use of this version is not expressly enjoyned us in our constant Parochial worship I know the Kalendar prescribes what particular Psalms shall be read in their daily order and what special Psalms on special dayes and solemnities but I know no Rubrick or Canon that appointeth them to be read in that Translation though it be there retained and printed with the Book as it was then in use when the Book was first compiled And I doubt not therefore but that we obey the Law when we read these Psalms though in the New translation And I know some who in the former dayes did so read them but I am yet to learn that any one was ever questioned for so doing even then when the dayes are said to be days of the greatest persecutions against the Non-Conformists 2. Sect. 9 Suppose we be enjoyned to use this this is all that we read the Psalms according to that version but this is not to judge this the best nor to justifie any errors if such be in the Translation the New Version may have its errors but the use of this is not to maintain those errors 3. Sect. 10 Neither is the translation so faulty as to be guilty of any material error Allow it to be the work of men and we cannot well suppose but there be some faults and escapes in it for what translation hath not such The New Translation is deservedly judged by men well skilled in the Original languages the best extant yet is not this perfect For who is there almost that hath either commented or paraphrased upon the whole or explained or preached on some several positions but he hath attempted to amend it and given quite another sence then the words of the present Translation seem to mean and yet accounted blameless for so doing and in many of these there is in their judgments as great a contrariety to the Hebrew Text as any in the Old Translation to the New So that here also there may be a difference from the new translation and yet not from the Original Hebrew Yea in the Hebrew it self we find as vast a difference between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the reading and writing observed by the Masorites whose work it was to distinguish the Canonical Scripture from the Apocryphal to purge the Authentick Canon from all corruption crept in during the captivity and that they might prevent such for the future to number the Verses Words yea and Letters of every Book and also to note the different writing and reading And there we find as great differences as any observed in these Versions Yet notwithstanding this these Holy men who were so exact and careful and zealous for the purity of the sacred Oracles did not judge it expedient to deny or cast out the received writing but kept that which they found in the Text and onely noted the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or reading in the Margin which is evident to any that hath though but cursorily read the Hebrew Bible 4. Sect. 11 For further satisfaction I shall not think it lost labour to transcribe the words of a (g) Huttons Answer to Reasons for refusal of subscription to the Common prayer cap. 1. 2. learned man because they do fully take off the Objection and the Book is not in every hand nor easie to be had who when these very Pleas were made by some Ministers of Devon about or soon after the Conference at Hampton Court for their refusal of Subscription as the (h) Can. 36. Canon required thus answers these contrarieties mentioned in those two places of the Psalms 1. As to the one the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The difference in reading in the old Version They were not obedient in the New Psal 105.28 examined but then not extant they rebelled not against his word these seem directly contrary To satisfie this he doth first premise this general consideration that in a place challenged to be contrary to Gods Word we must know 1. What contrariety is and what diversity 2. Whence the diversity as 1. By variety of Copies 2. Ambiguity of words 3. Propriety of speech sentence and phrase must be observed 4. Pointing with distinctions 5. A tuning and accent 6. Circumstances of the place 7. The Analogy and proportion of Faith Having thus premised he applies these to the particular thus 1. As to this place men might know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not is in Hebrew taken sometimes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to him as many times the Masoreths note it I suppose he meaneth writing of one in the Text and noting the other in the the Margin as indeed it is frequent and in many places the Marginal reading seems to be the more genuine as particularly that in Psal 100.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to him we i. e. His we are even because he made us which I conceive to be the genuine meaning of this place parallel to that (i) Ps 95. The sea is his for he made it and if we allow it may be so taken this he conceiveth if well thought upon would be enough to cool the heats and invectives of men against the Translation of this word 2. In this seeming contrariety about this not obedient and not disobedient we may find at the first view the like in (k) Iob 13.15 See this Text canvased by Mr. Gataker in his Cyn. et Miscel Advers l. 3. c. 18. p. 187 188. Job 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Behold he will kill me I will not trust Or will I not trust in him The Geneva omitteth this word not ◠Lo though he slay me yet will I trust these I will and I will not may be thought to thwart one another comparing the Original and the Translations But a seeming contrariety it is and no other for set a fit accent upon the words and give them the point of an Interrogative and there is no odds Will he kill me and will I not trust in him the same in effect as Though he kill me yet I will trust in him The like course doth Junius take to succour the Chaldee Paraph. against Bellarmine as in Cains speech l Gen. 4.23 Bellarm. de verbo Dei l. 2. c. 3. I have killed a man The Chaldee to be read by way of interrogation m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Iun. Have I not killed a man So where Bellarmine carps at the Septuag for that they read [n] Gen. 26. Bellarm. ib. c. 6. we have found water the Greek is Have we not found so far off must we be from over busie and hasty prejudicing a translation though it give in affirmative terms when the Hebrew may seem to deny 3. There is not more difference in these Not Obedient and Not Disobedient then in that to the Jews [o] Joh. 5.35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
but the Holy Scriptures that is as such as Canonical or under the name of Holy Scripture as is to be seen in that Council of Carthage where they allow the reading of others in their proper place and for their proper end and this farther appeares by that of the Council of Hippo which abridging that 3 d of Carthage gives us this account of it (x) Scripturae Canonicae l â—gendae quae sunt praeter quas aliae non legantur Conc. Hippon Can. 36. These are the Holy Scriptures to be read in the Church and besides these let no other be read i. e. no other for such or for Holy Scripture It is the unquestionable prerogative of the Sacred Scriptures to be the prime and supreme rule of Faith and Manners and nothing is to be read as such viz. as the undoubted or immediate rule of either but the Scriptures alone and therefore by those ancient Fathers and Councils they were accounted onely Canonical and none else admitted for Trial of Truth or proof of Doctrine But yet all Apochrypha were not accounted either prophane or impious but there were some called (y) Ecclesiastici à majoribus appellati quia in ecclesia recepti c. Jo. Drus de quaest per epist 107. Ecclesiastical because received and read in the Church among other godly books though not as a rule of Faith yet as instruction in manners hence those books were of old called in a sort Canonical or Deutero-Canonici not equal to the Scriptures but went after them in a secondary place and preferred before others In this sense I take that of St. Austin speaking of the times after Haggai Zechary and Malachy (z) Aug. de civ â—â— Dei lib. 18. c. 36. Quorum supputatio Temporum The supputation of which times saith he is not found in holy Scripture called Canonical but in others which though the Jewes do not yet our Church doth reckon for Canonical i. e. in a secondary place such for in another place he speaks otherwise of them [a] In Apocryphis eist invenitur aliqua veritas tamen propter multa falsa est Canonica authoritas August de civit Dei lib. 15. Cap. 23. In the Apocrypha though there be found some truth yet because of the many falshoods there is no Canonical authority i.e. properly such But by these testimonies it is clear that they were read in the Church though not as the undoubted rule of faith yet as instructions builded thereupon Sect. 18 And that they might be so read we have the concurring judgements of others also of later dayes even in the Reformed Churches yea of some Non-conformists [b] See Balls Trial of Separ Ch. 7. Answ to Object 6. here also He that pleaseth may see c) See Hutton Answ to Reasons chap. 10. gathered to his hand the judgments of (d) Zanth de Relig. c. 1. artâ—â— 4 et 5. Zanchy (e) Hiper lib. 1. Meâ—h Theol. Hiperius (f) Pellic. praefat in Apochryph et praefat in Judith Pellican one highly esteemed by Bucer Zuinglius and Melancthon and the learned in those days and g) Kimedonc de Script verb Dei l. 6. c 90. Kimedoncius a Professor of Divinity at Hidelburgh who have judged these books to have been received next to the Scriptures with great reverence profitably rehearsed fruitful and profitable to the edifieation of the people not Canons of faith but instructions for manners 2. Neither hath our Church received or prescribed them in any other notion a mark of distinction is set upon them they being called no other than Apocrypha and therefore cannot rationally be judged to be prescribed as Canonical especially when the expresse words of our (h) Artic. 6. of the Church of England Articles are The other books as St. Hierom saith the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners but doth not apply them to establish any doctrine and these are the third of Esdras and the rest that follow Sect. 19 3. Nor can our reading of them though in that time and place be with reason judged to put an higher authority upon them than the Church hath done which prescribeth them Yea though they are read for instruction and example it followeth not that we are taught to practice every thing or imitate every particular in any example there or to esteem every action good any more than we are to practice or imitate every thing that we read done in the Scriptures The reading of (i) Gen. 9.21 Noahs being drunk (k) Gen. 19.33 35 36. Lots incest (l) Gen. 42.15 Joseph swearing by the life of Pharaoh (m) 2 Sam. 11 4-18 12.9 Davids adultery and murder (n) 1 King 11.5 Solomons idolatry (o) Num. 12.1 Aaron and Miriams sedition (p) Act. 15.39 Paul and Barnabas's angry parting (q) Matth. 26.70 Peters denial and (r) Gal. 2.11 Sect. 20. dissimulation c. is neither an allowance of these infirmities nor a ground to practice the like There are other uses of examples than imitation they are in cautelam as well as in sequelam for caution as well as instruction Nor can there be any more allowance of all the actions lies or fumigations in Tobit or Judith by reading them than there is of those other So that yet here is nothing to conclude it sinful to read these books according to the order prescribed The highest that can be imagined is which yet I dare not determine or may be want of Prudence in requiring them but no shadow of unlawfulnesse in obeying the prescription which is Sect. 21. Except 4. The Absolution Answered but to read these Books not to justifie every thing in them Sect. 22 4. For that other exception taken to that Form of Absolution in the visitation of the sick in these words I absolve thee This I conceive is of very little weight to be stood upon For 1. That such authority is given to the Ministers is and must be granted by all that acknowledge them to have any interest in the power of the Keyes and clearly given to them by Christ in that (s) Joh. 20.23 Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted From whence if any where we must fetch the ground of our Commission and Ministery and is so expressely signified by the order of our Church in her (t) Form of Order Briests Sect. 23. Ordinations 2. Nor do we without warrant agreeably to our Commission John 20. say By this authority committed to me I absolve thee When it is clear we do not that which is proper to God alone (u) Mar. 2.7 10. and to Jesus Christ as God actually to grant a pardon nor pretend to a power to free from any penalty due from God to sin nor as Judges give the sentence but only as Ministers under Christ and authorized by him declare that sentence and this not absolutely but expressely upon condition of sincere repentance
reason to prove that the authority of this Septuag is more authentick then the Hodierne Hebrew Copies this will sufficiently justifie the practice of our Church there where they follow that Translation though not agreeable to the Hebrew now extant And this as it abetteth the Cainan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) Luk. 3.36 in S. Luke making the computation of the time à mundo condito more then the present Hebrew reckons so it excellently clears that particular Translation of the 14th Psalm (e) Psal 14. v. 5 6 7. Whence inserted into the old Translation where three whole verses are inserted which are not in the Hebrew there though in other places they are viz. Their throâ—t is an open sepulchre with their tongues have they used deceit the poison of Asps is under their lips Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness their feet are swift to shed blood Destruction and unhappiness are in their wayes and the way of peace have they not known there is no fear of God before their eyes which are all in the Greek and thence taken out and so written by S. Paul f Rom. 3.13 19. himself who must not be charged either in this or any other to follow a corrupt Version against the Holy Text Sed haec obiter Only here let me mind the Reader how many considerations might induce the minds of peaceable men to studie rather how to salve then impair the credit of the Church and not to contend about such things as these Sect. 13 6. To close this Chapter I shall add the judgment and acknowledgment of one whom we all know to be no friend to our Liturgie g Baxt. five Disputat Disp 5. cap. 2. Sect. 12. p. 402. When there are saith he divers Translations of the Scripture in the same language as in England here are the Old Version the New England Version Mr. Rous his first and second Mr. Whites Bishop Kings Sand 's Mr. Bartons c. God hath not told us which of all these we shall use but given general directions according to which our own reason or our Governours should make choice Now our Governors have made choice of this Version to be used in this place and have so prescribed it to us Which by this confession they may do and if they may do so we may yea we ought to obey and use it according to their prescriptions Thus have we considered this Old Translation of the Psalmes which now doth I hope clearly appear not to be so corrupt as by some is pretended and whatsoever it be there is nothing in it of such a nature as for the sake thereof to make the Liturgy unlawful to be used where this Translation is retained I proceed now to consider the other exceptions that follow 3. Another Exception is Except 3. Apocrypha Sect. 14. That this Liturgy prescribeth Apochryphal books and chapters to be read for Lessons which yet are as to Doctrines to be believed and duties to be praâ—ised of dubious and uncertain credit This hath been of old one constant exception and many particulars cited out of the chapters thence to be read which carry a repugnancy to the Authentick Canon At the least These being read as Lessons the peace appointed for reading the Scriptures this seems to give them the authority of Scripture which ought not to be done For answer 1. Answ This to me I confesse is the most material exception Sect. 15 as to this part the Matter of the Liturgy and I shall freely acknowledge 1. That in that little reading which I have in Ecclesiastical History and the practice of the Ancient Church I am not able to give an account when these books first began to be read In the highest records we find the Reading of the Prophets Gospels and Apostles yea I find the reading of the lives of Martyrs as high as the 3 d. Councel of Carthage and there is some ground to think that as they so these Apocrypha were then read for instruction as other Homilies and Exhortations and might by degrees come into the place of Lessons but in this I am not peremptory And I must also confesse 2. That I am not able shall be willing to acknowledge it my weaknesse to reconcile many passages in these books with the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture and the sacred History that as yet I find not any thing to convince me of the reality of the story of Judith nor how to reconcile her [h] Judeth 9.2 commendation of the [i] Gen. 34. Fact of Simeon with the [k] Gen. 49.5 Condemnation of it by the Holy Ghost nor know how to justifie her prayer to God [l] Iudeth 9.10 to prosper her in her lies nor can â— see how Baruch wrote his book in (m) Bar. 1.1 Babylon and yet in the (n) Ier. 43.6 Holy Story was with Jeremy at Jerusalem and went not from him nor do I well understand his (o) Bar. 1.8 10. offerings and Vessels when the Temple was before that time burnt nor know I how to bring the account of his (p) Bar. 6.3 seven generations to Jeremies (q) Ie. 29.10 70 years of captivity Not to mention in Tobit the Angels lie the unchaste Devil Asmodeus the 7 Angels presenting the prayers of the Saints the Magical businesses of the Fishes heart liver and gall to drive away Devils and restore sight to all which I know what answers have been offered which yet have not satisfied me And 3. therefore I confesse it my hearty wish that they may not and my hope that these things being under the eye of the Right Reverend Bishops and Clergy in the present Convocation at least these Chapters will not be prescribed for Lessons 2. Sect. 16 But though I judge thus for alas what am I the meanest of the thousands of Israel possibly they may see reasons to retain them still I am sure I am not to prescribe to them and they may see reason not to admit this alteration I am now onely to enquire whether we may submit in this Is the reading of these of such a nature as to involve us in sin if we do it or is the requiring of these such a crime as to make the use of the Liturgy unlawful for the sake of these I think not and that when commanded we may lawfully obey in this I judge for these reasons Sect. 17 1. Though I find not when they were first brought in yet I find them read very early in the Church In Eusebius (r) Euseb Hist l. 4. c. 13. we read that not onely the Apocrypha but Clements Epistles were read as by the Councel of Carthage (s) Conc. Carth. 3. Can. 47. the lives of Martyrs yea Eusebins (t) Euseb l. 6. c. 18. citing the Testimony of Origen to it who was yet earlier The Ancient Councels indeed ordered nothing to be read in the Church (u) Conc. Laod. Can. 15.16 59.
are in the Romish Ritual it being neither consonant to Religion Reason or Policy to overthrow all that was before them but only to Reform that which was amiss among them Reformation is not a total Eradication or destruction of all that thing which is to be reformed but a Separation of the Evil from the Good of Errour from the Truth of corruptions and abuses from the good proper and holy use of a thing Our wise Reformers therefore did their work as became Christian Confessors and Martyrs when they rejected the Dross and kept the Gold when they cast out that which was evil and retained still that which was good So that something is yet preserved in our Liturgy which is in their Ritual upon very good reason And yet 2. Sect. 4 This is not enough to prove this Book wholly or only taken out of that For let any man but compare them and they shall see so much difference both in Matter and Form as that they cannot rationally conclude the one to be the only foundation of the other or this to be wholly taken thence For Had not those holy and learned Reverend men who were the Compilers of this Liturgy the Scriptures the holy Word of God before them Without doubt they had And are not all those Chapters of the Old and New Testament all those Psalms and Scriptural Hymns all the Epistles and Gospels taken out of those holy Scriptures Or can we with any shadow of reason say They are taken out of the Mass-book because happily some of them may be there as well as in ours when it is evident that these at least are not taken thence but from an higher and purer fountain The Word of God Again Had not those holy Compilers many other Liturgies also before them to consider besides that Popish Ritual questionless they had Liturgies used in the Ancient and Greek Church which owed and acknowledged no subjection either to the Pope or Church of Rome and Forms of Prayer used in several Churches before ever there was a Pope as Pope is now taken in the world And are not a very great part of our Prayers and Hymns and many yea most if not all those short Versicles and Responds such as the Sursum Corda the Lord have mercy c. the Gloria Pairi and several more in the ancienter and purer Forms of the Church as those who compare them shall find and those who are acquainted with Antiquity know they are Why shall we say then that they were all taken out of the Mass-book when those holy men had other Rituals in their eye of an elder and purer composition Further what is retained in ours and sound among the Papists is it not good is it not agreeable to the Word of God and if so how can we excuse our selves from the guilt of a very great excess of uncharitableness when we shall say that the framers of this Liturgy took these things out of the mass-Mass-book and not out of the Scriptures with which so evidently they do agree 3. Sect. 5 For the yet clearer understanding of this let me give you one Note out of an eminent (a) Ball. Trial of grounds of Separ chap. 8. answ to obj 4. p. 153. Non-Conformist in answer to this very objection urged with virulence enough by the Separatists in those times His words are We are to note that the Mass in former times did signifie the worship of God which consisted in Publick Prayers Thanksgivings Confession of Faith Singing of Psalms Reading and Interpreting the holy Scriptures and Receiving of the Lords Supper and so the Ancient Mass and Liturgy were the same This is evident for (b) See Gratian de Consecr dist 1. Can. 12. 50. 54. Ex Concil Fol. 4. Can. 12. Ambr. Ep. 35. l. 5. Conc. Milev Can. 12. Bellar. de Mis l. 4. c. 1. To hear Mass was then but to be present at and attend to the publick Service of the Church as by the evidence of Antiquity it appeareth which even the Papists are forced to confess But now the Roman Mass is put for the Vnbloody Sacrifice of the Body of Christ which the Priest doth offer up for the quick and dead And in this sense do they take it when they say our Service-book is taken out of the Mass-book but it should rather be said The Mass-book was in time added to our Communion-book and by the purging out of the Mass it is now restored to its former purity Popery is a Scab or a Leprosie that cleaveth to the Church and the Mass an abomination ann xed to the Liturgy Before the Mass was heard of in the world or began to be hatched there was stinted Liturgies in the Church for substance much what the same with ours The Eastern Churches had their Liturgies first and the Western borrowed many things from them The Ancient Liturgies attributed to James Basil Chrysostom are Counterfeit but divers things in them contained were in use in the Primitive Church without question They had their appointed Lessons out of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms and Evangelists their stinted Prayers and Forms of Celebration with some variety but in substance all one in a manner The Forms were at first more brief afterwards enlarged and by enlargement as it often happens corrupted and defiled Corruption as a disease by this means cleaving to the Liturgy it was necessary it should be corrected and recovered to its first integrity and soundness The Cardinal Quignonius by the command of Clement the Seventh so changed the Roman Breviary that for the most part it was rather like an English Book of Prayers than a Roman Breviary And the English Liturgy gathered according to the Model of the Ancients and the Purest of them is not a Collection out of the Mass-book but a Refining of that Liturgy which heretofore had been stained with the Mass If it was wholly taken out of the Mass-book Note this Dilemma I should desire to know how the Mass-book came to have those things in it which are found in the Book of Common Prayer sound and Holy for Matter and directly contrary to Antichristianism If these things were in the book before then all things therein were not of Antichrist but he only usurped them and it is lawful for the True Man to claim his own goods wherever he finds them If they were not in the Mass-book then all things are not taken out of it but some things restored out of purer Antiquity which the Man of Sin had wickedly expunged And to this discourse he addes the judgements of other Non-Conformists also The Ministers of Lincoln (c) Acts and Men. Vol. p. 1631. of Dr. Taylor 's Testimony concerning our Service-Book never judged the use of the Book unlawful never thought it lawful to separate from the Prayers of the Congregation never refused the use of the Book though in some things they desired to be excused The Churches of God have
been evermore taught to prize and esteem these main and fundamental truths and Ordinances of wo ship at an higher rate than that some petty dislike of this or that in the external Form when the matter is found and good should cause separation And to all this he addes this short but true and observable conclusion that Our service-Service-book is not a Translation of the mass-Mass-book but a Restitution of the Ancient Liturgy wherein sundry Prayers are inserted used by the Fathers and agreeable to the Scriptures So far He. 4. Sect. 6 Let any man seriously compare the Masse-book with our Liturgy and not take all upon a general report and they will soone see this objection vanishing There is so vast a difference between these two that I cannot but wonder that any wise or considering man should lay this imputation upon our Liturgy I have seen several of the Popish offices and have some by me and one entire Ritual I have read them over I have compared ours with them and what find I even a vast difference a Diametrical opposition So palpably false is that which (d) Ball. ibid p. 150. Can the separatist objected that Not only the Form of it is taken from the Church of Antichrist but the Matter also For 1. Sect. 7 In the Form and Order They begin not as we do they go not on as we do our Confession of sins to God with that Declaration of Absolution to them that repent annexed with which we begin was never that I have seen in their Masse-books therefore cannot be taken thence 2. Sect. 8 But in the Matter there is evidently a far wider difference For that multitude of Superstitious fopperies those many ridiculous and impious trumperies Prayers not only to God but to the Virgin Mary Angels Saints for souls departed the Mediation of others besides Christ and many a number of such things more in their Rituals which we have cast out Those many holy things in ours which they own not yea which are directly contrary to their Doctrine and Practice The matter of our Liturgy saith the (e) Ball. ibid. forecited Author is the reading of the Scriptures in a known tongue the Calling upon God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ and not upon Angels or Saints departed for the living and not for the dead the right administration of the Sacraments which we acknowledge only two and expressely deny the other five as such which they maintain and singing of Psalms Are these saith he and with him I appeal to all rational men the devises of Antichrist Is the administration of the Lords Supper in both kinds which they admit but in one to the people in remembrance of Christs death and passion who by one oblation of himself Once and but once offered hath made a full perfect and sufficient oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world as it is in our Rituall whereas they pretend to repeat and daily offer up this sacrifice again for the quick and dead Is this taken from the Church of Antichrist These imputations saith he are not so grosse as their reasons are weak upon which they are built These things shew so much difference so great an opposition between ours and theirs that we may well conclude as he a little after doth expresse it that The Papists cannot sincerely approve our publick service but they must condemn and detest their own their prayers in an unknown tongue their praying to Saints departed much more to fained Saeints their receiving in one kind their unbloody sacrifice their real i.e. corporal presence their satisfaction for venial sins their blotting out of the second Commandment or at least confounding it with the first with others the like Again when I see those Prayers which seem to be the same in theirs and ours indeed not to be the same but though some passages be in them which we also use yet the entire Prayer different either something in ours which theirs have not or something in theirs which ours admit not for one or two expressions in a Prayer being the same which they use make not the Prayer the same when they agree not in the rest of the parts also for throughout the Prayer if it be the same there must be the same Preface the same Petitions and the same Conclusion which in most of these there is not And further When I find that there are some indeed of the same Prayers I say some for they are but few exactly the same yet these such as are for matter good sound wholsome and necessary for words and expressions savoury and significant and perfectly agreeable to the sacred Canon the Word of God and not one of these Prayers made a matter of any considerable exception by those who have in many other things excepted against this book I say not one of these prayers which are the same as in theirs charged with any material errour by any no not those who have made it their business to find the most faults in it nor indeed can they be excepted against for matter or words let the particulars be examined if they be not agreeable to the holy Rule and then judge if therefore they be evil because used by the Papists Now when all these things are laid together it is some matter of wonder to me how it can be so confidently taken up for a notorious Truth That Our Common-Prayer-Book is nothing else but the Popish Mass-Book or that it is wholly taken thence and may with so much ease be turned into it again Which if it were true I cannot imagine any considerable Reason the French King and Bishops had ☞ to hinder the impression of it there it having been here by the Order of His Majesty translated into that language for the use of the French Protestants among us which we are informed they lately did But I fear these imputations have been laid and these expressions and reproaches taken up and given out but upon design to draw people to an aversness from and to make them out of love with these Forms of Prayer which are established among us and for the matter not to be excepted against Sure I am they have proved too sad snares to entangle many tender consciences in needless fears scruples and doubts Sect. 9 5. But suppose all this true That for the Main Our Book is in the Roman Ritual or taken thence yet is this a sufficient Argument to prove it evil or unlawful to be used Nothing less Can we think the Papists so void of all Christianity yea of common sense as to have nothing that is good among them Or if it be good in it self is it therefore evil because they use it Suppose a Minister either in his Prayer or Sermon for we may observe it sometimes in both should borrow some expressions or phrases from the Heathen Authours shall his Prayer or Sermon presently for this be accounted the devise or invention of an Heathen or