A CLEAR CONFUTATION OF Mr. Richard Allen, And his Five Commendators, From their own Confessions, collected out of the Vindication of his Essay, and fairly improved against them, to the Overthrow of their Conjoined Singing in Artificial Tunes in Gospel-Worship.  
To which is added, An Answer to Mr. William Collins' Defence from the Charge exhibited against him in my Book, Entitled, The Controversy of Singing brought to an end, etc.  
THere being so much already said in my former Treatises, to the Argumentative Part of the Controversy of Singing, and having in my last Discourse I published brought it to an End, for my own part I see but little or nothing else to do, than to clear it at the end, and so to finish my present Testimony for the Truth. And that I may do it the more effectually, I shall first answer some few Exceptions in Mr. Allen's Reply to me, which I think are most material to clear the way for a full Confutation of his Error from his own Confessions. And,  
1. Mr. Allen saith in page 59 That there is no Evidence in the Text, (Exod. 15.21.) that either these Dances or Musical Instruments were used by them in the Church of God as such, but those Dances of the Women with Music (mentioned ver. 20.) seem plainly to be spoken of as a Consequence of their Religious Thanksgiving in the Church-Assembly, mentioned in the foregoing part of the Chapter.  
Answer. I have sufficiently proved in my last, as well as in my other Treatises of singing, that Deborah and Barak did not sing vocally together; For, 1. Some part of the Song, Judges 5.7. (viz. until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a Mother in Israel) was not proper for Barak to express. 2. 'Tis said, ver. 12. Awake, awake Deborah, awake, awake, utter a Song: Arise Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou Son of Abinoam; which Expressions show, that this Song was uttered by Deborah, and part of it to Barak, and so all of it was not proper matter for Barak to express; and also that this was sung at the same time before Barak had led his captivity away; and yet in ver. 1. 'tis said, Then sang Deborah and Barak, etc. and so in Exod. 15.1. Then sang Moses and the Children of Israel; yet it does not follow, that the Children of Israel sang all vocally together, any more than that Deborah and Barak sang with conjoined voices, which we find they did not; neither does it from thence follow, that the women's singing with Timbrels and Dances, separate from the Men, Exod. 15.20. was afterwards at a different Season, any more than if we should against the Light of Scripture suppose, that Barak joined in spirit with Deborah in the chiefest part of her Song, at a different Season, or after he had led his captivity away. Besides, as there is nothing expressed that lays a foundation for this Objection, so there is reason to believe that the Women sang with Timbrels and Dances at the same time when Moses and Israel sang, v. 1. seeing that as 'tis said Moses and Israel sang to the Lord, so also Miriam began the Song to the Lord, which shows that Miriam's and the women's singing was as much a religious Thanksgiving to the Lord, as the Children of Israel's was, ver. 1, etc. and at the same season, and not afterwards.  
2. To what Mr. Allen in page 59 says concerning my Authors, which show the signification of the Greek Word Hymneo, (which is simply to praise or give thanks, and also to lament or complain) I shall here answer,  
1. That he plainly owns that the word Hymneo is not limited in its signification to Songs of Praise, but he strives to prove that its most proper signification is to sing praise, which I deny, and have produced witness enough against it; and there is no need to contend about it, seeing our last Translators have rendered the Hebrew Word Tehillah, and the Greek Word Hymnos, in the Old Testament, simply Praise.  
2. By his picking out of several of my Authors (which render the word Hymneo various ways) some expressions that renders it to sing a Hymn or Praise, and by his improving those that speak most in this Language, he has laboured to raise a dust, that their Testimony should not be so clearly discerned.  
But Observe, he has not, neither can he charge me with any false Citation of them, and so cannot destroy the Evidence I bring them for, nor the fuller and clearer Testimony of the rest of my Authors that are noted in my little Tract, where I have only briefly mentioned them, and not largely cited the Evidence of several of them, whose Testimonies were more fully given before in my prelimited Forms, and in my Reply to Mr. Keach, to which I refer the Reader, if he please, for further Satisfaction, in this and many other matters that I could not treat of in so small a Tract on Singing as I lately published, with my Remarks on Mr. Allen's Essay. But,  
3. Mr. Allen says, page 61. That the Learned Mr. Ainsworth does not translate the word (as our Author represents him) simply praise, (as if it signified no more) but he tells us (on Psal. 3.) that there be three kinds of Songs mentioned in this Book, of which one (he tells us) is called Tehillah, in Greek Hymnos, a Hymn or Praise.  
Answ. 'Tis true, Mr. Ainsworth says that there be three kinds of Songs in that Book of Psalms, viz. Psalms, Hymns and Songs; but tho' he calls them all Songs, whatever Titles they bore, yet it is because they were all Songs for Temple-worship, and not from the signification of every Title; for some of the Psalms, viz. Psalm 17, and 86, and 90, and 102. are entitled a Prayer of David, of Moses, etc. which denote the nature of those Psalms or Temple-Songs to be Prayer, and not that they are Songs from their Title of Prayer; and so the word in Hebrew, Tehillah, Greek, Hymnos, signifies the nature of the Psalm or Song to be a Praise, as the word is simply and rightly translated by Mr. Ainsworth, who translates it in the Psalms, and renders the word in his Annotations on them in eight several places singly or simply to praise, 
See Psal. 40.3. Psal. 65.1. Psal. 71.6. Psal. 119.171. Psal. 148.14. Annot. Psal. 1. An. Ps. 145. An. Psal. 3.  and I cannot find that he renders it in any one place a Song of Praise, or to sing praise, but singly to praise. And therefore Mr. Allen has done ill to join with Mr. Collins against my former complaint, which is now justly against them both, with the rest of their Companions, for abusing my Author in so plain a case, as renders them very unfair in their dealing with me.  
4. Mr. Allen in page 71. says, The Divine Psalmists do often not only speak of their own singing the Divine Praises, but also call upon others to join with them therein; see Psal. 9.2, 11. and 27.6. and 145.7. and 146.1, 2. etc. which plainly shows that the People were to do more than barely say Amen, Psal. 34.4. and 33.1, 3. etc.  
Answer. These being all the Scriptures I find he brings to prove, that the People sang vocally together with the Levites in the Instituted worship of God under the Law, I shall briefly reply in general, That for David to say, I will sing praises to the Lord, and to exhort the righteous to sing, and such like Expressions are sometimes to be taken of David's personating of Christ, as in Psal. 18.49. applied to Christ, Rom. 15.9. sometimes of Mysterious Prophecies to be fulfilled at or in the glorious day of Christ's Kingdom yet to come, and some to those Gospel-times which had the Spiritual Gift of singing, when the Saints did sing in Spirit together by the single voice of their Minister, according to Gospel-Rule, 1 Cor. 14.15, 16, 26, etc. And those Scriptures that relate to David personally, and the righteous in his day, must be understood as it's said of David, 2 Chron. 7.6. that David praised the Lord by the Ministry, or Hand of the Levites, and that the People of Israel did not vocally sing with their Levites and Singers, is also confirmed by the Office or Order of Singers, that singing in the public worship of God was confined to under the Law, 1 Chron. 16, to 25. and by the People's saying no more after the Levites had done singing than Amen, prase ye Lord, Psal. 106.48. Deut. 27.14, 15. so that Mr. Allen is not able to bring one Text of Scripture in the whole Bible to prove that ever the Congregation of Israel vocally sang together with their singing Levites; and altho' those Ministers under the Old Testament might sing more than their own experience, yet this is no warrant for others to do the like under the Gospel: Because, the Legal Worship and Service was a formal, carnal, shadowy and prophetical Ministration, till the time of Gospel-reformation, and the Heavenly Things themselves were come, Mat. 11.13. Heb. 9.1, 9, 10, 23. Chap. 7.12.  
5. Mr. Allen in page 76, 77. to justify his Argument for Art in Singing, viz. That much art was used by the Holy Penmen of the Scripture in writing them, he asks me, whether holy Men of God could write the Scriptures without the Art of Writing?  
Answer 1. They were required by the Holy Ghost to write the Scriptures, but Mr. Allen is no way required by the Lord to make use of writing, or any other Art, to practise his way of Singing. Besides, tho' the Holy Penmen of Scripture might use the art of writing to record them for us, yet the matter of Scripture so delivered, was form by the inspiration and move of the Holy Ghost, and not merely by humane art, as Mr. Allen's Songs are, 2 Pet. 1.21.  
6. Before I proceed farther, I shall take some Notice of what Mr. Allen says, pag. 33. concerning those three Hebrew Words, viz. Halelu eth jehovah, in the Hebrew Bible, Psalm 148.1. which Mr. Allen in his Essay left out in citing that verse, to make it look like Hebrew Rhyme and Metre; saith he, I did not omit them on purpose to make it Rhyme, is plain, in that instead of four lines a rhyme, as I have there set it down, there are six if those words are put in. To which I briefly answer, That 'tis easy to demonstrate this to be a cheat from Mr. Allens own words, for seeing he makes the three Hebrew words left out before now into one line or verse by themselves, for the second line of his six, and cuts off the word Hallelujah from the first line that was of his four lines before, to make it by itself the first line of his six lines now, then either his five lines that he made but four lines before, or the four lines must be a wrong to the Rhyme and Metre as he citys them for in the sacred Text: For if it be, as he says, Rhyme and Metre in the Hebrew Bible, it must be so as we find it there without alteration, and therefore for him to make four lines of verses in Rhyme in one book, and five lines of verses in Rhyme in another Book of the same matter, is such an alteration, that renders it a plain Cheat either in his four lines or in his five lines of verses. And by this one instance the unlearned Reader may easily guests at the rest of his Hebrew Rhyming, especially considering he does not tie it to any equal order of Metre. And the true reason of it must be, because the Psalms of David (nor the Songs of Moses, and Deborah, and Barak) are not in Rhyme in the Hebrew Bible, as I have showed in my last Treatise, from the Testimony of several Jews learned in the Hebrew Tongue.  
Secondly, Having hitherto been removing those Exceptions that were necessary to take some notice of, I shall now proceed to the confutation of Mr. Allen's practise of singing, from his own Confessions; and in order thereunto I shall here premise, That  
Those five Commendators of Mr. Allen's Vindication of his Essay, viz. Joseph Masters, William Collins, Joseph Stennet, John Piggot and Thomas Harrison, do in their Epistle say, Tho' the Author of the Animadversions on Mr. Allens Essay,— has thought meet to let fly— at us who subscribed a Preface to that Treatise, for no other crime than that of commending the Subject of it to the Reader, and of giving our Opinion of the ability of its Author to speak for himself on that Argument, with out needing our Recommendation, we are neither afraid nor ashamed to let the World know, that we have yet seen no Reason to retract our words, and we dare venture to say as much of this Reply. To which I answer,  
1. That these Words, viz. For no other crime than that— of giving our Opinion of the ability of its Author to speak for himself: Although they are brought in as the cause of Dr. Russel's letting fly at them, yet I do not find that he has in that manner expressed himself in any part of his Book: And therefore I conclude, that those words are the five Commendators own Expressions, as 'tis further confirmed by that which follows, viz. We are neither afraid nor ashamed to let the world know, that we have yet seen no reason to retract our words: For these Expressions relating to the Foregoing words implies an Assertion of them to be their own, viz. That [they] gave their Opinion of the ability of its Author (i. e. of the Essay) to speak for himself: So that it sollows,  
2. That in these words of the aforesaid five Commendators, there is a false Insinuation, for they not only implicitly say that they commended the Subject of that Essay, but that they gave their Opinion of the ability of its Author to speak for himself on that Argument, without needing their Recommendation, which how true this is, the Reader may judge from their own Words in their former Preface to Mr. Allen's Essay, where they say, How well he has acquitted himself in the management of this Argument, is by himself submitted to the judgement of the world in his publication of it▪ We shall only say, that as 'tis not our Business to use many Words, to prepossess the Reader in his Favour, so 'tis our Opinion, that the Book is able to speak for itself, and needs not our Suffrage to recommend it. So that those five Ministers have begun their Testimonial Recommendation to Mr. Allen's Vindication with a false Insinuation, that in their la●● Preface they gave their Opinion of the Ability of the Author to speak for himself, without needing their Recommendation, when in truth they said it of the Book itself, distinguished by them from the Author. Now I cannot conceive why they should utter this false Insinuation, unless it be to squeeze themselves from under their absolute commendations of those Errors in Mr. Allen's Essay, which are justly charged upon them. But surely no sober judicious Christians will either take this false Insinuation for the least acknowledgement, or public satisfaction for the wrong they have done our Profession, or the Truth, or will from this latter Preface discharge them from those Errors which they have without exceptions recommended in their former Preface to Mr. Allen's Essay: Especially considering, that in their last to his Vindication, They stoutly tell us, that they are neither afraid nor ashamed to let the World know, that they have seen no reason to retract their former Words, and also that they dare adventure to say as much for this his Reply. So that I conclude from their former Preface, confirmed in their last, wherein they likewise recommend Mr. Allen's Vindication of his Essay, that both his Books without the least Exceptions are recommended by those five Ministers.  
Thirdly, The next thing therefore to be considered is, what those five Ministers have recommended. As to the former part of their Vindication, I leave the particulars thereof (if any think them worth their Notice) to such as are or may be more properly concerned with it: And as to the latter part of it, which had also the approbation of the aforesaid five Ministers, this relating to me I have said something in answer to it before, and therefore I shall now proceed to confute Mr. Allen's practice of singing from their own Confessions, collected from both the Parts of his Vindication: As in page 59 he says, on Mat. 26.30. and Mark 14.26. That tho' this be true, that this word Hymneo be not limited only to Songs of Praise, it will not prove (saith he) what this Author affirms, that it is properly used, or signifies simply to praise. And in page 69. Mr. Allen says thus, I bring not these Testimonies (viz. James 5.13. Eph. 5.19. Col. 3.16.) to prove conjoint Singing of the whole Congregation together, but only to prove that singing of Psalms is the Duty of every Christian: The lawfulness of conjoint fing I argue from other Scripture Grounds in my Essay. And in page 12, 13. Mr. Allen says, as to singing with the conjoined voices of many together, I only plead for the lawfulness and warrantableness of it, which I prove from several Scripture Arguments.— Not but that I allow, that 'tis also lawful for one voice alone to sing the praises of God. Indeed in a public Assembly I conclude 'tis much more warrantable for the whole Congregation to sing with conjoined voices than for one Person there to sing by himself, because we have several unexceptionable Instances in Scripture for the former, but none (as I know of) of the latter: And therefore seeing Singing either singly or conjointly are but different Circumstances of performing the same thing, I appeal (saith he) to every impartial Reader, whether I ought not (as I did) to consider, whether singing the praises of God be at all a Christian Duty, before I discourse of these or any other Circumstances of it. And much more is it unreasonable, that he should oblige me to prove, that 'tis no less than a Christian Duty to sing in Metre or Rhyme, and with artificial Tunes, which are but accidental modes of singing, and not essential to it. And so far am I (saith he) from asserting it to be a Christian Duty, in this particular mode of it, that I expressly declare it wholly indifferent, to sing the Divine Praises either in Prose, or Metre or Rhyme, according as we judge most for Edification. Indeed I give my opinion for the preference of the latter before the former, as more easy to be performed in a harmonious and regular manner, and therefore more generally practised by the protestants than singing in prose.  
And in like manner (says Mr. Allen) I discourse concerning singing by artificial Tunes, not asserting or believing them essential to the Performance of this Duty, but only requisite for the more regular performance of it.  
And in page 82. Mr. Allen further says, That whatsoever becomes of these accidental Modes of Metre, Rhyme, and Artificial Tunes, 'tis singing the Divine Praises itself, in a proper sense, viz. vocally, that I assert to be a Christian Duty, which Duty may be performed (tho' I think, with the generality of Protestants, not so well) without these modes, as well as a Person may be rightly baptised after another manner than with his Face upward. And in page 81. Mr. Allen says, The difference I have shown to be between the parts of Divine Worship, and the accidental modes and ways of its performance. And he also tells us, that the Holy Scriptures is to be our only Rule in Divine Worship, and that therefore, 1. For all the essential parts of Divine Worship we must have an express Prescription in the word. And, 2. All the accidental Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship must be ordered suitable to the general Rules thereof, viz. so as may be most for Order and Edification, as he saith in the foregoing part of the same page, that Christian Churches have liberty to order such accidental modes and circumstances of Divine Worship as are not particularly prescribed in the Word, as they shall judge most for Edification. And in page 47. speaking of external modes and circumstances of Worship, which (saith he) I take to be in the power of the major part of a Church, so far as to warrant their own practice therein.  
Fourthly, Having made the preceding Collection of Mr. Allen's words, recommended and approved by the foresaid five Ministers, I shall make Observations on them as follows. And,  
1. That seeing Mr. Allen on Matth. 26.30. and Mark 14.26. confesseth, that the Greek word Hymneo, which in our last Bibles is there Translated to sing an Hymn, is not limited in its signification only to Songs of Praise, then surely considering also that the same Bible's render the same word Hymneo, and Tehillah in the Old Testament, simply to praise, notwithstanding the stir he makes about it, he cannot from his own Confessions prove from those Texts that Christ and his Disciples sung the Hymn or Praise after Supper, nor that Paul and Silas sang their praise, for 'tis the same Greek word, Hymneo, that is there also used, Acts 16.25.  
2. In page 69. Mr. Allen says, That he does not prove conjoynt singing from James 5.13. Ephes. 5.19. Colos. 3.16. but only that singing of Psalms is a Duty: So that their own Pens having owned so much of the insufficiency of those Texts of Scripture to prove their way of Singing, I think we may fairly conclude from their own Confessions, that it cannot be a Gospel-Ordinance.  
3. Mr. Allen plainly distinguisheth and makes a difference between the Essential parts of Divine Worship, and the Accidental Modes and Circumstances thereof.  
4. He says, That for all the Essential parts of Divine Worship we must have an express Prescription in the Word: But that all the Accidental Modes and Circumstances thereof which he distinguisheth, and makes no Essentials of Divine Worship, these he saith are left to the liberty, and he takes to be in the power of the major part of a Church to warrant their own Practice therein.  
5. Mr. Allen tells us what those accidental modes and circumstances of singing are, that are no essential parts thereof, nor of Divine Worship. And, 1. He says, that the conjoined singing in a public Assembly, or of a whole Congregation, is but a circumstance, and that he only pleads for the lawfulness and warrantableness of it. Observe it well, he only pleads so for it as he says, from several Scriptural Instances, which to reconcile his Discourse fairly together, must imply that he does not plead for singing with conjoined voices as an absolute Duty, from any express prescription in the Word of God, but as a lawful Circumstance from some (pretended) instances, and so he makes his conjoined voices but an accidental Circumstance of singing, and no essential part of Divine Worship. 2. Mr. Allen asserts, that singing in Metre and Rhyme is no essential part thereof. And, 3. That singing with artificial tunes are but accidental modes of singing, and not essential to it, nor to Divine Worship. 4. Mr. Allen says, that singing the Divine Praises itself may be performed without these modes, viz. of Metre, Rhyme, and Artificial Tunes, and I may fairly add without their singing with conjoined voices, it being as he says but a circumstance of singing, and so also as I have showed 'tis no essential of it, nor of Divine Worship: So that Mr. Allen and his five Commendators, viz. Joseph Masters, William Collins, Joseph Stennet, John Piggot and Thomas Harrison, having expressly owned and confessed publicly in print, that singing with conjoined voices is but a circumstance of singing-worship, which they themselves show is no essential part thereof, and that singing in Metre and Rhyme, and also by Artificial Tunes, are all but accidental modes of Divine Worship, and no essential parts thereof; it is all one as to say, (except their prestinted forms of words and matter) that their whole external mode, manner, way and practice of singing, is no essential part of Divine Worship; and herein I agree with them, and so (except their prestinted form of words) they have joined issue with me, to bring this Controversy of singing to an end, and to a single point, viz. That a Christian Church has liberty to order such accidental modes and circumstances of Divine Worship as are not particularly prescribed in the Word of God, as she shall judge most for Edisication.  
5. The Controversy of Singing being now reduced from Mr. Allen's and his five Commendators Confessions to this single point, and they having showed and asserted their singing with conjoined voces, in Metre and Rhyme, by Artificial Tunes, to be but accidental modes and circumstances of Worship, that differ from the essential parts thereof, so as that for all the essential parts of it we must have an express prescription in the Word, and that all the accidental modes and circumstances of it are lest to the Liberty of a Church, it consequently implies, that all their aforesaid accidental modes and circumstances, or ways of singing, have no prescription in the Holy Scriptures. And suppose we should grant them (as he asserts them) to be no Essentials of his Singing-worship, yet I cannot conceive what his Cause will gain by it; for whatever Name he gives them, and flutter he makes, as if he had some Scripture-ground for his conjoint-singing, more than for his artificial Tunes, Rhyme and Metre, yet seeing he makes it but a circumstance, and all of them accidental modes and circumstances, that are left to the Liberty of a Church, and consequently that none of them are prescribed in the Word of God, I cannot see but that they are of the same nature, as all the superstitious modes and circumstances of Worship of the Church of Rome are, and so Mr. Allen has still no better warrant for his practice of singing than the Papists have for all their Trumpery, which according to his Doctrine before recited, the major part of his Church has Liberty and Power to warrant their practice of: So that Mr. Allen's, and his five Commendators Popish principle, tends to the ruin of ours, and the Protestants Reformation more in general.  
Fifthly, I shall demonstrate, That altho' Mr. Allen asserts his unscriptural, accidental modes and circumstances of singing, to be no essential parts thereof, and I agree with him, that they they are no essentials (nor any parts) of Divine Worship, yet I do not agree with him that they are no essential parts of his singing-worship, because he useth his artificial Tunes and conjoint vocal singing, as such modes and circumstances of it, that without them he cannot perform his singing Church-worship, and therefore they are essentials of it; for that which is essential to any thing, is that which so belongs to the being of it, that without it it cannot completely be, which I shall explain more particularly. And,  
1. That his singing with conjoined voices is an essential part of his standing Church-ordinance is plain, because without this mode of conjoined voices his Ordinance ceaseth, and he must either bring into the Church the practice of singing with a single voice, or no proper, vocal, melodious singing at all.  
2. Tho' he calls his artificial tunes accidental modes of singing, yet they are essentials of his singing, because he cannot perform his Singing-Worship with conjoined voices without such Tunes. Indeed he tells us, That that Singing itself which he asserts to be a Christian Duty, may be performed without such tunes, pag. 82. but what kind of singing he there means, which is not his practice by artificial Tunes, he yet conceals from us. As for Tunes immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, he pretends not to them, and as for natural Tunes they may serve to make a natural noise, enough to fright away natural men, rather than to gain their affections to his Worship.  
3. His singing in Rhyme and Metre he calls an indifferent thing, and also accidental modes of Worship; but tho' he terms them so, or does account them indifferent Circumstances, yet he does not use them in his church, as accidental or circumstantial parts of a common civil action, as such, but of his Divine Worship, and therefore whatever he calls them, they are essentials of it, for there are no circumstances of worship but what are essential to the complete performance of it. It's true, there are Circumstances attending Worship that are not of Worship, but of actions merely as such, as one particular fixed hour of the day for Christians to meet together does attend the time and place of their Worship, but one particular prefixed hour is but a circumstance of the action of meeting as such, and so no essential circumstance of Worship, as time and place is, for another hour may serve as well, but without the circumstances of time and place the Worship itself cannot be. And notwithstanding Mr. Allen tells us plainly, that artificial Tunes, Metre and Rhyme, are not essential to singing, yet I perceive that he himself in effect makes them essential to it: For he says, that 'tis his Opinion, that to sing in Rhyme and Metre is more easy to be performed in an harmonious and regular manner than in prose, and that singing in artificial tunes is requisite for the more regular performance of it. Now is not that which is requisite for the more regular performing of that Worship essential to it, seeing it is not so regular without it? Surely, if artificial Tunes, Rhyme and Metre, are either his Rule, or make his Rule of Singing, whatever it be more perfect for that Worship, they must needs belong unto it, and be essential to the more complete performance of it, than without those modes and circumstances.  
Sixthly, To me it seemeth plain, that Mr. Allen's terms of accidental modes and circumstances are only to gild over his Error, that our People may the easier swallow it down, and how much he writes after the Copy of the Church of England, in the preface to the Book of Common-Prayer, appears from the following Citation out of it: For it's there said, That the particular forms of Divine Worship, and the Rites and Ceremonies appointed to be used therein, being things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, and so acknowledged, it is but reasonable that upon weighty and important Considerations, according to the various exigency of Times, and Occasions, such Changes and Alterations should be made therein, as to those that are in place of Authority, should from time to time seem either necessary or expedient. And concerning their Ceremonies that have had their beginning by the Institution of Man, 'tis there further said, That those that remain are retained for Discipline and Order, which (upon just causes) may be altered and changed, and therefore are not to be esteemed equal with God's Law. From whence I Observe,  
1. That as 'tis ' said the particular Forms of the Service of the Church of England are things in their own nature indifferent and alterable, so Mr. Allen makes his singing in Rhyme and Metre, and by artificial Tunes, but indifferent things, that are alterable; for he says, that singing the Divine Praises may be performed without them, as well as a Person may be rightly baptised after another manner than with his face upward, pag. 13, & 82.  
2. That as the Ceremonies of the Church of England, originally instituted by Man, are for Discipline and Order, so Mr. Allen says, That all the accidental Modes and Circumstances of Divine Worship must be ordered suitable to the general Rules thereof, viz. (saith he) so as may be most for Order and Edification, page 81.  
3. As the Ceremonies of the Church of England are not to be esteemed equal with God's Law, so Mr. Allen calls his ways of singing in rhyme and metre, and by artificial tunes [with conjoined voices] but accidental modes, and [circumstances] that he asserts are not equal with the essential parts of Divine Worship prescribed in the Word of God.  
4. The same Scripture that is used in the preface to the Book of Common-prayer for their Ceremonies, is used in Mr. Allen's Essay, page 88 for his mode of singing in artificial tunes, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done decently and in order; which to understand otherwise than of the Order and Decency prescribed in the Word, and before laid down in the Rule of Worship, in the same Chapter, is a Subversion of the Word of God.  
5. I may also add, That as the Church of England did formerly press their Forms and Ceremonies of Worship, under the Notion of indifferent things, upon the Consciences of the Dissenters, who by no means could be made to swallow them down, tho' gilded over with their Terms; so tho' Mr. Allen has declared against imposing of his accidental modes and circumstances of Worship, yet he and his Companions have so far followed the former steps of the Church of England, as to press their modes and circumstances, which they own are no essential parts of Gospel-worship, so hard upon our Churches, as to occasion many Troubles and Distractions among us. So that Mr. Allen and his five Companions agree so well with the Preface to the Book of Common-prayer, about the nature of humane modes and circumstances of Worship, that we have reason to believe they have learned their Notions from the Church of England, whereby they are infecting our Churches with such Principles as will naturally lead them to conform at least to their worship.  
Seventhly, I shall take some Notice of what Mr. Allen refers us to in page 81. Where he tells us, that he has shown the Difference between the parts of Divine Worship, and the accidental modes and ways of its performance, in his foregoing— page 15. And in page 47. speaking of those accidental modes and circumstances of Divine Worship as are not particularly prescribed in the Word, he says, That there are many such, every one must needs know, whereof some instances (saith he) have been given, pag. 15. where I find Mr. Allen mentioneth the three following particulars.  
1. He there saith, For a Man to provide for his Family all I presume (saith he) will grant to be a Christian, yea, a Moral Duty, but 'tis at the Liberty of every man's choice in what just way he doth it, whether by the use of this or the other Art or Trade.  
Answer. What is this to our case of Divine Worship? because every man has liberty to choose and use what lawful Art or Trade he pleaseth, for the maintenance of his Family, therefore must Christians have so great a Liberty to choose and practise what accidental modes and circumstances of Worship they please? If this be granted, then if our Churches please they may practise not only common Singing, but the Common Service of the Church of England, Common-Prayer, Common Baptism, or Sprinkling of Infants, Common Gossips to Answer for them, Kneeling at the Altar, and at Confession and Absolution, Bowing to the East and Name of Jesus, and may set up Organs for their Public Worship, and a heap of other Ceremonies that were never appointed by Jesus Christ, but accidentally happened from the Errors and Inventions of Men, who do thereby virtually deny that Christ has left his Gospel-Church complete Directions in the Holy Scripture for the Worship of God.  
2. He there faith, in pag. 15. 'Tis the Duty of Ministers to Preach the Gospel, for the Conversion of Sinners, and the Edification of Believers; but none (saith he) I suppose will affirm it is so, to preach it in this or the other particular way or method.  
Answ. Having published my mind concerning Preaching, in my Reply to Mr. Benjamin Keach 's Breach Repaired, pag. 75, 76. & 119, to 123. and it being too large to recite here, I shall refer my Reader thither for further Satisfaction, if it be desired, and only here say, That though I greatly disapprove of Prestinted Forms of Words in Preaching, yet there is some difference in Scripture between the case of Preaching and modes of Praises or Prayer. However, it is not at the liberty of preachers to unite their Voices together in that Service; and if any argue for a Prestinted Form of Preaching, it is no Example for a liberty of modes, or for a Prestinted Form of Singing: If it be, Why not for a Prestinted Form of Prayer also, which they may equally bring it for? And till they answer me this Argument, there is no need of any other. 2 Tim. 1.13. & 2.15. and 4.5. 1 Cor. 2.13. and 4.6. 1 Tim. 4.13, 15.  
3. Mr. Allen, in the same page, says of Waterbaptism, That the Dipping of Believers, is Essential to it, but there are (saith he) different accidental modes wherein it may be administered, which are at the liberty of the Administrator to choose.  
Answ. There are no modes nor circumstances of that Ordinance but what are Essential to the right and complete performance of it, for such modes and circumstances that are left to the liberty of the Administrator, viz. whether to Dip the Person with his Face upward or downward, are no modes nor circumstances of or belonging to the Ordinance itself, because the complete performance of it is not tied to the use of either of them; and therefore, though the Administrator has liberty to make them modes and circumstances of the Action of Dipping, yet not as of or Essentially belonging to that Ordinance, because neither of them are prescribed in the Word, and that Ordinance may be performed without any one, or either of those modes and circumstances.  
Thus I have discovered the Weakness of Mr. Allen's Arguments, or Instances to justify his accidental modes and circumstances of Singing, to be left to the liberty of a Church; which Notion, in my Opinion, his own Pen does also confound and clearly overthrow; for in pag. 58. he asserts, That though the Light of Nature be sufficient (if duly attended to) to teach us, that we ought to use all our Faculties for the Glory of our Creator and Benefactor; yet I count it not so perfect a Guide as sufficiently to instruct us what peculiar faculties we should exert in stated Church-worship, or how we should use them therein, without the more perfect Guidance of the Word. Now if this be true, as I firmly believe it is, then surely to leave to the Liberty of a Church, according as Mr. Allen says, to warrant the practice of his unscriptural and accidental modes and circumstances, and consequently his practice of singing, which from his Confessions is showed to be no essential part of Divine Worship, is to leave a mere humane Invention to the Liberty of the insufficient Guide of the Light within, to be warranted and used for Gospel-Worship. But as our Saviour saith, That In vain they do worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men, Mat. 15.9. So the Reformation from Popery broke forth, and was maintained by the Light and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, which the Faithful Saints and Martyrs of Christ embraced, in opposition to all the Ceremonies and Inventions of Men, rejecting all things in the Worship of God and Administrations of Gospel-Ordinances, which they believed were not prescribed in his Word, as hath been particularly showed in my last Treatise. Besides, we have the Testimony of the Servants of Christ in this last age, who declare in their Printed Confessions of Faith, viz. in the Presbyterians, Independants, and Baptists Confessions of Faith, (to which last is Mr. William Collins' Name) where in Article 21, 22. they say, That the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by (or to) his own revealed Will, that he may not be worshipped according to the Imaginations and Devices of Men, or the Suggestion of Satan, under any visible Representations, (mark the following words) or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures. Which in Article 1. they say, are the Supreme Judge, by which all Controversies of Religion are to be determined. So that Mr. Allen's Principle of the Liberty and Power of a Gospel-Church, to order and warrant their own practice of unprescribed modes of Divine Worship as she pleases, does strike at a Foundation-principle of ours, and the Protestants Reformation more in general.  
Eighthly, I desire it may be duly considered, how our singing Brethren are driven from refuge to refuge, and at last have had their Practice of singing clearly confuted from their own Confessions: For those Elders and Ministers whose Names are set to the Reply to Mr. Robert Steed's Epistle, among whom are set the Names of some of our aforesaid Ministers, viz. Joseph Masters, William Collins, and also R. Allen, in page 8. they say, That such was the Singing of God's People under the Law, (viz. with voices lift up together) and the Churches are enjoined to sing Psalms in the New Testament, and no other way prescribed or laid down how they should sing. Ergo, (say they) the Churches are now to sing in the times of the Gospel, as God's People under the Law. And they farther say, in page 24. That tho' Music and Singing-men ceased when Christ came, yet singing did not cease,— because (say they) it is part of Moral and Natural Religion, and therefore a standing Ordinance. From whence we may Observe, That notwithstanding the stir they have made about the Singing we find in the New Testament, and of Christ and his Disciples, and of Paul and Silas singing together, yet we may plainly see from their own Words, that they do not rely upon Gospel-Evidence as sufficient, to justify their way of singing; and finding no countenance for their Practice, from any Example or Institution under the Law, they flee for help to their natural Light within, to make their Singing a standing Ordinance. And tho' Mr. Allen and his five Commendators, in their Essay and Vindication of it, make a flutter, as if they had found something in the Psalms of David for their singing with conjoined Voices, (which I have showed proves nothing of it) yet they still stick to the insufficient Guide of the Light within, the major part of a Church, as their warrant for the prectice of it. So that if we consider their way of singing with conjoined voices, artificial tunes, and rhyme, and metre, which they own are not prescribed in the New Testament, and as Mr. Allen shows are no essential parts of singing, and so no parts at all of Divine Worship, it cannot from their own Confessions be a Gospel-Ordinance, because they own 'tis neither contained in the New Testament, nor is any part of Gospel-worship. And therefore I hope Mr. Allen and his five Companions (with the rest of our Singing Brethren) will neither plead for it, nor practice it any longer, seeing they have no better Warrant for that Worship than the insufficient Guide of the Light within, the major part of a Gospel-Church, which is nothing more than what may be said for a thousand Humane Inventions more.  
Therefore seeing their own Pens has thus overthrown the whole of their way of singing, (except their prestinted Form of Words, and this also until they have found some other tune to sing them by than what are artificial) and that Mr. Allen says in page 82. in distinctinction to his accidental modes of sing, that 'tis singing the Divine Praises itself (which he there says may be done without those Modes) in a proper Sense, viz. vocally, that he asserts to be a Christian Duty; if he and his Commendators will stand by these their plain Confessions and Assertions, I hope our Controversy is not only brought to an End, but also will be quickly ended. For we reject as no Essentials of Divine Worship, all that they would have us believe they have so rejected, as before is showed: And we do assert, Singing the Divine Praises itself in a proper sense to be a Christian Duty, but depending on an extraordinary Gift (or Fullness and Enriching of the Word and Spirit) as other extraordinary ways of delivering the Word of God in the Apostles time, with strange Tongues and Interpretations, etc. did, and so all the difference between them and us, so far as I can see at present, is, That they assert Singing prestinted forms of Praise, etc. to be a Duty, and at present are so far in the dark how it should be performed, as effectually to tell us, that their manner, ways and practice of Singing, is not prescribed in the Word of God, but that it is at the Liberty, and in the power of a Church to warrant their own practice thereof as they please.  
But we say, That that Rule of Gospel-Worship in 1 Cor. 14.15, 16, 26, etc. which they subject unto for other parts of Divine Worship mentioned with the Psalm, as alike pertaining to it, tho' they will not sing by it, with a single voice: This, we say, giveth as clear Directions how, and in what mode or manner Singing should be performed in a Gospel-Church, as for the delivering other Gifts of the Holy Splrit. Besides, we are not in the dark about it, as they are, but can, and have already, again and again clearly showed them from the Light of the New Testament, that both the matter and the melody of Gospel-Singing was as the Spirit gave them utterance, and it was a kind of Duty exhorted unto, as the Saints were exhorted to covet after other extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and so was not commanded as an absolute continual Ordinance, but as a Circumstantial and Additional Duty to the great Ordinance of Thanksgiving and Praising of God, and of Teaching and Admonishing, which were performed by the extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Ordinances themselves still remain to be Ordinances, and are to be performed in an ordinary ministration, without the additional mode of Singing, while we have not such an Additional Gift as the Primitive Christians had, till God may please to adorn his Worship again with it, by a fresh effusion of his Holy Spirit, and then Singing will be a Duty to those that are qualified for it, and for all to seek after, as after the perfection of Gifts and Graces for Private and Public Worship.  
Ninthly, To conclude on the aforesaid matters, Seeing our Antagonists are in Effect, Sum and Substance, brought to these Acknowledgements, viz. That there is no way prescribed or laid down in the New Testament how they should sing, i. e. for their manner of Singing with conjoined Voices, Artificial Tunes, and Rhyme, and Metre, and that they have no sufficient Warrant in the Scripture, nor from the Natural Light within, to make those modes of sing which are practised as Divine Worship, any Essential Parts thereof.  
I propose it to the Judgement of all Sober and Judicious Christians, whether their Confessions do not clearly demonstrate they are convinced in their Consciences, that their practice of Singing is a mere Humane Invention? and whether if Mr. Allen or any of his five Commendators do either practice it, or open their mouths for it, as a Gospel Ordinance or a Christian Duty, they may not be fairly charged from the Testimony of their own Pens with Will-worship, or to act or speak against the Light of their own Consciences? And if they trouble our Churches further with it, and their Popish Principle of the Liberty and Power of a Gospel Church, on which they ground their Warrant for their way of Singing, whether there will not be reason at least to suspect, that for some outward Interest more than for Conscience sake, they are turning Adversaries against the true Interest of the Baptists Churches, and wilful Betrayers of our Reformation, and are laying the Foundation among us of a grand Apostasy in Divine Worship? And considering that Mr. Allen and his five Companions in Defence of their Singing Worship, have given us Ground to fear they design to alter our Churches Settlement, and to new model them; and seeing the Light and Power of Truth has forced their own Pens to crumble their cause to nothing, or to such a point as may be fairly drawn from their own Confessions and Practice, which they have cause to be ashamed of, viz. That those accidental modes and circumstances of singing, and many others that are not particularly prescribed in the Word of God, and (as they say) are no Essential Parts thereof, nor of Divine Worship, are left to the Liberty of the Insufficient Guide of the Light within, the major part of a Gospel-Church, to warrant their own Practice of, as Divine Worship, or as Essential Parts thereof, so as she shall judge most for Edification. I hope therefore 'tis a seasonable Request, that they will at last show themselves to be such good Christians, and real Friends to that Foundation-Principle which they have struck at, as before is showed, of the Protestants Reformation in general, and to the Baptised Churches in particular, as under a due Sense of the wrong they have done our Profession, and the shame they have brought upon it, to labour to heal their wounds, to confirm the minds of their Brethren whom they have shaken, and to satisfy all that are concerned, with sincere Acknowledgements of their Errors, and Hearty Assurances that hereafter they will join with their Brethren against all Innovations in Gospel-worship, and Defilements of Humane Inventions whatsoever: And in so doing, our Churches will have cause to give thanks to God for their Recovery. And their Objection against my present being no Member of any Church, (the occasion whereof is so well known, as that they do not, neither can they justly blame me for it) I hope will quickly be removed, for excepting some of them (whose Churches differ in Profession, and are not in Comnion with the rest of their Churches as I know of) 'tis they and other Singers that have so muddied the Communion of their Churches, that I cannot with Satisfaction of Conscience join myself to any of them until I see a Reformation.  
The foregoing matters being concluded, I shall now proceed to answer Mr. William Collins' Defence, at the end of Mr. Allen's Vindication of his Essay: But before I treat thereof, I shall here premise, That the practice of singing with united voices of Men and Women, Professors and Profane, in the Worship of God, in his Gospel-Church, being first preached up, and vehemently pressed upon us by several of our Brethren, and asserted in Print to the view of all men, I thought it necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Purity of the Baptised Churches, to present them with some Arguments against that way of Worship; which notwithstanding they were offered in a Christian manner, and were consonant to the Principles of our Churches, yet several of our Singers have appeared in print against me, in such a subtle Spirit of Injustice, Deceit and Lying, as hath cost me much Labour, Time and Money, out of my own private Purse to maintain the Truth and Common Cause and Interest of our Churches, from being crushed by them, an Account whereof has been already given in Print, so far as hath been thought sufficient to answer the Calls of Providence, and to clear my Books from those false Representations of my Principles about Singing, gross Abuses and foul Untruths published in Mr. Keach's Breach Repaired, and other Pamphlets, in wrong to me and my Printed Treatises; which Abuses being justly charged upon him and them in Print, many of them under the Hands of several Pastors of Churches, and several particular things by nine other Brethren, they still remain unanswered, on so clear a Record, as that they have not since in more than four years' time appeared in vindication of themselves: And the reason why they have not done it may easily be perceived, for the matter charged upon them is in their own Books, and so cannot be stifled from the knowledge of any that will take the Trouble to look into it. But to proceed, my chief Business being to give an Answer to Mr. William Collins' Defence, and to clear myself from his Slander, I shall here recite Mr. Collins' Words, which are the ground of my Charge against him, and are as follows: Saith he,  
The Author which Mr. M. citys out of Marlorate on Mat. 26.30. pretends it is uncertain with what words they praised God; that is, whether it was with the common Passover Hymn, or some other of Christ's own, which might be more suitable to the occasion, and whether they saug this Praise, or spoke it simply; the following Words of the Author not being well rendered by Mr. Timme, I shall set down, they are these, Graecum verbum laudem quidem, maxim quae Deo debetur; includit, non autem necessario evincit, quòd cecinerint; i. e. The Greek Word indeed includes praise, chief that which is due to God, but undoubtedly it doth evince that they sang. 1. From the genuine signification of the Original Word. And, 2. From the Current of Learned men, who go this way.  
Thus the Latin was falsely Englished, for it should be as it was afterwards altered by them in a few of those Books, but it doth [not] necessarily evince that they sang; which is the same in sense as my Author Mr. Timme reads it, viz. but it doth not thereupon follow that they did sing it. Now as to the Correction that was made (after this Abuse was taken notice of abroad) the whole Paragraph was not taken away, as it ought to have been, neither was the former part of it at all altered, which discovers the Design of Mr. Collins to deceive his unlearned Reader with a false Translation of the Latin, as plainly appears from the Paragraph. 1. Because for Mr. Collins to tell us, that Mr. Timme had not well rendered Marlorate's Latin, when he had rendered his true sense, he must needs do it on purpose to deceive his unlearned Reader with his false translation of it; for otherwise seeing Mr. Timme had done it in the right sense, there was no need at all for Mr. Collins to write that Paragraph against him. 2. If the word [not] had only been left out in Mr. Collins' English, we might have imputed it to be the Printers fault; but we also find that Mr. Collins saith, that Mr. Timme pretended it is uncertain, whether they sang that Praise, or spoke it simply, and then in contradiction to him, he asserts, That undoubtedly it doth evince that they sang. 3. 'Tis plain that the word [not] was left out, on purpose to deceive the unlearned Reader, because there is no Reason to believe, that Mr. Collins did design positively to affirm from Marlorate's Latin, That Christ and his Disciples did not sing the Hymn after Supper, by translating the Latin falsely, to give an undoubted Testimony against his own Cause, but to make his unlearned Reader believe that undoubtedly they did sing, when he knew in his Conscience that the Latin leaves it undetermined, saying only, That it doth not necessarily evince or show that they sang, Mat. 26.30.  
Moreover, I well remember, that I told Mr. Collins, between him and me alone, of his abusing my Author, and he excused it with laying the fault upon the Printer; but I answered, that tho' Printers sometimes correct Words, yet they never use to add a whole Paragraph to their Author's Books; and therefore I said, it looked like a designed Abuse, to which he made me no answer, and so we parted.  
And as to the Correction that was made in some few of those Books, to cover the Deceit from me at first, it was not of the former part of the Paragraph, for the alteration began at the last Clause of the Englishing the Latin. And I have yet reason to complain, that it was no sufficient satisfaction for the wrong done me, because some time after it was told me that this Abuse was corrected, I desired my Brother Mr. Luke Leader to go to Mr. Keach for one of them, and my Brother testifies that Mr. Keach took down several of those Books from off the Shelf, before he could find one that was corrected; and to my own knowledge since it was pretended they were corrected, some of those Books were in other places exposed to public sale uncorrected. Besides, I have also seen, and can produce two others of those Books, that are testified to be lately bought at Mr. Keach's, or of his Daughters, that sold them in their Shop in the months of June and July last, 1696. that have this abuse remaining in them uncorrected, in the last leaf of the Book, which might easily have been removed if they would. Having thus recited the matter of Fact, tho' not in the same Order as it was printed before, I shall here take some notice of Mr. Collins' Defence that he makes for himself, at the end of Mr. Alllen's Vindication of his Essay. And,  
1. I Observe, that Mr. Collins owns that he wrote that sheet of Paper, viz. at the end of Mr. Keach's Breach repaired.  
2. He acknowledgeth there was a false Translation of a Latin Passage in it, but says, that this was done by the Overseer of the Press, who altered the truth of his Translation: And by this he also owns himself to be the Author of that Paragraph, the former part whereof, which proves that he designed to make that false Translation, he makes no Answer to.  
3. He tells us that he strictly enjoined the Author of the Book, (viz. Mr. Benjamin Keach) that the leaf wherein it was should be reprinted, and that a Letter was immediately sent to me, to let me know that this false Translation was not in his Copy; and yet notwithstanding this that I falsely in Print charge him with this Translation: And he also says, that this wilful Sin he laid to my Charge, before an Assembly of Elders and Messengers at Devonshire-Square Meeting House some years ago, where being Self-condemned, (as he saith) I had, to the best of his remembrance, nothing to say in my own Defence. This being the Sense and Substance of Mr. Collins' Defence, my Answer follows. And,  
1. To what he says of a Letter being sent me, I must return him this Answer, viz. That I have not the least knowledge of any such Letter that was ever sent me, or came to my Hands, from him or any other Person whatsoever, concerning that matter: But if it had been so, yet his Evidence in this case had been no better than what he has now presented to us in print, and is disproved by the former part of his own Paragraph, which is as clear a Testimony, as if there had been an hundred personal Witnesses against him: And therefore, the main part of his Defence, which is that he corrected the English, and added the word [not] which was left out, does not at all clear him from my charge, grounded on the former part of his Paragraph, viz. That he wrote it, and consequently did falsely English that Latin, on purpose to abuse my Author, and deprive his unlearned Reader of that sound Testimony of the true signification of the Greek Word Hymneo, in Mat. 26.30. In the next place my business is to clear myself from the latter part of Mr. Collins' Defence, where he says, that this wilful Sin (viz. of charging him with this false Translation) he laid to my Charge before an Assembly of Elders and Messengers at Devonshire-square Meetinghouse, some years ago; where being self-condemned, as he saith, I had, to the best of his Remembrance, nothing to say in my own Defence. To which I Answer,  
1. That that Assembly of Elders and Messengers at Devonshire-square Meetinghouse, which Mr. Collins speaks of, was in the Year 1692. and was the first time that such a general Assembly met in that place, that ever I heard of, or was concerned with, and since that I have not been present at any such Assembly; and therefore what Mr. Collins asserts concerning my self-condemnation, cannot relate to any other time.  
2. Through the unrighteous Clamour and Influence of Mr. William Collins and Mr. Benjamin Keach, with the help of some of their Friends, the Names of my two Books, or Reply and Nartive bound up in one Book, in answer to Mr. Keach, were printed in a Paper, to which was put the Names of seven Brethren, who in that Paper determined, That none of the Members of the Churches do buy, give or disperse any of these Books, (say they) aforesaid under writ. But as my Name was not at all mentioned in that printed Paper, so there was no particular matter or thing charged in it on me, or any of my Books, in wrong to any Person or Books whatsoever. Besides, in the same printed Paper, those seven Brethren did there own, that they had not seen my Books, which they had there censured, and determined that I should call them in, and leave them to their dispose, insomuch as it does appear that this sour contrivance (of foisting the Names of my Books in at the end of that Paper, which propely concerned other Persons and Books therein named, and not mine, which they own they had not then seen) was not to relieve Mr. Keach and Mr. Collins from any wrong done to them by me, or any of my Books, but to stifle my Testimony for the truth that was then coming forth, in my large Reply to Mr. Keach's Breach repaired, and that his Abusive Book might have the freer course to advance their singing among the Churches. Therefore I desire it may be well considered, whether there is any reason to believe that I was self-condemned for falsely accusing Mr. William Collins, when those seven Brethren in their printed paper laid no particular matter or thing, in wrong to any person, unto my charge: Nor does Mr. Collins in his Defence pretend they did. What reason then is there to imagine, that at the same time I should in apparent wrong to myself, condemn myself? especially considering, that as soon as I could (after I had knowledge that my Books were so abused in that paper by those seven Brethren) I drew up and printed some Remarks on it, in vindication of myself, and to clear my Books from that Injustice, which Remarks have never yet been answered. Surely therefore this carries a demonstration that I was not self-condemned, and that Mr Collins' Assertion of it is a contrived Lie, a Confirmation whereof you have as follows.  
AT the Request of Mr. Isaac Marlowe, who desired me to testify what I remember of what passed in the General Assembly of the Messengers of the Baptised Churches, in they year 1692. concerning him, I do hereby declare, that I do remember there was then some Discourse that passed from him and Mr. William Collins, about some matter of Difference between them two: But I do not remember that there was any thing spoken to Mr. Marlowe aforesaid, by the Elders and Brethren then present, by which it might seem as if they judged him self-condemned: And I do believe they did not see any reason to charge him with the same, neither was there any conclusion made by them against him, tending to any such thing; for had there been such an apprehension and conclusion about him, it would be inserted in the Narrative of their Proceed, that was published of that Assembly; in which all that peruse it will see there was no such thing charged on him. In Witness whereof I have set my Hand this 29th. of the 8th. Month, 1696.  
William Kiffin. [a Pastor]  
THese are to certify whom it may concern, that I was at the Assembly of Elders and Messengers held at Devonshire-square Meeting House, in the year 1692. and heard the matter indifference debated between Mr. William Collins and Mr. Isaac Marlowe, and Mr. Marlowe did stand firmly to what he had written and printed in his Book. And I also declare, that I do not remember that I heard Mr. Marlowe say any thing in order to Self-condemnation; (had there been such a thing declared by him, I do not question but I should have heard it fully improved against him) nor that the Assembly or any part who acted by the Authority of the whole, did charge Mr. Marlowe or any of his Books, with doing any wrong to any Person or Books whatsoever.  
Witness my Hand Octob. 10. 1696.  
Hugh Smith. [a Minister]  
Whereas it is desired that we should give some brief account in relation to a particular case concerning Mr. Isaac Marlow's being self-condemned at an Assembly of Elders and Messengers at Devonshire-square Meeting House, in the year 1692. for falsely charging Mr. William Collins with a false translation of some Latin, we do hereby testify, that we were in that Assembly, where we heard Mr. William Collins mention something concerning Mr. Timme, and a false translation of a piece of Latin, which he said was the Printers fault; but tho' we were there concerned as Messengers and Members of that Assembly, yet we know of nothing that passed there from Mr. Isaac Marlowe, that had any tendence to his self-condemnation; but contrary wise the said Mr. Marlowe did strongly persist in his own vindication. And we farther testify, that that Assembly, nor any part thereof, that acted by their appointment, did neither charge Mr. Marlowe nor any of his Books, with any particular thing in wrong to any Person or Books whatsoever that we remember.  
Witness our Hands, Robert Steed. [a Pastor] John Scot [a Pastor]  
I Being desired, have here drawn up the truth of what I know concerning the case of Self-condemnation, which Mr. William Collins asserts that Mr. Isaac Marlowe was under, and I testify as followeth, viz. That I was at the Assembly of Elders and Messengers, at Devonshire-square Meetinghouse, in the year 1692. where on Mr. William Collins and Mr. Benjamin Keach's Reflections on Mr. Isaac Marlowe, the said Mr. Mnrlow did earnestly desire that his Books might be examined, and did there freely promise, that if they could show, that he had done any wrong to any, or committed any mistake, he would make full satisfaction; but no particular abuse or wrong was alleged by the aforesaid Assembly, or any acting by their Order against the said Mr. Marlowe, who there stood firmly and instantly in his own vindication: And in all the frequent converse I have had with him, both before and since, I never found any thing like self-condemnation in him about those things; and therefore I greatly wonder that Mr. William Collins should dare to assert that Mr. Marlowe was self-condemned, seeing all his words and actions shown plainly and absolutely the contrary: I cannot therefore but conclude, that that assertion of Mr. Collins is an untruth, against the Light of his own Conscience, for which great Evil I desire the Lord would give him true repentance.  
Witness my Hand, Octob. 12. 1696.  
Luke Leader.  
Moreover, this Mr. William Collins (with an other Person) is named in the aforesaid printed Paper, as one that was to Answer for the slander raised on our first Baptised Churches, in their Reply to Mr. Robert Steed's Epistle, where it's said, pag. 9 We ask you whether or not generally the same Baptised Churches, in those times, did not as unanimously conclude, and declare it too, that for a Gospel Minister to have a yearly allowance, or a competent maintenance, was an humane Invention, and Antichristian? We speak in part upon our own knowledge, and by good Information we have had from others, that both those Gospel Duties and Ordinances were equally decried; (viz. Singing with voices together, and Ministers maintenance)  
To this Mr. William Kiffin, Mr. Robert Steed, Mr. George Barrat, and Mr. Edward Man, ancient Pastors of Churches, in their printed Answer, page 17, 18. say, To this Charge we answer, That nothing can be more falsely asserted, or more slanderously uttered:— What the judgement of those Churches in their first constitution was, concerning the maintenance of Ministers, may be seen in the 38th. Article, (of their Confession of Faith, printed in the year 1644.) in these Words, We do believe that the due maintenance of Ministers should be the free and voluntary communication of the Church, that according to Christ's Ordinance, they that preach the Gospel should live on the Gospel, etc. Likewise at the end of my printed Narrative nine other Brethren have cited this Article out of those Church's Confession of Faith, and have given their public Testimony against the aforesaid Slander, which was not only published with the Authority of Mr. William Collins' name, but he by his own agreement obliged himself as a Person particularly to answer for it, as appears in the aforesaid printed Paper, wherein those seven Brethren condemned that slander as a great wrong to the first baptised Churches: And I see no reason why Mr. William Collins as well as his Fellow Singer, that was equally concerned with him, should not have been required, as he was, to make the same acknowledgement of his Error. And if Mr. Collins should say, that he was not required to make an acknowledgement of his evil in that slander, because the fault was the other Persons alone, and therefore it was laid on him only: I answer, that Mr. Collins, etc. in that slander says, We speak in part upon our own knowledge, and by good information we have had from others, etc. which being expressed in the plural number, includes more than one Person; and Mr. William Collins having submitted himself as the other, to answer for it, he must also be taken for one of the two principal Authors of that Slander, which was condemned as aforesaid. So that had those seven Brethren been more impartial, (some of whom I believe are sincere Christians, tho' surprised and drawn aside to cover the designs of subtle heads for singing) we might have had less occasion now to have treated on these matters.  
Which to conclude, seeing Mr. William Collins, for the sake of his Singing-worship, has made himself guilty of so foul a slander on our first baptised Churches, 'tis the less wonder that I and some of my Authors should meet with such evil Treatment from him; and to find his name (with his four Companions) to recommend Mr. Allens aforesad Cheat about the Hebrew Rhyme, and to other unfair matters: For which public Failings, and all other Sins, I desire he may have the Grace of true Repentance given to him, that his sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord.  
Moreover, Forasmuch as Mr. Allen and his five Companions have so far followed the Steps of their Fellow-Champions that went before them in this controversy, as to set their Names in print, (as before is showed) to such Deceit and Error, that cannot be justified by any of them, I think our People have no reason to regard their writings of it, nor to credit their public Testimonies. And I hope those Churches that are particularly concerned, will in Obedience to Christ, and for Truth's sake, discourage that Spirit of Deceit and Lying, that has appeared in defence of the common way of singing, and is an evident sign of its being false Worship, that so the failings of particular Persons may not become their Church's Sin and Shame unto Posterity: And that they and other Churches will be watchful against the mischief of false Worship, even where it is not practised. For while any of our Churches which do not practise the common way of singing, hold Communion at the Lords Table knowingly, with any of their Members that practise it with other People, such Churches defile their Separation in the same nature as if they had Communion with a whole Church that practised the same, and lay a foundation of Ruin to their own Reformanion from false worship; for if it be lawful by the Word of God, for a Church to have such full Communion knowingly with one Person that practiseth false Worship with other Christians, why not with ten Persons, and with a whole Church that practiseth the same Worship? and if this be lawful, then why may they not so hold Communion with the same false Worship (or with false Worshippers respecting that particular) practised in their own Church, as well as with another Church that is in the practice of it. So that the natural consequence if followed, of a Churches allowing full Communion at the Lords Table with one person that practiseth false Worship, leads to the bringing of it into use among themselves, and so to ruin their Separation and Reformation. And if any say, that such a strict Discipline as I am for, will hazard the breaking or dividing of many of our Churches about London: My Answer is, That if so, 'tis chief to be attributed to our singing Elders and Ministers, that have so far corrupted them, that they cannot bear a thorough Separation and Reformation, and then we may see what sad work they have made among us. The Lord awaken his People unto Righteousness, and supply the want of true Reformers, that I and others who have walked in Church Communion for many years, which at present are unsettled, may to our Comfort in the Bosom of a pure and completely constituted Church of Christ, leave this World when our appointed time is come.  
And that none of our Churches may be under the Conduct of such a Treacherous Popish Principle of the Liberty and Power of a Gospel-Church, as appears in Mr. Allen and his five Companions, which does not only cast contempt upon the Sufferings of the Saints for Reformation in Divine Worship, but openly confronts the Confessions of the Protestant Dissenters in this Nation, and is a shame unto those six Ministers that have broached it among the Baptists Churches.  
Isaac Marlowe. London, December 1. 1696.  
FINIS.