A Discourse Concerning Liturgies

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

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

If they had seen it, it would appear in their practice, there especially where the Reason is thought to be most cogent, viz. in the administration of the Sacraments. It is presumed, that there first of all, there especially, forms of Prayer were (and are to be) prescribed; and so it will be granted, that if Antiquity be not for them there, it owns them nowhere.

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

It is not denied, but there were some Forms of Prayer of old, viz. arbitrary and particular, such as this or that Person composed himself, or made choice of composed by others, for his use in public. There is an intimation of this later sort, Can. 23. Con. Carthag. 3. held in the conclusion of the fourth Age; and it is the first that I meet with. But common Forms (though arbitrary) viz. such as many Churches made use of in the same words, I cannot discover till many years after; unless the Lord's Prayer be made an instance hereof . This indeed was used anciently, but far otherwise then of late, not more then once at one Assembly, not in Prayers before or after Sermon, not at all in the Catechumens office, nowhere in their ordinary Service; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in 2 Cor. hom. 3.) as Chrysostom calls the Eucharistical Office; and there commonly in the conclusion of the Prayer for the blessing of the Elements.

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

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

Besides such direction as is in those Canons, other written Rubrics were not needful. For the actual disposing of the severals in their proper place, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 served them, of which Can. 22. and 23. Conc. Laodic. This managed by a Deacon, acquainted with the usages of the Church where he ministered, was sufficient, without other Rubric for that purpose, supposing it answered that description of its ancient use, which we have in Balsamo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Clemens Alexandrinus strom. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : We raise our heads (in Prayer) and lift up hands to Heaven.

To whom we might add Cyprian ad Demetrium.

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

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

So Dionysius of Alexandria, representing to Xystus of Rome the case of that troubled person, and that, amongst other scruples, he durst not join with them in Prayer, does it in these terms, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Euseb. l. 7. c. 8. p. 188. Lifting up the eyes to Heaven, is a phrase, by which Prayer is understood in this third Age .

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

Chrysostom observes, from Christ's posture in prayer expressed, Jo. 17. 1. These words spake Jesus, and lift up his eyes to Heaven; that thereby we are taught, when we pray, to lift up both eyes of Body and Mind: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 890. So Hillary, Euthymius, Theophylact, Leontius, Ammonius, in Maldonado. on Mat. 14. 19. c. 302.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Gregorius the Arian Bishop came to take possession of the Bishopric of Alexandria, and entered a Church by force, of what abuses were offered to all things therein, Athanasius gives a particular account; the Table, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Scriptures, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Font, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Wine, the Oil, the Doors and latticed Partitions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Candlesticks, the Tapers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Ad Africanos ep. tom. 1. p. 729. But not a word of a Service Book, no more then of a Book of Homilies.

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

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

Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. 4. c. 34. 'O 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and cap. 36. p. 401. where we have that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

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

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

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

And the Peripatetics, with other Philosophers, curtailing and confining the Providence of God to generals, or to the Orb of the Moon, so as Human affairs were not regarded by him; and all Human addresses to him, were to no purpose; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Or. p. 156. Or as Justin Martyr represents them, Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence they durst not administer them in the sight of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor discourse of them intelligibly in the hearing of such, nor commit them to writing for common use; that being the way to have them divulged.

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

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

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

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

They would not speak of them in the hearing of others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; He is impious that speaks of the mysteries to those that are not initiated, says Chrysippus in Laertius. This was part of Alcibiades crime, mysteria Cereris enuntiavisse . And Augustus, when he was to hear a Cause, wherein these mysteries were touched, would not let it be opened, till the Company was dismissed .

They would not commit them to Writing. And so we may observe, that when the Antient Writers have occasion to deliver anything particularly concerning them, they wave it with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : So Apollonius of the Samothracian mysteries.

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

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

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

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

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

So elsewhere he says, the Catechumens were forced away from these Prayers, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; they never heard those concealed Mysteries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , applying that of the Apostle to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. in 2 Cor. hom. 2. p. 553.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that we have of Cyrils Bishop of Jerusalem are extemporary Discourses; as Vossius observes, from the inscription of them, nonne cogitant catecheses 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sive extemporales, ut inscriptio indicat? De Symb. p. 38.

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

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

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

Atticus, Presbyter at Constantinople in Chrysostom's time, and afterwards Bishop there, though far short of his Predecessors accomplishments; yet, by industry and practice, as Socrates tells us, he attained the faculty of delivering himself ex tempore to his Auditory; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hist. eccles. l. 7. cap. 2. p. 733.

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

Augustine also, not only in his Conflicts with Adversaries, but also in his Sermons to the people, used extemporali dictione, as Erasmus observes, in whose judgment, he nowhere more appears admirable then in this; not that these Discourses are more excellent then his more elaborate Works (as if he had been, what the Historian says of Tiberius, ex tempore quam a cura praestantior ), but because he could do better on a sudden, then others (though well accomplished) with time and study. One remarkable instance we have in Possidonius , who tells us in Augustine's words, of Firmus a Manichee converted by such a Discourse, as he never designed before he had begun the Sermon, Vit. August. c. 15. And that seems another, which is entitled concio super gestis cum Emerito Donat., being occasioned by an acclamation of the people at the Assembly, Tom. 7. pars 1. p. 770.

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

Thus they did Preach, and thus they might Pray. Nazianzen having given an account how his Father prayed, in celebrating the Eucharist, adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Orat. 19. p. 305.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now Epiphanius celebrated the Eucharist himself thrice a week, as he thought by Apostolical order; so he tells us, expos. fidei, p. 110. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vid. Albas.

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

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

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

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

As also what Chrysostom saith, viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom. 41. p. 524. And elsewhere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and after, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Chrys. in Hebr. hom. 15. p. 515.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Learned Remonstrant says, in answer to this, that in Justin Martyrs time, they prayed according to their ability, and yet had a public Liturgy, as we have, though ours pray according to their ability: (meaning, I suppose, before and after Sermon.) And so he grants (if I understand him) that they used no public Liturgy, in celebrating or consecrating the Eucharist; (for of the Prayer for sanctifying the Elements the Holy Martyr speaks it); and thereby yields all that we now allege it for, and in effect all that we desire: Since it will be easy to satisfy the World, that, if they used no public Liturgy, no prescribed Forms of Prayer, in this part of Worship, they used none, in any. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in this very passage, rendered by themselves in like manner as before; gives us notice, that as they prayed here, so in like manner they prayed in the other parts of Worship, which he had given account of immediately before, in Baptism, in the Lord's Supper, in all 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to their ability, without any public, any prescribed Liturgy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcion imitated the Christians herein, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 9. in Epipha. l. 1. tom. 3. Hier. 34.

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

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , p. 396. After he had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, as Gregory did not impose the Roman Canon, or form of Consecration on Austin, nor would have him prescribe it to others: So Austin, though rigid and imperious enough, did not offer to impose it on the Britons. He requires of them, but conformity in three things only, as Beda relates that transaction, whereof this was none . But, if he had insisted on this, he had found no more compliance herein, then in the other: For the Britons and Scots, were not only enemies to the Roman use in the Eucharist in Gildas time; but were adverse to, and unacquainted with any uniformity, as in Celebrating the Lord's Supper, so in other parts of Worship; and had no prescribed Liturgies for such uniformity long after. Which is manifest, by what Bishop Usher, the most Learned of our Bishops, affirms of the Irish, (who with the Scots, ) as he tells us, ( Epist. Dedic. ) differed little or nothing from what was maintained by their Neighbors the Britain's ut p. 98.

So that the Irish for above eleven hundred years (and the Britons and Scots, if not so long, yet long after Austin ) retained such liberty herein, as the Church anciently enjoyed in all quarters of the World. And when Gillibert, one of those Roman Legates, rails at those various modes of administering Worship as Schismatical, and such wherewith all Ireland had been deluded: He does no more, then those (whom a better prospect of things, in later and clearer times, might have made wiser) who are ready still to brand that as Schism, which agrees not with their own novel conceits or orders, how correspondent soever it be to the general usages of the ancient Churches. And whether of old, the Churches had any such custom, as to confine the administration of the Lord's Supper to prescribed Forms of Prayer; let those, who are disinteressed, judge by the premises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The like liberty was taken, in changing the next phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 'tis in Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. p. 159, 160.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And thus we have made it sufficiently evident, that in the Antient Church, the order for Administring the Sacraments (the Prayers especially used in their Consecration) were not prescribed; nor the Administrators thereof under any such restraint, as later and worse times thought fit for them. I might endeavor to give the like satisfaction concerning other parts of Worship, which were Administred by Prayers; and might do it now with more ease than this already done. But it is not needful, since those, who show the greatest passion for the Forms in question, affirm, that in the Sacraments they were and are most necessary, and were first there used; and so must acknowledge, that when they were not in use there, they were nowhere used, nor anywhere counted needful: And besides, this Discourse grows long, (and so may be tedious) beyond what I expected or designed. I will therefore only add some few testimonies, which give evidence against such Forms in general, and will reach the particulars, as therein involved; easing myself and others thereby of a tedious and superfluous labor.

Begin we with Justin Martyr, one of the first Writers left us of unquestioned credit, after the Apostles times: Who, Apol. 2. p. 139. hath these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

In his time, they Prayed and gave Thanks according to their ability. Now certainly, the abilities of the Pastors, at least, of those times, reached further without stretching, than the reading or reciting of some Prayers, composed for them by others. They were persons ordinarily of greatest abilities amongst the Christians. When ordinary Christians were superior to the Pastors of after times, they wanted not the knowledge of Divine things, nor the sense of their Spiritual condition, or their Peoples, nor a faculty to express tolerably what they knew and felt. They were not besotted by intemperance, nor had lost the use of their faculties for want of exercise, nor were their gifts shrivled up by a curse, because they did not employ them: They had ability to frame their own Prayers, as well as to make their own Sermons; and if they confined themselves to Prayers made by others, they did not give Thanks and Pray, as the Holy Martyr says they did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , according to their ability, or as they were able. The phrase hath been sufficiently vindicated before; but because it here occurs again, let this be added for further satisfaction. It is said, that it denotes not the exercise of abilities for Prayer, but earnestness in Praying, neither less nor more: But this is only said, without any proof, without any instance where it is so taken, either in Justin Martyr, or any other. The best way to discern the import of it, will be to observe, how this and other of the same signification are used commonly in this or other Authors. Now Five hundred instances might be produced, wherein this expression, and others of the same import, do clearly denote the exercise of abilities for the work, to which they are applied. I will but give a taste hereof in a like case, preaching or writing, pastoral works, as Prayer is. In Justin Martyr, where he says, they did exhort the Brethren 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and when he tells Trypho he would make a collection of all the places of Scripture which concerned the millennium, he would make a collection 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In Origen, when he says, the Christians instructed many 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and what Celsus alleged he would examine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So in Eusebius, when he tells us, the Bishops made panegyrical Orations 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , & de vit. Const. l. 4. c. 29. Likewise in Basil, when he speaks of Praising Gordius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , forgetting his own weakness, and says, he will explain the words of the Apostle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that the impiety (he is mentioning) was elsewhere refuted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and that he had preached the day before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Also in Chrysostom, when he says it was necessary he should 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , discourse of Prayer; and frequently elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in Ireland, (with which the Britons and Scots symbolized) we shown 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 use was brought in, by the Popes Legates.

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

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

Clemens Alexandrinus is one of the ancientest Authors produced for this purpose; and he in these words, Strom. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , thus rendered, The Congregation addicted to their Prayers, having as it were, one mind, and one voice common to all. Now (says my Author) a Congregation cannot have one voice in their Prayers, without a set Form for them to join in. But this is very strange and mysterious; I had thought, as others do, that the Congregation had one voice, in respect of the Minister speaking in their stead, one for all, and therefore accounted the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the mouth of the People in Praying, (as when he Preaches in the name of Christ, he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Clemens 's style, Strom. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Basil calls Nazianzen, Ep. 141. Now who can imagine, why he should not be their mouth, in uttering a conceived Prayer, as well as in reading a Prayer out of a Book. He had told us immediately before (and it is generally, by those of his persuasion acknowledged) that while the gift of Prayer lasted, viz. in the Apostolical Age, there was no Form settled; and therefore, if the People cannot have one voice in their Prayers, without a set Form; an Apostle, or other primitive Minister, Praying with a Congregation (since he used no set Form) was not their mouth; nor did any Church Pray with one voice, all that Age.

As insufficient for this purpose, is that of Tertullian, Apol. c. 39. Oramus pro Imperatoribus, pro Ministris eorum ac potestatibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerum quiet, pro mora finis. And that of Cyprian, Epist. ad Demetr. Pro arcendis hostibus, & imbribus impetrandis, & vel auferendis vel temperandis adversis, rogamus semper & pr • ces fundimus: & pro pace ac salute vestra, &c. And that of Basil, Epist. 141. (which, though' in the Age following, we join with these, because of the same import.) A friend of his, gone to Travel, had written to him, that he would be mindful of him in his Prayers; to whom his Answer is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

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

The same Author thinks he hath discovered a Church Common-Prayer Book in Origen; but without any ground at all, save his desire to discover one so Antient: his words are,

But if he had consulted a little more with Origen, he might have discerned, that by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he means the Psalter, or Psalms of David, and no other Church Service Book, besides the Scripture. For, in that Book against Celsus, quoting any passage out of the Psalms, he says, so it is found 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so lib. 6. p. 285. edit. Cantabr. 1658. where alleging, Ps. 130. v. 1, 2, 3. he says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is said in the Prayer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. Lord, my heart is not lifted up, &c. So alleging Ps. 50. 10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , therefore it is said of him, Praying understandingly, viz. the Psalmist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , create in me, O God, a clean heart, lib. 7. p. 354. So lib. 4. p. 178. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , who find in the Prayers what the prudent ought to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord; which, being found in two Psalms, 33. 5. and 119. 64. may be the reason he quotes it in the plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this may be the place my Author intends; for he had not the confidence to transcribe it, nor direct particularly to it; having, it's like, no hopes that any, whose fancy was not deeply tinctured with his conceits of such Liturgies, looking upon the place, would mistake the Psalms of David, for a Greek Prayer Book

Origen is again produced by him; Who, says he, gives this description of a true Christian, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( lib. 6. against Cels. ) that is, as he renders it;

There needs not many words, to show the impertinency and unserviceableness of this passage, for the purpose, for which it is alleged; when it appears, that those were not private Prayers, which were to be put up night and day, at any hour of either. And 2. That there are no Prayers Commanded, but in set Forms; or that, if it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , any one would have understood thereby, prescribed and set Forms of Sermons; And 3. That there are no Commands for frequent Praying, but human inventions or prescriptions: Then this allegation may be thought pertinent, and further considered; but the producer of it would not judge it worthy so much, professing his distrust of its sufficiency to prove what he desires; Yet I profess, saith he, I do not allege this passage, as an infallible proof, because I know the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be also otherwise Interpreted. If he had said, the word, when applied to Prayers, in Origen, or any near his time, could never be but otherwise interpreted, he had spoke with more ingenuity, and no less truth.

Another place in Origen is more commonly insisted on, viz. in Homil. 11. upon Jeremy; and for imposed Forms, they argue from the mode of an expression there, which, what it was in Origen, no man can tell; since in those Latin commentaries, we never have his words, and can never know (as his Translators have used him) when we have his sense, or whether we read him or them. However, these are the words alleged, Ubi frequenter in oratione dicimus, Da omnipotence, da nobis partem cum Prophetis, da cum Apostolis Christi tui, tribue ut inveniamur ad vestigia unigeniti tui;

Here it is presumed, that these are Origen 's words, and not his Translators; and that the Form of his expression (on which alone the reasoning is grounded) is exactly and faithfully transferred to us, by those who declare they used no such exactness or faithfulness in reading him. It is presumed also, that, this was his meaning, that they frequently used, not only those Petitions, but in those very words, which there is no need we should grant: Yet if all these were yielded, no more can hence be concluded, than what is common with those who Pray Extempore, viz. That they often in Prayer, preferred one or two Petitions, in the same words. Or, if I should grant, that this was a Form of Prayer, when there is nothing to persuade it, more than that the Apostles was a set Form, Eph. 1. 16, 17, 18, &c. ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there being no less than frequenter here) yet what shadow of a proof is there, that it was a prescribed Form?

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

By this we may judge, how reasonably the same word in Cyprian is made use of, for the same purpose, Ubi vero solennibus adimpletis dare calicem Diaconus praesentibus coepit, Serm. de Lapsis;

Prayers were some of those things, which were wont to be performed before, and so may be included in solennibus. But that solennia should here denote prescribed Forms of Prayer, or such Forms as were generally frequented, or indeed, any Forms whatsoever; there is not the least show of reason (which we made evident by Cyprian 's Master, even now.) Nor could it have fallen into any imagination, but of one only, fully possessed with a conceit, that none but such Forms were then in use. The learned Person producing those words, tells us a little before, p. 240. the Eucharist was celebrated with Solemn Prayers, in the Apostles times; and yet acknowledges, these were not set Forms, but such as were suggested by the Spirit, and made by virtue of the extraordinary gift; which, with Chrysostom, he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : So that Solemn Prayers were not set Forms then; and who can divine, why they must needs be so in Cyprian?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Eighteenth Canon of the Council of Laodicea is alleged for prescribed Liturgies, p. 374. Titulus in Crab. de Orationibus quotidianis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,

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

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

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

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

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

So, applied to Prayer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , here is not a Model of prescribed Prayers, but the Exercise of Praying; and therefore, unless we will perfer a sense of the word then utterly unknown to Christians, before the proper and usual acception of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not the same prescribed Forms of Prayer, or the same of any sort; but the same Exercise of Prayer, when long, was better performed, and may be such without such Forms.

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

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

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

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

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

Only I must not forget, that some make an offer at the Liturgies, which go under the names of Basil and Chrysostom; as though' these would help their cause. But they do this but faintly, as knowing them to be, by Protestants, generally branded for counterfeits; and that for many reasons, such as their opposites count very cogent, in like case: Such being the order and matter of them, such rites there used, such persons there mentioned, many words, many things therein, that they cannot but ridiculously be ascribed to those great Persons, or to any, in, or near their times. Our English Prelates formerly had no more favor for them; take a taste thereof in Bishop White 's censure of them:

Indeed the Romanists are the great sticklers, for the Legitimation of these Missals, seeing them full of those sores, which they count the beauty of their Church. They are made use of, to countenance the worship of Images and Altars, the Intercession and Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, &c. And yet none of them have the confidence to affirm, that as we have them now, they were the issue of those, on whom they are Fathered. Only some, very loath quite to lose the advantages they would make of them, are willing to supppose, that though' they have suffered very great changes, by additions, interpolations, inversions, substractions, &c. yet something may yet remain therein of Basil 's and Chrysostom 's. But they give no reason, why they suppose this, when it is necessary they should do it, in this case, if any; since there are the same grounds, for the entire rejection of these Liturgies, which they count (and many more than they count) sufficient for the total rejecting of some others. If such groundless surmises may be admitted, no Brat, though' evidently spurious, but will procure a Legitimation, in part at least, if any can expect thereby to serve a turn; a way is hereby opened, for an equal defense of the most impudent and pernicious forgeries, that the Church hath been pestered with. Some will be apt to suppose the like of the Liturgies, Fathered upon Peter, James, Mark, and all the Apostles, in their pretended Constitutions. Something therein may be theirs, and they may as reasonably suppose it; for the Gospels, which went under the names of Peter, James, Thaddeus, Thomas, Andrew, though' they were changed and corrupted, yet what was found therein consentient to Primitive and Catholic Doctrine, might be the Apostles, and the substance of them of their composing. It's true, those Gospels were not received by the first Churches, but that makes no difference; since neither were those Liturgies received by them, no nor known, or mentioned, as we shown before, (and so not extant) till many Hundred years after the Apostles times; and upon this account, their pretence to Apostolicalness, is more ridiculous than that of the other. And they, who received those spurious Liturgies so late, might, upon the same terms, have admitted the forged Gospels, viz. changing and patching them, as they listed. But enough of this before.

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

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

Ambrose, who borrowed many other things of Basil, liked his Psalmody so well, as he introduced it into the West, first using it in his Church at Milan, and this when Augustine was there, who assures us, from his own knowledge, that it was not long since the practice there begun; Nimirum annus erat, aut non multo amplius, cum Justina Valentiniani Regis pueri Mater hominem tuum Ambrosium persequeretur haeresis suae causa;

Excubabat pia plebs in ecclesia mori parata cum Episcopo suo. Tunc Hymni & Psalmi, ut canerentur secundum morem orientalium partium, ne populus moeroris • aedio contabesceret, institutum est, And from Milan, where Ambrose began it, did it pass into other Churches of the West. Paulinus testifies as much in the Life of Ambrose.

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

So in Justinian 's Code, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is said to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , L. 42. §. 10. de Episc. & Cler.

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

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

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

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

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

The next Authority I meet with, is the Fifteenth Canon of the Vinetick Synod, in which Six Bishops, towards the conclusion of the Fifth Age, made this Decree, Rectum quoque duximus, ut vel intra Provinciam nostram, sacrorum ordo & psallendi una sit consuetudo;

What is intended here by ordo sacrorum, may be best understood by the Council of Agatha, being a Synod of the same Country, held not long after this of Vannes, that in the beginning of the Sixth Age, an. 506. this in the latter end of the Fifth. There Can. 21. Ordo ecclesiae ab omnibus aqualiter custodiendus, is the disposing of the Responsals, Prayers, Hymns, and Psalms, each in the place thought most fit (according to Augustine 's definition of Ordo, est parium dispariumque rerum, suae cuique loca tribuens, dispositio, Civ. Dei. l. 19. c. 13.) and so, applied to Sacred Administrations, Ordo, established by a Synod, if it reached all particulars, will amount to no more, than a Rubric or Directory. One and the same might be observed by all the Churches in a Province, in all Offices, yea and in Prayers too; though' the same expressions were not used, nor those that officiated, at all tied up to Words and Syllables: For example; If, in the common Office (at which all might be present) they began with Psalms, and then read some part of the Law, or Prophets, and next some part of an Epistle, or of the Gospels, and afterwards proceeded to the Sermon; the same order was observed, though' the same Psalms were not always sung, nor the same Lesson twice in a Year, and the same Sermon never twice Preached: So for the Prayers, if according to the order specified, Con. Laodic. Can. 18. first Prayers were made for the Catechumens, then for the Penitents, after that for the Faithful. And, if in that office peculiar to the Faithful, the Prayers be ordered, as Augustine thought the Apostles method was, Epist. 59. so as first Prayer be made for all sorts; then the Elements be Consecrated; after that the People Blessed; and the Elements being distributed, all be concluded with Thanksgiving: The same order of Prayer is observed, though' the same Prayers be no more used, than the same Psalms or Lessons always, or the same Sermon more than once. And the same is to be understood of the 27. Can. Con. Epam. an. 517. in Bl.

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

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

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

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

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

The other, called the Song of the Three Children, I have nowhere discovered, before the Fourth Council of Toledo. It is mentioned, Can. 13. as used before, but then first imposed, an. 633. Such like Hymns were so far from being generally prescribed in the former Ages, that the use of them is forbidden in Public, by Synods, both in the Greek and Latin Church. Conc. Laod. Can. ult. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : that private (or uncanonical) Psalms ought not to be used in the Church, neither Books that are not Canonical, but only the Canonical (Books) of the Old and New Testament. Where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems by the clause following, to be opposed to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as writings 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are, by the Apostle, 2 Pet. 1. 20, 21. opposed to those of Divine Inspiration. So that the Fathers of Laodicea, as they prohibit any Books but those that were Canonical; so do they forbid any Psalms or Hymns, save such as were of Divine Inspiration, to be used in the Churches; and the Canons of this Synod were received by the Church, amongst her universal Rules. Add hereto, Conc. Boncar. 1. an. 565. can. 30. Extra Psalmos ve • eris Testamenti nihil poetice compositum in Ecclesia psallatur, Besides the Psalms of the Old Testament, let nothing Poetically composed be sung in the Church.

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

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

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

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

The Worship of God was First fearfully corrupted; the native plainness and simplicity of it ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) most amiable to God, and all that are like him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Orig. contr. Cels. l. 8. p. 418. was vitiated and defaced with the Paint and Patches of bold and wanton Fancies.

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

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

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

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

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

Prelacy was declining into tyranny long before; and Bishops in many places, grew insolent and intolerable, forgetting that they were ordained 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not to exercise dominion over the Flock, but to take charge of Souls. The stirrings of this domineering humor were complained of in part of the Fourth, and beginning of the Fifth Ages; and shooting up daily and speedily, we may guess to what height it might come by an Hundred years growth. Nazianzen complains in his time of Prelates, who, when they had overrun all things else with violence, in fine tyrannized over piety itself, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and wishes, that there were no Pr • lacy in the Church, not only under the notion of local preeminence, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but of tyrannical prerogative, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

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

So in Isidore Pelusiota Episcopacy, as divers exercised it, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a ty rannical licentiousness, because they turned it into domination, or rather to speak freely, into tyranny; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Epist. (ad Theodos.) 125. lib. 2.

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

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

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

Nor was this, before those who ordered and administered the public Worship, were grown negligent, and slothful, easing themselves of the chief duties of Pastors, viz. Those which were laborious and required any intense exercise of their faculties. Particularly, it was, after diligent and frequent peaching (which was the happiness, even of the Fourth, and part of the Fifth Age, and their security too, (some stop being hereby put to that degeneracy into which all was sliding down) and the excellency also of those Bishops, who were the lights and ornaments of those times,) was growing out of fashion. When that of Maximus was too true, Qui reipsa doceant aut doceantur admodum pauci. When those, who had the charge of Souls, declined the work, but were eager after the power, profits and dignity of the place; and so retaining the name of Pastors, were really no such thing: Which Prosper thus bewails,

&c. This way of Worship was well suited to the humors of such Pastors; and they were more thoroughly and generally of this temper, in Prosper 's time, before it could have free entertainment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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