IMPRIMATUR,  
April. 26. 1690. C. Alston, R.P.D. HEN. Episc. Lond. à Sacris.   

A Scholastical HISTORY OF THE Primitive and General Use OF LITURGIES IN The Christian Church; Together with An Answer to Mr. Dau. Clarkson's late Discourse concerning LITURGIES.  
PART II. Of the Time after the Year 400; With an Answer to the Arguments against Liturgies, and the Testimony of Protestant Divines for them.  
By THO: COMBER, D. D. Precentor of YORK.  Publica est nobis & communis Oratio. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. § 5. pag. 310. 
LONDON, Printed by S. Roycroft, for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-end of S. Paul's, 1690.   

THE PREFACE TO THE Second Part.  
WHEN those who oppose the Use of LITURGIES had appealed to Antiquity, and boasted it would disown them; I concluded, they were obliged to stand to the Sentence of a Judge of their own choosing 
(a) Acts xxv. 12. ; and therefore followed them to that Tribunal, before which they had brought their Cause: And when the First Four Centuries, whose Authority is most venerable, and their Testimony the most convincing 
(b) Antiquitas quo propiùs aberat ab ortu & divinâ progeny; hoc meliùs ea fortasse, quae erant vera cernebat. Cicer. Tuscul. quaest. , had given it on Our Side; It was the Opinion of some of my good Friends, that I need descend no lower, and might save the labour of a Second Part: But I considered, That though it was enough to such as were Impartial, to prove that Liturgies began so Early; Yet others, who were prejudiced against them, would question the Truth of that; unless I could clear the following Ages also from all the Objections, that their Friend hath raised out of them against this great Truth: He hath fixed the Original of Prescribed Forms a Century or two Lower, and made a show of proving, That the Use of these Forms was left arbitrary, even till the beginning of the Ninth Century: And scattered divers Arguments in several places of his Book, collected out of some General Observations, which could not be brought under any one of the Ancienter Fathers Names; nor Answered in the First Part, because they depended on Miscellaneous Quotations, chief relating to the Time after the Fifth Century began. Wherefore I was compelled to follow him down through all these Later Ages; and show, That Liturgies not only continued to be imposed and used then; but were generally believed to have come down to them by Tradition from the most Eminent Bishops of the Primitive and Apostolical Ages; and that his Objections rather confirm, than weaken this Assertion. I was obliged also to Examine every thing that looked like an Argument, that I might neither give the obstinate Occasion, to call those Reasonings Invincible, which scarce deserved a serious Answer 
(c) Tacere ultra non oportet, ne jam non verecundiae, sed diffidentiae esse incipiat. Cypr. ad Demetr. ; nor leave any Scruples in the Minds of such as are willing to be undeceived: And for their sakes, as well as to make this History more complete, I have added the Testimonies of the most Eminent Reformed Divines, both concerning the Antiquity and usefulness of Liturgies in general, and concerning the Excellency of Our Church's Forms of Prayer. By all which it will appear, That such as scruple to Hear or Read our Common-Prayer, are so very singular in that Notion, that they are not only contrary to Us, and to all Antiquity; but also to the Best and most Regular of the Protestant Foreign Churches. 'Tis true, when Men have an Interest to serve, they will have no Inclination to yield to the clearest Demonstration, nor to the plainest Matter of Fact: And therefore perhaps, Some of this Party may hope to run down all that is brought out of the Ages after the Year 400, with the old Cry of POPERY and SUPERSTITION. But I would anticipate so weak an Objection, by observing, That their Friend led me into these Ages, and they must not blame me for following him. Again, There is nothing deserves these hard Names in this later Period; but only that which was then first brought into the Church, and was not known nor used in purer Times: Now the First Part sufficiently proves, That Liturgies were none of the Inventions of these Ages; by showing they were used and approved in the former Centuries, before any of those Corruptions came in. I grant, that those Copies of Ancient Liturgies which come to our hands, have many passages in them, which relish of the Superstition of later Ages: But then we are also sure by those Passages, which the Fathers cite out of them before they were corrupted, that they were pure at first, and these Exceptionable places have been tacked to them, long after they were first composed; Which the Compilers and Reformers of our Liturgy well understood, and therefore, though they imitated them, in all that was agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of the First Four Centuries, they cut off and rejected all the rest, and so have reduced the Primitive way of Praying, to its Original purity, and ancient soundness. They knew the Praying by Forms was very Ancient, the Corruption of those Forms of later date: So that when they and other Reformed Churches have purged out all the Superstitious Innovations, and restored the Primitive Method of Serving God by prescribed Forms, agreeably to the Scriptures, and the Practice and Opinions of the best Ages; I would hope, that all who are prepared to submit to Truth, (by which it is every Man's interest to be conquered 
(d) Qui veritati cedit utiliter vincitur. Petr. Damian. lib. 1. ep. 20. ) will renounce their groundless Prejudices, against this useful and Ancient Method of Praying. And no longer dote upon the new Extempore and Arbitrary way, which was never used in public, (till of late) since the Ages of Inspiration, whose practice can be no Rule to us, who have not those extraordinary Gifts: And which is inconsistent with the Safety, the Honour and the Quiet of all Established Churches. To conclude, The best Christians and the most regular Churches in all Ages, have used and approved Forms of Prayer, and found great comfort in them, and much benefit by them. And if our Dissenters would be content to serve God so also, they would then be capable of being Members of our Established Church, and we should no longer be disturbed, weakened and endangered by this unhappy Separation. But so long as they retain this Fundamental Error, and profess their aversation to our whole way of Worship, All projects of Union, and hopes of Accommodation are vain. And for that reason, I have so fully considered this Question, and set all that relates to it in one Orderly View; because it is Evident, that the Right Determination thereof, must be the first step to that Peace, which is the Interest, and would be the Safety of this divided Nation; the Welfare whereof all good Men unfeignedly desire.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 9 lin. 5. read Scribi fas: p. 11. l. 1. r. Roman Bishop. p. 28. l. 19 r. generally. p. 31. marg. l. 2. r. Ecclesiâ. p. 37. l. 25. r. Table-Book. p. 41. marg. l. 4. r. Eccles. p. 46. l. 1. r. Babylas. p. 54. l. 27. (deal) all. p. 68 marg. l. 21. r. Barnes. p. 136. l. 27. r. have been. p. 141. l. 6. r. faithful deceased. p. 166. l. 7. (deal) Jew r. few Bishops. ibid. l. 10. r. reckons. ibid. l. 11. r. contained. p. 176. l. 10. r. to the French. p. 193. l. 2. r. ancient.   

PART II.  

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

Innocent. l. Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 402.  §. I. Pope Innocent the First gins this Age, in whom we cannot expect much Evidence in our Question, because he hath nothing extant but only some few Epistles, which treat of different Subjects. Yet first he argues against the Pelagian Doctrine, of our not needing the assistance of God's Grace, from that old Roman Form, taken out of the Psalms, which still is the beginning of their Mass, Deus in adjutorium, etc. The Priest saying, O God make speed to save us, O Lord make haste to help us. Now saith he) Pelagius and Celestius would set aside this whole Response out of the Psalms, and abdicating this Doctrine, hope to persuade some, that we neither want, nor aught to seek the help of God; whereas all the Saints bear witness, that they can do nothing without it 
(e)— seposita omni responsi●re Psalmorum aliquid abdicatâ doctrinâ, suasuros se aliquibus esse confidunt nos Adjutorium Dei nec debere quaerere nec egere, etc. Innoc. ep. 24. B n. Tom. 1. par. l pag. 622. . Where we see he argues from this Form, used in the Liturgy by all the Saints or holy Men, against the false Doctrine of these Heretics; which shows it was a known and usual Response in that Age. The same Author, though he was  in writing Mysteries in a Letter, yet plainly enough describes The Prayer for all Estates of Men, in which the Names of the Offerers were recited, and God was desired to accept their Alms and Oblations, as also those Prefaces, of which we spoke before 
(f) Prius ergo oblationes sunt commendandae, ac tunc eorum nomina quorum sunt oblationes, edicenda, ut inter sacra mysteria nominentur, non inter alia quae ante praemittimus. Id. Ep. 1. cap. 2. ibid. pag. 609. . And, which is most considerable in the Preface of the same Epistle to Decentius Bishop of Eugubium, Innocent declares 
(g) Si instituta Ecclesiastica, ut sunt à beatis Apostolis tradita, integra vellent servare Domini sacerdotes, nulla diversitas, nulla varietas, in ipsis ordinibus & consecrationibus haberetur. Sed dum unusquisque non quod traditum est, sed quod sibi visum fuerit, hoc estimat esse tenendum, inde diversa, in diversis locis vel Ecclesiis teneri aut celebrari videntur. Id. ibid. , That if those Ecclesiastical Institutions which the Apostles delivered had been kept entire by the Bishops, we should not have had any diversity or variety, in the order of Worship or Consecration. But while every one thinks he must hold, not that which was delivered; but which best pleases him, thence we see divers ways of celebration are used in divers Churches. Now, from hence we note, First, That this Pope believed there was one way of Worship and Consecration (that is, one Form of Prayer and administering the Sacrament) settled by the Apostles at first, and delivered to all the Churches they planted. Secondly, That the variety which then appeared (not in the same Church, but) in divers Churches, was an Innovation proceeding from several Bishops (called here S●cerdotes) who forsook that one Original Rule, and followed their own Devices. Thirdly, That this variety was not a liberty taken by private Ministers in the same Church, but by divers Bishops in their several Dioceses. Fourthly, That this diversity (as Innocent there adds) was a scandal to the People, who not knowing that human Presumption had corrupted the ancient Traditions, fancied either there was no good agreement among the Churches, or that the Apostles and Apostolical Men set up this variety. Fifthly, For remedy hereof he advises all those Churches, which had their Original from Rome, to follow those Customs which S. Peter had delivered to that Church, and were kept there ever since. Which place, so clear for the Antiquity and Necessity of Uniformity, our Adversary citys over and over, and spends many Pages, to show that this very Epistle proves there were no Forms prescribed at Rome in those days 
(h) Disc. of Liturgies. p. 40, 41. & pag. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82. : For (saith he) when the Bishop of Eugubium enquired of divers particulars concerning the Church-Service, he doth not refer him to any written Orders, but to what he had seen practised at Rome; and he will not write down the Words used in the Office of Chrism, calling the Words of Consecration, Those things which he might not publish: Adding, That it was matter of enquiry then, whether the Kiss of Peace should be given before or after the Consecration? and whether the Names of the Offerers should be recited before or after the Prayer over the Oblation? Concluding from these passages, That there could be then not settled Order or Form at Rome; and that which Innocent would have fixed was no more than a Rubric or Direction, and this for Imitation, not for strict Conformity; so that in Innocents' Time, every one in Italy Consecrated as he thought fit. This is the sum of his Inference.  
In Answer to which I must observe, First, That those particulars which the Bishop of Eugubium enquired about, and for which Innocent refers him to what he had seen used at Rome, were Rites and Ceremonies, as appears by the several Matters treated of in this Epistle, viz. Cap. 1. Of the Kiss of Peace. Cap. 2. Of reciting the Offerers Names. Cap. 3. Of the Anointing the Baptised. Cap. 4. Of the Saturday Fast. Cap. 5. Of the Leavened Bread. Cap. 6, 7. Whether a Priest might lay Hands on the Possessed, and the Penitents. Cap. 8. Whether he might not Anoint the Sick. Now these things being all external Rites, which he might see and hear at Rome, and so commit to his Memory the Method used there, it was not necessary to refer him to the Roman Liturgy; nor doth it follow, there was no such Liturgy for the Prayers themselves, because when the Pope was asked about the Rites and Customs of Rome, he doth not (as my Adversary saith) refer him thither for satisfaction in these Matters. Yet, Secondly, this very Epistle makes it plain, they had certain Forms at Rome for their several Offices; for when he speaks of Anointing the Baptised, he saith, Verba verò dicere non possum, ne magis prodere videar quam ad consultationem respondere, Ibid. Cap. 3. I cannot tell you the words, lest I betray the Church under pretence of answering your Question. And so about the Forms used in the Communion-Office, he thus expresseth himself. Post omnia quae aperire non debeo, etc. The Kiss of Peace comes after those things which I must not publish: And a little after, Quae scribi sui non erat— Those things which it is not lawful for me to write down, Ib. Cap. 8. All which places necessarily suppose, they had certain and fixed Words, which were capable of being written down; but since in that Age divers (as he notes out of Chamier, pag. 41. Marg.) were not initiated, some being then Pagans, and others as yet but Catechumen; Innocent would not set down the Forms in a Letter, which might be intercepted or fall into the hands of such as ought not to know these Sacred Mysteries. But now, if at Rome every Priest had prayed Extempore, and not only differed from others, but daily varied from himself; then Innocent could not have discoursed at this rate, but must have said, As for the Words I cannot write them down, (not because it is unlawful, but) because it is impossible; for you know every Priest varies them daily as he pleases. Wherefore this Notion of keeping the Words secret (which was strictly observed in that Age) proves they were stated Forms, capable of being writ down, and learned by Unbelievers, if they had been published to them. And nothing can be weaker (to say no worse) than to argue, as he doth, Innocent would not write the Forms in a Letter which might miscarry; therefore they were not written down in Books closely kept by the Bishops and Priests at Rome. Thirdly, For his Objection, That it was matter of Enquiry then, what place in the Eucharistical Office should be assigned to the Kiss of Peace, and to the recital of the Offerers Names 
(i) Disc. of ●it. pag. 78. ; which he thinks could not be, if there had been settled Forms at Rome; It is very frivolous, For the Bishop of Eugubium doth inquire of these Matters, because he knew there was a certain Order at Rome; and though he had seen it (and perhaps knew it very well) yet his Neighbouring Bishops having different ways, as to the order of these, He desires to have it under the Pope's hand, what was the Custom at Rome, hoping by this to bring his Neighbouring Bishops to an Uniformity in these Matters. For Eugubium was a small Bishopric under the immediate Jurisdiction of the Roman Bishops, as he was a Metropolitan; (being but 70 Miles distant from Rome itself) and he having no power over his Equals, gets the Pope's Letter, under whose Jurisdiction all these Neighbour Bishops of his were, thereby to unite them all, by conforming to their Mother Church, which (as Innocentius affirms) had one certain Form in these Offices received from S. Peter. Fourthly, Since this Bishop was so desirous to settle Uniformity even in these Ceremonies of far less concernment, we may reasonably believe there was no difference in the Forms themselves, that is, in the Prayers used in all Divine Offices by these Bishops who lived so near to Rome; because, if they had varied in the substantial parts of the Office, Decentius must have complained principally of that Variety, and Innocents' chief labour would have been to have agreed and settled that Matter, it being ridiculous for them to be so earnest for Uniformity in Order and Ceremonies, if these several Dioceses, had differed in the main, and had infinite variety in the Offices themselves: so that both Innocent and Decentius being silent as to any such variety, gives us Reason to believe, they had all the same FORMS. Fifthly, What he saith of Innocent's design being only to settle a Rubric, is easily answered. For the difference was only in Rubrics which my Adversary at last confesseth, when he saith, this Epistle is most concerned about Ri●es and Order 
(k) Disc. of Lit. pag. 83. ; he might have said (as appears by the several Chapters before,) only concerned about Rites and Order, the Preface alone excepted; For there is not one Answer nor Question, that supposes any difference in the Words or Forms of these Offices; therefore it was enough for Innocent, to settle that wherein the only difference lay, which was variety of Rites, not of Prayers. Sixthly, He adds that Innocent settled this Rubric rather for Imitation than strict conformity 
(l) Disc. of Lit. pag. 80. . I Answer, This is not settling any thing at all, for where every Priest is Arbitrary, nothing is fixed. But Innocent, when he hath declared the custom of Rome, expressly requires of this Bishop; First to take care that his own Diocese and Ministering Clergy, were well instructed in it; and than that he should give a Form to other Bishops, which they ought to imitate or follow 
(m)— ut tuam Ecclesiam, & Clericos nostros, qui sub tuo Pontificio divinis famulantur officiis, bene instituas, & aliis formam tribuas quam debeant imitari. Innoc. Ep. 1. vers. fin. . Where we see he requires he should carefully instruct his own Clergy, in order to their strict conformity no doubt; for otherwise, to what end did he teach them these Rules? And then he doth expect he should give this Form to others, that is, to his neighbour Bishops, and affirms it is their Duty to observe it; For since he is speaking of Acts and Ceremonies, there is no way to imitate them, but by doing them; there is no Medium between strict Conformity, and total Nonconformity in these cases; so that his distinction between Imitation and strict Conformity, is nothing but Words without Sense. I conclude this passage, with my Adversaries censure of Pope Innocent out of Erasmus 
(n) Disc. of Lit. p. 81. & 82. , as if he were fierce in his Nature and no good Orator. And shall note, that Erasmus doth not censure him, for pressing an Uniformity, nor doth he give any ill Character of him for this Epistle, but for others, which he Writ in the Pelagian Controversy 
(o) Vid. Aug. ep. 91. & ep. 96. cum notis Erasm. & Coci censura. p. 111. . And what Erasmus saith of two other Epistles, if it be never so true, cannot prove that in this Epistle (wherein he Writes of the Customs of his own Church) he is not a good Evidence for matter of Fact; and if that be granted, than we have here this Pope's Testimony, that the Metropolis of Rome had certain Forms of Words, for their several Offices, and one way and Method, both in their Service and Rites; and that all Churches under her immediate Jurisdiction, aught to be uniform even in their Ceremonies by conforming to their Mother Church; which is sufficient to show how falsely my Adversary affirms, that in Italy in Innoconts' time, every one Consecrated as he though fit. For the Question was not about all Italy, but only about Eugubium, and the neighbouring Dioceses; not about private Ministers, but Bishops; not about the Words or Forms of Consecrating, etc. but about Rites and Ceremonies in the Eucharist and other Offices; yet even in these he labours to settle an Uniformity; and gives sufficient indication, not only that they ought to have, but then had, one prescribed Liturgy for the Offices themselves, differing only in some Rubrics.  
§ 2. Prudentius the Famous Christian Poet, 
Aurelius Prudentius, Ann. Dom. 405.  is but once cited by my Adversary; who speaks of his Cathemerinon, that is, Hymns or Forms of Praise and Prayer, suited to the several Hours of the Day and Night, wherein the Christians then Solemnly worshipped God; and he might have noted of many of them, what he saith of one, That they were afterwards made use of as Church Hymns 
(p) Disc. of Lit. marg. p. 161. : Now that which I shall observe from hence is this, That these Hymns consist of Petitions and Prayers, as well as Praises; and are drawn up in the Plural Number, suitable to their intended use for a public Assembly; to which soon after they were applied. But if Prudentius had been of my Adversaries mind, and thought Forms prescribed were unlawful, it had been Ridiculous in him to draw up, and sinful for the Christians in public, to use these Written Forms of Praise and Prayer. Again, if the Gift of Extempore making Prayers and Praises, for the several Hours of Devotion had then remained in the Church, it had been not only lost labour, but a very bold thing for Prudentius to compose Forms; and if that Age (as my Adversary pretends) were utter strangers to prescribed Forms; doubtless Prudentius had not answered his name, rashly to undertake so novel and daring a thing, without making any Apology. We conclude therefore, that Forms even in these very Hours of Prayer, were customary and used in his time. I could also here particularly show, that this Divine Poet frequently alludes to divers passages in the greater Offices and Liturgies then in use, viz. The Amen, Hallelujah, the Trisagion, which he calls the Hymn, Sung by Cherubins and Seraphins, etc. But since Poetical strains are not so solid proofs in our Case, I will only mention one place 
(q) 
Si quid trecenti bis novenis additis  
Possint (figurâ noverimus mysticâ)  
Mox ipse Christus qui sacerdos verus est,  
Parent natus alto & ineffabili  
Cibum beatis offerens Victoribus, Parvam pudici cordis intrabit casam.  
Prud. praef. ad Psycomad. pag. 228.   where (in a Mysterious way) he intimates the repeating of the Nicene Creed, immediately before the Celebration of the Eucharist, comparing the 318 Fathers, who composed this Creed, to Abraham's 318 Servants, with whom he met Melchisedec; and the Sacramental Elements, to the Bread and Wine, which Abraham then received from that High Priest. And Ant. Nebrissensis hath showed that this passage is not any otherwise intelligible, than by thus expounding it. Not. in Prudent. pag. 118. Which implies they used then (as we do now,) to repeat the Nicene Creed, in the Communion Office.  
§ 3. My Antagonist had diligently Read Isidore of Pelusium, 
Isidor. Peleusiota. Ann. Dom. 412.  as appears by his citing him for golden Sentences 
(r) Disc. of Lit. p. 2. & Title. P. , and also by his weeding this Author, for all the hard things he saith of some bad Bishops in that time 
(s) Ibid. p. 182, 185. etc. ad pag. 195. , and Maliciously applying it, as the Character of the whole Order in this Age, which I shall confute hereafter; and now only observe, that since he disparages Liturgies, by their beginning (as he pretends) in so bad and corrupt a Time, as he makes this to be, it must follow that he believes Liturgies are as old, as Isidore's Time, or else his Allegations must be not only spiteful, but impertinent. And for his baffled Argument from Isidore's concealing the Words of the Mysteries, and appealing to the Faithful, as being acquainted with them 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. lib. 4. ep. 162. & lib. eod. ep. 40. cited under Synesius name Disc. of L. p. 34. ; This plainly proves, they did not Officiate then Extempore, but in plain Words, constantly used, and well known to the Faithful, who daily heard them repeated. Again he citys this Father, to prove that those who were Baptised were taught the Words of the Lords Prayer 
(u) Isid. lib 4. ep. 24. Disc. of Lit. pag. 2. ; Which shows that Forms, were not held unlawful in that Age. But if my Adversary had not been obliged to keep back all that makes for Liturgies, it is not easy to be imagined, why he should never mention that Famous Epistle, which Isidore Writ on purpose to expound that old piece of Liturgy, Pronounced by the Bishop in the public Forms; (as we saw in the Constitutions, S. Chrysostom, and others) that is, Peace be with you, unto which (as Isidore tells us) the people answered, and with thy Spirit 
(w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isid. lib. 1. ep. 122. . This Form so well explained by this Father, gives us reason to believe, that the rest of those Liturgies wherein this known Form is found, were used in his time; and that when he advises a Clergyman not to abuse the Holy Liturgy 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. lib. 1. ep. 313. , he means, that he ought not to profane, and desecrate the sacred Forms, by a most unholy Life and Conversation; especially since he was not only a Scholar of S. Chrysostoms', who made a Liturgy, but also tells us 
(y) Id. lib. 1. ep 90. , that the Women in his time Sung their part of the Church Service; and when they were deservedly Excommunicate, they were not all wed this great Privilege; which sufficiently shows there were Forms prescribed in his days, wherein all the People had their share.  
§. 4. His Contemporary was the Learned Synesius, 
Synesius, An. Dom. 412.  who lived also in the same Country; he was bred among the Gentile Philosophers, and not Converted till he was come to be of a good Age: So that he had learned, before he became a Christian, what silence and secrecy was due to Mysteries, and therefore he furnishes my Adversary with divers Passages concerning the Heathens care to conceal them 
(z) Disc. of Lit. pag. 34. ; but since he hath owned the Pagans writ their Mysteries down, He must not conclude, that the Christians had no written Prayers in this Age, wherein they called them Mysteries; for though they were concealed from the Infidels and Uninitiated, they were daily used among the Faithful: And that they were Forms prescribed hath been fully proved. However, though we cannot expect that Synesius should write down the Sacred Words in his Books or Epistles, which might fall into common or profane Hands; yet there are intimations in him, that there were Forms of Prayer in his time, and long before: For when he speaks of the Worship of God, he saith, The Sacred Prayers of our Forefathers, in the holy Mysteries, do cry unto that God who is above all; not so much setting forth his Power, as reverencing his Providence 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— etc. Synes. de Regno, pag. 9 . Now these Sacred Prayers could not be Extempore, since they were delivered down to them by their Forefathers, therefore they must be ancient Forms: Extempore Devotions are properly our own Prayers; but the Prayers of our Fathers, are Forms received from the Ages before us. Besides, we may note, that he describes the Service in which these Prayers were used by this Phrase (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and elsewhere he styles it, The hidden Mysteries 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Synes. Ep. 57 pag. 194. . And Nicephorus his Scholiast explains (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to be, such things as are mystically delivered both as to the words and actions 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 N●ceph. Scholia id Synes. p. 401. ; That is, in a Form of Words and an order of Ceremonies, which are the two essential parts of a Liturgy: Which Name also we have in Synesius, where he is reciting the Injuries done to him by Andronicus; for he saith, The Devil endeavoured by this Man's means, to make him fly from the Liturgy of the Altar 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 67. p. 193. ; that is, (as he explains himself afterwards) to make him omit the celebration of the Sacrament, and give over reciting the public Offices; which were then performed by a Liturgy in all regular Churches. And though he be very nice of writing down any of the Forms in his common Writings, yet he gives us either the Substance or the Words of one of his Prayers, which he used not only in private, but in the public Offices; viz. That Justice might overcome Injustice, and that the City might he purged from all Wickedness 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. Ep. 121. p. 258. : Which Passage probably was a part of the Liturgy then used in his Country, there being something very like it in other ancient Liturgies, which were used elsewhere in that Age. However, our Adversary (who citys Synesius so often, and to no purpose, about Mysteries) could not, or would not see any of these places, which show there were ancient and prescribed Forms in his days.  

Celestinus Ep. Rom. A.D. 423.  §. 5. Pope Celestine (as is affirmed by many Authors) ordered the Psalms to be sung in the Communion Office by the whole Congregation in the way of Antiphone 
(f) Vita Celestina. ap. Bin. Tom. 1. par. 1. pag 732. Bena. rerum Liturg. lib. 2. cap. 3. p 502. : That is, as Isidore expounds it, with reciprocal Voices, each side of the Choir, alternately answering the other 
(g) Is●●●r. Orig. lib. 6. cap. 19 . And Platina adds, That he put some particulars into the Offices then in use 
(h) Platin vita Celestina. pag. 61. . Which shows, That the Roman Church was accustomed to Forms in his days. Yet my contentious Adversary twice produces this Pope's Testimony to show, that in his Time at Rome there was no more than an Order and Uniformity as to the persons and things prayed for; but that they did not pray for them in the same Words 
(i) Disc. of Lit. pag 6. & p 29. ; and he citys the same place again to prove, that Forms cannot be justified from that Passage 
(k) Ibid. p. 138. . But to manifest his Mistake, I will first transcribe and then explain these Words of Celestine, from whence he makes this false Conclusion: The Words are these, Let us look upon the Mysteries of the Priests Prayers, which being delivered by the Apostles, are uniformly celebrated in all the World, and in every Orthodox Church: That so the Rule for Praying may fix the Rule of Believing. For when the Bishops of the Faithful perform their enjoined Embassy, they plead with the Divine Mercy for all Mankind, the whole Church Praying with them: They entreat and pray, That Faith may be granted to unbelievers; that Idolaters may be delivered from their impious Errors; that the light of Truth may appear to the Jews, by the removing of the Veil from their Hearts; that Heretics may repent and receive the Catholic Faith; that Schismatics may be revived by the Spirit of Charity; that the Lapsed may obtain the Remedy of Repentance; and lastly, that the Catechumen being brought to the Sacrament of Regeneration, may have the Gate of the Divine Mercy opened unto them 
(l) Obsecrationum quoque Sacerdotalium sacramenta respiciamus, quae ab Apostolis tradita, in toto mundo, atque in omni Ecclesiâ Catholicâ uniformitèr celebrantur, etc. Celestina. Ep. pro Presp. & Hilar. inter opera Prosper. p. 894. . This is that famous Passage which our Adversary labours to misinterpret, but in vain, since nothing can more clearly prove the use of a prescribed Form than these Words: For Celestine is here arguing against Heretics, and he confutes them by the Forms then used in the Church, producing the very Words, and affirming that the Apostles had delivered these Prayers to them at first, and that there was an Uniformity in these Petitions between all the National Churches in the World, that is, all their Litanies had these Requests, differing only in the Order and some few Phrases; but the Roman Form was this, which he here sets down, bids the Heretics look upon it, and tells them this was the Rule for Prayer; and therefore they ought to believe suitably to these Prayers, which might be a Rule for their Faith, as well as for their Devotion. Now if these Prayers only agreed in the persons and things to be prayed for, but were daily varied as every Minister pleased; might not the Heretics have asked him, Where they could see Extempore and invisible Prayers? or how he could make those Prayers fix a Rule for their Faith, which were as various and uncertain as their Ministers Fancies? They might except justly against any Argument taken from Prayers which were varied every day, and differed so exceedingly in every several Church: But since they could be looked on, transcribed and urged as an Argument, and were so ancient in this Age, that even Heretics durst not except against the Authority of them, we are sure they must be prescribed ●orms made long before this time. I will not deny, but that both Innocent and Celestine might stretch their Tradition something too far, when they ●scribed the Original of these Forms to ●he Apostles themselves; but even that Assertion (especially here in a dispute with Heretics) shows, they were so ancient then, that there was no Memorial of the first Composer left, and ●t is usual among the Fathers to call that Apostolical, which was generally observed, and had so early a beginning that its first Author was not known. As for my Adversaries pretence, That this Testimony only affirms an Uniformity, as to the order, the persons and things to be prayed for; I must observe that S. Augustine useth this very Argument against the same Heretics, and when he comes to cite the Words of the Prayer, he repeats these very Words, without altering any thing either in the Phrase or Order. We have cited the place in the First part, and if there be any verbal difference in the Translation from what is here set down out of Celestine, I assure the Reader, there is none in the Latin, as will appear by comparing both places together 
(m) Celestin. Ep. apud Prosp. Et Aug. de Eccles. dogmat. cap. 30. See this History Part. l. Cent. 4. §. 21. pag. 231. . Now when Celestine at Rome, some years after, quotes the same Form of Prayer verbatim, which S. Augustine in Africa had cited before, this shows that the Words, as well as the Matter and Order were agreed on; and it follows, that both the Roman and African Church had a certain prescribed Form of Litany at this time, and that the same Form was used in both Churches, and was so Ancient and of so good Authority then, as to be quoted for Evidence in a dispute with Heretics: And who can imagine there was no more but such an Uniformity as he speaks of; that is, that every Priest in every several Church in Rome, used several Phrases every day (which is more properly, a Multiformity) since we see the same Form of Words quoted for Evidence by two great Bishops, the one in Italy, the other in Africa, and this also at two different times? Or how can such a liberty and variety in Praying as he dreams of, be called legem supplicandi, a Rule of Praying? How can such an uncertain thing, which daily appears in a new and different shape, fix the legem credendi, the Rule of Believing? We conclude therefore, that the Words as well as the Method of this Litany, was fixed at Rome long before the Time of this Pope.  
§. 6. Which will appear more plainly, 
Prosper. Aquitan. An. D. 430  if we consult Prosper, in whose behalf the Pope writ this Epistle: For he being to Expound that place of S. Paul, 1 Tim. II. 1. I exhort therefore, that Prayers, Supplications, etc. refers to the same Litany; only supposing that the Form was well known, he doth not quote the Words in their order, but describes them so plainly, that any one may discern it is the same Form which he, S. Augustine and Pope Celestine do all appeal to: His Words are these, Which Law (or Rule) of Prayer, the Devotion of all Priests and Faithful People so unanimously observe, that there is no part of the World, wherein the Christians do not celebrate such Prayers: For the Church every where prays to God, not only for the Saints and those already Regenerated in Christ, but for all the Infidels and Enemies of his Cross: For all Idolaters, and all that persecute Christ in his Members; for the Jews, to whose blindness the Gospel gives no light; for Heretics and Schismatics, who are estranged from the Unity of Faith and Charity: And what doth it ask for these, but that leaving their Errors they may be converted to God and receive the Faith, embrace Charity, and that being freed from the darkness of Ignorance, they may come to the acknowledgement of the Truth 
(n) Prosper. de Vocat. Gent. lib. 1. cap. 12. pag. 798. ? We see he is discoursing gnerally of this Litany, and breaks the Sentences, first running over the persons prayed for, and then the things asked for them; yet even in this lax way of discourse, it is easy to discern that he refers to Celestine's Form, and with him affirms, That this Prayer was a Rule unanimously observed by all Priests and People; whereas, if every Priest had daily varied the Words in every Assembly of the People, there could be neither Certainty in the Rule, nor Uniformity in the observing it. I may add, that Prosper did so highly reverence S. Augustine, that we cannot doubt but he imitated him, in the Approbation and use of public Forms; and he explains one of those public Forms, viz. the Preface of Sursum Corda, in his Sentences taken out of S. Augustine's Works 
(o) Prosp. sent. ex Augustin. sent. 153. pag. 434. . And in another place he mentions and commends that ancient Custom prescribed in the old Liturgies, for the People to say AMEN, when they received the holy Eucharist 
(p) Prosp. de promise. & praed. par. 1. cap. 6. pag. 7. : So that my Adversary had no reason to cite him as an Evidence, That there was no more but a mere Order of things in his time 
(q) Disc. of Lit. pag. 6. , since it is impossible that such an Order could have been uniformly and unanimously observed by all: For this liberty of varying Expressions would soon have blundered that Order, and made strange differences in the subject Matter, as well as the Method of these Prayers.  

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

Concil. 3. Oec. Ephesinum, An. Dom. 431.  §. 8. In the Acts of the Third General Council at Ephesus, we have also many Evidences of Liturgick Forms both of Praise and Prayer: For in them we read, That when the Messenger from the Orthodox Fathers there, arrived at Constantinople with their Letter to the Emperor, the Monks went with him in a Body to the Palace, Singing of Antiphones 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in ●●s●r● Consta●. Bin. Tom. l. par. 2. pag. 289. ; which those who stayed at the Gate continued to Sing, till the rest came out with the Emperor's Answer, and then all went in Procession to the Church of S. Mochus, and sang the Last Psalm 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. pag. 290. . By which we see they were so constantly used to praise God by Forms of Antiphones and Psalms, that even in the Streets they could perform this Office, and the very People (by long Custom) could also sing their part with them. In the same place it is Recorded of one eminent Monk named Dalmatius, that when Constantinople was shaken with an Earthquake, he was frequently desired by the Emperor to come out of his Cell and say the Litany (being thought to be one whom God would hear 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. p. 290. ). Now if the Litany had not been a stated Form, proper only to be used in a great Assembly, because of the great share the People bore in it (as Du-Plessis before hath described it); this Monk might as effectually have said it in his Cell, and need not have done it in so formal a Procession. And that it was usual thus to sing or say the Litany in times of common danger or calamity in the Eastern Church, long before Mamertus brought that Usage into the West, may appear from what Nicephorus and Cedrenus both, relate concerning Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, An. Dom. 434. That Theodosius the Emperor requested him thus to use the Litany when the City was in danger of an Earthquake: Yea, the very Manner of the Procession is described by Socrates, when he shows how that City was delivered from a dreadful Tempest, in the Time of the younger Theodosius, by a solemn Litany 
(p) Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 49. . Now, that must be a known prescribed Form, wherein so many Thousands can make their Responses, and bear their part. Again, The dissenting Bishops in this Council complain to the Emperor, that Cyril (Bishop of Alexandria and Memnon of Ephesus) by the help of the Rabble, would neither suffer them to keep the Feast of Pentecost, nor to perform the Morning or the Evening Liturgy 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep●●. ad Imperat. B●. Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 228.  and if my Adversary (to serve his Cause) would translate this. The Morning and Evening Administration, that would not hurt me; because there is such plain proof, That the Eastern Church then performed this Administration by a Form, and called that Form a Liturgy also. Again, it is Recorded in these Acts, That Cyril (in his Letter to John Bishop of Antioch) used these words, We have been taught also to say in our Prayers, O Lord ●ur God, Give us Peace, f●r thou art the Giver of all things to us 
(r)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. pag 428. . Nothing can be plainer th●n that this was a Liturgick Form, which S. Cyril had not made of his own Head, but had been taught it by his Forefathers; and it was so generally known and used, that he Quotes it to another Bishop, as an Argument why they should agree, who both used the same Form of praying for Peace. I should here have concluded this Section; but I will briefly remark, That Nestorius (who lived in this Time, and his Master Theodorus of Mopsvestia (who flourished twenty years before it) are accused, for impiously presuming to alter the Churches usual Liturgy, and without any Reverence either for that of the Apostles, or for S. Basils', made a new and a blasphemous Office of his own 
(s) Leontius Byzan: adver. Nestor. lib. 3. , which in these early days no doubt was accounted a very bold Undertaking; and yet still this is only changing one Form for another nor setting up for Extempore Prayers, of which there is not any mention in this Age.  
§. 9 This Section shall continue the same Evidence in a few Passages out of some Lesser Fathers: as first, 
Petrus C●rysologus, An. Dom. 433.  Petrus Chrysologus (the most elegant Preacher of this Age) tells us, That the Form of the Apostles Creed was taught to the Catechumen by Heart, a little before their Baptism 
(t) Petr. Chrysol. Ser. 56. : And he bids them commit it, not to Paper, but to their Breasts; not to their Table, but their Memory 
(u) Id. Serm. 60. pag. 187. . Where by the way we may note, that the Breast is put for the Memory, even as De pectore in Tertullian) signifies, saying a Prayer by heart, or by Memory. Again, the same Author explains the Words of the Lords Prayer, after he had delivered it as a Form to the Catechumen 
(w) Chrysol. Serm. 6●, etc. : And he notes, That before his Sermon he had saluted them, by praying to God to give them Peace 
(x) Id Ser. 138. pag. 354. : Which we have seen was prescribed in the old Liturgies, of the use whereof there are divers other Intimations in his Works. Secondly, The next place shall be assigned to a Gallican Monk of great Fame, 
Linceri●ius, jarinens. An Dom. 434.  who saith concerning The Common-Prayer-Book, which he calls there Sacerdotalem Librum, The Priest's Book, that None of them dared to alter it, because it was then Signed and Consecrated by the Confessors, and many of the Martyrs 
(y) Librum Sac●r ●talem, quis vestrum resignare audeat, signatum a Comessori●●s, & multerum ●am Martyrio cons●cratum. I●r. n. adv. haeres. cap. 7. p. 12, & 13. . But whatever his Opinion were, we have some who would not only alter, but utterly cast away our Priestly Book, though the Compilers of it were all either Confessors or Martyrs: However we learn from hence, That in this Age there was a Book of Offices in France, believed to have been originally Composed by the ancient Confessors and Martyrs. 
L●o I. Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 440.  Our next Witness shall be Leo, Bishop of Rome, whose Works afford many Instances of the use of prescribed Forms both of Praise and Prayer: For he mentions the Singing of Psalms with harmonious and agreeing Voices 
(z) Serm. 2. in assump. Pontif. pag. 4. . He Comments twice upon that eminent Preface, Lift up your hearts, noting, that it is just and right so to do 
(a) Serm. 2. in Nat●v. pag. 37. Ser. 2. in Ascens. pag. 207. ; and observing, that if we comply with this Exhortation, earthly things cannot depress our Minds. He calls the Creed, That Rule of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith 
(b) Serm. 4. de Nativ. pag. 48. Ser. 11. de Pass. Dom. pag. 164. , allowing no variation from it. In him we find the same Epistles and Gospels always read upon the same Festivals; and generally the same which we read in our Church at this day 
(c) Serm 3. de Epiph. pag. 76. Ser. 5. de Epiph. pag 84. Ser. 6. pag. 88 item. Serm 4 de Quadrag. pag. 105, 107. & Serm. 3. de Pentec. p. 218. . In him also we find that ancient Use prescribed by the Liturgies of reading the Names of the Offerers, and others, at the Altar 
(d) Decretal. Ep. 41. cap. 3. pag. 355. . Finally, he mentions the Prayer for the Jews on Good Friday, used in our Liturgy at this day 
(e) Serm. 19 de Pass. Dom. pag. 191. : And he gives us this description of the public Fasting and Prayer then in use; What can be denied (saith he) to so many Thousand People, joining in the performance of the same service, and unanimously beseeching God with one Spirit? It is a great thing in God's sight— when the whole Christian People are instant upon the same Offices together, and when all orders and degrees of both Sexes unite their Affections for the same end 
(f) Id. Serm. 3. 〈◊〉 Sept. 〈◊〉 pag 240. . These must be Prayers made ●● such Forms, as made up one Office wherein all the People could bear a part, and all join in the Responses, etc. And these Forms thus unanimously recited he thinks must needs be very prevalent with Almighty God. At the same Time lived Abbot Nilus, 
Nilus' Abbess, An Dom. 440.  who calls the public Prayers, The fixed Laws of the Church 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 N●● ●●●aenes. 100LS. : So that in his days doubtless they were not left arbitrary, to the Fancy of every Man who was to Officiate: He would have his Monks receive the Sacrament in the Church; but if there was not any celebration of the Eucharist, he allows them to departed after the singing of the Epistle and Gospel 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 105. Bibl. Patr. edit. Paris. Tom. 2. p. 1172. : Which shows, they used at that Time to Sing those portions of Scripture in the Communion-Office; and implies, that the rest of that Service was agreeable to our Forms, in other things, as well as in the Epistles and Gospels; but these Passages fell not under my Adversaries observation.  
§ 10. 
Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoritus, Histor. Encles. Cire. Ann. 440.  The Church Historians who writ after Eusebius, within little more than one hundred year, after the settling of Christianity, viz. Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, are next to be considered. And in them we find divers passages to confirm us, that prescribed forms were used both in, and long before their Times; and this we shall make out by some instances, both as to Praises and Prayers, contenting ourselves, of many, to select only a few Testimonies. And First, No sort of Prayer is more ancient, nor more certainly a Form, than the Litany: Yet of this, we have express Testimony in Socrates, who relates the Story of that great Storm, which happened at Constantinople, when Theodosius the younger, and the People were beholding the sports of the Hippodrome, saying, that the Emperor Commanded the People to give over their sport, and to join all of them in one Common Litany to God; adding, that they obeyed him, and all of them with great alacrity, said the Litany, and with agreeing Voices sent up Hymns to God: So that the whole City was but as one Church; and the Emperor began the Hymn himself; After which devout recital of these Offices the Storm ceased 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— pp. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 749. . Where we see the Litany and Hymns were such known Forms, that all the People on a sudden could say and sing their part of them; which can be no Wonder; because we have showed before, that in the elder Theodosius his time, it was usual to repeat the Litany in procession at Constantinople, in times of Common Danger; Yea, I doubt not, but Litanies are mentioned by Eusebius, as used in Constantine's Time; For he saith, the Bishops at Jerusalem offered up (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Supplicatory Prayers; For the Peace of the whole World; For the Church of God; For the Emperor himself, and for his Children beloved of God 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. vit. Constant. lib. 4. cap. 45. p. 405. . Which are almost the very Words of those ancient Litanick Forms, yet extant in the Constitutions, and alluded to by many of the ancient Fathers, although Eusebius here rather describes, than citys these ancient Forms. Theodoret speaking of the same Emperor, saith; Constantine prepared a Chapel in his Camp, where they might Sing Hymns to God, and Pray, and receive the Mysteries; For there were Priests and Deacons following the Army,— who according to the Law of the Church, performed the Order for these things 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 205. . In which passage, we have express mention of an Order for Hymns, for Prayers, and for the Eucharist, which was settled by the Law of the Church; and this amounts to no less than a Common Prayer enjoined by Law. For this (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Constitution or Order, no doubt contained those prescribed Prayers which Socrates calls (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 
(m) Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 15. , that is, prescribed Forms of Prayer; which we may learn from Sozomen also, who speaking of Nectarius (that from a Layman, was suddenly advanced to be Bishop of Constantinople,) saith, He was sent to Ciriacus, an ancient Bishop of Adana, that he might learn (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Order of officiating used by the Bishops, which plainly signifies learning his Book of offices 
(n) Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 10. p. 420. , it being one Requisite in a Bishop to be very exact in that point. As for those short Prayers which the Monks of Egypt used, (mentioned in my Adversary) it is Evident they were Forms, though he is not willing to confess so much 
(o) Sozomen. p. 397. in the Disc. of Liturg. pag. 75. . For that place of Sozomen which he citys, concerning Paulus, who said 300 Prayers in a day, and was forced to use 300 little Stones, for Beads, (Foreheads, saith his frontless Editor) to count them by, is taken from Palladius, who writ Anno Dom. 401. and tells us that he had 300 prescribed Prayers 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. cap. 23. ; and because they were short Forms committed to Memory, Paulus was constrained to use these (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) little Stones that so he might know when he had repeated them all. And since we have mentioned Palladius (who wrote at the very beginning of this Century,) we may Note here, that he also affirms, Ma●arius another Monk, said an hundred prescribed Prayers every day 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pallad. ib. cap. 24. . And another, called from his Charity Eleemon, used to go to the Church to say the accustomed Prayers 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. c. 115. . By which we may see that the ancient Monks, who lived before this Century began, (of whom Palladius Writes,) were accustomed to Forms of Prayer both in their Cells, and in the Churches when they went thither; nor can I find in any of these Historians, an account of any that pretended to Pray in public, in the Extempore way by the Spirit, except those Heretics called Euchites, and Enthusiasts; upon whom Theodoret is so severe, as to say he believes, they were inspired by the Devil 
(s) Theodoret. lib. 4. cap: 10. pag. 116. . And this may suffice for the Prayers. Secondly, As to the Praises, the last cited Author assures us, there was a known Form of Gloria Patria at Antioch, concluding (as it doth now) World without end; and this as early as the time of Leontius, who because he altered the ancient Form, repeated it with a low Voice, but was soon discovered by the People, who were well acquainted with the Orthodox way of saying that Hymn 
(t) Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 24. . Sozomen also relates how the Arians in S. Chrysostoms' time at Constantinople, being divided into two Companies, Sung Hymns after the manner o● Antiphones, adding such Responses to them as favoured their Heresy 
(u) Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 8. . I confess the Hymns themselves were corrupted, but as they were Forms and sung alternately, they were agreeable to the Church's method of praising God; and therefore in that they were imitated by S. Chrysostom. For thus the same Historian tells us, Those Christians Sang their Hymns by way of Antiphone, who Translated the Bones of Bubylas the Martyr, in the time of Julian 
(w) Sozomen, lib. 5. cap. 18. . And another saith, The holy Virgins Sang the Psalms in that manner, even in defiance of that Apostate 
(x) Theodoret. lib. 3. cap. 17. . So also Theodosius the Younger, and his Sisters arose early to recite the Morning Hymns alternately 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. . Now these Antiphones which were thus Sung alternately, could be no other than prescribed Forms of Praise; and so was that usual Hymn collected out of those Psalms, beginning with Hallelujah, from whence it had the name of The Hallelujah, and was Sung both in the Eastern and Western Churches so frequently, that a Pagan Philosopher knew it to be a sign, the Christian Worship would be set up in Serapis Temple, when in the middle of the night, he heard that Hymn Sung there, no persons visible, being in the Temple 
(z) Vide Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 15. pag. 426. . We may also here remember, what hath been said of the Trisagion, which was so known a Form, in the time of Anastasius the Emperor, that there was a dangerous Sedition at Constantinople, upon his attempting to add a few Words to it 
(a) Evagr. lib. 3. cap. 44. , which is sufficient to satisfy us, that Forms of Praise as well as Prayer, were then generally used in the Christian Churches.  
But my Adversary, (who overlooks all this Evidence) hath picked up some few passages out of these Historians, to make out his imaginary liberty of Praying. First, He notes out of Socrates, That Athanasius Commanded the Deacon to publish the Prayer, or to bid it; but to Read the Psalm 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socr. lib. 2. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodo. lib. 2. cap. 13. Disc. of Lit. pag. 8. . From whence he infers, that the Prayers than could not be Forms Read out of a Book. But this inference is easily baffled, by observing the true meaning of these Phrases, to publish or bid the Prayer; Which is meant of the Preface to that ancient Litanick Form, repeated of old by the Deacon: And before he began, He summoned the People to be ready with their Responses after every Period, by Crying out aloud, Let us Pray, or Let us Pray earnestly; Which Form is found in the beginning of the Greek Litanies to this very day. So that this Phrase, supposes a Form in which all the People bore a part; and was Read or repeated by heart, by the Deacon (no matter whether.) And it was not only a Form itself, but the Preface to a known Form; nor is the repeating of the Prayer called publishing, or bidding it, but the preparation for it, and the notice which the Deacon gave of it, with a loud Voice. Wherefore this Phrase confutes his Opinion, and confirms ours. Secondly, He twice quotes Socrates, as saying, That generally in all places and among all sorts of Worshippers, there cannot be found two agreeing to use the same Prayers 
(c) Disc. of Liturg p. 89. & 133. . And by this he would prove, that all Ministers might Pray as they pleased; and that there was no agreement, in using the same Prayers in any place. But I will first set down the Words, both of Socrates and Sozomen, and then explain them: The former saith, And generally you cannot find two agreeing together in all places, and in all the kinds of Worship, as to their Prayers 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scorat. lib. 5. cap. 21. . The latter tells us, It cannot be found, that the same Prayers, Psalms, or Lessons were used by all at the same time 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19 cited Disc. of Lit. pag. 9 . Now both these Historians are speaking, not of single Congregations, but of several Nations, and several Dioceses; among which there was not indeed so exact an agreement, but that you might find some difference in some Offices; Which signifies no more, but only that in the Order of placing the several Parts of Worship, and in the very Words of the Prayers, different Countries differed so far, that they could not be said to agree in all things: but both the Hist●rians suppose, that in many things they did agree: And Socrates gives the reason of this variety; saying, The cause of which diversity (as I judge) hath been, the Bishops, who in several Ages, have presided over their several Churches, from w●om their Successors did receive this variety, and Writ it down for a Law to those who should come after them 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●●crat. ut supr. pag. 698. : So that these differences were not Arbitrary Variations of private Pastors, proceeding from Extempore Gifts, as my Adversary fallaciously pretends; they were such Varieties, as were Written down, and prescribed by ancient Bishops, in their several Dioceses, as a Law and Rule, for the Worship of that Diocese: Which plainly shows, that though there was not the same Liturgy used all the World over; yet that every Country had one Liturgy, which was a Law and Rule to Guide them, received from their Primitive Bishops, who had, long before this Age, introduced some things into the Liturgies for their own Churches, and those under their Jurisdiction; and by that means it came to pass, that the Liturgies did not agree so exactly, as to use the same Psalms, Prayers and Lessons, however not in the same Order in all places. Which clear and genuine Sense of these Authors, is so far from justifying his Notion of variety of Arbitrary Prayers in single Congregations, that it proves there were prescribed Liturgies every where, differing only in some few things, which were differently Writ down and enjoined by the ancient Bishops, who had formerly presided over these several Churches. Had Socrates and S●zomen been of my Adversaries side, they must have told us in short, that there could be no agreement in Prayers any where b●cause all Ministers were at liberty to Pray as they pleased. Had that been the custom, these Historians need not have set it down as a Memorable thing, That no places agreed in all points; for the Wonder would have been, if they had agreed in any thing Nor could Socrates have ascribed the variety to the Orders of divers ancient Bishops; he must (according to my Adversaries Notion) have ascribed it to the Various Gifts and Elocution of every several Minister; but it is plain, that Fancy of Ministers exercising such Gifts in public Prayers, was not so much as thought of in that Age; it is a Novel invention of Modern Enthusiasts, and utterly unknown to these ancient Times. Thirdly, He citys Socrates about the Prayers used at the time of Candles lighting 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 21. , which he saith were accommodated to the Season 
(h) Disc. of Lit. pag. 161. : But I must ask who it was, that suited these Prayers to the Season? Was it private Ministers by their Gifts, who daily varied them? If not, it is nothing to his purpose: For if they were fixed written Forms, fitted by the Bishops of several Countries, and prescribed to those under their charge for constant use, than they justify prescribed Forms, which will be plain enough when we consider, what Socrates saith of these Evening Prayers, in this very place cited, viz. That in Greece, Jerusalem and Thessaly, the Prayers at Candle-lighting were made after the same manner, which was used by the Novatians at Constantinople. So that this passage, if my Adversary durst have produced it a large, shows, First, that the three several Provinces, did all Pray alike at this hour of Prayer, and all of them followed the way of the N●vatians at Constantinople: Now if the Novatians, there had daily varied these Prayers Extempore, No Provinces nor places could have exactly used the same Prayers as they did, and every one of these places must have differed from another. So that when so many distant Churches agreed in the same way, and made the same Prayers, no doubt they all Prayed by prescribed Forms. And this is all that is needful to say as to these Historians.  

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

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

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

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

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

Caesarius Arelat. An. D. 503.  §. 1. The first eminent Writer of this Age is Caesarius, Bishop of Arles in France, who was present at most of those Gallican Councils, which enjoin an Uniformity in the Public Offices, and settle one and the same Liturgy; and thence we may conclude, he was for the use of Forms of Prayer. Which may appear also by his Homilies, where he intimates, That the whole Service for the Communion, the Prayers, Lessons, etc. took up an hour or two; yet he reckons those are very Criminal, who for their Souls good will not stay till the whole Office was completed; that is, till they had received the final Blessing after the Lord's Prayer; with which (as we have shown in former Centuries) the Communion-Service was concluded 
(c) Caesarii, hom. 8. edit. a. Baluz. pag. 60. . Now since the Office ended exactly as it had done in former Ages, we may from thence infer, it was the same ancient Form: And we will observe further, that when the Admonition given by a single Bishop, would not reform this vile Custom of the People's going out of the Church before the Prayers were fully ended; The Councils of this time began to make Canons to forbid the People, to departed from the Divine Service before the Blessing was pronounced 
(d) Concil. 1. Aurel. Can. 28. An. 507. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 562. item Concil. 3. Aurel. Can. 28. An. 540. ibid. par. 2. p. 29. : Which Blessing was an ancient and well known Form, as also was the whole Office. For this same Caesarius very clearly witnesseth in another place, That the Preface, Lift up your Hearts, etc. was still used in the Communion Office, a Form, which had been in all Churches down from the days of S. Cyprian, and probably long before 
(e) Caesar. hom. 14. vid. Bona, rer. Liturg. pag. 552. , and yet continued without any variation.  
§. 2. But because we have mentioned some Gallican Councils, 
Concil. Agatheus. A.D. 506.  we must here observe, that after the Kings of France had received the Faith, That Church was every where restored to that good Order and Regularity, from which under Pagan Princes and in difficult Times it had fallen; and this was the occasion of the many Councils held about this Time, and of those Canons that do labour to reduce all the Gallican Church to one Order of Service. So in the Council of Agatho, of which Caesarius was Precedent, one of the Canons is in these Words; Since it is convenient that the Order of the Church be equally kept by all, We Ordain (as it is every where), That after the Antiphons', the Collects shall be said in order by the Bishops or Priests: And that the Morning and Evening Hymns shall be sung every day; and in the conclusion of the Matins, Vespers and Masses, the Sentences out of the Psalms shall be read: And the People (after the Common Prayer) shall be dismissed in the Evening with the Bishop's Benediction 
(e) Et quia convenit Ordinem Ecclesiae, ab omnibus aequaliter custudiri, etc. Concil. Agath. Can. 30. Bin. Tom. II. par. I. pag. 556, . Before which Blessing the People are forbid to go out of the Church 
(f) Ibid. Can. 47. . Here than we see there is an Order of the Church, that is, (as the word then signified) A Liturgy, enjoined to be observed by all in that Province, as it seems it was now by other Councils settled every where: Which Liturgy consisted of the Antiphons' and Collects, every one set in its proper place, as also of Morning and Evening Hymns and Prayers, together with the Communion-Service (then called the Mass) and the Responsory reading of the Psalms, with a common or general Prayer for all Estates of Men, and all was concluded with the Bishop's Benediction. Now it is certain, that these Antiphons', Collects, Hymns, and this General Prayer, were Forms; and the Canon supposes them all written down at large in that Order they were to be used by all Bishops and Priests; and this is plainly a prescribed Liturgy: But my Adversary, who citys this Canon at large, after he had falsified the Words of it 
(g) Disc. of Lit. pag. 174. where he set down Collationes for Collectiones, and leaves out per ordinem. , attempts to pervert the Sense, and would persuade us it amounts to no more, than a Rubric or Directory; which is a gross, and I doubt a wilful Mistake. For though we should grant, That the Canon itself do only direct the Order in which these several parts of the Service shall be used, and forbidden the altering that Order; yet withal it refers to these several parts of the Service, and calls them by their proper Names, supposing a Book well known, in which they were written down in the same order which is prescribed by this Canon. It is plain, the Antiphons', Hymns, Collects, etc. were certain fixed Forms, not made in this Council, but supposed to be commonly known by all long before; and since some variety in the reciting these Forms had crept in, so as one Diocese differed somewhat from another, that Variety (though it were but in the order of using these Forms) is forbid here; and the same Uniformity established in this Province, which had been settled every where else: And indeed this Canon convinces me, there was no difference in the Forms themselves, the same Antiphons', Hymns, Collects, etc. were used every where, that needed not any regulation, only they were differently placed in the Liturgies of divers Churches; and this they Reform, by settling one Liturgy for the whole Gallican Church, which is called Ordo Ecclesiae; and This Order contained not only the Rubrics, or disposal of these several parts of Service, but also The Forms themselves so disposed and set in Order: And doubtless, if any had then been so bold to vary the Hymns and Forms of Prayer, these Fathers (who would not suffer any Variety in the method and placing them) would much less have endured the presumption of altering the Words and Expressions: but that was a piece of Confidence, that was not heard of in this Age.  
The next Year was held the first Council of Orleans, 
Concil. Aurel. I. An. Dom. 507.  which again forbids Any of the People to go out of the Church, before that final Blessing after the Lord's Prayer, in the end of the Communion Service 
(h) Concil. Aurel. I. Can. 28. Bin. Tom. II. par. l. pag 562. ; and enjoins the Litanies shall be used three days before Ascension day, and orders the People (who had so large a share in this ancient Form) to leave Work, and join in presenting this general Supplication to Almighty God 
(i) Ibid. Can. 29. . Agreeable to which is that Passage in Caesarius his Homilies, where he tells us. That the whole Church throughout the World, than celebrated these Three Days with Litanies; and then no Christian ought to be absent from that Religious Assembly 
(k) In tribus istis diebus, quas regulariter in toto mundo celebrat Ecclesia, nullus se à sancto Conventu subaucat. Caesar. hom. 1. . Now, can any man doubt of the use of Prescribed Forms, when these Litanies were so generally observed both in the Eastern and Western Churches? Is it not plain, the Communion Service was the same in all these Provinces, since so many Authors and Councils agree, That that Office every where ended with the Lords Prayer and the Blessing? An Order, now, must signify more than a Rubric: For undoubtedly they had a prescribed Rule, containing both the Forms and the Method also. And the better to secure this Liturgy from being altered, 
Concil. Epaun. An. Dom. 509.  the Council of Pamiers Ordains, That all Churches in the Province shall observe the same Order in celebrating Divine Offices, which was used by the Metropolitan Bishop 
(l) Ad celebrandum divina Officia, ●●dinem quem Metropolitanis tenant, Provinciales observare debent. Concil. Epaun. Can. 27. Bin. Tom. II. par. I. pag. 553. . And a few years after, the same Order was made in Spain, where Variety of Nations and Opinions had made some difference in their Liturgies: But at Girone in Catalonia it was decreed, That as to the appointing of Divine Service, as it was performed in the Metropolitan Church, so in God's Name let that same Usage be observed through the whole Province of Catalonia, as well in the Communion-Office, as in that of Singing and Ministering 
(m) De institutione Missarum, ut ●u●modo in Metropolitanâ Ecclesiâ fuer●t, ita in Dei nomine, in omni Tarraconensi Provinciâ, tam ipsius Misa Orao, quam psallenai & ministrandi consuetudo servetur. Concil. Gerund. An. 517. Can. 1. Bin. ibid. pag. 618. ; that is, The Order of Divine Offices, which by a prescribed Rule was settled in the Metropolitan Church; for the Communion-Service, the Hymns, and other Administrations, were to be the Guide to all the Dioceses under the Jurisdiction thereof: Which supposes that the Original Liturgy was written and kept carefully there, by which all the Books of Divine Offices, transcribed for the several Dioceses of his Suffragans, were to be corrected; which was a very fit Means to preserve that Unity both as to the Forms and Order, which they now laboured to restore in all these parts of the World. The last named Council also mentions Litanies in two Canons, Can. 2, and Can. 3. And informs us, That the Lords Prayer was there repeated daily, in the end both of Morning and Evening Prayer, Can. 10. And all this leaves us no room to doubt of their using those ancient Forms, which (after these great Confusions) began to be restored in these Countries, upon the Conversion of both Pagans and Heretics to the Faith, and their beginning to incorporate with the People which they had Conquered in the last Age. And I have a little transgressed the Order of Time, that I might lay these Canons together, which were all made upon the same Occasion, and do mutually explain one another.  

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

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

Benedictus, Monach. An. Dom. 529.  § 5. About this time Flourished Benedict, the Father of that numerous Order of Monks, who within an Age or two, had filled all the Western World; and he writ his Rule, (not as my Adversary pretends, in the middle 
(z) Disc. of Lit. p. 178. , but) towards the beginning of the Sixth Age, viz. Ann. Dom. 530. 
(a) Vid. Dr. Cave Cartoph. Eccles. p. 109. : Which Rule is still extant 
(b) Vid. Cointe Annal. Eccles. An. 536. . And as to that part of it, which concerns the Divine Service, that he prescribed to his Monks; We have an Abstract of it in Card. Bona 
(c) Bona de divin. Psalmod. c. 18. pag. 895. . And thereby it is manifest, that although this Founder of Monastic Societies, inclined to Enthusiasm in some things; Yet he durst not presume to make a new Office, consisting of new Forms, nor did he leave his Monks to make Extempore Prayers, but takes his Office wholly out of the Liturgies then in use; Only because these Monks had nothing else to do but to serve God, he allots more hours of Prayer, and orders many of the Forms to be oftener repeated, than was Customary in the Cathedral, and Country Churches. For this Rule enjoins the frequent repeating of the Lords Prayer, The Apostles Creed; The Responses, O Lord make speed to save us, etc. The Hymns and Antiphons', particularly the Te Deum, Benedictus and Magnificat, The Collect for the Day, the Kyrie Eleeson, or Lord have Mercy upon us, (by which sometimes is meant the Litany) the Allelujah, and the like, ordaining the Psalter to be Read over in their Office once every Week. But all these are known parts of ancient Liturgy, and every one of them prescribed Forms; which by this time, had gained so great Veneration for their Antiquity, and general use, all over Christendom, that none durst presume to omit nor alter them; And Benedict's prescribing them to his Monks, shows that he took them, out of the received Liturgies of his Time: And by long usage the Forms themselves were so well known, that they are described in the original Rule, only by the first words of the several Forms. In like manner at the same time that Benedict was Famous in Italy, Tetradius Nephew to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, Flourished in France; and he also writ a Rule for his Monks, wherein we have the same Method observed; that is, to oblige them to repeat the Psalms, and all the ancient Forms, divers of which are there briefly called by the two first words, as Gloria in Excelsis, is put to signify, that well known Hymn, Glory be to God on High: And so for the rest 
(d) Bibl. Patr. Tom. V p. 866. & Bona, de reb. Liturg. l. 1. c. 4. §. 4. pag. 512. . The same is also to be observed in another Rule, made within less than twenty Years after this, by Valerianus Bishop of Arles 
(e) Bona, ibid. & Cointè Annal. Ann. 550. . Now though these Orders of Monks did miserably degenerate afterwards; Yet at this time they were the best Men of the Age, Renouncing the World Sincerely, and Serving God with Extraordinary Devotion; yet every Order had its prescribed Forms of Praise and Prayer, none of them differing much from others; and all taken out of the public Liturgies then in use in the Country, where they were first planted, after the Example of those Egyptian Monks in the Fourth Century, whom Cassian before described to us.  
§ 6. Let us now pass into the East, 
Justinianus, Aug. Ann. Dom. 530.  and see what Laws the famous Emperor Justinian made concerning the Liturgies, which we have proved to have been established there, long before his Time. And First He was much displeased at some who had been admitted into the inferior Orders of the Clergy, though they were Illiterate; Wherefore he requires that none shall for the future be ordained Priests and Deacons, unless at least, they be able to Read, and can both instruct others in the holy Prayers, and Read the Books of Ecclesiastical Canons 
(f) Authent Collat. 1. Tit. 6. Nou. 6. cap. 4. pag. 13. . Again the Religious Prince complains, that by the neglect of frequent Synods, which would have obliged all the Clergy, to be well skilled in the holy Liturgies; some, even of the highest Order, were not perfect in the holy Office for the Communion, nor in the Prayer for Baptism. And therefore he appoints, that before any Bishop be Consecrated, He shall publicly Read over the Communion Office, The Prayers for Baptism, and all the other Supplications 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem. Authent. Collat. 9 Tit. 20. Nou. 13●. Praef. cap. 1. & 2. . Now here we may observe, that the Prayers then in use, were called holy Liturgies; and were such as could be Read, Learned and Taught: And the Qualification of Persons to be Ordained, was not to be able to make new Prayers, but to Read the ancient Forms, which it seems, were used also in the Nunneries; and therefore this Emperor order the Bishop to take care, that the Nuns might have one grave old Man, to make the necessary Responses in their Service; and that they should have a Priest, and a Deacon of unblameble Lives, to perform the Divine Liturgies, and give them the holy Communion 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. l●b. 1. Tit. 3. de Episc. & cler. l. 44. pag 19 . But if any had Built a private Oratory in his House, though he might perform his Ordinary Devotions, yet he Ordains, that according to the Laws, delivered in the Ecclesiastical Acts, touching the Worship of God, in public, they do not presume there, to do any of those things, which are appointed by the holy Liturgy 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent. Coll. 5. T●t. 13. Nou. 58. p 91. . Moreover as to the public Offices, the Emperor Decrees, that Stripes and Banishment, shall be inflicted upon any that come into a Church, and injure the Bishop or other Clergy; while the Divine Mysteries, or the holy Offices are performing: But to disturb the Liturgy itself, is to be punished with Death. And because Litanies were then said in the open Streets in procession, the Emperor enjoins the Bishops and Clergy, to be always present at them, and makes it capital to affront or disturb them, in that part of Divine Service 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Authent. Col. 9 Tit. 6. Novel. 123. cap. 31. & 32. p. 174. . All which Laws, suppose a prescribed Form of Service, and have the very name of Liturgy for that Service, as every one will grant, who considers that the Liturgies of S. Basil, and S. Chrysostom, were constantly used in the Eastern Church, both in and long before Justinians time. I know my Adversary pretends (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Liturgy, in these Laws, signifies no more, than the exercise of any Divine Ministrations 
(l) Disc. of Lit. p. 157. 158. : But if we grant that, it will not help his cause, nor hurt ours, because in that Age and those Churches, it is certain all those Divine Ministrations were performed by prescribed Forms; so that it is all one as to our dispute, whether we translate (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Liturgy or Ministration, because we are sure they Ministered by Liturgies, as we now call them. For proof whereof, we have a Memorable passage in the Council of Constantinople, under the Patriach Menna, in this Emperor's Reign; where it seems the People's extraordinary Zeal 'gainst Heretics, could not be satisfied, unless the Bishops would put in the Names of the four General Councils, into the Dyptics, to be Read at the Altar: And when these Names were put in as they desired, the whole Multitude came together to observe, and hear this new and grateful Addition: And dividing themselves into two parts, they Sang, (for a long time) the Benedictus [Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,] until the Choir began the Trisagion; to which they all listened, and after the Reading of the holy Gospel, the Liturgy was performed according to the Custom, (that, is the Office for Catechumen.) Then the Doors being shut, and the holy accustomed Lessons read; At the time for Reading the Dyptics, all the People with silence drew near to the Altar; and upon hearing the Deacon recite those Names, they all Cried with a Loud Voice, Glory be to thee, O Lord; and then through God's help, the rest of the Liturgy was finished with all Decency 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Constant. sub Men. Act. 5. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 1. pag. 733. . Now here we have not only the Name of Liturgy used, in the sense we now take it, but the several parts of it are set down, and particular notice of divers Forms therein contained, viz. The Benedictus, The Trisagion, and the Gloria tibi Domine: The Prayers for the Catechumen, the Dyptics, etc. And the Prayers themselves are called, the accustomed Liturgy, and said to be performed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) with all good Order; that is, according to that excellent Order appointed, by the ancient Liturgies.  
§ 7. Pope Vigilius lived in the time of this Emperor, 
Vigilius Ep. Rom. An. Dom. 540.  and writes an Epistle to him, wherein he blesseth God, for that Prince's Religious care of the Church; which requited him by her daily Prayers for him: And Vigilius notes, that Justinians affection to the Church, was a sign that their usual Prayer for it was heard, and Answered. And when he comes to describe that Prayer, he doth it in these Words, All Bishops by an ancient Tradition, in the Communion Office desire and Pray that the Lord would please, to Unite, Govern, and Preserve the Catholic Faith, throughout the whole World 
(n) Omnes Pontifices anti●uâ in offerendo s●cripcio Traditione aepe●●mus, excrantes, ut Catholicam fidem aduna●e, regere, Donamus & custodire toto or●e dignetu●. Vigil. ep. 4. ad. Justin. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 5. . Which Words are certainly the Roman Form, as it was in the days of Vigilius, being according to the Book of Gelasius his Correcting, not much altered from the Liturgy ascribed to S. Clement, or the old Roman Form before Gelasius 
(o) Pro Sanctà tuà Cat●olicà & Apostolicâ Ec●lesiâ, ut pacificare, custodire, & gubernare digneris, omnes fines terrae, Liturg. S. Clem. Bib. Patr. Tom. 2. edit. Paris. p. 119. . And when Gregory the Great in the next Century, corrected the Gelasian Office, he evidently made his Form, out of both those elder Liturgies 
(p) Pro Eccles â tuâ Sancta Catholicâ, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare & reg●r●●igneris toto terrarum erbe. Off●c. Gregorian. ibid. pag. 128. ; As the Reader will see by comparing the several ways of expressing this, in these several Offices, in divers Ages used in the Roman Church. Which shows not only, that there was a Form of Prayer for the Church, professing the Catholic Faith, in the time of Vigilius; but that the Form was then believed to be from ancient Tradition, and was made almost in the very Words, which had been used for many hundred Years before. Had Liturgies been newly set up, (as my Adversary pretends) nothing had been more false, nor more Ridiculous, than to allege an ancient Tradition for this Form; and had all Ministers before this had the liberty to Pray, in what Expressions they pleased, nothing had been more impossible, than this Harmony between these Offices, which only differ in divers Ages, by reason of the several Corrections of the Forms, but were always in every Age done by a prescribed Form. Which will be still more plain by the same Vigilius his Answer to the Consultations of Etherius, whom he first informs concerning the certain Time on which Easter was to be kept for that year: And because this Bishop was placed in a Country newly converted to the Catholic Faith, and not yet well instructed in the regular way of performing Divine Offices, he had (it seems) desired to know how they celebrated the Service at Rome on the greater Festivals: To which Vigilius gives this Answer, We also acquaint you, that as to the Order of Prayer in celebrating the Communion, it is not different at any time, nor upon any Festival; but we always consecrate the Gifts offered to God after the same Manner— Then he goes on to tell him, That they had indeed proper Prefaces, for commemorating the Mercy peculiarly to be remembered in each of the greater Festivals— And then adds these Words,— But the rest of the Service we perform according to the accustomed Order: And therefore we have herewith sent you the Text itself of that Canonical Prayer, which by God's Mercy we have received from Apostolical Tradition. And that you may know in what place to add proper things for each Festival, we have also added the Prayers for Easter-day 
(q) O●dinem qu●que precum in celebritate M ssarar nullo n●s t●mpore, nu●●â 〈◊〉 sign ●uaca●● habere a●v●●, sed semper ●●aem tenore oblata Deo munera consecrare— & pp.— Caetera vero Ordine consueto prosequimur. Qua prepter & ipsius Canonicae precis textum direximus subter ad●●ect●● qua●●● (Deo propitio) ex Apostolicâ traditione suscepimus, etc. V●g●l. Ep. 2. ad Ether●um, Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 4. . Here we see the Communion-Service, and especially the Prayer of Consecration, was an ancient Form derived from Apostolical Tradition, and the whole Office was written down in a Book, and sent into that Country where Etherius was Bishop, which some suppose to have been some parts of Spain, lately Converted from Heresy 
(r) Baron. Annal. An. 538. pag. 278, 279. . And if so, probably this was the foundation of that Office which is called the Mosarabick, and was Composed by S. Leander about Fifty year after, out of the old Gothic and African Forms, compared with this Roman Office. However it appears, that though in some places, where the Faith was newly planted, they needed help to settle and correct their Offices; yet both the New and Ancient Churches did all agree in the use of Forms: And when a new Liturgy was to be made for a Newly Converted Nation, the Bishops consulted the most Ancient Forms they could find in other Churches, choosing out of them what they thought proper for their own Country, and that Form they enjoined upon all that were under their Jurisdiction. We must also observe further, That the Roman Office which was writ down, and the very Words of it sent to this Bishop, is called, An Order of Prayer: Which therefore doth not signify a bare Rubric for Method, but a Book containing the Prefaces, Hymns and Prayers themselves: And thus it is used in the Life of S. Laetus a Monk, who about this Time was ordained Deacon: and He in a short time learned the Psalter, and all that the Ecclesiast call Order required; so as to be more perfect in them than many were, who had been longer used to them 
(s) Cointè Annal. E●●les. ●ra●●. An 533. pag 413. . This Ecclesiastical Order was a Book as well as the Psalter, and this ingemous Monk got to say the very Words of them both, by Heart. But to return to Pope Vigilius; He was so tenacious of Forms, that he warns Etherius not to permit one Syllable to be altered in the Gloria Patri: Which the Catholics by ancient Custom use to say after the Ps ●ms, thus, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; but some Heretics a little before presumed to leave out the last [and] saying it thus,— and to the Son, the Holy Ghost; which he co●demus as an Heretical Variation 
(t) V●● Ep. 2. ibid. pag 4. . But it had been impossible to secure the Orthodox Forms, if my Adversaries pretended liberty of varying the Words of their Prayers and Praises had then been allowed in the Church: Nay, if that had been permitted in former Ages, there would have been no certain Primitive Forms left, by which they could have corrected these Heretical Innovations.  
§ 8. In the East we have further Evidence of the continuance of Liturgick Forms; 
Concil. Mopsevest. An. D. 550  for in the Council of Mopsvestia, the Fathers there assembled pray for the Emperor in that ancient and generally received Form, O Lord, save the Emperor; And hear him whensoever he calls upon thee 
(u) Salvum fac Domine Imperatorem, & exaudi eum quacunque die te invocaverit. Vid. Synod. Quint. collat. 5. apud Bin. Tom. II. par. 2. pag. 83. Anastasius Sinaita, Patriar. Antioch. An. Dom. 560. . But soon after this we have sufficient Proof, that the whole Liturgy transcribed in the Apostolical Constitutions, and shown to have been the Antiochian Office some Ages before, was still in use there: For Anastasius, who had been a Monk of Mount Sinai, being now Patriarch of Antioch, hath some Homilies (owned to be genuine) still extant, wherein he refers to, and expounds the Words and Actions prescribed by that ancient Liturgy. As first, He bids them mind the Deacons Voice when he crieth, Stand with reverence; stand with fear—; bow down your Heads. And again, The Priest (saith he) engages you to attend when he bids you, Lift up your Hearts: And what do you Answer? Do you not Reply, We lift them up unto the Lord? Adding, That the People's joining their part to the Priests, made the Prayers to be more effectual. He goes on to tell them— The Angels minister at the holy Liturgy— The Cherubins stand round about, and with sweet Voices sing the Trisagion, Holy, Holy, Holy; and the Seraphins bow and adore. He mentions also the Lords Prayer, as being daily repeated by all in the Communion-Office; and Comments upon that ancient Form, Give holy things to those that are holy 
(w) Arastas. Sin. Orat de sacr. Synaxt in Auctario Bib. Pati. Tom. 2. col 9, & 10. . Now these Passages, and in this Order, may be seen in divers ancient Liturgies, particularly in that which is set down in the Constitutions; which shows, that the same Forms were used at Antioch in this Age, which had been used there in divers of the foregoing Centuries: And though in these Homilies he doth transcribe no more of them, but only such parts of the Liturgy as were proper to move the People to come to the Communion with Devotion and Reverence. Charity and holy Resolutions; yet by those which he occasionally mentions, and by the Order of them, we may discern the ancient Forms were still in use there, with little or no Variation.  
§. 9 By this Time divers Parts of Spain had embraced the Catholic Faith, 
Concil. Bracar. I. An. Dom. 563.  and therefore now the Orthodox Bishops met in a Council at Braga; and after they had caused the Book of ancient Canons to be publicly read before them, they gather out of them some that were of present use, and revive them by a fresh imposing them. The first thing they labour to regulate, is that variety of Forms and different ways of Divine Service, which the mixture of divers Nations and Opinions had produced among them; therefore the first Canon is, That one and the same Order of Singing shall be kept in Morning and Evening Prayer, and that no different Customs, either of private Men or of Monasteries, shall be mixed with the Ecclesiastical Rule 
(x) Ut unus atque idem Psallendi ordo in Matutinis vel Vespertinis officiis teneatur, & non diversae ac privatae neque Monasteriorum consuetudines cum Ecclesiasticâ regulà sint permixtae. Concil. Brac. Can 1. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 211. . The Morning and Evening Offices consisted chief of Psalms and Hymns, with some proper Collects, and were all (or the most part of them) chanted and sung; which cannot be in a public Congregation, unless the Form and Words be known before. Wherefore for these Matins and Vespers, they had established One Order. Besides these, there was the Communion-Office before Noon, and for that they had also a Prescribed Form; which they call here, The Ecclesiastical Rule; and since some private Persons presumed to alter this, and others followed some of the Forms prescribed by the Rules of certain Monasteries, they utterly reject these Variations, and bind them all to the public Liturgy. This is the plain sense of the Canon, and therefore Ordo Psallendi, and Ecclesiastica Regula, must be more than a Rubric; for these confined them to Sing the Matins and Vespers in the same words, and to celebrate the Communion-Service by such a certain Rule as admitted of no Variation. And the following Canons make this still more plain: The Second is, That on the Vigils of Feasts, and at the Communion, all shall read the same, and not different Lessons in the Church. The Third orders, That Bishops and Priests shall use the same Form of Saluting the People, viz. The Lord be with you; To which they shall Answer, And with thy Spirit; even as the whole East hath retained it from the Apostles, and not as the Priscillianists have altered it. The Fourth Canon is, That the Communion-Office shall by all be celebrated, by that same Order which Profuturus, formerly Bishop of this Church, received in Writing from the Apostolical See. The Fifth enjoins, That none pass by that Order of Baptising which the Church of Braga anciently used; and which, to avoid all doubts concerning the same, Profuturus had received in Writing from the See of S. Peter 
(y) Concil. Bracar. l. Can. 2, 3, 4, & 5. apud Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 212. . Here we have one Calendar fixed, appointing the very same Lessons; one Form of Salutation, derived from the Apostles; one Written Form for the celebration of the Eucharist; and another, being the Order of Baptism, which in the days of a Bishop (who was dead some years before this Council) were sent in Writing from Rome, and had been ever since used in these Provinces; which can be nothing else but a Liturgy, from which they will not suffer any Minister to vary in the least. And it signifies nothing to allege, That this is one of the first Injunctions for such Uniformity in this Country, that had been for an Age and more overrun with Barbarous People, and overspread with Heresies; because there are evident Supposals, That the Ancient Churches, which had not been renversed by these Calamities, but kept to their old accustomed Ways, furnished the New regulated Churches with ancient Forms, which had been used among them from the Primitive Ages; and that sufficiently proves the Antiquity of Liturgies. My Adversary, who conceals all this Evidence, citys the 30th Canon of this Council, but very falsely; for he reads it thus, Besides the Psalms of the Old Testament, let nothing Poetically Composed be Sung in the Church; and he false dates it also 
(z) Disc. of Lit. pag. 179. Concil. Bracar. Can. 30. An. 565. . But the Words of the Canon are a Translation of the Canon of Laodicea, made 200 years before, Forbidding the Singing of any Poetical Compositions in the Church, except the Psalms, and what Hymns were taken out of the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament 
(a) Vid. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 212. ; which was designed, to set aside the late composed Hymns of the Arians, used among the Heretical Goths, and other corrupt modern Composures: Not to reject the Magnificat, the Benedictus, Nunc dimittis, and other Canonical Hymns, which our Dissenters now totally disuse. He adds, That Ordo Psallendi, in the Council of Tours, signifies not what, but how many Psalms shall be Sung 
(b) Disc. of Lit. pag. 174. : But let the Canon be consulted, and any Man who knows the Custom of the Age will see, that the design of that Canon was to establish a Calendar, which did appoint and prescribe the very Psalms, as well as the Number, which were to be Sung at the certain Seasons there mentioned 
(c) Vid. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. in Concil. Turon. 2. An. 570. Can. 19 p. 228. : And he unfortunately forgot one Canon of this Council of Tours, which enlarges the former Canon of Braga, and takes in all the ancient Hymns, which he pretends are rejected by that Canon; for it says, Though we have the Hymns of Ambrose in the Canon; yet since we have other Forms worthy to be Sung, we willingly receive them, unless they have no Authors Name in the Title; because, if they be agreeable to the Faith, they ought not to be left out of use 
(d) Ib. Can. 24. pag. 230. . So that we see, this Canon owns the Te Deum, the Benedicite, and other Hymns, provided they be Orthodox, and the Authors were known Friends to the Catholic Faith; and here are Forms supposed as generally used, and a Council to allow them, after which the Church may use them, though they be not taken out of Canonical Scripture. I have no more to add here, but a scattered Passage or two, to confirm the continuance of the old Forms in the Gallican Church. First, Whereas there was a necessity of leaving the Priest at liberty, to put the Names of those who Offered, into the Prayer for all Estates of Men, some ventured to take more freedom, and in that part of the Office varied from their Mother Church: Which occasioned a Council at Arles to Decree, That the Oblations made at the Holy Altar, should not be offered up by any of the Bishops of that Province, otherwise than according to the Form used in the Church of Arles 
(e) Concil. Arelat. An. Dom. 554. Can. 1. apud Cointe Annal. pag. 799. . Or if (with some) we expound this Canon of the Prayer of Consecration, still it proves, That the Forms used in the Metropolitan Church, were to be an invariable Rule to all the Churches in that Province. The Council of Tours also (before cited) mentions Litanies, Antiphons', and the Hallelujah 
(f) Concil. Turon. 2. An. 570. Can. 18, etc. : And we have a farther account of the Use of Litanies there, in the first Council of Lions 
(g) Concil. Ludg. 1. eod. An. Can. 6. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 232. : All which are the Forms which we have showed were in use in the preceding Centuries. And when Chilperic (a King of France) about this Time pretended to Compose new Hymns and Prayers, our Author tells us, They would by no means receive them into the Church's Offices 
(h) Greg. Turon. lib. 6. cap. 46. pag. 308. ; for those were fixed before, and none but a Council of Bishops could be permitted to alter or add to them. I had almost forgot Martin, Bishop of Braga, 
Martin Episcop. Bracar. An. Dom. 572.  who came into that See very soon after the  Council, and being a Grecian by Birth, he collected and translated divers Canons of the Greek Church into Latin for the use of Spain; in which Collection of his we have very many plain Indications of a Liturgy. One of these Canons obliges every Clergyman in a City, or any place where there is a Church, to be present at the daily Office of Singing Matins and Vespers 
(m) Canon's Martin. Bracar. Can. 63. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 246. : And another forbids New composed Psalms, made by some of the Vulgar, to be said in the Church 
(n) Ib. Can. 67. . For indeed the Hours of Prayer, and the Offices appointed for them, were then so fixed, that as none might neglect them, so none were allowed to change them, or add to them, in any sort whatsoever. And I must note (by the way) that this very Martin, who collected these Canons, was he that had Converted the Suevians in Spain to the Catholic Faith, that so we may be satisfied, that part of Spain a little before this, had a second and New Conversion; and that gave occasion to divers of these Canons for an Uniformity in the Divine Service, which was to be established there.  

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

Leander Episc. H ●pal. An. Dom. 588.  §. 11. After the Steps made toward one uniform Liturgy, among the Suevians in the Province of Gallicia, by the Consultation of Vigilius and the Council of Braga; Leander, the famous Bishop of Sevil, Converted Reccaredus (King of the Goths) from Arianism, within a few years after these Goths had Conquered the Suevians, and were become Lords of all Spain: And the first Care he took was to purge out the Errors from the Gothic Office, and to take away the various Forms used in the several Provinces of Spain, which had been Peopled with several Nations, governed by different Kings, and had held divers Opinions in Religion; but he now composes one. Office for the whole Kingdom, which his next Successor Isidore perfected and fully settled there: For which Reason the Writers of this History generally ascribe it to them both. Roderic of Toledo calls it, The Office of the Mass, instituted by the Bishops Leander and Isidore 
(p) Roderic. Tolet. de reb. Hispan. lib. 6. cap. 25. . And Jo. Vasaeus in his Chronicle saith, The Christians who lived among the Arabians were called Mozarabes, that is, Mixed with the Arabians; and therefore they used that Ecclesiastical Office then, which S. Leander and Isidore composed, and all Spain used it until the days of Alfonso the Sixth 
(q) Jo. Vasaei Chron. Hispan● pag. 579. . But that Leander first put this Office into order, is plain from the Testimony of Isidore himself; who faith, Leander took no small pains in the Ecclesiastical Offices; and in the Hymns at the Communion and Psalms, he Composed many sweet things 
(r) Isidor. de script. Eccles. in Leandr. vict. Bona de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 364. . Another Historian saith, Leander writ one Book of Prayers, and another of the Communion 
(s) Fran. Taraph, de reg. Hisp. pag. 704. . Wherefore we conclude, that this Leander having before him the Liturgy used by the Arian Goths, the Order made for the Suevians in Gallicia: And probably the Gallican. Roman, and African Forms, made up one Office out of them all, which afterwards (when the Moers (who spoke Arabic) came into Spain, and were some of them Converted to the Faith) was called the Mozarabic Liturgy; which is extant to this day in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and elsewhere 
(t) Bib. Patr. edit. Colon. Tom. 15 p. 777. vid. Ben. de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11, & 12. & in Appendice. . For that this was not the first time that prescribed Forms were used in these Parts of the World, is evident from what hath been showed before concerning the Goths and Suevians both in France and Spain, and may further appear by these few Observations, viz. That the old Gothic Office, yet retains a Collect on S. Martins-day, wherein he is called, A Man whom our Age hath produced. Now S. Martin died An. Dom. 402. and therefore the Missal from whence Leander or Isidore took this Form, must have been composed in the Fifth century, that is, as soon as the Goths in France became Christians: And Gregory of Tours mentions an Ambassador coming from Leonigild (the Father of Reccaredus) who was an Arian, and so was this Ambassador, for he would not Communicate with them in France, because they did not say, Glory be to the Father by the Son, as they did in their Offices in Spain 
(u) Greg. Turon. lib. 6. cap. 48. pag. 289. : And in the Third Council of Toledo, under Reccaredus the First Orthodox Gothish King, when Leader had begun to correct the Arian Forms, they pronounce an Anathema against all that say, Glory be to the Father by the Son; and will not say, To the Father and the Son 
(w) Concil. Tolet. 3. An. 589. ap. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 276. . So that we see the Goths had Forms suited to their Heresy while they were Arians; but made Orthodox as soon as they embraced the Catholic Faith. Moreover, this same Council (which was before Isidore's Time) in order to discover those who yet secretly favoured Arianism, Ordain, That the Creed shall be repeated by all the People with an audible Voice, before the Lords Prayer in the Communion 
(x) Concil. Tol. t. 3. Can. 2. ibid. ; Which Usage still is kept in the Mozarabic Liturgy, and is peculiar to that Office. From all which we may infer, That Leander compiled this Office, but did not first invent the Forms; only he collected them out of more ancient Liturgies, especially the old Gallican Missal, which the Arian Goths had corrupted, but he now restored it to its ancient Purity; and therefore there is a very great Agreement between the old Gallican and Mozarabic Missals; and they are nearer to each other, than either of them are to the ancient Roman Forms: Which confirms our Observation, That this Age did not first Worship God by Liturgies, but continued the ancient Way; only by the New Conversion of divers Countries from Paganism or Heresy, one pure Liturgy was collected, and published for the use of that Country or Province, from which none of their Ecclesiastics were allowed to vary. The Orthodox and Heretics agreed in the use of Forms, none so much as thought of Extempore Prayers; no Nation pleaded for, expected or enjoyed such a Liberty; nor did any of the Clergy or Laity complain, That the imposing there Forms was an Innovation, or hindrance to their Gifts, or an invading of their Christian Liberty.  
§. 12. There is nothing clearer in all History, 
S. Gregor. Mag. Episc. Roman. An. Dom. 590.  than that there was a Canon or Form of Consecrating the Communion at Rome, long before the Time of S. Gregory the Great. The very Words of it have been produced out of S. Ambrose his Book of Sacraments, An. 374. and we have proved it cited by the Author of the Questions out of the Old and New Testament, who writ in the Fourth Century: We have also brought in the plain Testimonies of Innocent, Celestine, Leo, Gelasius and Vigilius, all of them Bishops of Rome long before Gregory's Time: And we now add, That Johan. Moschus declares, there was a certain Form of the Canon at Rome, in the Time of Pope Agapetus, who lived An. 535 
(y) Joan. Mosch. pratum Spirit. cap. 150. Bib. Patr. Tom. pag. 1121. : And that the Lord Du Plessis (whom my Adversary citys often) shows very largely, that there was a Canon of the Mass at Rome, which was very pure and Orthodox, before Gregory's Time; yea, he sets down divers parts of it, and assures us it was common to all, both Priests and People 
(z) Mornay of the Mass, Book I. Ch. 7. pag. 53. : And John the Deacon, who writ S. Gregory's Life saith, That he corrected the Gelasian Book for the Communion-Office, taking away some things, altering some few, and adding other things to explain the Gospels, putting it all into one Volume 
(a) Johan. Diac. vit. Gregor. lib. 2. cap. 17. . Which shows there was a Canon before, written down in the Gelasian Book, which S. Gregory only altered in some few things; and it doth not appear he added any more to it, except these Words, O Lord, order our days in thy Peace, deliver us from Eternal damnation, and make us to be numbered among the Flock of thine Elect: For these are the only Words that all Writers say were of his Making, and which he added to the Canon 
(b) Johan. Diac. ut supr. Item Pedae histor. lib. 2. cap. 1. p. 53 Naucler. Gener. 20. pag. 743. ita Platina vit. Greg. pag. 82. ; wherefore he was only the Corrector of the Old Canon, not the Maker of a New one. And whereas some Authors of later Times ascribe the Composing of the Roman Offices to him, we have seen it is usual in most Writers to call such as only corrected and reformed Liturgies, The Authors of them; by which they mean no more, than those who published them in a more complete Form than before. But my Adversary, who can prove any thing, undertakes to make out two difficult things in relation to this Pope Gregory: First, That there was no Form of Consecration at Rome before his time. Secondly, That when another had made this Form, he did not impose it on others 
(c) Disc. of Lit. pag. 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. . The former of these Assertions he proves from a Passage in Saint Gregory his Epistles, which the ignorant editor of the Discourse of Liturgies hath put into a wrong Page: But I shall cite it at large, and then will examine the true meaning of it: We therefore say the Lords Prayer immediately after the Prayer (of Consecration), because it was the custom of the Apostles with that Prayer alone to Consecrate the Host; and it seems to me very inconvenient, that we should say over the Host that Prayer which a Scholastical Man had composed, and not say that Form which our Lord himself composed, over his Body and Blood 
(d) Ut precem quam Scholasticus composuerat super Oblationem diceremus— etc. Greg. Epist. 63. lib. 7. pag. 230. . Now from hence he gathers, that Scholasticus is a Man's Name, who was Contemporary with S. Gregory; and since he affirms, this Scholasticus composed the Canon, therefore the Canon (as he pretends) could not be made before Gregory's Time: The weakness and mistakes of which Inference we shall easily perceive, if we consider the occasion and the sense of these Words: S. Gregory was accused for imitating the Custom at Constantinople, In ordering the Lords Prayer to be repeated immediately after the Canon; and these Words are his defence of his bringing in this Custom. Now doubtless it had been more rational, to object his setting up a New Canon made by a late obscure Author, if he had done any such thing, than to allege his only adding the Lords Prayer to it; and if he had first brought in this Canon of Scholasticus, that had been an imitation of Constantinople too, so far as it was a Canon; for they had long used the Canon of S. Basil, and that of S. Chrysostom there; but of this the Objectors take no notice, which makes it probable, that the Canon was settled long before; it was a Prayer which he found, and added the Lords Prayer to it. But my Adversary urges S. Gregory's Saying, That the Apostles only Consecrated with the Lord's Prayer, and therefore Scholasticus his Canon must be composed about S. Gregory's Time. Why so? was there not above Five hundred years between the Apostles and S. Gregory? If this Canon were not extant in their Time, might it not be made in some of the intervening Ages, and yet be long enough before S. Gregory? And indeed there is a Mistake (as learned Men think) in the Pope's premises; for he is supposed to refer to S. Hierom, who only saith, Christ taught his Apostles, that the Faithful might daily say in the Sacrifice of his Body; Our Father 
(e) Hieren. adv. Pelag. Tom. 2. pag. 469. . But neither he, nor any Ancient Writer before this Gregory, did ever affirm, That the Apostles themselves used no other Form of Consecration, but only the Lords Prayer, it being generally believed they used the Words of Institution (recorded in the Gospel) and the Lords Prayer when they Consecrated, to which long before S. Basil's and S. Ambrose his Time (as we have showed) other parts of the Canon were added: And for the Roman Canon, whatever Du-Moulin and my Adversary say 
(f) Disc. of Lit pag. 84, & 85. , Du-Plessis, and other both ancient and modern Writers do agree, That several of the old Popes made the several Parts of it, in divers Ages, long before the Time of Gregory 
(g) Mornay of the Mass, B.I. Chap. 6. p. 44. : But Gelasius gathered together all these Additions, and put them into that Form wherein Gregory found it; and he (as Cassander thinks) is called by the Title of Scholasticus, because he was first a Scholastical Man before he was chosen Pope 
(h) Gelasius ex Scholastico Papa factus. Exp. vet. Miss. ap. Cassand. de Liturg. lib. 1. . And if this be so (as it is very probable), then Scholasticus is not any Man's proper Name, but a Title used in that Age for any Learned and Well-read Man, and so applied to Gelasius, who lived near an Hundred years before S. Gregory: So the word Scholasticus is taken, I am sure, in many ancient Authors 
(i) Aug. Tract. 7. in Johan. Hieron. de vir. illustr. & Salvian. praef. ad libr. de gub. Dei, ap. Bon. rerum Liturg. p. 557. . And in that Sense of an elegant and learned Man it is, that we find Capitolinus use it 
(k) Capitolin. in vit. Maximin. junior. , and so doth Sulpitius Severus 
(l) Sulpic. Seu. dial. 1. , and Macarius 
(m) Macar. hom. 15. ; so Suidas calls Agathias by the Title of Scholasticus 
(n) Suid. in Agathiâ. ; and Prudentius is called Hispaniarum Scholasticus, by Walafridus Strabo 
(o) Walafr. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 25. ; yea, Synesius long before gives that Title to a learned Friend of his 
(p) Synes. op. 155, 156. , and Elpidius hath the Name of Scholasticus, in Leontius 
(q) Leont. Mechan. de Arat. sphaer. : Which is enough to prove, That for divers Ages this had been a Title; and in S. Gregory he plainly opposeth a Prayer, composed by a Divine Person, such as the Lords Prayer is, to one made by an human Author, by a Learned and Scholastical Man; by which he means either in general, all the old Popes who first put in the several Parts; or rather Gelasius, who settled the Canon made up of those Parts, and so may be said to be the Author thereof: And thus all my Adversaries dreams of a Man called Scholasticus, contemporary to S. Gregory, fall to the ground. But still he persists in this Notion, and saith, Bellarmin thinks it is not improbable, that Scholasticus was a Man's Name then alive. I Reply, Bellarmin 
(r) Bellarm. de Miss. lib. 2. c. 19  only recites this as Chemnitius' Opinion, but disputes against it; and yet adds, if he should yield this to gratify his Adversary, it would not follow that the Canon was made by him, because S. Gregory's Words may be expounded, not of the Canon, but of some lesser Collects, of later composure, used in the Communion-Office; and then adds, Vtraque probabilis, both Opinions, viz. of the Canon being made by an ancient Learned Father, entitled Scholasticus, and of the Words signifying other Prayers, are probable: But my Adversary wilfully perverts Bellarmin, as if he affirmed, it was probable that Scholasticus (Author of the Canon) lived in Gregory's Time; which the Cardinal utterly and with good Reason denies, because there was a Canon at Rome divers Ages before; and that which Gregory here speaks of, was writ down by Gelasius before the End of the last Century. And here let it be noted, That though S. Gregory prefer the Lords Prayer, whose Authority was Divine, before this Prayer of Ecclesiastical and Human Composition, yet he gives great regard to it; for he calls the Elements only, The Host, or The Oblation, before this Canon be repeated; but after the pronouncing this Prayer over it, he calls it Christ's Body and Blood: Which shows, That he thought the Consecration was made by this very Prayer, though it were only an Human Composure. And this was not his Opinion alone, but was believed generally in that Age, as may appear by the Case of Januarius (proposed to Gregory) who was sometimes taken so ill, even at the Sacrament, that he was a great while before he could go on at the same place of the Canon, where he left off; which made many doubt, whether or no they might receive the Communion from him, because they feared, that a Mistake in this Prayer would make the Consecration null 
(s) Gregor. Epist. 56. lib. 11. pag. . Now it is no way probable, that a Prayer lately made by an obscure and private Man, should so suddenly gain the reputation of being a necessary part of the Office: And therefore we may conclude this first Assertion of his to be false, and no way deducible from S. Gregory's Words, since it opposes so much Reason and so great Authority. But Secondly, Whoever made this Canon, or whensoever it was made, my Adversary saith, That S. Gregory was not for imposing it; which he hopes to prove by his not imposing this Canon upon Augustine the Monk, whom he had sent to Convert the Saxons then in this Island; For he advised him to a Course inconsistent with any restraint. Now all this is to insinuate, that it is ill done of our Church to impose her Liturgy upon her own Clergy, because (as he pretends) Bede saith, S. Gregory did not impose the Roman Canon on Austin the Monk. An heavy Charge this, and well proved, as we shall see by the true Quotation of Bede's Words, half of which my Adversary hath left out: Augustine had enquired, why since there was but One Faith, there were divers Liturgies, and in this case, which he should choose to establish here? And Bede thus relates S. Gregory's Answer: Your Brotherhood knows the Custom of the Roman Church, in which you were brought up; but I am content, that whatever you can find in the Roman, the Gallican, or any Church, which may best please Almighty God, you do carefully choose that— [here He fraudulently draws a Line]— [But Bede goes on thus—] And infuse into your New Converted Church of England, by a special Institution, what you so gather from several Churches [— Here he comes in again—] For things are not to be beloved for the places sake, but places are to be beloved for the good things that are there; wherefore out of every Church choose such things as are pious, religious and right— [Here he concludes, but S. Gregory goes on]— and gathering these into one Collection, deposit them for Customs in the Minds of the English. Never was poor Author so mangled, to serve an ill Cause; two long Sentences left out, one in the Middle, and another at the End; to find out which base and disingenuous Fallacy, I desire the Reader will compare Gregory's full Answer as it is Recorded in Bede, and Sir Henry Spelman 
(t) Bed. hist. lib. 1. cap 27. & Spelm. Concil. Vol. l. pag. , with his circumcised Citation thereof 
(u) Disc. of Lit. Marg. pag. 85● ; and then he will discern his Fraud in concealing the directions for Augustin, to make a special institution of the things he had so Collected into one Body of a Liturgy; and then by a New Form daily to be used, to fix them in the Minds of the English, by a Custom; Which utterly overthrows his pretended Liberty? For S. Gregory supposes every Church had a Written Liturgy, which Augustin might read over and compare: And he advises Augustin, to read over the several Liturgies of several Churches, the Roman, the Gallican, etc. and out of all these, to compose One Form, and then to enjoin it on the English, and by daily use to accustom them to it. This is all the Restraint that is practised now: Our Reformers did read over all Liturgies, and chose out the best things from each, put them together in one Volume, and then required these Forms should be daily used, so that both Priests and People might be accustomed to them. And as S. Gregory did not impose the Roman Liturgy or Canon upon Augustin the Monk, who lived in a distant Country and in a distinct National Church; so we do not impose ours upon Denmark or Sweden, upon the Dutch or the Helvetians: But to argue from hence, We are not for imposing our own Liturgy upon our own Clergy, is so weak, so obvious a Fallacy, as deserves to be laughed at rather than seriously confuted. Again, because Gregory (the Patriarch of the West) took the liberty to correct the Roman Offices, by that which he approved of, in the Forms of other National Churches 
(w) Disc. of Liturgies, p. 87. : And because he would not impose the Trine Immersion used at Rome, upon Leander's New Converted, distant Church in Spain 
(x) Gregor. Ep. 41. ad laeanat. lib. 1. ; Therefore every Parish-Priest and private Minister may vary from the Liturgy of his own Church daily, if he please: And therefore no Bishops ought to impose any Liturgy upon their own Clergy, living under them in the same Diocese or Nation. This is such woeful Sophistry, that I am sure he cannot impose this sort of Arguing upon any rational Men; yet if these Inferences be not drawn from S. Gregory's Answer, it makes nothing to his purpose, unless it be to prove, there were no Forms imposed in Gregory's Time. But how can that be squeezed out of any of these Passages? The Epistle first cited, supposes a Form of Prayers extant, and imposed at Rome before S. Gregory's Time, wherein the Hallelujah was never sung but between Easter and Pentecost, which ordered the Subdeacons to wear Surplices when they sang the Litany in Processions; in which Litany by the old Form they did not repeat the Kyrie Eleeson often; nor was the Lord's Prayer in the Communion Office of that old Book, prescribed to be used immediately after the Canon: But this Epistle shows, that Gregory had altered the ancient Liturgy of Rome in all these Particulars, and made it agreeable to the Liturgy at Constantinople, from which place he was lately come: And this he was censured for by some; this he excuses in the whole Epistle 
(y) Gregor. Ep. 63. lib. 7. pag. 230. . Wherefore here was a Form imposed before his Time, and he imposes it again (with his Corrections) upon his own Church, or else what need the Clergy under his Jurisdiction complain? Indeed he did not impose it on Spain, France or Britain, which were not (in that Age) under his Authority; but he was strict enough at Rome, and in the Churches then subject to that See: He corrected the Book of Gelasius, and imposed that there; He compiled Hymns and Antiphons', and brought in a New way of Singing them, teaching Boys to do it with skill, so that soon after all the West imitated that Way 
(z) Johan. Diac. vit. Greg. lib. 2. cap. 6. : He compiled that Book for the Communion-Service, which still is called his Sacramentary, wherein are all the Forms used at Rome for the Eucharist 
(a) Id. ib. c. 17. : He brought in the Sevenfold Litany, and prescribed how and when it should be used 
(b) Naucler. Gen 20. p. 743. Platin. pag. 82. & Johan. Diac. in vit. . And all these Parts of Liturgy were by him imposed on the Roman Church; and will my Adversary still pretend, he was against the imposing Forms of Praise and Prayer? Did he take all this pains for his own private use? Did all the West voluntarily conform to this, and yet was it not used and observed at Rome, any further than the Clergy pleased? These are wild Conjectures. But he saith, Cassander publishes the Ordo Romanus, in which there are no Forms of Prayer, but only the Order wherein they proceeded. I Reply, Those Copies which Cassander publisheth, are only a Breviat of S. Gregory's Liturgy; and therefore the Hymns and Prayers he composed are not set down at large there; yet when this was writ out, these Forms were so well known that they are named often, only by two words of the beginning of each Form: Ex. gr. Gloria Patri—, Kyrie Eleeson—, Gloria in excelsis—, Dominus vobiscum—, etc. 
(c) Cassander de Liturg. lib. ●. . Which shows the Forms were then well known, and had been so long used, as to be understood by short hints in this Epitome of the Gregorian Office: But my Adversary knew well, that the Sacramentary of Gregory is extant in his Works, wherein all the Prayers and Antiphons', &c. are set down at large which Gregory made and imposed on the Roman Church, and therefore it is disingenuous in him, to argue for his pretended liberty from this Epitome. There is but one thing more in my Adversary relating to this Matter, which is, That Augustin being not imposed on by S Gregory, would not impose it on the Britain's 
(d) Disc. of Lit. pag. 87, & 88 ; which he gathers from this, viz. That the Britain's and Scots were Enemies to the Roman Use in Gildas his Time, and had no Uniformity in Worship long after. Now to his Position, I say, That if Augustin followed Gregory's Advice (as no doubt he did) than he did impose, not the Roman Forms, but those of his own collecting, upon the Saxons, which I shall prove more largely afterwards: But as for the Britain's, they were a distinct Christian Church then, and did owe no manner of subjection to Augustin; so that it had been ridiculous i● him to have imposed a Newly comp●●●d Liturgy upon them. They were no more obliged to receive his Forms, than we are to receive those of Geneva, or they to observe ours. Again, as to his Proof, How doth the Britain's rejecting the Roman Use in Gildas' Time, prove, That they had no Forms imposed on them by Augustin? Gildas died (according to Bishop Usher) An. 570. that is, Thirty years before Augustin the Monk came in 
(e) Cave Cartoph. Eccles. in Gild. Badon. pag. ; so that their dislike of the Roman Usages then, is nothing to Augustin's Impositions. Besides, The Roman Liturgy and Augustin's were two different things, and therefore it is very weak to prove, they did not receive Augustin's Liturgy from their rejecting the Roman Usage, since they were different things: So that this would be a good Argument, if it were not as destitute of Logic and Chronology, as it is of Truth; For Augustin did make a Form, and impose it on the Saxons under his Jurisdiction, and they received it, and used it long after. As for the Britain's, Scots and Irish, in that Age, they belonged not to him, and so he could impose nothing on them: And for their Uniformity, I shall clear that Point after a little while. For what hath been observed (I hope) may suffice to prove, That imposed Liturgies were in use in all Churches, long before the Time of Gregory the Great.  

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

CHAP. III. Of LITURGIES in the Seventh, and other Later Centuries.  
TO gather up all the Evidence for LITURGIES in this and the following Ages, would be a needless Trouble to the Reader and myself; both because what I have so clearly made out to begin much sooner, can receive no great strength from the Writers of this declining Age; and because my Adversary doth confess, they began to be imposed above one whole Century before the beginning of this: Yet since he will go on to lower Times, to plead for the continuance of his imaginary Liberty, I shall follow him, and not only confute his Objections, but collect also (which he hath omitted) some of the most remarkable Proofs for the continuance of Liturgies in these Ages.  
§. 1. He that considers the Authorities before produced, to prove, 
Isidorus Ep. Hispalens. An. Dom. 603.  That Isidore (who succeeded his Brother Leander in the Archbishopric of Sevil) did perfect the Mozarabic Liturgy, will not question but there was a settled Form of Prayer in Spain in his Time: But if it be needful further to prove so plain a Matter, we find in his Book of the Original of things, one Chapter of Divine Offices, wherein he explains the meaning of the several Liturgick Phrases; such as, The Evening Office, The Morning Office, The Mass, A Choir, Antiphons', Responsals, Canticles, Psalms, Hymns, Allelujah, Amen, Hosanna, the Offertory, etc. 
(h) Isidor. orig. lib. 6. cap. 19 pag. 80. . Now these (as we have seen) are all parts of ancient Liturgy, and he (supposing the things to be known to all) here gives the reason of the Names. Moreover, he hath also extant another Tract concerning The Offices; wherein he shows, what was the Original of every one of the Ecclesiastical Offices; wherein he shows, who were the Inventors of Canticles, to be sung with Voices; and Psalms, to be sung to Musical Instruments; as also, who were the Authors of the Hymns used in the Church, both Divine (among which he reckons the Benedicite) and Human; the latter Composed by S. Hilary and S. Ambrose, whose Hymns were used in all the Western Church. He goes on to inform us, That the Greeks first Composed Antiphons', and that the Responsals were made in Italy in old Time. As for Prayers, he saith, Christ was desired by his Disciples, to compose them a Prayer, which he did; and thence the Church learned to use Prayers like to that which Christ made; The Greeks being the first that composed such Forms of Supplication. And a little after he treats of the Alleluja, which by ancient Tradition was sung always in Spain, except on Fasting-days and in Lent. He explains also the Offertory, which use to be made with Singing in his Time: Then he reckons up, Seven Prayers in the Mass, that is, (saith he) The Order of those Prayers by which the Sacrifice is Consecrated, which being instituted by S. Peter, is celebrated in one and the same Manner throughout the whole World. The first is an Exhortation to the People, to entreat the Lord (that is, a Litany:) The second is a Prayer, That God would receive the Prayers and Alms of the Faithful: The third respects the Offerers and Faithful, deceased: The fourth relates to the Kiss of Charity: The fifth is for Sanctifying the Oblation, and setting out God's Praise, exciting Heaven and Earth to join in it, in which Hosannah is sung: The sixth is the Prayer for the Holy Spirit, to descend on the Sacrament: The last is the Lords Prayer: After which follows the Nicene Creed, and the Benediction of the People 
(i) Isidor. de Offic. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 4.5, 6, 7, 8, 9.13, 14, 15, 16, & 17. pag. 581, 582, etc. . All which several Prayers and Forms are yet to be seen in the Mozarabic Office, to which Isidore here refers, and so exactly follows the Order of it, even where it differs from other Forms and Liturgies, (as particularly in giving the Benediction before the Distribution 
(k) Vid. Offic. Mozarab. in Bib. Patr. Tom. xv. edit. Colon. cap. 27. pag. 779. Item vid. Concil. Tolet. 4. Can. 17. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 350. ), that no Man can doubt, but that Office was Extant then, with all the Parts now contained in it, except those which mention the Virgin Mary (added since) of which there is no mention in him. I must transcribe this whole Book of Isidore's, if I should produce all the other particulars about the Hours of Prayer, the Vespers, Completorium, Vigils, Matius, etc. In all which, and all the rest of those Books, such plain and express mention is made of prescribed and known Forms, then settled in the Spanish Church, that it is impossible to deny or evade so manifest a Truth. To which may further be added his Epistle to Ludifredus Bishop of Corduba, about the several Ecclesiastical Officers and their Duties; wherein he mentions, The known Forms of laud's and Responsals; the Office of Prayers, and reciting of the Names; the giving of Peace, and indeed all other Parts of Liturgy; so that nothing is more clear, than that he hath respect to the prescribed Forms then in use 
(l) Isidor. Ep. ad Ludifred. pag. 615. . And the like Reference he makes to the particular Offices and Forms used by the Monks in their private Oratories within their Monasteries, where they also prayed by Forms 
(m) Idem in reg. Monach. cap. 6. de Offic. pag. 701. : So that it is impossible there should be any thing more evident, than that a Liturgy, and prescribed Forms of Prayer and Praise were used in this Country of Spain, in Isidore's Time, who was Bishop of Sevil Thirty three years together, and the most learned Man that can be found in the Western Church, in this Age.  
§. 2. 
Concil. Toletan. 4. An. Dom. 633.  This very Isidore was Precedent of the Fourth Council of Toledo, called by King Sisenandus, wherein there were Sixty two Bishops, and seven more subscribed by Proxy, being Summoned out of all the Provinces in France and Spain, then subject to the Gothic Kings; who had much enlarged their Empire, since the Mozarabic Office was first composed: Wherefore many of the Canons of this Council were made, to settle the use of that one Liturgy, every where in Sisenandus his Dominions; for it seems before this National Council, it was not universally received, or at least not used without some variety; but here the Second Canon saith, We Decree, that as we Bishops are joined, in the Unity of the Catholic Faith; So will we do nothing differently or dissonantly in the Sacraments of the Church, lest any difference of ours, among the Ignorant and Carnal, should give suspicion of Schism; and the variety of several Churches, prove a Scandal to many. Therefore one Order of Praying and Singing shall be observed by us, through all Spain and France, one manner of Communion Service, one manner of Morning and Evening Prayer; nor will we, who are United in one Faith, and one Kingdom, have any longer, divers Ecclesiastical Customs; For the ancient Canons also Decree this, That every Country shall have the same way of Singing and Ministering 
(n)— Unus igitur ordo Orandi atque psallendi nobis per omnem Hispaniam atque Galliam Conservetur, Unus modus in Missarum solennitatibus, Unus in vespertinis matutinisque officiis, nec diversa sit ultra in nobis Ecclesiastica consuetudo, qui in una fide continemur & Regno, hoc enim & antiqui Canones decreverunt, ut unaquaeque Provincia & psallendi & ministrandi parem consuetudinem contineat. Concil. Tolet. 4. Can. 2. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. p. 345. ; From which Canon we may Observe, First, That the different ways of celebrating Divine Service was looked on, as a Corruption broken in upon them, contrary to the ancient Canons, that is, those of Laodicea, Milevis, Vannes, Pamiers, Gyrone, and others cited before. Secondly, That these differences were occasioned by the Bishops, having been formerly of different Opinions in matters of Faith, and lived under different Kings; but being now all of one Faith, and under one Prince, it was necessary to have one Form of Service. Thirdly, That these Differences were Scandalous to the Bishops, and an Offence to the People, while they did continue. Fourthly, Therefore they settle one Form of Morning and Evening Prayers, and one Form of Communion-Service, throughout all the Dominions of Sisenandus, who Ruled all Spain; and in some Parts of France, lately gained by his Ancestors, they now will have but one Order, that is, One Liturgy (as that Word signifies) without the least difference. And since Isidore had so lately corrected and completed Leander's Office, and was Precedent here, we may conclude, that this Canon was to settle that very Liturgy: And because some Bishops might be so much in love with their former ways of Service, that without the Authority of so great a Council they would not change them, there follow divers Canons to forbid the Particulars wherein they differed, and to settle those prescribed in the Mozarabic Office; of which being many, I will only repeat the Heads, which are these: The 5th Canon forbids the Trine Immersion in Baptism, and orders it to be done but once: The 6th enjoins all to observe the Office for Good-Friday: The 8th orders, that on Easter-Even there shall be Tapers Consecrated in the Churches of France, as had been anciently done in the Churches of Spain: The 9th Canon Commands the Lords Prayer to be said every day, and not only on Sundays: The 10th forbids the singing Allelujah in Lent, since the Universal Church omitted it in that time of Fasting: The 11th enjoins the singing, Glory be to thee. O God, after the Gospel, according to the Old Canons, and not after the Epistle, as some used: The 12th condemns those who rejected all Hymns not found in Scripture, and orders the use of those made by S. Ambrose, S. Hilary, and other Ecclesiastical Doctors: The 13th Censures those who would not sing the Benedicite, or Song of the Three Children in the Communion-Office on Sundays and Festival-days, being an Hymn used all over the Catholic Church: The 14th directs the Singing of Glory and Honour be to the Father, etc. (exactly as it yet prescribed in the Mozarabic Liturgy, and in no other): And the 15th is about the Gloria after the Responsals, that it be always used alike: The 16th asserts the Revelations of S. John to be Canonical, and orders them to be read between Easter and Pentecost: The 17th orders the Benediction of the People as well as the Lords Prayer, to be used before the distribution of the Sacrament 
(o) Concil. Tolet 4. Can 5. & Can. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag 346, 347, etc. : An Usage which (as we noted before) is also peculiar to the Mozarabic Liturgy. Now from these Canons we may gather, First, what were the Particulars wherein the several Dioceses had differed, viz. not that some of them had no Liturgy and others had; but that whereas all of them used prescribed Forms, there was some variety in the use of some of the particular Parts of Liturgy, at least in the Order or the Time of using them; but as for my Adversary's pretended Liberty for Private Ministers, to vary daily these Offices, here is nothing can be meant of that; it was several Dioceses which differed, not by reason of Extempore or Arbitrary Prayers, but only about some Liturgic Forms, or the manner of using them; Every Bishop and Diocese had an Order; and Now they Decree, there shall be but one Order, without the least Variation, and that one Order was (as we see plainly) the Old Spanish Liturgy, the very Words of which are yet extant 
(p) Vid Bi●. Pati. Tom. xv. ut supr. Item Bona de reb. Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 11. p. 365. ; which was that Office whereby all the little Varieties, occasioned by diversity of Religion, mixture of People, and division of Kingdoms were happily taken away for many Ages; and this is the true state of this Matter. But my Adversary generously undertakes from this very Council, and these Canons to prove: First, That the Spanish Churches at this time were not subject to Imposed Orders, for one Form of Worship; no, not in the Sacraments, which were celebrated there, not only variously, but unduly 
(q) Disc. of Lit. pag. 133. . And this he proves by the Preface to this Council, which in a detached Sentence saith, The Divine Sacraments in the Churches of Spain, are celebrated in a different and unlawful manner 
(r) In S●cramentis ● v●nis qu●●●● verso 〈…〉 medo in Hispania●um ●●●●sas celebrantur. Barnes. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 345. . And this he pretends shows some remaining Ruins of the ancient Liberty, even after the Imposing Spirit was roused and active: But alas, the History and Occasion of this diversity, shows it was a modern Corruption, no ancient Liberty; and this very place which he citys calls this diversity Unlawful, as being contrary to the ancient Canons: For one Liturgy in one Country was the Old Rule and Original Practice; the Variety (which yet was no liberty of Praying without Forms) was the Innovation; yea, the same Preface there calls it, An Usurpation, assuming licence to itself from men's negligence, contrary to the Ecclesiastical Usage 
(s) Quae dum per negligentiam in usum venerunt, contra Ecclesiasticos meres ●●●●tiam libi de usur atione 〈…〉. Praelat. ibid. . 'Tis plain, they had divers Kings, different Creeds, and all had been confused for some time past; but now they had broke through those unhappy Circumstances, they resolve to cast out this seemingly Schismatical, and really Scandalous Diversity, and reduce all to the ancient Uniformity. Secondly, he saith, One of the first Books for public Service, that he meets with, is the Libellus Officialis in the 25th Canon of this Council, which seems rather a short Directory than a complete Liturgy, given to every Presbyter at his Ordination, to instruct him how to Administer the Sacraments, lest through ignorance of his Duty herein he should offend 
(t) Disc. of Lit. pag. 15. . And to make this out, he quotes (as usually) only half that 25th Canon. But the whole Canon is this, When Priests are Ordained for Parishes, let them receive a Book of Offices from their Bishop, that they may succeed in their Cures duly instructed, lest by Ignorance in the Divine Mysteries they offend Christ 
(u) Quando Presbyteri in Parochiis ordinantur, libellum Officialem à Sacerdete suo accipiant, ut ad Ecclesias sibi deputatas instructi succedant, ne per ignorantiam, etiam in ipsis divinis Sacramentis Christum offendant; ita ut quod Quando ad Litanias, vel ad Concilium ven●rint rationem Episcopo suo reddant, qualit●r susceptum Officium celebrant, vel baptizant. Bin. ibid. Can. 25. pag. 351. — Here he breaks off, but the Canon goes on— So that when they come to Litanies, or to a Council, they may give an account to their Bishop, how they have performed the Offices they have undertaken, and how they have Baptised. This is the Canon entire: And to his Objections I Reply, First, That he did meet with the Codex Gelasianus almost 150 years before this; and with Gregory's Ordo Romanus, which was made made Thirty year before 
(w) Disc. of Lit. pag. 83. ; yea, he had met with Written Prayers in the Third Council of Carthage, An. 398. 
(x) Ibid pag. 44. . And he might have met with a Common-Prayer-Book in Sidonius Apollinaris; with Sacerdotalem librum, in Vincentius Lirinensis cited before; with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Sozomen, with a whole Liturgy in the Apostical Constitutions, with the Books of enjoined Prayers in Constantine's Time: These, and many more Books for public Service he might have met with; but that none is so blind as he that will not see. He affirms, Secondly, That the Book of Offices mentioned in this Council, was rather a short Directory, than a complete Liturgy. But this is to outface the Sun, when it is certainly meant of the Mozarabic Office, wherein all the Hymns and Prayers are writ out at large: And it argues a Mind strangely possessed with the Notion of a Directory, to tell us, That all those Canons (which we cited before) viz. Can. 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16th and 17th. had been needless, if those Churches had been furnished with such a Liturgy, as provided sufficiently for the Severals there mentioned 
(y) Disc. of lant. pag. 16. . For those Canons do all suppose there had been divers Liturgies, appointing a various use of those Forms; but since now one Liturgy was established (as the Second Canon shows) they add the Authority of a National Council to that One Order agreed on, and forbidden all former ways which did in the least vary from it; and considering how apt Men are to be tenacious of their own Way, which they have long used, all these Canons were little enough to secure and restore the ancient Uniformity; yea, the very Reason given in this 25th Canon, why the Bishop delivered this Book of Offices to every Parish-Minister at his Ordination, is, that they might Officiate by none of the Old Liturgies, but by this alone; and when these Country-Ministers came to their Bishop, either upon occasion of the Grand Procession used when the Litany was publicly said by the whole Clergy of the Diocese, or at those Synods which were then held at least once a year; Then he might bring this Book along with him to certify the Bishop, that he had used no other Forms, but these established, in any Offices of his Ministration. Now had this been only a Directory, according to my Adversaries extravagant Fancy, some might offend Christ out of Ignorance, by not choosing or making proper Forms; and it had been impossible they should all have agreed so exactly in every Office (as the Second Canon requires) that the People could not observe the least difference. To conclude, The Fathers of this Council tell us in the 13th Canon, That divers Hymns used in the Church were composed by the Ecclesiastical Doctors; and if any for that Reason would not use them, they must also reject the Forms of Prayer: For (say they) these Hymns are composed, as Masses, or Supplications, or Prayers, or Commendations (that is, Intercessions for all Estates of Men) or Impositions of Hands, are Composed: Which, if they might not be said in the Church, all Ecclesiastical Offices must cease: And therefore they conclude, That as none of them did refuse such Composed Prayers; so none of them for the future aught to reject Hymns, so Composed for the Praise of God 
(z) Componantur ergo Hymni sicut componuntur Missae, sive Preces vel Orationes, sive Commendationes seu Manus impositiones, ex quibus si nulla dicantur in Ecclesia, vacant Officia Ecclesiastica, etc. Concil. Tulet. 4. Can. 13. Bin. ut supià, pag 349. . I suppose he will grant the Hymns were Forms of Praise in Words at large, made by ancient Holy Fathers: And they declare, that their Communion-Service, their Prayers, their Collects, Intercessions, and Forms of Absolving Penitents, were composed just as the Hymns were composed, viz. in Words writ down at large by Ancient Doctors; so that if any Men had then been of our Dissenters Principle, to use no Human Composures in the Church (except their own) all Divine-Service must have ceased; because they had no other way to perform it by, but by a fixed Liturgy, in which these Old Forms were set down: But they were so happy, that none scrupled to use these Prayers then, either because they were Forms, or because they were made by Ancient Doctors; and thence the Council Argues very firmly, That it was ridiculous for them to use prescribed Forms of Prayer of Human Composure, and at the same time to scruple the use of Hymns, that were Composed after the same manner. This sufficiently proves, it was a Liturgy at large, which was writ in this Book of Offices; and so we may dismiss him and his Directory, as having no Foundation in, or Encouragement from this Council. Thirdly, He citys a Rule of Pope Gregory's, said to be praised in this Synod of Toledo, viz. That where there is one Faith, there's no hurt to the Church by diversity of Usages 
(a) Disc. of Lit. pag. 86 & 87. . His blundering Editor refers this to a place in Eusebius about different ways of Fasting in divers Churches, and puts the true Quotation into the next Page. But to let him pass, We grant that S. Gregory hath such a Rule in his Epistle to Leander 
(b) Gregor. Epist. 41. ad Leaned lib. 1. ; and it is quoted with Approbation, both by this Council 
(c) Concil. Tolet. 4. Can. 5. , and by Walafridus Strabo 
(d) Walafrid. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 26. . But Gregory himself, and these who cite him, apply this Rule only to a Ceremony in Baptism, which he thought might be used variously in divers Churches, without any prejudice to that One Faith wherein they agreed; and therefore though Trine Immersion was used at Rome, he would not impose it on Spain: But what is this, or the Censure upon Victor in Eusebius, for imposing the Roman way of Fasting upon the Eastern Church, to our Question about the lawfulness of a National Churches imposing one Liturgy upon her own Members? Gregory did most certainly impose Trine Immersion at Rome, and Leander and this Council imposed Single Immersion on Spain; Nor did any blame Victor for imposing his way of Fasting, and keeping Easter, upon his own Church of Rome, and its Dependants. This sort of imposing Ceremonies and Liturgies, always was thought very lawful, and was practised in all Ages and Countries: And this is all we desire, viz. to impose the English Liturgy and Ceremonies upon the English Church, leaving other National Churches to their Liberty in both cases. Fourthly, My Adversary saith, He can no where discover the Song of the Three Children before this Council of Toledo; where it is mentioned as used before, but than first imposed 
(c) Disc. of Lit. pag. 178. . I Reply, The Words of the Canon show this to be a Mistake: For they say, That the whole Catholic Church throughout the World celebrates this Hymn, and that only some of the Spanish Clergy neglected to sing it at some solemn Times, viz. On Sundays and holidays; therefore they Decree it shall be sung in all the Churches of France and Spain in all solemn Masses, and that they who omitted this ancient Custom, and broke this Decree, should be deprived of the Communion. Now how could the whole Catholic Church agree in the use of this Hymn, if it had not been imposed? Had all Churches been at liberty (as he fancies) some of them would have used it, and others not. Again, how comes this Council to call it, an ancient Custom, if this were the first time it was prescribed? Or why do they say, it was Negligence in those few who omitted it, if it were not a Duty before? It is plain enough, that this Hymn was anciently prescribed; but some Scrupulous persons, by mistaking the Canons of Laodicea and Braga, as if they forbade all Hymns, which were not taken out of holy Scripture, would not obey the Injunction, nor use this Hymn at solemn Times: This indeed may prove that some of the Clergy then did neglect to read the whole Office, (and yet it shows that to be a great fault,) but it doth not prove that this Hymn was never enjoined before, it rather supposes the Contrary. And indeed the Canon of Laodicea, only forbids (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Psalms composed by private Persons, which cannot reach this Hymn. And that Canon of Braga, is a Translation of that made at Laodicea, and forbids private men's Poetry to be used in the Church: Yet perhaps, some did abuse this into the rejecting Hymns, composed by the Ancients; and therefore seven years after, The Second Council at Tours, made a Canon to justify and allow the use of the Hymns, made by the Ecclesiastical Doctors 
(f) Concil. Turon. 2. Can. 24. An. 570. . And what was Decreed then in that Council, the last Century, is confirmed in this Century by this Fourth Council of Toledo; which contains as we see, clear Evidence for the use of Liturgies, both now, and in ancient Time also.  
Before I leave Spain, let me briefly note; That the Fifth, and Sixth Councils of Toledo, do strictly enjoin Litanies to be used Solemnly, upon the Ideses of December 
(g) Concil. Tol. 5. Can. 1. An. Dom. 636. Concil. Tolet. 6. can. 12. An. 638. Bin. ut supr. pag. 365. & 370. : And all Men know Litanies were put into prescribed Forms, many Ages before. The Eighth Council of Toledo 
(h) Concil. Tolet. 8. can. 8. An. 653. Bin. ut supr. p. 491. , complains of some Clergy Men, who were not throughly acquainted with those Orders, (or Forms) which were daily used; And they Decree that none hereafter shall be ordained, but such as have perfectly Learned the whole Psalter, The usual Hymns, and Canticles, and the way of Baptising: And if any such be already admitted, they are compelled to exercise themselves in Reading these Offices. Which is a Demonstration, they were in written Forms, which might be read over by them. Another Council about twelve Years after, makes a Canon for observing the Method prescribed, in the Mozarabic Liturgy, about the place of that Psalm, O come let us Sing unto the Lord; in the Evening Office 
(i) Concil. Emeritan. Can. 7. vid. Notas Bin. ut supr. pag. 540. . And upon the creeping in of some variety, about ten Years after that into some lesser Churches, The Eleventh Council of Toledo, renews the old Canon, That all shall Celebrate the public Offices, that is, Vespers, Matins and Mass, as was done in the Mother Church 
(k) Concil. Tol. xi. Can. 3. An. 675. Bin. ut supr. p. 549. ; So great was their care to preserve that Uniformity in their Worship, which they had restored and Established.  
§ 3. Now that other parts of the World kept to their ancient way of serving God, as well as Spain, 
Concil. Constant. in Trullo An. Dom. 680.  appears by a Famous Council, held at Constantinople in this Century, where the Liturgies of S. James, and S. Basil, are cited for very good Authority, against such as were then accounted Heterodox, if not Heretical; even the Armenians, who did not mix Water with their Wine, in the Sacrament. For when they haved cited Scripture and cleared S. Chrysostom from the aspersion of holding that Opinion, They add, That both James the Brother of our Lord according to the Flesh, who was first placed in the See of Jerusalem, and S. Basil the Archbishop of Caesarea, whose praise is spread over all the World; Delivering to us in writing, the way of Mystical Consecration, have appointed us in the holy Liturgy, to consecrate the sacred Chalice, both with Water and Wine 
(l)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Constant. in Trull. Can. 32. Bever. Tom. 1. p. 192. . Here than we see a great Council, accounted the Sixth of the General Councils, Twenty years before the year of Christ 700, expressly owning the Liturgies of S. James and S. Basil, to have been delivered to them in writing, the one by an Apostle, the other by an Eminent Bishop, who lived above 300 year before this Council; And quoting them in dispute, with those they accounted very Erroneous, which assures us, that they not only owned, and used these Liturgies themselves; but that they had been so long received among them, as to gain an Authority in matters of Controversy, next to the Holy Scriptures. And withal it must be supposed, that the Armenians also owned these Liturgies to be ancient, genuine and Authentic; for if they had thought them to be impostures, or inventions of later Ages, it had been ridiculous in this Council, to press them with Evidence ●aken from Thence. Which makes me admire at my Adversaries Confidence, who pretends to have searched all Antiquity; and yet asks, What Greeks they are which own the Liturgy of S. James? and tells us, he can find no Greek, ownning it till 700 years after Christ 
(m) Disc. of Lit. pag. 149. ; And a little after, These Liturgies were not known, nor used before the seventh or vl Century— if they had, some Fathers or Councils, would have mentioned them 
(n) Disc. of Lit. pag. 150. & 151. . We see if he had pleased, he might have found a whole Council of Greek Bishops, and a whole Country of Eastern Christians, owning these Liturgies before the year 700. But further, we have before shown that divers Fathers do mention them before this Age; And we must here add, that a general Council cannot be supposed, to cite these Liturgies for Evidence in dispute, in the very same Age, wherein they were first known and used: We must suppose them extremely impudent, and their Adversaries strangely soft and easy, to fancy such a thing; Wherefore this Testimony though produced only in this Age, undeniably proves that these Liturgies, had been used and owned for many Ages past, and that no body in this time doubted of their Authority or Antiquity.  

Ecclesiae Britannie●e & Saxon. ab An. Dom. 450.  § 4. We will now return into the West, and as we have given an account, of the original of the famous Spanish Liturgy in one entire History; So we will now treat of the Liturgies used in Britain, France, and Germany, not tying ourselves strictly to the Order of Time, that we may put together the scattered Memoirs relating to each of these Countries. We shall begin with the British, and their imitators the Irish and Scots, of whom my Adversary boldly pronounces thus, In Ireland (with whom the Britons and Scots symbolised,) 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 was brought in by the Pope's Legates 
(o) Disc. of Lit. p. 134. 135. . In which words he refers to a former Quotation, which he made out of Bishop Usher in these words; It is sure (saith he, i. e. B. Usher) that in the succeeding Ages, no one general Form of Divine Service was retained, but divers Rites and manners of Celebration, in divers parts of this Kingdom; until the Roman use was brought in at last, by Gillebertus Malachias, and Christianus, who were the Pope's Legates here about 500 years ago 
(p) Disc. of Lit. p. 88 Usher Relig. of anc Irish. Chap. 4. mihi. pag. 24. . Now hence he infers, that the Irish, for above 1100 years, (and the Britain's, and Scots, if not so long, yet long after Austin, retained such liberty herein, as the Church anciently enjoyed, in all corners of the World. In which account he equally wrongs that learned Primate, and the Truth itself: For Bishop Usher in the place cited saith concerning Ireland, As for the Form of Liturgy, and public Service of God, which S. Patrick brought into this Country; it is said that he received it from Germanus and Lupus, and that it originally descended from S. Mark the Evangelist; For which he quotes an old Manuscript, written near 900 years ago, extant in Sir. Robert Cottons Library 
(q) Usher, Relig. o● anc. Irish. Chap. 4. p. 24. : Which Manuscript is since Printed, (but very imperfectly) in Spelmans Councils, and therein it is said, That their Form of Liturgy was the same, with that which was received by the●r Neighbours the Gauls 
(r) Sp●●m. Concil. Tom. I. An. 80. p. 177, 178. ; and it is there said to have been delivered from Germanus and Lupus, and supposed to have come at first from S. Mark: Now of this last Point, (viz. that S. Mark was the Author of the Gallican Liturgy,) Bishop Usher seems doubtful, and then goes on thus, But whatsoever Liturgy was used here at the first, this is sure, that in succeeding Ages, no one general Form of Divine Service was retained, etc. and so goes on in the words cited by my Adversary: Who according to his wont Fraud, conceals all that the Primate saith of the ancient Liturgy; which he affirms was but one, and was brought in by S. Patric, both among the Irish and Britons; for in the next Page he saith of the Britons, That their Form of Liturgy was the same, with that which was received by their Neighbours the Gauls, is intimated by the Author of that ancient Fragment alleged before 
(s) Usher Rel. of anc. Irish Chap. 4. pag. 26. : So that Bishop Usher, believed that at first, both Britons and Irish had one Form, one Liturgy. And the variety which my Adversary calls an ancient Liberty, was an Innovation and a Corruption of the truly ancient way of Serving God by one and the same Liturgy. And the Reader must have seen this to have been Bishop usher's Opinion, if he had not cut off half his Discourse, and begun in the midst of a Sentence. But to make this still more Evident, Bishop Usher in another Tract, produces a very ancient Manuscript, called A Catalogue of the Irish Saints: Wherein they are reckoned up in three Orders; and the Chronology is so very exact, that we may reasonably believe, it was writ by a very good hand: The words are these, The first Order was, that of Catholic Saints, in the time of Patricius, and they were famous Bishops full of the Holy Ghost, in number 350, Founders of Churches, having one Head, even Christ, and one Leader S. Patric; one Mass, and one manner of Celebration,— The Second Order were Catholic Presbyters, among whom were few Bishops and many Priests, 300 in number, having one Head, even our Lord; they Celebrated divers Masses, and had divers Rules,— The Third Order of Saints, were Holy Presbyters, and a few Jew Bishops, 100 in number— and they had divers Rules and Masses 
(t) Usherii Antiqu. Britan. Eccles. pag. 473, 474. . Then a little after he recokons the time that these Orders cotained; The First, which was most Holy, continued from An. 433. to An. 534. The second, which was Holy of Holies, continued from 544. to 572. The 3d Orders which was Holy, continued from 598 to 665 
(u) Vid. Ibid. pag. 490. . Now by this account we see, That the First and best Times from S. Patric, had only one Form of Divine Service; and thus it contived for above 100 year, from towards the midst of the Fifth Century, (that is, from their first Conversion,) till toward the middle of the 6th Century. And then about the time that Monkery came into request in the Western Church, as Superstition increased, variety of Rules were made, and in them were prescribed various Forms of Prayer and Divine Service, or (as they called it) of Masses: For as Bishop Usher tells us, The public Liturgy and Service of the Church, was of old named the Mass, even then also, when Prayers were only said; and so the Evening Mass signifies no more than that which we call Evening-Prayer 
(w) B. Usher Rel. of anc. Irish, Chap. 4. pag. 26. . So then, when Variety was brought in, it was not (as he falsely pretends) a liberty to pray Arbitrarily, it was various Forms prescribed in each Diocese or Monastery: And every Clerk and Monk was bound to the Form of his own Diocese or Monastery, and so were Strangers too, when they came among them; which occasioned Gillibert to complain, That it was Indecent and Schismatical to see a very Learned Man of one Order, to be like a private Lay man when he came to the Church of another Order 
(x) Gillibert. in Usher. Relig. anc. Irish, pag. 24. : That is, because he could not make Responses, nor Vocally join in their strange Form: Wherefore when Superstition had destroyed their Ancient and Original Uniformity, they had no Liberty, but were as much under Forms as ever, only different Churches had divers Forms, which I will make still more evident: For Bishop Usher expounding the aforesaid Passage of divers Masses and divers Rules, shows it was meant of divers Forms, and reckons up four several Rules written down by these Irish Saints, all differing from each other 
(y) U●●er Antiq. Bri●. Eccles. pag. 476. : And two more; one writ by Daganus, approved of by Pope Gregory the Great: Another made by Columbanus, who flourished Anno Dom. 614. which is yet extant, and differs in some things from the Rule of S. Benedict 
(z) Id. Ibid. pag. 476, & 477. ; of which Ordericus Vitalis saith, That though his Scholars followed the Rule of S. Benedict, yet they forsook not the Orders of their Master: For from Columbanus they learned the Manner and Order of Divine-Service, and a Form of Prayers for all Orders of Men that are in the Church of God 
(a) Orderie. ●ital. Hist. Eccles. lib. 8. ad An. 1094. . So that this Learned Primate took all these Varieties, to be various Forms of Prayer; and my Adversary shamefully abuses his great Name, to give colour to a false and groundless device of his own, of Praying Arbitrarily and Extempore, which he would dress up as one of the General Usages of the ancient Church, whereas there is not one Syllable in Bishop Usher, tending to prove, That the Irish retained this liberty of Praying for 1100 years, and the Britons and Scots for a long time after Augustin. This is his own Invention, and is as false as his Reflections upon the present Church of England in that Page are malicious, and without ground 
(b) Disc. of Lit. pag. 89. . As for the Britons he saith, They were Enemies to the Roman use in the Eucharist in Gildas 's time; but he produces an Author there, which saith, They followed the Asian Manner in Preaching, Baptising, and celebrating Easter 
(c) Ibid. pag. 88 Spelm. Concil. Tom. I. pag. 107. . Now the Asian and Eastern Churches had Forms of celebrating the Eucharist, and Baptising in the Fourth Age, as we shown before out of the Apostolical Constitutions and many other Authors; therefore if they followed the Eastern Manner, than they had Forms for the Eucharist and Baptism; and though they had no Uniformity with Rome, yet if they followed the Asian Manner, he hath no Reason to assert, That they were averse to, and unacquainted with any Uniformity; and that— they had no prescribed Liturgies for such Uniformity long after. A pitiful piece of Sophistry! to conclude from their not receiving the Roman Liturgy, and agreeing to be Uniform with them, to infer, that the Britons had no Uniformity or Liturgy at all. If we may believe Bishop Usher, Saint Patric was the Apostle both of the Irish and Welsh, and brought the same Liturgy into Wales, that he brought into Ireland; and therefore he saith of the Britons, That their Form of Liturgy was the same with that which was received by their Neighbours the Gauls 
(d) Usher Rel. of anc. Irish, pag. 26. ; for which he citys the  Ancient Manuscript: And if they had any variety among them, it was a variety of Forms, not his Arbitrary liberty: For Baleus informs us, That Kentigern, who was Bishop of that Church which was afterward called S. Asaph, Writ a Manual of his Ministrations 
(e) Balaeus de script. Brit. mihi, fol. 32. ; That is, the Forms by which he celebrated Divine Service; and Bishop Usher shows, That he and S. Columba meeting together, their Disciples alternately sang Forms of Praises to God, and the latter Company with Hallelujah 
(f) Usher Antiq. Brit. Eccles. pag. 370. An. Dom. 560. . Moreover, Baleus further tells us, That S. Asaph, the Scholar and Successor of Kentigern writ a Book, Of the Ordinations of his Church 
(g) Balaeus de script. Brit. fol. 34. An. Dom. 590. ; which seems to be the Forms used there in Ordaining Presbyters and Deacons, and perhaps in Admitting of Monks. This may suffice to show us, the Britons had written and prescribed Forms, before my Adversary will allow them to have been used any where; and if any require further satisfaction, he may consult the Learned B. usher's Antiquity of the British Churches, where there are divers Evidences of this Truth.  
We proceed therefore to the Saxons, who were Converted by Augustin the Monk about the end of the Sixth Century: And He (no doubt) according to S. Gregory's direction, made a Liturgy for them, taken out of the Roman, the Gallican, and other Forms, which continued in use for some time: But after Gregory's Roman way of Singing began to be so generally admired in all these Parts of the World, That was also laboured by Augustin's Successors to be brought in here: For Bede mentions one James a Deacon, who was skilled both in the Roman and the Canterbury way of Song; saying of him, That Paulinus leaving York, and returning to Rochester, left this James behind him in the North, who when that Province had Peace, and the Number of the Faithful increased, being very skilful in Singing in the Church, became a Master of Ecclesiastical Song to many, after the way either of Rome or of Canterbury 
(h) Bedae histor. lib. 2. cap. 20. circ. A. D. 640. : Which must signify his teaching Clerks how to recite Gregory's or Augustin's Forms of Service; because in that Age they chanted their Prayers and Praises both. About Thirty years after this, in Theodorus his Time, They learned to Sing the Office all England over, and one Eddi (after the aforesaid James) was their Master in the Churches, on the North of Humber 
(i) Beda ibid. lib. 4. cap. 2. circ. An. 670. . And a little after, those who Instructed Men in Ecclesiastical Offices, are called Masters of Singing 
(k) Idem lib. 5. cap. 20. ; because the Offices were set to some certain Notes; and that alone is enough to prove, they then Prayed by certain prescribed Forms, it being impossible to set Arbitrary or Extempore Prayers to Notes; which though some have affirmed liable to be Canted, yet none ever thought them capable to be Chanted. But we proceed: I doubt not but the Gregorian Forms, as well as his way of Singing, came into use here before the Year 700: For in the late elaborare Collection of Old Saxon Books and Manuscripts, put out by my Worthy Friend Dr. Hicks, there is a Sacramentary of S. Gregory, which is at least a Thousand years old 
(l) Grammatica Maeso-Gothic. D. Hick. p. 148. ; and than it must be Written about the Year 690. But this is more plain in the Famous Council of Clovesho, which sat 24 year after, wherein there is not only clear Testimony for the use of Forms, but a full Evidence of the prevailing Interest of the Roman Offices: For there it is appointed, That All Priests shall learn to repeat the whole Office by Law, appointed for their Order; and shall be able to interpret the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the holy Words pronounced in the Mass, into the Vulgar Tongue; Can 10th. As also, That all Priests shall perform all their Offices after the same way and manner, Can. 11th. And further it is Decreed, That the Festivals in memory of our Lord, be celebrated in one and the same manner, in all Offices belonging to them; as to Baptism, Administering the Communion, and the manner of Singing, according to the Written Form, which we have received from the Roman Church; and that the Festivals of the Martyrs shall be observed on the same day, according to the Roman Martyrology, with the Psalms and Hymns proper to each of them, Can. 13th. And finally, That the Seven Canonical Hours of Prayer be observed, with the proper Psalms and Hymns, and that the Monasteries shall all Sing alike, and shall neither Sing or Read any thing, but what is generally used, and is derived from Scripture, or permitted by the Custom of the Roman Church, that so all may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God, Can. 15th 
(m) Concil. Clovesho. Can. 10, 11, 13, & 15. apud Spelm. Concil. Tom. l. p. 249. circ. An. D. 714. . From which Canons it is very plain, that the Saxons, within one Century after their Conversion, had Written Forms of Prayer for all Offices, and that the Roman Liturgy was now beginning to be generally received in this Land. I shall make but one Remark more in so clear a case, which is, That Venerable Bede dying on, Ascension-day, is (by ancient Historians) said to have repeated the Collect for the Day, in these Words, O King of Glory, and Lord of Hosts, who as on this day didst ascend triumphantly into the Heaven of Heavens, leave us not comfortless, but send us the Promise of the Father, even the Spirit of Truth 
(n) Gul. Malms. de gest. reg. lib. 1. cap. 3. pag. 12. & Sim. Dunelm. lib. 1. cap. 15. ; and soon after he gave up the Ghost. Now this is the Collect in the Old Roman Forms, and is yet continued in our Liturgy almost Verbatim, which gives that Collect the honour of having been received in this Nation for near a Thousand years: But since my Adversary dares not attempt the Saxons; and Spelman's Councils afford so many undeniable Proofs of prescribed and imposed Forms used here from the Time of their Conversion, I shall not heap up needless Instances, but proceed to the Kingdoms and Churches in France and Germany, where the same Order and Method of Praying was observed.  
§. 5. I have so fully proved, 
Ecclesia Gallicana, ab An. Dom. 450.  that there was a Form of Service peculiar to the Gallican Church, that I need not have added any thing on that Subject, but that my Adversary hath the confidence to say, In France they had Books for public Service in the 8th Century, yet they were used at the discretion of those that officiated, who added and left out as they thought fit, till Charlemagne, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, would have them Reform after the Roman guise. And this he proves by a Passage cited out of the Chronicle of Engolism, related in Mornay of the Mass 
(o) Disc. of Lit. p. 134. ; but the whole Story is nothing else but Falsehood and Fallacy. For,  
First, He speaks of Books for public Service in France in the 8th Century, as if they had none before: Whereas we have made it appear, That S. Hilary made a Book of Hymns for the Gallican Church in the Fourth Age, An. 354. That Museaus of Marseils composed a Book of Prayers for Consecrating the Sacrament in the Fifth Century, An. 458. We have showed, That the Gallican Office, which is still extant, was made at least as early as the Age in which S. Martin lived 
(p) Bona, rerum Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 12. & in Append. : And that in the Time of Sidonius Apollinaris the Clergy there generally used a Common-Prayer-Book, in that same Fifth Century, An. 475. We have proved, That in the end of the Sixth Age, Gregory the Great directed Augustin the Monk, to read over the Gallican Liturgy, as well as the Roman; which shows it was then Written in a Book: Yea, my Adversaries own Author, Mornay, in the place cited by him (which he must needs see) affirms, That before the Time of Gregory, there was another manner of Service in France than there was at Rome, and that Innocent and Gelasius (who were Popes in the Fifth Century) as well as Gregory, had used their utmost endeavours to bring them to conform to the Roman Order 
(q) Mornay of the Mass, Book I. chap. 8. pag. 63. . Which supposes plainly, they had a Service of their own differing from the Roman, in Innocents' and in Gelasius his Time, that is, in the Fifth Century; and that Epistle of Hildewinus to Lewes the Gentile, An. 825. (mentioned in Mornay) implies the same thing: For Hildewinus saith, We have still divers very ancient Mass-Books almost consumed with extreme Age, containing the Order of the Gallican Service, which was used from the time that the Faith was first received in this part of the West, until we admitted the Roman Order 
(r) Hildevinus Abb. praefat. ad opera Dionys. Areop. . Where we see, He not only affirms they had a Form of Service from their first Conversion; but that in the beginning of the Ninth Age some of the Copies of that Service were worn out with extreme Antiquity, so that probably these Copies were writ in the Sixth Age: And from hence we may discern the falsehood of my Adversaries Pretence, That there were no Service-Books in France before the 8th Century.  
Secondly, He affirms, That these Books were used at the discretion of him that Officiated. But this is as false as the former; for we have proved by divers French Canons, in the Fifth and Sixth Ages, That all the Clergy in one Province were bound to use the same Form of Service, which was used by their Metropolitan. And in the Eighth Century, Theodulphus (Bishop of Orleans) enjoins his Clergy, When they came to his Synod, to bring their Common Prayer-Books with them, and two or three Clerks who assisted them in the celebrating Divine Service, that so it might appear hour exactly and diligently they had performed their Duties 
(s) Theodulph. Aurel. Ep. ad Cler. cap. 4. ap. Bon. rer. Liturg. p. 349. ; which is a stricter course, than is now taken in our Church. But my Adversary pretends he hath Evidence for this Liberty out of an ancient Chronicle in Mornay 
(t) Mornay of the Mass, Book I. chap 8. pag. 64. , which saith, That every one at his pleasure had depraved the Book of Offices, by adding and diminishing. To which I Reply, That these Words are not in Mornay, and if they be in the Chronicle of Engolism, as the Margin recites them, The meaning is plainly this, That those who writ out these Forms, had depraved them by leaving out some things; and putting in others. Not that those who used these Books altered or added at their pleasure; for he who officiates cannot properly be said to have depraved a Book, by not reading it aright; it was the Scribes, who writ the Copies falsely and variously, that had depraved the Old Office so much, that it gave a good Pretence to French Kings, to bring in the Roman Service: Herein therefore he hath no ground for his false Assertion, That these Books were used at the discretion of him that did Officiate.  
Thirdly, He mistakes again in saying, That Charlemaign, in the beginning of the Ninth Age, reform them after the Roman guise. For first, his own Author Mornay affirms, That King Pepin, for reverence of Pope Steven, received the whole Order of Rome, and citys two Capitulars for this, wherein Charles the Great declares, That his Father Pepin first put down the Gallican, and set up the Roman Service in France 
(u) Capit. lib. 1. cap. 80 & lib. 5. cap. 219. in Mornay ut supr. pag 64. . Now Pope Steven died An. 755. which is near Fifty years before the Ninth Age began. Moreover, the Centuriators out of Sigebert, and divers ancient Historians, tell us, That it is apparent, there was a different way of Singing in the Roman and the Gallican Churches, till Pepin, upon his being made King of France by the Pope, brought in the Roman Rites and way of Singing into the Gallican Church 
(w) Magdebur. Cent. 8. cap. 6. pag. 342, 343.  Now this was in the year 751. that is, in the midst of the Eighth Age. 'Tis true, Charles the Great did go on with the same work, but than it was before the beginning of the Ninth Age, which is the Period that my Adversary assigns to this Matter: For finding still that some Churches kept up the Old way of Singing, he sent two Clerks to Rome, to learn there the Authentic way of Singing, and they first taught the Church of Metz, and then all France 
(x) Magdeb. ibid. & Sigeb. Chron. An. 774. . But this was in the year 774, Six and twenty years before the Ninth Age began. Again, He owns this Uniformity was brought in by his Father Pepin, and enjoins it once more 
(y) Capitul. Franc. Tom. I. in Cap. An. 788. pag. 203. , about the Year 788. The next Year, in another Capitular. Charles the Great obliges the Monks also to follow that Roman Order of Singing, which his Father appointed, when he put down the Old Gallican way 
(z) Capitul. ibid. An. 789. cap. 78. p. 239. . In the same year also was this Law made, That the Clergy should have Orthodox Books very well Corrected, lest those who desire to pray to God aright, by Ill written Books should ask amiss; and therefore none was to write out the Gospel, the Psalter, or Missal, but a Man of mature Age 
(a) Capitul. ibid. Tom. I. cap. 70. p. 237. . And finally, The last Persons sent from Rome about completing this Uniformity were Adrian's two Chanters, who came into France An. 790 
(b) Magdeb. Cent. 8. cap. 6. pag. 343. & Sigebert. An. 790. . Wherefore he is out in his Chronology as to this Matter, because the Roman Order was brought into the Gallican Church by Pepin first, and then universally settled there by Charles the Great, before the Ninth Age began. But to let that pass, it is certain there was no more liberty allowed to any Ministers in the Gallican Church, before the Roman Offices came in there, than there was afterward; because it is plain they had a Liturgy before, imposed strictly by divers Canons of several Councils; and while that Gallican Office was in Force, the Clergy were as much bound to use those Forms, as they were to use the Roman Forms afterward; and therefore his pretended liberty of Praying Extempore in public, or changing the public Forms at pleasure, hath no Foundation among the French of those Ages, and is grounded only upon false and wrested Quotations; for in fact and reality there was no such liberty in the Gallican Church, since the second famous Conversion of that People, no nor before, as far as we can find by those few Memoirs we have of those obscure Times.  

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

Agobardus Episc. Lugdun. An. 831.  § 7. We have little more in this Discourse against Liturgies out of Antiquity excepting only some few pretended proofs from late Ages, to show, that they used various words in the distribution of the Eucharist. As First, he tells us, that Agobardus the Famous Archbishop of Lions, could not well like that Common Roman Form, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. since he was only for Scripture Expressions in the public Offices. And then he intimates, that Agobardus was censured for this by Baronius and his Epitomator 
(n) Disc. of Lit. pag. 90. & 91. ; To which I reply, First, That Baronius never censures this great Bishop at all; for this passage is not in Baronius, but only in Spondanus the Epitomator, and from him alone my Adversary citys it 
(o) Vid. Baron. Tom. 9 An. 831. p. 797. & 798. . Secondly, Spondanus speaks not one word of Agobardus his correcting the Communion-Office; but only that he took great pains in restoring the ancient Antiphonary, or Book of Hymns 
(p) Spondan. Epitome. An. 831. Num. 2. . And Baluzius hath now put out the very Tract, which Spondanus refers to, and there is not one Syllable in all that Book, expressing, any dislike at the Words used in the distribution 
(q) Agobardi lib. de divin. Psalmod. & lib. de correct. Antiph. oper. Tom. 2. edit. Paris 1666. : Yea there is a peculiar discourse of this Bishop, against Amalarius his Comment on the Mass; wherein he speaks of the Roman Canon, Te igitur, etc. yet never makes the least exception against the Roman Order, or any thing contained in it 
(r) Ibid. lib. contr. Amal. pag. 101. . So that this pretended dislike of the Roman Form of distribution is a mere Fiction of his own Brain. And if it were true, that Agobardus did not like any thing in Sacred Offices, but what was Scripture; Yet there is no cause, he should for that cause dislike this, which he calls the Roman, but was the Primitive, and is now our Protestant Form; since the words are taken out of, and grounded on express places of Holy Scripture: The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a Scripture Expresion 
(s) Math. xxvi. 26. Luk. xxii. 19 1 Cor. xi. 24. , and the next words, Preserve thy Body and Soul to Eternal Life, are grounded on Scripture Promises 
(t) John. vi. ver. 50.51.53.54. & 58. ; so that if Agobardus were never so scrupulous, he might very well like and use this Form. But because my Adversary deals only in Epitomes, I will now give a full Account of this matter. We must observe therefore that Leidradus, the Predecessor of Agobardus, in the year 799. according to the desire of Charles the Great, had brought in the Roman Order of Singing, into the Church of Lions; and had put out an Antiphonary, with an Epistle before it, the Hymns whereof were generally taken out of the Holy Scripture 
(u) Leidradi. Ep. ad Carol. Mag. inter oper. Agob. Tom. 2. p. 127. . But about 30 years after, Amalarius a busy Monk, pretends to bring a new Antiphonary from Rome, Corrected after the Roman Office, in the time of Gregory the Fourth; which he presented to Lewis the Godly, and hoped by his Authority, to impose it on all the Gallican Church. But Agobardus the Primate of France, rejects this new Antiphonary, and writ a Book to prove there were Heresies, Blasphemies and Nonsense, in these Hymns of Amalarius, and keeps to the old Roman Antiphonary, established by his Predecessor, the Hymns of which were for the most part taken out of the Psalms, and other parts of Holy Scripture, commending this to his Clergy, and giving them his Reasons, why he would not admit of the other: And this Book of Agobardus concludes with these words, As the Church hath a Book of Mysteries, for Celebrating the Solemnity of the Mass, digested Orthodoxly, and with convenient Brevity, and hath a Book of Lessons, collected Judiciously out of the Divine Books; so they ought to have this Third Book, the Antiphonary, purged from all Human Figments and Lies, sufficiently ordered out of the pure words of Scripture, through the whole Circle of the year: That so in performing sacred Offices, according to the most approved Rule of Faith, and the Authority of ancient discipline, there may be kept among us, one and the same Form of Prayer, of Lessons and of Ecclesiastical Songs 
(w) Agobard. de correct. Antiphon. §. 19 Tom. two. p. 100 . This is the whole Story, and the passage which Spondanus ignorantly, or at least rashly Censures, and my Adversary Ridiculously brings in, to show Agobardus his dislike of the words of distribution: Whereas these words refer only to the Hymns, which yet probably were not all, the very words of Scripture: but were either Transcribed thence, or agreeable thereto, much more than the new Hymns of Amalarius. And since Agobardus received and used the Roman Canon, and the whole Roman Missal, wherein were many things, which are not the words of Scripture; we must not expound these words, (cited but now) so strictly as Spondanus doth, as if he would not use any words in Divine Offices, but those of Scripture: For Agobardus means no more, than that the Hymns ought to be, either taken out of Scripture, or agreeable to the Doctrine thereof; for he proves that the Hymns of Amalarius were Heretical and Blasphemous, contrary in many things to the Holy Scripture, and therefore he rejected them. But as to any Liberty in varying the Prayers, Lessons or Hymns that were established, or altering the Roman Forms; This great Bishop was so far from it, that he enjoins the old Gregorian Office, and imposes that prescribed Form, together with the Lessons and the Hymns, and opposes those Innovations and Alterations, which some attempted to make, because the Forms and Orders then established, were agreeable both to the Rule of Faith, and to the acient Ecclesiastical Laws; upon which occasion, he produceth that African Canon before cited 
(x) Part. i Cent. 4. §. 24. pag. 257. , in these Words, viz. That no Supplications and Prayers be said, unless they have been approved in a Council; nor shall any of these, at all be Sung in the Church, till they have been considered by the Prudent, and approved of in a Synod, lest any thing against the Faith be composed, either my mistake or by design 
(y) Canon. Afric. ap. Agob. de correct. Antiph. §. two p. 92. . And now the Reader shall judge, whether this Author be for my Adversaries purpose or no, since he imposes Books of prescribed Prayers, Lessons and Hymns, and thinks the keeping strictly to them, is necessary to make the Clergy Uniform, and the use of them agreeable both to Scripture and Antiquity.  
§ 8. 
Adrian. two. Episc Rom. An. Dom. 8●8.  Another instance of Liberty taken in varying the prescribed Form of the words of distribution, is a Relation, of Pope Adrian's adding diverse Solemn words to the usual Form, when he gave the Sacrament to Lotharius the French King and his Attendants; Which Lotharius had been Excommunicated by Pope Nicolas, for living in Adultery with one Waldrada, and Lotharius came to Rome for Absolution, and promised for ever to Renounce her; for the security of which promise, this Pope obliges him to take the Sacrament upon it, together with his Nobles: And upon that Extraordinary Occasion, post Missarum Solennia, after the usual Consecration, the Pope added some words for that once only; which was to let them know their Danger, if they did Dissemble in so Solemn an Ordinance; but so, that probably either before or after, he used the old Form of distribution, which the Historians also intimate; though since this is only an Historical Narration, they have not perhaps so clearly expressed it: However, what can my Adversary infer from hence to his purpose, supposing Adrian mixed the Form of distribution, for this once, with his occasional Commination 
(z) Disc. of Lit. p. 91, 92. ? First doth he think the Pope did well or ill in this? If he did ill, why doth he urge it for a Precedent? It seems to be a varying not only from the Church's Form, but from the design of Christ; who did not institute this Sacrament to be a Rite, to purge Men from Accusations, or Seal Curses on Men, who broke their Leagues; and therefore this is not a good Example for our Church to follow; nor ought the Dissenters to desire the same Liberty, till they have proved the Fact was not Evil. Yet if it were well done, what consequence can they draw from it? may private Ministers do all that the great Bishop of the West may do? Or because he did take this Liberty, once upon a very Extraordinary occasion, ought they to have it always, when there is nothing Extraordinary in the Case? I dare say, my Adversary could not imagine, that this Pope gave his Clergy Liberty to vary this Form as they pleased, nor to draw this Act of his into an Example; and therefore I cannot see any reason, why he should urge it.  
The like may be said of his next instance, of one Leuthericus 
Leuthericus Episc. Senon. An. Dom. 1004.  Arch Bishop of Sens, who used these Words in the delivery of the Sacrament, Receive if thou art Worthy. And my Adversary saith, Robert K. of France Checked him for it, not because he Transgressed the Established Order, but because the King (by mistake) supposed none were Worthy to Receive 
(a) Disc. of Lit. pag. 92. . I shall easily Answer this, when I have First set Right the Matter of Fact. For Spondanus tells us out of an old Author, That this Leuthericus held not a right Opinion of Christ; and seeking to prove some whom he hated, by the Body of the Lord; the King sharply reproved him, for that whereas the Priest who gave the Communion, use to say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul, he with a Rash and polluted Mouth said, If thou be Worthy Receive it: Whereas indeed none can be truly said to be Worthy 
(b) Spondan. Epit. ad An. 1004. §. 2. p. 798. è Helgald. in vit. Roberti Regis. . Here we see the old Author, (for these are his Words,) brings in an Irregular Fact of an Heretical Bishop, which ought to be no Precedent, and is no Evidence, what was the Custom of the Orthodox Clergy in that Age. Again, this instance shows, that the old Form was generally used then, and that his not using it, was the True Reason, why the King reproved him, viz. for daring to alter the Established Form; For the last Words, that none are truly Worthy, are not the Words of the King, but of the Writer of his Life. Wherefore the usage of that Time was, for all to Administer by the ancient and Established Form; and that when an Eminent Arch Bishop presumed to vary from it, he was sharply reproved for it, by a Religious King, and is censured by an ancient Historian, as one that did not amend, but deprave the Office by this pretended Correction. As for Spondanus, his supposing Leuthericus refused the old Form, out of a dislike of Transubstantiation, it is wholly groundless; For this Form was used in the Roman Church, long before Transubstatiation came in, and is retained in those Protestant Churches, which have rejected that false Doctrine.  
He tells us also of Pope Gregory 
Gregorius Sept. Episc. Rom. An. Dom. 1077.  the 7th, who having been accused of great Crimes, and being about to receive the Sacrament, made a Solemn Protestation of his Innocence, holding the Eucharist in his Hands 
(c) Disc. of Lit. pag. 93. . But the Historian cited by him, doth not say he omitted or altered the usual Form; he rather supposes the Pope First said these Words, for clearing of his Innocence, and then after those terrible Words, he did receive it, probably with the Common Form. But however it was, we say, that this Extraordinary, and perhaps unlawful Fact of a Pope on that occasion, is no Evidence of the Custom of that Age; nor is it to be alleged to justify any private Ministers taking Liberty to vary the Forms as he please: Besides, we see that in this Corrupt Age, the Holy Sacrament came to be used for a Canonical Purgation, as in this Case; And in confirming secular Leagues, as in the next; and it is no great wonder, if when they used the Eucharist to new purposes, they were forced to invent new Forms, as in his next Instance, Pope Pascal the Second did, when he delivered the Sacrament to the Emperor, Hen. 5th, as a Confirmation of the Peace and League then made between them 
(d) Disc. of Lit. pag. 93. e Sig●b●rto. . Now if this matter of Fact be true, it is nothing to our Question, which is about the Forms commonly used in Divine Service: As for odd and Extraordinary Cases, and especially when the Ordinances of Christ were prostituted to secular Ends and Purposes, they ought not to be alleged in an enquiry about the Custom of those Ages, which all grant, was to Pray, and Administer the Sacraments by prescribed and imposed Forms; and no Liberty was allowed to any, in the least, to vary from them: And those who did vary, were either so great as to believe themselves above Rules, or so irregular as to be censured for it; wherefore these few Cases do not at all prove, that the Clergy had, or aught to have a Liberty to vary from the prescribed and established Forms, in the Ordinary Service of God.  
I find nothing more in my Adversary out of Antiquity; and had he not started these trifling Objections, I should not have descended so low; but since his Fancy for a bad Cause, puts him upon these poor shifts, I was not willing to leave any thing, that might amuse a common Reader: But now as to these later Ages, the Point is clear, certain and undeniable, that Liturgies were every where imposed, and no Church permitted its own Clergy, to vary from their own way: It is true, many Corruptions and Superstitions in these Ages, crept into the Liturgies of all Churches; but they grafted still upon the old Stock, kept the Primitive way of Praying; Yea, retained so many of the ancient and pure Forms, as do frequently confute divers of these Corruptions and Innovations. So that it is no difficult thing to disprove many of the Romish Modern Opinions, by some parts of their ancient Missals; but that is not my busisiness: It is sufficient to my purpose, that I have made it Evident, there were prescribed Forms, used in the public Service, even from the beginning of Christianity, and that the way of Serving God by Liturgies, was the Practice of all Regular Churches, and had the Approbation of all Eminent Fathers, and of very many Councils all along in every Century, since the time of the Apostles, and from the beginning of settling Christianity.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Arguments against the Antiquity of LITURGIES.  
THERE are some things relating to the Antiquity of Prescribed Forms and Liturgies, which are dispersed up and down my Adversary's Book, and would not easily be brought under the order of Time in the History; and yet must be considered, that no Scruple may remain concerning this great Truth: And though some of these have been briefly examined before, yet we will here put them together, and give a fuller Answer to all that looks like an Objection.  
§. 1. First, He thinks to disprove the ancient use of Prescribed Forms, by affirming, That of old they had no more, but a certain Order, wherein divers Churches agreed, to administer the several Parts of Worship, particularly the Severals in the Sacrament, so as each had its known and fixed place: This he finds in many Fathers, and he saith, the 19th Canon of Laodicea, An. 365. was a Rule for this Order 
(f) Disc. of Lit. pag. 4, & 5. , which elsewhere he makes to be no more than a Rubric or a Directory 
(g) Ib. pag. 174. . But this should have been proved, not only by the word Ordo, (which we have showed signifies a Liturgy, containing not only the Method, but the very Forms themselves); He should have produced some such ancient Rubric or Directory, which had nothing but the Method of the several Parts of Divine-Service without any Forms. For we have produced Liturgies, at least as ancient as that Canon of Laodicea, viz. That of Jerusalem, and that in the Apostolical Constitutions, having all the Forms at large; and if he cannot show one of these Directories, he only dreams of such a thing. Now though it be hard to make out a Negative, yet we may go far to prove there was no such thing, distinct from a Liturgy: For these Severals in the Sacrament, were Prayers, Intercessions, Giving of Thanks, Prefaces, Hymns, and the like: Now these must be called by some distinguishing Names in this pretended Rubric; and that they could not well be, unless they were Forms: Now if the Severals were all Forms, as the Prefaces and Hymns certainly were, than they might have proper Names for each of them, and might easily describe them by some of the first words; as, Our Father, Lord have mercy, Lift up your Hearts, etc. and then if the Forms were known by those short Names, that makes this Rubric become a shorter Liturgy. Besides, He tells us, This Order was certain, and agreed on by several Churches, and made some kind of Uniformity among them in praying for the same things. But it is hard to conceive, how Extempore Prayers could be agreed on by distant Churches, to be used in one certain Order; or how this agreement could produce Uniformity, if the Words of the Prayers every where differed, and the Phrases in the same place daily varied: No Canons of Councils, not written Rule, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can suffice to make an Uniformity out of such diversity. He finds but one Canon till the beginning of the Sixth Age, to direct this Order, viz. the 19th Canon of Laodicea, and that is a very short one, which only mentions Six Prayers, as known by their proper Names; therefore to be sure, that Canon was not all the Rule the Church had for this Agreement and Uniformity: And for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it was that which the Deacon lifted up at the end of every Collect, when the Bishop or Priest came to say, Through Jesus Christ our Lord; to give Notice to the People, to say Amen, or to make some Response: And sometimes to call them off from their Knees, to join in Hymns, or the like; which supposes known Forms, when so slight a Signal served a great Congregation, to make them ready for all Parts of the Service, in which they had any share: Therefore there must be more, to make this Uniformity in distant Churches, and in very large Congregations, and that was Prescribed Liturgies, which we have made out, to be much elder than his imaginary Rubric or Directory. But for once let us suppose, That they had in those Early Ages no more than some Canons or Written Rubric, prescribing and enjoining the certain Order of the several Parts of Worship, and this so exact, as to make divers Churches agree to pray for the same things, and in the same Method; Would not this be as much an abridgement of the Liberty which is claimed, and a stinting of the Spirit, as if the Words were prescribed? If Ministers then had the Gift of Prayer, could not that one Spirit which inspired them, teach them the Order and Method, as well as the Words and Phrases? Would not this Gift have made them as Uniform, as Written Canons or Rubrics, and rendered a Directory as needless as a Liturgy? It must be so, unless my Adversary will say, the only use of the Spirit is to furnish Men with Phrases and Expressions in Prayer; but that he cannot say (without contradicting himself, and blaspheming the Spirit) because he saith, God minds not so much the Expressions, as the inward Affections 
(h) Disc. of Lit. pag. 132. ; and proves this by a Set of Golden-saying out of the Fathers 
(i) Ibid. pag. 50. : Wherefore at this rate, the Gift of Prayer would only enable Men for that part of our Prayer, which God doth not much mind: So that this imaginary Order of his, devised to protect the Gift of Praying Extempore, overthrows it as much as a Common-Prayer-Book; And if he could make it out, Wise Men could not but see, That so soon as there was need, to agree upon his sort of Order, and to write down the Method and the Things to be prayed for, so soon the Give of Prayer was ceased, and so soon there was need also to agree upon the Words in which these Things should be asked, if they would have any solid Agreement or Uniformity between distant Churches.  
§. 2. He Argues, There were no Liturgies in the first Four or Five Ages at least, because no Writers of that Time have any such Phrase, as Reading of Prayers, though they do speak of Reading the Lessons and the Passions of the Martyrs 
(k) Disc. of Lit. pag. 7. . I Reply, First, the force of this Argument turns upon himself: For I may Argue, There were no Extempore Prayers in all that time (at least after the miraculous Gift of Prayer ceased) because in all that Space, he (who hath so diligently searched Antiquity) cannot produce any Writer, who speaks plainly of Extempore Prayers. He finds several Testimonies of the Father's Preaching Extempore, wherein that very Phrase is used 
(l) Disc. of Lit. pag. 56, 57, & 58. : And since it would have been more to his purpose, we may be sure, had he met with Preces Extemporales, or Extemporaneae, or found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which Phrases he meets with for their Sermons) He would have produced them very triumphantly; but his Silence assures us, there are no such Phrases concerning Prayers; and therefore (in his way of Arguing) we conclude, there were no such Prayers in those Ages. But Secondly, It is certain there were Written Forms of Prayer very Early in the Church of God: This we have proved out of many Writers of the first Four or Five Ages. Now if there were Written Forms then, doubtless they might be Read; nay, they must either be Read when used in public, or be gotten by Heart; and so in Tertullian's Phrase be repeated de Pectore, by Memory; even as Socrates (saith the younger Theodosius) could recite the Scripture out of his Breast 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. lib. 7. cap. 22. pag. 748. . And it appears in S. Basil, That the ancient Monks used to get both their Prayers and the Psalms by Heart: Wherefore, if they took this Method, he cannot conclude from their not Reading Prayers, that they had not prescribed Written Forms. He himself hath cited the Hymns written by the Holy Brethren from the beginning 
(n) Disc. of Lit. pag. 23. ; He found Written Forms of Prayer in the Council of Carthage 
(o) Ib. pag. 84. , and citys the Prefaces before the Communion out of S. Cyril 
(p) Ib. pag. 147. , and might have cited them out of S. Cyprian, had he so pleased. These he found in the Primitive Ages; and we have found Litanies, Prayers for all Estates of Men, and Forms of Consecration within this Period: So that being so sure of Written Forms, whether they were Read or no, is nothing to our purpose. But, Thirdly, The Phrase for Offering up Our Desires to God, both in these and the following Ages, when Forms were most used and most common, were, To Pray, To Make, or To Say Prayers 
(q) Disc. of Lit. ex Origen. pag. 139. ; Which Phrases are more applicable to those who Pray by Forms, than to such as Pray without them: yet we do not urge them against the Extempore Way, and he must not allege them against Forms; because we know the Jews certainly prayed by Prescribed Forms; and yet I do not remember the Phrase of Reading Prayers is to be found in the Old Testament, any more than in these ancient Writers: And these Fathers imitated the Scripture-Phrase, where Reading was appropriated to the Reading the Law and the Prophets; as among these it was, to the Reading of Lessons, which were only Read, and no more; but using Holy Forms of Supplication, though they were also Read, is called Praying, from the Principal design of them, which was to petition Almighty God, or ask him for what they wanted. But whereas he would prove, That the Primitive Christians could not Read their Prayers, because while they Prayed, they had their Eyes lifted up to Heaven 
(r) Disc. of Lit. p. 9 : This hath been answered before; and I have proved, That neither the Priest nor the People did always look upwards when they Prayed; sometimes they Prayed with their Eyes looking down 
(s) See my 1st Part, Cent. 2. §. 4. p. 46, & 47. . And all Men know, that after we are accustomed to a Form, we may look upwards when we Repeat it, for the greatest part of the time; and many, yea, most of our Ministers do so, in the use of the Common-Prayer; and therefore the Primitive Bishops and Priests might Read their Prayers, and yet look upwards frequently. Though I must also note, that there is not one of his Quotations brought, to prove this to be the Posture of Prayer, which relate to the Priest who did Officiate, they all relate to the whole Congregation, to the Christian People; and I hope their looking upwards frequently will not be allowed for a good Proof, that they (much less that the Priest) never looked on a Book of Prayers, or read any prescribed Forms of Prayers or Responses: And for the Presbyters and Deacons, which (he says) could not Read (if there were any such) no doubt they got their Office by Heart; for such Men (he grants) were not fit to make Extempore Prayers.  
§. 3. In the next place he goes about to disparage Reading of Forms of Prayer, as a way which wants Life and Action, and that is apt to dull the Auditory; and this he proves, by Pliny's refusing to read over one of his Orations to his Friends in private, since he could not read it over with that life and vigour, with which it was spoken at first in the Court 
(t) Disc. of Lit. pag. 11. . But to this I Answer, That he twice mentions that Commendation which Pliny gave his Servant Zosimus (and puts it in, both in the Text and Margin of his Book 
(u) Ibid. pag. 8. & p. 11. Marg. ) whom his Master there praises, Because he could read a thing with as much life and vigour, as either the Inventor of it, or he who had got it by Heart could show 
(w) Plin. epist. l. 5. ep. 19 : Adding, That he did this so rarely well, as if he had learned to do nothing else. Now this Instance confutes his Argument, and shows, it is possible for a Man to read a thing with great life and vigour, and so as to affect his Auditory very much thereby: And why should he uncharitably suppose, that a Pagan Slave should take more care to read a Play, or an Oration, vigorusly before his Master, than a Christian Priest to read a Prayer before his God? Experience confutes this unworthy Reflection, because many Clergymen do read the Common-Prayer with as much spirit and life, and as true Devotion, as any of his Friends say their Extempore Prayers; and I am sure, their Tautologies, Incoherences, and tedious length, tire a Judicious Hearer, much more than a well-read and accurate Form can do. As for Pliny, his Oration was a Form, composed with great Art, and committed to Memory before it was first spoken, and was designed to work upon the Affections of a Crowd of Men in a Secular Court, and in a Temporal Cause; and in that Case even Theatrical Gestures, and the Artificial Acting of it, were apt to move the Auditory, more than the bare Reading it in a private Room to a few Friends 
Pl●n epist. lib. 2. Ep. 19 . But what is this to the Case of Prayers? Pliny durst not have come before that Auditory with an Extempore Harangue, such as our Dissenters dare come into the presence of God and a great Congregation with: He designed no more by his Action, but only to work upon the Frailties of Men; but our Adversaries (I hope) will not own, That their only design in Prayer, is, to move the Affections of their Hearers, by Tone, Gestures, Noise, and Fluency. We who use Forms, as Pliny did, and generally have them by Heart, as he had, can repeat them as vigorously as he did the first time, and thereby do keep all pious Men in our Congregations very attentive. But still we remember, we speak to the Most High God, before whom our Words ought to be well weighed, and our Desires properly expressed; because he is not wrought upon by Noise and Action, as silly Men and Women are. If our Petitions be sincere and hearty, prudently Worded in proper Phrases, and repeated with new Devotion every day; the God we pray to, likes them no worse for being daily in the same Words: And Pliny could not have wondered at us, for Reading daily the same Forms of Prayer; for He, and all the Priests of his Religion, prayed so to their Gods, and did not believe the Deities affected Change and Variety, or were moved with Gesticulations and Tones; Nor would that Judicious Heathen have been so weak, as to compare his popular Orations, to the Prayers he offered up to his Gods. And since he appeals to Pliny, to judge between Forms and Extempore, we will hear what he and others say of these two Ways, even with respect to Civil Plead; Pliny brings in Pollio, saying, Pleading agreeably, I pleaded often; but by Pleading often, I came to plead not so well; for by too often using this, I got an easiness rather than a faculty; and not so much an assurance, as a sort of rashness 
(y)— ass●duitate nimià, facilitas magis quam facultas, nec fiducia, sed temiritas paratur Plin lib. 6. ep. 29. . And if our Dissenting Brethren had the modesty to confess it, I fear they find the same effects of using this Gift, when they plead at another Bar. The Grave Tacitus also derides Q. Huterius, an Orator, who was very ready at Extempore Speeches, saying, His Orations did not survive him: For whereas other men's Labour and Meditation lasted to Posterity, his Noisy fluent way died with him 
(z) Huterii Canorum illud & pr ●●●ns, cum ipso s mul extinctum est. Tic●t. Annal. lib. 4. §. 61. pag. ●13. . So despicable was this kind of Eloquence in those days. Again, Lampridius saith, The Wise Emperor Alexander Severus, Suffered not any of his Counsellors to answer him concerning great Affairs, till they had well thought upon them 
(a) Ne ince●itati dicere cogerentur de re●us ingentibus. Lampr●d in vit. Al. Seu. p. 524. . Plutarch also Arguing against Extempore Orations, tells us a Story of a young Painter, who shown Apelles a piece of his Work, and bragged how little time he had done it in: To whom that great Master Replied, I saw by the Work, it was done in haste 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plut. de liber. educ. pag. 6. . But none is more severe than Seneca, upon a Philosopher of quick Invention, who used this way; This Rapid and Copious way of Speaking (saith he) is much fit for a Juggler or Mountebank, than one that is about a great and serious Matter 
(c) Istam vim docendi rapidam atque abundantem, aptiorem esse circulatori, quam agenti rem magnam & seriam. Senec. Ep. 40. pag. 101. . And I suppose it will be granted, That Praying is as great and serious a Matter, as a Philosophical Lecture. I shall conclude with S. Hierom's Opinion of Gregory Nazianzen's Extempore Preaching which he had heard, and could well judge of it: Nothing is so easy, as to deceive the Vulgar People, and an Illiterate Assembly, with the Volubility of the Tongue; because they do most admire that which they least understand 
(d) Nihil tam facile est, quam vilem plebeculam & indoctam concionem linguae volubilitate dec●pere, quae quicquid non intelligit plus admiratur. Hicron. ad Nepot. Ep. 2 pag. 16. . This he spoke of his Master; and thus he censured the Extempore Preaching of an Eminent Father in that Age: And if any had then pretended to Pray at that rate, it is more than probable he would severely have exposed the Boldness and Folly of hoping to please God by that contemptible Faculty, which was admired only by that ignorant Crowd, who were deceived by it. To conclude this Point, I dare refer it to any Man, who duly considers the Majesty of God, Whether the grave and affectionate Reading of a well-studied and judicious Form of Prayer, expressed in proper and pious Words, be not more fit to be presented to him, and more likely to be accepted by him; than a rash unpremeditated Rhapsody, without Method, strength of Reason, or Propriety of Phrase: The latter, by Noise and Action, may operate more upon the Passions of Weak Men; but the former is more suitable to the infinite Majesty of him, whom we only desire to please when we Pray.  
§ 4. After this he Argues, that the ancient Church had no Liturgies, or Books of public Prayers, and therefore could have no prescribed or imposed Forms. And he would prove they had no Books, by the Case of Athanasius his not being accused, for abusing the Liturgy, nor the Arians, for Burning any thing but Bibles; by Constantin 's employing Eusebius, only to Transcribe the Scripture; by the Council of Carthage 's Decree, for only holding a Book of the Gospels over the Bishop's Head; And by the Persecutors finding no Liturgy, in their Searches after the Christians Books 
(e) Disc. of Lit. p. 12, 13, 14, 15. etc.— to the 20th. . To which I answer, First in general, that I have made it so Evident, that there were prescribed Forms, and Books of Hymns and Prayers in these Ages; that a negative Argument, taken from some few Authors, in some places, not mentioning them, is of no Force against plain and positive proof. But Secondly, We will examine his particulars, and show that they do not make out his Point. First, His own Quotation concerning Athanasius, expressly saith that Macarius (who was employed by Athanasius) did Burn (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Holy Books 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 1. cap. 20. p. 539. , he Translates it fraudulently in the Singular Number, the Holy Bible; to make his Reader suppose, it was meant alone of that Book. But the Original speaks of more Books; and therefore since a Liturgy was then in use at Alexandria; no doubt that was one of the Holy Books, which they here falsely, accused Macarius for Burning. And since the Author calls them, [Holy] not [Divine Books], it is more probable he meant it, of the Books of Offices, which were counted only Sacred; than of the Scripture, which they generally call Divine, or Divinely inspired Books: Which distinction is very evident in Eusebius, where he relates, how in the Persecution under Dioclesian, They Burnt the Divine and Sacred Books in the M●rket places 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 2. p. 217. . In which place, the Divine Books are the Holy Scriptures, and the Sacred Books, those which contained the Service of the Church. The same Author in the Life of Constantine, makes a plain distinction between these Books, as being several Volumes; For he saith the Emperor took the Books, for the explaining the Divinly inspired Scriptures, and after for repeating the prescribed Prayers, with those who dwelled in his Roy. all Palace 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. vit. Const. lib. 4. cap. 17. . First he took the Bible into his Hands, and then after that, (it seems) he took the other Book, wherein the usual Established Prayers were written. For (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Books, implies more Books than one. Secondly, As to the Books, which Constantine sent to Eusebius into Palestine, to procure for his Churches at Constantinople, he calls them, Those Divine Books, which he knew most necessary, according to the Ecclesiastical Catalogue, to be prepared and used 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. l. 4. cap. 35. . And this might be expounded of Books of Offices, as well as Bibles; but suppose we grant, this Catalogue here mentioned to be the Canon of Scripture, agreed on by the Church; and so the Books he sent for, were only the Canonical Books of Scripture: His inference, that the Churches in Constantine's Time, had no other Book, will by no means follow: Eusebius lived in Palestine, where the Scriptures were first written and best understood, and there the best Copies were to be had; and Eusebius who lived there, was the fittest Judge of them; therefore Constantine sent thither, and to him, perhaps for no more but Bibles; Not because Churches were furnished then with no other Books, but because we know, Constantine had Prayer-Books at home, and could get accurate Copies of the Service, writ out at Constantinople, and need not send so far as Palestine for those Books; but it was most proper, to send thither for Copies of Canonical Scripture. Thirdly, The Council of Carthage also doth mention a Book of the Gospels, held over the Bishop's Head, a Book of Exorcisms to be given to the Exorcist, and a Book of Lessons to be delivered to the Reader, at their Ordination: But doth not mention the Service-Book, delivered to any that entered into Orders 
(k) Concil. 4. Carthag. can. 1. 7, 8. . But it is too much from thence to conclude, there was no Service-Book there in the year [498]; because we have proved by many Testimonies, which are Positive, that they had prescribed Prayers there long before. And he may as well argue, that we have no Common-Prayer-Book in England, since it is not delivered either to any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, at their Ordination, that is, there is no more done here, than was there; and yet, both we have, and they had a Book of Offices for all that; Optatus, S. Augustin and others before cited, do fully attest it: Moreover, these Books of Exorcisms, were Forms of Prayer, and of Catechising, Collected out of Holy Scripture 
(l)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. praef. ad Catech. , for those who were newly Converted to Christianity. And such Books had been long time used in the Church before this Council, though this formal delivery of them, is not mentioned till this Council Order it. Fourthly, As to the Persecutors not enquiring for, or finding, or the Christians delivering no other Books to them but only Bibles; I reply, the matter of Fact is not True, and therefore his Consequence, viz. that they had no Prayer-Books then, is false. Indeed the Bible was the most Eminent of all the Christian Books, and the Foundation of their Faith, their Worship and their Manners: And in those Ages, the Bible was in all Christians Hands, the People Read it at Home; whereas the Liturgy was only in the Priest's Hands; and upon the Notion they had of the necessity of concealing Mysteries from Pagans, was kept very close. By which means, no doubt, Bibles were oftener found by the Persecutors, and better known to them than the Book of Offices, the Dyptics, the Book of Exorcisms, the Book of Anthems written and composed to the Honour of Christ. Yet we are sure they had these Books then, though they are rarely or never mentioned singl●, only they come under the general Titles of Christian Writings, Divine, Sacred or Holy Books, etc. and no doubt sometimes the Persecutors found and Burned these, as well as Bibles: For we may observe, that all Authors generally speak in the Plural Number, The Divine and Holy Writings, and the Writings. The Books of the Church (in Eusebius) are said to be Burnt, and Destroyed by the Persecutors 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 8. cap. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. lib. 10. cap. 4. ; Why do our Writings deserve to be committed to the Flames? saith Arnobius 
(n) N●●str● quidem Scripta cur ignibus merueru●t dari? Arnob. l 4. . They Demanded the Divine Books for the Fire, Saith Augustin 
(o) Peterent divinos c●dices exurendos A●●. brevic. C●l. l. 3. : So they ask the Holy Martyrs, if they had any Writings in their keeping 
(p) Dicas, aliquas Scripturas habeas? ●ron. An. 30●. §. 53. ? And the Canon of Arles is general, against all that had delivered up the Holy Writings 
(q) De his qui Scripturas Sanctas tradidisse dicuntur. Concil. Arcl. can. 13. An. 316. . Now, why should they so Constantly and Unanimously speak of more Books, if there had been no Book but a Bible? But further, some of the Acts of the Martyrs mention Volumes of Parchment, and other folded Books, besides the Bible 
(r) Baron. An. 303. §. 10. . In the Acts under Zenophilus, the Persecutors demanded, If they had any Writings of their Law, or any thing else in their Library 
(s) Ibid. §. 13. & 14. ? Now they had removed the Books before they came, conveying them to the Readers House, where at last they found 24 great and small Volumes, and in another House 8 Books, and 4 folded Tomes. Now certainly these were not all Bibles; no doubt, some of them were Books of Prayers, Hymns and Passions, or Names at least of Martyrs Writ out, as S. Cyprian had directed. Another of them was asked, If he had any Writing in his House 
(t) Habes ergo Scripturam aliquam in domo tuâ? Baron. An. 303. §. 50. ? Another was charged, to give up those Books, and whatsoever Parchments he had 
(u) Baron. An. 302. §. 120. : Finally, in the Examination of Irene, they charge her, with preserving a great many Parchments, Books, Tablets, Codicils, and Pages of Scripture, which had belonged to the Christians from the beginning. And she owns, that since the Edict to Burn all these, the Christians, to their great Grief, could not use them, Night and Day, as they had formerly done, but were forced to hid them 
(w) Baron. An. 303. §. 44. & 46. . Now when we consider the Christians Praying Thrice a Day at least, Morning, Noon and Night; and see so many sorts of Books reckoned up, which had belonged to them from the beginning, and were used Night and Day, before this cruel Edict; We cannot but imagine they were, the Catalogues of Martyrs, the Prayer-Books and Antiphonaries, Litanies and other Offices, used in their Divine Service, because they are reckoned up here distinct from the Pages of Holy Scripture. We conclude therefore, that it is a mere Dream of our Adversaries, to Fancy, the Christians than had no Books, but the Bible, since he Argues against matter of Fact; his Premises are utterly false, and therefore his Conclusion falls to the ground. As for his long Ramble, about the Heathens, tolerating very odd Opinions, concerning their Gods, but prohibiting new ways of Worship 
(x) Disc. of Lit. p. 17. etc. ; It is well known, that every Country then, had a several way of Worshipping their proper Gods; and many of these ways were allowed, and used in Heathen Rome: And so was the Christian Worship, under some Emperors; but I grant, and have proved, that when Persecution came, the Pagans searched for Liturgies, as well as Bibles; So that all his random Guesses, have only given me the occasion of clearing this Point, That the Christians had prescribed Forms, writ in Books and Parchments, folded or rolled up, even under the Heathen Persecuting Emperors.  
§ 5. We are now come to Finally, (which one would think was his last Argument,) If there had been any such Liturgies, they would have been made use of against the Errors, and for deciding the Controversies, with which the Church was exercised in those Ages, wherein we are concerned especially those two, that which opposed the Godhead of Christ, and that which asserted the Faithful, to be widow hout Sin 
(y) Disc. of Lit. p. 22. etc. : Which Argument I thus turn upon himself; If they were made use of against Heretics, and in these two Points, and by my Adversaries own Confession; then he must grant, there were Liturgies in those Ages. Now, my Adversary himself, in the same Page confesses, that S. Augustin mentions the public Prayers against Pelagius; and though he pretends, he doth not speak of them as a Form; I have under the title of Augustin, before, shown the falsehood of that pretence, and proved that he cited, and referred to the African Forms 
(z) Part. I. Chap. iv §. 21. . Again, my Adversary in the next Page, produces a passage out of Eusebius, to show, that Artemon an Heretic, who held Christ was a mere Man, was confuted by those Hymns, which were composed by the Brethren, in the beginning of Christianity, wherein Christ was praised as very God 
(a) Disc. of Lit. pag. 23. . Now Hymns were a great part of the Christian Liturgy, and therefore my Adversary hath utterly spoiled his own Argument, and proved that some parts of Liturgy were used to confute both the Heresies, he instances in. And since he Argues negatively, one or two positive Examples are enough to confute him, if there were no more; But I have showed, (and must not tyre my Reader, with that kind of Repetition, which I blame in him) That divers other Fathers, did use the words of the public Liturgies, against these and other Heresies; so doth Optatus Milevitanus cite them, to confute the Donatists 
(b) See this Hist. Part. I. Chap. 4. §. 10. ; S. Augustin to convince the Pelagians 
(c) Ibid. §. 21. pag. 228. ; S Hierom brings in the Gloria in excelsis, to expose the same Heretics 
(d) Hieron. count. Pelag. lib. 2. pag. 447. ; Celestin citys the Prayers for all Men 
(e) See Part. II. Chap. I. §. 5. , and Petrus Diaconus in Fulgentius, the Prayer of Consecration, to decide the Controversies of their Times 
(f) Ibid. Chap. II. §. 3. . So that his Antecedent is a notorious Falsehood, confuted by his own Confession, and by matter of Fact; and therefore his Consequence must be false. Yea, from these and other instances, we firmly prove, that there must be Liturgies in those Ages, in written Forms and certain words; which were generally owned to be of great Antiquity and Authority, at the time when they were produced in Controversies of Faith; because Extempore Prayers cannot be cited at all; and Novel Inventions must have been quoted to little purpose against obstinate Heretics, who openly opposed the Faith of the Church. But some perhaps may wonder, there are not more passages cited in the three first Ages, against the Heretics of those Times, our of Liturgies. To which I answer. There are but very few Writers of these Ages; and of those who did write, few of their works are come to our hands, and their Arguments are generally so obscure, that probably they may more frequently refer to their Liturgies, than we can easily observe; Besides, the Church was then unsettled, and it is probable those Heretics, who opposed its Doctrines, would not allow its Liturgy for a competent Judge, as we see in Paulus Samosatenus, who despised the Solemn Forms of Praise used at Antoch; as being made not long before his Time: and therefore the Fathers of those Ages, cited not the Liturgies so often, as they of the Fourth and Fifth Century did; when the long and Universal use of them had given them a greater Reputation, and a firmer Authority. However in the Second Century, we have showed that Irenaeus, brings in some Heretics, arguing from the Church's Forms 
(g) See Part. I. Chap. II. §. 3. , which proves prescribed Forms were then used as clearly, as if they had been cited against Heretics: We have also proved, that Gregory Thaumaturgus made a Liturgy in the midst of the Third Age 
(h) Ibid. Chap. III. §. 5. ; and by divers other Evidences, we have showed there were Liturgies, in these first three Centuries; which Point being fixed, we need not inquire nicely, how often they were cited against Heretics, who (for any thing I know) in those early Times, valued a passage of the Liturgies then in use, no more than our Dissenters do a Proof from our Common-Prayer-Book. But we see in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries in both which he affirms, they had no Liturgies, there are Quotations good store out of the public Forms, which is enough to spoil his Cause.  
§ 6. After his Finally, Page 22th, I thought he had done Arguing; but as if he knew not how to make an end, and could not stop in his full Career, we heave Further, after that Finally. And now he goes on, If there were such Liturgies, how comes it to pass, we meet with no Intelligence of any changing them, or alterations made in them 
(i) 〈…〉 Lit. pag. 25. ? But as if he had forgot his own Argument, he immediately tells us, he had met with Intelligence; That Paulus Samosatenus cast out from the Church of Antioch, those Hymns or Psalms, which were used to be sung there, in honour of Christ, (he might have added) and made new Forms of his own. Now this made a very great change in the Liturgy there; because wc may remember, the whole Christian Worship in Pliny, is described by Singing Hymns to Christ as God; so that some think, the greatest part of these Primitive Liturgies, consisted in these Hymns; and therefore, his casting out all these, was chaning more than half the Liturgy: And since these Hymns were written Forms, it is very probable, the Prayers were suitable to them, and were Forms also. Again, my Adversary meets with more Intelligence, viz. that the Arians altered the Gloria Patri, the Form of Baptism, and the Universally received Confession of Faith 
(k) Disc. of Lit. pag. 26. . Are not all these ancient Forms, and parts of Liturgy? And did not the Orthodox Fathers blame the Arians, for these bold attempts? Moreover, in the next Page, he finds that the Eutychians attempted to add two or three words to the Trisagion, an ancient and known Form, and a part of the Prmitive Liturgy, which the People were so unwilling to have altered, that the very attempting it, made a Tumult at Constantinople, and a Noise throughout the World. Why then, doth he pretend, he meets with no Intelligence? His Fallacy is this, he supposes a Liturgy, containing nothing but Forms of Prayer, (which is a mere Chimaera, a thing that never was in those Ages,) and because there is no mention of altering this Liturgy, but most of the Instances happen to be in Hymns and Forms of Praise, he supposes, that they never changed the Liturgy; that is, as he expounds it, the Prayers. But in this he is mistaken too; For the Reader may remember, how stiffly the Clergy and People of Naeocaesarea, opposed the making any change in their old Liturgy, drawn up by Gregory Thaumuturgus. He hath owned that Epiphanius, his changing the Form, by which they usually prayed for the Bishop before Sermon, made a very great Noise. And I have told him, that it is remembered how S. Basil changed and altered divers things in S. James his Liturgy, even in the Prayers; I have showed that Theodorus of Mopsevestia, rejected both those Liturgies, and made a new Office for the Communion, filled with Blasphemies instead of Prayers; and this in the beginning of the Fifth Century. So there were changes and alterations both in Prayers and Praises, and that sufficiently proves they had prescribed Forms: For Extempore and Arbitrary Prayers are daily varied, yea they are nothing else, but change and variety, so that it is impossible for any to observe any alterations in them; If the change be a thing taken notice of, and opposed or censured, it must be the change, or alteration of a known Form; and since such changes are noted, and were observed in those Ages, it evidently follows, they did use Forms, and no Extempore Prayers or Praises. And we may note by the way, that the Arians and other Heretics, did allow Christ to be our Mediator, and made Prayers to God the Father in his Name, which was the way of all ancient Liturgies: so that they had not so much Quarrel to that part of Liturgy, which was Petitionary or Deprecatory, as they had to the Laudatory parts, where they set out our Saviour, in the glory of his Divinity, and paid direct Worship to him; and for this reason, we meet with more attempts upon the Praises, than the Prayers. As for Maldonate's Saying, That such as changed Religion, did also change the Prayers, and every Heresy invented its own Prayers; which my Adversary citys pag. 25. He speaks only by guess, for if ever any old Heresy had any peculiar Forms of Prayer, the Father's long since burnt and destroyed them in a pious Zeal against their Errors: So that there are no Footsteps of them remaining, no nor any mention of the thing (that I can now remember) excepting the  Instance of that Heretic, Theodorus of Mopsevestia, who made a New Liturgy: And the Arian Goths, who (as we have showed) had so corrupted the Primitive Orthodox Liturgy, that Leander and Isidore had very great Trouble to Correct those Errors, and bring the People to change their Heretical for Orthodox Forms: But both the Nestorian and Arian Liturgies are long since abolished, and no Memory remains of them, but only that once there were such things. To conclude, There is intelligence of many Alterations made, or attempted to be made, either in whole Liturgies, or in eminent parts of them, even in the first Four or Five Centuries, and those Changes were noted, opposed and censured: Which shows, their Service could not be then in the Extempore, or Arbitrary way, because none could blame any Man for changing Prayers and Praises, if the Church gave Liberty to every Minister to vary every day, if he pleased, as my Adversary vainly supposes. This observation of, and opposition to Changes, is an undeniable Proof of known and prescribed Forms, that had been long and constantly used.  
§. 7. Though all these Arguments have been against Liturgies in general, and not one of them particular; yet he gins afresh with In general, and so falls to his topping Reason against Liturgies; viz. That they took themselves obliged to conceal the Symbols, Rites and Prayers, used in these Administrations from the sight of the Vninitiated, and therefore to be sure did not commit them to Writing 
(l) Disc. of Lit. p. 28. etc. . Now this Argument I have often considered, and sufficiently confuted in the First Part, under the Heads of those several Fathers (especially S. Basil) whom he brings to make out this gilded Sophistry; and therefore I will be the briefer in exposing it. We grant the Premises, and he need not have stuffed so many Pages to prove it; but he himself sufficiently confutes the Conclusion: For after he hath spent much time to prove, That the Heathens concealed their Mysteries and Religious Administrations, as well as the Christians 
(m) Disc. of Lit. pag. 30, & 31. ; And said expressly, concerning the Greeks and Romans, That they would not commit them to Writing 
(n) Ibid. p. 32. : At another place (needing a good Memory) he saith, That Among the Greeks Prayers were read out of a Book 
(o) Disc. of Lit. p. 122. ; and, That the Persian Magis read their Prayers out of a Book 
(p) Ibid. p. 123. ; That the Romans (besides the Sibyl's Books, their extraordinary Ritual) had also a Liturgy sent to them in Writing, by Apollo: He also mentions a Public Table wherein their usual Prayer was writ, and saith, That Scipio reform their Common-Prayer-Book 
(q) Ibid. p. 124. . We leave him or his Friends to reconcile these Contradictions: But being sure the Heathens did conceal their Mysteries, and yet write them in Books, and read them out of them: He must infallibly grant, That the Christians might both conceal their Mysteries, and yet write them in Books also, and read them out of them; and if the Christians (as he saith) learned of the Heathens to conceal their Administrations, they might also learn of them to write them in Books, and deliver those Books to the custody of the Clergy, to keep them from the sight of such as were not Initiated: And this sufficiently shows the weakness and falsehood of his Consequence, viz. That the Christians could have no Written Liturgies, because they concealed their Mysteries from the Uninitiated: But since he hath filled so many needless Pages upon this Subject, I will give some short Touches upon all that looks like Objection in each of them.  
First, He discourses, as if this Silence and concealing of Mysteries were to be restrained, especially to the Fourth and Fifth Ages 
(r) Disc. of Lit. pag. 28. . And the two Authors which furnished him with these Quotations, Dailé 
(s) Dail. de object. cult. lib. 2. cap. 25. , and Chamier 
(t) Chamier. Panstrat. Tom. 4. lib. 6. cap. 8. , both say, This sort of Niceness did not begin till the Fourth or Fifth Age. Now if this be so (and his Quotations generally fall within this Period) then for all this doughty Argument, the Chrians might have Written Liturgies for Three hundred years or more at the first, since they did not endeavour in those first and best Times, to conceal their Mysteries, as these Men think: Therefore we may have Precedents of prescribed Forms in the first Ages, though all this were true.  
Secondly, Their calling the Sacraments Mysteries, did not hinder them from Administering them in an audible Voice before the Faithful every day; and therefore this doth not prove, That they durst not commit them to Writing; for daily reading or speaking these Words in public with so loud a Voice, that all the Faithful might hear and answer, was much more a publishing them, than Writing them in Books committed to the custody of the Clergy: So that all that Margin which he heaps up 
(u) Disc. of Lit. pag. 29. , only proves. That they concealed them from the Unbaptized, who were turned out when these Mysteries began, as well as kept from seeing the Books, and so remained ignorant of the Solemn Words; but the Faithful were so well acquainted with the very Phrases and Expressions, that if the least hint were but given them in a Sermon before a promiscuous Auditory, it put them in mind of that Passage in the Offices which the Preacher hinted at: Which undeniably proves, they were known and usual Forms; and being such, they must of necessity be written down, otherwise such Variations would have been made, that no Appeal could have been made to the Faithful, concerning any part of the Office; because no Extempore Man now can appeal to his Congregation for his Words or Phrases, used some time before: Therefore they were Mysteries only with respect to the Uninitiated, but well-known Forms to the Faithful, and written down to prevent all Variation.  
Thirdly, As to the tedious Proofs of the Gentiles Secrecy 
(w) Disc. of Lit. pag. 30, 31, 32, & 33. , I have noted, that he owns they writ down these Mysteries; and pag. 32. he saith, That the Romans had a Book of their public Rites as old as King Tarquin 's Time; and that Valerius Max. mentions one, who was punished for letting an unconcerned Person Transcribe it: Which shows, how impertinent all these Quotations are to prove his Point; which is, That Mysteries must not at all be committed to Writing. Indeed, fearing this Consequence, he adds in the next Page, 33. If they did commit them to Writing, it was in such a Character, as none of the Vninitiated understood: But then he makes out nothing, but that the Egyptians described their Mysteries in such unintelligible Hieroglyphics; which doth not prove, that either Greeks or Romans writ them in such Figures; much less doth it show, that the Christians used any Hieroglyphics, to conceal their Mysteries; and therefore there is no reason, to argue from that Custom peculiar to Pagan Egypt, as if we might learn the Christian Usage from thence.  
Fourthly, The excluding the Catechamen from hearing the Prayers, and refusing to recite any Phrases of them in a Sermon made to a promiscuous Auditory, which he speaks of 
(x) Disc. of Lit. pag. 35, 36. , are very good Arguments, That these Offices were celebrated by prescribed Forms; which Words had they been suffered daily to hear in the Church, when the Administration was performed, or had often heard them in Sermons, they might easily learn and remember them. And it was, because they were prescribed, constant, invariable Forms, that they durst neither let them stay in the Church when they repeated them, nor openly mention them in a Sermon. Had they Officiated variously, and in his Extempore way, they might have stood by for Seven years, and heard the Sermons, in which some part of them was referred to; and there had been no danger of their learning them. And since we see the Heathens did write down their Mysteries, and make them known to the Initiated, the Christians might do so also, and yet keep them secret enough from the Unconverted, or Unbaptised; for they might as well keep them from seeing their Books of Mysteries, as to turn them out of the Church, to prevent their hearing them. And his instance of the Creed, pag. 37. proves this; for the Creed was written down and expounded in the Time of Cyril and Ruffinus, and yet then, and long after, it was kept secret from the Catechumen, till some small time before the Day of their Baptism; therefore every thing that was written was not published to the Uninitiated.  
Fifthly, Baronius doth not say, the Primitive Literae formatae were not drawn up in Writing: Spondanus indeed, his Epitomator, doth say something to that purpose 
(y) Disc. of Lit. pag. 38. c Spondan ●pit. An. 325. H. 44. ; but Baronius himself only saith, That the Council of Nice would not put the Words of these Form Epistles (the private Cognisances by which Stranger-Christians were known to be Catholics wherever they came) into the Canons of their Council. But he adds, They agreed upon a Form there, and setting down what it was, he saith, Such was the Form prescribed by the Fathers, for these Form Epistles 
(z) Baron. An. 325. §. 166, 167. pag. 32●. . But still it was a Secret, writ down then, but not published among the Canons, for fear the Heretics might get Copies, and deceive the Catholic Bishops thereby: Which was the very Case of Liturgies then; they were writ down, but kept secret from the Unbelievers, though at the same time they were known to all the Faithful. And for his alleging, pag 42. That Writing them out for many Ch●●●●●es must needs divulge them; The Form Epistles also were written out for every Bishop, and a Copy transcribed as often, as any of his Diocese was to Travel into a strange Country, by showing which to the Bishop of that remote City (who had a like Form written down beside him) this Stranger was admitted to Catholic Communion: So that these were Written often out, and yet kept secret from Heretics, as the Liturgies were also written out frequently, yet still kept from the sight and hearing of the Catechumen; or if any of them by chance came to the sight or knowledge of the Liturgick Forms (he confesseth pag. 43) that Man was immediately Baptised, and so obliged to keep all secret from those without: And as to what he saith there of the Pagans torturing Christians, to get out the Secrets of their Worship, that proceeding was over long before the Age wherein he saith this Secrecy was so strictly practised: And therefore he should not urge those Methods: But if we grant this Concealing Mysterios began sooner, there is no doubt, but the Faithful were taught to be as resolute not to publish their Mysteries, as they were not to deny their Faith; so that there was no danger of their being published by Tortures. Finally, If the People had all their Responses, and their part of the Liturgy by Heart (as they might easily have) there was no need of Writing out the Forms for them, as he insinuates, pag. 44. and so, that could be no occasion of publishing the Forms to Unbelievers. To conclude, There is nothing in this tedious Ramble of my Adversaries for 16 Pages together, which doth in the least prove, That the Christian Mysteries were not celebrated by Written Forms; and therefore there is nothing in it to his purpose, but on the contrary much of it tends to prove, That the Divine-Service was then performed by Prescribed Forms.  
§. 8. The next thing which looks like an Argument, is his deducing the Fathers Extempore Praying from their Extempore Preaching: For when he hath spent many Pages in proving, That Origen, Cyril, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Atticus, Hierom and Augustin, Preached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Extempore: He concludes at last in these Words, Thus they did Preach, and thus they might Pray 
(a) Disc. of Lit. pag 50— to pag. 60. . I Answer, He seems very dubious; he dare say no more, than It is possible they might Pray so: But still it is possible also, they might pray by Forms; and it is more than probable they did so, because this Author hath ransacked every Corner of Antiquity▪ and cannot produce one plain Evidence wherein any of these, or other Fathers, who are commended for Preaching thus, are either affirmed to have Prayed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Extempore, or commended for that Gift, which our Adversaries think was then, and is now one of the main Qualifications for the Ministry. We need not doubt, but if he had found any such thing, he would have brought it out with all imaginable Triumph and Ostentation: He that is forced to spend so much Paper to force two obscure Phrases into a Sense for his purpose, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and de Pectore; which do but remotely hint, That in the Ages of Inspiration, when Justin Martyr and Tertullian lived, they prayed without Book; How would he have triumphed, if he could have met with any plain Evidence of their Praying Extempore? This would have done his business at once, and gone far toward ending the Controversy: But when this Author cannot find one word of this, but is forced here to falsify Nazianzen most grossly, and pervert the Meaning of S. Ambrose (as was showed before) to make out a remote Conjecture; but he hath not one Positive Proof, no not here, where his Cause needed it so extremely; We may conclude there is no Evidence, that any of these Fathers did pray Extempore in Public; and thence it will follow, that after the Fourth Century began, the Gift of Prayer was ceased, and the Usage of the Church was to pray by Forms; yea, these very Fathers who preached Extempore, and so could have invented their Public Prayers as well as their Public Sermons, having acquired that Faculty; yet did not see fit to use it in their Addresses to God, because they considered the Greatness of His Majesty, and the Care and Caution to be used in speaking to Him, before whom Angels voil their Faces; their Sermons were only spoken to mortal Men, but their Prayers addressed to a Glorious, Immortal God; therefore they took freedom in the one, but durst not in the other: There they used holy and known Forms, not out of necessity, but choice; which shows their Judgement was, That Forms were the best way of Serving God, in public especially; and though they were better Qualified than our Dissenting Brethren for Extempore Praying, they rejected that Method. All this we have reason to believe from the Universal Silence, concerning Extempore Prayer in all these Ages, wherein we see, they do observe there was an use of Extempore Preaching; and if this Gift of Praying on the sudden had been so admirable a thing, and so necessary, to qualify a Man for the Ministry, 'tis impossible but there would have been some memorial of the use of it, and some of the Fathers must have been commended for excelling in it; but no such matter appearing, while yet there are plain and express Proofs of Liturgies; we conclude, that none then did use to pray Extempore in a Public Congregation.  
§. 9 After this he Argues from the Liberty the Ancients took, to use several Forms in Baptism with great variety; That they also used as much Liberty in their Prayers 
(b) Disc. of Lit. pag. 93. ; yet he tells us at first, That Tertullian saith, The Law of Baptism is imposed, and the Form prescribed by Christ 
(c) Lex namque tingendi imposit● est, & F●rma praescripta. Tertul de Bapt. cap. 13. , viz. in those words, Matth. xxviii. 19 Go teach all Nations, and baptise them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now it will not easily be believed, that the Holy Fathers, who took this prescribed Form to be a Law bound upon them by the Authority of Christ himself, should think themselves at liberty to alter this Form as they pleased, especially since we know the Ancients generally declared those Heretics Baptism to be null and void, who did not Baptise in this very Form of Words 
(d) Can. Apost. Can. 49. Cy●r ad Jubai. Epist. 73. Council Ni●end. Can. ult item Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 26. : Which is a strong Proof, that these Holy Fathers believed this Form to be invariable. Let us therefore see how he makes out the contrary. Why, First, his Text and Margin are full of Instances, to show, That the Fathers used the Word Baptizo in all Three Persons; I baptise thee, Be thou baptised, He is baptised; and that they use, Tingo, Mergo, and Mergito, as well as Baptizo (e). Having borrowed all his Quotations by Wholesale from Vossius and Vice comes 
(f) Voss Theses de Bapt. disp. 2. pag. 372. ●●c●●m. de v●t. Bapt. pag. 608. : But indeed the Inference, That therefore they took a Liberty to vary Christ's Form, is of his own inventing. And it is like the rest of his Sophistry: For the first Word, viz. Baptise, Christ doth not determine the Person in which it shall be used; for he speaks not to one that he was Baptising, but to his Disciples, and so expresses it by the Participle, viz. Baptising them, etc. upon which the Latin Churches used the First Person (when they performed this Office) I baptise thee; the Greeks generally used the Third Person, viz. M. or N. is Baptised, as Theodorus notes; but this was no altering Christ's Form; for that very Author there tells us, That the Water vanished out of the Font, when an Arian Bishop altered the Gospel Form, in Baptising one Barbas 
(g) Theodor. Lect. collect. pag. 187. . Nor is this difference of the Greek and Latin Church, any ground for the liberty which my Adversary pleads for, viz. the liberty for private Ministers to vary the Forms of their own Church, as they please: For no Bishop or Priest in the Latin Church was allowed to use the Third Person, nor did any in the Greek Church use the First; so that every Clergyman was bound to use the Forms prescribed in his own Country, and the Church of England doth not impose any more. Then as for his ridiculous ugring of the Father's using, Tingo & Mergo, etc. for Baptizo, we must note, that not one of his Instances, are any account of the words used in the Actual Administration of Baptism; he cannot show they used any word but [Baptizo] then: But his Proofs are out of the Father's occasional Discourses concerning Baptism, which they describe in their own words and phrases as it happens; even as we call this holy Action, Christening or Sprinkling the Child, as well as Baptising, in our ordinary Discourse: But would any Man, whose Head were right, infer from thence, That our Ministers, in the Act of Baptising, took liberty to say, I christian thee, or, I Sprinkle thee, etc. I am ashamed to confute such mean Sophistry! yet must add, That our Lord neither spoke Latin nor Greek, but a Language which was Hebrew mixed with Syriack; and it is strange, when His Words are to be turned into any other Language in our common Discourse, that we may not translate them by any significant Words: But this Liberty in ordinary Converse or Writing, is no manner of proof, That the private Ministers of any Church, may vary the Words used in their Offices, when they Administer the Sacrament of Baptism But he goes on to prove this liberty of Variation, by the Fathers sometimes saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and so also In nomen, or In nomine; In, or Into the Name of the Father, &c. 
(h) Disc. of Lit. pag. 96. ; wherein the Fallacy is the same as before: For his Authors cited are only discoursing of Baptism, not citing or reporting the very Words which they used in Baptising, and therefore they take this liberty: As if a Preacher or Catechist should in a Sermon or Exposition, say, Our Church Baptises Men into the Faith of the Holy Trinity, or in the Name of the Father the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier of all Men: This would not prove, that this Preacher or Catechist did not use the Words of the Church's Form when he actually Baptised, nor show that we have here no prescribed Form of Baptism. This is mere trifling. But his next Proof is disingenuous; for he Argues, That some Ancients thought they were not obliged to name the Persons of the Trinity, for if it was done in the Name of Christ it was sufficient; from whence he gathers, That such Fathers would neither impose Forms of Prayer on others, nor would observe what others had imposed on them 
(i) Disc. of Lit. pag 97, & 98. . Now here I must observe, that he hath again taken all his Instances by which he proves this, out of Vossius 
(k) Voss. Thes. de Baptism. Disp. 2. Thes. 5. pag. 370, ad pag. 379. : But that Learned Author was too generous to make any such false and frivolous Inference from those Premises, and doth not represent even the Premises themselves as my Adversary doth; for he tells us, That Irenaeus is not speaking of Baptism in that place (ad●. haer. lib. 3 c. 20.) which my Adversary citys, and that Justin Martyr (another of my Adversaries Witnesses, pag. 99) is not repeating, but only paraphrasing the Form of Baptism; so that there are no Ancient Fathers who allow this, but only S. Basil, and S Ambrose (who generally follows S. Basil in all things); nor do they speak of any Church, where such an Omission was permitted, or where Men were left at liberty to Baptise in what words they pleased: Only they put the case, if a man were so Baptised in Christ's name, whether he ought to be Baptised again; these two think he ought not; because Factum valet quod fieri non debet. But these two do not advise any so to Baptise, nor doth it appear, that ever they took this Liberty; they only Argue for the validity of such a Baptism, though it was done irregularly: Therefore these Fathers, and such later Men as followed them, were not for any Man's having liberty to alter the Form of Baptism, or the Prayers of the Church, as my Adversary pretends: Besides, Vossius there declares (which my Adversary conceals,) that more and greater Fathers, held that this alteration of the Form, made the Baptism invalid, viz. Tertullian and Cyprian, (who saith they were Heretics who altered the Form thus,) as also Didymus, S. Augustin, Fulgentius, Epiphanius and others 
(l) Vossij Thes. de Bapt. disp. 2. etc. p. 374, 375. . Now then, the most and best of the Fathers held it utterly unlawful to alter the Form of Baptism, and consequently (by his way of Arguing,) to alter the Liturgy or Prayers; and therefore most of the Fathers were against his pretended Liberty. And from this matter of Fact, Vossius observes, First, That mentioning the three Persons, is now, and hath been of old, the usage of the whole World; by which it is very probable, that it came at first from the Apostles 
(m) Vossius, ibid. p. 371. . Again, he notes, Though Baptism should be valid, though the words of this Form were altered; Yet, the old Form ought not to be innovated or changed, at every Man's pleasure. And if Christ had not tied us to a certain Form of Words; Yet it is much better to retain the old Form, which all Agree to be certainly right; but it is disputable and uncertain, whether any other Form be so or no: And surely, certain things are much to be preferred before uncertain 
(n) idem ibid. pag 379. . Thus this learned Man represents the Matter; and if my Adversary, who transcribed his Instances, had imitated his Ingenuity He could not have framed any Argument from hence, for his Liberty of varying Prayers; because he reckons his Liberty a Privilege, a Duty, and an advantage to the Worship: But this variation in Baptism was an irregular Fact, generally disliked, and censured, so as to make the very Office Null, or at least very liable to be counted so; it was an Illegal thing, seldom done, never commanded nor directed to be done; only when it was done, it was condemned by many and excused by very few: And suppose now, varying the Prayers, be such a Fact as this, is it Advisable or Eligible? No, the Comparison shows the taking such Liberty, would be an ill thing, for which scarce any would undertake to make an Apology: And so I have done, with his Comparison between Forms of Prayer, and the Form of Baptising.  
§ 10. His next Excursion is about the Creeds, and being decked in the Plumes he hath borrowed from Grotius, Vossius and Bishop Usher, he fills Four Pages with Pompous Margens, to dress up this Argument, viz. That in the Primitive Times, there was an Agreement in sense, not in Words as to the Creed itself; and he thinks, that they who left themselves and others, at so much Liberty in Forms of Creeds, would not limit themselves nor others, by Forms of Prayer. If the Apostles Creed be objected, he looks on Ruffinus his Relation to be a Fable; and saith, that no Writer for 300 years took notice of it: And since the Ancients would not be confined to this Creed, it argues, they would never be confined to Forms of Prayer composed by others; and he notes, that the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions hath set down a Form of Creed, different from that of the Apostles 
(o) Disc. of Lit. pag. 99, 100, 101, 102, & 103. . This is the sum of his Reasoning; Which when it is strictly examined, will all appear to be either mistaken or fallacious. He first directs us to Grotius upon Math. xxviii 19 where that Author brings in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, etc. using various Expressions, when they give an account of its several Articles. But Grotius his Inferences, which he citys in his Margin, pag. 100 are two. First, That when they say the Rule of Faith was immutable, they do not respect one certain Form of words, received in all places, but they respect the Force and meaning of the Interrogations. And Secondly, That Cyprians words seem to him to show, that the Creed or Rule of Faith in his time, was not yet tied to those words, in which it was afterwards found written; and yet it cannot be doubted, but the Sense of it was always the same 
(p) Grot. Com. in Math. XXVIII. 19 p. 288, & 289. . Now though Grotius here be not so just, (perhaps) as he ought to be, to the Antiquity of Creeds, and being a Modern Author, his Affirmation in this weighs no more, than his Instances prove: Yet, I will wave that Dispute, and for the present admit what he saith were true, and then make Parallel between Creeds and Liturgies. And in his First Inference, he only saith, That when the Ancients use various ways of expressing their Faith, they do not refer to one certain Form of Words, received in all places, but only to the force and meaning of the Interrogations: Which shows, Grotius did not think (as my Adversary grossly doth,) That every one of the Ancients in the places cited, pretended to repeat the very Form of the Creed; but only to show the main Doctrines of it, which in these occasional Discourses, is all that we can expect: And therefore the variety of expressions doth not prove, there was not one Form of Creed, but that these Fathers, in these places do not refer to that Form. Yet, Secondly, These Fathers all lived within 250 years after Christ; and if we grant to Grotius▪ that then there was not one Form of Creed, every where received, we may allow the Parallel with Liturgies, and suppose that in Cyprian and Novatian's Time, and so upwards to Tertullian, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, there was not one Form of Liturgy, every where received; yet for all this Liturgies might be used and received before the year 300, that is, before the quiet settlement of the Christian Church 1400 years ago, and above 200 years before my Adversary allows them to have come in. And this also is all that can be inferred from his words, in the second Passage, viz. That in S. Cyprians time, the Creed was not tied to that Form of words, wherein it is found written down afterwards. Though▪ he speak this modestly and only say, it s●ems so to him: Yet let it be supposed true and certain, and then make the Parallel, and no more will follow from thence but this, That the Liturgies of the Church, were not written down in so many words, in the year 250, as we find them written in afterwards. Now this being in the Ages of Persecution, and while the Miraculous Gifts lasted; it will not prove, that because the Church then had no such Form of written Liturgy, therefore, now when the Church is settled, and Inspiration ceased, we neither need, nor aught to have such a Form.  
In the next Page, in the Margin he grants, the Creeds had more stated Forms in the Fourth Century; though even then, the Creeds of several Cities, in the same Country, were not uniform, and he instances in Rome, Aquileia, and Ravenna in Italy, referring us to Vossius and Bishop Usher 
(q) Disc. of Lit. Marg. p. 101. . And a little after he saith, it was not put into set Form till the Fourth Age or near it, but the Forms varied in several places, in the same Country. Now because the Antiquity of Creeds, is not our business here, we will also for the present suppose this to be true: And then if I may Argue from the History of Creeds to that of Liturgies, (as he evidently doth) the Consequence will be, That Liturgies were put into set Forms, somewhat before the beginning of the Fourth Age, though those great Churches, which were at that time independent of one another, (though in the same Country) as Aquileia, and Ravenna in Italy, which then were not subject to Rome, had some difference in the Words and Phrases, as also in the Order and Method of their Liturgies. But as the Roman Creed, was imposed upon all those Churches, which were under the Pope's Jurisdiction, properly so called; and the Aquileian Creed, and that of Ravenna, were respectively imposed upon all the Church's subject to these two great Metropolitans; So it must follow, (if Liturgies and Creeds kept pace, as he supposes) that the Roman Liturgy was imposed on the Roman Clergy, and those of Aquileia and Ravenna upon the Clergy subject to those Churches: And then my Adversaries whole Book, (which is written to assert, that Liturgies were not imposed before the end of the Fifth, or beginning of the Sixth Age, that is, 200 year after) is false and utterly wrong: And then also the Church of England, both in composing a Form and imposing it, imitates a very pure Age of the Church; viz. The time a little before the beginning of the Fourth Century, or thereabouts, and hath the Prescription of 1400 years, to justify her in both: But because his main Author is Vostius, we will here observe, what that learned Man freely owns as to Creeds, viz. That there was a ●orm in the Oriental Church, very like to that which is called the Apostles Creed, long before the Council of Nice. And this which we call the Apostles Creed, was the Roman Form, b●f●re the time of that same Council; and the Creed of Aquileia differed from this, but very little 
(r) Vos●. de trib. lymb diss. 1. §. ●0. pag. 24. . Again, he saith, these Forms were not made by any General Council, and were so old in Ruffinus his time, that they were taken to be Apostolical 
(s) Ibid. §. 45. pag. 31. . And the Church of Jerusalem had a Form which seems to have been elder than any of them, being explained by S Cyril, An. 350. and then delivered as from a very ancient Tradition 
(t) Ibid. §. 51. pag. 34. . And both he and Grotius (who fancy the Creed consisted at first of no more Articles than those of the Trinity) do believe the remaining Articles about the Catholic Church, the Remission of Sins, the Resurrection of the Body, and the Life everlasting, were added as early as Tertullian's Time: So that if these Author's Conjectures be allowed, then there were Forms of Creeds in every great and eminent Church before the Third Century began. From whence I thus Argue in my Adversaries own way, and almost in his very words; It is not probable that they, who had a Creed in a Set Form in every Principal Church, and did impose this Form to be learned and used by all that were Admitted Members of that Church by Baptism, even before the Third Century, should not also have their Set Forms of Prayer, to the use of which all the Members of that Church, and all under its Jurisdiction were obliged. How credible and likely is it, that they who did not leave their Creed at liberty, also did not allow Arbitrary Prayers? Since Heresies might creep in by the way of Extempore Prayers and Hymns, as easily as by the use of various and arbitrary Creeds; If they thought it requisite to limit the Rule of Faith, for this Reason, there was the very same Reason to Limit the Prayers, Supplications, laud's and Litanies 
(u) See the Disc. of Lit. p. 102, & 103. . This is his way of Arguing upon a false Supposition, That the Creed was not in a Set Form in the First Ages: Wherefore since it appears by his own Authors, that it was in a Set Form, in or before the Third Century, he must allow this to be a firm Argument against him.  
It is nothing to my Question, to enter into the Controversy, Whether the Apostles themselves made that Creed which goes under their Name: But after I have considered all that Vossius, etc. have said in this Matter, I am verily persuaded, That the Apostles themselves did make one Form of Faith at first, but did not commit it to writing, because it was to be taught orally to every Christian at his Baptism, and kept as the Cognizance, to distinguish between Heretics and true Believers: and the likeness of all the ancient Forms to one another, shows, they had one and the same Original at first, and were derived from the first Planters of Christianity: As for the variety between these ancient Forms in several Churches, it was the natural and necessary effect of delivering it Orally, which in distant Countries, and in tract of Time by passing through divers hands, must needs produce some small difference in the Order and Words; and that shows, That Oral Tradition is not so safe a way to convey Articles of Faith, as Writing; and though the Apostles had left the Scripture to be a standing Rule, to secure the Creed from any dangerous Corruption, yet it was necessary to have this short Form besides, to teach the Candidates for Baptism: But if the Reader desire to see this more fully proved, I refer him to a Learned Book writ by a very Worthy Author, Mr. G. Ashwell, Wherein (both by Arguments and evidence of Antiquity) it is strongly and clearly made out, that this Creed was made by the Apostles themselves 
(w) 〈◊〉 Apo●●●, or ● Discourse a●●●ting the Ant●●s and Aut●● 〈…〉 Creed, P inted at O●●a, 1683. . And there it may be seen how bold my Adversary is, to give Ruffinus the Lie, since all the Writers of that Age generally agree in the same thing: There also it appears, that my Adversary is grossly mistaken in affirming, that the Ancients took no notice of this Creed for above 300 Years. As for his Arguing, That the subsequent Creeds varying from it, shows, they did not own that to be Apostolical, especially since they preferred their own Forms before it, on the most solemn occasions 
(x) Disc. of L●t. 〈…〉 , it proceeds upon a Mistake: For Vossius owns, that the later superadded Creeds were only taken to be Commentaries on the Former, and clearer explications of such Articles as the Heretics had attempted to pervert; and he shows, that they did not cast off, nor disuse the ancient Form when they made these New ones: They kept the Apostles Creed still, and used that in the most solemn Office of Baptism: Yea, they gave it the precedence before all other Creeds; and therefore the Third General Council says, They received in the first place, the Creed delivered to them by the most Holy Apostles, and then the Confession made by 318 Holy Fathers in the City of Nice 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Act. Concil. Ephesin. Bin. Tom. I. par. 2. pag. 415. . Wherefore this was used and reckoned in the first place, even after other Creeds came in. Finally, He need not wonder, that the Creed in the Constitutions, is not the same with that which we call the Apostles; because no Man pretends now, that the Apostles made those Constitutions. The Creed found there (as we have showed) is the Apostles Form, as it was varied at Antioch about the Year 330, which Daillé owns to be the Time when that Clemens writ the Constitutions 
(z) Daill. praef. ad Dissert. de relig. cult. objecto. , (not the Year 500, as my Adversary falsely pretends 
(a) Disc. of Lit. pag. 111. . Now it is no wonder that the same Form in 300 Years time should be varied as much in two several Churches so far distant, as Rome and Antioch; especially when it was conveyed for the most part of that time only by Oral Tradition. To conclude, The Apostles shown the way of making Forms of the things to be believed, and if the Parallel hold between Creeds and Liturgies, than we have reason to believe they first Composed Forms also, for the things to be asked of God in Prayer, and to be spoken to his Honour in Praises: Which first and Apostolical Forms are the foundation and ground of all the several Liturgies in great and eminent Churches, which (like their Creeds) agree in the main Essential parts, and have so much likeness, as to persuade us they all came from one Original Form at first; but tract of Time and distacne of Place caused some differences in the Order and Phrases in distant Churches: But so, that all the Members of every great Church were obliged to learn the Creed of that Church where they received their Baptism, and also to use the Forms of that same Church, in whose Communion they lived. And this may suffice for his Consequences drawn from the Primitive Creeds; because it is nothing to our purpose when they came to be used first in the Communion Office, forasmuch as he grants they were used in the Office of Baptism from the beginning.  
§ 11. He concludes this Set of Arguments by a large and tedious digression, about the Variety used in the Form of Renouncing the Devil in Baptism; and here again he fills his Margin with the Names of near twenty Ancients, who speak of this Form of Renunciation in different Words, by which he hopes to prove, That this Form was arbitrary, since not only divers Churches differed therein, but the Authors who lived in the same Church, yea, the same Author in several places of his Works expresses it variously. And then comes his Inference, That if they were not limited to a Set Form of Words in this Sentence, none can believe they were, or would have suffered themselves to be confined to an invariable Form of Words in Praying at Baptism 
(b) Disc. of Lit. pag. 105, 106, 107, 108, & 109. . Now, if we should grant his Consequence did follow from these Premises, than we must expect at least, that the Premises shall be fully proved; but we shall show, that he hath not made them out sufficiently: For first, the greater part of his Authors do not pretend to recite the Form, but are only applying the Duty, in occasional Discourses; for which I need no other Evidence, but to desire the Reader to consult the Places he produceth out of Origen, Ephrem Syrus, S. Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Pseudo Dionysius, Justinian, Optatus, S. Cyprian, S. Augustin in the two later places, and S. Hierom: These Fathers in Homilies and practical Discourses speak of the thing, and press the Obligation; but do not pretend to repeat the words; they express them in their own Phrases, and therefore no wonder if they differ. Secondly, Many of these Witnesses do not speak of the whole Renunciation, but some of the Renouncing the Devil only, others only of Renouncing the World, as the Subject, upon which they were treating, required; and it is strange that he should cite these Authors, to make out a difference in the whole Form, when one speaks of one part of it, and another Author treats of another part. Thirdly, Most of these Authors not only lived in several Ages, but belonged to several distant Countries, and were Members of Churches which had some difference in the Phrases and Orders of their whole Liturgy; and therefore their differing in the Words or Syllables of this Renunciation, doth not prove they had no Set Forms of Prayer in any Church; but only that several great Churches had some Variety in their Forms, which we freely grant, and it cannot hurt our Cause, since all were limited to use the Forms of their own Church: Thus Origen belonged to Alexandria, Constantine's Edict was forged at Rome, Cyril was of Palaestina, Basil of Cappadocia, Salvian of France, Pseudo-Dionysius of Laodicea, Clemens of Antioch, Justinian of Constantinople, Tertullian of Africa, and S. Ambrose of Milan. Now we have proved, that there was a Variety between the Liturgies of these distant Churches in many particulars, and therefore it is not strange they should differ in expressing the Syllables of the Renunciation, supposing every one of them had been repeating the Form of his own Church. Yet, Fourthly, Those of the same Country, and espcially those of the same Church do either agree, or come as near one another, as can be expected from Men, who are rather describing than repeating the Form. Thus Ephrem-Syrus and Cyril of Jerusalem do agree exactly, both of them, no doubt, referring to the Form used in Palaestina: Salvian twice mentions this Form in the same words, referring to the Liturgy of the Gallican Church; and S. Chrysostom differs very little from Justinian, because both had respect to the Constantinopolitan Form, and that of Antioch related in the Constitutions, is very near it: So Tertullian and S. Augustin, where they speak closely, do exactly agree in the African Form. And it is very probable, that Constantine's Edict refers to the Roman Form, Basil to that of Naeocoesarea, and S. Ambrose to that of Milan. Now if each of these great Churches had a certain Form, to the use of which all that belonged to it were obliged, then probably they had also such a Form for other Prayers. And, Fifthly, it is very plain that every great Church had such a Form, because the Fathers do very often charge those who were Baptised, to remember the very words in which they made this Renunciation; so doth S. Ambrose 
(c) Quid interrogatus es, recognosce; Quid responderis. Ambros. de iis quae initiant. cap 2. , and S. Chrysostom 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. in 2 Cor. hom. 2. p. 555. . Now this Charge had been ridiculous, and had required an Impossibility, if the Words were arbitrary, and every one of them had made the Renunciation in a different Form of Words. I conclude therefore, That every Great Church had one certain Form, and all of them were so like, that they must come from one Original at first; and it was only length of Time, and distance of Place, that had made the small Variations between the Forms of several eminent Churches: Which also was the Case of Liturgies in general, and of the whole Baptismal Office, as well as of this peculiar part of it. We have now done with all his Arguments of this kind, and will leave the Reader to judge of the Modesty and Truth of those mighty Brags, which he makes of the narrow search he hath made into Antiquity, and the full Answer he hath given to all that either he could meet with, or that others had produced on Behalf of Liturgies, whose Primitive Original and general Use is but more cleared by all his Objections against them.  
§. 12. My Adversary concludes his Book, first, by fixing the Period when Liturgies did come in; and, secondly, by a most odious Representation of that Age: For the first, he concludes, That for Five hundred years after Christ (if not more) the ordinary way of Worshipping God in public Assemblies, was not by prescribed Liturgies 
(e) Disc. of Lit. pag. 181. . The falsehood of which Conclusion, this whole Discourse hath sufficiently discovered: And his not being able to produce one clear Proof, That Extempore Prayer was the way of Worshipping God in public in all this Period, gives me reason more justly to conclude, That for Five hundred years and more after Christ, that kind of Praying was not used in Christian Assemblies; Because (to use his own words) if there had been such a Way of Praying used constantly in all Churches, for so long a time together, there would have been such clear Evidence of it in many of the Ancients, that there might have been had as full proof thereof, as of any one thing; and especially when this Author and his party have been searching so narrowly in Antiquity for this, and are sensible how much their Cause is concerned in it; and yet here is nothing produced that is positive or express 
(f) Disc. of Lit. pag. 179, 180. . However, let us (for once) suppose that Extempore or Arbitrary Praying was the Usage of the Church for Five hundred years together, or more, and that then Liturgies began to be imposed: This was a remarkable and mighty change in the Public Service of God, the restraining of a Liberty, which we must suppose the Christian Priests and People had enjoyed down from the Time of the Apostles. Now this could not have been done in an Age wherein there were so many eminent Writers, and so many zealous Assertors of Apostolical Usages, but it must have made a great noise in the World; some would have complained of and written against this daring Innovation, and (as our Dissenters count it) bold usurpation upon men's Consciences, and manifest quenching of the Spirit. But my Adversary (though very quick sighted) can find nothing of this Matter, he hath not one Quotation to this purpose: There is an absolute Silence in all Authors of these Ages; none claimed this pretended ancient Right, none complained that it was taken from them; nor did any so much as take notice of this eminent and public Alteration; which undeniably proves there was no such Change then made; and shows, that prescribed Forms had been used in the foregoing Ages, and continued in this Century as they were before. My Adversary hath noted what Seditions happened in divers Churches, and what Noise was made over all the Christian World, upon a small alteration in an ancient Form; and is it likely all People would be so quiet and silent, when the whole Manner of God's public Service was changed at once? When we charge the Roman Church with the novelty of her Corruptions, we prove that Accusation, by showing, That such as lived before that Corruption came in, believed or practised otherwise: That such as lived when it was coming in, opposed it and writ against it; and many refused to submit to it, after it was come in, as in the case of Images. But in this unjust Charge no such thing is made out; wherefore we conclude, That Liturgies are neither a Corruption, nor an Innovation; but the Pure and Primitive Way of the Christians public Worship.  
But, Secondly, he is so confident that Liturgies were brought in and imposed about the Year 500, that he spends 17 Pages together (which is all the rest of his Book) in vilifying that Age; and to this end he rakes together a mighty heap of Quotations, to expose the Bishops and Clergy, and indeed all the People of those Times, the design of which is (besides the gratifying his Illwill to the Sacred Order of Episcopacy) to show, That since the Governors of the Church, and the whole Age, was so extremely bad and degenerate, when Liturgies first were imposed; therefore they are a Corruption, and the Use of them is by no means to be approved. But he hath managed this odious Charge with so much Spite, and so many Fallacies, That though his gross misdating the Original of Liturgies, makes all this to be nothing to our Question, yet I cannot shut up this Discourse, till I have showed, First, the weakness of this Argument, suppoposing the Premises were true; And, Secondly, the many Fallacies and Mistakes that appear in his managing of it, and in the Instances which he brings to make it out.  
First, The Argument itself is trifling, and the Reasoning very frivolous upon Two Accounts. For,  
First, No wise Man will say, that every thing must be Evil which is begun in an ill Age: No Times were worse than those wherein our Lord began to Preach the Gospel; no People wickeder than the Jews at that Time. The Northern Nations were bloody and barbarous, cruel and  to the highest Degree, when the Scripture was first Translated into the Gothic Tongue: And King Alfred's Age was extremely Ignorant, and notoriously Vicious; yet than the Gospels, and other excellent Books, were translated into Saxon. The Reformation itself was begun in an Age when the generality of the Clergy and Laity both were as destitute of Learning as they were of Virtue: But how ridiculous would he be, that should disparage the Reformation, the Translating of Holy Scripture, and the Gospel itself, by haranguing upon the Times when these things first appeared in the World? There have been many Ill things brought in even in good Times, and many Good things in bad Times; so that there is no Arguing from this Topic with any solidity or certainty; indeed, if he had proved, that these Evil Men brought in Liturgies, and none but Evil Men used them, and submitted to them; that had been something to the purpose. Now this we might do, as to his Dear Way of Extempore Prayer: For the Directory was first set up and enjoined here in a Time of Rebellion and Sacrilege; in a Time wherein there were more vile Hypocrites, and profligate Wretches, under the Mask of Religion, than ever were known in this Nation in any Age before; which is largely made out by very many Books then Writ, which beyond contradiction declare the Matter of Fact to be true 
(g) See Edward's Gangrena, in three Parts. History of Independency. Mercurius Rusticus, etc. . Yea, I could prove, That divers who promoted this New Way of Praying, and pretended to the Gift in a most extraordinary degree; were tried, and upon full proof convicted of the blackest Crimes that Men or Women could possibly commit, such as Witchcraft, Incest, and other Sins not to be named, and suffered Death for them 
(h) Mrs' 〈◊〉 in the Counte●n me, ●he●●. M●●●r Weer in Ra●●● realrivus. ; which is more concluding against Directories, and Extempore Praying, than any thing he urges against Liturgies. But I will not insist upon so odious and ungrateful a way of Arguing.  
Secondly, There never was any Age, of which the Good Men then alive did not complain, as much degenerated, and represent as worse than any of those that went before it; which is very learnedly proved, and the Reasons of it shown in the ingenious Apology of Dr. Hakewell 
(i) Hakewel's Apol. Book 4. chap. 1. §. 1, &. 2. . Now though the Zeal of the Complainers, and their good Design, may go far to excuse them; and the general Depravity of too many in all Ages, make these Invectives to be in a great measure true; yet it is very weak or malicious, from these Pious Complaints heaped up together (without any mention of what was good) to pretend to give a just Character of any one Age: For I will undertake, by this fallacious Method, to represent any Age since our Saviour was born, as ill as he hath done this, wherein he (by mistake) supposes Liturgies did come in: But I rather choose to Answer him with the excellent Remarks of Seneca; who told Lucilius, You are mistaken (my Friend) if you think Luxury and neglect of Good Manners, which every one objects to his own Times, are peculiar to our Age: These are the Faults of Men, not of Times. No Age hath been free from Crimes; and if you could judge of the Badness of any Times by this; I blush to say it, but it is true, there were never bolder Wickednesses done, than in Cato 's Age 
(k) Erras, mi Lucili, si existimas nostri seculi esse vitrum luxuriam & negligentiam boni moris, & alia quae objicit quisque suis temporibus, Hominum sunt ista, non temporum, etc. Senec. Ep. 97. pag. 177. . And again he saith, Our Forefathers complained of this, we complain of it, and our Posterity will complain of it also 
(l) Hoc majores nostri questi sunt, hoc ros qu●r●mur, hoc pesteri nostri querentur. Senec. the benef. lib. 1. cap. 19 . I shall add to this the like account, which one of our own Writers gives of this way of Arguing, which some of the Romanists used against him. I mean the Pious and Learned Bishop , We know (saith he) that in the Times of the Apostles, there were Christians who made the Name of our Lord be blasphemed, and abused among the Gentiles. The Emperor Constantius, in Sozomen, complains, That many were worse after they became Christians, than ever they were before. Cyprian also in a doleful Discourse, sets out the Corruptions of his own Times thus: That Discipline (saith he) which the Apostles delivered, is corrupted by Idleness and a long Peace: All study to enlarge their Patrimony, and forgetting both what the Believers under the Apostles did, and what they always ought to do, mind nothing, but to gratify their insatiable desire of increasing their Estate: There is no Religion in the Priests, no sincere Faith in the Deacons, no Charity in their Deeds, no regularity in their Manners; Men disguise their Beards, and Women paint their Faces. And before him, Tertullian saith, O how miserable are we who are called Christians, and yet to this very hour act like Pagans under the Name of Christians 
(m) Juelli Apologia. pag. 65. ! By this, and much more which might be added upon the same Subject, it appears to be a poor shift and woeful piece of Sophistry, to pick up all the Complaints of any one Age, made by Good Men, thereby to disparage that Time, and expose those Institutions which were then begun or continued; at this rate we see the best Ages and wisest Practices may be misrepresented, by any one whose interest it is, to reflect either upon the Persons or Things relating to any Century, since our Saviour's Days.  
In the next place we will consider his managery of this Argument, which looks so big upon unwary Readers; and this we will examine first in the general, and then in the several particulars.  
First, In the general, He assigns the Year 500, or some time, after that for the true Point when Liturgies began to be imposed; but the poor Gentleman was so blinded by his Prejudice, and so rash in the choice of his Instances, by which he would make out the corrupt state of that Age wherein he supposes Liturgies first came in, that all the particular Authors cited in these 16 or 17 Pages (except S. Gregory, quoted in the last Page) were dead before the Year 500, or at least writ before that Period of 500 Years after Christ (which falls in the Year of our Lord 533): Which will be best made out by a particular Catalogue of his Authors and their Ages, in this Order: 

Damasus, An. Dom. 366, cited pag. 192  
Basil— An. Dom. 30, cited— 192  
Nazianzen, An. Dom. 370, cited— 192  
S. Ambrose, An. Dom. 374, cited p. 192, 193  
Theophilus Alex. An Dom. 385, cited p. 194  
S. Augustin, A. D. 396, cited p. 184, 185, 196  
S. Chrysostom, A. D. 398, cited p. 181, 182, 183, 186 187, 193, 198.  
Aurelius Carthag A. D. 401, cited p. 195  
Isidor. Peleusiota, A. D. 412, cited p. 182, 185, 186, 187, 193, 195  
Zosimus Papa, A. D. 417, cited pag. 189  
Theodoretus Hist. A.D. 423, cited p. 184  
Socrates Hist. An. Dom. 440 cited p. 188  
Prosper Aquitan. A.D. 444, cited p. 190, 191  
Concil. Chalcedon. A.D. 450, cited p. 196  
Leo Imperator, An. Dom. 460, cited p. 197    
By this Table it appears, that the eldest of his Authors lived in the middle of the Fourth Age, and the last in the middle of the Fifth; the first was 134 years, and the last 40 years before the Year 500: So that unless they had the Spirit of Prophccy, they could not give any account what would be the state of the Church in that Age, which he designs to expose: And therefore all this is random Shot, or aimed at a wrong Mark, and can serve no other end, but only to gratify those who take pleasure in hearing of the Ignorance or Vices of the Clergy. For if that Age, which these Authors describe, were not the Age when Liturgies were first imposed, than all this Harangue is wholly impertinent to the matter in question: Only thus much perhaps we might infer from it, That if these Centuries which my Adversary hath so blackened, were before the imposing of Liturgies; then he (no doubt) believes there were no other Prayers used at that time, but such as were either Arbitrary or Extempore: whence it will follow, that all these proud, tyrannical, ignorant, vicious, superstitious and scandalous Priests and Bishops (according to his calculation) prayed Arbitrarily and Extempore, which will be as little for the credit of his Method of Praying, as he meant it should be for the honour of our Way. I have only one thing more to add, viz. That in other parts of his Book, and in a better humour, he gives a tolerable good Character of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, which he so grossly disparages here; for he saith, Many there were excellently accomplished in the Fourth Age, and some till about the middle of the Fifth: So that it would be much for the Credit of Liturgies if they could be found, while there was any thing of such Eminency in the Church 
(n) Disc. of Lit. pag. 155. . And again a little after, Diligent and frequent Preaching was the happiness of the Fourth, and part of the Fifth Age, and its security was the excellency of those Bishops, who were the lights and ornaments of those Times 
(o) Disc. of Lit. p. 190. . So that for aught I know, this Age was a good one, for all this long Character of its degeneracy, and (if I had a mind) I could fill as many Pages in its commendation, as he hath done in its disgrace; and therefore if Liturgies had come in then, it had been no hurt, no nor any disreputation to them: However this Argument, thus managed, could not injure them.  
Secondly, As to his formidable number of invidious Quotations, I have taken the pains to examine them all; and besides, that jumbling of Authors and Times, and repeating the same Instances twice or thrice, which is his usual way of proceeding, I dare assure the Reader, there are some of them falsely cited, more of them misapplied, and most of them impertinent; and though I doubt it will be a little tedious, yet I will make some short Remarks upon them, by which it will appear, that these Instances thus cited and applied, give a worse Character of him that produces them, than they do of the Age intended to be blackened by them.  
Pag. 181, etc. If the Church were in so bad a state, in, and long before S. Chrysostom's Time (as that Father piously complains) I would fain know when it was in a good state? Wherefore this must be taken for Rhetoric, and the effect of his Zeal against divers evil Men, not for a strict and universal Character of the Age; As we may learn from Isidore of Peleusium (who Wrote within 20 years after S. Chrysostom's Time, and was his Scholar) in an Epistle cited by my Adversary very often (though he omits this Passage) who admires this Age which S. Chrysostom condemns, and saith, There were Bishops then, who were lovers of Virtue, averse to Honour, delighting in Poverty, and Fearing God 
(p) Isidor. Pel. lib. 5. epist. 21. pag. 559. . So that these holy Men blamed their own Times, and commended the former, and no Argument can be drawn from these pieces of popular Oratory.  
Pag. 182. Isidore of Peleusium (who is so often cited) was a pious, but discontented Monk, living under the Jurisdiction of Theophilus; his dear Master, S. Chrysostom's mortal Enemy; and he was further provoked by one Eusebius, a very ill Man, who was Bishop of that Diocese where his Monastery stood, and by the profligate Lives of Zosimus and two other wicked Priests, ordained by the said Eusebius; and therefore he doth not speak of the Church in general (which a retired Monk could not be supposed to know) but in most of the Quotations he refers only to Theophilus and Eusebius, and some ill Clergymen in that Province; yet my fraudulent Adversary still applies these Passages, as if he spoke of all the Bishops and Priests in the World. As for the place here cited first, Isidore blames a Schism which had then happened for all the Evils which were broken in upon the Church; and he adds, that they had now lost all the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉), Gifts of former Ages 
(q) Isid. Pel. lib. 3. ep. 480. pag. 410. ; so that it seems the Gift of Prayer was then gone. The next Quotation out of Isidore 
(r) Id. lib. 2. ep. 5. pag 128.  only shows, that the Apostles Times were far better than those he lived in, nor doth he there blame any body, but himself, and so it is nothing to the purpose.  
Pag. 183. The next Page contains nothing but his affirmation, That the Service of God was more corrupt than when it was first instituted. Origen indeed shows, how the Pagans had corrupted it by their Idolatry, etc. which he applies to the Christian Church above 200 years after Origen's Death; and S. Chrysostom is not at all speaking of Religious Worship: In Matth. hom. 50. pag. 323.  
Pag. 184. S. Augustin is twice cited, as if he blamed the Church of his Time, for prescribing numerous Rites and imposing them; yet he lived 100 years before my Adversary allows there was any thing prescribed or imposed: But if we consult his Words, it will appear that S. Augustin is only speaking of Corrupt Practices, observed with great exactness by the Superstitious Vulgar not enjoined by the Church: Aug. ad Jan. Ep. 119. cap. 19 idem de morib. Eccles. lib. 1. cap. 34. It was these ignorant and superstitious People who began to venerate Pictures and Sepulchers, for which the Church reproved them: And if Petrus Gnapheus did (as he pretends) put in the name of the Virgin into the Prayers, An. 483. He was a declared Heretic, and his Fact ought not to be charged upon the Orthodox, who did not imitate him therein: But Forms had found Entertainment long before this.  
Pag. 185, 186. He fills his Margin with Isidore's Complaints of Theophilus and Eusebius, and some others in those parts, as if Prelacy had degenerated, and the Bishops grown Tyrannical all the World over: And he generally breaks off his fraudulent Quotations just at those Words, which Isidore puts in, to declare, he doth not speak of all the Bishops and Clergy, no not in that Province: So he leaves out— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
(s) Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 21. which place is again so cited. pag. 187. , These things I do not speak of all. Thus he writes horrid Corruption of the Clergy 
(t) Ibid. lib. 5. ep. 131. ; but will not quote those words— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For all are not fallen into this Gulf. Again, he citys another Epistle for a general Accusation; where he might have found a large Encomium of one Clergyman, and this limitation. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do not accuse all 
(u) Idem lib. 3. ep. 223. . And he might, if he pleased, have seen a very high Character of Hermogenes, a Bishop of that Age and that Country 
(w) Idem lib. 5. ep. 448. p. 466. : But his omitting all these, shows he designedly perverted this Author to represent the Bishops and Clergy of this time, as being generally depraved; which argues my Adversary, to be as destitute of Integrity, as he was of Charity. I need not observe, that his Quotation out of S. Chrysostom; is no more but a just description of the Episcopal Office, without any complaint 
(x) Chrysost. hom. 37. Tom. 6. . Nor that Isidore in the next place cited, is only speaking of the  evil Bishops and Clergymen 
(y) Isid. Peleus. lib. 5. ep. 272. : And it is not he (as the blundering Editor thought) but Nazianzen who adds the next words. And as for that Good Man, 'tis well known, he was angry and highly disobliged when he made the Oration here Quoted. And yet he doth not (as my Adversary saith) wish there were no Prelacy; that is, No Bishops at all: But only that there were no precedence of one Bishop before another, on the account of the Dignity of their Sees; but that their Honour might be only according to their desert and virtue 
(z) Nazianz. Crat. ●8. . And in his Rhetorical way of praising Athanasius, he plays the Orator in setting out the Character of an evil Bishop, and then shows, how unlike Athanasius was to such 
(a) Nazianz. Crat. 21. in land. Athan. : But no man can think, that a true description of all the Bishops of that Age, is to be taken from such an occasional strain of Rhetoric.  
Pag. 187. S. Jerom in his Cell, held Correspondence with, and paid Respect to all the eminent Bishops of the World, and was far from thinking the whole Order was degenerated into Tyranny: S Chrysostom doth not say, He was afraid of all the Bishops, or of the Bishops in general (as he pretends); but only of those who opposed him, which were in number but 36: And at that very time he had far more Bishops for him; but his Enemies oppressed him by the favour of the Court 
(b) Chrysost. Ep 13. Tom. 7. pag 95. See his Life in Dr. C●ve. p. 485 . And Arcadius the Emperor was very angry, by the Information which some banished Monks had given him, when he saith those hard Words of Theophilus of Alexandria, and his Party 
(c) Georg. Al. vit. Chrysost. c. ●9. Tom. 8. pag. 212. , who had done many evil Things; but this must not be applied as the Character of all Bishops in that Age: And it is of those Bishops only that Isidore speaks, which (as appears by his very words here cited) refer only to some of the Bishops of that Country. For all under Theophilus his Jurisdiction did neither join with him, nor follow his Example 
(d) Isid. Pel. lib 2. ep. 125. and (which was cited ●e ●●e) lib. 5. ep. 21. : And how disingenuous is it (to say no worse) from his complaint of a Few, to affirm, That Episcopacy itself was become a tyrannical Licentiousness, y●a, and was turned into Tyranny. Besides, he cannot find one Complaint, that imposing Liturgies was then called or accounted any part of Tyranny; none accused any Bishops for that, which is the only Point we now dispute about.  
Pag 188. After a long description of evil Bishops and Clergy in general, he comes in a Marginal Note to own, that Isidore confesseth there were some Bishops (in that Country, and at that time) who lived up to the Apostolical Character: So that still, he cannot conclude from hence the whole Church was degenerated. And his next Quotation relates only to the Tyranny of Theophilus, and his Party, at Alexandria; yet Isidore saith that then in that Church there were famous Doctors, and approved Disciples 
(e) Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 126. , which my Adversary omits; and here again quotes divers Epistles, which he had cited before 
(f) Id lib. 3. ●p. 223. & lib. 5 ep. 21, etc. ; and at last quotes an Epistle, wherein Isidore only reproves one single Clergyman 
(g) Id. lib. 4. ep. 229. ; yet all these his careless Reader is to believe are good Evidence, to prove the whole Church was then depraved.  
In the same Page, Socrates blames no more but two Bishops, and that too in his Partiality for the Novatians. And the Canon of Ephesus is a very good Law, made to prevent one Bishops usurping over another, as is also that of Chalcedon 
(h) Concil. Eph. Can. 8. Bever. Tom. I. p. 104. Item Concil. Chal. Can. 12. ibid. pag. 126. . Now, though this show there were some Bishops then, who aimed at evil Things, (as there ever was, and ever will be); yet the Major part of them in two General Councils) who carried the Vote for these Canons, disliked the thing, and took care to prevent it. So that these Laws show, the greatest part of the Bishops were free from these Faults, and laboured to reform the rest; and can this be a Proof of the Degeneracy of the whole Church?  
Pag. 189. What he observes concerning the Popes, who begun to aim at the Supremacy about the Year 400, or soon after, is true in Fact; but this only shows the corruption of one See, and he knows, the greatest part of the Christian World (in that Age, and in divers succeeding) opposed these Attempts; which shows, the Church was not degenerated. And besides, this is nothing to the Point of Liturgies, because the very Pope's Two hundred years after this, did not pretend to show their Supremacy by imposing their Liturgy on distant Churches, (as we have seen in Pope Gregory's Epistle to Augustin the Monk); and the Bishops of Lesser Sees, who did not pretend to this Supremacy, yet imposed their own Church's Liturgy on their own Members. He adds to this a pious Sentence or two out of S. Chrysostom, which are only general Complaints in popular Discourses: But since this Supremacy began to be aimed at, in the Time of Chrysostom, I wonder why he should say, That a Sentence of his leveled against it, was forgot in his own Time, since it was more likely that it was never known to those at Rome, who were designing then to be Supreme.  
Pag. 190. Prosper, whom he citys for the evil Practices of Inferior Bishops, declares he speaks only of some Bishops; and the Words are the Complaint of a very Pious Bishop of that Age 
(i) Prosper de v●●●●tempt. cap 21. : Which Complaint Prosper answers very well in the next Chapter 
(k) Ib. cap. 22. ; and a little altar he hath a lovely description of such as were good Bishops 
(l) Ib. c●p. 25. ; and finally, he adds, And even at this time there is no doubt, but there are many among us full of all those good Episcopal Qualities, which you have truly described 
(m) Pros●. ibid. 〈◊〉 2. cap 2. & 3 . Now, is it not a vile Artifice of my Adversary, to cite the Complaint only, as a general Character of all the Clergy of that Age, and not to mention those many Commendations of the better sort of them, though the same Author in the same place mentions both? as also, to talk of the suitableness of Liturgies to such Pastors? Since, according to him, that way of Worship did not come in till almost 60 Years after, when all these Pastors were dead; and by his Computation, these Men all prayed Arbitrarily or Extempore.  
Pag. 191, 192. He next goes about to set out the lamentable Insufficiency of those who ministered by Liturgies (as he reckons) in the Year 500, by the Testimonies of S. Basil S. Ambrose, and Nazianzen, who all died above an Hundred years before that time: And S Ambrose only speaks of some few Simoniacs, who in his Time were a disgrace to their Order 
(n) Ambr. de Sacerd. dig. c. 5. . Nazianzen is only giving a Rhetorical Character of a Bad Bishop, to set off the glory of Athanasius (as we noted but now 
(o) Naz. Orat. 24. p. 378. ). And in the next quoted Oration, he saith expressly, I neither dare, nor can justly accuse all 
(p) Idem Orat. ●0. in laud. Basilii, p. 335. ; which Words in the same Page my Adversary must see, and yet he omitted them on purpose, to Arraign the whole Age. S. Basil doth not charge the Western Bishops with Ignorance in general, but only, That they did not, or would not understand the case and condition of the Eastern Church 
(q) Basil. ep. pag. 285. : Yet this Man produces this Passage, to prove, that the Bishops of the West, and the Chief of them, were a sort of Ignorant Fellows. His Margin applies it to Damasus, and he attempts to prove, Siricius and I●nocent deserved the same Character, whose Vindication I leave to their own Friends, it being no hurt to my Cause, if two or three Bishops of one See were not so great Clerks, since that Age was full of Learned Men and Famous Scholars: And he can have no advantage to his Cause, if he could prove the most of these were ignorant, because Innocent (the last of them) lived almost an Hundred years before he will own Liturgies were imposed.  
Pag. 193. That which he citys out of S. Chrysostom, relates only to some few Evil Men, as the Places will show 
(r) Chrysost. de Sacerd. Orat. 3. pag. 24. : And (as we noted before) S. Ambrose is speaking of such only as came in by Simony 
(s) Ambros de dign Sacerd. cap. 5. . That Epistle of Isidore's, which he citys thrice in this Page, seems plainly to refer only to one Simoniack 
(t) Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 276. : And his next Quotation speaks only of some Corruption in one small Diocese, occasioned by an Evil Bishop newly admitted to Rule there 
(u) Id. lib. 3. ep. 245. . And I appeal to any Man whether these be fit Proofs, that the whole Clergy were then depraved and corrupted.  
Pag. 194. The like Appeal I may make concerning his next Quotations. The first place out of Isidore is only about Zosimus, one Ill Priest, Ordained by one Evil Bishop 
(w) Isid. Pel. lib. 5. ep. 426. . The next Epistle expressly owns, that there were many Good Men remaining 
(x) Id. lib. 3. ep. 259. . The third place divides those Bishops into two Ranks, Good and Bad, and advises him to whom the Epistle is writ, to be of the former number 
(y) Lib. 5. ep. 481. . The fourth Quotation shows how some, especially the Bishop of Peleusium, abused their Authority 
(z) Lib. 2. ep. 50. . The last Epistle saith no more, but that some were much worse by their high Places 
(a) Ibid. lib. 2. ep. 71. . In the same Page his Editor hath blundered the Text, by referring to wrong places in the Margin. But we will follow the order of the Margin; and, First, Sozomen is only relating the History of S. Chrysostom's Deposing 13 Bishops in the Lesser Asia, and Palladius reckons them to be but six who suffered this Sentence 
(b) Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 6. pag. 452. Georg. Alex. vit. Chrysost. ; yet even these were thought to have so hard measure, and their Crimes to be so small, that Chrysostom was very much censured for it 
(c) See Doctor Cave's Life of S. Chrysost. pag. 476. . The Character of Theophilus of Alexandria's Ordination, is cited from his bitter Enemies, who hated him upon the account of Persecuting S. Chrysostom; Yet it if it be true 
(d) Georg. Alex. vit. Chrysost. & Pallad. , the whole Church ought not suffer, by the Facts of one evil Bishop. Nor must Chrysostoms' account, of those few Churches in Asia, which he saw in his Exile 
(e) Chrysost. Ep. 2. , pass for an account of the whole World.  
Pag. 195. The first place in this Margin relates to the same thing, of which he discoursed in the last Page; and here he saith, Eusebius of Peleusium, (a creature of Theophilus, and Isidore's Enemy) Ordained (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) in the Plural number; but Isidore speaks only of one Zosimus ordained by him, who was (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) an Ignorant Fellow 
(f) Ibid. Pel. lib. 3. Ep. 81. . And the three next Epistles, concern only Zosimus and two more ill Priests, which Eusebius had ordained 
(g) Id. lib. 5. Ep. 51, 52, & 53. ; The two next Epistles also, only concer that single Bishop, and some few whom he had ordained 
(h) Id. lib. 5. Ep. 140. & 147. . Only the Editor hath here made a woeful jumble, and in the midst of a word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Ep. 147. hath broken that word to pieces, and put down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— and then goes on with a whole Sentence, out of Epistle 140th, as far as to (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) And then puts in the rest of the broken word, and Prints (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) Epistle 147th, making it neither good Greek, nor so much as good Sense. In the same Page, we have an account of the Ignorance of the African Church, in the year of Christ 401. But this was 100 years before he will allow the use of Liturgies; and by his account, these Men were all to Pray Extempore, for which they do not seem to be very well Qualified; so that a Man who Reads this, must be apt to think, he hath dated the Original of Liturgies wrong, because it is no way Credible, that Aurelius the Bishop of Carthage, and S. Augustin here also cited, would allow Men to Pray after that manner, who were so void of Learning and Judgement, that they neither could avoid Solecisms nor discern Heresy. But as to the matter of Fact, we have sufficient Testimony, (for all this good Bishop's complaint) that there were at that time, many very Learned Men in Africa, and therefore this must be understood, only of some few Churches.  
Pag. 196. He rakes into the Subscriptions of Councils, to find out some Bishops who could not Write their own Names, but got others to Subscribe for them; and hence he seeks to confirm his Notion, of the Ignorance of the Clergy in this Age. But to this I must reply, that the Subscriptions of some Councils, are not of any great Credit, nor void of Suspicion of Forgery 
(i) Existimo● subscriptiones illas quae hodie circumferuntur, fictas esse. Whitak. de Concil. Q. 4. . But if we do allow those of Ephesus and Chalcedon to be genuine, and his Quotations to be true, though I can find but one of them in Binius, (and have not Crabs Edition of the Councils besides me); There are but 4 Bishops in both these general Councils, who are put to Subscribe by others, because they could not Write their own Names: But there were near 200 Bishops at the Ephesine Council, and 630 at that of Chalcedon: Now suppose among 800 Bishops, there were 4 who could not Write, I hope (since there were 796 who could Write), it will not follow that the Age was Ignorant, or the most of the Bishop's unlearned. And besides, he grants that these unlearned Bishops, were not fit to be trusted with making Extempore Prayers, and therefore it seems necessary that these Bishops should have Forms prescribed, which they either Read, or got them by Heart; and if so, than such Forms were used above 50 years before the Period he assigns. As for his last Instance of Leo's not admitting any one to be a Bishop, unless he were perfect in the Psalter; I observe that this Emperor intended to prevent that Scandal, which had been given by those few unlearned Bishops in former Times; and therefore would have none admitted, but such as well understood the Psalter, which was a great part of the Liturgy, and part of it to be Read every day among the Prayers; so that it is very probable, that the usual Forms of public Prayer, were put into one Volume with the Psalter, as our Common Prayer is at this day. And I understand the Historians meaning to be, That Leo would admit no Man into any Order of the Clergy, who was not perfect in the public Book of Offices 
(k) Theodor. Lector. Col. lib. 1. p. 182. ; and if it be so Expounded, than it proves a constant and common use of Liturgies, An. 460. However it is well known, that (whatever was the lowest measure for qualifying a Man to be Ordained), there were very many Learned Clergymen in that Age; Yea, and in the following Century also. But if the Church were so depraved as he represents it, some time before, and a little after the year 500; We have sufficiently showed, it doth not hurt the cause of Liturgies, which were certainly come into use, many Ages before. And thus I will dismiss these Fraudulent and Invidious Reflections, upon the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, desiring the Readers Pardon, for following my Adversary in so Tedious a Digression.   

CHAP. V Of the Agreement of the Reformed Churches, in the Approbation and use of Liturgies.  
§ 1. THere remains nothing now to make out prescribed Forms of Prayer, to be agreeable to Vincentius, Lirinensis his Golden-Rule; that is▪ to have been used always▪ by all Churches, and every where 
(l) Vincent. Lirin. contra. Haeres. cap. 3. pag. 6. ; But only to prove the Reformed Divines, do generally allow and commend Liturgies, and all the Eminent Protestant Churches use them. Now since the Learned and Pious Promoters of the Reformation, did so narrowly examine into, and so Unanimously reject all those Doctrines, and Practices of the Roman Church, which did not agree to Holy Scripture and pure Antiquity; and yet none of them, did ever reckon prescribed Forms among those Corruptions, but approved and established them, in those Churches which they had reform; we may conclude, That Set Forms of Prayers and Liturgies are ageeable to God's Word, and to the usage of the best Ages of the Church. And we have at this time, a more particular reason to make out this Consent of all settled Protestant Churches, as to the use of prescribed Forms: Because our Adversaries are perpetually calling upon us, to conform ourselves to the Example of Foreign Reformed Churches; and pretending, that to allow their way, will be a certain means to unite all Protestants, both at home and abroad. We confess, the end is a thing (at this Juncture) very desirable; but that which they suppose, is so far from being a probable means to obtain it, That if we should cast off our prescribed Forms, and set up their Extempore and Arbitrary way of Praying, we should act contrary to the Judgement of the best Protestant Writers, and to the Practice of the most famous Protestant Churches every where; but by continuing the use of our excellent Liturgy, and binding all our Clergy to it, we follow the advice and example of all our Sister Churches: And can they imagine, that to oblige a few obstinate and singular leading Men, and their Ignorant and Enthusiastical followers; we will bring such a reproach upon our Church, as to cast away that Method of Praying, which is so consonant to Scripture and Antiquity, and so agreeable to the Opinion and practice of the best Protestants? It would be madness in us to do this, and it is little less in them to expect it: However because some of them are to this day, deluded with this gross mistake; That prescribed Forms are some of the remains of Popery, and a Liturgy established, is not allowed in other Protestant Churches; I shall conclude this Discourse, with some few proofs of the Opinion, and Practice of the most Eminent Divines and Churches of the Reformation, both Foreign and Domestic; and that in relation as well to Liturgies in general, as to our Liturgy in particular, when I have first observed, that the Learned and Industrious Mons. durel, hath Collected a great number of these Testimonies; some of which I have here inserted, and added others of my own observation, referring the Reader for fuller satisfaction, to his elaborate Book 
(m) durel, View of the Gou. and public Worship of God, in the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas Print. L●nd. 1662. . I begin with the Lutheran Churches, among whom the Reformation first began, and who at this day do far exceed in number the Churches, which follow Calvin's Method, and afford the greatest number of Foreign Protestants.  
§ 2. And First, for Luther himself; There is no Man, can or dare Question his Approbation of Liturgies, and prescribed Forms of Prayer, it being well known, that he appointed such Forms, for all those Churches which he Reform; and in his works, we have a Form of Common Prayer for the Church of Wittenburgh, drawn up by himself out of the Mass-Book; but so, as to leave out that, which he thought to be Superstitious and Corrupted 
(n) Forma Mist. pro Eccles Wittenburg Ep. Luther. Tom. II. p. 384. . And all the Churches of his Communion at this day, have and use a Liturgy containing Collects, Epistles and Gospels, for every Sunday in the year: And also Set Forms of Hymns and Canticles, Prayers and Litanies; together with prescribed Offices, for all other parts of Ecclesiastical Ministrations, for Baptism, and the Lords Supper, for Matrimony, Visiting the Sick, Burying the Dead, etc. One of which lately Printed in a large Quarto, in the Danish Tongue, imposed on and used in the Churches of Denmark, was lately showed, and in divers places intepreted to me, by an ingenious Pastor of that Country, Mons. Ivarus de Brinch, who came over with the Forces into England the last Winter, An. 1689. And besides the Agreement between our Collects, Epistles and Gospels, and theirs, I observed that their Litany is, almost Verbatim, the same with ours. And the Churches in upper Germany, which are Lutheran, have all such Liturgies; I have one Book Dedicated to Joachim, marquis of Brandenburg, Collected by Christopher Cornerus, Printed at Leipsick, An. 1588. with this Title, The select Canticles of the Old and New Testament, with the pure Hymns and Collects, which are wont to be sung, in the Orthodox and Catholic Church: He means of the Lutherans, who do all to this day, Chant or Sing their public Prayers, as we do in our Cathedrals. Now this Book contains their Canticles and Hymns, as also the Versicles, Responses and Collects for every Sunday, and Holiday in the year; very like to those in our Common-Prayer, and a Litany exactly agreeing with ours; in the Petitions, the Order and the Responses. And all these Offices are paraphrased by Cornerus 
(o) Cantica sel●cta cum Hymns & Collect●s pur●●ribus, etc. per ●●r. Corn●rum. 〈◊〉. 1588. , To which Litany aforesaid, I doubt but not Rivius alludes in his directions to a Parish-Priest; when as to Praying in times of Calamity he saith, you have ready, a Litany in the Vulgar Tongue, which you may use on that occasion; for all that is necessary, to be asked both in public and private are briefly contained there 
(p) Jo. R●vii opera. Lib. de Officio pastorali pag. 705. . Besides, I have also lately seen another Book published by Jo. Federus, with this Title, A Book containing the Doctrine, Administration of the Sacraments, and Ecclesiastical Rites, etc. used in the Territories of the Dukes of Mecklenburg 
(q) Liber continens Doctrinam, Admin●strat. Sacram. etc. in ditione Duc. Megapolensium. ●rancfera An. 1562. . In which there are Forms of Prayer and Praise, and prescribed Offices, for all sorts of Christian Service, especially under the Title of Ceremonies 
(r) Ibid. pag. 189, etc. . And in a word, all the Lutheran Churches every where impose, and constantly use these Set Forms in their public Worship; and their most Eminent Divines approve of this, as may be seen in Melanchton, who enjoins the reciting the express Words of the Holy Forms 
(s) Melancht. oper. Tom. 3. exp. in 6 Math. pag. 323. . Chemnitius saith, The Romanists unjustly condemn our Churches, because in the Celebration of the Lords Supper, they choose as did the Ancients, to use Forms of Prayer, which are Analogous to the Faith; and tend to edify the Church suitably to these Times; in which are comprehended all the substantial things, which were used in the Prayers of the Ancients 
(t) Mart. Chemnitii, exam. Concil. Trid. par. 2. pag. 91. . He grants indeed, they are not the very same with the Primitive Liturgies in all things, but affirms that they agree with them in the Essential parts. I will name but one more, viz. a Learned Danish Divine, who hath writ a general System of Theology; And he upon this Question, Whether it be lawful to use prescribed Forms of Prayer? Determines, That it is lawful for all, and necessary for many, to use a certain and prescribed Form of Words in Prayer 
(u) Caspari Brochmondi Theol. System. univ. Par. 2. cap. 3. Casu. 15. pag. 494. . To go on, The Protestant Churches in Poland and Lithuania, in two Synods held there, Ann. 1633. & 1634. enjoined one certain Liturgy, to be used in all those Dominions; The Preface to which is printed at large by Mons. durel 
(w) Durel. ut su●● in append. pag. 321. , to which Author, I shall also refer the Reader, for an account of the several Liturgies used in Bremen Hessen, Transilvania, Hungary, Bohemia, etc. 
(x) Id ibid. S●●. 1. Num. 3. & 37, ●8 39, etc. p. ●. & p. 34●●5, etc. . And I will only add that Memorable passage, in the Confession of Augsburgh; All those Rites are to be observed, which can be performed without Sin, and which conduce to good Order in the Church, such as certain Holy days, certain Holy things to be Sung, and other such Rites 
(y) Confess. 〈◊〉. Art. 15. pag. 25. : By Holy things to be Sung, They mean their Prayers, which are all Sung in the Lutheran Churches, as we noted but now.  
§ 3. But perhaps some may Imagine, that those Churches who were Reform by Calvin, Zuinglius or others, are not so much for prescribed Forms as the Lutherans; I will therefore here add a brief account of the Churches and Divines of Geneva, France, Helvetia, Holland▪ etc. I begin with the Famous Calvin, whose words have been often repeated, but must be set down once more, because our obstinate Adversaries, who pretend so much Reverence for him, do not regard them. As to the Form of Prayer and Ecclesiastical Rites, I do highly approve, it should be certain, from which it may not be lawful, for any Minister to vary in the exercise of his Function; as well in Consideration of the Weakness and Ignorance of some, as that it may more certainly appear, how all the Churches agree among themselves; And lastly, that there may be a stop put to the giddy Lightness of some, who affect some kind of Novelties; and I have showed before, that a Form of Catechism also is good on the same account: So therefore, There aught to be, A stated Form of Catechising, a stated Form of Administering the Sacraments, and a public Form of Prayers 
(z) Calvin. ad Protect. Angl. Epist. 87. pag. 165. . This was calvin's advice, to the great Manager of the Reformation in England, under the Pious King Edward 6th. Whereby we may discern, that he highly approves of making and strictly imposing one certain Liturgy; and gives three weighty Reasons, why it must be imposed upon all the Clergy, which Reasons continue in full force even to this very day, and therefore if our Adversaries will allow him, for an Umpire in this Case, they must conform to this Liturgy, which is much more pure now, than it was in calvin's days, and all those Tolerabiles ineptiae (as he boldly called them) are now wholly left out. But to proceed, Calvin himself also made a Form of Divine Service, which is used to this day in the Churches of France, and in that of Geneva, and their Ministers are bound to the use of those Forms, in all their public Administrations. And I observe that Beza citys this Form of Prayer, and particularly that part of it, which is concerning the Ministration of the Lords Supper, made (as he tells us) by Mr. Calvin; wherein, he saith, they had retained the Primitive Form, Lift up your Hearts, with a proper Paraphrase upon it, and also kept many ancient Rites 
(a) Theodor. Ie● ●esp. ad ●ranc bald. inter Tract. Theol Tom II. pag. 229. . And Moses Amyraldus speaks of this Liturgy, when he saith, And here for Example sake, I will Commemorate that great Wisdom and Temper, with which those public Forms of public Prayer were first composed which the Churches of France and Geneva do use— so that the very Papists, have put some of them into those several little Prayer Books, which they publish in the Vulgar Tongue, and deliver to their own People 
(b) Amyrald. de secess. ab. Eccles. p. 225. ; assuring us he had seen this with his own Eyes, otherwise he could scarce have believed it. And a little before, this Author wishes that all Reformed Churches, would contribute their several Symbols; so as all Protestants might agree in one Common Form of Prayer 
(c) Id. ibid. p. 224. . And not he alone, but all the Calvinists do generally allow, and use prescribed Forms of Prayer, as Mons. durel hath very largely made out; to whose Observations I will add two very Learned Men of the French Church, who freely own, that Liturgies and stated Forms, are of very ancient use in the Christian Church, and these are the Lord Du-plessis, and Mons. Daillè, both which my Adversary often citys, as if they were of his Opinion, concerning the late Original of Prescribed Forms: But, first, Mornay Lord Du-Plessis, in his Book of the Mass, having showed, That the Jews had Forms of public Service, adds— the First Christians than framed themselves after this manner of Service 
(d) Mornay of the Mass. Book 1. pag. 19 , and so runs the parallel between the Jewish and the Primitive Liturgy— And a little after he tells us. That those Authors who lived about the Year 800, declare, That some Forms were used from the beginning, and that they had industriously searched out the ancient Service of the Church— and they might also in their days possibly find the Books of Rites or Prescribed Forms used in the Church, before the Pope, assisted by the Power of Great Princes, had abolished the use and memory thereof 
(e) Id. ib. pag 22. . Again, he owns a very ancient Form of Prayer used at the Offertory 
(f) Ib chap 5. pag. 36. ; and saith, there was a General Prayer for the whole World, and the Estate of the Church, which the Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— The Form whereof continued (as we have seen it) since the time of the Primitive Church, and is to be found and read in the Writers of that time 
(g) Ib. pag 37. . He also confesseth in the same place, that there was anciently One Form of Salutation and Prefaces: Yea, in this whole Book he every where owns there were Primitive Forms, long before the Roman Church had corrupted their Service; and speaking of the Liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches, he doth not so much as pretend they had no prescribed Forms; only he notes, That though in substance the Service of these Churches do agree together; yet we must not imagine there was one and the same prescript Form observed and kept in them all 
(h) Mornay, ut supr. chap. 6. pag. 43. . We see he grants Forms in all Churches, but so as there was some Variety between the Forms of several Churches. And now, how is it possible that this Great and Learned Man (had he not been misinterpreted) should be Evidence for my Adversaries Opinion of Liturgies, coming in after the Year 500? The like may be said of M. Dailé, who understood Antiquity, as well as any Writer that ever was of the French Reformed Church. Now, he frequently citys the Book, which goes under the Title of the Apostolical Constitutions, ascribed to S. Clement, wherein there is a very ancient Form of Liturgy used (as we have showed) in the Church of Antioch; wherein there are prescribed Forms for all the Parts of Divine Service at large. Now this Learned Man thus speaks of that Writer, He seems to have compiled his Work a little before the Nicene Council 
(i) Dailé de Confirm lib. 2. cap. 11. p. 120. : And in another place he saith, In this Book of the Apostolical Constitutions, I think no man who understands any thing of Antiquity, can deny, but that the Author hath painted out the Form of Ecclesiastical Worship, such as it really was in those Times when he Writ 
(k) Idem de Relig. cultus objecto, lib. 3. cap. 12. . By which we see, that he believed, The Ecclesiastical Worship was performed by a prescribed Liturgy, even before the First Council of Nice: Which appears also to have been his Opinion, by his citing this Liturgy of the Constitutions, with divers other ancient Liturgies; and then concluding thus; We ourselves truly do not deny, but that very many of these Liturgies which we have produced are ancient, and written about the very beginning of the Fourth Century, though we think that they were corrupted by Additions and Alterations at several times after their first Original 
(l) Dailé de cult. Latin. relig lib. 3. cap. 13. p. 359. . Wherefore this studious Searcher into Antiquity can be no Witness for my Adversary, since he very expressly affirms, That these Liturgies were written out for Public use, in the very beginning of the Fourth Century; that is, as soon as the Church became settled, by the Conversion of Constantine the Great. To these we may add the Testimony of the Helvetian Divines, and others, who did not Reform after Luther's Pattern: Bullenger saith, The Church hath Supplications, she also hath Holy days and Fasts; the Church celebrates the Sacraments according to certain Laws, at certain times, in a certain place, and by a prescribed Form, which is according to the received Rules and Usage of the Church 
(m) Bulleng. Decad. 2. Serm. 1. pag. 38. . In which Words he evidently justifies a prescribed Form, and owns, That the Church hath power to make such a Form, and that all her Members are obliged to use it. The eminent Lud. Lavater himself published the Common-Prayer-Book of the Tigurine Church, which I have seen and read: The Title of which is this, A Little Book of the Rites and Institutions of the Trigurine Church; Wherein is contained, The whole Order of their Divine Service, with the several Forms by which they Administer the Sacraments, and all other Offices which belong to the Ministerial Function 
(n) De ritib. & institutis Eccles. Tigurinae Opusculum, Edit. à Ludovic. Lavatero, An. 1559. ; so that they also have stated and prescribed Forms. And Zanchius, one of the most Learned of the Divines of that Age, tells us, That Concord, and Decency or Order, cannot be observed in the Church, nor can all things be done decently and in order (as S. Paul commands) without Rules and Traditions, by which, as by certain Bonds, Order and Decorum is preserved; because there is such diversity in men's Manners, such variety in their Minds, and such opposition in their Judgements, that no Polity is firm unless it be constituted by certain Laws; and without a Stated Form no Rites can be preserved 
(o) Hieron: Launch. Tom 7. In Com. praecip. cap. Doctrine. Christ. Loc. 16. . So that he pleads for the necessity of such a Form, and accordingly all settled Protestant Churches have composed a Liturgy, and made Forms of Divine Service for their Clergy to Officiate by: So have the Churches of Holland, whose Common-Prayer-Book I have seen Translated into the Greek Tongue, with this Title 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Impres. Ludg. Bat. An. 1648. , The Christian and Orthodox Doctrine and Order of the Belgic Churches, viz. Their Confession of Faith, their Catechism, their Liturgy, and their Ecclesiastical Canons. And in that Part which is their Liturgy, there are the Forms of Prayer prescribed for Baptism, for the Lords Supper, and for all the Occasional Offices; which Book so translated was Printed at Leiden, An. 1648. To this I may add another Book, put out by Jo. Alasco, a Noble Polonian Protestant, in the days of King Edward the Sixth; the Title whereof runs thus, The Form and Manner of the whole Ecclesiastical Ministration in the Church for Strangers, and especially Germane, appointed at London by the most Religious King Edward the Sixth, An. 1550 
(q) Forma & ratio tota Ecclesiastici ministerii, etc. Lond. An. 1550. : Wherein there are also divers Set Forms of Prayer and Thanksgiving, to be used in the several Offices of their Church. And (to name no more) I have in my possession a Scotch-Common-Prayer-Book, said to be Composed by Mr. Knox, containing, A Calendar with holidays, The Psalms of David in Meeter, Forms of Prayer in the Visitation of the Sick, Forms of Confession of Sin, A Form of Intercession for all Estates of Men, A Form of Prayer for the King, Forms for Administering the Lords Supper, and Baptism, The Form of Matrimony, and other occasional Offices, etc. for the use of the Kirk of Scotland; Imprinted at Middleburgh, An. 1594. I do not cite these Books, as if there were no other, or no more Protestant Liturgies; but because I have seen all these lately, and have most of them by me; and because these are sufficient to convince any man, That all established Protestant Churches do approve of, and use Prescribed Forms; so that if we should cast off ours, to oblige that sort of Dissenters whom Mr. Clarkson Patronizes', we must act contrary to the judgement and practice of the most famous Protestant Churches abroad, and the most eminent Reformed Divines of all Nations; and therefore I refer it to any Man to consider, if this be a probable way to unite us with all Foreign Protestants, as some vainly discourse.  
§. 4. I know nothing can remain to be objected now, unless it be, That there are some great and just Exceptions lie against our Liturgy in particular. To which I shall not now Reply, by Repeating what I have said in my Larger Discourses upon the Common-Prayer, where every one of the Objections, that I have ever met with, are considered and answered already: But I shall now show, what esteem our Common-Prayer-Book hath been in among the most learned and judicious Protestant Writers, ever since it was first Composed. And I begin with Alexander Alesius, an eminent Scotch Divine, who Translated King Edward's Common-Prayer Book into Latin; and in his Preface to it, he saith, He did this, that it might be seen and read by many for the honour of the English Church, whose care and diligence herein he doubted not would be for the example and comfort of some, and for the shame of others; and he hoped it might provoke the rest of the Reformed, to imitate this most noble and divine Work, in settling the Church— believing, that God put it into his hands to publish it at that time for the General Good 
(r) Praef. ad Libr. precum per Alex. A●es. inter Buceri script. Anglica●, pag. 373, 3●5, etc. ; with much more to the same purpose. And here I must note, that probably this was that Interpretation of our English Service Book, which the judicious and modest Mr. Bucer looked over so diligently, to satisfy himself whether he ought to conform to it: And upon this he saith, When I throughly understood it, I gave Thanks to God, who had granted to this Church to Reform her Rites to that degree of Purity: For I found nothing in them which was not taken out of the Word of God, or at lest which was contrary thereunto, if it were candidly expounded 
(s) Buceri censura super Libr. S●cro● praef. pag. 456. . And when by Archbishop Cranmers special Command he had perused the whole Book, in order to his censuring what he thought was to be amended; He declares his Judgement thus, In the prescript Form for the Communion, and the daily Prayers, I see nothing writ in this Book, which is not taken out of the Word of God, if not in express Words, as the Psalms and Lessons, yet in Sense, as the Collects; and also the Order of these Lessons and Prayers, and the Times when they are to be used, are very agreeable to the Word of God, and to the Constitution observed in the Ancient Church 
(t) Buceri censura, etc. cap. 1. p. 457. . And afterwards, he is for writing down all holy Rites, and the Words of the sacred Administrations; and he owns, that the Church of England hath done this very purely, and conformable to Christ's Institution. As for the things which he modestly supposed might be altered for the better, it is evident, That most of them were regulated afterwards, and many of them were rectified according to his Advice there; so that we not only see, he was clearly for the use of prescribed Forms, but liked the Book of King Edward, with some few Amendments; and had he seen our present Common-Prayer, no doubt he would have wholly approved it. The next Evidence shall be the most learned Archbishop of Spalleto, who affirms against Suarez, That the English Liturgy containeth nothing in it, which is not holy, which is not pious, and truly Christian as well as Catholic 
(u) Ant. de Dom. Spalat. osteus. error. Fran. Suarez. cap. 6. §. 82. pag. 340. . And a little after,— The Form of Divine Offices, that is, of Public Prayers for all England, which (as I have said) is taken out of the most ancient and most laudable Liturgies (approved even by the Roman Church) collected with great Judgement; so as to leave out those things which the Romanists themselves are not very ready to defend 
(w) Ibid §. 37. pag. 342. . Thus this Great Man stops the Mouth of a Malicious Enemy to our Liturgy: And Causabon at the same time had as great an esteem for it. For in his Epistle to King James the First he saith, Your Majesty hath such a Church in your Kingdoms, partly so instituted of Old, and partly so regulated by your Endeavours, that none at this day comes nearer to the Form of the most Flourishing Ages of the Ancient Church, following a middle way between those who have offended, both in the Excess and the Defect 
(x) Causal Ep. ad Reg. jac. prae●ix. ad exerc. Baron. . And in an Epistle to Salmasius he saith, If his Conjecture do not fail, the soundest part of the whole Reformation is in England 
(y) Id. Ep. ad Salmas. qu. 709. . Moreover, Salmasius himself, though in some Points he differed from our Church, yet relates it as a Reason of King Charles the Martyr's constancy to our Liturgy, That the Form of it was long since approved by most of the Reformed Pastors, and those, Men of the first Rank both in France and elsewhere; and as being a Book which seemed to contain nothing, but what agreed to Piety, and to the Evangelical Doctrine 
(z) Salmiss. defence. reg. cap. 8. . To him I will add another Man of incomparable Learning, who had no Obligations to this Church of England, but rather the contrary; which is the Famous Hugo Grotius, who saith, I am sure the English Liturgy, the Rite of Laying Hands on Children in memory of their Baptism, the Authority of Bishops, of Synods consisting of none but the Clergy, and many such like things, do sufficiently agree to the Orders of the Ancient Church, from which we cannot deny, but that we have departed both in France and Holland 
(*) Grot. ad Boetslaer. ep. 62. pag. 21. . And whoever considers these most Eminent Writers great Judgement in Antiquity, may very well allow them to be sufficient Witnesses in this Question. But none of the Foreign Divines are more full or more clear in determining this Matter than the deservedly famous Lud. Capellus, who lived to hear of this very Independent Sect, who rejected our English Liturgy, and all prescribed Forms; and writ a most claborate Thesis, on purpose to answer and expose their frivolous Objections; a Thesis deserving to be read by all English Divines, and to be wholly translated into English for the Common Good, out of which at present I will only recite a few Passages, viz. That as soon as Miraculous Gifts ceased, and Heretics began to infest the Church, there was a necessity for Liturgies, which wise and pious Bishops composed for the use of all the Presbyters in their Dioceses 
(a) Theses Salmurienses Praesid. Lud. Capello, par. 3. De Liturg. Formulis conceptis, Thes. 3. pag. 657. . This was done chief in the Great Churches, as that of Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. and followed by Lesser Churches 
(b) Ibid. Thes. 4▪ . These Forms were short and plain at first, consisting of some few Prayers, and Lessons, cut of the Psalms and other Scripture, with the Blessing, Consecration, and distribution of the Communion, etc. And such was the Roman Office in the first Four Ages till Damasus' time; but augmented and corrupted by the following Popes 
(c) Ibid. Thes. 5. . And then he hath these Words, which I will transcribe at large; But about 140 years ago, when there was a Departure from the Roman Church, and the People came out of Babylon, and withdrew themselves from the Pope's Tyranny; The Authors of the Reformation, then purged the Holy Liturgy from all the Superstition and Popish Idolatry, and took away all that was burdensome, and that did not tend to Edification: And thus at that time there were divers prescribed Forms of Liturgies simple and pure, Composed by the several Authors of the Reformation in Germany, France, England, Scotland, Holland, etc. which differed as little as could be from the ancient Forms of the Primitive Church, which Liturgies the Protestants have used hitherto happily, and with good success, in their several Nations and Districts: Until very lately there arose in England a sort of morose, scrupulous, and too nice (that I say not, downright superstitious) Men, who for many trifling Reasons of no moment, not only dislike the Liturgy hitherto used in that Church, but would have both it and the whole Order of Bishops to be utterly abrogated and abolished, in place whereof they would substitute that which they call their Directory— To which some wild and frantic Men add this Opinion, That it is unlawful to use any prescribed Form, either in public or private Prayers, and that no good Man can with a safe Conscience be present at these Prayers 
(d) Id ibid. Thes. 6, & 7. pag. 658. . After this he acurately states the Controversy, by distinguishing about the several Parts of the Public Service, and proves Forms may lawfully be used in any part of it; but as to Prayers, he reckons it is most requisite they be made by Forms 
(e) Thes. 9 ad Thes. 23. pag. 659, etc.  And then he brings in all their Objections against Forms, and all their little Reasons for their Arbitrary way, and very learnedly and solidly confutes them all. I shall only mention the Heads (and refer the Reader to the Discourse itself for his full satisfaction) viz. 1. He shows, this is not an imitation of the Papists: 2. Not a burden to men's Consciences: 3. Not worse, because it was not the way in the Apostles Times: 4. A Directory is not sufficient security against Heresy: 5 He shows. That though Forms are most necessary for the Unlearned, yet the Learned ought not to be left free in the Public Prayers: 6. He proves, this is not that Will-worship which is forbidden in Scripture: 7. He confutes those who say, These are not our own Prayers: 8. And those who pretend, they are against Christian Liberty: 9 Or that they spoil Ministers Gifts: 10. Or do not profit the Auditory: And lastly, He answers that Objection, That the use of Forms hinders our lifting up our Eyes in Prayer 
(f) Id. ibid. Thes ●4 etc. ad pag. 669. . And after he hath called all these, light and frivolous little Reasons and petty Objections, He concludes the whole Question with five Positions: First, That Forms are not absolutely necessary for all Persons, in all Times and Places: Secondly, That they would not be generally necessary, but only because all things are to be done decently and in order: Thirdly, That where there are Unlearned Pastors, there Forms are absolutely necessary: Fourthly, Even where there are Learned Pastors, a public Form is very useful and necessary for the common Edification of the Church: Fifthly, The use of these Forms cannot justly be condemned or disliked, since always and every where it is most convenient, and hath obtained in the whole Christian Church throughout all the World perpetually for above 1300 years, and it is now every where used, but only amongst these Upstart Independents 
(g) Id. ibid. Thes. 49. p. 669 : So that truly, the Moroseness or Scrupulousness, and Superstition, or rather the petulant and obstinate boldness of these Men, is senseless and prodigious, superstitiously to condemn, and foolishly to compare to an Idol (forbid in the Second Commandment, to be avoided by all) a Thing, which is in itself most innocent, whose use is most profitable, and its observation most convenient, which hath so long been practised in the Universal Church, and never was yet rejected by any Church; and which all the Churches of God every where now use to their great benefit; but they reject it out of mere Whimsy, or out of a Vile design, to bring in an unbridled Licentiousness and intolerable Disorder into the Church. But amongst them such are most to be detested, who either will not use the Lords Prayer, or none but that Form, and that without joining it to any other Prayers public or private; and hold it a Sin for any good Man to be in a Church or a Family where they use prescribed Forms, and account this to be a just cause of Separating from such Worship, lest they should be defiled with their Sin, who use such Forms. These are like those in Isaiah, Chap. lxv. 5. which say, Stand by thyself, come not near, for I am holier than thou; these are (saith the Lord) a Smoke in my Nose; That is, They vehemently stir up my Wrath against them. God grant they may return to a better mind 
(h) Id. ibid. Thes. 50, & 51. pag. 670. . Thus that pious and learned Author concludes his Learned Theses, and I will only make one Remark more of his, concerning this Sort of Men, viz. That nothing seems to incite them so studiously to condemn all Forms of Liturgy, like the love of Innovation, and the design of introducing Corruption, that under the specious veil and pretence of liberty of Praying and Prophesying, they may bring in all kind of Sects into the Church; and therefore they make Men believe that vain, false, and erroneous Opinion, viz. That in our Times, as well as the Apostles, the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication is to be poured out on the present Church, according to Joel two. 28. and Zech. xii. 10. which is the common and most pestilent Error of all fanatics about the Comforter which Christ was to send 
(i) Id. ibid. Thes. 28. p. 663. : It is a Reformed Divine of the French Church, Second to none of his Time for Learning, Piety, and Judgement, a famous Professor in an Eminent Protestant University, who gives this Character of that Party of our Dissenters, who are against all Prescribed Forms, and by it we may discern what Notion Foreign Churches have of them, and of our Liturgy also. I shall end these Foreign Testimonies with a Paper delivered to me, Signed by two Exiled French Pastors of great Piety and good Learning, now residing in this City: We, whose Names are hereunto Subscribed, being asked what we thought of Liturgies, have expressed our Opinion in these Words: We think a Liturgy in the Church is not only useful, but also necessary; For as there is, and aught to be One Rule of Faith, so also there ought to be One and the same Form of God's public external Worship: And it manifestly appears, That the Protestants of the French Churches never were against such Forms, because they had a Form for Administering the Sacraments, for celebrating Matrimony, and certain other Prescribed Prayers which none of us were allowed to recede from 
† Carol. Daubuz. Minist Gal. Johan. Costebadeus Minist. Gal. . Dated at York, April 8. 1690. And now I will produce only two Domestic Testimonies of Men most entirely Unexceptionable, and so conclude: The first is that of Bishop Ridley, who died a Martyr for the Protestant Faith, and he in a Letter writ to his Friends a little before his Martyrdom saith, This Church had of late, (i. e. in K. Edward's days) the whole Divine Service, all common and public Prayers, Ordained to be said and heard in the common Congregation, not only framed and fashioned to the true vein of Holy Scripture; but also set forth according to the Commandment of the Lord, and S. Paul's Doctrine, for the People's Edification in their Vulgar Tongue 
(k) Bish. Ridlies' Farewell, An. 1555. in Fox, Acts & Monum. Vol. 2 pag. 1940. . This was the Opinion of this great and glorious Martyr, concerning our Common-Prayer, before it was so refined as it hath since been. And as to the Liturgy, as it was Corrected by Queen Elizabeth, the incomparable Bishop Juell in his never enough to be admired Apology, gives this Testimony of it; We have come as near as ever we could, to the Church of the Apostles, and to that of the old Catholic Bishops, and Fathers, while we know it was yet pure, and (as Tertullian saith) an uncorrupt Virgin, not stained hitherto with any Idolatry, or any grievous or notorious Error. And we have directed not only our Doctrine but also our Sacraments, and our Form of public Prayers by their Rites and Institutions 
(l) Juelli Apolog. Lat. edit. Lond. 1591. pag. 170. . I need add no more Evidence in a matter so plain, for this will show to all, whom Interest and wilful Prejudice doth not blind, both that all Foreign Churches, and Eminent Writers do approve of prescribed Forms, and that they as well as our own Reformers, generally esteem our Liturgy, as a most excellent Form of Service.  
Wherefore, I will now conclude with a charitable and compassionate Address, to those unhappy, but well meaning Dissenters, who are designedly imposed on by their interested Teachers; I doubt not but many of them, sincerely desire to worship God in the most acceptable way; and the reason why they separate from our Worship, is because they have been industriously prejudiced against Forms, as a Novel Corruption, a Popish Superstition, a Method of Praying contrary to Scripture, and to the Judgement and Practice, as well of the Primitive and Ancient, as of the Protestant and Modern Churches. But now, my Brethren, when all this is proved to be nothing else but Falsehood and Malice, I hope you will suffer yourselves to be undeceived, and join with us in that way of Praying, which was used by the Saints in the old Testament, enjoined by Christ in the New, practised by all those Holy Bishops and Devout Christians, who lived ever since the first settling of the Church, and now allowed and observed in all Regular Protestant Churches; And especially since we have a Liturgy so generally approved by them all. You have heard their Judgements of it, and you may see the Practice of these Foreign Protestants, who come hither from France and Holland, Germany and Denmark; they all like our Worship, and as soon as they understand our Language, join with us in it, There never (saith Mons. Bochart) was any of us in England, who did not freely come to your Divine Service, as soon as they had learned your Tongue; none of us who did not receive the Holy Sacrament from Presbyters ordained by Bishops, or if occasion were, from Bishops themselves; which I myself profess, I often did with great profit, while I studied Divinity at London and Oxford 
(m) Samuel Bochart Ep. ad Claris. Morleum. ap. Durel. p. 64. . Foreign Protestants join with us, and wonder at you for separating from us; And can you still be made to believe our Service is Popish, or that it is the Protestant interest, either for us to cast off this our Protestant way of Serving God; or you, by continuing in your Separation, to divide and weaken the most famous and best established Protestant Church in the World? I do in the Bowels of Jesus Christ beseech you to cast off your Roman-like implicit Faith, in those who have so evidently deluded you, and to lay aside your prejudices, which you may here see, are so ill grounded; For if once you discern your Error, and can conquer your unfortunate Mistakes, I doubt not but all of you, who have no other ends to serve but those of Piety, may come to our Churches, and will find great comfort and benefit by our rational, pure and Primitive Forms; and will soon see the Danger and Emptiness of that way of Praying, which you have admired; Which will tend to your own Happiness, as well as to the Peace and Establishment both of our Church and State. Consider what I say, and the Lord give you understanding in all things, 2 Tim. II. 7. To the only wise God our Saviour, be Glory and Majesty, Dominion and Power, both now and ever, Amen. Judas, ver. 25.    

THE TABLE.  

PART I.   An. D. Cent. Pag. Introduction, Of the Grounds for Liturgies in Scripture   1 Ancient Auhors and Councils. Philo Judaeus 60 I. 20 S. Clemens Roman. 90  21 Plinius Junior 93  22 S. Ignatius Antioc. 99  25 Lucianus Philos. 112 II. 29 Justinus Martyr 140  31 S. Irenaeus 179  39 Clemens Alexand. 192  40 Tertullianus 192  43 Hippolytus Martyr 220 III. 54 Origenes 230  55 S. Cyprianus 248  65 Gregorius Thaum. 253  72 Paulus Samosat. 269  4 Arnobius 303 IU. 78 Constantinus Mag. 312  80 S. Athanasius 326  82 Flavianus Antioc. 348  86 S. Cyrillus Hierosol. 350  90 S. Jacobi Liturgia   95 Clementis Constit. 360 IU. 103 S. Hilarius Pictav. eo. An.  114 Julianus Apostate. 361  115 Concil. Laodicen. 365  117 Optatus Milevit. 368  132 Epiphanius Cypr. 369  136 Gregorius Nazian 370  141 S. Basilius Mag. eo. An.  148 ejus Liturgia   167 Pseudo-Dionys. Are 371  174 S. Ambrose 374  178 S. Hieronymus 378  189 S. Chrysostomus 397  196 ejus Liturgia   208 S. Augustinus 398  225 Concil. 3. Carthag. eo. An.  249 Concil. African.   257  

PART II.   An. D. Cent. Pag. Innocentius I. Papa 402 V. 4 Aurel. Prudent. 405  15 Isidorus Peleusiota 412  17 Synesius Episc. eo An.  19 Celestinus I. Papa 423  22 Prosper Aquitan. 430  27 Johan. Cassianus eod. A.  30 Concil. Ephes. Oec. 431  34 Petr. Chrysologus 433  37 Socrates, Hist. Eccles.  V.  Sozomenus, Hist. Eccles. 440  41 Theodoretus Hist. Eccles.    Concil. Vineticun. 453  52 Vocomus & Musaeus 458  62 Sidonius Apollinaris 472  ibid. Petr. Cnapheus Haer. 483  66 Gelasius Papa 492  68 Caesarius Arelatens. 503 VI. 76 Concilia Agathens. 506  77 Concilia Aurelian. I. 507  81 Concilia Epaunens'. 509  82 Concilia Gerundens. 517  ibid. Fulgentius African. 518  84 Concil. Valentinum 524  86 Concil. Vasense 529  87 Benedictus Monach. eo. An  90 Justinianus August. 530  93 Vigilius Papa 540  97 Concil. Nopsvestenum 550  103 Concil. Bracarense I. 563  105 Concil. Turonicum II. 570  109 Pelagius Papa 577  112 Leander Hispelens. 588  114 Gregorius Mag. Pap. 590  119 Leontius Byzantin. 594  136 Isidorus Hispalens. 603 VII. 139 Concil. Toletanum IU. 633 VII. 143 Concil. Toletan. V 636 etc.  Concil. Tolet. VI 638  158 Concil. Tolet. VIII. 653   Concil. Emeritanum 665  159 Concil. Tolet. X. 675  ibid. Concil. Constantin. in Trullo 680  ibid. Eccles. Brit. & Sax.  VIII. 162 Ecclesia Gallicana   175 Eccles. Germanica   182 Agobardus Lugd. 831 IX. 188 Adrianus TWO Papa 868  193 Leuthericus Senon. 1004 XI. 195 Gregorius VII. Papa 1077  197 Paschalis II. Papa   198 Appendix.  Chap.  Of the Arguments urged against the Antiquity of Liturgies, Chap. iv 201 Of the Agreement of the Reformed Churches in the Approbation and Use of Liturgies, Chap. V 30●  
FINIS.   

A SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY OF THE Primitive and General Use OF LITURGIES IN The Christian Church; Together with an ANSWER TO Mr. Dau. Clarkson's late Discourse concerning LITURGIES.  
By THO: COMBER, D.D. Precentor of YORK.  Publica est nobis & communis Oratio. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. § 5. pag. 310. 
LONDON, Printed by S. Roycroft, for Robert Clavell at the Peacock at the West-end of S. Paul's, 1690.   

To Their MAJESTY'S WILLIAM AND MARY, KING and QUEEN of England, etc.  
May it please Your MAJESTY'S,  
WHen Heaven had made Your Majesties the happy Instruments of our late Wondrous Deliverance, we did with great satisfaction behold Your Royal Cares were first employed upon the securing our Established Religion, and the uniting all Your Subjects in the Bonds of Peace: And since all Protestant Churches agree in the use of Holy Forms, nothing can be more necessary to produce this Union among us, than the removing all the Exceptions that have been taken against our excellent Liturgy; which the pious Members of our Church admire, and by which the Moderate Dissenters themselves do frequently worship God. But, I was surprised to find some in this Juncture (when Your Majesties had recommended this to the Care of Your Clergy) not only decrying our Liturgy, but all prescribed Forms of Divine Service, and thereby at once affronting all Reformed Churches as well as ours, and rendering Your Majesty's gracious Designs of uniting us impracticable: Wherefore the Justice and Necessity, which obliged me to confute so false and so unseasonable a Charge upon our Primitive and Established way of Worship must be my Apology, for presuming to beg your Royal Patronage to these Papers, which modestly defend one of the Essentials of our Constitution. And your Majesties have given so many Eminent Demonstrations, of your steady Resolutions to preserve this Church, that there is no room to doubt of your Gracious Acceptance of these Endeavours, nor of our happiness under your most Auspicious Reign; the Continuance whereof for the glory of God, and the happiness of these Nations is unfeignedly desired, and daily prayed for in the significant Words of our incomparable Liturgy, by  
Your Majesty's most Humble, and most Obedient Subject and Servant, THO: COMBER.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
I Doubt not, but many who pass under the general Name of Dissenters, are so sensible of the out Opposition of the Conforming clergy to the late Encroachments ● Popery, and the great Security which the Protestant Religion ●n general receives from this Established Church, that they would ●ake some steps towards a happy ●eace and Union for our Common ●ood. But we cannot imagine that ●arty, who lately Published Mr. clarkson's two Books, the one against ●●r Episcopal Government, the other against our Liturgy, to have any inclination to a Reconciliation. These are like those among whom Holy David Sojourned, who were such Enemies to Peace, that when he spoke unto them thereof, they made themselves ready to battle 
(a) Psal. cxx. ver. ult. : For we had long since left off to Write against them, and were actually treating of Accommodation with them; and while the Truce lasted, they not only make hostile Preparations; but contrary to the Law of Nature an● Nations, they boldly commit Act● of Violence, both against the Persons and Things, which of all others are most dear to us 
(b) Per inducias— illiciti sunt omnes sunt actus bellici, sive in personas, sive in res. Grot. de jur. Bell. & Pac. lib. 3. cap. 21. §. 6. . I shal● not question the Character o● Learned and Judicious, which the Title Page bestows upon the Deceased Author; because he wh●● was so Learned to make these Collections, was so Judicious to suppress them so long as he lived. But though I know not the Publisher, I am sure he can make claim to neither of those Characters: His want of Learning appears, in leaving divers Quotations in a wrong place, where they have no reference to the Text, and several References in the Text to Passages in the Fathers, which because the Author did not, the Editor could not cite; as also in such gross Mistakes both of the Names and Tracts of the Ancients, as made it very difficult to guests at the intended Quotations: And his want of Judgement appears in his being so hasty to publish these indigested Collections at this unseasonable Juncture, that he took no Time nor Care to fill up the imperfect Periods, nor cut off the nauseous Repetitions, nor to clear the blundered Sentences of this Discourse, which ought rather to be styled a Discourse against, than concerning Liturgies. Had this been a time when their Way of Worship was not Tolerated, or when Ours was imposed on them by Penalties, there had been some Excuse for this Attempt, to prove Forms of Prayer Novel and Unlawful: Had we begun to provoke them by exposing their Extempore Prayers (as we could easily do) that had been a fair Apology for this daring Undertaking; but when all our Pens for some years past have been employed against the late bold and dangerous Emissaries of the Roman Church, (who were rather encouraged than opposed by some of these Gentlemen), at This Season to become the Aggressors is ungrateful and inexcusable. Though their Way be not established, but barely permitted, as Divorce was to the Jews, and for the same Reason too 
(c) Matt. nineteen. 8. Possum dicere quod permittitur, bonum non est. Tert. ad uxor. lib. 1. pag. 163. ; yet we have not been willing to bend our Force against it, while there seemed any hopes of a successful Treaty: But they without any sense of Honour, in requital to our Civility, have not been content to vindicate their barely permitted Novelties; but have attacked our Legal Way of Worship, while it is guarded by Laws, and is the Public Religion of our National Church. 'Tis true, if this great Searcher of Antiquity, had made any New Discoveries to clear the practice of Extempore Praying, to have been the constant Usage of the Primitive Church, the Editor had been pardonable for obliging this Age with so rare (and as yet so unheard of) a Notion. But since this Author, who (to use his own Words) seems to have been the best acquainted with the Fathers of any of his Stamp, makes no discovery by that Diligence, which hath ransacked all the Corners of Antiquity for it 
(d) Disc. concerning Liturgies, pag. 180, & 181. ; but a few forced Phrases, and Irregular, as well as Extraordinary Facts, to justify their Prayers; but uses the meanest of Artifices to disparage Ours; jealous, yea, judicious Men will be apt to conclude, That Conscience is not the only motive to this party for Dissenting; nor Indulgence thei● only Expectation, because they cannot take satisfaction in the Enjoyment of their own Worship, unless they may disturb and expose Ours In this Case, the sober Dissenters will certainly excuse us for thi● necessary Self-defence: And ou● Friends would justly censure us as the Betrayers of our Establishment, if the vain hopes of gaining Men of such a Temper should make us silent under so heavy a Charge: For this Discourse pretends to show, That Liturgies are a late and Corrupt Way of Worship; and that Prescribed Forms were invented in the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, and have been supported ●y the Laziness of the Clergy, and ●he Decay of true Devotion; but both Liturgies and all Forms hinder the Pastors from exercising their Gifts, and the People from being edified by the Divine Service. But all this is not proved by Arguments; a pompous show of Antiquity, and a Margin filled with Quotations, is the Medium to make out this severe Indictment. And possibly those of the Author's Principles, (who are generally Strangers in the Fathers) may think he hath mighty Evidence of his side, while those who are skilled in the Primitive Writers, may easily discern at first Reading, that his Instances are generally false, or impertinent, and his Inferences forced and fallacious. This I have showed in the following Papers particularly, and shall only now make a few general Observations, to take off the Advantages which he seems to have by these numerous Allegations.  
First, His Testimonies are not so many as they may appear to an hasty and careless Reader, because He often repeats the same thing twice, yea, thrice over in several parts of his Book. Thus the same places of S. Augustin are transcribed often, as about correcting Prayers 
(e) Disc. of Lit. pag. 48, & 113. ; about Barbarisms and Solecisms 
(f) Ibid. p. 5. & pag. 142. , about Praying in an House infested with Evil Spirits 
(g) Ib. p. 66. & pag. 121. : And He quotes one Passage in Celestine's Epistles thrice 
(h) Ibid. p. 6. p. 29, & 138 ; in like manner he hath dealt with the same places of Justin, Martyr, S. Basil, Innocentius, and almost all other Fathers, who he thinks have any thing which sounds to the discredit of Liturgy.  
Secondly, His Testimonies are not so weighty as might be imagined at first sight, because wherever his Margin is very full, it is always to prove something which no Body will deny, and which is nothing to the purpose: As about the Ancients delight to conceal their Mysteries 
(i) Disc. of Lit. pag. 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 42. ; about the Laying on of Hands in divers Offices 
(k) Ib. p. 51, & 52. ; about the Variety of Expressions in the Fathers, who only occasionally speak of Baptism 
(l) Ib. p. 95, etc. , or of the Renunciation of the Devil 
(m) Ib. p. 106, & 107. . Now this arguaes a great scarcity of Testimonies concerning the Public and Solemn manner of making Prayers in Christian Assemblies, which is the only Point in question.  
Thirdly, His Evidence is by no means clear and intelligible, and He seems to design it should not serve to inform, but amuse; because he hath jumbled all Antiquity together, and thrown it into confused Heaps, placing the later Fathers often before the former, and mixing the first, last, and middle Ages together, without any order or coherence; yea, and citing the same Father in little parcels in sundry and distant places of his Book: So that it is almost impossible from him to learn the true Sense either of any Age or any Ancient Writer, because those Matters which should help us to judge of this, are so designedly scattered and dispersed.  
Fourthly, His Quotations are not faithful, for he frequently disguises the Evidence which he produces, both by false Translating divers Passages, and Citing them wrong: So in the Council of Carthage he reads, Quascunque for Quicunque 
(n) Disc. of Lit. pag. 44. . And in that of Milevis, Cum prudentioribus collatae, for à prudentioribus collectae 
(o) Ib. p. 49. ; So he Translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cum his & caeteris hujusmodi gratiarum actionibus 
(p) Ib. p. 76. ; pretending they used a diversity in their Praises; whereas S. Chrysostom's Words only import, That they did give Thanks for Variety of Blessings, for these and all such like. And it is very remarkable, that he citys many Authors imperfectly, drawing a Line thus— and leaving out the most material Words, if they seem to make against him. So when he perverts Nazianzen, as if he spoke of Words in Extempore Prayer, he draws a Line before— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and applies it falsely to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but in Nazianzen there are three Substantives (The Throne, the Altar, and the Holy Things) in that Sentence, which he twice leaves out 
(q) Disc. of Lit. pag. 60, & pag. 77. , to which Substantives 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly belongs; for it was not the Words, but the Throne, the Altar, etc. which were present to him by the Holy Ghost. By the same Trick he draws a Line in S. Cyprian after Quidam dicunt— 
(r) Ib. p. 98. , to conceal the next Words, which show it was Heretics only which said this. My Answer hath variety of Instances of such like dealing, which a Man might expect rather from the Disciples of Loyola, than from Persons that pretend to Tenderness of Conscience.  
Lastly, Whereas he often saith, He hath Answered all the Places of the Ancients, which either others had alleged, or He in his diligent search of Antiquity had met with, which seem to make for Liturgies 
(s) Disc. of Lit. p. 179, & alibi. ; I doubt not but to make it appear, that he hath not only omitted, but industriously concealed some Hundreds of Proofs for Liturgies, which I shall produce in my Answer; and by comparing that clear Evidence with the slight Testimonies which he produces to confute, it will appear to every Intelligent Reader, that he resolved to keep all Testimonies of this kind out of sight, except only those which he hoped he could either blunder or pervert to some other Sense.  
Having given this short, but just Character of his Book, I will say something of my own; wherein I have taken Care, that this Ill-dealing should not transport me into any Personal reflections, and am plainly content to show my Adversary is either ignorantly or wilfully mistaken, without giving the Epithets that properly belong to both kinds of Mistakes. Nor will I make it my chief business to confute his Book; but to render my Discourse more useful than it could possibly have been, if I had only followed him through his various Wind and Turn: I have Collected in every Century as many Testimonies, concerning Liturgies, and their Antiquity, Original and Use, as my Time would permit, or the Argument needs, though not all which might have been found; and I have placed these in the exact Order of time, under the several Names of the Fathers; and then reduced the scattered Pieces which he objects, under every one of these Fathers as I go along, giving a distinct answer to them all that are material; which I judge to be the fairest way, to find out the true Sense of Antiquity in this Question. And by this distinct and regular proceeding, I hope, not only to discover the Weakness of my Adversaries pretended Evidence, but to give a clearer and fuller account, of the early beginning and general use of Liturgick Forms, than hath yet been done by any who have Writ upon this Subject. And the use hereof may be First, to confirm the Devout Members of our own Church, who are the greatest and most considerable part of the Nation, in their just Veneration for those Holy Forms, by which they daily serve God, when they find them so very agreeable to pure and  Antiquity; which the Romanists have deserted, by new Additions to their Forms, consonant to their Superstitious Innovations and Corruptions; and so have our Highflown Separatists also, by new pretences to a Gift of Prayer long since ceased, and by Praying Extempore upon ordinary occasions in Public Assemblies; a Method unknown to the Ancients, ever since there was a settled Christian Church. And Secondly, I will not despair, but those moderate Dissenters, who honestly desire to serve God in the best manner, and have been abused by False-Teachers into an ill Opinion of Forms, may by perusing these Papers, lay aside their Ill-grounded prejudices against Liturgies; when they clearly discern, that the most Pious and Learned of the Primitive Martyrs and Fathers, in the best and purest Ages of the Church, did always approve of and use prescribed Forms, in their public Worship. So that they cannot reject Liturgies, as a corrupt, carnal, cold and formal way of Praying, without condemming the Devotions of the best and dearest Servants of God in all Ages, both of the Jewish and Christian Church; Which is a censure as void of Truth and Modesty, as it is of Charity and Humility. It is certain, Millions of Holy and Admirable Men, have Prayed thus with wondrous Fervency, and God hath heard such Prayers; and if they be lawful in themselves, aceptable to Heaven, and sufficient to procure what we Pray for; there can be no reason, why this Church should not enjoin them now, as all other Modern regular Churches do, and the Primitive Church also did. I grant such as have had a false Notion of them, cannot be expected to use them so devoutly as others do; but if their Judgement were rectisied, those prejudices would soon wear off, and a little Time, and Experience of the great benefit of Holy Forms, would convince them, That a Pure and Prudent, Pious and proper Liturgy, such as ours, is the most rational and Advantageous way of Paying our public Service to Almighty God, and the greatest help to true Devotion in the World.  
I confess my first design was, to have gone through every Century that can be called Ancient; but my time not permitting me as yet to transcrible all my Observations in Vindication of the Antiquity of Liturgies, from the unjust Cavils, of my Adversary, I have now published only the first Four Centuries, till the rest be made ready; because if we find them within that compass, all Men must own they are Truly Primitive: And it is not fit to delay a just Censure of this Fallacious Treatise, Since that Party so extremely dote upon it, as to think it unanswerable; For one of them, in his Book called, The healing Attempt, (that is, a project to heal the Dissenters by the Wounds of the established Church,) lately, talks at this vain rate concerning it, As to what relates to stinted Forms of Prayer, the Judicious Mr. Clerkson in his excellent Discourse of Liturgies, having so Learnedly and fully discussed it, he needs only commend its perusal to the Candid Reader, with an Assurance, That until it be cleared that stinted Liturgies are Ancienter than that Learned Person represents them to be, they shall be Freed from a strict Imposition. Thus far he, Who hath been so grossly mistaken in his Character of this Discourse, that I know not how he can make satisfaction for being so Confident in his Error, but by giving us another assurance, that, if we prove Liturgies are much more Ancient than his Friend represents them to be, He and those, who have been misled with him, will no longer disturb the peace of the Church and Nation by opposing them, but will quietly submit to the strict imposition of them, since it is no more, but to be obliged to Serve God in public, by the most Primitive and Prudent way of Worship.   

ERRATA.  
PAg. 3. lin. 13. Marg. read Philo, p. 34. l. 20. Marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 35. l. 28. Marg. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 48. l. 9 r. of praying, 〈◊〉 the Pagan way, p. 63. l. 3. r. assign no, p. 85. l. 23. r. this cause p. 96. l. 3. r. Cardinal Bona, p. 101. l. 25. r. eldest Fathers, p. 109. l. 16. r. cannot be, p. 115. l. 22. stop thus,— parts, for the Heathen Worship, p. 123. l. 8. r. Liturgy is put for, p. 139. l. 22. Marg. verbum praedicet, p. 154. l. 28. Marg. r. pag. 161. p. 156. l. 24. Marg. r. Coci censura, p. 176. l. 27, & 177. l. 16. r. Constitutions, p. 190. l. 7. r. Public Service, p. 195. l. 3. stop thus,— prov●● before, there. p. 202. l. 19 r. is in the Manner, p. 207. l. 19 Marg. r. the bapt. Servator, p. 211. l. 21. r. that the words, p. 212. l. ●. r. giving us many, p. 228. l. 8. Marg. r. mundo, p. 243. l. 18. r. a Solecism, p. 251. l. 17. r. such Mistakes. With some other literal Errors, which the Judicious Reader can easily correct   

A Scholastical History OF THE PRIMITIVE ORIGINAL And general Use of LITURGIES IN THE Christian Church.  

The Introduction, concerning the Grounds for Liturgies in Holy Scripture.  
§. 1. THough LITURGIES have great reputation from their Ancient use in the Church, and the principal design of this Tract be to prove that; yet since a late Author is so bold to say, They pretend not to Scripture 
(a) Discourse concerning Liturgy, p. 1. , I shall introduce my Discourse by showing, That Liturgies have a great reputation also for the testimony which the Scripture bears to them, not only as the Phrases and main parts of them are the words of Scripture; but because the Holy Bible makes it appear, That the People of God from the beginning did generally use Forms of Prayer and Praises in their public Worship. The Learned Fagius thinks they are as old as the time of Enosh, when Men began publicly to call upon the Name of the Lord 
(b) Gen. iv. 26. ; but it is certain that the first piece of solemn Worship among the Israelites recorded in Scripture, is a Form of Praise sung in parts by the Men and Women, after their deliverance from the Egyptians 
(c) Exod. xv. ver. 1. compared with ver. 21. . Soon after, God himself prescribed a Form of Words, by which the Priest was to bless the People 
(d) Num 6.23. , and Forms of Prayer for those who offered their First-fruits and Tithes 
(e) Deut. xxvi. ver. 5, & 13. ; yea, God prescribes a Form of Prayer for the Penitent Jews, and charges them, to Take words with them, and turn to the Lord and say, Take away all Iniquity, etc. and upon their using this Form He promises to heal their backslidings, etc. 
(f) Hos. xiv. 2, 3, 4. . The Psalms of David were Forms of Prayer and Praise indicted by the Spirit of God, not only for his private use, but for the public service of the Temple 
(g) 1 Chron. xuj. 7. 2 Chro. xxix. 30. & Chap. v. 13. . And I could bring innumerable Proofs both out of Jewish and Christian Writers (if it were needful) to show that the Jews did worship God by Set Forms, and had a fixed Liturgy 
(h) Josephus, Philo, P. Fagius, Scaliger, Buxtorf. Synag. Seld. in Eutych. ; but I shall only refer to two Great Men: Doctor Hammond, who proves both that they had Forms, and that their Forms were in the same Method with our Common-Prayer 
(i) Dr. Hamm. View of Direct. p. 136. Oxford. Papers, p. 260. Vol. 1. : And Dr. Lightfoot, who not only asserts they had stated Forms 
(k) Dr. Lightfoot, Vol. 2. p. 158. p. 1139. , but sets down the order both of their Hymns and Supplications, gives us the Words which they used 
(l) Idem Vol. l. p. 922, 942, & 946. , and learnedly demonstrates, that these Forms continued even to our Saviour's time, and long after 
(m) Ibid. p. 157 & Exp: on Mutic vi, 9 ▪ Now from this short, but full Evidence, we thus argue: If the Jews, who were God's only People, and the best among them, even such as were inspired, and in the purest times of that Church, did worship God acceptably by Set Forms of Prayer in their public Devotions, than a Liturgy is no argument of a corrupted Church, no hindrance to fervency, no way displeasing to God, nor unfit for public Assemblies, as our Adversary pretends: But neither he nor his Friends are able to produce one instance where either God disliked Forms, or good Men complained of them, under the legal Dispensation. Therefore I may conclude, That Liturgies are very agreeable to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and may be justified from many places thereof.  
§. 2. To this it may be objected, That though this Method of Praying was agreeable to the old Law, it is not suitable to Gospel-times. To which I reply: First, That this yields the Cause as to the Jewish Church, and is a clear acknowledgement, that the Faithful did then Worship God by Forms. But, Secondly, Since the Duties of Prayer and Praise are grounded on the same Reason now that they were then, and neither are, nor were intended to be abrogated; they who say this, must assign some satisfactory Reason, why these Duties may not be performed now in the same manner that they were performed then, otherwise it is not probable that a Form, as such, is unsuitable to the Gospel way of Worship, especially since Christ and his Apostles, who duly frequented the Temple-Worship (where these Men grant Forms were used) did never show any dislike of that way of Worshipping, and though they taxed their other Corruptions very freely, they joined in these Forms, and never reproved the Jews for using them. Thirdly, This way of serving God having been so anciently and universally used, if Jesus had designed to alter it and set up the new Extempore Way, there ought to have been an express abrogation of the Old Way, and a positive institution of the New one, left upon Record, either in the Gospels or Epistles: But it is so far from that, that we can prove our Lord and his Apostles, allowed, made and used Forms of Prayer; For according to the custom of the great Rabbis of that Age Jesus taught his Disciples a divine Form of Prayer, to be added to their other Forms, as the peculiar mark of their being his Scholars 
(n) Dr Lightf. Vol. 2. p. 158. . And it is observed by learned Men, that Christ took every sentence of this Form out of the Jewish Prayers then in use 
(o) Idem Exp. in Math. vi. 9 & Grotii Com. in locum. . So far (saith Grotius) was the Lord of the Church from all affectation of unnecessary Innovation. And we may note, that when they desired he would teach them to pray, that was a proper occasion to have reform the old method of praying by Forms, if Christ had intended such a thing; but instead of any such intimation, he gives them a new Form, and copies the several Petitions out of the Jewish Liturgy, showing thereby his approbation of praying to God in a prescribed Form. Which is also manifest from our Lord's Hymn, which he and his Apostles sang together after his last Supper 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Math. xxvi. 30. ; and if this were not the Paschal Hymn, as the best Authors think 
(q) Du-Plessis, of the Mass, lib. I. chap. I. pag. 4. , yet it could not be an Extempore Psalm (as Grotius fancies,) because the Apostles sang with him, and so must know the words of it before 
(q) Vid. Bez. not. in Matth. xxvi. 30. . Again, His Prayer in the Garden (which was offered up (as S. Paul notes 
(r) Hebr. v. 7. ) with extraordinary Devotion) was a Form, because he thrice repeated the very same Words 
(s) Math. xxvi. 44. ; and by the way this shows the folly of those who pretend None can pray devoutly, unless they vary the phrase every time they pray. To proceed, It is very probable that our Saviour used a Form of Prayer on the Cross, extracted out of the XXIIth Psalm, which gins, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me 
(t) Math. xxvii. 46. ? yet he had the same Spirit in the highest Manner, by which those Psalms were indicted, and therefore of pure choice used Forms even on extraordinary occasions. The Apostles observed the Jewish hours of Prayer, and worshipped God with them both in their Temple and their Synagogues, but there is no account that they set up a New way of Praying, or disliked the old; and S. Augustine affirms, that they used the Lords Prayer even after they had received the Spirit of God, and repeated that Form every day, even when they were in their greatest state of perfection 
(u) A●g. Hilar. Ep. 89. p. 82. G. . And Beza (whose Authority will sway much with our Adversaries) tells us, That S. Paul promised to come and settle Forms of Prayer at Corinth in the Church which he had planted there; for when he expounds those words, The rest will I set in order when I come, he saith, That is, to settle those things which pertained to order, as Place, Time, and FORMS OF PRAYER 
(w) Beza, not. minor. in 1 Cor. xi. 34. . I only note, he had this Exposition out of S. Augustine 
(x) Aug. Januar. Ep. 118. p. 116. c. , who saith, S. Paul intimates, It was too long for an Epistle, to set down that whole order of Celebration, which the Universal Church observes, so that he would leave that to be settled till he came. And hence the Dutch Divines, who writ to the Assembly at London in the Civil Wars, say, They dare not condemn all those godly Churches, who from the Apostolical and Primitive times, celebrated Gods public Worship by prescribed and certain Forms 
(y) Class. Walach. ap. Falkn. libert. Eccles. pag. 111. . So that they also thought Forms were settled in some Churches even from the Apostles times, which I could prove by many other Authorities, but these may suffice.  
§. 3. There are some Objections against these Proofs from the New Testament dispersed up and down the discourse of Liturgies and other Writings of that party, which I will here consider before I proceed.  
First, Our Adversary brings many Quotations to prove, that the Ancients did not believe the Lords Prayer was intended for a Form, but for a direction what things they should pray for 
(z) Discourse of Lit. p. 3, & 4. : But all that heap of Authors which he citys, affirm no more than that it was not only to be a Form, but also a direction. Which we freely grant; for if it were intended at all to be used as a Form; then Forms are agreeable to the Gospel way of Worship, and the using it as a Form, doth not hinder it from being a direction to draw up other Forms by; for all Authentic Liturgies (and ours especially) are grounded on and drawn up by the Lord's Prayer; The Collects for Grace being grounded on the three first Petitions; The Prayers for all Earthly Blessings are grounded upon the Request for our daily Bread; The Confessions and Litanies for pardon and deliverance from Sin, and all other kinds of evil, upon the three last Petitions; and, The Thanksgivings, Hymns and Praises upon the Doxology. So that I cannot but wonder at this Authors impertinent filling a whole Page with Quotations, to prove it lawful to use other Words in Prayer, while he is disputing against us who allow and use Liturgies which are other Words, but such as are agreeable to it, both as to the Form and Matter of them: His business was to prove the Lord's Prayer was never intended by Christ, nor used by the Church as a Form: But almost every one of his Authors grant it was a Form even in the places he produces. Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom do so in him and in an hundred places more (as I shall show when I come to them in Order.) Calvin in his Quotation calls it, A Form dictated by Christ; and elsewhere saith, That holy Men daily repeat it by Christ's Command 
(a) Calv. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 1. § 23. . Maldonat only tells us, We are not always bound to use these very Words. Grotius owns, it may profitably be repeated in those very Words. Causabon (in the place cited) is not speaking of the Lord's Prayer 
(b) Causab. exercit. 14. num. 14. p. 235. : And it was hardily done to cite Mr. Mede for his Opinion, who in the place which he citys doth not only prove the Lord's Prayer was a Form, but also that the use of Forms under the Gospel is lawful and profitable 
(c) Mede, Diatrib. 1. on Math. vi. 9 . Jansenius doth not dislike the use of the Words of our Lord's Prayer as a Form; but the minding only the Words, and not the Sense, he justly reproves. I shall add, That his Friend Du-Plessis saith, The Lord's Prayer was commended to the Apostles for their ordinary Prayer 
(d) Du-Plessis of the Mass, Book I. chap. 1. pag. 9 ). I have been more particular in clearing this point, that I may show the Reader, to how little purpose this Author usually fills his Margin; and may now conclude, That Christ did intent this Prayer for a Form, and so it was used by the Church in all Ages.  
Secondly, We are often told of a Gift of Prayer which was in the Apostolic Church, and this Gift enabling Persons (as they suppose) to express their wants in Extempore Phrases, made Forms (in that Age, however) useless. I Answer, That this Gift is not expressly mentioned in Scripture, nor in any ancient Author but S. Chrysostom, and he holds it was a Miraculous Gift, peculiar to the Pastors of the Church, and saith, it was ceased long before his time; so that in S. Chrysostom's Opinion, our Dissenters Extempore Prayers cannot proceed from this Gift; and it is plain, they pervert all the places of Scripture which they produce, to prove their claim to this Gift of Prayer. Christ indeed saith, When the Apostles (Martyrs or Confessors) were brought before their Enemies and Persecutors, They need take no thought, how or what they should speak; for it should be given them in that hour what they should speak 
(e) Math. x. 19 : But, What is this (saith a Learned Father) to speaking before our Friends, where premeditation is enjoined 
(f) Isidor. Peleus. lib. 4. ep. 218. ? or what reason is there to apply this to the Prayers we make to God, to whom we must not say any thing which we have not well considered on before we speak it 
(g) Eccles. v. 1, 2. ? Secondly, They allege that place of S. Paul, Rom. VIII. 26. The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what to pray for as we ought, &c But this place cannot be meant of the infirmity of wanting Words, because it is here said, The Spirit maketh intercession for us with groans which cannot be uttered: and the Context shows, that S. Paul is speaking of the infirmity of Impatience under present Afflictions, and praying for immediate deliverance, even when it is not pleasing to God, nor profitable for us: Now this Infirmity the Spirit helpeth, and teacheth us to bear them patiently, and submit to Gods Will, yea, to pray his Will may be done; yet in the mean time the Spirit pleads with God to deliver us, and that with inexpressible ardency: So that this place is no ground for any to expect the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, to teach them new Words and Phrases in ordinary Cases, and for their daily Prayers. Thirdly, They tell us, S. Paul speaks of praying with the Spirit, and praying with understanding 
(h) 1 Cor. xiv. 15. . I Answer, He is discoursing of praying in an unknown Tongue, which since none of our Adversaries can do now, this place is nothing to their purpose; and I much question, whether they who pray Extempore, can be said to pray with understanding as to their own particulars, because they neither know before what they are to say, nor can remember afterward what they have said: However, the strict Meaning of this place is no More, but that if a Man, who had the Gift of Tongues, prayed in a Congregation which understood not the Language he prayed in, he must Make the People understand the meaning of his Prayer, or be silent; but whether his Prayer were a Form or Extempore, is not said in this place, which refers to the Gift of Tongues, and not to the Gift of Prayer. But our Adversary hath a peculiar Notion of this Gift of Prayer, viz. That it was an ordinary Gift, common to all Christians, and continuing to this day; which he proves, because all to whom the Apostles writ are exhorted to Pray in the Spirit 
(i) Ephes. vi. 18. , and to pray in the Holy Ghost 
(k) Judas ver. 20. ; by which he understands, that they were all able to conceive their own Prayers, and therefore he thinks, if they made use of Prayers form by others, they did not exercise their own Gift, nor pray as they were able 
(l) Discourse of Liturg. p. 128, 129. . To which I Reply, That the absurd consequences of this Exposition ought to make our Author ashamed of it, since it would follow from hence, That no Man in their public Assemblies (except the Minister) did Pray in the Spirit, because the Minister alone conceives the Prayer; and though it be Extempore to him, yet it is a Form to the whole Congregation, who must pray in his Words, and not exercise their own Gift of Praying by the Spirit in his Sense, which is to invent the Words by the Spirit: Rejecting therefore this absurd Exposition, that leads to so ridiculous a Conclusion, we shall note, That praying with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, Ephes. vi. 18. signifies no more than praying fervently and hearty; as loving in the Spirit 
(m) Coloss. I. ver. 8. , is put for loving fervently, & ex animo, from the Heart. Thus Grotius expounds it, Praying not only with the Voice, but from the Heart 
(n) Grot. Com. in Ephes. vi. 18. . And thus, Praying in the Holy Ghost (Judas ver. 20.) implies, Praying with that devotion and fervency which we are moved to by the Holy Spirit; but then this is no extraordinary Gift, this is no more than what both Then and Now every good Man, by the ordinary assistance of the Spirit, might and may do, even by a Form; for he that repeats that so as to attend the Sense, and hearty desires every Petition may be granted, he prays by the Spirit, or in the Spirit, as these Scriptures exhort; and thus the People as well as the Priest (in public or private) may and aught to pray in the Spirit. Which shows that these places rightly expounded, are nothing at all to our Dissenters pretended gift of Inventing new Words every time they Pray. We will grant there was such a Gift in the Apostles times; But we judge St. Chrysostom knew much better than they, what it was, and he thinks it was as Miraculous as the gift of Tongues, with which St. Paul joins it: He saith it was given only to one, and affirms it was ceased long before his time; and seems to imply that the Forms which were made in his Days, had their Original from the Prayers, which were made at first by these inspired Men; Whose Prayers thus conceived were written down, and so preserved and used when the Gift itself failed. And when we consider the agreeableness of all Ancient Liturgies in the Method, and even in many of the Phrases and Forms, and their near Resemblance to each other, we may Rationally believe they were all derived at first, from that One Spirit, which directed all Inspired Men in their new planted Churches, to ask fit and proper things almost in the very same Words. And thus the Gift of Prayer was so far from making Liturgies to be useless, that it really was the first ground and Original of them, being Forms first indicted by the Spiritual and Inspired Men in the Apostolical Age, and Transmitted down to us by their Successors; For which reason we ought to Reverence Ancient and Primitive Forms (many of which (as will be proved) are yet in our Liturgy) far before those Extempore Prayers, made by a pretended Gift, which hath been ceased above 1300 years. And if we compare the proper Phrases, accurate Method, and judicious well-weighed Composure of our Forms, with the impertinence, Tautologies, Hesitation and Confusion so visible in their Extempore Prayers, we shall be convinced that the latter cannot proceed from the Spirit of God; nor ought to come in Competition, with our excellent Forms. And this may suffice for the Scripture Period, which gives great Reputation to Liturgies, and no Countenance to such as now pretend to Extempore Prayers.   

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

●●●lo judaens, Ann. Dom. 60.  First, That Philo and Josephus do both so describe the Essenes', that not only Eusebius of Old, but divers learned Men of these Ages, believe them to have been Christians; or however that the first Christians exactly imitated their Rites 
(o) Philo de vit. Contemplate. Joseph. bell. jud. lib. 2. cap. ●. Euseb. hist. lib. 2. cap. 16. : Among which was this, to rise before the arising of the Sun, and to Worship God by certain Prayers received from their Forefathers, as Josephus tells us. Now these Prayers could be no other than Forms, because they were delivered down to them from their Fathers. Philo also relates that they had a Choir of two sides, singing alternately, so that when one had begun to Sing, the rest answered him, by repeating the ends of the Verses, in imitation of those at the Red Sea: Now this way of alternate Singing, must be by some prescribed and known Forms, or else the Choir could never answer one another: Yet these kind of Prescribed Hymns, sung in this manner, Eusebius here calls, The Hymns used among us Christians 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. : And that excellent Historian labours to prove these Essenes' were Christians, by this Argument, among some others, because they Prayed and Sung Hymns, in set Forms, early in the Morning as the Christians use to do: Wherefore Eusebius who knew the first Age better than we, did believe this at least, that the Christians than had Forms of Prayer and Praise, which are the main parts of a Liturgy.  
Secondly, Clemens Romanus 
Clemens Romanus, An. Dom. 90.  in his Genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, (for we need not cite any spurious Tracts) intimates they then had a Liturgy, for he saith, We ought to do all those things in order, which our Lord hath Commanded us to perform, viz. To Celebrate our Oblations and Liturgies at certain times;— and a little after— Let every one of you in his Order offer his Eucharist to God, keeping a good Conscience with all Gravity, and not Swerving from the Determined Rule of his Ministration; 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epist. ad Corinth. edit. Oxon. 1669. pag. 92.  which Golden Remain of true primitive Antiquity shows, that the public Service was then performed in order by our Lords own Command; and that there was a determined Rule for the Administrations, from which no Man might swerve: which Rule being mentioned by this Writer, who was a Companion to the Apostles, could be settled by none but by our Lord himself, or at least by the Apostles. And if our Adversaries say, this was only a Method, not a prescribed Liturgy: I r●ply, they cannot prove this; and yet if they could, supposing they needed an order, even while the Gifts of Prayer and Inspiration remained, when these are ceased, the Church may well be supposed to stand in as much need of prescribed Forms now, as they did of a determined Order then.  

P●●n●●●ua●●r, An. Dom. ●3.  § 2. Soon after this, we have an account of the Christian Worship, from the Pen of Pliny, who Writ to the Emperor Trajan, what he had extorted by Methods of Severity, from some of that profession, viz. That the Christians used to meet on a certain day, before it was Light, and alternately sang an Hymn to Christ as God; b●●ding themselves by a Sacrament, (not to any wicked thing, but) that they would not Steal, nor Rob, nor commit Adultery, nor break their Faith, nor withhold the Pledge; 
(r) Carmenque Christo, quasi Deo dicere secum in vicem, Plin. lib. 10. ep.  Now if we remember Pliny was a Roman and a Heathen, we must suppose him to speak in their Phrases, and among them Carmen dicere, was to repeat a Prayer in a set form of Words: Vossius saith it was called [Carmen] though it were not Sung; for the Romans called every thing [Carmen,] which was in a set form of Words. 
(s) Vossius comment. in dictam Epist. Plin. pag. 47.  Brissonius also informs us, That they Prayed to the Gods [Solenni Carmine] with a set Form of Words, 
(t) Brisson. de formul. p. 97.  and that the Prayer for the Comitia was called solemn Carmen, The solemn Prayer, though it were not composed by any Poetic measures: 
(u) Id. ibid. pag. 137.  And Livy speaks of the Solemn Form of Prayer in the same Phrase. 
(w) Solenne Carmen precationis, Liv. lib. 39 cap. 15.  Wherefore since Pliny uses the Word Dicere, and not Canere, he may well be thought to have meant, They said a Prayer to Christ as God, in a set Form of Words. Yet because Tertullian, when he citys this passage, Paraphrases it, by Singing to Christ and to God. 
(x) Ad canendum Chr sto & Deo. Tertul. Ap. cap. 2.  We will allow it to be Expounded of an Hymn: but even so, since it was sung alternately, it is certain it must be a prescribed Form; and since Christians were to Sing, as well as to Pray by the Spirit, we may be sure Forms are no hindrance to the Spirit; because if they were, it would be as unlawful to Sing, as (they pretend it is) to Pray by a Form. We also add, that this account exactly agrees with that of the Essenes', both in their beginning before Sunrising, and their Singing by Turns: Wherefore since those Essenes' had Forms of Prayer as well as praise, we must conclude the Christians had so also: And we must either suppose, that Pliny gave a very imperfect account of the Christian worship, and absurdly imagine, that Christians only sang praises without any Prayers in their Assemblies: Or we must grant he speaks of Hymns by a Synecdoche, putting them for the whole Christian Service; of which the Hymns were the greater and more Eminent part, and so mingled with the Prayers, that the one could not be separated from the other: For the Christians imitated Paul and Silas, who Praying, sang Hymns to God in the Prison 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. xuj. 25. . They therefore mixed Hymns and Prayers, and the Hymns were so great a part of the Service, that to be present at the Morning Hymns 
(z) Synod. Vinet. can. 14. An. 453.  signifies, to be at the Morning Prayer; And to be forbid to Sing in the Church, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Isidor. Peleus. lib. 1. ep. 90.  imports Excommunication from the whole Service: Wherefore if the Hymns were certainly in Forms prescribed, it is more than probable, the Prayers were so also; because it would have been very odd and preposterous to break off from Forms of praise, and run out into Extempore Prayers, in the ordinary Public Worship; one part of which at this rate, must have had no kind of Congruity to the other. Wherefore this Testimony proves that the greatest part of the Christians public Service, was performed by prescribed Forms in the first Century, and shows it is very probable, that their Prayers also were set Forms, even in that early Age.  
§. 3. We have no Writer remaining in this Century but Ignatius, 
Ignatius Antioch. An. Dom. 99  who lived also in some part of the next: And from him it seems very probable, that the Bishop did appoint one Form of Prayer and Supplication for the public Worship, especially for the Administration of the Sacraments; for he charges all those to whom he Writes, to do nothing without the Bishop; and orders them of Magnesia, to do nothing without the Bishop and the Presbyters, nor to make trial of things which seemed agreeable to their private Fancies; but when they met together he tells them, they must have one Prayer and one Supplication: 
(b)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ep. ad Magnes. p. 34.  declaring to those at Smirna, that the only Authentic Celebration of the Eucharist and of Baptism, was that which the Bishop either performed or allowed. 
(c) Ignat. Epist. ad Smirn. pag. 6.  Now if their Prayers were varied every day, they could not properly be called one Prayer; And if every private Minister, might order the Form of Baptism and the Lords Supper as he pleased, (as our Extempore Men take on them to do;) how could Ignatius say none was Authentic unless the Bishop allowed it? Therefore it is likely, they then had approved and uniform composures, both for Prayers and Sacraments. And as for their Praises, Socrates saith, Ignatius first brought the usage of Singing by way of Antiphone, into the Church of Antioch; 
(d) Socrat. histor. lib. 6. cap. 8.  and the same is attested by Photius. 
(e) In Dr. Ham. view of the Directory, pag. 145.  Now if we consider, that this was the Method of Singing Hymns among the Jews and Essenes'; and also among the Christians in this Age in other places, it can be no ways improbable, that Ignatius did set up this custom of Singing alternately at Antioch. I know, some take exceptions at the Vision of Angels, from whom he is said to learn this Method: but let it be Noted, that this was an Age of Miracles, and that the Holy Scripture, represents the glorious Seraphins Singing in this Alternate manner. 
(f) Isai. vi. 3.  So that it is not unlikely, that so great a Saint and Martyr might have such a Vision; and Theodoret's silence of this, (which is all this Author pretends against it, 
(g) Disc. of Liturg. p. 167. ) may proceed from his taking it for granted, and supposing it was generally owned and known. So that this will prove, Forms of Prayer approved by the Bishop, and Alternate Singing, which must be in prescribed Forms, was used in this Age: Wherein it seems there were Psalms and Hymns, written and composed by the Faithful, to glorify Christ, the Word of God. As that Primitive Author (cited by Eusebius) testifies, who Writ against the Heresy of Artemon; and among other Mediums, confutes it, by citing these very Hymns, which had been made almost from the beginning of Christianity, and were of so great Authority, that in the Reign of Pertinax, 
* Circ. An. 193.  they were quoted as good Evidence in a matter of Faith 
(h) Euseb. Hist. lib. 5. cap. 28. pag. 145. . Now an Extempore Hymn, could not be cited, nor be produced as a Testimony; and therefore we conclude, there were Written Hymns, or Forms of Praise composed and allowed as Evidence in points of Faith, from the very beginning of Christianity. And therefore we have reason, to suppose there was a Liturgy and Forms of Prayer also; and this may be sufficient for this dark Century.   

CHAP. II. Of Liturgies in the Second Century.  
§ 1. WE have not many Writings of this Age, and none that had occasion to write particularly of the Church Service; which they cared not to publish, lest the Pagans, under whom they lived, should deride or blaspheme their sacred Mysteries; and for this reason, we must not look for any clear Evidence of Liturgies as yet; though considering the Gospel was in planting, and Churches were but begun to be settled, there is as plain indication of the use of Forms as can be expected.  
First, Lucian the Jeering Pagan, 
Lucian. An. Dom. 112.  (who certainly had some knowledge of the Christian Rites,) describes his coming into a Religious Assembly, which by all the Circumstances must be a Christian Church; and he saith, he there heard That Prayer which began with the Father, and ended with the Hymn of many Names. 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lucian Philopat. p. 1128.  Where we see the Christians had a certain Prayer known by its beginning, which therefore must be an usual Form: We may also perceive there was an Hymn at the end of this Prayer, commonly called the Hymn of many Names: which therefore probably was a Form also, or else this was no proper or certain description of it. I need not determine whether he means this of the Lords Prayer, and the Doxology only; though it is not likely so short a Form of Praise, (in which are only the Attributes, not the Names of God,) should be called the Hymn of Many Names. I rather think it might be meant of the Communion Office, which probably began with Our Father, etc. and after some other less remarkable Prayers, they added the Tricagion, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts: But whatever the particular Forms were, this is certain, they were Forms of Prayer and Praise, known by their proper Titles, and that suffices to prove That Forms were then used in the Christian Worship.  
§ 2. Justin Martyr doth often speak of the Christian Assemblies, 
Justin Matyr An. Dom. 140.  and of the several Duties there performed, Prayers and Hymns, Baptism and the Holy Eucharist; but gives no account in what Words they celebrated these Offices; for when he mentions. Baptism, he only saith, They are taught to Fast and Pray, and ask of God the forgiveness of their former Sins. And being brought where Water is, they are Regenerated in the same manner, as we were Regenerated, 
(d) Just. M. Apol. 2. p. 93.  which shows, that even in his time, they began to conceal the particular manner of Celebrating these Mysteries. So that we cannot expect much light from him, as to the Christian Forms: Yet we must remember he lived in Palestina, and conversed much with the Jews, who then used Forms of Prayer and Praise, for which he never reproves them, nor doth he speak of any difference between the Jewish and Christian Worship, in this particular. But he hath some general expressions, which incline me to believe they had Forms in his time. I shall not insist upon his saying, they prayed for the Conversion of the Jews, and the deliverance of the Gentiles from their Errors, and for all Men 
(c) Just. M. dialog. cum Tryph. p. 363. & p. 335. ; Though these are pieces of ancient Litany: But I will observe that when he speaks, of the bringing the Newly-baptized Person to the place where the Faithful worshipped God, he saith, They there made Common-Prayers for themselves, for the Person Baptised, and for all other Men every where, with great fervency. 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoli. 2. p. 97.  Now Common-Prayers do signify Forms that are known to all, and in which all may join; and therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Lords Prayer, which was that Form, which all the Christians used and repeated together, calls it, a public and Common-Prayer 
(g) Publica est nobis, & Communis Oratio. Cypr. de Or. Dom. ; and to such Forms which all locally joined in, Ignatius (before cited) refers, when he speaks of One Prayer and one Supplication. But our Adversary, who will not allow this plain and natural exposition of Justin's Common-Prayer, stretches another ambiguous Phrase of his most extremely, to make it signify Extempore Prayer, viz. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) The first place, he citys for this is in the next Page; The Precedent offers up Prayers, and in like manner Thanksgivings as well as he is able 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apol. 2. p. 98. ; this, he gives us twice over 
(i) Disc. of Liturg. p. 68 & p. 115. , and most extremely glories, in it, spending ten Pages in Quotations, (most of which are nothing to the purpose) to strain it to his Sense of inventing Words as the Spirit enabled them, or Praying Extempore. To all which I answer, First, That if this were the Sense, it will not follow that because the ●ishops in Justin Martyrs time, were inspired to make Extempore Prayers, therefore every private Minister in this Age, when Inspiration and that Gift of Prayer is ceased, hath the same ability now. Secondly, It seems he is hard put to it for proofs, when he is forced to lay so great stress on a single ambiguous Phrase, which may be otherwise interpreted, since this Phrase can be no solid proof, unless his were the only Sense of it. But, Thirdly, I shall make it out, that it doth signify otherwise in this place. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, answers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place before cited; That declares the Prayers at Baptism were made Fervently, or with all their might 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . And this shows that the Prayers at the Eucharist were made (as Du-plessis Translates it) by the Precedent, with all the power and might that was in him. And thus in Scripture the same Phrase is used by the LXX. (which version, Justin both uses and imitates,) for doing a thing with all our might 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eccles. 9.10. . For Solomon advises us, to do what we are about with all Application of Mind; and when the Phrase is applied to Prayer, it must signify to Pray as Fervently and devoutly as we are able: And doubtless when we desire the several things Prayed for in a Form with all the Earnestness and Vigour we can, we may properly be said to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as we are able, or to the utmost of our power: As in Plautus, Orare opere maximo, signifies to entreat or beg a thing with extraordinary importunity 
(m) Nunc te hoc orare jussit opere maximo. Plaut. Mostel. iii. 2. Maximo te orabat opere. Eunuch. iii. 3. . So that the power here spoken of, refers to the affections, and not to the Phrases or expressions of him that prays; And therefore it hath no relation to Extempore Praying: Yea, if we review the place of Justin Martyr again, we shall see, that this Phrase doth not follow (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Prayers, but (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Thanksgivings; So that it doth chief, if not only, relate to the Hymns used in the Eucharist, which the Bishop offered up with all his might, that is, with all Fervency. Now these Hymns, as we have proved before, were known Forms, and yet Justin Martyr saith, they were offered up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore this Phrase cannot be expounded here, that they made the Hymns Extempore. And our Adversary is forced to false point and miserably wrest a parallel place in this Author, to make it seem to belong only to Extempore Prayer 
(n) Disc. of Liturg. p. 114. 115. he leaves out the stop between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vid. loc. ; whereas there, this Phrase is very evidently joined to the Word Praising, with the Words of Prayer and Thanksgiving in all our oblations, praising him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as well as we are able 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just. M. Apol. 2. p. 60. . And withal it must be noted, that in this latter place, the Phrase is not, (as he pretends) applied to the Minister, but to all the Christian People, who no doubt joined in the Hymns in public, with all possible Fervency and Devotion; (and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) yet did not make those Hymns Extempore. I suppose when the Son of Syrach said to the Jews, when you glorify the Lord, exalt him as much as you can— and when you exalt him, put forth all your strength 
(p)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , (where the Greek Phrase is almost the same,) no man will be so absurd to imagine, 
*— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ecclus. Cap. xliii. Ver. 30.  he bid them every one make Extempore Hymns; For he plainly means, They should recite the Forms (used in their Nation,) with all imaginable Vigour and Devotion. And thus Origen (cited by him) applies the like Phrases; For he saith, all Christians in their own Tongues prayed to God, and praised him as well as they were able 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cells. l. 8. p. 402. . And again speaking of all Christians, he saith, they Worshipped God and his only Son— according to their ability with Prayers and Praises 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. pag. 386. : Not that every private Christian invented his Prayers and Praises Extempore, but used the Forms made for them (in public, especially) with Vigorous affections, and Fervent Devotion; And if these places of Origen, do at all belong to Christians public Worship, (as they must do, if they be to the purpose in this dispute;) then we may be sure, private Christians were not allowed to make their own Prayers and Praises Extempore there; that would have bred such confusion, as St. Paul forbids expressly 
(s) 1 Cor. xiv. 26. ; and yet Origen assures us, they offered them up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore that Phrase must not be restrained to Extempore Prayer. No nor (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which he citys out of Nazianzen, where also all Christians are exhorted As well as they were able to Sing that Triumphant Hymn, (upon julian's being cut off,) which Israel Sang when the Egyptians were drowned in the Red Sea 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Naz. Orat. 3 pag. 54. . For Nazianzen there sets down the very Words, which he would have them all Sing, being indeed that same Hymn which is Recorded, Exod. xv. only adapted and fitted for this Occasion: Now if this Form was to be Sung (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as well as they were able; then the Phrase means no more here, but as Devoutly as they could, and cannot be applied to Extempore inventions, to which he would gladly restrain it. I grant when this Phrase is applied to another subject matter, such as writing Books, or Preaching, it sometimes signifies doing these things, as their Fancy and parts enable them; but all his Quotations of this kind are nothing to this dispute, where we are only to consider the Phrase, as it is applied to praying and praising God. 
* So pro viribus in S. Augustine, signifies the strength of Devotion, not the strength of Fancy.  And there we have showed it never signifies doing these Extempore, but doing them very Devoutly; wherefore (that we may not tyre the Reader (as he doth,) with numberless Quotations, which are not to the point,) we conclude that the Bishop in Justin Martyr, did pray as earnestly as he was able, but not Extempore. I have been the larger in refuting this Exposition because it is his main Argument, which he repeats and urges over and over, and triumphs in, as sufficient to carry the whole Cause; whereas for any thing appears, it rather proves the Christians had Forms of Prayer and Praise at the Celebration of the Eucharist in Justin Martyrs time.  
§. 3. Irenaeus is as wary as Justin Martyr, 
S. Irenaeus, An. Dom. 179,  not to publish any of the Words used in the Christian Offices, though he speak both of Baptism and the Eucharist, and of the Prayers and Praises there, in general. Only when some of those Heretics made an Argument from the conclusion of a Form of Doxology to prove their Fancies by, on that occasion he is forced to mention it, and say, They allege (saith he) also, that we in our Thanksgivings do say World without end 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iren. adv. haer. l. 1. c. 1. p. 16. . Now these words are the very Conclusion of the Gloria Patri— and being urged by the Heretics in way of Argument against the Orthodox, it must be a known, constant and never varied Form, of common use in the Church; and therefore we may infer from thence, that in Irenaeus his time, the Christians praised God in public by this very Form which we now use, Glory be to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen. And (as we shall show presently) the same Argument, and grounded upon the same public Form is mentioned in Tertullian 
(w) Tertul. de spe●●ac. p. 83. , in this same Age; which proves, that the Gloria Patri— was a Form not only in the Gallican, but also in the African Church.  

Clemens Alex. An. Dom. 192.  In this Century lived Clemens of Alexandria, who tells us, The Church is not only the Name of the Place for public Worship; but the Congregation prostrating themselves in Prayers, having all as it were one common Voice, and one Mind 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. ; alluding no doubt to those words of S. Paul, That ye may with one Mind and one Mouth glorify God 
(y) Rom. xv. 6. ; that is (saith Grotius) That when ye praise God and pray to him, ye may do it not only with the same sound of Words, as Doxologies and Litanies use to be said; but also with a Mind full of mutual Love 
(z) Grot. in loc. . So that praying and praising God as it were with one Mind and one Mouth, signifies performing these Offices by responsory Prayers and Praises, as they did in their Litanies and Doxologies of old, which must be in known Forms, because the People not only joined in heart with the Minister, but vocally answered in their turns, they and the Priest often making up the Sentence between them, and therefore are said to have as it were One common Voice: So that this passage is a Paraphrase upon Ignatius his One Prayer and One Supplication, and upon Justin Martyr's Common Prayers; and it shows there were Forms mutually repeated between Priest and People in Clemens Alex. his Time. Our Adversary would evade this by pretending, This one common Voice is meant of the Minister, who is the People's Mouth to God 
(a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 136. ; but let it be noted, that Clemens is not speaking of the Minister alone, but of him and the whole Congregation together; and if the Minister had said all the Prayers, he must save said plainly, They had one common Mouth, or Voice; but his Words are, Having as it were one common Voice; which notes, that they joined Voices in responsory Forms, and so made many Voices like unto one Voice; and this uniting of the Minister and People in putting up their Common-Prayers, shown also the union of their Minds and Affection. Moreover, we may the more reasonably believe, that the Christians had Forms in Clemens his Time, because he saith, They allotted certain hours for Prayer, the Third, the Sixth and the Ninth, in imitation of Daniel and the Jews 
(b) Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. . Now the Jews used Forms, and it is likely those who imitated them in the Times, would do it also in the Manner of Praying. Nor can we think that they who prayed so often, would vary the Phrase every time: What were the Words of their Forms then, Clemens no way relates; but the main Petitions were, First, For the pardon of Sin; Secondly, For deliverance from Temptation; Thirdly, For ability to do good 
(c) Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 6. . Now these being the constant and common wants of all Men, and things daily needful for every one, it was most fit to ask them in a set Form of Words; and if they had prayed for these things Extempore, Clemens could not have been so positive in the Method, as he seems to be. I had almost forgot one of his Objections, which is, That the Christians then lifted up their Hands and Eyes to Heaven in Prayer, which shows they had no Books 
(d) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 9 & Clem. Alex. ibid. . I reply, It proves no such matter, because though the Priest did read his part out of a Book, the People might lift up their Hands and Eyes, so long as he prayed alone; and by frequent use of the common Forms, both they and he would be so ready at the accustomed Words, as to have liberty enough to look off from their Books and look up to Heaven, as we in this Church often do in the use of our Liturgy.  
§. 4. At the same time flourished Tertullian, 
Tertullian, An. Dom. 192.  in whose Works we have sufficient evidence that they used Forms of Prayer and Praises: For he declares, That Christ hath fixed a new Form of Prayer for us, who are his Disciples, viz. The Lord's Prayer, which he expounds in a peculiar Tract 
(e) Tertul. de Orat. cap. 1. ; And in divers places calls it, The lawful and the ordinary Prayer 
(f) De Orat. cap. 9 & de Jejun. cap. 15. pag. 553. de fuga in persec. cap. 2. ; there being clear proof in him, that the Christians daily repeated this very Form. Now, if they used but one Form in their Devotions, they could not think Forms were unlawful, nor imagine that Forms stinted the Spirit, as our Dissenters now believe: Yea, that they used in public to pray by Forms, seems to be intimated in that Passage, That the Christians met together, and as if they were drawn up to Battle, did jointly set upon God with their Prayers, which Violence was acceptable to the Almighty 
(g) Quasi manu factâ precationibus ambiamus; haec vis Deo grata est. Tertul. Apol. cap. 39 ; for this implies their joining Voices as well as Hearts. And though he do not give us the very words of their Litany, because he writ to the Unbelievers; yet he describes some of the things which they desired of God to bestow on the Emperors, viz. That they might have a long life, and a quiet Empire; that their Family might be safe, their Armies valiant, their Senate faithful, their People virtuous, and that the whole World might be in peace 
(h) Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. : And it must be noted, that Tertullian could not have quoted these particulars as a proof of the Christians Loyalty, if they had not generally asked these very things; Extempore Prayers would have been so various, that they could have been no evidence in this or any other case. Moreover, he calls the Offices used in the celebration of the Eucharist, Divine and Solemn Rites; and adds, That after these solemn Rites were finished, the People were dismissed 
(i)— Dominica solennia— transacta solennia & dimissa plebe. Tert. de anim. cap. 9 ; where, though he studiously avoid reciting any part of the Office, yet he intimates by that Phrase, it was a Form, because Solennes Preces, Solemn Prayers among the Romans, were those certain and solemn words in Prayer, from which they might not vary 
(k) Brisson. de formul. lib. 1. pag. 61. . He also saith concerning Baptism, That Christ had not only imposed the Law of Baptising, but also prescribed the Form of it 
(l) Tertul. de Bapt. cap. 13. . So that Baptism doubtless was performed then by a certain and set Form; and though our Adversary argues, that Tertullian uses variety of Words concerning this Form 
(m) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 94. & 95. ; yet it is to be noted, that this is only in his discoursing concerning it, where Tertullian doth not pretend to cite the words, but mentions the thing occasionally: As to the Laudatory part of the Service, it appears from him, that they sang Psalms and Hymns alternately, and therefore in Forms 
(n) Tert. ad uxor. lib. 2. pag. 172. , one of which Forms was the Gloria Patri, which he describes, as Irenaeus did, by the last words, World without end, Amen. For he asks the Christians, If they could give testimony to a Gladiator in the Theatre with that Mouth which said Amen in the Church; or if they could say, World without end to any but God or Christ 
(o) Ex ore que Amen in sanctum protuleris, gladiatori testimonium reddere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alii omnino dicere nisi Deo & Christo. Tert. de spectac. pag. 83. ? From whence we may infer, that the Glory be to the Father, etc. which was a Form in the Gallican Church in Irenaeus his time, was also a Form used in Tertullian's time in Africa, and so may be justly taken for one of the primitive and universal Forms by which all Churches did glorify God: And it will be very hard for our Adversary to give a Reason why they might not use Forms in their Prayers, as well as in their Praises. He urges against this one passage of Tertullian, where describing their Lovefeasts he saith, After they have washed their hands and brought in Lights, they called for some to sing either Psalms, or somewhat of their own Composing 
(p) Tertul. Apol. cap. 39 Discourse of Liturg. p. 126, & 143. . But if we look on the place, we shall find this was after the public Worship was done, at their common Meal; and if this Hymn was taken out of the Psalms, than it was a Form most certainly; or if it were of their own Composing, probably it was made at home; however, it will not follow, that now those miraculous Gifts of Inspiration are ceased, we may compose Extempore Hymns, because they did it in an Age when many had those Gifts. Some other slight Objections he raises out of this Author against Forms of Prayer: As, First, That Christians than looked up to Heaven when they prayed 
(q) Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. Disc. of Liturg. p. 9 . But this was answered before, and yet we must add, that Tertullian affirms, they did not always look up to Heaven in Prayer; For sometimes he saith, They did not look up with confidence toward Heaven, but imitated the Publican, who prayed with an humble and downcast Countenance 
(r) Idem de Oratione, c. 13. . And S. Cyprian observes, That the Christians did not impudently lift up their Eyes to Heaven 
(s) Cypr. de Orat. Dom. §. 4. p. 310 : So that no Argument can be drawn from the one posture or the other. But his main Objection out of Tertullian is that Phrase of Sine monitore, quia de pectore, viz. That the Christians prayed without a Monitor, because they prayed out of their Breast, that is, as he expounds it, prayed Extempore 
(t) Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. . To which I cannot yield, because a dark phrase of an obscure Author, which is capable of many Interpretations, must not be allowed for a proof of a new Method of Praying. I confess Bishop Bilson modestly saith, This seemeth to be meant of the miraculous Gift of Prayer, which dured in the Church unto his time 
(u) Bilson's Christian Subject, part 4. pag. 411. . But then he supposes this Gift ceased soon after, and believes that Liturgies came into use long before the time of S. Basil or S. Chrysostom 
(w) Id. ibid. pag. 437. : So that if we allow this Bishop's Exposition, none of our Adversaries Consequences will follow; for it doth no way prove, that Ministers may now pray Extempore after the miraculous Gift of Prayer is ceased, because those who had that Gift, prayed in that manner. Though I confess I see no need thus to expound the Phrase; For allowing Rigaltius his ingenious observation, that Tertullian here opposes the Christians way of praying to the Pagans, who had a Monitor standing by them when they recited their Solemn Forms, who prompted every Sentence to them that made the Prayer. But the difference lies in this, That the Christians had their Prayers by heart, and could repeat them out of their Memory, and he who can remember a thing needs no Monitor 
(x) Memini tametsi nullus moneas. Terent. Eunuch. II. 1. ver. 10. . Whereas it seems the Gentile Priests were not very perfect in their Prayers, and had not committed them to their Memory, because they stood in need to have a Monitor for every Sentence. Now if this be the sense, than it supposes the Christians had Forms which they could say by heart, or repeat de pectore, and then it makes for us, and utterly discards Extempore Prayers. Secondly, Another Learned Man explains this Phrase of those Secret and Mental Prayers, which every private Christian used in the solemn Assemblies on the stationary days, in the intervals between the public Offices, while all the Congregation kept silence. Now these Prayers being not Vocal, there needed no Monitor for them, being only made (as S. Cyprian expresses it) silently and modestly within the secrets of their own Breasts 
(y) Tacitè & modestè intra ipsas pectoris latebras. Cypr. de Orat. Dom. See Falkner's Libert. Eccles. pag 117. ; and if we consider how long they stayed at these stations, viz. for Nine hours together, and how certain it is that all the time was not taken up in the public Offices of Reading, Expounding, Singing and Common Prayer, it will not be improbable that some space was allowed there for these Mental Prayers 
(z) Albaspin. lib. 1. obs. 16. ; and if these be the Prayers Tertullian speaks of, than they are nothing to the Public Offices about which we dispute. But Thirdly, Upon a due survey of the place it appears, Tertullian is here proving the Christians sincere Loyalty, and showing they exceeded the Heathens in this Virtue, and therefore made better Prayers for the Emperors, than their Pagan Subjects: For the Pagans had imbrued their hands in their Emperor's Blood; But the Christians (saith he) lift up their Hands to Heaven, as being innocent. The Pagans veiled their Faces in Prayer, and might well do so, to hid their blushing at the contradiction between their Actions and their Prayers; but Christians prayed bare-faced, and without any Gild to make them blush: Pagans had a Monitor, because they had not laid their Petitions much to heart, nor could they think of them so readily as the Christians, who needed no Monitor, because they prayed from their Hearts 
** Oratio de Conscientia procedit. Tertul. Exhort. ad cast. cap. 10. p. 513.  most sincerely, affectionately, and with a true concern for the Emperor's safety: So that to pray out of the Breast, is to pray ex animo, from the Heart and Soul, the Breast (in all Authors) being usually put for the Mind and Soul 
(a) Manibus expansis, quia innecuis; capite undo, quia non crubescimus; denique sine monitore, quia de pectere eramus pro omnibus imperatoribus, etc. Tertul. Apol. cap. 30. . Thus than we see there are three ways of expounding this obscure Phrase, each of which is more likely to be Tertullian's sense than his, and one of them must be expounded of Forms of Prayer; wherefore we cannot fear any Argument to be raised from hence against the use of Liturgies in public, which undoubtedly began to be generally received before the end of this Century.   

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

Hippolytus, Mar. An. Dom. 220.  §. 2. Among the Writers of this Age, the first is Hippolytus a Bishop and Martyr, who in his discourse of the End of the World, and the Coming of Antichrist, puts it among the Signs of those evil Times, That Liturgy shall be extinguished, singing of Psalms shall cease, and reading of Scripture shall not be heard 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hippol. de Consume. Mund. Bib. Patr. T. 2. p. 357. . Which shows that the public Service (of which he there speaks) consisted then of three parts, The ministration of Prayers, Singing of Psalms, and Reading the Scripture: And the first of these is called Liturgy, which though it signify any public Service in general, and be sometimes applied to the whole Public Worship; yet where it is limited only to Prayers (as it is here) it implies a Common Form used generally, which will be more probable to be this Father's Sense, if we consider that he saith, Liturgy shall be extinguished, that is, the public Forms shall not be permitted to be used, which cannot be properly said of Extempore Prayers, they being an inward Gift (as our Adversaries pretend): And Antichrist himself hath no power to extinguish or put out men's Gifts: He may suppress the use of Forms of Prayer; but the Extempore men's faculty was not liable to any such interdict, as could extinguish it: And why may we not believe the Prayers in this Age were suitable to the rest of the Offices? They sang by a Form out of a Book, and read the Lessons out of a Book, so that they scrupled not the use of Forms; wherefore there is no ground to believe they disliked Forms of Prayer, and consequently nothing to hinder us from expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the usual sense, viz. of the Public Liturgy, which Antichrist would not allow the Christians to use.  
§. 3. Our next Author is the Famous Origen, 
Origen, Adam. An. Dom. 230.  who hath so clear and convincing a Testimony for the use of a Liturgy in his Homilies on Jeremy, that the Learned Centuriators were convinced by it, that Set Forms of Prayer were used in his time, for they thus cite the place, It is (say they) without question, that they had some Set Forms of Prayer (in this Age); for Origen in his XIth Homily on Jeremy, seems to allude to those we now call Collects, where he tells us; We frequently say in our Prayers, Grant, O Almighty God, grant us a part with thy Prophets, and with the Apostles of thy Son Christ; grant that we may be found at the Feet of thy only begotten 
(f) Formulas domque quasdam precationum absque dubio habuerunt. Cent. Magdeb. cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 135. . And if we consider, that our Saviour promised to such as were effectually Converted, that they should sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God 
(g) Matth. viij. 11 ; and that the Holy Apostles and Prophets are described in Scripture as rejoicing together in Heaven 
(h) Revel. xviii. 20. , we shall be convinced this Form of Prayer is grounded upon Christ's Promise, and upon the Word of God, and consequently must own the Prayer to be pure and primitive. Indeed our Adversary uses many Artisices to wrest this Testimony from us 
(i) Discourse of Liturg p. 141. , but all in vain: First, he saith, Ruffinus made many additions to origen's Homilies, so that possibly this may be one of his Additions. I Answer, If he were sure Ruffinus added this, yet since he lived in the next Century, that would serve to confute him, who maintains there were no prescribed Forms till the Fifth or Sixth Age: But we can make it very probable Ruffinus did not add this passage; First, because there is nothing in it, but what agrees, well enough to Origen's time, and to his Doctrine. Secondly, In Ruffinus his time they had made some steps towards Invocation of Saints, and therefore had it been a Prayer composed by him, there would have been some footsteps of that Superstition; some Address to, or expectation from the Apostles and Prophets; whereas this Prayer only supposes them to be in Heaven, and desires God to grant us a part with them. Again, Our Adversary saith, These Words (if they be origen's) will no more prove this was a prescribed Form, than S. Paul 's was, Ephes. I. 16, 17. where he saith; He ceased not to make mention of the Ephesians in his Prayers, that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ— might give them  Spirit of Wisdom, etc. I Reply, His Parallel will by no means hold, since the Apostle only relates and reckons up the things he asked for them; and speaking to the Ephesians, gives them an account of the Subject of his Petitions for them. But Origen is repeating the Words of a Prayer, and speaks directly to God, therefore this must be a Form of common use, as the Magdeburg Divines believed it to be. Having thus detected his Sophistry and answered his Cavils, and so cleared this Evidence for a Set Form, we shall more easily understand that Origen refers to an usual Liturgy in another place, where he saith, They who serve God, through Jesus, in the Christian way, and live according to the Gospel, use frequently (as becomes them) night and day the enjoined Prayers 
(k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Cells. lib. 6. pag. 302. . Whence we infer, that the Christian way was to serve God night and day with prescribed Prayers; for the Participle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies not only a thing enjoined or commanded in general, as Isocrates and Aeschines use the word 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Isocr.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Aeschin. ita Math. i. 24. , but so enjoined, that the very order and manner of doing it is set down and particularly appointed: So those directions concerning the Leper's offering his Gift, which Moses prescribed in the Old Law, Levit. xiv. 4. is called, doing that which Moses (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) commanded them; that is, which he prescribed how they should do 
(m) Math. viij. 4. Mark i 44. Luke v. 14. ; and the Word whence it is derived, signifies to methodise, put in order, and to place Soldiers in their Ranks 
(n) Cor. 15.23: ; so to do all things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to Order 
(o) 1 Cor. xiv. 40. , is to act according to a prescribed Rule; which Rule S. Paul saith, he will make or prescribe when he came 
(p) 1 Cor. xi. 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. . This then being the proper and natural signification of this Word, we may reasonably expound it of Prescribed Forms of Prayer both for Morning and Evening, of which (as the Centuriators observe,) Origen speaks in other places 
(q) Magdeb. Cent. 3. cap. 6. pag. 134. . But our Adversary would shift off this proof also, First, By ask, If these were not private Prayers 
(r) Disc. of Liturg. pag 140. ? I Answer, The Words are general, not restrained either to public or private Prayers expressly; but it being certain the Christians had a custom to assemble Morning and Evening to Prayers, the phrase of using these Prayers, Night and Day, seems chief to be referred to public Offices. Secondly, He asks, If no Prayers can be commanded but in Set Forms? I Reply, The Word doth not barely signify Prayers commanded, but enjoined according to a prescribed Order (as I have proved). Now Prayers left to the Invention of Men to be daily made new, cannot properly be called Ordered Prayers. And therefore though Christian Ministers were commanded to preach, yet the Words and Method being left to their invention or choice, our Adversary can no where find (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) made use of as an Epithet for a Sermon or Homily. Note also, Origen doth not say, The Christians made these enjoined Prayers, but used, them; which supposes they were made, into a prescribed Form before. Thirdly, He inquires, If there be no Commands for Praying frequently, but Human Prescriptions? and I must ask, what is this to the purpose? Origen is not speaking of Commanding Men to pray, nor declaring whether the Duty of Prayer be prescribed by God or the Church: He is speaking of the Prayers themselves, and gives them this Character that they were Ordered or Prescribed: so that he is very impertinent to tell us of Divine Commands to pray frequently, since Origen's Words are not about Obeying a Precept to Pray; but using ordered, enjoined or prescribed Prayers, which all ingenuous Men must own to be in Forms, and that proves a Liturgy, because it is [Prayers] in the plural Number. Thirdly, in the same Books against Celsus, when Origen citys some certain passages out of the Psalms, ●e brings them in with these Prefaces, We ●nd in the Prayers— or, We say often in the Prayer 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orig. in Cells. lib. 4. p. 178 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ibid. pag. 197. . And thus— it is said in the Prayer—; or, The prudent when he prayeth, ●aith— 
(t) Idem lib. 6. pag. 285. lib. 7. pag. 354. . Now when we consider, that the Psalms were the main part of the Jewish Liturgy, and that the Christians in the first Ages inclined to imitate their Forms; and above all the Old Testament, admired and frequently used the Book of Psalms, and took their Forms of Praise from thence, we may conclude, they borrowed many Forms of Prayer also from the Psalms, and transcribed them into their Liturgy, so that Origen appeals to these passages, as being known by the Christians to be a part of their Prayers: Which will still be clearer, when we observe, that the Abassine Christians, who are very tenacious of primitive Rites, and derived most of their Usages from the Ancient Church of Alexandria, (as Ludolfus relates) Take most of their daily Prayers out of the Psalter 
(u) Ludolf. hist. Ethiop. lib. 2. cap. 12. . And therefore Origen, who belonged to Alexandria, no doubt refers by these Prefaces to the public and known Liturgy, then used in that famous Church. Our Adversary is not pleased at this Inference; and whereas his own Eyes are so blinded with his Extempore Way, that he cannot see the clearest light for Forms, he saith it argues a Fancy deeply tinctured with Liturgies, to suppose this to be any proof of them: But let it be noted, he barely asserts it is no proof, and most falsely represents the matter; for he saith, When Origen quotes any passage out of the Psalms, he thus speaks, etc. 
(w) Discourse of Liturg. p. 139. . Now this is not true, because, first, Origen in that very Book citys an hundred passages out of the Psalms without any such Preface, without saying, They are found in the Prayers, etc. Secondly, The places which he doth cite with such a Preface, are always very proper to be used in a Liturgy, as Forms of Praise or Prayer: Such as these, The Earth is full of the Goodness of the Lord; and, Open thou mine Eyes, that I may see the wondrous things of thy Law: Create in me a clean Heart, O God; and the like. So that these and no other passages being said, to be found in the Prayers, etc. no doubt we have all imaginable cause to think, that these very words of the Psalms were in Origen 's time used in the Church's Liturgy, and prescribed in the Forms of Public Prayer. Especially since he can ascribe no sufficient Reason, but the peculiar use made of these Select places in the public Offices, which made Origen quote them with such a Preface, and cite other passages of the Psalms, as he doth other Scriptures, without any Preface at all Fourthly, Our Adversary citys another place out of Origen's Homilies (taken at the second hand from Dailé) to prove, they used no Forms of Prayer in that Age; because it is said, Our Thoughts must not wander after our Senses in Prayer, but be wholly intent and fixed on God, not being disturbed by the Idea of any External appearance 
(y) Orig. in Num. hom. XI. . I shall not here need to fly to his help at a dead lift, that possibly Ruffinus the Translator did put in these Words: For allowing them to be genuine, it must be more unlawful to let our Minds wander after new Phrases, and our Fancy rove about for Matter, Order and Words, which is the case in Extempore Prayer, than it is to repeat the Words of a known Form, which we can say by heart, or read without disturbance; because the actings of the Fancy and Invention in Extempore Prayer, do much more hinder the Mind from steady thinking upon God, than having a Book before us in the recital of a common and usual Form. Lastly, I hope it is needless to repeat what was showed before, viz. That Origen's Phrases of Praising God as well as we are able 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. in Cells. l. 8. pag. 402. , and Praying to him with all the might we have 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Id. ib. pag. 386. See the Discourse of Liturg. p. 127, etc. , do not at all prove Extempore Praising or Praying was then in use: Or show, That Ministers than used no Forms in the public Worship, both because Origen saith this of all the People, who cannot be supposed universally to have had this Gift of Praising God and Praying to him Extempore; nor, if any of them had it, were they allowed ordinarily to exercise it in public Assemblies: And also, because the Phrases do signify no more than Praying or Praising God by Forms, with all possible fervency and devotion. Origen therefore is a good Witness for Liturgies, and all his Sophistry cannot draw one Argument from him against the use of them in his time.  
§. 4. The holy Martyr S. Cyprian 
S. Cyprian. An. Dom. 248.  witnesseth the very same thing: For that he was not against the use of Forms of Prayer, may appear from his allowing the Lords Prayer to be used, as a Form of Prayer, which Christ himself gave us 
(b) Cypr. de orat. Dom. §. 1. pag. 309. . And he would have us repeat the very Words of it, because we may be assured, The Father will know the Words, which were made by his own Son 
(c) Id. ibid. § 2. ; Yea from the manner of drawing up this Prayer, so as all the People are supposed to repeat it with the Minister, he justifies the use of Set Forms, wherein the Congregation bears a part, for he observes, That the Christians had a public and Common-Prayer 
(d) Publica est nobis & communis oratio. ibid. §. 5. p. 310. ; and that Christ Commanded us to Pray for all Men, in a Common Prayer wherein all agreed 
(e) Oratione communi, & concordi prece, pro omnibus jussit orare. Cypr. ad cler. & pleb. ep. 8. pag. 24. . Now suppose we grant that he speaks this of the Lords Prayer, yet since all other Prayers, were to be drawn up by this pattern, this will prove, that their other Prayers were in all things like to this, that is, that they were not made Extempore, but were put into a Form as the Lords Prayer is; and repeated by all the Congregation, either with, or after the Minister. But there are still more evident Proofs in him, not only of Forms, but of a Liturgy, viz. where he citys and explains those very Words of Common-Prayer in the Prefaces, which were used in all Churches in the same Words: for he persuades Christians to attend to their Prayers in public, by putting them in mind that the Priest before the Prayer, prepares the Hearts of the Brethren, by a Preface premised, saying; Lift up your Hearts; so that when they answer, We Lift them up unto the Lord, they may be admonished to think upon God alone 
(f) Ideo & sacerdos ante Orationem, praefatione praemissà, parat fratrum mentes dicendo, Surium corda, ut dum respondeat plebi, habenus ad Dominum, admo●eatur se nihil aliud quam Dominum debere cogitare. Id de orat. Dom. §. 22. . Now here we have a Form of Words used in the Eucharist, not only in Africa, but both in the Eastern and Western Churches; and this also used by way of Response, and divided between the Priest and People, which is impossible to be done in any thing that the Priest saith Extempore. And though he citys no more of this Preface than the first Words, yet other Authors, both in the African and Greek Church, mention the rest of this primitive Form, viz. It is meet and right so to do, etc. Even as it is yet, (in so many Words) Transcribed in our Communion Service; wherefore the Judicious Centuriators do rightly infer from hence, That there were undoubtedly Set Forms of Prayer in S. Cyprians time 
(g) Magd. Cent. 3. cap. 6 p. 135. , which they prove by citing this Preface. Yea B. Bilson concludes from this and other passages, that Christ's Church, taking her direction from S. Paul's Doctrine, framed her public Prayers in such order, that the Pastor and People both jointly and interchangeably, Praised God and Prayed to him, each with other, and each for other 
(h) Bilson of Christian Subjection. Part. 4. pag. 435.  Now how could there be these fixed places for Responses, if the Priest had made only one long Extempore Prayer (as our Dissenters do?) It is plain from this very method of Responses, that there were then public Forms allowed and used. And we may observe not only by this Preface, but also by another passage, that the African Church and the Eastern, did hugely agree in these Liturgick Forms; because as the Greeks say, Give holy things, to those that are holy 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lit. ●. Basil. Chrysost. & Clem. Constit. . So it seems they did at Carthage, where (as S. Cyprians Notes) they were daily charged to keep that which was holy in a pure Conscience, according to our Lords command, not to cast that which is holy to Dogs 
(k) Cypr. ad Demetr. p. 324. . That is, in the Eucharist (which they then daily celebrated) they used that Phrase, Give holy things to holy Persons. For though S. Cyprian writing to a Heathen, will not express the very Form itself, yet he comes so near it, that he can mean nothing else, being obliged to conceal the sacred Offices from Demetrian. And that is the reason also why, when he hath occasion to mention the Christian Litany, he doth it only by setting down these general Heads of things desired therein, viz. For driving away Enemies, for procuring Rain, and either for removing or moderating adversities; we always pour out our Supplications and Prayers, as well as for your peace and safety 
(l) Cypr. ad Demetr. p. 324. ; so that our Adversary is very weak, in despising those who urge this of as a Form of Prayer 
(m) Disc. of Liturg. p. 137. ; because none of us think it was the very Words of the African Liturgy; and we know Tertullian describes it, (when he also writes to Heathens) in different Words; but if we compare the two Fathers, or both of them with the ancient Litanies, wherein the general Heads of Evils which were to be Prayed against, were named by the Priest, and the People answered, O Lord hear us, or O Lord deliver us; we may conclude, they had a certain Form, but concealed the Phrases of it from Unbelievers. But the disputer against Liturgies, who fraudulently conceals all but the last of these Testimonies, picks up another passage or two, by which he hopes to show there were no Forms used in S. Cyprians time. The first is in his Epistle to Pope Lucius, where he saith we cease not in our Prayers and Sacrifices, to give thanks to God the Father, and to his Son Christ our Lord, Praying and requesting, that he who is perfect, and makes us perfect, would keep for you, and perfect in you, the glorious Crown of a Confessor 
(n) Cypr. Epist. 58. p. 163. . Hence he infers, that being at liberty, to put up any occasional Petition in the Eucharist, they could not be confined to any Set Form 
(o) Disc. of Liturg. p. 66. ; and that it had been a vain thing to tell him of this, if it had been the common Form, which he knew before 
(p) Ibid. p. 68 . To the first I answer, he must learn to distinguish between reciting the Words of a Form, which are addressed to God; and relating in a Letter the sum and substance of the things desired, when the speech is directed to a Man. Now these Words are no Prayer, nor addressed to God; S. Cyprian is only telling Pope Lucius, what things in general they asked for him. Yet if these had been the Words of this Prayer and made by S. Cyprian, the Primate of Africa, on this great occasion of the chief Bishop of the west's, being banished; it would not follow, that because a Primate of Africa, on an extraordinary occasion put in one new Petition into the usual Office, therefore in ordinary times private Ministers may vary their Prayers every day. To his second inference, viz. that supposing this were the common Form, he need not have told Lucius of it: I reply, if this were then the African Form to supplicate for Confessors, yet Cyprian might rationally give Lucius an account of it; First, because it is not certain that they at Rome knew the Form of Praying for a Confessor at Carthage; or if they did, Lucius could not know, till he was thus informed, that it was used for him: So that whether it was the common Form or no, it will not serve out Adversaries purpose; for let it be noted, if S. Cyprian had Prayed to God for Lucius every day Extempore in various and other Words, he had told him a manifest Untruth, when he said he Prayed for him in these words, That he who is perfect, etc. So that if these had been the words which S. Cyprian used for Lucius, (as he supposes,) they must have been a Form, and were prescribed for that occasion by S. Cyprian, to his subordinate Clergy. His second allegation out of S. Cyprian for such occasional Prayers, is that there are also mention of such occasional Prayers, in the Epistle to Moses and Maximus 
(q) Disc. of Liturg. p. 68 ; but he durst not cite the place at large, which only speaks of private Prayers made by these Confessors in Prison, in which S. Cyprian desires to be remembered, believing God would grant them whatever they prayed for: But there are no petitions mentioned, nor any account whether they prayed with or without a Form; so that this Quotation is as impertinent, as his third instance is fraudulent; For he citys S. Cyprian, to prove that the Form of Words used in Baptising was varied by some; but he leaves out those Words, which utterly spoil his Argument; Quomodo ergo quidam dicunt— (there he draws a line)— modo in Nomine Jesu Christi, etc. 
(r) Disc. of Liturg p. 98. . But S. Cyprians Words are these, How then do some say, who are out of the Church, yea against the Church; that if a Pagan, be any where or any ways Baptised in the name of Christ Jesus, he may obtain Remission of Sins 
(s) Cypr. ad Jubai. Epist. 73. ? Therefore it was manifest, Schismatics and Heretics, varied from the Form; and S. Cyprian disputes against the practice, and proves that it makes the Baptism null and void. So that our Adversary is at a low Ebb, when he would prove an usage of the Church, by the practice of its Enemies, and found'st their Extempore variations, upon the Opinions and the use of Schismatics and Heretics.  

Gregorius Thaumaturgus An. Dom. 253.  §. 5. Gregory Thaumaturgus Bishop of Naeocaesarea was Contemporary with S. Cyprian; and though he had so extraordinary a measure of the Spirit, that he did many Miracles; yet he was so much for a Liturgy, that we have the Testimony of S. Basil (an Unquestionable Witness) concerning him, that he appointed a Form of Prayer for that Church of Naeocaesarea, from which they would not vary, in one Ceremony, or in a Word; Nor would they add any one Mystical Form in the Church, to those which he had left them; yea, when their Offices grew to be deficient by reason of their Antiquity, the Bishops who succeeded this Gregory, would allow no addition to be made unto that which he had established 
(t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. de Spir. S●●cto, cap. 29. pag. 221. ; and it seems he had appointed also a way of singing the Psalms, of which the Naeocaesarean Clergy were so extremely tenacious, that when S. Basil would have brought in a better Way, they opposed him in it, and objected that it was not so in the Days of Gregory the Great 
(u) Basil. Epist. 63. ad Cler. Naeocaes. pag. 843, 844. . Now, how is it possible to have a clearer proof in the World for prescribed Forms than this, That in an Age while Miraculous Gifts lasted, a Bishop full of the Spirit, Appoints a Form of praising God by Psalms, and prescribes a Liturgy, containing the Ceremonies, the words of Prayers, and the Form of Consecrating the Holy Sacrament, and this Liturgy used for above an Hundred Year without any variation or addition, by the Bishops of that Province and all their Clergy? This is not like his Arguments, squeezed out of misconstrued Phrases, or built upon vain Suppositions and remote Conjectures. It is plain and undeniable Matter of Fact, of which I shall say no more but this, That S. Basil doth not relate this as any thing extraordinary in Gregory, nor remark it as a thng strange and done no where else; so that it is probable, most of the Eminent Bishops of each Diocese, did compose or collect a Form of Prayer for their several Churches before the ceasing of Miraculous Gifts; but our Adversary (alas) could find nothing of this kind in all his search for Antiquity, or at least he was so wise to conceal what he could not pretend to Answer.  
§. 6. Not long after this Paulus Samosatenus, 
Paulus Samosatenus, Episc. Antioch. An. Dom. 269.  an Heretical Bishop of Antioch, was offended at those Hymns which were sung there in honour of our Saviour Christ, and composed others, pretending that those Hymns which he rejected, were written but lately, and composed by Persons that lived but a little before his time 
(w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 24. . From whence it appears, that there were prescribed Forms of glorifying and praising our Lord Jesus, used at Antioch, and written at least as early as the beginning of this Century, and some of them perhaps long before 
(x) See Chap. I. §. 3. of this History. . Now Psalms and Hymns (as we have proved) were a very great part of the Primitive Worship, and S. Paul had commanded all, to Sing as well as to Pray with the Spirit; therefore if they Sung by Forms, it is probable they prayed by Forms also, there being no reason why the one should be performed Extempore more than the other, and it being very fit one part of the public Service should be like the other: But our Adversary asks, Why this Bishop did not alter the Liturgy also 
(y) Discourse of Liturgy, p. 26. ? And though I am not bound to answer all his random Questions and suppositions, grounded upon this Negative, that Eusebius doth not say, He did alter the Liturgy: Yet I shall Reply, That Hymns are more proper than Prayers are, to set out and magnify our Saviour's Divinity, and so were much more offensive to this Heretic, than the Prayers, which were only addressed to the Father in the Name of Christ, as our Mediator, which the Arians allowed him to be: And therefore Paulus began to reject the Hymns; but probably he might have proceeded further, if he had not been so early discovered and expelled before he could make any more Alterations. Nor is it unlikely, that the Liturgy was so ancient at Antioch, being extant in Ignatius' Time, that he durst not venture upon that at first.  
I shall add no more in this Century, but to observe, That in the Epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria, recorded by Eusebius, it appears to have been the general usage of the Church for every one of the People to say, Amen, when they heard the Priest offer them the Sacrament and say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. 
(z) Euseb. hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap. 35. p. 180. . Which was a Form so universally used in all Churches of the World, that we may conclude it was enjoined by all Liturgies; otherwise it had been impossible that all Christians should have so exactly agreed in that Form, at that place, and on that occasion. We proceed now to Times of greater Light, and more clear Evidence.   

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

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

S. Athanasius, An. Dom. 326.  §. 3. Soon after flourished the Great Athanasius, in whom there are evident marks of a public Liturgy; for we have noted before, That the People can never make certain and vocal Responses, but only where the public Prayers are made in a known Form; but nothing can be plainer, than that they made such Responses in the Diocese of Alexandria. For he alluding to the ancient Litanick way of Praying, declares, when he said, Let us pray for the safety of the most Religious Emperor Constantius; that all the People immediately answered with one Voice, Christ help Constantius 
(n) Athanas. Apol ad Constant. pag. 156 & 157. . In another Tract he tells us, The People mourned and groaned to God in the Church; all of them crying to the Lord and saying, Spare thy People, good Lord spare them; give not thine Heritage for a reproach to their Enemies 
(o) Idem Epist. ad Solitar. pag. 239. ; which is an original piece of Litany, and a known Form prescribed in Scripture, retained in the Primitive Church, and continued still in use among us. Athanasius also speaks of the Prayers at the Communion, as a distinct Office; affirming, That the People offered up these Prayers with one Voice, and without any manner of disagreement; adding, That in that great multitude there was but one Voice, when they unanimously answered, Amen 
(p) Idem Apol. ad Constant. pag. 159. . From these and other Testimonies the Centuriators confess there were Forms of Prayer used at Alexandria in his time 
(q) Magdeb. Cent. 4. cap. 6. pag. 412. ; and the Learned Bishop Bilson observes, That the Church (in that Age) thought it not enough, for the Simple to say Amen they knew not to what; but requiring and appointing their devout, distinct and intelligent Answers, Confessions, Blessings and Thanksgivings, as well in the ministration of the Lords Supper, as in other parts of their public Service 
(r) Bilson's Christ Subject. part 4. p. 435. . So that it is plain, he believed there was a Form wherein the People's part of all Offices was appointed by the Church, which could not be done in the Extempore way. I shall only further note, That Athanasius order the People, to sing the Psalms in the very Words wherein they are written: Affirming, That he who thus repeats them may be confident God will hear these Supplications 
(s) Ath●n. de inter. Psalm. pag. 303. . Which confirms that which was observed before out of Origen, That the Church of Alexandria had many Forms of Prayer out of the Psalms.  
As for my Adversary, He omits all these passages, and (as is usual with him) he mentions nothing of this Father but two places, out of which he hopes to raise some Objections against Forms of Prayer. First, He saith, The Arians, who charged Athanasius with burning the Bible, do not mention any Indignity done to the Liturgy; whence he gathers, there was no Liturgy used there 
ourse of pag. 13. . But let it be noted, that he falsifies the Historian who saith, they charged him with burning The Holy Books 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. hist. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 539.  (in the plural Number) which may very well take in the Liturgy as well as the Bible, being reckoned also an Holy or Sacred Book: And we have showed, That in the Emperor Constantine's Court, there were Books of Prayers, as well as of Holy Scripture, and therefore it is likely there was so also at Alexandria: For even in the relation of the Arians Cruelty there, He writeth of a Virgin who was very ill treated by them, who had her Psalter (wherein were many of their Forms of Prayer) in her hand 
(w) Athan. ad Orthod. de perfec. Arian. pag. 171. . Secondly, He alleges a place out of Theodoret, which affirms (as he saith) That the Devils were more afraid of Athanasius his Prayers, than of others; and thence concludes, that he prayed Extempore 
(x) Discourse of Liturg. p. 129. . I Reply, That Theodoret makes no comparison between his praying and others; and if he had, it would utterly have spoiled his Cause; because, if the Devils feared Athanasius Prayers more than any others, as being Extempore, than it would follow, that all others had prayed by Forms; so that upon that supposition Athanasius had prayed Extempore, contrary to the general use of the Church. But indeed, Theodoret is only saying, That the Devil hated him for his fervent Praying, and rational Preaching, by which he converted many 
(y) Theodoret. hist lib. 3. cap. 8. ; he makes no comparison between him and others, nor doth he say one word to prove, that Athanasius did not pray by a Form; we therefore will freely grant our Adversary, That not Phrases, but Devotion of Mind is the Fountain of Prayer. And we argue from thence, That it was Athanasius his Devotion, not his Phrases, that was so terrible to the Devil: That crafty Spirit is not afraid of new Words, or Extempore Phrases; it is the inward Devotion of Mind which he dreads, and that Athanasius did doubtless exercise, to a very high degree, even in the use of those Forms, which were then allowed and prescribed by the Church. Wherefore our Adversary gains nothing by this Father.  

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

Cyrillus, Hieros. An. Dom. 350.  §. 5. S. CYRIL was made Bishop of Jerusalem in the midst of this Century, but his Catechetical Discourses were composed long before. And they are of two sorts; First His Catecheses' to the Unbaptized, wherein we can expect no account of Liturgy, because in that Age they thought it profaned the Mysteries of Divine Worship, to teach Unbelievers the Things or Words used there, which they conceived none but the Baptised or the Faithful aught to know: So that our Adversary is very impertinent to cite these Discourses to the Unbaptized, to prove, There could be no Written Forms then used, because they kept their Worship close, as being a Mystery 
(f) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 34 . For S. Cyril only saith, They spoke of these things covertly to the Catechumen, that the Faithful who knew them might understand, and those who knew them not, might not be prejudiced 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. Catec. 6. pag. 60. . Now if the Father speak of the Christian Worship (as he supposes, who citys him in this Dispute) this only shows, that the Strangers did not know it; but it seems by Cyril, that the Faithful knew it so well (being a known Form of Words) that if it were but darkly hinted at, they presently understood the Minister's meaning, which they could not have done if the Prayers used among the Faithful had been made Extempore, and varied every day. So again, where he citys a Caution that S. Cyril gives the Faithful in his Preface, Not to tell any thing to the Catechumen, who as yet were out of the Church 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Disc. of Liturg. pag. 41. : I would only ask, how the Faithful could remember the various and uncertain Phrases of Extempore Prayers, so as to be able to repeat them again? Indeed there might be danger of their doing this in constantly used Forms, and the very Caution supposes they used such in those days. But we need not fly to Suppositions, we have our Adversaries Concessions, as to the Second sort of Cyril's Catechetical Discourses, viz. those to the Faithful, which are called, His Mystagogical Catechise: Our Author grants, It appears by S. Cyril, that the People had of old some part in the public Service 
(i) Disc of Liturg. pag. 44. citing Cyril. Catech. mystag. 5. . Now we have showed that cannot be, unless the Public Service be in known Forms; so that it is an unparallelled Insolence in him to cite this very place of S. Cyril again afterwards 
(k) Discourse of Liturg p. 138. , and challenge any Judicious Eye, to discover any thing of a Form therein: For, if the Reader have not S. Cyril's Works to consult, let him look upon Mr. Clarkson's own Book 
(l) Discourse of Liturg. Marg. of pag. 14●. and of pag. 175, 176. , where he himself citys out of this very place of S. Cyril very many Ancient Forms, which then were almost generally used in all Churches, and particularly in the Church of Jerusalem, in their public Office. And all of those Forms and Responses (which he citys) being put together, make up as clear and full a Liturgy (as to the People's part especially) as can be set down in Writing: But since he is so confident, we will first observe one thing, and then set down the particulars. The Observation is this, That S. Cyril was here expounding the Liturgy (not to Priests, who are presumed to understand their part of the Office;) but to the Faithful, who knew the Words of these public Forms, which required their distinct Answer, but perhaps might not fully understand the Sense; and therefore S. Cyril here briefly passeth over the Priest's part, and only enlarges upon the People's share of the Office. This being premised, Let it be noted, that S. Cyril saith to his Auditors, That in the Eucharistical Office, The Priest cries, Lift up your hearts, and saith he, You answer, We lift them up unto the Lord— Then the Priest saith, Let us give thanks unto the Lord; and you reply, It is meet and just 
(m) Cyril. Cateches. Mystag. 5. ; which are the very Forms that we meet with in S. Cyprian, etc. above 100 years before. But S. Cyril goes on to the Priest's part, and there indeed only mentions the general Heads, for which he gave God Thanks in an Eucharistical Collect.  
Next he mentions The Seraphic Hymn, viz. Holy, Holy, Holy; and speaks of their singing together with Angels and Archangels. Then he briefly describes The Prayer of Consecration, and The Prayer for all Estates of Men, which were said by the Priest alone. And, after this (saith he) you say the Lords Prayer, (which being the People's part, is there largely expounded:) And then the Priest said, Give Holy things to those that are holy; And the People Answered, There is one Holy, even one Lord Jesus Christ. Than one gins to sing that Psalm, O taste and see how gracious the Lord is, etc. And when they receive the Bread and the Cup, they are to say at each of them, Amen. Finally, after they have Communicated they must stay for that Prayer, Wherein God is praised for making us partakers of these Mysteries 
(n) Cyril. Catech. Mystag. 5. à pag. 240.— ad pag. 245. Vide locum. . Now if we compare this with those Accounts already produced out of the FATHERS, or those that follow; or, if we examine it by the Ancient Liturgies, or by our own Communion Office, This is so full a proof of a prescribed Form being then used at the Eucharist, in the Church of Jerusalem at that Time, that he must have a Forehead of Brass who can deny it. Indeed, being a popular Discourse made by a Catechist, he doth not presume to set down and explain the Priest's part; but that is made up by the Ancient Liturgy, which goes under S. James his Name, the Ancient part of which I will now prove was the public Service of the Church at Jerusalem, long before S. Cyril's time.  
§. 6. 
The Liturgy of S. JAMES.  I have often wondered to see many Learned Protestants dispute earnestly against those Ancient Liturgies, which now appear to the World under the Name of S. JAMES, or others of the Apostles, and levelly all their Arguments against the Titles, and the Modern Corruptions of these Liturgies: Since neither those of the Roman nor Reformed Church, who (in this Age) defend them, are so vain to pretend, either that the Titles imposed on them are true, with respect to all that is contained in these Liturgies; or, that all passages in the Modern Copies are Apostolical. So that to go about to prove, That S. James did not compose that whole Office which is now extant under his Name is highly impertinent, since no Body in this Age of any Note hath affirmed it. Bellarmin and Card. Bonaventure, with others of the Romanists; Dr. Hammond, and divers Learned Reformed Divines do confess, That the Title doth not belong to all that which is now found in this Liturgy, and own, that divers things have been added to it in later Times: But that which we maintain is this, That the Liturgy now extant under S. James his Name, doth contain many Primitive Prayers and Responses, which were the public Forms used at Jerusalem long before S. Cyril's Time: And though S. James be not the undoubted Author of this Office, yet if it were made and used at Jerusalem before the beginning of this Century, that is sufficient to confute him (who ascribes the Original of all Liturgies to the Fifth and Sixth Centuries) and will fully prove Liturgies to be as Ancient as the settling of Christianity itself; which is all that I am obliged to make out. Now that the main of this Office was used long before at Jerusalem, I think is very clear from the harmony and agreement which we find between S. James his Liturgy, and that described by S. Cyril, and expounded to the Catechumen of that Church; The accounts differ only in some Words and Phrases, but agree in many places in the very Syllables, and in all places in Method and in the Sense; the difference being not so great, but it may be well imputed to variety of Copies, and to the divers Ages, in which the Liturgy was Transcribed; every Age delighting to alter something in its Ancient Forms, as we see in our own incomparable Liturgy, which hath been more than once revised, and altered in some places. But let it be considered, First, that there were public Forms at Jerusalem in S. Cyrils' time, and that he who expounded part of them, while he was a Catechist, could not be supposed to make these Forms, therefore they were in use long before him; and to prove this, let us note, that S. Cyril pretends not to be Author of these Offices; but when he hath delivered them and expounded them, he calls them Traditions, (that is, something conveyed down to them from their Fore Fathers,) and charges them to keep them 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Cat. Mystag. 5. pag. 245. . So that at least they were made by some Bishop of Jerusalem before that Age; 'tis true, Cyril doth not mention S. James his name, but he having been the first Bishop of that See, and probably laying the Foundation of this Liturgy there, soon after Cyrils' time, (viz. within 80 years,) Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, An. 434. calls this Liturgy by S. James his name; saying, it was so large, that Men who were engaged in secular business could not attend it, and so desired S. Basil to compose a shorter Form 
(p) Proclus Constant. Epist. de traditione divin. Missae, ap. Bonav. de rebus Liturg. lib. 1. cap. 9 ; And though that, and S. Chrysostoms', had made this Liturgy to be laid aside at Constantinople; yet the famous Council of Trullo 
(q) Concil. Constan. ●in Trullo can. 32 An. Dom ●80. , there, citys it under S. James his name, as Authentic evidence in a dispute: It is therefore most notoriously false, in our Adversary to say Balsamon declares in his notes upon this Canon of Trullo, that the Greeks under the Patriach of Constantinople, and those of the Diocese of the Orient, utterly disclaimed this Liturgy, 1200 years after Christ 
(r) Disc. of Liturg. p. 149. . For Balsamon there affirms, that S. James the Brother of our Lord, being the first Bishop of Jerusalem, first delivered an holy Liturgy; but the Church of Constantinople (having another Form in his time) did not receive it, nor would he permit the Patriarch of Alexandria to use it in his great Church, as he desired, though Balsamon confess it was used by those of Jerusalem and Palestine on great Festivals, even in his time 
(s) Balsam. not in 32. can. Concil. in Trull. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 193. . So that the Greek Church did not utterly disclaim this Liturgy; they owned S. James to have been the first Author of it, and held Communion with those Churches which used it; only having for some Ages used other Forms, they thought not fit to permit this Liturgy, to be read in their great Church; and this confirms my Position, viz. That there was anciently such a Form of Prayers used in the Church of Jerusalem: But our Adversary objects 
(t) Disc. of Liturg. pag. 149. etc. ad p. 154. . First, That this Liturgy is not mentioned by any Fathers or Councils: I reply, The matter of it, and the very Words are mentioned by many Fathers, and the very name and Title, (as we have showed) are found in Proclus, and in the Council of Trullo. Secondly, If S. James made it (he saith,) it ought to be accounted Apostolical, and ought never to be added to, diminished or altered. Answer, If S. James had made it for his Church of Jerusalem, other Apostles might make other Forms for other Apostolical Churches; so that S. James his Liturgy would not have been necessary for all places. But he knows, we hold that S. James, and the other Apostles Celebrated the Sacrament at first, by very short Forms, probably using only the Lords Prayer, the Words of Consecration, and an Hymn of praise: and while there were inspired Bishops, they added divers Collects, Responses and Prefaces, which being writ down and remembered, brought forth the Primitive Liturgies in the next Age, after those Miraculous Gifts of Prayer ceased. Now since all Liturgies retain those things which are essential and were certainly Apostolical, in other parts of the Office, every Church may vary as they find expedient. Thirdly, He objects that there are many Corruptions and gross Superstitions in this Liturgy. Answer, We freely confess it, and as freely own, that none of these are either Apostolical, or so much as Ancient; But let it be noted these Corruptions crept in by the itch of altering, which hath infected every Age, and all Churches; and by this means brought in all the Corrupt Opinions of every Age, into the service of God; thus the names of Saints and Ora pro nobis got into the Roman Litanies, about the ninth Age, or somewhat later; but he would be an odd Logician, who should argue that the Roman Church had no Litany before the ninth Age, because the invocation of Saints, came in about that time; Since in their Litany, there are other Petitions very Pious and agreeable to the Doctrine of the pure and Primitive Church; yea, the very Phrases are found in the most ancient and Orthodox Fathers; and there are yet extant some Manuscript Litanies, without any names of Saints. So as to this Liturgy, there are many Corruptions in it, which are modern Additions; but there are also many Pious and excellent Prayers, agreeable to Scripture, and to the best Antiquity; yea, the very Words of which are found in the Orthodox and elect Fathers. Fourthly, Therefore whereas he objects, that we had better wholly reject this Liturgy, because we know not how to separate the Corruptions from what is pure and Orthodox. I reply, We can easily distinguish between them; for we desire to justify no more of this Liturgy, than what is agreeable to the Scriptures, and to the Doctrine and Practice of the first four Centuries. And there is enough of those Primitive passages in this Liturgy, to convince any reasonable Man, that there was a Form of public Prayers and Praises prescribed and used in the Church of Jerusalem, long before S. Cyrils' time; and therefore I place this Liturgy here, as being an Authentic Evidence, there were Forms of Prayer allowed in this Age, which is all that I am concerned to prove. I conclude with Causabon's observation, that the Liturgy under the Title of S. James, which is now extant, is partly true and partly false 
(u) Causab. Exerc. in Baron. xuj. §. 41. pag. 384. : And truly all Du-Plessis his Arguments, (which our Adversary hath Transcribed) do only show, that S. James was not Author of all that Liturgy, which now goes under his name 
(w) Du-Pl●ssis 〈◊〉 he Mass. 〈◊〉 1. chap. 2. ; but that learned Man never inferred from thence, (as this Author doth,) that there were no public Forms used in the Fourth Century; for Du-Plessis acknowledges, there was an Order and Form, for the Celebration of the Sacrament in this Age; and shows wherein it differed from the Modern corrupted Roman Mass 
(x) Idem ibid. Book 1. chap. 4. p. 30. etc. , and this may suffice to say concerning this Liturgy of S. James.  
§. 7. There is another Liturgy in the Apostolical Constitutions ascribed to Clement; 
Clement's Constitutions, circ. An. Dom. 360.  and though the Author to make the Forms and Rites of his own Age look more Venerable, falsely claps the Apostles Names upon them; yet he is owned by all Judicious Men, to have been a Person Learned and well Skilled in Ecclesiastical Offices, and is allowed to be worthy of Credit, (even by our Adversary 
(y) Disc. of Liturg. p. 39 marg. & p. 110. ), in that which he relates concerning that time wherein he lived, which (as we will presently show,) must be at least as early as the middle of this Century. Wherefore so early, we have a clear and undeniable Evidence, that there was a prescribed Liturgy, and Forms of Prayer used upon all public occasions. The particulars are too long to insert, but the several Heads are these. These Constitutions have the Form of the Deacons warning those who were to Communicate, no● to come with Malice or Hypocrisy 
(z) Constit. Apostol. lib. 2. cap. 58. ; They mention the alternate Singing of David's Psalms 
(a) Ibid. cap. 61. , begun at Antioch not long before. A short account of the general Litany, made by the Deacon, for the whole World and every part of it, for Priests and Princes, for the Bishop and the Emperor, and the Peace of all 
(b) Id. ibid. ; and also the Form of the Bishop's Blessing, and of the final Prayer 
(c) Id. ibid. pag. 45 , probably to be used in ordinary Assemblies. In these Constitutions, we find private Christians enjoined to say the Lords Prayer, as a Form thrice in a Day 
(d) Ibid. lib. 7. cap. 25. ; and we have Forms drawn up for their use, both before and after the Sacrament 
(e) Ibid. cap. 26.27. , and upon divers other occasions 
(f) Ibid. cap. 34, 35 etc. ; There is also an Office of Baptism, with Forms of Renunciation of the Devil, and confessing the Faith, as also a Form for Consecrating the Water, etc. 
(g) Ibid. cap. 41, 42, 43. : An Office for the Ordination of a Bishop 
(h) Lib. 8. cap. 3. , and also for the Ordaining Priests and Deacons, etc. 
(i) Ibid. cap. 24, 25. . But most particularly there is the Office at the Communion, with all those Forms, used at those most Solemn Assemblies 
(k) Ibid. lib. 8. 〈…〉 5. ad 〈…〉▪ . That is to say, The Litany said by the Deacon, for the Catechumen (the Faithful answering to each Petition Domine miserere,) with the Bishop's Prayer for them. The like Litany and prescribed Prayers, for those that were possessed, those who were to be Baptised, and for the Penitents. And after these were all gone out, there is also prescribed a Litany by the Deacon, and a Prayer by the Bishop, for the Faithful. After which follows Forms prescribed for the Salutation, the first Benediction, the offering of their Gifts, the invitation, the Preface, Lift up your Hearts, etc. The Hymn called Trisagion, (to be sung by all the People:) And also a Form for consecrating the Elements; An intercession for all Estates of Men; The order for receiving and saying Amen, when they do receive; The singing of the xxxiv. Psalms, O taste and see how Gracious the Lord is. Finally, there is a public Form of Prayer after the Communion, and the concluding Benediction, with many other Forms, on other less Solemn occasions, Particularly there are Forms, for Morning and Evening Prayer, (as our Adversary confesseth 
(l) Disc. of Liturg. pag. 162. Marg. .) Now if all this will not amount to a Liturgy, than there is no such thing in the World; and if it be a Liturgy, then prescribed Forms must needs be used when this Author writ: yea and long before, otherwise he could not have pretended, that the Apostles were Authors of these Forms; his very pretending that, shows, that those of that Age had lost the memory of the first composers of these Forms; and this Author took advantage from their Immemorial use, to ascribe them to the Apostles. Now our Adversary being ware of this, though he dare not deny these Constitutions to be good Evidence for that time wherein they were written, yet labours to disparage, and baffle this clear Witness, by several Crafty Cavils and Objections.  
First, He thrusts this Writer down above one whole Century, and pretends he lived in the end of the Fifth, or the beginning of the Sixth Age 
(m) Disc. of Liturg. p. 110, & 111. . But this is most notoriosly false, as may be proved. First, Because the Fathers of the Fourth Century cite it, as a known Book in this Age. Secondly, Because the matter of these Forms are exactly agreeable to the Doctrine and Practice of the Third and Fourth Centuries. For the first point, Athanasius reckons this Book, (which he calls the Doctrine of the Apostles,) among those which the Fathers allowed ●o be Read in the Church; therefore it was extant long before his time 
(n) Athan. Epistol. ad Ammam. Monach. . Eusebius also computes it among those Writings, which, though they were not Canonical Scripture, yet were approved by the Ancients, and distinguishes it from the Books, which the Heretics had Forged 
(o) Euseb. Hist. lib. Cap. 19 pag. 71. . S. Cyril in the middle of this Century, citys that passage about the Phoenix out of it, and ascribes ●t by name to Clemens 
(p) Cyril. Catech. 18. p. 213. Collat. cum Constit. Clem. lib. 5. cap. 8. ; which he would not have done, if it had not been then accounted an approved Book, and well known to those of his Age. Epiphanius quotes it very often, (in his Book against Heresies,) by the express name of the Apostolical Constitutions, as an Author of eminent Credit, and whose Testimony was sufficient, as to what was a Primitive usage 
(q) Epiphan. Panar. lib. 1. Tom. 3. Haer. 45 & Lib. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 75. ; and he gives this Character of them, That many doubted of them, but did not reject them. For (saith he) all regular Order is contained in them, and there is nothing contrary either to Faith or Worship, or to the Rule of Church Government 
(r) Epiphan. Ibid. lib. 3. Tom. 1. Haer. 70. ; that is, they contain all necessary directions, as to Doctrine, Divine Offices and Discipline. Now if this Book had this Reputation in this Fourth Century, we must believe it was written sooner, and we may well allow it as good Evidence, for Matter of Fact at least in this Age, where we are content to place it; and we hope our Adversaries will not be able to except against our modest assignation of the Constitutions to the later part of this Century, because Mr. Cook thinks their true Author was Contemporary with S. Basil, who died An. 378 
(s) Discou se of L●turg. p. 110. Ma●g. . And Monsieur Dailé reckons these Constitutions among the most ancient Books which are Apocryphal and confesseth, They were published soon after the year of Christ 330, and therefore he citys them as good Evidence for the Usages of this Century and the former 
(t) D●●le p aefat. ad l ●run. de Relig. ●●●tus obj ●o, p●o●e●nem. ; for which reason he must allow them to be a sufficient Witness for the use of Forms and Liturgy in these two Ages. And truly, Secondly, We may prove this Book to be at least thus ancient by the Matter of it, which is Primitive, pure and pious, and the Forms are taken out of Scripture, or the Writings of the most genuine Fathers, and are proper to the several occasions, and agreeable to the Opinion and Practice of these Ages, being free from those grosser Corruptions of the later Times, such as Invocation of the Virgin Mary, the Saints and Angels; Adoration of Images, Crosses and Relics; the Sacrifice Propitiatory of the Mass; the Pope's Infallibility and Supremacy, with such like: Yea, this Liturgy being allowed to have been used in this Century, and not mentioning any of these things, is a good proof, That they are all notorious Corruptions and Innovations; there is nothing but some Charitable Prayers for the Dead, without any respect to Purgatory, which can be excepted against in these Offices; because we see in Arnobius and others, that this Usage was crept into the Christian Worship, at least as early as the beginning of this Century. Wherefore we conclude, that these Constitutions, and the Forms contained therein are a clear and convincing Evidence, that a prescribed Liturgy was used in this Age.  
But, Secondly, our Adversary goes on to raise other Scruples; For he tells us out of this Author, that they were so strict in concealing their Mysteries, that if a Catechumen by chance had been present, they immediately Baptised him 
(p) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 43. Marg. . I Answer, It is very pleasant for him to cite a Book wherein all these Mysteries are written down at large, to prove there were no Mysteries written down in that Age; and it is very weak, or something worse, to say they concealed them from the Faithful, because they kept them secret from the Catechumen: He knew very well that in ●●is Age they did write down their Offices, but charged the Priests and Faithful, to keep these Words and Writings from the Unbaptized. Another Objection is, That the Creed set down in the Constitutions, is not the same with the Apostles Creed, therefore there was no certain Form of Creed 
(w) Discourse of Liturg. p. 103. . I Reply, The Creed here set down was the Form then used in that Church, of which this Author was a Member (probably of Antioch)▪ And as new Heresies arose, it was necessary for all Churches to make larger Paraphrases upon some Articles of the old Creed, to secure all that were admitted into the Church against those Heresies: But still this Creed thus Paraphrased, was a Form prescribed to all that were Baptised in that Diocese, and that is enough to prove there were Forms used in every Church; nor do I see any thing that he can infer from hence, but that since the Apostles made that Creed which goes by their Name, and yet this Creed differs from it; therefore the Apostles did not make these Constitutions themselves, which we freely confess. Like this, is his Objection about the Form of renouncing the Devil in Baptism, which is not set down in the same Words in these Constitutions, as it is in other Fathers 
(x) Discourse of Liturg. p. 106. . I Reply, This was the Form at Antioch, that in S. Cyril was the Form at Jerusalem, that in S. Chrysostom the Form at Constantinople, and the difference between them is so very small, that it shows they all were taken from one Original; and all Churches had Forms of this Renunciation; yet in several Dioceses they had some diversity in expressing it; but this doth not prove either that they had no Forms, nor that any Inferior Minister was left at liberty to express it as he pleased, these being obliged to keep to the Form prescribed in their own Church. I shall only desire the Reader to observe, that in that large Margin, where he hath heaped up variety of Forms of Renouncing the Devil, one half of them are not the Words of any Church's Form, but only short and occasional descriptions of it in lax Discourses, and so are not to be urged as various Forms. Lastly, He picks up several Phrases dispersed up and down the Constitutions, pretending that the Priest was at liberty to say those or such like Prayers and Praises 
(y) Discourse of Liturg. p. 110, 111. . But first, He falsely expounds most of these Phrases; for when that Author saith, The Priest must pray, or say thus; or, must say these Words, or those which follow 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit. Apostol. l. 7. cap. 43, 45. l. 8. c. 29, etc. ; and then immediately subjoins a Form, it is clear to all, that the Priest is to say that Form and no other. And the same sense may very well be put upon those other Phrases of the Priests saying such a kind of Prayer, or the Bishops giving such a kind of Blessing 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Constit. ibid. l. 7. cap. 45. & lib. 8. cap. 16. ; viz. that these Phrases do intent no more, than that they shall Pray and Bless in this wise, or after this sort. For it must be granted, that we have a prescribed Form for the absolving of the Sick, from which no Minister may vary; and yet the Rubric before it saith, The Priest shall absolve him after this sort 
(b) Rubric in Office for Visiting the Sick. . Wherefore the Author never meant by these Phrases, to leave the Priest to say what Prayers he pleased in an Extempore way; and indeed when he hath set down a Form, a Prayer made Extempore is not such a like Prayer, nor a Prayer after that sort. But suppose we should grant (which I do not think we need yield,) that these Phrases do signify their making any other Form like this, still this obliges them to Forms; and being these Phrases are but four times in all that large Book of Offices, it was no great matter to leave the Bishop (especially) at liberty, to change the Form three or four times in so great variety of Prayers, Praises, and Benedictions. And if all the rest were fixed and stated Forms, from which none might vary, that is enough to prove my Position; and this Objection can no more weaken it, than a Man's alleging, that Canon of Praying before Sermon in this Form, or to this effect 
(c) Book of Canons. ; and that Rubric which bids us exhort the sick Man after this Form, or other like 
(d) Rubric in Office for Visit▪ Sick. ; would prove, there was no prescribed Liturgy in the Church of England, because some liberty is left in a few Cases; yet this is the most that can be made of this Toping Argument, though we grant all he can desire. I conclude therefore, that there was prescribed Forms, and a Liturgy used before the Middle of this Fourth Century, and that these Forms in the Constitutions, were the Liturgy of some eminent Eastern Church.  
§. 8. We have no less Authority than S. Hierom, to prove, that Hilary 
S. Hilary Bish. of Poitiers, An. Dom. 360.  Bishop of Poitiers, Made one Book of Hymns, and another of Mysteries 
(e) Hieron. Catalogue. Script. pag 378. ; that is, he composed a Liturgy; and since he had lived in the East where Liturgies now were commonly used, we may reasonably believe he brought the same Usage into the Gallican Church: For he saith, That those without, may hear the Voice of the People Praying and singing Hymns within the Church, and may perceive their making Responses to the devout Confessions in the Offices of the Divine Sacraments 
(f) Et inter divinorum quoque Sacramentorum officia responsionem devotae contessionis accipiat. Hilar. Com. in Psal. 65. : Which shows, they had an Office for the Holy Communion, wherein the People bore a part, as they did also in the Hymns and other Prayers, for all which there were Forms appointed: And these Forms were used Morning and Evening; for he tells us, That the day began with Prayer, and was closed up with Hymns 
(g) Idem in Psal. 64. ; and blames those whose Lips murmured they knew not what, and while their Thoughts roved and their Mind was busied about other things, did not attend to the Office which they were reciting. These and many other passages in him make it plain, that the Gallican Church had Forms and a Liturgy in this Age.  
Yea, it will appear, That all Christian Churches had so, if we consider the Method that Julian the Apostate 
Julian the Apostate, An. Dom. 361.  took to establish Paganism, which was to accommodate it as much as possible to Christianity, the Rites of which he saw were then very popular and taking: And therefore he devised to make a Form of Prayers in parts, for the Heathen Worship to set up Schools and Lectures of Philosophy, and to enjoin Penances to Offenders: Which things (saith Nazianzen) are clearly agreeable to our good Order 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazian. in Jul. Orat. 3 p. 102. . And Sozomen relating the same thing, saith, That Julian designed to adorn his Gentile Temples with the Order of Christian-Worship; and therefore among other things, He appointed prescribed Prayers upon Set-days and Hours 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zoz. hist. lib. 5. cap. 15. . From whence it is as clear as the Sun, That in Julian's Time the Christians generally used a Form of Prayer in parts, so that the People could make their Responses, and that they had proper Forms appointed for certain Days, yea, for the several Hours of Prayer in every Day; and this was so grateful to the People of that Age, that this ingenious Apostate in one of his Epistles yet extant, advises his Pagan Priests, to Pray thrice a day, if possible, or however Morning and Evening, both in private and public; and to learn the Hymns of the Gods which were made in older and in later Times—; adding, that there was a Liturgy for these Priests, and a Law directing them what to do in their Temples, from which they might not vary 
(k) Julian. Fragment. Epistol. in oper. pag 552. . So that he had actually brought the Christian Orders into the Service of the Heathen Gods; and because Christians had Responses in their Prayers, and sung their Hymns alternately; so did he appoint the Pagans, to pray and sing by such like Forms.  
§. 9 The next place must be assigned to the Council of Laodicea, 
The Council of Laodicea An. Dom. 365.  which is one of the earliest Synods, after the settling of Christianity, and its Canons have always been received, by the Catholic Church; And here we have many convincing proofs, that the Christians than had written and prescribed Forms of Prayer and Praise, and used a Liturgy in the Service of God. First we find an order, that the Heretics, who returned to the Church, should learn the Creeds 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Laod. Can. 7. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 455. ; probably the Apostles and the Nicene Creed: However they must be Set Forms, or otherwise how could Men learn them? Secondly, In this Council we meet with Canonical Singers, who sang out of written Books, and none but they are allowed to Sing in the Church 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Can. 15. p. 459. ; that is, as Balsamon well Notes, to begin the Hymns; for the People were always allowed to follow them, and Sing with, and after them. Now if they had Forms of Praise written in a Book, why might they not have their Prayers written also in a Book? 'tis certain they had no great esteem for Extempore composures, nor for variety of Forms neither, because they forbidden the Reading of Psalms, composed by private Men in the Church 
(n) Ibid. Can. ●● p 480. ; And enjoin the use of the same Office for the Evening Prayer, at whatever hour of the Afternoon it was said, which is the true meaning of that famous Canon, about which our Adversary raiseth so much dust: The Words of it are these, That the very same Liturgy of Prayers, aught to be used always, both at three in the Afternoon and in the Evening 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 18. Bev. Tom. 1. p. 461. , that is, saith Balsamon, they forbidden Men to reject the Prayers, which the Fathers had appointed for three in the Afternoon, and to make new Prayers of their own, on pretence they used them, at the time of the Evening Hymns. And Zonaras saith, The Council rejects new Prayers, and allows none but such as had been approved in a Synod, nor would they permit Men, to use Prayers of their own making in public; but the same Prayers, which had been delivered down to them, were to be said in every Assembly 
(p) Balsam. & Zonar. apud. Beve●eg. ibid. . To which I will only add this. That the whole day being divided by the hours of Prayer, as it had formerly been among the Jews; the Morning hour took in the time from Six till Nine; The Noon-hour of Prayer, was said any time between Nine and Three, and The Evening-hour Prayer might be said between Three in the Afternoon and Six at Night; soon after which was the time for Singing those Hymns at the first lighting of Candles; and it seems some put these two last Offices together, and having said the usual Forms for Evening Prayer at Three of the Clock, when they were to Sing the Evening Hymns at Candles lighting, Composed new Forms of Evening Prayer, and used them in the Church, which the Synod forbids, and enjoins the same Liturgy or Forms of Prayer, which had been used in the Afternoon, to be repeated over again with the Hymns in the Evening. Now this Canon made in the Eastern Church, where Liturgies were then commonly used, must be expounded of a Set and prescribed Form; and therefore divers of the Presbyterian persuasion have confessed, that Liturgies have been used for at least 1300 years 
(q) See Falkner's Vindic. of Liturg. pag. 140. . And Smectymnuus derives the use of them from this Canon, and believes the sense of it to be, that none should vary but always use the same Form 
(r) Smectym. Answer to remonstr. p. 7. . But our Adversary resolves right or wrong, that Liturgies shall not be grounded upon this Canon; Wherefore, first he Assigns a date to the Council later than he ought, for he saith it was in the latter end of the fourth Century 
(s) Disc. of Litu●g. p. 61. ; whereas it was held soon after the middle of it. Secondly, He reserves this Canon to the latter end of his Book, not daring to produce it, till he had prepossessed his Reader with a false Notion, That there were no Liturgies in this Age 
(t) Ibid. p. 155. . Then he recites the Words, of it wrong, putting the Evening before the Ninth hour 
(u) Ibid p. 156. : And in another place, he brings in Caranzas false Translation of this Canon, who leaves out the main Words, [the same Liturgy] and only Reads it, That supplications ought always to be Celebrated, at the Ninth hour and in the Evening 
(w) Caranz. in the Disc. of Liturg. p. 162. . But not trusting to any of these shifts, he spends five or six Pages together in Labouring to pervert the Sense of it; and I must beg the Readers patience, while I follow him. His first device is, that The same Liturgy of Prayers, may signify only the same Prayers used often; but the Words not prescribed or imposed on them by others. I Reply, the Words of the Canon are not used often, but the same Liturgy of Prayers to be used always. So that if he grant us, (as here he seems to do) that they were the same Prayers, than it will follow, that the Synod imposed and prescribed them to be used always. And there is nothing in the Canon, to import that these Prayers were of their own composing, no such Word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or de pectore; yea we see Balsamon and Zonaras say this Canon expressly forbids such Prayers; and yet if the Priests of that Age had made them, the Council enjoins them never to make any more, but always to use the same Prayers; but if they had been at Liberty to make new Forms, these could not be called the same Prayers. But Secondly, He shows all his learning to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not then signify a Book, or Model of prescribed Forms of Prayer: But he might have spared all those Quotations, which are brought to make out, that it signifies The Administration of a public Function or Office, since we grant that is the general signification of this Word. But we are to consider it, only as it is applied to Prayers and Praises, and then I affirm, it signifies a Form of Prayer. Thus Causabon tells us, that beside the general Notion of a public Function, it also signifies, The prescribed Order for Celebrating divine Offices; of which kind are those published under the Titles of Peter, James, Andrew, Basil and Chrysostom, partly true and partly false: The Latins call it, The Order, or Office; the Greeks sometimes, the Method, etc. 
(x) Causab. exercit. in Baron. xuj. p. 384. . And since it doth signify a prescribed Order sometimes, we may reasonably judge, it doth so in this Council; because we see the Hymns, which were a great part of the public Service, were written Forms, as the xuth Canon, (cited before) shows; and because Liturgies were then very usual in the Eastern Church, where this Council was held. And we can prove, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was used for a prescribed Form of Service, not only after this Council, but before it; So when Flavianus sung David's Psalms alternately at Antioch, (before this Council,) the Bishop desired, That the same Liturgy, might be used in the Church 
(y) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T●eo●●ret. lib. 2. cap. 2. , which may fitly be interpreted, that they would bring those Psalters so distinguished, for alternate Singing, and use them in the Church. And in the Council of Sardica (An. 347.) a Bishop coming to a strange City is ordered, To assemble and perform his Liturgy there 
(z) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. Sard. Can. 12. . Here saith Balsamon, Liturgy is not put for Prayers: And Zonaras saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies, to send up the accustomed Hymns to God 
(a) Balsam. & Zonar. in Loc. Bever. Tom. 1. pag. 500 . Our Adversary also grants, that the Heathens had written Forms, and prayed out of a Book; yet Julian calls the Times when they officiated in their Temples by these Forms, The time of their performing Liturgies. And when their course was expired, that he calls, The time when they were not using Liturgy in the Temples 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Julian. ep. Fragm. pag 552. . So we may explain Nazianzen, whose Father (as we shall prove) prayed by a Form; that he was very ill when he came to Church, and was often cured, only by saying his Liturgy 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 19 pag. 313. ; and thus we must explain Synesius, where he saith Andronicus made him so unfit to pray, that he was forced to omit the Liturgy of the Altar 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synes. epist. 57 pag 193. ; that is, the Communion Office, which was usually performed there. In the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (An. 431) we read of The Morning and Evening Liturgy; which can be meant of nothing else but the Forms of Prayer appointed for public Assemblies in the Morning and Evening 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil. Ephes. B●n. Tom. 1. par 2. : So also in an ancient Ecclesiastical Historian, a Bishop beginning the Prayers, is said, To begin his Liturgy 
(f) The●dor. Lect. pag. 188. : And in Theodoret, That place of S. Paul's Epistles, viz. The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodor●t. p. 128. epist. 46. v●xit An. 423.  is said to be, The Preface of the Mystical Liturgy; and accordingly we find it in the Apostolical Constitutions, placed just in the beginning of the Communion-Service, or (in Theodoret's Phrase) of the Liturgy for the Sacrament. I confess I cannot but wonder at my Adversaries citing Justinian also, as if Liturgy in him did not signify a Form of Prayer; though all men know, the Greek Church had a Form of Liturgy in his time, and the very places cited by him have that signification: As when he allows the Nuns one grave old Man to make the necessary Responses, and One Priest to perform the Liturgy, and give them the Holy Communion 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God no ● tit. 3. de Episc. & C●●r. L. 44. . So also to sing the Night, the Morning and Evening Prayers and Hymns (which were in prescribed Forms then) is called the performing the Divine Liturgies 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. L. 43. . And this is distin guished in another Law from private Devotions; where he permits men to have a place in their Houses for Prayers, Provided they do none of those things there which the holy Liturgy doth prescribe 
(k)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent. coll. 5 tit. 13. Nou. 58. ; where the Holy Liturgy can mean nothing else, but the Book or Office wherein the Forms of administering the Holy Sacraments was contained; and therefore my politic Adversary only names this place, but durst not cite it at large. But those places which he doth quote, may properly enough be so expounded: For, to exclude a Clerk from the Liturgy 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. lib. 1. tit. 4. L. 33. , is to suspend him from saying the Public or Common Prayer: And the penalty upon those who disturb Mysteries or Liturgy 
(m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Authent. coll. 9 tit. 6. Nou. 123. cap. 31. , is no doubt to be inflicted upon those who disturb a Priest in administering the Sacrament, or in saying his public Office of Prayers. Wherefore we conclude, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) when it is applied to praying or praising God, doth very often signify the Form prescribed; and therefore it may very probably signify so in this Laodicean Council, wherein there are many Evidences, that there was such a prescribed Form 
(n) See Can. 15, and 59, cited before. . And one Canon appropriates the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Deacons, who (as Balsamon notes) were to observe the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or loud pronunciation of the last Words in the Collects by the Priest; and with this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than they gave notice to the People to answer, Amen, or make their Responses as the Liturgy required. Now these Responses at certain places, signified by the Deacon to the People, necessarily imply a written Form 
(o) Vid. Balsam. in Concil. Laod. Can. 22. Bever. Tom. I. pag. 463. ; therefore in a Church where written Forms were used, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signify the prescribed Office. But this will be more clear if we consider the word joined with it, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The same Liturgy of Prayers; this must be expounded of repeating the same Forms over again, which is the sense we plead for: And if we translate it, The same ministration of Prayers (as he desires) still it cannot be meant of new and varied Extempore Prayers, the Priest who prays so differently cannot properly be said to use the same Ministration; and if this had been the Councils Sense, than these words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signify nothing, in that Case it had been enough to say, Let there be Prayers at Three and Six: But when they say, Let there be the same Liturgy or public Office of Prayers at Three and Six; the meaning must be, That they shall repeat the same Prayers, and therefore the Office was a prescribed Form.  
To this my Adversary Objects, That if the Canon be so expounded, than it decrees that one and the same Form shall be used at several Hours. I Reply, The Prayers at Three (which is the beginning of the Evening, when the Sun declines apace) were then, as they are now, Prayers proper for the Evening, and so might well enough be used when the Evening Hymns were sung, especially by such as by necessary business were not at the Church at Three in the Afternoon. And it is plain, that though there were Forms of Hymns at Candle-lighting (as my Adversary takes pains to prove); yet there seems to have been no distinct Form of Prayer for this Season; under which pretence some bold and zealous Men (like our Dissenters) would have brought in their own Composures, which the Church here forbids, and ties them up to the same Forms which were used at Three in the Afternoon. We conclude therefore, That this Council liked not Extempore Prayers, nor Forms made by private Persons, Laity or Clergy, but obliged all to the same Liturgy, when it was proper for the several Seasons. I need not answer his Instances about the several stated Forms of Hymns and Prayers for the several Hours of Prayer, since if this were in the Time of the Laodicean Council or before, it makes against him, and proves prescribed Forms were much Ancienter than he is willing to grant; and yet these mentioned in the Canon being Evening Prayers, might properly be said either in the beginning or the close of the Evening: But if his Instances of such Forms be later than this Council, they are impertinent; since the following Ages made more Hours of Prayer, and more proper Forms to them than were known in the Time of the Council of Laodicea, which rather than it would endure such Prayers as our Adversary contends for, made them say the same Office over again at Candle-lighting, which some of them had repeated before at Three in the Afternoon. And thus we see these Evening Prayers were Forms.  
There is another Canon in this same Council, 
Can. XIX. Concil. Laodicen.  which is a clear proof that the Morning Prayers, when the Eucharist was administered, were Forms also: For the XIXth Canon exactly describes the Order of this Service, as S. Cyril and the Author of the Constitutions had done, saving that this Canon only mentions the Method; but the very Words of the Forms named here, are in the Constitutions: And the Method both here and there, and in S. Cyril and the Liturgies of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom, do so exactly agree, that we may be sure this Canon points to the Forms which were then commonly known and used. After the Sermon this Canon saith, First, there was a Prayer for the Catechumen, (which Causabon tells us was a Form 
(p) Vid. Causab. exerc. in Baron. XVI. pag. 398. ● , and we may read the Words of it in the Apostolical Constitutions) after which They were dismissed: Then (saith the Canon) followed a Prayer for the Penitents, (which Albaspinaeus saith was) made in set and appointed Words, and it recited also every one of their Names 
(q) Certis destinatisque verbis pro ●psorum p●●nitentiam salute supplicabatur, corumque nomina inter ipsas orationes proferrebantur. Albasp. Obs. iib. 1. cap. 25. ): And then they were dismissed, as the Catechumen were before: Then (saith the Canon) follows Three Prayers for the Faithful; the first to be recited secretly, the other two with a loud Voice, or with Exclamation 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cum exclamatione. . The first of these I take to be the Collect, which the Bishop alone makes for the Faithful, without any Response to be made by the People after it, the Form of which we have in the Constitutions, Lib. 8. cap. 14. and the saying this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not mean that it was whispered so as none could hear it; but it signifies, that there was no Exclamation at the end of this Prayer, nor in any part of it were the People called upon aloud to join their Responses, because it was said by the Bishop alone: But the other two, are the two Litanies set down in the Prayers of the Faithful 
(s) Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 13, 18, & 19 , which Litanies were always said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with loud Voice, and an Exclamation especially at the end of every Petition, to give notice to the People to be ready with their Responses, Domine miserere, or the like. So that the Author of the Constitutions is the best Comment upon this Canon of Laodicea, and both makes it very intelligible, and proves the Offices were all done by a stated Liturgy and in set Forms. I know my Adversary tells us, This Canon is no more than a Rule for Order in placing the Prayers used at the Sacrament 
(t) Discourse of Liturg. pag ●. & pag. 61. . But if we grant this, it will be no advantage to him, because Forms of Prayer are more capable of being kept to one certain Order, than Extempore Prayers can be: And there is one thing in this Canon which makes it more than probable, that the Prayers for the Faithful were Forms; and that is the Reason why (as this Canon speaks) they dismissed the Catechumen; which seems to be for fear by daily hearing these Forms, they should remember the Phrases of these Mysteries, and discover them to profane and common Ears: For if these Prayers had been Extempore, and the Phrases varied every day (as my Adversary pretends) the Catechumen might safely have stayed there, it being impossible they should so learn or remember those various Expressions, as to relate them to any body after they were gone home. Finally, Why should we not believe this Order, was the Method of the public Forms of Prayer; there being the same Order exactly observed in all those Ancient Forms which are extant at this day; and not one word that intimates any such thing as an Extempore Prayer, or frequent variation of the Forms either in this Council, or in any Father or Council about this time? And this may suffice for these Canons which after all his shuffling Objections are good Evidence for a stated Liturgy in this Age.  

Optatus Milev. An. Dom. 368.  §. 10. Optatus Milevitanus, though he writ on a different Subject, yet he hath divers Expressions, which suppose and imply, that there was in his time a Liturgy used in Africa: For he mentions the People's joining with the Priest in the Divine Service, and blames the Donatists, for shutting the mouths of all Christian Nations, and forcing all the People to be silent 
(u) Optat. Milev. lib. 2. pag. 47. ; which shows they used alternate Singing and Responses among the Orthodox, and that Method cannot be but by Form. Yea, he declares there were some certain Words so established and enjoined by Law in the celebration of the Sacrament, that the Donatists themselves could not pass them by 
(w) Illud legitimum in Sacramentorum mysterio praeterire non posse. Id. ibid. pag. 53. ; and from their using these Words he draws an Argument against their Schism, which he could not have done, if they had not been fixed and a Set Form. My Adversary mistakes this passage, and fancies that Optatus refers to the Prayer of Consecration, which could never be omitted 
(x) Discourse of Liturgy, p. 61. ; but the holy Father explains himself in the same Page, and shows us, that he means the Prayer For the Holy Catholic Church. You say (saith Optatus) that you offer for that One Church, which is diffused over the whole World 
(y) Offer vos dicitis pro una Ecclesia quae sit in toto terrarum orbe diffusa. Optat. ibid. : Thus he saith the Orthodox prayed, and this was so established, that the Donatists (in this, exceeding our Dissenters, that they had not thrown off the Church's Forms) could not omit it. And thus the Learned▪ Fr. Baldwin expounds it, He means (saith he) that Solemn Form of the Canonical Prayer, in which it is said, We offer unto thee this Sacrifice for that One Church which is diffused over all the World 
(z) Fr. Bald. notis in Optat. pag. 185. : Which Words also are in the Mystical Prayer set down by the Author of the Apostostolical Constitutions 
(a) Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 13. & cap 18. , and are found with little variation in that very Prayer in all the ancient Liturgies. Now by [Legitimum] Optatus cannot mean that these Words were enjoined by the Law of Christ, because this Form being not enjoined by any Scripture, therefore it must signify a Form enjoined by the Laws of the Church, which in that Age did so strictly enjoin this very Prayer, that (it seems) None might omit or pass it by. And there is another Form of Ecclesiastical Appointment in the same Author, brought in with the same Preface, You cannot omit (saith he again to the Donatists) that which is established by Law; for certainly you say, Peace be with you 
(b) Et non potuistis praetermittere, quod legittimum est, utique dixistis, Pax vabiscum. ic. lib. 3. pag. 73. . Now this was the Form of Episcopal Benediction, we have it in all old Liturgies, and it is plain by Optatus his raising an Argument from these Words, That the African Church had them in their Liturgy, which was so firmly established that none could omit any part of it, No, not so much as alter the order: For Optatus again saith, After you have absolved the Penitents, presently you turn to the Altar, and cannot omit the Lord's Prayer 
(c) Mox ad altare conversi Dominicam Orationem praetermittere non potestis. Idem lib. 2. pag. 57 . So that the very order of repeating the Lord's Prayer at the Altar, in the beginning of the Prayers for the Faithful (which was but of Ecclesiastical Institution) could not be changed. Moreover we find in Optatus, That there was a Rumour spread upon the coming of some from the Emperor, that Alterations would be made in the Communion Service, which startled the People; but they were quieted again when they saw The Solemn Custom and wont Rite observed, and discerned, that nothing was changed, added or diminished in the Divine Sacrifice 
(d) Cum viderent in divinis Sacrificiis nec mutatum quicquam, nec additum, nec ablasum. Id. lib. 3. pag. 75. . From whence it appears there was a known Form for the Communion, an Office so well understood by the People, that they could perceive when it was altered in any particular: So that doubtless those Christians were not used to variety of Phrases, nor accustomed to the Extempore Man's Fancy, to celebrate in a longer or shorter Form, as he pleased. Again, he repeats the very Form of Exorcising those who came to be Baptised 
(e) Maledicte exi foras. Optat. lib. 4. pag. 79. , and the Form of the Responses when they renounced the Devil, and repeated their Creed at Baptism 
(f) Id. lib. 5. pag 86 & 89. . And when we put all this together concerning known Forms of Words, which could not be altered nor omitted, and were enjoined by Law, we may conclude they had a written Liturgy in Africa in his time: And it is very probable that this Book of Prayers, was one of those Books (in the Plural Number) which the Donatists (as he complains) took away from the Holy Altar, from whence the People's Prayers were wont to be sent up to God 
(g) Idem lib. 7. pag. 98. . And since they had a written Form (as the Forecited passages show) it is probable that the Liturgy as well as the Bible was then lying upon the Altar.  

Epiphanius. An. Dom 369.  §. 11. We can expect no great account of the Sacred Forms in Epiphanius, since he is so very nice in speaking of Mysteries, that he will not repeat the Words of our Saviour's Institution, but thus expresses them, He took these things, and giving Thanks, said, This is that of mine, etc. 
(h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 E●●phan. in An●orat. p. 432. . And he reckons it a ridiculous thing in the Marcionites to celebrate their Mysteries before the Catechumen 
(i) Epip●au. Panar. contr. Martion. p 136. . For his own part he will say no more, when he comes to describe the celebration of the Sacraments, but this, The other Mysteries of the Laver (i. e. Baptism,) and the internal Mysteries (i. e. the Eucharist,) are performed according to the Tradition of the Gospel and of the Apostles— only he saith, There were in the Church constantly Morning Hymns and Morning Prayers, as also Prayers and Psalms at Evening or Candle lighting 
(k) Id. ibid. prope finem Labri. : But though he do not tell us what the several Forms were, yet we may be assured they used Forms then in the Churches of Cyprus; First, because they did so in all the other Churches▪ wherewith Epiphanius held Communion. Secondly, Because he doth so highly commend the Apostolical Constitutions, as containing all regular Order, and being agreeable to the true and Orthodox way of Worship 
(l) Epiphan. Panar. lib. 3. Tom. 1. haer. 70. ; and yet we have seen, there is a prescribed Liturgy, and complete Forms of Prayer for all occasions, set down in those Constitutions. Thirdly, Because he derides Montanus and other Heretics, for pretending to inspiration and such extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit as were then ceased. Now though this being added to other testimonies of this Age, be proof sufficient to those that are unprejudiced, that Epiphanius allowed and used Set Forms of Hymns and Prayers; yet our Adversary hath picked up a passage out of an Epistle of his Recorded by S. Hierom, and extant only in Latin, to prove that the Prayer for all Estates of Men, in the Communion Office, was not a prescribed Form; because when Epiphanius was accused for Praying in that part of the Office, for John Bishop of Jerusalem, thus, O Lord grant that John may believe aright, he is not very sure what Words he used; nor doth appeal to any certain Form; and thence he concludes there was no Set Form for this Prayer, in the time of Epiphanus 
(m) ●isc. of Lating pag. ●2. 63, etc. ; And this Argument he triumphs in extremely. To which I shall now reply, That if all he supposes were true, the act of one single Bishop upon an extraordinary occasion, would not weigh down all the Evidence we have produced to the contrary; and if so Eminent a Bishop as Epiphanius, upon so great an occasion as a Metropolitan 's falling into Heresy had altered two or three Words of the usual Form; this will not prove, that the inferior Clergy were always left at liberty to Pray Extempore; yet that is the liberty this Author pleads for. But Secondly, The very accusation which John of Jerusalem brings, against Epiphanius, strongly supposes there was a known Form, by which they prayed for the great Bishops, and that made his varying from it, to be easily discerned and ill taken. And Thirdly, The answer of Epiphanius clears the matter: For he first denies that he used those Words, which were charged on him, saying, it would have been a rude thing, to use such an expression of that Bishop in public, though he owns he always prayed so for him in his Heart. And Secondly, He doth appeal to the public Forms, and so tells him what Words he did use; for he saith when we make that Prayer, according to the Communion Office, we say, for all Bishops, and for you also: Keep him who Preacheth the Truth; Or certainly thus, Hear us Lord, and keep him that he may Preach the Word of Truth, as the occasion required, and as the Office for Prayer directed 
(n) Quando autem complemus orationem secundum ritum Mysteriorum & pro omnibus, & pro te quoque d●cimut, custodi illum qui pradicat veritatem; Vel certè ita, Tu praesta Domine, & custodi, ut ille verbum pradicit veritatis, sicut occasio Sermonis se tulerit, & habuerit Oratio consequentiam. Epist. Epiphan. ad Johan. Hieros'. ap. D. Hieron. . The right understanding of which Answer, depends upon observing three things. First, That he affirms he performed this Prayer (secundum ritum mysteriorum) according to the usual Office for the Sacrament; had the Greek been extant, probably there it would have been (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Secondly That he saith it was one of the two ways mentioned, as occasion required [& habuerit oratio consequentiam] now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is literally translated here Consequentiam) signifies, an Order prescribed: So that we must observe, that there are two Prayers in Epiphanius his friend, the Author of the Constitutions, which are Forms by which they there pray for the Bishops, at the time of the Sacrament 
(o) Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 13. & cap. 18. Item in Liturg. D. Jacobi semel. In Liturg. D. Basil. ●is orant p●o Episcopis ut recte tractent verbum veritatis. ; the Sense of both Forms being much of the same, with what Epiphanius saith he prayed, but the Words are somewhat different: And very likely, the Forms for Jerusalem and Cyprus were also two, and had both these ways prescribed, Custodi illum, etc. and Tu praesta Domine. So that Epiphanius who strictly kept to the Words of his Form, to his (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Liturgy, is confident he never prayed for John of Jerusalem, but one of these ways, either the former way in the beginning, or the latter way in the midst of the Communion Service. For Thirdly, Had he taken that liberty, which my Adversary pleads for, and prayed Extempore, or varied the Phrase daily, he could not be so confident, that he never had used those Words, which John of Jerusalem here charges him with: Nor could he have been certain (as we see he is) that he did use one of these two Phrases, each being part of a distinct Form in that Office. So that this passage doth not disprove, but confirm the use of a Liturgy, by Epiphanius.  
§. 12. 
Greg. Nazianzen, An. Dom. 370.  We have very little in Gregory Nazianzen concerning Liturgy, for he was very strict in requiring, that none of the Christian Mysteries should be divulged to strangers; and the most considerable of his works are Sermons, made in the Church before the Catechumen went out; so that there he is very cautious of publishing the Forms of Divine worship 
(p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nazianz. Orat. 40 p. 672 Item Orat. 42. pag. 687. etc. . Yet that passage concerning the Apostate julian's designing to imitate, the Christians, in their way of serving God, and so making a Form of Prayers in part, for his Pagan Temples, (which is related by Nazianzen 
(q) See before §. 8. An. 361. ; shows that in his time the Christian worship was performed by Forms of Prayer which had Responses, and of which the People bore a part: And we may be assured of two things; First, That this way of worship, was more ancient than Julian's time; for he would not have imitated an innovation, or a Method taken up lately, or only by few. And Nazianzen tells us, That Julian saw, Christianity was Famous for its Doctrines, but more Famous and remarkable for those Forms of the Church, anciently delivered and still preserved 
(r)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 3. pag. 101. ; which Forms most certainly were Forms of Prayer, and of Administration of the Sacraments, derived (as Nazianzen believed,) from Ancient Tradition, and retained to his very time; and to imitate the Doctrines, we see Julian set up Schools and Lectures; to imitate these Forms, he appointed a Form of Prayers in parts. Secondly, Nazianzen did believe this way of Praying by Forms, to be very agreeable to the Gospel, because he there saith, That these Forms of Prayer and other things before mentioned, were clearly belonging to the good Order of the Christians 
(s)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. ibid. ; So that we may be sure both of the use of Forms of Prayer in this time, and of Nazianzens approving them. This Evidence for the Antiquity of Liturgies, my Adversary suppresseth; but citys two other places out of Nazianzen, which he would persuade us will make out the use of Extempore Prayers. First he tells us, that Nazianzen being to discourse of the holy Ghost, prayeth that he may be enabled thereby for the expressions 
(t) Disc. of Liturg. p. 59 . The words are these, That being to speak of the Spirit, he may have the presence of the Spirit; and that it may give him such a faculty of discoursing, as he desires, at least such as is suitable to the occasion 
(u) Nazianz. Orat 44. p. 409. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he translates, in the plural number Give me such expressions.  But let it be noted, that this is not properly a Prayer, but a Rhetorical Apostrophe in the middle of an Homily, by the polite style whereof we may conclude, it was composed in his Study before he he came to the Church; and therefore both the Prayer and Homily were made in his Closet; however being part of a Sermon, this is nothing at all to the Churches public Prayers, about which we dispute; For many Conformists do use such Apostrophes to God or Christ, or to the holy Ghost in their Sermons, yet none will argue from thence, that we have no Liturgy in England. Secondly, He pretends that Nazianzens' Father prayed at the Eucharist by the Spirit, and shortened the usual Prayers there, when he was sick; And of this, he his so proud that he quotes it twice 
(o) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 60, & pag. 76, & 77. ; But he gives us only the Epitome of this story out of the Centuriators, which he imagined sounded more to his purpose; Therefore we will give the Fathers own Words, who saith, His sick Father awaking the Night before Easter, first moved himself a little, and then more strongly; soon after he called on his Servant by Name with very low Voice, to give him his Garments and lend him his Hand; the Man came with amazement and did readily obey him; and leaning on him as on a Staff, he imitated. Moses upon the Mount, and staying up his Hands in the posture of Prayer, he readily performed the former and latter part of the Mysteries of the People, in few words indeed, because he was weak in Body, but with a Mind (it seems) very perfect. O admirable! Without a Pulpit, on the Pulpit; a Sacrificer without an Altar; a Priest at a distance from the things to be consecrated: but these things were made present to him by the Holy Spirit, as he knew, though those who were present did not see them: After this repeating the accustomed Words of the Eucharist, and Blessing the People, he went to Bed again 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Naz●●at. 19 pag. 305. : After which he relates how he Recovered and went to Church, and solemnly celebrated the Sacrament with the whole Church, on the first Sunday after Easter. Where I think the Centuriators, and our Adversary both, mistake the point in supposing the old Bishop to do all this in the Church; for there is nothing in the Relation to show, that he went out of his Chamber, and his being without a Pulpit, an Altar, and the things to be consecrated, (viz. the Oblations of the People brought to the Church) do make it plain, this was a private Communion celebrated in his Chamber to some few that were about him; yet he performed that as nigh the public Forms as he was able: And though he abbreviated the long Prayers before the Consecration out of mere necessity, yet he kept strictly to the Words of Consecration, as he was wont to do; he did not alter that Form in the least: So that a Man may as well argue, We have no larger Office for the Communion in our Liturgy, because we have a shorter Office for the Sick; as our Adversary can infer from this short way of private Communicating in a case of necessity, and in a Chamber, That there was no Form of Prayers for public Communions in that Age; yea, we see by the weak old Bishop 's coming as near the Public Form as he was able, and in the most Essential part keeping close to it, that there was a Public Liturgy then. And, Secondly, Our Adversary both in his Greek 
* Note, that in citing the Greek after— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he draws a Line to conceal his being without a Pulpit, etc. and goes on thus,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. See the Marg. of Discourse of Liturg. pag. 77.  and Latin omits all those Words, viz. of his being without a Pulpit, an Altar, and things to be consecrated, on purpose (first) to abuse this Reader into the mistake of the Bishops being in the Church, to which we see he did not come till a Week after: And then (secondly) he would make us believe that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) These things, refers to his abbreviation of the Office to his Short Words, that so he may pretend Those Words were given to him by the Inspiration of the Spirit; which is a manifest falsifying of the Father, who saith, The Pulpit, Altar, and Consecrated things, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) These things were made present to him by the Holy Ghost, as Nazianzen believed, though no Body there saw them, which is a flight of Rhetoric usual in him; but upon the gross perverting this Expression, all our Adversaries Argument of Expressions and Words in Prayer being given by the Holy Ghost, doth depend. I beg the Readers Pardon for this Excursion, which clearly demonstrates, that this Adversary of mine did wilfully misinterpret the Greek after he had read it; and cited it with a designed omission, to hook in an Argument for his false Notion of praying Extempore by the Spirit; but when genuine Antiquity affords no better Testimonies than this, They have more use of their Wit than of their Integrity. But I doubt not all impartial Men will gather from this very Instance, truly represented, That Nazianzen's Father always used a Liturgy in the Church, and that the Son means those public prescribed Forms, when he tells us, He was always better when he could get to the Church, for the bare saying of the Liturgy cured him 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Orat. 19 pag. 313. . And this may suffice for Gregory Nazianzen.  

S ●ASI●. An Dom. 370.  §. 13. His contemporary and dear Friend was S. Basil, who is not only a good Evidence for Liturgies, but composed one himself; so that our Adversary is forced first to conceal most of his Proofs for Public Forms, and then to hunt about for Objections against both Forms in general, and his Liturgy in particular; but with how little success, shall now be showed in this Method: First, we will produce the Proofs which he hath suppressed or laboured to pervert; Secondly, we will reply to his Objections; and, Thirdly, justify the main part of his Liturgy to be a genuine composure of S. Basils'.  
First, We begin with his Evidence for Public Forms, and the first shall be his vindication of that way of praising God which he had set up at Naeocesarea, which we will give at large in its due place, because our Adversary hath but an imperfect account of it, and places it in the latter end of his Book 
(r) Discourse of Liturg. p. 166. . The Words are these, As to the Psalmody for which we are accused, I answer, That the Custom now set up is consonant and agreeable to all the Churches of God; for the People rising while it is yet Night, go early to the House of Prayer, and with much pains and trouble, yea, with many Tears, make their Confession to God; and afterwards rising from Prayer, they stand up to sing Psalms; being divided into two parts, they sing by Turns, answering one another: Then they comfort themselves by considering God's Word, and casting away all vain thoughts, mind this alone. After this one is ordered to begin the Hymn, and the rest follow; and thus with variety of Psalms and Prayers intermixed the Night is spent. As soon as Day appears, they offer to the Lord a Psalm of Confession, all as it were with one Mouth and one Heart, every one making these Penitential Words to be his own: And if you reject this, you must reject the Egyptians, those in both Lybia's, in Thebais and Palestina; the Arabians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and those near Euphrates; yea, in a word, all among whom Watch, Prayers, and common Psalmody is used 
(s) D. Basil. Epist. 63. ad Clor. Naeoc●sar, pag. 843, 844. . Now from hence it is plain, that the People joined with the Priest in the Prayers, as well as in Singing of Psalms and Hymns; and Bishop Bilson alleges this place to prove, That the Service was common to the Priests and People, and parted between them by Verses and Responds 
〈◊〉 of Christ. Subject. pa●. 4 pag. 434. with pag. 453. : But Extempore Praying and Singing cannot be performed by alternate Responses; therefore these Christians had known and prescribed Forms, both for their Prayers and Hymns. Yet, Secondly, This Very way of Praying was used then in most Churches of the Christian World: Therefore, Thirdly, Most Churches in the World had Used Liturgies before S Basil's time, and he highly approved that way of public Worship. It may be some will object, However this shows that there was no Liturgy at Naeocesarea before. I Answer, if it were so, That was a particular Church, and this was not above Forty five year after the settling of Christianity. But if the Reader look back into the last Century, it will appear they had a Form of Prayers and Hymns in this very Church above an Hundred year before, even in the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus; and S. Basil did not so much alter the Method or Words of that Liturgy, as the way of Singing and Saying it; and this the Clergy of Naeocesarea Accused him for.  
Secondly, In this very Epistle S. Basil mentions a Litany with Approbation, which was brought into the Church of Naeocesarea long before his Time, though after the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus; so that in this Age that Litany probably might be near one Hundred year old 
(u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. ep. 63. pag. 844. . But Litanies were Forms of Supplication for pardon of Sin, and averting Judgements, wherein the People always bare a part, and to which they Answered, Lord have mercy on us, etc. or Lord hear us, or Grant this good Lord; yea, there are two Passages of this very Litany, or some other as ancient, which are mentioned in S. Basil's Epistles: The first is this, We pray, that the rest of our Days may continue in peace; We request that our Death may also be in peace 
(w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. ep. 68 pag. 856. . We cannot be certain these are the very Words of the public Form, because they are only occasionally spoken of in a Letter; but they are certainly in the Litanick way; and if we compare them with the Ancient Litanies, we shall find them come so near the Words there used, that we cannot doubt but he refers to some of these Forms; Wherein they pray, That they may pass the rest of their Life in peace; and request, That at their Death they may make a Christian end 
(x) Liturg. D. 〈◊〉, lio ●atr. p●g. 4, 5. & Liturg. 〈◊〉, ●●d. pag 70. & C●●r●●t. Apostol. ●i●. 8. ca 43. , which are almost the very same Expressions, differ no more than the Liturgies of several Churches are wont to do. The second place in S. Basil is in an Epistle which he writ to a Friend that was gone into Seythia, who feared he should be forgot in his Prayers, S. Basil tells him, This was impossible, unless he should forget the Work which God appointed him for: And you (saith he) being one of the Faithful, cannot but remember the Offices of the Church, wherein we intercede for our Brethren who are gone to Travel; for the Soldiers; for those who profess Christ's Name; and for them who bring f●rth the Spiritual fruit of good Works 
(y) 〈…〉. 141. pag. 1014. . Now all that are acquainted with the Ancient Forms of Litany, know they always prayed for Christians travelling in strange Countries; for such as believed in Christ; and for those who brought forth the fruit of good Works; for the whole Army, etc. 
(z) Liturg. Ja●●●, ut su●r. ●●g. 89. item Conduit. Apo●●. ●. 8. cap. 13. & cap. 18. Lit. 〈◊〉 & Chris. . 'Tis true, these are mixed with divers other Intercessions; but S. Basil picks out those Passages of the Litany which belonged to this Man's circumstances, who seems to have been a Soldier gone on an Expedition into Scythia, and to have been not only a Christian but to have been eminent for Charity and good Works. Our Adversary indeed boldly affirms this Passage is not sufficient to prove the Use of Forms 
(a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 137. 138. : But when we consider the exact agreement betwixt this and the ancient Litanies, this eminent Instance out of the genuine Works of so great a Bishop in these early Times, wherein we see he refers his Friend to known and public Offices, both proves those parts of the ancient Litanies to have been Primitive, and shows that there was a Litany in S. Basil's time.  
Thirdly, There are many Evidences that he approved of Forms of Prayer, for he commends the way of praying by conjoined Voices in Responses, where he saith, That a Prayer wherein there are not conjoined Voices, is not half so strong as otherwise it would be 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. Ep. 68 pag. 856. : So that he thought Forms of Prayer, in which the People joined their Responses to the Priests Words, were the most effectual way of praying; and he saith, Their bearing a part or share in any Prayer, made it far more profitable 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas. Ep. 392. pag. 1174. . Therefore he esteemed this way of praying, (which can only be performed in prescribed Forms) would be soon heard by Almighty God: And for this Reason he made a Canon or Form of Prayer for his Monks, charging them whensoever they prayed, to use their Voices, and also to continue until the last Prayer of the Canon 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bas. asciet. Tom. 2. p. 243, 244. ; and he order them to reject those thoughts  took off their Minds from the Canon of Prayer, that is, the prescribed Form, which was to be the Canon or Rule by which he appointed they should always pray: And so great a lover he was of Forms, that he ordered those Monks should be rejected who would not learn the Psalms by Heart 
(e) Basil. regul. brev. pag. 549. ; which no question were to be some of their Forms of Prayer and Praises. We will conclude with one Observation, viz. That our Adversary grants, there was an Hymn for Candle-lighting in S. Basil's time 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Disc. of Liturg p. 361. ; but he omits that the Father there saith, It was a certain Form of Words used by the People so long before his time, that he knew not which of the Ancients composed it; but yet none blamed the People for using this old Form, which was, Let us praise the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. de Sp. Sancto. cap. 29. pag. 220. . All which Passages do abundantly prove the Use of Forms in S. Basil's Time; but this Author concealing most of these, and misrepresenting the rest, hath sought out some other places of S. Basil, by which he would confute this our Assertion.  
§. 14. Which Objections we will first fairly produce, and then plainly answer. Objection first, S. Basil (saith he,) was against writing down Mysteries, and so could not be for written Forms; and this he proves by his Epistle to Meletius wherein S. Basil saith, he will not fully write his Message, having a trusty Messenger who might relate it 
(h) Disc. of Liturg. p. 37. . I reply, This was only private business to a friend, and no way concerns Divine Offices; wherefore the Allegation is impertinent. Secondly, He citys his Book de Spiritu Sancto, where he saith, The words of Consecration, upon the taking up of the Eucharistical Bread, and the Cup of Blessing, which of the Saints hath left in writing? We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostle and Gospels, but we say other things before and after, as having great efficacy in the Mystery, taking these things from unwritten Tradition 
(i) Basil. de Sp. Sancto cap. 27. Tom. 2. p. 210. 211. . And hence he infers, that there were no written Forms in S. Basil's time; yea he calls this direct Evidence that there could be no such Forms in writing, and repeats this fraudulent Argument four several times, according to his custom when he thinks he hath gotten a considerable testimony 
(k) D●s●. of Litu●g. p. 38. & pag. 73. pag. 7●. & pag. 109. ; wherefore I shall answer it fully. And First, it doth not well become our Adversary, who gives such Odious names, to those who cite any spurious Writings, to lay such mighty stress upon a Tract, which he himself suspects to be none of S. Basils' works 
(l) Ibid p. 110. ; and which all those Authors, whom he citys to prove his Liturgy to be Forged, do generally reject as a Forged piece 
(m) Era●m. praes. ad suam ve●s. istius libri loci censura. p. 121. Rive●i censur. p. 305. Scultet. medul. pag. 1054. Ush e & Dailè in isto Authore pag. 110. ; it is no great proof of his own sincerity, to fetch his topping Argument, and urge it over and over till the repetition become Nauseous, out of a Tract that he believed to be suspicious at least. But Secondly, I will take no advantage from hence; for (after all) I see no Reason to deny the piece to be ; but let it be as he pleases, it makes nothing for his purpose; For S. Basil doth not affirm, that these Eucharistical Prayers were not written in his time, but that they were derived from an unwritten Tradition; Now this sufficiently proves, that anciently they were Forms, because it is impossible for an Extempore Prayer, that is to be daily or often varied, to be conveied down from our Forefathers by Tradition; whatever is so delivered must be a Form of words, either written or learned by heart, and so taught by the Elder to the younger Priests; Wherefore even in this Sense, these additional Prayers in the Sacramental Administrations, were Forms made by the most Primitive Fathers, and taught to their Successors, and so conveyed down by oral Tradition. But Thirdly, this is his Fallacious perverting of S. Basils' Words, and not the true Sense of them, For the (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) unwritten Traditions here spoken of by S. Basil, are not things which never were written down by the Fathers (as he falsely pretends): Because both he and divers of the Ancients had written about many of the Rites and Usages, which he there calls (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) unwrirten Traditions, an Hundred times. As for instance, about the hours of Prayer, turning to the East, when they prayed, and about the Prefaces before the Eucharist, etc. But S. Basil only saith, these things were not written in Scripture, they were not enjoined there, those Saints or holy Men, viz. the Apostles and Evangelists, had not left Orders in Scripture for these Rites and Forms; which must be his meaning, because he goes on and saith, We are not content with that which is Recorded in the Apostles and the Gospels: That is, besides the words of institution, there were Forms of Prayer and Praise before and after, in the Sacraments, delivered down from the Primitive Fathers, which he doth not say were never writ down by them, but were not writ in Scripture. For S. Basil calls the Scripture by way of Eminence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and all Rites and Forms not set down there, though they were writ down by the Fathers, he calls (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not written things; which is further clear by the occasion of this whole Chapter, wherein S. Basil is vindicating himself, for using a Phrase and Form of Doxology which was not written in Scripture; and his Argument is, That the Church used many Rites and Forms, which were not written in the Bible; such as renouncing the Devil, and Praying toward the East, and the Forms used in Sacramental Administrations: Now Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian and many others (as we have showed,) had written concerning every one of these things; but still they were (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) not written in Scripture, but derived from Tradition; and therefore they ought not (saith S. Basil) to blame me, if I used a Form of Doxology not written in Scripture. Now this clear exposition of the place alleged, shows our Authors base disingenuity, who to serve a turn, and patch up an Argument against Liturgies, wilfully perverts S. Basil's words; which being rightly understood, are so far from condemning Forms, or proving they were not written, that they prove they were composed long before S Basil's time and then owned for Catholic Traditions. Finally whereas he insinuates, that S. Bosil counts these Forms to be Mysteries not to be published, and thence infers that to write them down, was to publish them, and therefore doubtless they were not written down. I reply, That these Forms were daily used among the Faithful, and they were not nice to publish them to these; it was only the Catechumen and Infidels from whom they kept these Mysteries; and considering the charge they laid upon the Faithful and the Priests not to divulge them to those who were without the Church; there was no need to be afraid to write them down, since the Books were only in their custody, who then believed it was a damnable Sin, to let the Unbaptized see these Books, or hear the words of them. And he hath answered this Argument himself, by showing us, that the Heathens (who also counted their Forms of worship to be Mysteries, not to be divulged to the uninitiated) did write these Forms in Books, which were kept by their Priests 
(n) Compare Disc. of Liturg. pag. 28 with 122. & 123. ; Therefore writing is very consistent, with concealing Mysteries from Strangers. And there is nothing in this place of S. Basil, which proves there were no written Prayers in his time.  
Thirdly, He alleges that S. Basil in Prayer with the People, used the Doxology two ways, both Glory be to God and the Father, with the Son and with the holy Ghost—, and—, by the Son in the holy Ghost 
(o) Basil. de Sp. Sanct cap. 1. pag. 144. ; and though the same Father say, that the Form of Baptising, the Creed, and the Doxology ought to agree; yet he varied this short Form twice in one day; from whence he infers more than once, that S. Basil would not be bound up by any Form 
(p) Disc. of Liturgies pag. 104. & pag. 130. , I answer, This Objection is taken out of the same suspected Tract; but I will let that pass, and observe, that though S. Basil saith, this was done in the Prayers with the People; yet it doth not follow, that this was in any part of the Office; it might be in the conclusion of his Forenoon and Afternoon Homily; which being performed at the usual hours of Morning and Evening Prayers, and when the People were met to Pray; yea the Prayers both going before and following the Homily, he may properly enough say this was done in the Prayers with the People. Now these Homilies or Sermons being S. Basil's own composures, he thought he might vary the Doxology there, as he used to do at other times, but fortuning to use an expression that savoured of the Arian Heresy, The Orthodox People, who had been used to a right Form of Doxology in their Liturgy, ever since the days of Gregory Thaumaturgus, (as was showed before) were able by that, to censure these new and strange ways of expressing himself 
(q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Basil. de. Sp. S. cap. 1. : And were so angry at him for this Variation, that he was forced to write this Book, to vindicate those Phrases. Wherefore this variety of Doxology, being not used in the Liturgy, but the Sermons or Homilies, is nothing to his purpose; nor will it prove that S. Basil varied from the prescribed Forms, much less will it make out, there were no prescribed Forms, since our Clergy use variety of Doxologies at the end of their Sermons; but it would be Ridiculous to Argue from thence, that they will not be bound to say the Gloria Patri, in that Form wherein it is set down in the Liturgy. If it be again objected, that S. Basil hath great variety of Doxologies yet extant, in the end of his Homilies, and therefore had this variation been after Sermons, the People could hardly have perceived it: I answer, The latter of these Forms, was used by the Arians in a very ill Sense, to intimate the inequality of the Father and the Son; and though no doubt S. Basil meant well, yet it did so evidently tend towards Heresy, and was so very different from the Old Orthodox Form in the Liturgy, that the People (who could digest various Phrases in unprescribed Composures, provided the Sense was Orthodox,) took check at this dangerous Variation; and by the way we may learn from hence, how great a security it is to the Faith, for the People to be accustomed to Orthodox Forms, which doth enable them to observe, yea, and correct any kind of dangerous Innovations. But if my Adversaries will not allow this variation to have been any where but in the Prayers, though there is no Reason to allow that, yet supposing it were so, Then this was an Action of S. Basil, which is not to be imitated; and since he had like to have run into Heresy, by taking this undue liberty, it will make nothing for the Credit of Extempore Prayers, that they expose such as use them to the danger at least, of venting Heretical expressions involuntarily. And S. Basils' being forced to beg Pardon for it, shows it ought not to be quoted for a Precedent; yet after all, it this variation were in the Prayers, it shows there were then Forms well known to the People, and confirms us, in the necessity of prescribing and imposing such Forms, to prevent Heresy from creeping into the Church; which otherwise may get ground even, by the well meant expressions of some Eminent Extempore Man.  
Fourthly, He affirms that S. Basil did not teach his Monks, to pray by any Liturgy, but to choose their Expressions out of Scripture 
(r) Basil. Constit. monast. cap. 1. p. 668. & 669. . I answer, Divers of the learned deny this Book to be  
(s) Scultet. medul. p. 1056. See Discourse of Liturg. p. 120. ; but if it be S. Basil's it will not help his Cause, because these are Directions for the Monks private Prayers in their Cells, and therefore do not belong to the Public Offices about which we dispute; yet even in that Book he makes Forms both of Praise and Prayer for their private use; and though he allow his Monk to collect Sentences of Scripture also for this purpose, yet he would have those Sentences put into a Form, and he was to offer that Form up (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) (that is) as devoutly as he was able; by which we not only learn, that S. Basil much approved of these Forms; but we see that the Phrase of (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) about which he made such a stir in Justin Martyr, doth properly signify, The using a Form of Prayer with all possible devotion. I shall only add, That when these Monks prayed all together, they had a Form also, which S. Basil calls their Canon or Rule, as we shown before.  
Lastly, Out of the same Tract he observes, that S. Basil would have his Monk in Prayer, to have his Mind upon God alone, and nothing else 
(t) Basil. Constitut. Mon. cap. 1. pag. 671. ; and he fancies, this was very hard to do, if the Monk had his Book to mind; and thence he infers, they had no Prayer Books 
(u) Discourse of Liturg. p. 121. . But we may remember, that S. Basil ordered his Monks to get the Psalms by Heart; and if they got their other Prayers also by Heart, that would utterly spoil his Inference: Yet suppose they did read their Forms▪ by frequent use they would soon be so perfect in them, that a few glances sometimes on their Books would serve to help them to repeat them right, and not divert their Mind from God at all. And we who use our Common Prayer, know by Experience, that the Liturgy being early become familiar to us, we have nothing to mind but only God when we pray; whereas those who pray Extempore, have their Fancy so busy in inventing new Phrases and Matter, and their Thoughts so taken up with what they have said, are saying, and are to say next, that they cannot steadily keep their Mind upon God: And the Congregation also are so busy in observing the new Phrases, that they cannot have such fixed Thoughts, as they (who being accustomed to their well known Forms) have no other thing to do, than to watch their own Hearts, and keep them close to the Duty they are about. And this may suffice to confute all his far fetched Objections out of S. Basil, and to show they are all of them very insignificant.  
§. 15. But we must carry this Matter further, and will prove, that S. Basil 
The Liturgy of S. BASIL.  not only approved Forms, but made a Liturgy himself; which we shall make out by sufficient Evidence in every Age since it was Composed. First, His dear Friend Nazianzen, who knew him best of any Man, saith in his Encomium, That the Prayers which he composed, were the Ornament of his Throne 
(w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Na●. Orat. 20 p. 34●. . Secondly, The Life of S. Basil (said to be writ by Amphilocius) tells us, He prayed to God for such Grace, Wisdom, and Understanding, as might enable him to offer up the unbloody Sacrifice, in Words of his own, by the direction of the Holy Ghost: And (the Author saith) our Saviour appeared to him, telling him, His Request was granted; whereupon he first pronounced, and then writ down the Liturgy which bears his Name 
(x) Vita Basil. per Amphil●c. inter Opera D. Basilii. . I shall not undertake to justify the Miracle, that may have been added by some Admirers of this Liturgy; but the Matter of Fact on which it was grounded, was always taken for a certain Truth in very ancient Ages; and as I need not this Testimony, so I had not cited it at large, but to check our Adversaries Confidence, who citys Bishop Jewel, saying, That Basil besought God, he might celebrate with Prayers of his own making 
(y) Disc. of Lit. Marg. pag. 73. : by which he hopes to abuse his Reader into thinking, that Basil desired to make daily new Extempore Prayers; Whereas Bishop Jewel refers to this Passage in S. Basil's Life, and it was a Liturgy of his own Composing that he begged abilities for. We proceed to Proclus (who was Bishop of Constantinople within fifty years after S. Basil's Death, and who personally knew S Chrysostom); and he saith, That S. Basil seeing men's sloth and degeneracy made them weary of a long Liturgy, though he thought there was nothing unnecessary or tedious in that of S. James, which was used before; yet to prevent the weariness of Priests and People, He delivered a shorter Form 
(z) Proclus de tradit. divin. L●●urg. : The reason is fair, and the Authority of this Writer being so near S. Basil's Time, is very weighty. Again, Petrus Diaconus, Contemporary with Fulgentius, who lived in Africa not very much above an 100 years after S. Basil's Death, citys this Liturgy as an undoubted piece of his genuine Works, in his Dispute against the Pelagians, in these Words: S. Basil (Bishop of Caesarea) in his Prayer made at the holy Altar, which all the Eastern Church useth, among other things saith, Grant, O Lord of Hosts our defence, we beseech thee, that the evil may be made good; and those that are good, keep them in their goodness 
(a) Petrus Diac. de Incarnate. c. 8. . From whence we note, first, That these Words are still in that very Liturgy which bears S. Basil's Name. Secondly, That within little more than one Hundred years after S. Basil's Death, it was used as S. Basil's Liturgy by all the Eastern Church, and known even in Africa by that Name. Thirdly, That it was of so great Reputation and Authority then, and there, as to be quoted for unquestionable Evidence even against Heretics. Wherefore we conclude, it was certainly of his Composing, it being morally impossible that any Forgery in his Name, should be so early and generally received in the Eastern Church, where he was so well known, and should get such Credit among the Africans, that even Heretics durst not except against it. To this we may add, Leontius (a Monk of Constantinople) who lived in the same Century with Fulgentius, and citys this Liturgy for Evidence against Nestorius 
(b) L●ont adv. Nestor. lib. 3. An. ●90. . In the very next Age it was quoted as good Authority against the Error of the Armenians by this August Title, The Mystical Service delivered to us in Writing, etc. and then they cite a Passage of S. Basil's Liturgy, as that which was daily used in their Church 
(c) Concil. 6. Constant. in Trull. Can. 32. An. 100L. Beve●. Tom. I. pag 192. . We need proceed no lower, because the whole Greek Church gives constant and universal Testimony to it ever since, as a genuine Composure of S. Basils'.  
However, we will hear our Adversaries Objections against this evident Truth: And the first is a manifest Falsehood, viz. That no ancient Author mentions it 
(d) Discourse of Litu g. p. 162, etc. : For we have seen many of the Ancients do attest it: Secondly, He saith, Many Words, Rites, and Persons are spoken of in it, which cannot belong to S. Basil 's time. To which I Answer, That the Modern Copies now extant, have many late Corruptions in them, and we do not defend any one of these; but if these be cast out, there remains many primitive, pious and excellent Forms of Prayer and Praise, which are very agreeable to the genuine Works, and to the uncorrupted Age of S. Basil; and these are all the Passages in it that we defend, and account to have been the Composure of S. Basil: And if there were but Five Pages of this kind, that suffices to make out my Position, viz. That S. Basil made a Liturgy, and that these Forms of Prayer were generally used in public in his time; but the Reader who will peruse this Liturgy, will find the far greatest part of it, to be holy, pure and primitive Forms; and the Prayers, Responses, Hymns and Doxologies, most of them both for Matter and Style agreeable to this Age, and attested by the Writings of the Fathers, both of this and former Centuries. As to the Persons mentioned in this Liturgy, who lived after S. Basil, their Names were taken out of Modern Manuscripts, Copied from some Liturgy which was in use in those later Ages wherein such Persons lived: But though these Names were not in S. Basil's Original, yet they do no more prove, He never made the Original Liturgy ascribed to him, or that he made no Liturgy, than our praying for the present King and Queen, or our having Offices for the Fifth of November, and the 30th of January, prove, That the Main substance of the Common-Prayer-Book was not Composed in the Time of King Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth: So that I cannot but blush at such Learned Men, as (for want of better) urge such trifling Sophistry for Arguments. Thirdly, My Adversary objects, That divers Learned Protestants count this Liturgy spurious. To which I Answer, That Many also count the main of it to be genuine; but all Learned Protestants, except my Adversary, do grant enough for my purpose, viz. That S. Basil did make a Liturgy, which sufficiently proves the Use of Liturgies in This Age. Du Plessis himself (out of whom my Adversary steals most of his Arguments) confesseth, There is some appearance and likelihood, that Basil and Chrysostom▪ did ordain a prescript Form of the Administration in their Dioceses 
(e) Mornay of the Mass, Book I. Chap. 6. pag. 50. . The Learned Rivet, will not affirm that it is wholly spurious, though he think (as we do) that many things were added to it, and some things altered afterward 
(f) Riveti. censur. pag. 310. : And Causabon (as we noted before) accounts these Liturgies, partly false and partly true 
(g) Causab. exercit. in Baron. xuj. p. 384. ; with these also the Famous Salmasius (though no great Friend to ancient Forms) doth agree 
(h) Salmas. contra Grot. op. posthum. pag. 254. . Bishop Bilson citys many Passages out of them, and justifies them to be authentic, so far as they agree to the genuine Works of S. Basil, and other Fathers of that Age 
(i) Bilson, Christian Subject. part 4. pag. 437. . And,— to name no more, Chemnitius saith, He will not deny but Basil and Chrysostom did make some such form of Prayer—; but he saith, That what we read now under their Names, is not all genuine, sincere, nor certain 
(k) Chemnit. exam. Concil. Trident. part 2. pag. 191. : Which we freely grant, because it follows, that some of that which now goes under their Names, is genuine, sincere and certain. Fourthly, He urges the many Corruptions which are in the Modern Copies, such as praying to Saints and the Blessed Virgin, Prayers for the Dead, etc. to which we have given an Answer before, and shall now only say, That these are added to the old Form; and a judicious Antiquary may easily distinguish these Novel Additions, from the old Primitive Forms, which are not to be cast away because some have added Corruptions to them. We do not justify, but reject these Additions, and there is enough besides to prove our Position; therefore I will only add, that in these Liturgies there are many Passages, which condemn the present Doctrines of the Roman Church; and it would be pity to cast away these because of some Dross mixed with them, which when we have separated, the pure Primitive Silver will remain. I conclude therefore, That S. Basil made a Liturgy, and that the Christians in his Days used to pray by prescribed Forms.  
§. 16. The Books which pass under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, 
Dionysius Areopag. or rather, Apollinaris Laod. An. Dom. 370.  and especially that of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, have in them many Indications of a Liturgy, but were writ in this Age, as is supposed by Apollinaris Bishop of Laodicea, who was a great Friend of S. Basil's, and hath been noted not only for his Highflown Style, but also for putting out Books under the names of the most Ancient Fathers 
(l) Dr. Caves Apostol. life of Dionys. Areop. num. 13. etc. . But whether he were the Author of them or no, doubtless they must be ancienter than the sixth Century; because many of the Rites here expounded were disused before that time, and because there is express mention of them, as cited by S. Cyril of Alexandria, who lived in the beginning of the fifth Century 
(m) Liberati, Brev. cap. 10. apud Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 182. Script. An. 553. . However Liberatus who Records this and allows Dionysius his Works to be good Evidence, lived in the middle of the sixth Century; and if these Books had been writ but little before, it had been Ridiculous to have urged them for Evidence in dispute. S. Gregory also the Great, who lived in the same Century, wherein Dailé pretends these Books were writ, citys the celestial Hierarchy under the name of Dionysius Areopagita, and calls him, an Ancient and Venerable Writer 
(n) Greg. Mag. hom. 34. in Evang. p. 138. ; yea, in the very beginning of the sixth Century, this Book is cited under the name of Dionysius by two Writers, of the Greek Church 
(o) An. 527. Leont. Byzant. contr. Nest. lib. 2. & Anastas. Sinaita Anagog. contempl. in Hexam. lib. 7. , and Maximus writ Scholias. upon these Books, Anno Dom. 640. Wherefore this Author having such Credit, and being mistaken for the true Dionysius in the fifth and sixth Ages, could not live in later times than these, wherein we now place him; and we desire no more than our Adversary allows, viz. that he may have Credit, in reporting the usages of his own time (p). 
(m) Disc. of Liturg. p. 39  Now though this Author, is so very fearful of discovering Mysteries, (an evident Token of his living in this Age,) that he will not plainly write down any one Form; Yet we may see clearly, that they had a certain prescribed Form, both for the Administering of Baptism, and of the Lords Supper. First, By his writing a Commentary and Contemplations, upon these Mysterious Administrations, which had they been performed in the Extempore way; he could not have done. Secondly, Because he assures us, that not only, the Psalms were sung alternately 
(q) Dionys. de Eccles. Hierar. cap. 3. §. 2. pag. 283. , but that the Congregation did always join with the Priest, in Singing the Hymns, in Baptism and the Eucharist 
(r) Ibid. cap. 2. §. 4. pag. 252. & cap. 3. §. 2. p. 284. . So that these must be Forms; yea his Scholiast thinks, that Dionysius plainly enough declares the Song of Miriam, to have been the first Hymn at Baptism, and the xxix Psalms the Second, which are both Forms of Praise 
(s) Scholar Maximi. pag. 267. ; and so is the xxxiv Psalms, O taste and see how gracious the Lord is, which he intimates was sung after the Eucharist 
(t) Dionys. Eccl. Hier. cap. 3. §. 15. pag. 301. ; and it is very observable, that the Liturgy in the Constitution prescribes that very Psalm, as an Hymn in that very place 
(u) Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 20. . Thirdly, And not only in that instance, but in all the whole proceeding of these Mysteries, this Pseudo-Dionysius, doth so exactly follow the Order and Method; yea and allude so often to the Phrases of the ancient Liturgies, especially that of Antioch, (which was near to Laodicea where Apollinaris lived,) contained in the Constitutions, that there is no doubt but he had this very Liturgy in his Eye, when he writ these Commentaries: I could prove this by innumerable particulars, if it were worth while; but I shall refer it to the Reader, to compare these Books of Dionysius with the Liturgy in the Apostolical Constitution, and he will be convinced, that he commented upon that very Liturgy, as plainly as he, (in his Mystical way) can be expected to do. Lastly, There are many Forms of Prayer, supposed to be well known to the Faithful all along these Discourses, as also Forms of renouncing the Devil, professing the Faith, etc. He mentions also the Bishops Praying for peace to all, and then their giving each other the kiss of charity 
(w) Compare Dionys. Eccles. hier. cap. 3. pag. 284. with Constit. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 15. ; And calls the Prayer for Commemoration of all the Faithful departed, the Reading of the Holy Diptychs, which we know was a Custom mentioned in the Council of Laodicea. And he saith the Priest, having confessed his unworthiness to Celebrate, then goes on to Cry out to Christ, Thou hast Commanded us to do this in Remembrance of Thee, which is part of the Form of Consecration 
(x) Dionys. Eccles. Hier. cap. 3. §. 12. pag. 298, 299. . Which being put together, is as much Evidence as we can desire or expect, from so Mysterious a Writer; that there was a prescribed Liturgy in this Age, known to the Faithful and of daily use.  
§. 17. I proceed to S. Ambrose, 
S. Ambrose, An. Dom. 374.  who confirms the same Truth; and we learn from him, That there was in his Time Forms both of Praise and Prayer: The first our Adversary grants, in saying, He imitated S. Basil 's way of singing Psalms and Hymns by turns, and brought this Custom into the Church of Milan, from whence it spread almost over all the Western Church 
(y) Discourse of Liturg. p. 167. ; and there are great and very ancient Authors who testify the same thing 
(z) Aug. confess. lib. 9 cap. 7. Paulin. vit. Ambros. p. 79. 〈◊〉 ipse Ambro●. Com. in Luc. cap. 15. Tom. 3. p. 169. . Now we have showed that Alternate Singing can no way be performed, but by a known Form, and therefore S. Ambrose his Flock (who no question sang with the Spirit, and with fervent Devotion, yet) sang by Forms: Yea, S. Ambrose himself takes notice, That the Music in the Parable of the Prodigal, signifies, The whole Churches singing together, and the People of different Ages and Qualities, like the several Strings of an Instrument, with one accord answer at the Psalm, and say, Amen 
(a) Ambros. Com. in Luc. ut supr. . He also saith, He was accused for deceiving the People by his Hymns in Verse; and he owns that he made such Hymns, and taught them to the People; who now could every day praise the Trinity with their Mouths, and with Verses glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
(b) Idem Cbacione de Basilicis non tradend. Tom. 4. pag. 104. . Which cannot be meant of the Gloria Patri, etc. That was an ancienter Hymn, and did not consist of more than one Response; so that probably it may be meant of the Te Deum; which though our Adversary will have to be a later Composure 
(c) Discourse of Liturg. p. 167, & 168. ; yet the Matter of it is so excellent, and so void of any mixture of the later Corruptions, that it is not unworthy of so great an Author, nor of so pure an Age; The Chronicle of Dacius one of S. Ambrose's Successors, saith, He Composed it 
(d) Chron. Dacii Med. lib. 1. cap. 10. ; and though some Manuscripts ascribe it to one Abundius, who was Bishop of Coma, An. Dom. 450. that is, about 70 years after the Death of S. Ambrose; and another Copy calls it, The Hymn of Nicetius, who was Bishop of Triers, An. Dom. 530. that may arise from such Manuscripts as were for the use of these two Churches, which probably might ascribe this Hymn to one of their own Bishops, who first brought it into their Service. This is certain, That S. Benedict mentions it in his Rule, which was writ Anno 530 
(e) Regula D. Bened. cap. 11. ; and the Council of Toledo in the next Age approves the Hymn made by S. Ambrose, as being fit to be sung in the Church 
(f) Concil. Tolet. Can. 12. Anno 633. Bin. Tom. 2. par. 2. pag. 349. , which can be no other than this Te Deum, which hath been reputed to be his, by All Churches ever since. This I thought fit to say concerning this pious and excellent Hymn, which probably was made by S. Ambrose; but however that be, it is certain he made divers Forms of Praise, which is that I am to prove. And the like Evidence we have in him concerning the use of Forms of Prayer; For he calls that place of S. Paul, 1 Tim. two. 1, 2. The Ecclesiastical Rule, delivered by the Master of the Gentiles, which all our Priests use; For they supplicate for all Men, and pray for the Kings of the World, that the Nations may be subject unto them; so that they Reigning in peace, we may serve our God in tranquillity of mind, and quietness—. And he goes on to describe the Prayers for those in Authority, for plenty, for deliverance from Sedition, and for the prosperity of the Public—. He mentions also the Prayers for those in divers Necessities, and the Thanksgivings for all the Mercies we daily receive from God 
(g) Ambros. Com. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. Tom. 3. pag. 574. : Which are the Heads of general Intercession used in all ancient Liturgies, and come as near the Words of some of them as can be expected, in a Commentary where he doth not cite the very Words, but show the agreement of these Forms to the Apostolical Rule. In another place he refers to this Prayer briefly, and notes, that immediately before the Prayer of Consecration, there is premised a Prayer for Kings, and all others 
(h) Oratio praemittitur pro r●gibus, pro caeteris. Id. de Sacram. l. b. 4. c. 4. p. 366. : But as to the Prayer of Consecration itself, He gives us the very Form of it; Would you know (saith he) with what Heavenly Words it is consecrated? Hear the very Words, The Priest saith, Make this Oblation, ratified, rational and acceptable, that it may be for a Figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, who the day before he Suffered, taking Bread into his holy Hands, etc. Then reciting the Words and Actions of the Institution, He goes on to tell us, that the Priest adds,— Wherefore we being mindful of his most glorious Passion, of his Resurrection from the Dead, and of his Ascension into Heaven, do offer unto thee this immaculate, rational, and unbloody Sacrifice, this holy Bread and Cup of Eternal Life; desiring and praying, thou wilt accept this Oblation upon thy Heavenly Altar, by the hands of thy Angels, as thou didst accept the gifts of thy Servant the Righteous Abel, and the Sacrifice of our Father Abraham, which was offered to thee by thy Highpriest Melchisedec 
(i) Ambros. de Sacr. lib. 4. c. 5, & 6. pag. 367, etc. : Which is an express Form, and the same with the primitive Roman Canon, till the New Doctrines of a Propitiatory Sacrifice and Transubstantiation compelled them to alter their old Forms, to suit it with their later Opinion. He also declares the Form of Administration, The Priest saith, The Body of Christ; and Thou sayest, Amen 
(k) Id. ib. p. 368.— & vide Const. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 20. Ubi habemus eandem Formulam. , He also tells us, That the Lord's Prayer concluded the Office 
(l) Ibid. lib. 5. cap. 4. pag. 370. : And concerning that Ancient Hymn, the Trisagion, He saith, That in most of the Eastern, and divers Western Churches, in the Oblation of that Sacrifice which is presented to God the Father, the People and the Priest with one Voice say, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts, all the Earth is full of thy Majesty 
* Lib. de Spir. Sanct. Tom. 5. pag. 525. . Moreover, He mentions the old Form of the Bishops Saluting the People, by Praying, Peace might be with them 
(m) Ambr. de dign. Sacerd. cap. 5. . We have also in him, The Form of renouncing the Devil 
(n) Id. de Sacr. lib. 1. c. 2 p. 354. , and of Consecrating the Water in Baptism 
(o) Ib. lib. 2. cap. 5. pag. 359. ; and a Form of ask those who were to be Baptised, concerning their Faith in the Holy Trinity 
(p) Ibid. cap. 7. pag. 360. . He informs us also; That the Church had ordered a Prayer for the Bishop 
(q) Id. Com. in Rom xv. Tom. 3. pag. 331. : And he prescribes the LI Psalm as a very proper Form of Prayer for a sincere Penitent to use in private 
(r) Tract. ad Vi●g. laps. T. 4. pag. 455. , and recommends some Verses of the XLI Psalms, as fit to be said when we go to Visit those that are Sick 
(s) Com. in Psal. xli. Tom. 2. pag 755. : So that it is not only past all contradiction, that S. Ambrose used and approved Forms; but we might collect almost an entire Liturgy out of his Works: And we have the Testimony of Walafridus Strabo, who lived almost 900 year ago, That S. Ambrose made not only a Communion Office, but Composed all other. Offices for his own Church and others, which the Church of Milan retains to this very day 
(t) Walafrid. Strab. de ●eb. Eccl●s. cap. 22. An 840. . There is also other ancient Evidence, that he made such a Liturgy in Card. Bona, de reb Liturg lib. 1. cap. 10. but this (like all other ancient Liturgies) hath also been mixed with ●ome of the Modern Corruptions; however, his genuine Works give us Evidence enough, that there were prescribed Forms of Prayer and Praise in his time.  
Let us now examine what our Adversary hath gathered out of S. Ambrose, to oppose this plain Proof: First, He is one of those Authors, who calls the Prayer of Consecration, A Mystery; and this he tells us twice over 
(a) Discourse of Liturgy p. 28, & 29. . But yet we have showed, that he hath actually writ it down; so that it could not be his meaning, That it was such a Mystery as might not be committed to Writing; and that shows, that our Author gets no advantage to his Cause by citing this place 
(b) Ambros. de Fide ad Grat. lib. 4. cap. 5. . Secondly, He would prove that S. Ambrose counted Praying Extemporè, to be praying by the Spirit, and for this he quotes his Epistle to Horontianus 
(c) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 60. . I Answer, S. Ambrose is not speaking of the Public Service, but of private Prayer in that place, and therefore the Allegation is impertinent: Besides, He doth not say, the Spirit furnishes us with Words and Phrases; but helps us to apply our Minds to pray, and keeps out Carnal thoughts, making us content with such things, as we naturally wish to be quit of, because they are for our good: And both here and elsewhere he explains that Phrase of the Spirits helping our infirmities, Rom. viij 26. to be meant of the Spirits giving us such patience, that we shall not desire to be presently freed from our Afflictions 
(d) Ambros. ad Horont. lib. 5. ep. 4. pag. 290. & Com. in Rom. viij. Tom. 3. p. 293. ; which is nothing at all to his Notion of Extempore Prayer. In another place He expounds those Words, Praying always in the Spirit, to signify, Praying with a pure Conscience, and a sincere Faith, which he who prays by a Form may do 
(e) Com. in Ephes. vi. p. 516. . And certainly, he who knew it was always his Duty, to pray by or with the Spirit, and yet used and approved a Form; must believe it possible to pray in or by a Form, and yet to pray by or with the Spirit. Thirdly, My Adversary objects a Passage out of S. Ambrose his Epistle to his Sister Marcellina, viz. That while he was Celebrating, he heard that the Arians had seized upon one Castulus, just as he was performing the general Collect; whereupon he ordered the Prayer suitable to that Occasion, which one that had been Fettered with prescribed Forms could not have liberty to do 
(f) Discourse of Liturg pag. 67, & 68 . And here, first, I shall observe, He is to prove that the Inferior Ministers ought to be at liberty, to order all the Prayers, as they please, in the ordinary Service of God: But his usage is to instance in some irregular Fact, upon some single extraordinary occasion, done by some great and eminent Bishop; which, if his Instances prove true, will never justify his Opinion: And truly, this was an Extraordinary Bishop, who was fit to make a Liturgy, and a very extraordinary Case, The City being all in an Uproar, and S. Ambrose was told in the middle of his Office, That his Friend Castulus was like to be murdered by the enraged Arians; upon which sad and sudden occasion, he for that once put in One Petition, which was only, That God would help Castulus; and there is nothing in the Original Relation to show us he did it aloud, so that possibly he might stop a minute, and in his Heart pray to God, to help the poor Man 
(g) Vid. Ambr. Ep. 14. ad Marcellin. Sor. Tom. 5 p. 205. ; But whether this request were Mental or Vocal, it was on so sudden and unusual occasion, that for all this, S. Ambrose might be (as he calls it,) Fettered with a Form upon ordinary occasions; yea we have proved he was so, and that this general Collect was a Form also. And if a great Bishop now, should hear that his dearest Friend or nearest Relation, was suddenly fallen into danger of Death, while he was Praying for all Estates of Men at the Altar; No Man would blame him, if he did Mentally or Vocally, put in such an Ejaculation as, Lord help my dear Friend, etc. Nor would any whose understanding were not Fettered with strange prejudices, Argue from thence, either that this Bishop never used a prescribed Form; or that all the Ministers in his Diocese, were left at liberty on ordinary occasions, to alter the Liturgy as they pleased. But as to his Reflection upon Forms, I must observe, that our Lord Jesus saw fit to bind us in such Fetters, when he gave us a Form of Prayer; and that which binds us to a regular performance of our Duty, and assists us to do it better, is like the Tackle of a Ship, or the Cords which bounded each side of the Old Grecian Races, helping us, and directing us both at once. There are some indeed, who count their Vicious Appetites are too much Fettered by the Commandments of God, and the Laws of the Land; and like the Sarmatians fancy, Licentious and Lawless Madness, to be the only liberty 
(h) Licentem amentiam libertatem existimarent. Am. Marcellin lib. 17. . But neither God nor our Governors for all this, do see sit to take off these useful Chains; and Aristotle hath taught us, that to Live as the Government requires us, is no Slavery 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Arist. Pol. 9 . Liberty is not a Power to do what we list, but what we ought to do; Now Laws and Forms direct what we ought to do, and hinder us only from what is Evil, or Dangerous; and therefore do not prejudice our Liberty, but guide us to use it so as may be consistent with the Common-Good: And wise Men do not desire to be at liberty to talk Nonsense, and Blasphemy; nay, nor to speak impertinently, immethodically and rashly before God, and a great Congregation; but the Gospel teaches us, that such as need Chains and Fetters most, are most impatient of them and most apt to break them 
(k) Mark, v. 4. . But to return to our History.  
§. 18. Though S. Hierom 
S. Hieron. An. Dom. 378.  were no Bishop, yet his learning and Authority was so great, that, (as our Adversary seems to grant 
(l) Disc. of Liturg. p. 171. , he directed Pope Damasus, in Regulating the public Offices at Rome; so that what Marianus Victorius reports in his life, is not improbable, viz. That at his instance Hallelujah was sung at Rome, after the custom of Jerusalem; and the Gloria Patri in the end of each Psalm, was also sung there after the manner of Antioch; from him also Rome received a corrected Copy of the Septuagints Psalms, to be read and sung in the Church 
(m)— eo emendante Roma legendo● canendosque in Ecclesia, LXX interpretum Psalmos suscepit. Marian. Victor. in vit. Hieron. E. Gregor. Mag. ; I note by the way, that the ignorant Editor of Mt. clarkson's Book, (for I would not suspect the Author,) Ridiculously mistakes the Septuagints Translation of the Psalms, and puts in [70 Psalmos suscepit]. viz. That Rome received Seventy Psalms from S. Hierom.— risum teneatis amici. But from the Quotation rightly stated, we may observe that S. Hierom, could not be against Forms of Praise in the Public Pervice; when he prescribed both the Hallelujah and the Gloria Patri, (which are such Forms) to the Roman Church, or at least advised the Pope to prescribe them. And his Works abound with Testimonies, That Forms both of Prayer and Praise, and alternate Singing of Psalms after the way of Antioch was used in Palestina, and approved by him while he was there: The Instances (though but occasionally mentioned by S. Hierom) are so many that we must cite them briefly: He adviseth a pious Lady, to bring up her young Daughter in Piety, by accustoming her to rise before day to Prayers and singing Psalms, and by teaching her to sing Hymns Morning and Evening, and to Pray at the Hours of Nine, Twelve and Three 
(n) Hieron. ad Laet. Ep. 7. p. 59 . Now this Child could not be taught either to Pray or Sing otherwise than by Forms. He also gives advice to another Virgin, to perform her Order of Psalms and Prayers at Nine, Twelve and Three, as also at Evening, in the Night and the Morning 
(o) Id. ad Demetriad. ep. 8. pag. 74. & Id. ad Eustach. ep. 22. p. 189. . He also tells, That he learned the Psalms by heart in his youth, and daily repeated part of them, as an Office of Devotion 
(p) Idem adv. Ruffin. lib. 2. Tom. 2. p 335. . Moreover he directs those Religious persons who lived with him, or consulted him, to get every word of the Psalter by heart— and to answer the Psalm in their Turn 
(q) Hieron. ad Rustic. ep. 4. pag. 45, 46. . In his time also they had an Order of Singers, whose Office was to Chant the Psalms and Hymns in the Church 
(r) Id Com. in V Ephes. Tom. 6 pag. 420. . Yea, it is very plain from him, that they had a Choir which sang alternately, and began always with Hallelujahs 
(s) Idem ad Sabin. ep. 48. pag. 305. & Epitaph. Paulae, pag. 232. : And that all the People at Funerals joined in Singing Psalms and the Hallelujah, till they made the gilded Roof of the Temple to shake and Echo again 
(t) Idem in Epitaph. Fabiolae. . Moreover, he mentions that so famous Form of Holy, Holy, Holy, which the Greek call Trisagion 
(u) Id libr. de XLII. Mansionibus. . And he speaks of the Morning and Evening Hymns wherewith God was delighted 
(w) Id. Com. in Psal. 64. Tom. 7. pag. 158. . Now it is certain all these were Forms of Praise; and yet if these Christians had not sung them with the Spirit, God would not have been delighted with them; and therefore we may praise God devoutly, acceptably, and with the Spirit, in and by Forms, as S. Hirom, and the holy Men and Women in his time did. Nor have we less Evidence that they prayed by Forms: For he occasionally mentions two Passages of their Litany, The Church saith, From thy remembering the Sins of our Forefathers 
(x) Hieron. Com. in Psal. 38. , where, Good Lord deliver us, or the like, must be added to make up the Sentence. So again he tells us, It is the Voice of the Church, and he wishes, God would hear her when she cries, O Lord grant us thy Peace 
(y) Id ad Rustic. ep 4 pag. 49. : which very Phrase we know is used in all the ancient Litanies; therefore he must refer to those public Forms, when he citys those Words as the Voice of the Church. As to the Communion Service, no Man can doubt but that the People used there daily to repeat the Words of the Lords Prayer as a Form, who considers that he saith, Our Saviour taught his Apostles to appoint the Faithful every day, in the Sacrifice of his Body, to say, Our Father, etc. 
(z) Idem adv. Pelag. lib 3. pag. 469. . He also calls the Prayer of Consecration, The Solemn Prayer 
(a) Id Com. in Zeph. cap. 3. Tom. 5. p. 489. . Now we shown before, that PRECES SOLENNES, were always in a Set Form of Words. He also mentions that Universal Form of receiving the Holy Sacrament, and immediately saying, Amen 
(b) Id. ad Theophil. ep. 62. Tom. 2. p. 270. ; which being used in the Eastern Churches, in Africa and at Milan, and prescribed by the ancient Offices of those several Churches, those who followed them in this Rite, probably did so in the rest of that Office. Again, It is evident from him, that those who were Baptised, were asked the very Words of the Apostles Creed 
(c) Idem adv. Lucif. Tom. 2. pag. 189. , and he frequently refers to the Form of Renunciation there used. Now considering S. Hierom did not write purposely of Liturgy, these occasional Passages may suffice to show us there was a Public Form used in his time; and (as we noted) He commends S. Hilary for making a Liturgy; and Book of Hymns 
(d) Hieron. Catal. script in Hilario, p. 378. , and therefore could not dislike prescribed Forms; yea, Durandus doth not only say, That he made an Order for reading the Scripture (as our Adversary would have it 
(e) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 7●. ; but his Words are, He appointed what Psalms, Lessons, Epistles and Gospels should be read every day, (& cantum ordinavit magna ex parte); that is, He ordered many of the Forms of Prayer and Praise, both which were chanted or sung in Durandus his time 
(f) Durand. ●ational. lib. ●. cap. 1. sol. 89. : And he means no more but this, (which S. Gregory had Recorded before) That the Missal of the Roman Church was corrected and set in order by S. Hierom in Pope Damasus his Time. From whence we infer, that S. Hierom was not like our Adversary, for rejecting Liturgies, but correcting them, and sending them to such Bishops as had Authority to impose them.  
Our Adversary, though he pretends to have searched Antiquity very diligently, could find nothing in S. Hierom which shown the use of Forms; and it seems he could discover but one Passage in him to urge against the use of them, and it is a very slight one, viz. That S. Hierom censures and reproves the Deacons, because in the Offertory at the Communion, they recited publicly the Names of such as offered, and the Sums which they either gave or promised. Now this Custom he thinks was not prescribed, and therefore he infers, that those who officiated were left to their Liberty, to use what Expressions they thought sit 
(g) Disc. of Liturg. p 65, & 66. ex Hieron. Com. in Ezek xviii & in Jer. xi. . To which I Reply, That it hath been proved before there was a prescribed Form to pray for all Estates of Men; and in this Collect they commemorated such Eminent Persons as died in the True Faith, whose Names were read out of the Diptychs, and this was a certain written Form, which no Priest might alter. Here also they mentioned the Names of such as had Offered at the Communion, even from S. Cyprian's time, who order the Writing down and commemorating the Names of such as had contributed to redeem Captives 
(h) Cypr. Ep. 60. & Epist. 66. . But the Names of these living Offerers varied every day, and the Church could no more prescribe these Names, than ours can prescribe what Sick shall be prayed for, or what Christian Names shall be used in the Matrimonial Office: And this miserable Logician may as well prove our Ministers are left to their liberty, to use what Expressions they please in the general Prayer for the Sick, because in some Churches they name twenty new Names there in one day: Or in the Office of Matrimony, because they put in William and Mary, or John and Elizabeth, as to pretend that the General Collect in the Primitive Church was not a prescribed Form, from the Priests varying the Names of the Offerers. As for their mentioning the Sums offered, that was a Corruption no doubt; but we see it came in at that part of the Office where the Church was forced to leave the Minister at liberty; so that he hath spoiled his own Cause by this Instance, which affords us a good Argument against Extempore Prayers, and leaving Men at liberty in Divine Offices, as being a dangerous Gap to let in Corruptions.  

S. Chrysostom, An. 397.  §. 19 The deservedly Famous S. Chrysostom, hath left us so many rare memorial of his Piety and Learning, and so many clear Evidences of his affection for Liturgies, that he alone might be a sufficient Witness, if our Adversary were not pertinacious: And this Author is so dazzled with the brightness of his Testimonies, that he grants enough to show, that Public Forms were used in his Time, and approved by him, though still according to the custom of his Party, he denies they were used in this or the next Age; holding the Conclusion, when he is forced to quit the Promises. For he grants, First, That the Lord's Prayer is called by S. Chrysostom, That Prayer which was established by Law, and brought in by Christ 
(i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrys hom. 2. in 2 Cor. .: And that the very Words of it were taught to the Baptised, and the Form itself repeated in the Daily Service of the Church, once (at least) in one Assembly 
(k) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 3. . We note by the way, that our Adversary means the Communion Office here by the Daily Service; but takes no notice that the Christians had other daily Assemblies, viz. at Six in the Morning, Three in the Afternoon, and at Candle-lighting. Now if the Lord's Prayer were repeated but once at one Assembly, yet still it might be repeated Four times in one day. Secondly, He grants there is in S. Chrysostom an Order visible, that is, a certain Method, wherein they agreed to administer the several parts of Worship, particularly in the Sacrament; so as each had its known fixed place 
(l) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 5. . Thirdly, He citys S. Chrysostom, to prove the People of old had a part in the Prayers 
(m) Ibid p. 44. . Fourthly, He owns, That S. Chrysostom did bring in the usage of Singing alternately, that is, by Turns and Responses, into the Church of Constantinople 
(x) Ibid. p. 168. . Now let us put all this together, and if they used the Lords Prayer so often every day as a Form, and had a certain Order for the several parts of Worship, so that every part had so known and fixed a place, and so that the People could bear a share, and make their Responses in this Worship, both as to the Hymns and the Prayers; doubtless this Order was a Liturgy, because if the Words of it, as well as the Method, were not prescribed, the People could not know where and when to come in with their Parts: Thus than he hath given up the Cause, and owned a Liturgy in the Fourth Century. But we have better Arguments than his Concessions, (who never produces any one Evidence for Forms, but what he hopes he can answer) since S. Chrysostom abundantly assures us, not only that there was a Liturgy in his time, but sets out the Method, and explains the Words and Phrases of those Forms, as often as any occasion offers itself. And, First, He tells us, Their Office consisted of Prayers, Litanies, and Prefaces 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chry●. hom. 3. in Colost Tom. 4. p 106. ; more particularly He mentions one Prayer for the Catechumen 
(p) Hom. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 553. , and three more: The first is the Prayer full of Mercy, when we pray for those that are Possessed: The second is for those under the Censures of the Church, to desire Mercy for them: The third Prayer (saith he) is for ourselves 
(q) Com. in Matth. hom. 72. edit Front. Vol. ●. p 768. , that is, for the Faithful. And in another place he saith, Both Priests and People make Common Prayers for the Possessed, and the Penitents; and all of them say that one Prayer, the Prayer full of Mercy 
(r) Hom. 18. in 2 Cor. edit. Savil. pag. 647. . Now, for the better understanding here of, let it be considered that S. Chrysostom was bred up at Antioch, before he came to Constantinople; and therefore the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who (as we noted before) hath set down the Liturgy of Antioch (as it was used before S. Chrysostoms' time) must be the best Commentator upon S. Chrysostom; for here he plainly alludes to some known Liturgy, and probably to that in the Constitutions, or one which had corrected it in some few things, both in the Expressions and the Method; yet they are so very like each other, that both seem to have been but one Liturgy originally. Now in that Liturgy in the Constitutions, there are just so many Prayers, and exactly in the same order; The first for the Catechumen, the second for those that are Possessed, the third for the Penitents, and the last Prayer for the Faithful 
(s) 〈…〉 Apol●● 〈◊〉 c●p 5. ●●●p. ●. c●p. 13 . And this Author makes us understand what S Chrysostom means by The Prayers full of Mercy: For these are the Forms of Litany, which they made for these several sorts of Persons; and when the Deacon hath repeated the Petition, viz. For such and such things, and— let us pray to the Lord; the People answer to every Petition, Lord have mercy 
(t) 〈…〉 D●ac●●● pepul●● ut prad●x. 〈…〉 C●n lit. A●ost●●. cap 5. . From the frequent Repetition of which Sentence. S. Chrysostom calls this the Prayer full of Mercy; and to assure us he means this very Litanick Form, he saith, It is a Common Prayer, made both by the Priests and People 
●●●●stom. 〈…〉 p●g. ●●. . And that it was enjoined we may also be assured, because when he is about to set down the very Form of this Prayer for the Catechumen, he brings it in with this Preface, The Laws of the Church command, that the Prayers shall be made thus 
(w) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. hom. 2. in 2 Cor. p. 553. ; which shows it was a Form established by Law, and he there repeats the Words, and expounds it as he goes on: And though it be long, yet to silence all that deny the use of prescribed Forms, we shall here recite it.  
First, The Deacon saith, Let us pray earnestly for the Catechumen: And then he gins the Prayer, Beseeching the All-merciful and Compassionate God to hear their Prayers— To open the Ears of their Hearts— To instruct them in the Word of Truth— To plant his fear in them— To confirm their Minds in the Faith— To reveal to them the Gospel of Righteousness— To give them an Heavenly Mind, wise Reasoning, and a virtuous Conversation— To make them continue in his Law day and night— To deliver them from all evil and absurd Actions— And from all the Temptations of the Devil, and Assaults of the Adversary— To  them with the Garment of Immortality in his due time— To bless their going out and their coming in— To bless their Houses and their Servants— To bless their Children, and bring them to perfect age and understanding — To make all things work together for their good— After this the Catechumen (who had kneeled while this Litany was said) are bid to rise up and pray, For an Angel of Pea●e 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alio scil. hom. 3. in Coloss. Tom. 4. p. 106. — That their Affairs might prosper— That this and all the days of their Lives might be peaceable— And that they might make a Christian End. After all they are bid, To commend themselves to the living God by Christ Jesus, and so to bow their Head and departed 
(y) Chrysost. hom. 2. in 2 Cor. pag 553— ad pag. 556. . Here therefore we have a large Form in Words prescribed and enjoined by the Church, upon every Period of which this Holy Father makes a Comment; which he could not have done had it been usually varied, or had it been an Extempore Prayer: The Form also is the manner of Litany, room being left for the People to say, Lord have mercy, after every Petition. And I must observe further, that this very Litany is very short expressed in the Liturgies of S. Basil and S. Chrysostom, there being (in the former especially) no more but the beginning of the Sentences; Thus, Ye Faithful for— That he would instruct— That he would reveal, etc. which are the initial Words of the main Periods of this very Form which S. Chrysostom expounds, and it seems were so well known to the Deacons then, that it was enough to set down the initial Words of some Sentences, which proves it was constantly used and become familiar 
(z) Vid. Liturg. D. Basil, Bib. Patr. Tom. II. pag. 45. Et Liturg. Chrys. ibid. pag. 71. . And it is much for the Credit of those Liturgies, that S. Chrysostom in his genuine Works expounds a Form so very like those in the Liturgies, that any Man may discern those are the Epitome of this Larger Form. To this I must add, That the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions hath set down this Litany at large, many Petitions of it being the very same Words, viz. To hear their Prayers— To open the Ears of their Hearts— To bless their going out and coming in, etc. And other Petitions are the very same things with very little alteration of the Phrase— viz. To reveal to them the Gospel of his Christ— To plant his holy and saving Fear in them— To make them meditate in his Law day and night— To grant them the Laver of Regeneration, and the Garment of Immortality, etc. 
(a) Clem. Constit. lib. 8. cap. 5. . And indeed, Excepting the difference in the order of some Petitions, and some Phrases, there is an exact harmony between this Litany in the Constitutions, and that in S. Chrysostom; the Variations being no more than may be expected from variety of Copies transcribed for the use of two several Dioceses, and corrected by two several Bishops for their own Clergy: This is certain, That there was far more difference between the Missals of Salisbury and York, than are in these two Forms; yet both were used in one Kingdom, by those who were Members of the same National Church. Nor can we wonder at these little differences in the ancient Litanies, considering the aptness of every Eminent Bishop, to order something in the public Service; it suffices to make my Position good, that they were Forms prescribed, that probably had all sprung from one Original; (For all these Old Eastern Litanies agree in the main) but some Phrases, and something of the order of the Petitions were varied in the Transcripts for divers Provinces: And since this small Variety was in S. Chrysostom's Time, we may conclude, The Primitive Form from whence they were all derived must be much Elder.  
The next part of Liturgy was the Prayers at the Eucharist, when none but the Faithful were present; And these S. Chrysostom describes also so exactly like that Office which is in the Apostolical Constitutions, that it is evident either those very Forms, or some little different from them were used in S. Chrysostoms' time; the Reader may compare the passages, which I shall cite out of this Father with the places in the Constitutions noted in the Margin, and he will be satisfied of this great Truth. In this Office, there was a Litany 
(b) Clem. Constit. lib. 8. cap. 13. & 19 , wherein, as S. Chrysostom saith, they w●re bid to intercede with the merciful God, for Bishops and Priests, for Kings and all in Authority; for the Land, the Sea and the Air, yea for all the World 
(c) Chrysost. hom. 2. in 2. Cor. pag. 557. . Which is as plain a description of that Litany, as a Lax discourse will admit. And both S. Chrysostom, and the Constitutions note this was said by all of them kneeling. After this the Holy Father Observes, they arose all together, and then the Bishop imparted Peace, saluting them in this Form, Peace be with you. The People answering, and with thy Spirit 
(d) Chrysost. hom. 18. in 2. Cor. pag. 647. Clem. Const. lib. 8. cap. 15. . But as to this Form, it was often used in divers places of the public Service, as the old Liturgies show, and S. Chrysostom doth attest; saying, We everywhere Pray for Peace; in the Church we desire Peace; in the Prayers, Litanies and Prefaces, the Bishop frequently salutes us with Peace, saying, Peace be with you, and Peace be with you all; When he enters the Church, he gins with this: So also before Sermon 
(e) De isto ritu vide item Chrysost. hom. 36. in 1. Cor. : So when he blesseth, when he enjoins the kiss of charity, and when the Sacrifice is done, he saith again, Grace be with you and Peace; you answering, And with thy Spirit 
(f) Chrysost. hom. 3. in Coloss. Tom. 4. pag. 106, 107. . After this followed these Primitive and Universally used Forms of Preface, which are sound in all the ancient Liturgies, with little Variation. viz. Lift up your Hearts. Answer, We lift them up unto the Lord. Of which S. Chrysostom saith, Did you not promise the Priest, (to be devout) when he saith, Lift up your Hearts and Minds? And you replied, We Lift them up unto the Lord 
(g) Chrysost. ser. 38. de Euchar. & poens. Item hom. 22. in Hebr. Const. Apostol. lib. 8. cap. 16. . Then he tells us, the Praises were common and performed by both Priest and People: For first (saith he) You receive their Words (that is, Let us give Thanks to our Lord God) and then you join with them, and add, it is just and right so to do. After which gins the act of Praise 
(h) Chrysost. ut supr. hom. 18. in 2. Cor. , which no doubt is that Form in the Constitution, It is meet and Right so to do, etc. 
(i) Constit. Ap. ut supr. . And as for the Hymn called Trisagion which is Holy, holy, holy, (and follows in the Constitutions,) S Chrysostom mentions it very many times, in his  Works. For he wonders how they dare Slander their Neighbours, who with the Cherubins, Sing Holy, holy, holy 
(k) Chrysost. in Ephes. hom. 14. ; and he wonders, they who are admitted to Sing the same Hymn with, Cherubins, Seraphins, Angels and Archangels, dare laugh or behave themselves unseemly in the Church 
(l) Id. in 2. Corinth. hom. 18. pag. 647. id. Orat. 74. de Bapt. Servant. hom. 24. in act. Ap. . So that nothing can be more certain, than that this Hymn was sung in this very Form, in the Eucharistical Office at that very time. And so was the Glory be to God on high also; for he saith, The Faithful know what the Cherubins sing above (that is, Holy, holy, holy,) and what the Angels sang below (that is, Glory to God on high 
(m) Chrysost. hom. 9 in Ep. ad Coloss. , intimating they were both sung in that Office. S. Chrysostom also confirms this in another place, saying, in our Eucharist we say, Glory be to God on high, on Earth Peace, good Will towards Men 
(n) Idem hom. 3. in ●p. ad Coloss. . To this we may add other ancient Forms▪ which he occasionally mentions, such as these, to stand up and with great Decency 
(o) Id. hom. 4. de natura Dei. ; And that Holy things, must be given to Holy persons 
(p) Idem hom. 17. in Hebraeos. ; Both which passages are in the Liturgy in the Constitutions, in so many Words 
(q) Constit. lib. 8. cap. 15. & cap. 20. . And also in every one of the ancient Liturgies, which go under the names of S. James, S. Basil and S. Chrysostom, in all which also there is a Form of Prayer, after the Holy Communion 
(r) Constit. lib. 8. cap. 22. ; and S. Chrysostom hath a Homily to reprove those, Who left the holy Liturgy unfinished, and went out before the last Prayer; which is the Title of that Homily 
(s) Chrys. Tom. 5. edit. Front. Dac. et. p. 522. . All which abundantly proves, that there was a set and prescribed Liturgy at that time, by which the Eucharist was Administered.  
I might be much larger in my proof of this, had I time to make a narrower search, in the learned Volumes of this elegant Father; but I take this to be sufficient, especially if we consider the Evidence we have, that S. Chrysostom did compose that Liturgy as to the main, which now goeth under his name; The Authorities and Arguments for which, being much the same, with those produced for the Liturgy of S. Basil 
(t) See before in this Chap. §. 15. , we refer the Reader thither; And shall here only observe, First, That Proclus who was S. Chrysostoms' successor at Constanstinople, and came into that See within 27 years after Chrysostoms' Death, affirms; That this Holy Father like a good Pastor, who was careful of his Flock, resolved to root up all the pretences, which human sloth was wont to make; and therefore drew up a shorter Form of Prayers, for the celebrating of the Eucharist, lest Men who hate to be confined too long, being deceived by the craft of the Devil, should omit this Divine Ordinance 
(u) Proclus de traditione divinae Missae. . And the Greek Church hath ever since used this Liturgy, as the  composure of S. Chrysostom. Secondly, The main part of this Liturgy, is found either explicitly, or by plain intimations, in the  Works of S. Chrysostom, who reckons up the same Ceremonies, Hymns and Prayers, and generally in the same order. And also upon occasion comments upon, and explains both the Rites and ancient Forms; and covertly refers to many more passages in this Liturgy; only he would not speak out, because his Homilies were Preached to a promiscuous Auditory. Thirdly, There is a great part of this Liturgy, very pure, Primitive and worthy of this great Author; even so much of it as is Recorded in his own Writings, and in the Works of S. Cyprian, S. Cyril. S. Basil. S. Augustin and others, or so much of it as is taken out of Holy Scripture. And in all this, there is nothing of Praying to Saints, to Angels, or the blessed Virgin; nothing of any Prayers for delivering the deceased from pain; nothing of venerating the Cross or any other Image. The passages which look this way, are later Patches tacked to this holy Liturgy in corrupter times, easily distinguishable from the Original composure, both by the Style and Matter; wherefore these Parts we reject; but must not throw away the Wheat with the Chaff, there being no Father, to which some corrupt Additions have not been made; but we must not for the sake of these spurious Tracts, reject that which is true and genuine. Fourthly, Since it is so clear, that Forms had been long used in the Church, and that the Gift of Prayer was ceased before this Century began; it cannot but be very probable that so great a Bishop, of so eminent a Diocese, and with so large a Jurisdiction, should model and correct the ancient Forms, and adapt them to the use of the Churches under his care; as S. Basil had done for those under his charge; especially since no ancient Author, did ever contradict this Universally received Notion, That this Liturgy was made by S. Chrysostom; Nor doth any Historian, assign any other Person as the maker thereof, or mention this Liturgy as coming into use, in any other Age.  
§. 20. And now we will consider those things which are objected both against the use of Forms in this Age, and against the Authority of this Liturgy; my Adversary produces divers places out of S. Chrysostom, to prove, that Words spoken in the Celebration of the Sacraments, were Mysteries, which S. Chrysostom thinks aught to be concealed; and therefore he supposes there were no Written Forms in his time; however none of his Wrting 
(w) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 29. & pag. 35, 36, 37. . I have often answered this Argument before: But I shall now observe, That this Notion of the great Sin of divulging Mysteries to the Unbaptized, hinders S. Chrysostom in his Discourses (which are generally Sermons, Homilies and Orations, made to a promiscuous Auditory) from giving as many Passages of the Ecclesiastical Forms, which he generally there wraps up in dark Expressions; yet his appealing to the Faithful, and telling them they knew and remembered such and such things, is a certain sign, that there were known and prescribed Forms: For how could he appeal to the Initiated, or tell them they knew or remembered such or such a Passage (which he darkly hinted) if Sacraments had been celebrated, or Prayers made in the Extempore way, by Phrases daily varied? Thus in those Instances which my Adversary brings, Speaking of the Litany used by the Faithful, S. Chrysostom saith, It is a Mystery, but the Initiated know how it abounds with Mercy 
(x) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chry● in Matth. hom. 71. p. 451. Disc. of Liturg. pag. 29. . This must be some Form which they knew, otherwise he could not have made this Appeal: So when this Father speaks of the mystical Words in Baptism, he doubts not but those who were baptised, could remember what they Answered 
(y) Id. Hom. 40. in 1 Cor. p 514. Disc. of Liturg. Marg. pag. 29. ; which shows, they Answered in a certain Form of Words: And it appears they also had a set and certain Form of renouncing the Devil, because S. Chrysostom appeals to the Initiated, and bids them Remember those Words by which they renounced the Devil's Tyranny 
(z) Hom. 2. in 2 Epist. ad Cor. pag. 555. ; yet our Adversary, by a dexterity of arguing peculiar to himself, citys this to prove there was no Form of Renunciation 
(a) Discourse of Liturg. p. 37. . By which rare Art also he quotes S. Chrysostom's Exposition of Gal IU. 28. where he saith, The Faithful knew the Divine Words pronounced by the Priest at their Baptism 
(b) Chrys. hom. in 4 Galat. p. 748. Disc of Liturg. p. 37. , to prove there were no Forms; and yet if there had not been known Forms, this Appeal could not have been made: For no Dissenting Pastor, who Officiates Extempore, can appeal to his Congregation, and say, You know, or you remember the Words of my Prayer this day Twelvemonth, or indeed this day Seven-night. Under this Head we may place all his needless Quotations, to prove that Catechumen and Penitents were excluded from these Mysteries 
(c) Discourse of Lit. p. 35. etc. : For we grant the Matter of Fact; but the natural Inference from thence is, (not that they durst not write Forms, as he weakly pretends, but) that they used constant Forms; and these being Mysteries above the Capacity of the Unbaptized, they feared by often hearing they might learn them, which they fancied was a profanation of their Mysteries: But had their Prayers been in new Phrases every day, there had been no need to exclude any Body; they might have challenged them all that were present, to remember any thing if they could. This silence and secrecy therefore, was to secure their Forms from the knowledge of the Unbaptized: Though as the Heathens writ their Mysterious Prayers, and yet concealed them▪ by charging the Priests to keep both Books and Forms from the knowledge of the Un-iniated; so might the Christians also well enough keep their Written Forms secret, by charging the Priests and Faithful not to discover them, and excluding the Catechumen, whensoever these Forms were used. Secondly, He would prove, that he who Officiated, was left to his liberty by some general Expressions in S. Chrysostom 
●●scourse of 〈◊〉. pag. 66. ; viz. The Priest in the Mysteries— offered up Prayers for them 
(e) Chrysost. Hom. 41. in 1 C●r p. 524. ; and, The Priest of God stands to offer the Prayers of all— he trembles when he offers up Prayers for thee 
(f) Id. hom. 15. in Hebr. p. 515. . I Answer, That S. Chrysostom in the former place citys the Words of those Prayers, and in the second evidently supposeth a Set Form: And when he hath made it clear, there can be no Prayers offered up to God, but Extempore; then this will be an Argument, till than it is extremely frivolous. Thirdly, He thinks the Prayers at the Eucharist were not written, and could not be gotten by heart, being ordinarily very long, which he proves by Chrysostom's saying, The Priest stands, not bringing Fire, but the holy Spirit, and makes a long Supplication— that the Grace of God might fall upon the Sacrifice 
(g) Chrysost. de Sacerd. Orat. 3. p 16. . To which I Reply, that it is nothing to the purpose how long this Prayer was, because it is certain it was a Form, and was written in so many Words in the Apostolical Constitutions, where we find this very Petition to which S. Chrysostom alludes, placed in the middle of the Prayer of Consecration, That God would send his Holy Spirit upon this Sacrifice 
(h)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 17. Lit. Chrysost. in Eucholog. p. 77 Lit. Basil. ibid. pag. 169. ; which is also in S. Cyril, and both in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom and S. Basil: So that this Long Prayer being written before Chrysostom's Time, need not to be got by Heart, and therefore all his Inferences from that false Supposition do fall to the ground: Nor can he pretend, that the Priests bringing the Holy Spirit (here mentioned) is meant of his praying by the Spirit, that is, (as he thinks) Extempo●è; because the Spirit here, is the thing prayed for, and that which the Priests Prayers brought down upon the Christian Sacrifice, as Elijah's Prayer of old brought down Fire upon the Legal Sacrifice. Fourthly, He tells us that S Chrysostom saith. It required greater confidence than Moses and Elias had, to pray over this Sacrifice; from whence he gathers, that there was no need of such Confidence, if their Prayer were written in a Book before them 
(i) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 75. . But if the Reader consult the place in the Father 
(k) Chry●●st. de Sacerd. lib. 6. T●m. 6. pag. 46 , He will easily discern how this Passage is perverted to serve an ill Cause S. Chrysostom is setting out the dignity of the Gospel Priesthood, who are to intercede with God, to have Mercy not upon one City, but upon the whole World, even upon all Men. Now he thinks that the confidence of Moses and Elias (who prayed but for one Nation) would not suffice to fit a Man for this Intercession; alluding to the Litany, where (as he notes) they pray, That Wars may cease in all places, and all Troubles be removed; and that Peace and Prosperity, and a deliverance from all Evils public and private may be obtained 
(l) Chrysost. ibid. Who afterwards treats of the Priests praying over the Sacrament. . These are plainly Litanick Supplications, which were written down long before this Age, (as we have showed); and therefore the Confidence was not needful to invent Words Extempore, but to enable a Mortal sinful Man to ask so many and so great things from so glorious a God, for so many persons. As for the Confidence of his Party, it is indeed greater than that of Moses and Elias; for they were really inspired miraculously, and so might intercede for the Jews, for aught I know, Extempore, on some extraordinary occasions; but these Men who are not inspired, dare upon ordinary occasions daily vent their Extempore Conceits before God and their Congregation; but whether there be not more Boldness than Prudence in this, let him judge, who considers that Solomon saith, Be not rash with thy Mouth, and let not thine Heart be hasty to utter any thing before God; for God is in Heaven and thou upon Earth 
(m) Eccles V. 2. . Fifthly, He citys a place of S. Chrysostom, where he shows what is meant by the Cup of Blessing, and reckoning up some of the Heads of those things for which they gave Thanks, He adds,— with these and other such like Thanksgivings we approach; whence he infers, That the Priests enlarged themselves in such like particulars, according to discretion 
(n) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 76. . But first he was forced to translate the place falsely, or else it would not have been for his purpose. S. Chrysostom saith (after he had reckoned up divers general Heads of Mercies,) For these, and all such things as these, giving Thanks, so we approach 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 24. in 1 Cor pag. 396. : He doth not say, With these and other such like Thanksgivings; that is his perverting the Father. Secondly, S. Chrysostom being making a popular Discourse, doth not repeat any part of the Thanksgivings, but describes some of those Mercies, for which they gave Thanks at the Sacrament: One principal Head of which was, For delivering Mankind from Error, and for bringing them to be Heirs of his Kingdom; Which is one of those Heads for which God is praised in that large Form of Thanksgiving in the Constitutions 
(p) Non permisit genus humanum perire. Constit. Apost. lib. 8. cap. 17.  as it is also in the Liturgy of S. Chrysostom 
(q) Liturg. Chrysost. Euchol. p. 75 . Therefore they were Forms of Praise, wherein they gave Thanks to God for these Mercies, and all such like, those very Forms being a Recapitulation of all God's Mercies to Mankind; and therefore this place which so plainly refers to the Forms then used, is so far from helping him, that it consutes him; and he gets nothing by it, but the honour of grounding an Argument on a false Translation. Sixthly, He citys S. Chrysostom as the only Father, who mentions the Gift of Prayer as an extraordinary Gift; and he insinuates, that this Gift of Prayer made Forms needless in this Age 
(r) Discourse of Liturg. p. 129. . Had he quoted this place at large, it had spoiled his Cause again: For S. Chrysostom is expounding that place of S. Paul, The Spirit helpeth our Infirmities, Rom. viij. 26. And saith, There was a miraculous Gift of Prayer in the Apostles Times, which was ceased so long ago, that as it was not easy for the People in his days to understand the meaning of S. Paul: Only he observes, Those Forms of Litany wherein the Deacon goes before, and reckons up what the People shall pray for, to which they make their Responses; These Prayers (he saith) are an Emblem of that Apostolic Custom, when the new Converts not knowing what to pray for, the Inspired Man by the Gift of Prayer went before them, and made Petitions for them 
(s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 14 ●n Rom. viij. pag 120 : This is the sum of what Chrysostom there saith. So that S. Chrysostom believed the Gift of Prayer was ceased long before his Time, and therefore they used Forms, recited between the Minister and the People; and if that Holy Father believed this Gift were ceased then, what would he think of those who boldly pretend to it in our days, could he live again upon Earth? This is certain, He did not think Praying or Singing by the Spirit, was doing so Extempore: for he saith, To sing with with the Spirit, is to sing not only with the M uth, but with attention of Mind 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 9 in Coloss. edit. Fr●nt. Tom. 11. p. 227. . So that according to S. Chrysostom, whensoever we devoutly mind, even our Forms of Praise and Prayer, than we sing and pray by the Spirit. Lastly, He citys the Life of S. Chrysostom, to prove, That the Greek Church accommodated the Service to the Season; insinuating, as if every Priest Officiated as he thought suitable to the Time (u). But, first, 
(x) Disc. of Liturg. p. 160, & 161.  his Editor ignorantly citys for this Bede, in the Life of Chrysostom, which should be Leo; for Bede never writ this Father's Life: Yet the Authors Mistake is worse, for he falsifies Leo in Chrysostom's Life, who doth not say, They accommodated the Service to the Season; but, That upon Easter Even, they used the Hymns proper for that Night, Baptised such as had been Catechised, and performed the Liturgy, which was accustomed to be used at that Season 
(w)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leo in vit. Chrysost. Tom. 8. p. 288. . So that my Adversary egregiously prevaricates in turning accustomed Offices and a Liturgy prescribed, for the most famous primitive Vigil before Easter, into his new way of accommodating Prayers to it, by private Ministers Fancies: Which was not allowed in any Regular Church since the settling of Christianity.  
My Adversary makes no particular Objections against S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, but what are answered in my Reply to his Exceptions against S. Basil's: So that I might here conclude my Vindication of this Holy Father, but that I have met with a Manuscript Collection of Objections against this Liturgy, taken out of Du-Plessis 
(x) Mornay of the Mass, Book I. Chap. 6. pag. 50. , which I will briefly Answer. First, The Variety of Copies is objected. I Reply, This shows the Antiquity and large extent of this Liturgy; and if there be some differences in these Copies, there are so in the very Books of Scripture: And considering the many hands which had transcribed this Liturgy in all the Dioceses of the Syrian and Greek Churches, during the space of 1100 years, before it was printed; the greatest wonder is, that there were not more Differences. Object. 2. Some Copies mention Praying for the Dead, and Invocating the Blessed Virgin, others do not. Answ. It is certain those Copies which have least in them, come nearest to the Original, which (as we have heard) was at first Composed for abbreviating the Office; and we justify nothing which is not very agreeable to S. Chrysostom's unquestioned Works, and to the Doctrine of that Age; there being enough of that kind to assure us, there were Forms of Prayer in this Time. Object. 3 The Trisagion is mentioned in this Liturgy, which came not into use till one Hundred years after S. Chrysostom's Time. Answ. This is false, for the Hymn of Holy, Holy, Holy, or Trisagion, is mentioned by S. Chrysostom in his undoubted Works, and by divers Fathers before him. 'Tis true, that addition to it, of Holy God, Holy Strong, Holy Immortal, came up one Hundred year after this, and some later Copies put in this Addition; but in the best Editions, after the purest Manuscripts, This Hymn is found in the simple and primitive Way 
(y) Eucholog. Graec. Lit. Chrysost. pag. 76. & Lit. Basil. pag. 166. , without any addition: Yet Du-Plessis may be excused for making this Objection, because he never saw Goar's Edition. Object. 4. The Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Mother of God, came not in till long after the Time of S. Chrysostom; and if it had been originally in his Liturgy, no doubt it would have been urged against the Heretics. Answ. This is very true but the genuine Inference is not; therefore all the Liturgy is corrupted; but therefore all those Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, and Hymns wherein she is glorified, are later Additions to the old genuine Office, which we freely acknowledge. Object. 5. In this as well as in S. Basil, we find Incense offered up for the Remission of Sins; which is Blasphemy. Asw. This also is a Modern Addition, which hath no foundation is S. Chrysostom's Works; and that we may be sure it is so, Jac. Goar (the accurate Editor of this Liturgy) tells us, That the ancient and truly genuine Liturgy gins after this Preface, and all the Ceremony of offering Incense is over 
(z) Eucholog. pag. 64. ; so that it is no wonder to find a Corruption in a part added to it in later times. Object. 6. Divers Persons are named in this Liturgy, which lived long after S. Chrysostom's Time, viz. Alexius the Emperor, and Nicholas (not Pope of Rome, but) Bishop of Constantiple; and S. Chrysostom himself is there invoked. Answ. The old Latin Copy printed at Antwerp, An. 1560. which was taken out of some Manuscript writ in the Age of that same Emperor and Patriarch, had these Names: But that is no Argument that this Liturgy was first made in that Time, because the Transcribers put in such as in their Time were to be prayed for; but the New Editions of these Liturgies have no Emperors or Bishops Name at all, only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving it to the Priest to add the Names as Persons changed. To conclude, I have not seen one solid Objection against the main Body of S. Chrysostom's Liturgy; and there is enough of that which we defend, and is genuine, to show, that Liturgies were used in this Age; and there is clear Evidence and good Reason to believe, not only that S. Chrysostom approved of Forms, but that he Corrected the Ancient Office, and made all that is Essential, pure and primitive, in this very Liturgy, which now goes by his Name. And this may suffice for this Father.  
§. 21. At the same time when S Chrysostom was Famous in the East, S. Augustin 
S. Augustin, An Dom. 3●.  flourished in the African Church, and He also is a good Witness for us in this Age: For it is impossible he could be against Forms of Prayer written in a Book, and to be read out of it, because he affirms, That Christ therefore left us a Form of Prayer in writing, knowing, Words were necessary to move● us and that we might look upon that which we ask 
(a) Nobis ergo necessar●a sunt Verba, quibus commovean●ur & inspiciamus quid p●tamu●. Aug. ad Prob. Ep. 121. p. 129. ; Now for the Church to imitate Christ, and write down our Prayers in a Book, could not be a fault in the opinion of S. Augustin, who owns the Lord's Prayer to be a Form, and in divers places affirms, that the Faithful repeated it every day 
(b) Aug. de verb. Ap. Ser. 31. Item hom. 42. & alibi. ; And therefore he will not grant, that any Christians wanted the Spirit to help them with Words and Expressions; that (he saith) cannot be the meaning of our not knowing what to Pray for, as we ought, Rom. viij. 26. because it is not Credible, that either the Apostle, or those to whom he Writ, were Ignorant of the Lords Prayer 
(c) Id. ad Prob. Ep. 121. pag 129. . And therefore he goes on to expound the Spirits helping our infirmities; of the Spirits giving us Patience; so that we do not pray absolutely, to be delivered out of our Afflictions, as naturally we should do, if the Spirit did not convince us they were for our good. So that S. Augustin takes away the main Text, on which our Adversaries ground their Extempore Prayers, and thinks there is no need for the Spirit to furnish us with expressions. We have now seen by other Fathers, that they had a Liturgy in every Church, by which care was taken for proper expressions; and S. Augustin seems to have believed, that the Original of these Liturgies, the most essential parts (wherein almost all Churches agreed) was from S. Paul himself; for he saith (as my Adversary citys him 
(d) Disc. of Liturg. Marg. pag. 173. ,) The Apostle speaking of the Eucharist, presently adds, The rest will I set in order when I come; giving us to understand, that though it was too long for an Epistle, to intimate all that order of Administration which the Universal Church observes; yet he did ordain, that which is every where observed without Variation 
(e) Aug. ad Januar. Ep. 118. p. 116. . Now the use of Forms was every where observed; and though there was some little variety, in the Longer Forms of Prayer and Thanksgiving, which were made afterwards; yet the use of the Lords Prayer, the Prefaces, the Prayer of Consecration, as to the Evangelical Words, and some of the Hymns, All which were Forms, and of Universal use, these S. Augustin affirms were ordered and ordained by the Apostle when he came to Corinth; so that he makes the Original of using Forms of Prayer and Praise in the Sacrament, to be Apostolical: And the same thing he affirms in another place, where he is arguing against Heretics; Let us look (saith he) upon the Mysteries of the Ecclesiastical Prayers, which the whole World hath received by Tradition from the Apostles, and which are uniformly Celebrated in every Orthodox Church, that the Rule for our Prayers may fix the Rule of our Faith 
(f) O●secrati●●rum quoque sacerd●talium Sacramenta respiciamus quae ab Apostolis tradita in t●to modo atque in omni Catholicâ Ecclesiâ Uniformiter Celebrantur, ●● legem credendi lex statuat supplicant, Aug. de Eccles. dog. cap. ●●. Tom. 3. pag. 4●. : He must mean this of Forms, Extompore Prayers being invisible, but these might be looked on: yet these, he saith, were derived from Apostolical Tradition and uniformly Celebrated; therefore there was then a written Liturgy, appointed at first by the Apostles, (as S. Augustin thought) and used by all Christians; to the Words of which he appeals for Evidence against Heretics in matters of Faith: Now if the Prayers had been daily varied by the Extempore Gift, he could not have appealed to the Words of them; and if these Forms had been composed, but a little before this time of S. Augustin, he could not have urged their Authority in matters of dispute with Heretics or others; Therefore they had Forms written in former Ages, and by their Antiquity, become of great Authority in this Century. Whereupon the same Father wishes, that such as are weak and doubtful in the Question of perseverance, would look upon those Prayers of theirs, which the Church always had and ever will have 
(g)— ut intuerentur Orationes suas, quas semper habuit & habebit Ecclesia. Aug. de bon. persev. lib. 2. Tom. 7. pag. 279. ; That is, upon the public Liturgy, from the certain Words of which he draws Arguments, to satisfy their doubts, not fearing they would question the Authority of those Prayers, which the Church ever had used from the beginning. And therefore he boldly challenges Vitalis, (who h●ed some Erroneous Opinions) to dispute, if he saw fit, against the Prayers of the Church, when he heard the Priest of God at the Altar, Exhorting his People to Pray, so and so, &c. 
(h) Aug. add Vital. Ep. 107. pag. 102. ; which shows not only that there were Forms, (because Extempore Prayers, can never be urged for, or alleged against the Church.) But it shows that these Forms, were by long usage become so venerable, that their Authority was esteemed sacred and indisputable: And they were accounted the best Evidence of Apostolical Tradition, after the holy Scripture; The particulars, of this African service, (agreeable to the parts of the Greek Liturgy,) S. Augustin saith were these, The Singing of Hymns, reading of Lessons and Sermons; the Prayers made by the Bishop in an audible Voice, and the Common-Prayer enjoined by the Deacon 
(i)— aut Ant●st●tes clara voce deprecantu●, aut communis Oratio v ce Diaconi indicitur. Aug. ad Januar. Ep. 11●. p. 119. : That is, the Collects and the Litany; to the First of which the People answered Amen: To the Second they made Responses at the end of every Petition, which assures us they were Forms of Prayer; And that Common-Prayer properly signifies such a Form, in which both Minister and People have their several parts. Of this Litany or Common-Prayer, there are divers Petitions mentioned in S. Augustin, upon occasion; and though (being writing Letters,) he doth not always cite them in the same Words; yet the Phrases are so very much alike, and the Sense and Order of them is so exactly the same, that we may be sure he alludes to some known Form; Thus (he saith) in one of the places afore cited, the Church prays— That Faith may be granted to unbelievers; that Idolaters may be delivered from their ungodly Errors; that the Veil may be taken away from the Hearts of the Jews, so that the light of Truth may shine unto them; that Heretics may by Repenting receive the true Faith; that Schismatics may be restored by the Spirit of Charity; that the lapsed may partake of the remedies of Repentance; and that the Catechumen being brought to the Sacrament of Regeneration, may have the Treasures of Heavenly mercy opened to them 
(k) Aug. de Eccles. dogm. cap. 30. p. 46. ut supra [f]. . In another place he describes so many of these Petitions more briefly, as concern his present Question; The Minister (saith he) prays— For unbelievers, that God would convert them to the Faith; for the Catechumen, that God would inspire them with the desire of Regeneration; and for the Faithful, that by his Gift they may persevere in that which they have begun 
(l) Idem ad Vital. Epist. 107. pag. 102. H ,— and a little after, The Faithful prey for themselves, that they may presevere in that which they have begun 
(m) Id. ibid. pag. 103. H. & eadem verba iterum, ibid. p. 104. I. ; which Sentence is twice mentioned in one Epistle, where also he saith, When do you hear God's Minister Praying with a loud Voice,— That God would make the unbelieving Gentiles come over to the Faith, and do not answer Amen 
(n) Id. pag. 104. G. ? And in another Book,— When did not the Church use to Pray— That unbelievers may believe— And for the Faithful, that God would grant they may persevere in him even to the End, To which (saith he) the People answer Amen 
(o) A●g. de 〈…〉. 7. ●●g. ●●●. . Now my Adversary makes it an Argument against Liturgies, that S. Augustin here speaking of the same Prayers, citys them in various Words 
(p) Disc of 〈◊〉. pag. 21 & 22. . But I have already observed, he is writing Epistles, and doth not pretend to quote the very Words; but yet he describes the things Prayed, in Phrases so very like each other, that we may be sure, he referred them to a common Form the Words of which were so well known, that he need not strictly tie himself to repeat them. As if I were writing to two several Persons, and should prove the Church of England's Charity, by saying in one Letter, that on Good Friday she prays for the Conversion of Jews, Turks, Infidels and Heretics; and in another Letter, by saying, she Prays, that God would convert the Jews, convince the Turks, and make Infidels and Heretics become true Believers: Supposing those I writ to were well acquainted with the Collect for Good Friday; None but such an Arguer as I have to deal with, would gather from thence, That the Church of England had no prescribed Collect for this day and this occasion: And there is the less regard to be given to this Scruple, because there are so many other clear Proofs in S. Augustin, that there were certain Forms in his Time, in the African and in other Churches. He tells us, That all Nations, Grecians, Latins and Barbarians, used that Form, Lord have mercy upon us 
(q) Aug. Pascentio Ep. 178. pag. 164. . Now this we know was the Response in the ancient Litany; And that same Preface before the Trisagion, which we have anciently met with in S. Cyprian, and many others, is often mentioned and expounded in S. Augustin's Works; So often as the Priest saith, Lift up your Hearts; the Spiritual Man can boldly and safely say, We lift them up unto the Lord 
(r) Ei quoties Sacerdos dixerit sursum corda, securè & fidelitèr dicunt se habere ad Dominum. De Temp. ser. 54. pag 153. . In another place, Our Heart (saith he) is in Heaven, and therefore it is not without cause that we hear those Words; Lift up your Hearts 
(s) Id Com. in Psal. 148. pag. 377. . And again, to show it was of universal as well as daily use, he saith, All Mankind throughout the World, do daily as it were with one Voice answer, That they lift up their Hearts unto the Lord 
(t) Quotidiè per universum orbem genus humanum unà penè voce respondet, sursum Corda, se habere ad Dominum. Id. de verâ Relig. c. 3. p. 158. . Moreover he gives us, as clear Testimony of the rest of this Preface, You know (saith he to Dardanus) in what Sacrifice it is said, Let us give Thanks to our Lord God 
(u) Aug ad Dardan. ep. 57 pag. 57 ; and the like he writes to Honoratus 
(w) Id. ad Honorat. ep. 120. pag. 124. : To which the Answer was then, as it is now in our Common-Prayer, It is meet and right so to do. For thus S. Augustin discourses, That which is said in the Sacrament by the Faithful, Lift up your Hearts, And, We lift them up unto the Lord; is intimated to be the Gift of God; and therefore the Priest admonisheth those to whom he had spoken, To give Thanks to our Lord God; and they Answer, It is meet and right 
(x)— ut Gratias agant Domino Deo nostro. Et dignum & justum esse respondent. Aug. de bon. persev. lib. 2. Tom. 7. p. 276. Item Aug de bono videit. cap. 16. . There can be nothing plainer therefore, than that this very Form was used in the very same Words, both in the Eastern and African Churches; and it was also used in the Western Church so exactly in the same Form, that we may justly look upon this as a piece of Primitive Liturgy, which no Church presumed to alter. He also speaks of a Prayer of Consecration, by which the holy Elements were blessed, The Petitions of which were concluded almost in every Church with the Lord's Prayer 
(y) Quam totam petitionom fere omnis Ecclesia, dominica Oratione concludit. Aug. Paulino, ep. 59 pag. 62. ; and he tells us, that the Sacrament was delivered to the Faithful in these Words, The Body, or The Blood of Christ; to which they always answered, Amen 
(z) Aug. de verb. Ap. Ser. 31. pag. 87. & enar. in Psal. 32. pag. 49. ; which very Form had been used in Africa ever since Tertullian's Time, as we shown before; and we have also found it in the Eastern Churches, and at Milan, as well as here. Finally, He mentions a certain Vow in the Postcommunion, wherein the Faithful do promise to remain in Christ; and adds, That the whole Office is concluded with a solemn Thanksgiving 
(a) Aug. Paulin. Ep. 59 pag. 62. , that is, with a known Form in Words prescribed (as Solemn plainly imports). Now this is exactly agreeing to our Liturgy, wherein we have a Prayer with a Vow, to offer up ourselves to Christ, and conclude with that solemn Thanksgiving, Glory be to God on high: And as for the Praises of God, S. Augustin highly commends the Custom of Milan, For the Priest and People to sing Hymns in the Church alternately, which can be no otherwise than by Forms 
(b) Aug. Confess. lib. 10. cap. 33. pag. 41. & ad Januar. Ep. 119. p. 119. . He also approves and defends the Custom of Carthage, in singing Hymns at the Altar, taken out of the Psalms of David 
(c) Id retract. lib. 2. cap. 11. pag. 10. : And particularly he mentions the Usage of Singing the Hallelujah at the Altar every Lordsday 
(d) Id. ad Januar. Ep. 119. pag. 119. & ad Pascentium, Ep. 178. p. 164. : So that Africa, in his Time, had many Forms of Praise; and therefore Possidonius, among other effects of the Persecution, that broke out after his Death, laments this especially, That it made the Hymns and Praises of God in the Church to cease 
(e) P●ss●●●. vit. D. Aug. prope finem. . To conclude, This Holy Father was so great a lover of Forms, that there is yet extant in his Works a very pious Form of Prayer, which he used after his Sermons 
(f) Aug Oper. Tom. 8. p. ult. ; so that where the Church had not prescribed to him, he saw fit there to use a Form: And if we had time to make a narrower search in the Works of this Learned Father, no doubt we might trace out the whole African Liturgy, used in his Time; but those who will be satisfied with Reason and Truth, will be abundantly satisfied by the Instances here produced, That there were Forms both of Prayer and Praise, daily used in that Church.  
§. 22. My Adversary, who pretends to a narrow search into Antiquity, had the ill Fortune to miss most of these obvious Passages; but he hath found out divers that are more obscure, which he urges to prove there were no prescribed Forms. First, he saith, The Ancients did not think Christ enjoined them to use the Lords Prayer in the Eucharistical Office; and that S. Augustin declares, Our Lord in delivering this Prayer, did not teach his Disciples what words they should use, but what things they should pray for 
(g) Disc. of Liturg. p. 3. , As to the first part of this Objection. The Ancients generally expound that Petition of our daily Bread, to be meant of the Sacramental Bread; and most of them testify, They used the Lords Prayer as a Form in this Office. Many of them, and particularly S. Augustin, call it, The Prayer enjoined by Christ's Law 
(h) Aug. hom. 42. & de temp. ser. 126. ; and S. Hierom expressly saith, That Christ taught the Apostles, to appoint it to be said in the Sacrifice of his Body 
(i) Hieron. adv. Pelag. lib. 3. : So that this Assertion of our Adversaries, is a manifest Untruth. And for the second part of the Objection; S. Augustin is speaking of Mental Prayer, (as his own Quotation shows 
(k)— cum in penetralibus mentis orarent. Aug. lib. de Mag. cap. 1. Tom. 1. p. 122. Disc. of Lit. pag. 3. ;) and in that sort of Prayer wherein no Words are to be used, he saith, Christ by the Words of this Form taught them, to whom and for what they should pray in secret: But how impertinent is it in my Adversary, to cite this as S. Augustin's Opinion about the use of this Form in public Offices, and in Vocal Prayer, about which alone we now dispute? There are innumerable places in this Father to assure us, he believed Christ did teach it to be used as a Form in Vocal and Public Prayer: He calls it, The daily Prayer which the Lord taught— by daily saying whereof our daily Sins are blotted out 
(l) Id. de Civ. Dei, lib. 21. cap. 27. p. 232. ; yea, he affirms, The Faithful used to say these Words every day 
(m) Id. Hom. 14. pag. 79. , and repeated them with united Voices among the holy Brethren; and therefore he charges all, both Men and Women, to learn this Form 
(n) Id. de Temp. Serm. 126. pag. 191. ; and tells the Catechumen, They must say this Prayer daily when they are Baptised; because it was daily Repeated at the Altar in the Church, the Faithful hearing it 
(o) Id. Hom. 42. pag. 116. . So that the truth of this Matter is, that S. Augustin plainly declares, Christ taught it as a Form, and so the Primitive Christians used it; and he only intimates, that it is also a direction to draw up other Prayers by, to the same sense in other Words; and they made that use of it also in drawing up Liturgies by that Pattern, and in modelling their private Devotions into Forms, agreeing in sense with this Divine Form, which is the true meaning of that place 
(p) Discourse of Lit. pag. 5, & 6. & pag. 60. ex Aug. ad Prob. Ep, 12. , which he twice citys, viz. that it was lawful to use other Words in Prayer, if it were to the same sense. Secondly, He saith, S. Augustin complains, that some of his Brethren used Heretical Prayers in their Sacramental Administrations; which he supposes could not have been, if they had then any allowed Liturgy: Which Argument, according to his Custom, he urges in two several places 
(q) Disc. of Liturg. p. 46. & p. 113. ex Aug. de bapt. contr. Donat. lib. 6. cap. 25. . I Answer, That he ought not to have brought this in, to prove there were no Forms for the Eucharist (as he here doth: See Discourse of Liturg. pag. 44.) because the Father is only speaking of Prayers made at Baptism, not of Prayers made at the Lords Supper; so that he abuseth his Reader and S. Augustin both, in applying this to the Eucharist.  
But Secondly, These Prayers were no essential parts of the Office of Baptism; there was (as S. Augustin in this place assures us) a certain Form besides, which none might vary from; and these Bishops did use this Form, which made the Baptism to be valid, notwithstanding these additional Prayers newly thrust into the Old Office, which were composed by Heretics, or Babbling Persons 
(r) Certa illa Evangelica verba, sine quibus non potest Baptismus consecrari— Non est Baptismus Christi, si verba Evangelica quibus symbolum constat, illic defuerint. Aug. the bapt. contr. Donat. . But it seems these weak Brethren, (who were also Bishops, and therefore Augustin who was a Bishop, calls them Brethren,) designed to make the Office of Baptism more complete, by adding some Prayers before and after the essential Form of Baptism; and wanting Judgement, chose either silly or Heretical Prayers for the use of their Dioceses; which indeed shown their want of Judgement, but did not make the Baptism Null. This is the true case: From whence I observe First, That no Argument can be drawn from hence, for the inferior Clergies choosing their own Forms, or being at liberty to Pray Extempore; for if they Baptised any, they were obliged to use the Forms, which their own Bishop had chosen. Secondly, Let it be noted, These Additional Prayers were Forms composed by others, as S. Augustin plainly declares; nor doth he censure these wellmeaning Brethren of his, for using Forms, but for using silly or Heretical Forms; which shows that the Church's way of Praying then, (even in occasional Offices, such as Baptism) was by Forms; and had it been otherwise, the putting these Forms to an Extempore Office, had been like setting a piece of New Cloth, into an Old Garment; wherefore we may reasonably suppose, the old Office which contained the Essentials of Baptism, that is, the Lords Prayer, the Renunciation, the ask them the Creed, the Prayer of Consecration and the Hymns, were all certain Forms; but some Weak and Ignorant Bishops, thought this not enough, and would needs add new Composures to their ancient Office; but they had so ill success in this attempt, that I make no doubt, this gave occasion to the African Church at this very time, to Ordain that no more Prayers should be added to any part of the Liturgy, which is the Sense of that Canon of Carthage, as I will presently show. Thirdly, I must remark also, that the Gift of Prayer, must have been ceased in Africa before this time; because had there been such a Gift, the Bishops must have had it; and then neither would the Unskilful or Heretical have composed needless Forms, nor these weak Bishops have wanted any sort of Forms; their very choosing such composures shows, they could not make Prayers Extempore. Though they were Ignorant, yet miraculous Gifts would have enabled these, as well as those of greatest learning, to make Orthodox Prayers on the sudden. And if the Gift of Prayer was ceased, as it was then, and is much more so now, it will follow, they needed Forms, as we also now generally do. Lastly, Let it be considered the Fact was irregular, S. Augustin censures it, and the Church saw the ill Consequences of it; yea, and made a Canon to restrain this mischievous liberty for the Future; therefore this must not be urged for a precedent to us, to leave Ministers at liberty, either to Pray Extempore or choose their own Forms; that were to make Faults and things of ill Consequence, a pattern for our imitation.  
Thirdly, He objects that S. Augustin saith, some Bishops and Ministers called upon God with Solecisms and Barbarisms; and he Tauntingly asks, if these Barbarisms were prescribed 
(s) Disc. of Liturg. p. 51. & again p. 132. ? But he forgets that the holy Father saith there, None ought to deride them for this, when he twice makes himself Merry with this Rare Argument. The notorious Fallacy whereof will be exposed, if we consider that he wilfully mistakes these Solecisms and Barbarisms, for false Grammar and downright Nonsense, that so he might fairly pretend, that no Church could prescribe such Forms. But S. Augustin explains his own meaning and discovers our Author's craft, when he defines, Solecism to be when we do not duly join Words that are rightly put together; and a Barbarism to be the pronouncing a Word, with other letters, or another sound than the Latins used 
(t) Aug. de doctrine. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 1●. Tom. 3. pag. 7. ; and he instances in the People's singing, Floriet for Florebit, in the Latin Psalms. Yea, in the place cited by my Adversary, he describes the Persons Guilty of these Solecisms and Barbarisms, to be such as did not understand the Words they pronounced, or could not rightly distinguish them 
(u) Aug. de Catec. rudibus, cap. 9 Tom. 4. pag. 218. . Now this must refer to reading Prayers out of a Book, which some of the Ignorant Africans, could not do so acurately after the Roman mode, but that (as S. Augustin here observes;) Those who came from the Schools of Grammarians and Orators, derided them for this false and harsh pronunciation of their Latin, calling these mistakes, Solecisms and Barbarisms. But the devout Father excuses these Rustical Pastors, and blames those who censured them, because God minds the inward devotion more than the pronunciation. So that upon the whole case, we may determine, That this instance is so far from proving Extempore Prayers were then used, or that there was not written Liturgy, that it first shows these could not be Extempore Prayers; because such as could not pronounce Latin truly, could certainly not Pray on the sudden in that Language. Secondly, It proves there was a Liturgy written in Latin, so elegant, that though the African Pastors, and People too understood it; yet by reason of their rough and harsh Dialect, they could not Read and pronounce it so exactly, as to please the learned Critics: However, God did accept of these Forms, thus Rustically pronounced, when they were said with true Devotion. So that when our Adversaries designed Sophistry is laid open, this proves an Argument against himself.  
Fourthly, We are told out of S. Augustin, that one of his Presbyters, being desired in his absence, to Pray in a House infested with evil Spirits, Went, and Celebrating the Sacrament there, Prayed with all his Might, that this Vexation might cease, and by God's mercy it ceased presently 
(w) Orans quantum potuit ut Cessaret illa Vexatio, Deo protenus miserante, Cessavit. Aug. the Civ. Dei. lib. 22. cap. 8. . Now from hence, he draws two Inferences in two distant parts of his Book, First, That the Prayer for all Estates of Men, at the Eucharist was not a Form 
(x) Disc. of Liturg. p. 66. . Secondly, That there was no Form of Prayer, for this occasion 
(y) Ibid. p. 121. . And he twice Transcribes the passage at large, supposing (not doubt) it is unanswerable. But if the Reader look into his Quotation, he will easily observe, First, That the Sacrament was over before this Prayer began, and that this was not the Prayer for all Estates of Men, (because neither the House nor the Devil can be ranked under that head;) but it was a Prayer upon that particular occasion; for he Prayed that God would cause that Vexation to cease: I confess he puts a stop after Quantum potuit, which makes it seem as if this Prayer was a part of the Eucharist; but this pointing is false, and his own invention; For S. Augustin's Words show, that the Sacrament was first Celebrated, and then came this Prayer, wherein he desired as earnestly as he could, that this Vexation might cease. So that this passage is impertinently cited to prove, that the Prayer for all Estates of Men in the Eucharist was not a Form. Secondly, If we grant that Quantum potuit, signifies according to his Ability, and intimates that he Prayed Extempore upon this Extraordinary occason; All which can be gathered from hence, is, that they had no Form of Prayer in Africa then, for casting the Devil out of an House: But that is no Argument to show they had no Forms for public Worship, on ordinary occasions, since we have no Form for this extraordinary contigency; but none must Argue from thence That we have no Common Prayer. Yet Thirdly, I see no Reason to grant that Quantum potuit, signifies any more than that this Presbyter Prayed, with as Vigorous a Devotion as he was able, or with all the powers of his Soul; because it is not a long-winded Prayer, nor variety of new invented Phrases that the Devil fears, but an earnest and fervent Prayer: And we could give many Instances where this Phrase is used only to denote doing a thing earnestly and devoutly; one Example shall suffice at present, where the Jews (who always in that Age praised God by Forms) are commanded, when they praise God, to exalt him as much as they can 
(z) Benedicentes Dominum exaltate illum quantum potestis. Ecclesiastic. 43. in sine. ; by which the Son of Syrach did not intent to oblige every ordinary Man to make an Extempore Form of Praise in the highest strains of Rhetoric; but only enjoined them, when they used the Forms of Blessing, to say them with all the joy, gratitude and devotion imaginable: And if we explain the Phrase thus, than this Passage will not suffice to prove so much, as that they had not a Form for dispossessing Houses or Persons infested with Evil Spirits.  
Lastly, He saith, Augustin did not take any offence at the Varieties used in the Sacrament, though they were more than could be known 
(a) Discourse of Liturg. pag 82. ; and for this he citys the Retractations, which mention his Epistles to Januarius, and a Passage out of his Epistle to Jubaianus, intimating, that every Bishop in these Cases might do as he pleased. But all this is manifest Sophistry: For whereas he applies this to the Eucharistical Prayers. S. Augustin is not treating of any Variety in them: Yea, he himself citys S. Augustin in one of these Epistles, affirming, That there were many things in the Sacrament universally observed without any variation, and these were Instituted by the Apostles 
(b) Discourse of ●●turg p. 173 Marg ex Aug. ad ●anuar. Ep. 118. ; that is, the Prefaces, Prayer of Consecration, etc. (as we noted before) these were Forms, and not to be varied from. But the Variety which S. Augustin speaks of, is a Variety in Rites and Ceremonies in the Churches of divers Provinces and Countries; these he Instances in, and affirms there was great Variety in these, and that every Bishop in these Matters, had power to appoint such Rites as he thought to edification; S. Augustin (being only a Bishop, no Primate or Metropolitan) would not impose the Rites used in his own Church upon any: But as to the main parts of this Service, he often observes, all Churches did and ought to agree in them. Wherefore it shows a want of better Arguments, when he is forced to urge the Variety of Rites in divers Provinces, to prove, that they varied the Prayers themselves every day; which false Notion, neither he nor any of his Friends have or can make out. And this may suffice for S. Augustin's Judgement and Practice, both which are clearly on our side.  
§. 23. 
The Third Council of Carthage, An. Dom. 398.  We should here have concluded this Century, but only our Adversary produces some African Canons, and pretends they show there was not prescribed Form at this Time in that Church: First, He citys the 23d Canon of the Third Council at Carthage 
(c) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 44.  in these Words, 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 
(d) Concil. Carthag 3. Can 23. Bin. Tom. 1. par. 1 pag. 575. . This Canon evidently consists of Three parts: The first, to correct the irregularity of naming the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father; and hence my Adversary infers, That those who were guilty of this Fault, did not use prescribed Forms, and supposes the Church left them at liberty for the future, to use what they thought sit, only imposing this on them, Not to name the Father for the Son 
(e) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 45. . I Answer, This first Clause (for any thing appears in the Canon) is meant of private Prayers, and so is nothing to our Question; it was a Fault committed by private Christians, who had the misfortune to Copy out Heretical Forms. But suppose the Council refers to those Ignorant Bishops lately mentioned in S. Augustin, who for the use of their own Dioceses writ out Heretical Forms, not knowing them to be such, wherein those who held Heterodox Opinions about the Trinity, had altered these Names in favour of Sabellianism or Arianism: These were Forms, and no doubt prescribed by these Bishops to their own Clergy; but the Council rejects all these new Forms, and reduceth them to the old Liturgy, which they were sure was Orthodox, and wherein we see the Prayers began with an Address to the Father, and concluded through the Son; so that they order, None shall begin with the Sons Name, or end with the Fathers: However, it cannot well be understood how this Council could prevent such Ignorant persons from making this Mistake, but by obliging them to use the Church's Forms, where they take it for granted, these Names were always right placed: So that in effect this prohibits all new Forms of Prayer, and binds them to the Old ones, wherein such Instances could not be made. And our Adversary supposes this Council to be extreme Silly, in saying they left such Men (as (he grants 
(f) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 46. ) were fit to be confined to prescribed Forms, because they could neither make nor judge of Prayers) to their liberty, to do as they thought fit; this makes the Canon Nonsense, (for how should these Men know when they ought to name the Father, and when the Son) and exposes the whole Council, who could no way prevent this Mistake, but by casting away all such new Forms, and confining all Men to the Old ones; and without supposing such, we cannot make Sense of the Canon; which Supposition is not made at random, because we have abundantly proved out of Tertullian, S. Cyprian, Optatus, and S. Augustin, (who was one of this Council) that there were Forms used of Ancient time in the African Church.  
The second Clause of the Canon refers to the public Prayers, all which (and not only those peculiar to the Eucharist) were then made at the Altar: And these Prayers were then in the public Forms (as they also are now) directed to the Father, which Method none but Heretics can be supposed to alter; and lest any should bring in any Heretical Forms into these Offices, the Council (supposing still the Public Forms were thus made) order all Prayers at the Altar should be directed to the Father; which is as much as to bind them to the old Forms. I need only here observe, the Reason why the public Prayers at the Altar were all to be directed to the Father, which is, because Jesus Christ is there set forth as the Propitiation for our Sins, and our only Advocate; it is by him and his Redemption there represented, that we hope to engage the Father to hear us; By Him therefore, and not To Him, these Prayers must be made. Here we declare we only rely on his Interest and Intercession, and by reason of His Death here represented, the Sacrament hath been ever esteemed the most effectual way of prevailing with God the Father, to whom therefore, here, our Prayers are most properly addressed: And so they were then, as I could prove, if it were needful, by many Passages of the Orthodox Fathers: So that this Clause also supposes, the public Forms were rightly drawn up, and forbids any alteration to be made in them in this Point, wherein some had been culpable by writing out Heretical Forms, and prescribing them ignorantly to their own Dioceses.  
As for the last Clause, our Adversary reads it falsely; the Words are 
(g) Quicunque sibi preces aliunde describit; Vera Lectio Canonis. At ille legit, Quascunque sibi preces aliquis describit. Confer. Bin. ut supr. cum libro isto, pag. 44. , Whoever writes out any Prayers from any other place for himself: But he perverts it thus, What-Prayers-soever any shall Copy out for himself; where note, he leaves out the main Word, Aliunde, From any other place, which plainly refers to a public and prescribed Liturgy; he that writ out any Prayers from thence, need not show them to any; but whoever he were, Bishop or private Man, that writ out Prayers from any other Form, he was not to use them in public, or private, till they had been viewed and judged of by the most able Bishops. Whence we may justly infer, First, That there was a Written Liturgy, throughly Orthodox, out of which if any Man writ out any Forms, he was sure they were right, and need not show them to any, but boldly use them either in public or private. Secondly, That some itched after other Forms then, as now also many do; to restrain which dangerous humour, this Council first obliges those who did this (whatever they were) to show these Forms taken from other places, to the more Judicious; and within a few years another Council allowed no Prayers to be brought in, but such as had been allowed by a Synod. Thirdly, That all this Clause may very well be referred to private Prayers, because it is very probable, that some for their private Devotions collected Forms out of the Liturgy; Others transcribed them from some New Compositions; but the Heretics had been so busy, that the liberty of using these was not to be allowed, till some Judicious Men had viewed and approved them. Lastly, We may observe, That this Clause wholly relates to Written Forms; it supposes the Persons here spoken of, did never pray otherwise than by Written Forms; whether it be explained of public or private Prayers, this is certain, they writ them out of Forms, and after they had Copied them out, used them as such: So that this utterly confutes my Adversary, and shows, That the general use of Africa was to pray by Forms. This very plainly proves, the Gift of Prayer was now ceased there, and manifests their Folly, who pretend in our days, that it is a general Gift. This shows, that none did pretend to Extempore Prayer, but all either writ out Forms from the public Liturgy, or from some other place; wherefore our Adversary had a singular assurance when he produced this Passage against Written Forms. These were certainly Written Forms: And he had best ask, how these African Christians could look up to Heaven, or mind God alone in Prayer, when they were bound to look on their Books, into which these Forms were transcribed; or inquire how their Mysteries could be concealed, being written down? This Matter of Fact baffles all his far fetched Objections; and let him interpret the whole Canon as he please, it will show the use of Written Forms, and manifest the mischief of leaving Men at liberty to choose Forms for themselves, even in his own way of expounding; this shows so many ill Consequences of varying from the stated and established Forms, that following Councils were forced to enjoin them more strictly than ever: And his Friends, Smectymnuus, were so honest to confess, That as the Laodicean Canon Ordained, None should vary, but always use the same Form; so the Carthaginian Canon, further limited the Form 
(h) Smectymn. Answer to Remonstr. pag. 7. : So that in their Opinion, this Canon is an Evidence of the use of limited and prescribed Forms, and a Restraint upon such as would vary from them.  
§. 24. 
Council of Africa, Can 70. co●. temp.  The same also is the Sense of that 70th Canon in the African Collection; the true Reading of which in all the eminent Editors of it is This, Concerning the Prayers which ought to be said at the Altar, it seemeth good, that those Prayers which have been heretofore Confirmed in the Council, whether Prefaces, Commendations, or Impositions of Hands, shall be used by all; and by no means at no time shall any Prayers against the Faith be brought in; but let those Prayers be said which have been Collected by the more Discreet 
(i) Can. A●ric. apud Bin. 103. Tom. 1. par. 1. pag. 780. ita in Justel. Cod. Tom. 1. p 385. in Beveridge dicitur Can. 106. Concil. Carthag. Tom. 1. pag 640. . My Adversary could raise no Arguments from this Canon, till he had falsified the Reading of it 
(k) Discourse of Liturg. p. 48, etc. : And therefore, First, He leaves out the first Words, Concerning the Prayers which ought to be said at the Altar, which though some Copies make the Title of the Canon, yet none but my Adversary wholly omit them; and Dr. Beveridge proves, they are really a part of the Canon itself, as even the next Words (which depend on these) do show, Concerning the Prayers, etc. It also seems good, etc. Secondly, My Adversary translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latin, Preces quae probatae fuerint; The Prayers which shall be allowed in a Council; nay, He argues from his own false Translation, that these could not be a Liturgy established, because they were not yet approved 
(l) Discourse of Liturg. pag. 53. : Whereas every Man may see that both the Greek and Latin Words are of the Preterperfect-Tense, and not the Future; wherefore they refer to the time perfectly passed: And so S. Paul uses this very Greek Word 
(m) Galat. iii. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , For a Covenant or Testament, which had been confirmed and ratified long before: And therefore Balsamon expounds these Words, Prayers which had been confirmed before, and were Customary 
(n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Balls. Annot. Bev. pag 640. ; and an ancient Scholiast saith, that the other Word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) here signifies The whole Liturgy 
(o) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scholar in Codic. Amberbach. Bever. Tom. 2. pag. 208. , which is very Rational, because the Canon treats of Prayers which ought to be said at the Altar, and reckons up the several essential parts of the Liturgy, Prayers (properly so called,) Prefaces, Commendations, and Imposition of Hands. Now then, if all these parts of Liturgy had been heretofore confirmed and ratified in Council, than it undeniably follows, That there were Forms of celebrating the Eucharist in Africa, settled by Ecclesiastical Law before the time of this Council, and my Adversary had no shift to hid it, but by corrupting the Words of the Canon: As he doth again, Thirdly, in translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, May be used by all, whereas we must join (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—) with this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then it will run thus, It seems good to us, or, We order such Prayers shall be performed by all: For if (as he insinuates) Men might use these approved Prayers, or might not use them, than this Council enjoined ●othing, but left all Men at liberty, which is absurd to imagine, where they make a plain Decree, To have these Prayers used by all. Whence we observe, Here are all the Essentials of a Liturgy, which had been confirmed before by a Council, and are now enjoined upon all Ministers, so that they are bound to use them. But, Fourthly, He hath yet another false Translation of the last Words (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which he renders [Which shall be Communicated with the more discreet,] but very fallaciously, the Verb not being of the Future Tense, nor yet signifying, to Communicate a thing with another, but, to gather together; and this very Word in the same Tense in the New Testament, is translated, Were gathered together 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Matth. xiii. ● C●p. xxii. 34. . So that the Council speaks not of new Prayers hereafter to be communicated to the more discreet; but of Prayers which had been collected and gathered already out of ancient Forms (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by learned and discreet Bishops and Pastors: So also in the Canon of Milevis, à prudentioribus Tractatae, is the African Phrase for Prayer Composed 
(q) Ind Homiliae, etc. vocantur Tractatus, hoc est, Compositiones.  by the more Learned and Judicious. My Adversary therefore falsifies the Canon, to impose upon his Reader, That any Man might make New Prayers, or pick them up where he pleased, and use them after he had showed them to the more Discreet: But it is plain, that the former Canon of Carthage hoped to have kept out Impertinent and Heretical Prayers, by obliging such as had writ out any Forms, to show them to the more discreet before they used them; which Remedy not proving effectual, This African Canon makes a strict Order against all manner of Prayers, that had not been Collected out of some elder Forms by Judicious Persons. Having thus discovered his corrupting the Text of this Canon, it will easily appear a good Evidence for the use of Liturgies: For here is an Office consisting of all those Prayers which ought to be used at the Altar; and particularly, Prayers for the Catechumen, Penitents, etc. and then Prefaces about Lifting up the Heart, etc. among the Faithful: Intercession for all Estates of Men, which is here called Commendations; and the Prayer of Consecration when the Bishop laid his Hands on the Bread and Wine, and blessed them; which (I think) is here meant by Imposition of Hands. These primitive and essential Parts were long before written down, or else how could they have been read or approved in a former Council? And these ancient and approved Forms are now again enjoined to all that Officiate at the Altar. The rest of the Canon seems to respect those Forms which were used in other Assemblies, and not at the Eucharist, that is, at the several Hours of Prayer, in the Morning early, in the Afternoon, and late at Night. And as to these, the Council orders, that no Person at no time do bring in any Forms contrary to the Faith; to prevent which unavoidable Consequence of Extempore Prayers, and leaving Men at liberty to collect their own Forms, this Council decrees, That those Prayers only shall be said in the Church (I suppose at the Hours of Prayer) which had formerly been collected out of ancient Forms, by such as could judge whether they were Orthodox, and fit for Public use. And the Canon of Milevis, rightly Translated (being a Confirmation of this Canon in the beginning of the next Century) justifies this clear and plain Exposition: The Words are these; It also seems good, that the Prayers, Supplications and Masses, which have been approved in Council, whether Prefaces, Commendations, or Impositions of Hands, shall be celebrated by all; and that no other Prayers shall be said in the Church, but such as have been Composed by the Judicious, or Approved in the Council, lest by this means, through Ignorance or Negligence, any thing be Composed contrary to the Faith 
(r) Concil. Milev. An. 416. Can. 1●. Bin. Tom. 1. par. 1. pag. 705. : Where we see the Parts of Liturgy are reckoned up more particularly; Prayers, that is, Collects; Supplications, that is, Litanies; or Masses, that is, the Eucharistical Office, consisting of Prefaces, Commendations, and Impositions of Hands: The Forms of every one of these, having been formerly approved by a Council, are now enjoined to all, who are ordered to use these and not others. And for all other Prayers in the Church, they were to be such as either had been approved in a Council, or at least were Composed by Judicious and Orthodox Persons: So that the Main Liturgy was formerly established, and is now enjoined again, and care also taken, that none should pray at any other time in Public, but by Forms, and by such Forms as had passed the Test of a Synod, or had been formerly collected by the Judicious. And the Reason given will ever hold good against Extempore Prayers, or private men's arbitrary Composures, which is, that this may easily bring Heresy into the Church: Therefore Smectymnuus freely grant, That the Milevitan Canon would have no other Forms used, but those that were approved in the Synod 
(s) Senectymnuns Answ. to Remonstr. pag ●. . But my Adversary is not so ingenuous; yet his Objections are so manifestly Mistakes, that to Repeat them, is enough to Answer them 
(t) Discourse of Litu g. pag. 49, etc. : First, he saith, The African Canon left them at liberty to use any Prayers that were allowed by some Prudent Brethren, or Synod; and (he adds) they desire no more liberty than this. I Answer, The Canon enjoins the Eucharistical Forms, as having been established before; and allows no Prayers, but Forms in any other Office; and there is nothing in the true Reading, concerning the allowance of prudent Men, that is his own Corruption. And if his Brothers are content to use Forms, composed by prudent Men in former time, and approved by a Synod; the Common-Prayer is such a Form, and therefore they must conform to it. Secondly, He saith, No Prayers are forbid, but such as are against the Faith 
(u) Disc. of Liturg. pag. 50. . I answer, all Prayers but those which had been approved formerly in a Council, are forbid in the Eucharist, which was then daily Administered; and so this was the only Solemn Office of Prayers. And even at other times, to prevent Heretical Prayers, they forbidden all new Forms from being brought into the Church; Therefore if any than had pretended to the Gift of Prayer, and had made new Forms for the Eucharist, or the hours of Prayer, though they were not against the Faith, yet these Canons forbidden them. Thirdly, He fills his Margin, to show in how many Offices, imposition of hands were used 
(w) Disc. of Liturg. p. 51. ; and then pretends that his feigned liberty was allowed in the Prayers, used in all these several Offices. I answer, The imposition of Hands in this Canon, must signify some part of the Eucharistical Office; something done at the Altar in the Administration; and it is expressly ordered, that no Prayers shall be used in this laying on of Hands, (which I take to be the consecrating the Elements) but such as had before been confirmed by a Synod. Wherefore in this point, there was no liberty at all left, but every one was confined to the old established Form. Fourthly, He raises divers other scruples, but they all rely upon his own false Translating of the Canon 
(x) Disc. of Liturg. p. 53. 54 , and may be here passed by, because they are answered before. Lastly, He represents Chemnitius, as falsely as he had done the Council, saying, that he citys these two Canons to prove, the Order of Celebrating among the Ancients was Arbitrary 
(y) Disc. of Liturg. p. 55. . I answer, Chemnitius is confuting the Roman Churches imposing her Canon of the Mass, upon all Churches, under pretence that no Consecration can be without it. And he shows that in the ancient Church, there was not one certain Form of Words, which all the Churches in the World were bound to use, under the peril of mortal Sin, it being free for them to use any Form that agreed to the Faith; which he proves by these two Canons, and by this Argument, because the Greeks had one Form in Dionysius his Church, another in Basils', and another in Chrysostoms'. In the West also S. Ambrose used one Form, Isidore another, and Gregory another, who yet would not impose the Roman Form upon England; from whence he concludes, that the Papists now, are unjust in imposing their Mass on all Churches, and also in blaming the Lutherans, who use Forms agreeing to the Ancients and the Analogy of Faith, and tending to edification 
(z) Chemnitij exam. Concil. Trident. par. 2. pag. 191. . Therefore if this Author be a good Evidence, he owns Liturgies in the Primitive Church, and justifies the use of them in the Reformed Churches; he condemns nothing but imposing one Liturgy upon all the Churches in the World; to conceal which my Adversary in citing Chemenitius, draws a line— where these Words come in.— To which all Churches in the World were bound under the peril of mortal Sin: Which words show Chemnitius disliked mainly the binding all Churches, to use one Churches Form. But as to these two Canons Bellarmine justly reproves Chemnitius for applying those parts of them which forbidden such Prayers as are against the Faith, to the Eucharistical Prayers; because they belong (as we have showed) to Prayers used in the Church at other times 
(a) Bellarm. de Missâ lib. 2. cap. 18. . And I dare say Chemnitius did not think, That the public Prayers were Arbitrary in the Primitive Church, in my Adversaries Sense; that is, that private Ministers were allowed to Pray Extempore, or to make Forms of their own; nor did he think, it would be allowed to the inferior Clergy, to use (suppose) Dionysius his Form in S. Basils' Church; it is plain from his Argument, and the Lutheran Churches practice, that the Clergy of every Province were bound to use the Forms, prescribed by that Church whereof they were Members. And this is the obligation, which our Church puts upon all her Clergy, which our Dissenters most unjustly complain of; since we see it hath been always done by all the Regular, and well settled national Churches in the World.  
I have now done with this eminent Century, and proved, That as Christianity was first settled and established by Law in this Age, so were Liturgies also: So that we shall conclude this Period with our Adversaries Character of this Time, Many there were (saith he) excellently accomplished in the Fourth Age, and some till about the middle of the Fifth; it may therefore seem something for the Credit of Liturgies, if they can be found in the Church, while there was any thing of such Eminency in it 
(b) Disc. of Liturg. p. 55. . Wherefore having made it appear, that Liturgies were used even in the Three first Ages, which he pretends so much to admire; and being settled by Law and custom so firmly in this Age, which abounded with more and more learned Fathers than all the Ages before it, we may conclude, That to Pray by a prescribed Liturgy, is to pray according to the usage of the best Times of the Church, and to pray agreeably to the Opinion, and practice of the most Learned Pious and Eminent Fathers; whose judgement if our Adversaries had any Reverence for, they would certainly comply with so pure and Primitive a Liturgy, as that which is prescribed by the Reformed Church of England, the undoubtted Bulwark of the True Protestant Religion.   
The End of the Fourth Century.   

BOOKS newly Printed for, and Published by Robert Clavell, at the Peacock at the West-end of S. Paul's.  
ROman Forgeries in the Councils during the first Four Centuries: Together with an Appendix concerning the Forgeries and Errors in the Annals of Baronius. By Thomas Comber, D.D. Precentor of York.  
Concio ad Synodum ab Episcopis & Clero Provinciae Cantuariensis celebratam; Habita in Aede Westmonasteriensi XII. Kal. Decembr. An. Dom. 1689. Per Guilielmum Beveregium, Archidiaconum Colcestriensem. Jussu Episcoporum.  
A Sermon Preached to the Protestants of Ireland in and about the City of London, at S. Marry le Bow in Cheapside, Octob. 23. 1689. being the Day appointed by Act of Parliament in Ireland for an Anniversary Thanksgiving for the Deliverance of the Protestants of that Kingdom from the Bloody Massacre and Rebellion, begun by the Irish Papists on the 23d of October 1641. By his Grace the Archbishop of Tuam.  
A Sermon Preached before Their Majesties at Whitehall on the 5th Day of November, 1689. being the Anniversary Day of Thanksgiving for the great Deliverance from the Gunpowder-Treason, and also the Day of His Majesty's happy Landing in England. By the Bishop of S. Asaph, Lord Almoner to their Majesties.  
Seasonable Reflections on a late Pamphlet, Entitled, A History of Perfect Obedience since the Reformation; wherein the true Notion of Passive Obedience is settled and secured from the malicious Interpretations of Ill designing Men.  
FINIS.