Quest. CLIV.

QUEST. CLIV. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?

ANSW. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are, all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.

In explaining this answer, we shall consider,

I. What we are to understand by the ordinances, which are here styled outward and ordinary means of grace. The first idea contained in them is, that they are religious duties, prescribed by God, as an instituted method, in which he will be worshipped by his creatures; but that which more especially denominates them to be ordinances, is, the promise which he has annexed to them of his special presence, and the encouragement that he has given to his people in attending on them, to hope for those blessings that accompany salvation. As God works grace by, and under them, they are called means of grace; and because he seldom works grace without first inclining persons to attend on him therein, and wait for his salvation; therefore they are called the ordinary means of grace; and because they have not in themselves a tendency to work grace, without the inward and powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, accompanying them, they are distinguished from it, and accordingly styled the outward means of grace.

That which may be observed concerning the ordinances as thus described, is,

1. That they may be engaged in, pursuant to a divine appointment; therefore no creature hath a warrant to enjoin any modes of worship, pretending that this will be acceptable, or well-pleasing to God; since he alone, who is the object of worship, has a right to prescribe the way in which he will be worshipped. To do this would be an instance of profaneness and bold presumption; and the worship performed pursuant thereunto would be in vain; as our Saviour says concerning that which has no higher a sanction than the commandments of men, Matt. xv. 9. and whatever pretence of religion there may be therein, God looks upon such worshippers as well as those whose prescriptions they follow herein, with the utmost contempt, and will punish them for, rather than encourage them in it. Thus the prophet reproves Israel, as being guilty of defection from God, who engaged in that worship which he had not ordained, when he says, The statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels, that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing. Therefore shall ye bear the reproach of my people, Mic. vi. 16. And Jeroboam is often branded with this character, that he made Israel to sin, for instituting ordinances of divine worship, and setting up calves in Dan and Bethel, making an house of high places, and priests of the lowest of the people, and appointing sacred times, in which they should perform this worship; all which were of his own devising, and became a snare to the people, Exod. xx. 24. It is certain, that such appointments cannot be reckoned means of grace, or pledges of God’s presence; and it would redound to his dishonour, should he be obliged to communicate the benefits of Christ’s redemption hereby, to any who, (under a pretence of worshipping him in a way of their own devising,) offer the highest affront to him.

2. If God is pleased to reveal his will concerning the way in which we are to worship him, and hope for his presence, it is our indispensable duty to comply with it, and implore his acceptance of us herein; and be importunate with him, that he would put a glory on his own institutions, and grant us his special presence and grace, that we may be enabled to perform whatever duty he enjoins, in such a manner, that the most valuable ends may be answered, and our spiritual edification and salvation promoted thereby.

3. Though we consider the ordinances as instituted means of grace; yet, a bare attendance on them will not, of itself, confer grace, as is very evident from the declining state of religion, in those who engage in the external part of it, and attend upon all the ordinances of God’s appointment, and yet remain destitute of saving grace; who are stupid under the awakening calls of the gospel, and regard not the invitations given therein, to adhere stedfastly to Jesus Christ, whom in words they profess to own, though in works they deny him. This is a convincing evidence, that it is God alone, who appointed those ordinances, that can make them effectual to salvation. Thus concerning the nature of an ordinance, and in what respect it may be called an outward and ordinary means of grace. We are now,

II. To consider what are those ordinances by which Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation. These may be considered,

1. As engaged in by particular persons, as subservient to their spiritual welfare, in order to the beginning or carrying on the work of grace in their souls; such as meditation about divine subjects, self-examination, and all other duties, which are performed by them in their private retirement, in hope of having communion with God therein. Or,

2. There are other ordinances which God has given to worshipping assemblies, which are founded in that general promise, In all places where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee, Exod. xx. 24. Those mentioned in this answer, are the words, sacraments and prayer; of which the sacraments are particularly given to the churches; the word and prayer, to all who are favoured with the gospel-dispensation. And to these we may add, singing the praises of God; which, though it be not particularly mentioned in this answer, is, nevertheless, a duty wherein we may expect to meet with his presence and blessing; and accordingly is an ordinance which God makes effectual to promote our salvation. Therefore, before we enter on the subject-matter of the following answers, we shall speak something concerning this duty, as an ordinance which he has instituted; together with the way and manner in which it is to be performed. And,

(1.) We may enquire what ground we have to reckon it among the ordinances of God. This must not be taken for granted, but proved; because there are many who deny it to be so. That it was an ordinance enjoined to, and practised by the church, under the Old Testament-dispensation, appears from the many songs and psalms given, by divine inspiration, to be used by the church, in their solemn acts of worship; some of which were not only sung by particular persons; but the whole church is represented as joining therein with united voices. Thus when Pharaoh’s host was drowned in the red sea, it is said, Moses and the children of Israel sang the song that was given by divine inspiration for that purpose, contained in Exod. xv. And when he was inspired with that song, in Deut. xxxii. he was commanded, in chap. xxxi. to write it for them, and teach it to them, and put it in their mouths; that they might sing it in their public worship; which he did accordingly, ver. 22. And from the days of David, when public worship was more settled than it had been before; and many things relating to the order, beauty and harmony thereof, brought into the church by divine direction, then there was an order of men called Singers, who were to preside over, and set forward the work. And there was also a book of psalms, given by divine inspiration, for the use of the church therein, that they might not be at a loss as to the subject-matter of praise in this ordinance; as may be inferred from the style thereof, the words being often put in the plural number; which argues, that they were to be sung, not by one person in the church, but by the whole congregation, in their solemn and public acts of worship; and accordingly we often find the whole multitude of them exhorted to sing the praises of God. Thus it is said in Psal. xxx. 4. Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his, and give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness. And elsewhere, Sing aloud unto God our strength. Make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob. Take a psalm, &c. For this was a statute for Israel, and a law of the God of Jacob, Psal. lxxxi. 1, 2, 3, 4. And sometimes the church are represented as exciting one another to this duty. Thus it is said, O come let us sing unto the Lord; let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation. Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving, and make a joyful noise unto him with psalms, Psal. xcv. 1, 2.

And it may be observed, that how much soever the use of musical instruments, which were in this worship may be concluded to be particularly adapted to that dispensation, as they were typical of that spiritual joy, which the gospel church should obtain by Christ; yet the ordinance of singing remains a duty, as founded on the moral law; and accordingly we find, that the practice hereof was recommended, not only to the Jews, but to all nations. Thus it is said, Make a joyful noise unto the Lord all the earth, Psal. xcviii. 4. And he speaks to this purpose, when he presses this duty upon all lands, whom he exhorts to serve him with gladness; and to come before the Lord with singing, Psal. c. 1, 2. And besides, it seems to be preferred before some other parts of worship, which were merely ceremonial. Thus the Psalmist says, I will praise the name of God with a song. This also shall please the Lord better than an ox or bullock, Psal. lxix. 30, 31. that is, God is more glorified hereby than he is by the external rites of ceremonial worship; especially when abstracted from those acts of faith, which add an excellency and glory to them.

And this leads us to consider it as an ordinance practised by the New Testament-church. Some had songs given in to them by inspiration; as the virgin Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, Luke i. 46, 47, & seq. chap. ii. 28, & seq. and sometimes the members of particular churches had a psalm given in by extraordinary revelation, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. and we can hardly suppose this to have been without a design that it should be sung in the church for their edification; especially considering it as an extraordinary dispensation of the Spirit: And, as the singing of a psalm in the church, is an act of public worship, it is reasonable to suppose, that the whole assembly joined together therein; and therefore this ordinance was not only practised by them, but had also a divine sanction, in that the Spirit was the author of the psalm that was sung: And we sometimes read of the church’s singing an hymn, which was no other than a psalm or spiritual song, at the Lord’s-supper: Thus our Saviour, in the close of that ordinance, sung an hymn with his disciples, that small church with whom he then communicated, Mark xiv. 26. And at another time, when he was come nigh to the descent of the mount of olives, it is said, that the multitude of the disciples began to rejoice, and to praise God with a loud voice, Luke xxix. 37. where, by the multitude of the disciples, we must understand all that followed him, who had, at that time, a conviction in their consciences, that he was the Messiah, from the miracles which they had seen him work; and we have an account of the short hymn which they sang; Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the Lord; peace in heaven, and glory in the highest, Luke xix. 38. This was not, indeed, sung in a church-assembly; however, it was with a loud voice, and herein they gave glory to God: And though some of the Pharisees were offended at it, ver. 39. yet our Saviour, in the following words, vindicates their practice herein; which argues, that it was a branch of religious worship, performed by them at that time; and a duty approved of by him. All that I would infer from hence, is, that our Saviour gave countenance to the singing the praises of God, with united voices. Therefore it follows, that we ought, on all occasions, to do the same thing; and consequently, singing is an ordinance, whereby the church ought to glorify God, and shew forth his praise. Thus we have considered singing to be an ordinance, or a branch of instituted worship.

(2.) There are several things in which this ordinance agrees with some others; particularly with prayer in all the parts thereof; and with reading and preaching of the word. That it has something in common with prayer, appears from the subject-matter of several of the psalms of David; some of which are called prayers, and accordingly they contain in them several petitions, for blessings that the church stood in need of, together with various instances of confession of sin, as well as thanksgiving for mercies received. As to the agreement of this ordinance, with preaching or reading the word; that, I think, may be inferred in general, from one of the ends thereof, mentioned by the apostle, namely, in that we are herein to teach and admonish one another, Col. iii. 16. This is what the Psalmist styles talking of all his wondrous works, Psal. cv. 1, 2. And elsewhere, the church are said to speak to themselves, or to one another in this duty, Eph. v. 19. This may be observed in the subject-matter of some of the psalms, in which the Psalmist is represented as speaking to the church, and they as making their reply to him: Thus he advises them to lift up their hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord, Psal. cxxxiv. 2. and answer him, The Lord that made heaven and earth bless thee out of Zion, ver. 3. The name may be observed in many other psalms, in which there is a frequent change of the person speaking; and the subject-matter of the whole book contains many admonitions or cautions necessary to be observed by others, which they who sing, direct and apply to each other. Again, this ordinance agrees with preaching and reading the word, in that we are, in singing the praises of God, to take notice of, or celebrate the dispensations of his providence, either in a way of judgment or mercy; of this we have many instances in the book of Psalms, as is very evident in all those that are properly historical.

(3.) We must, notwithstanding, suppose singing to be a distinct ordinance from preaching, prayer, or reading the word; for it is mentioned in scripture, as such; and that wherein it principally differs, is, that it is designed to raise the affections: and it is certain, that the modulation, or tone of the voice, has oftentimes a tendency so to do. And because the performing religious worship, with raised affections, is a great duty and privilege; therefore God has appointed this as an ordinance, in some degree conducive to answer that end.

Obj. 1. If the tone of the voice be to be reckoned an ordinance, to raise the affections; then vocal or instrumental music may be deemed sufficient to answer this end, without making use of those words in singing, which God has ordained, whereby it may be denominated a religious duty.

Answ. To this it may be replied; that to have the affections raised, is no branch of religion, unless they are excited by those ideas of divine things, in which it principally consists: Therefore, that which is a means of raising the affections, may not have a tendency to excite religious affections; and, consequently, it is not barely singing, but celebrating the praises of God therein, with raised affections, that is the duty and ordinance which we ought to engage in: These two, therefore, must be connected together; and if God is pleased, not only to instruct us as to the matter about which our faith is to be conversant, but to give us an ordinance conducive to the exciting our affections therein, it must be reckoned an additional advantage, and an help to our praising him in a becoming manner.

Obj. 2. Those arguments that have been taken from the practice of the Old Testament-church, to prove singing an ordinance, may, with equal justice, be alleged to prove the use of instrumental music therein; since we very often read of their praising God with the sound of the trumpet, psaltery, harp, organ, and other musical instruments, Psal. cl. 3, 4, 5. which is the principal argument brought for the use of them by those who defend this practice, and conclude it an help for devotion.[21]

Answ. To this it may be replied; that though we often read of music being used in singing the praises of God under the Old Testament; yet if what has been said concerning its being a type of that spiritual joy which attends our praising God for the privilege of that redemption which Christ has purchased be true; then this objection will appear to have no weight, since this type is abolished, together with the ceremonial law. And it may be farther observed, that though we read of the use of music, in the temple-service, yet it does not sufficiently appear, that it was ever used, in the Jewish synagogues; wherein the mode of worship more resembled that which is, at present, performed by us in our public assemblies. But that which may sufficiently determine this matter, is, that, we have no precept or precedent for it in the New Testament, either from the practice of Christ, or his apostles. And inasmuch as this is alleged, by some, to overthrow the ordinance of singing, who pretend, that it ought to be no more used by us than the harp, organ, or other musical instruments: It might as well be objected, that, because incense, which was used under the ceremonial law, together with prayer in the temple, Luke i. 9, 10. is not now offered by us; therefore prayer ought to be laid aside; which is, as all own, a duty founded on the moral law.

(4.) In singing those psalms or songs, which are given by divine inspiration, we are not to consider the subject-matter thereof, as always expressive of the frame of our own spirits, or denoting the dispensations of providence, which we, or the church of God are, at present exercised with. This is necessary in order to our singing with understanding; and it may be inferred from what is observed under the second of those heads, before laid down, relating to the agreement which there is between singing and reading any of David’s psalms.

It must be allowed by all, that we ought to have the same acts of faith in one, as we have in the other. This is evident from all composures in prose or verse, whether divine or human. If the subject-matter be historical, whatever the form be in which it is laid down, the principal things to be considered are, those matters of fact which are therein related. If an history be written in prose, and the same should be turned into verse; its being laid down in the form of a poem, though it adds something of beauty to the mode of expression, yet the ideas, that are conveyed thereby, or the historical representation of things, are the same as though they had not been written in verse. It may be, the reading the same history in verse, may add something of pleasure and delight to those ideas which we have of it, in like manner as singing, according to the third head before mentioned, is a distinct ordinance from reading (though the matter be the same, as it respects the exciting the affections;) yet this does not give us different ideas of it; much less are we to take occasion from thence, to apply those things to ourselves that are spoken of others; unless parallel circumstances require it. If this rule be not observed, I do not see how we can sing many of the psalms of David. Sometimes the subject-matter thereof is not agreeable to every age of life, or the universal experience of particular persons. It would be very preposterous for a child, in singing those words, I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread, Psal. xxxvii. 25. or what is elsewhere said; Now also, when I am old and gray-headed, O God, forsake me not, Psal. lxxi. 18. to apply them, in particular to himself. And when some other psalms are sung in a public assembly, in which God’s people are represented as dejected, disconsolate, and, as it were, sinking in the depths of despair; as when the Psalmist says, My soul refused to be comforted. I remembered God, and was troubled; I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed, Psal. lxxvii. 2, 3. and elsewhere, I am counted with them that go down into the pit. Thy wrath lieth hard upon me. While I suffer thy terrors, I am distracted, Psal. lxxxviii. 4, 7, 15. This cannot be applied to every particular person in a worshipping assembly; as denoting that frame of spirit in which he is, at present, any more than those expressions which we meet with elsewhere, which speak of a believer, as having full assurance of God’s love to him, and his right and title to eternal life; as when it is said, Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory, Psal. lxxiii. 24. can be applied to those who are in a dejected, despairing, or unbelieving frame of spirit.

And those psalms which contain an historical account of some particular dispensations of providence towards the church of old, cannot be applied to it in every age, or to the circumstances of every believer; as when it is said, By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down; yea, we wept when we remembered Zion, Psal. cxxxvii. 1. This is not to be considered as what is expressive of our own case, when we are, in the present day, singing that psalm, Or, when, on the other hand, the church is represented as praising God for particular deliverances, as in Psal. cvii. or expressing its triumphs in the victories obtained over its enemies, as in Psal. cxlix. these are not to be applied, by particular persons, to themselves; especially at all times. And when the Psalmist makes use of those phrases which are adapted to the ceremonial law, as when he speaks of binding the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar, Psal. cxviii. 27. or elsewhere, of their offering bullocks upon it, Psal. li. 19. this cannot be taken in a literal sense, when applied to the gospel-state. And when we are exhorted to praise God with the psaltery, &c. Psal. cl. we are to express those acts of faith which are agreeable to the present gospel-dispensation, which we are under; and the general rule, which is applicable to all psalms of the like nature, is, that with the same frame of spirit with which we read them, we ought to sing them. Sometimes we are to consider the subject-matter of them, as containing an account of those providences which we are liable to, rather than those which we are, at present, under; or what we desire, or fear, rather than experience; and improve them so as to excite those graces which ought to be exercised in like circumstances, when it shall please God to bring us under them. With this frame of spirit the psalms of David are to be sung, as well as read; otherwise we shall be obliged to exclude several of them as not fit to be used in gospel-worship, which I would assert nothing that should give the least countenance to,[22] any more than I would affirm that such-like psalms are not to be read in public assemblies.

Obj. 1. To what has been said concerning our using David’s psalms in singing the praises of God, it is objected, that some of them contain such imprecation, or desires, that God would destroy his enemies, Psal. lv. 15. and lix. 13-15. and lxix. 22-25, 27, 28. as are inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, or that love which we are, therein, obliged to express towards our enemies, agreeably to the command and practice of the holy Jesus, Matt. v. 44, 46. Luke xxiii. 34.

Before I proceed to a direct answer to this objection, it may be observed, that this is generally alleged, by the Deists, with a design to cast a reproach on divine revelation; and from hence they take occasion, outrageously to inveigh against David, as though he was of a malicious and implacable spirit; upon which account they will hardly allow him to have been a good man, since these, and such-like imprecations of the wrath of God on the church’s enemies, are reckoned by them no other than the effects of his passion and hatred of them; and therefore it is a preposterous thing to suppose, that his psalms were given by divine inspiration.

And there are others, to wit, some among the Socinians, who give a different turn to such-like expressions; and pretend, that under the Old Testament dispensation, it was not unlawful for persons to hate their enemies, or curse, or imprecate the wrath of God upon them, whereas, our Saviour thought fit, under the New Testament-dispensation, to command what was directly contrary thereunto. That it was formerly lawful, they argue from what is said in Matt. v. 43. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. And the new Commandment which he substituted in the room thereof, is contained in the following words, in which he obliges them, to love their enemies, &c. But this is a gross mistake of the sense of that scripture, which speaks of hating their enemies; since our Saviour does not, in mentioning it, design to refer to any thing said in the Old Testament, but only to expose the corrupt gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees, given on some passages contained therein. Therefore, we must conclude, that it was equally unlawful to hate our enemies before, as it is now, under the gospel-dispensation. These things I could not but premise, before we come to a direct answer to this objection; and, if what is contained therein were true, it would certainly be unlawful to sing David’s psalms; yet, at the same time, it would be a very difficult matter, to substitute any hymns and songs in their room, which would be altogether unexceptionable; and then the ordinance of singing would be effectually overthrown.

Answ. But to this it may be replied; that the words being spoken by David, under divine inspiration, some of those scriptures referred to, may, agreeably to the rules of grammar, be understood as a prediction of those judgments which God would execute on his implacable enemies; especially when the word, that is supposed in the objection, to contain the form of an imprecation, is put in the future tense, as it often is. And if it be put in the imperative mood, as in other places, in which it is said, Let death seize on them; let them go down quick into hell; let them be blotted out of the book of the living; this mode of speaking, especially when applied to God, contains an intimation of what he would do, or the wrath which he would pour forth, as a punishment of sin, committed, persisted in, and not repented of. And, indeed, in one of these psalms, viz. Psal. lxix. in which the righteous judgments of God are denounced against sinners, the Psalmist plainly speaks in the person of our Saviour, to whom the 9th and 21st verses are expressly applied in the New Testament, John ii. 17. Matt. xxvii. 34. Therefore, when he says, ver. 22. Let their table become a snare, the meaning is, that God would deny some of his furious and implacable enemies, that grace, which alone could prevent their waxing worse and worse under outward prosperity. And when he says, ver. 23. Let their eyes be darkened; the meaning is, they shall be given up to judicial blindness, as the Jews were; the providence of God permitting, though not effecting it. And when it is said, ver. 23. Pour out thine indignation upon them, it is an intimation that this should come to pass. And, in ver. 25. Let their habitation be desolate; the meaning is, that the land, in which they dwelt, should be destitute of its former inhabitants, and so contains a prediction of the desolate state of the Jewish nation, after they were destroyed, and driven out of their country by the Romans. And when he farther says, Add iniquity to their iniquity; this may be accounted for consistently with the divine perfections, and the sense thereof is not liable to any just exception; as has been observed elsewhere. This I only mention, to shew that it is not necessary to suppose that these imprecations are always to be understood as what will warrant, or give countenance to private persons to wish, or pray for the destruction of their enemies.

Moreover, if the evil denounced be of a temporal nature; as when the Psalmist is represented as desiring that his enemies may be consumed as the stubble before the wind, or as the wood that fire burneth, Psal. lxxxiii. 13, 14. these are not the desires of one who meditates private revenge, or wishes to see the ruin of those whom he hates. But they contain the language of the church of God in general, as acquiescing in his righteous judgments, which should be poured forth on those that hate him, and persecute his people; and, if either the church must be ruined, or those that set themselves against it, removed out of the way, they cannot but desire the latter, rather than the former. If such expressions be thus understood, there would be no sufficient reason for that exception that is taken against the book of the psalms; nor will any one have just occasion to lay aside a part of them, as what cannot be sung by a Christian congregation.

Object. 2. It is farther objected, that if singing could be proved to be an ordinance, to be used by particular persons; it will not follow from thence, that the whole congregation ought to join with their voices together. It is sufficient if one person sings, and others make melody in their hearts; whereas, united voices in singing, will occasion confusion in the worship of God; and, when a mixed multitude join in this ordinance, it can hardly be supposed that they, all of them, sing with the spirit, and with the understanding also. Therefore, if one should sing, it is sufficient for them who are qualified to join in this ordinance, to say, Amen; or, to have their hearts engaged therein; as they have who join in public prayer, in which, one is the mouth of the whole assembly.

Answ. To this it may be replied;

[1.] That to insinuate that singing with united voices, is confusion, is to cast a great reproach on that worship which we often read of in scripture, which was performed in this manner. Thus Moses and the children of Israel sang the praises of God upon the occasion of their deliverance from the Egyptians, in Exod. xvi. 1. which was certainly an act of public worship, not performed by Moses alone, but by the whole congregation.

And, in the New Testament, there is a very remarkable example of singing with united voices, our Saviour himself being present, Mark xiv. 26. thus it is said, that he and his disciples sang an hymn. The word is in the plural number[23]; therefore they all joined with their voices in singing; and some observe, that it is not without design that it is said, He, that is, Christ, blessed the bread, and He gave thanks, Mat. xxvi. 26, 27. they only joining with him in their hearts, as the congregation joins with the minister, who is their mouth in public prayer. But when he speaks of the ordinance of singing, they all join with their voices therein; and therefore, the word, as was but now observed, is in the plural number, ver. 30.

[2.] As to that part of the objection, which respects the congregation’s joining in the heart, with one that sings with the voice, in like manner as we do in prayer; let it be considered, that though he that joins with the heart, with another that prays, may be said to perform the duty of prayer, though he does not express his desires with his own voice; yet joining with the heart, while one only sings, cannot properly speaking, be called singing; much less singing with the voice, or singing with a loud voice, as it is often expressed in scripture. The apostle, indeed, speaks of singing and making melody in our hearts, to the Lord, Eph. v. 19. which, in some measure, seems to favour the objection. And it is inferred from hence, that, if one sings with the voice, others may make melody in the heart. But I take the meaning of that scripture to be this; the apostle is pressing the church to sing, that is, to make melody to the Lord; and, that this ordinance may be performed in a right manner, the heart ought to go along with the voice; hereby intimating, that there ought not only to be a melodious sound, by which the praises of God are sung, but, together with this, suitable acts of faith ought to be put forth, whereby we worship him with our hearts, as well as our voices. This does not therefore prove, that the melody here spoken of, only respects the frame of spirit, as excluding the use of the voice in singing.

[3.] As to what is objected against the inexpediency of joining in singing, with a mixed multitude, in which, some must be supposed to want two necessary qualifications for singing, namely, the Spirit and understanding; this is to join in the external ordinance, where there is no harmony, as to the internal frame of spirit, or the exercise of faith, which alone makes it pleasing to God.

To this it may be replied; that, if a mixed multitude may join together in prayer, and particularly the Psalms of David, may be read in the public congregation; though, perhaps, there are many present who do not understand the meaning of every particular phrase used therein: yet it does not follow, that because we do not fully understand the Psalms of David, therefore they ought not to be sung by us. We have before observed, that there is no essential difference, especially as to what concerns the frame of our spirit, between singing and reading[24]. Therefore it follows, that whatever psalm may be read, may be sung. He that is not qualified for the latter is not qualified for the former. The apostle, indeed, speaks of his praying and singing with the Spirit, as well as with the understanding; but the meaning of that is, that we ought to desire the efficacious influences of the Spirit, and press after the knowledge of the meaning of the words we use, either in prayer or singing; yet the defect of our understanding, or having a less degree thereof than others, or, than we ought to have, does not exempt us from a right to engage in this ordinance. Therefore, we are not to refuse to join with those in singing the praises of God, whom we would not exclude from our society, if we were reading any of the Psalms of David in public.

(5.) We are now to consider the matter to be sung. There are very few who allow singing to be an ordinance, that will deny it to be our duty to sing the Psalms of David, and other spiritual songs, which we frequently meet with in scripture. Some, indeed, have contested the expediency of a Christian assembly’s making use of several Old Testament-phrases, that are contained therein. And others have alleged, that the phrase ought to be altered in many instances, (especially in those which have a peculiar reference to the Psalmist’s personal circumstances,) and others substituted in their room, which are matter of universal experience. But, if what has been said under the last head, be true, this argument will appear to have less weight in it; inasmuch as all the arguments that are brought in defence of making these alterations in the Psalms, as they are to be sung by us, will equally hold good, as applicable to the ordinance of reading them, and, it may be, will as much evince the necessity of altering the phrase of scripture, in several other parts thereof, as well as in these, if what has been said under the second head be allowed of. For it will follow from thence, that if some psalms are not to be sung by a Christian assembly, in the words in which they were at first delivered, and consequently are not to be read by them; because the phrase thereof is not agreeable to the state of the Christian church; and therefore it is to be altered, when applied to our present use; the same may be said concerning other parts of scripture; and then the word of God, as it was at first given to us, is no more to be read, than to be sung by us[25].

As to what is objected concerning the inexpediency of our making use of those words, and applying them to our case, in our devotions, that David used in his, with a peculiar view to his own condition. What has been said under the fourth head, relating to the frame of spirit with which the psalms are to be sung, will very much weaken the force of it; and this is what, in a great measure, determines my sentiments as to the ordinance of conjoint singing, as well as the matter of it; for, I am well persuaded, that if the words were to be considered as our own, (as they ought to be, when joining with another, who is our mouth, to God in prayer,) there are very few psalms, or hymns of human composure, that can be sung by a mixed assembly. But as a divine veneration ought to be paid to the psalms, and they are to be read with those acts of faith which are the main ingredients in our devotions; we are to sing them with the same view, only with this difference; as making use of the tone of the voice, as a farther help to the raising our affections therein, as has been before observed.

The next thing to be considered is, what version of the Psalms is to have the preference in our esteem, as it is subservient to the design of this ordinance. It is not my business, under this head, to criticise on the various versions of the Psalms; nor can it be supposed, that I have a regard to those poetical beauties in which one version exceeds another; for then I should be inclined to think some of them, which I do not make use of in the ordinance of singing, much preferable to others, for the exactness of their style and composure. But when I am singing the praises of God, in, or as near as I can to, the words of David, or any other inspired writer; that which I principally regard is, the agreeableness of the version to the original; and then they may be sung with the same frame of spirit with which they are to be read; and I am not obliged in singing, to consider the words as expressive of my own frame of spirit, any more than I am in reading them. But if the composure cannot properly be called a version, but an imitation of David’s Psalms, then I make use of it in the ordinance of singing, with the same view as I would an hymn; of which, more hereafter[26].

The versions which, I think, come nearest to the original, are the New-England and the Scots; the latter of which, I think, much preferable to the former; inasmuch as the sentences are not so transposed in this, as in the other, and the lines are much more smooth and pleasant to be read. I should be very glad to see a version more perfect, that comes as near the sense of the original, and excels it in the beauty or elegancy of style. And it would be a very great advantage if some marginal notes were added, as a comment upon it; which would be a help to our right understanding thereof.

I shall now give my thoughts concerning the singing of hymns. These, according to the common acceptation of the word, are distinguished from psalms, and they generally denote a human composure, fitted for singing; the matter whereof, contains some divine subjects, in words agreeable to, or deduced from scripture. The arguments that are generally brought in defence thereof, are, that though scripture be a rule of faith, from whence all the knowledge of divine things is primarily deduced; and therefore it has the preference, as to the excellency and authority thereof, to any other composure; yet it is not only lawful, but necessary to express our faith in the doctrines contained therein, in other words, as we do in prayer or preaching. Therefore, if it be a duty to praise God with the voice, it is not unlawful to praise him in words agreeable to scripture, as well as in the express words thereof; accordingly it is argued, that both may be proved to be a duty, viz. praising God in the words of David, and by other songs contained in scripture, and praising him in words agreeable thereunto, though of human composure. This is the best method of reasoning that I have met with in defence of the lawfulness of singing hymns, not as opposed to, or excluding David’s Psalms, but as used occasionally, as providence directs us; that so our acknowledgments of benefits received, may be insisted on with greater enlargement than they are in the book of Psalms; wherein, though it may be, there is something adapted to every case, yet the particular occasion of our praise is not so largely contained in the same section or paragraph; and therefore an hymn may be composed on that occasion, in order to our praising God thereby. But, when on the other hand, persons seem to prefer hymns to David’s Psalms, and substitute them in the room thereof, I cannot but disapprove of their practice.

A late writer[27] speaks on this subject with a great deal of moderation; when, though he proves that scripture psalms should be preferred before all others, and more ordinarily sung; yet he thinks that hymns of human composure, ought not wholly to be excluded, provided they be exactly agreeable to, and as much as may be, the words of holy scripture. There are other writers whom I pay equal deference to, who have concisely, though with a considerable degree of judgment, proved singing to be a gospel-ordinance[28], who argue against singing of hymns: and, indeed, what they say in opposition to those who defend the practice thereof from Eph. v. 19. and Col. iii. 16. wherein hymns are supposed to be distinct from psalms and spiritual songs; and, consequently, that we are to understand thereby human composures, agreeable to scripture, as by psalms and spiritual songs, we are to understand those which are contained in the very words of scripture, seems very just. And herein they speak agreeably to the mind of several judicious and learned men, who assert that these three words signify nothing else but those psalms or songs that are contained in scripture[29]. The question in debate with me, is not whether the psalms, hymns, or spiritual songs, that are contained in scripture, are designed to be a directory for gospel-worship; for that, I think, all ought to allow; but, whether it be lawful to sing a human composure that is agreeable to scripture, either as to the words or sense thereof; especially when the subject-matter of our praise is not laid down so largely in one particular section of scripture, as we desire to express it. In this case, if we were to connect several parts of scripture together, so that the design of enlarging on a particular subject might be answered thereby; it would render it less necessary to compose an hymn in other words. But, inasmuch as the occasions of praise are very large and extensive, and therefore it may be thought expedient, to adore the divine perfections, in our own words in singing, in like manner as we do in prayer, considering the one to be a moral duty as well as the other; I will not pretend to maintain the unlawfulness of singing hymns of human composure, though some of much superior learning and judgment have done it.

I would, however, always pay the greatest deference to those divine composures, which are given as the principal rule for our procedure herein. Nevertheless, I cannot but express my dislike of several hymns that I have often heard sung; in some of which the heads of the sermon have been comprised; and others, which are printed, are so very mean and injudicious, and, it may be, in some respects, not very agreeable to the analogy of faith, that I cannot, in the least, approve of them. But if we have ground to conclude the composure, as to the matter thereof, and mode of expression, unexceptionable, and adapted to raise the affections, as well as excite suitable acts of faith in extolling the praises of God, it gives me no more disgust, though it be not in scripture-words, than praying or preaching do when the matter is agreeable thereunto. Yet, inasmuch as when we confess sin, acknowledge mercies received, or desire those blessings that are suited to our case, we always suppose, that the words, which he, who is the mouth of the congregation, uses, ought to be such, in which all can join with him (and in this, the reading one of David’s prayers, and putting up a prayer in the congregation, differ as to a very considerable circumstance in each of them) the same ought to be observed in hymns. But, if an hymn be so composed, as that all that sing it are represented as signifying their having experienced those things which belong not to them, or as blessing God for what they never received: this, I conceive, would be an unwarrantable method of singing hymns of human composure, as much as if the expressions were used in public prayer. There are, indeed, many hymns which have in them a great vein of piety and devotion, but are not adapted to the experience of the whole assembly that sings them; therefore, though they may join in signing some hymns, I do not think they can well join in singing all; notwithstanding the subject-matter of them may be agreeable to the analogy of faith; and this principally depends upon what we have before laid down, concerning the difference between making use of a divine and human composure, in the former of which, the words are not always to be considered as our own, or expressive of the frame of our own spirits; whereas this is universally true, with respect to the latter.

Thus concerning the ordinance of singing; which we cannot but think included among those whereby Christ communicates to his church, the benefits of his mediation. And this leads us to consider the other ordinances, which are particularly insisted on in the remaining part of this work. And that which next comes under our consideration, is the word read and preached.

Footnote 21:

I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of Musical Instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament, which speak of Musical Instruments; as I might easily shew by a thousand testimonies, out of Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. I can hardly forbear laughing, when I meet with some of their allegorical interpretations. Thus an Instrument with ten strings, according to them, signifies the Ten Commandments, as the unknown author of the Commentary upon the Psalms, among Jerom’s works, often explains it, In Ps. xxxii. 2. xliii. 4, &c. But the pleasantest fancy is the explication of those words: Praise him with stringed Instruments and Organs. Ps. cl. 4. “That the guts being twisted by reason of abstinence from food, and so all carnal desires being subdued, men are found fit for the kingdom of God, to sing his praises.” But Chrysostom talks more handsomly; “As the Jews praised God with all kind of Instruments; so we are commanded to praise him with all the members of our bodies, our eyes, &c.” In Ps. cl. And Clement of Alexandria talks much to the same purpose. Pædag. lib. ii. c. 4.

Besides, the ancients thought it unlawful to use those Instruments in God’s worship. Thus the unknown author of a Treatise, among Justin Martyr’s works: “Q. If songs were invented by unbelievers with a design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the Law, because of the childishness of their minds; why do they, who have received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, just as they did, who were children under the Law? Answ. Plain Singing is not childish, but only the Singing with lifeless Organs, with Dancing and Cym-bals, &c. Whence the use of such Instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside, and Plain Singing only retained.” Resp. ad Orthodox. Q. 107.

Chrysostom seems to have been of the same mind, and to have thought, the use of such Instruments was rather allowed the Jews in consideration of their weakness, than prescribed and commanded. In Ps. cl. But that he was mistaken, and that Musical Instruments were not only allowed the Jews, as he thought, and Isidorus of Pelusium, (whose testimony I shall mention presently) but were prescribed by God, may appear from the Texts of Scripture I have before referred to.

Clement, as I have mentioned already, thought these things fitter for beasts, than for men. And though Basil highly commends, and stifly defends the way of Singing by turns; yet he thought musical Instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, the inventions of Jubal of the race of Cain. And a little after, he thus expresses himself: “Laban was a lover of the harp, and of music, with which he would have sent away Jacob: If thou hadst told me, said he, I would have sent thee away with mirth, and musical instruments, and an Harp. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands.” Comment. in Is. c. v. p. 956, 957. And a little before, he says thus “In such vain arts, as the playing upon the Harp, or Pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases, the work itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle’s expression, The end of these things is destruction.” page 955.

Isidore of Pelusium, who lived since Basil, held, music was allowed the Jews by God, in a way of condescension to their childishness: “If God” says he, “bore with bloody sacrifices, because of men’s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery?” Epist. lib. 2. ep. 176.

Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of England, who, for their very profession and employment, would have been kept from the communion of the Church, except they desisted from it. So we are informed by the Apostolical Constitutions: “If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute, or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected.” Lib. viii. c. 32.

From what has been said, it appears, no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the Church. It became Antichristian, before they were received. Bellarmine himself does not deny, they were late brought into the Church. “The second ceremony,” says he, “are the Musical Instruments, which began to be used in the service of the Church, in the time of Pope Vitalian, about the year 660, as Platina relates out of the Pontifical; or, as Aimonius rather thinks, lib. iv. De gestis Francorum, c. 114. after the year 820, in the time or Lewis the Pious.” De Missa, lib. ii. c. 15. Item, De bon. Oper. lib. i. c. 17.

Dr. N. would hardly have denied, the Church of Rome was become Antichristian, when they were first brought in; even though we should allow Bellarmine’s first date of them to be the true one. But a Reformed Divine may well be ashamed of that antiquity, that does not exceed the rise of Antichrist. But I am fully satisfied both Bellarmine’s dates are false, and that instrumental music, in the worship of God, is much later than either of those accounts allow. For as to Platina, he seems to suspect the truth of what he wrote: “Vitalian,” says he, “being careful about the worship of God, made an ecclesiastical rule, and ordered the singing, with the addition (as some think) of organs.” In Vital. Again, Bellarmine’s Aimonius is not the true Aimonius. For (as Dr. Cave says) Aimonius of Fleury, who wrote, De gestis Francorum, flourished about the year 1000; and his History, which begins at the destruction of Troy, is brought down as far as the coronation of King Pipin, or to the year 752. For what comes after that, and makes up the fifth book, and the latter part of the fourth, is the continuation of another hand. Hist. Liter. p. 597.

Farther, that these instruments were not used in God’s worship, in Thomas Aquinas’s time, that is, about the year 1250, he himself is witness. “In the old Law,” says he, “God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices, and according to that Psalm xxxiii. Praise the Lord with harp, sing unto him with the psaltery, and an instrument of ten strings. But the Church does not use musical instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize. Therefore, by parity of reason, she should not use singing.” Secunda secundæ Questio 91, art. 4. & conclus. 4. The like objection is made by our author. But Thomas answers: “As to this objection, we must say, as the philosopher, Lib. viii. Polit. that Pipes are not to be used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the like: but whatever will make the hearers good men. For these musical instruments rather delight the mind, than form it to any good disposition. But under the Old Testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal; upon which account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise by earthly promises; and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.” Upon which place Cardinal Cajetan gives us this Comment: “’Tis to be observed, the Church did not use organs in Thomas’s time. Whence, even to this day, the Church of Rome does not use them in the Pope’s presence. And truly it will appear, that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet together to perform, for the sake of receiving internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God’s internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments.” Cit. Hoffm. Lex. voce Musica.

If any one objects the practice of some foreign churches, I answer with Mr. Hickman: “They are laid aside by most of the reformed churches; nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had forsaken their own Luther; who, by the confession of Eckard, reckoned organs among the ensigns of Baal. That they still continue in some of the Dutch churches, is against the minds of the Pastors. For in the National Synod at Middleburg, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in the year 1594, it was resolved, That they would endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons: so far are those Synods from bearing with them in the worship itself.” Apol. p. 139.

The Church of England herself had formerly no very good opinion of these musical instruments; as may appear by her Homilies: “Lastly, God’s vengeance hath been, and is daily provoked, because much wicked people pass nothing to resort unto the church; either for that they are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God or godliness, and care not with devilish malice to offend their neighbours; or else for that they see the church altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights, as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted with; because they see the false religion abandoned, and the true restored, which seemeth an unsavory thing to their unsavory taste, as may appear by this that a woman said to her neighbour: Alas! gossip, what shall we now 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? But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and give God thanks, that our churches are delivered out of all those things, which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy house, and his place of prayer.” Hom. of the place and time of prayer, part. 2. p. 131.

A great number also of the Clergy in the first convocation of Queen Elizabeth in 1562, earnestly laboured to have organs, and that pompous theatrical way of singing laid aside, and missed the carrying it but by one vote, as I observe elsewhere. And in this Archbishop Parker concurred with them, or at least did not oppose them.

I will add one or two testimonies of Papists against this cathedral way of worship. The first shall be Polydorus Virgilius.

Having taken notice of Austine’s dislike of that way of singing in his time, he thus proceeds: “But in our time, it seems much less useful to the commonwealth, now our singers make such a noise in our churches, that nothing can be heard, beside the sound of the voice; and they who come there (that is all that are in the city) are satisfied with the concert of music, which their ears itch for, and never mind the sense of the words. So that we are come to that pass, that in the opinion of the common people, the whole affair of religious worship is lodged in these singers; although, generally speaking, there is no sort of men more loose or wicked: and yet a good part of the people run to church, as to a theatre, to hear them bawl: they hire and encourage them; and look upon them alone as ornaments to the house of God. Wherefore, without doubt, it would be for the interest of religion, either to cast these jackdaws out of the churches; or else to teach them when they sing, they should do it rather in the manner of reading, than bawling; as Austine says Athanasius ordered, &c.” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi. c. 2. p. 379.

Next hear the judgment of Erasmus: “Let a man be more covetous than Crassus, more foul-mouthed than Zoilus, he shall be reckoned a pious man, if he sings those prayers well, though he understands nothing of them. But what, I beseech you, must they think of Christ, who can believe he is delighted with such a noise of men’s voices? Not content with this, we have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them.—Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining tones. Pray now compute how many poor people in great extremity might be maintained by the salaries of those singers.” In 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

Lastly, Lindanus says: “Who will compare the Music of this present age, with that which was formerly used? Whatever is sung now, signifies little for informing the people; which ’tis certain the ancients always designed.” Panopl. lib. iv. c. 73.

PIERCE’S VINDICATION.

Footnote 22:

The first hymns of Gospel churches, were neither rythm, nor metre; and there was no version of David’s psalms, that could be sung before Calvin’s time.

Footnote 23:

Ὑμνήσαντε.

Footnote 24:

There is a difference between praising God, and instructing men.

Footnote 25:

The first christians composed and set to music their hymns.

Footnote 26:

Grotius thought the first Gospel hymns were extemporary. Basnage from Tertullian says; “neither the prayers they made to God, nor the hymns which they sung to his honour were reduced to rule; every one drew them from the Holy Scriptures, or from his own treasure, according to his genius.” A council of 70 bishops, A. D. 272. charged among other things against Paulus bishop of Antioch, that he abolished the Psalms, which were sung in gloriam Christi.—When the Ariam sang the doxology Glory be to the Father, the orthodox added, and to the Son and Spirit. Vide Dr. Latta, and Mr. Tod, on Psalmody.

Footnote 27:

See Mr. Richard Allein’s essay on singing, chap. iv. who seems, in my opinion, in the whole of his short performance, to argue with a considerable degree of candor and judgment.

Footnote 28:

See Sidenham’s gospel ordinance concerning singing, &c. and Hitchen’s scripture proof for singing, &c.

Footnote 29:

It cannot be denied that the Psalms of David are called indifferently by these three names, psalms, hymns, and songs שיר, מזמר, תהלה, ψαλμὸς, ὑμνὴ, ὀδη, and sometimes the same psalm is called a song or psalm, as in the title of Psalm. lxv. or a song of a psalm [as the LXX. render it, ὀδη ψαλμοῦ.] And in Psalm cv. 2. when it is said, Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him; שירו לו זמרו לו the former word signifies to sing a spiritual song; the latter to sing a psalm; or, as the Septuagint render the same word, in 1 Chron. xvi. 9. an hymn [Ἀσατε αυτω και υμνησατε.] See Sidenham’s gospel-ordinance, &c. chap. ii. and Ainsworth on the title of Psalm liii. whom he therein refers to.