FOR proving the Lawfulness of I. The Apostles communica­ted with In­strumental-Musick after their declar­ing against the obligati­on of the Mo­saick Law on Gentile Proselytes; and there­fore could not thereby intend to condemn it as unlawful. Church Musick now, I desire no more than what is notoriously true in Fact, and not denied by our Adversaries themselves, that it was actually practis'd among the Jews, at least in the Temple Worship, with their Sacrifices and Sacrifical Hymns. Hence I infer, That none who communicated in their Sacrifices and in Hymns Sung on those Occasions, could avoid Communicat­ing with the Instrumental Musick, to which those Hymns were Sung; and there­fore [Page 2] that the Apostles could not avoid it. For the Apostles, who were all made be­fore it was thought lawful to receive any into the new Peculium besides Jews, or Proselytes of Justice, (who are reckon'd as Jews by Nation upon that Proselytism) must therefore have been Jews by Na­tion, and therefore oblig'd upon a Nati­onal Account to appear Personally before the Lord in the Temple, as all Males were on the three annual Festivals of the Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles, and to communicate in the Sacrifices and Sa­crifical Hymns, Sung to the Instruments appointed for that Service. But this they would not have done, if they had known of any new Revelation for­bidding it under the new Peculium. Yet certainly they did it long after they had declared against the Imposition of the Law on Gentile Proselytes; and therefore could not possibly have been understood to have condemn'd Instrumental Musick by those Declarations. St. Paul himself Acts xx. 16. usually contriv'd to be at Jerusalem at those annual Solemnities, not only to bring the Alms of his Nation, which were to be laid out on those who were then assembled in obedience to the Law, but also to shew that himself walked or­derly, Acts xxi. 20, 21, 24. according to the Law. The last [Page 3] Act mention'd of him in the Acts before his Imprisonment, and his being sent as a Prisoner to Rome, was his offering the Sacrifice of a Nazarite, purposely to sa­tisfie the many Myriads, who, as St. James told him, were zealous for the Law, and to clear himself from the Scandal of teaching an Apostasy from the Law, and to convince them that he as, a Jew, thought himself oblig'd by the Law of the Tem­ple upon the Jewish Nation. It was therefore impossible that he could, in his former Preaching, have condemn'd that as sinful, which he hereby own'd himself as oblig'd to, on account of his Jewish Extraction. So far he was from con­demning Instrumental Musick as unlaw­ful, as that he could not condemn the Sa­crifices themselves in Jews by extraction. If therefore our Adversaries will prove even Sacrifices unlawful for Jews by Ex­traction, they must do it by Testimonies later than this Practice of St. Paul. It must on the contrary appear that all their Testimonies for this purpose, drawn from his Epistles, written before this time, were manifest misunderstandings of his Words, when drawn to a Sense, in which it is impossible that he could intend them, with­out contradiction to his own Practice. In­deed they can produce nothing to this [Page 4] purpose, even from the latest of the N. T. Writings. The Christians in the Acts had separated before that time from the Synagogue Worship in many Places. But we find nothing there, nor in any of the N. T. History, that they ever attempted it with relation to the worship of the Tem­ple. St. James the Just, the Bishop of Jeru­salem, the Bishop of the Apostles, fre­quented the Temple Worship, not only then when he advis'd St. Paul to do so, but also afterwards, if we may believe Hegesippus and Josephus. For he was Martyr'd there, and the Church of Je­rusalem is represented in the Revelations as having Harpers playing to Hymns. The Archetypal Church in all likelihood, af­ter the way of Prophetick Visions, accord­ing to the Customs of the Ectypal. And ra­ther the Christian Archetypal than the Jewish, because there is no mention of bloody Sacrifices, but such as became the new Peculium, when the Temple was de­stroy'd. Nay, Justin Martyr, admits Dialog. cum. Tryphon. even in his time, that Jews by Extraction might observe the Law of Moses in their own Persons; on Condition that they would not impose it on the Gentiles. So far St. Hierom's Observation is from be­ing true, that the Rites of the Law were mortiferous after the destruction of the [Page 5] Temple. Thus far therefore it was im­possible, that there could have been any Revelation to the Apostles, concerning the unlawfulness of Instrumental Musick.

BUT perhaps our Adversaries may say, II. So did the Gentiles al­so, as far as it was in the Power of the Apostles to permit them. That the Apostles might allow it to the Jews, such as themselves were; and yet believe it unlawful for the Gentiles, such as we are now. Indeed the Gentiles were, by the Discipline of the Temple, excluded from the Sacrifices themselves, and the Sacrifical Hymns, and conse­quently from the Instrumental Musick, to which these Hymns were Sung. They were not permitted to come into that Ho­lier part of the Temple, where the Sacri­fices were offered. All Jerusalem was al­larm'd by it, when they thought St. Paul had brought an Ephesian Gentile into that part of the Temple. But the Apostles were so far from adding to the severity of that Discipline, that they not only permitted, but obliged, Gentile Chri­stians to partake of that Musick, as far as it was in their Power to do so, whilst the Discipline of the Temple was kept up by such Jews as were by Principles profess'd Enemies to the Christian Religion. They admitted Gentiles indeed into the new Peculium, without the Proselytism of [Page 6] Justice by Circumcision. But plainly on such Terms as oblig'd them to depend on the Terms of Judaism, for the bene­fits of the Peculium. They were oblig'd to be one Body with the Apostles, to be built and superstructed on them, if they could pretend to any share in the cor­ner Stone. They oblig'd them to be grafted into the natural Olive, if they would have any of the Sap and Fatness of it. This gave a Prerogative and Pre­cedency to the Jews so long as this engraft­ing lasted, acknowledged by the Apo­stle himself, when on this account he reckons the Jews first, then the Gentile. For what can that Fatness and Sap of the natural Olive be, but the Mystical benefits of their Sacrifices, and their Temple So­lemnities? The Gentiles therefore, as ob­lig'd to Communicate with the Apostles, must also have Communicated with the Sacrifices and other Solemnities of the Temple, in order to the obtaining those Mystical Benefits, of which the Jews were made partakers by those Solemnities, a­mong others, by their Hymns, second­ed with Musick, not only Vocal, but In­strumental. How so, if that Instrumen­tal Musick had been unlawful, even to the Gentiles?

[Page 7] A Doctrine, in it self so incredible, III. The Apostles reasoned from the Law to the Gospel other­wise than our Adver­saries do now. ought in Reason to have very evident Proof before it be receiv'd. And what Proof can our Adversaries pretend to that can be thought so evident? Have they any express Testimonies of the N. T. that Musical Instruments in the Service of God are unlawful, sufficient to counter­vail that notoriety of Fact, avowedly practic'd to the contrary? If this cannot be pretended, have they at least any evident Prohibition of it, that might make it unlawful for the future, when this dependence of the Christian Church on the Jewish Establishment was to expire? I know no Evidence of either kind that themselves pretend to, Well then, will they pretend to any evident Proof of any other Proposition, from whence this must necessarily follow? They tell us in­deed, that all the Jewish Law, that was not Moral or Judicial, was in course not only to cease to be obliging, but also to begin to be unlawful, from the Pro­mulgation of the Gospel. But what Proof can they produce for this Proposition, so crudely and so generally express'd? No plain Testimony of the N. T. that I know of. Can they therefore say, that it is at least supposed in the Reasonings of the N. [Page 8] T? Where do they find that the Apostles argue, that any thing was to be anti­quated under the New Testament for no other Reason, but because it was pre­scribed under the Old? So far from that, that we have many Examples of the Apo­stles, and Apostolical Writers, Reasoning from the Old Testament to the New. The Adversaries of Tythes pretend that Tythes are not to be paid to the Ministers of the Gospel now, because they were imposed as a Duty to the Levitical Priesthood. St. Paul argues directly contrary, that 1 Cor. ix. 13. 14. because the Levitical Priests lived by the Altar then, therefore they, who Preach the Gospel now, should also live by the Gospel. He reasons the same way when 1 Cor. ix. 9. 10. 1 Tim. v. 17. 18. he proves, that because the Law required that the Ox's Mouth should not be muz­led when he trod out their Corn, (that was the ancientest way of Threshing, in imitation, as it should seem, of their Treading out their Vintage) therefore the Clergy shoul partake of the Contribu­tions of the Church, which themselves laid out for the use of the Poor, who were maintained by those Contributions. So he allows the Reasoning against Chri­stians Marrying Persons of another Com­munion, from the Jews Obligation not to Marry Persons of another Nation, in or­der [Page 9] to their Propogating a holy Seed. So he also Reasons himself, that, as the Jews 1 Cor. vii. 14. did allow that the holiness of one Parent was sufficient to entitle their common Off-spring to the Foederal holiness of Cir­cumcision; so the holiness of one Parent, by the Rules of Christianity, was also sufficient to entitle the Children of such Marriages to the Foederal holiness of Chri­stianity by Baptism. This he supposes, when he thence infers, that the Believer was under no Obligation of breaking such a Matrimonial Contract, on account of that Objection insisted on for doing so, that is, of the holiness of the Seed, with which such Marriages were conceived inconsistent. For himself had Circum­cis'd Acts xvi. 1. St. Timothy on account of his Mother who was a Jewess, tho' his Father was a Heathen. No doubt, on account of the receiv'd allow'd practice of the Jews, whom he design'd to gratify by doing so. On the same Topick his Fellow-labourer Clem. Rom. ep. ad. Corin. St. Clement concludes the Sacredness of the Gospel Ministry, from all the ways God had used for asserting the inviolable Sanctity of the Levitical Priesthood a­gainst Laical encroachments. How contrary is this whole way of Reason­ing, to that used by our Adversaries, on many others as well as this Occasion?

[Page 10] And yet it was indeed no other than IV. And indeed were to be presumed most likely to do so, considering their Edu­cation. what was to be expected in their Cir­cumstances, considering the History of those Times. Our Adversaries may be pleased to remember, that when those Scriptures were Written, (on which they ground their contrary way of Rea­soning) the whole Church was Govern'd by the Apostles, whose place of Residence, as of a Body, was at Jerusalem. They may remember farther, that the Apostles themselves, as Jews, were possess'd with the same prejudices of Education as the rest of their Nation, in favour of their pre­sent Establishment, and against unneces­sary Innovations. St. Paul had Persecut­ed the Church on account of his Zeal. And St. Simeon for the same Reason had got the Sirname of Zealot. And St. Pe­ter's concern for the Law he had been bred in, appeared on all occasions. His Hunger could not make him eat what his Education had oblig'd him to believe common and unclean. And he avoided eating with the Gentiles, that he might avoid offence of the Jews which came from Jerusalem. It also thence appear'd how cautious the Apostles themselves were oblig'd to be, in admitting Innovations, if they would maintain the good Opini­on [Page 11] they were possess'd of, with their own Charge of Jerusalem, who were also, as St. James assures us, Zealous of the Law. We have therefore reason to believe, that they would not admit of any Revelation that was not very clear against the then received Opinions. What­ever their own private Opinions might have been, yet we have reason to believe that they would not have ventured to publish and practice Opinions in favour of Innovation, without such Evidence as as might satisfie others as well as them­selves, if they would preserve the good Opinion of the Zealots mentioned by St. James, and keep them with their Zeal from Apostatizing from the Christian Re­ligion, notwithstanding Innovations so contrary to the Opinions they had been bred in. But where can our Adversa­ries find any Testimony so express in the Writings of the N. T. that all the Ri­tual and Ceremonial Precepts of the Law were to be abrogated upon the promul­gation of the Gospel, that even the Jews by extraction should be discharg'd from the Obligation, under which they had been formerly, of observing them? Whence can they prove that thencefor­ward it must have been unlawful by the Law of Christianity for them to observe [Page 12] them, tho' with no regard to the former divine Legislation, which had impos'd those ceremonial Precepts on the whole Peculium, but, on account of the humane Authority, whereby particular Churches may provide for their Bodies, without imposing on other Churches of equal Au­thority with themselves? Whence can they prove, that even Gentile Churches, who never were oblig'd by the ceremo­nial Law, whilst they continu'd Gentiles, might not by the Authority of their par­ticular Bodies, resume any of those Rights if they should judge them edifying in their own Circumstances, without any regard to the Legislative Power, by which they had been formerly imposed? I know very well, our Adversaries of the Sepa­ration are possess'd of Opinions very con­trary to what I have now discours'd. But if they will be pleased to examine them impartially, they will find no bet­ter Authority for them, than the mo­dern Systems since, and the School-men be­fore, the Reformation, and the Reasonings of some Fathers, not near to, nor ac­quainted with, the Originals of Christianity. But these are Authorities by which they are unwilling to be concluded in other Cases. If therefore they will be true to their Principles, they will do well to lay [Page 13] aside these Prejudices, and see what they can find for those Opinions in the Scrip­tures themselves, which are the only Au­thorities they pretend to follow. But when these Prejudices are laid aside, they will not find those things so clearly decided there as they have been used to believe. No, nor in the Writings of the first and purest Originals of the Christian Religion.

AND yet I do not deny but that seve­ral V. The chief new Revela­tion made to the Apo­stles, was that the Gentiles might be ad­mitted into the new Pe­culium im­mediately without Cir­cumcision. of the Mosaical Precepts were in­deed abrogated by the Gospel, and so ab­rogated, as that it is now unlawful to insist on them as they were then impos­ed. What I design, is only to shew that the general way of Reasoning us'd by our Adversaries, neither has, nor can have, the least Countenance in the Writ­ings of the New Testament. This alone will suffice to shew, that before they can make Application to our Case of Instru­mental Musick, they should first shew up­on what Consequence it comes to pass, that any of the Mosaick Rites are made unlawful by the Establishments of the Gospel; and then, that this particular of Instrumental Musick is concern'd in that Consequence. This has not been, that I know, attempted by them, tho' absolute­ly [Page 14] necessary, if they will reason acurately. For this purpose, I shall desire them to remember, that the great dispute of the Apostolical Age, was concerning the Co­alition of the Jews and the uncircumcis'd Gentiles into one Society and Communion of Gods peculiar People, in order to the partaking of the same publick Worship on Earth, and their being thereby entitl'd to the Spiritual benefits promis'd by God, as his part of the Covenant, to that pecu­liar People, which he was pleas'd to own as his, and to receive into his Covenant. For the Principal thing design'd in those new Revelations made to the Apostles in the Acts, was to shew that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the new Pe­culium, without any Obligation to observe the Law of Moses, as it had been particu­larly impos'd on the Jewish Nation. That is, without any Obligation to incorporate themselves into the particular Nation of the Jews. This God shew'd by his effu­sion Acts x. 44. of his Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his Companions, tho' uncircumcis'd, purpose­ly to let St. Peter know that they were not to be reputed as common and unclean, and uncapable of joyning in Holy Offices on the Terms of the new Peculium, on that account alone of their not being Circumcis'd, as St. Peter hath thought [Page 15] before, when he saw the Vision of the unclean Beasts and Reptiles. The de­sign of this, was not to assert their actu­al Holiness, or being actually of the new Peculium without Baptism, as many of our separating Adversaries have under­stood it. That was no Dispute at that time; but it was only to let St. Peter know that they were capable of being admitted into the new Peculium immedi­ately by Baptism, without being Circum­cis'd. So St. Peter understood it, who took care they should be Baptized, tho' he did not insist upon their being Cir­cumcis'd, which he would never have done, if he had thought them as much excus'd thereby from Baptism as from Circumcision. This Revelation to St. Pe­ter, was that which satisfied the rest of the Apostles, when they Expostulated with him concerning his freer Conversa­tion with Cornelius than was allowable Acts xi. 18. by their former Opinions. Afterwards they were farther Confirm'd by the mi­raculous effusions of the Spirit on the Gentiles Converted by St. Paul and St. Acts xiv. 2 [...]. xv. 4. 12. Barnabas, without any Circumcision that might qualify them for it. But most of all, by those ordinary Manifestations of the Spirit then accompanying their Bap­tisms, even of Persons uncircumcis'd; [Page 16] nay, which Circumcis'd Persons could not pretend to, till they were also Bap­tized. It being the peculiar Prerogative of our blessed Saviour's Baptism, that it was not only of Water but also of the Spirit. Thence St. Paul argues to the Gal. iii. 2. Galatians, as a thing very notorious, that they had not receiv'd the Spirit by any ritual Observances of the Law, but by the Obedience of Faith. And very solid­ly, even according to the Notions of those times. For the Holy Spirit being own'd for the Principle of Consecration of the holy People, I mean of the My­stical, which was also own'd for the on­ly true Consecration; it thence appear'd that Baptism alone, without Circumcision, was sufficient for admitting a Person in­to the Holy People, which was one of the proper Titles of the peculiar People, which were in immediate Covenant with the Supreme Being.

NOW this Constitution of the new Pecu­lium VI. This was consequently a repeal of the Mosaical dispensation, so far as it was inconsi­stent with it. was perfectly inconsistent with the Old one. The Old one admitted none to their Sacrifices, by which Gods Cove­nant with them was transacted, but on­ly Circumcis'd Persons. No Gentiles therefore could be admitted into it till they were first Circumcis'd, that is, In­corporated [Page 17] into the Jewish Nation, and thereby made liable to all the Impositions on that Nation: And that by the ex­press Command of God, who had exclud­ed all uncircumcis'd Persons from par­taking of those Sacrifices of the Jewish Temple, and consequently from the Ar­chetypal Heavenly Sacrifices represented by them, and from all the Mystical Benefits of the Archetypal Sacrifices which were apply'd to the Communicants in the ex­ternal Sacrifices, as well as represented by them. By the new Covenant grounded on these new Revelations, the Gentiles were admitted into the new Peculium by Baptism immediately, without any Ob­ligation to Circumcision, or to Incorporation into the Jewish Nation. Both of them therefore being confessedly divine esta­blishments, were to be receiv'd as far as they were consistent with each other. The first was to take Place confessedly till the second was introduced, because so long it had no Rival that might pretend equal Authority with its self. Af­terwards it was to give way on account of that general Authority every Legislative Power has to repeal its own Sanctions, and on the general account that where the re­peal is not express, the latter Sanction is to take Place, in Case of inconsistency, as [Page 18] being the Sense of the Legislative Power, at least from that time forwards. This could not have been Disputed, if the Jews had granted, that their own Establish­ment was design'd only for a time. But observing in the Old Testament, fre­quent mention of an everlasting Cove­nant, it was very natural for them to apply it to that of which they were al­ready possess'd, and of which their Edu­cation had given them so great an Opi­nion. And when this Opinion had ob­tained, it was then very natural for them to gather farther, that God had thereby declared that their present Constitution should last for ever: and that therefore whosoever should pretend to repeal it, either wholly, or in any part, was for that reason to be presum'd not to be from God, because it was in their Opinion so contra­ry to his former express Declarations a­gainst any future Innovation. This Mistake therefore, the Christians of that Apostolical Age Dispute against. They observe in those Writings of the Old Testament, express mention not of one alone, as the Jews conceiv'd, but of two Covenants, an old one which then obtain­ed, and a new one which was to succeed Gal. iv. 24. Heb. viii. 6, 8. xii. 24. upon the abrogation of the first. Then they prove that it was only the latter of [Page 19] these that could be intended to be everlast­ing. That the former could not be so, be­cause Heb. viii. 7. if it had been so, there could have been no Place for the latter. There could have been no second if the first had lasted for ever. Besides, because the first Co­venant is called Old, and that which is Old is ready to vanish away, Heb. viii. 13. And because the Tabernacle of Moses was made in imitation of another Pattern, which had been shew'd him in the Mount. This was observ'd as well by Philo as St. Paul. Understanding there­fore by the Tabernacle, the whole Mosai­cal Dispensation, they thence inferr'd, that all the efficacy of that was derived from this other latter Dispensation, as from that which was Principal in Gods Design, tho' latter in Execution, and in order of time. Hence it followed in this Mysti­cal way of Reasoning, (which was indeed the properest way of Reasoning in ex­plaining Prophecies) that the latter Cove­nant was to take place of the former, and to be taken so far as a Repeal of it, as a practice of both of them were mutually inconsistent. And this way of Reasoning will suffice for abrogating all that part of the Mosaical Establishment, which is supposed to be abrogated in the Reasonings of the N. T. and of the Apostolical Age. [Page 20] I mean with reference to the Design of those Reasonings, that is, as Impositions on the new Peculium.

THENCE it appear'd that Circumcision VII. Those Par­ticulars were indeed inconsistent which are supposed un­lawful in the N. T, as a Condition of being reckon'd of the new Peculium, that is, as impos'd on Gentiles by extraction, must necessarily be ta­ken away before it was possible that Gentiles, not yet Incorporated into the Jewish Nation, could be counted as Foe­derally Holy, according to those new Revelations of the Gospel, of which I have already spoken. So also it was necessary that the Peculium must no longer depend on the Temple Sacrifices. For those were not in the Power of the Apostles, nor could they admit whom they pleas'd to them. They were per­fectly at the disposal of the Jewish San­hedrin, who were profess'd Enemies to our Saviour, and would admit no uncir­cumcis'd Person to partake in them, nor could do otherwise whilst they disown'd the new Revelations of the Gospel by the Apostle. So also that Ceremonial Holiness of abstaining from certain sorts of Meats, could no longer be required in order to the Holiness of the Peculium. For those had never been required from any Na­tion besides that of the Jews, and there­fore [Page 21] could not be expected from the Gentiles, when they were no longer o­bliged to an Incorporation into the Jewish Nation, in order to their being entit'led to the highest Benefits of the Peculium. Nor could the Jews insist on these things as requisite for their communicating with the uncircumcised Gentiles in Holy Offices, if themselves would partake of the my­stical Benefits of the new Peculium, on its own Terms. Their doing so made the Wall of Partition, mention'd by the Apostle; and made it impossible for them to coalesce into one Body with the uncir­cumcis'd, as the new Revelation of the Gospel requires. It were easy by this Rea­soning to account for all the particulars of the old Mosaical Institution, that are suppos'd unlawful in the Gospel.

IF this which I have given be the VIII. This incon­sistency can­not be pre­tended in the Case of Instrumen­tal Musick. true Original how it came to pass that some Mosaick Rites have been abrogated by the Gospel; there will thence follow no pretence for condemning them as uni­versally unlawful now, for no other rea­son but because they were Duties then upon positive, as well as upon Moral and universally obliging, Reasons. All that will follow from this Topick will be, That only those Particulars of the Mosaick In­stitution [Page 22] will be thus affected, that are inconsistent with the Gentiles free admis­sion to the highest Priviledges of the new Peculium, immediately without Circum­cision or Proselytism of Justice; and which being admitted would have made that breach of Communion which was prin­cipally disputed against by the Apostles and Writers of the Apostolical Age. Those could not be things wherein the uncir­cumcis'd Gentiles were already agreed, as they were in the use of Instrumental Mu­sick, in their Sacrifical Hymns, and in their publick Solemnities. How could that have made a breach between them, wherein they did not differ? How could that have excluded Gentiles from the new Peculium, without submitting to the whole Law of Moses, which was already prac­tis'd by the Gentiles, before they con­cerned themselves to know what had been requir'd by Moses? How could that have been taken for an Imposition which they had freely taken upon them­selves, without any regard to the practice of the Jews? Then all that Dispute was concerning what might be lawfully im­pos'd on the Gentiles, not concerning what may be lawfully practis'd by the Jews by Nation. This is so certain, that even the most indisputably abrogated [Page 23] instance of Circumcision, and the Tem­ple Sacrifices were used by the Apostles themselves, as being Jews by Extraction; by St. Paul himself, the most zealous Acts xxi. 26 Opposer of those very same Rites, as im­pos'd on the Gentiles; and that after he had said and done so many things a­gainst their Imposition. If therefore even these Particulars, neither were, nor could be thought unlawful, How can our Adversaries gather it concerning those many other things against which they can pretend no other Exception but their originally Mosaick Imposition? The Apo­stle himself rather implys that some of the Mosaick Institutions did, and ought to, remain according to the design of the Gospel. What else can he mean? when applying that Passage of Haggai, concerning the state of the Gospel, that That God would shake not the Earth only, but also Heaven, he subjoins the event of that shaking, and tells us, that it signi­fied the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that Hebr. xil. 26, 27. those things which cannot be shaken may re­main. What this shaking means may easily be understood from what I have already Discoursed. That Convulsion de­pended on the inconsistency of the Doct­rine of the Gospel, by which the Gentiles [Page 24] were admitted into the new Peculium without any Incorporation into the Jewish Nation, with the Mosaick Establishment, whereby the Peculium was by God him­self confin'd to the Jewish Nation, and could not be Communicated to the Gentiles on any other Condition than Proselytism of Justice and Incorporation. This new Establishment must in course remove all these Mosaical Constitutions, which either suppos'd or caus'd this con­finement. But all those other Mosaick Con­stitutions as well Positive as Moral, which were consistent with this enlargement of the Peculium, could not therefore be thought shaken or remov'd by it. If therefore they were not shaken, what can hinder by the Apostles reasoning, why they should not still remain? Possibly not as to the ob­ligation which they had receiv'd from the Mosaick Sanction; yet so, at least, as to continue in their own native indiffe­rency, which may qualify them for a new Ecclesiastical Sanction by the Power of the Church. Such an Ecclesiastical Sanction would plainly suppose no antecedent Ob­ligation from the Law of Moses, and therefore could be no Imposition on the liberty of the Gentiles, whilst it pretend­ed to no other right of Obligation than what it receiv'd from their own Act. [Page 25] Nor is there any thing in this Obligation inconsistent with this true notion of the new Peculium, nor repugnant to the union of Jews and uncircumcis'd Gentiles in one Body, on the terms of the new Peculium. Of this nature is the Subject of our present Dis­pute, I mean Instrumental Musick, as im­pos'd not by a Mosaical but an Ecclesiastical Authority. I cannot for my part, fore­see any solid Consequence from this way of Reasoning of the Apostles, that can possibly affect it.

SO far the Apostles were from admitting IX. The Apostles argue even in abrogated Instances from the Law to the Gospel, so far as the parity of reason still holds. this way of reasoning us'd by our Ad­versaries, of making even indifferent things unlawful, upon no other account but that of their former Imposition, in things un­concern'd in the change made by the Gos­pel; that even where there had been in­consistency, and therefore a change was really made, they yet allow a reasoning from the abolish'd Constitution of the Law, to that which answer'd it under the Gospel, as far as the Case might be prov'd equal. Circumcision had been appropriat­ed to the old Peculium, and had therefore Baptism substituted instead of it, of which the uncircumcis'd Gentiles were as capable as the native Circumcis'd Jews. Yet I have shewn the Apostle argues from the Holiness of the Seed in Circumcis'd, to [Page 26] the Holiness of the Seed of Baptis'd Per­sons. So the Gospel Priesthood was not confin'd to the Tribe of Levi, or the Fa­mily of Aaron, as that was instead of which it was substituted. Yet in other things I have given instances of Argu­ments from the Levitical to the Evange­lical Priesthood, allow'd by the Apostles and Apostolical Persons. So the Eucharisti­cal Sacrifice, in which Gentiles also might Communicate, succeeded the bloody Sacri­fices of the Temple, which had been appropriated to the Jews alone: Yet even here also St. Paul reasons from one to the other, 1 Cor. x. 18. and St. Clemens also in his unquestionable Epistle to the Corinthians. None can doubt but the precept of not muzzling the Mouth of the Ox that trod out the Corn was Levi­tical and Temporary. Yet the Apostle ar­gues thence also, that the Presbyters also should partake in the Ecclesiastical Alms which they ministred to those who were to be maintain'd by them. If this way of arguing be design'd to prove a Duty in a matter so arbitrary as this is, con­cerning the Persons who were to partake of the publick Contributions; it will follow that even in these abrogated Par­ticulars, they still judged it to be the Divine Pleasure that the old Sanction [Page 27] should still continue, where the Reason holds the same. Had the Reasons been, without any regard to the Legislator, drawn from the nature of the things themselves; such might have prov'd the things rather Prudent than Obliging, and rather fit to be made Laws than to have had any Sanction from the former Legisla­tion. But the Reasoning here insisted on, why the Ox should not be muzzled when he trod out the Corn, is to shew the Sense of the Legislator. Doth God take care 1 Cor. ix. 9. 10. for Oxen? Or saith he it not for our sakes? Why so, if God had not been to have been regarded in the Duty here insist­ed on? If as a Law-maker, then even the Sanction will continue, by which such Laws as these obliged formerly: So they will still oblige as Laws, whilst the same reason continues for which God was at first pleas'd to impose them. If as an infallible Judge of Reason, still it will follow, that whilst the Reason holds, they will be so far from being made un­lawful, in such particulars wherein the Reason does indeed hold, that their per­formance will still be acceptable to God, tho' not commanded by him. Either way of Explication is sufficient to overthrow this whole way of reasoning, as manag'd by our Adversaries.

[Page 28] BUT what if we should turn this way of reasoning, us'd by the Apostles, against X. The same Reasons which made Instrumen­tal Musick fit for Sacri­fices in the apostles days, make it fit still. our Adversaries? What if we should conclude, That because Instrumental Mu­sick was us'd then in their Temple Sacri­fices, therefore it should still be at least fit and acceptable in our present Euchari­stical Sacrifices? I cannot foresee what they could say, why we should not have reason'd as the Apostles did; or how the Apostles could blame us for doing so; or why our Adversaries should blame us, who profess themselves such Enemies of Impositions, if they did not impose upon us more than the Apostles, in so easily condemning matters of this nature as un­lawful. They can pretend no more con­demnation in other places of the Writings of the Apostles in this Case, than in those others wherein the Apostles themselves allow this way of Arguing. And I know no reason from the natures of the things themselves, that even our Adversaries can pretend to be Temporary, or that will not make Instrumental Musick as suitable to our present Worship, as it was to that of the Apostles. No sort of Sacrifices were more proper for Hymns than those that are Eucharistical, and such all ours are now, but were not so [Page 29] in the Days of the Apostles. And the use of Hymns neither is, nor can be de­nied by our Adversaries, as well in the private Synaxes of the Apostolical Chri­stians, as in the Worship of the Temple. The Hymn to Christ as a God, in Pliny, appeal'd to in the latter end of the se­cond Pli. l. x. Ep. 97. Century, as a very early evidence of the belief of his Deity, seems to have been joined with the Eucharist. For Pliny tells us, on the same occasion, of the Covenant the Christians entred into against all the liberties us'd by wicked Persons. And the publick Singers are mention'd in the earliest distinct Ac­counts we have of their Offices, not as newly introduc'd, but as actually obtaining without any memory of a late Original. Had the reasons of the things been all that had been requisite for raising of the Affections, I cannot conceive any need our Adversaries can pretend for Singing: That does no o­therwise contribute to the raising of the Affections, than as the assistance and Improvement of the Imagination may be supposed to contribute to it. The Singing does not add a new Reason, nor improve the old ones, why the Affections should be raised. But however they do dispose the Affections to follow Reason, [Page 30] more readily and more vigorously than they would if they had not the assist­ance of a favourable Imagination; and that by the Nature of the things them­selves; and in that regard, Musick Instru­mental also was acknowledged to have the same influence that Singing had by the Imagination over the Affections; and to add to the advantages of Singing Vo­cally: So it was that David's playing on the Harp cured Saul of the evil Spirit, by curing that Melancholy which disposed him to receive the Influences of the evil Spirit: So it was that the like use of In­strumental Musick dispos'd Elisha for the Influences of the good Spirit, by com­posing that Passion which his Zeal against the Idolatry of the King of Israel had put the Prophet into; it made him capable of being acted by the Spirit of Prophesy. For chearfulness of Temper is one of the Dispositions required by the Rabinical Jews themselves, for fitting Men for Prophesie. That may possibly be the Reason why the Scriptures mention In­strumental Musick as receiv'd in the Schools of the Prophets, especially when they were actually Prophesying; as it should seem 1 Sam. x. 5. 1 Chr. xxv. 1. to dispose them for the freer Influences of the Divine Spirit. The Singing Hymns to such Instruments is call'd Prophesying, [Page 31] in the places now mention'd. So far the nature of the Spiritual Worship of the Gospel is from superseding this assistance of Instrumental Musick, as our Adversa­ries would have us believe, that on the contrary it contributed to it, if we would rather believe the Scriptures and the actu­al Opinions of the sacred Writers. So Mi­riam Prophesied with a Timbrel, the In­strument most us'd by Women: So Sa­muel's Disciples, the Sons of the Prophets, the Candidate expectants of that sacred Gift: They also Prophesie with a Psaltery, a Tabret, and a Harp, and a Pipe: So the ordinary Officers in the Jewish Li­turgicks, were to Prophesie with Harps and Psalteries, and Cymbals according to the order of King David, 1 Chr. xxv. 1; 2. And Jeduthun is said to Prophecy with a Harp, to give Thanks, and to Praise the Lord, v. 3. Why should we therefore think it strange, that the Church of Je­rusalem in the Revelations, should be re­presented Rev. v. 8. xiv. 2. xv. 2. Harping with the Harps of God? We see it was the proper Employment of Prophets, according to the sense of the sa­cred Writers; that is, of those wherein that Church of Jerusalem did so much abound. How could those Sacred Writers judge In­strumental Musick improper for a Spiritual Dispensation, when they thought it so [Page 32] useful in an ordinary way, to dispose Men for the receiving the Spirit of Pro­phecy.

IF our Adversaries would learn from XI. The Benefit of Musick in Holy Offices thought na­tural, and not ascrib'd to any ex­traordinary Providence. the Scriptures, they should reason from the Opinions received in the Ages of the Sacred Writers, rather than from preju­dices imbib'd from Modern Systems. That would be the way to reason as they did then, and the best expedient for finding the Sense of them who were us'd to that way of Reasoning. They pretend that all the efficacy of Instrumental Mu­sick then, was due to a particular Inter­position of God seconding his own Insti­tution. Had the Institution been singu­lar and different from the Customs of o­ther Religions, or the event other than what would have been expected, accord­ing to the opinions then receiv'd among those who had no regard to the Mosaical Institution; there had been indeed some pretence for ascribing the Benefit rather to the extraordinary Interposition of God, than to the Natures of the things them­selves. The jealous God, who will not give his Glory to another, makes choice of the most unlikely means in the opinions of those with whom he has to deal, when he designs to challenge the Glory of the [Page 33] event, entirely to himself. So it was when he was pleas'd to restore the Sight of him that was born Blind, by anointing his Eyes with Clay: So when Naaman was to be Cured of his Leaprode by Wash­ing in Jordan, rather than in Abana and Pharpar, the Rivers of his own Coun­try: So when he reduc'd the Num­bers of Gideon's Army, from many Thou­sands to 300. Here, on the contrary, those very means are us'd, which even the Heathens themselves had agreed on as most naturally conducive to the same end, and which least needed an extraor­dinary Interposition of Providence, in the Opinions of those who were to use them. It was easy to foresee that they would ascribe the event to the natural Course, of second Causes themselves, and that, in the way of reasoning suited to their Ca­pacities, they would also think they had reason to do so, and that Gd intended they should do so, whilst he signified nothing to the contrary: And therefore God must have indeed intended they should think so, if he did at all intend they should understand him rightly. And who can think Sauls Servants par­ticularly inspired when they recommend­ed a Musician to their Master, as an ex­pedient against the Ailings caused by the [Page 34] evil Spirit? The reason in all likelihood why they recommended it, was because they knew it a likely Cure of Melancho­ly, and they believed withal, that when the Melancholy was cured, the evil Spirit who was confin'd to Rules, could not exercise his Malignity on a subject indis­posed to receive his Influences. This is a plain Account how the thing might be done, in their Opinions, by Instrumental Musick, as an ordinary means, without any pretence to Revelation, which they neither did, nor had any reason, to pre­tend to. The like Account seems most probable of the Case of Elisha, when he also made use of Instrumental Musick for disposing himself to receive the Spirit of Prophecy. He pretends no Revelation for it; nor indeed could he do so, if he was yet indispos'd for it, till he had us'd the remedy of Musick. For if he had been capable of Inspiration without the use of Musick, he might as easily have answered the principal Question demand­ed of him, as have used one Revelation for an expedient to qualify him for a se­cond. But it has appeared that the practice was already received in the Schools of the Prophets, which might easily put Elisha in mind of it, when he found his case re­quired it. And for its being receiv'd in [Page 35] those Schools, no divine Revelation is, that I know, so much as pretended. The most likely original therefore, is its natural con­duciveness to dispose the Mind for being acted by Prophetick Inspirations. The Hea­thens used it for that end, purely on ac­count of its natural usefulness for that purpose. The Priests of Cybele, the Galli, advanc'd their Enthusiasm by the use of Cymbals: So did the Bacchae in the Rites of Bacchus, who for the time were trans­ported besides themselves, and knew not what they did, so absolutely they were under the power of that emotion of Mind which they believed Prophetick. They brought themselves to that Condi­tion among other means, by this also of Instrumental Musick. The Passage of Nero, ridicul'd by Persius, is famous to this purpose: Torva Mimalloneis imple­runt cornua bombis. To the same pur­pose, I conceive, may be referr'd those Passages of the New Testament that re­quire our rejoicing always; that forbid our grieving, as well as quenching, of the Holy Spirit; that require perfect Concord between married Persons, that their Pray­ers might not be hindred. By all these things it appears, that, in the received Opinions of those Ages, Cheerfulness of Temper was thought to dispose for the [Page 36] Influences of the good Spirit, and Melan­choly for the Influences of the evil one; and that Musick Instrumental, as well as Vocal, contributed to promote that Cheerfulness, and to remove that Melancholy. These O­pinions, being supposed and alluded to in the Scriptures, ought therefore to be taken for the measures of Interpreting them. And what is there in this Hy­pothesis, that can, in Reason, be suppos'd Temporary? Can we suppose God to have made new Rules, for the Influen­ces of the two Spirits now, that were not in the Age of the Apostles? Or, sup­posing the Rules the same, Can we suppose any Change in the Nature of Instrumental Musick, that may now make it unuseful, for those very same ends, for which it was then believ'd so very Advantageous?

OUR Adversaries, who have been al­ways XII. The Influen­ces of Good and Evil Spirits up­on Man, such as may be promoted or obstructed by Instru­mental Mu­sick. more intent on the Words, than the Reasonings of the Scriptures, have not, I think, so well consider'd the Rules of Providence, by which both Spirits are confin'd in Acting upon Mankind. The rather, because they are rather sup­posed than delivered in express Terms. But God does not deal with Mankind Arbitrarily, nor suffer Spirits to Influ­ence [Page 37] him otherwise, than may be con­sistent with that Free will that he has given him, in order to the making him capable of Rewards and Punishments, and of Political Government. That the good Spirit suggests good Thoughts, and that the evil Spirit tempts by injecting evil ones, is undoubtedly supposed in the Scriptures. But the manner how this is done, is not so clearly Explain'd. Yet it is certain, that neither of them do it to the uttermost of their Natural Power. The Holy Spirit being Omni­potent, could do more Good; and the Evil Spirit, tho' Finite, yet being so much Superiour to Man, could do more Mischief than we see is done by them. They might assume Bodily Shapes, and propose their Arguments as visibly to us, as we do to one another. But this is not the way of Conversation observ'd. They might impress Ideas immediately upon our Imagination, if God had been pleased it should have been so. But that had been too great an Imposition upon our Humane Liberty. As for that im­mediate Conversation with them which separated Spirits have with each other, of that we are incapable whilst we our selves are in Bodies. Even our superiour Soul, uses the Imagination, and is inca­pable [Page 38] of framing any distinct Ideas of things that are not Material. The way therefore remaining, how Spirits may Influence us, without violence to our Liberties, is by their Exciting or Com­pounding Ideas already in us on fit Oc­casions, when external Objects are before us, that may Invite us to what is Good, or Insnare us to what is Evil. So the Inspiration of the Good Spirit, is call'd [...], a putting us in Mind of what we knew before, on the Season where­in we are to Practice. For the adapt­ing Thoughts to the Seasons of Practice, is that upon which the Event does prin­cipally depend. This therefore the Good Spirit may do undoubtedly, as well in Ideas of the Understanding, as of the Ma­terial Faculties. And there was no sort of Prophecy, wherein both sorts of Fa­culties were not concern'd. Prophetick Dreams had their principal Scene in the Imagination. Prophetick Visions not on­ly there, but also perhaps in the Ex­ternal Senses. The Bath Col. was to the Sense of Hearing. Even the Mosa­ick Degree of Prophecy, was a Conver­sation with the Deity, under a sensible Representation, tho' not of any parti­cular living Creature that might have been Represented by an Image. The [Page 39] Jews therefore do reasonably require in him who would be dispos'd for the Spi­rit of Prophecy, a lively Imagination, as well as a good Understanding. So that no good Man who wants either of them, is by his Goodness alone, dispos'd, as is requsite, for receiving the Gift of Prophecy. But the Imagination requisite for the Influences of the Good Spirit, was such as was Calm and Sedate, free from tumultuous Passions, and ungovern­able Fancies, and consistent with the most accurate use of Reasoning. This therefore was the Reason, why the first Christians imputed the Heathen Divinations of the Pythiae, the Sibyls, the Bacchae, &c. rather to Enthusiasm and malignant Spirits, than to a Gift of truly Divine Prophecy, because of the Brutish Tran­sports, and indecent, undisciplin'd, Be­haviour, into which those Persons were driven, when they surrendred themselves to the Conduct of those pretended Dei­ties. And what difficulty is there, why grave and grateful Tunes of (Instru­mental as well as Vocal) Musick might not contribute to the allaying the Passi­ons, and to invigorate the Imagination to such a degree, as would still be con­sistent with Decorum, and perfect Sub­jection to the Nobler Faculties, which [Page 40] this Divine Principle kept in possession of their Native Right of Government? On the other side, the Evil Spirits were not believed, in the Apostles Days, so pure from Matter as they have been since the modern Aristotelean Philosophy, received at Second-hand from the Spa­nish Arabians, has prevail'd. It was ra­ther the Grossness of their Aërial Cloath­ing that was then thought to Confine them to these Aërial Regions, and to make them need the Nidour of Bloody Sacrifices for their Nourishment and De­light, and that inclin'd them to that Malignity of Nature, that made the De­vils; that ungovernable Pride, that En­vy at the Prosperity of others, that Re­lish of Cruelty, and doing ill Offices to their fellow Creatures, which are the Characteristicks of those wicked Beings. This being suppos'd, must make them uncapable of Acting the reasonable, but only the inferiour material, Faculties. Their Power therefore was conceiv'd to be only in the Imagination, and the material Faculties depending on it. These being suited to their degenerated Nature, they can therefore Act upon them as far as the Rules of Providence shall give them leave, for the tryal of free Agents, in order to Rewards or Punishments. [Page 41] Their way of Tempting therefore, is to awaken those Ideas which lie Dormant in the Imagination and sensitive Memory, as the effects of vicious Inclinations, con­firm'd by frequently repeated vicious Acts. I mean, to awaken them at the Presence of vicious Objects, and suitable Opportunities. This may be allow'd them, if they be permitted to Act up­on the Brain, the Seat of the Imagina­tion, and the other material Faculties and Ideas which raise the Passions, and make them Head-strong, and consequent­ly affect the whole Body, in the Di­sturbances following upon them. Ac­cordingly Madnesses, which arise from Disorders of the Brain, were usually as­crib'd to Devils in those Times. The Excellent Mr. Mead, has long since made this Observation on those Words of the Evangelist: He hath a Devil, and is Mad; why hear ye him? Joh. x. 20. So having a Devil, is the same with being Mad, in the Language of that Age. Thou hast a Devil: Who go­eth about to kill thee? Joh. vii. 20. And when the Jews charge our Saviour with Inconsistency in his Discourse, they tell him that he had a Devil, Joh. viii. 48. but more plainly v. 52. Now we know that thou hast a Devil; Abraham is dead, [Page 42] and the Prophets, and thou sayest, If a Man keep my saying, he shall never taste of Death. So St. John x. 21. These are not the Words of one that hath a Devil. From the Coherence of our Saviour's Dis­course, they infer that he had no De­vil. The same Opinion is represented by St. Justin Martyr, as the Sense of the Christians of his Age, that Mad Persons Apology. were believed to be Daemoniacks. As therefore King Saul was Punished by having an evil Spirit sent him from the Lord; so also, frequently in the Poets, the ancientest Writers of the Greeks, and the Personators of the eldest Antiqui­ties they knew of, it is mentioned as the Punishment of piacular Persons; that they were delivered over to Furies, and by them alienated from their Senses, and driven into Madness. So in the Case of Athamas, of Hercules, of Alc­maeon, of Orestes, &c. And their Cure was usually by Expiations and Of­fices of Religion, rather than Physick, which proved the Aylings to be caus'd immediately by Spirits. Yet sometimes also by Physick, which proved withal, that the Disposition of the matter was removeable by Natural Expedients, and that when it was so, the Evil Spirits had no longer Power to molest those [Page 43] who were so Cur'd, by the Rules pre­scrib'd to them by Providence. This Hippocrates proves particularly in the Case of the Morbus Sacer. Besides these de Morb. Sac. Distractions of Mind, there were also other Aylings and Diseases inflicted by way of Punishment on Criminals by the Sentence of God, and the Intervention of Evil Spirits. Such were the Falling-Sickness, such were Aylings returning with the Changes of the Moon, such were Leprosies, such several sorts of Fe­vers and Agues, such all those Molesta­tions which were removable by Charms, and the like suspected means of Cove­nants and Intercourse with Evil Spirits. For it was the receiv'd Opinion, as Tertullian shews, that the Devils could Cure no Maladies but such as had been caus'd by them, by ceasing to use the Means that had caus'd them, when they were adress'd to in the ways appoint­ed by themselves, and permitted by Providence for the Punishment of those who rely'd on them, and maintained such unlawful Intercourse with the Spi­rits that had appointed them. They did not so much as pretend to Cure all sorts of Diseases by Charms and Expi­ations. I believe all those Diseases which were so Cured, may be reduc'd to the [Page 44] Brain; that part which I have shewn was thought liable to the Devils Influ­ences. I mean, including the Spinal Marrow, which is of the same Nature with the Brain. This also is included in the Part allowed to the Devils to Act by the Romancer, under the Name of St. Clemens, in the third Century; and therefore a good Witness of the Opinions receiv'd among the Christians of that Age. This is express'd less clear­ly in the Recognitions, whereof we have only the Translation by Rufinus, in these Words. Ante omnia ergo intelligere debe­tis Recog. l. v. c. 17. deceptionem Serpentis antiqui & cal­lidas ejus suggestiones, qui quasi per pru­dentiam decipit vos, & velut ratione quâ­dam serpit per sensus vestros; at (que) ab ip­so vertice incipiens, per interiores dilabi­tur medullas; lucrum magnum computans deceptionem vestram. But more clearly in the Greek, perhaps more Faithfully preserved in the Clementines: [...] Clem. Hom. x. c. 10. [...]. It is no great matter whether the Tradition be true, that is mentioned by the Ancients, that the Spinal Marrow of a Man, when cor­rupted [Page 45] turns into a Serpent. Such as it is, we have it from Authors anci­ent, and not contemptible, Ovid, Pliny, Plutarch, and AElian. However, we Ovid. Met. xv. v. 389. Plin. N. H. x. 66. Plut. Cleo­men. AEli. de a­nimal l. 1. c. 51. know, even pretended Physiology is taken, by the Mystical Interpreters of the Old Testament, as a Rule of Mystical Interpretation, and doth really serve the end of God, for recommending Mysti­cal Senses to the observation of the Read­er, better than truer Physiology, that had not been so well understood by the Readers of those Times. Besides, we know what a Subject the Fall of Man, and the Devils concern in it, under the Allegory of a Serpent, the Old Serpent, as he is called in the Revelations, af­forded of Mystical Interpretations. We know withal, that even among the Hea­thens, a lower sort of Daemons, especi­ally those called Heroes, were usually represented under the Symbols of Ser­pents, possibly in memory of this Scrip­ture History, as has been observ'd by the late Learned Bishop of Worcester, in his Origin. Sacr. Why might not then this Natural History be adapted to sig­nifie the Seat of the Devils Influence? There is a not-unlike Experiment pre­tended by the Pythagoreans, for Explain­ing their Symbol for Abstaining from [Page 46] [...], the rather apposite to this purpose, because they, as well as our Sacred Wri­ters, design'd mystical Senses, especially in their Symbols. But I cannot allow my self at present, to follow this Argu­ment as far as it would lead me. It suffices now, to observe that this Hy­pothesis seems generally alluded to in the Sacred Writers, especially of the New Testament, and therefore cannot indeed be thought so precarious as our Adver­saries might otherwise conceive, if they will suffer themselves to be led away with popular Prejudices, without examin­ing it. The New Testament plainly e­nough distinguishes the Gift of Healing, which Cured Diseases not caus'd by Devils, directly from the Curing In­firmities caus'd by Devils, which were sufficiently Cured by casting out the Devils that caus'd them. And I think also, that they mention no Aylings of the latter sort, which may not be ac­counted for by their Power allow'd them by God on the Parts now men­tion'd. However, this Difference between Divine Prophecy and Diabolical Enthusi­asm, seems to have been generally a­greed on, that Prophecy requir'd Imagi­nation, but perfected and duly subordi­nated to the Nobler Faculties; but En­thusiasm [Page 47] went no farther than the Ima­gination; and therefore disorder'd and hindred the Understanding, and the im­material Faculties depending on it. And our Adversaries must be very difficult indeed in their Concessions, if they can doubt whether Instrumental Musick can affect the Imagination, so as to Compose or Disorder it. Yet this alone is suffi­cient for disabling Devils to Influence it, if their Power be confined by Pro­vidence to disposed Matter, and Mu­sick may indispose the Imagination for their Influences, and it be not withal, in their Power to make or hinder Dis­positions.

BUT our Adversaries have a strange XIII. Such a No­tion of the Spiritual­ness of our Religion as makes unca­pable of Sen­sible Assistan­ces, is fun­damentally inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Apostoli­cal Age. Notion of the Spiritualness of our Chri­stian Religion, as if all Bodily and Ex­ternal Assistances were now perfectly useless and inconsistent with the Nature of our present Dispensation. On this account, they are averse to all Assistan­ces of our Senses, as well as this of In­strumental Musick. But why should God have Instituted Sacraments for Assisting our Senses, if the whole kind of such Assistances had been so derogatory to the Nature of his new Establishment? Why should he have allow'd even Vo­cal [Page 48] Musick, if even our Senses could con­tribute nothing to the raising of the Devotion of our Spirits? I know our Adversaries are more willing to impute this Usefulness of Instrumental Musick, ra­ther to the extraordinary Interposition of God, seconding his own Institution. But why should they think it deroga­tory to the Providence of God, that he should make use of the Power, himself has given to the Natures of Things? Or why should they deny the Expe­rience of so many Heathens, who, tho' they regarded not the Institutions of the God of the Jews, yet receiv'd the same Practice of Instrumental Musick, on account of the Devotion they pretend­ed to feel rais'd in themselves by it, in their several false Religions. This could be imputable to nothing but the Na­tures of the things themselves. But where have they learned such a Noti­on of the Spiritualness of the Christian Religion, that should exclude the Use, or even the Necessity, of Corporeal Assi­stances. The Scripture is not more ex­press in requiring a Spiritual Worship, than it is in requiring that also of the Body. Our Bodies are Temples of the Ho­ly Ghost, and we are accordingly re­quir'd to Glorifie God in our Bodies, as [Page 49] well as our Spirits which are his, 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. The unmarried Woman, is so to care for the things of the Lord, that she may be Holy both in Body and in Spi­rit, vii. 34. We are to present our Bo­dies a living Sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is our reasonable Service, Rom. xii. 1. And our whole Spirit, and Soul, and Body, are to be preserved Blameless un­to the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thes. v. 23. If Service be expected from the Body as well as the Spirit, How can it be disagreeable to the Na­ture of our Spiritual Religion, that such Parts of Bodily Worship may be re­tain'd or introduc'd as may in their own Nature contribute to the Wor­ship of the Spirit? There was indeed near the Apostles times, an Opinion in­troduc'd among the Philosophers, Nu­menius perhaps may be the first that brought it in, from whom Porphyry owns Plotinus to have borrowed what he has to this purpose, That the Soul alone was the Man, and that the Body was no part of the Man, but a Prison to the Soul, and therefore preternatur­al to it, and to be avoided by it, that it might be qualified for a perfect State. And these did indeed so insist on the Spiritual Nature of Religion, as to dis­charge [Page 50] the Body from any share in it. The Good Man with them was the on­ly Priest, the Soul it self the only ac­ceptable Temple, the Devotion of the Mind the pleasing Sacrifice. And the the way to union with God, was to alienate themselves as much as was possible from the Body, and from the external Societies of Men, and to enure themselves to abstracted Operations of the Mind, in order to the Cultivating of the Spirit, which was the only Power that they thought capable of an Union with the Supreme Being. This is that Philosophical Religion so much Celebrat­ed by Plotinus, Porphyry himself, and Hierocles, and several other of the later Philosophers. Porphyry particularly was very much pleas'd with it, as appears from his Sentences, and his Books de Abstinentiâ, but especially from his E­pistle to Anebo, where he does by these Principles undermine all Obligation to the Externals of the Heathen, as well Ap. Jambli. de myst E­gypt. Porphy. vit. Plotin. as the Christian Religion. This put him on Starving himself in his Lilybaean Retirement, if his Master Plotinus (whom he follow'd in these Opinions) had not reclaim'd him. This seems to be the Original of all that Enthusiasm that has decry'd the external Ordinances and Sa­craments [Page 51] even of Christ himself, upon Pretences to greater Perfection, and se­veral Fancies of the old Monks relating this way in Anastasius Sinaita; of the Popish Mystical Divinity and Quietism, of the Familists and Quakers, of the Bourignonists and Philadelphians, &c. It is strange, our Presóyterian Adversaries who dislike these Consequences in others, so destructive of their own Discipline, are notwithstanding insensible of the ad­vantage they have given to others, of justifying Separation from themselves, by these Pretences of the Spiritual Nature of the Evangelical Worship, by which themselves defended their own Separa­tion from their own Superiours. This might at least have warned them to a more accurate Examination of the Prin­ciple, when they found they could not justifie the Consequences which followed from it. For us it is abundantly suffi­cient that this Doctrine, tho' taught by the Adversaries of the Apostles Age, was not­withstanding perfectly different from the Sense of the Apostolical Church it self. The Hereticks by this means evaded the Re­surrection of the Body, pretending the Resurrection promis'd was already past, in their mystical Resurrection from Sin. For the rising of the Body could not be [Page 52] thought a Reward, if the being in the Body was preternatural, and a State of Punishment. Thence also it proceeded, that so many of those first Hereticks de­filed the Flesh, as not belonging to them, and condemn'd Marriage, as con­tributing to confine Souls to Bodies, up­on this very Pretence of being them­selves Spiritual, and being therefore for a more Spiritual way of Worship. But it is as certain, that this Doctrine was different from the Doctrine of the Apo­stles, as it is certain the Apostles were for the Holy Treatment and Resur­rection of the Body, and that they Con­demn'd those for Hereticks, who Rea­son'd from this Principle insisted on by our Adversaries, of which they had o­therwise no better means of Informati­on. How therefore can our Adversa­ries Reason loosly for the Reformation of Christianity from that same Principle which we see was contrary to the very Foundations of truly Primitive Aposto­lical Christianity? Which was the Foun­dation of most of those Heresies which were then Condemn'd by that Unque­stionable Authority.

FOR my part, I can see no Difference, XIV. The same Reasons that prov'd Bodi­ly worship useful in the Mosaick Dis­cipline, prove it so still. in this particular, between the Old and [Page 53] the New Peculium. We have Bodies as well as they, and of the same frail Make and Constitution as theirs were. Our Souls are also of the same Kind, as dependent on our Bodies as theirs, and as apt to be Influenc'd by them. Providence has impos'd no new Rules, that we know of, for the Influences of Good and Evil Spirits, from what were impos'd then. What then should hin­der, but that still our Minds should be Influenc'd by the Good and Evil Dis­positions of our Bodies as much as for­merly? And that in order to the re­ceiving the Influences of both sorts of Spirits. And certainly they cannot think that Musick has lost any of that Influ­ence on our Bodies that it had formerly. How can they therefore doubt, but that it might still have the same effect on the like Bodies, alike Influencing the same kind of Souls? The Church is still as much a Body as it was then, and as much oblig'd to Worship God in Assemblies, tho' not confin'd to one particular Nation, as it was then. And the Apostle requires that all Acts of the Worship in Assemblies, were to be per­form'd with a design of Edifying the whole Assemblies. He permits no Ex­ercise of Gifts, even of the Divine Spi­rit [Page 54] there, but such as were for com­mon Edification. But the Edification of Assemblies is not otherwise perform­able than by Sensible and Corporeal Significations. These are the only means by which the whole Body can Com­municate in the Devotion of every par­ticular, by which they can mutually give and receive Edification. It is there­fore still as impossible to signifie a great Honour for the Deity Ador'd in such Assemblies but by Signs greatly affect­ing the very Senses. And what is done in the Name of the whole Body, ought to be suited to the Dignity of the Body represented. That must be by Signs by which Bodies usually signifie their great Respect by the Customs of such Bodies. But Bodies do not usually sig­nifie their great Respect in their World­ly intercourse otherwise than by Pomp and Magnificence. They cannot there­fore signifie it in Affairs of Religion by Signs, mean and ordinary. Especially if their Design be to signifie it to the Senses, and for the Edification of others. For certainly Signs which signifie a mean or no Respect on other occasions, can­not be thought to signifie a great one in the Affairs of Religion. It is on the contrary taken as an Affront to Hon­our [Page 55] excellent Persons in a way unsuita­ble to their Character, tho' the same Significations might justly be reputed Honourable, if perform'd to an inferiour Person to whom they had been propor­tionable. This Consideration must make all Significations short of the utmost that can be done dishonourable when paid to an Infinitely Perfect Being. The Magnificence therefore of the Worship of God, ought to be such as it us'd to signifie the greatest Respect to the Sen­ses of the Spectators, if the Respect be to be signified Sensibly. I know not how our Adversaries can deny any part of this Reasoning on the Principles now mentioned.

BUT I know they do pretend Au­thority XV. The VVor­ship of God in Spirit, not oppos'd to that which is Sensible & Corporeal, but to the Literal Sense of the Law of Mo­ses. for this way of Arguing, God is a Spirit, says our Saviour, and they that Worship him, must Worship him in Spirit and in Truth, St. Joh. iv. 24. This is spoken with relation to the Worship of the Jews at Jerusalem, and the Sa­maritans on Mount Gerizim; and there­fore must signifie something Spiritual in the Christian Religion, which was not so in the Worship of the Jews and the Samaritans. But this might very well be true without making external Wor­ship [Page 56] inconsistent with the spiritual Na­ture of the Christian Religion. The true Account of this Matter, I take to be this: That in what was common to the Jews and the Samaritans, there were two Parts, the Sensible and the External Part, which was proper to themselves, and which the Christians were not concern'd in; and the Mysti­cal and Spiritual, which was principally design'd by God, which was thencefor­ward to obtain as the peculiar Glory of the Christian Religion. So the New Testament is oppos'd to the Old, that it is not of the Letter as the Old was, but of the Spirit, 2 Cor. iii. 6. that is, that the New Testament is really the same with the Old, the same thing in the Spiritual Sense, which was prefigur'd by the Literal Sense, of what was en­joyn'd on the Jews then. Thus the Letter and Circumcision are taken for Circumcision in the Literal Sense, Rom. ii. 27. by a known Hendiadis, and Cir­cumcision of the Heart, is said to be in the Spirit, not in the Letter, v. 29. So the Service in newness of the Spirit, is oppos'd to that which had been in the oldness of the Letter, Rom. vii. 6. And when the Jews understood our Saviour's Discourse concerning Eating his Flesh, [Page 57] and Drinking his Blood in a Carnal Sense, he Corrects their Mistake, by telling them, That the Words he had spoken to them were Spirit and Life, St. Joh. vi. 63. that is, by warning them, that his Words were to be understood not Li­terally but Mystically. Life is join'd with Spirit in our Saviour's Words, exactly as it is by the Apostle, when he also tells us, that the Letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life, 2 Cor. iii. 6. intimating, that the Life promis'd by Moses, when he set Life and Death be­fore the Israelites, was not to be ex­pected from the Observation of the Li­teral Sense of the Mosaical Law, but the Mystical, which was a strong Obli­gation to the New Peculium. Because the Mystical Sense even of the old Law, which was the principal Sense design'd by God, was suppos'd to be the same with the Gospel. So Spirit and Truth are also fitly join'd together in the Discourse of our Saviour with the Woman of Samaria. For the Mystical Sense, was the Sense truly intended by God, and the Literal no otherwise then as conveying the Mystical. The Truth here is also opposed to the Shadow. So the Apostle tells us, that the Law was a Heb. viii. 5. x. 1. Col. ii. 17. Shadow of things to come, that is, of [Page 58] those which were to be fulfilled under the Gospel. The Shadow is oppos'd to the Body that causes it, therefore the Word Body as signifying Truth in op­position to the Shadow of the Body, is apply'd to the Realities of the Gospel, even in things not properly Corporeal. So the fullness of the Godhead was said to dwell in our blessed Saviour Bodily. Col. ii. 9. Not like that which was in the Taber­nacle of Moses, which was but a Shadow Heb. viii. 2, 5. ix. 24. of the true Tabernacle. That the Mo­saick Tabernacle was but a Shadow, was granted by the Mystical Interpreters of the Law, as appears from Philo. They gather'd it from the Name of Bezaleel [...]. Philo. Alleg. Leg. l. 11. p. 79. [...] de Plantat. Noe. p. 218. [...] de Somn. p. 596. who made the Tabernacle, which signi­fies so, and from its being made in Imitation of the Pattern in the Mount, which Pattern the New Testament Rea­sonings suppose to be meant of the Gos­pel. This way of Reasoning, tho' it would be precarious in other things, yet is the properest for understanding Pro­phecies, which were usually understood by the God that gave them in that Sense which seem'd otherwise most remote from their Literal Signification. This is so notorious, that not having leisure for it, I cannot think it necessary to heap Examples. Our Saviour's Design [Page 59] therefore in this Discourse with the Woman of Samaria, is to shew that the confinement of the solemn Wor­ship of God to one Place, either Je­rusalem or Mount Gerizim, was disa­greeable to the Nature of the Worship of the Gospel, and therefore to be A­brogated by it. And as to that par­ticular Design, I take our blessed Lords Reasoning to be this. The original Consecration both of the Tabernacle and the Temple, was by the Descent of a Luminous Body on them, as a Symbol of the Majestatick Presence of God, which the Rabbins call a Schechinah. This visible Appearance at first, was suppos'd to be the cause of the Consecration, which lasted afterwards, long after the visible Appearance it self had disappear­ed, as the Jews say it did under the second Temple. This way of Consecra­tion, confin'd Consecration to Places. The Schechinah it self, as a Body, could not be otherwise than confin'd. And whilst God was pleas'd to reserve this Power to himself, that besides the Con­secration of Men, which was requisite to separate the Place Consecrated from common uses, no Place however should be counted Holy, till God himself had signified his own Acceptance of it, by [Page 60] such a visible Symbol of his own Presence; it followed necessarily, that if God shew­ed this Symbol only in one Place, no other Place besides that one could be counted Holy as accepted by him. But the true Presence of God signified by that Symbol, our Saviour observes, and that by the mystical way of Reasoning then receiv'd, to have been suitable to the Nature of God himself, who was a Spirit, and therefore Spiritual, and might as well be (if God pleas'd) in Places where no such Appearance was to the Senses, as where it was. Withal, that these invisible Archetypes were the E­ternal things that were to hold when the visible Ectypes were abolished; this was also granted him in the Platonick Reason­ings of that Age. When therefore the Gospel was to take place, which was a State of those very Archetypes which were Prefigur'd in the Law, from that time for­ward God was not to insist on that way of Consecration, by visible Schechinahs which had been required before. But as the se­paration of a Place from common use, was sufficient on Man's part to Consecrate it, if God should be pleas'd to accept it; so when this way of signifying the Divine ac­ceptance immediately by a Schechinah was laid aside, the Divine acceptance [Page 61] would be sufficiently signified by the acceptance of the Priest whom God had Invested with an indefinite Authority, of not only representing, but obliging, him to ratifie what he was to do in his Name, in things wherein God had not particularly oblig'd him to expect a more particular Signification of his Pleasure. When therefore this mystical Dispensation was to take place, then as every City was to be equal with Mount Gerizim, or even Jerusalem it self, then the Bishops of particular Cities, were to be equal with the High-Priest of Je­rusalem, and might as freely Consecrate as he, and exercise the supreme Power of the Evangelical Mystical Sacrifice within his own Jurisdiction. This I take to be the true Design of our Sa­viours Discourse in that Place, to pre­pare both Jews and Samaritans, not to be surpriz'd at this Change, which was punctually fulfill'd in the Event, how contrary soever it seem'd to their pre­sent receiv'd Opinions and Expectations.

AND what is there in all this Rea­soning, XVI. Nothing therefore can be Ob­jected to In­strumental Music that is inconsistent with the spi­ritual Na­ture of the Worship of the Gospel. wherein our Adversaries can think our present Cause concern'd? Spiritual we see here, is not oppos'd to Bodily, but Literal, that is Literal of [Page 62] the Law of Moses, where it was to in­terfere with the Mystical Sense, which was principally intended by the Legislator. Do we revive the Literal Sense as it con­cern'd the particular Nation of the Jews? Or do we extend the Obligation of it far­therso as to oblige other Nations, on whom it was not impos'd then, and for whom it was never intended, under the Spiritual Dispensation of the Gospel? Do we so urge the Literal Sense as to exclude the Mystical, so as to exclude Gentiles from the Benefits of the Law, whilst they do indeed more comply with the true De­sign of the Legislator, than if they had observed the Literal Sense? Do we ex­clude any from the new Peculium, who have the Circumcision of the Spirit, for no other Reason, but because they want the Circumcision of the Letter? This had indeed been repugnant to the Design of the Gospel, which was to convince us, that, in all things incon­sistent, the Observation of the Mystical Sense was to take place of the Literal, and thenceforwards to take away its Obligation. And do we say otherwise? Or do we say, that Schechinahs are to be expected for Consecrations now, or any other Significations of the Divine Acceptance of what is separated for his [Page 63] use by Men, besides the acceptance of them, who are Authoriz'd in general to represent and oblige him in things whereof he has made no particular ex­ception? Can they pretend, that our present Dispute has any Relation to those which devided the Jews and Christians in the Apostolical Age? They very well know, that our present Dispute is wholly between Christians, and has no relation to the Obligation of the Mosa­ick Law in any Sense. It is very true, that the Literal Sense of the Mosaick Law usually related to External Sen­sible Things, and the Mystical to Things Insensible and Spiritual. And the My­stical Sense being the Spiritual, may give the occasion why our Adversaries fancy that the Mystical Sense should always relate to Spiritual Things. But it is not being oppos'd to Sensible or Bodily, but Literal, shews plainly that the things concern'd in the Literal Sense, are not consider'd in this Reasoning, as Sensible and Corporeal, And on the other side, in the Reasonings of the New Testament, the Evangelical Institu­tions even in this World, are all sup­pos'd to belong to the Spiritual Sense of the old Law. And for that very Reason it is inferr'd, that they were [Page 64] principally regarded by God, because the mystical Sense of the Law was more principally intended by him than the Literal. The whole Evangelical Institution, is, in the same Reasoning, suppos'd to be the Pattern shewed to Moses in the Mount, in Imitation of which, the Tabernacle was to be made. And this in order to the proving, that the Evangelical Institutions were to be Eternal, because the Ideal Patterns of things were in the Platonick way of Reasoning suppos'd to be so. This Eternity concern'd in this Dispute, can only be meant of that which was to last as long as this World; so the ever­lasting Hills, Gen. xlix. 26. And the everlasting Mountains, Hab. iii. 6. And the Land of Canaan, is said to be gi­ven for an everlasting Possession, Gen. xvii. 8. xlviii. 4. For in this Sense, the Everlastingness of the Gospel, is oppos'd to the Duration of the Law, which was, even in this Life, to give way to a more lasting Establishment. But it is certain, that those very Institutions of the Gos­pel, which have succeeded the abrogat­ed Institutions of the Law, and which are therefore suppos'd to be Spiritual in this Sense, as Spiritual is oppos'd to the Literal Sense of the Law, are not­withstanding [Page 65] themselves Sensible and Corporeal. So is Baptism, which has succeeded in the Place of the abrogat­ed Circumcision of the Letter. So also is our Eucharistical Sacrifice, which now answers the abrogated Bloody Sacrifi­ces. These therefore must be suppos'd to be Spiritual in this Sense of the Word, notwithstanding their being Sensible and Corporeal. Our Adversaries therefore do certainly mistake the meaning of this Reasoning, when they hence ga­ther that any Observations are con­trary to the Spiritual Nature of the Gospel, on that account alone, because they are Sensible and Corporeal.

BUT, tho' Sensible Assistances should XVII. Pomp and Magnifi­cence of the external Worship, is not inconsi­stent with the Design of the Gos­pel. not be inconsistent with the Nature of Evangelical Worship, yet our Adversa­ries think, at least, that Pomp and Mag­nificence must needs be so. One would think, by the gradation, that their Ar­guments on this Head were more co­gent and convictive, but it proves quite the contrary. Not one Text can they pretend against the Pomp and Magnifi­cence of the publick Worship of God. rather all the appearance of Scripture Reasonings is against them. The Wor­ship of the Old Testament was manifest­ly [Page 66] very Magnificent; nor can our Ad­versaries deny that it was so; what have they therefore to say, why it ought not to be so still? Can they shew any Text of the New Testament against it as a thing that was to cease and to be no more practis'd? I know of none they do pretend either in the same, or in equivalent Terms. Can they then pretend any thing inconsistent with it in the constitution of the Gospel, or of the new Peculium? These things I have shewn to be the true Originals of the abrogation of what was indeed abro­gated in the old Mosaick Law. The rea­soning of the Old Test; as well as the po­sitive Precepts of it, rather favour, than contradict, the Magnificence and Sumptuous­ness of the publick Solemnities of the di­vine Worship. David would not offer Burnt Offerings unto the Lord his God, of that which cost him nothing. 2 Sam. xxiv. 24. and Malachy makes mean Sa­crifices to redound to the contempt of the Religion wherein they were used. He makes them to be a polluting God's Altar, and interprets the offering them as if the Offerers of them had said, The Table of the Lord is contemptible, Mal. i. 7. He Expostulates concerning them far­ther, v. 8. Offer it now to thy Governour, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy [Page 67] Person saith the Lord of Hosts? Plainly intimating, that God did as much expect expensive Sacrifices from those who were able to Offer them, and had reason to do so, as any of their Governours; and would as much resent the contrary as an affront, as Governours would mean Presents from such as were able to offer great ones. The Reasoning is the very same in Is. xl. 16. Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the Beasts thereof for a Burnt Offering. Ar­guing for the Magnificence of the Offer­ing from the greatness of the Person to whom it is made. And I have already shewn how in the N. T. the Reason even of abrogated Precepts is owned as still o­bliging, as a reason approv'd by God. Much more in cases wherein our Adver­saries can prove no abrogation, such as is this of Instrumental Musick. But the di­vine Authority of the N. T. does also plainly approve the same Reasoning. It is a clear instance of it, when our Saviour values the poor Widow's Mites as more than the Offerings of the Rich, who had cast in greater Sums out of their greater abundance, St Mar. xii. 43. St. Luke xxi. 3. This plainly shews, That as God does graciously accept of mean things from those who are able to give no more, so he does not excuse them from Magnifi­cence [Page 68] whose Abilities may afford it. Our Saviour reasons the same way in the case of the Woman who anointed his Feet with the Alabaster Box of very precious Ointment. The same Objection was S. Mat. xxvi. 7, &c. S. Mark xiv. 3. S. Luke. vii. 36. made then which is made by our Adver­saries now, that it might have been sold for much and given to the Poor. Yet our Saviour commends the seasonableness of the Gift, as will as the Gift it self, and re­turns the Woman an honourable Memo­rial for it, wherever his Gospel should be preach'd. The Objection would indeed be greater then, when the numbers of the Poor were greater, and the Abilities of the Christians for Contribution were less, than they are now. Yet even so our Saviour did not approve of our Adversaries Rea­son. He allow'd a liberality in shewing their respect to the Temple of his Body, as a token of what he would also judge commendable if us'd to the material Tem­ples that should afterwards be Consecrated to his Worship. And in giveing a prece­dent for teaching his Disciples what he would have them do afterwards, and in­troducing it, he did not allow even the present Necessities of his Disciples to over-rule him. Thus, I am very apt to think, the generality of his Disciples were then inclinable to understand him. And there­fore [Page 69] thus, in all likelihood, he design'd they should understand him, when he gave them no warning of misunderstanding him in such a way of Interpreting his Mind as he foresaw them inclinable to follow by the way of reasoning of that Age. It was a receiv'd Principle, that our Saviours Acti­ons, as well as his Discourses, were Pro­phetical and Instructive. And that they signified many things which were not to be understood at present, but afterwards when they were fulfilled, and when Provi­dence had fitted circumstances for practi­sing them. Especially in things which were not practicable at present, as not fitted to their present Circumstances. This was plainly the Case then in relation to the Subject of our present Discourse. The Poverty of the Apostolical Christians, disabled them for all things Sumptuous and Magnificent. Nor was there then any Prospect of a Change for the better which might make it prudent to provide expresly for the Case. Withal our bles­sed S. Joh. xiii. 7. Saviour knew that his Sense would be gathered from his Actions. Himself had train'd up his Disciples to do so. And the Jews in their mystical Interpretations of the History of the Old Testament had, even in his time, taken up the Custom of gathering the Sense of God from the Pro­phetick [Page 70] Instincts and Actions of their own Patriarchs. The leaving them there­fore to those Inferences, which he fore­saw them inclinable to make from his Actions and Intimations was a very prudent, a very sufficient Provision for a Case which was to fall out at such a dis­tance afterwards.

THE only Reason this present Adversa­ry insists on for proving the Inconsistence XVIII. Magnifi­cence not re­pugnant to the Simpli­city of the Gospel. of Magnificence with the Nature of the Worship of the Gospel, is that the Ro­manists are usually censur'd for their ex­cess in this kind. This he only takes for granted, and draws Inferences from it; but never offers any Proof that it is in­deed blameable. The same way he takes in his use of the other popular Prejudices now disprov'd but, methinks, it would have better become them who so usually appeal from humane Authorities to the Scriptures, (if they could find any) that even themselves could judge favourable to their Design, before they had ventured on drawing Inferences. That would have made their Dissent look more like a reverence to greater Authority, than Re­sentmentand an Aversation to their Adver­saries against whom they are concern'd in this whole Dispute. But I cannot, in­deed, imagine what they can pretend [Page 71] from the Scriptures against the Magnifi­cence of Gods Worship in those who are able to bear the Burthen of it. They may fancy, perhaps, that the Simplicity of the Gospel may be inconsistent with this Magnificence. But the Simplicity of the Gospel is never (that I know of) us'd concerning the Worship of the Gospel it self, but concerning the good meaning of the Persons who Preached the Gospel. It is plainly oppos'd to [...] 2 Cor. XI. 3. It is us'd as synonymous with [...] 2 Cor. 1. 12. which plainly shew that it signifies Sincerity and Heartiness, only in opposition to double Dealing. But so far it is from implying Inexpensiveness, that on the contrary, it rather sometimes de­notes Liberality, when it is used concern­ing a subject that is capable of it. So, [...]. Rom. xii. 8. As the [...] is oppos'd to that which is call'd [...] S. Mat. vi. 22. 23. And as the [...] is oppos'd to [...] S. Mat. xx. 15. as that signifies Bounteouesness and Liberality. In this way of Interpretati­on the Simplicity of the Gospel signifies the Generosity of the Gospel, and will rather countenance Magnificence than discourage it.

BUT our present Adversary is solicitous XIX. Sacred Dan­cet not un­lawful, but not there­fore necessa­ry to be re­stor'd, if In­strumental-Musick beso. for the Consequences that may follow [Page 72] from the restitution of Instrumental Mu­sick. He conceives that by the like In­ferences we may restore Circumcision and bloody Sacrifices, and the old Custom of Dancing to the Instrumental Musick. And what if we should grant him his last Consequence concerning Dancing, so far at least, as to acknowledge that the Church might lawfully reduce it? I doubt he would be hard put to it to prove it un­lawful. It must be so, at least, if he would confine himself, as they pretend to do, to the Scriptures. He cannot sure think there is any Argument in the irreverent Expres­sion he uses concerning it. It is no other than what Michol would, probably, have used if she had spoken English. But David was contented to bear the Re­proach of it, and to justify it against her. And I believe our Adversaries will not easily question but that we are safer in following the Sense of David than they are in following that of Michol. The De­sign of the Objection in both Cases, both of our Adversaries and of Michol, is to Charge the Posture of Dancing with the Imputation of Levity. As if there could not be Grave and Decorous Dances as well as Grave and Decorous Tunes; and as if there could not be Grave and Decorous tunes on Instrumental, as well as on Vocal, Mu­sick. [Page 73] At present, it is sufficient for us now, that if their Objection had been true in general, God would neither have allow'd sacred. Dancing then, nor would David have avowedly defended it, nor would God have seconded him in doing so by inflicting a Punishment on Michol for her Prophane upbraiding her Prince and Husband with it, as if in Practising it he had done any thing beneath the Dignity of his Station. If they will de­fend David in it, they are as much o­blig'd, as we are, to own the weakness of this general Charge. I think therefore the Practice, if it had been again receiv'd, secure enough if they will be pleas'd to admit no Objections against it now that would have prov'd it unlawful then. For we have a greater Evidence, than any their Reasons can pretend to that it was not unlawful then. But supposing it law­ful, yet the Apostle himself will assure them that all things indeed lawful are not on that account alone to be therefore own'd as expedient. 1. Cor. vi. 12. x. 23. And therefore fit to receive a new Sancti­on. There will be no more Obligation to revive that ancient Custom now, than many others which were undoubtedly allowable and prudent in those times where­in they were universally receiv'd; but [Page 74] have now lost the reason that made them useful then, by their being since as uni­versally disus'd. Singularity alone is an inconvenience in a thing indifferent in its own Nature, where there are not more momentous Considerations to make amends for it, and to recommend it. However the genuine Ignatius in his uninterpola­ted Epistles reasons from allusions to holy Dances and Instrumental Musick. This [...]. shews that, whether they practic'd them or not, yet the Christians, of that Age at least, did not Condemn them. And there is reason to believe they did not. The Pythagoreans greatly approv'd them, as we know the Jewish Essenes were great admirers of the Pythagoreans, who deri­ved many of their own Customs to the whole Body of the Christians. Such were their Praying to the East, their great aversness even to lawful Oaths, their Reconciliations before Sunset, their use of Milk and Honey as a Symbol of the new Plutarch, [...]. Birth. These things we find the Church possess'd of in very antient Monuments, without any Account of their first Origi­nal. And the first and last are not so ac­countable from any other Original as this of their being brought among the Christians by the universal Conversion of the Essenes. So the Author of the [Page 75] Book of Judith makes the Jews expres­sing Jud. xv. their Joy for the defeat of Holoser­nes's Army by Dances with Musick also Instrumental. This appears partly from [...], &c. Ep. ad E­phes. N. 4. the Greek, partly from the Latin, which in those Apocryhal Books are strangly dif­ferent. This shews, at least, the Sense of the Jews in that Age wherein that Book first appeared. That could not be later than the Apostles time because Clements mention Judith in his Epistle to the Co­rinthians. And indeed, within fresh Me­mory of Ignatius, the Apostolical Church, which was the Head of all other Church­es, had notoriously approv'd and communi­cated with Instrumental Musick, at least in the Worship of the Temple. It is not also improbale but that the Apostles con­tinued it in the Head Church, whether in Pella, or in the Ruins of Jerusalem, after the Dissolution of the Worship of the Temple. That mention of Harpers with it in the Vision of the Revelations has nothing joyn'd with it Characteris­tick of the Jewish Worship before the Dis­solution. And therefore may represent the Fact truly as it was in this Interval between the Destruction of the Temple and the new troubles which befell the Christians in the latter end of Domitian, but especially under Trajan. This is a [Page 76] time wherein we have no Monuments that can inform us any thing to the con­trary. And within this time it must have been that St. John saw that Vision in his Exile at Patmos. The eldest Testi­mony produc'd by our Adversary from Clemens Alexandrinus is considerably la­ter than Ignatius, when the memory of the Traditions of the Apostolical Church of Jerusalem was now much forgotten by the many Disturbances which follow­ed on the Ruin of the Temple. It is not improbable that the Instrmental Musick was the Prerogative of that Supreme Church, as it seems also to have been of the Temple Worship of the Jews in Jerusa­lem. The Musick usually accompained the Sacrifices, which by the Jewish Law were to be Offer'd only at Jerusalem, we never find it mention'd in the Synagogue-Worship. And this may give a probable Account, why it was not receiv'd in other Christian Churches besides that of Jerusalem. They were form'd in imita­tion of the Jewish-Synagogues at first, with the same dependance (in many regards) on the Church of Jerusalem that the Synago­gues had on the Temple. And when after the Decease of all the Apostles, the other Churches succeeded into the full Rights of the Head Church of Jerusalem; the disorders [Page 77] of the times had so long discontinu'd that Custom even in the Head Church, that tho' Ignatius might, yet it might be very possi­ble that Clemens Alexandrinus might not remember it. No, not even with the Assis­tance of those old Witnesses of Apostolical Tradition from whom Clemens receiv'd his Informations of the Apostolical Affairs, as he Strom. 1. himself tells us. But 'tis not likely that any of those Witnesses could be near so old as Ignatius. But the Musick describ'd in the Re­velations is such as might likely be pract­tis'd by the Apostles in the Ruins of Jerusa­lem after the Dispersion of the Jews, and the Abolition of the Temple-Sacrfices.

HOWEVER our Adversary con­ceives XX. The Jewish Circumcisi­on contrary to the De­sign of the Gospel. The Gentile no­thing to our Adversaries purpose. The Case of neither of them like that of In­strumental Musick. that Circumcision and the old bloody Sacrifices might be restor'd by the same Consequence that Instrumental Musick were, if any Church should think fit to do so. He might well think so, whilst he believ'd that the only Reason which made Circum­cision and those Sacrisices unlawful now, was their having been observ'd formerly. But I have shewn how contrary that way of Reasoning is, to the way of Reasoning us'd by the Writers of the N. T. and have thereby prov'd a necessity of set­tling an Hypothesis, by which we may be able to distinguish what is Abolished from what is not so. And the Hypothesis now [Page 78] given, affords a Rule sufficient, to shew why Instrumental Musick may still be Law­ful, tho' neither Circumcision nor bloody Sa­crifices were so. That is because Instru­mental Musick is no way repugnantto the Constitution of the new Peculium, which is not true of the Jewish Circumcision, nor the Jewish Sacrifices. For no uncircumcis'd Person could partake of the Jewish Sacrifi­ces, and he that was Circumcised, was there­by Incorporated into the Jewish Nation. Whilst these two things were insisted on it was impossible for a Gentile not Incorporat­ed into the Jewish Nation to be admitted to the Benefits of the new Peculium, which was directly contrary to the new Revela­tions of the Gospel. But our Author urges the Circumcision of other Nations as if their Agreement in it would have gone as far to have recommended it for a Law of Nations as their Consent in Instrumental Musick. But he did not re­member that no other Nation that used Circumcision did pretend to use it as the Jews, as a Ceremony of Admission into the peculiar People of God, which is the only Consideration, that made it incon­sistent with the Constitution of the Gos­pel. Several of them seem'd to have us'd it, not as an Initiation to their Nation, but to their Sacerdotal Dignity, to quali­fie [Page 79] Men for being admitted to the Secrets of their Religion. So it seems to have been in the Cases of Pythagoras and A­pion, who were Circumcised among the AEgyptians. And therefore also among other Nations who deriv'd their Circum­cision from the AEgyptians, as particular­ly the Colchians are said to have done by Scsostris. And perhaps this may be the Reason why the old Peculium is call'd a Royal Priesthood, as well as a Holy Na­tion, because the right of Admitting in­to that Nation was equal to that which among other Nations was thought suf­ficient to confer that higher Degree of Sanctity which all Nations ascrib'd to their Priests above the ordinary Holi­ness, thought requisite to partake of the National Sacrifices which were common to the whole Nation. But no Nation however beside the Jews pretended to be the peculiar People, who were fa­vour'd with the immediate Patronage of the supreme Being. They could not there­fore impose Incorporation into themselves as a Condition of Admission into the new Peculium on other Nations besides them­selves, tho' their Circumcision had been design'd as a Right of Incorporation. Their Circumcision therefore not being impos'd as a Condition of the Peculium, [Page 80] had been as Innocent as that of the Jews was, when observ'd only by their own Nation, and not impos'd on others, as a Condition requisite to qualify them for the Spiritual Favours of the Peculium. Upon those terms the Jews themselves, were permitted the use of it whilst they Commnnicated with the Uncircumcis'd Gentiles, in the Offices of the Christian Religion. Much less could it be Con­demned in other Nations, who never im­pos'd it farther than their own Nation. There was therefore neither parity of Reason, nor sufficient Consent of Nati­ons to prove the Jewish Circumcision lawful now, tho' we should on, those Accounts, grant that Instrumental Musick were so.

BUT Bloody Sacrifices, our Adversary XII. No Bloody Sacrifices whatsoever were fit for the Design of the Chri­stian Sacri­fices. conceives might at least pretend to them. Not certainly so as to unite all Nations into one Body, which was the true De­sign of our Evangelical Eucharistical Sa­crifices. The Jewish Sacrifices none were capable of, but one only Nation, that of the Jews. The same was the Case of many others of the publick National Sacrifices. None were indeed suppos'd to have a Right in them, but the Nati­on for whose use they were originally Instituted. Some were as severe as the Jews themselves, to make it Piacular and [Page 81] Capital, if one of another Nation did but come into that part of their Tem­ples, where the publick Sacrifices were Offered. So it appears that it was on­ly the remissness of their Discipline a­bove that of the Jews, that made them allow others that were not of their Na­tion, to partake of their publick Sacri­fices. Augustus when he was in Egypt, Suet. Aug. c. 93. would take no notice of Apis, and com­mended his Grandson Caius, because he would not Pray at Jerusalem. The like was the Practice of Hadrian, who pre­tended Spartian Adri. to an Inquisitiveness into all things, and to be a severe Observer of Discipline. And it was a Favour usually desir'd from the Senate, that other Nations might have leave to Offer their Donaries at the Roman-Altars, These are sufficient Evidences of what was generally taken for the Rule, which is the only thing to be regarded in this Reasoning. It is true the Jews allow'd publick Sacrifices for the Persian Kings and the Roman Em­perours. But not so, as to suffer any Heathens to partake in them. Yet even this was blamed by the strictest Pretend­ers to the Observation of the Law a­mong them, the Galileans and the Zea­lots. Tho' otherwise if any other Na­tion could admit others to their Nati­onal [Page 82] Sacrifices, the Jews had more rea­son to do so. They by their own Con­fession Worshipped a God, to whom all other Nations ought Duty as well as themselves, which other Nations did not pretend concerning their own Deities. There was therefore no Sacrifice of this kind, that all Nations with their Nati­onal distinctives could pretend an equal Right to. How could they therefore unite all Nations into one Body, as it was the Design of our Christian Religi­on to unite them? None of them pre­tended to a Right to be confirmed in Heaven, besides that of the Jews, which yet could not unite all Nations, whilst it was believed to be the Right of one only Nation. There were no Bloody Sacrifices in the World, which being received into one Place, gave a Right to all other Sacrifices in the World. I do not now insist on what Porphyry has Porphyry de Abst. endeavour'd to prove at large, that the first Sacrifices received among the Na­tions, were not Bloody, but Innocent, and such as were perfectly agreeable with his Pythagorean Notions, which were for the [...]. They did not either know or regard the most ancient Example of Abel to the contra­ry. However he has said very conside­rable [Page 83] things for it, from the Histories of the Heathens. That is enough to dis­prove that sort, at least of Sacrifices, from being a Tradition of the Law of Nations. And the Reputation of being [...], had then prevail'd not only in those Cities which had submitted to Py­thagorean Legislators, but also among the Romans themselves. I am apt to think this was the Reason, why so many of the good Emperours who affected Feli­cia Tempora, affected also that their Reigns might be [...], free from the Piaculum of shedding Civil Blood, at least of the better Quality. But the Pythagorean Doctrines were parti­cularly grateful to the Jewish Essenes, who were as I said, the best disposed to the Christian Religion, and who seem therefore to have been extirpated by an universal Conversion, upon the appearance of it. They were most ad­dicted to the Mystical sense of the Law, which is the Foundation of most of the Reasonings of the New Testament. Numenius the Heathen, who first joyn­ed the Mystical Interpretation of the Law of Moses with the Heathen Philo­sophy, was a Pythagorean, and so was Philo the Jew, and the Essenes, as the same Philo teaches. This alone was [Page 84] sufficient to dispose the Essenes to an a­versation to Bloody Sacrifices, and to have the better Opinion of the Christi­an Religion, when they understood, that by it they could satisfie the Design of the Legislator without them. If they could once free themselves thereby, from the Obligation of the Bloody Sacrifices, required by the Law of Moses, there were no other in view, that were like­ly to be substituted instead of them, at least by them. But the Mystical In­terpretations of the Old Testament, af­forded an easier account of the Change which was to be made by the Gospel, and more grateful to the Relish of the Py­thagorean Essenes, and the Philosophical As­ceticks. The everlasting Priesthood which was to answer'd by that of the Gospel, was suppos'd to be that of Melchize­deck. So 'tis expresly called by the Psalmist, as the Apostle has observed: No doubt as granted him by the Mystical Reasonings of those Times. His Sacrifice, ( [...] is the Word us'd by Philo, concerning him, as well as by St. Paul, concerning our Saviour) was Bread and Wine, exactly the same with that of the Gospel. The Notion of a Priest implies an Offering, by the Reasoning in the Epistle to the Hebrews, [Page 85] Heb. viii. 3. And no other thing but Bread and Wine is mentioned in the Sto­ry of Melchizedeck, that can be called an Offering. Our Eucharist therefore, must, by this Reasoning, be the everlast­ing Offering or Sacrifice, relating to his everlasting Priest-hood. The rather be­cause there is a Bread from Heaven, mentioned also in the Old Testament, a very fit original Archetype to answer our Evangelical Terestrial Sacrifice. That was the Manna which was called Bread by Moses, and was indeed Rained from Hea­ven, and is called the Food of Angels by the Psalmist. No doubt to shew its Heavenly Mystical Nature, far exceeding the Nature of our common Bread. It is called also a Body prepared, as the same Apostle Quotes the Words of the Old Testament. These are the very Expres­sions us'd by our blessed Saviour, con­cerning his own Sacrament in St. Joh. vi. He also calls it Manna, Bread from Heaven, and his own Body, exactly ac­cording to these Mystical Reasonings from the Old Testament. We never find any mention of an Archetypal Heavenly Beast, answering those Bloody Sacrifices. Yet the whole Benefit of these Sacrifices de­pended on these Archetypal Patterns an­swering them in Heaven. Thence fol­low'd [Page 86] the Obligation of God, to ratify in Heaven what was performed by the Priest on Earth, in giving or denying the Mystical Benefits of the Sacraments, as the Priest shall think fit to give or deny the Sacramental Elements. Thence the Union between the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant, on account of the Union between the Caelestial Ar­chetype, and the Terrestrial Eucharistical Sacrifice. Thence the Union between the Patriarchal Church of the Old Testa­ment, and the Apostolical of the New, because the whole efficacy of those old Sacrifices of Beasts, was derived from their representing and applying the Death of our blessed Saviour, as commemorat­ed and apply'd in our Christian Eucha­ristical Sacrifice. Thence the Union of all the visible Churches in the World with the Caelestial Church, and among themselves, and the Reason obliging all particular Churches in Earth, to ratify each others Censures, which was that which made their Admissions into Com­munion, and their Excommunications Catholick, tho' the Acts themselves, were only the Acts of single Churches. The Reason was, because every particular in admitting a Member, intitled the Mem­ber so admitted to the Heavenly Church, [Page 87] with which all the particularly Churches in the World were one, and therefore were obliged to own such a Member, for a Member of themselves. And e­very particular Church in Excommuni­cating a Member, deprived the Ex­communicated of his Right to the Hea­venl Church; which whosoever want­ed, could not be owned by any particu­lar Church, which pretended to be one with that which was Heavenly; of so much consequence was this whole My­stical Reasoning, greater perhaps than our Adversary was aware of. However, this Reasoning gives a clear Account, that tho' Instrumental Musick were as in­different as we conceive it to be, it would not therefore follow, that it would be Indifferent, or in the Power of any Church, to restore the Custom of Bloody Sacrifices.

I know not whether it be worth XXII. No Reason for opposing the first Im­positions whilst Law­ful, for fear of Rigours afterwards. the while, to take notice of another Con­sequence, much insisted on by the Par­ty; that is, the Danger of exceeding in Impositions, if the first Impositions be submitted to. But truly conscientious Reasoners, would first have prov'd the Hurtfulness of many lawful Impositi­ons, if submitted to by the Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 88] subject. The Government might indeed be blamed for it; but in the sub­ject, (for whom they are concern'd) tho' the Imposition were indeed hard, yet submission to it for Peace sake, would for that Reason be highly commendable, as an Act of the greater self-denyal and the greater Zeal for Pecae and Discipline, and the greater Abhorrence of needless Divisi­on, whilst nothing Sinful were impos'd. Then they would have given some [...] concerning the due Number that might be impos'd, that might neither be too small nor too numerous. This they would have done, if they had desir'd to have purged themselves to God, and their own Consciences, that they had not oppos'd subjection to those who were over them in the Lord, but Rigours of those who had abus'd the just Autho­rity committed to them. But to stop at the first Impositions, before they can pretend them Rigorous, looks as if Flesh and Blood, as if Stomach and Resent­ment, as if an aversation to subjection it self, had been the original of their Quarrel. It runs into the opposite ex­treme, as indeed their Defences of their Schism generally do, as if the Autho­rity it self, not any Tyrannical use of it, were the thing regretted by them. [Page 89] The Topick it self they cannot defend, nor justifie the Consequences of it, who are notwithstanding so forward to warn others of Consequences. There is hard­ly any thing necessary in Humane Life, but what excess may make pernicious. Eating is so. Yet how great a part do Surfeits make in our Bills of Mortality? Will they therefore think it reasonable for avoiding Surfeits, to disswade from Eating? If they had no design of running into an extreme of opposing all Imposi­tions in things indifferent; our Churches Impositions, (whatever the Out-cry has been against them) have been so few, that I cannot tell how, even our Ad­versaries themselves, could charge our Churches Impositions with being exces­sive, if they had allowed of any Im­positions at all: If they allow of none, they would do well to own that their Disputes are not against Abuses only of Authority, but against Authority it self. Their doing so, would let the Fa­vourers of Comprehension see, that our Disputes are not indeed of so trivial an Importance, as they are commonly con­ceiv'd to be. That they are indeed, whether we shall have any Authority which our Adversaries shall think them­selves oblig'd in Conscience to own, [Page 90] and to be concluded by, when nothing but Conscience can oblige them to it, in a State of Persecution. That is in­deed whether we our selves shall have any Body Politick, when they are once receiv'd into it. For we cannot any long­er have such a Body than we have the Authority essential to the Constitution of such a Body. Then it would become the Favourers of Comprehension to con­sider whether any Grants of our Adver­saries can make amends for so great a Concession on our Parts, as the Disso­lution of our selves? Or whether any other independent Body in the World, would think fit to admit Enemies to their Constitution, into their Body to­gether with their hostile Opinions; or whether they could think any Preten­ces, how fair soever they might seem otherwise, to be sufficient to compen­sate a Reconciliation of so fatal Conse­quence. The rather so, because it per­fectly discharges Persons reconcil'd on such Terms from all Obligations to perform, what should afterwards be per­form'd as a Condition of the Reconci­liation on their Parts. For it is only their Difference to our common Authority, that can make them really one with us, when they are admitted into our As­semblies. [Page 91] The giving this up to them as a Condition of their coming in to us, is like opening a Gap which may seem to let them in whilst themselves please, but lets them out again as soon as their old Animosities shall put them on lay­ing hold of new Pretences, or retriev­ing the old ones. But a regular Ad­mission of them, should be by the Gate. And the same Power of the Keys, which opens the Gate to them at their Ad­mission, should lock them in after they are once admitted. I know no possi­bility they have of avoiding these Con­sequences, unless they can shew, either that a Body Politick can subsist with­out Government, or, that Government can subsist without a right of imposing in things indifferent, either of which in­deed would be a great Performance. If therefore (to avoid the odium of so hard Terms imposed on us, of an Admissi­on which when it is made, shall give us no longer security of their Union with us, than themselves please) they will pretend a Defference to our Com­mon Ecclesiastical Authority that may keep them ours by Principles afterwards. I could then wish, that they would be pleas'd to consider farther, that when a true Authority is once admitted, That [Page 92] must be allowed to judge concerning the Exigences of the Society to which it is related, and therefore to judge concern­ing the true mean between both extremes, of what is deficient and what is super­fluous. I mean so as to conclude the subject in Affairs of that Nature. This Consideration will shew, that were there indeed any excess, yet the Authority would be responsible for it, but not to the Subject to whom it owes no ac­count, but to God, from whom the Au­thority is indeed received. This will shew that the subject cannot be respon­sible for the Sin of the Imposition, so long as there can be prov'd no Sin in submitting to the Imposition, because the Imposition is a right to which the Subject cannot pretend. Where therefore the Sin of Imposition is separable from the Sin of Submission, there certainly the Duty of Submission still holds. The Reason is manifest, because the Subject cannot deny its Duty for a Cause that does not concern it to enquire into, and for which it is not responsible unto God, whatever may be amiss in it. And this will always be the Case, whilst the Im­positions are only in matters of their own Nature indifferent.

[Page 93] BUT our Author pleases himself par­ticularly XXIII. The ceasing of Instru­mental Mu­sick, Rev. 18. 22. describes a great Ca­lamity, but does not prove its un­lawfulness. with a Passage in the Reve­velations, where it is foretold concerning Babylon; That the Voice of Harpers and Musicians, and of Pipers and Trumpeters should be heard no more in her, Rev. xviii. 22. He urges it modestly, and it became him to do so, having before decried all Ar­guing from that same Book, because of its Obscurity. The Reason holds in refer­ence to Facts to come. These are the things wherein the Prophetical Style is profes­sedly obscure, even to those who were then living; not so in Facts, then be­ing or past. These, there is no Reason to believe that God intended to conceal from the meanest Capacities, because they were not likely to hinder the Free­wills which were to contribute their Parts in fulfilling the Prophesies here de­livered. And of this kind are the Al­lusions, for which we are at present con­cern'd, to the then present Customs of the Church of Jerusalem. But to urge the Authority of this Book, as our Adver­sary does, with relation to the State of Antichrist, is to urge it in a Sense where­in God usually design'd that his Pro­phecies should not be understood till they were fulfilled, that they might not give warning to those who were to fulfill [Page 94] them, as they must certainly do, if they could certainly be understood before. Till therefore this Prophesie (if it relate to Antichrist) be fulfilled, it is not to be expected that it should be understood so certainly as to be Argumentative. But, to give him the utmost that he can, with any Reason desire, all that he can make of it, is only to have it understood as a Prophesie, not as a Law; as a Pre­diction of the event, not as a Determi­nation of what was lawful or unlawful. It is very common in the Prophetick Scriptures, to foretel Judgments by the deprivation of what was delightful on any account, Good or Evil, even on ac­count of Religion as well as Luxury. So Hosea Prophesies that the Children of Israel should abide many Days without a King, and without a Prince; and with­out a Sacrifice, and without an Ephod. Hos. iii. 4. Can our Adversary there­fore gather, that Kings, and Sacrifices, and Ephods, were Sins then? No, but it is denounced as the most afflictive thing to them, who in the midst of their Impieties, were full of their Preten­sions of Zeal for God and for his Tem­ple, Jer. vii. 4. The like Predictions against the Temple, as a Punishment of the unworthy Worshipers in it, are [Page 95] frequently mention'd on other occasi­ons also, which can by no means be interpreted as a Condemnation of the Temple then, but rather of the People, as unworthy of so great a Favour. So, in the Babylonish Captivity, they are re­presented as hanging their Harps on the Willows, when their Adversaries insult­ingly demanded of them one of the Songs of Sion, Psal. cxxxvii. 2, 3, 4. We can­not therefore conclude, that the Temple-Songs play'd on their Harps, were sin­ful then, but unseasonable, not suitable to the Condition they were then in, and the Behaviour that became them in the desolation of the Temple. So God threa­tens to turn their Feasts into Mourning, and their Songs into Lamentation, Am. viii. 10. Hos. ii. 11. We must not rherefore say, that their holy Feasts or Songs were sinful. All that is imply'd thereby, is only this, that they should be so estranged from Joy, that it should find no place in their holiest Offices, even of Religion. So Job expresses the sadness of his Condition: My Harp also is turned into mourning, and my Organ into the Voice of them that Weep, Job. xxx. 31. So in Isa. xxiv. 8. The mirth of Tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that re­joice endeth, the Joy of the Harp ceaseth. [Page 96] And in Ezek. xxvi. I will cause the noise of thy Songs to cease, and the sound of thy Harps shall be no more heard. Who sees not, from these and the like Places, that these Expressions are used to describe a State not Sinful but Penal rather and Calamitous? The same appears from the other things following in this very Text, concerning which we are dis­puting, of the Revelations. It follows, And no Crafts-man of whatsoever Craft he be, shall be found any more in thee. Will our Adversary therefore say, that all sorts of Crafts are here condemn'd as unlawful? It is easie to observe, that there is nothing more foretold in these Words, but the failing of the Trade of Babylon, for which she had been so very famous. It follows farther, And the sound of a Milstone shall be heard no more in thee; and the light of a Candle shall shine no more at all in thee. Must Mil­stones therefore and Candles be unlaw­ful also? This only shews a Famine that should befall them, and a want of Corn to employ the Millstone, as clean­ness of Teeth for want of Bread to foul them is likewise threatned, Am. iv. 6. Teeth as well as Mills are called the Grinders, Eccle. xii. 3, 4. It also de­scribes the Disconsolateness of their Con­dition, [Page 97] when they should want the com­mon comfort of Light. Exactly paral­lel to the Passage in Jer. xxv. 10. where it is threatned that the sound of the Mill­stone, and the light of the Candle should be taken away. Next it is added, And the Voice of the Bridegroom, and of the Bride, sholl be heard no more at all in thee. The Adversary himself will not, I believe, con­clude that the rejoycings in Marriage are therefore unlawful. This is also another way of signifying a very dejected State in the Prophetical Poetick Stile. So Jer. vii. 34. xvi. 9. xxv. 10. Thus it was counted to have no share in those few So­lemnities of Joy, which were allowed in States not utterly ruin'd, at least at Nu­ptial Festialties. So clear it is, that tho' we should grant that these things were to be understood of Antichrist, yet they would not prove the Sinfulness of the things of which he was to be deprived, but the Calamity of the Deprivation.

BUT our Author has an Observation XXIV. Dr. Light­foots Obser­vation, that the Temple Worship was wholly Ceremonious, and the Sy­nagogue VVorship wholly Mo­ral, is not true. from the very learned Dr. Lightfoot, which if it had been true, would, I con­fess, weaken what I have said for Instru­mental Musick; Christ, says that excel­lent Person, abolish'd the Worship of the Temple as purely Ceremonious; but he per­petuated the Worship of the Synagogue, read­ing [Page 98] the Scriptures, Praying, Preaching and Singing of Psalms, and Transplanted it into the Christian Church as purely Moral. For I have already granted that Instrumental Musick was used not in the Worship of the Synagogues, but of the Temple. But there are no Words of Christ, that I know of, that could be so much as pretended for shewing what he designed concern­ing these two Worships in General, and much less to shew that this was Christ's design concerning them. We have seen withal, that the Apostles did separate from the Synagogue worship, tho' they never did so from that of the Temple. This would rather imply the contrary to what that great Man has advanc'd, if Argu­ments were allow'd to proceed universally on either side. But as there is no Text, so neither is there any Reason, to pass this Judgment concerning both these kinds universally. I know not why singing of Psalms should be counted Moral. Especi­ally according to our Adversaries Opini­on, which ascribes its efficacy for promot­ing Devotion, not to its own Nature, but to its divine Institution. This must needs take away the antecedent Reason of its In­stitution. So far it is from allowing it an Antecedent Reason, that it must necessarily and universally oblige without any positive [Page 99] Sanction. This is usually thought neces­sary according to the commonly received notion of a Law of Nature. And on the contrary the use of Lots were taken by the Apostles from the use of the Temple Worship, where it was usually made use of, for determining which particular Priests of the whole [...] were to per­form the duty of the Week. This could be used by the Jews no where but at Je­rusalem, because there was no other place where Priests could lawfully Officiate. But by the Apostles it was made use of not only for choosing a new Apostle of their own order, as in the Case of St. Mathias, but also for determining the Persons that were to be invested with Ecclesiastical Sa­cerdotal Power. And that very consequent­ly, because the exercise of the Evangelical Priesthood was not confin'd to one place as that of the Jewish Priesthood was, to Je­rusalem. This was used so generally, that from thence the name of Clerus came to be appropriated to the sacred Order in oppo­sition to the Laity, as I have often shewn elsewhere. It is therefore a plain instance Diss. Cyp. 1. that the general way of Reasoning will not hold that any thing must be unlawful now, on that alone account, that it had been used in the Worship of the Temple. I know no ground the Doctor could have [Page 100] for this Distinction, but that he seems to have believed, that the Temple worship was universally settled by a positive Law of God, as having no antecedent reason why it should have obliged without such a positive Sanction; and that the Syna­gogue worship having no positive Sanction in the Scriptures (without which our Ad­versaries allow no proof of a positive De­vine Sanction) must therefore have re­ceived the Sanction it pretended to from the nature of the things themselves, and therefore as immutable as those natures of things from which they thought it was deriv'd. This is indeed so far suitable to our Adversaries Principles, granted on popular receiv'd Prejudices, that in things of this nature they allowed no humane Sanction to be of any force. This preca­rious Supposition did naturaly put them upon finding a Divine original for all the old Establishment of the Worship of the Synagogue, which because they could not pretend to find in the Scriptures, they were oblig'd to derive from the Moral Law, which was indeed suppos'd to de­rive its Authority from a divine Legislati­on. But the Moral Law, being founded, as they thought, on the Nature of the things, they must therefore believe its Obligation as Eternal and Immutable, as [Page 101] those Natures were supos'd to be. So on the contrary, because the written Law was written with a prospect on one fixed Place for their solemn Assemblies, which fixation was made by a positive divine Sanction, which was designedly to cease upon the Destruction of the Jewish Tem­ple, and the Dispersion of the Jewish Na­tion, therefore they think the whole writ­ten Law relating to the Temple, was to have an end with the Temple, for the use of which it was contrived. But neither way does the Argument proceed as our Ad­versaries are concerned for it. The Syna­gogue Worship not being a thing expressly provided for in the old Testament) where there is no mention of Synagogues in the latter Sense of the Word) I should rather have taken for an Argument against the Reasonings of the Nonconformists, from the Testimonies of the old Testament, for the necessity of an express divine Com­mand for every indifferent Circumstance of Divine-Worship when the whole kind of Synagogue-Worship cannot pretend to a divine Command in the Scriptures. And without the Scriptures, there can be no divine Command pretended, by their Principles, but what is Moral, which must therefore be grounded on Eternal and Immutable Reasons, which will not [Page 102] be so easily found for every particular of the Worship of the Synagogue, as our Adversaries may fancy before they con­sider it. Every atnecedent Reason will not do. For inded no Law, however positive can be thought prudent, that has not an antecedent Reason, that might move the Legislator to add his Sanction to it. But if that had been alone sufficient to oblige the Subject, there could have been no ne­cessity of the subsequent Law. The reason therefore requisite for a moral Law, musts be such as must hold necessarily and uni­versally, and so as to expose the Person who is not ruled by it, not only to incon­venient Consequences, and prejudicial to his Temporal concerns, but so as to in­volve him in the guilt of sin, with rela­tion to God, and the consequent indefi­nite Effects af the divine Displeasurs, be­sides the natural Consequences of the Acti­ons it self. Such Reasons as these, our Adversaries will not be so easily able to find for all the particulars of the Syna­gogue-Worship, when they shall be plea­sed to consider it sedately. I am sure the Worship of the Body, and of the Mouth too may be without singing, if they will allow no more natural conduciveness to Vocal Musick for raising the Imagination and the Affections, than they do to that [Page 103] which is Instrumental. The Reasons men­tioned in the things Sung, receive no more accession of strength by their being Sung Vocally, than they would by being Sung Instrumentally. I am apt to think the whole Synagogue-Worship was introduc'd after the Captivity perhaps instead of the Schools of the Prophets, that is, after that ordinary way of Educating Prophets in Schools had fail'd of which we find no more mention after the Captivity. From that time forwards the failing of the or­dinary use of Prophets is owned in the Scriptures. Ps. lxxiv. 9. Nehem. vii. 65. Contr. Api­on. and Josephus, as well as in the less cer­tain Testimonies of the Rabbins. At least as to Colleges and Schools. Whilst, those ordinary Bodies of the Prophets were still in being, the People seem to have made the same use of them, as was afterwards made of the Synagogues, for performing those parts of the Offices of their Reli­gion with them, which by the Law, were allowed to be performed elsewhere than at Jerusalem, 2. Kings iv. 23. The new Moons and the Sabbaths, are mentioned as ordina­ry occasions of having recourse to them. If so, the whole Synagogue way of Wor­ship must have been settled by prudential Provisions, which could alone take place upon the failing of the Spirit of Prophesy. [Page 104] Especially if we will not allow any proof of Prophetick discoveries, by those few Prophets which even then remain'd after the Prophetick Colleges were generally dis­solved. This our Adversaries are averse to on other occasions. If they be true to themselves on this occasion also, I do not foresee how it is possible for them to pre­tend any Divine Revelation for this way of Worship in the Synagogues, from those few Prophets yet remaining, whose Writ­ing we have extant. And how can they possibly prove a Revelation that is no where Written? What then will become of their Negative Arguments from our present Scriptures? Nor does their Argu­ment hold on the other side, that every particular of the Temple Worship, must for that only Reason, because it was so, be unlawful now. They might indeed infer that its confined use in the Temple must cease, when the confinement of all sacerdotal Offices to that Temple, was its self abrogated and repealed. But they very well know our present Dispute, is not whether Instrumental-Musick be to be con­fined now, as it was formerly, to that particular Temple. They might say, far­ther, that the Obligation it then had from that Mosaical Sanction, is expired when the Mosaical Sanction is it self repeal'd [Page 105] from whence that Obligation was deriv'd. But neither is that our present Question, whether the same Instrumental-Musick shall oblige us now, on account of that Mosaic Imposition, which even then was never intended for uncircumcis'd Gentiles, such as we are now. All that can be thence inferred by any regular Reasoning, is, that, upon the Revocation of the Con­finement of sacerdotal Worship to the Tem­ple, Instrumental-Musick returned to its own Nature as it was before, either to remain as it was at first, Indifferent, or to receive, or retain, some other Sanction distinct from that. But that it must be thenceforward unlawful, is more than I think our Adversaries will ever be able to prove from this concession alone, that it was formerly a part of the Worship of the Temple.

ANOTHER pretence the Adversary XXV. Tho' Instru­mental Mu­sick had been a Sha­dow of the organical Worship of our Bodies under the Gospel, that would not prove it in­consistent with it. Yet that it was a Shadow of it, cannot be easily prov­ed. has for proving Instrumental Musick abo­lish'd, is, because it was a shadow of some­thing then to come, of our Praising God with the Organs of our Bodies under the Gospel. This would indeed hold if it so signified somewhat to come, as to be guilty of false Signification, when the thing signified was actually come to pass. If this had been the Case, that, while Instrumen­tal Musick was used, it signified Bodily [Page 106] Worship only to come, our Adversaries would do well to consider how it could have been used by the Jews. even in the time of the Mosaick Law. For it is certain that the Jews used the Worship of the Organs of their Bodies together with their Instrumental Musick, not only of their Mouths as we do, but also of their Feet, in their Religious Dances. If bodily Worship being used at the same time with it made a false signification in­consistent with the futurity which it is pretended to signifie now, Why should it not do so then also? If even then when it was was designed as a Prophetick Symbol of the Organical Worship of the Body, that same Organical Worship of the Body might notwithstanding be used at the same time with it, Why not now? This was, one would think, sufficient to shew that it's signification of bodily Organical Worship, was not so essential to it but that, when that particular Reason should fail, it might notwithstanding be continued on other Considerations which might give no pretence of false signification, and in­consistency with the present Innovations of the Revelations peculiar to the Gospel. This I have shewn to be the only true Reason of the abrogation of all the particulars of the old Mosaick Law, as abrogation is un­derstood [Page 107] by our Advarsaries, not only to make things unobliging but unlawful also. But how does our Adversary know that Instrumental Musick was a Type of our bodily organical Worship under the Gospel, or of any other particular Practice now in use? No other Reason is pretended, but the general precarious presumption that all usages then practis'd, that were not Moral, must needs be so. The Apostle does in­deed acknowlege, that of events, they were [...] of what we might expect in the like Cases, 1. Cor, x. 11. He also owns that the Law in general had a shadow of good things to come. Heb. x. 1. But that every particular Imposition of the Law was a shadow of some particular Impositi­on that was to answer it under the Gospel, I know no Text our Adversaries can pre­tend to that could inform them. Many of the positive, as well as the Moral, Precepts of the Jewish Law, were adapted to the particular Exigencies of that Nation. Many were fitted to the Vices that Nation was generally more inclined to than other Nations, as Idolatry, Covetousness, &c. Many to those they were more in danger of, on account of their particular Situa­tion, the Vices of their Neighbour Nati­ons. Many to other Reasons and cus­toms long since antiquated, as Maimonides [Page 108] has judiciously observ'd from the Caldean Writings by him ascribed to the Zabij. Many to particular Favors of Conversa­tion, which God was in those Ages pleas­ed to grant to other Nations, as well as his Peculium. Such were those of the Waters of Jealousy, of the ways of aton­ing unknown and involuntary Murthers, and the Oracles of Lots, and Prophets and Urim. Why should we think that such Laws as these should have any pro­spect farther than those Ages, and that Nation for which they were design'd? Especially since the reasons of many of them failed long before the Publication of the Gospel; and when they obtain'd, concern'd no other Nation whatsoever besides that of the Jews.

OUR Adversaries might have been XXVI. All Symbols of those times did not foretel any future Innovations which should abolish them. Instrumen­tal Musick could not be abrogated by the Organi­cal woship of the Body, as being a shadow of it. pleased to consider that the way of deli­vering even known Moral Duties under Mystical Symbols, was the usual Custom of those of those earliest Ages, even where no farther future Innovations were ever thought of. Such were the ancient Oracles, the Fables and Parables and dark Sayings and Riddles of the Wise. Such the Pythagorean Symbols, taken up from the Ob­servations of the Customs of those Orien­tal Nations thro' which Pythagoras had travell'd for Cultivating his Knowledge, [Page 109] by the Inventions of those Nations that were then famous for Inventions. And so the Jews of the Apostles Age under­stood that by prohibiting the eating of Animals, God's true design was to forbid the Vices, of which those Animals were counted Symbols by the received Traditi­ons of the Physiologers. So Philo and St. Barnabas, that I may confine my self to the Age that I am speaking of. These had no more relation to the times of the Gospel than of the Law, nor could be thought to be more obligatory then, than now. The Vices design'd by those Ani­mals the Jews were oblig'd to avoid as much as we are, and in order thereunto, were obliged to understand the Mystical Senses intended by those Symbols. Nor are we more excused from the Mystical Sense than they, tho' we be not obliged by the letter of the Prohibitions of those Animals. The reason why such things were delivered by Mystical Symbols was not to conceal them from the Persons to whom they were delivered for any time, much less till distant events might come to pass; but only to dispose the Hearers to receive them with the greater Reverence, according to the Customs of those times, wherein all wise and sacred Documents were so recommended, that too much [Page 110] familiarity might not expose them to con­tempt. Clemens Alxandrinus has at large shewn that to have been the Fashion of those Ages. But the Symbols we are con­cern'd for in judging what particulars of the Jewish Ceremonial law were to be abro­gated in our Adversaries Sense, so as that from the time of the Publication of the Gospel, they were to become unlawful, and uncapable even of any new humane Sanction, were quite of another kind. These were purposely cotrived to be Symbolical, that they might not be under­stood till the Gospel was clearly publish'd; and that, when it was sufficiently pub­lished, it might then be understood that all the changes that followed upon the new Revelations of the Gospel, were Ori­ginally designed by God. By their not being understood before they found themselves oblig'd, not to admit Gentiles to the Pri­vileges of the new Peculium, without Proselytism of Justice and Incorporation into that particular Nation of the Jews. Perfectly agreeable to what God himself design'd till then. But from that time for­ward God intended his new Establishments of the Gospel should take Place, whereby Gentiles were to be admitted to these same Privileges, without the Condition of Incorporation. Thence forwards there­fore [Page 111] it was necessary that there should be that evidence concerning what was to be abolished, that might satisfie, even the Jews by Nation, of their Duty of ad­mitting Gentile Proselytes into the Pecu­lium, without exacting from them, those particulars of the Mosaick Law, which were abrogated by the new Revelations of the Gospel. For they were Jews by Nation, who had then the Power of admitting into both Peculiums. The Old was in the Power of the Sanhedrin; the New was in the Power of the Apostles, who were themselves also Jews by Na­tion, and under the same prejudices of Education with other Jews, from which they were to be reclaim'd by the Evi­dence of these new Revelations of the Gospel. This being so, it plainly ap­pears, that it is not every shadow that is sufficient for our Adversaries purpose of proving a thing unlawful. A shadow con­sistent would only return to its own na­ture of Original indifferency, and would still be as capable as formerly of receiv­ing a new Obligation from a new law­ful Sanction. But the Symbolical sha­dowing, we are here concerned for, was to perfigure and predict a new and ungrateful Innovation of the Gospel, which should in course repeal some Custom, [Page 112] they were then in possession of as incon­sistent with it, such could not be the Sing­ing with the Organs of our Body, as shadowed by the old inanimate Organs. For vocal Musick was even then also in present use, not only future. It was not ungrateful to the Jews themselves, and therefore had no need of being conceal'd from them, till the times of the Gospel. It was not inconsistent with any other re­ceived Custom of theirs, which might have been abrogated by that inconsistency, not with that very Practice of Instrumen­tal Musick which is pretended to have shadowed it. So far from that, that even then the Jews had been used to Practice them together. There can therefore be no pretence herefor shadowing a thing to come, when that same thing was in pre­sent use among the Jews themselves, and which could not therefore seem strange to them, and against which they could not therefore be possessed with any prejudice.

SO little our Adversary would gain by XXVII The Harp­ing in Hea­ven could not by the Reasoning of that Age, be taken for a Shadow. it for his purpose, tho' his Observation had been true, that Instrumental Musick had been one of the shadows of the Mosaic Law. But the contrary will appear more likely, if he will be pleas'd to remem­ber, that it is mentioned in Heaven, in the Revelations. Which by the way will [Page 113] make the way of Arguing from those Passages in the Revelations which men­tion Harping in the Heavenly Jerusalem, stronger than perhaps our Adversary vvas avvare of. For in the Reasonings of the Apostolical Age, the shadows of the Law which were made, as I have shewn, by Bezaleel, are directly oppos'd to the Heavenly things themselves, which are suppos'd to be the Pattern shewn by God to Moses in the Mount that was to be copied by Bezaleel. The shadow is said to be [...], Heb. viii. 5. as an imi­tation of them. The shadows therefore are call'd [...], to which the [...] are professedly oppos'd by the same Apostle, Heb. ix. 23. If therefore Harping have any place in Hea­ven, it cannot, by this way of Reason­ing, be reckon'd among the shadows of the Mosaic Law, which were to be abo­lished. These Archetypes are the [...] hidden in the [...] according to St. Paul, Col. ii. 3. exactly answering the Hellenistical Platonical Language of that Age from which the Apostle Reasons. The Platonists plac'd their [...] in the Contemplation of those Ideae in the [...]. The Pythagoreans from whom Plato bor­rowed his Timaeus, and who were more closely follow'd by Philo and the Helle­nists, [Page 114] call the same thing [...], which the Platonists call [...], as appears in Aur. Carm Pyth. their golden Verses. And the same Word is used by the LXXII, who are followed by Philo, who represent the Request of Moses thus, [...]. And [...] and [...] are Terms used in this same matter, by the same Philo. It is further observable, in the same Rea­soning, that the Heavenly things are sup­pos'd to be Eternal. So the Platonists of their Ideae. Their [...] (so they called their Archetypal Man) was thought free from that Generation and Corruption to which Individuals were be­lieved obnoxious. So St. Paul, The things which are not seen are eternal, 2 Cor. iv. 8. And eternal in the Heavens, v. 1. and where he speaks of the shaking of the Heaven and Earth, he mentions this e­vent of that shaking, that it should be, that the things which cannot be shaken should remain, Heb. xii. 27. Who sees not that those Words of the Apostle, are designedly us'd concerning these very Changes which were to be made by the Gospel? And that the Heavenly things, are those which are suppos'd uncapable of that shaking, and therefore to remain? [...] is the Word us'd by St. Paul, and plainly signifies the same thing with [Page 115] [...], in St. John. ii. 17, and elsewhere frequently. The same Word is used on the same occasion, and in the same Sense by Philo, [...] MENON: Leg. Alleg. L. II. p. 79. And we see how he opposes it to the [...]. By this Reasoning therefore, Harping can­not be reckon'd among the shadows, nor can it be supposed abolished by the Inno­vations of the Gospel, if it be reckon'd among the Caelestials, which are not ca­pable of being affected by the great shaking of the Gospel, and which must therefore remain unmoved under the Gospel Dispensation. This Argument will re­ceive a farther Confirmation, if he will be pleased to remember farther, that the Gospel State supposed in the Reason­ings of the N. T. is really suppos'd to be the same with that of the Caelestial Patterns shewed to Moses in the Mount, in imitation of which the Mosaic Dispen­sation was formed. And that even in this World, before its compleat Perfecti­on, which it is to receive in the future State. Hence it is, that it is said, that the Jerusalem above, is even now, the Mother of us all; That even now, we are Fellow-Citizens with the Saints in Heaven; That our [...] is there; That here we are [...] and [...], as having here [Page 116] no abiding City; that we are said to have actually sate down in Heavenly places. Who can therefore wonder, that con­siders this, if the Heavenly Jerusalem described in the Revelations, represent the present State of the Church of Jeru­salem then on Earth? Our Circumcision is the Circumcision made without Hands, Col. ii. 11. oppos'd to the Jewish Cir­cumcision, made by Hands, Eph. ii. 11. Exactly as our Saviour is said to be a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle, not made with Hands, that is to say, not of this Building, Heb. ix. 11. And as he is said, not to have entred into the holy places made with Hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven it self, v. 24. If the Tabernacle, and the Holy Places made without Hands, be Heaven it self; why should we doubt, but that the Cir­cumcision made without Hands, should have been then thought Mystical and Heaven­ly? The same Apostle gives it else-were, as a Character of the things that were to be abrogated by the Gospel; that the Reason of their abrogation, was their being made. So he tells us, yet once more signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, Heb. xii. 27. It seems plainly to allude [Page 117] to the Ectypes of the Tabernacle which were made by Bezaleel, in opposition to those Patterns of which there is no men­tion of their being made, but only shewn by God to Moses in the Mount. For their not being mentioned as made, is the same Reason for reckoning on them as not made in this mystical way of Reasoning, as it was to reckon on Melchizedeck's ha­ving no Father, no Mother, no Genealogy, no begining of Days, nor end of Life; be­cause none of these particulars are menti­oned concerning him in the Scripture. Nor must this be call'd precarious Rea­soning, in Interpreting Prophesies, being the usual way taken, ever since there were Prophesies in the Prediction of dis­stant future Events. The same thing is suppos'd in all those Places, where the things of the Gospel are called Eternal, in opposition to the things answer­ing them under the Mosaic Law. So the Life promised in the Gospel, is call'd Eternal, in opposition to the Life promis­ed by Moses, in Deuteronomy. So the Sal­vation of our Lord Jesus, is call'd Eternal, Heb. v. 9. in opposition to that of the Jewish Jesus, the Son of Nun. So his Re­demption also is call'd Eternal, in opposi­tion Heb. ix. 12. to the many Redeemers mentioned in many places of the old Testament, where [Page 118] the same Word is used in the LXXII. So the Inheritance of the Gospel, is likewise call'd Eternal, in opposition to the In­heritance of Canaan. So the everlasting Destrustion, the everlasting Consolation, 2 2. Thes. i. 9. Thes. ii. 16, The everlasting Covenant, Heb. xiii. 20. The everlasting Kingdom. 2 Pet. i. 11. The everlasting Gospel. Rev. xvi. 6. By the same Allusion it is, that the things of the Gospel are said to be things themselves, and the true things. So the Gospel Worshippers, are the true Wor­shippers, St. Joh. iv. 23. The Eucharisti­cal Bread, the true Bread, in opposition to the Manna of the Israelites, St. Joh. vi. 32. The Holiness of the Gospel, the true Ho­liness, Eph. iv. 24. The Tabernacle of the Gospel, (which none can doubt to be Heaven it self) the true Tabernacle, Heb. viii. 2. For the Archetypal Ideae, were sup­posed only to have Truth in them, accor­ding to the Platonists. So Grace and Truth which came by Christ. is opposed to the Law given by Moses, St. John i. 17. And being stedfast to the Gospel Commui­on, in opposition to the Communion of the Hereticks, is said to be the abiding in the Truth. All these Forms of Speech un­derstood according to the Custom of that Age, do plainly suppose, that all the Hea­venly Archetypes of the Law were Evan­gelical, [Page 119] and uncapable of any revocation that shouldymake them unlawful under the Gospel; and that all the positive In­stitutions of the Gospel, were reckon'd on as Heavenly, and therefore Harpers, be­ing mentioned in the Heavenly Jerusalem, must needs be supposed to have place among those antient Customs that were not to be abrogated. It is certain that In­strumental Musick could be it self no Sha­dow, according to the Doctrine of the Gospel, seeing the Evangelical Writers reckon it among the Heavenly Archetypes, which were the Truth and the Body that answered those Shadows. Nor is it any more difficult to prove Harps in Heaven, which the Adversary insultingly requires, than to prove a Circumcision there not made with Hands; than it is to prove a Manna and a Bread there, that is the Food of Angels. This sure, is an easier Account of that Idiome in the Style of the new Testament, which my late excellent Friend Dr. More, called Israelitismus, than that insisted on by our Adversary. He might have been pleased to remember, two Israelitisms there mentioned, the Mys­tical, which by the Christians of that Age, was believed to be perfectly the same with their own Constitution, as con­sisting of a Body of Gentiles ingrafted [Page 120] upon the Apostles, who were themselves Jews by Extraction; and the Literal, which was in some things contrary to the new Revelations of the Gospel, and so far, as it was so, abrogated by them. And it is certainly much more rational to Interpret them by the Israelitism they professed rather, than by that which they opposed. This was no other than the Native Lan­guage that was, in course, to be expected in their Circumstances. But the Event of this way of Interpretation will be quite contrary to what the interest of our Adversaries Cause will require. It will argue that the Israelitish Customs so al­luded to, were still receiv'd by the con­verted Christians, and that they could be no part of those old Isarelitish Customs which were antiquated on account of their inconsistency with the Gospel. This there­fore will confirm what I said before, that the Apostles still continued this Instru­mental Musick in their capital residence, at least, whilst the quietness of their Cir­cumstances in those troublesome times would allow them to do so.

BUT there are Odours also, [...], joi­ined XXVIII. Incense might have been us'd by the Aposties af­ter the de­struction of the Temple. with the Harpers, Rev. v. 8. and the viii. 3. 4. joined with the publick Pra­yers, exactly as among the Jews. This the Adversary makes an argument of, [Page 121] that it must have been the old antiquated Judaism that was here alluded to, not that which was approv'd by the Christans. I suppose he may think himself the more secure here, because even our Churches do not practice what here seems to have been practis'd by the Apostles. But he might have remembred that there were also several other undoubted Apostolical Practices which have been since discon­tinued generally, at least in the Reforma­tion. Such were those of the Ecclesi­astical Deaconesses, the Kiss of Charity, and the Feasts of Love. He, I confess, cannot account for this, who makes all things either Sins or Duties, thatare taken from Precedents of that Age, and allows no mean between those two Extremes. We can easily do so who believe that the Apostles themselves, as well as other Ecclesiastical Governours, took some things into the use of the Church from the civil Usages of their Age, which as they were prudent then, when they were in Civil use, so they may as prudently be disused now, when they have been so long antiquated as to their Civil use, and the particular Exigencies of those times are now ceased, which were the principal Considerations that then recommended them. But I see no reason why our Adversaries should be­lieve [Page 122] that the use of Incense was not con­tinued, even after the Destruction of the Temple, in the principal residence of the Apostles. It is to this Day practised by a far greater consent of the ancientest Churches, Greek as well as Latin; nor can we find any Original of it, that can prove it later than the times of the Apostles themselves. It appears in the first and ancientest Liturgies of both Tongues. It is mention'd in those Canons which are therefore called Apostolical, because they who first gathered them into a Body, knew no Original of their Practice short Can. ap. 2. gr of the Apostolical times. It is St. Jerome's rule, that the Immemorial Customs of each Church should be presum'd to have been Apostolical. This Rule was pro­bably followed by this Author. Thus therefore there is reason to presume that this Custom might have descended from the Apostles themselves. We have in­deed an express mention of it in an Au­thor considerably antienter than the Col­lect of these Canons, that is, of the an­cient Hippolytus, the Disciple of St. Irenae­us, and a witness of Apostolical Traditions: So he [...] Ora. de con­sum. Mund. [...]. Tertullian is the eldest Latin Christian Writer extant, and he also mentions the cost the Christians [Page 123] were at in buying Frankincense, Tert. Apol. c. 42. Thura plane non emimus. Those are the Words of the Objectors, not of Tertullian. His own Answer follows, Si Arabiae queruntur, Scient Sabaei pluris & carioris suas Merces Christianis Sepeliendis profligari quam Dijs fumigandis. He men­tions inded no other use of it but in Bu­rials. He elsewhere excludes it from Sa­crifices, where he tells us, That the Ob­lation offered by the Chrstians was not Grana Thuris unius assis, non Arabicae ar­boris Lachrymae, &c. c. 30. unless possibly he might intend some Emphasis in the Words unius assis, as a reproof of their Niggardliness in it, as Alexander the great is said to have reproved his Tutor Ari­stotle, for his having obstructed his na­tive Magnificence, after his Conquering Arabia. This might have been opposed to the greater Expensiveness of the Chris­tians on Franckincense mentioned in the former Place. But I am rather apt to think, that the Case of the African Churches might be somewhat singular. Tertullian mentions their being at first Converted by the Church of Rome, Praesc. c. 36. And as it should seem, at a distance from the Apostles, ib. c. 32. After the Church of Rome had taken a liberty of Innovating from the [Page 124] Practice of the Ephesian College of Apo­stles, in the keeping of Easter, under Xystus, It might do so in this Case as well as the other. But Hippolytus was ori­ginally of the East. It is certain the first Jewish Christians, the Apostles them­selves, found it actually practis'd. It is withal certain that they as Jews were prejudic'd in favour of received Customs, so as not to disuse them, but upon some great evidence of Divine Revelation to the contrary. And where can our Adver­saries find any express Revelation of the N. T. against this Custom? Where can they find any new Establishment of the new Peculium inconsistent with it? On the contrary the Apostle alludes to it in those Words of his, concerning the Alms of the Philippians, when he calls them an Odour of a sweet smell, a Sacrifice acceptable, Phil. iv. 18. well pleasing to God. These Words exactly answer the Custom of joyning Incense with their Oblations then practic'd in the Temple Worship, as it was also afterwards among the Christians. I see no reason why the Practice should be discontinu­ed by the Christians. For these were Sacrifices allowed by the Pythagoreans themselves, who were against the bloody Sacrifices then generally received. This is plain from Porphyry. There is therefore [Page 125] no reason why they should be ungrateful to the Essenes themselves, who were of all the Jews best dispos'd to the Christian Religion. Withal they were common to the Jews with the Heathens, and there­fore fittest for the old and new Peculium to unite in. So far from any repugnancy to that Union which I have shewn to have been the true reason of the abrogation of those old Jewish usages, which were in­deed abrogated by the Christian Religion. If our Adversaries ask how we can dis­charge our selves from the obligation of these things if we believe them lawful, the answer will be very easie on the Prin­ciples now proposed. By being excused from Circumcision, we Gentiles, are dis­charged from all the Impositions God was pleased to lay on the Jewish Nation, since we are not now any longer oblig'd to any Incorporation with them. And this is suf­ficient to leave things of this nature in their original indifferency as to Us, as if they never had been impos'd.

HOWEVER our Adversary pretends, XXIX. The reason­ings of tho Fathers pro­duc'd by our Adversary in this Cause, are quite different from those of the Apo­stolical Age it self. That the Fathers reason as he does; that they also own Instrumental Musick pecu­liarly fitted to that State of Nonage, in which the Apostle supposes the Jews under the old Law. St. Chrysostome makes such Musical Instruments rather permitted than [Page 126] imposed. [...]. Isidore Pe­lusiote says, they were born with [...]. And the Author of the Quaest. ad Orthodox. very probably Justinus Siculus, who lived in the time of Pope Faelix II, tells us, that it is not so proper for a State of Infancy, [...], to sing Simply, but to sing with inanimate Instruments, &c. If these things had been true, it would have been an Indignity below the honourable State of the Gospel to have used these things now, and a false signifying that we were not yet past that State of Childhood, from which it was the design of the Gospel to free us. But we must always distinguish between the Reasonings and the Testimonies of those original Conveyors of our Christian Re­ligion to us. In their Reasonings they had no more advantage than other Men: Espe­cially where they lived at any distance, and were therefore any way suspicious of not keeping close to the Reasonings of that Age whose Traditions they pretend to gather by their Reasonings. For of these Reasonings we can also judge as well as they, whether they were agree­able to the Reasonings to which the H. G. accommodated his Revelations, that they might be rightly understood in the sense in which he intended them. For [Page 127] the Reasonings of their own Age could no farther contribute thereto, than as they still continued the same with those of their Age, wherein the Holy Ghost was pleased to discover and publish his new Revlations relating to the peculiar con­stitution of the Gospel. But the reason­ings of the Age of Clemens Alexandrinus, who is the first of those produced by our Author, were by no means fit to inform him in this matter; much less of those later Fathers, who lived at so much a greater distance from the Age of the A­postles. They cannot, they do not, pre­tend any one Author of the Apostolical Age who shewed them a Precedent of this way of reasoning. They had none of that Age that ever reckoned Instrumen­tal Musick among the Rudiments and E­lements of the Childish State, which were in course to be antiquated as soon as the Peculium should attain to their perfect and adult Age. On the contrary its be­ing mentioned by the Apostle in Heaven, shews that it was impossible by the rea­sonings of that Age, that it could have been reckoned among the Rudiments and Elements of Children. For there all are supposed to have arrived to the fulness of the measure of the Stature of Christ: Which Words do plainly describe the Age of [Page 128] Adults, in opposition to that of Children. And indeed [...] in that place would be better Translated Age than Stature, being opposed rather to the Age than the Stature of Children. So the Saints in Heaven are said to be perfect, as the [...] is opposed to [...], not only in the Scripture, but also in ordinary Classick Authors. Nor can I understand how our Adversaries could possible excuse the Apostles themselves from this Notion of Childishness, whilst even they Com­municated with this Instrumental Musick of the Temple, if the bare Observance of, that Musick had been taken for an Element and Rudiment of Children. These Rea­sonings from the Sense and Practice of the Apostolical Age and Writers, are far more certain for proving the Sense of that Age, than the reasonings insisted on by our Ad­versary from the Sense of those Fathers, who however superiour to us, were yet confessedly later than the Age of greatest Authority, that of the Apostles

THOSE very excellent Persons did not XXX. The next age to the Apo­stles seems to have discon­tinued In­strumental Musick with out any dis­like of it. The true de­sign of the Reasoning from the State or Childhood, and Weak and Beggar­ly Elements explained. sufficiently consider how very easy it was, for matters of this Nature to be discontinu­ed, without the least dislike of those im­mediately succeeding Ages, that discon­tinued them. Supposing this Musick pro­per for the Jerusalem Sacrifices, as they [Page 129] were plainly in the Temple of Jerusalem, there could be no pretences to them in any other Church in the World, besides the Head Church of Jerusalem, where the first Apostle had the same right over all the Churches in the World, as the High Priest of the Jewish Sanhedrin had over all the Jewish Synagogues, in all their Dispersions. This was an easie Account why this Practice of Instrumental Musick might have been reserved to the Apostolical Church, till that Church was utterly ex­tinguished by the Death of the last Apostles. After the last residence of the Apostolical Body at Ephesus, in Trajan's time, all the Churches in the World, were equal to that Church where the Apostles had made their last residence, and equal with­al among themselves. Then they might, if they pleased, have taken up that same Custom universally. But were very un­likely to do so, having never till that time used it. And for any one single Church to have done so, when the rest did not so, would have been thought invidious and assuming. It might have been Interpre­ted as a Challenge of the Catholick Juris­diction, to have alone exercis'd the Prero­gative of that Church, which before had a Right to a Catholick Jurisdiction. So Solomon Interpreted it in his Brother A­donijah, [Page 130] that de desired one of the Royal Concubines. For they also followed the right of the Crown, as appears from the 2 Sam. xii. 8. This was far from the Humility of those Times, and gives a clear Account, why it might have been univer­sally disus'd, how lawful soever it might have been thought otherwise. But this could be no hindrance why it might not have been resumed afterwards, by any par­ticular Church that pleased, when there was no danger of that Consequence. When the memory of the Apostolical prerogative was lost, and when no Title could be pretended for any particular Church in the World, why it should succeed to the Apostolical prerogative. The pretence of the Church of Rmeisfar later than these earliest itmes of Christianity, of which I am now speaking. However it was very natural for their earliest Successors, when they sound this Practice discontinu­ed in Fact, to impute the discontinuance of it, to some disapprobation it had re­ceiv'd from the Christian Religion; and to bethink themselves of some such Rea­sons as these produc'd by them why it might have been disliked by them who discontinued it, as unsuitable to the Dignity of the new Peculium. But I have shewn, that this Reasoning of theirs in [Page 131] this particular, could not possibly be the Reasoning of the Apostolical Age, who both actually Communicated with Instru­mental Musick, and who allowed it a place in Heaven, which was not accounted the Place of Rudiments and Children, accord­ing to the Hypothesis of mystical Reason­ing. This is abundantly sufficient to discharge us from any Obligation to be concluded by the Reasonings of these Fa­thers in this particular, how great a Ve­neration soever we may profess for their Authority in attesting Traditions, either of their own Age, or the Apostles. In­deed the whole design of this Topick of Reasoning from the State of Nonage and Rudiments was, not to prove the obser­vation, even of the externals of the Mo­saic Law unlawful, but the stopping at them, so as not to admit the farther Dis­coveries of the Gospel. The [...] is op­posed to the [...], the [...]. Eph. iv. 13. And to the [...], which was when God sent his son made of a woman made under the Law, Gal. iv. 4. This was to stop at the [...] (so the Law is called, Gal. iii. 24.) whose Office was to bring us to Christ, if then they refused to be taught by Christ, but chose rather still to conti­nue under the Discipline of the Paedagogue. [Page 132] That was indeeed a keeping themselves back from enjoying the Benefit of that fullness of Age, which, as we have seen, commenced with our Saviour's Dispensa­tion. And it was a listing themselves with Children, to keep still to the Paedagogue, who by the Discipline of that Age, was a perpetual Companion and Guardian of the Morals of unadult Persons, till they reach­ed those Years of Discretion that might make it safe to trust them to themselves. This did not therefore in the least make the practice of the Law Childish, whilst they used it as the Apostles themselves did, in subordination to the new Discoveries of the Gospel, that is, whilest they observ­ed only those particulars of the Law, which were consistent with the Gospel. Which will neither save the ends of those Fathers, nor our Adversaries. The [...] plainly allude to the things wherein those Youths which were under the Discipline of Pae­dagogues, were usually Instructed. Especi­ally during the former part of that Disci­pline. That was Grammatical Learning, wherein they were Instructed by their Grammarians and Literators, the Letters themselves being properly call'd [...]. But as this Word is used here, it plainly denotes the Ectypal resemblances of the Law, in opposition to the Evangelical Hea­venly [Page 133] Archetypes, which were supposed to answer them under the Gospel. So Mount Sinai is said, [...], Gal. iv. 25. Here we have the true Notion of [...], as it is used by St. Paul. Mount Sinai in Arabia, the portion of Hagar the Handmaid, is supposed to be a [...]. That is in opposition to Mount Sion, the Mountain of the true Peculium, which answered is as the portion of Sarah the Free-woman, the Mother of the true Pecu­lium. So the very antient Author teach­es, de Montibus Sinai & Sion, by some ascribed to St. Cyprian. Agreeably enough to the Notions of the new Testament, where we frequently find Mount Sion mentioned, as that wherein the Archety­pal Mystical Peculium was alone concern­ed Rom. ix. 33. xi. 26. Heb. xii. 22. 1 Pet. ii. 6. Rev. xiv. 1. This being indeed the Title by which the Peculium is designed in the old Testament, wherein it is so fre­quently called the Daughter, and the Vir­gin Daughter of Sion, never of Sinai, tho' thence it was, that Moses received his Law. Accordingly the Jerusalem that is now, is said also to be a [...], that is another Fellow [...], in the same Sense, wherein the Word had been used of Mount Sinai in opposition to the [...], which is the Mother of us all. Gal. [Page 134] iv. 26. In both Cases the Worldly Figures are so called in opposition to the Heaven­ly Archetypes of the Gospel. They are therefore called the [...], Gal. iv. 3. Col. ii. 8, 20. As [...] is opposed to [...]. It is the [...], Eph. vi. 12, in opposition to the [...], which is always ascribed to the Messias. So the [...], Heb. ix. 1, is opposed to the [...], v. 24. And as I have shewn, that the Church here on Earth is called Heaven, so the deserting the Church is called, the loving this present World [...], 2 Tim. iv. 10. opposed as I said to the [...] of the Messias. These [...] are called [...], Gal. iv. 9. They are first called [...], as [...] are joyned together. Rom. xv. 1. So the [...]. Rom. viii. 3. The plain Importance of these Expressions seem to have been this, That in the Reasonings of the New Testament, in matters of this Nature, the mystical Be­nefits represented and covenanted for, by these Symbols of the Law, were never sup­posed to be performed by the Symbols them selves, otherwise than as they represented and applyed the Archetypes, answering them under the Gospel. Thence it followed that in separation from those Evangelical Arche­types, the Legal Symbols must have been [Page 135] perfectly useless and insignificant, in rela­tion to those greater Benefits expected by them which of themselves they were no way able to perform. So the Apostle to the Hebrews tells us, that it was not possi­ble that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins, Heb. x. 4. Why so, but to let his Nation see the necessary Obligation that lay upon them to qualifie themselves for being received to the Christian Eucha­ristical Sacrifices, which answered those bloody Sacrifices under the Gospel, if they desired the mystical Benefit of a true Expi­ation: So he again Warns the Galatians, That in Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth nor Uncircumcision [...], any thing, but the new Creature [...], Gal. vi. 15. Here we see the [...] in opposition to the [...] and [...] is ascrib'd to the [...] in Baptism, which was Instituted in­stead of Circumcision under the Gospel. For the [...] was alone to be expected by the Spirit, which was the Prerogative of our Christian Baptism. This was the [...]. Rom. xii. 2. and the [...], which is joined with the [...]. Tit. iii. 5. which could be no o­ther than that of our Christian Baptism, as it is also described St. Joh. iii. 5. This, by the way gives a clear account why the Law is said [...]. Rom. viii. 3. [Page 136] For Flesh is ordinarily used in the old Testament also as a Symbol of Weakness, as the Spirit is of Strength. And the Apostle plainly warns that the Spirit was not received by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of Faith. Gal. iii. 2. So the Apostle shews that the literal Jeru­salem, to which the separating Jews pre­tended, could give no Title to that Liber­ty which both Parts agreed to be a privi­lege of the true Peculium, as the Off-spring of Sarah the Free Woman. So far from that, that he observes that that Je­rusalem was even then in Bondage with her Children. But the Jerusalem, continues he, which is above, is Free, which is the Mother of us all. Gal. iv. 25. 26. So he also elsewhere observes, that it was the Seed of Abraham's Faith, not of his Flesh that had a just Right to Inherit the Pro­mises made to his Seed. Rom. iv. 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18. ix. 7, 8. This therefore seems to be the true account why the legal Symbols are called [...] when compared with the Originals which were to succeed them under the Gospel. The same [...] are also said to be [...], Gal. iv. 9, Plain­ly in opposition to the [...] which is fre­quently ascribed to the Mystical Spiritual Benefits expected by them, but in vain. For the Reasoning of the Apostles supposed, [Page 137] that they are really to be expected only from the Rites which were to succeed those legal Symbols under the Gospel. So we read the [...] Rom. ii. 4. the [...], Rom. ix. 23. Eph. iii. 16. Col. i. 7. the [...]. Rom. xi. 33. Alluding all to the Mystical Senses of the Law, and the Benefits signified and conveyed by them. So again the [...]. Eph. i. 7. with relation to the Spiritual [...] so literally poured out then upon the Christ­ians, but not on the dividing Jews, who kept to the literal Institutions of the Law, which afforded them no Riches of this kind, whilst they obstinately persisted in their Separation. Justly therefore they might be stiled in this Sense Poor, when compared with the richer Institutions of the Gospel, which in that Age, yielded these invaluable Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge in so very great abundance. The same Expression of [...] with re­lation to the mystical Benefits of these ex­ternal [...] thus explained, is used also in Philo [...], Phil. de Ops. M [...] ­act, p. 5. before St. Paul, as well as Ignatius after him. This is abundantly sufficient to shew, that these are the true Inter­pretations of the Expressions objected by our Adversaries, according to the Noti­ons and Language of that Age.

[Page 138] THESE things thus explained, will XXXI. So explain'd they con­clude no­thing to the purpose of those Fathers or our Ad­versaries. make it appear how very different the Reasonings of these Fathers and our Ad­versaries are in these Matters, from those of the Apostolical Writers from whom they borrow them. The whole design of them as used by the Apostolical Wri­ters, is against Jews, who either would not come over to the Christian Communi­on on the terms prescribed by the Gospel of Communicating with the Uncircumcis­ed Gentiles in the Holy Offices of the Chris­tian Religion, or who were inclined to a defection from it, as soon as they under­stood that these terms were expected from them, out of zeal for their former Noti­ons, which were contradicted, and at length abrogated, by these new Revelations of the Gospel; and out of zeal for their whole Law, which was imposed on them as a particular Nation, and on the Gen­tiles, whilst their Incorporation into that particular Nation was required by God as a Condition of their Admission into the true Peculium, which now they found re­pealed by these new Revelations of the Gospel. The using these Rudiments with­out a design of defection was so far from being blamed by the Arguments now mentioned, that it was practised by the Apostles themselves, as Jews, till the disso­lution [Page 139] of the Temple; that it was urged and insisted on by those many Myriads of believing Jews, who were zealous for the Law, with a perfect good understanding with the Apostles; that St. Paul himself, who had said most of any against the Obligation of the Law, comply'd with Act. XXI. 20. 23, 24. them, and was urged to do so by the chief Apostle St. James, But a breach is plainly supposed in the Arguments insist­ed on by our Adversaries. A not coming over to Christ, or relapsing from him, and stopping with the Paedagogue who was to, bring them to Christ, was that which was to continue them in, or reduce them to the State of Childhood. This made them Rudiments and Elements, when they went no further than the Mosaick Institutions. This made them weak and beggariy when separated from the Gospel Institutions, which were alone supposed able to confer the mystical Benefits Convenanted for, as well as represented by those legal Symbols. This made them beggerly when they kept them off from the Evangelical Archetypal Symbols, which were thence forwards ap­pointed by God, as the only ordinary conveyancers of that riches of Grace which the separating Jews in vain expected from their own Symbols. This was the true dispute of great Importance in that [Page 140] Age, in which the Arguments now men­tioned, were insisted on with great Pru­dence and Strength. The Error confuted was the depending on Circumcision for the Incorporation into the true Peculium, which could no longer be expected without our Christian Baptism. And the depending on the Temple Sacrifices for all the Benefits of the Heavenly mystical Sacrifice, which were thenceforward to be expected from our Christian Eucharist. The contenting themselves with the literal Circumcision in the Flesh for their intitling themselves to the name of the Seed of Abraham, and the Promises made to them that were so, without the Faith of Abraham in the Messiah, which he had when those Promi­ses were made to him before his carnal Circumcision, as the Apostle observes. Rom. iv. 9, 10, 11, 12. These and the like were the Weak and beggarly Elements spoken of by St. Paul, when depended on for the Benefits which they were not able to perform; and that in separation from those means by which alone they could be performed by the new Revelations of the Gospel. And this Reasoning was very proper to oblige all Jews to come into the Christian Communion, and to continue in it, if they desired the mystical Benefits conferred formerly in the Jewish Commu­nion [Page 141] alone, before the Gospel Revelations had altered the Case, but not afterwards. But then these Reasonings conclude no­thing against the very same abrogated Symbols, if practiced in unity with the uncircumcis'd Believers much less if the same things had been observ'd by the Ec­clesiastical Power of the Church, without regard to the old Imposition of Moses. For the latter could oblige all its own Sub­jects, which the former could not do, be­ing only obligatory to the Jewish Nation. Here therefore there was no Enmity, no Wall of Partition, which might any way tend to the dissolution of their common Body and Communion. Withal it is plain that this Reasoning extends to no other Jewish Customs but those only who were thought to entitle to some mystical Benefits represented and conveyed by them, till God had declared it otherwise by his new Revelations. And therefore it is to no pur­pose, in reference to this design, to find a thing represented by the Jewish Symbol, unless it be a mystical Benefit, to which it was to entitle from God as a Covenanting Symbol Instituted by him. In vain there­fore does our Adversary pretend that In­strumental Musick shadowed our Worship with the Organs of our Bodies. Had that been true, yet it had been nothing [Page 142] to the purpose in relation to the design of these reasonings. That had been a Duty, not a Benefit, which is plainly supposed as pretended to in all the Instances of these Reasonings. It was their losing the Sub­stance conveyed by the shadow, on which all the force of the Argument depends, that is drawn from the Appellation of shadows. The Weakness of the Elements or Rudiments of the Mosaick Law, as ar­gumentative in this Case, implies their insufficiency to convey the Benefits, as their Beggarliness implys their Inability to confer the Mystical Riches that were expected from them. If therefore our Adversary will make Instrumental Musick a Shadow or a Rudiment, he should bethink himself of some Mystical Benefit represent­ed and conveyed by it under the Law, but now conveyed by some other Institu­tion succeeding it under the Gospel. For this is absolutely requisite to make it now an empty Shadow, and a weak and beggarly Element. And what may that be? Is it the admitting us to the Joys of the Hea­venly Society, represented by Instrumental Musick? And why may not the like use of Instrumental Musick entitle us to that now as well as represent it? I have shewn that the Gospel Symbols are supposed as best qualified to give us a title to any [Page 143] thing Heavenly, by the Reasonings of the New Testament. I have shewn, that by the same Reasonings the same Title is de­nied to the legal Symbols in a Statee of Se­paration from the Communion of the Church. I have shewn that the contrary is supposed, by the same Reasonings, con­cerning the Symbols of the Church, that they, and they alone, are supposed sufficient to perform what is represented, and Sym­bolically Covenanted for by them. The weakness and beggarliness of what would otherwise have been useful, do more con­cern our Adversaries than Us, who practice even their Vocal Musick, as the Jews did, in a Seperation from the truly Original Apostolical Communion. The good God open their Eyes, and make them truly sensible of it. Thus I think I have obviated all that has been said or can be said, from our Adversaries Princi­ples, with relation to my own principal Argument? And I have not leisure to follow him in things less necessary to my own design.