A LETTER TO A Friend in the Country, Concerning the Use of INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE Worship of God: IN Answer to Mr. Newte's SERMON Preached at Tiverton in Devon, on the Occasion of an Organ being Erected in that Parish-Church.  
LONDON: Printed for A. Baldwin, at the Oxford-Arms in Warwick Lane. 1698.   

A LETTER TO A Friend in the Country Concerning the Use of INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN THE Worship of God, etc.  
SIR,  
I Have, (according to your desire) been at the pains to peruse the Discourse of Mr. Newte, which he delivered a while since to his Auditory at Tiverton, occasioned by the erecting of an Organ in the Public Temple there. Had he confined his beloved Music to his own Parish, I believe he might have sat down quietly, and have solaced himself with his Harmonious Pipes, without fear of a Contradiction: But he was so ravished with his Organical Devotion, that nothing less would content him, than to fill the whole Nation with a noise of it. Therefore out comes his Sermon in Print, to tell the World what a mighty admirer he is of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God; with what rare and raised Devotion he adores the Deity; whilst that of others is low, and inharmonious, being deadned, and flatned by the hoarseness of the Windpipe. He discovers a mighty Zeal for this sort of Church-music, as he styles it; and therefore has thought fit to oblige the World with a large Sermon to recommend, and defend it. But how grateful soever this sort of Music may be to his more Elevated Genius, He does ill to blame others for not approving it. Why must he disturb his Neighbour with his fancy? Others perhaps do not find this to be so great a help to Devotion, as he confidently presumes it is.  
To render his Discourse the more acceptable to the World. He has Dedicated it to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Exon, and whether it has met with his Approbation, and Goodliking, I have not heard; but I am satisfied that some of the Clergy look upon it as a mean performance. I perceive, by his Epistle Dedicatory, that this Gentleman has had a difficult Province of it, in bringing his Organ into his Church; He has been attempting it for Ten Years together, and could never accomplish his design till of late: And for aught I know at last, he has, as the Proverb speaks, made more haste than good speed. For, is this a time, to set up Chargeable Organs in the Churches, 
This was written when a stop was put to Trade by the Prohibition of the Clipped Money.  (the use of which he only pretends to be lawful) to expend vast Sums in the setting up some Musical Pipes, when as the generality of the Poor complain (and that not without reason) that they have scarcely Money sufficient to buy Bread for their Families? Is this a time to lavish a great deal of Treasure upon inanimate Organs, when as the animate one's, I mean the Poor, are ready to famish for want of their Daily-bread? What Harmony can there be in a costly Organ, when we hear the bitter lamentations of the Needy, and the piercing cries of helpless Orphans? Is this a time to regale our Ears with an Expensive, and yet unnecessary Music, when we can scarcely find Money sufficient to defray the Charges of a necessary War against a Potent Prince, and Inveterate Enemy abroad? Why must it just at this very time be Erected? I hope the Worship of God has heretofore been managed with as much Edification without it  
Well, seeing he has obtained his desire in having mounted his Organ to the place he designed it for, I wish it may inspire him, as with Devotion to his God, so with Charity towards his Neighbour.  
But some men's Charity is not very large at home, and then usually much less abroad. His many little spiteful reflections he makes upon Protestant Dissenters, discover his Charity abroad to be very deminutive; And whether the compliment he makes his Right Reverend Diocesan, does not savour of a want of some degree of Charity towards those of his own way, and Church, I leave to you to determine. I shall transcribe the Passage which I have a respect to; for I think it deserves an Animadversion. Thus than he Addresses his Lordship.  
My Lord,  
It is now highly to be wished (if such a Wish be not too great in our days) that all others, who possess the same Station, and Dignity in our Church with you, were as Zealous, and hearty in promoting the interest, and defending the rights of its Constitution. It would make some of us happy, beyond our expectation, and others beyond their design, if not against their wills. Then we might see our excellent establishment, and Old-England flourish in our time, as they did in that of our Forefathers.  
In which Passage, you cannot but observe, what a vast commendation he heaps upon his Lordship, and advances him far above those of the same station in the Church. This Gentleman, when he dropped this passage, I suppose had almost forgotten the common Proverb. Viz. That comparisons are odious. He hereby tacitly accuses the other Reverend Bishops of a want of Zeal, and heartinesses in the promoting the interest, and defending the rights of the Church's Constitution. I wish this Gentleman would be pleased to show us, in what respects the other Reverend Bishops have been wanting to the Church's Interest; For my part I would not in the least be thought to detract from the due praises of the Bishop of Exon. But why should many other Reverend Bishops of the same Order be marked out, as Men too little concerned for the Church's interest? When as it is apparent beyond a possibility of a denial, that they have appeared with a great deal of Warmth in defence of that Church, and its rights? That Man must needs be a great Stranger to the other Reverend Bishops, who shall adventure to assert, that they have been wanting as to their Zeal, and heartinesses in the promoting of the Church's Interest, and defending of the Rights of the Church's constitution. The present Archbishop has written with great Learning and Zeal, against Atheists, in his Examination of Hobbs' Creed; and against the Papists in his Elaborate Discourse of Idolatry. The Reverend Bishop of Worcester has Learnedly pleaded the Cause of Christianity against Atheists and Deists, in his Origines Sacrae; and his Letter to a Deist. With very great strength of Reason has he Confuted the Doctrines of the Church of Rome in his Rational Account, His Idolatry of the Church of Rome, and in many other Excellent Discourses; And with wonderful Learning has he Vindicated the grand Doctrines of our Religion against Crellius, and others of the Socinian party. His Discourse of the Sufferings of Christ, and that of the Trinity evidently prove this. I suppose I need not tell you, that with great briskness he has written against those too, who are somewhat averse to the Church's discipline; His Mischief of Separation will discover that. I might here recount what has been done by many others of the same Order in the Church; as by the Bishops of Sarum, of Bath and Wells, and Ely, etc. Who have frequently drawn their Pens against the Church's Enemies, and upon all occasions have discovered a mighty Zeal for the promoting the Church's Interest. And therefore, I must profess to you, that I cannot but wonder, what should induce this Gentleman to insinuate, that the generality of the Reverend Bishops (most of whom have been advanced to their Ecclesiastical Dignities by his present Majesty King William) are not so Zealous, and hearty in promoting of the Church's Interest, as they ought to be. What is it, because they dance not after his Pipe? Or because they do not constrain all Parishes within their Jurisdiction to erect Organs in their Churches? Is this the ground of so uncharitable an Accusation as he has advanced against them? A mighty Reason for so great an Outcry! I presume the Church's Interest does not lie in a few Organ-pipes? The Church may be safe, and in a flourishing state without them.  
Really, Sir, what ever this Person talks of his Temper being changed for the better, I am tempted, from this Passage to believe, that his New-Musick has had very little, if any good Influence upon him. He saith little that speaks his Charity, but enough to induce Persons to suspect that a sort of Leven has wrought deep into his Crasis.  
He talks of making some Persons happy against their wills, but what he means by it, I do not well understand; unless he intends that he would have them compelled by severe corporal, and pecuniary Penalties, to be Auditors to his ravishing Temple-Musick.  
But adds he; Then we might see our Excellent Establishment, and Old-England flourish in our time, as they did in that of our Forefathers. But does not Old-England, and the National Establishment flourish as much now as heretofore? Did Old England flourish more in the late Reigns? I wish our Author would show us in what respects it did so. Are not Subjects as secure in their Properties, as formerly? Is not the Government as gentle and easy, as in the days of our Forefathers? Has not the Church all its Dignities, Honours, and Profits which heretofore she enjoyed? May not the Members of the Church be as holy as they please? And they who wait at the Altar live as piously and soberly; and Preach as painfully, as ere did any, in the days of our Predecessors? Are our Governors secret Friends to King Lewis and his Holiness, as some have been in times not yet totally forgotten? Really, Sir, I doubt this Man's Music hath rather stirred his Spleen, or his Gall, than cheered, and sweetened his Spirits. But now, according to your desire, I shall give you my thoughts of his Sermon.  

SIR,  
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 ware 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 David's composing of Psalms, and sending them to the Perfect of the Choir to fit, and prepare them to some Musical Instrument.  
Then, to make way for the recommending of the use of Instrumental Music as lawful in the Worship of God; He singles out the Instance of Saul to show the mighty power of Music.  
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 Music was the proper cure of that Melancholy Saul laboured under, and which was heightened 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 Music should be of so great an efficacy as to drive away the Devil. All that Music 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 Music 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 Music can be efficacious to reduce them to their due, and proper motion. I confess, if God please to make use of this kind of Music 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 Music, as to the Extraordinary concerns of God therewith all.  
But I shall now address myself to the consideration of those arguments, which the Author of the Sermon alleadges for the proof of the Lawfulness of the use of Instrumental Music 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 denied, 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 Music, as well as the Heathen to their False Gods.  
But that all Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God, is what our Author cannot prove. He pretends not to give us any instance of its having 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music? 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 rejoice 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 Music and Jollity in those days; therefore Instrumental Music 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 Music. (3) It is apparent that they were Women who thus played and danced. These things being considered, I humbly conceive it will be no easy matter for a Person to draw an Argument from this Instance to prove, the Lawfulness of the use of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God in the times of the Gospel.  
But then he alleges another Instance of the early use of Instrumental Music in the Worshipping of God, which was in the time of 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 Music 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 Music: 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 Music 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 Cymbals, and Drums, and Arms, and Pipes (as tho' Bedlam had been broke lose amongst them) which he thinks was by Satan taken up in imitation of those inspired Hymns and Music 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 Swine's flesh, so did the Egyptians. The Priests amongst the Hebrews were clothed with linen Garments; the Priests of Isis' aped them in this. Had the Hebrews their Show bread; The Egyptians offered Bread to their God Serapis. Did the Hebrews make use of Wine and Oil at their daily Sacrifice? Exod. 29.38, 39 The Egyptians added Wine and Oil 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, etc. 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.  
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 Music in the Worship of God.  
Therefore, the use of Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music, as well as the Heathen to their false Gods; then all Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Music 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 Music, as well as the Heathen to their false God.  
Ergo. All Ages have allowed, and approved of Instrumental Music in the Worship of Gods.  
Now would I fain inquire of this Author, whether, when he saith, Gods own People, he intends God's People in all Ages? If so, than he supposeth what he was obliged to prove, and puts off his Reader with that Old Fallacy, 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 Music; he intends only the People of God in some Ages? If so, than his Argument will appear to be extremely inconclusive. For than 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 Music, 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 Music; 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 Music in the Worship of God.  
But the more effectally to Convince you of the invalidity of this way of arguing, I shall show you how that by the same Method of procedure, many things apparently unlawful in the Worship of God, might be proved lawful. And First,  
1. I shall begin with Sacrifices. God's own People have made their approaches to the True God with the Solemnity of Sacrifices. Thus Abel, Abraham, Job, etc. And you know that Sacrificing was an eminent part of the Established Worship enjoined by the Law of Moses. It was a Sacred usage, much more Ancient than that of Instrumental Music. It commenced even in the days of Adam. So did not the use of that Music 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 Music, 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 Music. 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 linen Ephod. And God's People had a command of Old, to praise him in the dance, Psal. 149.3. and Psal. 150.4. But this was not a practice 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. satire. VIth.  
And Cybele's Priests, an Eunuch at their head,  
About the Streets a mad Procession led;  
The Venerable Gelding, large, and high  
O'er looks the Herd of his inferior Fry:  
His awkward Clergymen about him prance,  
And beat their Timbrels to their Mystic Dance.  
Now from all this shall we conclude it lawful to set up a capering 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 persuade the lawfulness of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God in these times of the Gospel. I see nothing our Author has offered to warrant the use of his beloved Music, which may not be improved for the introduction of Dancing again into Divine Worship.  
(3.) If our Author's way of arguing be allowable, it may be lawful to receive Circumcision again. For was Instrumental Music 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 complete establishment. It was of a more Ancient use, than Instrumental Music. Even in the time of Abraham was it enjoined 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 enjoined by the Law of Moses, John 7.22. Moses therefore gave unto you Circumcision, Levit. 12.3. And if we inquire into the practice 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, & Sylli neque acceperunt, neque se fatentur accepisse, quod vult Herodotus. Ad Saturnum quip 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, etc. 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 acquaintance with the Monuments of the Ancients, very well know, that not only the Jews, 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 God's People of Old, and the concurring practice 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 Music?  
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 Music 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, with some of his Tiverton Auditory of a lower class; but would be condemned as illogical in Balliol 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 practice of God's 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. 
Dust. Dubit. lib. 2. p. 371.  The consonant practices of Heathens, in a matter not expressly 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 employs in the defence of his Organ, 
Serm. p. 8.  He takes from David's 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 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 God's 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 King's Seer, and of Nathan the Prophet, For, saith the Text, so was God's Commandment by the Prophets. They did not appoint the use of such Musical Instruments from their own Motion, but from God's 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 economy. 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 show us a Command in the Gospel for the use of Organs in Public 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 Music. 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 inquires, If this was useful under the Jewish state, Why not under the Christian? And another Person may inquire 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 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 recall 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 Music 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 Music, 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 Music 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 Music for the raising of their Devotions, 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 Lawgiver 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 Music Appointed, but is wholly left out of our Saviour's 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 Music needless, with respect to the Assigned ends. I shall conclude this Remark with a suitable 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 Music 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 persuade his Readers to entertain this Opinion. He seems to bottom his belief of this upon that passage of 
* Hist Eccl. L. 6. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  Socrates. Who saith, That Ignatius was he who first brought the Alternate way of Singing into the Christian Church, having learned 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, etc. 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 it into the Church of Antioch, and from thence afterwards it spread into the other Churches of the World. And for this he citys 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. 
a New Direct. Edit. Fol. p. 363.  Hammond observes from St. Basil, is remarkable; That Father, in his description of a Clergyman officiating, ad clerum. Neocaesar. 
b 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 citys that passage of 
* Lib. 10. Epist. 97.  Pliny to the Emperor 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 inquire, that [invicem] does not always signify 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. Cellar 
† 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 Music in the Worship of God) Why not the other (i. e. Vocal sing) and both be abolished, or neither?  
Sir, Methinks to me it is easy to observe a difference between these two. Singing the Praises of God with the Voice is not only in the Judgement 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. Glorify 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 aught to be employed in the Praising of God; And Nature informs us, that this little Member should all Possible ways, which are Decent, be Employed 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 Music 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 Music 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, Although Instrumental Music may be Ceremonial, yet Vocal sing 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 Music 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 Music is only Ceromonial, for it is no Rational Act, neither does it Articulately express the Affections, and Serious Conceptions of the Soul.  
But he inquires, Why both should not be abolished, or neither? Methinks the reason is plain. Because the continuation of the one is expressly 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 Music.  
But, saith our Author, We may conclude therefore, 
Ser. p. 10.  that it was through the Necessity, and not the choice of the Primitive Christians, that so helpful a thing as Instrumental Music in the Service of God, was not more early received into the Christian Church. And the just encomiums they give of it, show 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 Music 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, etc.  At last in the Year 666 in the full number of the Beast in the 13th of the Revelations, the Churches received Latin sing 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, Exorcisms, and other prodigious Practices of the Papists; for which they cite Bale. But some think that this sort of Music 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 Ambassadors from Constantius Capronimus, as that excellent Historian, and Antiquary Aventinus hath it 
* Res adhuc Gallis, & Germanis incognita Organon appellant. Annal. Bo. Lib. 3. pag. 300. , who is seconded 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 Grecian Presbyter undertook to make one for Lewis the Emperor. 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. 2a 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, lest 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 Music. When it was first brought into the Church, it came accompanied with Latin Service, Altars, and Idolatrous Images, etc. 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 Music had not a more early Reception into the Church. And a little before, he saith, Instrumental Music 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 own the Want of Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music 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 easy rate. If they had thought Instrumental Music 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.  
(3.) If Necessity, because of Persecution was the only impediment to the Primitive Christians use of Instrumental Music 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 Emperor, 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 than were more splendid than those, which had been demolished by the impiety of Tyrants. The Emperor 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 Emperor, 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 Music, 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 Music to raise and exalt their Devotions, as our Author speaks? It cannot well be conceived they would have wanted these, had they been persuaded 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 Music 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 Music as peculiar to the Jewish oeconomy, as suited 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 was designed to shadow forth the Spiritual Solemnities of the Gospel. Therefore when they speak of that Ancient Music they usually Spiritualise 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 quill 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 played 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. 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  He that sprang from David, and was before him, the Word of God, despising the Harp, and the Citharn, inanimate Instruments; when he curiously form 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 Music in the Service of God.  
(2. St. Chrysostom 
a In Psal. 144. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. , 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 breathes 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.  
Again on Psal. 150. a Psalm, on which the Author of the Sermon has built his discourse, This Father speaks to the same effect. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc.  As therefore the Jews did praise the Lord with all Instruments, so we are in like manner commanded to Glorify God with our Members, by the Eye, by the Tongue, by the Ear, and by the Hand, etc. and then after a little discourse more of this nature, he adds, 
In Psal. 150. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  * 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 Music. 
‖ 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 Music 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 
a Isidor. Pel. Lib. 1. Epist. 457. in Psal. 150. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. . If ye seek an Explication of that Music 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 quill. 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, etc.  
And again in another place. 
b 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 Music which is performed, or made by the Harp and Psaltery?  
(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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  shows, how that Instrumental Music 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 ourselves 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. & 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 replies. 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 Childhood, 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 Music 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 Music was a part of the Legal Service, and belongs not at all to Christian Worshippers? It is evident from what the Fathers allege in the present Case, that Mr. Newts Necessity, is a mere fancy of his own, designed to support his tottering Hypothesis.  
(5.) He insinuates, 
p. 10. in the Margin.  That the Primitive Christians wanted Instrumental Music 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 Music 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, etc. 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.  shows what was their mind, and desire about it, though they were not able to bring it to effect.  
By which he would fain persuade his Readers, that the Primitive Christians have given ample Encomiums of Instrumental Music, 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 Music, 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 Music? 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-music. He citys 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 Father intended Instrumental Music? 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 Music. Besides he speaks of Music 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 Music at a Private Meal, will he thence infer that he commends the use of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God in Public? 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 Music 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 Author's 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 Music in the Worship of God. Indeed I have met with one passage in St. Austin, in which he fairly makes the Instrumental Music 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, etc. . 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. Can he produce any evidence of the Apostles having recommended, or encouraged the use of Instrumental Music 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. But let us attend his Argument. He first citys a Text, or two, and then argues from them. The Texts he citys 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'er have thought an Argument for the Lawfulness of the Use of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God to have lurked 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 Music. 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) signify 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 show 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 enjoin 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 Music, as only suited to the State of the Church when in its Infancy, as I have shown from some of their Writings. (3.) If the Apostles advised the use of this sort of Church Music, 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 enjoining the use of Instrumental Music in the Christian Worship, till of late, let our Author prove.  
(3.) But supposing (not granting) what this Author contends for, to be true; namely, that the Apostles are thus to be understood, as enjoining the use of Instrumental Music in the Public Service of God; Then does he prove more than he undertook to prove. For than will it follow, that Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 show 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 Author's 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 Music. Can any Man think it probable that the Apostle meant they should 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.) Although 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 employed 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 learned the whole Book of Psalms by heart. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through their whole time, or age, continued singing, as he citys 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. chrysostom 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 employed to Signify 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, citys 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 persuade 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, 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 Music 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 expressly cautioned against whatever might be improper in the Worship of God? What thinks he, Are Oil, and Cream, and Spittle fit to be used in Baptism? Are Kettledrums, 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 Public 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 employed, 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 Reverend 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 Music 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 Music has an Analogy with the Angelical Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Choir of the Blessed Saints, who are represented, Rev. 14.2. as Harpers harping with their Harps, and having the Harps of God, Rev. 15.2. Which places concern the Public Worship of God in the Church, the Joys of the Saints in Heaven, and in Earth, and the Triumphant Rejoices of Christians, for the Victory over their Enemies, according to the Judgement of some Expositors. In the Margin referring 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 Music has an Analogy with the Angelical Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Choir of the Blessed Saints. I suppose he means no more, than that it does somewhat resemble the Angelical Songs, and Heavenly Exultations in the Choir of the Blessed Saints. Let this be granted him, what would he thence infer? What! That Instrumental Music 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 Music, I cannot think that sufficient Evidence of the Lawfulness of such Music 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? Heaven's Happiness (in condescension to our weak Conceptions) is frequently deciphered 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 Cheerfulness, and Triumphant rejoicing 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 Music of those Harps, we may understand their great Cheerfulness in their praising of their God. (2.) Suppose these Harpers harping with their Harps, are to be 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, etc. 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 Music, 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 Prophetic Scheme exceeding frequent, especially in the Apocalypse, which he styles 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 wondered at, if we consider that the People of Israel were one great and entire Mysterious Type, or Sacrament of the Church of God, such as it should be under Christ, according as St. Paul has written, 1 Cor. 10. That all things befell 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, etc. 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 Music at the Temple.  
I could, with as much show 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 Music 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 Antichristian Hierarchy, as the generality of Expositors understand it. And upon the Destruction of this Antichristian 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 Music shall be cast out of the Churches, with their other Antichristian Trumpery. For saith Aretius on the place, Musicam primo loco ponit, etc. He puts Music 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-music 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 Music 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 Scholastic Divinity. Here you have a Ternary of 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 Music 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-music. (2.) It's use in the Reformed Churches.  
(1.) The Antiquity of Instrumental Music 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 Author's 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 Latin 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 Public Worship of Christians, till the time of Pope Vitaliane. He was the First who recommended the use of Instrumental Music 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 than it is somewhat doubtful whether Instrumental Music 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, etc. can plead as great Antiquity as Organs. But I suppose this is not enough to render the Sacred use of these things Warrantable.  
(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 Judgements in this matter, I shall just mention.  
(1.) Luther, he saith, approved of this sort of Church-music. 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 citys 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 Music, 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 Music and a Spirit? Must it presently be supposed that he understood it of Instrumental Music? What! Is there no other sort of Music 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 Public Worship of Christians. What! cannot a Person speak of Composing, and singing Godly Songs, but presently our Author must Alarm us with the loud noise of Musical Instruments? If this is all the Proof he can produce to Evidence Luther's Approbation of this sort of Church Music, 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'er approved of the use of Instrumental Music 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 Music amongst the badges of Baal. This passage, methinks, does not look as if he had been a Friend to this sort of Music.  
But adds our Author. His Followers, it seems, who must be supposed, 
Ser. p. 13.  to have best understood their Teacher's 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 Music in the Worship of God, as we have.  
(1.) I own that some of the followers of Luther have Instrumental Music, as well as Vocal in their Public 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 Public Churches in the time of Divine-Service, you may hear the sound of Horns, of Vials, of Organs, of Voices, etc. 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-music. 
Ser. p. 14.  So likewise Calvin, saith he, giveth 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 Music; 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 Music. (2.) That hereby he is inconsistent with himself. (3.) He Attributes this to calvin's intemperate Heat and Passion.  
(1.) He Asserts boldly, that Calvin approved of Instrumental Music. But how does he prove it? From the before cited passage. But alas! What does that passage make to our Author's purpose? His province is to prove that Calvin owned the Lawfulness of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God under the Evangelic Dispensation. But doth the forequoted passage out of Calvin warrant him to make such a Conclusion? No such matter. For Calvin only commends David for making use of Instrumental Music in his Solemn, and Public 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 Music in Sacred Solemnities under the Legal oeconomy, therefore Calvin Approved of the use of this kind of Music 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 Nonsequitur.  
(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 Music in the Sacred Assemblies of Christians, I believe to be true. For saith he, on Exod. 15.20. Musica Instrumenta, etc. Instrumental Music 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 Music 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, etc.  
(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 men's Faults and Infirmities. He might have omitted that bitter Reflection without any detriment to his Cause or Argument. The Music 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 Persons. His Carriage towards Luther was remarkable, his Modesty and Meekness conspicuous, when Luther had treated him with severe Language. For Replied he, Etiamsi me Diabolum vocarit, eum tamen Insignum Dei Servum agnoscam. Tho' he should call me Devil, yet God forbidden 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 Public 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 employed 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 Music 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 Author's Church. For it is most apparent that the Racovian Gentlemen, who have of late alarmed the Nation so much with their Antichristian 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 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 t'other 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 Author's 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 Public 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, etc. 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 Public Church, and a very large one, which has them not in Leyden, and it is the case of some others in other Cities. (2.) Although 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, etc.  that they would endeavour to prevail with the Magistrates to banish Organs and Instrumental Music 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 that ours doth, 
Ser. p. 14.  to justify 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 justify 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. Although his Holiness at Rome may pretend to a Prerogative to change things unlawful into Lawful, yet, I suppose, the Church of England, ne'er claimed it. The use of Instrumental Music 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 debarred her Communion. But I am satisfied, that the Practice 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 inquire whether it be the practice of a Church now in being, but what Warrant that Church has for such a Practice. (5.) The Cathedral Churches, it must be confessed make use of Instrumental Music 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, perhaps of 500 Enjoy this sort of Church-music. 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 persuading his Parish to approve of this Music. 
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 Man's 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 acute to perceive how it will thence follow, that this Churches use of Organs in Divine Worship will justify 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 Sots, 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 intent 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 Reform 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, etc. 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 Judgement 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 than it is as evident, that Foreign 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, etc. such in the Dutch Churches were Salmasius, Rivet, etc. And at present there are many in the Belgic Provinces of the Reformed, who are Eminent for the Study of Truth and Antiquity. Such are the very Learned Spanheim, Leydecker, Triglandius, Witsius, Gronovius, etc.  

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 Practice of the Primitive Church, 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 Practice of the Primitive Church? I rejoice to hear it. Has it thrown off all Corruptions and Errors, which were foisted into the Church in aftertimes? Good News. But I wonder then how our Author's Church came to Practise upon the Organ. For there was no such Music 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 aftertimes. 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 Catholic Church, and the Canons of the greatest General Counsels, on any Lord's 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 Practice. The Exercise of the Power of the Keys by a Lay-Chancellour is not a Practice 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 entering their Children into the Covenant at Baptism, is not to be found the Practice 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 practice of the Primitive Church; at least for 300 or 400 Years. The making the Surplice the condition of a Ministers Exercising his Office in Public, was not found in the early times of Christianity. These things considered, it is strange our Author should pretend, that the Practice 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, etc. retain the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Churches? Let our Author 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 Foreign 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 style 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 trimmed, and Adorned, and this they account adds to the Beauty and Splendour of their Worship. I hope our Author does not intent 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 begs 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 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 Administered 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 Judgement, 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 Dawbney their Faces, and beautify themselves with their curious Washeses, and artificial Dyes; and then they cry it is for the heightening of their Beauty; for the giving an advance to their Comeliness. But who does not see, that this does not augment their Beauty, but hid 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, than an addition of Harps, and Psalteries, and Timbrels, and Dances, etc. 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 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 Belgic 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 persuade us to be of the same Opinion; but till then we must beg his pardon, if we descent 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 gins with Mr. Baxter, and alleges his Testimony for the Defence of the Lawfulness of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God. I must confess I have a very high esteem of Mr. Baxter, and am persuaded that he has done very great service to the Church of God, by the many excellent Discourses he has published both in Practical and Polemic Divinity. But yet, I suppose it would be a mistaken Commendation of him, to say that he was without all Mistake. As to his judgement 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 Music long after Moses 's Ceremonial Law by David and Solomon. I Answer, (1) Instrumental Music 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 enjoined by Moses' 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 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 Music was set up by Moses' Ceremonial Law. Therefore, I conceive, Mr. Baxter mistakes when he says, that God set up Instrumental Music long after Moses 's Ceremonial Law: If by setting up he intends the first Appointment of this sort of Music in Divine Worship. Instrumental Music was set up by Moses' Ceremonial Law, and farther ratified by the Ceremonial Law in the times of David and Solomon. That it was set up by Moses' 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 completed by degrees. For Sacrifices were instituted first; Then the eating of Blood was prohibited; Then Circumcision was enjoined, etc. 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 Compliment 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, etc. But more I shall add of this, when I come to consider Mr. Newtes Answers to Objections.  
Argum. 2 Mr. baxter's Second Argument to prove the Lawfulness of Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music, 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 cheering 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 recall 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 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 Music, 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 employ 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 employed in Singing; if there be a Natural debility in them, or such a dryness as renders the Voice hoarse, etc. I make no question but it may be lawful to make use of some means to strengthen the Organs, and to remove that hoarseness 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 Music 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 yield a sweet sound; and have endeavoured to have gotten the best we could. But because God commands us Vocal Music, 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 joined with the Jews that used it, and never spoke a word against it. I Answer, it may be so. He was Circumcised too, and eat the Passover, and never spoke a word against them. But that, I suppose, is no Argument for the lawfulness of those Sacraments in the Christian Church.  
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 encountered and foiled. (1.) If he means that no Scripture does expressly forbid it, and from thence concludes it Lawful; then will it follow, that what ever things the Scripture does not expressly forbid may lawfully be used in the Worship of God. Which allowed will be a very fair plea for a Multitude of Popish Ceremonies. Then Holywater, Crucifixes, Altars, Oil, 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 rendered 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 entered. When God has by his Sovereign 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 gaudy Habits, to take the Eye or the Ear with a vain Pomp, saith one. 
* Charn. on the Attributes. p. 749.  (2.) Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music. 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, 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 Music) 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 enjoined 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 Music; 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 employed 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 enjoined us the use of Instrumental Music at all in Religious Duties, and therefore there is no reason Persons should be solicitous 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 Music in the Worship of God under the Gospel. (2.) I believe we may be able to say a little more against Instrumental Music in the Worship of God, than can be said against Tunes, and Melody in Vocal Music. 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 judgement 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 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 extremely cold, if he has any; But we shall find him again quarrelling with Geneva  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 style 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 citys is taken out of a Book, which is Entitled, 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, etc. 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 Music 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 Author's purpose? Do the Assembly say that David gave any Directions concerning the use of Instrumental Music 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 Judgement, 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 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 easy 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, accrue to Persons by this sort of Church Music.  
Thus having considered the Authority he has produced from those of the Separation (as he styles them) in the behalf of his admired Music, I will endeavour to be even with him, by presenting you with the Judgement of two Churchmen 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, Entitled, The Excellency of the Church of England above that of Geneva, He delivers himself thus. We agree with the Reformed Divines, that Instrumental Music is neither a help to, nor a part of Divine, or Ecclesiastic Worship. This, I am satisfied is a much fuller Passage against Instrumental Music 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 Music in Christian Assemblies! That, I suppose, may be sufficient to counterpoise Mr. Baxter's Testimony. Well then, the Reverend, the Learned Bishop Taylor Delivers himself expressly against this sort of Church Music; For saith he, The Use of Psalmody, or Singing of Psalms, 
Dust. 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music: For these, he pretends, are many. But I am inclined to believe that Instrumental Music 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 Judgement 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 than I Answer, That the Organ may sometimes drown the Voices of the Multitude, by its louder 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 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 Music, 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 Music from their Childhood. 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 Music; and this Persons may arrive to by some Instruction from an Artist, much sooner than by●●n Organ.  
The Music 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 inquire; 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 Author's 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 all a Mode de Romain with Ribbons, and Gaudy Topknots will not be Graceful in God's 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 Music may please his Ear, or delight his Fancy: But, I suppose what may gratify the Sense 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 aught 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.  — Non Musica Chordula, sed Cor. 
(2.) The Second Use, he pretends, of his Organ, is to stir up the Affections of the Soul, 
Ser. p. 21. Ser. p. 10.  and make them the fit for Devotion. And other where, he tells us, it is of use to exalt men's Devotion. I would offer you a few Remarks upon this. As (1.) Methinks the Music of the Voice should be sufficient for this purpose. The generality of Men, I think, concur in it, that Vocal Music 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 Music 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 intent, 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 stir up the Affections of the Soul Necessarily. Perhaps Contingently sometimes, the Music 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 employed. 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 persuade People of the excellent use of them? (3.) Christ has promised to Concur with his own Ordinances duly Administered, but he has no where promised to concur with men's groundless Fancies; and they have no reason to expect that Organs should be thus useful to Excite men's 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, etc. the more to excite the Affections. For, I suppose, our Author will not deny, but that these have a virtue too, to excite Affections. So that if Organs will somewhat excite the Affections, the other Musical Instruments will give some heightening 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 Music of the Jewish Temple, and to fill every Parish-Church with a Choir of Levites. (5.) I grant that the Music 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 Music 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 Fallacy. I remember in some of the Logic Systems I have formerly perused, I have met with an Instance of a Fallacious Sorites to this purpose, viz.  Qui benè bibit, benè dormit, qui benè dormit, non peccat, qui non peccat erit beatus, Ergo qui benè bibit erit beatus. 
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 Music in their Sacred Assemblies are moved or excited; they who are excited, are excited to Affections either of Joy or Sorrow, etc. 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 Music, 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 Music of an Organ may put a pleasing motion upon the Spirits, yet it follows not that it will ordinarily excite devout Affections.  
He tells us, That it is the Nature of this Musical Instrument thus apparently to excite and raise men's Affections.  
The word [Nature] has a multiplicity of significations; I wish I knew in what sense he here meant it. Sometimes it is employed to denote the Essence of a thing; at other times the Essential Property, etc. It may be he understands the word Nature in the latter of these Senses. So than what he asserts will amount to this: namely, that it is the Essential Property of an Organ to excite and raise men's Affections. But then I am somewhat at a loss again, what he intends by Exciting and raising men's Affections. Either by raising the Affections, he means the stirring up the Affections of Religious Joy or Sorrow, etc. Or the Affections of Nature, Joy and Sorrow, etc. 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 Music 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 Rhetoric should decipher 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 aught 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 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 Public 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 Public 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. Navarre 
a 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, 
b 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 increase Devotion. And Cajetan 
c in 22 Quae. 61. art. 2. , although he approves of some use of Organs yet cautiously adds, We must use them sparingly, lest 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 
d Mellif. Histor. Pt. 3. c. 14. , That I may pass by the Musical Instruments of Pope Vitaliane which are the Thiefs of Prayer, and the Word Preached. And saith Peter Martyr 
e in Judg. c. 5. , speaking of this sort of Music; It cannot be lawfully retained, because the Auditors are so taken with it, that they cannot apprehend, and perceive the words, if they would, i. e. so as to be affected with the matter sung. Wendeline 
a System. Theolog. Edit. post. p. 1643.  of the same Music saith, That the Devil by a Canorous Music tempts the Ears of Christians, that it may weaken, and emasculate a Christian Vigour 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 Music, by which Men are drawn to be more attended to the Melody of the sound, than the Words. And saith Thomas of Aquin. 
b 22ae 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 
c Dust. 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 expressly condemn Instrumental Music 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 men's Affections in the Worship of God. Now I am willing to grant that this sort of Music 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 Alwise and Omnipotent Creator. Shall we therefore bring them into the Worship of God for this Use? In 
d Mor. Encheir Metaphys. p. 314, 315.  a Greyhound, 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 Public Worship, and present them to the Eyes of the Worshippers to excite their Devotions? Indeed the Poet saith.  
Segniùs irritant animos demissa per aures,  
Quam que sunt Oculis Subjecta fidelibus.  
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 Public 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 Judgement, when the Evidence 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, rhyming 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, etc. 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 Music will thus excite the Affections, he produces Two remarkable Instances (as he saith) from Scripture. 
Ser. p. 22.  Both taken from the Practice 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 Music 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 Music in those days, was the matter of a Divine Command. This sort of Music was enjoined them then for the quickening 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 Music was commanded by God then, and blessed for the exciting of men's 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 quickened, and his heaviness removed, he calls for a Musician (probabl● some Levite skilful in Psalmody, and Instrumental Music) 
* 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, etc.  to sing some Divine Psalm, or Hymn, that so his mind might be raised to Holy, and Heavenly Meditations, and so he be the fit to ask, and to receive Prophetical Inspirations. So that our Author's 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 Music 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, etc. 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. 
Pools Annot. in Locum.  And altho' they were wont to perform that Exercise of Singing Gods Praises, either in their College, 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 Music in the Worship under the New-Testament Dispensation. 
Ser. p. 22, 23.  In both which places it is observable, that 'twas nothing but Instrumental Music, 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 Prophetic 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 fit 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, than the Spirit of Prophecy was, according to our Author, a permanent inspired Principle in the Soul, whose acts a Person might elicit, 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 Music in the alleged Cases, was made use of to stir up the Spirit of Prophecy in the mentioned Persons. Although 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 Prophetic Spirit into another among the Jews, certainly, etc. 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 Music) in the Singular Number? Cavete Grammatici! for aught 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 Prophetic Spirit into another Person. What their Inspired Principles convey the Prophetic 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 the Inspired Principles of the Souls of the Prophets, were capable of conveying the Prophetic Spirit into another. And this, I presume, he will find a desperate task. (4.) But from all this he would infer, that Instrumental Music 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 Music was then an Ordinance of God, now no longer such. But I have already alleged 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 Music, 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' fury was appeased by Music. And then refers us to Plutarch of Music 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 Glean in the present Case. I remember Theophrastus tells us, that it has cured the pain of the Sciatica, or Hippolito Gout. As the Learned Athaenaeus 
* Dypnos. Lib. 1. c. 11. & A. Gell. Lib. 4. c. 3.  citys him, and saith another 
† Martin. Capell. Lib. 9 Febrem curabant, vulneraque veteres cautione, etc. , The Ancients cured Fevors and Wounds by Singing. Wonderful, doubtless, has been the power of Music. But if the Music of the Ancients had so admirable an Efficacy; that sort of Music 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, etc. , Those admirable effects which many great Authors have attributed to Music, 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 Music of the Ancients, which heretofore has done such wonderful feats. And because our Author citys us a passage from Sir William Temple, concerning the great Power and Excellency of Music, 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 Music, so admired of the Ancients, is wholly lost in the World; and that what we have now, is made up of certain Notes that fell into the fancy, or observation of a poor Friar in chanting his Matins. All this being duly considered, all our Authors little Stories out of Plutarch and others, will appear to be little to his purpose. But supposing Music to have a great efficacy now, this will not warrant us to introduce Instrumental Music into the Christian Worship. For seeing we have Vocal Music, we have Music, and I think the best sort of Music. For, if I mistake not, the generality of mankind judge Vocal Music to be sweetest, and the best. Therefore, we having Vocal Music 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 judgement. He tells us, that Xenocrates cured Madmen by the means of Music. Let him remove his Organ to Bedlam, and try the Experiment there say I  
(3) Another use, he tells us, of Church-music, and particularly of the Organ is, that it will compose men's 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 Music 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 men's minds of all those sad and gloomy, and melancholy, and lustful Imaginations, which disturb, and discompose them. That Instrumental Music of its self has such a tendency, I would entreat our Author to prove. If it has such a tendency in its self; methinks it should have such a tendency in Taverns and Alehouses. For there is many times much of Instrumental Music found.  
He proceeds, More Oratorico, 
Ser. p. 25, 26.  It will discharge those irregular passions which torment and vex men's 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 Music 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 Music. Doubtless! The sound of Bells will drive away the Devils, say the Papists. But if the Devils are such haters of Music, as this Author presumes, I wonder they should prompt their Slaves and Vassals to be so much pleased with it! Who more fond of Instrumental Music, than the jolly Sinners of the times? Most true indeed it is, that the Devils hate all Religious Music, or Music appointed of God, for the celebrating of his own Praises: But he hates not other sort of Music. 
Ser. p. 26.  True, there is no Music 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 Music 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 Music 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 than 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 Music (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 persuade the People that they are in earnest. Upon this occasion, I 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 Emperor 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, etc. Our Altars, Crosses, Images, Relics, 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 citys a passage from St. Austin's Confessions, 
Ser. p. 28, 29,  and another from St. Basil, which discover how much they valued Church. Music, but those passages do not found any thing to the commendation of Instrumental Music; 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 alleged 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.  
(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 Jesuit 
* 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 cumbered with multitudes of Popish Ceremonies. For this is what they of the Romish Communion allege in defence of that great external Pomp, with which they have clothed 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, etc. 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. Bernard's, 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 enjoined by the Sacred Majesty of Heaven. It's being able to plead a Divine Authority, gives Worship a Lustre and Majesty, which all the Pompous Rites of the Ancient 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 Splendour of Gold, of Jewels, and Ivory, dazzle 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  himself like Aaron in the Legal Pontificalibus, with the little Bells too tinkling about him, to render the Service of God more Solemn and August.  
(4. 
Vid. Rivet. Summ. Controu. 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 men's 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 God's 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 Music 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 Music (which has nothing but Humane Fancy, and Command to back and support it) should make Persons thus Serious and Reverend, I cannot imagine. If the Spiritual Matter sung in Christian Assemblies, if the Vocal Music of God's Appointment are not sufficient to render Persons serious and reverend, I am satisfied, that an Organ will nothing conduce to such an end. Has an Organ such a Virtue? I would then crave the favour to be informed, whether it has this virtue 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 Virtue 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 virtue 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 overhasty 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 showing 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 clothed. 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 professed 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 Sum 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. Newte call upon his People, just as they are about to departed the Church, to consider what they have heard, and to be Grave and Silent; and I am persuaded it will be as useful as any Voluntary of them all. But this Gentleman has erected an Organ, extremely fond of it he is, and resolved to find out some use for it. Multitudes of other things might the Worship of God be cumbered 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, than 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 leveled 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-music have against this practice. 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 styles it.  
By the way, a strange Institution, which is neither appointed by God's Law, nor Man's in this Nation. But for aught I know, this Gentleman's 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 Persuasion in this matter from our Author, 
Ser. p. 31, 32.  That Instrumental Music 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 Epithet of Pernicious given them, because 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 pity, 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 suppressed. 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. Pools 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 suppressed, 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 Style against these Annotators. But alas! He is utterly fallen out with Geneva, tho' I believe, he knows not why.  
Non amo te Sabadi, nec possum dicere quare.  
Hoc tantùm possum dicere, non amo te.  
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 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 misinterpretation, touching the Divinity of Christ, and his Messiah-ship; and as Simbolizing with Arians and Jews against them both; and this was publicly 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 Bodily (the famous Founder, and Furnisher of the Public Library) his Letter written in their Defence and Praise, which was read by the Doctor of the Chair in St. mary Pulpit, and by his, and the Orthodox Governors 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 Public 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 Music 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 chrysostom, 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 Author's 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 aught I know, may a little sweeten him. Yet this I hope clearly to prove  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. 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 merely a thing Lawful.  
But he will prove Instrumental Music 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 Music in Christian Worship.  
Dancing was used before the giving of the Law in this Author's 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 Music 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' 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, than was Instrumental Music enjoined 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, than the use of Instrumental Music in the Worship of God, is a Moral Duty, and so not barely Lawful. But the Law commanding the use of Instrumental Music 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' Law. But then he adds, They were appointed for the calling of Assemblies, etc. 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 Highpriest were to blow the Trumpets. (1.) At the removal of the Camp, Numb. 10.2, 6. Make thee Two Trumpets of Silver, that thou mayest 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 Denunciation of War, Numb. 10.9. If you go to War in your Land against the Enemy that oppresseth you, than 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 God's Mercy, Isa. 58.1. So that the Trumpets were of a Sacred Use: And seeing they were appointed by Moses' 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 Music 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 Music in Divine Worship was not first Instituted in his time. As has been proved already, and may be farther shown  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 Music, 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 Music was commanded in the Service of God by a Law, by what Law it was enjoined? Not by the Moral nor Judicial Laws, therefore by the Ceremonial. And therefore still to use our Author's Phrase, It was a part of the Ceremonial Law.  
But how does he prove that Instrumental Music could not be a part of the Ceremonial Law, because of David's Institution? Why thus, Because the Ceremonial Law was completed before by Moses, in 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 completed 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, Eleazar and Ithamar, the Priests, Numb. 10.2. Make thee two Trumpets of Silver. But in Solomon's 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 arrayed in white Linen, 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 Shewbread to be set upon, Exod. 25.23. Thou shalt also make a Table of Shittim-wood, etc. And but one Candlestick of Pure Gold, Exod. 25.31. And thou shalt make a Candlestick of pure Gold, etc. But one Laver, Exod. 30.18. Thou shalt also make a Laver of Brass. But then in Solomon's 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, enjoined 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 completed before by Moses. (2) But I shall next examine the Argument he produces to prove, that the Ceremonial Law was completed 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 completed 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 myself 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, nor diminish from it; do import, that Solomon was not even by God's 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 of oer 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 men's Propensity to this, forbade 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 compliment 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music was not Typical therefore Instrumental Music 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 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 Music was Typical, or a shadow of something to come, and so they deny his Minor. They assure us that the Instrumental Music 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 Music, 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 Music 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 Music 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 Music of old was Typical, cannot be made to appear.  
Therefore Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music of the Temple shadowed forth cannot be assigned. Well perhaps, we may not be able to make appear what the Instrumental Music 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 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 Nonexistence? I believe no Wise Man's Logic will warrant such an Inference. I am very prone to believe, that there were many Rites enjoined 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 guests 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 Shewbread: But can this Gentleman make it evidently appear to us what these were Types of? He may guests, 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 easy 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 Music, and inward Melody of the Joys and Graces of God's Spirit in the hearts of his 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 showed you how some reply to the Minor of our Author's Argument.  
(2.) But some others are of Opinion, that the Consequence of his Major Proposition may justly be called in Question For altho' Instrumental Music 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 easy 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 enjoined 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 Heathen Nations round about them. And this was the sense, we shall find, of Theodoret, 
In Psal. 150.  who speaking of Instrumental Music, saith thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. God being willing to free them from the error 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 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 ribbon of blue 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 duly weighed, I presume, there may be good Reason to call in Question the truth of our Author's Proposition, viz. That if Instrumental Music 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 men's 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 continued.  
I Answer (1.) God has appointed means sufficient under the Gospel for these ends. The word preached, Sacraments administered, the singing of God's Praises with the Voice, and Vocal Prayers presented, are destined to the stirring up of men's Minds, to the Composing of men's 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 Music be so useful now to stir up men's Minds, etc. 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?  
Thus, I think, I have fully Vindicated the Argument of the Geneva Annotators against the use of Instrumental Music 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 Music was a part of the Ceremonial Law (or I would rather say, enjoined 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 Music was part of the Temple Service, and peculiarly so, and was never used in the Jewish Synagogues, or in their Parochial Service, and therefore aught to be laid aside with the other Numerous Rights of the Jewish Religion. And we have no more warrant to recall 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 Music 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 Music 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 Edify the Minds of Men. They may gratify 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 Music 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 advantageous to make the Christian Worship the more Spiritual, and to stir up the Affections of the Soul in order thereto.  
But to try the strength of this Answer, (1.) Is Instrumental Music 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 heightening 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 Music, 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 Relics, 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 rendering 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 Music is highly advantageous 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 Music 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 Music, 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 dropped a word to recommend the use of it. (4.) But I hope our Author will prove, that Instrumental Music is highly advantageous to make the Christian Worship the more Spiritual,  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, 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 intent by [convince us of its use?] Does he mean that the Experience of some is an Argument to prove that Instrumental Music has been used? I believe this to be true, but than it is nothing to his purpose. Or does he intent 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 Music 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 Music, Ergo, The use of Instrumental Music 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 aught I know, well-meaning Persons may in this case be somewhat mistaken. Instrumental Music 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 Music 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 Music, 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 Death's head, a Skeleton, a Dead and Bloody Lamb, and some have professed that they have had holy 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 men's Fancies. These things duly weighed, I think the inconsequence of our Author's 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 specify. 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 Music, 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 styles it) that he might have an opportunity of Adorning his Margin with an excellent passage taken out of that Celebrated Book Entitled Aesop's Fables, Englished by the Learned, 
Ser. p. 35.  and Loyal Sir Roger Le Strange. But adds our Author, unless Persons are of an extremely morose, and illnatured Disposition, so harmonious and piercing a thing as Instrumental Music must needs move them to a liking, and a loving of it. It may be so, Persons may love it as Music 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 public Praises of the Almighty.  
But as to those Persons who appear to be so extremely fond of this kind of Music 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 Music 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 Music is of so mighty an efficacy as to calm men's 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 Public Worship of God; I can assure you he is much 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 writ 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 men's 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, Chanting, and playing upon the Organs, that we could before? To this it is replied. But, Dear 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 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 rejoice, 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 judgement of our Author's 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 Supreme Authority of Church and State, Canons of Convocation, and Acts of Parliament, as the late Bishop of Lincoln has clearly proved 
* Dr. Barlow's Cases of Conscience of setting up Images in Churches. p. 21, 22. . Queen Elizabeth expressly 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 wholesome Doctrine. (2.) As to the reading of them in the Churches. So that hence I infer, that it is the professed Judgement of this Author's Church, that it is a Godly and wholesome 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 Epithet 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, etc. and other Rites too, as Dancing, etc. For upon our Author's 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 duly 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. ●  Instrumental Music, 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 Wisdom. 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 Music, yet have they not appointed Instrumental for the raising the Affections of Christians, and quickening their Devotions. And so they have neglected to prescribe the most proper means for the attaining of these ends in our Author's Judgement.  
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 King's Majesty, nor a Warrant from any Statute enacted by Parliament, nor from any Canon of any Convocation, nor from any Rubric 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 Author's 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,  I put an end to this Letter.  
He having finished the Argumentative part of his Discourse, proceeds to entertain his Reader with a Panegyric 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 Heresy and Schism, 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 Devils, nor the Policy of Rome, nor the Craft of Geneva be ever able to prevail, either to overthrow its Strength, through a fatal Division among her Members, or to rifle its Beauty through 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 Supreme Governor of the Church is so Styled, 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 intent the Arch-Bishops and Bishops Courts, with the many Lay-Officers appertaining to them? Does he intent the Singing-Men and Singing Boys? Does he intent the Un-scriptural Rites and Ceremonies, the use of which are enjoined 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 intent the Common-Prayer-Book imposed upon all Ministers as to the use of it? Does he intent Deans, Arch-Deacons, Canons, a sort of Officers utter Strangers to the Primo-Primitive Christians? Does he intent Pluralities, and Nonresidence? 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 intent 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 Heresy 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 Church's 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 Heresy and Schism. Officers which Christ ne'er appointed, Modes of Worship which Christ ne'er Instituted, which the Apostles and Christians of the purest Ages ne'er practised, are not such a Bulwark; Therefore, if any such things are to be found in the Constitution of this Author's Church, they are not Bulwarks against Heresy and Schism. So excellent a Constitution as is that of the Church of England, does not utterly prevent all Heresy and Schism: For that there are many Heretics 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, etc. But have these been written by Persons of the Presbiterian, or Congregational Persuasion? 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 Heretics 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 Heresy 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 Author's Church prevent Schism? Are there not many Nonjurors and Jacobites in the Established Church? And are not they Schismatics? 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 Heresy, 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 Cavilling 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 aught I know, it might have been somewhat more to purpose.  
But in some men's 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 Reform Protestants. But from whence our Author borrowed this Cant about Rome and Geneva, it is not difficult to guests; for it was a usual saying of a great and admired Prelate, A. B. L. Ecclesia Romana, & Turba Genevensis.  
But another Petition in our Author's 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 Church's 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 Church's 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 Tranquillity, than a Hundred pair of Organs. The Protestant Dissenters e'er 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 denied 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 Worcester's 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 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 owl 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, etc. I wish our Author would calmly consider these things. But our Author extremely 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 Gentleman's 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 Rubric concerning Baptism, viz. It is certain by God's Word, that Children which are Baptised, 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, etc. 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 Godfathers and Godmothers'? What if the Pastoral Authority was taken out of the hands of the Lay-Chancellors, and exercised only by the Clergy? What if Persons, (supposing they 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 strengthening her Interest, and the rendering 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 Church's 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 Viper's 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.  
(1.) Methinks this Gentleman's Music 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 persuaded 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' 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 Church's 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, etc. have truly had either Ministers or Sacraments since the Reformation. And would you, My Lords, shut up 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 dependence upon it. You cannot imagine how many good Souls find themselves scandalised at this custom, that has been chief 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 dissuaded 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, etc. 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 Man's Reason, as to expect that it should always accommodate its self to his. And saith the same Reverend Prelate in another place, There is a Tyranny in most men's 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 Gentleman's rare Music 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 Archbishop of Spalleto, a great Papist. The Archbishop 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 of the Church of England. To which the Reverend Doctor thus replies in the behalf of the Church of England. Fuisse Scimus, & gratissimis animis, etc. 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 Germane Churches, and those of Geneva. We now truly pity their condition, because by you, and your Cruelty they are become Exiles. And we extremely rejoice 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 Archbishop 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 entire, 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 judgement, 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, etc. Neither does it sufficiently satisfy you and yours, who are drunk with the blood of the Saints, that our Brethren, 
p. 255.  banished their Country, and stripped 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.  Hoc Ithacus velit, & magno mercentur Atridae. 
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 Church's 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 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 Ecclesiastic 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 Worship's 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 Viper's 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 Sister's 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.  
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 Candour is so great, as to pardon small Faults, and as to greater Mistakes I readily submit to your Friendly Correction; desiring to approve myself to be,  
Honoured Sir, Your Humble Servant.    

ERRATA.  
PAge 1. line 9 for a read the. p. 2. l. 6. for Neighbour r. Neighbours. p. 5. l. 31. for concerns r. concourse. p. 6. the Authors cited in the Margin, refer to the Lines 5, and 6. p. 7. l. 9 r. with the Solemnity. p. 8. l. 21. for Gods r. God. p. 11. l. 12. for pertenaciously r. pertinciously. p. 13. Margin r. antique. p. 14. l. 22. for Mr. M. r. Mr. N: p. and l. 35. r. Tatian. p. 15. l. 25. for lay r. lie. and l. 26. r. alternately. p. 16. Margin. r. a Lapide. p. 18. l. 40. for Vial. r. Viol. p. 19 Margin r. pretiositate. p. 20. l. 24. for Citharn r. Cithern, and Margin for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 21. l. 28. r. in memory. p. 30. l. 28. Citharaedi. p. 31. l. 6. for of the r. at the. p. 35. l. 7. r. heretofore, p. 54. l. 12. r. Natural. p. 75. l. 33. deal and. p. 78. l. 17. r. Rites.