A discourse concerning liturgies

sense, while there is in words a great diversity. The variety of expressions, used by the Ancients (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. which you may see in Grotius upon Matth. 28. 19.) in giving an account of it's several Articles, make this manifest, they were not so strict and severe in any thing, as in the Rule of Faith. In other matters, tho' Ecclesiastical, they allowed more variableness and greater Latitude. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, says Tertullian, de Virgin. veland. and yet in these, were satisfied with such an Uniformity as consisted only in Sense, not in Words. To one Form of words in this nicest point, and where varying was ⟨p. 101⟩most hazardous; they neither ^dlimited others, nor would be confined by others, no nor by themselves: We have seen this before in Justin Martyr, (Tertullian) and Ir•naeus (with others in Grotius) is also a very pregnant instance of it. ^eHe gives several accounts of the rule of Faith, de Veland. Virg. which neither agree with what is given by others, in mode of expression, neither with one another; there being no coincidence in any one phrase observable through the whole. And is it probable, that ⟨p. 102⟩they who left themselves and others so much liberty about formulas of Creeds, would deprive others of it, or be bereaved of it themselves, in Forms of Prayer (in Baptism, or elsewhere) where there is much more reason for more liberty? How incredible ⟨p. 103⟩is it, That their Prayers were limited to a set of Words, when the regula fidei, which more required it, had no such confinement? Sure, if they had judged any such limits requisite in any thing of this nature, they would have given them to that rule of Faith. No Prayers, Supplications, Lauds, Litanies, &c. could in their judgment require such strict, and precise, and unalterable bounds, as that which they counted and styled immobilem & irreformabilem.