(4) A fourth argument for the use of uninspired songs in divine worship may be called "the dispensational argument". Be it observed again: this is a negative argument. It insists that the old Testament psalms are unsuited to the worship of the New Testament Church. It is argued that these psalms belong to an imperfect dispensation, and that they do not reflect the light of God's complete revelation. It is said that the New Testament revelation provides new truth which should be expressed in praise, and so new (albeit uninspired) songs are needed. But there is no proof offered to show that God commands us to make and use uninspired hymns. This argument merely seeks to condemn the inspired psalms which God has commanded us to sing. And the ground of this condemnation is that the psalms were written before Christ came to the world.

This argument contains one very dangerous assumption. It is the assumption that the Old Testament is inferior to the New Testament. It assumes that what was earlier was lower and what was later was higher. But the Bible teaches no such doctrine. It teaches, rather, that the whole scripture is equally high. The revelation of God is progressive. But it is progress from partial to complete, rather than from lower to higher. As Augustine said, "The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed". The Modernist notion that the religion of the New Testament is an evolution from a more primitive religion in the Old Testament is in error. The religion that God began to reveal in Genesis, is the same as that which He finished revealing in Revelation. Moreover, it is a part of this false assumption to imagine that what was written in the Old Testament, was written primarily for Old Testament times. This is categorically denied by Peter, who, speaking of the Old Testament prophets declares that "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel". (I Peter, 1:11-12.) The Spirit who inspired Old Testament scripture was the spirit of Christ. And He testified, not some lower truths, but just the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow. Those who argue against the psalms insist that the Old Testament does not fully reveal the sufferings of Christ. But Peter says that they testify of this very thing, and that they wrote these things — not for themselves — nor for those who were living in their day — but for us. If the Old Testament writers wrote of His sufferings and the glory to follow, and if they wrote these things expressly for us, then it is evident that we do not need uninspired hymn writers to do this work over.

It is sometimes said that in the singing of the psalms one is denied the privilege of singing of the Saviour who has now come. In other words, it is commonly alleged that there is not enough of Christ in the book of psalms. This is a really astonishing thing. For Christ Himself said that the book of psalms was written about Him. (Luke 24:44.) His own dying words were quoted from Psalm 22. The last fellowship with His disciples was in singing the great Hallel (Psalms 115-118) at the Last Supper. And then, by the mouth of His servant Paul, He commanded the Churches to keep on singing the psalms. And why not? He Himself, by the Holy Spirit, was the author of them. And the truth is that there is more of Christ in every psalm written by Him before He came to the world, than in any hymn written by mere men after He came.

Along the lines of this argument, it is said that there is, in the experience of the Christian believer, a response to New Testament revelation which brings forth thoughts and meditations inadequately expressed in the psalms. But it is interesting to note that mighty men of God have testified to exactly the opposite opinion. Athanasius, the champion of Christ's deity in the fourth century, said, "I believe that a man can find nothing more glorious than these Psalms; for they embrace the whole life of man, the affections of his mind, and the emotions of his soul. To praise and glorify God, he can select a Psalm suited to every occasion, and thus will find that they were written for him". (Treatise on the Psalms.) Basil of Caesarea said, "The book of Psalms is a compendium of all divinity; a common store of medicine for the soul, a universal magazine of good doctrines, profitable to everyone in all conditions". Augustine asked, "What is there that may not be learned in the Psalter?" He called it "an epitome of the whole Scriptures". Luther called the Psalms "my little Bible". While John Calvin said, "not without good grounds am I wont to call this book an anatomy of all parts of the soul, since no one can experience emotions whose portrait he could not behold reflected in its mirror". Are these men mistaken? Is there something lacking in the psalms? Or is it perhaps something lacking in us, rather than in the inspired psalms, that makes us prefer the uninspired songs of men?

(5) A fifth argument advanced for the singing of uninspired hymns is "that God 'inspires' men today to write compositions suitable for use in divine worship". Let it be once more observed: this is a negative argument. It does not offer proof that God has commanded us to sing uninspired songs. It merely alleges that the psalms of the Bible are not the only songs inspired by the Holy Spirit.

It is often said that Shakespeare was "inspired", in much the same sense. But if we are to use the word "inspired" to describe the natural poetic-flight of the spirit of man, we must then find another word to describe the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit by which He enabled certain men to write the Scriptures. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1:21.) The inspiration by which David wrote the psalms was a miracle. Like the term "miracle", the term "inspiration" means something supernatural when considered in the biblical sense. Dead people are no longer raised from the grave (and will not again be, till the last day), nor is water any longer changed to wine, nor water walked on by foot of man. Miracles in this sense have ceased. And so it is with inspiration, which is a miracle in the biblical sense. God's revelation is now complete. God does not inspire men today to write infallible words. God has promised His curse to anyone who attempts it. (Rev. 22:18.) But, if anyone really were "inspired" in the original biblical sense, he could add to the Bible. This is exactly what the inspired Apostles actually did. And we may be sure that if there were any psalms, hymns, or songs needed besides those that are given, God would have inspired His Apostles to write them, and would have placed them in the Bible. We cannot state the matter better than in the words of the Westminster Confession: "all things necessary for . . . man's salvation, faith and life . . . (are) set down in Scripture . . . unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." (I, 6).

(6) A sixth argument for the use of uninspired songs in divine worship is the argument from inference. This argument is to the effect that "there are some things proper in the worship of God which cannot be proved directly from Scripture, but which can reasonably be deduced from Scripture". Examples which are often cited, are, the baptism of infants, and the admission of women to the Lord's Supper. It is argued that neither of these is commanded in the New Testament, but that they can be justified from good and necessary inferences. If these are proper in divine worship, it is argued, then so is the singing of uninspired hymns and songs.

This argument also is negative. What it really says is, that we cannot prove by infallible statements of Scripture that children should be baptized, or that women should receive the Lord's Supper, and that we therefore need not prove that uninspired compositions may be sung in divine worship. If worship without such proof is acceptable in the one instance, it is argued, then it is not to be condemned in the other. So the argument goes.

But the truth is that we can prove by the clear witness of Scripture that children are to be baptized, and that women are to receive the Lord's Supper. And the proof is no less compelling because it is from the Old Testament. In Genesis 17:10, God commanded that children receive the sacrament of circumcision. This commandment has never been revoked. When Paul says that we are circumcised by being baptized (Col. 2:11), he simply extends the Old Testament ordinance. But there is no need for a new commandment that children receive this, because there is already a clear commandment of God in effect. Because it was the will of God to broaden the Old Testament ordinance (i.e. in applying this sacrament to females), the Lord provides the needed warrant in the clear example of Lydia (Acts 16:15). Where a commandment already exists, the Apostles give none because none is needed. Where further warrant is needed, it is given. It is given because we may not worship God except as He commands. Similarly, it is unnecessary to seek a New Testament commandment admitting women to the Lord's Supper. The reason is that the Old Testament already says, "All the congregation of Israel shall keep it". (Ex. 12:47.) The Apostles do not provide a command for women to partake of "Christ our passover" (I Cor. 5:7) because the Old Testament already contains the needed warrant.

This argument, so appealing at first sight, upon closer examination actually proves the very opposite of what is sought by those who advance it. For it is one thing to say that certain things are not commanded in the New Testament, but are proper to divine worship because they are already commanded in the Old Testament. It is quite another thing to say, that certain things are not commanded in either the Old or New Testaments, and yet are proper in worship. The baptism of infants and the admission of women to the Lord's Supper do not prove that uninspired hymns may be sung in divine worship without divine authorization, but rather, that the clear warrant of Old Testament teaching is `sufficient without repetition in the New Testament. But this is precisely what we do not have. there is no warrant in either the Old or New Testament for the use of uninspired hymns in worship. The one thing that is proved by infant baptism and admission of women to the Lord's Table, is that nothing is proper in the worship of God without the clear warrant of Scripture. Infants are baptized and women admitted to the Lord's Supper precisely and only because this is what God has authorized. This very fact requires that psalms alone be sung in divine worship, because this alone is what God has commanded.

(7) A seventh argument for the singing of uninspired songs in divine worship is what might be called the argument of "progress". Thus it is said that throughout the history of redemption new situations, new developments, and new revelation brought forth new materials for worship. And this is true enough. The elaborate worship of the Tabernacle included many things unknown to Abraham. The yet more elaborate Temple of Solomon included many things not found in the Tabernacle. And certainly the worship of the New Testament Church marks an advance over that of the Temple of Solomon.

But there is one thing that this type of argument completely ignores. It ignores the clear teaching of scripture to the effect that in each of these "advances" in the complexity and form of divine worship every last detail was instituted by the express command of God. Thus when the Tabernacle worship was instituted, God said to Moses, "And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount". (Ex. 25:40.) "According to all that I shew thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so shall ye make it." (Ex. 25:9.) Even the men employed by God in the making of the instruments and decorations were inspired by the Holy Spirit, in order that they might do this work. (Ex. 28:3, 31:6, etc.) Nothing was devised by the men themselves, but only by the Holy Spirit. (Ex. 35:30-35.) And contrary to common opinion, the same thing is true of the Temple of Solomon. "Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat. And the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit . . . all this, said David, the Lord made me understand in writing by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern." (1 Chr. 28:11, 12, 19.) Not one single thing was originated by David. Absolutely all was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit. Every new thing was introduced by God's express command.

In the same way, the worship of the New Testament Church was commanded by God. As Paul said, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord". (I Cor. 14:37.) Nothing is to be done in the New Testament Church without the commandment of Christ. The new revelation which came through the incarnation of Christ did bring many changes. The ceremonial law was abolished, by divine command. (Acts 10:9-18.) True worship was no longer confined to the Temple in Jerusalem. (John 4:21.) Circumcision and the Passover were transformed into Baptism and the Lord's Supper. But nowhere did Christ furnish new inspired songs, nor did He give any command that men make and use uninspired songs in worship. Rather He did command, by the Apostle Paul, that we use the inspired psalms, hymns and songs that were already provided.

It is often said that new songs are mentioned in the Book of Revelation. And so they are. (Rev. 5:9, 14:3.) But this is to be expected. When we get to heaven we will need new songs. For then we shall indeed have new revelation. But let us not forget that these new songs will not be the uninspired compositions of men. They will be new songs written by the Holy Spirit. For we read that "no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth". (Rev. 14:3.) To learn a new song taught by the Lord, is very different from writing a new song of our own. Certainly we ought to long for the day in which we will learn such new songs. But in the meantime we should be content to sing the songs that the same Holy Spirit has written for us to learn on earth. And whatever may be the wonder of those new songs that we will learn in heaven, they will not be more perfect than those that are already contained in the book of psalms. As the Psalmist himself truly said: "O Lord, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep". (Ps. 92:5.) "How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!" "The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple." "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Ps. 119:103, 130, 160.)

By what means shall a young man learn his way to purify
If he according to thy word thereto attentive be.
Unfeignedly thee have I sought with all my soul and heart:
O let me not from the right path of thy commands depart.
(Metrical Psalm, 119:9-10)

G. I. Williamson's The Singing of Psalms in the Worship of God is available as a booklet from New Covenant Publication Society, 116 West Hillcrest Avenue, Havertown, PA 19083, for the price of one dollar.