Ser. IV.

And therefore what hath been perform'd of late years, might have fuperfeded any further Attempt of this kind, were it not that in this Publication there is intended a more ample and compleat Treatife of Pfalmody, than any we have seen extant; and 'tis fit that in this place we take notice of the Objections that are made against this Duty, in anfwering of which I fhall offer fome things that I do not find obferv'd by thofe that have gone before me. before me. And that this Difcourfe may not exceed in proportion thofe of my Brethren, it must not be expected I reply to every Objection, only to the most confiderable; which if fairly anfwer'd, the others will fall of courfe; as when we lop off the main Boughs of a Tree, all the other little Branches and Twigs do fall along with them. I fhall difpofe them into the following Order, and confider,

I

1. Thofe Objections that are level'd against the Duty of Singing.

II. Against

II. Against the Matter to be Ser. IV.
fang.

III. Against the Perfons to be
imploy'd. And,

IV. Against the Manner of the
Performance.

I. They that oppofe the Duty, do affert, It is antiquated with the Ceremonial Law; that now it is needlefs under the Gofpel; that it is without Prescription; and that it is very unfutable to the prefent bewildred and afflicted State of the Church. §. 1. They reprefent this Practice as antiquated, and object against it as a part of the Ceremonial Worship under the Law, which is abolish'd; and they imagine we are now to praife God only by making fecret melody in the Heart, without any artificial Tunes or Modulation of the Voice.

That which hath led them into this Miftake, is the wrong Opinion they have conceiv'd of this Duty, as being purely Ceremonial; whereas among the Jews it was really of a mixt nature, viz. partly Ceremonial, and partly Moral. FS What

Ser. IV.What was Ceremonial refer'd only to the manner of Performance under the Levitical Priesthood, which was in a very pompous manner, with a variety of mufical Inftruments, and Perfons, who as Officers or Mafters in Mufick, did direct and prefide in the management of it. This, I am of Opinion, did die and was bury'd with the Jewish Ceremonys; but the Practice of Singing ftill remains as a part of natural Religion, and is of tanding and univerfal Obligation: This, if duly confider'd, wou'd I hope remove the Difficultys about this Duty. The ufe of mufical Inftruments, &c. was only a ceremonial Appendage or external Solemnity, and of it felf no rational part of Worfhip; but to fing forth the Praifes of God with our Lips is of a different nature, and falls under another Confideration. And tho the Jewish manner of performing this Duty be now ceas'd, it does not follow that therefore there must be no Singing at all; or that because the Harp and Cymbal are laid afide,

Our

our Mouths must be feal'd up too. Ser. IV. None can be ignorant how ftrenuously the Apostle Paut does plead for the abolishing of the Jewish Ceremonys, and particularly in the fecond Chapter of his Epistle to the Coloffians; and yet in the very next Chapter he re commends to them the Practice of finging Pfalms, which certainly he would never have done were this to have been rank'd among the number of the former. His exhorting them to do this with Col. III. Grace in their Hearts, and to make 16. melody in their Hearts to the Lord, Eph.V.19. does no way forbid vocal Singing; any more than because it was their Duty alfo to pray with the Heart, they ought not to use their Voice in Prayer. It is evident this was only to direct them in Singing, that while they were imploy'd in the outward Duty, they fhould take care it be with a futable Difpofition of Spirit, both being put together, Singing and making melody in the Heart.

To conclude, it should methinks tend to reconcile Perfons to this Practice,"

Ser. IV.Practice, that we plead for no more than what is neceffary to the decent and lively difcharge ofva Duty which is written with the Pen of Nature upon Mens Hearts; letting all other pompous Obfervances remain where our Saviour and his Apostles left them: and if Singing in the Worship of God be a part of natural Religion, it anfwers

§. 2. The next Objection against it as a needlefs thing: For what can be more neceflary than that which our Reason dictates to be a piece of Homage, indifpenfibly due from Creatures to their Maker and Benefactor? To fay that praifing of God by Singing is needlefs or fuperfluous, because it may be done as well by Prayer, is a mistake; which may be evinc'd from the nature of the thing, as well as exe perience. Besides, we are not to take the Measures of our Duty from what we judg proper or needful, but from the Will and Eph. V. Command of Chrift *. It would 19. Col. be, I confefs, an expeditious way to fhrink Religion into a meagre Jam.V.13.

*

III. 16.

Skeleton,