I perceive that Mr. Newte was enforced to have recourse to the Old Testament for a Text, that his Sermon might keep Tune with his Organ. He was well aware that the New-Testament would not afford him one, to answer his Design.

Having laid down his Text. Psal. 150.4. and made some prefatory Discourse about Davids composing of Psalms, and sending them to the Prefect of the Choir to fit, and prepare them to some Musical Instrument.

Then, to make way for the recommending of the use of Instru­mental Musick as lawful in the Worship of God; He singles out the Instance of Saul to shew the mighty power of Musick.

When Saul was possessed with the Evil Spirit, 1 Sam. 16.23. the Royal Prophet having notice of it, took an Harp, and played with his hand, so the latter part of the Verse saith, Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the Evil Spirit departed from him. So that our Author presumes that a seasonable ap­plication of Musick was the proper cure of that Melancholy Saul la­boured under, and which was heightned by the Devil into distracti­on. Now supposing all this should be granted, I cannot see that he will gain any advantage to his cause by it. But, with submission to Wiser Heads, I conceive that there was somewhat extraordinary in the Case. For it cannot be conceived that Musick should be of so great an efficacy as to drive away the Devil. All that Musick of its self can do, is only to put a pleasing Motion upon the Blood and Spirits; But I question not but that Satan is altogether as powerful to disturb the Spirits, as Musick is to compose and allay them. And if God leave him to exert his power, I make no doubt, but he is more able to agitate them disorderly, than the most melodious Mu­sick can be efficacious to reduce them to their due, and proper moti­on. I confess, if God please to make use of this kind of Musick as an Instrument to produce some great, and notable effects, it shall be attended with success; But then those effects are not so much to be ascribed to Musick, as to the Extraordinary concerns of God therewith all.

But I shall now address my self to the consideration of those argu­ments, which the Author of the Sermon alleadges for the proof of the Lawfulness of the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God. Although this Gentleman propounds them with an Air of Confidence; yet I am not convinced that they are conclusive. I shall attend him.

1. His First Argument he thus propounds. The lawfulness of that can­not certainly, with any tolerable reason be denyed, which all Ages have al­lowed and approved of. God's own People of Old made their approaches to the true God in a Religious manner with the solemnity of Musick, as well as the Heathen to their False Gods.

[Page 6]But that all Ages have allowed, and approved of Instru­mental Musick in the Worship of God, is what our Author cannot prove. He pretends not to give us any instance of its have­ing been used in Divine Worship till the time of Miriam; which was about the Year of the World 2513, according to the computation of some, or according to others, Ann. Mundi. 2453. So that many Centuries of Years were elapsed, before instrumental Musick was ad­vanced to the Honour of being made a means of Worshipping the Deity. True it is, that according to what our Author observes in his Marginal Note, the invention of Instrumental Musick was very early. Jubal is recorded as the first inventor of the Harp and Organ, Gen. 4.21. But what is this to the purpose? What if the Posterity of Wicked Cain were the early inventors of Instrumental Musick? Will this prove it to have been of as early an use in the Worship of God? That it was early invented, we readily own, that its sacred use was as early, we utterly deny. And till this Gentleman can prove its sa­cred use to be as early as its invention, we shall look upon his Mar­ginal Note, as needless, and trifling. And his citation of Job 21.12. is altogether as useless to prove what he has undertaken the defence of. Job there speaks of the prosperity which many times attends the Wicked in this life, and therefore, saith he, ver. 11. They send forth their little ones like a flock, Clarks Bi­ble. Talents Chron. and their children dance, ver. 12. They take the Timbrel, and Harp; and rejoyce at the sound of the Organ. ver. 13. They spend their days in Mirth, and in a moment go down to the Grave. An irrefragable Argument this doubtless, that Harps, and Timbrels were of a Sacred use in the times of Job. The Posterity of the Un­godly sported away their time in Musick and Jollity in those days; therefore Instrumental Musick was of a very Early use in Divine Wor­ship. A most wonderful Consequence!

Well, but in the times of Moses, Musical Instruments were made use of upon a Religious account by Miriam the Prophetess. For it is said, Exod. 15.20, 21. And Miriam the Prophetess Sister of Aaron took a Timbrel in her hand, and all the Women went after her with Timbrels, and with dances. To which Instance I have a few things to say. As (1.) That I Question not, but that Miriam did this as a Prophetess, by an extraordinary impulse from Heaven. (2) I observe, that Dan­cing in the Worship of God can pretend to as great antiquity as In­strumental Musick. (3) It is apparent that they were Women who thus played and danced. These things being considered, I humbly conceive it will be no easie matter for a Person to draw an Argu­ment from this Instance to prove, the Lawfulness of the use of In­strumental Musick in the Worship of God in the times of the Gospel.

But then he alledges another Instance of the early use of Instru­mental Musick in the Worshipping of God, which was in the time of [Page 7] Samuel, about the Year of the World 2909, as some suppose. For it is said, 1 Sam. 10.5. That the company of Prophets came down from the high place with a Psaltery, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and a Harp be­fore them. Now all this I readily grant. But yet this is no Argument of the Lawfulness of the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God under the Gospel, as I hope to evince before I conclude this Letter.

But that our Author may conciliate the greater strength to his Ar­gument, He tells us, that we have Instances even amongst the Heathens of their celebrating their devotions with solemnity of Instrumental Musick: Thus he tells us from Homer, That the Greeks praised God with an Harp, the Phrygians with a Drum, the Egyptians with a Timbrel; and the Idol-Worship mentioned by the Prophet, Daniel 3.5. was performed with all kinds of Musical Instruments.

Although it be granted him, that the Heathens made use of Instru­mental Musick in the praising of their Gods, yet I humbly conceive, he will not be able to prove it to be a dictate of Nature; It is the opi­nion of Men of great Name, that the Heathens took up this way of praising their false Deities in imitation of the manner of Worshipping of God amongst the Hebrews. The Reverend Bishop of Worcester, in his Orig. Sacr. p. 161, 162. tells us out of Strabo; ‘That the Cory­bantes of Old, were [...], dancing about with their Cimbals, and Drums, and Arms, and Pipes (as tho' Bedlam had been broke loose amongst them) which he thinks was by Sa­tan taken up in imitation of those inspired Hymns and Musick used by the Sons of the Prophets.’

That the Heathens borrowed many of their Sacred Rites from the Hebrews, I conceive has been abundantly proved by many very Learned Men. Huetius in his Demostr. Evangel. has offered many things for the confirmation of this. The Hebrews abstained from Swines flesh, so did the Aegyptians. The Priests amongst the He­brews were cloathed with linnen Garments; the Priests of Isis aped them in this. Had the Hebrews their Shew bread; The Egyptians offered Bread to their God Serapis. Did the Hebrews make use of Wine and Oyl at their daily Sacrifice? Exod. 29.38, 39. The E­gyptians added Wine and Oyl to their Sacrifices. Did the former make a distinction between clean and unclean Beasts? So did the lat­ter. The Hebrews Circumcised their Males, the Egyptians did the like. More to this purpose you may read. Huet. Demonstrat. Evang. p. 125, 126. and Witsii Aegyp. p. 263, &c. We must not hastily conclude some Sacred Rites, and Usages to have been the dictates of Nature, because they have been practised amongst some of the Hea­then Nations; For many times have they adopted the Rites of Gods positive Institution into their own Superstitious Worship.

[Page 8]But that I may give a full, and fair reply to this first Argument, I shall reduce it to Form thus.

That which all Ages have allowed, and approved of in the Wor­ship of God, is lawful in the Worship of God.

But all Ages have approved, and allowed of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God.

Therefore, the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God is Lawful.

Now our Author is to prove the Minor proposition, namely that all Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Musick in the Worshipping of God. This Proposition is an universal Affirmative. And how does he prove it? Thus. If Gods own People of Old made their approaches to the True God in a religious manner with the solemnity of Musick, as well as the Heathen to their false Gods; then all Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God.

But Gods own People of Old have made their approaches to the True God in a religious manner with the solemnity of Musick, as well as the Heathen to their false God.

Ergo. All Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Mu­sick in the Worship of Gods.

Now would I fain enquire of this Author, whether, when he saith, Gods own People, he intends Gods People in all Ages? If so, then he supposeth what he was obliged to prove, and puts off his Reader with that Old Falacy, called a begging of the Question; which sort of begging usually discovers a poverty of Argument. Or whether, when he says, Gods own People made their approaches to the True God with the solemnity of Musick; he intends only the People of God in some Ages? If so, then his Argument will appear to be extreamly incon­clusive. For then he attempts to prove an Universal by a particular. And his Argument will be to this purpose. The People of God in some Ages have approached God with the solemnity of Musick, ergo, they have done so in all. And I cannot see how his Argument can be understood in a better sense than this. For the Instances he pro­duces only respect some few Ages, and not all. I own that the Peo­ple of God in some Ages, as well as the Heathens, have made their Religious Addresses with the Solemnity of Musick; but this will not warrant any Man to conclude, that it is lawful now in these times of the Gospel to make use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God.

But the more effectally to Convince you of the invalidity of this way of arguing, I shall shew you how that by the same Method of procedure, many things apparently unlawful in the Worship of God, might be proved lawful. And First,

[Page 9]1. I shall begin with Sacrifices. Gods own People have made their approaches to the True God with the Solemnity of Sacrifices. Thus Abel, Abraham, Job, &c. And you know that Sacrificing was an eminent part of the Established Worship enjoyned by the Law of Moses. It was a Sacred usage, much more Ancient than that of Instrumental Musick. It commenced even in the days of Adam. So did not the use of that Musick our Author pleads for. And farther, that the Heathens offered Sacrifices to the honour of their Gods, cannot be questioned, Rosin. Antiq. Rom. Lib. 3. cap. 33. Many Authorities I could heap up to this purpose, if there were need of it. But I cannot think any Man of Letters will demand of me the proof of it. Now this being so apparent; will it be warrantable for me to infer, that the use of Sacrifices is now Lawful in the times of the Gospel? I doubt not but every Protestant will tell me the Argument is in this case inconclusive. And why the same Argument should be conclu­sive in the case of Instrumental Musick, I cannot imagine. But,

(2.) Religious Dancing was of an early use, and that even amongst God's own People. This was of as early an use as Organical Mu­sick. For it is said, Exod. 15.20. That Miriam, and the women danced, as well as played with Timbrels. Thus David danced before the Ark, 2 Sam. 6.14. And David danced before the Lord with all his might, and David was girded with a linnen Ephod. And Gods People had a com­mand of Old, to praise him in the dance, Psal. 149.3. and Psal. 150.4. But this was not a practise confined to the Church of God, for it was a Sacred Rite amongst the Heathens too. As the Learned Huetius assures us. Huet Demonst. Evang. p. 79. Sa­cra illa coram ido­lis saltatio, in va­luit apud omnes pro­pe modum gentes, jam indè ab anti­quis temporibus. For he saith, That a Religious dancing before Idols was of an early practice amongst almost all Nations. This Dancing was used by the Corybantes, as was observed be­fore, out of the Bishop of Worcester's Orig. Sacr. and Mr. Dry­den thus, gives the sense of Juvenal concerning them. Satyr. VIth.

Now from all this shall we conclude it lawful to set up a capring Devotion? I dare say, no Man of thought will allow such a Con­clusion to pass for warrantable. But I do not see but that this Argu­ment is as fair for Dancing again, as it is cogent to perswade the law­fulness of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God in these times [Page 10] of the Gospel. I see nothing our Author has offered to warrant the use of his beloved Musick, which may not be improved for the in­troduction of Dancing again into Divine Worship.

(3.) If our Authors way of arguing be allowable, it may be law­ful to receive Circumcision again. For was Instrumental Musick made use of in the Worshipping of God before the Law was given by Moses? As much may be pleaded in the behalf of Circumcision; for it was used as a Sacred Rite, and that long before the Mosaical Institutions had their compleat establishment. It was of a more Antient use, than Instrumental Musick. Even in the time of Abraham was it enjoyn­ed as a Sacred Rite, and practised by him. For he was Circumci­sed after he had arrived to the Age of Ninety-nine, Gen. 17.24. Again this Rite was enjoyned by the Law of Moses, John 7.22. Moses there­fore gave unto you Circumcision, Levit. 12.3. And if we enquire into the practise of the Heathen Nations, we shall find that Circumcision was likewise a Sacred rite amongst them. For saith Huetius, Demonst. Evangelic. p. 126. Circumcidebant Virilia Egyptii; quem morem ab ipsis Phaenices, & Syri neque acceperunt, neque se fatentur accepisse, quod vult Herodotus. Ad Saturnum quippe Phaenices referunt circumcisionis institutum, ut in San­choniathonicis suis scribit Philo-Byblius, homo Phoenix, & rerum suarum Herodoto longè consultior. The use of Circumcision was found amongst the Egyptians, &c. And the Learned Dr. Spencer De legibus Hebraeorum. Lib. 1. p. 27. Qui veterum monumenta, pri­mis, quod aiunt, labiis delibarunt, apprimè norunt, non tantùm Judaeos, sed & Egyptios, Colchos, Phaeni­cas, Syros, Arabes, Aethyopes, Troglodytas, alios, circumcisionem in usu habuisse. saith, that they, who have but little aquaintance with the Monuments of the Antients, very well know, that not only the Jewes, but the Egyptians, the Colchi, the Phae­nicians, the Syrians, the Arabians, the Aethiopi­ans, and others had the rite of Circumcision a­mongst them. But will this be evidence for the Lawfulness of Circumcision in our times? I believe this Gentleman will not own it. Why then should the same Argument be thought sufficient to maintain the lawfulness of Or­gans in the Christian Worship? I suppose the practice of Gods People of Old, and the concurring practise of the Heathens, will not warrant us to con­clude Circumcision to have proceeded from the dictates of Natural Religion; which Men were not so much taught, Serm. p. 6. as born to, as our Author has it. Why then, must this Argument be thought conclusive in the case of Instrumental Musick?

But to conclude my Remarks upon this first Argument of Mr. Nts, give me leave to observe to you that he enters upon it with a mighty Parade; The lawfulness of that, cannot certainly with any tolerable rea­son be denied, which all Ages have allowed, and approved of. Well, sup­pose that be granted, what then? Does he prove that all Ages have allowed and approved of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God? No such Matter. He Instances only in some. And to con­clude all Ages, from some may pass for good arguing, it may be, [Page] with some of his Tiverton Auditory of a lower class; but would be condemned as illogical in Baliol College, where he has been, it seems, sometime a Fellow.

I would not have our Author be too hasty to recommend that to the World, as a Dictate of Natural Religion, which has been the early practise of Gods People, and the Heathens too. For I shall take leave to deny it, and here I would entreat you to peruse a pas­sage of the Learned Bishop Taylor: His words are these. Duct. Du­bit. lib. 2. p. 371. ‘The con­sonant practises of Heathens, in a matter not expresly commanded by God to them, is no argument, that what they did in that in­stance was by the light of Nature. And a little after he adds: when the Judaizing Christians did pertenaciously retain Circumcision; they might upon this ground have pretended it to be consonant to the law of Nature. Because even the Gentiles, the Egyptians, the Arabians, all the Nations that descended from Ishmael, and Esau, and divers other Nations did use it. But consent is no Argument, when it is nothing but imitation.’ Upon this last sentence of the Do­ctors I depend for Mr. Nts confutation.

2. The Second Argument which he imploys in the defence of his Organ, Serm. p. 8. He takes from Davids establishing his way of praising God both in the Tabernacle, and the Temple, and the ample endowments that he made upon the several Officers, which were concerned in its performances. He saith, That this Sweet-singer of Israel, with divers other Prophets, Serm. p. 9. who were inspired be­side him, introduced into the Church among the Jews, the use of such instru­ments as were thought fit by them, being so Divinely inspired, to raise the Spirit of Devotion among the People.

I have a few things to offer, which I believe may be sufficient to take off the edge of this Argument.

(1.) Whereas he saith, That these inspired Persons introduced such Instruments into the Jewish Worship, as were thought fit by them. I hum­bly conceive, that that Expression [as were thought fit by them] is lia­ble to exception. Did they introduce those musical Instruments in­to the Jewish Worship upon their own heads, without any special di­rection from God? If he thinks they did, let him prove it. If not, but that they did it by special direction from God; Why does he say, As were thought fit by them? For this imports, as if they were intro­duced by the inspired Persons themselves, because they judged them fit and convenient; not that they did it in pursuance of a Divine command. It is most apparent, that all that David did in the Regu­lation of the Worship of God, he did not by his Civil Authority as a King, but according to the command of God, as a Prophet. For it is said, 2 Chron. 8.14. That Solomon appointed according to the order of David his Father, the courses of the Priests to their service, and the Le­vites to their charges, to praise, and minister before the Priests, as the duty [Page 12] of every day required; for so, saith the Text, David the Man of God commanded. Those words [the Man of God] sufficiently discover in what capacity David ordered these things; not barely as a King, but as a Man of God, that is, as one Inspired by, and excited of God to do it. When Hezaekiah restored the purity of Gods Worship, which his Father Ahaz had destroyed; it is said, 2 Chron. 29.25. That he set the Levites in the House of the Lord with Cymbals, with Psalteries, and with Harps according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the Kings Seer, and of Nathan the Prophet, For, saith the Text, so was Gods Commandment by the Prophets. They did not appoint the use of such Musical Instruments from their own Motion, but from Gods in­fallible direction. Not because they thought them fit, but because God thought them so.

(2.) Because God ordered these inspired Persons to appoint Levites, and the use of Musical Instruments in the Worship of God under the Jewish oeconomie. Will this be a warrant for Persons to introduce the same into the Gospel Worship without an order, or commission from Heaven? Because Persons did this then, pursuant to a Divine command, may Persons therefore now do it without one? Where is the consequence of it? Let Mr. Newte shew us a Command in the Gospel for the use of Organs in Publick Worship; let him pro­duce an order from the God of Heaven in the Case, and no doubt but he will soon have vast multitudes to follow him in the erecting of Organs in their Parish Churches. But, I suppose he will not al­low it to be a commendable way of arguing, to plead for the use of a thing as lawful under the Gospel, because it was made of Old part of the legal Service?

If he judges such a way of concluding rational, he may introduce most of the Jewish Rites into the Christian Worship, and upon the same Topick plead for their Lawfulness. But I shall give a more full Reply to this Argument, when I come to consider Mr. Baxter's rea­sons for the lawfulness of Instrumental Musick. For Mr. Baxter of­fers the same Argument, but with more strength.

P. 9.But let us attend our Author a little farther. From thence we may argue, if this was useful under the Jewish State, Why not under the Chri­stian? Have not Christians sometimes the same deadness, and dulness, and Spiritual indisposition in the service of God, which the Jews had, and which lack to be shaken off?

(1.) He enquires, If this was useful under the Jewish state, Why not under the Christian? And another Person may enquire if he please; If Sacrificing was useful under the Jewish state, Why not under the Christian? Why may it not be of use to represent to us now, the Death of Christ past, as well as it was of use then to represent the Death of Christ to come? If God had thought fit to have made it [Page 13] part of the Christian Worship, it might have been of excellent use to excite the Affections of Christians.

(2.) Harps and Timbrels, Trumpets, Psalteries, and Dances were all unquestionably useful under the Jewish state, May we therefore allow them a Room in the Gospel Worship? Shall we plead their use commendable, and so introduce them into Christi­an Assemblies? I believe our Author will scarcely yield this? Yet, if his Argument hath any Force in it, it will warrant the Introduction of all these, as well as of Organ-pipes. Those Instances which are produced from the Old-Testament, saith Peter Martyr, On 1 Cor. 14. Quae adducuntur ex veteri te­stamento, ad Novum non sunt necessariò transfe­renda; nisi velimus Ce­remonias, & Sacrificia le­gis antique revocare.— are not to be Trans­planted into the New, unless we will recal again the Cere­monies, and Sacrifices, of the Ancient Law.

(3.) This will reflect upon the Primitive Christians, as if they had not sufficiently provided, for the shaking off the dulness, and deadness of Persons in the Service of God. If this Instrumental Musick be of so excellent an Use now for the shaking off the dulness of Christians in the Service of God, was it not a means altogether as proper in the early Times of Christianity? But yet we cannot find that the Primitive Christians used our Authors Celebrated Musick, and so far were they from approving it, as a useful means to shake off the dulness of Persons in the Service of God, that they judged the use of it unlawful in the Wor­shipping Assemblies of Christians, as I shall prove, before I con­clude this Letter.

(4.) Whereas with respect to Christians, he interrogates, Do they not need some such Helps, and Assistances to move their Affections, to raise their Devotions? What, as Musical Instruments? I Answer, No. For, Sir, The Case is plainly this. Christ Jesus, who best under­stood what are the fittest means to move the Affections, and to raise the Devotions of Christians in the Service of God, has left no Order at all for the Use of Instrumental Musick for the accomplishing of this end. But he has appointed the Preaching of the Word, Prayer, the Singing the Praises of God with the Voice, and the Administration of the Sacraments to move the Affections, and to raise the Devotions of Christi­ans. And by such an Appointment he has sufficiently provided to move the Affections, and to shake off the dulness of Christian Worship­pers. Therefore I do not understand how they can have Need of the help of Organs. If Christ by his Institutions has fully, and suffici­ently provided for the shaking off the Dulness of Christians in the Ser­vice of God, and the raising of their Devotions; then are Musical Instru­ments needless in the Case. To what purpose are they? When as those Ends are abundantly secured by our Lords Institutions. If he will say, that notwithstanding all the Sacred Appointments of Christ, Christians have still need of Instrumental Musick for the raising of their Devotions, [Page 14] then will it follow, that Christ by his Appointments has not made suf­ficient provision for the raising the Devotions of Christians; which for any Person to assert, would be to arraign the Wisdom of the great Law-giver of the Church. Hence will it likewise follow, that Moses and David, made better provision for the shaking off the dulness, and raising the Affections of Persons in the Service of God, than our Lord himself has done. For by them was Instrumental Musick Appointed, but is wholly left out of our Saviours Institutions. In Ecclesiâ enim ex­citandus est animus ad Deum, & laetitiam spiri­tualem, non tibiis, tubis, tympanis, quod veteri durae cervicis, & stupidae mentis populo, Deus o­lim indulsit; sed sacris Concionibus, Psalmodiis & Hymnis. But see­ing these Consequences make unbecoming Reflections up­on the Wisdom of our Lord, we cannot then but con­clude the use of Instrumental Musick needless, with re­spect to the Assigned ends. I shall conclude this Re­mark with a sutable passage of the Learned Pareus, on 1 Cor. 14.7. In the Church, the mind is not to be raised to God, and a Spiritual Joy by Pipes, and Trumpets, and Timbrels, (which God of Old Indulged his Ancient People, who were of a stiff-neck, and a stupid mind) but by sacred Sermons, Psalms and Hymns.

As to what our Author saith with respect to the use of Vocal Musick in the Worship of God, I agree to; namely, that it was practised by the Primitive Christians in the most early times of Christianity; But whether the Christians of the first Ages used the Alternate way of Sing­ing, I am not so clear in. I find that Mr. M. inclines to believe this to have been the Primitive way of Singing, Ser. p. 10. as you may observe from the Marginal Note. But I am not satisfied with the Evidence he produces to perswade his Readers to entertain this Opinion. He seems to bottom his belief of this upon that passage of Hist Eccl. L. 6. c. 8. [...], &c. Socrates. Who saith, That Ignatius was he who first brought the Alternate way of Singing into the Christian Church, having learnt it from a Vision of Angels. As to this passage of Socrates which some lay so great a stress upon, I do not see any good ground we have to receive it for truth. For Ignatius himself saith nothing of it in his Epistles. None of the Fathers that lived, and flourished just after the times of Ignatius, as Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus Antioch, Tutian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, &c. mention any thing of this Story. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History is totally silent about it. And to me it is strange that so remarkable a Story as this, should be taken notice of by none, till the time of Socrates, who flourished, as is concluded by the Learned, about the Year 440. Valesius in his Annotations upon that passage of Socrates, saith, that be knew not whence Socrates should have that Story. For, adds he, It is manifest that Flavianus and Diodorus were the first Persons who taught the Alternate Singing of David's Psalms. They first intro­duced [Page 15] it into the Church of Antioch, and from thence afterwards it spread into the other Churches of the World. And for this he cites Theodoret Eccles. Hist. l. 2. c. 24.. Compen. Histor. p. 249. Cedrenus mentions only Flavianus as the Author of it in the 23d Year of Constantine. And Valesius tells us, that Theodorus Mopsuestenus (who lived in the times of Flavianus and Diodorus, and so best knew, what was done in the Churches of those days) asserts the same with Theodoret. Namely, that Flavianus and Diodorus first introduced Alternate Singing into the Church of Antioch. And then it will follow, that it was not brought into this Church before by Ignatius. So that I look upon that Passage of Socrates, which our Author seems so fond of, to be no other than a Visionary Story, which he picked up on very slender evidence.

What Dr. New Direct. Edit. Fol. p. 363. Hammond observes from St. Basil, is re­markable; That Father, in his description of a Clergy-Man officiating, ad clerum. Neocaesar. Epist. 63. p. 843, 844. [...]. saith, They go to the House of Prayer, and after the Confession, they prepare for the singing; for Now, saith he, we sing the Psalms in Parts, or by Turns. It seems they had not done so before. Now St. Basil flourished about the Year 370; which was long after the times of Ignatius.

Mr. N. also cites that passage of Lib. 10. Epist. 97. Pliny to the Emperour Trajan concerning the Primitive Christians. Viz. Ante Lucem convenire, car­menque Christo, quasi Deo dicere, secum invicem. This some suppose to be a notable proof of the Christians singing Alternately in the first Ages. And the stress of the Argument they lay upon the Word [in­vicem] translating it [by turns] or Alturnately.] Whereas, I think the English of that passage is no more than this; That They sung a Hymn together, or one with another, to Christ before day. And thus the Learned Dr. Cave Translates it. Prim. Christian. Part. 1. p. 278. Ser. p. 10. I doubt not but it will be apparent to those who shall be at the pains to enquire, that [invicem] does not always signifie Alternately.

As to what our Author saith, That it is supposed that Ignatius was the Child which our Saviour took and set in the midst before his Disciples, when he said, Mat. 18.3. Except ye be converted, and become as little Children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I look upon it as a groundless supposition. And Mr. Celler Remarks relating to the state of the Church p. 5, 6. in the Life of Igna­tius has said enough to spoil the credit of that Story, and to prove it Fabulous.

But in the close of his Marginal Note, p. 11. He thus demands, If this be Ceremonial (that is, Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God) Why not the other (i. e. Vocal Singing) and both be abolished, or neither?

Sir, Methinks to me it is easie to observe a difference between these two. Singing the Praises of God with the Voice is not only in [Page 16] the Judgment of the Generality of the Dissenters, but of those of his own Church too, a part of Natural Worship. 'Tis supposed to be a Branch of that reasonable Service, which by the Light of Nature, we are led to perform. Thus Of Di­vine Wor­ship. p. 15. Dr. Templer, As Prayer, so Praises in Hymns, and Psalms is a part of Natural Worship. I could cite Multitudes of other Excellent Writers of his Own Communion, who plainly declare them­selves to be of this Opinion. I suppose our Reverend Author, will not own himself to have different Sentiments as to this matter. Reason teacheth us that our Bodies ought to bear a part in the Worship of God with our Souls, 1 Cor. 6.20. Glorifie God with your Bodies, and with your Spirits, which are Gods, is the Language of Scripture, and the concurrent Voice of Nature. The Tongue is a part of the Body, and therefore ought to be imployed in the Praising of God; And Nature informs us, that this little Member should all Possible ways, which are Decent, be Imployed in the Prais­ing of God. And praise him decently it can­not any other way, than by speaking his Praises, or by Singing of them. So that it will follow, That the Singing of the Praises of God, is a part of External Worship, which the Light of Nature directs Men too. The Jesuit, Cornelius a. Lapida, starts much what the same Objection. Si cantus, & Instrumenta, pertinent ad Legem Ceremonialem, ergo parijure, & Cantus, & Psalmodia, quâ adeò gloriantur Cal­vinistae. One would think our Author had borrowed it of him. But observe what reply the Learned Rivet makes to it, in Exod. 15.21. Respondeo, aliam esse ra­tionem simplicis Cantûs per humanam Vocem, qui naturalis est, aliam Instru­mentorum Musicorum inanimatorum, quae congruunt insipientibus..

Now that the Praising of God with Instrumental Musick is a part of Natural Worship, I shall take leave to deny, till I see it enforced with better proofs, than any our Author has as yet thought fit to Produce. And should he prove it, he must forbear talking of the bare Lawful­ness of the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God; And he must press us with the necessity of it. For if it be a part of Natural Worship, it is not only Lawful, but a Duty; and is necessary at least with a Necessity of the Precept. So that you may see, that there is rea­son enough, why, Altho' Instrumental Musick may be Ceremonial, yet Vocal Singing cannot be so.

I suppose it will be granted me, that there is a great deal of Dif­ference, between an Articulate Sound, as is that of Vocal Singing, and an Inarticulate one, as is that of a Pipe, an Organ, or a Violin.

Harps, Organs, or any other sort of Musical Instruments used in the Celebrating the Divine Praises, is no part, nor ever was of Im­mediate Worship; Instrumental Musick indeed was a part of Mediate Worship; which Ceremonies may be, when once they have the Stamp of Divine Authority put upon them, to warrant their use as Sacred. So that it is evident that Singing of Psalms with the Voice, is a sub­stantial part of Worship; It is a Rational act, and expresseth in a Me­lodious Manner the Conceptions of the Mind. But Instrumental [Page 17] Musick is only Ceromonial, for it is no Rational Act, neither does it Articulately express the Affections, and Serious Conceptions of the Soul.

But he enquires, Why both should not be abolished, or neither? Me­thinks the reason is plain. Because the continuation of the one is expresly enjoined in the New Testament, as Ephes. 5.19. and Col. 3.16. But there is Nothing in the whole New Testament to warrant, or Encourage the Use of Instrumental Musick.

But, saith our Author, We may conclude therefore, Ser. p. 10. that it was thro' the Necessity, and not the choice of the Primitive Christians, that so helpful a thing as Instrumental Musick in the Service of God, was not more early received into the Christian Church. And the just encomiums they give of it, shew what was their Mind, and Desire about it; altho' they were not able to bring it to effect.

(1.) Here We shall readily close with his Concession, that the Primitive Christians had not Musical Instruments to excite their Devoti­ons, to raise their Affections in the Worship of God. We find nothing of this in all the Primitive Fathers. Nothing in their Apologies for Christianity against the Heathens; nothing in their Comments on the Sacred Scripture; nothing in their Homilies, or any of their Wri­tings. The Fathers are totally silent as to this Way of Worshipping of God; Or if they say any thing of it, it is only to condemn it, and not to recommend it. I know of none, who pretend that this sort of Pompous Musick was Introduced into the Church sooner than the days of Pope Vitaliane which was about the Year of Christ 656, as some, or as others suppose, about the Year, 666. For thus the Magdeburg Centuriators. Cent. 7. c. 6. Tandem Anno 666. in Pleno Nume­ro Bestiae Apocalyp. 13. Can­tum Latinum cum organis Ecclesiae a Vitaliano Pontifi­ce, susceperunt, Missamque deinde, &c. At last in the Year 666 in the full number of the Beast in the 13th of the Revelations, the Churches received Latine Singing with Organs from Pope Vitaliane, and from thence began to say Latin Mass, and to set up Altars with Idolatrous Images; from whence followed both Prayers to the Dead, Exorcismes, and other prodigious Practices of the Papists; for which they cite Bale. But some think that this sort of Musick was not of so early an use in the Christian Church, as those Persons affirm it to have been. For an Organ was long unknown either in France or Germany.

The first of them was brought to King Pipin, by Stephen Bishop of Rome, and other Embassadors from Constantius Capronimus, as that ex­cellent Historian, and Antiquary Aventinus hath it ^*, who is se­conded [Page 18] by Amoinus; De Gest. Franc. Lib. 4. Cap. 64. & Cap. 114. Adduxit verò Baldricus Domino Imperatori Presbyterum quendam Georgi­um Nomine, bonae vitae hominem, qui se promitteret, organum more posse Graeco­rum componere; quem, Imperator gratantèr suscepit; & quià Deus illi quae ante se in­usitata erant, Regno Francorum attribuebat, gratiarum actiones reddidit; ac Tanculfo sacrorum scriniorum praelato commendavit, publicisque stipendiis curare jussit, & ea, quae huic operi necessaria forent, praeparare mandavit. For he adds, that afterwards one George a Graecian Presbyter undertook to make one for Lewis the Empe­rour. You may consult the Margin. This is placed by Calvicius in the Year 826, and that sent to King Pipin was about 70 Years before. Thomas Aquinas, who lived about the Year of Christ 1270, saith, That Organs were not received into the Church in his time. Sum. 2 ^a 2 qu. 21. art. 2. Ecclesia non assumit Instrumenta Musica, sicut Cytheras, & Psalteria in Divinas Lau­des ne videatur Judaizare. The Church does not take musical Instruments, as Harps, and Psal­teries into the Divine Praises, least it should seem to Judaize. And it is the Observati­on of Cajetan upon him, Take notice, saith he, that in the times of St. Thomas, the Church made no use of Organs. Cajet. in Thom. Nota quod Tempore Divi Thomae Ecclesia non utebatur Organis. So that it seems probable, at least, That Organs were not brought into the Church as early as Pope Vitalianes time. But supposing them to have had a Sacred Use in the Church in his days, we must remember, that they were introduced in the times of Popish Darkness. And I cannot imagine that Protestants should be the more fond of them, be­cause they were introduced by a Pope. Many of the Popish Fopperies, and Superstitions, can plead as great Antiquity in the Christian Church as Instrumental Musick. When it was first brought into the Church, it came accompanied with Latin Service, Altars, and Idolatrous Images, &c. as we learn from the before-cited Centuriators.

Ser. p. 11.But saith our Author, It was of Necessity, and not of Choice that In­strumental Musick had not a more early Reception into the Church. And a little before, he saith, Instrumental Musick being freed from the severe, and lasting Persecutions it lay under for above 300 years together, he hath these words in the Margin. and p. 10. It was to the severest Persecution alone we owe the Want of Instrumental Musick to help out, and exalt their Devoti­on.

(2.) As to this I must say, that it is a mistaken assertion of our Author, that Necessity, and not Choice, kept the Primitive Christians from using Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God. To me it seems strange, that a Person should advance such a thing without proof. The Primitive Christians might have had this sort of Musick if they had pleased. What if they could not have born the charge of a Sumptuous, and a costly Organ; yet they might have gotten a Harp, or a Vial, or a Pipe, or some such less chargeable Instrument, at a very ea­sie rate. If they had thought Instrumental Musick so very useful, as is pretended, certainly they would not long have been without it. I do not understand how their severe Persecution was a bar to it.

[Page 19](3.) If Necessity, because of Persecution was the only impediment to the Primitive Christians use of Instrumental Musick in the Ser­vice of God; What is the reason that we find nothing of it amongst them in the times of Constantine, when the Church was in a flourish­ing and prosperous Condition? Christians then had the favour of the Emperour, and the Civil Government smiled upon them. We read that then they erected rich and stately Tem­ples, insomuch, that the Historian saith, Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 10. cap. 2. [...]. That the Churches then were more splendid than those, which had been demolished by the impiety of Tyrants. The Emperour himself largely Contributed to the building of the Churches out of his own Treasures, as the same Historian assures us Euseb. de Vit. Constant. Lib. 2. cap. 42. [...].. And Micraelius Syntag. Histor. Eccles. p. 374. Uti sub fluctibus persecutionum Tyrannicarum Ora­toria, & Templa nullis sumptibus fuerant Conspicua, ità Constantino Imperatore ad fidem converso, basilicè, & magnificè surge­bant, columnis marmoreis splendentia seque Altarium formositate, Baptisteriorum preti­sitate, Anathematum pulchritudine aspectui omnium commendantia. saith, As, under the storms of Tyrannical Persecution the Orato­ries, and Temples were not adorned with costly Ornaments; so when Constantine was Emperour, and Converted to the Chri­stian Faith, they were stately, and Magni­ficent, they were splendidly adorned with Marble Pillars, with beautiful Altars, with curious Fonts, and other rich Embellishments, and Gifts. Now to me it seems strange, that the Pri­mitive Christians should in those times have been destitute of Instru­mental Musick, when they were in so good a capacity to have fur­nished themselves with any sort of Instrument to their content, if they had been desirous of it. Had they their Churches so splendid­ly adorned, with Marble Pillars, with Beautiful Altars, with Curi­ous and Costly Fonts, and other rich Embellishments? What! And yet no Organs, no Instrumental Musick to raise and exalt their Devo­tions, as our Author speaks? It cannot well be conceived they would have wanted these, had they been perswaded of their Lawfulness, and of their excellent usefulness to raise the Devotions of Christians in Divine Worship.

(4.) The reverse of what our Author has asserted, may easily be made good from some of the Writings of the Primitive Fathers; Namely, That it was their Choice, and not Necessity, which was the cause they had no Instrumental Musick in their Sacred Assemblies to raise their Devotions, or to render their Service the more august. That this was the effect of their Choice, is most apparent; for they accounted this sort of Musick as peculiar to the Jewish oeconomy, as suted only to the Infant state of the Church, and no way congruous to the Simplicity, and Spirituality of the Gospel Worship. They esteemed it a part of the Ceremonial Service of the Law, which [Page 20] was designed to shadow forth the Spiritual Solemnities of the Go­spel. Therefore when they speak of that Antient Musick they usu­ally Spiritualize it, as Typical. This, I think, will be evident to those who will with a little care consult the Writings of the Primi­tive Fathers. I shall present you with a few passages from them, and beg your thoughts of them.

(1.) I shall begin with Clem. Alexand. Paedag. l. 2. p. 164. [...]. who saith thus, Praise him with the Psaltery, for the Tongue is the Psaltery of the Lord, and praise him with the Harp, by the Harp we are to understand the Mouth, which is played upon by the bow, or quil of the Spirit. And then a little after he adds, Praise him with strings, and the Organ, For he calls the body the Organ, and the Nerves of it its Strings, which being plaid upon by the Spirit sends forth humane sounds. And in the same page, having given an account of the Instruments made use of amongst the Heathens, he pre­sently adds. [...], &c. We, that is, we Christians make use only of one Instrument the Peaceful Word, with which we honour God, no longer with the Old Psaltery, Trumpet, Drum, or Cymbal, and Pipe. And says the same Cle­ment Admonit. ad Gentes. p. 4. [...], &c. He that sprang from David, and was before him, the Word of God, despising the Harp, and the Citharn, inanimate Instruments; when he curiously formed by the Holy Spirit this World, and the little World of Man; sung to God by the Instrument of many Voices, and he sung to this Instrument Man. From all which, I think, it is manifest that this Father, (who flourished about the Year, 196.) had no great opini­on of the usefulness of Instrumental Musick in the Service of God.

(2.) St. Chrysostom In Psal. 144. [...], &c., who flourished about the Year 398, or 400, speaks much to the same purpose. Then, that is, under the Old-Testament Dispensation, there were Organs, by which Songs of Praise were offered up to God; but now in the stead of Organs, we make use of the Body. For now we sing, not only with the Tongue, but with the Eyes, the Hand, the Feet, and the Ears; for if any one of these Members, doth those things which bring praise, and Glory to God; for example, If the Eye be not delighted with lascivious sights, if the hands are stretched forth, not to rapine, but in alms-deeds; if the Ears are ready to hear Spi­ritual precepts; if the Feet run to the Church; if the Heart does not Con­trive deceits, but breaths forth Charity, the Members of the Body become a Psaltery, and a Harp, and they sing a New song, not which consists of Words, but Works.

[Page 21]Again on Psal. 150. a Psalm, on which the Author of the Sermon has built his discourse, This Father speaks to the same effect. [...]. &c. As therefore the Jews did praise the Lord with all Instruments, so we are in like manner commanded to Glorifie God with our Members, by the Eye, by the Tongue, by the Ear, and by the Hand, &c. and then after a little discourse more of this nature, he adds, In Psal. 150. [...], &c. * Such Organs, or Instruments, were then permit­ted them for this cause, even for the sake of their Weakness, to stir up their Minds to perform their external Worship with some delight.

The same Father in another place, thus delivers himself, speaking of Instrumental Musick. Chrysost. oper. Tom. 7th. Edit. Etoniens. p. 222. [...]. Let no Man deceive you, these ap­pertain not to Christians, these are alien to the Christian Church, all these things the Nations of the World seek after. Does this give any one ground to suppose, that the Primitive Christians had a mind, or desire to have had this sort of Musick introduced amongst them?

(3.) Isidore Pelusiota, who flourished about the Year 425, or 430. speaks the same Language in this Case with his Master Chrysostom. For thus saith he Isidor. Pel. Lib. 1. Epist. 457. in Psal. 150. [...], &c.. If ye seek an Explication of that Musick which the Scripture speaks of, understand it after this manner. Praise the Lord in the sound of the Trumpet, that is memory of the Resurrection, which will be with a Trumpet, as it is Written. Praise him with the Psaltery and the Harp, that is with the Tongue and Mouth, struck upon by the Spirit, as with a bow or quil. Praise him with the Timbrel and the Dance, that is, with the Flesh and Spirit, from whence Prayers pass to God. Praise him with the strings, and Organ, that is, with the Heart, and all the inward Parts, and the Nerves, which truly he calls the Organ, praise him with the loud sounding Cymbals, that is, with the lips, &c.

And again in another place. Id. Lib. 2. Epist. 176. [...]; If the Divine Being, by reason of their Childishness, in which state they then were, did tolerate, or al­low them to offer Sacrifices, and Blood, why do you wonder, that he also allowed them that Musick which is performed, or made by the Harp and Psaltery?

[Page 22](4.) Theodoret also, who flourished about the year of our Lord, 430, speaks much to the same purpose, speaking of those who lived under the Old Testament Administration; saith, Theodor. [...]. Serm. 7. [...]. God indulged them the use of Musical Instruments of a sweet sound, not that he was delighted with their Harmony, but so by little & little he put a stop to the deceit of Idols.

Again, in another place the same Author Comment. in Psal. 32.2, 3. [...], &c. shews, how that Instrumental Musick was agreeable to the state of the Ancient Church under the Legal oeconomy, but that it ap­pertained to Christians to offer their Bodies to God, and therefore saith, All these things were performed according to the Legal Worship; For they made use of Harps, and Cymbals, and Timbrels, and other Mu­sical Instruments; and those things spoken of them agree to us, if they are understood spiritually. And we may render our selves an harmonious Organ to God, and praise God by the Instruments of all the senses as well internal as external.

(5.) I shall conclude with the Testimony of the Author, Quaest. & Respons. ad Orthodox. This Piece of Antiquity is commonly bound up with Justin Martyr's Works, and is cited by some, as if it were a part of them. But Learned Men now com­monly conclude them to have been the product of some Person or other living a­bout the latter end of the fifth Century, or the beginning of the Sixth Quaest. 170. Quaest. [...]; Resp. [...], &c. & then adds, [...]..

Quest. Why do we use in the Churches those Songs after the manner of those Childish persons under the Law?

Answ. To which Question the Author thus replys. To Persons in a state of Childhood it is not agreeable simply to sing, but to sing with ina­nimate Instruments, with Dancing, and Cymbals; wherefore the use of Songs with those sort of Instruments, and others agreeable, to persons in a state of Child-hood, is not received into the Churches, but simple singing is retained in them.

Sir, Having now presented you with these passages of some of the Primitive Fathers, pray tell me, whether all this looks as if they had been destitute of Instrumental Musick in their Religious Solemnities, only from Necessity, and not of Choice, as our Author pretends? Do they not all concur in this? Viz. That Instrumental Musick was a part of the Legal Service, and belongs not at all to Christian Worship­pers? It is evident from what the Fathers alledge in the present Case, that Mr. Newts Necessity, is a meer fancy of his own, designed to sup­port his tottering Hypothesis.

[Page 23](5.) He insinuates, p. 10. in the Mar­gin. That the Primitive Christians wanted Instrumental Musick to help out, and exalt their Devotions. Did the Apostles of our Lord want this? Did Ignatius, Polycarp, Clemens Romanus, and the other Zealous, and Affectionate Christians of those days, need this sort of Musick to Exalt their Devotions? I know no reason we have to believe that their Devotion then was so lame and languid, as that they stood in need of Harps and Organs to raise and heighten it. I am satisfied a Man may assert it, without the danger of being caught in a mistake, that the Devotion of the Primitive Christians was as raised and elevated without these Musical Instruments, as this Gentleman is, with all the Melodious noise of his pompous Organ. The Devotion of the Ancient Christians was not so dull, and flat as this Author would insinuate it to have been. Serious, & compass. Enquiry. Introduct. Dr. Goodman † speaking of the Primitive Christians, saith, The Holy Men of those times that approached our Sa­viour, had, as it were, some rays of his Divinity shed upon them, and their faces shone like Moses 's, when he came down from the Holy Mount; A Christian Church was a College of Holy and good Men, and the Glory of God filled the place where they Assembled; and fire came down from Heaven too, but not to set the World in Combustion, but to exhale, and lift up the odours of pious and devout Prayers; but since those times, Zeal hath decayed, &c. If you please to consult Dr. Cave's Primitive Chri­stianity, you will find much more to the same purpose. I wish our Authors applauded Organ Pipes might revive the Primitive Zeal, and Devotion; but I see no grounds to hope that they should ever pro­duce so glorious an effect.

(6.) But adds our Author, The just Encomium they give of it, Ser. p. 11. shews what was their mind, and desire about it, though they were not able to bring it to effect.

By which he would fain perswade his Readers, that the Primitive Christians have given ample Encomiums of Instrumental Musick, as used in Christian Assemblies, or as useful in Christian Churches. For that must our Author mean, or he speaks nothing to the purpose. But supposing you to have perused the passages I have cited from some of the Fathers, with respect to this sort of Musick, I will leave it to you to judge, whether it be probable they should give an En­comium of it. But how does he prove that the Primitive Christians have given an Encomium of Instrumental Musick? Why truly very strangely. And it is very observable in this Author, that the strength of his Arguments rarely equals the boldness of his Asserti­ons. In the Margin he refers us to some of the Fathers, as having, in his apprehension, spoken great things in the commendation of this sort of Church-Musick. He cites a passage from Epist. ad Donat. p [...]d [...]ctat aures Reli­giosa Mul­cedo. Cyprian, which he conceives may give in some evidence to this. But how little is this to his purpose? How does he prove that by Religiosa Mulcedo, the [Page 24] Father intended Instrumental Musick? Let any Man read the close of that Epistle of St. Cyprians, and he will be convinced that he speaks of Vocal, and not Instrumental Musick. Besides he speaks of Musick in Private, In Con­vivio so­brio. at a sober Meal, or Banquet. And thus the Learned Dr. Cave Primit. Christian. p. 265. understands him. Now because St. Cyprian allows of Vocal Musick at a Private Meal, will he thence infer that he com­mends the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God in Pub­lick? What might not a confident Man be able to prove from the Writings of the Fathers, if this way of arguing might be allowed him?

But then our Author sends us to St. Basils Homilies on Psal. 1. and to St. Austin in various places, as commending, and approving Instrumen­tal Musick in the Worship of God. What others may have done, I cannot tell, but I could never meet with any thing either in St. Austin, or St. Basil, that will any thing countenance what he asserts. Had he found any thing considerable in these Fathers for his purpose, I make no Question, but we should have had it inserted in the body of his Sermon, or at least he would have graced his Margin with it. But when he shall think fit to produce any considerable Testimonies from these Fathers to prove what he has asserted, I think, it will then be time enough, to give a reply to them.

I have taken no small pains in Consulting the Works of St. Austin, to see if I could find any thing in the Writings of that Father, which might look favourably upon our Authors positi­on. And after all the search I have made, I must profess, that I can find nothing, which will warrant this Gentleman to say, that St. Au­stin gives an Encomium of the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God. Indeed I have met with one passage in St. Austin, in which he fairly makes the Instrumental Musick used of old by David to have been Typical, consult the Margin De Civit. Dei. Lib. 17. cap. 14. Erat autem David vir in canti­cis eruditus, qui Harmoniam Mu­sicam non vulgari voluptate dilexe­rat, eâque Deo suo, qui verus est Deus, Mysticâ rei magnae figuratio­ne serviens, & diversorum nomine sonorum, rationales moderatosque concentus concordi varietate com­pactam benè ordinatae Civitatis in­insinuat unitatem, &c.. I am satisfied that this passage says more against him, than any thing he can pro­duce from that Father will make for him. Thus I have considered the strength of his Second Argument, and have, I suppose, suffici­ently discovered its invalidity.

(3.) Now I come to examine his Third Argument, which he takes from the sense of the Apostles in the New-Testament, as he speaks. Could he produce any evidence of the Apostles having recommended, or encouraged the use of Instrumental Musick in the Sacred Assemblies of Christians, it would be much to his purpose. And the Cathedrals would have an admirable Champion in him, and the Singing-Men would have cause to con him thanks in a grateful and melodious Song. [Page 25] But let us attend his Argument. He first cites a Text, or two, and then argues from them. The Texts he cites are, Ephes. 5.19. St. Paul, saith he, there recommends the use of Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, and Singing, and making melody in our Hearts to the Lord. And St. James saith, Jam. 5.13. Is any Merry? let him sing Psalms. So dull am I, that I should ne're have thought an Argument for the Lawfulness of the Use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God to have lurkt there. But I see, a Man may live, and learn. But how does our Author Improve these Passages to his purpose? Why thus. By which, doubtless, they understood the Psalms of David, p. 11, 12. which are used in the Jewish Church; and by Singing of them in both those places, it is to be supposed, they mean with Instruments of Musick. And to make the Truth of this Observation the more Manifest to you, it is plain they express themselves by words, which in the Original ( [...] and [...], from whence that Instrument called the Psaltery) signifie most properly, a singing with an Instrument.

I suppose the Author of the Sermon not a little pleased with this Argument; but a few Remarks will serve to shew the weakness of it.

(1.) By way of Concession, I grant that by Psalms in the cited Texts, we are to understand the Psalms of David, which he used to Sing to his Harp. The Apostles enjoyn Christians to sing those very Psalms of David, which heretofore the Levites sung with musical In­struments.

(2.) But then, whereas he adds, that when the Apostles exhort Christians to Sing Psalms and Hymns, they meant that they should sing them with musical Instruments; which he saith, is to be supposed. I think, there is not the least colour for such a Supposition. That the Apostles intended no such thing, is I think, very plain. (1.) Be­cause the Primitive Christians had no such Organical Devotion amongst them; which, if it had been their Duty, they could not have want­ed, notwithstanding the Pretence of Poverty, and Persecution, as I have observed already. (2.) We find the Primitive Christians declaring against this sort of Church Musick, as only suited to the State of the Church when in its Infancy, as I have shewn from some of their Wri­tings. (3.) If the Apostles advised the use of this sort of Church Musick, it is strange they would not use it themselves! which that they did, I think, none will affirm. (4.) If this were the Apostles meaning, it is as strange, that none should have understood it, till at least, 600 Years after Christ! Nay, I think, I may add, not till 1600 Years after Christ. For that any ever understood those Texts cited above, as enjoyning the use of Instrumental Musick in the Christian Worship, till of late, let our Author prove.

[Page 26](3.) But supposing (not granting) what this Author contends for, to be true; namely, that the Apostles are thus to be understood, as enjoyning the use of Instrumental Musick in the Publick Service of God; Then does he prove more than he undertook to prove. For then will it follow, that Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God now in the times of the Gospel, is not only Lawful, but a Duty. A Duty to which Christians are as much obliged, as they are to that of Vocal Singing. And if so, then were the Primitive Christians certainly very faulty for 600 Years together, in living in a constant neglect of so plain a Duty. And well nigh all the Ministers, and People in the Parish Churches in this Nation are to be blamed for taking no more notice of so Express Apostolical a Precept. But, I am a little in­clined to believe, that this Gentleman himself, is not of Opinion, that this sort of Musick is a Manifest Duty; Or, if this be his Sentiment, I think he has but few amongst the Protestant Clergy in Europe to keep him Company.

Well, but he attempts to prove, that the Apostles advising Christi­ans to sing David's Psalms, meant with Musical Instruments: and this by a Critical remark on the word [...]. Which word, saith he, in the Original signifies most properly, a singing with an Instrument. To which give me leave to say a few things: As (1.) Suppose it be certain, that the word [...] does most properly import a singing with an Instrument, Must it therefore necessarily be understood in that sense here? Is this word never used in any other sense? If it be sometimes used in another sense, How does he prove that it is used in the most proper sense by the Apostles in the places cited? If a Man might be admitted thus to argue in all cases, How many Texts might he be allowed to distort from their true Sense and Meaning? The Apostle saith of himself, in conjunction with other Christians, Phil. 3.3. We are the Circumcision. What Circumcision signifies in its most proper sense all know, must we therefore here thus understand it, as obliging all Christians to be Circumcised? (2.) I have said enough already to shew that the Apostles meant not this word in its most proper sense. (3.) I humbly conceive, that that Text, Jam. 5.13. is a plain con­futation of our Authors learned Remark. Is any merry? let him sing Psalms. [...], Let him sing with a Psaltery, or Musical Instruments, saith our Author. By which Apostolical injunction Christians are obliged to sing Psalms, when they are merry, altho' it should be in their own private Houses. So that according to this precept, under­stood in our Authors sense, every Private Christian is obliged to get a Musical Instrument, and to sing with it, when he is merry, whether in his Family, or otherwhere. And then will it follow, that all Christians are obliged to have some skill in Instrumental Musick. Can any Man think it probable that the Apostle meant they should [Page 27] sing Psalms in the sense of our Author? I wonder, any Man pretend­ing to Learning, should top upon the World with such trifling Cri­tical Stories. (4.) Altho' the word [...] properly, imports a sing­ing with Musical Instruments; yet with many approved Authors, it often signifies, Concisum Carmen Deo canere. To sing a short Psalm to God. Be pleased to consult Dr. Hammond's Annotat. on Ephes. 5.19. The Fathers of the Church assure us, saith the Learned Hammond; Preface to his Pa­raphrase on the Psalms, and Dr. Caves Prim. Chri. p. 272, 273 you will find much to the same pur­pose. That the Primitive Christians, who lived in Seculo. i. e. were imployed in secular affairs, had Psalmody as their constant attendant, sometimes at their meals, generally in their business, in the shop, in the field, that they learnt the whole Book of Psalms by heart. [...] thro' their whole time, or age, continued singing, as he cites the passage from St. Basil. Now by [...] here, I suppose our Author will not have us to understand singing with Musical Instruments. Un­less he will allow us to imagine that the Primitive Christians, where e'er they went, still carried about a Musical Instrument in their Pockets.

St. Chrysostome saith, In Psal. 42. [...]. Although you are an Artificer, and sit down, and work at your Trade, yet may you [...]. i. e. Sing; but not with Musical Instruments, I suppose; for altho' a Man may work, and sing, yet how he should be able to Work, and play on an Instrument, I cannot conceive. It is apparent from what hath been said, that this word [...], is frequently imployed to Signifie simple singing; and we have abundant reason to conclude the Apostles use it in this sense. I doubt not but that you will judge with me that this Criticism is too thin, and slender to support Mr. Newtes Charge­able Organ.

But our Author the better to countenance this Critical Remark of his, cites a passage from a discourse of the Bishop of Derry. Ser. p. 12. Of In­ventions of Men in the Worship of God. c. 1. §. 1. A Reverend Prelate, saith he, observes from hence, if they had not approved the Jewish way of singing them, which was with Instruments they would not have used a word that imported it. And I think a Reverend Presby­ter Mr. Boyse Remarks. p. 18. has long ago, given a sufficient reply to the Argument of this Reverend Prelate. ‘For, saith he, I confess his Lordship would per­swade us, the Apostles recommend such Musical Instruments, because the Apostle James, when he exhorts those that were merry to sing Psalms, uses the word [...], Jam. 5.13. which he tells us, signifies singing with Instruments. But surely his Lordship can lay no stress upon this Argument, when it is so apparently weak, and so often concludes wrong; of which I shall give him a Parallel instance of his own. He tells us, p. 111. that [...] (the word general­ly used in the New Testament for Worship) signifies to pay homage by kissing the hand; And might he not as wisely infer from thence, [Page 28] that we are still obliged to pay our external homage the same way? But if he look again upon that passage of the Apostle James, he will find this slender Criticism too weak a Foundation for Organs to stand upon; because the Apostle could not reasonably suppose all those to have Instruments of Musick by them, or to be capable of using them, whom he there Exhorts to vent their Spiritual Joys by singing of Psalms.’ Of which reply the Bishop has, that I can find, taken no Notice in his rejoinder.

Ser. p. 12.But our Author goes on. Nay it is not to be doubted, but (that they, who took so much care for the Regulating, and well Ordering of the Church in after Ages) would have cautioned against it, if they thought it impro­per.

(1.) That the Apostles took care for the Regulating, and well Ordering of the Church in after Ages, is not to be doubted; but will it thence fol­low, that they must needs have expresly cautioned against whatever might be improper in the Worship of God? What thinks he, Are Oyl, and Cream, and Spittle fit to be used in Baptism? Are Kettle-Drums, and Horns fit to be used in the Praising of God in the Sacred Assem­blies of Christians? Which things are used by the Papists sometimes in their Publick Devotions. I will take leave to suppose for once that our Author will say these things are very improper. And yet we do not find that ever the Apostles cautioned against them. It is enough that they have in general cautioned against a Pompous, Superstitious, and Theatrical Worship.

(2.) This Argument, if such it may be called, may easily be Re­torted upon the Author of the Sermon; and may be as well imployed, if not better, against Organs, than for them. For if Organs are of so excellent a use in the Worship of God; of so great an efficacy to excite the affections, to exalt the Devotions of Christians, to compose their thoughts, to drive away evil suggestions from their minds, and to ren­der People more Reverent and Serious in Sacred Solemnities (all which our Author affirms of them.) It is strange the Apostles (who took so much care for the Regulating the Church in after Ages) should give no Charge to Christians about them. They have been careful to instruct Christians as to Vocal Melody, but as to the use of Instru­mental Musick they are totally silent. Certainly, had the Apostles apprehensions of it been conformable to those of our Author, they would not have passed it over in so absolute a silence. This Argu­ment, I think, recoils upon him to his own disadvantage.

But he has recourse to some other places of the New Testament, which he presumes may do good service to the Cause he has espou­sed. For he tells us, That Instrumental Musick has an Analogy with the Angelical Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Quire of the Bles­sed Saints, who are represented, Rev. 14.2. as Harpers harping with [Page 29] their Harps, and having the Harps of God, Rev. 15.2. Which places concern the Publick Worship of God in the Church, the Joys of the Saints in Heaven, and in Earth, and the Triumphant Rejoicings of Christians, for the Victory over their Enemies, according to the Judgment of some Expo­sitors. In the Margin refering us to Baxter, Bullinger, and Hammond. But to this a few things, as (1.) The obscurity of a considerable part of the Book of the Revelations, is confessedly so very great, that an Argument drawn from the Obscure part of it, cannot be thought to be very satisfactory; For if the premises are dark, and of an uncertain sense, the conclusion will not easily gain Credit. Therefore I think it a weakness in any Man to go about to establish any Doctrine, or Theological Position from any passage of the Re­velations, the sense of which may be very dubious, or uncertain. (2.) But saith he, Instrumental Musick has an Analogy with the Angeli­cal Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Quire of the Blessed Saints. I suppose he means no more, than that it does somewhat resemble the Angelical Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Quire of the Blessed Saints. Let this be granted him, what would he thence in­fer? What! That Instrumental Musick is now Warrantable in the Christian Worship? I see no danger in denying the Consequence. Because there may be some Analogy, some resemblance, between the Angelical Songs, and Instrumental Musick, I cannot think that sufficient Evidence of the Lawfulness of such Musick in the Sacred Assemblies of Christians. The Joys at a Marriage Feast may somewhat resemble the Joys of the Saints above, and the Sacred Scripture sometimes resembles these by those, Rev. 19.9. is thus by many understood.

Shall we thence conclude, that the Expressions of Joy at a Marri­age Solemnity, as Dancing, Laughter, and the like are Warrantable in the Solemn Worship of God? Heavens Happiness (in condescenti­on to our weak Conceptions) is frequently decyphred in Scripture by Comparisons and Images, taken from Material things here below; Will that warrant us to Conclude all those things fit presently to be adopt­ed into the Spiritual Worship of Christians? I cannot suppose our Au­thor will own a thing so absurd, and if he doth not, he must con­fess his Argument inconclusive.

But the Saints above are represented, Revel. 14.2. as Harpers harp­ing with their Harps, and having the Harps of God, Revel. 15.2. Well be it so (1.) Many Expositors explain those Texts as Importing the great Chearfulness, and Triumphant rejoycing of the Saints in Glory, and this in allusion to the sweet Melody of Old in the Temple of Je­rusalem. By Harps we may understand the Spirits of the Saints fitted, and tuned by the Spirit of God. And by the Musick of those Harps, we may understand their great Chearfulness in their praising of their God. (2.) Suppose these Harpers harping with their Harps, are to be [Page 30] understood of the Church Militant Praising God here below; which as he hints, is the Opinion of some others; yet I cannot see any ad­vantage he will gain to his cause by it. For (1.) You very well know that it is a common thing in Scripture, for matters relating to the New-Testament Worship, to be dressed up in Old-Testament Phrases. The words Priests, Sacrifices, Incense, &c. are a clear proof of this. Vid. Glass. Philol. Sacr. p. 1348. (2.) But methinks we have a Text in the Book of the Revelations, which fairly discovers to us, what we are to under­stand by Harps in this Prophecy, Revel. 5.8. It is said, that the four Beasts, and the Four and Twenty Elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them Harps, and Golden Vials full of Odours, which are the Prayers of the Saints. Here we have the Worship of the New-Testa­ment, or the Praises and Prayers of the Saints under the Evangelical Administration adumbrated by Harps, and Viols full of Odours. What we are to understand by those Vials full of Odours, is made plain to us in the following words, Viz. Which are the Prayers of the Saints. So then, by Harps, and the sound of them, we are to understand the Praises of the same. For both Praises, and Prayers, are there expressed by Phrases, which allude to the Worship of God under the Legal Administration. And thus does a Learned Prelate Cooper Bishop of Galloway., in his Commentary on the Revelations, expound the place, for saith he, The Harp of a Christian, wherewith he praiseth God is his heart, the Strings of the Harp, are the Affections of the Heart, which must be well tuned, and prepared, before they can make any Melody to the Lord. To the same purpose speaks he on Revel. 14.2. For saith he there, There is an harping which we make to God; our Heart is the Harp; Sancti sunt Dei insignes Citharcedi. Saints are excellent Harpers to God. The Strings of this Harp are our Affections. Now the Opinion of this Right Reverend Bishop I oppose to that of Dr. Hammond. The Continuators of Mr. Pool's Annotations on Rev. 5.8. say thus, He alludes to the Worship of God, under the Old Testament, where in the Temple they were wont to praise God with Instruments of Musick, and offering up of Frankincense. And these Persons I oppose to Mr. Baxter. And saith Marlorate, on Revel. 5.8. By Harps we are to understand Hearts. And him we oppose to Bullinger. But I would entreat you to weigh a little.

(3.) What the Learned Dr. More saith, Mystery of Iniquity, p. 221. He tells us, of a Prophetick Scheme exceeding frequent, especially in the Apocalyps, which he stiles Israelitismus, which he saith, is a speaking of the Affairs of the Church, under the Names, and with allusion to such pla­ces, or Persons, or things; as did of old concern the Israelites, and People of the Jews, and that in a Mystical, or Spiritual meaning. The frequency of this Scheme, adds he, is not to be wondred at, if we consider that the People of Israel were one great and entire Mysterious Type, or Sacrament [Page 31] of the Church of God, such as it should be under Christ, according as St. Paul has written, 1 Cor. 10. That all things befel them in figures. And this, I humbly conceive, is enough to enervate the Argument our Au­thor has fetched from some verses in the Book of the Revelations.

(4.) Give me leave to present you with the Learned Dr. Lightfoots Doctor Lightfoot's Works. Vol. 1. p. 350. opinion of the sense of that Text, Revel. 15. saith he, of the begin­ning of the story of the Seven Vials, John again calls us to reflect upon the Scheme of the Temple in Heaven; which all along speaks according to the platform of the Temple at Jerusalem. Here is a Sea of Glass mingled with Fire, and Harpers harping by it, &c. Singing the Song of Moses; which as it calls to mind Moses, and the People Singing upon the Red-sea-shore upon their delivery from Egypt; so doth it plainly allude to the Musick at the Temple.

I could, with as much shew of Reason, Argue from a place in the Revelations, that when Antichrist shall fall, and the pure Worship of Christ shall be freed from all Antichristian Superstitions, and Pompous Rites, that then the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God shall cease too; and be thrown out of the Churches with her o­ther gaudy and needless Ceremonies. For if we look into Revel. 18. we have there an account of the Destruction of Babylon. i. e. of the Ro­man Anti-Christian Hierarchy, as the generality of Expositors under­stand it. And upon the Destruction of this Anti-Christian Govern­ment, it is said, ver. 22. And the Voice of Harpers, and Musicians, and of Pipers, and Trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee. That is, say many, all their Instrumental Musick shall be cast out of the Churches, with their other Anti-Christian Trumpery. For saith Are­tius on the place, Musicam primo loco ponit, &c. ‘He puts Musick in the first place, because all their Temples are filled with the sound of it, There are Organs, and Trumpets, and Pipes; but all these things made use of in Religion, do displease the Lord, as this place teacheth.’ And Mr. Clerk on the same Text saith, The Voice of Harpers and Musicians, that is, their Church-Musick shall be heard no More. And ver. 23. The light of the Candle shall shine no more in thee. i. e. Their Consecrated Candles burning upon their Al­tars, and before Images. And much to the same purpose speaks the Learned Dr. More, Mystery of Iniquity, p. 428. Commenting on the same Text. ‘There may be a more particularly contrived Allegory in reference to this Mystical City here meant; as if we should un­derstand rather the Musick at their Idolatrous Worship, by these here specified, which were only by a Diorismus. And by these [...], such as do technas Consuere Sophisticas, and Politicas in Theo­logy, and Church Administration for the interest of their Hierarchy; These Artifices Imperii in Imperio, of those also that work curious work in the Scholastick Divinity.’ Here you have a Ternary of [Page 32] Authors approving this sense of the Words; and one of them an Eminent Doctor of the Church of England. And if the words are to be understood in this sense, I am satisfied, they are a considerable Argument against the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God. But whether this may be the sense, or no, I shall not contend; yet thus much, I think, any Unprejudiced Person will grant me; That this is as strong an Argument against the Sacred Use of Organs, as any Mr. Newte has advanced from the Revelations, to prove their use Lawful.

(4.) I am now arrived at his Fourth Argument. I shall crave leave to try the Strength of this too. He delivers himself thus, However meanly this way of making Melody in our Hearts to the Lord, may be thought by some; It has been certainly of above a Thousand Years standing in the Christian Church; Ser. p. 13. And been received, and approved of by the Reformed, as well as the Popish Churches, (and therefore no part of Po­pery.)

Here the Author offers to our Consideration Two things. (1.) The Antiquity of this Church-Musick. (2.) Its use in the Reformed Churches.

(1.) The Antiquity of Instrumental Musick as used in the Wor­ship of God. He saith, It has certainly been of above a Thousand Years standing in the Christian Church. (1.) Suppose this be granted him, yet for 600 Years, by our Authors Confession, the Christian Chur­ches were Strangers to them. So that in the purest and best times of Christianity, there were no Organs resounding in their Temples. After the four first Centuries, many Superstitions found way into the Christian Churches. And after that time, as Dr. Cave saith, Caves Preface to Prim. Christ. The Life and Spirit of Christianity did visibly decline apace. And when the Spirit, and Life of Christianity declined, no wonder if Organs, and La­tine Service, and many other such Superstitious usages met with Admit­tance and Approbation. None pretend, as far as I can learn, that Or­gans were used in the Publick Worship of Christians, till the time of Pope Vitaliane. He was the First who recommended the use of Instrumental Musick to Christian Assemblies. And I cannot see a­ny reason Protestants have of being the more fond of it, because first introduced by a Pope. (2.) But then it is somewhat doubtful whether Instrumental Musick had so early an admission into the Christi­an Church, as our Author pretends. But of this I have delivered my thoughts before. (3.) Many Corruptions in Worship have been of a Thousand Years standing in the Christian Church. Altars, Idolatrous Images, Latin Mass, &c. can plead as great Antiquity as Organs. But I suppose this is not enough to render the Sacred use of these things Warrantable.

[Page 33](2.) As to the use of Organs amongst the Reformed, he saith, They have been received, and approved of by the Reformed. Ser. p. 13. To confirm this, he adds, The Opinion of Luther, Calvin, and their Followers, will bear me out in this, whose Judgments in this matter, I shall just mention.

(1.) Luther, he saith, approved of this sort of Church-Musick. Did he so? If our Author had fairly proved it, I might have been in­clined to believe it. But what Evidence does he give of it? Why truly just none at all. He cites us a Passage from somebody, it is true (for he tells us not whom) who hath written the Life of Lu­ther, which he imagines may import some such thing. The Passage, as our Author Translates it, is this, Luther, speaking of the Com­munion Service, that it ought to be in the Mother-Tongue, saith, I rather wish, than promise it, being not sufficient for so great a work, for it requires both Musick, and a Spirit, and then he Laments the want of Poets to Compose, and sing Godly Songs. But to this a few things. (1.) I wish he had told us where we might have found this passage, that we might have arrived to the greater satisfaction about it. I have consulted Melchior Adam's Account of Luther's Life, and I can­not find it there. (2.) But supposing this for Truth, that Luther had thus delivered himself; I cannot see what Advantage our Au­thor's Cause will have by it. What if he had said, That the Transla­ting the Communion Service into the Mother-Tongue required both Musick and a Spirit? Must it presently be supposed that he understood it of Instrumental Musick? What! Is there no other sort of Musick than Instrumental? Ay, but he Laments the want of Poets to Compose, and sing Godly Songs. Admirable proof that he approved of the use of Organs in the Publick Worship of Christians. What! cannot a Person speak of Composing, and singing Godly Songs, but presently our Author must Alarm us with the lowd noise of Musical Instruments? If this is all the Proof he can produce to Evidence Luther's Approbation of this sort of Church Musick, it had been better he had held his peace, and said nothing at all. (3.) But whatever our Author suggests, I am inclined to believe, that Luther ne're approved of the use of Instru­mental Musick in the Worship of God under the Gospel; but rather disliked it. For Eckard, saith this of Luther, Fascicul. c. 21. p. 639. Quod Organa Musica in­ter Baalis insignia refert. i. e. He numbers Instrumental Musick amongst the badges of Baal. This passage, methinks, does not look as if he had been a Friend to this sort of Musick.

But adds our Author. His Followers, it seems, who must be supposed, Ser. p. 13. to have best understood their Teachers meaning, have affected it; for in great part of Germany, Sweedeland, Denmark, Switzerland, and part of Poland, where his Doctrine is received, they have the Exercise of Vocal, and Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God, as we have.

[Page 34](1.) I own that some of the followers of Luther have Instrumental Musick, as well as Vocal in their Publick Worship. But in this they have left their Master, as they have apparently done in some other Cases.

(2.) What if some of the Lutherans approve of the use of Organs in the Worship of God? Do they not also approve of many other things in Divine Worship, which other Protestant Churches justly condemn? Such as, Auricular Confession, Singing of Psalms in Latin, the use of Crucifixes in their Devotions? (though it must be confessed, they adore them not, they pay not Divine Honour to them, yet they use them to excite their Affections) Have they not the Pictures of the Trinity in their Churches? And are they not Zealous Sticklers for the absurd Doctrine of Consubstantiation? In many of their Publick Churches in the time of Divine-Service, you may hear the sound of Horns, of Vials, of Organs, of Voices, &c. Will this prove such a Medley of sounds to be Lawful in Christian Assemblies?

(2.) But now let us attend the Evidence he produceth to prove Calvin, and his Followers to have been Approvers of this sort of Church-Musick. Ser. p. 14. So likewise Calvin, saith he, gives his Approbation of it in some places, but being a Man of intemperate heat and passion, is in­consistent with himself in others. I shall only mention one, which is his Comment on Amos 6.5. where he highly commends David, that whereas being Musical, and a Lover of Musick; he might privately have delighted himself therewith, when he was now in peace, and ease, and past all his Dangers; yet he chose rather Musical Instruments to the Exercise of Devoti­on, that he might thereby raise his mind towards God — And that they sounding the Praises of God in the Temple he might excite both himself, and others to the study of Godliness.

Three things are very Remarkable in this Discourse of our Au­thor. (1.) He Asserts boldly, that Calvin approved of Instrumen­tal Musick. (2.) That hereby he is inconsistent with himself. (3.) He Attributes this to Calvins intemperate Heat and Passion.

(1.) He Asserts boldly, that Calvin approved of Instrumental Mu­sick. But how does he prove it? From the before cited passage. But alas! What does that passage make to our Authors purpose? His province is to prove that Calvin owned the Lawfulness of Instru­mental Musick in the Worship of God under the Evangelick Dispen­sation. But doth the fore-quoted passage out of Calvin warrant him to make such a Conclusion? No such matter. For Calvin only commends David for making use of Instrumental Musick in his So­lemn, and Publick Devotions, according to the Command of God. That is all can be rationally deduced from that Citation. So that because Calvin commends and applauds David for the use of Instru­mental [Page 35] Musick in Sacred Solemnities under the Legal oeconomy, there­fore Calvin Approved of the use of this kind of Musick in the Chri­stian Churches. 'Tis a Consequence, which will not easily gain the Assent of Considering Persons. Some things which were commen­dable as done by David then, may not be commendable as done by Christians now. Should any one commend David for Dancing in his Praising of God therefore, would it be Logical, or reasonable thence to infer, that such a Person commended the use of Dancing in the Praising of God now? It would be an Intolerable Non-se­quitur.

(2.) Our Author saith too, that Calvin is Inconsistent with himself in other places. That Calvin in other places speaks against the use of Instrumental Musick in the Sacred Assemblies of Christians, I be­lieve to be true. For saith he, on Exod. 15.20. Musica Instrumenta, &c. Instrumental Musick is to be reckoned in the number of Legal Cere­monies, which Christ has Abolished by his coming; whereas now we must retain a Gospel Simplicity. But is this Inconsistent with what he de­livers on Amos 6.50? No such matter. Distingue Tempora, Distin­guish of the Times, and it will evidently appear that he very well agrees with himself. As to the Legal Dispensation, he approves of Instrumental Musick under it. But under the Evangelical oeconomy he dislikes it, and declares against it. Here is nothing of Incon­sistency; But what our Author has advanced against him, is in­consistent with Reason. I wonder what possessed our Author, when he dropped this passage, that he should charge Calvin with incon­sistency; when as there appears not the least colour for such an ac­cusation. But some Men have such a Pique at Calvin (whether it is the effect of their ill nature, or Education I cannot say) that if they cannot find faults in him, they will make some; And then he must be charged as inconsistent with himself, &c.

(3.) But this pretended Inconsistency he ascribes to his Intemperate Heat and Passion. (1.) This is not so much like a Christian, at e­very turn to be publishing of Mens Faults and Infirmities. He might have omitted that bitter Reflection without any detriment to his Cause or Argument. The Musick of an Organ is of excellent use to Calm the Mind, and Allay the Passions, if you will believe our Au­thor. Whence I suspect that he was somewhat remote from his Charming Organ, when he penned this Passage against Calvin, for it smells strong of Passion. (2.) Melchior Adam in the Life of Calvin, p. 109. saith, That as to his Temper he was [...]. Somewhat prone to Anger; But then withal he adds, The Spirit of God had so taught him to Moderate his Passion, that he was never heard to drop a Word unbecom­ing a good Man, neither would he be soon Angry unless when he was con­cerned in the defence of Religion, and had to do with rugged, and stub­born [Page 36] Persons. His Carriage towards Luther was remarkable, his Mo­desty and Meekness conspicuous, when Luther had treated him with severe Language. For Reply'd he, Etiamsi me Diabolum vocarit, eum tamen Insignum Dei Servum agnoscam. Tho' he should call me Devil, yet God forbid but that I should account him an Eminent Servant of God. I very much question whether Mr. Newte, with all the stock of good nature of which he is possessed, improved, we must suppose, by the Melody of his Organ, would give a milder Answer to a Dissenter who should Assault him with hard words. May our Au­thor but equal Calvin, notwithstanding his contempt of him. The Writers of his Life assure us, that he printed his Institutions before he was Twenty five Years Old. Every other Week, he Preached throughout the whole Week. He taught in the Publick Schools three days in a Week. Melch Adam. In usâ Calvin. p. 74. Every Thursday he Presided in the Presbytery; every Friday he held a Lecture; He Illustrated many of the Sacred Books with Learned Comments; sometimes he was imployed in writing Replies to the Enemies of Religion: At other times he wrote of other necessary matters; so that persons may wonder that one Man should be sufficient for Labours, so many and great. Now, say I, Let our Author go, and do likewise; this will procure him grea­ter Reputation, than ever he is like to gain from his Organ, or his Ser­mon in the Defence of it. Thus I have, I hope, fetched off Calvin from being an Approver of Instrumental Musick in the Sacred As­semblies of Christians.

But now let us consider what he saith as to the Followers of Calvin. The Dutch Churches, saith he, which mostly follow him, have the use of Organs very frequent amongst them; almost in every Church, where the People are of ability to procure them. (1.) I cannot but take notice of his Gloss upon his Text, his Marginal Remark with respect to the Dutch Churches. Where all Sects in Religion may meet, and many do. That there are many Religious Sects in Holland cannot be denied. But that all Sects are there, perhaps this Gentleman may not be so easily able to prove. We have too many Sects in England too: We have Jews and Socinians, Anabaptists, Quakers, Muggletonians, Armi­nians, Calvinists, Antinomians, Sabbatarians, Papists, and of late Phila­delphians amongst us. I do not see that Diocesan Prelacy does effectually secure us from these Sects. And these Sects may meet in our Churches if they please, and many of them do. As Calvinists, Arminians, Soci­nians, Antinomians, and Deists. I suppose you will not think it strange, that I assert that Socinians are to be found in this Authors Church. For it is most apparent that the Racovian Gentlemen, who have of late alarm'd the Nation so much with their Anti-Christian Pamphlets, are Persons who have crept out of the Church, and not out of the Conventicle. (to suit my Phrase to our Authors liking) But I can [Page 37] tell our Author, where he may find a Christian Nation, freed al­most, if not quite, from all these Sectaries. If he will but step on tother side the Channel, he will there find that the French Nimrod has taken an effectual course to root out all Sects, and has Dra­gooned h [...]s Subjects into Uniformity.

But on second thoughts, I am not of our Authors mind, that ma­ny Sects do sometimes meet in the Dutch Churches. I suppose he was never Conversant among them to make the Remark. I know some who resided a long while there, and they assured me, that in the Publick Established Churches few or none meet, but they who are of the Established Religion. The Arminians have places of their own to meet in; so the Papist, the Lutherans, the Mennonists, the Brown­ists, &c. It is rarely, if ever, that they frequent the Established Churches.

(2.) But the Dutch Churches have the use of Organs very frequent a­mongst them, almost in every Church. I Answer, (1.) By way of Con­cession, I confess it to be thus in most of their Churches in their lar­ger Cities; but yet I cannot Assent to what our Author adds, That they are in every Church, where the People are of ability to procure them. That is really a mistake of the Author. There is a Publick Church, and a very large one, which has them not in Leyden, and it is the case of some others in other Cities. (2.) Altho' they have Organs in their Churches, yet they pretend not, (as our Author does) that they are to Exalt their Devotions, and the more to Excite their Affections; but they use them to Regulate the Voices of the People, and to di­rect them in the Tune of the Psalm they are to sing. (3.) It also deserves our consideration, that Organs were introduced into the Dutch Churches by some Magistrates against the Consent of the Dutch Ministers. For at the National Synod held at Middleburg, Anno 1581, and in the Synod of Holland, and Zealand, Anno 1594. it was Decreed Voet's Pol. Eccles. Part. 1. p. 561, 562. and p. 593. Primum cantus Instrumentalis in Eccle­siâ aliquâ Hollandicâ N. Aedilis alicujus, aut Ae­dilium istius loci privato judicio; ac studio Anno 1637, introductus, &c. that they would endeavour to pre­vail with the Magistrates to banish Organs and Instru­mental Musick out of their Temples. And Voet informs us, that it was introduced by some Civil Officer at first, upon his own private Motion, without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Synod. Ne Conscio, quidem, aut con­sulto Ecclesiastico Synedrio, are his words. Let these things be considered, and then let his Argument from the Dutch Churches carry as much weight with it as it can.

But supposing, what our Author has offered us from the Dutch Churches and others, may not be sufficient to gain the point he aims at; then he returns from whence he set out, and assures us, Tho' none of the Reformed Churches abroad, did use them at all, It is sufficient [Page 38] that ours doth, Ser. p. 14. to justifie their Lawfulness, being by far, the best part of the Reformation. I answer, (1.) Whereas he saith, it is sufficient that ours does use them, to justifie their Lawfulness. I humbly conceive it to be a Mistake. If a thing be not antecedently Lawful in its self, I do not think the Churches using it will render it Lawful. Altho' his Holiness at Rome may pretend to a Prerogative to change things un­lawful into Lawful, yet, I suppose, the Church of England, ne're claimed it. The use of Instrumental Musick by a Church, is no Ar­gument of its Lawfulness, unless it be first proved that that Church is absolutely an Unerring one. (2.) The Church of England makes use of the Cross in Baptism, yet it is strongly questioned whether it is Lawful, as used in this Church. (3.) The same Church Imposes cer­tain Rites (which she confesseth to be indifferent in themselves) up­on its Members, as necessary Terms of Communion, without a com­pliance with which Persons however Spotless and Holy in their lives, however sound as to Doctrine, shall be debarr'd her Commu­nion. But I am satisfied, that the Practise of this Church, will not render such an Imposition Lawful. (4.) If we would arrive at Satis­faction about the Lawfulness of a thing in the Worship of God, with submission, I conceive we are not to enquire whether it be the practise of a Church now in being, but what Warrant that Church has for such a Practise. (5.) The Cathedral Chur­ches, it must be confessed make use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God, and we find it in some, and but very few Pa­rish Churches amongst us. But the far greatest part of the Parishes, have nothing of it. Nay, not one of a 100 Parishes, parhaps of 500 Enjoy this sort of Church-Musick. Therefore he cannot say, that all in Communion with the Church of England do approve of the use of it. I am satified that Multitudes do not. And should Persons attempt to erect an Organ in some Parish Churches, I nothing questi­on, but that they would meet with great opposition. We find it was a long time ere our Author could bring his Parish to it. He was no less than Ten Years in perswading his Parish to approve of this Musick. Preface. And now his Organ is where he would have it; I very much question whether all the Members of his Congregation are satisfied with what their Guide has drawn them to.

Well, so great an Authority, I perceive, has this Mans Church, that if it practiseth any thing in the Worship of God (although all other Reformed Churches disuse, and disallow it) that thing pre­sently becomes lawful: which, I suppose, you will grant me is no small absurdity. But he obliges us with a Reason for the proof of this. Ser. p. 14. For adds he, Ours being, by far, the best part of the Reformation. (1.) Suppose this be allowed him for certain, that the Church of England is the best Reformed Church in the World, yet I am not so [Page 39] acute to perceive how it will thence follow, that this Churches use of Organs in Divine Worship will justifie the Lawfulness of them. For the best Reformed Church in the World may have some flaw in it. (2.) But what does this Gentleman mean by the Church of England, when he Asserts it to be the best part of the Reformation? Does he Exclude all the Dissenters of what ever Denomination from his Church? And does he include the Vast Multitudes of Debauch­ed, Profane, Atheistical Sotts, who loudly pretend to be some of the best Members of the Church of England? Or doth he Exclude them too? (3.) What does this Gentleman mean by his Church's being the best part of the Reformation? Does he intend that it is best as to its Doctrine, best as to its Discipline, or best as to the Holi­ness of its Members? If he designs it of its Doctrine; I think other Churches may pretend to be as well Reformed as his. For the Do­ctrine of the French Protestant Churches, of the Dutch Reformed Churches, of the Scotch Church, and of the Hungarian Churches, is much what the same with that of the Church of England. As to Discipline, let him prove that the Discipline exercised in the Church of England exceeds that of the French Protestant Churches, the Dutch, &c. That the Members of the Church of England are more Conspicuous for Ho­liness, more Eminent for a Good Life than those of Others it is incum­bent upon our Author to make good, if he shall adVenture to Assert it. But then he must not only prove that this Church is the best part of the Reformation, but by far the best part. So that this Church of his must surpass all other Reformed Churches with a high degree of Transcendency.

But he will prove the Church of England to be the best part of the Re­formation, and by far the best part too; And this from a passage of the Learned Causabons. The Passage this. Ser. p. 14, 15. If my Judgment does not fail me, the sincerest part of the Reformation is in England, where together with the study of Truth, flourisheth also the study of Antiquity. (1.) It is observable that the Learned Causabon saith, that the sincerest part of the Reformation is in England. He doth not say that the best part of the Reformation is to be found in the Cathedrals only, or in those few Parishes where they have Organs in their Churches. Nor doth he say, that the sincerest part of the Reformation is only to be found in the Church of England, as a Body distinguished by some peculiar Rites, and Old Canons, from the rest of the Protestant Churches in the Nation. No, he only says, that the sincerest part of the Reformati­on is in England. (2.) That the study of Truth and Antiquity flou­rishes in our Nation, is undeniable. But then it is as evident, that Forreign Reformed Churches have had many Learned Divines a­mongst them, eminent for the study of Truth and Antiquity, and have at this day. Such in the French Churches were Daille, Blondel, Cloud, &c. [Page 40] such in the Dutch Churches were Salmasius, Rivet, &c. And at present there are many in the Belgick Provinces of the Reformed, who are Eminent for the Study of Truth and Antiquity. Such are the very Learned Spanheim, Leydecker, Triglandius, Witsius, Gronovius, &c.

Ser. p. 15. Our Author for the greater Commendation of his Church, saith, This truly was, and is the Design and Glory of our Church, that it re­tains the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Chuch, while it throws off the Corruptions, and errors, that were foisted into it, in after Times. But

(1.) Does the Church of England retain the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Church? I rejoice to hear it. Has it thrown off all Corruptions and Errours, which were foisted into the Church in after-times? Good News. But I wonder then how our Authors Church came to Practise upon the Organ. For there was no such Musick in the Primitive Churches, as I think, I have proved, for 600 Years there was no sound of the Organ to be heard in the Christian Assemblies. This was foisted into them in after-times. Be­side, how came kneeling at the Reception of the Lord's-Supper to be used in our Church? Whereas it was not Practised by the Primi­tive Christians. Nay, Genuflection was forbidden, by the Custom of the Catholick Church, and the Canons of the greatest General Councels, on any Lords day in the Year. And this Custom continued a Thou­sand Years in the Church, as Mr. Baxter in many of his Books has proved. The Cross in Baptism as a Dedicating Sign, and as used in the Church of England, was not found in the Primitive Churches. Bowing at the Name of Jesus, was no Primitive Practise. The Ex­ercise of the Power of the Keys by a Lay-Chancellour is not a Pra­ctise found in the Primitive Church. The Imposing of Ministers upon Parishes against the consent of the People, was no Primitive Practice. The Excluding Parents from entring their Children into the Covenant at Baptism, is not to be found the Practise of the Primitive Christi­ans. A Choir of Singing-Men and Lads was what the Primitive Churches were unacquainted with. The Composing of a Liturgy, and imposing it upon all Ministers to be invariably used by them, was no practise of the Primitive Church; at least for 300 or 400 Years. The making the Surplice the condition of a Ministers Exercising his Office in Publick, was not found in the early times of Christianity. These things considered, it is strange our Author should pretend, that the Practise of his Church is so very agreeable to those of the Primitive Christians. I suppose, by the Primitive Church he intends the Church in some of the later Ages of Christianity.

(2.) Do not the French and Dutch Churches, those of Piedmont, and the Protestant Churches amongst the Cantons, &c. retain the Doctrine and Practise of the Primitive Churches? Let our Author [Page 41] prove they do not. And this is their Glory too, that they have thrown off the Corruptions and Errors that were foisted into the Church in after­times.

But our Author proceeds in the Commendation of his Church. It allows, saith he, and maintains what is agreeable to Reason, Ser. p. 15. Decen­cy and Good Report, whereby God may be Worshipped among us in Spirit and in Truth, with Beauty and Devotion. (1.) And do not the For­reign Reformed Churches do the like? Have they any thing of Inde­cency, or Ill-report to be found in their Worship? Is there any thing Unreasonable in their Devotions? (2.) That God may be Worshipped with Beauty, says our Author. What he intends by Beauty, I know not; some account a Meretricious Bravery, and Paint, to be Beauty. The Papists Worship God with a great deal of Pomp and Gaiety, and this they stile a Worshipping of God in Beauty. They have Organs, they have Altars, they have Burning Lamps even by day in their Churches; their Temples are curiously trimm'd, and Adorned, and this they account adds to the Beauty and Splendour of their Worship. I hope our Author does not intend such a Beauty as this; if he does, he will find the generality of the Reformed Churches are against him; and they will tell him, that Gospel Worship in its Native Simplicity is its greatest Beauty. If an External Bravery, if Gaudy Temples, and Glittering Ornaments are the Beauty of Worship; then they of the Romish Communion will justly pretend to a more Beautiful Wor­ship than his Church can.

Our Author continues to applaud his Church, by saying: Ser. p. 15. She retains the use of the Organ, but not as it were absolutely necessary, or as if the Essence of the Church did consist in it; or that there could be no Church without it; but only as to its benè esse, its Flourishing estate. An excellent remark this, For (1.) Doubtless the Essence of the Church doth not lie in a few tweedling Organ-pipes; it would be wonderful­ly strange if it should. (2.) But yet the same Organs are necessary to its benè esse, its Flourishing estate. So that, altho' the Church may be a Church without them, yet the Church cannot be in a flou­rishing Condition without them. But how does our Author prove it? What mighty Arguments does he produce for the Confirmati­on of this Momentous Assertion? Alas! as to that matter, he beggs your Diversion, and assures you that the matter is even so, and there­fore you have Reason to believe him. But I would ask this Gentle­man, could I come at him, What! Was not the Church in a flou­rishing estate in the time of Constantine the Great? And yet there were no Organs then to Exalt their Devotions. Cannot the Church Flourish, unless the sound of Organs be heard in every Worshipping Assembly? Suppose the Church should have a Learned and Pious Clergy; should have vast and numerous Assemblies, consisting all [Page 42] of Pious, Peaceable, and Fruitful Members: Suppose it should be smiled upon by a Religious, and Zealous Magistracy, and it should have nothing of Division, or Animosity to infest it; and should have all the Ordinances of Christ Administred in it according to the rule of the Gospel; would not the Church be in a Flourishing estate, al­tho' the Ears of its Members were not regailed with an Organical Melody? With submission to our Author's great Learning and Judg­ment, I humbly conceive it would. (3.) But the Mystery lies here, some Persons are for setting up their Fancies in their Churches, and the bringing in of their own Whims into Divine Worship, and then presently they cry they are necessary to the Flourishing estate of the Church; and that they Meliorate the Worship of God: As if the Worship of God were not as Decent, as Comely, as Flourishing without them. Methinks such Persons are just like a sort of Modish Ladies of our Times; to whom, altho' God has given pretty good Features, and has put a considerable Comeliness upon them; yet will they Paint, and Dawb their Faces, and beautifie themselves with their curious Washes, and artificial Dyes; and then they cry it is for the heightning of their Beauty; for the giving an advance to their Comeliness. But who does not see, that this does not augment their Beauty, but hide it: And who would account a Painted Jezabel more Beautiful, than a comely Rachel? (4.) If Organs do render the Church more Flourishing and Beautiful, then an addition of Harps, and Psalteries, and Timbrels, and Dances, &c. would yet give a greater advance to its Beauty, and render it more Pompous and Flourishing. Upon the same pretence, these, and many other such things might be introduced into the Worship of God. All the Gay, and Glittering Pomps and Rites of the Romish Church were brought in upon the same Foundation.

Ser. p. 15, 16.Our Author proceeds, and harps on a string he had touched be­fore; and tells us, That, God be thanked, they do not stand singly in the defence of this Usage; but that they have the concurrence of the best established Churches in the Christian World. (1.) Doubtless they must presently be the best Established Churches in the World who concur with him in the use of Organs. (2.) But I fear this Gentleman rec­kons without his Host. That you may be convinced that our Author has but little reason for what he offers; I shall give you a brief ac­count of what Churches use Organs, and what Churches Worship God without them. The Churches which use them are the Popish Churches, the Cathedral Churches in England, and some very few Parish Churches: Some of the Dutch Churches. (But this without the consent of their Ministers, as was observed before) Some few of the Lutheran Churches, in Poland, and Germany; and the Greek Churches. But then the Churches which Worship God without [Page 43] them, are the greatest part of the Parish-Churches in England. The Dissenting Congregations Universally; the Scotch Churches: the Hun­garian, Transylvanian Churches; the Churches of Piedmont: All the Reformed Churches in Germany; the Helvetian, and the French Pro­testant Churches. Many of the Protestant Churches in Poland, and many of those in the Belgick Provinces. This account being given you, I leave you to judge, what reason our Author had to say, that the best Reformed Churches in the Christian World concurred with them in the use of Organs. If he can prove the Popish, the Lutheran, and the Greek Churches to be the best Reformed Churches in the Christian World, he may do somewhat to perswade us to be of the same Opinion; but till then we must beg his pardon, if we dissent from him.

He has, I find, Ser. p. 16. one entire Paragraph to the Old Bedlam tune of Forty one, Forty one; in which there are some things false. But this Gentleman is not of Age enough to remmember the Transactions of those Times, and therefore we shall pass it by, as thinking it not fit to take notice of the eructation of his Gall.

But now we are arrived at his Fifth Argument, Argum. 5 which he takes from the Concession of some of the Dissenters, particularly from the Reverend Mr. Baxter, and the Assembly of Divines.

(1.) He begins with Mr. Baxter, and alledges his Testimony for the Defence of the Lawfulness of Instrumental Musick in the Wor­ship of God. I must confess I have a very high esteem of Mr. Bax­ter, and am perswaded that he has done very great service to the Church of God, by the many excellent Discourses he has published both in Practical and Polemick Divinity. But yet, I suppose it would be a mistaken Commendation of him, to say that he was without all Mistake. As to his judgment respecting the use of Organs, I cannot close with it.

I shall consider Mr. Baxter's Arguments as our Author has pro­pounded them, and endeavour a Reply to them.

His Arguments as propounded by Mr. Newte, are these.

(1.) God set up Instrumental Musick long after Moses 's Ceremonial Law by David and Solomon. I Answer, (1) Instrumental Musick was made use of in the Worship of God, as I conceive, long before the times of David or Solomon. Our Author has said enough to confute this First Argument in producing the Instance of Miriams praising God with Timbrels. (2.) Trumpets were used in the Worship of God as enjoyned by Moses's Ceremonial Law: as we read Numb. 10.10. In the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your Months, ye shall blow with your Trumpets over your Burnt-Offer­ings, and over the Sacrifices of your Peace-offerings, that they may be to you for a Memorial before your God. The same thing was part of the Ce­remonial Law in David's time, Psal. 81.3, 4. it is there said, Blow [Page 44] up the Trumpet in the New-Moon, in the time appointed, in our solemn feast day, for this was a Statute for Israel, and a Law of the God of Ja­cob. So that Instrumental Musick was set up by Moses's Ceremoni­al Law. Therefore, I conceive, Mr. Baxter mistakes when he says, that God set up Instrumental Musick long after Moses 's Ceremonial Law: If by setting up he intends the first Appointment of this sort of Musick in Divine Worship. Instrumental Musick was set up by Moses's Ceremonial Law, and farther ratified by the Ceremonial Law in the times of David and Solomon. That it was set up by Mo­ses's Ceremonial Law, to me seems apparent from Psal. 81.4, 5. be­fore cited; which place the Learned Dr. Hammond thus Paraphra­ses, And this is but agreeable to the Ordinances of Divine Service given by God himself on Mount Sinai, for all posterity most strictly to observe. (3.) The Ceremonial Law was not given all at once, but was com­pleated by degrees. For Sacrifices were instituted first; Then the eating of Blood was prohibited; Then Circumcision was enjoined, &c. And then a greater number of Ceremonies were added by Moses at the giving of the Law; and at length the Ceremonial Law had its utmost Complement in the time of Solomon. Before the Law of Moses there was the use of Musical Instruments by Miriam: Then the use of Trumpets enjoined by the Law of Moses; and then a greater number of Musical Instruments were added by David and Solomon. (4.) Many things were added to the Ceremonial Law in the times of Solomon, as Candlesticks, Lavers, &c. But more I shall add of this, when I come to consider Mr. Newtes Answers to Objecti­ons.

Argum. 2 Mr. Baxters Second Argument to prove the Lawfulness of Instru­mental Musick is this. It is a Natural help to the minds alacrity; and it is a Duty, and not a Sin to use the helps of Nature, and lawful Art; tho' not to Institute Sacraments of our own. I Answer, (1.) Let it be supposed that Instrumental Musick is a Natural help to the Minds ala­crity; yet will it not presently follow, that it may be admitted to have a room in Divine Worship. How many things are there which are Natural helps to the Minds alacrity; which yet, I suppose our Au­thor will not allow may have a Sacred Use in the Solemn Assemblies of Christians. As (1.) Dancing is thought by many to be a Law­ful Art, and was used by Miriam and David in Conjunction with their Musick, and has a tendency to exhilerate the Mind. Yet I sup­pose this will not warrant the use of it in Christian Assemblies. (2.) The use of sweet perfumes is a Natural help to the chearing of the Mind, at least to most Persons. Is it therefore Lawful to bring in the use of Incense again into the Worship of God? And to recal that Ceremony of the Temple? (3.) A Glass of Wine is a Natural help to the Minds alacrity, Psal. 104.15. Wine that maketh glad the heart [Page 45] of Man. But will it thence follow that in the Worship of God Per­sons my drink round? True it is, in one part of Divine Worship, we make use of Wine, but the Gospel warrants us to do that. But the Question is, Whether we may make use of it in any other part of Worship to exhilerate the Spirits, without a Commission? When we can find a Precept in the Gospel for the use of Instrumental Mu­sick, we will readily rejoice in its Harmony.

(2.) Mr. Baxter's Similitude taken from a Pair of Spectacles, which are comfortable helps in reading the Bible, methinks does not reach the Case. For we being commanded to read the Bible, if our Eyes, (which are the senses as we imploy in the discharging that Duty) are weak, we are obliged to make use of Spectacles or of some other Lawful Art, to help the sight, to strengthen the Eye, that it may be enabled to discern objects with the greater distinctness. So, if there is any defect in the Organs imployed in Singing; if there be a Natural debility in them, or such a driness as renders the Voice hoarse, &c. I make no question but it may be lawful to make use of some means to strengthen the Organs, and to remove that hoars­ness wherewith a Person may be infested. But alas! Musical In­struments are of no efficacy in the Case. They cannot clear the Voice; nor will they enable Persons to sing with the greater strength or sweetness. For they cannot corroborate the Organs, nor moisten the Arteria asperia. We are commanded to Sing Psalms of Praise to God; so that Christians are obliged to sing according to the best Skill they have. Let Persons make use of Lawful Art, if they will, to better their Voices, and to dispose them to sing the more sweetly and melodiously. But this will not warrant the Introduction of Instrumental Musick into the Worship of God; For that will not render the Voice the more Musical. Seeing we are commanded to Sing, it will not be amiss for Persons to endeavour to gain some skill in the Art of Singing, if they can, that they may perform that duty the more decently, and with the less disorder and confusion. So if God had enjoined us the use of Musical Instruments in his Worship we should have been under an Obligation to have procured such as would yeild a sweet sound; and have endeavoured to have gotten the best we could. But because God commands us Vocal Mu­sick, it does not therefore follow, that we may make use of Instru­mental.

Mr. Baxter's Third Argument is to this purpose. Argum. 3 Jesus Christ joyn­ed with the Jews that used it, and never spake a word against it. I An­swer, it may be so. He was Circumcised too, and eat the Passover, and never spake a word against them. But that, I suppose, is no Argu­ment for the lawfulness of those Sacraments in the Christian Church.

[Page 46] Argum. 4 Mr. Baxter's Fourth Argument is this. No Scripture forbiddeth it, therefore it is not unlawful. This Argument as made use of by some Men, has frequently been encountred and foiled. (1.) If he means that no Scripture does expresly forbid it, and from thence concludes it Lawful; then will it follow, that what ever things the Scripture does not expresly forbid may lawfully be used in the Wo [...]ship of God. Which allowed will be a very fair plea for a Multitude of Popish Ce­remonies. Then Holy-water, Crucifixes, Altars, Oyl, Salt and Cream in Baptism may be harmlessly used. For the Sacred Scrip­tures do not any where expressly caution against them. Upon this pretence, how many things might be introduced into the Christian Worship? And the Christian Worship be rendred as Ceremonious as that under the Law. Upon the same pretence Persons might e­rect a Gallows in the Church to put People in mind of the Justice of God: Or Ministers might be ordered to hold, and brandish a naked Sword with their hands during the delivery of their Sermons to ex­cite their Auditory to the greater Reverence, and to mind them, that the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. These, and Multi­tudes of the like might be introduced into the Worship of God upon the same grounds; for the Scripture forbids them not. At this door most of the Superstitions, and Dotages of Men in the Worship of God have entred. ‘When God has by his Soveraign Order [...]amed a Religion for the Heart, Men are ready to usurp an Authority, to frame one for the Sense; to dress the Ordinances of God in new and gawdy Habits, to take the Eye or the Ear with a vain Pomp, saith one.’ Charn. on the At­tributes. p. 749. (2.) Instrumental Musick was a part of the Temple Ser­vice; which Service was Typical, and Ceremonial, (I mean all that Service which was peculiar and confined to the Temple) And therefore with the Ceremonial Service of the Temple was it abolish­ed by the coming of Christ. And Persons have no warrant to set up this sort of Worship again in the times of the Gospel; any more than they have Authority to revive the Ceremonial Law of the Jews. And if Persons will again bring Instrumental Musick into the Worship of God; they may with as much reason recall all the abrogated Rites of the Jewish Religion. There was no need of an express command for the laying aside of this kind of Musick. When as at the coming of Christ all the Temple Service was to expire. Christ by his coming has dismissed, and cashiered the Chargeable, and troublesome Service of the Temple, to make way for the more Reasonable, and Spiritual Service, and Worship of himself. And saith the Learned Dr. Lightfoot, His Works. Vol. 2. 1060. ‘ Christ among the Jews abolished the Worship at the Temple as purely Ceremonious; but he perpe­tuated the Worship of the Synagogue; Reading the Scriptures, Pray­ing, [Page 47] Preaching, and Singing of Psalms, transplanted it into the Christian Church as purely Moral.’

Mr. Baxter's Fifth Argument is to this purpose. Argum. 5 Nothing can be said against it (Instrumental Musick) that I know of, but what is said against Tunes, and Melody of Voice. I Answer, (1.) I humbly conceive that a great deal more may be said against it. For thus much is certain, that God has enjoyned us Vocal Singing, and commanded us to make Melody in the Praising of him. Now Sing we cannot, but we must make use of some Tune or other; Some sort of Melody or other, must be made for the discharging this Duty. Now seeing God has left us no Direction in what Tune he would have us Sing, it is most apparent, that he has left us at liberty as to this Matter. Seeing he has made vocal Singing our Duty by a plain command; he has thereby made Tune disjunctively necessary. Not that this, or that, Singly considered, is necessary; but some Tune or other disjunctively: And so God has left it to Christians themselves to de­termine of the particular Tunes they will praise God by. But God has not any way Commanded Instrumental Musick; it cannot be reduced to any precept of the Gospel either directly or disjunctively. True it is, If God had been pleased to have commanded us the Ce­lebrating his Praises with Musical Instruments; without specifying what sort he would have imployed in that case; then Persons would not have been obliged to any particular sort of them; but they might have used either Psalteries, or Harps, or Viols, or Organs, as they should have found to have been most Convenient for that pur­pose. But alas! God has not enjoyned us the use of Instrumental Musick at all in Religious Duties, and therefore there is no reason Persons should be sollicitous about the sort of them. Well then, Tune being disjunctively considered, falling under a Divine Com­mand, and Musical Instruments however considered falling under none, I suppose a Man may say, that more may be said for Tunes, than for Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God under the Gospel. (2.) I believe we may be able to say a little more against Instrumen­tal Musick in the Worship of God, than can be said against Tunes, and Melody in Vocal Musick. When we shall come to consider Mr. Newtes Answers to Objections, I suppose you may be convinced of this; therefore, thither I refer you.

(2.) Having done with Mr. Baxter, next he produces the judg­ment of the Assembly of Divines in this Matter, as he saith. His words are these. To this Opinion of Mr. Baxters, I shall add that of the As­sembly of Divines, Ser. p. 19. very different from those of Geneva on this last Psalm. Well! What is it which the Assembly has delivered, which so much suits our Author's darling Opinion? He (say they, speaking of David) Exhorteth them, that they might praise God the better, to stir up [Page 48] their joy with Musical Instruments. (1.) I perceive he has a particular pique at the Divines of Geneva. His Charity for them seems to be extreamly cold, if he has any; But we shall find him again quar­relling with Geneva e're we come to the end of his Discourse; and therefore we shall defer our remarks upon this to the next meeting. But that the Opinion of the Assembly is different from that of the Di­vines of Geneva in the present Case, is perhaps more than our Au­thor may be able to prove. (2.) What he has cited from the As­semblies Annotations. I think he does not well to stile the Opinion of the Assembly: For he can never prove that the whole Assembly allowed of that as a good Exposition. True, the passage he cites is taken out of a Book, which is Entituled, The Assemblies Annotations. But it must be considered, that the Assembly did not conjunctly com­pose those Annotations. For one Man drew up Annotations upon one part of the Bible, and another took another part for his Province. As Bishop Reynolds composed the Annotations upon the Ecclesiastes and Canticles, Gataker wrote Annotations on Isaiah, &c. And who was the Author of the Annotations upon the Psalms, I know not. But whoever was the Author, it will not warrant this Gentleman to conclude what ever the Annotator has delivered there, to have been the unanimous Opinion of the whole Assembly.

(3.) But to be as kind to him as we may, suppose it should be granted him, that the whole Assembly approved of the cited pas­sage; it will not follow that they approved of the use of Instru­mental Musick in the Worship of God under the Gospel. For all which that passage imports is only thus much, viz. That David exhorted the Jewish People to stir up their joys in the praising God by Musical Instruments. And what is this to our Authors purpose? Do the Assembly say that David gave any Directions concerning the use of Instrumental Musick in Christian Assemblies, which here­after were to be? If not, it is nothing as to the point, which he designs to gain. I see the Assembly cannot help him, altho' he ap­peals to them; well, therefore he will strive by his own Strength to do some notable thing, which may for ever silence all his Op­ponents.

Ser. p. 19.For saith he, And the remark upon it is unanswerable, if Musical In­struments (as is granted) had that power then, how have they changed their Nature since? (1.) And is it only come to this! I expected he should have delivered a plain passage from the Assembly to prove that it was their concurrent Opinion and Judgment, that Musical Instru­ments may lawfully be made use of by Christian Assemblies in their Worshipping of God. This is what any Reader would have expected upon the perusal of his preceding Words: But he fobs us off with a little Remark upon a Sentence nothing to his Purpose. (2.) But his [Page 49] daunting, and Unanswerable Remark it is fit we should attend. This terrible word Unanswerable is enough to scare a Junior Disputant, But perhaps all this Remark may be no other than a harmless Mormo, only to Amuse, not to do any Execution. Therefore I shall look a little more narrowly into it. If, saith he, Musical Instruments, (as is granted) had that power then, how have they changed their Nature since? A few things will discover this Interrogatory not to be so very for­midable as our Author presumes it to be. (1.) These were Means appointed of God to stir up the Affections of the Jewish People un­der the Legal oeconomy; and doubtless God concurred with his own Institutions, and made them useful to that end. But they are not a means now thus appointed of God to be used in Gospel-Churches: Therefore we have no reason to expect, that God should thus con­cur with Persons in the Use of them, in these times of the New-Testament Administration. (2.) At the same rate a Man may ar­gue for the use of Sacrifices and Incense still: For is it not very easie to say, if Sacrifices, and Incense were of use then to stir up the Affecti­ons, How have they changed their Nature since? And must this be looked upon as an Unanswerable Remark? If not, Why should our Authors be thought to be so? But I shall offer you a few things more to this purpose; when I come to consider the great advanta­ges, which, as our Author avers, acrue to Persons by this sort of Church Musick.

Thus having considered the Authority he has produced from those of the Separation (as he stiles them) in the behalf of his admired Musick, I will endeavour to be even with him, by presenting you with the Judgment of two Church-men directly against it.

(1.) I shall offer you the Opinion of Mr. Maxwel a Scotish Divine, but yet not of the Geneva Cut, but of the true Prelatical Stamp. In a Discourse of his, Entituled, The Excellency of the Church of England above that of Geneva, He delivers himself thus. ‘We agree with the Reformed Divines, that Instrumental Musick is neither a help to, nor a part of Divine, or Ecclesiastick Worship.’ This, I am satisfied is a much fuller Passage against Instrumental Musick in Di­vine Worship, than is his citation from the Assemblies Annotations for it.

(2.) But what will you say, if I produce a very Eminent and Learned Bishop declaring against this sort of Musick in Christian Assemblies! That, I suppose, may be sufficient to counter-poize Mr. Baxter's Testimony. Well then, the Reverend, the Learned Bishop Taylor Delivers himself expresly against this sort of Church Musick; For saith he, The Use of Psalmody, or Singing of Psalms, Duct. dub. Lib. 3. p. 329. be cause it can stir up the Affections, and make Religion please more Faculties, is very apt for the Edification of Churches. The use of Instrumental Musick [Page 50] may also add some little advantages to Singing; but they are more apt to change Religion into Air, and Fancies, and take off some of its Sim­plicity, and are not so fitted for Edification. Ad Disciplinas aliquod Artificiale Organum non est ad hibendum, said Aristotle, as he is quoted by Aquinas. Artificial Instruments are not fit to be applied to the Use of Disciplines; that is, The Musick of Instruments does not make a Man wiser, or instruct him in any thing; this is true, and therefore they are not of themselves very good Ministries of Religion. And then a little below in the same page, he tells us from Chrysostom, That those In­struments were permitted the Jews, ob eorum Imbecilitatem; For their Weakness. Thus, I suppose, I have fully requited him for his Cita­tion of Mr. Baxter.

By this time, I presume, you may be satisfied, that I have fairly represented his Arguments, and as fairly Answered them.

But now the method of his Discourse leads us to consider the great Use and Advantages of this sort of Musick: For these, he pre­tends, are many. But I am inclined to believe that Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God, is nothing so useful as he imagines. The Advantages, which he confidently avers may be reaped by it, may be rather the Suggestions of a warm Fancy, than the Results of a well informed Judgment But that I may the more exactly suit my Answers to his Allegations, I shall carefully trace him as to the steps he takes in order to his Advance to that Position, Viz. That the Use of Organs is of very great Advantage in the Worship of God in these times of the Gospel.

Ser. p. 20.The First advantage of Organs he thus expresseth. The Organ will Regulate the Untuneable Voices of the Multitude; and make the Singing in the Church more Orderly and Harmonious. It cannot be supposed, but there will be great Discord, and Jarrings in a mixed company of Singers, where few perhaps have had the Benefit of Art to Tune and help their Voices.

(1.) How can the Organ Regulate untuneable Voices, or make them Harmonious in the Church? If they are Untuneable, or not Tuneable, I am certain they cannot be Harmonious; any more than there can be Harmony in Singing without a Tune. But I suppose that word was intended rather to make the Sentence Tuneable, than True. (2) But I believe his meaning to be, that the Organ will Regulate the un­tuned Voices of the Multitude, and render them the more Harmonious. To this then I Answer, That the Organ may sometimes drown the Voices of the Multitude, by its lowder noise; but I am not in the least satisfied, that it will render Untuned Voices the more Harmonious. For if the Voices are not Harmonious, the Organ will not make them so. If there are Jarrings and Discords in a mixed Company of Singers, when the Organ does not found; I cannot see how the Organ will help them by its Harmony to be more Orderly and [Page 51] Melodious: For Persons who have not had somewhat of Art to help their Voices, know not well how to sing in Consort with an Organ. (3.) But if Persons have untuned Voices, I suppose there may be a much better Cure for this, than an Organ. If they are but taught to sing by some Artist, their Voices will be more Harmonious, than an Organ can make them to be. And less than Five hundred Pound Sterling will be enough to procure an Artist or two to Instruct a Large Congregation in Vocal Musick, and to bring them to some competent skill in Psal­mody. The Dutch and French Protestants in their Churches sing very Harmoniously, and that because they are instructed in the Elements of Vocal Musick from their Child-hood. For at the same time their Children are taught to Read, they are taught to Sing. So that it is not the Melodious sound of an Organ, that prevents Discords and jarrings amongst them; but their skill in Vocal Musick; and this Persons may arrive to by some Instruction from an Artist, much sooner than by [...]n Organ.

The Musick of an Organ, he saith, will both grace the service, Ser. p. 21. and please the Offerer. How well it may please the Offerer I shall not enquire; but that it will Grace the Service I do not believe: unless by Gracing the Service, he intends, that it will give it a greater external Pomp and Splendour. And if that be his meaning, the Papists will tell him, that the Service in the Church of Rome is much more Graceful, than that which is to be found in this Authors Church. Alas! Sir, Sim­plicity is the Glory of the Christian Worship, and the more there is of Pomp and Ceremony added to it, the less Beautiful and Graceful is it found. A Worship dressed up al a Mode de Romain with Ribbons, and Gaudy Topknots will not be Graceful in Gods account, how much soever some Superstitious Fops may Admire and Applaud it. But is the Worship of God any thing the better for a few Gaudy Additions of Men? Will such Fancies render it the more accepta­ble to God, or the more Advantageous to the Worshippers? To conclude either of these would be an Argument of Superstition.

But it will Please the Offerer he pretends. The Musick may please his Ear, or delight his Fancy: But, I suppose what may gratifie the Sence and please the Fancy, must not presently be admitted to have a room in Divine Worship: For if so, Hundreds of Fopperies might he brought into Christian Assemblies, and be mixed with the Service there.

He saith, Ser. p. 21. It is somewhat unreasonable to suppose God will be delighted with such unpleasant and harsh Tones in his Service, as Men in their com­mon Diversion would not endure. And for ought I know, it may be as unreasonable to suppose that God will be delighted (who is a pure Spirit) with the sweetest airs, and Melody of an Organ.

(2.) The Second Use, he pretends, of his Organ, is to stir up the [Page 52] Affections of the Soul, Ser. p. 21. Ser. p. 10. and make them the fitter for Devotion. And other where, he tells us, it is of use to exalt Mens Devotion. I would of­fer you a few Remarks upon this. As (1.) Methinks the Musick of the Voice should be sufficient for this purpose. The generality of Men, I think, concur in it, that Vocal Musick is much more Sweet and Charming than Instrumental; and has as great a Power to raise and warm the Affections, as any the most Musical Pipes upon Earth. If Christ had thought fit Instrumental Musick should have been used to this end in the times of the Gospel, I doubt not but it would have been the Matter of a Precept, as well as it was under the Law. (2.) But what does this Gentleman mean by Exciting the Affections? Does he intend, that the Melody of his Organ will excite good Thoughts, attended with such an Agitation of the Blood and Spi­rits; as is to be found in the Affections of Joy, Hope, Desire, Love, &c? If this be his Meaning, I utterly deny, that his Musical Instru­ment by its Sweetest Harmony, will thus stur up the Affections of the Soul Necessarily. Perhaps Contingently sometimes, the Musick of an Organ may have such an effect; which being granted, it will not thence follow that Organs may be Statedly used in the Worship of God for that end. For the sight of a Cross, or a Gallows may be the occasion of the stirring up of good thoughts in a Man, yet, I suppose, none will thence be forward to conclude that they may be brought into Christian Worship, and statedly used there for that End. The sight of a Deaths-head, of a Skeleton, or of a Lamb dead and bloody, may accidentally stir up some good Affections in some good Men. What! May they therefore be brought into Worshipping Assemblies, and be set before the People as a means to stir up their Affections, and to excite their Devotions? And must we have Ser­mons Preached and Printed to inform Christians in the excellent use of them to these purposes? I believe you will readily grant me that Ministers Time and Abilities may be better imployed. How fond a thing is it for Ministers to introduce their own private Fancies into their Congregations, and then by their Preachments to go about to perswade People of the excellent use of them? (3.) Christ has pro­mised to Concur with his own Ordinances duly Administred, but he has no where promised to concur with Mens groundless Fancies; and they have no reason to expect that Organs should be thus useful to Excite Mens Affections, seeing it is no Appointment of the King of the Church to this end. (4.) If Organs are of use to stir up the Affections of Christians in the Worship of God, and are to be used for that very end; why should we not have more sorts of Musical Instruments, such as Harps and Viols, Timbrels and Haut-bois, &c. the more to excite the Affections. For, I suppose, our Author will not deny, but that these have a vertue too, to excite Affections. So [Page 53] that if Organs will somewhat excite the Affections, the other Musical Instruments will give some heightning addition. For Bonum bono additum, facit Majus bonum, Good added to good, makes the greater good. And so the more Musical Instruments, supposing them well Consorted, will raise the Affections the more. An excellent way this, to introduce all the Musick of the Jewish Temple, and to fill every Parish-Church with a Choir of Levites. (5.) I grant that the Musick and Melody of an Organ may put a pleasing Motion upon the Blood and Spirits, may, perhaps, cause the Blood to glide along the Veins and Arteries with somewhat more of briskness. But what is this to the stirring up of Pious and Religi­ous thoughts in the Mind? Must a pleasing motion of the Spirits necessarily be accompanied with serious, and devout Cogitations? Then whenever Persons hear the sound of an Organ in a Tavern, and have their Spirits pleasingly agitated by it, they must all ne­cessarily fall to their Devotions. But experience assures us, that al­tho' Organs are sometimes found in those places, yet rarely are they found very devout who frequent them.

He Informs us, Ser. p. 21. that this sort of Musick is a Mighty Advantage to Religion. So then doubtless we may conclude them to be the best sort of Christians, who are favoured with the Melodious sound of an Organ; because from what our Author saith, we must suppose them to be the most Devout.

But alas! this sort of Talk is all pure Falacy. I remember in some of the Logick Systems I have formerly perused, I have met with an Instance of a Fallacious Sorites to this purpose, viz.

Methinks our Author seeks to impose upon his Readers much what in the same manner; for at this rate, as far as I can sound the depth of his Argument, does he reason.

They who have the use of Organical Musick in their Sacred As­semblies are moved or excited; they who are excited, are excited to Affections either of Joy or Sorrow, &c. They who thus have their Affections excited, have their Affections Spiritually excited. They who have their Affections Spiritually excited, are most devout Wor­shippers of God; therefore they who have the use of Organical Mu­sick, are the most devout Worshippers of God.

I think a Man of little Penetration may easily discern the weakness of this way of Arguing: For altho' it may be allowed that the Mu­sick of an Organ may put a pleasing motion upon the Spirits, yet it follows not that it will ordinarily excite devout Affections.

[Page 54]He tells us, That it is the Nature of this Musical Instrument thus ap­parently to excite and raise Mens Affections.

The word [Nature] has a multiplicity of significations; I wish I knew in what sense he here meant it. Sometimes it is imployed to denote the Essence of a thing; at other times the Essential Property, &c. It may be he understands the word Nature in the latter of these Senses. So then what he asserts will amount to this: namely, that it is the Essential Property of an Organ to excite and raise Mens Af­fections. But then I am somewhat at a loss again, what he intends by Exciting and raising Mens Affections. Either by raising the Af­fections, he means the stirring up the Affections of Religious Joy or Sorrow, &c. Or the Affections of Nature, Joy and Sorrow, &c. If he intends the former; then let him prove that it is the Essential Pro­perty of an Organ to stir up the Affections of a Religious Joy or Sor­row, &c. But if he means the latter, namely, that it is the Essenti­al property of an Organ to stir up the Affections of a Natural Joy or Sorrow, &c. I do not see how his cause will gain any thing by it. For if Affections of Joy or Sorrow are excited, with respect to Objects, from whence Joy or Sorrow cannot be denominated Reli­gious; such Affections will rather hinder Devotion, than help it. Therefore I suppose to suit his purpose, it may be his opinion, that it is the Essential Property of an Organ to Excite devout Affections: Which if true, it will follow, that when ever Persons are fa­voured with the Musick of an Organ, Devout Affections must be excited in them, but no Man will adventure to affirm this, unless he will contradict manifest experience: (6.) But if Organs may be used in the Worship of God to stir up the Affections by the ear; Why may not other things be brought into the Worship of God to stir up the Affections by the other Senses? What thinks he of a Cru­cifix? Why may not that for the same reason be brought into Chri­stian Assemblies, and be presented to the Eyes of the Worshippers? Suppose a Minister should Preach a Passion Sermon, and with a great deal of moving Rhetorick should decypher the bitter agony, and the painful Sufferings of our dying Lord, and in the midst of his affectionate Discourse should pluck a Crucifix from under his Cassock, presenting it to the view of the People; with a behold the wound in his Side, the grating [...]orns on his Sacred Head, and the Blood streaming from his gaping wounds! Can you see this bloody Specta­cle without tears? Can you view this dismal sight without a sigh? I say, should a Minister do this, for ought I know the sight of a Crucifix at such a time might help to draw tears from the Eyes of many in the Assembly. I doubt not but it might raise a Passion of Sorrow in many of the Spectators; supposing they had no prejudice against such an use of it. The Lutherans plead for the use of Crucifixes [Page 55] in their Assemblies from this very Topick. Shall we therefore set up Crucifixes in our Churches? For my part, I am satisfied; that it is as lawful to set up a Crucifix in the Church to Affect the Soul by the Eye, as it is to set up an Organ to Affect the Soul by the Ear. Therefore, say I, if we must have Organs, let us have Crucifixes too. Tho' the Worship of God I am satisfied, is best with neither. If Ministers should ascend their Pulpits with glittering Swords in their hands, brandishing them every time they denounced Woes against Impeni­tent Sinners; it might raise the Affections of many of the Auditers. And Supposing it might have such an effect, must it presently be plea­ded for, and be introduced into Publick Worship? Why upon the same pretence might not many affecting Pictures be hung about the Walls of the Churches, to stir up the Affections of the Worshippers? That devotional Pictures are no helps to Excite Memory and Passion, is to forget that they are called Mute Poems, and to speak against common sense, saith his present Lord of Canterbury Discourse of Idola­try. p. 279.. So that upon the same score, that Organs are to be introduced into the Publick Churches, we may fill the Walls of the Churches with Varieties of Instructive Pictures to excite Devotion; and then our Churches may have their Walls garnished, and beautified, as are those amongst the Papists and Lutherans. But should we have our Churches hung about with such Devotional Pictures, those Objects would so much attract the Eye, and cause it to gaze about, that they would too much prevent the attention of the Mind to better things; as his Lordship, in the page referred to in the Margin, has determined. And for my own part, I am of Opinion, that it is with Organs in the Worship of God, as it is with Pictures in Churches; they rather prove a Distraction and Diversion, than a help to Devotion. And many Men, perhaps as wise as our Author, have been of this Opinion, and many others are so to this day. Navar De Orat. & horis. c. 17. saith, That the Harmony of Organs is not so much to be accounted of, as the Vulgar commonly esteem it, for although they may a little profit, imperfect and ignorant Christians, Ex lon­guinquo. accidentally exciting them to Devotion; yet commonly it prejudices those who are know­ing, and solidly Established in Christianity, taking from them the sense of the Words, which would much more efficaciously excite and encrease Devoti­on. And Cajetan in 22 Quae. 61. art. 2., although he approves of some use of Organs yet cautiously adds, We must use them sparingly, least we should injure the sound, by diminishing and extinguishing their Devotion. Some of the Papists themselves therefore have been sensible of this. And to the same effect speaks Pezelius Mellif. Histor. Pt. 3. c. 14., ‘That I may pass by the Musical In­struments of Pope Vitaliane which are the Thieves of Prayer, and the Word Preached.’ And saith Peter Martyr in Judg. c. 5., speaking of this sort of Musick; It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend, and perceive the words, [Page 56] if they would, i. e. so as to be affected with the matter sung. Wende­line System. Theolog. Edit. post. p. 1643. of the same Musick saith, That the Devil by a Canorous Musick tempts the Ears of Christians, that it may weaken, and emasculate a Chri­stian Vigor by a sweeter sound. The Learned Zanchy on Ephes. 5.19. speaks thus, Read St. Jerom on this place of the Apostle, what he writes against this Theatrical Musick, by which Men are drawn to be more attent to the Melody of the sound, than the Words. And saith Thomas of Aquin. 22 ^ae q. 91. Art. 2., out of Aristotle, That these sort of Musical Instruments do rather create in the mind a sensual delectation, than form in the Mind a good Disposition. To the same purpose speaks the Reverend Bishop Taylor Duct. dub. 3. p. 329., They are more apt to change Religion into Air and Fancies. I could present you with many more passages of the same import, especially from our Protestant Writers; which expresly condemn Instrumental Musick as a hindrance of Devotion: But I forbear, that I may not swell my Discourse beyond its designed limits.

But to conclude my Remarks upon this Use of Organs; That which is usually urged by the Patrons of Organs is, that they excel­lently excite Mens Affections in the Worship of God. Now I am willing to grant that this sort of Musick may sometimes accidentally stir up good Affections in some Persons. But so do Herbs and Flow­ers. Good Men frequently take an occasion from the view of Plants, and Trees, and Flowers, to raise their Minds in devout Praises of their All-wise and Omnipotent Creator. Shall we therefore bring them into the Worship of God for this Use? In Mor. En­cheir Me­taphys. p. 314, 315. a Grey-hound, and a Peacock, the Wisdom of God is conspicuously relucent; and some Persons have from thence had their Affections raised in the Contemplation of the Divine Wisdom, and Power manifested in their great Beauty and Elegancy. Shall we therefore bring these always into the Publick Worship, and present them to the Eyes of the Worshippers to excite their Devotions? Indeed the Poet saith.

That the Mind is apt to be more affected by the Eye, than by the Ear. Therefore Objects to be presented to the Eye, are as fit to be brought into Publick Worship to Affect the Soul, as Organs which are supposed to do it by the Ear. Give me leave to remember you of a passage I have formerly met withal in the Friendly Debate. Part. 1. p. 11. ‘I have been taught, saith that Author, that there are two ways to come at the Affections; one by the Senses, and Imagination; and so we see People mightily affected with a Puppet-play, with a Beggar's Tone, with a Lamentable Look, or any thing of like Na­ture. The other is by the Reason and Judgment, when the Evi­dence [Page 57] of any Truth convincing the Mind, engages the Affections to its side, and makes them move according to its direction. Now I believe your Affections are moved in the first way very often; by melting Tones, pretty Similitudes, riming Sentences, kind, and loving Smiles, and sometimes dismally sad Looks; besides several Actions or Gestures, which are very taking.— But the better sort of Hearers are now out of love with these things, &c.’ I would beg you to consider this, and to apply it to our present Case about the Power of Organs to excite the Affections in the Worship of God.

But to prove that Instrumental Musick will thus excite the Af­fections, he produces Two remarkable Instances (as he saith) from Scripture. Ser. p. 22. Both taken from the Practise of the Prophets in the Old Testa­ment: Who, for the promoting of the Spirit of Prophecy within them, and the better raising their Intention towards God at that time, they called for the Musicians to play before them. The one in 2 Kings 3.15, 16, 17. where it is said of Elisha, And it came to pass when the Minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came upon him. The other is, 1 Sam. 10.5. where it is said, The Company of Prophets came down from the High-place with a Psaletry, and a Tabret, and a Pipe, and an Harp before them. I answer, (1.) I cannot believe that Instrumental Musick was made use of by the Prophets in the Old-Testament to promote the Spirit of Prophecy within them. Our Author does not prove it. (2.) As to his first In­stance taken from Elisha's sending for a Musician; I cannot discern what good Influence it can have upon his Cause. The Praising of God with Instrumental Musick in those days, was the matter of a Divine Command. This sort of Musick was enjoyned them then for the quickning their Devotions: But now there is no such Obligation lying upon us, for the use of them to such an end. We have other Sacred Institutions enough for that purpose. In short, Instrumental Musick was commanded by God then, and blessed for the exciting of Mens Affections in his Service: Therefore God will bless it now to the same end; is a Consequence which will require our Authors ut­most Industry to make good. (3.) The case was plainly this. Eli­sha's Spirit at that time was somewhat sad and heavy at the considera­tion of the Idolatry, and wickedness of the People amongst whom he was. And the presence of Jehoram had somewhat discomposed him, as some suppose; Therefore that his Spirits might be quickned, and his heaviness removed, he calls for a Musician (probabl [...] some Le­vite skilful in Psalmody, and Instrumental Musick) Wits. Mis. Sacr. p. 78. gives a good account of this. Nimirum sanctum aliquod carmen coràm se cani voluit, admixtis unà precibus & laudibus Dei; quibus sum animi piorum permulcebantur & attollebantur atque aptiores fiebant ad accipiendam Propheticam Illustrationem, &c. to sing some Divine Psalm, or Hymn, that so his mind might be raised to Holy, [Page 58] and Heavenly Meditations, and so he be the fitter to ask, and to re­ceive Prophetical Inspirations. So that our Authors Argument from hence, as far as I can see, will amount to no more than this, viz. Elisha made use of an Ordinance of God then, to raise his Affections, to stir up his mind to holy Meditations, and to calm his disturbed Spirit. Therefore Christians may make use of an Ordinance of God to excite their Affections in these times of the Gospel. This, I think, is all can be warrantably inferred from this Instance. But because an Ordinance of God was then made use of to excite Affections in God's Service; therefore now that which is no Ordinance of God may be used continually in the praising of God to that end, is a very wide Consequence.

As to his other Instance, 1 Sam. 10.5. where it is said, That the company of Prophets came down from the High-place with a Psaltery, a Tabret, and a Pipe, and a Harp before them. I see nothing in it to warrant Persons to introduce Organical Musick into the Sa­cred Assemblies of Christians. These Prophets were Persons who whol­ly devoted themselves to Religious Studies, and Exercises, such as Preaching, Praying, and Praising of God, &c. And sometimes God communicated to them the Knowledge of future things. These Per­sons came down from the High-place; where at that time perhaps they had been offering Sacrifice. Pool's An­not. in Lo­cum. And altho' they were wont to perform that Exercise of Singing Gods Praises, either in their Col­ledge, or in the place of their Sacrifices, yet now they did it in the descent of the Hill. And they made use of Musical Instruments for the Exhileration and Excitation of their Spirits, as Prophets and o­ther Persons at that time were wont to do; as being an Ordinance of Divine Appointment.

But let us see how our Author will improve all this to infer the Lawfulness of Instrumental Musick in the Worship under the New-Testament Dispensation. Ser. p. 22, 23. In both which places it is observable, that 'twas nothing but Instrumental Musick, which was made use of in those cases to awaken their Souls, and to stir up the Spirit of Prophecy in them. And from thence I argue a Fortiori; If these were able to stir up the In­spired Principles of their Souls for such a Mighty thing, as the conveying the Prophetick Spirit into another among the Jews; certainly they may well be concluded proper and useful for the stirring up the Spirit of Prayer, and to move the Affections of the Soul, that they may be the fitter for the Worship of God in the Christian Church.

To which Learned passage I have a few things to say. As (1.) He talks of Stirring up the Spirit of Prophecy in them, and stirring up the Inspired Principles of their Souls. As if the Gift of Prophecy had either been a Natural Faculty, or an Infused Habit, which they could have awakened to action at pleasure. His Expressions can import no less, [Page 59] than the Spirit of Prophecy was, according to our Author, a per­manent inspired Principle in the Soul, whose acts a Person might elicite, when ere he had a mind. But if I mistake not, the Sacred Scriptures will better inform him in this matter. Be pleased to con­sult those Texts at your leisure, 2 Kings 4.27. Numb. 15.33, 34. Vid. Witsii. Miscel. Sa­cr. p. 15. Levit. 24.12. Nay, the Text he had just before cited, 2 Kings 3.15. where it is said, And it came to pass when the Minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came upon him, would have better instructed him, if he had but attended to it. The hand of the Lord came upon him, does not, I suppose import an internal Principle. Prophecy was not an inherent Principle, but a Gift of God, which he bestowed on whom, and when he pleased. Be pleased to consult Pool's Synopsis on 2 King, 3.15. and you will there find enough to give you satisfaction in this Point. So that, what our Author has advanced here, I look upon as a fundamental Mistake as to the present Argument, and so what he builds upon it, must of consequence be precarious. (2.) There­fore, I take leave to deny that Instrumental Musick in the alledged Cases, was made use of to stir up the Spirit of Prophecy in the menti­oned Persons. Altho' this Author confidently asserts it. The Texts he has produced, say no such thing. The Spirit of Prophecy was not a Dormant Habit in the Prophets, which needed to be awaken­ed by the Melody of an Harp, or a Timbrel. I wonder who taught our Author thus to speak. (3.) Now for his Illation hence. If these were able to stir up the Inspired Principles of their Souls for such a mighty thing, as the conveying the Prophetick Spirit into another among the Jews, certainly, &c. Certainly the Author was half a sleep when he pen­ed this passage. For, (1.) Here is a want of true Grammar. What is the Antecedent to [these?] What (Instrumental Musick) in the Singular Number? Cavete Grammatici! for ought I know, may be as pertinent here, as Cavete Scote in another place. (2) But in the next place we have a most notable Discovery; which, I believe none ever stumbled on before. I could wish some Learned Person or other would put it into the next Edition of Pool's Synopsis. For, I am satisfied, it is not there as yet. Now this mighty discovery is, That the Inspired Principles in the Souls of the Prophets, could do such a mighty thing, as to convey the Prophetick Spirit into another Person. What their Inspired Principles convey the Prophetick Spirit into another? Whence learns he this strange Paradox? I very much question the truth of it; and would beg our Author to prove it substantially, when he shall oblige the World with a second Edition of his Learn­ed Sermon. But if he will prove it to purpose, he must be sure to do these two things, (1.) He must prove that the Spirit of Prophecy, was the Inspired Principles of the Souls of the Prophets. That alone will, I fear prove a pretty difficult Province. (2.) He must prove that [Page 60] the Inspired Principles of the Souls of the Prophets, were capable of convey­ing the Prophetick Spirit into another. And this, I presume, he will find a desperate task. (4.) But from all this he would infer, that In­strumental Musick may now be used in Christian Churches to stir up the Spirit of Prayer. But I still deny the consequence. All that can duly be inferred from these instances, is only thus much, viz. That Persons now in these times of the Gospel may make use of an Ordi­nance of God for the Excitation of their Devotions, and for the Composing of their Disturbed Minds, that they may serve God the better. Instrumental Musick was then an Ordinance of God, now no longer such. But I have already alledged several reasons against such an inference as our Author here makes.

Ser. p. 24.But our Author comes at length to read us a long Lecture of the great power of Musick, and takes a great deal of pains to inform us in the Admirable effects which have sometimes been produced by it. And here he treats us with the Instance of the Famous Musician, who played before Alexander, and with that of Terpander. And tells us how Achilles's fury was appeased by Musick. And then refers us to Plutarch of Musick to be farther instructed in this matter. He acquaints us out of Grotius what admirable feats Pythagoras, Ascle­piades, Damon, and Xenocrates did by the means of it. And to make a little addition to our Authors Historical Gleanings in the present Case. I remember Theophrastus tells us, that it has cured the pain of the Sciatica, or Hip Gout. As the Learned Athaenaeus Dypnos. Lib. 1. c. 11. & A. Gell. Lib. 4. c. 3. cites him, and saith another Martin. Capell. Lib. 9. Fe­brem curabant, vulneraque vete­res cautione, &c., The Ancients cured Fevors and Wounds by Singing. Wonderful, doubtless, has been the power of Musick. But if the Musick of the Ancients had so admirable an Efficacy; that sort of Musick is now lost. And Pancirolla numbers it niter res perditas. And Cornelius a Lapide in his Commen­tary on Revel. chap. 5. asserts the same. And Lodovic. Vives, saith De Caus. Corr. Art. p. 322. Admirabiles effectus illi Musice vel ad sanitatem Corporum, vel ad motus animorum excitandos, sedandosve, de quibus Magni Au­thores prediderunt jam olim nul­li sunt, &c., Those admirable effects which many great Authors have attributed to Mu­sick, either of Health procured to the body, or of ex­citing or appeasing the Motions of the Soul, are now none at all. So that in these times we have nothing of that delicate and exquisite Musick of the Ancients, which heretofore has done such wonderful feats. And because our Author cites us a passage from Sir William Temple, concerning the great Power and Excellency of Musick, I shall take leave to entertain you with another passage from the same Author, much to my present purpose. For saith he Temples Missell. Part. 2. p. 45., ‘'Tis agreed by the Learned, that the Science of Musick, so admired of the Ancients, is wholly lost in the World; and that what we have now, is made [Page 61] up of certain Notes that fell into the fancy, or observation of a poor Fryar in chanting his Mattins.’ All this being duely consider­ed, all our Authors little Stories out of Plutarch and others, will ap­pear to be little to his purpose. But supposing Musick to have a great efficacy now, this will not warrant us to introduce Instrumental Mu­sick into the Christian Worship. For seeing we have Vocal Musick, we have Musick, and I think the best sort of Musick. For, if I mistake not, the generality of mankind judge Vocal Musick to be sweetest, and the best. Therefore, we having Vocal Musick in the Christian Churches, we have sufficient for the excitation of our Af­fections. It is what Christ and his Apostles thought sufficient, and therefore I suppose we shall not err being of the same judgment. He tells us, that Xenocrates cured Madmen by the means of Musick. Let him remove his Organ to Bedlam, and try the Experiment there say I.

(3) Another use, he tells us, of Church-Musick, and particularly of the Organ is, that it will compose Mens thoughts, Ser. p. 25. and drive away evil suggestions from their Minds at their Devotion. Our Author asserts this with respect to his Organ, but I do not find that he proves it. But we have Vocal Musick for this end, which can plead a Divine Institution, and therefore his Organ is useless in the Case. God has promised to concur with his own Institutions to these purposes, but he has made no such promise to the use of Organs.

But adds our Author, It will tend much to rid Mens minds of all those sad and gloomy, and melancholy, and lustful Imaginations, which di­sturb, and discompose them. That Instrumental Musick of its self has such a tendency, I would intreat our Author to prove. If it has such a tendency in its self; methinks it should have such a tendency in Taverns and Ale-houses. For there is many times much of Instrumental Mu­sick found.

He proceeds, More Oratorico, Ser. p. 25, 26. It will discharge those irregular passions which torment and vex Mens minds, and keep the Heart from being fretted with anxious Thoughts, and racking Fears, and distracting Doubts. I find, that, according to our Author, this same Organ of his, is a most admirable Catholicon, and it works wonders. But if what our Author here saith be true; then, methinks, they who have the benefit of this excellent Musick every day (such as Singing men and Choristers with some of the Clergy) should be the most dispassio­nate Persons upon Earth; but I think, we have but little experience, to give us proof of that. But he tells us from Luther, That the De­vils hate Musick. Doubtless! The sound of Bells will drive away the Devils, say the Papists. But if the Devils are such haters of Mu­sick, as this Author presumes, I wonder they should prompt their Slaves and Vassals to be so much pleased with it! Who more fond [Page 62] of Instrumental Musick, than the jolly Sinners of the times? Most true indeed it is, that the Devils hate all Religious Musick, or Mu­sick appointed of God, for the celebrating of his own Praises: But he hates not other sort of Musick. Ser. p. 26. True, there is no Musick in Hell, as our Author suggests; But is that from necessity, or choice? And it is, without question, as true, that there will be Singing in Hea­ven, and there is at present, as most believe; but it will be very difficult for this Gentleman to prove that there are Harps, or Organs there.

Ser. p. 27.(4.) He adds; That another use, and advantage of Instrumental Mu­sick is, that it will prepare us for the being the better edified in Divine Service. I must beg his pardon, if I believe not this. But to give Instrumental Musick a fuller Encomium, It will make us, he saith, most knowing, as well as most devout; Our Reason to will reap a great Bene­fit by it; and we shall become the more Rational, and have a clear insight into the things above, by being awakened thereto, in the Service of God, with stringed Instruments, and Organs. More Rational too? O what a mighty Advantage then must it be to Persons to dwell near a Cathedral! O how rational, how enlarged must the Minds of Singing-Men and Singing-Boys be? Questionless that is the reason so many of the Choristers are Persons so eminently rational, so exi­miously pious, and Holy.

Ser. p. 27, 28.In the Margin the Author presents us with a passage or two out of Sir William Temples Essays concerning the Power of Musick (but I would entreat you to consider, what I have cited from the same Au­thor a little above.) And then he concludes his Marginal Note thus.

I appeal to the Experience of Dissenters, whether they are not much af­fected, and think themselves edified with the pleasing Tone, and Cadencies, and Elevations of the Voice of their Preachers? And then, whether they might not be assisted with the Sweeter sounds of Musical Instruments? I Reply (1.) I believe that the Dissenters will not pretend that they are Edified by the Tone, Cadencies, and Elevations of the Voice of their Teachers; but by the matter they methodically deliver. True it is, they like that Ministers should Elevate their Voices to such a degree, as that they may be plainly heard by all their Audi­tory; and that they should deliver their Discourses with somewhat of Warmth, and Affection, that their Hearers may have no cause to think they are not in earnest in what they speak. For Ministers in their Sermons to use a low and whispering Voice, so that scarce half of their Congregations can hear what is said, I am certain is not very edifying. And to deliver their Discourses without any thing of a Pathos, in a cold, and a careless manner, is not the way to per­swade the People that they are in earnest. Upon this occasion, I [Page 63] would present you with a Passage of the Ingenious Dr. Glanvil Essay of Preaching. p. 54. Speaking of Ministers, saith he, for us to be cold and heartless in decla­ring things of so vast a moment, suggests that we believe not what we say. And it cannot be expected, that others should be much moved by the Preach­ing, when the Preacher himself seems unconcerned. Justinian the Empe­rour made a Law in these words. We will, and command, that all Bishops and Priests celebrate the Sacred Oblation, and the Prayers thereun­to added in holy Baptism, not in a low voice, but with a loud, and clear Voice, which may be heard by the Faithful People; Novel. 123. that thereby the Minds of the Hearers may be raised up, with greater Devotion to set forth the prai­ses of the Lord God. (2) Dissenters own that they are affected by the Voice of their Teachers in Conjunction with the matter they deliver, but not that they are affected with a Voice, where the Doctrine is not sound, nor the matter solid. (3.) Our Author would do well to consider, that Preaching is an Ordinance of God, and then no won­der that Dissenters are affected with the Discourses of their Teachers, delivered with a taking Voice; seeing that the instructing of People by the Voice, is what God has made a Duty by a plain Injunction. But then, adds he, Might they not be assisted with the sweeter sounds of Musical Instruments? I answer, No. From the use of the Voice in the Worship of God, which God commands, and approves, to the use of Musical Instruments in the same, amongst Christians, which he has not enjoined or approved of, is a very considerable leap. God's Ordinances are sufficient for the ends, for which they were institu­ted, neither need they the sweet sounds of Musical Instruments ei­ther to render them the more pleasing to God, or the more edifying and advantageous to the People. It is a fond conceit the Papists have taken up; that many External Rites and Ceremonies are to be used in the Worship of God, appointed of the Church, for the raising the Affections and exciting the Devotions of the Worshippers. Hence it is that Bellarmine clamours, Apud nos Altaria, Cruces, &c. Our Altars, Crosses, Images, Relicks, and the very Walls, which are Dedicated to God, stir up Persons to Piety. But such means for the exciting of Spiritual Affections God never Appointed, the Apostles never used, the Primi­tive Christians were altogether Strangers to.

Our Author cites a passage from St. Austin's Confessions, Ser. p. 28, 29, and ano­ther from St. Basil, which discover how much they valued Church. Musick, but those passages do not found any thing to the commen­dation of Instrumental Musick; unless he can prove, that the Voices of the Melodious Church signify the pleasant Melody of an Harp, or an Organ. If he designs those Passages only to prove the Excellency of the Duty of Singing, we shall not oppose him; only we must as­sert that they are impertinently alleadged here: Because they speak not to the thing, which just before he had been discoursing of, viz. The Pleasing force of stringed Instruments, and Organs.

[Page 64](5.) Another use he assigns of the Organ, and for which he com­mends it, Ser. p. 29. is, That It will make the whole Service of God more Solemn, and August, and the People more Serious and Reverential when they are at it, and more silent, and grave at their coming in, or going out of the Church.

O the mighty usefulness of an Organ! But a few things to this. (1.) Much at the same rate speaks the Jesuite on 1 Cor. 14. Cornelius a Lapide, Ut Major sit Sacrorum decor, Solemnitas, & Majestas. (2.) Upon the same pretence the Service of God may be cumbred with multitudes of Popish Ceremonies. For this is what they of the Romish Commu­nion alleadge in defence of that great external Pomp, with which they have cloathed their Worship. Bellarmine speaking in Vindica­tion of the Pompous Ceremonies, and Costly Ornaments to be found in their Temples, saith the same our Author doth in the behalf of his Organ. For thus that Learned Jesuit, as I find him cited by Hospi­nian De Tem­plis. p. 269.. Conservant Majestatem Sacramentorum, &c. They preserve the Majesty of the Sacraments, and that Reverence which is due to Sacred things; they contribute to the Piety and Devotion of the Faithful. But to this Hospinian well replies, Est fallacia à non causâ ut causa. For these external things do not excite Persons to the greater Reverence of Divine things, but rather the Command and Appointment of God. And here he refers us to a passage of St. Bernards, who speaking of these pompous Ornaments, saith. Haec dum Orantium in se retorquem aspectum, im­pediunt & affectum, & mihi quodamodò representant an­tiquum ritum Judaeorum. These things whilst they draw the Eyes of the Worshippers, they both hinder Affection, and seem to me somewhat to represent the Ancient Rites of the Jews. Then he adds a little after, What Fruit do we expect from these things, Quem inquam, ex his fructum requirimus? Stul­torum Admirationem? An Simplicium Oblectationem? the Admira­tion of Fools, or the pleasing of the Simple? What St. Bernard saith, with respect to the Image of any Saint, is applicable enough with respect to the pom­pous Ornaments, which are found in the Churches of the Papists or others. Eò creditur sanctior, quò Coloratior. The more beautiful the co­lour of it, the more sacred is it thought to be. And speaking of the common People, he adds, Magis mirantur pulchra, quàm ve­nerantur Sacra. They rather admire things Beautiful, than Reverence things Sacred. But, alas! they are not any pompous un­commanded rites of Men, which will conciliate a Majesty and So­lemnity to the Worship of God: The Service of God is therefore Solemn, and August, because prescribed and enjoyned by the Sacred Majesty of Heaven. Its being able to plead a Divine Authority, gives Worship a Lustre and Majesty, which all the Pompous Rites of the Antient Temple, cannot make an Addition to. Many think, that by Gold and Silver, by glittering Ornaments, they can make the service of God more Solemn and August. This was the vain fancy of the Heathens of old, for which Lib. [...] Lactantius smartly chastizes them. The [Page 65] Splendour of Gold, of Jewels, and Ivory, dazle their Eyes; and they think Religion cannot be there where these do not shine; therefore they come to the Gods, not so much for the sake of Religion, as that they may feast their eyes with the Gold, and the Nitar of the polished Marble: And the more their Temples are adorned, the more beautiful their Images, so much the more of Majesty they are supposed to have. So that the Religion of the Gods, is no other, than what the Lusts of Men admire. Now this reply which Lactantius gives the Heathens with a little variation, will serve as a full Answer to our Author, with respect to that Solemnity and Ma­jesty which he supposes his Organ conciliates to Divine Worship.

(3.) Upon the same grounds our Author might revive again ma­ny of the Antiquated Rites of the Jews, and cloath himself like Aa­ron in the Legal Pontificalibus, with the little Bells too tinckling about him, to render the Service of God more Solemn and August.

(4. Vid. Rivet. Summ. Controv. p. 198.) The Solemnity and Majesty of the Worship of God under the Gospel is more Spiritual than formerly, and lies not in an external Pomp, or outward Bravery, and needs not any borrowed colours, any paint of External Ornaments of Mens invention to conciliate a Reverence to it.

(5.) If the Organ renders the Worship of God more Solemn and Au­gust, it is strange the Primitive Christians, especially in the times of Constantine, should no more consult the Honour of Gods Sacred Ser­vice, than thus to leave it divested of so excellent an Ornament as the Organ is pretended to be! But the true reason why the Primi­tive Christians admitted nothing of Instrumental Musick into their Churches, was because they thought it a part of the Ceremonious Worship of the Temple, which was abolished by the coming of Christ; as has been largely proved already.

(6.) It is an Argument the Doctors of the Roman Church make use of to defend their Latin Service, namely, that it gives a Majesty and Solemnity to the Divine Offices. And if the Argument be judged by Reformed Divines as inconclusive in that case, I cannot see any reason why it should be conclusive in the case of Organs?

Adds our Author, It will make the People more Serious, Vid. Le Blanc's Theses. p. 319. and Reveren­tial when they are at it. It is easily said. But whence is it that the sound of an Organ should be able thus to form People into serious­ness? I am strongly inclined to believe, that Vocal singing of Psalms is far more likely to be attended with this effect. For when Persons shall consider it to be a plain Duty enforced with a Divine positive Precept, it will be apt to put their minds into a serious, and awful Temper. But why Instrumental Musick (which has nothing but Humane Fancy, and Command to back and support it) should make Persons thus Serious and Reverent, I cannot imagine. If the Spiri­tual Matter sung in Christian Assemblies, if the Vocal Musick of [Page 66] Gods Appointment are not sufficient to render Persons serious and reverent, I am satisfied, that an Organ will nothing conduce to such an end. Has an Organ such a Vertue? I would then crave the favour to be informed, whether it has this vertue from its self, and so it is the Natural effect of it? Or whether it hath it, from the Au­thority of God commanding it? If it has this Vertue from its self, then, methinks, it should always have this effect upon Persons who are gratified with the sound of it: which, I am satisfied, it has not. Sometimes the carriage of Persons in Cathedrals, whilst the Organs play, is a convincing evidence of it. But should he assert an Organ to have its vertue to inspire Persons with Reverence and Seriousness, from the Authority of God commanding it; then will he be obliged to discover to us where this Command is to be found; which, I presume, he will not be over-hasty to do. But after these Remarks, give me leave to present you with the words of Monsieur Claud Histori­cal Defence of the Re­formation. p. 25., He shewing what just Prejudices the Ancient Reformers had against the Worship of the Romanists, saith, ‘It had been yet very hard, if our Fathers had not been offended by that Worldly Pomp wherewith they saw Religion so excessively cloathed. For they very well knew, that true Christianity was contented to gain the Hearts and Souls of Men by the Majesty of its Doctrines, and the Holiness of its Precepts: And that for the rest, it profest to retain its Simplicity. Notwithstanding which, they observed a clean contrary Character in the Magnificence of their Temples, in the Gold of their Taberna­cles, in the pride of their Sacrifices, in the riches of their Ornaments, and in general, in all that external Splendour, which seemed desti­ned only to strike extraordinarily the Senses, and by this means to raise an ill grounded Admiration, which is proper only to corrupt Religions: Turtull. de Baptis­mo. which, as Tertullian takes Notice, labour to gain their Authority, and to obtain the belief of the People by their Pomp and Profuseness.’

But the sound of the Organ will make the People more silent and grave at their coming in, or going out of the Church. An admirable use of Organs! They will help People to put on a demure countenance, we must imagine. Ser. p. 29. Therefore, it seems, The Organ is to play some taking Lesson, or decent flourish or other by its self, which goes by the name of Voluntaries. But if the People will not put on Gravity from a sense of what they have heard, or from a consideration of their having been conversing with God, I am sensible that the noise of an Organ and its most melodious Flourishes, will not have this effect. And, certainly, it is a very hard case that a Parish should be put to the Charge of a Summ of 500 l. and 30 l. per Ann. beside; to make the People grave and Silent, at their going out of the Church; when as it may be better effected an easier and less chargeable way. Let Mr. [Page 67] Newte call upon his People, just as they are about to depart the Church, to consider what they have heard, and to be Grave and Silent; and I am perswaded it will be as useful as any Voluntary of them all. But this Gentleman has erected an Organ, extreamly fond of it he is, and resolved to find out some use for it. Multitudes of other things might the Worship of God be cumbred with at the same rate, and a Man of Fancy might easily find out uses for them all.

His Observation of the Indecent noise, which is made by the opening and clapping fast of Pew-doors; and taking his occasion thence to inform them, Ser. p. 30, 31. that the reason why anciently seats in the Church had no doors to them, was to prevent that indecent noise; is a Remark, worthy, doubtless, of having a room in his Elaborate Discourse.

If his Organ were able also to prevent and cure this, then would there be another excellent use of his Magnificent, and Sumptuous Instrument.

Thus I have considered how our Author has acquitted himself as to the two first parts of the task, he had imposed upon himself, and whether he has hit the mark he levelled at, I shall leave to you to determine.

(3.) But now he undertakes the third Province, which he had assigned himself; which, as he saith, Ser. p. 31. imports the Answering the Ob­jections, and if possible, removing the Prejudices, which the Adversaries of Church-Musick have against this practise. It is highly requisite indeed, that this be done, or otherwise his Organ still will be upon a totter­ing Foundation. He concludes, That if this be not done, in vain will the Arguments prove, which set forth the Use and Advantages of this In­stitution. He presumes he shall easily Answer the Objections which are brought against his New-Musick, or Institution, as he stiles it.

By the way, a strange Institution, which is neither appointed by Gods Law, nor Mans in this Nation. But for ought I know, this Gentlemans Confidence may be somewhat taller than his Perfor­mance. I shall present you with the Objections, and consider the Reply he makes to them.

Object. I. It is commonly said by those of a differing Perswasion in this matter from our Author, Ser. p. 31, 32. That Instrumental Musick is a Jewish Ceremony, and an Appointment of the Law, but was to be abolished in the Christian Church. That altho' it might suit well enough with that Infant-state, yet now by the coming of Christ, it is to be done away as the other Ceremonies of the Law are.

But this is an Argument of no force with him. And the Geneva Annotations must have the Epithite of Pernicious given them, because [Page 68] they thus object against his Organ. A few words to this. (1.) Some Men, I observe have a particular Pique against any thing of Geneva; the very word seems to be grating and unpleasant to them. Some­times in their very Prayers, they will beg to be secured from the Plots of Rome and Geneva. I wonder what mischief Geneva has done them. For my part, I cannot spell out the meaning of this inveterate Antipathy to that City. I am informed that Geneva has a great deal of Charity for the Church of England, for in its Prayers, it has one Petiti­on for the welfare of the British Church. So that Geneva has Charity for these Gentlemen, altho' they have none for her. (2.) But why is this Gentleman so wroth with the Geneva Annotations? It is great pitty, saith he, that they should he Printed with the Bible. Why, what is the matter? O they are contrary to the sense and meaning of the Bible in many places. Are they so? But, I suppose our Author must be judge of that, and then it is impossible they should escape a Censure. But it may be our Author himself may be mistaken about the sense of many Texts of Scripture. But supposing it, for once, to be true, that the Geneva Annotations are contrary to the meaning of the Bible in many places, is this Argument enough for the stiffing them, that they may never be Printed more? At the same rate, I think the greatest part of the Annotations, or Comments on the Bible ought to be supprest. For how few are there but do mistake the sense and meaning of the Bible in many places? Some will not except the Learned Dr. Hammond's, nor Mr. Pool's with the Continuators, nor those of the great Grotius. And yet is it pity these should be Prin­ted? Should all the Annotations upon the Bible be supprest, which have some things in them contrary to the sense and meaning of it, I fear we should have but very few left. (3.) Methinks this Gentle­man should have considered, that these Annotations were first Pub­lished many Years ago; when the Annotators had not such excellent Helps for the writing Annotations upon the Bible, as we enjoy in the present Age. This, methinks, should somewhat have checked the sharpness of his Stile against these Annotators. But alas! He is utterly fallen out with Geneva, tho' I believe, he knows not why.

He is mightily prejudiced against Geneva, and is resolved upon all occasions to m [...]ke discoveries of his displeasure. (4.) But how much soever this Gentleman is pleased to condemn these Annotations; yet many Persons, who have made a far greater Figure in the Church of England, have commended them, and appeared in their defence. And here I cannot but take notice of what is said of them in the [Page 69] Preface to the Assemblies Annotations. ‘The Geneva Bible with the Notes, was presented with a special Dedication to the Incomperable Princess Queen Elizabeth, which was received with such acceptati­on of her Majesty, and general liking of her People, that from that time until the Edition of the last Translation of the Bible, it was Printed by Hers, and her Rightful and Royal Successors Printers, a­bove thirty times over. Tho' it was their mishap, (without any merit) to be noted with a black-coal, as guilty of mis-interpretati­on, touching the Divinity of Christ, and his Messiah-ship; and as Simbolizing with Arians and Jews against them both; and this was publickly charged upon them by an Academical Doctor Dr. H. in a Solemn Assembly of the University of Oxford. But of this Crime they were more than absolved by Sir Thomas Bodly (the famous Founder, and Furnisher of the Publick Library) his Letter written in their Defence and Praise, which was read by the Doctor of the Chair in St. Marys Pulpit, and by his, and the Orthodox Gover­nours of the University Silencing the Doctor for his Un-orthodox, and Scandalous Sermons; whereby the Church and State were involved in a high and heinous degree of guilt (if the Notes were so unsound as he had suggested) for allowing them to be Passable and Publick by so many Impressions.’ I presume our Author never dreamt of this Passage: But I wish he would consider it for the future.

But to come to the Objection its self. Say the Annotators, Instru­mental Musick was a part of the Ceremonial Law, and was well enough suited to that Infant state. Well, What saith our Gentleman to this? He utterly dislikes it. But do not many of the Primitive Fathers say the same? Do not Clemens Alexandrinus, St Chrysostome, Isidore Pelu­siota, Theodoret, and the Author Quest. & Respon. ad Orthodoxos speak to the same purpose? Consult the collected Passages I have given you above. So that the Geneva Annotators can pretend to better An­tiquity for what they say, than our Author can produce. The Pri­mitive Fathers speak plain in our Case, when as they have not a fa­vourable Sentence to befriend our Authors Organ. Where there­fore now is the mighty boast of Antiquity? But what will this Gentleman say, if it should be proved to him, That the Church of England in her Homilies so far agrees with Geneva here, as to account the use of Organs in Christian Churches to be Unlawful. This, for ought I know, may a little sweeten him. Yet this I hope clearly to prove e're I conclude.

But let us see how our Author will confute this Objection: well he hath two things to say to it.

(1.) That the Institution of Musical Instruments in the Service of God was never a part of the Ceremonial Law, and therefore the use of it was not to be done away at the coming of Christ. And this he will prove. [Page 70] Nay, if he will prove it, I fear he will prove more than he designs: He will prove it not only lawful, but a Duty still to use them. For they under the Mosaical oeconomy had an express command for the use of them, and if that Command be not vacated, but continue in force still, then say I it is a Duty still, and not meerly a thing Law­ful.

But he will prove Instrumental Musick to have been no part of the Ceremonial Law, and that by Two Arguments. His First Argu­ment is,

(1.) Because it was in use before the Law was given. And here he accosts us again with the Instance of Miriam, Exod. 15.20. But I have said enough to take off the force of this Objection, in Answer to his First Argument for the Lawfulness of Instrumental Musick in Christian Worship.

Dancing was used before the giving of the Law in this Authors sense. The same may be said of Sacrificing and Circumcision. But will our Author affirm these to have been no part of the Ceremoni­al Law? I cannot suppose he will.

(2.) Because Instrumental Musick was not Established any where by the Law, Ser. p. 22, 33. nor till above Five hundred Years after the ratifying and sealing of it up. Trumpets are Musical Instruments, as I take it; yet were they established by the Law in Moses's days. That they were so, I think, is not only apparent from, Numb. 10. but also from, Psal. 81.3, 4. Blow up the Trumpet in the New moon, in the time appointed, on our Solemn Feast-day, for this was a statute for Israel, and a Law of the God of Jacob. This was a Law of God, it is said. Hereupon, I would ask our Author, if I were near him, Whether this command was a part of the Ceremonial, of the Moral, or Judicial Law? If a part of the Ceremonial Law, then was Instrumental Musick enjoyned by that Law. But he will not allow of this. Well then, was it a part of the Judicial Law? Then would it have appertained only to the Civil Government, which it did not. But was it then a part of the Moral Law? If so, then the use of Instrumental Mu­sick in the Worship of God, is a Moral Duty, and so not barely Law­ful. But the Law commanding the use of Instrumental Musick in the Worship of God was not a Judicial or Moral precept, and there­fore it must have been a Ceremonial one.

Ser. p. 33.But in the Margin of his Sermon, he excepts Trumpets himself, and allows them to have been appointed by Moses's Law. But then he adds, They were appointed for the calling of Assemblies, &c. I sup­pose by that [&c.] he intends that there was some other use of them, beside calling the Assemblies. The Priests, the Sons of Aaron the High-Priest were to blow the Trumpets. (1.) At the removal of the Camp, Numb. 10.2, 6. Make thee Two Trumpets of Silver, that [Page 71] thou maiest use them for the journeying of the Camps. (2.) At the Solem­nity of Feasts, to call and Assemble the People together. Numb. 10.2. Make use of them for the calling the Assembly. (3.) At the De­nuntiation of War, Numb. 10.9. If you go to War in your Land a­gainst the Enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an Alarm with the Trumpets. But this was not all the use of them. For (4) They were to blow the Trumpets at the Oblation of Sacrifices, Numb. 10.10. Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your Months, ye shall blow with your Trumpets over your Burnt-offerings, and over the Sacrifices of your Peace-offerings, that they may be to you for a memorial before your God. Here we find that Trum­pets were used in the Worship of God. I might add. (5.) They were also blown at times of present or imminent Calamity, for So­lemn Humiliation, Joel 2.15. Hence the Learned Notes on Num. 10.9. Bishop of Bath and Wells, speaking of these Trumpets, saith, It is to be considered, that they were obliged by the blowing of the Trumpets to be awakened to a sense of their Sin, and the need of Gods Mercy, Isa. 58.1. So that the Trumpets were of a Sacred Use: And seeing they were appointed by Moses's Law for such an use, we may conclude, that Trumpets, and so Musical In­struments were part of the Ceremonial Law. Therefore it seems strange to me, that our Author should assert; Ser. p. 33. That Instruments of Mu­sick were not appointed in Divine Service in Moses 's time. What! Was not the Oblation of Sacrifices Divine Service? And were not the Trumpets to be sounded in that Service?

But adds he, It is plain that they were an Institution of David in his most flourishing state.

True indeed, by order from God, David added more Musical Instruments to those which had been formerly used. But Instrumen­tal Musick in Divine Worship was not first Instituted in his time. As has been proved already, and may be farther shewen e're I con­clude.

But to improve this, he thus argues.

It appearing to be of David 's Institution could not be a part of the Cere­monial Law. I deny that Assertion. For altho' Instrumental Musick, was, by order from God, Appointed by David, yet might it be part of the Ceremonial Law. And here again I would demand to know, if Instrumental Musick was commanded in the Service of God by a Law, by what Law it was enjoyned? Not by the Moral nor Judicial Laws, therefore by the Ceremonial. And therefore still to use our Authors Phrase, It was a part of the Ceremonial Law.

But how does he prove that Instrumental Musick could not be a part of the Ceremonial Law, because of David's Institution? Why thus, Because the Ceremonial Law was compleated before by Moses, in [Page 72] those words, Deut. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. But (1.) That the Ceremonial Law was compleated before by Moses, so as that there was no addition afterwards made to it, is, I conceive, a mistake. For the number of Trumpets according to the first Institution of Mo­ses, was but two; for the two Sons of Aaron, Eleazer and Ithamar, the Priests, Numb. 10.2. Make thee two Trumpets of Silver. But in Solomons time the Number of them was greatly Augmented: For we read of a Hundred and Twenty Priests, who sounded with Trum­pets at the Dedication of the Temple, 2 Chron. 5.12. Also the Levites, which were the Singers, being arayed in white Linnen, having Cymbals, and Psalteries, and Harps, and with them one hundred and Twenty Priests sounding with Trumpets.

Again Moses appointed but one Table for the Shew-bread to be set upon, Exod. 25.23. Thou shalt also make a Table of Shittim-wood, &c. And but one Candlestick of Pure Gold, Exod. 25.31. And thou shalt make a Candlestick of pure Gold, &c. But one Laver, Exod. 30.18. Thou shalt also make a Laver of Brass. But then in Solomons time there were many of these. He augmented them all to the Number of ten. 2 Chron. 4.6, 7, 8. He made also ten Lavers, and he made ten Candle­sticks of Gold according to their form; and he made also ten Tables, and placed them in the Temple. So that here was a considerable addition made to the Sacred Rites, enjoyned by the Ceremonial Law, in the time of Solomon. And this, I think, fairly baffles the opinion of our Author; namely, That the Ceremonial Law was compleated before by Moses. (2) But I shall next examine the Argument he produces to prove, that the Ceremonial Law was compleated by Moses.

And he attempts the proof of this, from Deut. 12.32. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor di­minish from it. As to this Argument, I take leave to deny the Con­sequence of the Major Proposition. Because the Israelites were to do in the Worship of God, whatever God had commanded them, and not make any additions of their own thereto, therefore the Ceremo­nial Law was compleated by Moses, and God made no farther ad­ditions to it in the times of Solomon; is a consequence I cannot ad­mit of, and he must prove it well, before I shall think my self ob­liged to suppose it Warrantable.

I have, I think, convincingly proved, that there were some ad­ditions made to the Ceremonial Law in the times of Solomon: And that is sufficient to weaken his Consequence, and to make his Argu­ment appear inconclusive. If our Author will make good what he has undertaken to prove, he must do this, viz. Prove that those Words, Whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, [Page 73] nor diminish from it; do import, that Solomon was not even by Gods Order and appointment, to make any addition at all to the Cere­monial Law. Those words. [thou shalt not add thereto] did absolutely forbid any of Mankind of their own heads to make any addition to the Law of God. But I see no reason to think, that God thereby intended to lay a Restraint upon himself, that in af er times he might not make any addition to his Ceremonial Law. Methinks that Text, Numb. 15.39. Remember all the Commandments of the Lord, and do them, and that ye seek not after your own heart, and your own eyes, after which you use to go a whoring; is a fair Comment: on Deut. 12.32. Men are too prone to bring something of their own into the Worship of God; to introduce their own fancies as a Supplement to Divine Institutions; and God well knowing Mens Propensity to this, for­bad them to make any addition to his Laws and Sacred Appoint­ments. But he said not that he would not make any additions of his own. For my part, I am of opinion, that the Ceremonial Law had its commencement long before the Times of Moses; it had very am­ple additions made to it by Moses according to God's Appointment, and had its utmost complement in the days of Solomon, and not be­fore if I mistake not. I have offered considerable Reasons for this; but whether I have or no, I leave you to judge. Thus I have con­sidered his First Argument to prove Instrumental Musick to have been no part of the Ceremonial Law, and I presume, I have given a fair Reply to it.

But if that will not do, he has a Reserve, with which he makes a Second Attack. Therefore saith he, I Answer in the Second place, 2d. Arg. That if Instrumental Musick was a part of the Ceremonial Law, and to be done away in Christ, it would have been, Ser. p. 34. as those other Typical things were, a shadow of somewhat to come, which was to be done away by the coming of that Substance, but no such thing being to be made appear, we may rationally conclude, this is not to be done away under the Gospel. And to this I rejoin. (1.) That Instrumental Musick used in the Worship of God in the times of the Legal Administration was a part of the Ce­remonial Law, (to keep the Expression, which I find our Author dislikes not) I think I have proved above, and so I need say no more. But yet. (2.) I shall attend this his Argument. If this Musick had been a part of the Ceremonial Law, then would it have been Ty­pical, as the other things which were to be done away by the com­ing of Christ.

But Instrumental Musick was not Typical therefore Instrumental Musick was no part of the Ceremonial Law.

This is his Argument in the full strength of it. Now Divines Reply to this Argument two ways. (1.) Sometimes by Denying the [Page 74] Minor. (2) Sometimes by calling in question the consequence of the Major Proposition.

(1.) The Fathers, whom I have formerly cited, tell us, that this sort of Musick was Typical, or a shadow of something to come, and so they deny his Minor. They assure us that the Instrumental Musick of the Temple, was designed to shadow forth Christians praising of God with the Organs of their Bodies in the times of the Gospel. I refer you to the Quotations out of them above.

Some Protestant Commentators on Psal. 150. speak to the same purpose. Nay Bellarmine himself, tho' a great stickler for the Sacred use of Instrumental Musick, yet in his Annotations on Psal. 149.3. seems to acknowledge the same. I shall not insert his words, but leave you to peruse them in his own Works.

That the Instrumental Musick of the Temple was Typical, some suppose to be evident from that Text, Revel. 5.8. Where Harps are joined with the Golden Viols full of Odours. Now that the Odours were Typical, they presume will be granted them; for saith the Text, which are the Prayers of the Saints. And add they, it is the plain design of this place to describe the Prayers and the Praises of the Saints in the Gospel times; the Prayers of the Saints are de­scribed by Odours, and their Praises by Harps, as having been Types of these things.

But our Author attempts the proof of the Minor Proposition, viz. That Instrumental Musick of Old was not Typical. For saith he, No such thing being to be made appear. So that his Argument reduced to form will be this.

That which cannot be made to appear to have been Typical, was not Typical.

But that Instrumental Musick of old was Typical, cannot be made to appear.

Therefore Instrumental Musick of old was not Typical.

That I may give a clear, and a full Answer to this Argument, I shall crave leave to tell you, that that term (cannot be made to appear) may be understood in a twofold sense. Either (1.) the meaning of it may be, it cannot be proved by good Argument. And if it be under­stood in that sense, I deny the Minor, viz. That it cannot be made to appear that Instrumental Musick of old was Typical. I conceive I have made it appear so far already, as that I have proved it. (2.) Or the meaning of that term may be, that the particular thing or things, which the Instrumental Musick of the Temple shadowed forth cannot be assigned. Well perhaps, we may not be able to make appear what the Instrumental Musick of the Temple signified; or what it was an Adumbration of. What then? Must we thence conclude it was not Typical? Because we are ignorant of what it [Page 75] was designed to represent, Must we therefore deny it to have been a shadow of some future thing? Is it allowable for Persons to argue from their Ignorance of a thing, to its absolute Non-existence? I believe no Wise Mans Logick will warrant such an Inference. I am very prone to believe, that there were many Rites injoyned by the Ceremonial Law in the time of Moses, as to which our Author can­not certainly inform us what they were Typical of. He may strong­ly guess and conjecture, it may be, what they were designed to re­present, but he cannot convincingly prove to us, that they were to shadow forth just such, or such things. As for instance.

I find, Heb. 9.2. That the Apostle tells us, that in the Sanctuary were the Candlestick, the Table, and the Shew-bread: But can this Gentleman make it evidently appear to us what these were Types of? He may guess, it may be, and offer us a handsome conjecture in the case, but he cannot make it appear clearly and convincingly to us, what these things were shadows of. And may we thence be allow­ed to argue, that these things were not Typical of something fu­ture, and so no part of the Ceremonial Law? I suppose not.

The generality of Reformed Divines have esteemed these Mu­sical Instruments Typical. What was the thing typified, and inten­ded by these dark shadows, is not, I confess, so easie to determine. But yet, I suppose, a Man may as well discover the signification of Musical Instruments, as of some other of the Jewish Types. For we can only Conjecture at the things which were represented by many of them.

The Sylver Trumpets are conceived to hold forth the Promulga­tion of the Gospel, and the Publication of the Truths of God by his Sacred Ministers. And there seem to be some hints in Scripture to give countenance to this. As when Solomon saith, Prov. 10.20. The tongue of the just is as choice Silver, perhaps alluding to the Silver Trumpets. So the Messengers of God, are said, to lift up their voice as a Trumpet, Isa. 58.1. So Hosea 8.1. Set the Trumpet to thy mouth. And Ezek. 33.3, 6. The faithful, and execution of their Office is expressed by blowing the Trumpet. So when it is said in that great Prophecy concerning the Restoration of the Jews, Isa. 37.13. In that day the great Trumpet shall be blown; it is understood by Expositors, of the sounding of the Silver Trumpet of the Gospel throughout the World. Tubae Spiritualis, nempe, Evangelii Clangor, saith Calvin.

These, and all the rest of their Musical Instruments seem to have been expressive of joy, Psal. 89.15. and 98.6. Blessed is the People that know the joyful sound. With Harp, with Trumpets, with sound of Cornet make a joyful noise before the Lord the King. And so they were fit Resemblances to shadow out that Heavenly Musick, and inward Melody of the Joys and Graces of Gods Spirit in the hearts of his [Page 76] People which should be in Gospel times. So that one well saith, Cortton of singing of Psalms. p. 12. The making a joyful noise with Instruments continueth not, save only so far as it is kept alive in the Antitipe; the affections of our Hearts, our Praecordia making Melody, with the Songs and Profes­sions of our Lips, and with the gracious and peaceable conversations of our Lives. Thus I have shewed you how some reply to the Minor of our Authors Argument.

(2.) But some others are of Opinion, that the Consequence of his Major Proposition may justly be called in Question For altho' In­strumental Musick was a part of the Ceremonial Law, yet may it be questioned whether it will thence necessarily follow, that it must have been Typical; and to make this good, he must prove that all the Rites enjoined the Jews by the Ceremonial Law were Typical; which, I believe, will prove to be no easie task to him.

God indulged the Jews many pompous Rites to affect their sen­ses, which were suited to their Carnality and Minority, and though some Rites in their Worship might not be Typical, yet were they peculiar to the Jewish oeconomy, adapted to the temper of that Peo­ple, who were stupid and Carnal. Therefore some Divines have made a Distinction between the Jewish Rites, some of which, they say, were Typical, others for the greater Magnificence, and yet both peculiar to the Jewish oeconomy. Thus In Exod. 15.20. Junius, Of those things which were commanded by the Law, some were significative of some future thing, others were peculiar to that Church; to make use of those things, which were significative of something future after the coming of Christ, is impious; and now to use those things which were peculiar to that Church, is ridiculous. Now it is the opinion of many eminent Divines, that Musical Instruments, were in the Number of those Rites which were Pompous, and only for the greater Solemnity of their External Worship, and suited to their Minority, and Infant state. The Jews were a People very prone to imitate their Idolatrous Neighbours in their Sacred Rites and Worship, and so to desert the Worship of the true God.

Therefore God indulged, and enjoyned them a Pompous Worship, with a great Apparatus of splendid Rites to suit their Carnal Temper, to prevent their taking up with the Superstitious Worship, and the vain Rites of the Heath [...]n Nations round about them. And this was the sense, we shall find, of Theodoret, In Psal. 150. who speaking of Instrumen­tal Musick, saith thus, [...], &c. God being willing to free them from the errour of Idols, suffered th [...]se things to be. For seeing they were studious of Sports and Plays, and lovers of Mirth and Jollity, and that all these were found in the Temples of their Idols; God permitted them these things, by this means alluring them, and preventing a greater damage by a less detriment, and teaching them by imperfect things. And [Page 77] the Learned Dr. Spencer De Legi­bus Hebrae­or. p. 5, 6. attempts to prove, that the principal design of the Ceremonial Law, was to Cure the Israelites of the sin of Idola­try. For speaking of that Law, he saith, God gave them that Law to that end, that he might confine that People, so very prone to take up with the Gentile Rites, within the limits of Piety and Obedience. Now whe­ther that was the principal Design of the Jewish Rites, I shall not de­termine. But, I think, it is fairly probable that it was one Design of the Jewish Ceremonies, and perhaps the only design of some of them. For we read, Numb. 15.38, 39, That the Israelites were to wear Fringes in the borders of their Garments, and they were to put a ribband of blew upon the fringe of the Borders; and this they were to do, that they might not seek after their own heart, and their own eyes, after which they used to go a whoring. So that these rites were to pre­vent their falling into Idolatry; and their following the vain Fancies of their Heathen Neighbours. Methinks Mr. Cotton Of sing­ing of Psalms. p. 6. saith well, Sup­pose Singing with Instruments, was not Typical, but only an external So­lemnity of Worship, fitted to the solace of the outward senses of Children un­der age, such as the Israelites were in the Old Testament, Gal. 4.1, 2, 3. Yet now in the grown Age of the Heirs of the New Testament, such exter­nal pompous Solemnities are ceased, and no external Worship reserved, but such as holdeth forth Simplicity, and Gravity; nor is any Voice to be heard now in the Church of Christ but as is significant, and Edifying by Significa­tion, 1 Cor. 14.10, 11, 26. which the Voice of Instruments is not. These things being duely weighed, I presume, there may be good Reason to call in Question the truth of our Authors Proposition, viz. That if Instrumental Musick had been part of the Ceremonial Law, then would it have been Typical.

But our Author proceeds. Ser. p. 34. And it is proper now in the Christian Church, to stir up mens minds, to compose their thoughts, and to inflame their Devotion therewith, as it was in the Reign of David, and therefore as reasonable it should be continu [...]d.

I Answer (1.) God has appointed means sufficient under the Go­spel for these ends. The word preached, Sacraments administred, the singing of Gods Praises with the Voice, and Vocal Prayers pre­sented, are destined to the stirring up of Mens Minds, to the Compo­sing of Mens Thoughts, and the inflaming their Devotions. And there needs not the Supplement of Organs. (2.) God suited means then to the Infant State of the Church. And he has suited means now to its more grown state, means proper to inflame Devotion. (3.) If Instrumental Musick be so useful now to stir up Mens Minds, &c. what is the reason that the Apostles used it not? And that there was nothing found of it amongst the Primitive Christians? What were there none amongst them, who needed to have had their Affections stirred, their Thoughts composed, or their Devotions inflamed?

[Page 78]Thus, I think, I have fully Vindicated the Argument of the Ge­neva Annotators against the use of Instrumental Musick in Christian Churches, from the Cavils and feeble Assaults of Mr. Newte? So that their Argument still stands in its full force. And it is apparent that Instrumental Musick was a part of the Ceremonial Law (or I would rather say, enjoyned by the Ceremonial Law) or of that ri­tual Worship, which was suited to the Carnality and Minority of the Jews, and was to have its continuance only till the Messiahs Reformation set up a better Law and Worship. Give me leave to present you with a pertinent passage of the Learned Dr. Lightfoot †, His Works. Vol. 2. p. 1060. saith he, Christ abolished the Worship of the Temple as purely Ceremonious, but he perpetuated the Worship of the Synagogue, reading the Scriptures, Praying, Preaching, and Singing of Psalms, and transplanted it into the Christian Church as purely Moral. Now Instrumental Musick was part of the Temple Service, and peculiarly so, and was never used in the Jewish Synagogues, or in their Parochial Service, and therefore ought to be laid aside with the other Numerous Rights of the Jewish Religion. And we have no more warrant to recal it into the Chri­stian Church, than we have to introduce Incense, Lamps, or Silver Trumpets.

Secondly, But he propounds a second Objection, to which he like­wise attempts a Reply. Ser. p. 34. The Objection he states thus. That Instru­mental Musick is not so edifying in the Christian Church as we plead for, nor so proper, where we are not to Worship God with external Ceremonies, and the outward formality of serving him, as the Jews did, but in Spirit and in Truth, and for this reason Instrumental Musick ought to be abolish­ed.

This Objection thus expressed, is, I confess, not so clear as I could wish it. What many of our Divines against the Papists assert is this, viz.

That Christians are to Worship God in Spirit and Truth, without a Multiplicity of Pompous Rites and Gaudy Ceremonies, which God has not Instituted; which are adapted to please the Senses, ra­ther than to Edifie the Minds of Men. They may gratifie a vain Fancy, but they are not suited to the Spiritual Nature of Gospel Wor­ship, and are inconsistent with its Simplicity. This is supposed by many to be sufficient ground to exclude Instrumental Musick out of Christian Churches.

But our Author will confute this. I Answer, saith he, It is no way repugnant to the most Spiritul Worship whatsoever; Ser. p. 34. but so far from being prejudicial to it; that it is highly advantagious to make the Christian Wor­ship the more Spiritual, and to stir up the Affections of the Soul in order thereto.

[Page 79]But to try the strength of this Answer, (1.) Is Instrumental Musick no way repugnant to the most Spiritual Worship whatever? Many have thought it so, and experience has taught them that they have not thought amiss. For instead of heightning the Affections in the Wor­ship of God, it rather distracts the mind, and diverts it from being intent upon the matter sung. I have been frequently an Auditor to this sort of Musick, and I must profess from experience I have sadly found it to have had this effect upon me. It has rather di­stracted my thoughts, than any thing intended my Devotions. And multitudes have complained of the same. (2.) The Papists will say the same of their Crucifixes, of their lighted Candles, of their Sacred Relicks, and the other many pompous Rites to be found amongst them; namely, That they are no way repugnant to the most Spiritual Worship whatever; but that they rather contribute to the rendring the Christian Worship the more Spiritual. What is there to be said for an Organ, which a Papist will not say for a Crucifix? Will it be said that an Organ affects the Soul by the Ear? And a Papist will say that a Crucifix will affect the Soul by the Eye. And what mat­ters it, by what sense the Soul be affected, so it be affected? For my part, I cannot see what our Author can say in this Case for his darling Instrument, but what a Papist, upon as good ground, may say for his Crucifix.

But to recommend his Organ the more, he adds, Instrumental Musick is highly advantagious to make the Christian Worship the more Spi­ritual. But (1.) You must pardon me for once, if I take leave to tell you, that I am pretty confident, that this Author is the first Di­vine amongst Reformed Protestants who has asserted this. (2.) If In­strumental Musick will make the Christian Worship the more Spiritual, then will it be the less Spiritual without it; and then will it follow, that the Apostles and Primitive Christians Worshipped God in a less Spiri­tual manner than do Mr. Newte and his Congregation. Which I presume, will not so easily gain credit amongst the thinking part of Protestants. (3.) This will impeach Christ as guilty of an oversight, in that he neglected either of himself, or by his Apostles to enjoin his Followers the use of Instrumental Musick, which is so very ad­vantageous to make the Christian Worship the more Spiritual. If it were so exceedingly advantageous to Persons to render their Worship the more Spiritual, it is strange the New-Testament should be so utterly silent about it. It is strange that nor Christ, nor his Apostles should have drop'd a word to recommend the use of it. (4.) But I hope our Author will prove, that Instrumental Musick is highly advanta­geous to make the Christian Worship the more Spiritual, e're he expects that others should give their assent to it. That a few inarticulate sounds, breaking forth from several Pipes, suited to please the Ear, [Page 80] and tickle the Fancy, should render the Christian Worship more Spiri­tual, than otherwise it would be, (when as we have no Precept, nor Promise to expect any such effect from thence) is certainly a little hard to be believed.

Ser. p. 35.But our Author will enforce what he hath said from experience. For, saith he, The experience of those who have professed seriously to have received great benefit by it, is a farther Argument to convince us of its use. But (1.) What doth this Author intend by [convince us of its use?] Does he mean that the Experience of some is an Argument to prove that Instrumental Musick has been used? I believe this to be true, but then it is nothing to his purpose. Or does he intend by [con­vince us of its use] that others Experience of the benefit they have re­ceived by it, is an Argument to convince us, that Instrumental Mu­sick may lawfully be used in the Worship of God? Then, say I, he might have expressed himself a little more clearly, if he had pleased. (2.) Well then his Argument is this. Some Persons have seriously professed to have received great benefit by Instrumental Musick, Ergo, The use of Instrumental Musick is now lawful in Christian Worship. Here I shall take leave to protest against his Consequence. For that his Argument is inconsequent, I hope will be evident from these following Remarks. (1.) The Papists, and Lutherans argue at the same rate for the use of a Crucifix in the Worship of God; For some Persons have seriously professed to have received great benefit by the beholding of a Crucifix in time of Divine Worship; therefore a Crucifix may lawfully be used in the Worship of God amongst Chri­stians. Thus they plead for the use of a Crucifix in Sacris. Let our Author Answer them, and he will Answer himself. (2.) For ought I know, well-meaning Persons may in this case be somewhat mi­staken. Instrumental Musick may put a brisk, and pleasing Agitati­on upon their Spirits (which may be without the excitation of holy thoughts) which may rather divert their minds from the Sacred Mat­ters upon which they ought to be intent, than keep them fixed up­on them. So that this may rather prove a fancied benefit, than a real one. (3) Others profess that they experience Instrumental Musick to be so far from being a help to Devotion, that it distracts in it. I have cited many to this purpose above, and more might be pro­duced, if there were any need of their Testimony. (4.) Suppose it for a Truth, that some Persons may occasionally have had holy Affections raised in the Worship of God by this sort of Musick, I do not think we may hence justly conclude it lawful to introduce it into all Worshipping Assemblies, as a stated means to excite holy Af­fections. Good Men may have holy Affections occasionally raised in them by many things (as a Deaths head, a Skeleton, a Dead and Bloody Lamb, and some have profest that they have had holy [Page 81] Thoughts and Affections stirring in them at the view of a Gallows) which yet I presume our Author will not plead may be lawfully in­troduced into Divine Worship, as a stated means to excite holy Af­fections in the Worshippers. (5.) But how does our Author, or o­thers know that their Affections are excited in the Worship of God by Organs? If they experience holy Affections stirring in them, I should rather ascribe it to the Ordinance of Singing, and the mat­ter sung, than to a few inanimate Pipes. For we have reason to con­clude that God will concur with his own Institutions, but none to presume, that he will do the like as to Mens Fancies. These things duely weighed, I think the inconsequence of our Authors Argu­ment from Experience will sufficiently appear.

He informs us, that there are some other Objections of less note, which scarce deserve a serious Answer. One of which he is pleased to speci­fie. For some, he says, object, they do not like it, Ser. p. 35. and they shall never endure it. But I take leave to assure you, that I can scarcely believe any Persons would offer such an Objection. I cannot well conceive, that any should have been so very absurd, as to make their not liking of this Musick, a Reason why they would not like it. What Persons Mr. Newte may have discoursed upon this Subject, I know not; but perhaps this Gentleman thought fit to mention this Objection (as he stiles it) that he might have an opportunity of Adorning his Mar­gin with an excellent passage taken out of that Celebrated Book Entituled Aesops Fables, Englished by the Learned, Ser. p. 35. and Loyal Sir Roger Le Strange. But adds our Author, unless Persons are of an ex­treamly morose, and ill-natured Disposition, so harmonious and piercing a thing as Instrumental Musick must needs move them to a liking, and a loving of it. It may be so, Persons may love it as Musick in a pro­per place and season, and yet may not like it in the Worship of God, as a stated means for the exciting of holy Affections in our solemn and publick Praises of the Almighty.

But as to those Persons who appear to be so extreamly fond of this kind of Musick in the Worship of God, I wish they evidence themselves to be Men of more Temper, Moderation and Charity, than their Neighbours. I have known those in the late Reigns, (great Admirers of this Musick in the Worship of God, and fre­quent Auditors of it) who yet have discovered as much Rage and and Violence, Passion and Peevishness, as any about them. So that I must profess to you, that I am not forward to believe that this sort of Musick is of so mighty an efficacy as to calm Mens stormy Passi­ons, or to expel Envy or Malice out of their Breasts.

But whereas our Author talks, as if there were no other Objecti­ons of any considerable note against the lawfulness of the use of Or­gans in the Publick Worship of God; I can assure you he is much [Page 82] mistaken. I could direct him to some Authors where he might find many of considerable weight, which he has taken no notice of. But I will presume, that altho' he has read some Authors, who write for the lawfulness of the use of Organs in the Sacred Assemblies of Christians, yet he has scarcely read any, who have written against such an use of them. For I am satisfied, he talks as if he had not. Some Mens Libraries are as Partial as themselves, and will scarcely afford an Author who determines a Question on that side they are against.

There are other Arguments of considerable strength to be met withal against the Lawfulness of Organs in Sacris, beside those pro­duced by our Author. Be pleased to consult some of our Protestant Writers against the Papists, and you will soon be satisfied as to this. I humbly conceive I have suggested some Objections already, which our Author has not mentioned.

But let this be a third Objection.

Object. 3. The use of Organs in Christian Assemblies for Divine Worship condemned as unlawful by the Book of Homilies. And here­in the Church of England in her Homilies agrees with the Geneva Annotators. Now that the use of Organs in the Worship of God is condemned by the Homilies is most plain. For in the Homily of the time, and place of Prayers, Part II. there is this objection supposed to be made by one who cared not to frequent the Parish-Churches, viz. Alas! What shall we do at Church! Since all the Saints are taken a­way, since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone? Since we cannot hear the like Piping, Singing, Chaunting, and playing upon the Or­gans, that we could before? To this it is replied. But, Dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoyce, and give God thanks, that our Churches are delivered out of all those things, which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his House, and his place of Prayer.

The complaint of the Person, who refused to frequent the Parish Churches was amongst other things, that there was no playing on the Organs there. And to this the Answer is, That we ought to rejoyce, and to give God thanks that the Church was delivered from these things which were so displeasing to God, and so defiling to his House. This was the Opinion of the Church of England in the days of Queen Elizabeth; Namely, that Organs in Churches are displeasing to God, and filthily defiling to his House. So that in the judgment of our Authors Church, the use of Organs in the Worship of God is unlawful. Now the Homilies and the Doctrine contained in them are approved, re­ceived, and established by the Supream Authority of Church and State, Canons of Convocation, and Acts of Parliament, as the late [Page 83] Bishop of Lincoln has clearly proved Dr. Bar­low's Cases of Consci­ence of setting up Images in Churches. p. 21, 22.. Queen Elizabeth expresly ordered these Homilies to be read in the Churches, as you may see in the Preface to those Homilies. And Article 35 doth approve and confirm the Doctrine of the Homilies as good and wholesome. For saith that Article. The Second Book of Homilies, the several titles where­of we have joined under this Article, doth contain a Godly and wholesome Doctrine, and necessary for these times, as doth the former Book of Homi­lies which was set forth in the time of Edward VI. and therefore we judge to be read in Churches by the Ministers diligently and distinctly, as they may be understood by the People. Whence it is apparent the Church approves of those Homilies. (1.) As containing a Godly wholsom Do­ctrine. (2.) As to the reading of them in the Churches. So that hence I infer, that it is the profest Judgment of this Authors Church, that it is a Godly and wholsome Doctrine; namely, That Organs in Churches are displeasing to God, and do filthily defile his holy House. Our Author has subscribed these Articles of the Church, and so has there­by approved of the Homilies, and now let him Reconcile his Sermon to the Homilies if he can. Had the Geneva Annotators said but as much, as do the Homilies against Organs, O how Tragically would he have exclaimed, as if they meant no less than the total Subversion of the Church; well perhaps by his next we may have him bestowing the Epithite of Pernicious upon the Homilies too.

Object. 4. If the Praising of God with Organs be thus Lawful in the Worship of God, as our Author pleads; then will it, for the same reason, be lawful to introduce other Musical Instruments into the Worship of God, such as Harps, and Trumpets, Psalteries and Cym­bals, &c. and other Rites too, as Dancing, &c. For upon our Au­thors Principles, these are lawful to be used in the Worship of God also. And so it will be lawful to dress up the Christian Worship with as much Pomp and Ceremony, as was that of the Temple, which I think, none will assert, who duely understand the Nature of Go­spel Worship.

Object. 5. That Opinion which impeaches Christ and his Apo­stles of want of Wisdom in making provision for the Edification of the Church, is false, but such is the Opinion of our Author. There­fore his Opinion is Absurd.

The Major of this Argument is unquestionable, the Minor is evi­dent from the Author of the Sermon. For, saith he, Ser. p. [...] Instrume [...] Musick, is the most proper means to quicken our hearts, and to raise [...] [...] fections, and to make us the more devout. Now most certainly our [...] ­thor impeaches hereby our Lord, and his Apostles of want of W [...]s­dom. [Page 84] For to institute a less proper means to raise Affections, and excite Devotion, and to neglect the most proper means, argues a want of Wisdom. But according to him, Christ and his Apostles have neglected to appoint the most proper means to raise the Af­fections, and excite the Devotions of Christians. Therefore in effect his Opinion charges them with a want of Wisdom. For it is most certain, that, altho' our Lord, and his Apostles have instituted Vo­cal Musick, yet have they not appointed Instrumental for the raising the Affections of Christians, and quickning their Devotions. And so they have neglected to prescribe the most proper means for the at­taining of these ends in our Authors Judgment.

Object. 6. But to conclude, I would interrogate our Author, were I by him, whether according to the Act of Uniformity, and the Constitution of the Church of England, the particular Pastor of a Pa­rochial Church is allowed to introduce new Rites and Modes of Worship into his Parish-Church, over and above what are appoint­ed by the Act of Uniformity, without a Warrant either from a Con­vocation, or a Parliament? And whether Supra-conformity be not as much a Transgression of the Statute of Uniformity, as Subter-confor­mity? This Gentleman cannot plead that he has an Injunction from the Kings Majesty, nor a Warrant from any Statute enacted by Par­liament, nor from any Canon of any Convocation, nor from any Ru­brick in the Common-Prayer-Book for the setting up his Organ in his Parish-Church. Therefore what has induced him to put his Parish to so great a charge, I cannot well imagine. Thus, I hope, you are by this time convinced, that somewhat more may be said against the use of Organs in Sacris, than what is to be found in our Authors Sermon.

Thus I have done with the Argumentative part of his Sermon; There are a few passages towards the conclusion of it, which I would crave leave to make a few Remarks upon, e're I put an end to this Letter.

He having finished the Argumentative part of his Discourse, pro­ceeds to entertain his Reader with a Panegyrick upon the Church, and its Service, and I will assure you a pretty lofty one too. ‘Take the whole Constitution of our Church, Ser. p. 37. saith he, as it stands, the Envy of our Neighbours, the great Bulwark against the Inundations of Heresie and Schisme, the Hatred and Fear of the Church of Rome, and I hope, the Rock of Ages, and there is no comparison between this and any other Establishment in the Christian World.’ And presently upon this he presents you with a Prayer not to be found in the English Liturgy. Against which let neither the Malice of [Page 85] Devils, nor the Policy of Rome, nor the Craft of Geneva be ever able to prevaile, either to overthrow its Strength, thro' a fatal Division among her Members, or to rifle its Beauty thro' a Deluge of Vice, or to undermine her Foundation by a treacherous Comprehension.

(1.) He saith, he hopes this Church is the Rock of Ages. The Supream Governour of the Church is so Stiled, Isa. 26.4. But I ne­ver before read any Church on Earth so called; and methinks it is a little too lofty for the best Ecclesiastical Society on Earth.

(2.) What does he mean by the whole Constitution as it stands? What! Does he intend the Arch-Bishops and Bishops Courts, with the many Lay-Officers appertaining to them? Does he intend the Singing-Men and Singing Boys? Does he intend the Un-scrip­tural Rites and Ceremonies, the use of which are enjoyned by the Church; such as kneeling at the Reception of the Elements at the Lord's Supper; the Cross in Baptism; the Surplice, &c? Does he intend the Common-Prayer-Book imposed upon all Mi­nisters as to the use of it? Does he intend Deans, Arch-Deacons, Canons, a sort of Officers utter Strangers to the Primo-Primitive Chri­stians? Does he intend Pluralities, and Non-residence? And the reading some part of the Apocrypha for Lessons, to the excluding some part of the Scriptures from being read in Churches? And does he intend the use of Organs in Churches too? Are these any part of the Constitution as it stands? And if they are, are these such mighty Bulwarks against Heresie and Schism? Are these the Ha­tred and the Fear of the Church of Rome? No, those things in the Church of England, which are the Hatred and Fear of the Church of Rome, are the Doctrines, and Worship, and Scriptural Discipline, in which the Church of England doth fully agree with the sober Pro­testant Dissenters. The Church of Rome, neither fears nor hates Diocesan Bishops as such, for she has them; nor Un-scriptural Ce­remonies, for she has a world of these; nor of Arch-Deacons and Canons, and other such Un-scriptural Officers, for she has them. Nor of Singing-Men, or Singing-Boys, for her Churches ring with them; nor of a Liturgy as such, for she has one; nor of Organs for they are frequently found in her Temples; nor of Crosses for she abounds with them.

(3) But this Constitution, he saith, is a Bulwark against the inundati­ons of Heresie and Schisme. Officers which Christ ne're appointed, Modes of Worship which Christ ne're Instituted, which the Apostles and Christians of the purest Ages ne're practised, are not such a Bulwark; Therefore, if any such things are to be found in the Con­stitution of this Authors Church, they are not Bulwarks against Here­sie and Schism. So excellent a Constitution as is that of the Church of England, does not utterly prevent all Heresie and Schism: For [Page 86] that there are many Hereticks in the Church of England, is, I think, too apparent to admit of a denial. Many Books and Pamphlets have of late been written by the Unitarians (as they term themselves) against the Doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, &c. But have these been written by Persons of the Presbiterian, or Congregational Perswasion? No, but the Authors of those Books and Pamphlets de­clare themselves to be Members of the Church of England.

Here I would only refer you to Mr. Edward's Socinian Creed, p. 182, 183. Where you may find plain evidence for this. It would be tedious to Transcribe what he saith, I would rather you should pe­ruse that Treatise.

Beside you find not so many (if any at all) of these Hereticks in the Church of Scotland. The Scots have the Presbyterian Government established amongst them, yet few or none of the Racovian Gentlemen are found to enfest them. Whether this may be owing to their Constitution, or no, I shall not determine. Yet if this of preventing Heresie may be thought a good Argument of the excellency of any Ecclesiastical Establishment, some may be tempted to think the Scot­ish Constitution to be preferable to that of the English Church.

But as to Schism, How does the Constitution of our Authors Church prevent Schism? Are there not many Non-Jurors and Ja­cobites in the Established Church? And are not they Schisma­ticks? Has not a Doctor of the Church lately attempted to prove them so?

But to be short, That which is the Bulwark in the Church of England against Heresie, and is its Glory, are the Excellent Doctrines which she maintains, and adheres to in common with sober Pro­testant Dissenters; are the holy Lives of many of her Members, and the great Learning and Zeal of some of her Clergy, who really believe the Doctrinal Articles And such look upon the Arti­cles not to be Articles of Peace only, but Articles of Faith. they have Subscribed, and are both able, and forward to defend them against the Assaults of Cavelling Socini­ans, or Noisy Infidels.

This Gentleman ranks Geneva with Rome, and begs that the Church may be secured from the Craft of the one, as well as from the Policy of the other. Geneva is at a very great distance from England, therefore I cannot imagine the Church of England should be in any danger from that Quarter. Had he prayed that the Church might be delivered from the Doctrines and Designs of Cracovians and Deists, for ought I know, it might have been somewhat more to purpose.

But in some Mens Opinion nothing more dangerous than Geneva. And we know who have said, that they had rather be Papists, than Presbiterians. That is, they had rather be Idolaters, and Slaves to Rome, than be Reformed Protestants. But from whence our Author [Page 87] borrowed this Cant about Rome and Geneva, it is not difficult to guess; for it was a usual saying of a great and admired Prelate, A. B. L. Ecclesia Romana, & Turba Genevensis.

But another Petition in our Authors Prayer, composed for his own use (for it is his Nostrum) is, That the Foundation of the Church may not be undermined by a treacherous Comprehension.

Should there be such a Comprehension as would take in Atheists, Deists and Socinians into the Church, it would really be a Treacherous Comprehension, and tend directly to the Churches Subversion. But if sober Protestant Dissenters (who are sound as to the Doctrines they believe, Lovers of Morality, and of a good Life; tho' somewhat differing, in their Apprehensions as to less concerning matters, from those of the National Establishment) should be comprehended, such a Comprehension would be far enough from undermining the Churches Foundation, and would disclaim the Epithet of Treacherous. The Church would be the more enlarged and strengthened by it; and it would more conduce to her Glory, her Beauty, and her lasting Tranquility, than a Hundred pair of Organs. The Protestant Dissen­ters e're now have been thought of use to help to give a Check to the Growth of a Popish Faction amongst us. And they are always ready to be helpful in that kind. They would not undermine or betray the Church, but do their utmost to strengthen and defend it. It ought not to trouble us, saith Dr. Goodman, Sermons▪ p. 244. that some Men (i. e. Protestant Dissenters) should enjoy someshare of Advantage by this Revo­lution, since it is not only what we vowed to God, and promised to them in our Adversity, but is that which cannot be denyed them consistently with our own safety. And why should they not have an Advantage so great as that of a Comprehension amounts to? Were there many more Persons of sound Doctrine, of peaceable Tempers, of Holy Conversations admitted into the Church, would she be the worse for it? Would it be Treachery to admit such for her Members? I am satisfied our Author will never be able to prove it so. If Persons are sound as to their Doctrines, unblameable as to their Lives, and promise to live peaceably under the Government, and to endeavour in their Capacities its support, Why should they be kept out of the Church, for their suspecting some Un-scriptural Terms of Commu­nion to be unlawful? I have read some Interrogatories in the Bi­shop of Worcesters Irenicum, In the Preface, which I never yet met with a fair Reply to. I wish our Author would allow them a serious perusal. Saith that Learned and Reverend Prelate. ‘What possible Reason can be as­signed or given, why such things should not be sufficient for Com­munion with a Church, which are sufficient for eternal Salvation? what ground can there be, why Christians should not stand upon the same Terms now, which they did in the times of Christ and [Page 88] his Apostles? Was not Religion sufficiently guarded and fenced in then? Was there ever more and Cordial Reverence in the Worship of God? What Charter hath Christ given the Church to bind Men up to more than himself hath done? Or to exclude those from her Society, who may be admitted into Heaven? Will Christ ever thank Men at the great Day, for keeping out such from Communion with his Church, whom he will vouchsafe not only Crowns of Glory to, but it may be Aure ole too, if there be any such thing there? The grand Commission the Apostles were sent out with, was only to teach what Christ had commanded them, &c.’ I wish our Author would calmly consider these things. But our Author extreamly dreads any thing of an alteration in his Church. For, saith he, every alteration in so well ordered a Constituti­on, will be for the worse, and give too great an occasion for the Triumph of her Enemies, who would be glad to have her honour laid in the dust.

(1.) Will every alteration in so well-ordered a Constitution be for the worse? Then the introducing of Organs into the Worship of God in Parish Churches will be for the worse, for it is no part of this Constitution.

(2.) But I am not of this Gentlemans Opinion, that every Altera­tion in the Constitution of the National Church will be for the worse. I humbly conceive some alteration may be made for the better. Sup­pose the Cross in Baptism, the Surplice, and Kneeling at the Sa­crament were left indifferent as to use, as they are pretended to be in their own Nature? Would not this be better than to make them necessary conditions of Communion with the Church; by which many Persons of eminent Piety are excluded the Church, who would otherwise be admitted into it? These little things (as they are esteemed by the Imposers themselves) occasion great Heats and Contentions, and fruitless Controversies, which would soon have a period upon the leaving these things indifferent. What if some exceptionable passages in the Common-Prayer-Book were altered, or expunged? As the Rubrick concerning Baptism, viz. It is certain by Gods Word, that Children which are Baptized, dying before they com­mit actual Sin, are undoubtedly saved; And those words used at the Interment of all Persons tho' never so Lewd and Vicious, viz. For­asmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of his great Mercy to take to him­self the Soul of our Dear Brother here departed, &c. What if some Chapters of the Canonical Books were appointed to be read in the room of the Apochriphal Lessons? What if one, or both of the Pa­rents were admitted to undertake for their own Children at Baptism, to the laying by of God-fathers and God-Mothers? What if the Pasto­ral Authority was taken out of the hands of the Lay-Chancellors, and excercised only by the Clergy? What if Persons, (supposing they [Page 89] were qualified for the Ministry by a Competent Knowledge, by soundness of Doctrine, an unblameable Life, and by giving secu­rity to the Government of their Peaceableness and Loyalty) were admitted to the Ministerial Function, and the Exercise of it, without giving their Assent, and Consent to all things contained in the Liturgy, or Book of Common-Prayer? Suppose these, and some such other alterations were made, would it be for the worse? I am satisfied they would not, and our Author will ne­ver be able to prove they would be prejudicial, or detrimental to the Church.

(3.) But he offers at a Reason against all Alterations; Because they would give too great occasion for the Triumph of her Enemies, who would be glad to have her honour laid in the dust. To which I have only this to say at present, That such Alterations as would be for the enlargement of the Church, for the strengthning her Interest, and the rendring of her the more formidable to her Ene­mies, would not occasion their Triumph, although it might be the matter of their Grief and Envy. I am prone to believe, that few Persons, who impartially consider the state of our Case in this Nation, but will be forward to conclude, that there is nothing which the real Enemies of the Church of England so much dread, as a taking of the Sober Protestant Dissenters into the Bosom of the Church.

The Churches Enemies, he saith, would be glad to have her Honour laid in the Dust. Then I am satisfied that the Moderate Dissenters are no Enemies to the Church of England; For they are not willing that her Honour should be laid in the Dust, but rather desire that her real Honour should be secured, and ad­vanced.

He has a very tart Reflection or two upon the French Pro­testants, who have betaken themselves hither for shelter from the dreadful storm of Persecution in France. His concluding passage to them is this.

It is certainly too just a Reflection upon the integrity of these Pro­testant Refugees, to partake of the protection of the Church, Ser. p. 38. without obeying the Laws of her Communion. Such do but too like the Vipers Brood, eat out the Bowels of their Mother, that nourishes them up, and maintains them with ability to support themselves. The Com­passion I have for these distressed Protestants strongly pleads with me to say something in their behalf and justification. Therefore I cannot well pass by this charge our Author has drawn up a­gainst them, without making some few Remarks upon it.

[Page 90](1.) Methinks this Gentleman's Musick might have inspired him with so much Charity, as to have restrained him from such Un­christian Reflections as these. Why must these poor Persecuted Souls be made the Objects of his Spleen? Is this his Charity to lash the miserable, who by fiery, Popish, Persecuting Zeal are forced from their Native Country, their Houses, and Posses­sions? Did any of the Apostles ever discover such a Temper? The French King has driven them out of his Territories for the Worshipping of God according to their Consciences; and must the same thing here be made a crime by Protestants? For this must their integrity be questioned? It is really hard, very hard, that poor persecuted Souls, who have suffered so much for Worshipping God according to the Convictions of their own Minds, from a Popish Party, should yet be condemned for the same by Eng­lish Protestants. The Protestant Refugees Worship God in a way they were trained up in, in their own Country, they are per­swaded it is a way agreeable to the Word of God; nay, as a­greeable to it as any other way of Worship they meet withal in the World; and therefore they see no reason to desert their own way of Worship, for one they are not so well satisfied in. I remember that the Reverend Bishop of Sarum in the Preface to his Translation of Lactantius's Relation of the Death of the Pri­mitive Persecutors, p. 17, 18. speaks to this purpose. It is an Essential right of Humane Nature to Worship God according to our Conviction, which is in us Antecedent to all Humane Government, and can never become sub­ject to it.

(2.) Whereas he saith, Is is a just Reflection upon the integrity of these Protestant Refugees to partake of the protection of the Church without the obeying the Laws of her Communion; I rather think it to be an Ar­gument of their great Integrity, that they still adhere to their own way of Worshipping God (which they judge to be best) although they expose themselves to the frowns of the Clergy of our Author's Church, and thereby they are debarred from having a share in his Churches Charity. I have, not long since, met with some Letters Written by some of these despised Refugees residing in Germany, Printed in the Year 1690. In which there is one Letter directed to the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of the Church of England, Letter 5. p. 34. In which they thus fairly and candidly declare their Sentiments to their Lordships, viz. If Episcopacy is of Di­vine Right, it follows from hence, that neither the Churches of France, nor those of Holland, nor those of Germany, nor those of Switzer­land, nor Geneva, &c. have truely had either Ministers or Sacra­ments since the Reformation. And would you, My Lords, shut up [Page 91] the Ministry of the Gospel, and the Sacraments of Jesus Christ in the Church of England only? And a little after they add. If you Renounce this Opinion, that Episcopacy is of Divine rite, you must at the same time revoke the Custom of Reordination, which is but a dependance upon it. You cannot imagine how many good Souls find themselves scandalized at this custom, that has been chiefly a very great trouble to the French Ministers, who are dispersed every where, to be obliged to receive a second Ordination from your Hands, be­fore they are able to execute their Office in the Church of England; For we must sincerely tell you, that we know many Persons, whom this very consideration hath disswaded to retire into England. I wish our Author would consider this complaint of the French Protestants.

(3.) Suppose this Gentleman had lived in the Marian days, and had for his security, been forced to retire into some Foreign Protestant Country, as Geneva, Switzerland, &c. would he not have thought it hard Measure, if Protestants there should have made tart Reflections upon him for his not approving of, and complying with their Discipline in all things? Would he have liked it, if any of them should have blamed him, for Wor­shipping of God according to the Convictions of his own Mind? As the Reverend Bishop of Sarum Preface before ci­ted. p. 16. well saith, No Man has that Superiority over any other Mans Reason, as to expect that it should always accomodate its self to his. And saith the same Reverend Prelate in another place, There is a Tyranny in most mens nature, which makes them desire to subdue all others by the strength of their Understandings: Id. p. 11. And such Men have an implacable hatred to all that do not render themselves to their Reasons; and think that they are affronted, when other Men refuse to submit to them: So that he who would strike at Persecution in its root, must begin here, and endeavour to soften Men, especially towards those who differ from them in matters of Religion.

I wish this Gentlemans rare Musick had softened his Spirit a lit­tle more toward the Protestant Refugees, who somewhat differ in apprehension from him.

But, I think, I need say no more in Vindication of these distressed Protestants, than what has been said heretofore by a Doctor of the Church of England, Dr. Cra­kanthorp Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae p. 254. against the Arch-Bishop of Spalato, a great Papist. ‘The Arch-Bishop I remember objects Churches at London are open by Royal Concession to the French, the Dutch, the Italians: but all these are infected with the Ve­nom of Calvanism, and by these Puritanism is cherished and promoted in England. These abominate the Profession and Rites [Page 92] of the Church of England.’ To which the Reverend Doctor thus replies in the behalf of the Church of England. ‘ Fuisse Scimus, & gratissimis animis, &c. We gratefully remember, and ac­knowledge, that in the times of the Marian Persecution, Eng­land experienced the same Offices of Humanity and Piety abun­dantly done her by the French, the Dutch, the German Churches, and those of Geneva. We now truly pity their condition, be­cause by you, and your Cruelty they are become Exiles. And we extreamly rejoyce that our England can now be a safe Port, and a Sanctuary to them.’

But then, as to that part of the Objection in which the Arch-Bishop saith, that the Foreign Protestants abominate the Profession and Rites of the Church of England, the Doctor Answers thus. ‘In Doctrine, and the profession of the Orthodox Faith there is no disagreement between us; this being intire, some difference as to Rites, and Discipline is to be allowed of on both sides. The rashness of your Victor all pious and prudent Persons have heretofore condemned, Euseb. l. 5. c. 23. and still condemn. He would force those from Communion, who differed from him in certain Rites. Nor Irenae­us, nor Policarp, nor your very Popes themselves, of a more sound judgment, as Amicetus, Pius, Higinus, Telesphorus, Sixtus, were of this Temper. They observed their own Rite, and manner of Fasting; yet they maintained Peace with others, who came to them from other Churches, although they fasted in a contrary way and manner.’

And then he concludes all with this Remark. ‘ Nec tibi, tuisque Sanguine Sanctorum Ebriis, &c. Neither does it sufficiently satisfie you and yours, who are drunk with the blood of the Saints, that our Brethren, p. 255. banished their Country, and stript of their Fortunes by your Tyranny, should be Exiles, and Miserable a­mong us, but you would not have them to be, or to behold the Light. You would not have any place in the World for them to set their feet upon. This is pleasing to you, in this the Ro­man Beast does Exult and Triumph.’

The Reverend and Charitable Doctor knew how to pity the poor distressed and banished Protestants. He condemned them not for their Dissent from the Church of England, but he applauds the Churches Charity in maintaining and supporting them. So there be but an accord in Doctrine, he is willing that some dif­ference in Rites and Discipline should be allowed. He reflects not [Page 93] upon their Integrity, because of their Descent. But I find Mr. Newte is quite of another Genius. Well, If the French Protestants among us live quietly and peaceably under the Civil Government, if they are Religious towards God, Righteous towards Men, and of Sober Conversations, why should any Persons be displeased with them for the observation of their own Ecclesiastick Rites and Discipline? Is the Church of England any thing the worse for it? Does it hereby suffer any diminution in its Revenue? Are not her Dignities still the same? And may not the Sons of the Church be as Holy and Devout, as if we had none of these People among us? Mr. Newte quietly enjoys his own freedom, and Worships God in the way be best approves of, and let him not be displeas­ed that others do so too. He has no warrant to make his own Sentiments a standard for Others.

But, he saith, They are too like the Vipers Brood, Ser. p. 38. who eat out the Bowels of their Mother that nourisheth them up, and maintains them with Ability to support themselves. If Vipers destroy their Mother, it is but one Viper destroys another. But I hope the Protestant Refugees are not Vipers, nor the Church of England a Viparous Mother. But I cannot understand how the Church of England is the Mother of the French Protestants, for they were not born of her; they are of another distinct Family. They are got into England for shelter for a time, and why should not the Church be very kind to her Sisters Children in distress, notwithstanding some few differences as to External Discipline, for these are no other than what they derived from their own Parent. And Mr. Newte's Children (if he has any) may as wisely quarrel with the Children of another Man, for not being like their Father, as he may blame the French Protestants for some little accidental Diffe­rences in opinion from his Mother the Church of England. I do not see why this Author and his Church should not patiently to­lerate some smaller differences in matters of Religion, in the French Refugees without offence. Beside, I would have this Gen­tleman to consider, that the English Protestant Dissenters do large­ly contribute toward the Maintenance of these Protestant Refu­gees, as well as the Church of England.

But how does it appear that the French Protestants do destroy the Church of England? I never heard of any one step they have made towards it. This is a suggestion too black and malevolent, to spring from Christian Charity.

He charges some with Pretending to Preach and Pray by the Spirits extraordinary Assistance. Who they are he reflects on, Ser. p. 43. I know not; For beside the Quakers, I think none pretend to Preach and Pray by the immediate Assistance of the Spirit.

[Page 94]Thus, Sir, I have given you my thoughts of Mr. Newte's Ser­mon. But I fear by this time I have almost tired you. And up­on the Review of what I have written you, I find that I am chargeable with two faults, the one is the frequent Repetition of the same things, the other the prolixity of this Letter. As to the first of these, I have this to say in my justification, that I was drawn sometimes to say the same thing over again, because the Author of the Sermon abounds so much in Repetition. So that the Fault is rather his than mine. And I was willing to reply e­ven to all his Arguments, (though sometimes what he offers for a new Argument, is only an old one in a new dress of words) for otherwise perhaps he might not have thought his Sermon Answer­ed. Which thing has even necessitated me sometimes to repeat what had been said before. Then as to the Prolixity of this Let­ter, I hope you will excuse it, seeing I was willing amply to give you my thoughts of every passage in the Sermon, which I con­ceived might well be excepted against. But I am assured your Candor is so great, as to pardon small Faults, and as to greater Mistakes I readily submit to your Friendly Correction; desiring to approve my self to be,