An account of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persuasions appointedAn accompt of all the proceedings of the commissioners of both persvvasions appointed

doth, but from the Church at Antioch, and not from any pretended ⟨p. 31⟩Doctrine or Practise of the Apostles: and neither of them speaks a word of the necessity of it, or of forcing any to it: so that all these your Citations, speaking not a word so much as of the very Subject in question, are marvellously impertinent. The words [Their Worship,] seem to intimate that singing of Psalms is part [of our Worship,] and not of yours: we hope you disown it not; for our parts we are ashamed of it. Your distinction between Hopkins and Davids Psalms, as if the metre allowed by Authority to be sung in Churches, made them to be no more Davids Psalms, seemeth to us a very hard saying. If it be because it is a Translation, then the prose should be none of Davids Psalms neither, nor any Translation be the Scripture. If it be because it is in metre, then the exactest Translation in metre should be none of the Scripture. If because it's done imperfectly, then the old Translation of the Bible, used by Common-Prayer-Book, should not be Scripture. As to your reason for the supposed priority, 1. Scripture-examples telling us, that the people had more part in the Psalms, then in the Prayers or Reading, satisfy us, that God and his Church then saw a disparity of Reason. 2. Common Observation tells us, That there is more order, and less hinderance of Edification in the peoples singing, then in their reading and praying together vocally.

doth, but from the Church at Antioch, and not from any pretended ⟨p. 31⟩Doctrine or Practise of the Apostles: and neither of them speaks a word of the necessity of it, or of forcing any to it: so that all these your Citations, speaking not a word so much as of the very Subject in question, are marvellously impertinent. The words [Their Worship,] seem to intimate that singing of Psalms is part [of our Worship,] and not of yours: we hope you disown it not; for our parts we are ashamed of it. Your distinction between Hopkins and Davids Psalms, as if the metre allowed by Authority to be sung in Churches, made them to be no more Davids Psalms, seemeth to us a very hard saying. If it be because it is a Translation, then the prose should be none of Davids Psalms neither, nor any Translation be the S•ripture. If it be because it is in metre, then the exactest Translation in metre should be none of the Scripture. If because it's done imperfectly, then the old Translation of the Bible, used by Common-Prayer-Book, should not be Scripture. As to your reason for the supposed priority, 1. Scripture-examples telling us, that the people had more part in the Psalms, then in the Prayers or Reading, satisfie us, that God and his Church then saw a disparity of Reason. 2. Common Observation tells us, That there is more order, and less hinderance of Edification in the peoples singing, then in their reading and praying together vocally.