have no intrinsick Goodness in them but derive all their Vertue and Obligation from God's positive Command and Legislature yet I cannot receive his Notion about Moral Duties of Religion Namely That they were originally written in the Heart of Man by Nature and may still in a great measure be discerned by serious Attention and Consideration without any special Revelation Essay p. 7. To discover the Unsoundness of this Assertion Man may be consider'd both in his Innocential and Lapsed Estate and so Nature it self according to this twofold State of Man admits of a double Signification In Man's Estate of Innocence it could not possibly be Nature as the word is commonly taken but the God of Nature who originally wrote the Moral Duties of Religion in the Heart of Man And God said let us make Man in our Image after our Likeness So God created Man in his own Image in the Image of God created he him Gen. 1.26 27. And the Apostle shews wherein this consisted Namely In Knowledge Righteousness and Holiness Col. 3.10 Eph. 4.24 From the comparing of which Scriptures it plainly appears 't was God himself and not Nature that insculp'd them upon the Heart of Man Again Nature in the Fall is totally depraved as well as Man and therefore stands in equal need of Redemption And this being the Case how can that which is universally corrupted exert an Operation peculiar to a most Pure and Holy Principle as is the writing of Moral Duties of Religion upon the Heart of Man I know 't is a received Opinion with many that the Light of Nature doth discover those Moral Duties unto Men which are incumbent on them as Creatures But if they are ask'd what they mean by the Light of Nature we find them divided in their Answers Some tell us it is Natural Conscience but that springing from the Natural Powers of the Reasonable Soul which is defiled in the Fall cannot do the Work assigned it Others say 't is a Relick of that Light which Man lost by his Fall or a Remainder of the Law written in the Heart of Man in his first Creation which is not saith Zanchius wholly * Partim expuncta partim obliterata Zanc. Tom. 4. l. 1. cap. 10. p. 190. erased by the Fall But how can this be seeing †Omnes homines per inobedientiam Adae injusti effecti totique quanti sunt animo corpore corrupti c. Tom. 6. Com. in Eph. p. 82. he and ‖ Baptist's Confes of Faith Chap. 6. Sect. 2 4. Westminster Confes Chap. ibid. others acknowledge that Man by the Fall is dead in Sin and wholly defiled in all the Faculties and Parts of Soul and Body Is utterly indisposed disabled and made opposite to all Good and wholly enclined to all Evil. If Man lost all Spiritual Life Light and Power by the Fall then 't is impossible in that Estate he should have any such Relick or Remainder left in him for the discovery of his Duty to God Against this it is Objected That the Gentiles were not only directed but also enabled by the Light of Nature to do the Duties of the Moral Law For when the Gentiles which have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves Rom. 2.14 The Answer hereunto is obvious if it be considered what Nature the Apostle intends in this place if that Divine and Spiritual Nature which is derived from the Lord Jesus Christ then the Objection vanisheth but if that Corrupt and Depraved Nature we derive from Old Adam then 't is utterly impossible that any by that Nature should do the things contained in the Law whose Commands are Holy Just and Good And therefore Estius and Toletus in Pool's Synopsis Criticorum do understand by Nature that which is per Gratiam reparata repaired or restored by Grace From whence 't is evident whether we consider Man before or after the Fall neither the Law of God it self nor Moral Duties of Religion arising therefrom were written originally in the Heart of Man by Nature but by the God of Nature alone to whom the Inscription is peculiar as being not only a Special Branch of his Royal Prerogative but also of his Gracious Promise to his People I will put my Law in their inward Parts and write it in their Hearts Jer. 31.33 Sect. 2. The Term Moral which R. A. much insists upon being ambiguous would require some Explication but that by applying of it here to the Worship of God and opposing it to meer Positive and Instituted Duties he hath given us his Sense of its signification Only let the Reader take Notice that he seems to comprehend the whole of Religious Duties under these two Heads Moral and Positive and in saying those of the first sort may still in a great measure be discern'd by serious Attention and Consideration without any special Revelation To me he plainly intimates we are not much obliged to Divine Revelation for any thing save those of the second sort viz. meer Positive Duties such as Baptism and the Lords-Supper which have no real intrinsick Value in them but receive as he says all their Force whereby we are obliged to observe them from the Declaration of God's Will and Pleasure by his Word The serious Attention and Consideration he speaks of are surely too dim a Light of themselves to make the great discoveries he ascribes to them For he doth not speak of some particular Duties only that are discernable thereby but Moral Duties Indefinitely and those not darkly neither but in a great Measure and such as do oblige a Christian Now tho' it should be supposed but not granted that some such discoveries may be made as he mentions by serious Attention and Consideration without any special Revelation I would then fain know of him how the Stoicks Platonists and Peripateticks Men destitute I suppose in his Opinion of special Revelation and yet many of them very serious for Attention and Consideration came to be so divided De naturâ summi Boni about the Nature of the chiefest Good some placing it in the Habit others in the Action of Vertue and some in the Union of the Soul with God Whence it came to pass that those great Contemplative Moralists did spend so much of their time in Disputes about the Nature of Vertue in general the Offices of it and the measures of Practice conform thereunto If Attention and Consideration would have directed them in those Enquiries 't is strange how such Studious and Speculative Men should be at so great an Uncertainty about them Again If special Revelation be not necessary to guide Men in their Disquisitions about the Moral Duties of Religion but serious Attention and Consideration exclusive of such Revelation will still in a great Measure direct them I demand the Reason of that universal Ignorance which possesses the Minds of the Wisest Men of all Nations who have
together For if we consider the vast Body of Men that came out of Egypt about six hundred Thousand Exod. 12.37 all which for any thing that appears to the contrary were present at this Solemn Gratulation to God for their Miraculous Deliverance from their Enemies nothing is more unlikely than that they should Sing Conjunctly and with Audible Voices For if they all so Sang either 1. They were all Extraordinarily Inspired for the Performance of that Action Or 2. They had Learned to Sing in an Ordinary Way Or 3. They all Sang Naturally But neither of these carry any shew of Probability with them 1. 'T is not reasonable to suppose they were all Extraordinarily Inspired unless we make a Miracle of the whole Action and then that would do R. A. little Service For tho' a Moral Duty may Miraculously be perform'd yet a Miraculous Action is no Safe Ground to build a Moral Duty upon 2. 'T is not probable they had all Learnt to Sinâ— in an Ordinary Way for if so then there muâ—â— have been some Body to Learn from and that eithâ—â— while they were in Egypt or between their coming out thence and immediate Arrival on the othâ—â— side the Red-Sea But neither of these can we be supposed if we consider either the total Silencâ— of Moses about any such Instructers or the afflicteâ— State of that People in Egypâ— who * Exod. 6.5 9. groaned for Anguish of Spâ—rit under the †Exod. 5.6 19. Cruel Tyranny 〈◊〉 Pharaoh and his Task-masters A very unlikely time to learn Artificial Singing in Or their Murmuring at Pihahiroth when they weâ—â— in Fear of being cut off by Phâ—raoh and said unto Moses ‖ Exod. 14.11 Bâ—cause there were no Graves in Egypâ— hast thou taken us away to die in the Wilderness Or the little Time after for Learning it betweeâ— Pihahiroth and the other side the Red-Sea 3. There is as little Probability they should aâ—â— be naturally qualified for Harmonious Vocal Singing For Experience tells us tho' there is a natâ—tural Aptitude in some to it yet others are whollâ— inept thereunto and can never attain to it all theâ—â— Days Secondly Nothing can be gathered certainly froâ— this Text to prove that Moses or the Children 〈◊〉 Israel Sang vocally together at this precise Time as is conceived they did For the Hebrew Wor◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jashir translated Sang iâ— the Perfect Tense is a * Vatab. Grot. in Syn. Crit. Fâ—ture in Hiphil And therefore †Lex Heb. Lat. p. 197. Leusden renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jashirâ— They shall sing in the Future and not in thâ— Perfect Tense as 't is also rendred Psal 65.14 Heb. and 138.5 So that the true Reading according to the Original is Then shall Moâ—â—s Sing and not Then Sang Moses And â—â—uly it puts me at a Stand to consider that the â—â—me Verb and of the same Future should be either â—â—e Future or Preterperfect Tense as Translators â—â—ease For they have here rendred 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jashir â—â—ng and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ashira I will Sing The one in â—â—e Future and the other in the Preterperfect Tense â—â—d yet both Futures in Hiphil But in Answer to this * Crit. Sacr. â—â—me tell us from Abenezra â—â—at the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Az joyn'd with a Verb of â—â—e Future Tense hath in the Arabick Tongue â—peculiar Property Namely to convert it's Sigâ—â—fication into the Preterperfect which the Hebrews â—â—so sometimes observe as in Deut. 4.41 Jos â— 12 To which I reply I see no absolute Necessity of â—â—ceding from the Future Signification in those Plaâ—â—s and besides the last is so rendred by Pagnine have also taken Notice that in other Places where â—â—at Particle is joyned with a Verb of the Future â—ense as Psal 2.5 and 51.21 Heb. the Verb is â—â—anslated in the Future But Thirdly Should the common Reading be allowed Then Sang Moses and the Children of Israel yet 〈◊〉 will not follow that they all Sang Vocally toâ—â—ther any more than that The three Thousand Acts 〈◊〉 42. or The five Thousand Acts 4.24 31. Prayed â—â—cally together 'T is said of the Three Thousand â—â—at They continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine â—â—d Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayâ—â— and of the other that They lifted up their Voice 〈◊〉 God with one Accord And yet surely there was no â—â—njunction of External Voices in these Solemn Acts â—â—ey did not all Pray Vocally at once but an Unity of â—eart and Spirit in the whole One whereof prayâ—â— Audibly and the Rest kept Silence the while So in this Eucharistical Song of Moses it is most probable that Moses Sang alone with the Outward Voice and the other were silent but joyn'd with him in Spirit and so might as properly be said to Sing with Moses as the vast Multitude of Believers in the Acts are said to Pray together when one Person performed that Office Audibly in the Congregation And I am the more confirmed in this Opinion because there are some things in this Song that seem peculiar to Moses as a Prophet as v. 14 17. and others which I cannot conceive could be truly spoken by every Individual in that Numerous Assembly For there were many Murmurers among them as appears Chap. 14. 10 11 12. and 16. 2 3. Persons of an unbelieving Heart and how incongruous is it then to apply unto such the Personal Experiences and Living Sensible Evidences of so Eminent a Believer as Moses was How could an Unbeliever say The Lord is my Strength and Song and he is become my Salvation he is my God and I will prepare him an Habitation my Fathers God and I will exalt him v. 2. But Sect. 8. R. A. proceeds to obviate an Objection which he foresaw would be made against his Argument drawn from Exod. 15.1 his Words arâ— these Nor will it follow from this Argument as may be objected that praising God bâ— Musical Instruments is also a Moral Duty seeinâ— they are also mentioned in the same Chapter v. 20. For this doth not appear as Singing doeâ— to be the practice of the Church as such Essay p. 10 11. Answ Whether he intends by Singing that thaâ— which is performed by Plurality of External Voices or by one single Voice is a Moral Duty forasmuch a Musical Instruments are coetaneous with Vocal Singing i. e. of the same Date and Original it 〈◊〉 necessary for R. A. to produce a Word of Institution before the Giving of the Law at Mount Sinai to prove Praising of God by Musical Instruments to be a meer Positive Duty which he hath not yet done or it will unavoidably follow that Praising of God by Instrumental Musick is as much a Moral Duty as by Vocal The Reason is obvious for both take Date and Commence together and there is not the least Intimation given at their Commencement that the one is Moral and the other is Ceremonial or that the
one was the Practice of the Church as such in those Days and not the other But seeing he refers to speak more fully of this Subject in his last Chapter we shall wave the further Prosecution till he comes thither Only because he says Whatsoever was practised in the Church of God and approved by him before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai and never afterward declared to be Typical is a Moral Duty I would desire him to tell me where the Praising of God with Musical Instruments used Exod. 15.20 by Miriam and the Women was ever afterwards declared to be Typical Every Type he knows must have it's Antitype and that not such an Idea as we give an Existence to in our own Imaginations but it ought to stand clear upon Record in the Holy Scriptures as in the Case of Circumcision the Paschal Lamb Brazen Serpent Tabernacle Temple Mercy-Seat Levitical Priesthood Altar and Sacrifices or else it is no Type properly Now if the Praising of God by Musical Instruments hath no Antitype declared in the Scriptures as it hath not then it is not Typical but according to his Conclusion it must be Moral and if so then 't is a Duty of equal Obligation with his Vocal Singing and the Omission of it a Sin of Ignorance or Voluntary Neglect This Inference tho' it be the plain Consequence of his Assertion yet I disclaim all Interest in it so as to be any Part of my Opinion In this Assertion he intimates That there are no Duties of a Middle Nature between Moral and Typical but I think there are some Duties incumbent upon us which are not at all Typical and yet somewhat more than meerly Moral He says Moral Duties of Religion were originally written in the Heart of Man by Nature These now are Duties of Religion To love our Enemies to bless them that curse us to do good to them that hate us and pray for them which despitefully use us and persecute us Mat. 5.44 and have nothing at all Typical in them neither are they meerly Moral for no Man findeth them in his Heart by Nature But they are such Duties which have undoubtedly something in them that soars above the Sphere of meer Morality To give him another Instance the Special Graces of the Holy Spirit as Faith Hope and Charity called also Duties tho' they contain Morality in them and are conversant about it yet are they not meerly Moral according to R. A's Sense of the Word or Typical but wholly of Super-natural Extraction Again Because He is so positive that no Exception can be made against this Assertion viz. That whatsoever was practis'd in the Church of God approved of him before the Giving of the Law at Mount Sinai and never afterward declared to be Typical is a Moral Duty I demand what he thinks about the Admission of Infants into Church-Membership for that was practis'd in the Church of God and approved by him before the Giving of the Law at Mount Sinai and never afterward declared that I read of to be Typical If his Position be unexceptionably true then 't will follow that the Admission of Infants into Church-Memâ—â—rship was a Moral Duty and if so then it ought 〈◊〉 be practic'd now and consequentâ—â— both he and the five * Jos Maisters William Collins Joseph Stennett John Piggott Tho. Harrison Brethren who subscribed two Commendatory â—â—â—faces One to his Essay and Anoâ—â—er to his Vindication and Appendix â—â—ve given away the Cause of Anâ—adobaptism which hath been and is so strenuâ—â—sly contended for and put an Unanswerable Arâ—â—ment into the Hands of those who argue for the â—â—ght of Infants to Water-baptism and Visible â—hurch-Membership in Gospel-days And here I cannot but think it both necessary and â—â—asonable to remark briefly upon â—â—â—s Notion of the †Essay p. 8 14 40. Vniversal â—â—d Immutable Obligation of a Moâ—â— Duty without making any Exception 'till he â—â—mes to page 106. where he tells us of the Old â—â—stinction between the Obligation of Affirmative â—â—d Negative Precepts of the Moral Law In that 〈◊〉 latter not only bind always but also to all times â—â—â—reas the Former tho' they bind always yet not to 〈◊〉 Times But if God can alter the Law of Nature and disanul the Obligation by taking away the Matter of the Law or the Necessity or the Reasonableness or the Obligation and all this he can do â—â—th ‖ Duct Dubit l. 2. c. 1. r. 1. n. 49. p. 181. Jer. Taylor one Way â—or other then the Duty aâ—â—ng from the Law can oblige 〈◊〉 longer than the Law it self obligeth For the â—â—w of Nature hath in several Instances respect to â—â—rticular States and so becomes in those Instances changeable as the States themselves Whereupon the * Casuist before cited Ibid. â—â—ndemns Grotius of an Unwary Expresâ—â—â— in saying that God cannot change the Law of Nature For as Paul said of the Priesthood being chang'd there must of necessity be a change of the Law So it is in the Law of Nature Matter of it being chang'd there must of Neceâ—ty also be a Change of the Law This may seem New and indeed is Unusâ— in the manner of speaking but the Case is Eâ—dent and Empirically certain For when â— commanded Abraham to kill his Son the Israeâ— to rob the Egyptians and to run away with thâ— Goods he gave them a Command to break Instance of the Natural Law and he made necessary that Cain should marry with his Sistâ— and all those Laws of Nature which did sâ—pose Liberty and Indistinction of Possessions â— wholly altered when Dominion and Servituâ— and Propriety came into the World Tayâ— Ibid. n. 48. Of the same Mind is Thoâ— Aquinas who * Sum. Theol. 12 ae q. 94. Art 5. saith Tâ— Law of Nature may be châ—ged two Ways 1. By Adding something to it profitable Humane Life which it did not primarily â—quire 2. By Substracting from it in some particular â—stances whereby the Obligation ceaseth as to thâ— Instances for certain special Reasons impedâ— the Observation Sect. 9. His Fourth Consideration whereby endeavours to prove Singing the Praises of â— a Moral Duty is Whatsoever is enjoyned upon all Men of Nations is a Moral Duty Essay p. 11. Answ This Position being laid down withâ— any Limitation or Exception I deny for thâ— two Reasons 1. Because there are some Duties of Universal â—unction upon Mankind which I have * Chap. 1. Sect. 8. p. 32. shewn before are of a â—ddle Nature between Moral â—d Typical One Instance is about Loving our â—mies Blessing them that curse us c. which are Typical for they have no Antitype nor meer-Positive for they are Intrinsically good Nor â—â—ly meerly Moral for tho' they contain that â—ch is Moral in them yet they are not written Mens Hearts by Nature for Depraved Nature â—holly bent the contrary way Men naturally â—cluding it highly reasonable To repel Force by â—ce and to take Revenge upon their
figuratively but properly (b) Crit. Sacr. ubi supra Drusius explains â—his place by Psal 19.1 The Heavens declare the Glory of God that is says he By their perpetual Motion and curious Structure and so do the Stars sing his Praises there being a parity of Reason in both And whereas our English Version of the Bible reads Sang (c) Bib. sacr Ar. Mont. Hierom a great Master of the Hebrew translates â—t Laudarent Praised and so doth (d) Crit. Sacr. ibid. Grotius Coverdale's Translation Dedicated to Henry 8. and Printed Anno 1535. hath it thus When the Morning-Stars gave me praise And three other Editions Anno 1540. 1585 and 1591. with Cranâ—er's Preface to them render it Whâ—n the morning Stars praised me together And thus to me it appears we are not to understand by the Morning Stars the Holy Angels with R. A. but the Material Stars in the Firmament who Praise their Creatour in their kind i. e. Objectively tho' not Actively But R. A. says The Material Stars in the Firmament can't be here meant in that they sang at God's laying the Foundations of the Earth which was on the first day of the Creation whereas the Material Stars were not made till the fourth day Let us first examine the Text and then try his Argument The Text in Job is best explained by the Context which lies thus in Chapter 31. Job makes a Protestation of his Integrity in sundry Instances and wisheth some Indifferent Person had the Hearing of the Cause between God and himself O that one would hear me behold my Desire is that the Almighty would answer me v. 35. I would declare unto him the number of my steps v. 37. I would give him as Clark paraphraseth upon his Words a just Account of my Life past to see what he can accuse me for Whereupon after Elihu's Discourse which takes up the 32 33 34 35 36 and 37 Chapters from v. 6. of the 32. thâ— Lord is pleased himself to answer Job out of thâ— Whirlwind Chap. 38.1 Who is this that darkneth Counsel by words without knowledge v. 2. that seekâ— to justifie himself and misrepresent the Wisdom and Justice of my Proceedings Gird up now thy Loyns like a man for I will demand of thee and answeâ— thou me v. 3. Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth declare if thou hast understanding v. 4. Now mark the Connexion that R. A. make of the Seventh Verse with the Fourth as tho' they respected one and the same Moment of Time which is I conceive a Mistake in him and that which Logicians call Fallacia Compositionis a Fallacy of Composition in connecting and joyning together thosâ— things which are and ought to be divided For the Seventh Verse doth not seem to have relation to the same Time mentioned in the Fourth but to another Therefore the Old Versions of the Bible before taken notice of begin the Seventh Verse with a Repetition of the Question in the Fourth Where wast thou when the Morning Stars c. making two distinct Questions of the two Verses relating to two different Times and the Seventh not to be either a Member or Exegetical of the Fourth Which is also observed by Simon Patrick in his Paraphrase upon the place Where wast thou when the bright Stars first appeared to proclaim my praise with one consent And by Beza in his Exposition of Job Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth sup loc So that the Context runs very smoothly and agreeably to the Scope of the Place thus Where wast thou when I laid the Foundations of the Earth and Where wast thou when the Morning Stars sang together and all the Sons of God â—houted for Joy Now let us come to the Tryal of R. A's Argument and see what Strength it carries The Material Stars saith he in the Firmament can't be here meant but why so because the Stars â—ere expressed Sang at God's laying the Foundations of the Earth which was on the first day of the Creation whereas the Material Stars were not made till the fourth Day Answ 'T is a meer Begging of the Question for deny the Morning Stars which I apprehend to be Material Stars and not the Holy Angels Sang at â—od's laying the Foundations of the Earth which he â—akes for granted and demand of him better Proof â—or the Hebrew Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ranan doth not necessarily â—fer that Signification here Singing not being it's â—rimary and General Sense as R. A. himself confesseth Essay p. 30. The main Stress of his Argument lies upon these three Suppositions which I think are Erroneous 1. That the Morning Stars here mentioned arâ— not the Material Stars in the Firmament but thâ— Holy Angels 2. That the Angels were created on the Firsâ— Day and 3. Sang at the laying the Foundations of the Earth which was then The First not only makes a needless Tautology in the Text but is alsâ— a * Andrew's Sermon on 1 Cor. 11.16 Wringing of the Scriptures â—strain that out of them which 〈◊〉 not in them The Third If Aâ—gels are to be understood by the Sons of God 〈◊〉 confuted by the Text which says The Sons of Gâ— Shouted not Sang and all know Shouting is a diffâ—rent Sound or Noise from that of Vocal Singing As to the Second I desire him to read an Authâ—cited by him p. 79 112. in Favoâ— of Rythmical Singing †Edward's Excell and Perfect of the H. Scriptures Vol. 3. cap. 7. p. 324. Soâ— saith he refer the Creatiâ— of Angels to this first daâ— work by reducing them the word Heaven in the first Verse but thâ— verse is a general Account of the whole Crâ—tion and not of any particular days productioâ— or else by Heaven and Earth there is meant â— first matter or rude Draught of both the fore no such thing can be inferr'd thence Nâ— are we to think that the Angelick Order comprehended under Light as I find some iâ—gine because they read of An Angel of Ligâ—â— 2 Cor. 11.14 for it is material Light only tâ— is the product of the first days work I â—ther think that Moses designed not to inclâ— Angels in any part of that Account which gives of the Creation for he makes it his â—siness to speak of those Works of God which were Visible and Sensible and therefore 't is no wonder that the Angelick Spirits are not mentioned for they come not within the Compass of his Undertaking Sect. 5. The Third Consideration he brings to â—rove Singing the Praises of God to be a Moral â—uty is that Whatsoever was practis'd in the Church of God and approved by him before the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai and never after declared to be Typical is a Moral Duty I know no Exception can be made against this Assertion â—ssay p. 10. Answ I suppose he means whatsoever was â—ractis'd in the Assemblies of the People of God â— a Part of his Worship and approved by â—â—m that is Commanded
improperly for the proper Meaning of it is to play upon a Musical Instrument as before is declared So that whether we consider the Extent of the Injunction Psal 98.4 or the primary and proper Signifiâ—ation of the Word I cannot see any Advantage â—ccruing to the Opinion endeavoured to be supported from thence 2. The next Place is Psal 100.1 2. Make a â—oyful Noise unto the Lord all ye Lands serve the Lord with gladness come before his Presence with singâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col-Haaretz All ye Lands or All â—he Earth hath been spoken to before Make joyful Noise Heb. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hariu is rendred by Hierom Jubilate by Tremellius and Junius Clanâ—ite Sound a Trumpet alluding to the Custom â—f the Priests on the Day of Jubilee who then â—ounded Trumpets or Ramshorns But this not â—eing the Word he insists upon let us see what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Birnanah translated with Singing will do The Septuagint have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierom in Exâ—ratione Montanus in Ovatione in Exultation and Triumph which doth not necessarily imply singâ—g because we may rejoyce in or before the Lord â—ithout a Musical Voice The Root is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ranan â—nd in Piel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rinnen He cry'd aloud in â—hich Sence the Substantive is used in Psal 17.1 8.2 106.44 119.169 142.6 and rendred â—ry by our Translators In 1 Kings 22.36 It is â—ranslated Proclamation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vaijaabor Harinna transivit Clamor saith * Lenic Heb. Buxtorf and there went a Proclamation according to our Bibles Therefore tho' it is applied to Vocal Singing yet that is by a Metonymy the most proper Siâ—nification being to Cry aloud which may be do without Melodious Tuning of the Voice 3. His Third and last Text and on which seems to lay the greatest Stress is Psalm 47.7 wheâ— from this General Reason that God is the King all the Earth and not of Judea only he say 't is required that every one that hath Undeâ—standing should sing Praises to him Page 1 But this Text will do him no more Service thâ— the former for here the Word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Zammâ—ru again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Septuagint Psallite Hierom Tâ—mellius and Junius Play upon the Harp or Lutâ— and not primarily to sing with the Voice as ha been already manifested But if we should grant thâ— Singing with the Voice is here intended against whiâ—â— there is a stronger Probability than for it yet tâ—â— general Reason alledged can possibly infer no mo than an Injunction upon some Namely the Saints fâ— the Wicked neither can nor have they remainiâ— such any thing to do to Speak or Sing the Praisâ— of God as Acts of Spiritual Worship for tâ—â— Children of Zion as was said before are the propâ— Subjects of Divine Praises Yea the general Reâ—son that God is the King of all the Earth as hath an Aspect upon Gospel days where the who Worship of God is to be resolved into the inâ— mediate Authority of Christ must be interpretâ—â— by and regulated according to that Authority Anâ— how and with what Ceremonies soever Singinâ— was perform'd under the Old-Testament-Dispenstion when many Carnal Ordinances were in uâ—till the Times of Reformation yet now we aâ— to eye both in the Discharge of that and all othâ— parts of Worship the Sovereign Appointment anâ— Direction of Jesus Christ But more of this who we come to R. A's New-Testament Proofs foâ— Common Singing which shall be spoken to as the ye in the way Sect. 10. His Fifth Consideration to prove Singing the Praises of God a Moral Duty is Whatever is preferr'd before the most Excellent Parts of Ceremonial Worship as more pleasing to God is a Moral Duty Thus to know God and to love him above all to love our Neighbour as our selves to do Justice and Judgment to be merciful to the miserable These Duties are preferr'd before the most * Prov. 21.3 Mar. 12.33 Hos 6.6 Excellent Sacrifices which were the chief Parts of the Ceremonial Worship And why But because the former are Moral Duties and good in themselves whereas the latter were only Positive Duties and good because commanded And that singing to the Praise of God is a Duty of the same Nature with the former of these I conclude because 't is like the preferr'd before the most Excellent Sacrifices as being more pleasing to God Thus the †Psal 69.30 31. Psalmist tells us That to Sing to the Praise of God or which is the same to Praise him with a Song is more pleasing to him than to Sacrifice an Ox or a Bullock Essay p. 12 13. Answ In this Paragraph we are told 1. That whatever is preferr'd before the most Excellent Parts of Ceremonial Worship as more pleasing to God is a Moral Duty 2. The Reason why Moral Duties are thus preferr'd as more pleasing to God because they are good in themselves 3. That Singing to the Praise of God is such a Moral Duty and so preferr'd as more pleasing to God The First is not universally true because there are some Duties which are preferr'd before the chiefest Parts of Ceremonial Worship as more pleasing to God and yet are not Moral in R. A's Sence i. e. Moral by Nature There are some Heroical Acts of Charity saith * Taylor 's Ductor Dubit l. 2. c. 2. r. 6. n. 77. p. 283. one commanded by Christ the Observation of which tho' it be not Moral or of prime Natural Necessity yet because they are commanded by Christ whose Law is to oblige us as long as the Sun and Moon endure to us Christians and to all to whom the Notice of them does arrive it is all one in respect of our Duty and hath no real difference in the Event of things Secondly I cannot approve of the Reason R. A. gives for the Preference of Moral Duties to the most Excellent Parts of Ceremonial Worship and as being more pleasing to God viz. because they are good in themselves for then their Intrinsick Goodness will be the Formal Reason of their Acceptance with God which cannot but sound harsh in the Ears of Humble Believers who look upon their best Duties in and of themselves to have no such Goodness or Worthiness as to recommend them to the Divine Acceptance For both we and our Duties are accepted in and for Christ alone and upon no other Account whatsoever First our Persons and then our Performances but not as done in our own Strength or as having a Natural or Moral Bonity in them to render them more pleasing unto God but as issuing from and wrought by the Spirit of Christ in us who alone makes them acceptable If Moral Duties because of their Intrinsick Goodness are more pleasing than those that are positive then that Intrinsick Goodness is some way or other Meritorious either in respect of Co-meetness or Co-worthiness for else why should God be more pleased with them