6*4.8 
 
 T2B2s 
 
THE BESSQS UBILiRY OF HYMSOLOGY 
 
 Er.i; ■■■ e^ ?•■ :h = Re-. e:er.^ 
 Loms Fitzgerald Ben*, n d d 
 
 I 
 
 F THS THEOLOC- 
 PRINCETON. NFttMEi 
 
 £C6 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/srtatiOOtayl 
 
OCT 1 
 
 A 
 
 SECOND DISSERTATION 
 
 ON 
 
 SINGING 
 
 IN THE 
 
 WORSHIP of GOD; 
 
 Introduced with 
 
 TWO LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev d . Mr. GILBERT BOTCE, 
 
 In DEFENCE of 
 
 *A former Dissertation on that Subjeft. 
 
 By" D A N TAYLOR 
 
 Mufical Sing is raoft agreeable to praifing and adoring God, 
 
 Cyprian. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. Buckland, Paternofter-Row ; and 
 B. Ash, No. 15, Little Tower Street. 1787. 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 To the Reverend Mr. Bojce. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 IT is my opinion that you have made fe- 
 veral miftakes in your late Reply to me ; 
 but I think, not one more flagrant than 
 when you fay, (p. 17.) " the fubject of 
 finging is a favourite topic with me." If I 
 may be allowed to judge of my own feel- 
 ings, I fcarcely know any fubjecl that is lefs 
 my favourite topic than this ; nor can I 
 imagine why you call it fuch. When I have 
 been among fuch as omit this practice, have 
 I difcovered any peculiar uneafmefs becaufe 
 of that omifiion ? Did I ever introduce a 
 controverfy about it ? Will any of my cor- 
 refpondents fay that I ever difcovered a 
 fondnefs for this fubjedt. ? I believe not. 
 But, among the few obfervations of my 
 fhort life, I have frequently made one, viz. 
 ct When men affume the divine prerogative 
 in judging the_ hearts of others, they often 
 A 2 make 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 make great blunders." You have, in the 
 prefent inftance, confirmed this obfervation.F 
 
 I do not know that I ever undertook any 
 work more unwillingly, than the writing of 
 my Dijfertation on Singings not becaufe I am 
 doubtful whether the pra&ice can be fairly « 
 fupportedj but for feveral other reafons,,, 
 which need not now be mentioned. Being|J 
 perfuaded, however, that duty called me 
 to it, I oppofed my inclination ; and put al 
 few plain things together, as they, at that! ' 
 time, arofe in my own mind, which, I 
 thought, might place the fubjecl: in an eafyjj 1 
 and profitable light. 
 
 Although the publication of your Serious 
 Thoughts was the caufe of my writing on 
 the fubjedt, yet it was by no means, my 
 chief defign to anfwer what you had written. 
 1 only intended to take notice of what ap- 
 peared to me argumentative in your piece; 
 and to interfperfe remarks on that, with my 
 own thoughts on the fubjecl:. And I wrote 
 in the diflertation form, as that appeared to'! 
 me lead inimical to you ; and not fo likely 
 to hurt your feelings by treating you as a 
 antagonift. It appeared to me that you 
 Serious Thoughts laid a foundation for val 
 jangling, which I wifhed to avoid ; and 
 am forry to obferve that your late Reply ap 
 pears directly calculated to anfwer the fame 
 bad purpofe. 
 
 lie 
 
 
 M 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 In your Reply, as well as your Serious 
 thoughts, you muft confefs, and all men 
 vill lee, there are many things which do 
 lot affect the argument. Many of thefe 
 null:, for the fake of decency, as well as 
 )revity, be quite paiTed over in filence. 
 four, " Ah, my brother, are you not gotten 
 >n the wrong fide of the queiiion ? — what a 
 lilemma have you brought yourfelf into 1" 
 nd a great number of other little def- 
 >icable things, far beneath the regard of 
 ny thing that wears the fhape of a man, 
 nail be as though they had never been. 
 Jut there are fome other things on which 
 ixftice to my 1 elf, to our readers, and to the 
 libject, requires me to animadvert, though 
 hey have no immediate relation to the point: 
 i queftion. What relates to the iiibject, 
 nd may be confidered as argumentative, I 
 *fcrve to the next letter. And with regard 
 3 the whole, I appeal to all who know what 
 ley read, and have any understanding of 
 le rules of difputation, or of decency, 
 'hether .you have not laid yourfelf open in 
 very uncommon degree, in many places 
 hich I entirely pals over ; and of which I 
 fight otherwise avail myfelf to expofe you, 
 * that were my inclination. When I fpeak 
 ius, I refer to both your performances.* 
 
 A 3 The 
 
 ! * The contents of this letter, I am fenfible, has no 
 pteftary connection with the queftion in hand, be- 
 *een Mr. B. and me, nor do they prove that Mr. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 The limits I have juft now prefcribed to 
 myfelf, include your title page, which con- 
 tains many curious articles, and which has, 
 I doubt not, afforded confiderable entertain- 
 ment to no imaJl number of your readers. 
 Some of thefe require prefent attention. 
 You call your performance a Reply to my 
 Differtation. But ought not a replier to 
 confider the arguments of his opponent; 
 and either to acknowledge the force, or 
 prove the futility of thole arguments? Can 
 you imagine that any impartial man will 
 admit that you have done this ? You call it 
 ft a candid and friendly reply :" but do you 
 think your readers will call it fo ? " The 
 whole now fubmitted to the confideration off 
 the Chriftian world at large." Why, Sir, 
 
 B's hypothefis is erroneous: but every intelligent 
 reader will obferve the neceffity of them, to vindicated 
 jny own character, as well as that of multitudes, i 
 from the afperfions implied in my friend's infinua- e 
 tions, as well as to excite caution in the unwary 
 reader. Nothing but a conviction of their neceffity | 
 in this view, could, I think, have prevailed with me 
 to undertake fo difagreeable a taflc- But things of fa 
 this fort ought, by no means, to be mingled with the . 
 argument. I have therefore given them a place here, 
 by themfelves, that the reader might not be diverted, 1 
 or any other way improperly influenced, when he comesv 
 to the fubjedt in difpute. Every man of underilandingl! 
 muft obferve, that I have left many unbecoming partsf 
 of Mr. B's performance unnoticed; and my con-f 
 fcience bears me witnefs, that if it had been confident L 
 with a due regard for truth, I ihould be glad to co-Pi 
 ver them all with the mantle of love. 
 
 45 
 
( T ) 
 
 is not every book thus fubmitted ? may not 
 any man read and confider it ? You can 
 hardly mean that fuch puny performances, as 
 your's and mine, (half have the honour to 
 travel over any confidcrable part of the 
 Chriflian world. Do you mean that you 
 invite the whole Chriflian world to read it, 
 and challenge them to anfwer it ? Suffer us 
 ^not to have fuch an idea of your modefty. 
 ," More efpecially Proteftant Diflenters." 
 Why thefe more than other people ? why, 
 J^ecaufe they are fuch, and ought to act 
 confidently. For by this fame Reply " it 
 appears they ought to renounce all human 
 mtbority in matters of Chriflian faith and 
 wrfhipy or otherwife, return to the bofom 
 [ if the national church" This fuppofes that 
 jihe Proteftant Diffenters do prafejjedly prac- 
 ,:ife finging on the ground of human author- 
 ity . And is it a facl, Sir, that the Pro- 
 eltant Diffenters practife finging on this 
 ground ? If it be a fact, why do you con- 
 ront them with fcripture r So far as any 
 inan profefTes to act on this principle, he 
 as no bufinefs with fcripture, either to 
 indicate- or refute him. And if the Pro- 
 sftant Diffenters do not profefs to fing on 
 !iis ground, is the imputation implied in 
 *'iefe words equitable? Would it be fair to 
 lfinuate that you act from human authority, 
 ,, r hen you plead the authority of both the 
 >ld and ISesv Teftament in favour of your 
 A 4 practice ? 
 
 . 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 practice ? If not, pleafe to read and think 
 of Mat. vii. 11. Again, Cf By which it 
 appears, they ought to renounce all human 
 authority, &c." By which what, Sir ? by 
 which reply, to be fure. By what part of it? 
 I cannot find any thing like fuch an appear- 
 ance in any page of your Reply, nor fo much 
 as a hint about it. Certainly, you forgot 
 the defign of your book, as foon as you had 
 written the title page. But I omit the reft, 
 and venture to put it down as my private 
 opinion, that your title page, and your con- 
 temptible puff to the public in the page fol- 
 lowing, compofe one of the completed: 
 pieces of folly and abufe, which has been 
 produced in fo fhort a compafs in the pre- 
 sent age. 
 
 I thank you, Sir, for your recommenda- 
 tion of my Conftflent Chrifiian. As the mif- 
 takes made in your quotations from that 
 piece are poffibly owing to your printer's 
 negligence i I only fay, I wifh he had taken 
 more care. With your ufual generofity of 
 temper, you frequently hold up that piece 
 to my view. I Ihould be forry to find that 
 any candid and friendly man has reafon to 
 complain of my deviation from it, on this 
 or any other fubjecl. 
 
 You begin your <c Candid and Friendly 
 Reply," at p. 9. and in the four following 
 pages, as well as frequently afterwards, 
 you throw out flurs and infinuations hardly 
 
 confiftent 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 confident with candour and friendjhip. But 
 to take notice of all thefe would be of 
 little ufe to ourfelves, or our readers. In 
 p. 14, 15. however, you come directly- 
 home, and charge me with fpeaking againft 
 you — with injullice, — unfairnefs, — refolu- 
 tion to expofe you, — and even untruth ; 
 which, to be fure, are heavy charges; and 
 if well founded, deierve the reientment 
 you have manifested. 
 
 Now, Sir, the proper way, as I conceive, 
 to vindicate myfelf fully from thefe charges, 
 would be to tranfcribe many pages of your 
 Serious Thoughts, and the few lines which 
 you have cited from my Differtation; and, as 
 there are fo very few who read with attention 
 and underftanding, to reafon upon them, 
 and demonftrate the juftnefs of my hints 
 from the current language of your Serious 
 Thoughts. But fo much of this (tuff would 
 be an intolerable affront to the intelligent 
 reader. I muft therefore fubmit, and I do 
 cheerfully fubmit to (land at the bar of the 
 public, and to abide by their decifion. If 
 much of the language of your Serious 
 Thoughts be not what I have reprefented it, 
 I fail, and I fall ju(tly 3 for fuch I (till 
 affert it to be ; and I appeal to all fenfible 
 men for the truth of it. 
 
 To tell me that thefe things Cf never came 
 
 into your heart," Sir, is to do nothing. I 
 
 did not write about your heart, but your 
 
 A 5 book -, 
 
( io ) 
 
 hook; and by your book, not your heart, I 
 am to be judged. " Have you ever known 
 me," fay you, " to be the man you have 
 reprefented me to be ?" Why, Sir, what 
 kind of man have I reprefented you to be ? 
 I did not reprefent you as a man ; but as a 
 •writer. The hints I dropped did not re- 
 flect the man, but his performance. I 
 never mentioned you as a man, but with 
 expreffions of efteem and refpect. I fpoke 
 of the " hoary head found in the way of 
 righteoufnefsj" which is one of the nobleft 
 of characters. This I applied to you ; and 
 this I firmly believe you deferve. I called 
 you <{ my aged friend, (p. 15.) a venerable 
 man, (p. 28.) an aged minifter of Chrift, 
 and a good gentleman, (p. 45.) Thefe, with 
 fome (lighter and more indirect expreflions 
 of efteem, (p. 28. 42.) were, I think, all 
 which I faid about you. 
 
 I confefs, I detefl the manner of your 
 writing, without any regard to the fubject; 
 for I fhould have viewed it in the fame 
 light, and thought it a fcandal to the caufe 
 of truth, had I believed the things you 
 have written, as I do not. Yet I value and 
 efteem you as a man-, and in this view, 
 fhould be afhamed to fpeak or write one 
 word to youi difadvantage. Nor am I fin- 
 gular in my cenfures. I think all the intel- 
 ligent part of my acquaintance, who have 
 given me their opinion, are of the fame 
 
 judg- 
 
 «•«»*» 
 
( I* ) 
 
 judgment withmyfelf refpecting your man- 
 ner of writing. And I find that you your- 
 felf have met with others, who fee it in the 
 fame light. Witnefs p. 74 of your Reply. 
 
 I can, with great fincerity, affure you, 
 that a regard for your age and character, a 
 fear of hurting your mind, and an unwil- 
 lingnefs to expofe you, were among the 
 reafons of my reluctance to write on Ting- 
 ing. Had y out Serious Thoughts been written 
 by a young man, I believe I fhould have 
 thought it my duty, in hopes of doing good 
 to others as well as himfelf, while I pitied 
 his vanity, to have treated him with 
 freedom ; and to have chaftifed his info- 
 lence with a proper degree of feverity. But 
 when I considered who was the author, I 
 thought it fufficient gently to intimate, that 
 we were not entirely void of fenfations. 
 
 I happened to intimate that you had call- 
 ed H our practice of ringing" by many 
 ugly names. (DifT. p. 50.) You demand 
 proof of this. (Reply, p. 15.) Your de- 
 mand is certainly very juft. For to utter 
 a fyllable to the disadvantage of another, 
 without being able and ready to authenti- 
 cate the fact referred to, is not to be ex- 
 cufed. What do you think then, Sir, of 
 the following exprefllons? " Growing error; 
 " will-worfhipj finging the words of poets, 
 " or poetical men - 3 a tottering fabric ; the 
 " error of finging ; the chains of fet and 
 A 6 " prefcript 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 rc prefcript forms of finging; downright 
 <e difobedience ; ear-pleafing finging; new 
 cc invented way of finging ; pleafing error; 
 (C new invented exercife ; formal fervice; 
 " fcripturelefs way of finging; a lhameful 
 cc and difhonourable cuftom ; new inven- 
 " tion ; a glaring unfcriptural practice, &c." 
 Serious Thoughts, p. 5, 11, 12, 23, 24, 29, 
 
 33> 35> 37? 3 8 > 4*> 43. 45- 
 
 Now, Sir, pleale to confider that you 
 
 were only opening the controverfy — you 
 had previoufly proved nothing — attempted 
 nothing — yourfelf were the only aggreffor 
 — you write againft a practice held facred 
 by all the Chriftian world in all ages, a 
 very few excepted •, fo few, that they fcarcely 
 bear any comparifon to the whole — againft 
 a practice held facred by the greateft and 
 beft of men of all parties, and of all 
 defcriptions. Confider this, and then fay, 
 if there be any great beauty in thefe ex- 
 preflions. I readily grant that you have a 
 right to vindicate your own practices and 
 fentiments as well as all other men ; and, if 
 you pleafe you have a right to oppofe all 
 mankind, and to let up yourfelf as dictator 
 to <c that great community the Chriftian 
 world." But, furely, unlefs " you be the 
 man, and unlefs wifdom (hall die with you," 
 a little modefty becomes you : and a little 
 confederation would have convinced you, that 
 
 to 
 
( i3 ) 
 
 to inful t men is not the way to inftruft 
 them. 
 
 I endeavoured, as I thought, not to of- 
 fend you in writing my DifTertation $ and 
 therefore omitted a great many things, the 
 mention of which might have had that 
 tendency. Yet it fecms I have had the 
 misfortune to offend you exceedingly, even 
 to fuch a degree, as you intimate, (p. 15.) 
 that 1 cannot, in prefent circumftances, 
 be indulged with the honour of {halting 
 you by the hand. You do me the pleafure, 
 however, to propofe an expedient, and 
 thereby to inform me that you are not quite 
 implacable. I thank you, good Sir, for 
 this infrance of condeicenfion. But I am 
 dill embarrafTed. The price of your friend- 
 ship is too high. I cannot poflibly reach it. 
 It is not in my power to <c wipe of" what 
 you call " the afperfions which I have fo 
 liberally call upon you." As 1 am very 
 fure that the hints I dropped were founded 
 in truth, and not at all proportioned to the 
 blame you deferved, I cannot retract them, 
 left all thinking men, as well as my own 
 
 confcience, fhould condemn me. Still, 
 
 however, I am encouraged to hope that 
 you are " not my enemy." I truft, Sir, I 
 fhall never be capable of flighting the 
 friendship of any good man. — But you will 
 " return good for evil." Nay, here, Sir, 
 you overdo it. I mull now entreat you to 
 
 excul'e 
 
( H ) 
 
 excufe me, and allow me to fhut my hand. 
 I cannot accept fo great a favour as this 
 from any man living. If you will fairly 
 prove, before the face of *the world, that 
 1 have done you any evil, I do, in this pub- 
 lic manner, promife to make you all the 
 fatisfaction in my power, and publicly to 
 beg your pardon for the reft. But I do 
 fcorn the meannefs, and I hate the bafenefs 
 of receiving " good for evil." To be quite 
 free, Sir, however I efteem you in other 
 refpects, I fincerely defpife this propofal 4 
 and, in this one view, 1 fincerely defpife 
 the man who was capable of making it. 
 
 In p. 17. you call upon me to prove four 
 things. But what authority have you, Sir, 
 to make this demand ? Did I e^er aflfert 
 thefe four things ? Who gave you a right 
 to demand from me the proof of what I 
 never afTerted ? You pay me high compli- 
 ments on the cc ftrong and forcible argu- 
 ments contained in my other publications." 
 But if any one mould choofe to attack me 
 in your manner, on other fubjecls, he would 
 foon prove me to be weak enough. He 
 has only to bully, inftead of reafoningj to 
 fubftitute banter and brow-beating for ar- 
 gument ; to pafs over my reafonings (if 
 fuch they be) and fay, thefe cf are not 
 worth my notice j this is nothing to the 
 purpofe ; that proves nothing " and fo on. 
 He can quote part of an argument inftead 
 
 of 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 of the whole, leaving out that part in which 
 the ftrength lies ; and then apply the reft 
 to a fubjecl different from that to which I 
 applied it, and cry out of its weaknefs ; and 
 lb* begin to talk about <c dilemmas, and 
 wrong fides of the queftion •," and who in 
 the world is able to Hand before fuch wea- 
 pons, and fuch warriors as thefe ? How far 
 this is juft, will appear from the careful 
 reading of your Reply, and in part, from 
 the following pages. 
 
 Another parTage of your Reply, which 
 comes within the limits prefcibed to this 
 epiftle, is in p. 29, 30. You tell me, I 
 • c encourage and plead for that y which the 
 great head of the church has no where com- 
 manded j fo that ail I have faid hitherto is 
 of no validity." It is a fumcient anfwer 
 to this, to obferve, that when you have 
 examined my arguments (if they deferve 
 that name) and demonstrated the invalidity 
 of them, the public will probably be able 
 to judge between us to more advantage. 
 At prefent, your readers fee that mod of 
 my arguments are not oniy unanfwered, 
 but even untouched -, and therefore this 
 obfervation is rather premature. You add, 
 " I think you lay yourfelf under fome de- 
 served reproof." As to the validity of my 
 arguments, there are thofe, who think dif- 
 ferently from you in this article; and I be- 
 ievej unlefs you convince them of the con- 
 trary, 
 
( i6 ) 
 
 trary, they will continue to differ from you. 
 This, however, is a point to be fettled, 
 when you have examined what I have faid 
 on the fubjects in queftion. But why de- 
 ferved reproofs Sir ? Admitting you are in 
 the right, do people deferve reproof for being 
 miftaken, or for propagating what they be- 
 lieve to be truth ? If perfons deferve re- 
 proof from others for being miftaken, then 
 all men will deferve reproof one of ano- 
 ther; for we all think one another miftaken; 
 and therefore, if you be right in this ex- 
 prefnon, we may all begin to reprove one 
 another; and the whole world, without the 
 exception of a lingle individual, muft be 
 engaged in broils and quarrels. If I deferve 
 reproof, however, you certainly deferve 
 commendation for paying me what is my 
 due fo liberally as you have done. But 
 why, I venture to enquire again, why de- 
 ferve reproof? Are we returned to Rome? 
 Who has placed you, Sir, in the chair of 
 his Holinefs, to reprove thofe, who, in 
 your opinion, are miftaken ? To talk of 
 any man deferving reproof, becauie he 
 propagates what he believes to be right, 
 however miftaken, is to ftrike at the root 
 of the Proteftant caufe, and to attempt the | 
 eftablifhment of that definitive principle, 
 which is the very bafis of popery. If I 
 deferve reproof from you, I deferve, on the _ 
 fame principle, the gibbet, or the fire of | 
 
 Smith 
 
( i7 ) 
 
 Smithfield, from the civil magiflrate. No 
 argument can be produced to evince, that 
 any man.deferves reproof for publifhing his 
 religious fentiments, which will not equally 
 vindicate and fanctify all the fines and the 
 imprifonments, the racks, and the various 
 tortures, the fires and the faggots, the halt- 
 ers and the gibbets, and every other dia- 
 bolical invention which has been ufed to 
 oppofe the truth, and to fupprefs liberty of 
 of conference from the creation of the 
 world to the prefent moment. 
 
 This feems to be a proper place to take 
 notice of the confequences which you aiTert, 
 (p. 62.) refults from admitting, that our 
 way of finging is right. <c Then" fay you, 
 " all of us who do not fing in your man- 
 ner, muft certainly be bold and daring 
 finners againft him who is King of kings, 
 and Lord of lords." Now fuppofe the 
 truth of this, what has that to do with the 
 argument ? But where is the truth of it ? 
 Are all miftaken perfons bold and daring 
 finners ? You know the principle, Sir, from 
 which you wrote this, and many other parts 
 of your Reply, But to examine that is not 
 my province. A word is enough. 
 
 I do affure you, I am already heartily 
 tired of trailing after you in this dirty chan- 
 nel. Your late performance would fupply 
 matter of this fort, to fill a large volume. 
 , But I beg to be excufed from the drudgery 
 
 of 
 
( is ) 
 
 of gathering it up. I therefore only add, 
 that you have thought it proper to hold out 
 my profanenefs to the world, as one who 
 Cf allows of eating blood ;" and have taken 
 care, with your ufual dexterity, to place it 
 in the moft conspicuous Situation, by re- 
 serving it Sor your poSuScript : your motives 
 here alio have undoubtedly been long Since 
 conjectured by your readers ; but theSe are 
 nothing to me. I have nothing to do with 
 the hearts of men. 1 may, however, be 
 allowed to exculpate myfelf from the charge 
 of Such heinous crimes, So far as truth will 
 permit. It is well known, and I mould 
 think you cannot be ignorant of it, that 
 1 both am, and, Since I made a proSeflion 
 oS Chriftianity, to the bed of my remem- 
 brance, always have been, as cautious of 
 eating blood as you yourSelf, though Srom 
 a very different principle. The principle on 
 which I abilain Srom it, is contained in 
 Rom. xiv. 13 — 22. At the Same time, I 
 think a regard Sor truth requires me to ob- 
 ferve, that it is my opinion the eating of 
 blood cannot be proved to be univerSally 
 and absolutely forbidden. 
 
 I conclude, by declaring, that while I 
 take no pleafure in this idle Squabble, I 
 impute nothing to corrupt deSign in you j 
 I leave every thing oS this kind to him, 
 whoSe prerogative it is. Whether your late 
 publications are Spontaneous productions, 
 
 or 
 
( '9 ) 
 
 or whether you are a tool in iome bad hand, 
 is bell known to yourfelf. I pity your cafe. 
 I very fenfibly feel for you, and fincerely 
 wifh you well. I earneftly wifh that you, 
 and the handful of people who abet your 
 opinion, may confider the importance of 
 that intereft which is almofl dead among 
 you, and of that precious gofpel, which 
 alone can preferve it from total deftruction, 
 and recover the vigour and credit of it ; 
 and that you and they may employ your 
 time and abilities for that divinely glorious 
 purpofe. I do aflure you further, that 
 though making you by tne hand is a favour 
 too great for fuch a culprit as I am to ob- 
 tain •, yet my hand, heart, and houfe are 
 always at your fervice, open for your re- 
 ception, and ready to give every poilible 
 proof, that I am, 
 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Affectionately yours, 
 
 DAN TAYLOR 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 To the Reverend Mr. Boyce. 
 
 S I R, 
 
 1am extremely forry to find myfelf under 
 the difagreeable neceffity of appearing 
 againft you in the field of controverfy as a 
 direct antagonist. I earneftly wifhed to 
 avoid it; and in my differtation on finging, 
 notwithftanding your challenges, I endea- 
 voured to avoid it as much as pofiible, 
 confidently with maintaining a proper re- 
 gard for facred truth. I therefore endea- 
 voured to ftate my views of the fubject as 
 inoffenfively as I could, only taking notice 
 of what you had written, as it were, by the 
 bye. This, I apprehend, clearly appears 
 to every obfervant reader of our pieces. 
 You have now thought it proper to make 
 your attack directly upon me, as you did 
 in your former piece on all who pradtife 
 finging in public worihip. As we are nor, 
 in this world, to have the choice of our 
 own pleaiures and crofles, I fubmit, and 
 take the ground you have affigned me, fo 
 far as appears to me neceffary, to vindicate 
 what I affuredly believe is the caufe of 
 truth. In my former letter, I have cited 
 
 a few 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 a few paflfages out of a great many, in 
 which your addrefs, and manner of treating 
 an adversary > appear to me highly repre- 
 henfible. For liberty of confcience in pro- 
 pagating truth, is no licence to abufe one 
 another, or for any man to infult his fellow- 
 creatures. I am now, in a few inftances, 
 to confider your manner of treating the 
 fubjeff. 
 
 Your Reply begins at p. 9. where you 
 confefs with me, that fc finging the praifes 
 of God is plainly and frequently recom- 
 mended in the facred features." cc And 
 what then ?" You enquire. I anfwer, no- 
 thing but what is there afTerted. You faw 
 I meant nothing more, than to prove this 
 one point by exprefs fcripture. I did not 
 here attempt to prove it a part of public 
 worfhip ; and therefore to oppofe that idea, 
 in this place, is a manifeft impropriety. — 
 To talk of " drawing arguments from the 
 Old Teftament," is on two accounts unfair. 
 — Becaufe I here drew no argument at all— 
 and the texts 1 had quoted were from the 
 New Teftament, as well as the Old. 
 
 Having adduced this clear and exprefs 
 evidence in favour of finging, from both 
 jthe Old and New Teftament, I enquired, 
 ;(DifT. p. 11.) " Is it not the duty of thofe 
 I who oppofe it, to fhew where it is abro- 
 i gated, and where the bleffed God has ap- 
 pointed it to be laid afide ?" You anfwer, 
 
 " No : 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 <c No : I think not." But I think you are 
 certainly miftaken. Singing is an ordinance 
 of both the Old and New Teftament; cir- 
 cumcifion is only an Old Teftament inftitu- 
 ticn. But now, fuppofe a Jew were to 
 argue in favour of circumcifion, and Jew- 
 ifh rites-, would not you think it neceflary 
 to fhew him that thefe were peculiar to the 
 Jewifh ceconomy, and are therefore to be 
 laid afide at the commencement of Chrif- 
 tianity ? Certainly you would. And thus 
 we reafon in every fimilar cafe. Every in- 
 ftitution continues in force till the time 
 when the inftitutor appointed that it fhould 
 ceafe. No man can fafely omit what God 
 has appointed as a duty, unlefs he can fhew 
 that the appointment is now of no force. 
 As to the manner of finging which you go 
 on to fpeak of, you here knew that was not 
 the matter in queftion. I had particularly 
 mentioned it only three lines before, to 
 prevent the blunder you have made. (See 
 DifT. p. 10, ii. Reply, p. 15, 16.) If we 
 wifh tf to prove that we ought to fing," 
 how can we do it more fully than by pro- 
 ducing the exprefs commands of both Tef- 
 taments ? I enquired, idly, " Whether it is 
 more becoming a Chriftian to perform it as 
 well as he can, than pafs'it oyer in neg- 
 lect?" <f I think," you reply, " it is much j 
 better not to do a thing, than not to do it | 
 according to the will of God." I anfwer; j 
 
 finging 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Tinging is ftrictly enjoined by the bleffed 
 God himfelf, both under the law and the 
 gofpel. This I had fully proved. The ex- 
 preis pafiages were before your eyes. No- 
 thing can therefore excufe the neglect of it, 
 unlefs we can mew that the inftitution is not 
 now in force. This, 1 believe, no man can 
 do. It therefore certainly behoves every 
 Chriftian Cf to perform it as well a* he can." 
 You and others have frequently fpoken of 
 (inging in divine worfhip as pleafing to 
 carnal people. This you frequently glance 
 
 •at in your Serious Thoughts. 'With refer- 
 
 ' ence to which I obferved, that the practice 
 i is recommended as excellent, not only in 
 d the judgment of carnal men, but of God 
 ff himfelf. " This comparison," you reply, 
 t, c of the judgment of carnal men of the 
 jo 'xcellency of finging, with the judgment of 
 ot he all-wife and moft holy God j (hocked 
 rlv ne when I read it." (DirT. p. u. Reply, 
 tolls 18.) But why this out-cry? why fo much 
 tt hocked? Is but a note of comparison. Sup- 
 we >ofe you were to tell one who is an enemy 
 ; g,"|lgainft Chriftianity, that " Jefus is the Son 
 >ro- r God," is a truth believed, not only in 
 fef-keaven, but in hell too; not only by angels, 
 it is wt alfo by devils. Would that be a com- 
 \i\ari[on of hell with heaven, or of devils 
 ne cr.j»ith angels? would it not be a plain and 
 j, u chj|ndeniable truth ? And do not you your- 
 ^ it -If confefs the truth of what I here faid, 
 faeni ,i though 
 
 __ 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 though you tell the world the reading of it 
 Jhccked you ? Do you attempt to difapprove 
 it ? will any man attempt it, who believes 
 the Bible ? If not, pray, Sir, reflect on the 
 fpirit and defign from which this obferva- 
 tion arofe. 
 
 In p. 20. you enquire, " If God does not 
 give his good Spirit to any in thefe days, 
 to qualify them to fing, as they were 
 qualified for that fervice in the apoftle's 
 days; where have we authority to fet up in 
 the church what fort of finging we pleafe ?" 
 Is this fair, Sir? is this infinuation accord- • i 
 ing to the golden rule ? (Mat. vii. 12.) Do 
 we pretend to that authority? Did you find 
 any fuch pretence in my DifTertation ? — I 
 afk farther, Does cc God give his good 
 Spirit to any in thefe days to qualify themi 
 to preach and to fray, as they were qualified 
 for thefe fervices in the apoftle's days ?"' 
 You will not pretend it. What then ? mud 
 praying and preaching be laid afide ? or; 
 are we at liberty to pray and preach as wejl 
 pleafe? You know very well, and mud con-Jj 
 fefs, that praying, preaching, and finging| 
 are all enjoined in the New TeftamentJ 
 Ought we not then to practife them all aafl 
 well as we are able ? 
 
 I endeavoured to prove that finging th< 
 praifes of God was not peculiar to th< 
 Jewifh difpenfation. Ought you not 
 have confidered thefe proofs ? You knoT 
 
 thil 
 
C 25 ) 
 
 this is a point of confiderable importance 
 to determine the controverfy. Was it can* 
 did, friendly , fair, to pafs them by ? (DirT. 
 p. 21, 22, 23. Reply, p. 25.) One argu- 
 ment I mentioned on this head, was, that 
 " the New Teftament is not only filent 
 with refpe<ft *o the abolition of it; (Ting- 
 ing) but inculcates and enforces it, both 
 by precept and example." This argument 
 you take up thus, " The New Teftament 
 inculcates it both by precept and example. '' 
 — You leave out the main claufe in the ar- 
 gument, where the chief weight lies. And 
 then " inculcates and enforces what ? the 
 jjjewim finging as above? How do you prove 
 it ?" Now, Sir, could you imagine, could , 
 |any one imagine that I had regard to the 
 r Jewifh finging, at the very time when I 
 iwas profefledly proving that finging was 
 "not confined to the Jewifh church ? I muft 
 :.a(k again, Is it the part of candour, of friend- 
 fijip, of integrity, fir ft to leave out the chief 
 claufe of an argument, and then to apply 
 the argument to a fubject which you muft 
 be Jure that the writer of the argument 
 never had in his eye ? The texts I referred 
 to you alTert, tc only declare what was done, 
 but do not lay any injunction upon us." 
 Let them be read, Sir. Read Ephef. v. 19. 
 Col. iii. 16. Jam. v. 13. I wifh no more. 
 You add <c Or do you mean your matter 
 >nd manner of finging are inculcated and 
 B enforced 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 enforced both by precept and example in 
 the New Teftament V Good Sir, I meant 
 what I faid. Had I laid any fuch thing? 
 •was' it poffible for you to fuppofe that I 
 meant any fuch thing? <f Perhaps, you 
 mean finging fimply confidered, without 
 any refpect either to matter or manner." 
 Perhaps I do, Sir. Perhaps no man but 
 yourfelf could have put any other conftruc- 
 tion upon my words. You fubjoin, Cf If this 
 be your meaning, yet we are at a lofs to 
 know what and how to fing." To be fure, 
 Becaufe I exprefsly told you under that 
 very head, that I deferred this fubjecl: till 
 afterwards, (DifT. p. 23, 24. Reply, p. 26.) 
 I faid, " Singing is evidently a gofpel 
 ordinance." You reply, ff this, like what 
 you have faid before of its being inculcated 
 both by precept and example ftands with- 
 out proof." Yet you had ti.e proofs before 
 your eyes, Mat. xxvi. 30. Mark. xiv. 26. 
 Acts xvi. 25. 1 Cor. xiv. 15. Ephef. v. 19. 
 Col. iii. 16. Jam. v. 13. What think you 
 of this ? And yet you t( tio not find that 
 finging is at all commanded in the New 
 Teftament!" (Dilf. p. 23. Reply, p. 07, 28. 
 In p. 29. You ft remind me that all Jew- 
 ish men and women did not fing together in 
 their temple worinip." But you produce no 
 authority for this affertionj and therefore, 
 you cannot blame me for fufpending my 
 belief. If fair evidence of this can be pro- 
 duced, I fhould be glad to meet with it. 
 
 But 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 But fuppofing this fhould be true, of which 
 I humbly think no man can give fair evi- 
 dence; yet as the New Teftament injunc- 
 tions respecting this duty, are fo general 
 and indefinite, (of which afterwards) this 
 appears to me a fufficient reafon for 
 Chriftians, in this inftance, to differ from 
 the Jews. 
 
 In p. 30, 31. You make a demand, which, 
 as it is very fundamental in the controverfy, 
 undoubtedly deferves attention. The de- 
 mand is, that I prove the word Jung is in 
 the original of Mat. xxvi. 30. Mark xiv. 26. 
 Sang in the original of Acts xvi. 25. and 
 fing in the original of Heb. ii. 12. and 
 Jam. v. 13. becaufe you " have met with 
 cc fome very learned men, who fay that thofe 
 Cf words are not in the original, but were 
 4C added by the tranilators." There is an 
 aukwardnefs in your manner of flaring this 
 difficulty, which I wifh to cover, with many 
 other fimilar ones, as much as poflible. 
 But I am perfuaded, no learned man can 
 pretend to fay that the Greek words, which 
 we render fing in thefe places, are not in the 
 original ; or that the Englijh word fing is 
 added in any one of the texts you refer to 5 
 becaufe there is not the leafl colour for an/ 
 fuch pretence.f The only difpute that ap- 
 B 2 pears 
 
 f It may poflibly prevent uneafinefs in many read- 
 ers, whole fituation and circumftances I pretty well 
 know, to obfervc here, that after fome pains taken 
 
 in 
 
( *8 ) 
 
 pears to me poflible, is, whether thofe 
 Greek words be properly tranflated or not. 
 I wifh I could on this point give you fatis- 
 faction. It would be very eafy, but I think 
 very improper, to crowd this little piece 
 with quotations. I will attempt to date the 
 matter as clearly as I can -, and, as I am not 
 confcious of any miftake, fo I here promife, 
 that if any proper judge on the queflion 
 fhall obferve any, and will point it out to 
 me, I will cheerfully retract it. 
 
 In four of thefe paflages, Mat. xxvi. 30. 
 Mark. xiv. 26. Acts xvi. 25. Heb. ii. 14. 
 the fame Greek word is ufed. It is allowed 
 on all hands, that this word fometimes fig- 
 nifies to fing properly, and fometimes de- 
 notes praife, without expreffing the manner 
 bow that'praife is offered to God, whether in 
 a mufical rone of voice, or otherwife. 
 Some have thought the former, and others 
 the latter, to be the primary fignification of 
 the word. But fo far as I can judge, thofe 
 of the former opinion are much more nu- 
 merous, as well as mere learned, than thofe 
 
 in this enquiry, I can aflure them that it does not ap- 
 pear from hlil iretjum, or any other critic, that 
 among all the various reading! colie&ed frcm different 
 copies and marufuipts, there is a ilngle various read- 
 ing, in any cf t< e places to which Mr. B. refers. 
 Confequeiuly, there is 'loot the lealt foundation for a 
 fuirr.ife that the v-'ojd ftng w as added, in anyone of 
 the places, by our tranllators ; but the fulleft evidence 
 to the contrary. 
 
 of 
 
( 2 9 ) 
 
 of the latter opinion. The word ufed in 
 Jam. v. 13. is a different one, it fometimes 
 Signifies to make melody with instruments ; 
 but when applied to the voice, as it evi- 
 dently is here, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 15. in 
 properly flgnifies to ling, or make melody, 
 as Kphef. v. 19, and never otherwife. On 
 the whole, it appears to me, (1.) That the 
 objection, if well founded, could not be of 
 any great force in the prefent debate ; 
 becaufe it is evident that finging is re- 
 commended in the New Teftament, both 
 by precept and example, if thefe pafTages 
 were left out of the queftion. But then, it 
 is clear to me, (2.) That thefe pafTages are 
 full to the purpofe ; that the Greek word is 
 properly rendered ; and that the New Tef- 
 tament writers could not have ufed language 
 more precife and full to enforce this prac- 
 tice of finging than they have ufed. 
 
 In p. 25. of my Di(ier:ation, I attempted 
 more directly to vindicate that method cf 
 finging which is generally ufed in Diflent- 
 ing congregat'ons. A great deal of what I 
 laid on this fubject you have paffed by, as 
 if I had faid nothing, though this part more 
 particularly required your attention. Among 
 Dther things, I obferve that carnal people 
 vere allowed to join in finging formerly. 
 
 I This you do not deny ; but you enquire, 
 p. 31.) when? or by whole authority?" 
 I anfwer, I do not know that the blefied 
 B 3 God 
 
( 3o ) 
 
 Cod ever gave exprefs and particular rules 
 refpecting the manner of conducting this or 
 any other part of moral worfhip. But if the 
 Divine Being had disapproved of it, we 
 may verv naturally fuppole that he would 
 have expreffed his disapprobation in this, 
 as he does in other inftances. And the in- 
 definite manner in which fmging is recom- 
 mended, even by David himfelf, (fee the 
 following Differtation) is, with me, a fuf- 
 ficient argument that the bleffed God him- 
 felf approved of it. Nor do I remember 
 any intimation, either in the Old or New 
 Teflament, that unconverted people ought 
 not to fing the praifes of God. David ap- 
 pointed Heman, with his fourteen fons and 
 three daughters; and twenty-three heads of 
 families befides, with their fons and brethren ; 
 an exact number of every family, without 
 any regard, that we read of, to their reli- 
 gious character, or fpiritual ftate. Now is 
 it reafonable to fuppofe that thefe fathers 
 and their children were all converted; or 
 that David principally regarded their reli- 
 gious qualifications, when we have no hint 
 of any fuch thing in the Bible ? 
 
 I gave it as my opinion, that "fingingin 
 divine woifhip does not imply an immediate 
 addrefs to God, arifing from prefent or pad 
 fenfations; and expreflive of prefent or 
 pad experiences ;" and gave fome reafons ! 
 for it. Thefe reafons again you pafs over, 
 
 though j 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 though under every obligation, in fair con- 
 troverfy, to examine them, and anfwer them 
 if you were able. But inftead of this, you 
 fay, •« I muft now tell you, that finging 
 praifes to God is an immediate addrefs to 
 him, as much as prayer on every folemrt 
 and fpecial occafion." But, Sir, is your 
 telling me this, a proof of it ? And is your 
 Reply to -me, or to your/elf ? Did you not fee 
 that you had changed my expreflion from 
 " finging in divine worship," to <c finging 
 praifes to God Y* With thefe hints I leave 
 the reader to judge of your candour, friend- 
 
 (hip, and but I fay no more. (See Diff. 
 
 p. 28. Reply, p. 31.). 
 
 I ventured, though with all the foftnefs I 
 could ufe, to obferve, that I thought you 
 had miftaken the meaning of Ephef. v. 19. 
 Col. iii. 16. and endeavoured to prove it 
 pretty largely. The proof you again over- 
 00k, and quote the words of Dr. Whitby, 
 without fhewing wherein the Doctor either 
 lifters from me, or agrees with you ; with- 
 out attempting to prove that the Doctor was 
 •ight ; take all for granted, and proceed 
 >n your old ground, as if all were firm as a 
 •ock. What will men of fenfe and con- 
 science fay to thefe things ? (Diff. p. 29, 30, 
 1 1. Reply, p. 32, 33. 
 
 I endeavoured to prove that women have 
 1 right to fing the praifes of God as well as 
 (nen. If you had condefcended to attempt 
 B 4 a reply 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 a reply to my arguments, I think you would 
 have felt the force of them. But I find I 
 am not to expect this. You pick out four 
 claufes, and tell me thefe conclude in your 
 favour. But, as 1 do not underftand you, 
 I cannot anfwer you. The next page, you 
 think is " quite weak," and as to my quo- 
 tation from i Chron. xxv. 5, 6. you fay, 
 <c what then ? what have we to do with 
 that?" I anfwer, Nothing, Sir, only to 
 read it; and fee whether it be not one out 
 of many proofs, that " women have joined 
 with men in finging." (DifT. p. 32 — 38. 
 Reply, p. 37, 38.) 
 
 I am very fenfible that inftrumental was 
 joined with vocal mufic in this inftance, as 
 well as others. But this fubject I referve to 
 its proper place. 
 
 You allow ofwomen fpeaking in the church 
 " on certain juft occafions ;" but ought 
 you not then to prove that finging in divine 
 worlhip is not a juft occafion, or elfe retract 
 the oppofition you have made againft it 
 from that topic ? I had obferved <c there is 
 no diforder in women joining with men in 
 finging the praifes of God, any more than 
 there is when men jointly fing his praifes ; 
 nor more than there is when both fexts join 
 in prayer." You have mangled the argu- 
 ment in this manner, <f there is no diforder 
 in women joining with men in finging the 
 
 praifes I 
 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 praifes of God, than there is when both 
 fexes join in prayer. Again, leaving out the 
 chief claufe in the argument, and making 
 me fpeak nonfenfe in the other part of 
 it. I grant, while one is praying, the reft 
 are filent ; but is there any more dif order 
 when many fing together, than when one 
 prays, and the reft are filent ? That is the 
 queftion, according to the argument, even 
 in its mangled, form : and you have not at- 
 tempted to anfwer this queftion. (DifT. p. 38^ 
 Reply, 39, 40.) 
 
 In the nine following pages I meet with 
 a great deal of — I beg to be excufed from 
 faying what. I am afhamed ; 1 am grieved 
 for you. However, as I cannot think you 
 wifh it to be confidered as argument, I pals 
 thefe pages over in filence. 
 
 In p. 50. you obferve, (f We read of Paul, 
 and the other apoftks, preaching in many 
 places, efpecially Paul, but we no where 
 read of him and the people to whom he 
 preached, all finging together, or that they 
 lung at all." Do we read of them 'praying 
 together ? Would you then prove from 
 thence, that they did not pray at all ? I 
 grant alfo, that we never read of the churches 
 finging together after they were fettled. But 
 we read as much of this as we do of their 
 meeting together, to pray, or preach. Muft 
 we fay there were no praying, nor preaching 
 B 5 in 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 in their affemblies ? It is the evident ten- 
 dency of thefe arguments of yours, to put 
 an end to all publick worfhip, though you 
 are fo offended with me for mentioning this 
 before, where I endeavoured to prove it 
 more largely. (DiiT. p. 49, 50. Reply, 
 
 P- 53-) 
 
 When you exprefs your wonder why we 
 do not uie precompofed fermons and prayers, 
 as well as precompofed pfalms and hymns. 
 One reafon which I afligned is, c: we have 
 divine authority for precompofed pfalms 
 and hymns 3 but not for precompofed fer- 
 mons and prayers." The firft part of this 
 you tranfcribe, the latter you leave out. — 
 <c I fay fo too," you reply. (< But precom- 
 pofed by who ? And for whofe ufe, and 
 how to be ufed ?" — Now you muft fee here> 
 Sir, that thefe circumftances were not in 
 queftion, but belonged to another place. 
 1 was dating an undeniable fa6t; that we 
 follow fcripture examples in ufing precom- 
 pofed pfalms and hymns, but not precom- 
 pofed fermons and prayers. And as you 
 admit the fact, this point is decided be- 
 tween us. I laid, " we have alfo a book 
 of -pfalms provided for us by our great 
 Matter in heaven." You reply, " where is 
 that book ?" You know we mean, the book 
 of Pfalms : " and what uje do you make of 
 it." We fing it, Sir 5 you know we do ; 
 
 and 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 and you know it was fung in the Jewifh. 
 church. I added, c< We have not a book 
 of fermons and prayers." " Yes, you have," 
 fay you, C{ and equally as good a one as 
 that of pfalms and hymns j" 1 do not know 
 of it, nor ever heard of it. Pray inform 
 me where it is. I afligned a third reafon. 
 <c There is alfo an evident propriety in the 
 reafon of things, to prevent confufion in 
 focial worfhip, in having precompofed 
 pfalms and hymns, rather than precom- 
 pofed prayers and fermons." You perem- 
 torily deny it. " Not at all.** How do 
 you prove it ? Why thus : " There is 
 as much propriety in reading precompofed 
 prayers and fermons, as in finging your pre- 
 compofed pfalms and hymns." But do not 
 you obferve, good Sir, that your conclufion 
 has added three words to the argument, and 
 omitted feveral, which gives it a different 
 face? And how do you eftablifh your ar- 
 gument ? tc The former are the labours of 
 men, and the latter are no more, and no 
 other. And there may be as much divinity 
 in the former, as in the latter, and equally 
 ufeful and profitable." Now, I afk you, 
 Sir, did not you read in the argument, 
 u there is an evident propriety — to prevent 
 confufion in focial worfhip ?" I am forry to 
 fay that thefe things cannot be hid. (Diff. 
 p, 44. Reply, p. 51.) To proceed at this 
 B 6" rate 
 
( 3« ) 
 
 rate would be almoft endlefs. The contents 
 of your fifty-fecond, and following pages, 
 we have already confidered ; and mall re- 
 fume the like fubjects in the following dif- 
 fertation. That you may be abundantly 
 happy in time and eternity, is the pleafing 
 hope, and fincere prayer of your's affection- 
 ately, 
 
 D. TAYLOR. 
 
 P. S. Perhaps this may be a proper place 
 to obferve, that I do not think myfelf under 
 any obligation at prefent to be concerned 
 withPhilolegus. Theophilus can eafilygivehim 
 a fufficient anfwer, if he think it neceffary, 
 without any afliftance of mine. Who that 
 gentleman is, I do not know, nor am I anxi- 
 ous to know. I have no inclination to offend 
 him; but I truft he will not charge it with 
 impertinence, if 1 advife him to do jitftice to 
 others, when he quotes their words, or refers 
 to their writings. The reafon of this advice 
 is •, he fays Mr. T. offer ts and vows, " that 
 finging is effential to the dated worfhip of 
 God," p. 1 2. Where has Mr. T. alTerted any 
 fuch thing ? Ought he not to have referred 
 his readers to the page ? If I had aflerted any 
 fuch thing, I fliould number it among the 
 many miftakes to which I confefs myfelf 
 daily liable, and fhould here freely and pub- 
 lickly retract it. I do not remember that I 
 
 ever 
 
 % 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 ever believed or thought any fuch thing. 
 I do not believe it either of Tinging, pray- 
 ing, or preaching. I am perfuaded there 
 may be times of ftated worfnip, when for 
 fufficient reafons, any one of thefe parts 
 of worfhip may be properly omitted. But 
 I firmly believe that ringing is as much 
 efTential to the dated worfhip of God as 
 praying, or preaching. 
 
 A Second 
 
A 
 
 SECOND DISSERTATION 
 
 O N 
 
 SINGING 
 
 IN THE 
 
 WORSHIP of GOD. 
 
 THE Rev. Mr. Boyce having publifhed 
 a reply to my former li diflertation 
 on finging in the worfhip of God," I ven- 
 ture again, to iubmit my thoughts to the 
 public on this fubject, in the following 
 proportions; praying that the God of all 
 wifdom and grace may be pleafed to direct 
 both in writing and reading, and to make 
 all terminate in the promotion of his own 
 glory ; and intreating my readers to beware 
 of that four and malignant temper which fo 
 naturally and fo frequently mingles itfelf 
 with controverfy. 
 
 Propofition I. Whatever practice is en- 
 joined in the Old and New Teftament, j 
 without any intimation that fuch practice 
 is a poficive inftitution ; or defigned for 
 extraordinary purpofes ; or that it fhall af- 
 terwards be laid afide; — if this practice be 
 
 at 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 at the fame time, recommended in general 
 and indefinite terms, to Chriftians, to men, 
 to churches, without exception ; and no 
 particular qualifications required in order 
 to perform it — this practice fo recommend- 
 ed and enjoined, remains a duty in all fuc- 
 ceeding ages. 
 
 I think all profefTed Chriftians will admit 
 the principles contained in this proportion, 
 and do, in general, act upon them. Nor 
 do I fee how the fcriptures can be confidered 
 as a perfect rule of faith and conduct, nor 
 how we can diltinguifh between right and 
 wrong, or between moral and pofitive duties, 
 if we deny thefe principles. Jf thefe were 
 not criteria of moral and perpetual duty and 
 obligation, the fcriptures would rather per- 
 plex than inftruct us ; while we have the 
 light in our hands, we fhould wander in. 
 darknefs, and be left to mere reverie on the 
 mod important branches of duty both to 
 God and man ; I cannot but think that 
 Mr. B. himfelf will grant all this. I there- 
 fore omit the formal proof of it. 
 
 Prop. II. Singing the praifes of God is a 
 duty recommended in the manner, and with 
 the circumftances which have juft now been 
 mentioned •, and confequently finging the 
 praifes of God is a duty of perpetual obliga- 
 tion ; and the injunctions to practife it con- 
 tained in fcripture, are in force to all fuc- 
 ceeding generations to the end of time. 
 
 We 
 
 . 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 We apply for proof of this, the feveral 
 parts of the former propofition to the prac- 
 tice of finging.* 
 
 i. Singing the praifes of God is fre- 
 quently enjoined and recommended, both in 
 theOld and New Teftament. This is evident 
 to all who read the Bible. Now if it had 
 been enjoined in the Old Teftament, and not 
 in the New, we might have fcrupled the 
 practice of it at this day, with more appear- 
 ance of reafon. But the contrary is undeni- 
 able. A large number of pafifages may be 
 found cited from both Teftaments in proof 
 of it, in the former differtation (p. 8, 9.) 
 As the inattention of many readers is afto- 
 nifhing, I here repeat what I there admo- 
 nifhed the reader of, that I have now no 
 defign to treat of the manner of finging ; 
 but to prove that finging is a duty. I here 
 further obferve, that as Mr. B. on almoft | 
 every occafion, introduces fomething rela- ; 
 ting to inftrumental mufic, I referve that 1 
 
 * I confider the fubjedl in this manner, and with I 
 this latitude, becaufe it is evident, that though Mr B. | 
 frequently fpeaks of " finging in the manner we do," 
 yet fome of his reafonings tend to overthrow the prac- 
 tice entirely at this day. (See Reply, p. 16, 55. &c.) j 
 And it is a known fad that feveral, who are of his 
 opinion, have been offended to hear individuals fmg 
 in private, and have refented it very warmly. I mis- 
 take if it will not be generally found, that thofe who 
 adopt his fentiments on this head, do not fing at aM, 
 either focially or feparately. 
 
 fubjed 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 Subject to be confidered alone, in its proper 
 place. 
 
 2. The practice of Tinging the praifes of 
 God is not only enjoined in the fcriptures, 
 but it is enjoined without any intimation 
 that we are to confider it as a pofitive infti- 
 tution. There is no fuch intimation, that 
 I recollect, in all the Bible. If there be, 
 Mr. B. certainly ought to produce it, and 
 we wifh him to do it, that the debate may 
 turn on its proper hinge. Pofitive inftitu- 
 tions, under every difpenfation, continue, 
 from the nature of them, fo long as the ends 
 for which they were appointed continue 
 needful to be anfwered. The two pofitive 
 inftitutions of the New Tenement, there- 
 fore, continue necelTary to the end of time, 
 becaufe the purpofes which they fubferve in 
 the Chriftian ceconomy will always be necef- 
 fary. Thefe purpofes are the lively repre- 
 fentation of our blelTed Saviour's death, bu- 
 rial, and refurrection, which can never be 
 too thankfully remembered, or too ftriking- 
 ly reprefented. The pofitive institutions of 
 the JewijJo difpenfations, for the fame reafon,. 
 were necelTary, till the end of that difpen- 
 fation, but no longer. Thus circumcifion, 
 for inftance, was a token between the blefTed 
 iGod and the pofterity of Abraham ;* and the 
 various facrifices were " a fhadow of good 
 
 M 
 
 • 
 
 Gen. xvii. n. 
 
 things 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 things to come" under the gofpel.* But 
 when the middle wall of partition between 
 the Jews and Gentiles was broken down, the 
 token of diftinction was of no further ufe ; 
 and when the fubfiance was come, the fha- 
 dow might be conveniently difpenfed with. 
 Hence it appears, that if finging had been 
 a pofitive inftitute of the New Teftament, 
 the perpetuity of it might have been argued 
 from that confideration. But if it had been 
 a pofitive inftitute of the Old Teftament, it 
 would have ceafed at the commencement 
 of Chriftianity. As it is, however, a duty- 
 common to both difpenfations, enjoined and 
 praclifed under both, the obligation toper- 
 form it, appears from hence, to be moral 
 and perpetual. None can furely imagine 
 that any practice is lefs incumbent on Chrif- 
 tians, becaufe it was obferved by the Jews,, 
 unlefs it were defigned to be confined to 
 them. For if that could be proved, prayer 
 and mod other duties ought to be laid 
 afide. 
 
 3. It will alio appear to an attentive 
 mind, that finging was not defigned, under 
 either difpenfation, to ferve uncommon or I 
 extraordinary purpofes. On the other hand,, 
 the reafons afligned for it, the motives by 
 which it is enforced, and the ends to be 
 anfwered by it, are all moral and perpetual. 
 
 * Heb. x. 1. 
 
 Why S 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 Why are other religious duties yet necefiary, 
 but from the authority by which they are 
 enjoined, and the good moral purpofes to 
 be anfvvered by them ? Now if thefe argu- 
 ments are valid in favour of other duties, 
 why not in favour of finging ? This prac- 
 tice, if I miftake not, will be found, on a 
 Careful examination, to be as frequently, 
 and as forcibly recommended, from moral 
 confiderations, as mod duties recommended 
 in the Bible. 
 
 Confider the reajons and motives by which 
 it is enforced •, becaufe it is good, comely, and 
 bleafant *. Thefe are invariably the fame, 
 (b long as man is man. David would fing, 
 becaufe " God Was his flrength, and the 
 God of his mercy, his defence and refuge 
 in the day of trouble H." For the fame rea- 
 fbns may every faint fing to the end of 
 time. David exhorts others to fing the 
 praifes of God, becaufe M he is a great God,'* 
 a great King above all Gods, becaufe he hath 
 done marvellous things ; becaufe he hath 
 made known his falvation; becaufe his mer- 
 cy is above the heavens, and his truth 
 reacheth unto the clouds ; becaufe his do- 
 minion is over all the world ; he dwelleth 
 in Zion -, he is the ftrength of his people, 
 and the rock of their falvation ; he taketh 
 pleafure in his people," — and fo on.f Thefe 
 
 * Pfal. xcii. I. cxxxv. 3. cxlvii. 1. |j Pfah 
 
 lix. 16, 17. f See Pfal. xcv. 1, 2, 3. xcvi. 2, 3, 
 4. cviii. 3, 4. xlvii. 6, 7. 
 
 confide- 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 confiderations are exprefsly afiigned as rrrol 
 tives to enforce the duty of finging the! 
 divine praifes ; and they are all moral, per-] 
 petual, and immutable, to the end of the! 
 world. Surely then the practice enforced] 
 by thefe confiderations mud be fo too, un-1 
 lefs we have fome where authority to dif-j 
 continue this practice, or fome intimation 
 that it ought to be difcontinued. 
 
 The ends to be anfwered by this practice] 
 are alfo moral, and of perpetual neceffity. 
 To fing forth the honour of Jehovah's name, 
 to make his praife glorious, to make a joy- 
 ful noife before him, to fhew forth his fal- 
 vation, to teach and admonifh ourfelves, or] 
 each other, and the like, are the purpofesj 
 for which this facred and delightful practice; 
 was appointed J. 
 
 Thus, I think, every confideration by; 
 which finging the praifes of God is recom-j 
 mended in fcripture, is moral and immut- 1 
 able. It is molt reafonable, therefore, to 
 conclude that it is a moral duty, and never 
 to be difcontinued. 
 
 It is granted that thefe reafons may be 
 afiigned for, and thefe ends are, at leafh 
 in a meafure, accomplifhed by prayer, 
 preaching, and thankfgiving -, and this is 
 an unanfwerable argument to enforce thefe, 
 duties. But to make this confideration an 
 objection againft finging for thefe purpofes, 
 
 X See Pfal. lxvi. 2. xcv. 1. xcvi. 2. 
 
 is 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 is to fet up our own wifdom as fuperior to 
 that of our Maker. I add, 
 
 4, Singing the praifes of God is enjoined 
 and recommended in very indefinite and 
 unlimited language ; fuch language, as 
 'makes it appear that this practice ought not 
 'to be confined to any particular clafs of 
 Tien, or to men of any particular defcrip- 
 ':ion. Our knowledge of the manner in 
 which divine worfhip was ftaiediy performed 
 ; imong the Jews, or by the primitive Chri- 
 tians, is confefTedly imperfect. It is cer- 
 tain, that in and afcer the time of David, 
 ,' r he Jews had a felect number or choir of 
 ''fingers. But it does not from hence necef- 
 rjarily follow, that none befides thefe were 
 ^llowed to fing. Nor do I recollect any 
 vidence that none were employed in this 
 jrvice, befides the Levites. Their being 
 ailed fingers is certainly no proof of it at 
 11. For they would be fo called, as being 
 ppointed to that office for the fake of 
 aving the fervice performed with more 
 ecency and order, even though the whole 
 ongregation joined with them. This is 
 : :cording to the common language of 
 hriftians. In mod congregations fome are 
 ppointed to lead the whole affcmbly in 
 lis fervice ; but the whole affembly are 
 ippofed to join with them, if able to 
 3 it ; and yet thofe, who lead the fong, 
 c emphatically called fingers. It is, how- 
 ever, 
 . 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 ever, certain and undeniable, that Tinging 
 is enjoined in very unlimited and indefinit< 
 terms in both the Old and New Teftament 
 and this is fufficient for our prefent pur 
 pole. " Sing unto the Lord all the earth 
 let the nations be glad, and fing for joy 
 make a joyful noife unto the Lord all y 
 lands ; all the kings of the earth fhall prail: 
 thee. They mall fing in the ways of thj 
 Lord," and fo on *. We need not enquir 
 into the precife meaning of thefe parTagea 
 I am perfuaded, that on every poflible in, 
 terpretation, they furnifh proof that fingin^ 
 is not to be confined to men of any parti, 
 cular delcription. David himfelf was 
 Levite; yet he declares his determinati 
 to fing <f while he has any being f." 
 
 Nor is this practice confined to any pa 
 ticular defcription of men in the New Te 
 tament. The apoftle addrefies the Eph 
 fians and Coloflians in the fame gene 
 language, which he ufes on all other occ 
 fions, to enforce any religious or mor 
 duty whatfoever J. Let any one read t 
 pailages, and confidtr the connection 
 which they ftand, and fee if there be a 
 kind of limitation or reftriction exprefT<| 
 or implied in them. Let him try imp 
 daily whether he can find any argument 
 
 * i Chron. xvi. 23. Pfa!. lx. 4. xcvi. 1. c. ij 
 exxxviii. 5. f Pfal. civ, 33. cxlvi. 2. % Epl 
 v. j 9. Col, iii. 16. 
 
 P ro H 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 prove, that it is not as much the duty of 
 all Chriftians to fing, as to redeem time, 
 to avoid drunkennefs, to be filled with the 
 fpirit, to give thanks to God, or to practife 
 any other duty. The apoftle James wrote 
 a general epiftle to the c< twelve tribes, feat- 
 tered abroad ;" and to all thefe, without 
 exception, he fays, " Is any merry ? Let 
 him fing pfalms."* 
 
 Now how can we imagine that this prac- 
 tice would be recommended in this general 
 and unlimited manner, unlefs it be a gene- 
 ral duty, and incumbent in the fame extenc 
 as other duties are ? When we find the fear 
 of God, prayer to him, looking to him, 
 and the like, fo frequently recommended 
 in fcripture to all the earth, and all the 
 ends of the earth, or recommended in other 
 language, equally extenfive and unlimited, 
 what conclufion do we draw ? Certainly, 
 that thefe duties are incumbent on all men. 
 Why then fhould we not explain the paf- 
 fages which enjoin finging, as we explain 
 »11 other paflages where the fame kind of 
 language is uied ? I only alledge, 
 
 5. That no particular capacities or qua- 
 lifications are ever mentioned as requifite 
 to the performance of this duty. Let all 
 the paifages before referred to, and all 
 others, be examined with this view ; and 
 
 James v. 13. 
 
 I think 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 I think it will ftrike every attentive mind, 
 that what I here affert is true. Now if any 
 reader fhall pleal'e to confider, p. 2j, 22, 
 23,24, of the former difTertation, and what 
 has been faid in the foregoing pages of this 
 difTertation, he may judge for himfelf whe- 
 ther we ought to eitetm the practice in 
 queftion a moral duty, and of general and 
 perpetual obligation. Mr. B. indeed, fays 
 he, " can find no argument throughout my 
 whole piece," to prove that ringing is a 
 moral duty, (Reply, p. 44.) But furely, 
 he can find an attempt to prove it. Ought 
 he not to have examined that attempt, and 
 to have refuted it, if it had been in his 
 power ? 
 
 Prop. III. Frequent examples of the per- 
 formance of any duty, by perfons of dif- 
 ferent clafies and defcriptions, recorded in 
 different parts of both the Old and New! 
 Teftament, are juftly confidered as confir-j 
 mations of that practice j and contribute tcj 
 enforce it upon us as a perpetual and in 
 difpenfable duty. If this were not allowed 
 a great part of the Bible would be a mer 
 amufement. Becaufe a great part of it con 
 fifts of narration, and is evidently define 
 to inform us how the fervants of God ex 
 erted themfelves in former times, to glcrif 
 their Creator and Saviour. But if thefi 
 narrations be not defigned to influence 011 
 practice, and to excite in us a defire t 
 
 imita 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 imitate the excellencies of thefe holy men, 
 what end do they anfvver ? They Teem to 
 be only matters of fpeculation, if not de- 
 signed to have this effect. Befides, if this 
 • were not their defign, the practice of all 
 minifters is utterly wrong. Nothing is. 
 more common than to recommend and en- 
 force duties which are enjoined elfewhere, 
 by the examples of ancient faints, who 
 were diligent in the performance of them. 
 The good moral effect which this method 
 las often had on all claffes of men, is uni- 
 verfally known. Nay, we have the autho- 
 rity of the apoftles themfelves for paying 
 this regard to the examples of ancient faints, 
 and are commanded to Ci be followers of 
 thofe, who through faith and patience now 
 inherit the promiies *." If therefore, ring- 
 ing the praifes of God be a duty thus en- 
 forced by example, this is a further con- 
 fideration to excite our regard to it. 
 
 Prop. IV. Singing the praifes of God 
 s not only often enjoined, and ftrongly 
 "ecommended, by moral arguments, but it is 
 1 practice of which we have many examples, 
 30th in the Old and New Teitament j\ It 
 
 * See Heb. vi. 12. James v. ic, 11. 1 Pet. iii. 6. 
 Old many other places- 
 
 1 f To proceed thus llowly, and exprefs myfelf in fo 
 brmal and familiar a manner, perhaps requires an 
 ipology with fome perfons who think the cafe very 
 rlain without a formal difcuflion. But the ftate of 
 . ,j>me who are likely to read thefe pages feems tOj me 
 render fuch a method neceflTary. 
 
 C ' was 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 was practifed by the people of lfrael before 
 the Jewifh law was given J. And at Beer 
 loon after the giving of the law *. It was ; i 
 practifed by Deborah and Barak, in the I 
 time of the Judges f. By the Jews, in ! 
 their public worfhip, in the days of David, i 
 and afterwards. This is clear from the Old I 
 Teftarhent Hiftory throughout. It was alfo j 
 practifed by our blefled Saviour and his j 
 apoftles, at his laft fupper || ; by Paul and 
 Silas, in the prifon at Philippi J, and by 
 the Chriftian church at Corinth §. 
 
 The reader will here obferve the different 
 characters of thofe, who are mentioned as 
 having been employed in this practice. So\ 
 far as we can learn, the people of lfrael, 
 without exception, fang jointly, at the Redl 
 Sea, and at Beer; and this was both before! 
 and after the law was given. Afterwards,! 
 before the Levites were appointed to " chisjj 
 office, Deborah and Barak fung; a woman] 
 and a man. After this fervice was affignedj 
 to the Levites, to be conducted by them J 
 not only David the king *, but alfo of the 
 Levites, Heman the leer, with his fons, 
 and his daughters, and twenty three others, 
 
 X Exod- xv. I fubmit it to the judgment of think-j 
 ing men, whether Exod. xv. and xxxii. 18. do nod 
 fuggeft a ftrong probability that this was a common! 
 part of worfhip even in the wildernefs. 
 
 * Numb. xxi. 17. f Judg. v. || Mat. xxvlj 
 30. Mark xiv. 26. J A els xvi. 25. § 1 CorJ 
 xiv. 15. 26. * 2 Sam. xviii. 2. 
 
 witU 
 
( 5« ) 
 
 with their Tons and their brethren, twelve 
 in every courfe, were employed in this de- 
 lightful exercife f . Our blefTed Saviour and 
 his difciples, before the extraordinary gifts 
 of the Spirit were given ; two minifters, 
 Paul and Silas, and the Corinthian church, 
 after the beftowment of thofe gifts. So 
 that we have clear fcripture example of 
 kings, governors, and the common people; 
 of men and women ; of young people of 
 both fexes, and their parents ; of our blef- 
 fed Saviour, our perfect pattern, and his 
 apoflles, the planters and teachers of the 
 Chriftian churches ; and of one church of 
 Chrift in its fettled ftate, who all praclifed 
 finging in the worfhip of God. 
 
 Now in what manner are we accuftomed 
 
 to reaibn in other cafes ? We enforce prayer 
 
 and other duties by precepts and examples. 
 
 i Why mould not the duty of finging be 
 
 i enforced in the fame manner ? I beg leave 
 
 J here to repeat what I have hinted before ; 
 
 that I think, whoever will be at the pains 
 
 of examining, will find that very few duties 
 
 are more fully or more clearly inculcated 
 
 in the Bible, both by precept and example, 
 
 than finging the praifes of God. 
 
 I may juil obierve here, that as Mr. B. 
 ftrongly oppofes women being permitted to 
 fing in public worfhip, I endeavoured to 
 
 f i Chron. xxv. 6—31. 
 
 C 2 vindicate 
 
( 52 ) 
 
 vindicate them in the former DifTertation, 
 Moil of the arguments I iifed, Mr. B. 
 paiies by without taking any notice of them. 
 As this is a capital branch of the contro- 
 verfy, furely he ought not to have done fo. 
 The reader, if he choofe, may examine 
 what is faid on the fubjecl. (DiiT. p. 32 — 
 41. Reply, p. 37—49-) 
 
 Prop. V. It is evident that feveral reli- 
 gious duties are enjoined and ftrongly re- 
 commended in fcripture, which are not 
 exprefsly appointed to be performed in 
 public worfhip, nor have we any particular 
 directions as to the manner of performing 
 them •, and yet it is fumciently clear that 
 they always have made a part of public 
 worfhip; and muft make part of it, other- 
 wife we cannot fee how public worfhip can 
 be kept up in the world. For inftance, it 
 is not exprefsly enjoined that we fhould 
 pray or give thanks in public worfhip. But 
 we know that thefe are parts of the worfhip 
 of God, which may be advantageoufly in- 
 troduced into his public worfhip ; and we 
 have fufHcient evidence that they have been 
 fo in all ages, even with the approbation, 
 and by the direction of the Almighty. But 
 if we go upon the ground of exprefs direc- 
 tion, we fhall find no authority to perform 
 them when we publicly afiemble together. 
 We can only practife them on the fame 
 ground on which we fing the praifes of God, 
 
 as 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 as I hope to prove more fully in its proper 
 place. 
 
 For this reafon I have faid in the former 
 Dilfertation, and I here repeat it, that 
 " if Mr. B's arguments be valid enough to 
 annul the practice of finging, they are 
 equally fo to annul the practice of praying 
 and preaching-, and to demolifh the whole 
 fabric of public worfhip all together." Mr. 
 B. denies this ; but does not attempt to 
 anfwer what I have faid in proof of it. 
 (SeeDiff. p. 49, 50. Reply, p. 53.) This he 
 undoubtedly ought to have done. I am, 
 however, well perfuaded that neither he nor 
 any other man can vindicate either pray- 
 ing, or thankfgiving, in public worfhip, 
 on any other ground than that on which we 
 vindicate finging. Nor is any other ground 
 of vindication necefiary. 
 
 The fame may be faid with regard to the 
 manner of praying, preaching, or giving 
 thanks, or of condudting any part of pub- 
 lic worihip whatever. Particular directions 
 are not to be found ; nor are they at all 
 needful Nor, in the prefent (late of things, 
 could they be obferved, without fuch in- 
 convenience as would throw the church, 
 j and the world into confufion, and make 
 ! the forms of religion a burthen to the bed 
 I of men. The (lighten: attention to the 
 capacities, connections, and other circum- 
 ftances of mankind, muft convince any 
 C 3 think- 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 thinking and underftanding man, that a 
 precife and univerfal attention to fuch par- 
 ticular rules in all the parts of worfhip, is 
 morally impoffible. How far fuch precife 
 rules were either given or obferved in the 
 temple worfhip, cannot, I think, be ex- 
 actly determined from the Bible. But fup- 
 pofing it could, there is a vaft difference be- 
 tween the conveniences and advantages of 
 one fingie people, circumftanced as the 
 Jews were, for the obfervance of fuch pre- 
 cife rules, and of all the churches fcattered 
 abroad, throughout the Chriftian world. 
 Befides, the Jewifh ceconomy was the in- 
 fancy of religion; but the Chriftian difpen- 
 fation is the advanced and mature ftate of it, 
 as we are frequently taught by the apoftle. 
 Precife rules, with regard to the punctilios 
 of mode and form, are more needful in a 
 ftate of infancy, than in advanced age. 
 Every head of a family, who has children 
 of different ages under his care, proves 
 the truth of this daily. I add alfoj that the 
 Jewifh religion was confefTedly a burthen- 
 fome one, which continually f< gendered to 
 bondage-," but the law of Chrift, compared 
 ■with the Jewifh, is, in all refpecls, a law 
 of liberty, as far as it relates to modes and 
 forms of worfhip. This appears on the 
 very face of the apoftolic writings. Once 
 more, it is an undeniable fad that different 
 churches do conduct their public worfhip 
 
 differ- 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 differently, as to the manner of it, one from 
 another. This is true even of thole churches 
 which are conftituted in the fame manner, 
 and, on the whole, agree in the fame kind 
 and forms of worfhip, and are aflbciated in 
 the fame connection. Nay, even the fame 
 church finds it neceffary, on fome occafions, 
 to change the circomftances of worfhip, 
 with refpecl to mode and form. This might 
 be fully illuftrated, if neceffary, by inftances,. 
 with refpect to the parts of it, the frequency 
 of any of thefe parts, the time of perform- 
 ing them j whether miniflers fhall preach, 
 expound, or exhort; thefe, and a great 
 number of other circumftantial things, muPc 
 be determined by general rules, and the 
 particular cafes of the church or churches 
 in queflion •, becaufe no particular rules are 
 given by the Lord and head of the church. 
 Nor has all this the lead tendency to 
 encourage Popery, or pleafe the Papifts, as 
 Mr. B. would infinuate; (p. 54.) nor does 
 it give the leaft encouragement to introduce 
 human inventions or any kind of will-wor- 
 fhip into the church; nor authority to change 
 any pofitive rite, or to vary from any direc- 
 tion which our bleffed Lord has given; for 
 all this is faid on the fuppofition that the 
 various parts of divine worfhip are exactly 
 fpecified in fcripture, and ftrictly enjoined 
 on all profeffed Chriftians. Nor has any man 
 licence to dictate to another; or to neglect 
 C 4 any 
 
( S6 ) 
 
 any branch of worfhip which Chrift has en- 
 joined. And it is an admirable difplay of 
 the wifdom and goodnefs of our dear 
 Saviour, that the rules and directions of his 
 word, reflecting the affairs of his church, 
 are circurnftanced as they are. The ufe of 
 this propofition will, I truft, be fufficiently 
 manifeft under the two following ones. 
 
 Prop. VI. When the particular manner 
 of performing or conducting any part of 
 religious wotfhip is not exactly Specified in 
 Jcripture, it is reafonable, fafe, and necef- 
 iary to conclude that this is a matter of lefs 
 importance, and may be fufficiently deter- 
 mined fome other way •, that is, by general 
 rules, examples, the reafon of things, 
 analogy, conveniency, tendency to edify, 
 or the like. To me it is evident, for the 
 reafons already affigned, that this is the 
 only method by which we are to determine 
 the manner of conducting every part of 
 public worfhip j and that every church, and 
 every minifter, ought to take this method, 
 and to be very careful in obferving it. As 
 it has pleafed the Lord to give us no parti- 
 cular directions on this head, we are, 1 think, 
 under the neceffity, either of laying public 
 ■worfhip afide, which is directly oppofite 
 both to fcripture and to common fenfe •, or 
 of performing it as we pleafe, without any 
 rule or regard to circumftances — or of per- 
 forming it according to the dictates of hu- 
 man 
 
( 57 ) 
 
 man authority — or we mud confider, by 
 general rules and circumftances, what me- 
 thod is, on the whole, the beft, and ad ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 Now the firft of thefe cannot be admitted. 
 We mud not proceed as we pleafe, in any 
 thing which refpects the intereft of our blef- 
 fecl Lord and Saviour. That would be 
 ufurping an authority frequently condemn- 
 ed. Nor ought we to act by human autho- 
 rity ; for that would be to flight our greac 
 Mafter, who has forbidden it, and to iacri- 
 fke his intereft to the capricious humours 
 and fancies of men •, to difregard the general 
 rules contained in his word, and to reduce 
 ourfelves to flavery, when he has made us 
 free. — We muft, therefore, proceed on the 
 grounds before-mentioned. 
 
 The apoftle has given us four general 
 rules, to which, if we always diligently ad- 
 vert, we fhall be fafe. tc Let all things be 
 done to edifying — Let all things be done 
 decently and in order — Do all to the glory 
 of God — Let all your things be done with 
 charity."-}- It is eafy to obferve, that thefe 
 general rules would not have been given, 
 nor wanted, if we had been furnifhed with 
 particular ones; becaufe they are evidently 
 defigned to fupply the place of particular 
 rules. It is alfo' clearly fuppofed that the 
 ufe of thefe, inftead of particular rules, is 
 
 ■f I Cor. x. 31. xiv. 26. 40* xvi. 14. 
 
 C 5 perfectly 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 perfectly fufficienr, and will anfwer every 
 valuable end. Now unlefs the convenien- 
 cies and edification of the churches, and par- 
 ticular members of them, be examined, and 
 carefully attended to, things cannot be done 
 " decently, in order, with charity, or to 
 edifying." If this be not done, one is pleaf- 
 ed, while another is difgufted -, things are 
 adapted to the conveniency of one, while 
 heavy burthens lie upon others. This, I 
 fear, is too often the cafe; and by thefe 
 neglects in minifters, and leading members 
 of churches, love is much diminifhed, gene- 
 ral edification prevented ; and the iffue is 
 frequently diforder and confufion.* I beg 
 the reader's pardon for this digreffion. It 
 may be of advantage in opening our way to 
 Prop. VII. As there are no particular 
 directions given in fcripture, bum to conduct 
 public worfhip in general ; neither are there 
 any fuch directions for the manner of con- 
 dueling ringing in particular. For the fake 
 of fome readers, it may be proper here to 
 Hate a few facts, the evidence of which re- 
 fill ts from what has been faid in the forego- 
 ing pages. 
 
 It is a fact, that public worfftip is a di- 
 vine appointment, and has had the fan&ion 
 
 I have ventured to give my thoughts more largely 
 on thefe, and kindred fubjecis, in Confluent Chrif- 
 tian, p. 121,-1421 Pill, on Singing, p. 46, &c. 
 
{ 59 ) 
 
 of divine approbation, under both the Old 
 and New Teftament difpenfations. 
 
 It is a faff, that prayer, thankfgiving, and 
 Tinging the praifes of God, are all exprefsly 
 appointed of God, and approved by him ; 
 and fo far as we can learn, they have been 
 fo in all ages of the world. 
 
 It is afacl, that noneofthefe feveral parts 
 of divine worfhip are exprefsly commanded 
 to be ftatedly performed in public worihip. 
 
 It is zfacl, that Mr. B. himfelf cannot 
 pretend to vindicate his manner of conduct- 
 ing public worlhip by any exprefs command 
 of fcripture. 
 
 It is a faSfy that fo far as we are able to 
 learn, all thefe parts of worlhip, before men- 
 tioned, that is, prayer, thankfgiving, and 
 finging, have been performed in public wor- 
 fhip in all ages, and this with divine appro- 
 bation. 
 
 It is zfacly that with refpect to exprefs com- 
 mand, finging in public worfhip is founded 
 on the fame authority, and accompanied 
 with the fame evidence, with which any- 
 other part of worfhip is accompanied, when 
 performed in public. 
 
 Now as all profefiPed Chriftians, thofe who 
 are under the controul of human authority 
 excepted, do confider it their duty to con- 
 duct their public worfhip, as to the manner 
 of it, in all its branches, by general rules, 
 examples, tendency to edify, and fo on ; 
 C 6 ought 
 
 i 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 ought not Tinging to be thus conduced, as 
 well as every other branch of worfhip ? Mr. 
 B. allows, that finging is not " a fcripture- 
 lefs practice :" certainly then, it ought to 
 be fome way performed. That finging is 
 as ftridtly enjoined as forbearance^ charity ', or 
 any other duty, has, I think, been fully pro- 
 ved j and I fhould apprehend that it cannot 
 be difputed by any who believes the New 
 Teftament.J Nor can I find any intimation 
 that it is not to be continued to the end of 
 time j but ftrong proof of the contrary. 
 This we have feen already. We are there- 
 fore under indifpenfable obligation to prac- 
 tife it; and to enquire how it may be done 
 in the mod proper and profitable manner. 
 It is evident, this can only be determined, 
 as we determine the manner of conducting 
 every other part of divine worfhip. 
 
 Let us take a view of the analogy in a few 
 inftances. Are we exprefsly commanded to 
 fing in dated public worfhip ? Not that I 
 know of, unlefs Pfal. cxlix. i. or c. i, 2. 
 can be proved to contain fuch a command ; 
 on which I do not here infift. Are we ex- 
 prefsly commanded to pray, preach, or give 
 thanks in public worfhip ? not that I re- 
 member. Have we examples of public 
 prayer, preaching, giving thanks, and fing- 
 
 X Ephef. v. 15. 23. Col. iii. 13. 18. Jam. v. 
 
 ing 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 ing the praifes of God, among the Jews ? 
 Yes, all of them. Have we any examples 
 in the New Teflament, of public finging in 
 the primitive Chriftian church ? I think not 
 any, befides i Cor. xiv. though a conside- 
 rable argument might be formed on Ads iv. 
 24. But we need not reft any thing on pro- 
 babilities here. Have we any other, or 
 clearer examples of public prayer, preach- 
 ing, or thankfgiving, in the primitive Chrif- 
 tian church ? I do not remember any. Are 
 the ends to be anfvvered by finging, and the 
 motives to enforce it, moral, and of perpe- 
 tual obligation ? Yes ; we have proved this 
 before. And may we fay the fame of pray- 
 er, preaching, and thankfgiving ? Yes, the 
 very fame. Have we any particular direc- 
 tions, how to conduct or perform prayer, 
 preaching, or thankfgiving, in public wor- 
 ship ? No ; not any more than for the manner 
 of performing the practice of finging. Have 
 w-e general rules, which apply equally to all 
 theie parts of worfhip ? Yes ; we have cited 
 four of them. Prov. vi. Have we occafional 
 directions with refpect to the matter of 
 preaching, prayer, and thankfgiving ? Yes, 
 many, both in the Old and New Teftament ; 
 and fo we have refpecting the matter of whac 
 fhould be fung, in both Teftaments, cited 
 before. Have we examples of forms of ad- 
 drefs proper for preaching, prayer, and 
 thankfgiving? Yes, many, and fo we have 
 
 with 
 
C 62 ) 
 
 with refpect to Tinging. See Prop. II. IV.* 
 As it has pleafed God to enjoin prayer to 
 him, fear of him, and other duties on men, 
 fometimes in general and indefinite lan- 
 guage, and at other times more particularly 
 on his people ■, To he has likewife enjoined 
 the practice of Tinging, in the Tame indefi- 
 nite language, Prop. II. It is evident there- 
 Tore, that Tinging the praifes of God (lands 
 on the fame ground with other religious 
 duties. 
 
 As it has pleafed our Creator to make us 
 rational beings, we certainly ought to ufe 
 
 * Here may be a proper place to drop a hint re- 
 fpecling Hebrew poetry, about which Mr. B. feems to 
 fcruple (p. 49.) if it had been difputed two hundred 
 and fifty years ago, whether " the pfalms were written 
 in Hebrew verfe," or no, it would have been lefs won- 
 derful. But that any man of underftanding and read- 
 ing fhould call it in queftion at this day, would hard- 
 ly have been expe&ed. " That the book of pfalms, 
 with fome other writings of the Old Teftament, were 
 originally written in metre, is univerfally allowed by 
 the Jews, and does alfo appear from the different ac- 
 centuation of them from that of other books." Dr. 
 Gill's Sermon on 1 Cor. xiv. 15. p. 47. 2d. edit. 
 " Have they forgot, or were they never told, that 
 many parts of the Old Teftament are Hebrew verfe ? 
 and the figures are ftronger, and the metaphors bold- 
 er, and the images more furprizing and ftrange, than 
 ever I read in any profane author.'* Watts's Lyric 
 Poems, pref. p. 8. 7th edit. The prefent bifhop of 
 London has placed this fubject in a very clear and 
 ftrong light, in his fine preelections upon it; and in 
 his Preliminary DifTertation, prefixed to his new tran- 
 slation of the prophet Ifaiah, 
 
 our 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 our reafon in performing what he has com* 
 manded; not in oppofition to his word, but 
 in Subjection to it. Now reafon tells us 
 finging is a focial exerciSe; and (allowing 
 k to be right) may be performed jointly, 
 without any confufion, irregularity, or dis- 
 advantage whatever: nay, that by perform- 
 ing it with joint voices, the ends defigned 
 by it may be anfwered, better than when 
 performed Separately, by individuals. This, 
 all impartial men will acknowledge ; and 
 both fcripture, and the experience and prac- 
 tice of all mankind, avouch the truth of it : 
 this, therefore, is one circurnftance ftrongly 
 in favour of Singing with joint voices. But 
 it cannot be Said oSany other part of divine 
 worfhip. It cannot be denied that all are 
 under obligation to praife God ; and where 
 is the impropriety, or moral turpitude of 
 doing it with a modulated voice ? But I 
 add, both reafon and Scripture fhew, that all 
 mankind ought to employ every capacity 
 in the Service of God j and therefore, the 
 voice, as well as other capacities. It is 
 certain that women, and children, who are 
 come to underftanding, are able to uSe their 
 voices in fhewing forth the praiSes oS God r 
 as well as others. They thereSore ought to 
 do it, unleSs the Scripture Sorbid them, or 
 contain that which implies a prohibition of 
 them. What right have we, without Scrip- 
 ture warrant, to Sorbid them, or difTuade 
 
 them 
 
( <H ) 
 
 them from it? If fpiritual fongs be com- 
 pofed on other fubjects, befides immediate 
 addrefTes of praife to God, of which kind 
 we find many in fcripture; women, and un- 
 converted people, can think on thefe fub- 
 }e£fcs, and be profited by them ; and con- 
 flant experience fhews that poetry and fing- 
 ing are nfeful to the contemplative powers 
 of man. Is it then reasonable that they 
 fhould be deprived of this advantage which 
 the God of nature hath given them ? We 
 have certain evidence, in fact, that this exer- 
 cife hath been ufeful in many inftances, to 
 women and children -, even unconverted, as 
 well as converted. Reafon and experience 
 therefore ftrongly plead that they mould be 
 allowed and encouraged to praclife it. It 
 is granted that all this would not be abfo- 
 lutely decifive, fuppofing they had no en- 
 couragement from fcripture to attend to 
 this facred exercife. I therefore add, that 
 we have clear evidence, that women and 
 unconverted people have joined in this fer- 
 vice, and we cannot find that their doing 
 fo was at all difpleafing to God $ but good 
 reafon to believe the contrary.* We have 
 likewife proved before, that this practice is 
 enjoined on all the earth, without excep- 
 tion. Is it right then for us to oppofe it, 
 
 * See Exod, xv. Numb^xxi. Judg, v. I Ghron. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 againfi 
 
( 6 5 ) 
 
 againft reafon, experience, icripture pre- 
 cept, and icripture example ? 
 
 In my former Diifertation, fome of thefe 
 things were mentioned, which I have here 
 endeavoured to amplify. Ought not Mr. 
 B. to have fairly examined what is there 
 faid on the fubject ? With refpect to the 
 fpirituality of worfnip, and the unaccept- 
 ablenefs of it, when performed by uncon- 
 verted people, no objection can be offered 
 on this head, that I am able to conceive, 
 but what equally militates againft their 
 reading, praying, hearing, and every other 
 duty they perform. Nay, I think, whoever 
 can prove from thefe topics, that they ought 
 not to fing the prailes of God, will be able 
 to prove from the fame topics, and with 
 equal evidence, that they ought to attend 
 to nothing, either in facred or civil life; 
 but that they all ought to lie down and 
 die. Becaufe, till they believe in Jefus, 
 " be renewed in the fpirit of their mind," 
 and act from the obedient fpirit which the 
 gofpel infpires and produces, whatever they 
 do, it cannot be pleating to God. But this 
 can be no argument again!! their perform- 
 
 i ing religious duties of moral obligation ; 
 fur then it would be no fin to negleCt them ; 
 
 I and if fo, it would follow, by an eafy and 
 obvious method of realbning, that uncon- 
 verted perfons are not finners. I think, if 
 Mr. B. choofe to try his ilrength on what 
 
 is 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 is faid under the fccond and fourth propo- 
 fitions, he will find it fufficiently evident^ 
 that Tinging the praifes of God is a duty en- 
 forced on perfons of all characters ; and 
 confequently, no valid argument can be 
 formed againft unconverted people being 
 found in the practice of it. I fuggefted 
 this hint in the former DifTertation; and he 
 has taken fome notice of it; but in fuch a 
 manner, as I heartily wifh, for his own fake, 
 could be buried in oblivion. DifT. p. 31. 
 Reply, p. 45. 
 
 As to the place where perfons ought to 
 fing: we have iccn that finging is a focial 
 exercife, and has in all ages been fo con- 
 fidered, and fo performed. The examples 
 of it in fcripture are very numerous j and 
 thefe both in the Old and New Teftament. 
 Now how can people perform it as a focial 
 exercife, unlefs when they affemble for di- 
 vine worfhip, and perform other ads of fo- 
 cial religion, which are enforced by the 
 fame considerations, and defigned for fimi- 
 larpurpofes; fuch as prayer, thankfgiving, 
 reading, expounding, preaching, and hear- 
 ing the word, for mutual inftruction and 
 edification ? Reafon itfelf, therefore, de- 
 monftrates the propriety of public finging, 
 as well, and on the fame ground, as other 
 public religious duties. And that we have 
 abundant examples of public congregational 
 finging is undeniable. It is true a thefe are 
 
 chiefly 
 
( 6 7 ) 
 
 chiefly in the Old Teftament. For in the 
 New, we have no account, that I know of, 
 (unlefs it can be gathered from i Cor. xiv.) 
 of the manner in which the Chriftians con- 
 ducted their public' worfhip, though we 
 have abundant authority for the perform- 
 ance of it. 
 
 The moil circumftantial account which 
 we have in the New Teitament of the 
 manner of conducting focial worfhip, is, I 
 think, that of our Saviour and his difciples, 
 after the inftitution of the Lord's fupper. 
 We are there diftinctly informed that our 
 Saviour delivered a molt inftructive and 
 animating difcourfe, contained in the four- 
 teenth, fifteenth, and fixteenth chapters of 
 John's gofpel ; and in Luke xxii. .5 — 38. 
 He then offered up a molt affectionate 
 prayer j (John xvii.) and he and his dif- 
 ciples at the fame time fung a hymn. In 
 this account, the three parts of worfhip are 
 particularly mentioned ; the preaching or 
 inftruction, and the prayer, exprefsly af- 
 cribed to our Saviour alone; and the ring- 
 ing to him and his difciples.* Perfectly 
 agreeable to the practice of all ages, in 
 which finging, fo far as we can learn, has 
 always been, in ordinary cafes, accounted a 
 focial exercife, and performed as fuch, when 
 performed in public worfhip. 
 
 * Pfalm c. 2. 4. cxlix. 1. 
 
 I may 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 1 may add, we have not only clear fcrip- 
 ture examples of public congregational 
 finging, but alfo, fcripture precept or ex- 
 hortation. " Serve the Lord with gladnefs, 
 come before his pre/ence, into his public 
 worfhip, with finging." " Sing unto the Lord 
 a new fong, and his praife in the congrega- 
 tion of faints."-}- I am utterly at a lofs to 
 underftand the meaning of thefe pafTages, 
 unlefs they are fo to be underftood. I think 
 it will appear to any candid mind, that 
 though Ephef. v. 19. Col. iii. 16. a r e not 
 neceiTarily referred to public worfhip; yet 
 the directions there given may be as pro- 
 perly applied to it, and as advantageoufly 
 obferved in it, as any other way whatever. 
 To which I only add, that in all the pub- 
 lic worfhip mentioned in the Bible, finging 
 appears to have made a principal part. 
 
 Again, As to the matter of facred fong. 
 We have fcen already that finging is a 
 focial exercife, and has ever been practifed 
 with joint voices. Now precompojed fongs 
 
 f It is well known that different harmonizers give 
 the finging of the hymn different fituations, with re- 
 gard to time and place, in the fervice of that even- 
 ing. But this is a queftion foreign to the prefent de- 
 bate. The circumftances pertinent to our prefent 
 purpofes are, that our Saviour gave the inftrudtions 
 and prayed; but they (i. e. he and hisdifciples) fung 
 the hymn. Nor can any thing be well made more 
 fully evident by words than that finging was hers 
 performed as a focial exercife, with joint voices. 
 
 are 
 
( 6 9 ) 
 
 are properly adapted to fuch an exercife as 
 this, and neceffary to the performance of it. 
 We cannot conceive how it is morally pof- 
 fible that any number of perfons fhould be 
 able to compofe and fing the fame fpiritual 
 longs extempore. An attempt of this kind 
 would be attended with intire confufion. 
 Mr. B. feems to take it for granted, that in 
 the church at Corinth only one perlbn fung 
 at once, that he compofed and fung ex- 
 tempore -, and that no other kind of finging 
 was practifed in that age. But I do not 
 think any man can prove this. The other 
 pafTages where finging is mentioned in the 
 .New Te (lament appear to be all of them 
 clearly oppofite to this hypothecs. Nor 
 does it appear to me, that i Cor. xiv. fur- 
 nifhes any evidence that this was the prac- 
 tice of that church, even in the particular 
 cafe to which the apoftle there refers. But 
 admitting that this was pra&ifed on fome 
 occafions, for fome extraordinary purpofes, 
 which 1 do not wifh to deny, fuch a prac- 
 tice could never be extended to all fuc- 
 ceeding ages. Thefe extraordinary gifts 
 and uncommon performances were, at leaft 
 in a great meafure, peculiar to that age. 
 , Much lefs can this be improved into an 
 argument for the discontinuance of fing- 
 ing in public worfhip ; becaufe that would 
 militate againft all the parts of divine 
 worfhip, fince they were all often perform- 
 ed 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 cd by extraordinary gifts in the apoftolic 
 age. This we have feen before. 
 
 That prayer is performed extempore, can 
 be no proof that finging ought to be fo 
 performed. Becaufe prayer arifes from the 
 prefent ftate of the mind, and the prefent 
 circumftances of ourfelves or others. But 
 finging is, in this refpect, very different, 
 and is not defigned to exprefs our prefent 
 fenfations, or to arife from the circum- 
 ftances, with which we or others are attend- 
 ed : but to recite, or ruminate on, the 
 works, or will of God, in an agreeable and 
 harmonious manner for the folace, inftruc- 
 tion, or admonition of others or ourfelves. 
 This is manifeft from the book of Pfalms, 
 as well as from feveral parts of the Old and 
 Kew Teftament. This I endeavoured to de- 
 monftrate in the former Differtation. (p. 41, 
 &c.) % Mr. B. ought to have difproved it, 
 if he had been able; or, if not, to have 
 admitted the truth of it. 
 
 It is alio a certain fa£f y that we have j 
 fcripture examples of precompofed pfalms 
 and fpiritual fongs •, but not of precom- 
 pofed prayers or fermons to be ufed in divine j 
 worfhip. To fay thefe precompofed fongs 
 were infpired is no argument in the prefent 
 cafe. The difcourfes of the prophets and 
 apoftles were infpired •, but they were not 
 precompofed for others, as the pfalms of 
 David, Afaph, and others were. (Dilf.p.41.) 
 
 The 
 
( 7i ) 
 
 The reafon is obvious. Precompofed 
 fongs were neceffary, from the very nature 
 of that part of divine worfhip ; but pre- 
 compofed fermons and prayers were not fo, 
 but improper, and would rather defeat than 
 promote the defigns of preaching and pray- 
 ing. I beg leave to add, that it is likewife 
 an incontrovertible fact, though Mr. B. 
 pofitively denies it, that we have in fcrip- 
 ture a book of pfalms, written for us by 
 infpiration of God j but not a book of fermons 
 and prayers. A plain intimation this, in 
 favour of precompofed pfalms and hymns. 
 (See DifT. p. 44. Reply, p. 51,) 
 
 As to the objection made againft human 
 compofitions, it is evident that we ought to 
 ufe other words than thofe of fcripture in 
 prayer, thankfgiving, and preaching -, and 
 if fo, why not alio in finging r There is the 
 fame neceffity for it, and the fame good 
 ends may be anfwered by it in the one cafe, 
 as in the others. Mr. B. will perhaps an- 
 fwer again, that this "why not is not worth 
 his notice." But I am well fatisfied it is fo 
 much to the purpofe in hand, that he will 
 never be able to give a fair reply to it. 
 
 We certainly ought to make the befl ufe 
 we can of the word of God in our fermons 
 and prayers ; and fo we ought in finging. 
 Yet our preaching and prayers are human 
 compofitions, as well as our fongs. There 
 may be defects in our fongs, as well as in 
 
 our 
 
 »< . .. - ■ 
 
( 7> ) 
 
 our fermons and prayers. But that can be 
 no proof that we ought to fing fcripture 
 language only, any more than that we ought 
 to ufe no other language in prayer and 
 preaching. If the reader pleafe he may fee 
 other obfervations on this fubjecr. in the 
 former DifTertation, (p. 41 — 46.) To have 
 confidered thefe were certainly the part of a 
 candid, friendly, fair difputant. How far 
 Mr. B. has attempted it may be feen in 
 his Reply, (p. 49—52.) 
 
 Prop. VIII. It is very natural and rea- 
 fonable to conclude, that inftrumental mufic 
 in divine worfhip is not of perpetual obli- 
 gation, nor ought to be encouraged under 
 the gofpel ; becaufe it is not recommended 
 in the manner in which other parts of divine 
 worfhip are, nor attended with the evidence 
 with which they are attended. Nor can 
 it be vindicated by the arguments which 
 may fairly be urged in favour of finging the 
 praifes of God. The difference is very con- 
 siderable in feveral refpects. 
 
 It is not once enjoined or recommended, 
 or even mentioned in the New Teft ament ; 
 yet ringing is enjoined there feveral times. 
 We have feveral examples of finging, and 
 even of facial finging, in the NewTefbament; 
 yet not one of inftrumental mufic. The 
 Pfalmift fpeaks of finging as better, and 
 more pleafing to God than facrifices.* But 
 
 * Pfal. lxix. 30, 31. 
 
 I do 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 I do not remember a hint of this kind re- 
 fpecting inftrumental mufic. Inftrumental 
 mufic is not recommended for the moral 
 purpofes of teaching and admonition^ nor ca- 
 pable of fubferving thefe purpofes, as ting- 
 ing the praifes of God is. Nor is it enjoined 
 in the fame indefinite and general language 
 in which finging is enjoined. We cannot 
 learn that inftrumental mufic in the worlhip 
 of God was ever recommended to all men, 
 or practifed by them; whereas we have feen 
 above, that finging the praifes of God is ex- 
 prefsly recommended to believers in general, 
 | to ail Ifrael, to all the earth. It is therefore 
 natural to confider it as peculiar to the for- 
 mer fhewy difpenfation, and defigned to 
 : ceafewhen that difpenfation ended. If any 
 man could produce the fame arguments in 
 J favour of inftrumental mufic, which are pro- 
 duced in favour of finging, I, for my part, 
 c (hould think it my duty to plead for it. On 
 *" the other hand, if that could be faid againft: 
 x jSnging, which can fairly be faid againft in- 
 strumental mufic, I would decline all at- 
 empts to vindicate it. At prefent, I am 
 "ully perfuaded that finging the praifes of 
 3od is a part of moral worfhip, and an or- 
 linance of Jefus Chrift, to be perpetuated 
 o the end of time ; and that nothing can 
 airly be pleaded in favour of inftrumental 
 aufic, as a part of Chriftian worlhip, more 
 han in favour of circumcifion, or any other 
 D Old 
 
 -, 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 Old Teftament rite. To which I take the 
 liberty of adding, it is of confiderable 
 weight with me, that finging the praifes of 
 God was practifed in the firft ages of the 
 Chriftian church, after the time of the apo- 
 itles. Even prejudice itfelf can hardly 
 difpute the truth of this. Whereas mufical 
 inftruments were not introduced into Chrif- 
 tian worfhip till the very darkeft ages of 
 popery. This the Papifts themlelves are 
 conftrained to admit.* 
 
 Mr. B. frequently introduces this fubjec"t 
 in his late Reply, with what propriety the 
 reader will judge. He roundly and repeat- 
 edly charges me with partiality and difobe- 
 diencej becaufe I have ventured to plead! 
 for finging the praifes of God ; yet given 1 
 my voice againft inftrumental mufic in di-i 
 vine worfhip. That thefe heavy charge 
 fhould fall upon me, is, to be fure, a merej 
 trifles and fo I' hope to be enabled always 
 to confider it. But when it is remembered, 
 that they equally affect fo great a part ol 
 the Chriftian world, in all nations, and in 
 all ages ; and fuch multitudes of the grea 
 eft, wife ft, and beft of men, of all diitinc- 
 tions — I leave the reader to judge of thai 
 man's modefty by whom they are exhibited* 
 Did not our Saviour and his apoftles prac- 
 
 • See Perce's Vindication of DifTenters, Part III 
 p. 105, &c, 
 
 tiJi 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 tife and recommend finging ? Did they ufe 
 or encourage inftrumental mufic ? Does not 
 this partiality and difobedience, therefore, 
 originate with them ? 
 
 But I forbear. 
 
 " Why will you venture," fays Mr. B. 
 (p. 10.) " to put afunder thofe things 
 which are fo clofely joined together ?" (i. c. 
 finging and inftrumental mufic ?) It is fuf- 
 ficient to anfwer, why did not our Lord 
 and his apoftles join thefe together? why 
 did they put them afunder ? Was not this 
 a plain intimation that they were defigned 
 to be put afunder at the commencement of 
 Chriftianity ? Does he not know that in- 
 ftrumental mufic is effentially diftinct from 
 vocal? Are they not continually diftinguifh- 
 ed in fcripture, and even in his Reply ?— 
 Did not the Jews burn incenfe at the time 
 of prayer ? Why does not Mr. B. join in- 
 cenfe and prayer now? I know he hath a 
 fufficient anfwer ready* and the fame anfwer 
 will ferve in the cafe of inftrumental and 
 vocal mufic. Can he vindicate inftrumental 
 mufic by the fame arguments which are 
 ufed in favour of finging in divine wor- 
 fhip ? If he can, he certainly ought; ir 
 lllnot, there is a good reafon for adopting the 
 ^t one, and laying afide the other. 
 
 If inftrumental mufic were efTential to 
 finging, Mr. B's flourifh in his poftfcript 
 would have been to his purpofe. But as 
 D 2 they 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 they are efientially diftinc>, and always 
 diftinguifhed, the cafe is entirely different 
 from that fuppofed in my argument. Never- 
 thelefs, I here, with pleafure, embrace an 
 opportunity, for which I have wifhed al- 
 moft ever fince my Difiertation was pub- 
 limed, of acknowledging that the word 
 prohibition, in the paffage which he cites, may 
 perhaps be too ftrong. Pofiibly intimation^ 
 or fome fuch word as that may be pre- 
 ferable : and I wifh the pafTage to be un- 
 derftood as here corrected, (Diff. p. 27, 28. 
 Reply, p. 6 3 , 64.) 
 
 I think it right, however, to call the 
 reader's attention to Mr. B's manner of 
 quoting the words of his antagonifl. He 
 omits a claufe in my argument, on which 
 the force of it chiefly refts. My words are, 
 €t on the fame foundation it may be incon- 
 teftibly argued in favour of promilcuous 
 finging. This was practifed in the worfhip 
 of the Old Teftament. Singing is Mill en- 
 joined," &c. Mr. B's quotation is, <f on 
 the fame foundation it may be inconteftibly 
 argued in favour of finging. — Singing is 
 ftill enjoined," &c. Mr. B. leaves out the 
 chief claufe in my argument, '« this (pro- 
 mifcuous finging) was pracYifed in the wor- 
 fhip of the Old Teftament." By this mean 
 the force of my argument is loft in his 
 quotation of it. He has taken fimilar me- 
 thods on other occafionsj but I take no 
 
 pleafure 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 pleafure in collecting the inftances of this 
 kind, nor in expofing any man for fuch con- 
 duct. The caufe of truth appeared to me 
 to require this hint, that the unwary reader 
 may not be impofed on with falfe glare. 
 
 I wifh not to afcribe any thing to wrong 
 defign in Mr. B. That is neither my pro- 
 vince, nor my inclination. May the pre- 
 fence of God be with him continually, and 
 with every other man who is a friend of 
 truth, and a fervant of Chrift! I have given 
 my advice more largely with refpect to the 
 manner of finging in divine worfhip in the 
 former DifTertation. As mere advice, I ftill 
 fubmit it, with deference, to every minifter, 
 and to every church of Chrift. May the 
 bleding of God accompany this, and the 
 former DifTertation, for the glory of his 
 own great and adorable name ! Amen. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
(Lately Publifoed, by the fame Author ) 
 
 I. A DiSTertation on Singing in the Worfhip of 
 God; interfperfed with occasional Strictures on the 
 Rev. Mr. Boyce's late Tra<5t, entitled, " Serious 
 Thoughts on the prefent Mode and Practice of Sing- 
 ing in the public Worfhip of God." 6d. 
 
 II. The Neceflity of fearching the Scriptures; with 
 Directions. A Sermon. 2d- 
 
 III. The Faithful and Wife Steward. A Sermon, 
 addrefled to young Ministers at an ASTociation. 6d. 
 
 IV. The Mourning Parent comforted. The Sub- 
 Stance of two Sermons, occasioned by the Death of 
 two of the Author's Children. 4d. 
 
 V. The Scriptural Account of the Way of Salva- 
 tion ; in two Parts, is. 
 
 VI- Fundamentals of Religion in Faith andPra&ice. 
 The Substance of Fifty Sermons. 3s. 
 
 Vir. The Duty of Gofpel Minifters explained and 
 enforced at an Ordination ; with a Difcourfe to the 
 People, by the Rev. Mr. Thompson, of Bofton. And 
 an Appendix, refpeCting Church Fellowship ; ex- 
 tracted and tranflated from Dr. Ames. is. 
 
 VIII. An Humble Effay on Christian Baptifm ; in 
 which the Meaning of the Original Word, the CuStoms 
 of the Jews, and the Sentiments of the Ancient Fa- 
 thers refpeCting that Ordinance, are impartially con- 
 sidered. The Second Edition. With two Letters to 
 the Rev. Dr. Addington, on the Subjects and Mode 
 of Baptifm. is. 
 
 N. B. The Letters to Dr. Addincton, may be 
 had feparate- 3d. 
 
 IX, The Confident Christian. The Substance 
 of Jeivc Sermons, is. 
 
 X. Our 
 
X. Our Saviour's CommilTion explained and im 
 proved. A .Sermon on Mate, xxviii. ig, 20. ^d. 
 
 XI. Scrutator's Query, refpeCting the Extent of 
 our blelTed Saviour's Death, Repropofed, &c. id. 
 
 XII. Scrutator to Responsor ; or, an Intro- 
 duction to a farther Proof, (if need be) that Jefu* 
 Chrift laid down his Life for the Sins of all Mankind. 
 In two Letters to Responsor, with a fhort Letter to 
 Consiuerator. The Second Edition. 2d. 
 
 XIII. Scripture Directions and Encouragements for 
 Feeble Chriitians. Third Edition. 2d. 
 
 XIV. Rules and Obfervations for the Enjoyment of 
 Health. Extracted from Dr. Cheyne. 2d. 
 
 XV. Candidus examined with Candour. On Free 
 Communion. 2d. 
 
 XVI. A Practical Improvement of the Divinity and 
 Atonement of Jefus, attempted in Veife. is. 
 
 XVII. A Catechifm ; or Inftrudions for Children 
 and Youth. Third Edition. 3d. 
 
 XVIII. Entertainment and Profit united Eafy 
 Verfes on the chief Subjects of Chriftianity ; for 
 Children and Youth. Third Edition, id. 
 
 XIX. Obfervations on the Rev. Mr. Fuller's 
 late Pamphlet, entitled, ** The Gofpel of Chrift 
 worthy of all Acceptation." In Nine Letters to a 
 Friend. o.d. 
 
 XX. The Stroke of Death, practically improved. 
 A Funeral Sermon for Mrs. Susanna Birley, late 
 Wife of the Rev. Mr. Birley, of St. Ives, Hun- 
 tingdonshire. To which is prefixed the Speech deliver- 
 ed at her Interment, by the Rev. Mr. Robinson, of 
 Cambridge. $&.. 
 
 XXI. AnEffayon the right Ufe of Earthly Treafure, 
 in Three Letters to a Friend. Second Edition. 2d. 
 
 XXII. A 
 
XXII. A Cha*ge and Sermon, together with a 
 Confeflion of Faith, delivered at the Ordination of 
 the Rev. Mr. George Birley, on Wednefday, 
 O&ober 18, 1786, at St. Ives, Huntingdonfhirc 
 The Charge, by D. Taylor, of London; the Sermon, 
 by R. Robinson, of Cambridge, is. 
 
 XXIII. A Charge and Sermon, delivered at the Or- 
 dination of the Rev. Mr. John Deacon, on Wed- 
 nefday, April 26, 1786, at Leicefter; together with 
 the Introductory Difcourfe, the Queftions propofed to 
 the Church and the Minifter, the Anfwers returned, 
 and Mr- Deacon's Profefiion of Faith. The Intro- 
 ductory Difcourfe, and Charge, by D. Taylor, of 
 London; the Sermon, by W. Thompson, of Bolton. 
 xs. 6d. 
 
 Sold by J. Buckland, Pater-nofter Row; and 
 B. Ash, No. 15, Little Tower-Street.