Only I must not forget, that some make an offer at the Liturgies, which go under the names of Basil and Chrysostom; as tho' these would help their cause. But they do this but faintly, as knowing them to be, by Protestants, generally branded for counterfeits; and that for many reasons, such ⟨p. 163⟩as their opposites count very cogent, in like case: Such being the order and matter of them, such rites there used, such persons there mentioned, many words, many things therein, that they cannot but ridiculously be ascribed to those great Persons, or to any, in, or near their times. Our English Prelates formerly had no more favour for them; take a taste thereof in Bishop White's censure of them: The Liturgies, saith he, Fathered upon St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, have a known Mother (to wit, the late Roman Church;) but there is (besides many other just exceptions) so great dissimilitude between the supposed Fathers and the Children, that they rather argue the dishonest dealing of their Mother, than serve as lawful witnesses, of that which the Adversary intendeth to prove by them. Against Fisher p. 377. Indeed the Romanists are the great sticklers, for the Legitimation of these Missals, seeing them full of those sores, which they count the beauty of their Church. They are made use of, to countenance the worship of Images and Altars, the Intercession and Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, &c. And yet none of them have the confidence to affirm, that as we have them now, they were the issue of those, on whom they are Fathered. Only some, very loth quite to lose the advantages they would make of them, are willing to suppose, that tho' they have suffered very great changes, by additions, interpolations, inversions, substractions, &c. yet something may yet remain therein of Basil's and Chrysostom's. But they give no reason, why they suppose this, when it is necessary they should do it, ⟨p. 164⟩in this case, if any; since there are the same grounds, for the entire rejection of these Liturgies, which they count (and many more than they count) sufficient for the total rejecting of some others. If such groundless surmises may be admitted, no Brat, tho' evidently spurious, but will procure a Legitimation, in part at least, if any can expect thereby to serve a turn;
Only I must not forget, that some make an offer at the Liturgies, which go under the names of Basil and Chrysostom; as tho' these would help their cause. But they do this but faintly, as knowing them to be, by Protestants, generally branded for counterfeits; and that for many reasons, such ⟨p. 163⟩as their opposites count very cogent, in like case: Such being the order and matter of them, such rites there used, such persons there mentioned, many words, many things therein, that they cannot but ridiculously be ascribed to those great Persons, or to any, in, or near their times. Our English Prelates formerly had no more favour for them; take a taste thereof in Bishop White's censure of them: The Liturgies, saith he, Fathered upon St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, have a known Mother (to wit, the late Roman Church;) but there is (besides many other just exceptions) so great dissimilitude between the supposed Fathers and the Children, that they rather argue the dishonest dealing of their Mother, than serve as lawful witnesses, of that which the Adversary intendeth to prove by them. Against Fisher p. 377. Indeed the Romanists are the great sticklers, for the Legitimation of these Missals, seeing them full of those sores, which they count the beauty of their Church. They are made use of, to countenance the worship of Images and Altars, the Intercession and Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, &c. And yet none of them have the confidence to affirm, that as we have them now, they were the issue of those, on whom they are Fathered. Only some, very loth quite to lose the advantages they would make of them, are willing to supppose, that tho' they have suffered very great changes, by additions, interpolations, inversions, substractions, &c. yet something may yet remain therein of Basil's and Chrysostom's. But they give no reason, why they suppose this, when it is necessary they should do it, ⟨p. 164⟩in this case, if any; since there are the same grounds, for the intire rejection of these Liturgies, which they count (and many more than they count) sufficient for the total rejecting of some others. If such groundless surmizes may be admitted, no Brat, tho' evidently spurious, but will procure a Legitimation, in part at least, if any can expect thereby to serve a turn;
