Nevin on Instruments in the Psalms
James Dodson
INSTRUMENTS “EMBEDDED” IN THE PSALMS.
Musical instruments, we are told, are so embedded in the Book of Psalms that you cannot tear them out, without discarding the Book as the proper expression of our praise. To be consistent, it is broadly stated, we must fling away the Psalter, if we disallow instruments; and we are asked on what principle we can retain the former, if we do not admit the latter. On this we remark—1. The argument is a mere theoretical one, got up to serve a polemical exigency. The proof of this is plain, for the general practice of Instrumentalists is in diametric opposition to it. The theory of the
[Page 77]
argument is—Bring in the instruments, in order that you may consistently retain the Psalter. The general practice of Instrumentalists is—Bring in the instruments by all means, underhand or aboveboard, and get rid of the inspired Psalms, wholly or partially, as quietly and as speedily as you can. 2. The argument, if worth anything, would make the use of instruments not optional but obligatory, for the reference to them in the Psalms takes the form of a command. 3. Musical instruments are no more embedded in the Psalms than an altar—Ps. xxvi. 6; xliii. 4; cxviii. 27; sacrifices of fat rams, bullocks, and goats, and incense—Ps. lxvi. 15; and dancing—Ps. cxlix. 3; cl. 4. All these, moreover, are alike obligatory, if this argument be true. On what principle can any difference be made among them? 4. The principle (principles rather) on which we deal with all these is easily told. It is surprising that any one of ordinary intelligence in any degree acquainted with the subject should need to ask what it is. The Psalms were composed in language adapted to the institutions of worship existing by Divine prescription at the time, although, when this is taken into account the allusions in them to ceremonial observances are remarkably few, and we might almost say in some instances depreciatory. We have apostolic precept and example for singing the inspired Psalms in worship. We have no apostolic precept or example for singing anything else. Neither have we for dancing, offering animal sacrifices, burning incense, or performing on musical instruments, in worship. The figures of the Old Dispensation, being of Divine prescription, were the most appropriate possible. Poetical genius in its highest efforts could never have conceived anything to compare with them, and must now be content to borrow them. We have these figures still (be not startled, gentle reader) with this difference—to the Jew they were figures to be acted out really and in the letter, while he could only dimly perceive their meaning; to us they are simply figures of speech, the glorious significance of which is seen in the light shed on them by Gospel revealings. If, because these figures are embedded in the Psalms, we must discard the use of the whole Book, then, for a like reason, we must discard Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, nay, we might say, the whole New Testament. And if this be the “strongest argument” of the Instrumentalists, as it is so exhibited by one of themselves, their cause is hopelessly and irremediably lost.