A discourse concerning liturgies

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

1. aThe Dialogues betwixt Peter and Appion were rejected for less than this, [Greek or Hebrew], Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 38. Yea the Epistle of James was in danger, not because it was never mentioned (it would never have been received by any under such silence) but because it was not so frequently mentioned, [Greek or Hebrew], altho' it was received and approved [Greek or Hebrew], Euseb. l. 2. c. 22. Graec. [Greek or Hebrew]. The 2. Epistle of Clemens was not approved as genuine, [Greek or Hebrew], because the Ancients were not known to use it, id. ibid. So Augustin rejects the writings, under the name of Andrew and John, because they were not admitted by the Church, contra advers. Leg. l. 1. c. 70. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 79. Nam ut Latini ipsi & Graeci Pontifices, multa deinceps in suis Liturgiis, quas jam inde ab Apostolis acceperant, pro re nata, vel immutarunt, vel addiderunt: ita etiam ab Alexandrinis & Aegyptiis, par est credere, pro temporum opportunitate factitatum, Victorius Scialach. praefat. to his version of 3 Arabic Liturgies. Illud accedit (quod etiam apud Latinos factum esse constat) ut in sacratissima Missa (viz. Jacobi) aliis superadditis precibus, aliis autem breviori summa contractis, ritibusque nonnihil auctis aut immutatis, vel tamen substantia integra permanent paulo diversior ab illa pristina habeatur, Baronius in Spond. ad an. 63. n. 5. Extat etiam Liturgia eidem S. Jacobo attributa, quae tamen à posterioribus ita lecupletata est, ut non sit facile dijudicium, quae pars ejus Liturgiae S. Jacobum habeat Authorem, Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. p. 33. And H. T. compares the pretended primitive Liturgies, to Theseus Ship, which had been so changed, as no man could tell what part of it remained, Serv. of C. at relig. Assemb. p. 250. Of Theseus Ship, Plutarch. in Grot. 211.The Dialogues betwixt Peter and Appion were rejected for less than this, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, Euseb. Hist. l. 3. c. 38. Yea the Epistle of James was in danger, not because it was never mentioned (it would never have been received by any under such silence) but because it was not so frequently mentioned, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, altho' it was received and approved , Euseb. l. 2. c. 22. Graec. . The 2. Epistle of Clemens was not approved as genuine, , because the Antients were not known to use it, id. ibid. So Augustin rejects the writings, under the name of Andrew and John, because they were not admitted by the Church, contra advers. Leg. l. 1. c. 70. contra Faust. l. 20. c. 79. Nam ut Latini ipsi & Graeci Pontifices, multa deinceps in suis Liturgiis, quas jam inde ab Apostolis acceperant, pro re nata, vel immutarunt, vel addiderunt: ita etiam ab Alexandrinis & Aegyptiis, par est credere, pro temporum opportunitate factitatum, Victorius Scialach. praefat. to his version of 3 Arabick Liturgies. Illud accedit (quod etiam apud Latinos factum esse constat) ut in sacratissima Missa (viz. Jacobi) aliis superadditis precibus, aliis autem breviori summa contractis, ritibusque nonnihil auctis aut immutatis, vel tamen substantia integra permanente paulo diversior ab illa pristina habeatur, Baronius in Spond. ad an. 63. n. 5. Extat etiam Liturgia eidem S. Jacobo attributa, quae tamen à posterioribus ita lecupletata est, ut non sit facile dijudicium, quae pars ejus Liturgiae S. Jacobum habeat Authorem, Bellarm. de Script. Eccles. p. 33. And H. T. compares the pretended primitive Liturgies, to Theseus Ship, which had been so changed, as no man could tell what part of it remained, Serv. of C. at relig. Assemb. p. 250. Of Theseus Ship, Plutarch. in Grot. 211.