REMARKS Upon a Late PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, A Brief and Full Account OF Mr. Tate's and Mr. Brady's NEW VERSION OF THE PSALMS. By 〈…〉 Divine of the Church of England.  
LONDON, Printed for William Keblewhite at the Swan in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1699.   

Remarks UPON THE VINDICATION OF THE New Version OF THE PSALMS.  
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 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 received and used throughout this Kingdom since the Reformation, and which, by the Vindicator's own Confession, has administered singular Instruction, and Consolation, and unspeakable Benefit to those who have piously and devoutly used 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 composed by its Authors in a plain and humble Style, suitable to the Age they lived 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 unsuitable 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 the Stammering of Moses, or ridicule the old Service of the Sanctuary, because we have now a more Spiritual Worship, suitable 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 abolished 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 abolished by Convocation, and silenced 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 public Worship that is fixed and settled, of constant and perpetual Use, (which when confirmed by the Royal Allowance and Injunction, is then, and not before, to be imposed and generally used with a Nemine Contradicente, both by the 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 examine 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 Chapels 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 Churches, Chapels, 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 Diocese.  
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 expressly, nor by implication. The Royal Allowance, in this Instance, is of the same Force and Validity with an Imprimatur prefixed 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 engage 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 enjoin all the Subjects of England, Clergy and People, to pay an 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 disposed 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 prefixed 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, Chapels, 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 Noncompliance, which you so magisterially and insultingly Charge the Clergy and 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 observed, That the Royal Order and Allowance, in that Instance of Indifferency before mentioned, 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 enjoin 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 storm, 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 Expense, 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; but rather the contrary may be inferred 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 enjoins 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 subscribed, 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 supposed, That either the Bishop of London, or any other Bishop, would be guilty of so great a Prevarication, as to misrepresent, falsely report, and partially and imperfectly recite the Royal 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, Chapels 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 enjoin the reception and use of this new Version upon any, but entirely 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.  
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 imposed upon, and prevailed 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 mere 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 he, p. 21. it plainly appears in as much as it (i. e. the new Version) is allowed of by the King, and recommended by the Bishops. And for this he quotes the Rubric 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 enjoined vy the King, or by the Ordinary of the place. Thus far the Rubric. 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 Premises!— 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 Inferred, and logically Concluded from the Premises as he quotes and applies them. Therefore no Parish Clerk can Sing in the Church at all; because nothing is to be proclaimed or published 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 Minister's Deputy.  
2. That he misapplies the Rubric.  
1. The Vindicator is guilty of a horrid Blunder, in calling the Parish Clerk the Minister's 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 Minister's 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 threatened 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 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 Preceptor 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 skilled legendi & cantandi scientiâ, in Reading and Singing.  
But 2ly. The Vindicator is guilty of a very great Mistake, in misapplying the Rubric. The Rubric 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 Rubric, which immediately follow the Nicene Creed, which are these.  
Then the Curate shall declare unto the People what holidays, 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 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 Rubric, because I presume they made against him.  
Besides the natural import of the Words of the Rubric which the Vindicator quotes, sufficiently shows 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 Rubric 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, etc. privato usu celebrare prohibiti.  Minister shall presume to appoint public or private Fasts, Exercises, Lectures, Prophecies, Exorcisms, etc. without a lawful Command or Licence from his Superiors. And 'tis obvious what great Mischiefs would be consequent 〈…〉 an unbounded Liberty. So that it is 〈…〉, That this Rubric 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 governor's both in Church and State, because of the King's Allowance, and the Bishop's supposed 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 Rubric 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, 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 famed 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 obliged to the modest Vindicator, for that honourable Character which he is pleased to bestow upon them, representing them as Stubborn, contumatious Violators of the Oath of Canonical Obedience, and their solemn Engagement at their Ordination; Opposers of the Authority of Convocations and Parliaments, and Enemies to their Rights and Privileges; Despisers of Government, and disobedient to Governors 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 Compliment 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 endeavours to enervate all their Efficacy and Strength by rendering 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 pleased to confirm, and the King and the Bishops are pleased to act by, who have the executive Power, etc. 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 Judgement 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 Success, or those that are prejudiced 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 mere 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 Compliment and Respect to the Clergy, at whom the Reflection is directly aimed, though obliquely, and by consequence at the People too, who are not reconciled to the use of the new Psalms, as I hear very few in this City are. All which considered, 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 Enterprise, a Divine and a Player, a Christian Priest and a Stage Poet, as unequally yoked as the Ox and the Ass, which were forbid by the Law of Moses to draw together in the same Yoke. But perhaps none was so fit for the Undertaking, to give it Reputation, especially amongst Pretenders to Wit, as a Comic-Divine, and a Poet Laureate.  
But perhaps Mr. Sternold and Mr. Hopkins (the Vindicator, I hope, will not be offended that I give them the usual Compliment 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 misinformed, they were so, if not by many Degrees beyond them.  
Let their Work praise 'em in the Gate: The Thing speaks itself: The Performance discovers them to be acted by a Divine Spirit, and breathes a Celestial Sweetness like the droppings of Myrrbe, and the Perfumes of Aloes 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 Transformed into a sort of likeness to the Royal Author, and were perfect Masters of Divine Music.  
They had truly learned to tune David's Harp with agreeable Notes and Accents, suitable 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 composed with an Air suitable to Spiritual Psalmody, and the Divine Subject, and was not polluted with the wanton Strains of profane 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 suitable 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 deprived 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.  
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 suitable 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 itself 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 delivered in plain and familiar Terms, (though there are not wanting Rhetorical Flourishes in Eucharistical Psalms) and more suitable to the Capacities of Parochtal Congregations, where plain and unlearned Auditors are the most numerous.  
But by the Vindicator's Favour, there are some suitable Strokes to Psalms of Triumph; some lofty Strains, as well as humble Notes; not only the Mournings of the Dove, but the Soaring of the Eagle; not only Shallows 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 public 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, silenced by the Care that has been taken in the late Editions of the Psalms to expunge those obsolete and uncouth Expressions, so much complained 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 Fabric. There are perhaps some Passages in the English Translation of the Old and New Testament, which might be better rendered. 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 passed the Censure of a Convocation, or had a formal Approbation, yet it had a virtual one; the old Psalms being received and used, 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 Approbation of the old Psalms, and the Use and Continuance of them; in regard our Convocations, who are the Church-Representative, never moved against, or censured, and condemned 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 occasioned such Disturbance and Confusion in those few Congregations where it has been received and used: Insomuch that the Churchwardens of St. Catherine Creed-Church, London, (where Mr. Brady himself was lately Minister) observing what a great Confusion the singing of the new Psalms occasioned in that Church, (where, it seems, by Mr. Brady's Influence they were received and used) made an Order of Vestry for the laying of 'em aside, and that the old Psalms should be used 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 the Use of the new one, and then they may have their End. And I am persuaded, That the whole Body of the Clergy (whom now the Vindicator is so angry with, for not complying with 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, aught to retract, and beg pardon for.  
THE END.