First of all, then, on behalf of human hymns, it has been said, “We live now under a better and brighter dispensation than that of the Old Testament, therefore the inspired Psalms of David, and other Psalms in Holy Scripture, are insufficient.” But the question is not whether the dispensation under which we now live is better and brighter than that which preceded it, but whether, under this better and brighter dispensation, there is any security for better and brighter hymns than the Psalms of David, and whether there is a promise given to any man, or any body of men, of a richer unction of the Spirit—and not a richer unction only, but a specifically inspiring action of the Spirit, for the purpose of composing hymns for the public worship of God in the church than was given to him of whom it is written that, in his blessed swan song, he spoke as follows: “David, the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet Psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue” (2 Sam. 23:1). Is there any modern hymnologist in circumstances to say that? Dr. Adam must tell us who he is, before his argument from the greater brightness of the New Testament dispensation is of any worth, otherwise it is an argument, not only on behalf of hymns, but against the Book of Psalms.
Very little thought is given these days to the question of the propriety of using instrumental music in public worship services. It is not questioned. The fact that instrumental accompaniment was more or less unknown in Presbyterian Church in Scotland up to the end of the 19th Century comes as a surprise to people, as does the knowledge that the great Baptist preacher of the Victorian era, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, never used instrumental accompaniment in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.
No part of the Christian worship is more plainly warranted by the oracles of God than the ordinance of Singing of Psalms. The ancient Hebrews practised it at the Red Sea before their system of ceremonial worship was prescribed them by God (Exod. 15). It was preferred to the most pompous sacrifices, even while the ceremonial observances remained in their vigour (Ps. 69:30–31). The divine obligation to it remained in full force when the ceremonial law, with all its rites, was abolished (Ps. 47:1–7; 67:4; 100:1–4; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; James 5:13). We have it enforced with the most engaging example of the angels who kept their first estate (Job 38:6–8; Luke 2:13–14; Rev. 5:11–12), and of apostles and saints (Acts 16:25; 1 Cor. 14:15, etc.); nay, of our Redeemer himself (Matt. 26:30). This exercise, performed in a manner suited to the dignity of the glorified state, will be the everlasting employ of established angels and ransomed men (Isa. 26:19; 51:11; Rev. 5:9–13).
Many think of evangelism as the great task of the church; it is not. Yes, without evangelism the church cannot function faithfully. Dead churches do not evangelize. Yet evangelism, though a great mission and task of the church, ranks below worship. Missions exist because worship does not. In heaven, evangelism does not exist; there, and on earth, the chief purpose of the church is worship. Worship ennobles our service; Scripture identifies church members as stones in God’s temple–the holy place devoted chiefly to worship (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:21; 1 Pet. 2:4-8).
‘Tis evident by the common experience of mankind, that love cannot lie idle in the soul. For every one hath his oblectation and delight, his tastes and relishes are suitable to his constitution, and a man’s temper is more discovered by his solaces than by anything else: carnal men delight in what is suited to the gust of the flesh, and spiritual men in the things of the Spirit.
The church of Jesus Christ appears in scripture under many images and descriptions. Among other things, we find it likened to a temple, an olive tree, a bride, and a kingdom. Each image paints a different, but complementary perspective or emphasis regarding the church’s nature, work, and calling. Though there are nuances and shades of meaning unique to each of these images and descriptions, none of them implies an idea of independence. The temple has a foundation, the olive tree has a stock and roots, the bride has a husband, and the kingdom has a king.
