the Book of Tobit by which saith one of them we give too much countenance to the Church of Rome and supplant Canonical Scripture c. Now to see how very little reason is for this Objection let it be observed 1. That our Church always calls these Books Apocryphal and thereby sufficiently distinguisheth them from the Canonical and her self from Popery 2. In the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion she declares That she reads them for example of Life and instruction of Manners but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine 3. All our Divines that have written upon this Subject especially Reynolds and Cosins have so Learnedly and unanswerably baffled the Papists that they have never thought good to reply to them 4. Our Church hath taken so great care in this matter to avoid giving offence that several of these Books are never Read in the Church at all as the Maccabees Books of Esdras Prayer of Manasseh and the famous Fifth Chapter of Tobit about him and his Dog which hath been left out of our Church from the beginning of King James the 1st almost an 100 Years the other Books that are ordered to be Read in the Church are never read on Sundays but only Week-days Now our Church in allowing of them sometimes to be Read doth much better agree with the Primitive Church than she would if they were shut quite out for 't is certain that they publickly Read them Athanasius or the Author of the Synopsis calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. not received into the Canon but read in the Church Ruffinus in Symb. Alii libri sunt qui non Canonici sed Ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati sunt Tobit Judeth c. quae omnia legi quidem in Ecclesia voluerunt non tamen Professi ad Authoritatem fidei confirmandam i. e. There are Books which are not Canonical but Ecclesiastical as Tobit Judeth c. all which are read in the Church but not produced to confirm any Article of Faith Which is exactly agreeable to the words of St. Hierom in his Preface to his Commentary upon Proverbs and which are quoted and approved of by our Church in the Thirty Nine Articles Gregorius Magnus in Moral l. 19. c. 13. Art 6 may speak for the succeeding Ages where he calls these Books though not Canonical yet published for the Edification of the Church That they were Read in the African Churches appears from one of the Carthaginian Councils at which St. Austine was present 3 Carthag Can. 47. That they have been all along read in the Western Churches appears from Isidore de Eccles Off. Rabanus de instit Cler. c. And lastly the Lectionarius published by Pamelius and which goeth under the name of St. Hierom and hath been of great Use and Authority in the Western Churches gives an account of particular days when particular places of the Apocryphal Books were appointed to be read in the Church As to the Greek Church besides the author of the Synopsis already mention'd Origene in his Epistle to Affricanus saith that the history of Susannah was read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church of Christ And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Churches make use of the book of Tobit And as to their present practice besides their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 printed at Venice A. D. 1596. which contains their several lessons for the whole year and hath several taken out of the Apocrypha we have the express authority of one that lived amongst them Mr. Rycaut in his History of the Greek Church p. 372. In the Greek Church they receive the Apocryphal Books as we do in England In the Ethiopick Churches they read the Athcpocryphal Books as appears from Ludolfus's History of those Churches and lastly by the works of Hippolytus Origen St. Chrysostome St. Hierome Theodore◠Asterius Leo Magnus and others it appears that the Fathers not only wrote Comments upon these books but frequently preach'd upon them and took their Texts thence not to mention that Conradus Pellican Drusius and some other Reformed Divines have without any offence wrote comments upon them as upon other parts of the Bible If from this general agreement of all the Christian Churches in the World we consider in the last place the judgment of the Reformed Churches we shall find them also agree with us 1. For the Lutheran Churches they gerally use them as we do and Alsted in Theol. Pol. p. 287. gives this account of them that they are sacri secundum quid populare quadam ratione merito proxime a vere divinis locum obtinere possunt i. e. that they are in a sense sacred and deserve the next place to the Canonical Scriptures And Chemnitius in examen post 1. de ser can speaking of the Apocryphal Books saith A fidelibus in Ecclesiis leguntur i. e. they are read by the Orthodox in the Churches And then for the Churches of the Calvinists first hear Calvin himself in Psychopannichia Melius nos decent sacrae literae corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam i. e. the holy Writings teach us better that the corruptible body oppresseth the Soul And yet those Sacred Writings are the book called the Wisdom of Solomon from whence that sentence is taken Conradus Pelicanus in his preface to his Comments upon the Apocryphal Books saith of them that they are Ecclesiastici ac Biblici in Ecclesia Catholica ab Apostolorum temporibus fuerint cum reverentia lecti i. e. these books are read in the Church and bound up with our Bibles and have with reverence been read in all Christian Churches from the very time of the Apostles and he was a famous Professor at Zurich Lud. Capellus in Thes Salm. expresly approves of the Declaration of our Church in her 39 Articles and saith that profit may come to the Church by their being read publickly and so they were read in the Primitive times for the instruction of manners Episcopius Professor at Leyden in Tom. 2. Part. 2. p. 75. though the Apocryphal Books cannot serve to confirm an Article of Faith yet may profitably be read in ' the Church And indeed of the Dutch Churches we have their solemn judgment declared in the Synod of Dort Art 6. We make a difference betwixt the Canonical and Apocryphal Books which last are the 3d and 4th of Esdras Tobit Judeth c. which the Church may read and take instructions in them agreeable to Canonical Scripture The Bibles of Holland Geneva and other reformed Churches have these books printed Quere in Deodats Ju 〈…〉 Bibles and bound up with the Canonical as we have and in the Preface to the Apocryphal Books they commend the very sentences of Ruffinus and St. Hierom which declare for the publick reading of them in the Churches And the like is done by the Publishers of the Harmony of the Confessions of all the Reformed Churches Printed at Geneva and lastly the Reformed Churches of
and their words to the end of the world Rom. 11. 10. And bow down their back alway Psal 69. 24. in the Liturgy And ever bow down their backs Psal 69. 23. in the Bible And make their loyns continually to shake 1 Pet. 3. 11. Let him eschew evil Psal 34. 14. in the Liturgy Eschew evil Psal 34. 14. in the Bible Depart from Evil. So that it was no doubt the wisdom of those that compiled this Version in our Liturgy to consider the Authentick Translation made by the Holy Ghost in the New Testament and if we should admit the same Version of the Psalms into the Liturgy which is in the Bible these men of scruples might be at as great a loss to reconcile the Psalms and the second Lesson read presently after them as they now are to reconcile the two Versions of the Psalms and at as great a loss to reconcile both with the Singing Psalms which were certainly composed by as old or older Version than that in the Common-Prayer-Book As to that one place Psal 105. 28. which hath been often urged by the Presbyterians from the very days of Queen Eliz. and as often answered so that I cannot but admire at the ignorance of the diligent Will. Prynne in this matter who in his Pacifick Examination of the Common-Prayer p. 6. where having proposed this objection against the Translation of Psalm 105. 28. tells us that it was occasioned by the Printers omission of one syllable to wit Obedient for Disobedient not the Translators But to pass this by Hooker and Fuller in Miscel shew that the Translation in the Liturgy best agreeth with the Hebrew and their judgment is comfirm'd by the Septuagint Syriack Arabick and Ethiopick Versions In the old Latin Versions it was read both ways as St. Austin observes Tom. 8. enarrat in Psal and yet it made no disturbance in the Church in that or the following ages Not to mention that both Versions are very good sense and not at all contradictory in the Liturgy they were not obedient refers to the Aegyptians mention'd v. 27. In the Bible they rebelled not refers to Moses and Aaron v. 26. and even so our old Version is to be preferr'd it being more natural for a Verb to refer to the last verse than the last but one but both are very good sense and as properly retain'd in our Church as the different readings were by the Jews preserved in their Bibles And whoever shall give himself the trouble to compare the Versions of the Bible shall have far greater objections than this Deut. 21 12. She shall pare her nails in the Margent of our Bibles She shall let them grow Gal. 2. 3. in the Greek Titus was not circumcised In many Latin copies Titus was circumcised And again v. 5. in the Greek To whom we have not yielded in the Latin To whom we have yielded and this latter was used by Ireneus l. 3. c. 13. a Greek Father By Tertullian l. 5. in Marcion p. 463. St. Ambrose in locum c. and many of the Fathers as St. Hierom Primasius Sedulius Haymo c. freely take notice of both readings I might instance also in 1 Cor. 15. 51. where some read We shall all sleep of which St. Hierom hath a large discourse Also in Mat. 2. 6. compared with Micab 5. 2. and many other places not to mention what those very Translators of the Bible whose Version is contended for declared That they in many places set diversity of senses in the Margin for that to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left in the judgment of Judicious questionable can be no less than presumption As St. Austin saith That variety of Translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures so diversity of sense in the Margin where the Text is not so clear must needs do good yea is necessary as we are perswaded But if any Learned Person hath taken pains to make a more correct Version than either of these the English Church now useth I hope he will not envy the Church the benefit of his labours but will make it publick as Rob. Gell. Printed an Essay towards the amendment of the English Translation of the Bible Lond. 1659. But I can by no means think it proper to have it proposed to the Convocation who upon some short examination of it should Authorize it When the Clergy are called to the Convocation they are most of them remote from their Boods and in London want leisure to examine the many difficulties that will arise St. Hierom made a more exact Translation of the Psalms than that the Latin Church before used he made it publick and proposed it to the care and study of Learned Men to examine it and when an Universal Approbation had for some Ages given it Authority it was at last received into the Church instead of the other but not till some hundreds of years after the time of St. Hierom. And when Gregory the Great about the year 600 composed Hymns for the use of the Church it was out of the old Version of the Psalms Nor can it seem strange that the same Church should use two different Versions of the Psalms for this was done in all the Western Churches in the time of Gregory the Great who in his Epistle Dedicatory in the beginning of his Comments upon Job saith Sedes Apostolica utraque utitur the Roman Church useth both Editions Leander in Spain about the same age wrote a comment upon both Versions and Card. Bona tells us that the old Version was in frequent use till the time of Pius V. is still used in the Church of the Vatiean and continued in their Breviaries When only a Catechism was composed not by a single person but a whole Assembly of Divines at Westminster it was Printed and sent about and publick intimation made to the Assembly in Scotland that whoever had any objections might put them in And when a great many Learned Men were called together by King James l. to correct and review the Translation of the Bible they were no less than three years about it as they themselves tell us in their Preface So that I heartily desire that Reverend person would publish his new Version and when time and an universal approbation hath given it authority it may be received into the use of the Church not in the common-prayer-Common-prayer-book only but Bible also And this hath been done by several who have made excellent composures of the Singing Psalms and far better than those we now use and yet the prudence of our Church hath not yet thought fit to give any one of them the stamp and seal of authority for this reason chiefly because the Church hath been long used to these she hath and can sing many of them by heart which as it's the best reason for the continuance of the old Singing Psalms so is much more a reason for the continuance of that Version in
to the beginning of the Reformation and they generally all of them used the Cross in Baptism for 1500 years and its strange that all the Christian Churches for so many years should be guilty of so dangerous an evil as the sign of the Cross in Baptism nor do I know of any one Church in the World that condemned or so much as shewed their dislike of it for 1500 years And for the present age it 's still retain'd in all the Churches of the Roman Communion in all the Greek Churches Rycant p. 168. in the Churches of the Jacobites Brerewoods Enq. p. 153. in the Churches of AEgypt Pagitt's Chistianogr p. 104. in the Abissine or AEthiopian Churches Ludolfi Hist AEthiop l. 3. c. 6. in the Churches of the Muscovites Joh. Faber de relig Muscov in the Protestant Churches of the Ausburg confession the Sign of the Cross is generally used in Baptism and for the other Reformed Churches not one hath declared themselves offended with us for using it but several eminent amongst them have declared for it Bucer declared it an ancient and innocent Rite and that it might be decently and profitably used The Learned Casaubon in his answer to Baronius Exerc. 13. Sect. 33. commends our holy and prudent Bishops who have retain'd this use of the Cross amongst us Peter Martyr declared it lawful to profess our selves Christians by the Sign of the Cross Beza himself speaks favourably of it in his book adversus Baldvinum And Goulartius of Geneva declares it to be a ceremony indifferent Apology for Protestants by a French Divine p. 87. Touching the Sign of the Cross which the Church of England retains to understand it as they do as a visible mark that the Infant Baptiz'd is enroll'd as Christs Souldier should not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucifyed and fight under his Banner I see no ground at all of exception against this Ceremony And William Durel in his Sermon on 1 Cor. 11. 16. had amongst other things given the Reformed of France an account of our using the Sign of the Cross he by several Letters from De L' Angle Bochart Daille and other eminent Divines of the French Church received its due praise and approbation And now Gods Providence hath settled so many thousands of them amongst us they readily and willingly make use of it and approve it Secondly For Godfathers I find â—hem not only required in all the Eastern and Western Churches but more particularly Zuinglus in his Book de Bapt. is much for the use of them and saith that the clamours raised against them were only by the Anabaptists Calvin in the form of Baptism composed for Geneva and which is still used there requires Godfathers at Baptism and they promise for the Childs Christian Education as in the Church of England And in an Epistle to Farell he hath these words We require of the Godfathers that they promise to see the Children when grown up instructed in the Faith they are Baptized in If there be no Godfathers it 's certain the Baptism is prophaned Beza in his Epistles frequently declares for the use and necessity of them and particularly in Ep. 24. reckons them among the Constitutions of the Church that bind the Conscience And Epist 8. to the Bishop of London That Infants be Baptized in the publick Congregation with a set form of Prayer that there be Godfathers to engage fortheir Christian Education c. these are plain and honest Rites such as give no occasion to Superstition and who is there that dare condemn them In the Laws of the Church of Geneva Sect. 38. The name of the Infant and Godfather must be Registred by the Minister This was heretofore enjojned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Diocess and I have seen some Registers in that Diocess whereby it appears that injunction was observed for some time Sect. 39. None are to be Godfathers but the faithful and those of our Confession Sect. 40. they that are suspended from the Lords Supper must not be Godfathers In the Discipline of the Reformed Churches of France chap. 11. Sect. 7. Tho we have no express commandment of the Lord for Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism yet because the custom is ancient and introduced for a good end those that will not follow so good an example but present their Infants themseves should be earnestly exhorted not to be contentious but to behave themselves according to this ancient custom which is good and profitable Sect. 12th The Minister shall diligently admonish the Godfathers and Godmothers to consider the promises they have made at the celebration of Baptism c. and to this agreeth the Synod of St. Foy A. D. 1578. at Samues 1596. at Montpellier 1598. which last saith that Godfathers are obliged not only to instruct the Children in Piety but also in case of necessity to provide for their maintenance Sect. 18th the names of the Godfathers and Godmothers of the Infant shall be registred Which last thing of Registring them as it 's generally practis'd by the reformed Churches abroad so is very agreeable to the practice of the Primitive Church and particularly taken notice of by Pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite To all which I beg leave to add the observation of Monsieur Larroque an eminent Minister of the French reformed Church in his Book entituled Conformite de la Discipline Ecclesiastique des Protestants de France avec celle des anciens Chietiens A. D. 1678 and p. 208. he thus writes L'usage des parriens c. i. e. the use of Godfathers and Godmothers to present Children in Baptism is very ancient Tertullian makes mention of them in his book of Baptism chap. 18. St. Austin in his 23d Epistle the pretended Denies the Areopagite who tells us that they are of Apostolick Institution Gregory the 1st in his book of the Sacraments Caesarius of Arles in his 12th Homily the SixthCanon of the Council of Mets. A. D. 888. and indeed the subject of that whole Book is to justify their Discipline from the antiquity of it and agreement with the primitive Church I therfore mention this because Arguments of this nature are so very much slighted by our own Dissenters This author in the Title page of his book prefixeth this sentence from the Laws of Theodosius Statuimus observari quod prisca Apostolica Disciplina Canones veteres eloquuntur i. e. we command that those things be observed which the Apostolick Church and old Canons declare for and appoint Which I think is more fully explain'd by St. Austin Epist 118. ad Casulan In iis rebus de quibus nihil statuit scriptura mos populi Dei instituta majorum pro lege Dei tenenda sunt i. e. in such things as the Scripture hath not determined the custom of the Christian Church and the constitutions of our Ancestors should be observed as the Law of God To return Godfathers are also used in the Dutch Rohemian and all the