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
when we look on Mat. 19.13 They brought them to Christ to lay his hands on them and pray over them 3. If we consider why the Disciples should forbid them and rebuked these that brought them surely it could not be out of any cruelty to Infants or that the Disciples had no bowels to Infants or desire they might not be happy with their Parents their affections could not be so straitned and bound up in unnaturalness but it must be from some such principle which these of the contrary judgement take up That they were not capable and were first to be taught That only grown men and Professors of faith were fit for Ordinances and therefore they rebuked or chid them and forbad them to do so any more As if they had said What have we to do with Children as to outward Ordinances they are not capable they cannot profess their faith and we must have persons able to hold forth the Gospel which must be visible subjects of Christs Kingdome Doubtless some such grounds they must needs go on or else they must shew a strange kind of passion against Children most unbecoming these which had but the rags of natural affection left in them 4. See Christs affections to them and the reason of it When Christ saw it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was much displeased It 's a word that is used to express such a kind of sorrow as breaks the heart also to stomach any thing and to have the spirit raised in contempt of an unworthy action or person Thus Christ was grieved at them and he looked with contempt on his Disciples as dealing most unworthily with poor Infants in forbidding them to be brought to Christ and therefore he commands them to suffer them to bring Infants to him and not to forbid them These two words shews how vehement Christ was and how much his heart was set towards Infants You find sometimes that Christ gave some sharp words to his Disciples and to Peter especially but never to have his spirit to rise in indignation against them as when they would forbid Infants to be brought to him and that which makes Christ so earnest must needs be of great weight he was never so moved when they all forsook him and Peter did forswear him as when they denied Infants to come to him I could wish that these which with so much contempt and scurrilous language forbid Infants to be baptized might read this place with observant spirits and at least grow more sober and less violent in their expressions concerning poor Infants doubtless it 's a warning to all Christs Disciples Now the reason which Jesus Christ gives is Of such is the Kingdome of God The reason shews what the priviledge was they would exclude Infants from viz. being visibly judged to belong to the Kingdome of God and Christ saith Of such is the Kingdome of God Now take the Kingdome of God either for Heaven and Glory or secondly by way of allusion for the Church and the state of the Gospel it will serve as a full reason Of such that is of Infants is Gods Kingdome made up as well as of grown men and they are as fit subjects as you are But doubtless he especially means by the Kingdome of God as well the Kingdome of Grace in a visible Church as the Kingdome of Glory because else this could be no reason to convince the Disciples of their errour for they were against the visible bringing Infants to Christ for to get some outward sign of favour to them and Christ tels them they may be as well brought to Christ and receive a visible sign as grown persons for the Kingdom of God is made of such as of others 1. Christ shews their interest in one of the highest priviledges The Kingdome of God and that visibly 2. He speaks it de praesenti not only respecting their future estate what they may be but that even now the Kingdome of God is of such 3. He useth this as a common instructive principle for the future never to forbid not only these but such like Infants to be brought to him For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of such is the Kingdome of God Christ would have them take it as a constant principle That wherever they found such like Infants they should not reject them but look on them with Gospel respect Ob. These that differ have nothing to say to this but That Christ means it of such as Children for humility and meekness and lowliness and therefore in the following verse he saith He that shall not receive the Kingdome of God as a little Child shall not enter therein Sol. It 's true Christ takes an occasion to exhort them to humility and meekness from the pattern of these little ones But 1. Christ shews Infants right to the Kingdome of God as well as the Disciples and grown persons who can profess their own faith 2. If Christ had meant only to make an example and resemblance he might have taken Sheep and Doves more properly for they are more meek and gentle then Children who are commonly froward and peevish 3. This crosseth the end of Christs reason which was That Infants should not be hindred from being brought to Christ For of such is the Kingdome of God Now if he had meant of such as were only like them in some qualities not of themselves there was nothing at all in Christs reason And thus must the words be rendred on that account Suffer Infants to come to me and do not forbid them for not of them but of humble persons that resemble them is the Kingdome of God Men will rather make Christ speak non-sense then lose their opinions 4. Can we think Christ could be so displeased with his Disciples for hindring little ones to be brought to him meetly to shew them as resemblances and patterns to grown men and adde this reason For of such is the Kingdome of God when he had examples more fit to that purpose even among the meer sensible Creatures No Christ shews the priviledge of such Infants and checks his Disciples pride who would have none but themselves and grown persons to be esteemed as having any visibie interest in the Kingdome of God Lastly Let us view Christs carriage and actions to these Infants he did not onely shew them as examples but took them up in his arms laid his hands on them and blessed them all expressions of the most signal love and favour and of great import if duly considered 1. He took them up in his arms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word signifies to embrace with special affections so the French Translation Embrasser Piscator embrachiare amplexabunde gesto Bud. Christ took them up in his arms and held them forth as Monuments of his love and doubtless to shew his Disciples that he would have some outward sign and character of peculiar respect set on them by his Church and Saints Such a carriage was not out of a
A CHRISTIAN SOBER PLAIN EXERCITATION ON The two grand practicall Controversies of these Times INFANT-BAPTISM AND SINGING OF PSALMS Wherein all the Scriptures on both sides are recited opened and argued with brevity and tenderness and whatever hath been largely discussed by others briefly contracted in a special method for the edification of the SAINTS By Cuthbert Sidenham Teacher to a Church of Christ in Newcastle upon Tine LONDON Printed for Robert White and are to be sold by Francis Tyton at the three Daggers in Fleet-street near the Inner-Temple-gate 1653. Are to be sold by VVilliam London in Newcastle 1653. To his dear and honoured Brother Mr. William Durant my faithful Fellow-labourer in the Gospel And the Church of Christ over whom the Holy Ghost hath made us Joynt-overseers Dearly Beloved I Present you these first-fruits of my poor labours as a pledge of my love and testimony of my unfeigned desires and longings after your settlement and comfort together I am indeared to you in the bowels of Christ and for his sake ow my self unto you My highest ambition in this world is to see you stablished in truth and flourishing in the glorious graces of the Gospel I have treated on these two subjects because I know they are the tempting errours of these Times and have the fairest glosses set on them and have too much influence to disturb the Peace and Order of Churches The first especially which eats out mens affections and creeps at the heart like a gangrene insensibly an opinion which hath been always ominous and of a wonderful strange influence accompanied with the most dangerous retinue of errours since the first Embrio of it was brought forth whether by a judgement of God or from its natural and secret connexion with other principles of darkness I will not determine only God hath shewed some black characters on it in every Nation where it hath prevailed though we cannot but say many Saints are innocently under the power of it For the second I hope when mens hearts come in Tune their voyces will likewise The former denies more Fundamental Principles as the Covenant in its extent and subjects the freeness of Grace the riches of its workings in the New Testament and contracts the Gospel leaving more Grace visible in the Legal and Old Testament dispensation then in the New I have only summed up what others express more at large with something new and never yet touched that I know of And as to the method all is new and made fit for your use if Christ set it home on you I have nothing else to add but to tell you you have been yet kept pure in the midst of many Distractions and the violence of desperate Opinions Take heed of plausible errours that come painted to you with the name of the most glorious truths Lose not your glory at last try and weigh every tittle that is propounded It 's my desire you may have the glorious Title given to you the Bereans had to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of better breeding then to take up any thing on trust though from the Apostles themselves untill you know how they were inspired Compare Scripture with Scripture do not distract your selves in the Gospel lay truths together they will shine in their proper glory Part not so easily with antient enta l d priviledges Have so much pity to your Children as not to blot their names out of Heaven by your own hands until God do it by soveraignty do not bury them alive Those that know the riches of such a priviledge will not easily part with it upon such poor terms as most propose I plead for poor Infants and it 's but charity to speak for those whose tongues are tied I intend brevity in this as in all the following Discourse The Lord fill you with wisdom and understanding and give you to know what his perfect will is and hearts to obey it And thrive like Saints of the New Testament that lie at Christs breasts night and day These are the desires of Your unworthy Teacher Cuthbert Sidenham CHAP. I. Severall Considerations premised as an entrance to the Discourse BEFORE I enter on the main questions handled in this Discourse it will not be unnecessary to premise something in general concerning this Controversy which is such a bone of contention among the Saints for to make our way clear before us And 1. Let this be considered that there is nothing in all the N. T. against the baptizing of Infants not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles not one phrase which though never so much strain'd doth forbid such an act but there is much for it in divers Scriptures compared together and what is wanting in the one is supplyed in another abundantly as hereafter will appear 2. The sum of all that our Opposites have to say though they make a great deal of noise in the World is only this that they can find no syllabical precept or word of command in terms saying Go baptize Infants or any positive example where it is said in so many words Infants were baptized only actual believers as they believed were baptized all that they say besides is only to quarrel with our arguments and make shift to evade the strength of them but this is their only argument and their all for however they talk of the Covenant and fleshly and spiritual seed yet this is the Goliahs sword none like to it I would therfore fairly encounter with it in the Portall that I may see all their strength before me Concerning which take in these considerations First this argument is built on this false principle That no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory and so obliging nor of Divine Authority which all Orthodox Professors and Divines grant but these which are against Infants baptism and it is most clear for 1. The way to know Scriptures is by comparing them together 1 Cor. 2.13 and this must needs be by their Harmonie and by deduction from one to another 2. Without True consequence were as Scripture no one could speak truth but these that speak just the very expressions of Scripture 3. There could be no spiritual reasons nor arguments used in any Discourse to be of any force or consequence though from the Scripture for there can be no arguing from Scripture but by consequences and deduction for in all arguments there must be a medium and a conclusion a proposition and an inference 4. Nothing upon this account can be Scripture but the very letters and syllables in the Bible nothing of the meaning or sense is Scripture for you must draw out the sense and meaning from the letters by rational consequence as the conclusion from a proposition by a fit medium and how absurd would this prove that letters should be Scripture and not the sense and so it must be according to that Maxim of theirs 5. This is against all preaching and expounding
saved c. With which I shall but thus parly 1. Doth God make the Covenant of salvation with every visible Professor whom they baptize or with every visible Saint or do they baptize them out of Covenant Then how come any to fall off and be damned or what rule have they to baptize by 2. Why should it be thought more hainous to set a seal on Infants as in the Covenant then on these Professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant 3. Or do they baptize because that persons are in the Covenant If not then upon no spiritual account if upon their being in Covenant then either internally or externally on the first it cannot be absolutely but as manifested externally not upon a meer external being in Covenant for then they may set a seal to a blank if upon both together the one externally demonstrated by the other then it is still by the external being in Covenant that we judge with hopes of the other There is a trick that some have got whereby they think to evade this being in Covenant as the fundamental ground of Baptism by this distinction That it is not being in Covenant but being an actual Believer gives right To which I answer 1. That the Covenant take it spiritually is the ground of faith not faith of the Covenant 2. If the Covenant be the ground of faith for who can believe without a promise it may well be the ground of an outward priviledge 3. To separate the Covenant from the conveyance of actual priviledges is almost as dangerous as to separate actual faith from the Covenant for the one gives a right as well as the other 4. Infants in the Old Testament were thus as really to be esteemed in the Covenant as actual visible Believers are now and under the external administration of the Covenant as the Proselytes who came in to the Jewish Church and were the first fruits of the Gentiles For that there is an external administration of the Covenant of Abraham or rather of God in Christ even in the New Testament is clear for that many were baptized who proved hypocrites and many believed visibly likewise as Simon Magus Hymenaeus Alexander Philetus c. many in all the Churches and yet these must be accounted the spiritual seed though most wicked because they can profess their own present sudden faith and poor Infants of believers must be accounted the carnal seed though so long under a Gospel promise of which you shall not want proof hereafter Now that all which are baptized or have any Ordinance have it administred fundamentally on the ground of the Covenant externally administred I prove thus 1. God administers all his graces by Covenant much more outward Ordinances 2. Souls can have no challenge or interest in God but by some Covenant or other God is tied to none but as he ties himself 3. If there were not a visible and external administration of the Covenant none should know of the invisible design of it unto any all things would be in the dark to us as to Gods Covenant in a visible dispensation 4. If this invisible design were not secretly carried on in an outward visible dispensation there could be none condemned by an outward rule for who can condemn these who are intentionally and invisibly in Covenant or for Re And if every one visibly in Covenant be intentionally and spiritually in Covenant it 's just the same The whole is this None are in Covenant say they but real believers the spiritual seed so none to be baptized but such when it comes to application of the Ordinance then none are the spiritual seed but visible believers and these visible believers can be judged by no way but by an external profession to be in Covenant and Infants are no visible believers therefore no spiritual seed when as the one is as visible by promise as the other by profession CHAP. V. Opening that place in Acts 2.39 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 THIS Text I first hold forth as fit to discover the New Testament application of the Covenant of grace and its continuation to believers and their seed as to Abraham and his in the Old Testament It 's the first Argument used after Christs Ascension to provoke the Jews to repent and submit to Gospel ordinances and the first open promulgation of the Covenant both to Jew and Gentile with the prime priviledges of it in which is contained the Gospel-Covenant made with believers and their seed 1. Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the promise which can be no other then the promise of remission of sins and so of salvation sutable to that in Gen. 17.7 and repeated at large in Jer. 31.34 For it must either be a promise of temporal things or spiritual of temporal things it cannot be for there is no absolute promise of these things in the New Testament but as included in or following spiritual mercies as Mat. 6.33 Neither is there a syllable in this Chapter pressing men to look after temporal enjoyments or engaging them to embrace the Gospel by any outward emoluments Ob. The great and only interpretation of this promise by these that differ is that it hath reference to v. 16. and is meant of the promise of the holy Ghost prophesied of by Joel Chap. 2.28 which was to be poured forth in the latter daies and now visibly and eminently begun to be fulfilled at the day of Pentecost To which the Answer will be clear and fair though that be granted and not at all weaken but strengthen the former sense For 1. That promise is a spiritual promise and more large and comprehensive of spiritual mercies then any other the promising of the spirit is as much as to promise all at once graces gifts yea Heaven it self for all are but the fruits of this promise Christ in the Old Testament and the Spirit in the New contain all the promises in an eminency When Jesus Christ was to leave the World and speak all his heart at once and leave his last blessing that should be better then his bodily presence among them he expresses all in this that he would send the Spirit Joh. 14.16 26. Ch. 15.26 16.7 And of this large promise as well according to Christ's promise before his Ascension as Joels Prophesy the Apostles and Believers received the first fruits in this solemn day of Christs triumph So that to say it 's the promise of the Spirit is as much as to say it 's the promise of all spiritual things For this read in Gal. 3.14 the Apostle speaking of the fruits of Christs death saith It was that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith The same phrase that is in this 38. And in the promise of the spirit which is to be received by faith is included justification sanctification yea all graces and it 's here joyned with the blessing
of Abraham But 2. If they take the promise of the Spirit in a limited and restrictive sense for the external gifts as the most do for the gifts of tongues and miracles and prophesy they both clip the promise and make the argument and comfort from it invalid and of no efficacy 1. It 's a mighty wrong to that famous promise of the Spirit to circumscribe it in these accidental gifts which were especially necessary and almost only for that season when it 's a promise that reacheth all the latter daies and is still accomplishing though all these extraordinary gifts are ceased 2. This straitned sense is expunged by the manner of the expressions of that Prophesy both in Joel and this in the Acts I will pour out of my spirit on all flesh and on your servants and handmaids will I pour out of my spirit Which shews the universality and variety of the subjects and blessings in this promise that it shall be so large and full a mercy as if there were to be no limitation of its measure 3. If it were meant meerly of these gifts why then there is no more benefit of that promise after the Apostles daies but that Christ was out of date and did expire with that age whereas it is a promise made for all the time of the New Testament which is exprest by the latter daies and the last daies up and down the Scripture A parallel promise to this you have in Isa 44.3 I will pour water on him that is thirsty and floods on the dry ground I will pour my spirit on thy seed and my blessing on thy off-spring Now the promise of the spirit is alwaies appropriated to the New Testament daies And secondly This cannot be the meaning of this phrase if we consider to whom the Apostle speaks to persons pricked in their hearts wounded for their sins in crucifying of Iesus Christ crying out v. 37. Men and Brethren what shall we do to be saved Now what comfort could this be to tell them they should have extraordinary gifts their hearts were bleeding under sin their eye was on salvation they saw no hopes of it nor knew the way to obtain it the Apostle bids them repent and be baptized they might have said What shall we be the better why saith the Apostle You shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost for the promise is unto you What promise of gifts of tongues and miracles What is this to our souls how will this save us might they well object It would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the holy Ghost is a better Physician then to apply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ And truly no other promise but that of free grace in order to salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition But to put all out of question That the promise prophesied of in Joel and quoted here was the promise of salvation and the same with the Covenant of Grace Consult the Original in Joel and the parallel in this of the Acts in Joel 2.27 the Prophet founds all the promises that went before and all that come after on this That he is the Lord their God and none else which was the very express words in that Covenant made with Abraham And then afterwards viz. in the New Testament to make out this fully He will pour out his spirit on all flesh c. v. 32. which is a part of that prophesy and is quoted again in v. 21. Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved one grace put for all and salvation being put at the end of the promise must needs be the aim of it The same expression you have again repeated Rom. 10.13 And in the former v. 38. he exhorts them to repent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the remission of sin the exhortation is to a Gospel duty the effect and profit of it was to be remission of sins and receiving the gift of the holy Ghost and the promise must needs be answerable by which all is enforced and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them only by the narration of a promise of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them And it 's very observable in that verse he joyns remission of sins with the gift of the holy Ghost and then adds the promise to both as the ground of one and the other and comprehending both And for that expression of Receiving the gift of the holy Ghost it may well be noted that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gifts of the holy spirit noting the very sending of the spirit as a free gift to bestow all mercies on them and so respecting rather the free and bounteous manner of bestowing the holy Ghost on them then any limited effects of his reception By all which it is demonstrated that this is no ordinary common no temporal promise or of meer gifts though never so extraordinary but a promise of free grace I only adde this to all the rest as undeniable by the principles of these that differ it 's a promise made not only to these Jews but it 's universally to the Gentiles and to all the called of God but all that are called have not received such gifts of the holy Ghost which then were given but every one that is effectually called doth receive the promise of remission of sins and the free favour of God and therefore this promise must be taken mainly in that sense But the great difficulty is in the following part of the verse and about the interest of their Children in this promise and therefore the next work must be to make out this that the Children as well as the Parents are included in this promise as they were in the promise made with Abraham 1. Let us consider to whom the Apostle speaks to the Jews who were prickt in their hearts The promise is to you and your Children He speaks to them after the wonted manner of expression in the Old Testament when ever the promise is mentioned and useth their own language in which they were trained up in from their Fathers I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17. The promise is to you and your Children If the Apostle had intended to exclude their Children from the same priviledges they had formerly by the Covenant he would never have spoken
of Jesus Christ as High-priest as any one that runs may read now either they must say these were not baptized before or else must conclude that his design is not to inform them and that so transiently of the nature or manner of administring of that Ordinance Thirdly the Apostle here doth directly instruct the soul how to make confident addresses to God viz. from the sense of our justification and sanctification together for so by our hearts being sprinkled from an evil conscience is meant and can be meant no other then Christs blood sprinkled on our souls in the assurance of our absolution from sin and the washing with pure water no more but by this outward expression of the purity of our conventions as to sanctification that we may not come with scandal of external unholiness when we pretend to be justified by Christs blood Fourthly the usual word is here left out which expresseth that Ordinance and it is your bodies not baptized but washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a clear allusion to that of Levit 16.4 from whence it seems to be excerpted when Aaron the high-Priest was to enter into the holy place and before he was to be attired for that work it is said He shall wash his flesh in water and so put them on the 70. translate the words thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shall wash his whole bodie with water to signifie the holiness he should have in his person as from external publick pollutions the very same intent of the Apostle is here that if we would be confident before God when we approach unto God we must come with Christs blood on our consciences and no known pollution on out conversations and if we will follow their grounds from comparing these two places we may conclude that baptism was as much an Ordinance of the Old Testament as the New for washing the body was used in both Fifthly it is a usual phrase in Scripture to express the sanctification of our persons from inward outward defilements by the washing of water and washing the body yet not in the least to hint out the manner of baptizing by water as into the special administration of that Ordinance thus in Esa 1.16 when God saith to his backsliding people wash you make you clean must he needs mean go and be baptized but that outward expression is put for the reforming of their wayes and expounded by putting away the evil from their doings or works thus in Ioh. 13. Christ expresseth justification and sanctification by washing in general and then washing the feet he that is washed which is not baptized for Christ saith he must wash or else Peter could have no part in him and Christ did not baptize such a one need no more but to wash his feet that is walk holily so that here is washing and washing of the feet and yet neither meant of baptizing nor washing Thus likewise in the Corinthians it is said as to their sanctification Now you are washed now you are cleansed now you are justified he means not Now you are baptized but of the special purification of their hearts and lives from their former pollutions of flesh and spirit which though signified by baptism yet so remotely as no man can gather the constant method of external baptism from it Sixthly he saith your bodies washed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with clean or pure water now I hope as to baptizing none are so foolish as to stand on it whether they be baptized after a rain when the water is puddled or whether only in pure and crystal streams from an unpuddled spring or ocean and yet they must be tied to the one as the other if this Text be their president and we may as well question from this Text whether they be rightly baptized if there be any mud or slime or filth in the water as whether we baptized if all our bodies be not washed but now this expression to set forth holiness and sanctification is most apt and full of life our hearts and conversations in drawing nigh unto God should be as if externally they were washed with clean water transparent and spotless before him shining with an Evangelical brightness and spiritual purity for it will be very hard to draw nigh to God with a good conscience and a tainted and besmeared body or conversation with unholy acts whereby God is so much dishonoured especially to come as the Apostle saith in the former part of the verse with a true heart and full assurance of faith Seventhly if he had meant by this washing of the body baptizing he would not have made such a disproportion according to their own rule between the sign and thing signified for he speaks of the heart being only sprinkled and yet the body washed with clean water now if baptism doth not signifie and seal justification as well as sanctification it is not a seal of the Covenant of grace and if it do signifie it cannot go beyond the thing signified in expression and outward representation And if Christs blood in Heb. 12.24 be called the blood of sprinkling and it be one of the main things signified and sealed in baptism well may we answer it by an outward act without offence or sin Eighthly grant that by washing the body is meant baptizing here which you see cannot be extorted by violence or extracted by any chymical virtue yet it will not serve their turns For First the body is said to be washed when any one or more of the principal parts in sight or use are washed what is done to any eminent or commanding part it carries the denomination of the whole with it for Maries annointing and washing of Christs head and feet in Luke 7.44.45 is interpreted in Iohn 11.2 for the anointing of the Lord as much as if she had done it to all his body throughout though it is only exprest in the former place of the anointing and washing his head and feet This is most usual in Scripture Secondly if they will go to the strictness of the term of washing the body then First it must be washed naked or else it is not a a washnig of the body Secondly it must not be a bare dipping or plunging into water but some other act must be done with the body viz. a rinsing or rubbing as we do pots or cloaths which we wash which are not said to be washed because dipt under water but so rinsed as the filth and dirt is taken out I only urge this to shew the inevitable inconveniences these men will bring on themselves by such interpretations of Scripture Many other considerations might be added if this Tract would bear the weight of them CHAP. XVII A short summing up of the former principles and arguing them from the method of the Apostle Peter about those he baptized Acts 10.47 THat we may bring up all unto a full conclusion let that place be considered Acts 10.47 and the manner
have men to be gods to judge when men sing Psalms and Hymns and spiritual songs inwardly what need these names outwardly A more ungrounded opinion was never invented by the devil and surely he hath fitted it for the weaker and most perfectly captivated sorts of proselytes who have first lost their reasons and then their consciences Can my inward joy teach another or my private ejaculations admonish another I wish Satan have not these men at his will they would have singing to be an Ordinance but no man to hear them So that if singing be not a distinct visible Ordinance then no man can tell what it is to sing at all but the same with preaching praying talking or only an invisible motion of the soul known to God only which is most absurd when we look on the weight of these places of Scripture mentioned formerly Ob. If any object If singing be with the voice why not with other instruments as lute and harp and organs c as in the O. T. Sol. First in the New Testament the voice and the heart are only Gods instruments this holds forth the special way of worship from soul and body as from one person artificial instruments are laid aside not natural ones Secondly the voice is still required because it is the most immediate Interpreter of the heart and no outward instrument besides is so Thirdly nothing can be exprest so significantly in outward characters as by the voice and the best expressions of God we have in words and the tongue can best make out them Fourthly the union of heart and tongue or voice makes up the compleat expression of Gods praises without any other consideration for we have not now any thing as typical to look at as Lute and Harp c. were in the Old Testament to praises so ceremonies were to Christs sacrifice when the substance came they ceased there is no need of them now the spirit being more abundantly poured forth and they have no significancy but their needs soul and body alwayes to sing out Divine stories while in this world Fifthly this hath been prophesied of and long before the New Testament dayes by the Prophets of singing to God with a lively voice when the voice shall be as Lute and Harp and all instruments to God as in Esa 52.8 as Mr. Cotton in that precious Treatise of his worthy all mens consideration compared with Rom. 10 14. Psal 100.1 Psal 95 1 2. all places referring prophetically to the Gospel Sixthly if they dare grant this that there must be no singing by voice then they cut off themselves from any sort of singing by gift in Psalms or Hymns and spiritual Songs and any outward way of expressing Gods praises and must blot out singing in any way publickly as to be looked after though a person never so much inspired by the holy Ghost after their own sense should extemporarily compose and breath forth the most glorious Sonnets or heavenly Anthems for what is not a duty in it self and general in the nature of it is not a duty to the most raised spirit if never so well gifted in such a mystery But the wiser sort of the contrary judgment who consult with Scriptures and the nature of things will not own the dissent of others as to this but confess singing of Psalms must be by voice lay it on another foundation that it is Psalms c. but not these we sing that the command speaks of but Psalms of another constitution from a peculiar gift and so to be looked on by the Church viz. not to sing Davids Psalms or Asaphs or the like but from the fillings of the Spirit in such a person and on a sudden breaking forth for the edification of the Church I end this with what Zanchy faith on these places These words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 singing with grace in your hearts non excludunt vocem oris verum excludunt hypocrisin vanitatem ex qua fere loquuntur ebrii vino 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 valet atque 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they do not exclude the voice but hypocrisie and vanity from which men drunk with wine do sing and in your hearts is as much as from your hearts that is not vainly or as hypocritically but as from inward sense So the Greek Scholiasts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 CHAP. II. What 's meant by these three expressions Psalms Hymns Spiritual Songs how they are used in the Old Testament and the New Testament from which the matter of singing is cleared THE next difference is about the matter of singing which all must grant to be Psalms and Hymns and Spiritual Songs but what these Psalms were c. and how to distinguish them one from another must be debated ere we can clear the point between these three expressions some constitute one difference some another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalms say some are such Songs which were sung with other Instruments besides the tongue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hymns such as are made only to express the praises Zanchius and set out the excellencies of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Songs such as contain not only praises but exhortations prophesies thanksgiving and these only sung with the voyce and tongue Others difference them thus Psalms are those which were pen'd by David and others drawn up into meeter to be sung in the Temple in a musical strain Hymns are those extemporal praises which break forth upon occasion from a heart filled with the Spirit Grotius and observant of Gods goodness Songs or Odes they call such that were premeditated not without some art These they call the Songs of Moses Deborah Hannah Simeon Mary c. But we shall find if we consult the use of the words the difference will not be considerable between them and that they are used promiscuously in the Old Testament from whence we must learn how they are to be taken in the New Now 1. I find they are used in general as the title of Davids Psalms which are named promiscuously by these three words 2. That the three Hebrew words viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mizmor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schir 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tehillim to which these these three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do fully answer are used in the Psalms one for another without distinction and sometimes two of them joyned together as the title of one Psalm sometimes all three joyned together in one title we could heap up examples in this kind Iudges 5.3 saith Deborah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will sing I will sing unto the Lord it 's translated by the 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here is two words the one used for a Psalm the other for an Ode or Song put to express one act 1 Chron. 16.9 the two same words are translated thus in the 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sing unto the Lord sing a Hymn unto the Lord. In Psal 105.3 which
this truth is that its confusion to sing together and that but one should sing at one time Sol. Still this is not against the Ordinance of singing But 1. Singing is more melodious and suitable when performed by many then one severall instrument at one time and so severall voice make the greater Harmony the exellency of singing lies in the Church which is made up of divers voices 2. Christ and his Disciples sung together Mat. 26.30 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they sung Paul and Silas Act. 16.25 sung together in the Prison not one after another but together Ob. But if any one say when one prayes all may be said to pray though he doth but consent it may be so in singing of Psalmes It is Answered 1. All Ordinances must be considered according to their proper nature some Ordinances are so to be administred as that onely one at once can performe it as publique prayer and preaching and yet there must be a distinction even in these my silence in prayer ought to be when I pray with another and yet I may be said to pray as well as he which is the mouth of the whole because my heart is with him in the same petitions and my desires go equally With him but it is not so in preaching where silence must be likewise from the nature of the Ordinance yet though I consent fully with the matter and agree in all that is said with never so much affection yet I cannot be said to preach but onely he that speaketh preacheth So now as to singing there is a difference likewise of another consideration if onely one sing none else can be said to sing though they joyne with the matter and agree to it in their hearts for its an outward act and terminated in the person that performes it and though in my silent conjunction I may really praise God yet I can in no sense be properly said to sing with others without I do use my Voice and Organs as they doe This consideration will give light to men that minde the nature and distinction of Ordinances in their outward administraions 2. That which is the confusion of other Ordinances is the beauty of this for two to preach or pray together at the same time and place were the greatest confusion imaginable but for a hundred to sing together is most harmonious and pleasant so far from the breach of order that harmony is most discovered by it 3. It hath been the custome of the Churches alwayes thus to practise and there is nothing in the nature of the Ordinance or Divine precept or example against it I shall conclude this with a word from Antiquity concerning this practise Euseb in his Eccles Hist l. 3 cap. 33. quotes two Epistles of Plinius Secundus to Trajan the Emperour testifying that Christians were wont to gather themselves before day to sing Psalmes and Hymnes together the same doth Philo Judaeus testifie who lived in the Apostles time as the same Euseb saith lib. 2. cap. 22. Now in the time of Plinius and Trajan did John the beloved Disciple live saith Zanch. in Eph. 5.18.29 whereby it appeares an Apostolicall institution Tertul. in his Apol. c. 19. saith that it was a usuall custome among the Christians after their Love Feasts canere de Scripturis Sanctis to sing of the Scriptures his meaning is doubtlesse out of or from the Scriptures In the Westerne Churches this hath beene the constant practice though much corrupted by the Roman additions to Saints method but yet that blessed Ordinance is now more specially recovered and made pure for Saints according to primitive institution CHAP. V. The great abuses of the Roman and Episcopall Church about this Ordinance whereby many stick not to call it Antichristian hath been 1. THe introducing musicall Instruments together with as Organs Harps Viols c. whereas in the New Testament God requires the Voice as the onely Organ of the heart in worship 2. They had a meere order of Singers to whom they gave pensions unto for that purpose and excluded the Church from the persons of that duty which is of so Universall a concernment 3. They would sing in Latin and with such straines of their Voices that the words might not be understood 4. They spent most of the time in singing and gave not other Ordinances as preaching and praying their due time of excercise Thus have precious Ordinances been abused by the corruptions of men but are now restoring unto their purity and will every day be more gloriously practised in the Churches CHAP. VI. How we may be said to teach and admonish one another in Psalmes Hymnes and Songs according to that of Col. 3.16 17. MAny thinke there can be no such use of singing as to teach and admonish one another by it but if we consider there are many lessons to be learnt one another from this publique conjunct singing Scripture-Psalmes 1. They teach one another and by the very act admonish one another to get the same frames these Holy men had in the penning the Psalmes and in the variety and spirituality of them to get Davids frame in singing Davids Psalmes and so for the rest 2. It s by this they teach one another the Unity and Harmony that is and should be among Saints as one bodie that their happinesse and joyes are bound up together and so the misery of one is the misery of the whole and this is a glorious lesson to know their Union together as a body equally concerned in the glory or shame of one another equally interested in the praises of God there is no duty practised in all the Gospell that doth fully expresse the Communion of Saints and represent Heaven as the Saints singing together the Lords Supper doth represent the Communion of Saints very lively but not so as mutuall singing when all at once not by consent onely but expresly speak the same thing in the same moment in the Lords Supper though afterwards they were all one bread yet they all doe not receive it at the same instant of time but take successively the Elements but in singing they all joyne perfectly at once to sound Gods prayses as if they had but one Lip and one Voice This is the perfect Emblem of Heaven no jerring all with one Voice and Heart crying Hallelujah Hallelujah 3. They teach one another this lesson also viz. with what alacrity and cheerefulnesse they should perform all their duties together with sweetnesse of love and joy they ought to walke together 4. They teach one another how to carry themselves in all conditions with joyfull and praysing frames of spirit for matter of the Psalmes and are various not onely affording matter of exultation and gratulation but also reciting the sadnesse and low condition of the Church yet all are fit matter to be sung Lachrymae must be sung sad things with a spirituall joyfull heart in God and his promises mercy and judgement in the same song exprest in