism (b) Chrys hom in 4 Galat. p. 748. Disc of Liturg. p. 37. to prove there were no Forms and yet if there had not been known Forms this Appeal could not have been made For no Dissenting Pastor who Officiates Extempore can appeal to his Congregation and say You know
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
Concil 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 (k) 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 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 (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 â—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 (m) 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 (n) 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 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 Britannieâ—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 was brought in by the Popes Legates (o) Disc of Lit. p. 134. 135. In which words he refers to a former Quotation which he made out of Bishop Vsher 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 (p) 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 Vsher 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 which he quotes an old Manuscript written neer 900 years ago extant in Sir Robert Cottens Library (q) Usâ—er Relig. oâ— 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 theâ—r Neighbors the Gauls (r) Spâ—â—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 Vsher 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 the Gauls is intimated by the Author of that ancient Fragment alledged
of them was asked If he had any Writing in his House (t) Habes ergo Scripturam aliquam in domo tuâ Baron An. 303. §. 50. Another was charged to give up those Books and whatsoever Parchments he had (u) 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 (w) 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 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 (x) 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 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 (y) 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 before shewed the falshood of that pretence and proved that he cited and referred to the African Forms (z) Part. 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 (a) 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 (b) See this Hist Part. I. Chap. 4. §. 10. S. Augustin to convince the Pelagians (c) Ibid. §. 21. pag. 228. S Hierom brings in the Gloria in excelsis to expose the same Hereticks (d) Hieron cont Pelag. lib. 2. pag. 447. Celestin cites the Prayers for all Men (e) See Part. II. Chap. I. §. 5. and Petrus Diaconus in Fulgentius the Prayer of Consecration to decide the Controversies of their Times (f) Ibid. 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 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 Forms (g) See 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 Age (h) Ibid. 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 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
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
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.