it is our duty to sing them CHAP. III. An Answer to that Objection concerning singing by a gift not set Psalmes ONe speciall Objection that is made against singing Scripture Psalmes c. is that it hinders the exercise of gifts and so it s but formall all dutyes in the Church must be done from a gift Answer 1. You see here is a duty laid on us no such limitation as from a gift 2. The matter is prescribed you Psalmes and Hymnes and Songs and to these you are especially enjoyned now the limitation of the matter limits the duty 3. There is no promise of such a gift in the Gospel to compose Psalmes and Hymnes God hath provided matter sufficient there is a promise for the spirit of prayer and supplication Zach. 12. and of preaching and prophesying in Joel repeated in Acts 2. but no distinct promise for a gift of spirituall Poetry or Singing for there are but three things required to singing fit matter a voice and heart all which may be performed without any such speciall gift of composing the matter is ready if the heart and voice be present 4. It is a duty laid generally on the whole Church without any distinction of gifts all are commanded to sing c. Here is no hint of a gift required 5. Christ would not ordaine an Ordinance of such consequence which the Churches should want the use of some utterly and not one among many should know what it meanes for there is hardly one among a thousand of Saints which hath such a gift of composing Psalmes and Hymnes c. and if it be an Ordinance in one Church all others may want it and so be deprived of the comfort of such a sweet Ordinance for want of a pretended gift when they have matter enough of praises before them 6. It is lawfull to make use of the gifts of others as well as to use our owne when a man hath a gift of prayer I joyn with him and make use of his gifts c. So is it much more lawfull to make use of the gifts of holy and blessed men in Scripture who had that glorious gift of composing all sorts of Psalmes Hymnes and spirituall Songs and when we sing them with melody in our hearts we manifest all those treasures of the gifts of the spirit that breathed in these Psalmes c. as if we had from a personall gift composed them our selves for if we sing them with the same understanding with the same inward affection of love joy c. wee sing them with the same spirit 7. If there were such a gift promised it would have beene mentioned by Christ or his Apostles as the gift of tongues and miracles were and Saints would have been instructed to seeke for it and these that had it would have beene commanded to wait on it as the Elders are on exhortation teaching ruling the Deacons on administring and distributing c. Rom. 12.6 7 8 9 10. 8. It is Antichristian to introduce an Ordinance to be practised among the Churches which hath not been commanded by Christ and his Apostles these that differ make much use of the word Antichristian and cannot but grant this principle to be undeniable now I assume but to introduce A way of singing by a gift with casting off Scripture Psalmes and Hymnes and Songs was never commanded by Christ or his Apostles ergo it is Antichristian the minor hath beene proved before there is no mention in the writings of Christ or the Apostles of singing Psalms by a personall gift or of a gift of composing Psalmes either for our selves or the Church neither is there mention of any other Psalmes Hymnes and Songs as the matter to be sung but such as are pen'd in Scripture and left to be sung by all the Churches Thus if men will being in a new Ordinance they must shew their authority from the Word or else apply the word Antichristian to themselves For that expression in 1 Corinth 14.26 When you come together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 every one hath a Psalme hath a Doctrine c. from whence they gather they had a gift of composing Psalmes by the Spirit which they were to sing in the Church if they did it orderly To which I further answer there is not any thing to explaine what Psalme this was 2. We have more reason to think it was one of these Scripture Psalmes which the New Testament alwaies calls a Psalm as he saith in the second Psalme and in another Psalme as before far more reason then they have to say it was a Psalme of their owne composing by a gift every one hath a Psalme that is this and the other have a Psalme that is one had this Psalm in Scripture which he thought most proper another another of these Psalms for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not to be taken universally of all but singularly one hath this another that thus some but rather the meaning is not as if one had this Psalme and another another but one hath a Psalme another a Doctrine another to speake with tongues another to prophesie now thus there was a confusion among them one would have a Psalme sung another would have his Doctrine or word of Construction as most fit another his Revelation Now the Apostle onely tells them they might all be done one by one and in order he that had a Psalme to be sung might in its proper place but this doth not prove that it was a Psalme extemporarily composed or by a personall gift or that it was not one of the Psalmes in that which the Scripture calls the Booke of the Psalmes Object If any say further It must needs be from a gift because it is joyned with other acts which were meerely from a gift as Doctrine Tongues Revelations Prophecy Interpretation I Answer Of these things here named some are accounted extraordinary and peculiar as gifts of Tongues Revelations fitted for these times the other ordinary as Doctrine Interpretation Prophesie though some thinke this last extraordinary also so having a Psalme may be accounted ordinary and not from an extraordinary gift as the gift of tongues was however you must not make a particular argument from things of divers considerations and uses 2. Other Scriptures have determined what a Psalm is and it may be easily gathered what it is in the Corinthians for one to have a Psalme we prove they had a Psalme let them prove what that Psalme was besides these Scripture Psalmes onely mentioned in the New Testament It is most evident that the matter of singing is determined by the words of the Apostle in Colos 3.16 Let the word of God dwell richly in you c. which in Eph. 5. is more in generall Be filled with the Spirit which doe not make any difference for the Word and the Spirit must make up the melody in our hearts but still the word of God is the matter to be sung with the Spirit as it
of those of Abrahams seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Suitable to this is that distinction of Abraham being a natural and a spiritual Father For First He was a natural Father to these to whom he was a spiritual Father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity Secondly All to whom he was a natural Father were under the Covenant and had the seal until they rejected themselves the promise took in both relations as to outward administration Rom. 3.1 2 3 4. And if men truly state things you may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed from enjoying these priviledges as believers natural seed now and with as much evidence of truth But let us weigh these Scriptures which are brought by our Opposites First consider that of Rom. 9.6 7 8. They are not all Israel that are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the Children of the flesh these are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are accounted for the seed The Apostle in this Chapter doth with a bleeding heart begin the sad story of the Jews rejection from being a Church and speaks as one loth to mention it and therefore brings it in with a passionate and hearty Apology v. 1 2 3. he was in heaviness he could wish himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accursed from Christ for his brethren his Kinsmen according to the flesh that is for these that we call Jews according to the flesh Q. But what needed all this trouble to have a carnal generation of men cut of why doth Paul Paul take on so heavily Sol. In the 4 and 5 v. he tels you Who are Israelites to whom pertains the adoption of glory and the Covenant and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises whose are the Fathers of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came Here is a Catalogue of high priviledges which belonged to the Jews which they were to be cut off from which lay on Pauls heart and was like to sink him Ob. Well might some say v. 6. then the promise of God is in vain if they be rejected unto whom the adoption and the promises belong Sol. The Apostle anticipates that Objection Not as though the Word of God hath taken no effect no the promise is the same and immutable but they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all Children c. This is the very natural coherence of these words let us now use our judgements to distinguish and review the place and we shall find it a weapon whose edge is turned against these that count it their own 1. The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh for their rejection his reason is because of the Covenant and the promises made to them because they were the natural seed of Abraham which holds forth that the promises and the priviledges of the Covenant were made indefinitely to all the Israelites 2. That it 's a most sad thing to be excluded from the outward and general administration of the Covenant Why should Paul thus break out in his affections for the loss of outward priviledges if it were not such a mercy to be under them 3. The Apostle holds forth that persons may be under the outward administrations of the Covenant and yet not get the efficacy of it v. 6. They are not all Israel that are of Israel the Covenant was made with Abraham and his seed all that were of him and yet all were not Israel that is partakers of the inward life and efficacy of the Covenant the Apostle only in these verses endeavours to take off that Objection that God had broke his Covenant by casting away the Jews and so distinguisheth of these that were meerly of his flesh who had the outward administration but not the inward fruit and these which were elect in the promise In Isaac shall thy seed be called the rest he cals the Children of the flesh the former the Children of promise v. 8. and so though they were under the outward dispensation of the Covenant yet God was not mutable nor his promise though he rejected them because of their own degeneration so that the sum of this place is 1. That the Covenant was made in general with Abrahams seed to all that came from him 2. That in the administration of general and indefinite promises there is a secret distinction and a vein of election carried through the administration that takes hold of some not of others 3. That none are the Children of promise real Saints but those that have the true effects of the Covenant in their hearts 4. That all Children of Believers though the promise visibly belong to them as to Abraham and his seed yet may not follow their Parents faith and so not be Israel though of Israel But here is nothing at all to demonstrate that Infants because Children of the flesh are not under the promise but rather the contrary for in Isaac shall thy seed be called saith God now he was a Child of Abrahams flesh as well as these which were cast off and yet a Child of promise so God makes his Covenant indefinitely with believers and their seed and yet the efficacy of the Covenant may reach but some an Isaac or a Jacob an elect vessel and yet the other under the outward administration until they manifest the contrary But more of this from that Acts 2.38 39. I come now to that other place so much urged by them Gal. 3.16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made he saith not to seeds as of many but of one which is Christ Now by Christ here cannot be meant barely Christ personal for then no believer should be accounted for the seed but only Christ it must be meant of Christ mystically or Politically considered as the visible Head of the Church if to Christ mysticall then to all the Elect as in him and so to Infants as well as grown persons who make up that mystical body but thus the promise is conveyed under ground as it were none knows the veins of it thus in the Old Testament flesh and flesh came from Abraham the Covenant administred to them both by its seal yet one flesh enjoying the spiritual blessings the other rejected Take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us for Infants of believers were never cast out of the visible Church they were once in and the promise is made now to them with their Parents as shall be hereafter proved at large but if we look no further back then the 14th v. of this Chapter we shall receive some light to this It 's said in the 13th v. Christ hath
sense things that are common are not unclean but in a religious sense what is common is adjudged unclean Now Cornelius being a Gentile without the pale of the Jewish Church he cals him common and unclean as all the Gentiles were before they came under the promise but God answered What God hath clensed or sanctified call not thou common Cornelius was not a Bastard nor unlawfully begotten but he was not accounted a fit member he was without the Church therefore the Apostle cals him common and unclean Just in the same phrase with the Apostle here when he saith that Children are not unclean he must needs mean they are not of common use or to be excluded from outward priviledges of the Church But that is not all but he positively saith they are holy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not unclean And this latter word is most used to express the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ever signifies what is usui Divino accommodatum that which is appropriated to a Divine use which is the proper notion of holiness in the Old and New Testament and never taken otherwise For the proof of which I have compared above three hundred places in the Old Testament according to the Septuagint and all the N. T. places where the word is used And this all do grant even Mr. Tombes himself that the word generally is taken in Scripture to express a separation of things to God and he only brings these places wherein he thinks there is another use of it 1 Tim. 4.5 Every Creature of God is good and not to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving for it is sanctified by the Word and Prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hence saith he is meant only the lawful use of the Creature in opposition to what is to be refused It is a wonder but that God leaves men to blindness when they leave truth how any man of common understanding finding the Word holy sanctified alwaies used in a religious sense should fly to this place to make an exception The Apostle saith first Every Creature which God hath made is good in it self and none to be refused that is all may be lawfully used without any legal pollution as formerly But then he goes higher speaking of a religious use of outward things They are sanctified by the Word and Prayer they are all good and lawful in their use to every man but they are only sanctified by these holy means the Word and Prayer And he might have as well said that the Word and Prayer are not holy means but only lawful to be used as that the sanctification which is by the Word and Prayer is to make the Creatures only lawful to be used If a wicked man eat his meat without seeking a blessing on it or giving thanks will any one say that he hath not a lawful use of the Creature but any man may say it 's not sanctified to him The Apostle in these 2. ver goes on gradatim by degrees from a lawful use to a holy use of the Creatures All is good and may be used but they are sanctified by the Word and Prayer thus you see the nature of this priviledged place But the main place Mr. Tombes alledgeth for holiness to be used for what is barely civil or lawful is that 1 Thes 4.3 4 7. This is the will of God your sanctification that you abstain from fornication and let every one possess his vessel in sanctification and honour for God hath not called us to uncleanness but holiness Here uncleanness is taken saith he for fornication and holiness for chastity To which I answer with Mr. Marshal That chastity among the Heathens is never called sanctification but among Believers it is being a part of the new Creation and one branch and part of their sanctification wrought by the Spirit of God And though Mr. Tombes saith this is but a shift yet he shall see it demonstrative if he observe the phrases in the Text and the nature of sanctification in the 1 2. ver the Apostle beseecheth and exhorteth them to walk as they had received from him how to walk and to please God according to the rules of Iesus Christ and he urgeth it in ver the 3. with this It 's the will of God even your sanctification that is that you should walk in all holiness sutable to the blessed rules of the Gospel and as one part and expression of holiness to abstain from sin And he instanceth specially in fornication which was the common and reigning sin among the Gentiles So that if you view the place you shall find That 1. He speaks of sanctification in general in its full latitude ver 3. as sutable to all the will and mind of God This is the will of God even your sanctification that is it is Gods command and Gods delight to see you sanctified then he brings in abstinence from fornication the sin of the times as one part of that holiness God requires For sanctification may be considered as it lies in vivification or in mortification which for distinctions sake we may call the two parts of sanctification Now chastity in it self as in the Heathens and natural men is not properly a part of sanctification some other Epithite becomes it better Would Mr. Tombes call all the abstinencies and actings of the Heathens by the name of sanctifications and speak like a Christian and a Divine Would it be proper to say in his Pulpit when he was speaking of the nature of holiness and chastity sanctified Socrates holy Aristides And can he think the Apostle would express that which is common among Heathens in such a high Gospel-dialect as sanctification is appropriated alwaies in Scripture to God Angels Saints and their highest graces and workings and to things raised above common use dedicated to God and his service but that he meant it according as the whole tenure of Scripture defines holiness How much will the phrase of holiness and sanctification be debased and made common if that sense should be admitted contrary to the Scripture use of the Word But that is a weak case that puts men to such extraordinary shifts to maintain But to go on a little further The same word is used by the Apostle in all his salutations and inscriptions of his Epistles to all the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints or holy ones at Rome at Corinth Galatia Ephesus c. which when appropriated to persons alwaies signifies a visible Saint So here when he cals Children of believing Parents holy he cannot but mean they are to be accounted as visible Saints until they do profess the contrary and I know no reason can be given why the meaning of the Apostle in his Epistles when he writes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Saints should not be as well understood written only to the legitimate and those that are not bastards at Rome Corinth
Covenant all the lump the whole body of the Jewish Nation were taken in to be a Church and were accounted holy 2. As a root it answers to him from whom all the Jews sprang up and from whom they drew all their Church priviledges as their breath Thus the Lord by the Prophet in Isa 51.1 2. bids the Jews to look to the rock out of which they were hewen and the pit out of which they were digged he means it of Abraham first as appears by the second verse Look to Abraham your Father and to Sarah that bare you for I called him alone and blessed and increased him c. Ob. But what kind of consequence is this and how doth the Apostle make use of this If the first fruits be holy so is the lump and if the root be holy so are the branches From what principle doth the Apostle argue Sol. The Apostle in the former verse speaks of a receiving in again of the Jewish Nation and brings in this as a ground to hope for it There is yet a holy root which hath an influence on the branches and argues that if the root be holy when the branches broken off shall be re ingraffed they shall be holy likewise The like phrase you have in v. 28. As touching the Gospel they are enemies for your sake but as touching the Election they are beloved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for their Fathers sake God having so cast his Election as to run in that vein most eminently And some do render it They are beloved through their Fathers But this is clear 1. That Abraham or as some say Abraham Isaac and Iacob were the root 2. That he argues from the holiness of the root to the holiness of the branches that is from them as Parents to their posterity as Branches 3. That this was an usual and common principle of arguing in Scripture from the Parent to the Posterity for else he had spoken in the dark and had proved notum per ignotius if they could not universally reason from it and if you observe he writes it as an Axiom of the greatest demonstration and never stands to prove it further 4. It had been an argument of no force for to prove the calling in of the Jews and their happy state upon re-ingraffing to tell them If the root be holy so are the branches and they are beloved for the Fathers sake if there were not a virtue still in the root to derive holiness to them when they should be received in and ingraffed to their own Olive he laies all the weight on the root being still holy and fresh though the branches be broken off And what can you make of this as to argumentation If the root be holy Ergo the branches and apply it to Persons and Parents but in a moral and imputative consideration Ob. But holiness is not propagated by nature from the Parent to his Child and we all derive sin by nature from our Parents and are as the Apostle saith Eph. 2.2 by nature the Children of wrath c. and as David saith Conceived in sin Sol. 1. It 's true we are so and there is no holiness propagated by nature take it for internal habits as a wise man doth not convey his wisedome or a vertuous man his vertues to his Child neither can a Believer convey his faith and other graces to his Child and in this sense Abraham is not a root he begets no Believer and under this consideration the argument cannot hold Abraham in this sense is only a root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exemplary only Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 effectually to convey similar graces But 2. There is a holiness by gratious estimation or imputation which flows from Gods Covenant or some special priviledge given to such a stock or kindred or Nation God taking such a family such a stock and separates it to himself for some holy use and so blesseth them And thus it was with Abraham and is most common in the Scriptures and according to the nature of priviledges among men where the son of a Freeman is free and the son of a Nobleman a Nobleman and by way of allusion though it doth not hold in all particulars as in justification Christs righteousness is imputed and we accounted holy by it So as to some special priviledges the root the Parent being holy and in the Covenant his Child hath the advantage of it not meritoriously from the Parents faith but virtually through Gods gracious promise to the Believer and his seed But 3. This is not by natural generation for then it should be to all Children but by grace and proportion it 's Gods good pleasure thus to derive the priviledge and out of special respect to the Parents and to encourage them in their own faith and strengthen them in their hopes concerning their seed thus did God choose out Abraham and his family from all the world and blessed him yet it was not from nature his seed were more blessed then all the world besides But as Dr. Willet saith well on this place The branches are holy because of this holy root not by an actual and inherent holiness but by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament as in the Old and in this sense the argument is strong and enforcing the scope of the Apostle So that though the generation be natural the derivation of a Title to Church priviledges and the characteristical note of holiness is given them by grace in the Covenant which takes in the branches with the root In no sense besides can this argument be true without you make the root Christ which you see cannot be meant in this place without great absurdities The third and special term to be opened is what this ingraffing is of the Gentiles into the root and how they are ingraffed v. 17 19. For the understanding of this Mr. Marshal hath laid down a sure position which neither Mr. Tombes who is the most learned Adversary of this Truth nor any other hath or can shake and that is That the ingraffing in of the Gentiles must be sutable to the breaking off the Jews as they were broken off so are we ingraffed This the Apostle clearly proves in every verse In v. 17. Thou being a wild Olive speaking of the Gentiles collectively considered wert ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in amongst them so Grotius translates it Positus es inter ramos illius arboris Thou art set among the branches of that tree and so referring to the first words of the verse which is implyed that some remained still for but some of the branches were broken off and the Gentile-believers were inoculated among them and by a special adoption were partakers of the same priviledges according to that of the Poet Ovid Venerit insitio fac ramum ramus adoptet But the best reference is to the
former part of the verse as it speaks of these branches which were broken off the believing Gentiles were ingraffed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as Beza and the Syriack translates it pro ipsis for them that is in ramorum defractorum locum in the room or stead of the branches which were broken off they were taken away we ingraffed Others translate it cum illis with them which remained when we were inserted but either interpretation will become the sense of the place Now the reasons which flow from this Text concerning the subject which we have in hand may be easier slighted then answered This position being laid down We believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off Now 1. The Jews and their Children were broken off from the Church their Children being members as well as themselves therefore believing Gentiles and their Children are ingraffed in the ingraffing in is sutable to the breaking off they have nibbled about this reason but the best of the Adversaries have never said any thing yet as to satisfie a rational Saint 2. Some branches were not broken off for so it 's implyed in that he saith If some were broken off and if they were not broken off then not their Children for it was not only a breaking off personally but of succession and of their posterity with themselves Now if we be ingraffed among these or with these that are not broken off we and our Children must likewise be ingraffed in else there will be a schism between Jew and Gentile in enjoying the priviledges naturally flowing from the same root No man will be so bold as to say that the believing Jews were broken off and if not they then not their Children which were then Infants and had not acted unbelief For either they must be broken off for their own sins or their Fathers not for their Fathers for some of them were Believers and not broken off not for themselves for some of them were Infants therefore some Infants were not broken off for their Fathers continued in the faith and we believing Gentiles are ingraffed in among them therefore our Children also 3. In the latter end when the Jews shall be ingraffed in again to their own Olive which is promised in this Chapter they and their Children shall be taken in v. 26. And so all Israel shall be saved and our ingraffing in is still sutable to theirs 4. The Gentiles are said to partake of the root and the fatness of the Olive tree in the same verse this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the full participation and fellowship in all the priviledges and advantages of the root as the Jews had Now their priviledge was not personal to themselves but to their posterity and therein lay the fatness of that Olive in the fulness and large extent of its priviledge and seminal vertue that it comprehended Parent and Child So that as the Jews casting off was not only personal but Politique that is of them and theirs so our ingraffing in their room is and as they had the fatness of the root and Olive once so have we Now we could not be said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To have a mutual fellowship with the Jews in the root and fatness of it if we be only personally ingraffed and they and theirs broken off oeconomically if there be a fellowship it must be at least in substantials And this was the most eminent and substantial priviledge of the Jews that they and their posterity were taken into the same Covenant The Apostle opens this further in Eph 3.6 And especially if we remember that their breaking off and our ingraffing is into the visible Church as is formerly proved and must needs be granted for all that were broken off were not broken off from election and the invisible Church neither are all the Gentiles which are ingraffed in elected and really of the invisible Church So that the result is this 1. That there is a real ingraffing of the believing Gentiles into the same root from which the unbelieving Jews were broken off 2. This breaking off was from the visible Church and its priviledges not from the invisible so is the ingraffing of us into the visible Church 3. As their casting out was of them and their posterity so is our graffing in of us and our Children These conclusions flow naturally from the Text and all other deductions will be but as dregs after the spirits are extracted 4. And to adde to the rest this consideration That if the posterity of the Gentiles be not taken in as the Jews were there will be the greatest inequality of the communication of the fatness of the root that can be imagined and the Jews may rather boast against the believing Gentiles then they against them seeing the root conveyed priviledges to them and their posterity but only personal priviledges to the believing Gentile to the one a double mercy to the other only a single Ob. But this great Objection may be made No Believer is now a root as Abraham he is but only a branch and therefore it 's not to be conceived how it can be argued from this to every Believer If the root be holy so are the branches as it may be to Abraham Sol. It 's granted every Believer nor any cannot properly be called the root as Abraham was and in a strict sense Yet 1. They are ingraffed into the same root and convey the same priviledges to their branches as Isaac and Jacob and the twelve Tribes did to their posterities who were not properly nor absolutely the root but branches of it and we all know that a Slip well inoculated or ingraffed becomes afterwards a natural branch and receives as much from the root as these which grew naturally on it So that it 's as strong to argue on the Gentiles side after ingraffing If the root be holy so are the branches as from Abraham to the Jews who were natural branches As an adopted son him and his have as full a title to the inheritance as a natural son There is only this difference between the conveyance of priviledges of the Jews as natural branches and the ingraffed Gentiles That the whole body of the Jews good and bad were called branches now only Believers of the Gentiles who are called by the Gospel with their Children are ingraffed into that root 2. Though every Believer is not the proper root but only a branch of that root yet for being ingraffed he is naturalized as the Jewish branch and so must have the same priviledge 3. There are branches of branches and the poorest branch hath some twigs and spreading sprigs growing from them which are of the same consideration and do receive of the fatness of the root as well as the main branches and in this sense every branch may be said to be the immediate root of the lesser twigs Thus Believers ingraffed into the
root are holy and their Infants that are branches of the branches immediatly sprouting forth from them are holy also and under the same consideration and the argument holds still for the ingraffed branches as for the natural And as Mr. Blake saith well The branches of Ancestors are roots of posterity being made a holy branch in reference to their issue they become a holy root This might be much more enlarged but that I would not be voluminous it 's enough that Believers are ingraffed with their Children into the same root as is formerly proved And then the argument holds firm That these that are in the root must partake of the fatness of it and they which are in the Covenant cannot be denied the priviledges of it CHAP. IX Wherein Mr. Tombes his eight Arguments in his Apology against Mr. Marshal for the ingraffing in mentioned v. 17. to be of the Gentiles into the invisible Church by election and saving faith are examined and answered THE great endeavour of these who are of the contrary opinion in opening this Chapter is To prove that the ingraffing of the Gentiles into the root is by election and saving faith and so into the invisible Church for they see their case is in hazard if it should be meant of the visible Church And therefore though enough be spoken before to prove what we affirm yet because Mr. Tombes hath laid down eight Arguments with so much confidence on the other side as unanswerable I think it not amiss to bestow one Chapter in the discovery of the unsoundness of his reasons that the truth may have a fairer passage into your understanding without clouds or demurs His first reason is Apologie p. 71. That ingraffing which is by Gods sole power it is into the invisible Church but so is the ingraffing of the Jews v. 3. Ergo. For God is able to graff them Sol. 1. As to argue from Gods power to his will is alwaies unsound in Divinity and in Reason God is able therefore he will So 2. To argue from power to election is of the same nature for election is seldome or never attributed to Gods power but to his will or good pleasure 3. To argue from Gods power in general to the putting of it forth absolutely in such a determinate act is as strange God is able to graff them in Ergo it must be into the invisible Church as if God shewed nothing of his power but in the workings of saving grace especially if we consider what a power it is and only from God But to take the very prejudice the Jews have even from the letter of the Gospel to bring them but to confess Christ after so long a darkness as it was in the beginning of the Gospell but to make the Gentiles but outwardly own and profess the Gospel and yet not members of the invisible Church to take away the very grossness of naturall darkness and ignorance is a work of mighty power And to an outward conversion where persons have been long under the power of darkness there needs the sole power of God 4. The Apostle may well put in rather Gods power then his will when he speaks of the ingraffing in of the Jews for it will require an act of power to gather them but visibly once again and bring them into one entire body to make a visible Church when they are so scattered up and down all Nations and at such a distance one from another that it is as the gathering of the bones of dead men and so it 's likened to the resurrection from the dead v. 15. So that we need go no further to enquire why their ingraffing should be attributed to Gods power seeing there is need enough of a Divine power but to gather them together from the four winds to make a collective body and so to be a visible Church Besides when the Apostle speaks of power in working of saving faith he doth put other Epithites to set it forth and not only barely speaks of power which God puts forth in all acts but exceeding greatness of power Eph. 1.21 22. Arg. 2. His second Argument is That ingraffing which is called reconciliation opposite to casting away that is by election and giving faith but so is the ingraffing called v. 15. Sol. If he means reconciliation in the strictest sense as it denotes pardon of sins and being made friends with God by Christs atonement and mediatorship which must be his sense if he speak like himself Then many absurdities may follow 1. That the Jews and their rejection was the ground of the Gentiles reconciliation unto God 2. That no reconciliation was obtained for the Gentiles before the Jews were broken off 3. That those which are reconciled and their sins pardoned may be cast off for so were the Jews and the Gentiles threatned with the same misery on the same ground v. 20. 4. As there is external and eternal salvation spoken of 1 Tim. 4.10 so there may be an outward and inward reconciliation the Gentiles were cast out from the visible Church for so many hundreds of years without any hope or promise And strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel Eph. 2.11 12. and so visibly cast off and it was a great reconciliation but to break down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile as to visible priviledges and Ordinances And so by the reconciling the world may be more properly meant the bringing them in under the means of the Gospel and the outward dispensations of the Church which is Gods common way and method of salvation and which to some is real and effectual unto inward grace unto others only to outward priviledges And the very phrase the reconciliation of the world to Orthodox ears deafens and dasheth the other interpretation for the body of the Gentile-world which he means are not so reconciled as by election and saving grace though the sound of the Gospel hath gone through all the world Ob. 3. Thirdly saith he the ingraffing must be meant of that act whereby the branch stands in the tree as a branch but that is by giving of faith The minor is proved also v. 20. they were broken off by unbelief and we stand by faith c. Sol. It 's true the ingraffing is by faith as their breaking off was by unbelief but as their unbelief was shewn in a publique rejection of the Gospel and by it they and their Children were broken off so the Gentiles are ingraffed in by publique profession of faith and acceptation of the Gospel for themselves and their Children and this must needs be the Apostles meaning For 1. Ver. 18. He bids the Gentiles not to boast against the branches that were broken off Now how could they boast against them but for visible priviledges invisible are out of cognizance to others Do Saints boast against one another for election and reprobation these secrets of the Almighty This Argument Mr. Baxter urgeth with much advantage in his
Book 2. In v. 19. he explains further what the nature of their boasting might be thou wilt say The branches were broken off that I might be ingraffed now can any man conceive they should boast because the branches the Jews were broken from election and true faith that they might be graffed in by a new act of Gods election and by true and saving faith So in ver 20 21 22 23. he exhorts the Gentiles to look to their standing and to take heed lest they be broken off also For if God spared not the natural branches c. much less will he spare thee What are they exhorted to look least they be cut off from Gods election c Will Mr. Tombes turn a downright Arminian that he may have any plea against the baptizing of poor Infants There is a twofold way of ingraffing either by spiritual implantation into Christ or by visible profession of faith and both these should meet in one person though they may also be separated a visible Professor may not have saving faith within yet may have So here the ingraffing in is into the visible Church by visible profession among which some are some are not invisible members but the very terminus of ingraffing is not into the invisible but the visible Church for neither the Apostle nor an Angel could tell who were ingraffed into the invisible Church nor who broken off but only from the visible Church first as the proper term and then by consequence from the invisible for from this Church none were absolutely broken off that ever were in and into it few ingraffed So that if the ingraffing be visible the term must be visible also but the ingraffing is visible Ergo the term is so This is according to Mr. Tombes his own form of argumentation from the term to the ingaffing the major is proved before Ob. Fourthly That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatness of the Olive but such is only election and saving faith be proves the minor by distinguishing who the root is which he well affirms to be Abraham Sol. To which there needs no other Answer then what Mr. Blake hath given him If the root be Abraham and the ingraffing in be only by election and derivation of saving graces which he means by the fatness of the Olive then it must be that we are all elect in Abraham as a common root Abraham may say Without me you can do nothing To which Mr. Tombes only answers by confession That it would follow if he made Abraham a root as Christ communicating saving faith But I make Abraham a root as the Father of Believers not by begetting faith but as an exemplary cause How poor an evasion is this of so confident a man in his opinion I submit to judgement Let him mind his Argument and the force of it That ingraffing is meant whereby the wild Olive is partaker of the fatness of the root but that is only election and saving grace c. 1. Were not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root and were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges only and why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to partake of the fatness of the root only in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root 2. The old absurdity will arise still from this That Saints may fall away from election and saving grace 3. How can he imagine Abraham to be the root and the fatness of the root to be election and saving graces and that engraffing the way of being co-partakers with the root and yet deny Mr. Blakes Argument That we are elected in Abraham 1. It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmonie between them an example conveyes nothing here is a conveyance of fatness 2. How unsutable to good language is it to say That such are partakers of the fatness or fulness of an example can we think the Apostle would so far over-reach 3. Were the Jews partakers of the fatness of Abraham in the Covenant meerly as from an Exemplary cause had not they it from him as a natural Father God making the Covenant with him and his seed and do not ingraffed branches afterwards become as natural He only adds p. 73. That if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham Sol. Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old and still stands by virtue of the Covenant to Believers and their Children And though Old Testament Ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off All the rest of his Arguments are much of the same nature only a touch further of each of them Ob. 5. From v. 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding then the ingraffing is by giving faith but the former is true so the latter Sol. This is the same in effect with the third Argument Yet 1. There is not the same reason seeing he takes it of giving saving faith their blinding was judicial a punishment for their unbelieving rejecting of the Gospel though they had not saving faith to embrace the Gospel the giving of saving faith is not on such terms neither is saving faith so absolutely antecedent to make a man a member of the visible Church as blinding is to Gods final rejection 2. Blindness came but in part on Israel it fell only on the meer visible members not the invisible and elect therefore the ingraffing must be only of visible members into the visible Church v. 7. The election hath obtained it but the rest were blinded Arg. 6. If re-ingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from their iniquity c. then it is to the invisible Church but so it is V. 26 27. Ergo. Sol. To which I give this fair Answer That doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall be abundance of more glory be brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new Heavens and the new Earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. literally And so shall all Israel be saved But yet 1. They shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shall be ingraffed in as they were broken off now they were broken off as
order of Churches came to be setled and particular instructions given as to the foundation and method of administration in Churches it was never administred by any but those that were for the time extraordinary or ordinary setled Officers of the Church whose names are summed up in 1 Cor. 12.28 29. and 4. Eph. 11. Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers besides these none have office or power to such administration but only these Those that are the more sober and intelligent sort of our opposites grant us this that the administration of baptism is of publick cognizance and that ordinarily it must be administred by those which are in publick and set office but generally every brother among them of any supposed gift may be a baptizer As for Philip and Ananias who baptized the first was an Evangelist an extraordinary officer as the Apostles raised and inspirited and impowred much after the same manner and if we consult with Acts 8. he had special commission and authority from heaven by a Divine call to perform that act on the Eunuch and so for Ananias who baptized Paul as one of their own judgment saith well he was deputed in an extraordinary manner to that ministery Acts 9. the Lord appearing to him in a vision and these examples cannot be drawn into an ordinary rule without the same circumstances be found usual And it must needs be so that none but one of the setled officers of the Church who is to preach the Gospel may be a baptizer First because it is a Church Ordinance Christ hath now left the keyes to the Church set in the Church successively such persons who are actually to administer all Ordinances in it and if it be a Church Ordinance onely these may administer it who are called to one of these offices in the Church all grant this that it is a Church Ordinance though some take the Church more largely others more strictly Secondly it is an act of power to baptize Mat. 28. All power is given to me in heaven and earth Go teach and baptize now power is conveyed by a speciall commission and call For a man to exercise a gift of knowledge by utterance needs no such solemnity but to baptize it being a sealing of a speciall priviledge to others must come from an office-power and so cannot ordinarily be administred by a gifted Disciple Thirdly there would be no distinction as to power between Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers in administration of any Ordinance and every brother of the Church if their rule stand this is the common confusion of the most of the contrary judgement which utterly overthrowes the other of Gospel Churches CHAP. XIX On Christs being baptized by John when he was about the thirtieth feer of his age whether any thing can be gathered from it against baptiZing of Infants THis is the last plea urged from Christs example that he was not baptized untill about the thirtieth yeere therefore none but growne persons ought to be baptized if there be any force in Christs example To which is answered 1. In generall actings are not alwayes to be our examples for some act he did meerely as Mediatour God-man unimitable by us as to be crucified for our sins some he did out of speciall reason and eminent emergency as to fast forty dayes and nights in the wildernesse with many such like up and downe the Scripture that are no rules to us his personall and representative acts and these which have beene acted upon extraordinary occasion and reason cannot be drawne into practicall rule of example to us 2. If we will take Christs example for a rule in this that he was baptized when so growne up why th n we may as well take Christs practise as our example in the active sense he baptized none therefore none are to baptize the same holds as strong as the other if any say the rule afterwards warrant that so it doth the baptizing of Infants as hath beene formerly proved 3. And more home Christ was a Saint in the wombe he professed his faith from a Childe disputed with the Doctors about Divine things when he was but 12. yeeres old so that he could be baptized with an infallible eveidence at first and yet was not baptized untill such an age hence if we will follow Christs example though men be knowne to be professours and never so godly yet they must not be baptized untill just they come to the same stature and terme of yeares that Christ was baptized in the reason is stronger for the one then the other because Christ though he had such a visible such an infallible right to it yet did abstaine from the practise of it untill just such a time which he chose out as fittest so that the time hath as much force to make an example and bindes as strictly to the observance of it as the generall consideration of him as a growne person upon this account no man must be baptized untill he be 29. or full 30. yeares of age 4. There may be many considerations why Christ was baptized at yeeres 1. That he might enter on his publique ministery with the more greater solemnity of such an Ordinance and have a testimony from heaven to him in that Ordinance which was given The Holy Ghost descending on him in the forme of a Dove Mat. 3. two last verses Now Christs entrance into his publique ministery began imediately after his baptisme how he converst for the most part of the former yeares is very darke in Scripture 2. It might be also because he would give a testimony to John Baptist who though he was designed from the wombe to that worke yet began to act his office but a little while before and had soone done It is a question whether he baptized any considerable time after he baptized Christ but just as Christ did arise in his ministery John fell in his 3. As there is no reason to be given why Christ should live so long and not take on him his publique ministery untill such an age nor may it be urged as such an example to us so there is no reason peremptorily to be given why he was not baptized untill then and so the rule is uncertaine and of no value But this example is contrary to the following rule left for baptizing according to their owne principles For 1. That Ordinance was immediately administred as they after believing and profession Christ was a known Believer and Professour before neither did he make a new profession to John when he came to be baptized but John rather scrupled it as an act too high for him to performe as to such a glorious person Mat. 3. suffer it to be done saith Christ c. It would be a sin for us to delay so long 2. Christs Baptisme was upon no other grounds then ours his to fulfill all righteousnesse in our stead or to wash away unrighteousnesse the filth of the flesh and spirit as an outward
signe of it and so cannot come under the common rule this I conceive sufficient to be spoken as to that consideration there onely remaines that question which will easily be answered on the former grounds if they prove true as they are demonstrated The Lord give a blessing to these considerations on your heart CHAP. XX. That Baptisme doth not forme a Church SO much doe our opposites advance Baptisme that they make it the only constitutive principle of a Gospel Church by which men enter into the Church and are made visible Members onely by its administration and in their owne method But we shall soon dethrone that position by the authority and force of Scripture and rationall argumentation Onely in generall I doubt our Divines have unwittingly given them too much ground to affirme as they doe calling it an entrance into the Church an initiating Ordinance seale and by their practice of late to set the Font nigh the Church porch though I would not much stand upon it how proper it is to call it an initiating Ordinance a phrase I have used in this discourse Pro forma without it be because it is the first seale to be administred in the Order of Sacraments but it will be easily proved that Baptisme gives no essence or being either to a Church or membership 1. Because a man must be a member and of a Church ere he can be Baptized according to the Gospell rule 2. Sacraments are Ordinances to be administred in the Church and to the Church which supposeth the existence of the Church before thus 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4.11 12 13. the Lord hath set in and given all officers to the Church if so Sacraments which must be administred by officers if rightly 3. A Church may be without Baptisme and yet be as true and as reall a Church as the Isralites were so long in the wildernesse without Circumcision which was as much an initiating Ordinance as ever Baptisme was now nothing can be without its forme and exist 4. That cannot be the forme of a Church or make a man a Member which remaines the same and untouched after excommunication whereby a man is cut off from membership at present but now though the Church may take away his membership they cannot his Baptisme which is the same still and is not lost 5. For this is an absolute rule that that which gives the forme or being to a Church it must cease when the Church ceaseth or when a Member ceaseth to be a Member it must cease with it and that must be renewed as often as membership is renewed and so one must be Baptized againe as often as he renewes Membership this is most absurd yet must follow from such a principle 6. Baptisme is a signe and seale therefore gives no being to any thing but confirmes it It is a consequent act and supposeth something pre-existent Obj. As for that place they so much stand on Act. 2.41 As many as received the word gladly were Baptized and there was added that day about 3000. soules hence they say they were added by Baptisme Sol. The words say not they were added by Baptisme but puts a full point or stop after that sentence as many as gladly received the word were Baptized There that sentence ends And the Apostle goes on a new account and saith there were added that day 3000. soules but doth not at all shew the manner of their adding so that these words are rather a recapitulation and summing up the number of Church Members added that day then any description of the way of their taking into the Church as if one should say he had 3000 l. in gold added to his estate he only shews it is so but not how he came to have that added so it must be here and the former reasons prove the impossibility of such an interpretation 2. Obj. There is one place more urged to prove Baptisme to be the forme of a Church and that which makes a Member which is 1 Cor. 12.13 We are all Baptized into one body there Baptisme onely embodyes members Sol. To which I answer first The Apostle speakes there primarily of this Baptisme of the Spirit not of water So by one Spirit we are Baptized into one Body not so much of Baptisme by water But secondly grant it to be meant of Baptisme by water yet it proves nothing that Baptisme is the forme of that body which hath its matter and forme holinesse and union before Baptisme baptized into one body doth not here shew the essentiall constitution of a Church but the confirmed union For first we are said in Gal. 3.27 to be Baptized into Christ now none will conjecture that Baptisme gives the forme of union with Christ but onely seales it so into one body may be as to the unity of communion in the same body 2. The phrase of Baptizing into or in one body shews the body existent and in perfect being before else we could not be Baptized in a body or into a body for when one is Baptized first into what body is he and the second and third incorporated untill a body be compleat they cannot be said to be Baptized into it or in it therefore Baptisme cannot constitute the forme of a Church which is this body saying we are Baptized into it that is to hold union and communion with such a body 3. This argument is inserted more to prevent Schisme then to expresse the way of first embodying or constitution of Churches as the whole context demonstrates 4. It is the same reason with the Lords Supper and we may as well be said as to the first constitution to constitute Churches by that Sacrament as by Baptisme 1 Cor. 10.16 17. The cup of blessing we blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ the bread that we break is it not the Communion of the body of Christ for we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread So that we may as well be said to be gathered into a Church by the Lords Supper as by Baptisme for by it we are made one body and one Spirit But lastly if Baptisme doth essentially constitute a Church and is its forme then all who are Baptized are reall Members of the Church and must have all priviledges be they never so loose and vaine for they have the essentiall qualification and the perfect form and what will any desire more and strange consequences must needs follow you may make whom you will Members and make them Members before they are Members and Baptize into a body before there is a body or any knowledge of what frame the body is you may Baptize and have no Church for they may never come into Union and Communion who are Biptized upon these termes and then no Church can be constituted for who shall Baptize first for he must have an extraordinary Commission for he can have no ordinary delegation untill
the forme be introduced which makes the Church and that forme is not untill a competent number be Baptized and so Church power must be exercised first without a Church and politicall power without a body It is wonderfull to imagine how these that differ slight and unchurch all the Congregations though made up of the purest and speciallest Saints without mixtures of humane allay and meerely in this principle they are not Baptized in their forme nor plunged under water which with them is onely Baptizing and under this principle Faith and Repentance and the most resplendent graces of the best Saints must lye buryed and no Church if not thus dipt I hope you see the fallacy if not the perfect folly of this position and how Churches stand upon other principles more firme and sure though we would not lose any ornament of the Gospell to adorne this body yet we dare not constitute it of such ingredients A GOSPEL-ORDINANCE CONCERNING The singing of Scripture-Psalms Hymns and Spiritual Songs the lawfulness of that Ordinance LONDON Printed for R. W. and are to be sold at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet 1653. CHAP. I. Concerning the singing of Scripture Psalms Hymns and spirituall Songs the lawfulness of that Ordinance THe next publick controversie which Satan hath raised to disturb the Churches is about the practise of singing Scripture Psalms on purpose to deprive the Saints of the benefit of that soul-raising and heart-ravishing Ordinance by which God is publickly and solemnly praised and the spirits filled with the glory of God and because your hearts may be stablished in every truth and not so easily perswaded to part with such a holy Ordinance I could not but endeavor to clear up this also which you have in this method First that singing of Psalms Hymns and spiritual Songs vocally with the voice and musically is an Ordinance of the New Testament constantly to be practised in the Churches of Christ Secondly open unto you the three expressions Psalms Hymns and Songs wherein they agree and whether there be any difference between them Thirdly shew you that it is the Psalms of David Asaph Heman and the Hymns and spiritual Songs of these holy men which are recorded in Scripture that is the matter ordinarily to be sung Fourthly answer the main objections of the dissenters these are scattered up and down this small Treatise For the first it is clear from Eph. 5.19 he bids them be filled with the Spirit 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 speaking to one another and in Col. 3.16 Teaching and admonishing one another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What ever these be as to the matter of them yet the singing of them is commanded as an Ordinance and a special Ordinance for edification That the Apostle exhorts here to this as an Ordinance is clear First because he speaks to the whole Church and as a publick dutie not appropriated to any Office but as a commandment universal on all Secondly he doth distinguish this Ordinance from that of preaching or teaching doctrinally which belongs to the Officer or occasionally to a gifted brother for he doth not only say as in other places teach and admonish but in Psalms and Hymns and Songs which shews the manner of the teaching and admonishing not in the general but in such a way as by singing with Psalms c. and as Mr. Cotton well observes if the Apostle had meant the ordinary and common way of teaching he would have said teach one another out of the Psalms or from them rather then in or with them which is the usual language of the holy Ghost in expressing such a duty so in Pauls example Acts 28.23 so Philip is said to preach Jesus to the Eunuch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from that Scripture in Esaiah and surely he would never have added the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the following part singing with melodie in your hearts if this teaching and admonishing were not to be discovered in such a peculiar Ordinance To which places we must add that of the 1. Cor. 14.15 16. where the Apostle speaks to the Church as to the orderly administration of that Ordinance 16 17. v. where he speaks of singing as a distinct dutie and to be done in publick before the Church and that phrase of singing with the spirit and with understanding is very emphatical as Divines observe for I cannot sing with the spirit but I must also with understanding but the understanding here must be meant of others who hear me and joyn with me in that act however publick singing was then an Ordinance solemnized in the Church and we shall hereafter see what kind these Psalms were they sung Thus Iames 5.13 If any be merry let him sing Psalmes though this be particular in the Text yet it is of the same consideration with the former and these places hold forth the inst tution singing is an Ordinance and a special one in the Gospel Secondly that it is not only meant of an inward frame of rejoycing but that it is of the voice is most apparent First from the very words of these Texts Speaking to one another teaching one another in Psalms and Hymns c. Now no man can speak to edifie others by inward workings or silent rejoycings 2. Besides the melody to be made in our hearts we must sing with melody which shews not only the inward frame but the outward act and order for melody in the heart were enough to expresse the inward grace but he addes an outward expression Singing with melody in your hearts so that it is with the voice as with the heart 3. Singing in Scripture is ever put in distinction from bare reading or speaking and commonly signifies a modulation of the tongue or expressing any thing musically and in tune and so it is a musical speaking 4. There would be the greatest confusion of Ordinances for preaching and prayer would be made all one with singing nay internal works would be found contrary to outward expressions and if there be any such thing as preaching and prayer and exhortation it must be different from singing even to the most ignorant for no man will say when a man meerly speaks or preaches he sings without his tone do make them call him a singing preacher or talker as too many either out of affectation or custome have given just cause to suspect 5. This is undeniable if there be any such command as to sing it is visible for else no man could at any time be said to sing or not sing it must be an outward act for else we must say we have only souls for that Ordinance and bodies for all the rest 6. All that ever sung in the Gospel as to practice sung vocally Matth. 26.30 They went out and sung an Hymn that must be with an audible voice Acts 16.25 Paul and Silas sung and all heard them and if it be an inward act only who shall know when men sing or think or would they
is the matter for reading preaching intepretation but he here names that part of the Word which belongs to the duty he enjoynes as a speciall part of that Word which ought to dwell richly in them as to such a duty of singing So that 1. If Psalmes and Hymnes and Songs be part of the word of God then they may be sung 2. If that part of the Word be more properly fitted to the duty commanded then any other it must be so restrained here 3. That it is so appears because he speakes so particularly That the Word might dwell in them richly teaching and admonishing one another not in generall as by Preaching Doctrine or the like but in Psalmes and Hymnes and spirituall Songs which must needs be the great duty in the Text and all before restricted to that 4. Then the Word of God in generall or any speciall Word of God may be said to dwell richly in a person when the spirituall intent sense and meaning of it with the inward spirit and power of it upon all occasions doth appeare in the duties commanded by it and thus you may see the verse in its parts 1. Here is the duty singing 2. The Word of God the matter 3. The specialty of the Word so fitted to the nature of that duty Psalmes Hymnes and spirituall Songs 4. The peculiar way how to be a perfect spirituall Singer it is to have this word dwell in a man and richly having the true sense sweet experience of this word in the heart being upon all occasions able to cull out in the language of Scripture Psalmes Hymnes and Songs suitable to our owne conditions or others If the Apostle had meant here a gift of composing new Psalmes c. as he would not have used the Old Testament language without an explanation so he would not have mentioned the word of God in such a close limitation as in Psalmes and Hymnes and Songs which are exegeticall to the word of God to be sung if he had not intended that part of the Word as fitted for that Ordinance for no man knowes what these expressions hold forth but as they are found in the word of God and as a distinct and eminent part of it It were more proper to say Let the grace of God dwell in you or the goodnesse of God that you may from the sense of it break forth upon all occasions to praises But to name the Word of God and name it with that modification as Psalms Hymns Songs which we all know is a part of it and bid us sing and deny us in his intention for to sing these Psalmes which are part of that Word is too unworthy a reflection on the Holy Ghost and the Pen-men of Scripture And that seemes very strange to affirme that I may not sing that Word of God which is called by the name of Psalmes Hymnes and Songs when this Word must dwell in me richly to that end and use Lastly the singing of these Psalmes Hymnes and Songs as the Word of God is most adapt and proportioned to the particular use the Apostle intended by singing in the Church which was to teach and admonish one another Now no gift of any Saint can be so powerfull and authoritative to teach as the Word of God in these Psalmes which were pen'd by the spirit as a rule to all Saints and their gifts and as the Word of God is made use of severall wayes to teach and admonish so this is one speciall way by Psalmes Hymnes Songs VVhen I sing by a pretended gift I see cause of jealousie that it may be more a fancy then the spirit every man hath cause of suspition from whence it comes and ere I can be satisfied I must compare it with and try it by the Scripture straine of Psalmes Hymnes and Songs But by singing the very words of Scripture with sense and experience I teach both by my holy carriage in the action and the word it selfe commands by its owne authority as when it is read But that I may more clearely open this how that the Word of God in Psalmes Hymnes and Songs is the most fit matter of singing let us view that part of the Word called by these names and see how far it will reach this kinde of edification beyond all that which may come from a present gift to compose matter for such a duty 1. Besides the spirituall elegancy of phrase the inspired style of that part of holy writ which is beyond ordinary with the height of matter of no vulgar composure it having such a standing stamp of Divine authority on it must needes conveigh its sense with more weight and power then any thing from particular invention though assisted by a gift of the spirit which comes but in the second place and cannot be put in any consideration with that authority as the other nor inserted among the heavenly Canons and Scripture rules for Saints to build their faith on or direct their lives 2. The largenesse and comprehensivenesse of the scope of the shortest Psalme is so that it will give matter to study and ponder on and give advantage to enlarge our thoughts and affections on more then any particular gift of any Saint now can be rationally conceived to afford for commonly the best gifts are but an enlargement of the first text and bring forth nothing de novo no new thing and all these Saints with all their gifts must be glad to have recourse to that part of the Word as the rest for the fulnesse of teaching and admonition 3. The variety of matter in these Psalmes c. is so wonderfull that they doe provide before-hand by an eternall wisdome for the conditions of all Saints either personally or mystically that no man sing any thing but if that Word dwell in him richly he may finde a suitable Psalme prepared for him by the foresight and wise and infallible directions of the Almighty and in this the Booke of the Psalmes transcends all other parts of Scripture and may be called the Epitome of the whole Bible In some Scriptures you have little but matter of precept in others little but historicall relations of persons and actions but in the Book of the Psalmes you have the variety of matter contained in all the whole Scripture most suitable to the vast duty of singing praises 1. Matter of all sorts of prophesies referring to the very latter end of the world 2. All sorts of generall and speciall directions either for Faith or Life 3. All sorts of promises fitted to particular conditions 4. All sorts of experiences in what condition a soul may be in either of tryall or triumph either to soule or body 5. All sorts of signes and characters of heavenly motions and frames to God 6. All sort of thanksgivings and prayses for spirituall or temporall mercies with their various discords which makes up the harmony of the whole He is a childe in the Scripture that doth not