will take their oath upon it. To prove which, I need only observe, that they have always expressed themselves willing to subscribe the Belgic Confession, and they actually did subscribe it in the Synod of Vitre, 1583. cap. ii. art. 2. Now it is one article of the Belgic Confession,* "That the apocryphal books may be read in churches, and instructions be drawn from them so far as they are consonant to the canonical books, but no further: which is exactly the doctrine of the Church of England." So that by the same reason that the French Church subscribes the Belgic confession, she would, no doubt, subscribe and assent to the prescription of the Church of England in this point as well as any other.

Some of her best writers speak honourably of the English Liturgy, for this very reason, for which others condemn it. Among these we may reckon the testimony of the famous Ludovicus le Blanc; who in his theological disputation, de Libris Canonicis et Apochryphis, p. 175. has these words: "As the ancient Christian Church, though she did not equal these books to those that are divine, yet had them in great honour and esteem, and judged them worthy to be read not only privately, but publicly, as exceedingly useful for edification in manners: so we also at this day do not deny them an honourable place in the Church of God, but allow them a privilege above the common rank of other Ecclesiastical writings. A proof of which is, that we use to bind them up in the same volume with the sacred canonical books, and often think fit to alledge them in our sermons. Moreover in Great Britain the custom is to read lessons out of these books, in their public and ordinary worship; as appears from that celebrated English Liturgy, which is in use in that kingdom." This is not spoken like one that could not subscribe the English Liturgy, because it appointed the reading of the apocryphal books.

Chamier does not expressly mention the Church of England, but he virtually commends her practice in

Confess. Belg. in Corp. Confess. art. vi. p. 161. Apocryphi Libri legi quidem in ecclesia possint, &c.

commending the practice of the primitive Church, which was the same. For Ruffin says, the Fathers of the Church sometimes distinguished all books into three sorts, canonical, ecclesiastical, and apocryphal: the canonical were the same which we call so now, which they used to confirm articles of faith: ecclesiastical were those which we now call apocryphal, which they allowed to be read in churches, but not to be of authority to confirm articles of faith the third sort which they called apocryphal were not those which we now call so, but other hurtful books, which they would not allow to be read in churches. Now says Chamier, speaking of this account which Ruffin gives, "this distinction is doubtless very useful, and pleases me very well. Distinctio utilis est sine dubio, mihique valde placet." Chamier, tom. 1. lib. iv.

c. 1. n. 10.

And yet some judicious persons are of opinion, that the Apocryphal Books are not so strictly enjoined, but that ministers are authorised and allowed to change the lessons taken out of them for others of the New Testament more edifying. For the admonition to ministers before the second Book of Homilies says, "That whereas it may chance that some one or other chapter of the Old Testament may fall in order to be read upon the Sundays or holy days, which were better to be changed with some other of the New Testament of more edification, it shall be well done of ministers to spend their time to consider of such chapters beforehand, whereby their prudence and diligence in their office may appear, and the people may have cause to glorify God for them, &c.

Hammond l'Estrange thinks this administers probable occasion of conjecture, that our Church hereby intended an allowance of declining apocryphal lessons on holy days, that the history of the saints might be the better completed by some express chapters of the New Testament; forasmuch as both the canonical and apocryphal books go under the complex notion of the Old Testament. Allianc. of Div. Offic. c. 1. p. 25.

And Mr. Baxter himself was not ignorant of this admoni

tion in the homilies: for in his reformation of the Liturgy in 1661. p. 35. he refers to it, desiring this alteration to be made in the calendar, and inserted as a rubric into the new Common Prayer Book; "That after the Psalms for the day, the minister shall read a chapter of the Old Testament, such as he finds most seasonable; or with the liberty expressed in the admonition before the second book of Homilies." So that when he had a mind to come a little near the Church, he could find a liberty granted to change any lesson of the Old Testament for a more edifying one in the New: but when he set himself to dispute against the Church, then we have not a word of this liberty, but a terrible argument formed against the rubric, for appointing some useful lessons of the apocrypha to be read, though sufficiently distinguished from canonical Scripture. For the sixth Article does put a manifest difference between them; and any minister who finds his people so ignorant as not to know what the apocrypha means, may inform them by reading the article to them: though Mr. B. was so confident as to say some readers of common prayer are forbidden by the canon to expound even that one word to them. Engl. Noncon. cap. 17.

CHAP. VI.

Of assenting to read Common Prayer daily, either privately or openly.

In the preface to the Common Prayer Book, concerning the service of the Church, there is a rubric which "orders all priests and deacons to say daily the morning and evening prayer, either privately or openly, not being let by sickness or some other urgent cause.

Mr. B. says," when the Book was first made, to help the ignorant vulgar out of popery, every day to use the common prayer was a very good help to them. But the case is

much altered, and people now have more suitable helps, and ministers have so much other work to do in their studies, and with their neighbours, and some prayers to use more suitable to their families and closets, that it must needs be a sinful impediment against other duties to say common prayer twice a day." Engl. Nonconform, cap. 41.

Any one may perceive whither this discourse tends, viz. to discourage the daily use of public common prayer in the church, which it was doubtless the design, and a very laudable design in our first reformers to establish, as far as possible, throughout the nation. This appears from the rubric which immediately follows that which Mr. B. excepts against, where it is ordered, "That the curate that ministreth in every parish church or chapel, being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably hindered, shall say the same in the parish church or chapel where he ministreth, &c. that the people may come to hear God's word, and to pray with him."

Now he that quarrels with this, must think it improper that men should meet every day to worship God in public. For otherwise, why should it be a sinful impediment of other duties, to say common prayer daily? If it be said there ought to be no public prayers without a sermon, and no man is qualified to preach every day in the year: I answer, 1. That in effect common prayer is never read without a sermon: for the lessons out of God's word are a very instructive one, if duly attended to. But 2. If by a sermon be meant a set discourse of the minister's own composing, of such a length, and in a certain form, &c. then it is false, and a rash accusation of God's Church, to say there ought to be no public prayers without a sermon. For all Churches allow it, and most encourage and recommend it. The French Church in particular has several Canons, which suppose and authorise this practice. When the Synod of Castres says, "Baptism may be administered on any day when common prayer is said without sermon:" Does not that suppose an allowance of common prayer to be used without a sermon? See the Synod of Castres, 1626. cap. 25. art. 15.

The second Synod of Vitre, 1617. cap. ix. art. 3. " leaves it to the prudence of consistories to congregate the people on all popish holy days, either to hear the word preached ; or to join in common public prayers, as they shall find to be most expedient. Does not this authorise reading of common prayer without a sermon, when it leaves it to the discretion of consistories to appoint it, if they thought convenient?

3. The cases of reading common prayer, and preaching a sermon of the minister's own composing every day, are very different from one another. For the one cannot be done without a great expence of time before hand, to prepare the composition; whereas the other is a form composed to the minister's hand, and needs no other time to be spent upon it, but what is necessary for the act of celebration, And yet some persons have that quickness and ability, as to preach as well as pray publicly every day in the week. So Calvin was used to do, as Beza tells us in his life, (p. 74.) and yet this did not hinder his other business. Yet such examples are not proper to be made a rule; because all men cannot preach every day in the week, (no, not though Calvin's method were brought again into use, which was but to expound for about a quarter of an hour some portion of Scripture) for though many men have the same ability, yet all have not; whereas no man wants ability to read common prayer daily, if he can have a congregation to join with him. If not. the Church would have him supply that defect, by using it morning and evening in his own family, unless hindered by sickness or some other urgent cause. Beyond this the injunction cannot be supposed to extend: because it being common prayer, and several parts of it at least, as the absolution, &c. supposing a congregation, it cannot be thought a rule for closet devotion. Nor is the injunction so strict to use it daily either in the church or family, but that an urgent cause may dispense with the omission of it. And what are urgent causes every man must judge for himself, considering his own circumstances, with Christian prudence and discretion. The present rubric only mentions sickness, but in former