THE Vindicator of the new Version of the Psalms in Metre, by Mr. Brady and Mr. Tate, presuming in such an insolent manner to impose the Use of it upon the Clergy and People through­out the whole Kingdom, and so saucily to re­flect on those who will not comply with the proud, imposing Humour, and pay an im­mediate voluntary Obedience to it; I beg [Page 2] leave to animadvert a little upon some In­stances of his unaccountable Boldness, and supercilious Arrogance, in these following Remarks.

And, first of all, I cannot but observe, That it is inconsistent with good Manners, and the Deference which we owe to Antiquity, and the Authors of the old Version of the Psalms in Metre, which has been universally receiv'd and us'd throughout this Kingdom since the Reformation, and which, by the Vindicator's own Confession, has administred singular In­struction, and Consolation, and unspeakable Benefit to those who have piously and de­voutly us'd it, to cast such an awkard and disingenuous Reflection on the Authors of it, who have been the happy Instruments of ce­lebrating the Praises of our Creator and Re­deemer in the House of Prayer, of bringing so much Glory to God, and doing so much good in the World.

And though the old Version of the Psalms in Metre was compos'd by its Authors in a plain and humble Style, sutable to the Age they liv'd in, wherein there are some obsolete and uncouth Expressions, which have a harsh and jarring Sound in the delicate and musical Ears of the ingenious, and unsutable to the Modes of Speaking in this refined, this politer Age; yet 'tis very undecent to ridi­cule and expose it, and as unpardonable a Rudeness, as for a converted Jew to scoff at [Page 3] the Stammering of Moses, or ridicule the old Service of the Sanctuary, because we have now a more Spiritual Worship, sutable to Gospel-times, a better and more perfect Ta­bernacle.

The Apostle of the Gentiles, by his own Example, taught his new Proselytes to pay Respect and Reverence to Circumcision, and the Rites of the abolish'd Law, though dead with Christ, and nailed to his Cross, and to give it an honourable and a decent Burial. And the like Respect is due to the old Version, when abolish'd by Convocation, and silenc'd in a lawful Assembly.

But for this bold Imposer to attempt to recommend his new Version by railing at the old one, and the Authors of it, and impose the Reception and Use of his new Composure upon the Clergy and People, before it has re­ceived the Stamp of Lawful Authority, that of a Convocation I mean, who, as the proper Judges in Sacred Things, are to inspect, consider As for occasional Ser­vices upon extraordinary Days, whether Fasts or Fe­stivals, it has been custom­ary for the King to ap­point some of the Bishops to compose them. of, and recommend all the Branches of publick Worship that is fixed and settled, of constant and perpetual Use, (which when confirm'd by the Royal Allowance and Injunction, is then, and not before, to be impos'd and generally us'd with a Nemine Contradicente, both by the [Page 4] Clergy and People) is unaccountable Insolence, and unpardonable Presumption.

But to enter into the Merits of the Cause, and to do the Vindicator Justice, let us examin the Validity of his Arguments, by which he labours to promote a general Reception of his new Translation, and evince it to be the Duty both of the Clergy and People, espe­cially the former, to receive and use it in all Churches and Chappels throughout the King­dom: Which I am apt to think, upon a strict Enquiry, and close Examination, will ap­pear to the impartial Reader to be very vain and tristing, illogical and inconclusive.

There are Three Arguments which he ad­vances, and chiefly insists upon to this pur­pose; viz. The Agreeableness of this Design with Reason; the Conformity of it with the Constitu­tions of our Church, and the Authority of Convo­cation; and its Subserviency to the Advancement and Increase of Piety.

1. He insists on the Agreeableness of this De­sign with Reason. And both this, he tell us, and the other Arguments, which he has chosen to insist upon, are plainly intimated in the Letter of the Bishops, which, he says, is this.

P. 13. His Majesty having allowed and permitted the Use of a new Version of the Psalms of Da­vid, by Mr. Brady and Mr. Tate, in all [Page 5] Churches, Chappels, and Congregations; I cannot do less than wish a good success to this Royal Indulgence — And I do heartily recom­mend the Use of this Version to all my Brethren within my Diocess.

So that here the Vindicator argues from Two Things; viz. the Royal Allowance, and the Bishop's Recommendation.

1. He argues from the Royal Allowance, which he would make tantamount to an In­junction, at least a Recommendation; whereas it is neither the one, nor the other.

1. Not an Injunction, neither expresly, nor by implication. The Royal Allowance, in this Instance, is of the same Force and Validity with an Imprimatur prefixt to a Book or Ser­mon, which barely permits the Printing and Publishing of it, the Licenser being satisfied that nothing is contained in it contrary to the Government, the Doctrine of the Church of England, and good Manners; but does not ingage any one to buy or read it. The Royal Stamp upon the Title-page of a Sermon preached at Court, — Published by his Majesty's special Command — carries with it no more than the Force of a Licence, though of a Su­perior Nature, for the Printing and Publish­ing of it; but does not injoin all the Sub­jects of England, Clergy and People, to pay an [Page 6] universal Respect to it, or to receive and use it as they do the Book of Homilies, the Common Prayer, and the Bible. They that are dispos'd to buy, and read, and use such a Sermon, that is honoured with the Royal Licence or Al­lowance, may, if they please, if not they may refuse so to do; and, I hope, there is no Disobedience in the Refusal. And so much, with submission, I think is intimated in the Terms of the Royal Allowance prefixt to the new New Version of the Psalms, which the Vindicator recites; viz.

P. 7. — His Majesty taking the same into his Royal Consideration, is pleased to order in Council, That the said new Version of the Psalms in Eng­lish Metre be, and the same is hereby Allowed and Permitted to be used, in all Churches, Chap­pels, and Congregations, as shall think fit to re­ceive the same.

So that they that think fit to receive and use it, may; and they that do not, may let it alone, and consequently may use the old Version if they please: Which, by the Vindica­tor's Leave, is not forbid to be used by the Royal Allowance, though very illogically he concludes it is, p. 22, & 27. of his Vindica­tion.

Where then, Good Mr. Vindicator, is the Royal Injunction, or any Thing like it? And consequently, where is the Disobedience upon a Non-compliance, which you so magisterial­ly and insultingly Charge the Clergy and [Page 7] People with, who refuse to receive and use the new Version?

And indeed I cannot but wonder, That the Vindicator, and his Authors, (who per­haps are the same) should expect more than they themselves desired. For it may be observ'd, That the Royal Order and Allowance, in that Instance of Indifferency before men­tion'd, is conform to the Prayer of the Peti­tion; P. 7. — And humbly praying his Majesty's Royal Allowance, That the said Version may be used in such Congregations as shall think fit to receive it. And perhaps the Petitioners could obtain no more, the King probably not thinking it practicable to make his Order absolute, and injoyn the Reception and Use of the new Version, until it had received the Censure and Approbation of a Convocation.

In the Interim, the Petitioners having paid the Secretary's Fees for the Order, the new Version with the Royal Allowance was to take its Fate; and 'twas rude and unreasonable for the Vindicator, and his Authors, to rail, and strom, and grow angry, and scatter their Invectives, because it was no more success­ful, and did not meet with an universal Re­ception, and consequently answer the Ex­pence, perhaps of a Lusty Sum, for obtaining the Royal Instrument, and the Impression.

Add to this, in the next Place, That there is not one Word in the Royal Allowance that amounts to a Recommendation, or looks like it; [Page 8] but rather the contrary may be inferr'd from the Coldness and Indifferency which are legible in the Terms of the Royal Allowance. And yet the Vindicator has the Confidence to affirm, That the new Version has not only the Allow­ance, but the Recommendation of Authority. P. 3.

Well, but though the King neither injoyns nor recommends, yet perhaps the Bishops do; from whence the Vindicator would infer, That 'tis the Duty both of the Clergy and People, to pay an universal Compliance and Obe­dience.

And this is the next Topick from which he argues; viz. The Bishop's Recommendation.

Against the Validity of which, as it is re­cited by the Vindicator to evince what he con­tends for, I have these Exceptions.

1. It does not appear that either the Bishop of London, or any other Bishop, is the Author of it, there being no Name subscrib'd, as there is to the Royal Allowance, and is usual in such Cases. It may be a Recommendation from Tom Thumb, or John a Styles, for any Thing that appears to the contrary.

2. The King's Allowance being the Founda­tion upon which the Recommendation is pre­tended to be built, It cannot be suppos'd, That either the Bishop of London, or any other Bishop, would be guilty of so great a Prevari­cation, [Page 9] as to misrepresent, falsely report, and partially and imperfectly recite the Royall Allowance, on which they found their Recom­mendation.

Now that the Royal Allowance is misrepre­sent, falsely reported, and partially and im­perfectly recited in the aforesaid Recommen­sdation is evident. The Words are these,

P. 13. His Majesty having allowed and permit­ted the use of a new Version of the Psalms of Da­vid, by Mr. Brady and Mr. Tate, in all Churches, Chappels and Congregations —.

So runs the Preamble of the Recommendation; so far it goes and no farther, omitting what follows in the Royal Allowance, viz. — As shall think fit to receive the same. Which is a Li­mitation and Restriction, and a Signification, That the King did not intend to impose or in­join the reception and use of this new Version upon any, but intirely left it to the discretion and pleasure of the Clergy and People, whether they would receive it, and use it or no; but the Recommendation by that Misreprentation and false recital of the Royal Allowance looks Trickish and Designing, as if the intent of it was to insinuate, That the Royal Order was positive and absolute, and did tantamount to an Injunc­tion for the universal Reception and use of this new Version.

[Page 10] But 3dly, Supposing, tho' not granting, that this Recommendation was really, and bona fide the Bishops, and Subscribed by one or more of them; in which 'tis possible, That through haste, an hurry of Business, or the pressing of their more weighty Affairs, they may be im­pos'd upon, and prevail'd with to Subscribe a Paper purporting a Recommendation, drawn up ready to their Hands, either by the Vindi­cator or his Authors, without critically exa­mining the Royal Allowance; yet the King's Order and Allowance, which is the Postula­tum, the Basis, the Foundation on which the Recommendation is founded, being misrepresen­ted, and falsely and imperfectly recited, the Recommendation is invalid, and signifies just nothing: For a false Recital is no Recital at all, and consequently all the Arguments, In­ferences and Conclusions, which the Vindicator builds upon, or deduces from it, fall to the Ground, and are meer impertinence. And so much for his First general Argument; which is drawn from the Agreeableness of this Design with Reason.

Let us now examine the Second, and see whether any better Fate will attend it.

2. His Second Argument to evince what he contends for, he deduces from the Conformity of it to the Constitution of our Church, and the Authority of Convocations. And so, says [Page 11] he, p. 21. it plainly appears in as much as it (i. e. the new Version) is allow'd of by the King, and recommended by the Bishops. And for this he quotes the Rubrick before the Sentences at the Offertory. — And nothing shall be proclaimed or published in the Church during the time of Divine Service, but by the Minister: Nor by him any thing but what is prescribed in the Rules of this Book, or injoined vy the King, or by the Ordinary of the place. Thus far the Ru­brick. Then follows the Vindicator's Comment, Observations, Arguments and Conclusions from it. Where, by the way, says he, thus much we may Observe, That no Clerk of a Parish can Sing in the Church but as he is directed by his Minister, and as he acts as his Deputy.

Very well Argued Mr. Vindicator! a very natural Inference and logical Conclusion from the Premisses! — Nothing shall be proclaim­ed or published in the Church, during the time of Divine Service, but by the Minister. Ergo, No Parish Clerk can Sing in the Church but as he is directed by his Minister, and as he acts as his Deputy. Whereas the In­ference lay quite on the other side; and it would have been more naturally Inferr'd, and logically Concluded from the Premisses as he quotes and applies them. Therefore no Pa­rish Clerk can Sing in the Church at all; be­cause nothing is to be proclaim'd or published [Page 12] in the Church during the time of Divine Ser­vice, but by the Minister.

And here by the way, I must observe Two Things.

1. What a horrid Blunder the Vindicator is guilty of, in calling the Parish Clerk the Mini­sters Deputy.

2. That he misapplies the Rubrick.

1. The Vindicator is guilty of a horrid Blun­der, in calling the Parish Clerk the Ministers Deputy. A Deputy is one who is to execute the Office of his Chief, and to do the same thing which the principal Person is to do, to whom he is a Deputy. So that if the Parish Clerk is the Ministers Deputy, he may read Prayers, Preach, and administer the Sacraments, and Marry, and Bury the Dead; as a certain Parish Clerk in a Country Town did, who fancied himself to be the Ministers Deputy, his Master being Sick, and actually read the Burial Service from time to time at the Graves of the Deceased; until he was severely reprimanded by the Bishop himself, and threatned to be turned out of his Place if ever he presumed to do so any more.

Nor can the Vindicator excuse himself by saying, That the Parish Clerk is the Ministers Deputy only in Singing. For Singing, i. e. to [Page 13] Tune Psalms, and lead the Congregation in singing, is not, strictly speaking, the Office of the Minister. The Parish Clerk is to Name and Tune the Psalm, and to Dictate or Read the Verses and Lines of it. He is to be the Præ­centor in a Parochial Congregation; as is in­timated in the 91 Canon, where it is decreed amongst other Qualifications of a Parish Clerk, That he shall be skill'd legendi & cantandi scientiâ, in Reading and Singing.

But 2ly. The Vindicator is guilty of a very great Mistake, in misapplying the Rubrick. The Rubrick which he quotes, which is before the Sentences at the Offertory, does not con­cern any part of Divine Service, or Singing of Psalms, or the Sermon, but the publishing of of Occcsianal Things; as the giving Notice of Holy Days, the Celebration of the Com­munion, publishing the Banns of Matrimony, Briefs, Proclamations, Declarations, Cita­tions and Excommunications, as appears by the Words of the Rubrick, which immediate­ly follow the Nicene Creed, which are these.

Then the Curate shall declare unto the People what Holy-days, or Fasting-days are in the Week following to be observed, and then also (if occasion be) shall notice be given of the Communion; and the Banns of Matrimony published, and [Page 14] Briefs, Citations and Excommunica­tions read. It follows. — And no­thing shall be proclaimed or published in the Church, during the time of Divine Service, but by the Minister: Nor by him any thing, but what is prescribed in the Rules of this Book, or enjoined by the King, or by the Ordinary of the place. Which last Words the Vindicator quotes, omitting the former Words of this Rubrick, because I presume they made against him.

Besides the natural import of the Words of the Rubrick which the Vindicator quotes, suf­ficiently shews that it does not, cannot concern any part of the solemn Worship, either reading Divine Service or singing of the Psalms. 'Tis an incongruity of Speech to call either the one or the other Proclaiming or Pub­lishing. And that which he lays the greatest stress upon, is nothing to his purpose, viz. those Words of the Rubrick which he quotes. — Nor by him any thing, but what is prescribed in the Rules of this Book, or enjoined by the King, or by the Ordi­nary of the place. Which does plainly re­spect what is Prohibited by the 72 Canon, viz. That no Vide 72 Can. cui Tit. Ministri publica Jejun. Prophetias, &c. privato usu cele­brare prohibiti. Minister shall presume to ap­point publick or private Fasts, Exercises, Lectures, Prophecies, Exorcisms, &c. without a lawful Command [Page 15] or Licence from his Superiors. And 'tis obvious what great Mischiefs would be consequent [...] an unbounded Liberty. So that it is [...], That this Rubrick is far from countenanc­ing or giving any strength or force to his [...], to prove what he contends for, drawn from the Conformity of it to the Consti­tution of our Church, and the Authority of Con­stitution. And this Gentleman's arguing from [...] to prove the Practicableness and necessity of introducing of his new Version into Churches, and that 'tis the Duty of all the Clergy especially, to comply with it, and receive and use it, upon the score of Obedience which they owe to the Governour's both in Church and State, because of the Kings Allowance, and the Bishops suppos'd Recommendation of it is either out of Ignorance or Design: If the former, behold the Learned Vindica­tor. If the latter, I'll leave it to the Reader to give him a Name. 'Tis true, the Rubrick before mentioned was confirmed by Convocation, and Act of Parliament; but does it therefore fol­low. That Mr. Brady's and Mr. Tate's new [...] of the Psalms in Metre, because allow­ed by the King and recommended by some of the Bishops, is confirmed by the same Authori­ty? I leave it to any Man of Sense to judge and determine.

So that his Foundation failing, all that he [...] upon it must totter and fall. How unjust, false and trisling; How Illogi­cal and Inconclusive are all his Arguments, [Page 16] Inferences and Conclusions, which he builds upon, or deduces from it; And how bold and rude, and unaccountable, are his base Reflec­tions, which without any Modesty or Respect or deference to their Character he casts upon the reverend Clergy of this fam'd Metro­polis, as well as the rest of the vast Body of the Clergy of the Two Provinces; who, generally speaking, refuse to receive and use this new Version; who indeed are very much oblig'd to the modest Vindicator, for that honourable Cha­racter which he is pleas'd to bestow upon them, representing them as Stubborn, contumatious Vi­olators of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, and their solemn Ingagement at their Ordination; Op­posers of the Authority of Convocations and Parlia­ments, and Enemies to their Rights and Privileges; Despisers of Government, and disobedient to Govern­ours both in Church and State; Proud, Disdainful, Self conceited, Envious, Malicious, what not &c.

I refer the Reader to his Book, and only beg leave to select a few Passages, which are Instances of his great Complement and Respect to the Clergy, who are non Compliers, and refuse to receive and use this new Version. In the 23 p. are these Words,

— And he seems to vacate both their Autho­rities, i. e. of Convocation and Parliament, who opposes that encouragement which it has already received from his Majesty and the Bishops, and endeavors [Page 17] to enervate all their Efficacy and Strength by rendring them useless and insignificant. And a little after, in the same Page. — Whoever therefore it is that contradicts this Authority which they have freely consented should be vested in the King, and the Bishops seems directly to oppose the Power of that sacred Body, and to be a direct Ene­my to the Rights and Privileges of a Convoca­tion. And again, p. 25. Whoever therefore it is that opposes that Authority which the New Tran­slation has obtained, seems plainly to deprive the Convocation of those signal Honours and Immuni­tus appertaining to them, which the Parliament has been pleas'd to confirm, and the King and the Bishops are pleas'd to act by, who have the execu­tive Power, &c. And again, p. 27, 28. — There­fore if any one reject this New Translation of the Psalms, recommended to him by his Bishop, I can­not see how he will avoid the Censure of casting a Scandalous Reproach upon the goldly Judgment of his Ordinary, and palpably violating that religious Obligation which he solemnly entered into at the time of his Ordination before the Bishop, the Priests, and the Congregation. But I fancy the Persons will be but few, who will be so hardy against their own Consciences, and cancel all the veneration which is due both to their Diocesan and themselves, if they hope that God should be their Helper. And again, p. 28, 29. — It cannot be invete­rately opposed by any, unless it be by some few Persons who may envy the Production, because it is not their own, or because it has met with such good [Page 18] Success, or those that are prejudic'd against the Royal Allowance, because William R. is on the front of it, or such as look upon the Recommenda­tory Letter of a Diocesan as only, a meer Matter of Form; or lastly, those who are such zealous. Ad­mirers of Antiquity, that they will object against any thing, barely for its being New.

These are some of the Instances of his Com­plement and Respect to the Clergy, at whom the Reflection is directly aim'd, though oblique­ly, and by consequence at the People too, who are not reconcil'd to the use of the new Psalms, as I hear very few in this City are. All which consider'd, I leave it to the Reader to judge how justly the Vindicator's Book deserves the Title of A modest Vindication of the new Ver­sion of the Psalms.

A Word or Two of his 3d Argument and I have done. And this is drawn from the Sub­serviency of the new Psalms to the Advancement of Piety and Devotion.

But how does it appear that they are more Subservient to this end than the old Version? What, is it because of the venerable Names of Mr. Brady and Mr. Tate, the celebrated Authors of the new Performance? who seem to be very unluckily coupled in this Enterprize, a Divine and a Player, a Christian Priest and a Stage Poet, as unequally yokt as the Ox and the Ass, which were forbid by the Law of Moses to draw to­gether in the same Yoke. But perhaps none [Page 19] was so fit for the Undertaking, to give it Re­putation, especially amongst Pretenders to Wit, as a Comic-Divine, and a Poet Laureat.

But perhaps Mr. Sternold and Mr. Hopkins (the Vindicator, I hope, will not be offended that I give them the usual Complement of Respect, though he denies it them, having I [...] no M under his Girdle) perhaps, I say, Mr. Sterhold and Mr. Hopkins, the Authors of the old Version, were Men as famous in their Generation for Learning and Piety, as the Authors of this new Translation can pretend to be. And if I am not mis-inform'd, they were so, if not by many Degrees beyond them.

Let their Work praise 'em in the Gate: The Thing speaks it self: The Performance discovers them to be acted by a Divine Spirit, and breaths a Celestial Sweetness like the droppings of Myrrbe, and the Perfumes of Alloes and Cassia, the fragrant Odours of the Sanctuary, of which the Garments of the Spi­ritual Bridegroom smell.

Such an Air of Piety and Devotion, Rapture and Extacy, Spiritual Life and Vigour, holy Flames and heavenly Transports appears through the whole Performance, (making allowances for some obsolete and uncouth Expressions) that it speaks the Authors to be no contemptible Men, that they studied not only the Psalmists Words, but his Mind and Practice too, and were Transform'd into a sort of likeness to the Roy­al [Page 20] Author, and were perfect Masters of Divine Musick.

They had truly learnt to tune David's Harp with agreeable Notes and Accents, su­table to the Nature of that Divine Poem; and that in all the Instances of humble Penitence and holy Vows, godly Sorrow and transporting Joy, de­vout Supplications, and heavenly Praises and Hol­lelujahs. They bent their Minds to the Study of a Divine Poem, which was compos'd with an Air sutable to Spiritual Psalmody, and the Divine Subject, and was not polluted with the wanton Strains of prophane Poetry; they did not mingle the unhallowed Fires of the Stage, with the holy Sparks of the Altar.

Moreover, the Performance favours of Cha­rity to the Unskilful in the Airs of the Ori­ginal Text, or the Translation In Prose, which is sung in Cathedrals with sutable Notes and ra­vishing Accents, bearing some Resemblance to the Hallelujahs above; which the Vulgar may stare at, and admire, but cannot join, or bear a part in that kind of Psalmody. So that Thousands, and Ten thousands, since the Refor­mation, had been depriv'd of the Benefit, and Pleasure, and Solace, and Comfort of singing the Praises of God in the Psalms of David, the sweet Singer of Israel, had not those charitable Anthors condescended to their Capacities, by composing a plain and familiar Metre.

[Page 21] So that 'twill be a hard Task for the Vin­dicator to prove, That the new are more sub­servient to the Advancement of Piety and Devo­tion than the old Psalms, and that upon ac­count of the genuine Excellence and Composure of the new Version, which, he says, by many De­grees surpasses the old.

But it is objected, The old Psalms are writ­ten in a plain and familiar Style.

So much the better, being sutable to Scrip­ture-Language, which for the most part, ex­cepting some Philosophical Discourses in Job, and the Lofty Flights of the Prophet Isaiab, and the Ænigmatical Passages in Daniel and the Revelation, is delivered in a plain and sa­miliar Style, the Spirit of God delighting to express it self in plain and intelligible Words, condescending to the meanest Capacity; and withal most agreeable to the holy Text, most of the Psalms being Prayers, which are wont to be deliver'd in plain and familiar Terms, (though there are not wanting Rhetorical Flourishes in Eucharistical Psalms) and more sutable to the Capacities of Parochtal Congre­gations, where plain and unlearned Auditors are the most numerous.

But by the Vindicator's Favour, there are some sutable Strokes to Psalms of Triumph; some lofty Strains, as well as humble Notes; not only the Mournings of the Dove, but the Soarings of the Eagle; not only Shallows [Page 22] wherein a Lamb may wade, but Depths where­in an Elephant may swim.

But in the old Version there are many obso­lete and uncouth Expressions, which offend the Ears of the Ingenious, Who, it seems, p. 36. are well-disposed to the Liturgy of our Church, yet frequently absent themselves from it, (a very good Evidence indeed of their Respect and Affection to it!) and that in Honour to Almighty God; because it is rather a Contempt, they say, than a Respect, to pay their Homage directly con­trary to what his holy Word prescribes, both in Psal. 47. 7. Sing ye Praises with Understanding. And 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the Understanding also.

By the way, let me ask the Vindicator, Whe­ther the Unlearned (who are the more nu­merous) may not make the same Objection against hard, and to them unintelligible, Words in our politer Modes of Speaking, that the Learned and Ingenious do against those obso­lete and uncouth Expressions which are in the old Translation.

But admit it, That there are many obso­lete and uncouth Expressions in the old Tran­slation; yet there are Psalms enough that may be selected for publick and private Use that are unexceptionable, and perhaps by many De­grees, and in divers Instances, preferable to the new Composure. But I think this Objection is, or may be, silenc'd by the Care that has been taken in the late Editions of the Psalms [Page 23] to expunge those obsolete and uncouth Expres­sions, so much complain'd of, and exchange 'em for others that are more agreeable to the modern Phraseology, and the present Modes of Speaking and Writing. There is a Dif­ference between repairing a House, and pul­ling it down; between amending the De­fects, and destroying the Fabrick. There are perhaps some Passages in the English Trans­lation of the Old and New Testament, which might be better render'd. What then? Must we destroy the old Frame, and have a new Bible?

But the old Version had never the Approba­tion of a Convocation.

What then? Though perhaps it never past the Censure of a Convocation, or had a formal Approbation, yet it had a virtual one; the old Psalms being received and us'd, not only in vulgar Auditories and Parochial Congregations, but in learned Assemblies; as the Two Universities, the Nurseries of Learning, from whence proceed the Members of that Learned and Sacred Body of a Convocation; the Convention of the Clergy, at the Epistopal and Archi-diaconal Visitations, which are wont to be held in Pa­rochial Churches; yea, even in the Assem­bly of the Convocation-men, at their Solemn Meeting, when a Psalm is sung before the Sermon; which speaks at least their tacit Approbation. And the Silence of Convoca­tions, which the Vindicator makes an Argu­ment against, I think an Argument for the [Page 24] Approbation of the old Psalms, and the Use and Continuance of them; in regard our Convocations, who are the Church-Representa­tive, never mov'd against, or censur'd, and condemn'd the old Version.

Besides, Time and Custom has hallowed and consecrated the Use of the old Psalms, and entitle 'em to a sort of Prescription.

But why should the Vindicator think that the new Version is more subservient to the Ad­vancement of Piety and Devotion than the old? Is it because it has occasion'd such Distur­bance and Confusion in those few Congregations where it has been receiv'd and us'd: Inso­much that the Church-wardens of St. Catherine Creed-Church, London, (where Mr. Brady him­self was lately Minister) observing what a great Confusion the singing of the new Psalms occasion'd in that Church, (where, it seems, by Mr. Brady's Influence they were receiv'd and us'd) made an Order of Vestry for the laying of 'em aside, and that the old Psalms should be us'd again.

But though the new Version is not subser­vient to the Advancement of Piety and Devotion, yet it may to the Advancement of Money, and and the Getting of an Estate; which perhaps the Undertakers had in view, and a promising Prospect of upon this Performance.

But let 'em wait with Patience until a Convocation shall think fit to silence the old Version, and approve of, recommend, and en­join [Page 25] the Use of the new one, and then they may have their End. And I am perswaded, That the whole Body of the Clergy (whom now the Vindicator is so angry with, for not complying wirh the proud, imposing Hu­mour) will pay as ready a Compliance and Obedience, as the most zealous Promoters and Abettors of the present Undertaking.

In the mean time, let the Performance be never so excellent and laudable, to attempt to impose it on the Clergy and People, in such In­stances as the modest Vindication does, is un­accountable Rudeness and Presumption, which the Vindicator, or his Authors, ought to retract, and beg pardon for.