make a new Liturgy, when the Church had fo many before; then is it lawful for others todo the like. And if the compilers ofthe 5rft of thofe Liturgies, might make anew one in their own words, why may not others make a new one in the Scri- pture words, that will be new only as to the connexion of Sentences ? _ 4. The Church of Rome that is molt for their forms, bave,yet fo often innovated, that they have no reafon to condemn it in others. Prop. 8. Prop. 8. T Hough it be fafefl and moll venerable in Scripture word o, yet isnot this offogreatnece/ity, but that we - may ;lawfully soli a Liturgy that is not thus taken out of Scri- pture. M longas thematter is agreeable toScripture, it is more for Conveniency, then necefíity,that thewords be thence,as is eafily proved.. I. Inour Preaching we judge it lawful! to fpeak words that are not in the Scripture ; therefore by parityof reafon, we may do fo in,Prayer. 2. Inour extemporate Prayers we judge it lawful! to ufe our own words that arenot taken out of Scripture : therefore we may do fo inaLiturgy. 3. Someperfonsmay be fo ftrange toScripture Ianguage,.that for a time more familiar Phrafes may be more edifying to.., them. 4.. Wordsare but toexprefs our minds : If therefore our words are congruous expreffions of found and well ordered conceptions, they are not only lawful, but convenient. And therefore it is not warrantable for any man to quarrel with expreffionsbecaufe they arenot Scriptural, norto fcrupiethe ufe of Liturgies, becaufe the forms are not in the words of Scri- pture. prop. ., Prof). 9. EI E matter of acommon Liturgy inwhich we ex; i pell anygeneralConcord,Jhonidnot be any doubtfHll or unnectfßryt things. .,it fhould imp* no doubtful( or .unneceffary ceremonies;. (of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=