Otey.Briney.Debate.on.Instrumental.Music
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE BETWEEN W. W. OTEY of
Lynn, Indiana AND ELDER J. B. BRINEY
of Louisville, Kentucky QUESTIONS DISCUSSED "INSTRUMENTAL
MUSIC" and "THE SOCIETIES"
Held at Trinity Methodist Church, Louisville, September 14-18,
1908
F. L. ROWE, Publisher, Cincinnati
INTRODUCTION
In the world's history many, many battles have been fou ght to
settle some point of difference between the contending
parties. Might is not necessarily right and it is, therefore,
interesting to the lover of history to study the matters in
dispute, great and small, and see how they were settled, right
or wrong. The field of blood does not furnish the only
conflicts in which questions of gravity or of small import
were up for adjudication. When Martin Luther, warned of the
dangers ahead, as he approached the city, said "Though every
tile upon every house in the city were a demon from hell I
would go on." A terrible battle raged and the
questions to be settled in point of importance reached as high
as heaven and looked away to the infernal regions. It is well,
it is right, that he who reads history shall have the
opportunity of discerning the truth brought out by the
fierce contests over matters both great and small. So great,
however, has been the warring ofttimes and so small has been
the cause of it, that it has been set forth to the mind in a
strong but impressive figure as "T he bone o f contentio n."
This do es not, in any way, suit the ques tions in dispute, or
in the least apply to the matters for investigation in the
debate held in Trinity Methodist church, Louisville,
Ky., between W. W. Otey and J. B. Briney, beginning on
September 14,
1908, and ending on Friday night following. It was a
fair, square battle over the most momentous questions o f the
age. It involved the duties, privileges, rights and
obligations of the Christian. It was not whether, like
Catholics and Mormons, men should make for them
6 INTRODUCTION.
selves a new religion out and out, with only enough
of Bible
phraseology to give it caste and currency. Both men strongly
repudiated this course and contended heartily that, when
service to God is intended, all things should be left to the
arbitrament of His word. The question above all others is,
What is C hristian liberty? Who is entitled to it? Whe re does
it beg in and where does it end? Both the debaters contended
that all Christians h ave the liberty to practice all things
that the Apostles and early Christians observed in their
worship and service to God. Here the road forks.
Does one Christian have the God-given liberty to invent
or to borrow something called
EXPEDIENT, and force his brother to accept it,
to use it in the worship, or to be ejected therefrom?
Or has the majority the right and liberty to make the minority
accept and use things called "expedients" that are not
enjoined by the Apostles nor mentioned in the New Testament?
In Christ, has the minority any liberty? Has it the liberty
only to accept the
impositions of the ma jority? In Christ, h as the
individ ual any liberty? or has the ma jority all the liberty
in the Lord Jesus Christ? Has the Great Son of God thrown
around the poor, the weak and the helpless no protection from
the rich, dogmatical and tyrannica l schismatic? If not, then
what does He mean when he says, "Whosoever shall offend one of
these little ones that believe in m e it is better for him
that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he w ere cast
into the sea"? Mark 9: 42. Or what does the Spirit mean when
it says "When ye sin so against the brethren and wound their
weak conscience ye sin against Christ"? I. Cor. 8: 12. Again,
"He that lov eth not his brother, abideth in dea th." I. Jno.
3: 42. Has every man, under Christ, the liberty of a
conscience? Has that co nscience th e liberty to dema nd
respect? These are weigh ty matters.
Another fine point in dispute was, Did God thoroughly
furnish the man of God for all good works as He said He
INTRODUCTION. 7
did, (II. Tim. 3 :16 ) or did he leave many of the
details out? Hath the Divine power "given unto us all things
that pertain unto life and godliness,' or did He leave
some out., II. Pet. I: 3. When the Spirit said
"Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of
Christ hath not God," (II. Jno. 9) did it mean to set
bounds which say peremptorily to all men, "Thus far shalt thou
come and no farther"? When God refused Cain's offering b
ecause he made it in h is own way; Nadab and Abihu's incense
because they made it in their own way; would not let Moses go
into the promised land because he did his own way at Meribah
Kadesh; took the kingdom from Saul because he got up an
offering in his own way; would not let the ark go to Jerusalem
in David's way, the que stion then arises, Will He let men w
orship Him now in their own way? Are these cases of the Old
Testament our ensamples; Does God require all Christians to be
one? How? Upon what basis? In order to have unity must the
minority accept all the "expedients" so-called thrust upon
them by the majority? Will the minority be guilty before God
if they rupture the peace and harmony of the body by refusing
to obey the commandments of men? Or did Paul lay down God's
law of unity when he taught the divided church at Corinth
"that they all speak the same things, and that there be no
divisions among them; but that they be perfectly joined
together in the same mind and the same judgment" In doing
this, that is, speaking the same things, must every man, if he
speaks for the Lord, "speak as the oracles of G od"? Or has he
the lib erty to call some things that he uses in his worship,
Organs, Fiddles, Horns, Clarionets, Missionary Societies, En
deavor Societies, Fairs, F estivals and T heatricals? Does
Paul teach that Christians must be one in body, one in spirit,
one in speech, one in practice? I heard all of the debate
except the last two speeches. It was a m asterly effort to
elim inate from the accumulated theological trash of time, the
dogmatism and skepticism of
8 INTRODUCTION .
the present age—to eliminate from these truth, yes, truth that
cam e to this sin-cursed world with Christ in loving embrace
with grace: truth that makes men free, by which they are
sanctified, and by obedience to which they must purify their
souls. Oh God, help us all to kno w the blessed truth!
I commend the book, the report of this debate, to all who love
the truth. Reader, s trive to lea rn what G od sa ys, rot what
men say.
J. M. BARNES. OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE
Joint Debate between W. W. Otey and Elder J. B. Briney, held
at Trinity Methodist Church. September 14-18, 1908.
MODERATORS: Fo r Elder B riney, G. G . Bersot.
For Elder Otey, Daniel Sommer. OPENING REMARKS.
Moderator Elder Sommer: It devolves upon me to read the
propositions that are to be discussed and the rules of debate.
THE PROPOSITIONS.
I. The use of such organizations as the Illinois Christian
Missionary Society, the Foreign Christian
Missionary Society, etc., is authorized in the New
Testament Scriptures and acceptable to God. My good
friend refers to burning incense, and offering sacrifices.
Now, I wonder if he does not know that
these things belonged to that arrangement that passed away?
can he find where any Apostle ever sanctioned any of these
things? I find where the Holy Spirit, through an Apostle,
authorized the singing of songs that were accompanied
by instruments of music. And what did he do with the
scholarship of the world that I read here against him? Nothing
under the heavens, but to wave his hand, and imply, "Avaunt
ye, I am here." The scholarship of the World says that these
words mean songs that maybe sung with an instrument,
and if they do the Spirit of the Lord is there, because those
words were spoken by the inspiration of the Spirit of
the Lord.
My good brother said that psalloing w as something in addition
to singing, but he said, wh ere was it? "In the heart."
Well, that is not in the throat. Have you any vocal cords in
your heart? What is the idea? The idea is you are not to d o
these things simply from a worldly point of view. My friends,
a musician can come just as near putting his heart into his instrument
as my good brother ca n come to putting his heart into his
throat. "Obey from the heart." That is, your heart must be in
it. I had the good fortune once to hear that marvelou s
violinist, Rem enyi, and you could just see that his heart was
in his instrument, his soul was wrapped up in it, and
it in his soul. That is the idea here, and we are to do it
heartily, as unto the Lord. You are to do it with the idea of
praising the Lord. My good brother says the only purpose it
can serve is to please the fleshly ear. What a reflection tha
t is upon D avid! Did David sing his psalm in co nnection w
ith his harp, or whatever musical instrument it was, to plea
se the sensu ous ear. W ho in this house will claim to occupy
a higher plane of spirituality than David did? Who here will
pretend to have more heart in doing things to praise God than
that man who was after the Lord's own heart. You could do
J. B. BRINEY, affirm s.
W. W. OTEY, denies.
2. The use of instrumental music in connection with the songs
sung by the church on the Lord's day, when assembled for
edification and communion, is opposed to New Testament teac
hing and s inful.
W. W. OTEY, affirms.
J. B. BRINEY, denies.
RULES OF DEBATE.
I. The debate is to be held at Sand Creek, Shelby Co., Ill.,
unless the place is changed by the consent of both disputants.
9
10 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE
2. Not less than four days of four hours each day are to be
devoted to the discussion of the two propositions.
3. The duty of the moderators shall be to keep time and to
preserve order.
4. Each disputant shall be at liberty to introduce as argument
whatever in his judgment is proof of his proposition.
5. In his closing speech the negative shall not introduce any
new argument, but shall reply only to the arguments of the
affirmative.
6. Each disputant reserves the right to em ploy a stenographer
to take down th e debate and to publish it separately, unless
an agreement is reached to em ploy a stenographer and publish
it jointly. We, the undersigned, agree to be g overned by the
above rules in our debate.
W. W. OTEY.
J. B. BRINEY.
June 30, 1908.
We agree to change the place of the above named d ebate from
Sand Creek, III., to Louisville, Ky., to such house as may be
provided by the Campbell Street, P ortland, Highla nd, and F
Street church es, to begin September 15, 1908 unless the d ate
is changed by mutual consent. It is further agre ed that we
will debate instrumental music first.
W. W. OTEY.
J. B. BRINEY.
The order of the questions has been reversed by agreement, and
the first question to be discussed is, "The Use of
Instrumental Music in Connection with the Songs Sung BY the
Church on Lord's Day, when Assembled for Edification and
Communion, is Opposed to New Testament, and Sinful."
Elder Otey, affirming, is now introduced to the audience to
make a speech of one hour.
W. W. Otey's First Speech.
Gentlemen. Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: In opening a
debate of this character it is mete that the questions under
discussion shall be clearly defined and the issue clearly set
forth. So , while it is not my habit or prac tice to read from
manuscript, I propose to read somewhat during this first
hour's speech, and I apologize for doing so, and assure you
that after this is through my speaking w ill be extempore. "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He
created the sun and the planets, placed each in its orbit,
where it revolves in silent, but glorious and eternal majesty,
The contemplation of the grandeur and perfection of the
heavenly bodies makes the profoundest philosopher and
astronomer to stand with uncovered heads.
But the final triumph of creative wisdom and power was reached
when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and ove r all the earth."
Bearing the image o f his Creator, knowing no sorrow nor pain,
man was placed in the "Garden of Delights." But Satan entered
the garden to oppose the benevolent design of God, and to seek
the ruin of the crowning work of the Creator. Man was tempted,
sinned and was expelled from the garden. Ever since the
fateful hour in which Satan entered the garden there have
be-en two spiritual forces in the world—God and Satan God,
11
12 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
truth, and right have been, and still are, on one side, w hile
Satan, error and wrong have been, and still are, arrayed in
opposition to the will of God-and to the best interests of
man. The conflict between the two forces has never ceased.
There are no vacations nor flags of truce. The battle must
continue till Christ destro ys the last enemy.
Every accountable being stands on one side or on the other.
There are no neutral grounds. We must and do take our stand on
one side or on the other. No one in choosing his side of any
question should ever ask, "Who is o n this side,'' or, "Who is
on tha t side?" No one should ever ask, "Which side has the
majority?" or, "Which side is the popular side?" The only
question that any one should ever ask is, "On which side is
truth and right'" The side of truth and right may be in the
minority, as men count nu mbers. It may be, and is, the
unpopular side. It may not be the successful side, as men
measure success. Yet, it is the strong side, and in the final
triumph of right it will be the side of eternal victo ry.
Error and its advocates, whether many or few, whether popular
or unpopular, will go down in final an d eternal de feat,
while right and its advocate s will ultimately triumph and
will stand in that numberless, blood-washed throng, and enter
in through the gates into the Eternal City of God.
We are met here on this occasion in a conflict— a conflict
between right and wrong, between truth and error. Two
truths can never conflict—can never oppose ea ch other.
Between two principles of right there is always perfect
agreement. But truth and error are as incompatible as light
and darkness, as vice and virtue. T herefore tru th and right
can no t be found on both sid es of this investigation. Error
must necessarily be on one side, else there would be no
opposition. On which side is truth? On which side is error?
You, my friends, who listen are
OTEY- BRINEY DEBATE. 18
to be the judges. But, in view of the prayer of Jesus for
unity, and the command of God to be "perfectly joined together
in the same mind and the same judgment," I entreat you to hear
us patiently, to measure what we say by the "Orac les of Go
d," and to decide impartially. Do not be swayed either by
numbers nor by popularity, but be influenced alone by the Word
of God.
I wish to emphasize the fact that this conflict is not between
men, but between principles. For Elder Briney, as a man, I
entertain none but the kindest feelings. In this investigation
I shall not combat the man personally. I shall combat only
what I most sincerely believe to be errors in his teaching and
practice. I would spare the man, but I shall not spare his
errors. These principles of difference between us, and of
which he is so able an advocate and defender—these principles,
I sincerely believe to be diametrically op posed to truth, to
the peace and unity of the church and to the will of God.
Jesus established but one religious body—the church— and
instituted but one order of work and worship. He prayed that
all "that believe on me through their word; that they all may
be one; even as Thou, Father, art in me and I in Thee, that
they may- also be one in us; that the world may believe that
Thou didst send me." (Jo hn 17: 2 0, 21.) God, through th e
inspired apostles, commanded the members of that one body to
"speak the same things"; to be "perfectly joined together in
the same mind and the same judgment." As long as the members
of that one body obeyed th ese injunctio ns, unity prevailed.
In fact, while these commands are obeyed, division is
impossible. But in course of time ambitious men began to
substitute the "traditions of men" for the commandments of God
The result was division that culminated in the great apostasy
in which the "man of sin" was developed to full ma14
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE .
turity. The darkest hour of the dark ages was caused by men's
substituting the wisdom of men in the work and worship of the
Church for the wisdom of God—was caused by substituting the
"traditions of men" for the commandments of God
In the early part of the nineteenth century the Campbells and
their co-laborers, seeing the divided and warring condition
prevailing among believers in Christ, and recognizin g the
sinfulness of such division, began to urge those of all sects
to lay aside their "traditions of men" and unite upon the
Bible alo ne. They realiz ed that the only unity taught in the
Bible was to be one in Christ, by teaching and practicing just
as did the first churches under the direct supervision of the
inspired apostles—no more and no less. They adopted this as
their motto,
"Where the Bible speaks we will speak; where the Bible is
silent we will be silent." Th ey held that the silence of the
Bible on any religious question was as binding as its voice.
What the Bible says must be taught, what the B ible enjoins
must be obeyed. That which is not clearly taught in the Bible
must not be urged as a matter of faith that which is not
clearly enjoined must not be practiced as a religious
observance. What the Word of God enjoins we dare not neglect,
what the Word of God does not enjoin we dare not practice as
religion. Here was inaugurated a religious movement unlike any
other movement since apostolic days. All other religious
movements had been efforts to ref orm existing religious
bodies by purging out immorality and some of the grosser
assumptions of ecclesiastical authority. Since the apostasy no
trumpet-call has been heard fo r a complete return to
apostolic teaching and practice. The church was not reformed,
but restored in teaching and practice just as the. first model
church that was established und er the direct supervision of
the Holy Spirit in the. apostles. There was
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 15
no organization larger or smaller, nor different from the
local congregations. The plurality of elders and deacons were
the only officers set in the church. There were no
"presidents," "vicepreside nts," nor "boards of directors,"
whose position of authority was paid for in cash. There were n
o "socie ties," "district," "Sta te," "hom e," or "foreign."
The churches did not send "delegates" to "annual conventions"
to frame and amend "Constitutions," "bylaws," or pass
"resolutions of federation." They did not organize "Societies
of Christian Endeavor." Each lo cal congregation wa s itself a
Divin ely constituted endeavor society. They "endeavored to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace." They
framed no addition al society to destroy the "unity of the
Spirit" and to break "the bonds of peace." In the language of
one who pu t it tersely, "in their cong regational ca pacity
alone they moved." Their acts of worship consisted in
"continuing steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and in the
fellowship and in the breaking of bread and the prayers," and
in "singing psalms, hymns and spiritual s ongs." (Acts 2 :42,
Ep h. 5 :15.)
Tens of thousands of honest-hearted believers in Christ saw
the divine grounds o f unity propos ed and laid aside their
"traditions of men" and united in the one body of Christ upon
the Bible alon e. All walked by the same rule —the Bible—and
were "one in Christ." The very foundations of sectarianism
were shaken and its w alls began to crumble. The prayer of
Jesus wa s rapidly being answered and the w orld was being
converted to Christ. Some began to think tha t, at least, all
Protestants would so on be un ited. Such a plea urged by a
united people was well-nigh irresistible. But alas! how
different the picture now before our eyes! Instead of the "u
nity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace," we are divided and
warring among ourselves. The people who so earnestly and e
ffectively plead for unity stand to-day a divided people. The
effectiveness of our
16 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
heaven-born plea has been destroyed, and in many places it has
become a "hiss and a byword." The Church—the body of
Christ—that He purchased with His own blood— has been rent
asund er, and is mangled and bleeding at every pore: the
promoters of "spiritual w ickedness in high places" are
shouting hallelujahs, while thousands of the purest and best
of earth hang their heads in shame, and pour out their tears
like a mighty river.
The wedge of division began to be driven about the year 1849.
From 1890 to 1900 the lines of separation were rapidly drawn.
To-day the lines are about as clearly drawn between the two
bodies of disciples—one known as the-Church of Christ and the
other as the Christian Church —as the lines between any two
Protestant bodies. The greatest brotherhood of believers in
Christ since apostolic days has been rent asunder. The
heaven-born plea for unity has been rendered ineffective. The
answer to the prayer of Jesus has been deferred. Is this
division well-pleasing to God? As certain as Paul was inspired
when he wrote, "There is one body," as certain as the Holy
Spirit guided his pen when he condemned division and commanded
unity, as certain as Jesus prayed the prayer recorded in the
seventeenth chapter of John, just so certain is it that an
awful sin has bee n, and still is, being committed in this
division. Who is responsib le for this division? The Church of
Christ? Or the Christian Church? The answ er to that question
is found in the answer to this question, "What has caused the
division' The answer is, The use of instrumental music in the
worship and the use of various religious org anizations in the
work and wo rship to supplant the Church. These things c
onstitute the we dge of division . Till they were introduced
unity prevailed. When this wedge was driven the church was
split. Who splits the log? The man who drives the wedge splits
the log, and not the man who protests against its being
driven. Elder
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 17
Briney and his brethren drove the wedge that split the church.
Who did right in splitting the log, the man who drove the
wedge or the man who protested? That depends upon whether or
not the log oug ht to be split. If it was right to s plit the
log, the w edge-drive r did right. Follows it not, then, as
clear as demonstration itself, that Elder Briney and his
brethren have split the church? Till they drove the wedge the
church was united. We pro teste d again st that wedge being
driven, and warned them that it would split the church. Had
they refrained from driving this wedge into the work and
worship of the church, we would to-day be a united people. The
hou r that they will rem ove this wedge we will again be a
united people. But are they sinfully resp onsible for this
division? That all depends upon by whose authority this wedge
was driven. Who authorized the splitting of the log—the
church? Was it right that it should be split? Did God want it
split? By whose authority, then, are these things used in the
work and worship of the Church—God's or man's, This is the
pivotal point in this controversy. If God authorized the wedge
to be driven and the log to be split it must be done; it
matters not who protests. But if God has not authorized the
wedge to be driven, then those who protest against its being
driven stand upon the side of God.
Jesus said, "I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came
to set a man at variance against his father and the daughter
against her mother." (Matt. 10.) He re Jesus caused division.
But it was caused by preaching the truth and urging obedience
to the divine commands. He who causes division by teaching and
practicing what God requires does right, while he who opposes
what God commands commits sin. But Paul says, "Now, I beseech
you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and
oc--
18 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE
casions of stumbling contrary to the teaching of Christ; and
turn away from them." (Rom. 16:17.) Here Paul says that those
who cause division contrary to the teaching of Christ—by
teaching anything else in religion than the gospel—sin. N ow,
in the light of these Scriptures, if my opponent can show that
the things which he and his brethren have introduced into the
work and worship of the church, and by which they have rent it
asunder"—I say, if he can show that God has authorized these
things, then h e will clear him self and brethre n of all
guilt before c the throne o f heaven . But if I succeed in
showing- that God has not authorized these things to be used
in the work and worship of the church, then he an d his
brethren will stand convicted before heaven and earth.
I am glad that it is my privilege to stand before you and to
participate in this investigation, to measure these practices
by the Divine measuring-reed—the Word of God. And I am
specially pleased that I have as my opponent a man of such
splendid natural and acquired talent as possessed by Elder
Briney. One writer has said, "Briney is the best debater that
the Christian Church has in the world." Another writer, whose
judgment is always sound, has said, "Briney is a tactful,
eloquent, powerful man, and his presentation will be as
strong, in my judgment, as it is possible to make it." Both of
these writers are my brethren. They ate not partial eulogists
of my opponent. It may be saf ely said that the Christian
Church is as strongly repre sented in the person of Elder
Briney as it could be represented in the person of any man on
earth. If the teaching and practice of the Christian Church is
not sustained in this discussion, then we m ay safely say no
man can sustain them. To whom can they go, or upon whom can
they rely, in this hour of extremity, if not Elde r Briney?
Indeed, they are fortunate in having him as their re presentO
TEY-
BRINEY DEBATE. 19
ative, and he is justly deserving of their gratitude for
appearing here in their defense.
A word of explanation as to the origin of this d ebate is
necessary. More than a year ago J. Fred Jones, State
Evangelist of the Christian Church in Illinois, went into the
vicinity of Sand Creek, Shelby County, Illinois, and
slanderously attacked the Church of Christ. Elder J. P.
Warren, one of the elders at Sand Creek, w rote him a
respectful letter, and asked him to come b ack and re peat his
attack when the Church of Christ could have a man present to
defend it. tie refused to do so. Two letters passed each way.
Elder Warren then turned the correspondence over to the church
at Sand Creek. After due consideration of the matter the
officers of the Church of Christ turned the co rresponde nce
over to me, with the request that I secure a discussion of the
differences between the Church of Christ and the Christian
Church with Mr. Jones or some other representative man in that
church. After several months of correspondence, Mr. Jones
wrote me that he had gotten Elder J. B. Briney, of Louisville,
Ky., to take charge of his side of the correspondence. Several
more m onths of correspondence followed, and we agreed on the
propositions and rules that you have heard read, except the
appendix, which was written later. You have noticed that the
first rule says, "The debate is to be held at Sand Creek, Sh
elby Co., III., unless the place is changed by the consent of
both parties." The Church of Christ at Sand Creek engaged the
Chautauqua Auditorium and grounds of the Lithia Springs
Company, in which to hold the debate. Why, then, was it not
held there? On June 4th Elder Briney wrote me that he had
received word through J. Fred Jones, State Evangelist of the
Christian Church in Illinois, that his b rethren in the
vicinity of Sand Creek were opposed to the debate being held
in that community. Perhaps the question will arise in your
minds, "If the Christian Church
20 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
were not to be at any expense in furnishing the place to hold
the debate, then why should they urge tha t it should not be
held in that vicinity? It may be necess ary at another tim e
to enlighten you on this point. In the same letter already
referred to, Elder Briney also wrote me, saying, "I have
already 'let go,' and you can go to S and Cree k and ho ld the
debate alone if you wish; I will not be there ." In the same
letter he said, "If one of the churches (in Louisville) that
are in sympathy with your views will invite the deb ate and
furnish the hou se, I am ready to m eet you." This course of
conduct needs no comment, at least not a t the present. I
simply state the facts briefly. You may decide th e case. I
pressed him to meet me at Sand C reek, as stipula ted in the
rule that he had signed, or furnish another place and secure
my consent, and thu s save his signature. But this he positive
ly refused to do . I came to Louisville and laid the
correspondence before several of my preaching brethren who
live in this city. The debate was invited, not by one
congregation, but by four Churches of Christ worshipping in
this city. They have furnished the house, and here we are in
the first session of the discussion.
The proposition, the merits of which we are now to test, reads
as follows: "The use of instrum ental music in connec tion
with the songs sung by the church on the Lord's day, when
assembled for edification and communion is opposed to New
Testament teachin g and sinful." The first question that
arises in your minds is this: "If you are opposed to the use
of instrumental music in the worship, and thus occupy a
negative position, why do you appear here as an affirmant?" My
answer to that question is. Because Elder Briney positively
refused to affirm his own practice. It is universally agreed
that every man is logically and morally bound to affirm his
own practice.
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 21
But this my opponent refused to do and appears before you in
the attitude of one w ho is unw illing in open discussion to
affirm his own practice. My attitude toward the use of
instrumental music in the worship is that of opp osition. His
p osition is that of endorsement and practice. He both
endorses and practices the use of instrumental music in the
worship. I neither endorse nor practice its use in the
worship, but oppose it. The affirm ative idea is the idea of
endorsement—the idea of approval and participation. The
negative idea is the idea of opposition. Follows it not, then,
as clear as demonstration itself, that he was logically and
morally bound to affirm his own practice? But this he refused
to do. Finally, I consented to negotiate a proposition in the
affirmative form on the negative side of the question. I
framed the following: "The use of instrumental music in the
worship is not authorized in the New Testam ent Scriptures a
nd sinf ul." But he w ould not permit the words "not
authorized in-the New Testament" to appear in the proposition.
Does it not, my friends, im press you as p assingly strange
that he would neither a ffirm his own pra ctice nor pe rmit me
to affirm that it is not authorized in the New Testament? You
will ask, "If his practice is authorized in the New Testament,
why is he not willing so to affirm?" On the othe r hand, yo u
ask,. "If his practice is not authorized in the New Testament,
w hy, then, is he not w illing that his opponent should affirm
that it is not authorized therein?" His practice is either
authorized in the New Testament or it is not. If it is, why is
he not willing to af firm it? If it is no t, then why is he
not willing for his opponent to affirm that it is not? I
predict that you will never be enlightened on this poin t by
him, but that you will be left to form your own conclusions.
You will draw the right conclusions.
22 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
But notwithstanding that the proposition is unfair to me and
my brethren, for the two reasons ass igned, yet I wish to say
boldly that I feel abundantly able to sustain it as it is,
although-so unfairly and arbitrarily worded by my opponent.
Let us address ourselves to the proposition before us. I wish
now to define the proposition and mark out the line of battle.
The words "instrumental music," in its most limited
construction, must be interpreted to embrace all the
instruments used by the Christian Church at any time or place.
That part of the proposition that states w hen and w here used
is long, but sufficiently explicit, at least for th e present.
"Is o pposed to New Testament teaching" means that it is put
in opposition to New Testament teaching. In other words, its
use transgresses New Testament teaching. I believe this is th
e strongest form in which this can be put, and I am willing to
prove it in its strongest form.
The proposition has a double or compound predicate. "Opposed
to" and "is sinful." To put it in its strongest shape I will
use these terms synonymously. If it is "opposed to New
Testament teaching," it is sinful. If it is "sinfu l" it is
"opp osed to New Testam ent teaching." You will also observ e
that this part o f the propo sition limits this discussion to
the New Testament. In all controversies, or in the test of all
questions. there must necessarily be an agreed standard of
measurement—a standard of test. If a man were on trial for a
crime in this city, the statute law of Kentucky would b e the
standa rd of autho rity by which to measure the evidence and
to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused . His
prosecutor could not appeal to laws of the Colonies and secure
a verdict of guilt against the accused. Those laws have been
abrogated and superseded by the laws of the
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 23
United States. Neither could his advocate appeal to those laws
in order to secure an acquittal. He must be convicted or
acquitted by the laws of Kentucky, the laws under which the
act was committed.
On the same p rinciple the question before us must be
measured, and the conclusion reached solely by the New
Testament. This must be done for two reasons. First, we are
not worshiping u nder the au thority of the Old Testament
Scriptures, but under the authority of the New Testament.
Christ is the "end of the law to all them that believe." In
the second place, the question before us can not be appe aled
to the O ld Testament Scriptures fo r the plain reason that
the prop osition sa ys "opposed to New Testament teaching."
The New Testament, then, is to be the sole rule of
measurement, in point of authority, in settling the question
now before us.
Whose practice is involved in this proposition? The practice
of Elder Briney and his brethren. The acts of worship of m y
brethren are not called in question in th is proposition. I
think he endorses what we teach and practice as being right.
Should it develop that he calls in question an y act of work
or worsh ip in which- I participate, I w ill say, it can not
log ically nor lawfully be introduced into this discussion.
But I will say, in advance. that I hold myself ready to affirm
every item of work and worship in which I participate. Bu t it
must, be stated in another proposition and on another date.
What is the practice to be discussed now and here? The use of
instrumental music in connection with the songs sung by the
church on the Lord's day when assembled f or edification and
communion. Let it be remembered, then, w hat we are here to
discuss and what we are not here to discuss. We are not here
to debate sprinkling for baptism nor infant church membership,
bu t we are he re to
24 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
debate the use of instrumental music in the worship. We are
not here to debate meeting-houses, benches, lights, carpets,
tuning-forks, baptismal suits, hymn-books, or any other item
of like character. W e are here to debate the Scripturalness
of instrumental music in the worship, and that alone. All
these other items mentioned may be highly important, but not
on this occasion. They come not within the scope of this
proposition, and should they be introduce d, it will be solely
for the purpose of raising a false issue, to muddy the waters
in order to draw your attention away from the real issue.
My first argument is this: The use of instrumental music in
the worship is a "doctrine and commandment of men," and as
such it "transgresses the commandments of God," is sinful, and
renders the worship of those w ho use it "vain worship.''
Every act in religion comes from on e of two s ources of
authority (if we except the devil), comes from God or from
men. Every religious observance has for its support one of two
authorities—the authority of God or the authority of men. If a
religious practice has as its support the authority of God,
then it is a teaching of God, a command of God, a tradition of
God. If it has as its support only the authority of men, then
it is a teaching of men, a command of men, a tradition of men.
T here is absolutely no other source of authority, if we
except the devil, than that of God and that of m en. Nor is
there any middle ground. The whole issue, then, turns upon
this pivotal question, By wh ose authority is instrumental
music used in the worship? Who has authorized its use in the
worship, God or men? If it is used by D ivine authority, then
it is right, and those who neglect its use in the worship sin.
But if it is used by the authority of men, then it is a
"doctrine and commandment of men," a "traOTEY-
BRINEY DEBATE. 25
dition of men," "transgresses the commandments of God," is
"vain worship" and sinful. The point of authority, then, is
the pivota l point, and must first of all be settled. Till
this point is settled no conclusion can be reached. If my
opponent can show that instrume ntal music is used in the
worship by Divine authority, that will end the controversy,
and end it in his favor. This he m ust prove, o r else admit
th at it is a "commandment of men," ,1 "tradition of men." I
He must admit that as a "tradition of men" it does what Jesus
says the traditions of men do; namely, "transgresses the
commandments of God" and renders such worship vain. O r else
defend it a s a "tradition." Among other things the scribes
and Pharisees had added to the Divine acts of worsh ip the was
hing of the hands, po ts, cups, braze n vessels, etc., as a
religious observance. It was right to observe this act of
cleanliness as a private act. Indeed, it would have been wrong
not to have done so as a private act of cleanliness. But when
they practiced these acts of cleanliness as religious acts it
changed the whole question, and Jesus said to them, "Why do ye
also transgress the commandments of God b y your traditio n."
"Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This
pe ople draw eth nigh un to me with their lips; but their
heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching
for doctrine the commandments of men." (Matt. 15:2-8; Mark
7:7-8.) From these Scriptures we learn the following facts:
(I) That things, though right in themselves, arid that as
personal acts would he wrong to neglect, yet, when practiced
as religious acts, are called by Jesus "traditions of men ;"
(2) That Jesus says the "traditions of men "transgress the
commandments of God ;" (3) That if we "teach for doctrine the
commandments of men," our worship is "vain." Here, then, is
the pivotal point on which this question turns—the point of
authority. Here is the is26
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
sue that must be met. My opponent must either affirm that the
use of instrumental music in the worship is a commandment of
God, and then produce the proof, or else admit that it is a
"doctrine and commandment of men," and then defend it as such.
The real issue can not be ignored nor evaded. It must be
squarely met. Jesus asked the Jews this question, "The baptism
of John, whence was it? From heaven or of men? They answered,
We can not tell." I ask Elder Briney this question
"Instrumental music in the worship, whence is it, From heaven
or of men?" Will he also say, "I can not tell?" We shall see.
Had the Jews answered, "It is from heaven," it would not have
been -fatal. Had they answered, "It is of m en," it would have
been fatal. Had they remained silent, it would have been
fatal. They answered, "We can not tell," and it was fatal. If
Elder Briney says that instrumental m usic in the worsh ip is
"from heaven" it will be fatal. If he says, "It is of men," it
will be fatal. If he says, "I can not tell," it will be fatal.
If h e remains s ilent, it shall be fatal.
Now, my friends, this brings us to my second arg ument that I
desire to introduce to you. My second argument is this: The
use of instrumental music in the worship of God is opposed to
the New Testament law of expediency. I will say at this point
that I never qu ote an uninspired man as an authority, but
when I find that a man with a fearlessness of spirit and a
force of logic and power reasons clearly and strongly upon a
subject I am at liberty to adopt his arguments as my own.
Acting upon this principle I am going to prove this argument
by a noted writer.
At the very threshold of this debate I desire to make known
the fact that when my respected opponent, earlier in life, was
sa tisfied with the Bible alone in all his religious practice,
he not only stood where I stand to-day on the
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 27
question now at issue between US, but he made arguments which
no man was then able to answer, and which have never since
been answered. In fact, as this intelligent audience may see
for itself, I might very properly turn this debate into a
debate of Elder Briney against himself. In the year 1869, soon
after some of the churches of the Reformation dared to intro
duce instrumental music into their worship, and thus trampled
under their feet the great cardinal principle on which the
Reformation had been projected, E lder Brin ey himself, before
he turned over to the popular side, made the following strong
argu ment in the Apostolic Times, published at Lexington,
Kentucky. which has been copied for this deb ate verbatim from
that journal. Listen, if you please, to his masterful
argument, which was as follows:
"THE DOCTRINE OF EXPEDIENCY"
"It was a glorious day for the cause of truth when the pious
and venerable Thomas Campbell conceived and set forth the p
rinciple contained in the following language: 'Where the
Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures a re silent,
we are silent.' This declaration contains the germ and pith of
the present Reformation. It was the guiding star of such men
as the Campbells, Scott, Stone and Creath, in their march back
to the apostolic ground. It was the watch-word of those noble,
grand old veterans as, weak in numbers. but strong in faith,
they bared their bosoms to the darts of po pery and rushed
forward to rescue the ordinance of Jesus Christ from
oblivion's embrace. This was the banner that gave them
possession of many a hotly contested field, and led them on to
glorious victory. Under it they fought, under it they
conquered, and, dying, they bequeathed it to us, that under it
at least we might hold what they ha d gained. S o long as w e
adhere to this
28 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
principle may we march forward with heads erect and banners
streaming. But the moment we aban don this we will be at sea,
without compass or rudder, and our ship will be driven before
the merciless blasts of the head-winds of sectarianism in the
direction of the port of Rome; and in this state of case we
may well haul down our colors and seek recogn ition in 'co
urts ecclesiastic.' We will need the sympathy of such courts
then.
It is no matter of astonishmen t that, when the forego ing
principle was enunciated, such a thoughtful man as Andrew
Munroe should make the following statement: 'If we adopt that
as a basis, then there is an end of infa nt baptis m.'
I beg leave to make the following respectful suggestion to
Bro. J. S. Lamar: If we adhere to that as a basis, then there
is an end of instrumental music in the worship.
But we must adhere to that, or the Reformation is a failure.
This brings us to the main point had in view in the preceding
essays. That singing as worship is a divine appointment is
abunda ntly clear from the following Scriptures: "What is it
the n? I will pray with the spirit, and I w ill pray with the
understanding also. I will sing with the spirit, and I w ill
sing w ith the un derstan ding als o." (I Cor. ~ 5: ~5.) And
be not drunk with wine wherein is excess; but be filled with
the spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns, and
spiritual songs, singing and making m elody in you r hearts to
the Lord." (Ep h. 5 :18, 19.) "By him, therefore, let us offer
the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit
of our lips, g iving thanks to His name." (Heb. 13:15 )
Singing is worship only as it consists in prayer and praise.
It is not the soun d sim ply, the mere music, that renders it
acceptable to God, but the sentiments of devoOTEY-
BRINEY DEBATE. 29
tion. From the first of the above quotations we learn that in
these sentiments of prayer and praise th e spirit and the
understanding unite. In the third quotation these sentiments
are called the "sacrifice of praise," and are defined -to be
the "fruit of our lips." It follows, then, with the clearness
of a sunbeam, that the instruments to be used in offering this
sacrifice are the vocal organs, with which God has endowed His
creatur e, man. H ere, then, is a divine ordinance consisting
in the offering of prayer and praise to the L ord with our
lips—this latter term being used generically to denote all the
vocal organs. Now, I affirm that an "instrumental
accompaniment" is an addition to the ordinance, and effects
its character, and is therefore an infringement of the divine
prerogative.
That singing as worship is a divine ordinance will not be
questioned in the face of the Scripture cited above. That the
"instrumental accompaniment" is an addition, is sim ply
certain from the historical facts in the case, it having been
born five hundred years out of time. There fore, wha tever men
may think of its expedien cy it affects the character of the
divine appointment, and can not be tolerated for a moment.
There is no room here for expediency or man's wisdom. It is
not the prerogative of exped iency to say in wh at an ordina
nce shall co nsist. Inspiration has ordained that the
sacrifice of praise shall be offered with the human voice.
Then let expediency neither add nor subtract. Expediency may
regulate my voice; that is, it may determine whether I shall
sing with a bass, tenor or alto voice; but beyond this and the
like, it must not go. It must not say with what I shall
praise, for it would be the determining in what an ordinance
shall consist, which, as we have already seen, must not be
allowed.
From the foregoing it seems to fo llow, both lo gically
30 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
and Scripturally, that the "instrumental accompaniment"
nullifies the ordinance!
Now, at this som ebody may get "scared, feel his hair standing
on end, start to run, find somebody else sitting by the
camp-fires no dding," etc. Be it so. I could only wish that
this fright w ere real. I should think that a man might well
afford to become frightened when he sees himself tampering
with an ordinance of the Almighty! But when I see a man
affecting f right to try to excite mirth at the expense of a
brother who is earnestly contending for the faith, my heart
sinks within me. The "accompaniment" is ex pedient, we are
told. Expedient, forsooth! "Infant baptism is expedient," say
Stewart and Beecher. Now, the New Testament Scriptures are
just as silent upon the "accompaniment" as upon infant
baptism. If, therefore, expediency may introduce that, why not
this?
But in what respect is the "accom paniment" expedien t? If it
is expedient, it is because it gives some good resu lt which w
ould not be obtained without it. But if this be true, the
Saviour either failed in His wisdom or His benevolence, for He
never ordained the "accom paniment." Expediency, stay thy
impious hand! That the instrument in the worship gives a good
result which would not otherwise be realized, is an assumption
which never has been and never will be proved. And just here
is the point at which the argument for the instrument must
forever break down.
Am I told that it is expedient because "it attracts the
world?" I beg leave to state that the worship of the
Lord's house was not ordained for
the world. Is the church of the Lord Jesu s Christ to be
brought down to
the standard of the world? Is this the program of
expediency? If the caprice of the world is to be regarded in
these m atters, the very same emergency that demands the
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 31
organ will dema nd the very be st skill in its use, and,
therefore, the beerbloated dutchman from the theater of
Saturday night will be in demand in the san ctuary of G od on
the Lord's da y.
We are told that the organ need not affect the worship of the
individual; that those who are opposed to the instrument may
worship in spite of it. This I might do. I might w orship, but
it w ould only be in the silent breathings of my spirit. I can
not engage in singing as an act of worship w here there is a n
"instrume ntal accompaniment," for this would nullify the
ordinance. Now, some one may say that in this I am so straight
that I lean back a little. Be it so. If I lean back it is but
to rest upon the W ord of G od. and resting upon this I dread
n ot the fall. Call to mind the illustration of the supper.
The bread and the wine are on the table. But the congregation,
from consideration of "proprie ty and expediency," have
determined to add water. Do you observe the Lord's supper when
you sit down with those brethren and partake of the bread and
wine, though you reject the water? You do not. Neither do I
worship God when I sit down and sing with brethren who add an
"accompaniment." Yet once more. J. J. B.
Apostolic Times, June 10, 1869, page 69.
Now, my friends, this is only a part of his arguments I have
for you. The remainder will be deferred until tomorrow
evening. W e see where my worthy opponent stoo d nearly forty
years ag o. He has changed to the other side. Now, what has
brought the change? We all know he has changed. What caused
it? Did he change to-be popular or to be with the crowd?
Perish the thought! What changed him? Surely nothing but God's
Word. Then, friends, we ask him to open God's book and point
to the chapter or chapters, verse or verses, put his finger
upon
32 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
that which wrought the change and that caused him to see
things differently now from what he did shell. Then he could
not w orship with instrumental music; now he can. Then he
exclaimed, "Expediency, stay thy impious hand." Now we want to
know what caused the change; where is the Scripture, what
chapter and what verse? We can not for a moment intimate that
anything else but the Word of God has wrought the change, and
w e want the Scripture that reversed him and that causes him
to be here defending that which he preached against so
strongly. go I leave this matter right here. with the request
that, in this debate thus early, before we bring the balance
we have from him, he tells us what wrought the change in him.
We want to know what wrought this wonderful change.
J. B. Briney's First Reply.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would su ggest, as my firs t remark, that it is my Brother
Otey who is under obligation to prove things. This proposition
does not oblige me to undertake to prove anything. I stand
to-day as a denier calling in question the correctness of his
proposition and it is my business as a logician and reasoner
to exam ine what he adduces as proof a nd to attempt to show
that it fails to sustain his proposition, or I may propound a
contrary. proposition and attempt to prove that. In either of
these ways, or both, according to my own choice, I can meet
him upon this proposition, and if I undertake to prove
anything outside of that, it is a matter per gratiam upon my
part; I am un der no ob ligation to do it. I wish to join my
brother—and he is my brother; I reco gnize him as such, and I
shall address him as such, and
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 33
if I should chance to miss him in Christ, I guess I would hit
him in Adam, so he is my brother anyhow. And I w ish to join
with him most heartily in his opposition to error. I have no
fellowship for that article, and it shall be my pleasure to
join to his effort whatever aid I may be able to do to expose
error, and to cause it to stand out in that clear light that
the people may perceive it, and may be able to differentiate
it from the truth as it is in Christ Jesus the Lord.
My brother refers to the grand principle enu nciated in the
early days of our movem ent by Thomas Campbell, "Where the
Bible speaks we speak; and where the Bible is sile nt, we are
sile nt." I want to add to what he has said on that subject,
that when that principle was enunciated, after having been
matured, the idea was that in matters of faith, things that
must be believed , and matters of ordinance, things that must
be clone, where the Bible speaks on those subjects, we speak;
and where the Bible is silent on those subjects, we are
silent. That great principle was never intended to be applied
to matters of mere opinion or philosophical or theological
speculation, but to matters of faith and ordinance. Why, my
dear friends, if you were to undertake to load upon that
principle the philosophies and opinions and speculations of
men, you would soon sink it far beyond recovery beneath the
rubbish of the traditions to which he has referred, and others
besides. It does not pertain to church architecture. It does
not mean to regulate church furnishings. It does not mean to
decide what kind of windows shall be in a church house. These
are matters that pertain to human taste, and one man may have
one opinion in regard to church architecture and another man
may have anoth er, but whe ther the one or the other, it is a
question that does not fall under this principle, and I want
to call your attention particularly to that at this stage of
our discussion.
34 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
My good brother took a very wide range, as I suppose it was
his right to do under our rules, in the matter introduced in
his speech. He discussed conventions, which are not in this
prop osition a t all. I expect coming events cast their
shadows before, and somebody is a little nervous.
Federation! Why, is his proposition that federatio n is
contrary to New Testament tea ching, and sinful? He entered a
loud and emphatic protest against introducing matters not
germane to the question, and I want to say that these q
uestions have not a drop of G erman blood in them. The y are w
holly fore ign to the question , wholly, Endeavor! Does his
proposition say anything about endeavor? He insists, and
correctly, too, that I shall adhere to the propo sition. I
turn to my brother and insist most earnestly that you, sir,
adhere to the proposition, and don't hop, skip and jump all
over creation to avoid the proposition.
I suppose we agree on the question as to division and unity;
there is some division amongst us, but I don't recognize the
division he presents. There are differences of opinion among
us about some things, but I protest against making differences
of opinion lines of cleavage among us to our fellowship and
our communion.
Voices: Amen.
Elder Briney: He says that one body is the Church of Christ
and the other the Christian Church. Well, my dear broth er, I
claim to belong to both.
A voice So d o I.
Elder Briney: Now , brethren, plea se be quiet, and let us
conduct the discussion. That is, I belo ng to the institu tion
sometimes called the Church of Christ and sometimes the
Christian Church, and I expect that half of our congregations,
especially north of Mason and Dixon's Line, are known as
Churches of Christ. But I want to say to you, my dear friends,
that when you take one Scriptural name
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 35
and make use of that to the exclusion of all the others, you
sectarianize and denominationalize it, and introduce it as a
wedge of division. Now, who is responsible? Well, when he.
proves his proposition, he will put the responsibility on
those who introduce and use instruments; when he fails to
prove his proposition, as he will fail—and you know he has
already proved that I am a prophet—when he fa ils to prove his
proposition, as inevitab ly he will, he shoulders the
responsibility involved in this matter. If the use of the
instruments, as related in the. propo sition, is contrary to
the New Testament and sinfu l, then those who use the
instrument are responsible for the sin, and the resultant
division. Bu t if it is not contrary to the New Testament
teaching and is not sin ful, those who take it up and make it
a test of fellowship run lines of division through the body of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Ch rist, and they take upon
themselve s the respon sibility involved in the matter, and
must answer fo r the divided body in the presence of the Judge
of the living and the dead. Who introduced the dividing wedge?
Well, that all depends upon this proposition. When he proves
the proposition , he will prese nt me here with a maul in my
hand driving the wedg e; but whe n he fails to p rove his pro
position, he w ill present himself before you and before the
Lord with a maul in his hand driving the wedge of human
opinion and speculation and inference, and, therefore,
shouldering the responsibility in the matter; an d this should
suggest to him, as it does not doub t, that he should manfully
come up to this qu estion. The laboring oa rs are in his
hands, and I want to say to him here and now as we are
embarkin g upon th is voyage, pull for the shore, sailor, pull
for the shore, and come up to the task of establishing this
proposition by New Testament proof. He quoted a passage from
the New Testament, but I want to call your attentio n to this,
that he has not quoted a soli36
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
tary passage from the New Testament that even mentions the
subject we are discussing. How does he expect to prove the
question he is undertaking to prove in this proposition, from
the New Testament, without quoting any Scripture from that
volume that contains even the principal term that is involved
in the discussion? You know very well he has no t done that.
Now, in passin g, I want to lay down a principle or two here.
What makes a thing sinful? My reply is, one of tw o things, or
b oth. First, it is sinful in itself, like murder or theft. W
ell, I presume he will not take the position that the use of
instruments in the worship of God is sinful in itself. He da
re not do tha t, and I will leav e that matter th ere. Then it
is sinful if it transg resses the div ine law, fo r sin is
transgression of the law in the old version, and lawlessness
in the new practically the same thing. Therefore, the use of
instruments m the worship of God must be sinful in itself to
be sin ful, or it must violate or transgress some divine law.
Has he produ ced the law? Where is it?
Now, I want to refer to this Scripture that he quoted or
referred to, at any rate, in the sixteenth chapter of the
letter to the Romans, seventeen th verse: "Now, I beseech you,
brethren, mark them which. cause divisions and offenses
contrary to the doctrines which ye have learned, and avoid
them." Now, it devo lves upon my Brother O tey to produce the
teaching that the use of instrum ents of mu sic is contrary to
in New Testament teaching. If he can do that, he w ill show
that the use of these musical instruments is sinful because it
transgresses the law, because it is contrary to the mind of
the great Law Giver. But if he f ails to do that, then his
proposition falls to the ground, all goes to pieces, and there
is no rec overy for it. And I do hope that my brother will lay
aside his conventions, so far as this propo sition is conce
rned and his endeavor societies and his federations; and all
those exOTEY-
BRINEY DEBATE. 37
traneous matters, and just squarely face this issue, and tell
us why this thing is sinful. Is it sinfu l in itself, or is if
sinful because it transgresses the law? If h e says yes to the
la tter, then to the law and to the testimony. Let the law be
broug ht forth. It ought to be very plainly written. It ought
to be so inscribed that he who runs may read; because f rom
his point of view the question involves the eternal interest
of the people. So I want the law, and you want the law, and I
s hall not be sa tisfied with h is philosophies or his
inferenc es or his opinions. These used to satisfy me when I
was a baby preacher, but I have learned a great deal better
than that in these thirty-nine or forty years; but that comes
a little farther along. Now, this passage of Scripture says,
"Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the
doctrine which ye have le arned." Has Brother Otey received
any such tea ching? If so, bring it forth, and let us look at
it and weigh it. I am as much interested in it as he possibly
can be, and those who sympathize with me in my position want
to know where the law is. No man's interpretation of any part
of the Lord's book is law. No man's opinion in regard to an
ything in the sac red writings is law. It may be law to him,
but not to me or to the rest of the Christian world. We call
for the law. We want it as it is written in the bond, and if
it must come from very near the heart of the opposition, very
near the heart of this great error, then let it come, and let
the blood flow. We want the law. If it is sinful beca use it
transgresses the la w, again I say, give us the law, and it
shall suffice; an d the very mo ment he d oes that, I am ready
to take him by the hand a nd sit dow n in heavenly plac es in
Christ Jesus and say, you are right and I am wrong, but I want
to be right, and I am now with you; but if he fails to produce
the law, will he do that or an ything like it?
Then any brother speaks as to the origin of this debate.
38 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
I supposed we were here to debate and not to give an account
of the origin of the debate. If I w ere to judge from the
contents of ~ my dear brother's speech , I would conclu de
that we we re not here to debate, but to run around here and
there discussing about Sand Creek and things like that, thus
consuming time without any reference to the obligations of
logic or the requirements of this proposition. We are here to
debate, to investigate, to d iscuss the issu es involved in
the wording of this proposition. It was agreed between him and
me that this discussion should be at Sand Creek. I found out,
however, that my brethren there, those who sympathized with
the view I take, did not want the discussion, and I have never
yet imp osed myself upon any people contrary to their wishes
in the matter, and w hen I found out ho w their sentiments
were on the subject, that was enough for me, as I think it
ought to be for any self-respecting man, and I cancelled the
engagement and gave him the liberty of going over there and
holding the debate by himself, if he were so disposed. I don't
think he went. He has been about Sand Creek a good deal, and I
h ope that he bundled u p a little sand and brought it with
him somewhere about his corporosity, enough to come squarely
up to the proposition and discuss it, and let us see how it
is. Somebody is wrong. If I am wrong, I want to know it, but I
can not be made to know exce pt by the law—the Word of God.
Why does he affirm? He affirms because he agreed to affirm,
and he affirms an affirmative, too. To say that a certain
thing is contrary to New Testament teaching is to make a n
affirma tive assertion. T o say that a thing is sinful affirms
the same thing in regard to that thing. My good friend, there
is nothing to gain by skirmishing and maneuvering in that sort
of way. He IS clearly and logically in the affirmative. He has
stepped out on this proposition and agreed to affirm it. Now,
let him walk up manfully
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 39
to it and undertake what his proposition requires at his
hands. Now, my dear f riends, I objected to the word
"authorized," and I objected to it because that term is am
biguous, and the discu ssion would have turned upon what is
authority, and how can a thing be made authoritative or
authorized , and that would open - the field of skirmish, and
the skirmish line might have been drawn around all creation
and might have kept US away from the issue involve d, and I
wanted to come right UP to the issue.
Now, I want to sa y, as to the merits o f this question , I am
who lly indifferen t. He refers to my practice. I have no
settled practice in the matter. I worship with people where
the re is an instrument, and where there is none. I do not
care whether an instrument is used or not. Looking at it from
the standpoint of its own merits, I am indifferent, but there
are some attendants that go along with it sometimes that make
it somewhat important. W hen left to itself, when caused to
stand out before me in its own proper habilaments, I do not
care the snap of a finger about it. But when my brother
undertakes to erect it into a test of fellowship, and to make
it a dividing wedge between the disciples of the Lord Jesus
Christ, then I am profoundly interested in the question. Now,
a thing may be authorized in various ways. It may be
authorized by a direct command or it may b e authorized in
this way; that is, a certain thing may be required to be done.
Well, the doing of that thing authorizes me to use whatever
assists me in doing it, unless I propose something that contra
venes e xpressly the Word of G od. I claim the use of an
instrument of music is authorized from that point of view. It
aids me in the matter of singing. In the first place it gives
me the right pitch. Our brethren who differ from us use the
tuning-fork. That is an instrument of music. All the
difference is they use
40 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
the fork for the first note and we accompany every note. And
if the use of an instrument all along the line is contrary to
the N ew Testament, and sinful, the same is true of the
tuning-fork.
My friend had a good deal to say about washing hands and cups
and pots. If we were discussing domestic economy that w ould
be very appropriate, because it is exceedingly proper to do
that in the home. But what has that to do with this
proposition? My friend strenuously objects in one brea th to
introducing irrelevant matter, and then goes right on and
occup ies most of his speech in troducing irrelevant matter.
What has the w ashing of pots and c ups to do w ith this
matter? Does he affirm that the washing of pots and cups is
contrary to New Testament teaching and sinful? No , sir; he is
affirming that the use of instrum ents of music is contrary to
New Testam ent teaching an d sinful. My friend don't stop with
presenting a dilemma. He presented a trilemma, and I think he
exhausted the whole catalogue of lemmas, and whichever one I
take will be fatal. I believe the Bible, which both of us
respect,' says something about not boasting until you put off
the armor— not to boast before you put the armor on but to
wait until the battle is over, and then boast. I recommend
that expression to my w orthy brother.
Well, it is opposed to the law of expediency, and here his
chief witness was one J. 13. B riney. Is that his proposition?
Of course, not. I once held that view. I w as brough t up in
it almost from the cradle, and without very much investigation
I just accepted it, mostly at secondhand. He says this was my
position' before I turned over to the popular side. Be
careful! Tread lightly! I want to say to you that when I
espoused the cause of the liberty of people to use instrum
ents of mu sic in the State of Kentucky, it was a most
unpopular thing among our brethren. That was my position
thirty-nine or forty years ago, when
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 41
I didn't know any more about this subject than my friend seems
to know about it now. If a m an does not learn anything in
thirty-nine or fo rty years, he ought to resign. Now, I have
changed my opinion in that regard. I have cha nged it on
several matters. I believe the re is an old adage, that wise
pe ople chan ge their opinions sometimes, but another class
never does. I believe that you w ill, or would decide, if it
were submitted to you, that the large part of this speech,
which was copied from me, was by far the best pa rt of it, and
if my brother will continue to read and study and imitate T .
B. Briney, why, l think there is some hope for him.
Brother, let us discuss this question. Bring the Scripture tha
t this practice transgresses or undertak es to show tha t the
use of in struments in the worsh ip of God is sinful in
itself. That is your laboring oar. That is your proposition.
That is what you are under obligation to do standing under
this proposition. That is what you have to prove, and lay
aside all these extraneous matters. Lay aside all these
conventions, and march right up and stand erect. He can do
that; that is, until something like that occurs.
That is just a motion of my fist, Mr. Reporter; you can't take
that down, and I don't intend to put that in practice. You
need not have any uneasiness about that, Brother Otey. I said
that the use of instrumental music in worship was born five
hundred years out of time. I took up that old error that has
been exploded again and again since then by myself. I hav e
answered myself, Bro ther Otey. Why didn't you read the
answer? Born five hun dred years ou t of time! The common idea
is it was introduced into the Ch ristian worsh ip by the Pope,
and I wa nt to say here, and I expect to prove that away
yonder in the latter part of the second century at any rate,
it is historically certain that instrume nts accompanied
42 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
the music in Christian worship. Of course, I have not reached
that stage of the con troversy yet.
Now, I believe that I have shown that my brother's speech does
not establish his proposition. I think it comes under the
adage that we used to have when I was going to school, when I
was even younger than I was when I made that mistake that my
brother reads, to say of an argument that fails, "The conflux
of the argument does not subtend the analogy of the case ,"
and I think that is the w ay with my brother's argument. Its
conflux fails to subtend the analogy of the case. That is, he
fails to connect it with his proposition, and I want to say
here, my dear friends, that, if his proposition were afflicted
with measles, his proof wouldn't catch it, for the reason that
they don't come close enough together. That is, not so far;
but I am willing to wait and see. Now, I shall take up the
other branch, rep utation, and u ndertake to establish a
counter proposition, and I am going to the Scriptures, I am
going to the Word of God. I am not going to skirmish all over
creation, but I am going directly to the fountain of Divine
Truth. And first of all, I want to indulge in a little history
about as my good brother has done on another line, and I have
this in view in doing that; namely, to show that the use of
such music is not sinful in itself, because God approved it in
days agone, and not only approved it, but established it by
direct and immediate command; and, of course, He would not do
that, or anything else that was sin ful. It would outrage all
idea of God to suppose that He would approve and command a
thing to be done that was sinful in itself. Now, I call your
attention to the first insta nce o f it in Bible his tory, so
far as I have been able to ascertain. The children of Israel
are coming out of the land of Egypt. They have been bowing
their backs under loads of oppression and wearing yokes of
tyranny for some centuries.
A
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 43
deliverer comes to them in the person of Moses, and by and by
he assembles them together and leads them out of the land of
bondage, and in doing so, he takes them through the Red Sea,
by a channel open ed to them by miraculous and Divine power.
They are now safe on the other side. The horse and his rider
have been cast into the sea. The oncoming and
mischief-intending armies of Pharaoh have been overthrown by
the same Divine ha nd that opened that passage of deliverance
for H is people, and now, on the side of deliverance, Mirriam,
the sister of Moses, leads the women in a song of praise and
thanksgiving to the Almighty, and in doing that she led them
with timbrels and other instruments of music. (E x. 15.) Now,
where did God command that? I want to say to you, that a
loving he art, love in the heart, does not wa it for direct
and im mediate commands to express those feelings of devotion
and love.
Again and again it is said of the disciples that they
worshiped Jesus. I do not know how they did it. I do not know
how they expresse d their worship. They fell down on one o
ccasion an d took ho ld of His feet, and thus worshiped Him.
That was a way of expressing their d evotion to him. Where did
God ever command that? Again and again throughout history
these disciples prostrated themselves in His presence, and
worshiped Him in ways that the law of God knows nothing about.
That is, their hearts w ent out spontaneously in some kind of
expression of devotion to their Lord and Master. W ell, come
on down and we f ind it in connection with the tabernacle. I
do not mean the tabernacle in the wilderness, but the
tabernacle that too k its place in the tent that David built
in Palestine, and we find instruments of music employed in
connection with that;
44 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
there were instruments of music employed in that service in
praising and blessing and thanking God.
Coming down to the re-building of the temple and the
reconstruction of the City, there it is again, and even the
walls of the rebuilt Jerusalem were dedicated in connectio n
with instru =ments of m usic in thanking and praising God, and
on down into the days of Our Saviour and of his Ap ostles. My
dear friends, just come with me for a moment and let us go
into that Temple. There is the Master, and he is surrounded by
a company of his- disciples. There were these instruments of
music being used in praising and worshiping and thanking the
Almighty. Did the Saviour arise and plait together some
thongs, and drive the users of those instruments out of that
Temple? Did he sa y it is wrong,—"It is written that my
Father's house shall be a house of prayer, and ye have made it
a house of players on instruments"? He was there, and his
Apostles were there , and not on ly before the day of
Pentecost but afterwards Peter and John were going up into the
Temple at the ninth hour of the day, and there were these
instruments of music, and that these men went up there to
participate in those devotions where these instruments were
being used, it seems to me, does not admit of reasonable
doubt, and yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Saviour was
there in his life time, and notwithstanding the fact that the
Apostles frequented that Temple and participated in those
thanks and adoration and praise, yet not one line or one word
or one sentence ever fell from Apostle, Prophet or Christ in
condemnation of that practice. - I imagine, had my Brother
been there, he would have taken John and Peter aside and said,
"Brethren, don't you know they are using instruments of music
up there in the service? Now, I cannot conscientio usly do
that. I cannot even conscientiously go into a house where it
is being done." I have an idea he would have done something
like that if he had the courage to do it, and
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 45
he is a courageous man; bu t no one either by word or deed
expressed any disapprobation in regard to that matter, and
they are there, and the praises of Jehovah are ascending and
being accompanied by those instruments of various kinds, and
these men give by their presence and participation in the
service, indorsement to the use of those instruments; and I
claim that right there is authority, because not condemned,
authority because these men by their presence approved. So
that, not only has my friend not presented an y scripture that
co ntravenes th is custom, but I have called your attention to
facts, and I will pay attention more in detail to them further
along—facts that sanction the use of instruments of music in
the praise and worship of God. There was uttered no word of
disapproval, and that continued on every glad occasion. Oh!
what an occasion for song and hallelujah was that on the banks
of the Red Sea when these people had just been emancipated,
and in their joy they joined their voices together in singing
and praising Jehovah, and accompanied their voices with those
instruments. Then on the glad occasion of the bringing up of
the A rk. That w as attended with singing and shouting and
paeans of joy attended by the use of instrumental music. Then
the erection of the Temple, and the reerection of the Temple,
an d then the Saviour in the Temple, and then the Apostles g
uided by the sp irit of the living God, in the Temple,
engaging in these services where these instruments were being
used.
Now I take an advance step on this subject, and say that the
New Testament in words authorizes the use of instrumental
music in connection with the singing that the New Testament
approves, and this word is as much his as it is mine. It is
there for either of us to see at any time, and I am going to
make use of a few passages that I rather apprehend my friend
claims belong to him; but they don't belong to him any more
than they belong to me.
46 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
"Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and Spiritual
songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord."
Here are two words. One is psalms, and there is lexicographic
authority and scriptural teaching that psalms were song
accompanied by the use of instruments. What psalms are those?
Evidently the psalms of David, the psalms of the Old Testam
ent. If you want to know how they were rendered, let us go to
the pe ople who made use of those psalms and see how they did
it; and when we turn to those psalms written by David, guided,
I suppose, by the spirit of the living God, we learn that they
were accompanied by the harp which was an instrument of music.
Of course, that will be developed more fully. And then there
is another word, songs. The first word is psalmos, and the
other is ode, which means a song, and I shall prove by
lexicographic authority that both this word and psalm os
allowed the use of instrumen tal music, and I shall show that
in praising God in the ode they used instruments, and I shall
show this from the New Testament. So I find here authority,
both direct and implied, for the use of instrumental music in
the worship of God, in songs and in praise and in thanksgiv
ing and adoration. My dear friends, if a psalm could be sung
by David m connection with an instrumental accompaniment, in
the name of sense wh at principle cu ts it out under the new
dispensation? And right here is room for my good friend to do
some very close and careful and skillful work. We are told to
sing these psalms. How am I to learn how to sing them. Did not
the man who indited them and first sung them, know how to do
it, and if he did it in a certain way, and I am not forbidden
to do it in that way I am authorized to do it in that way, in
that I am adm onished to sing psalms. I go to this Word, and I
find out that psalms were sung, and how it was done, and I am
admonished here to sing a psalm, and I am authorized to do
just like the man who first indited and first employed
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 47
psalms in the service of God. Again Christian people are
permitted to prophesy; and I allege that we must learn how
that is done from the Bible, and I learn from this sacred and
inspired volume, that Prophets prophesied in connection with
the use of instrum ents of music. I am just laying down
general propositions in this speech. I will follow them later
on with analysis, and with detail of argument and proof. Paul
says you may all prophesy, and I go bac k to the prop hets of
the O ld Testament, and I find them prophesying in connection
with instruments of music. And I am authorized to sing a song,
and to find out how to d o it I must learn how it was done by
the prophets of old, and I find out that they did it in
connection with instruments of music.
I now call your attention to some passages found in the Book
of Revelation. First I refer to the 5th Cha pter, and the 8th
and 8th verses. I will begin reading with the 7th verse. "And
he came and he tak eth it out of the right hand of him that
sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the book, th e four
bea sts and the fo ur and twenty elders fell down before the
lamb, having every one of them a harp, and g olden vials f ull
of incense which are the prayers of the saints, and they sing
a new song"--that is the word ode I refe rred to a while ago.
How are they singing this ode? How are they rendering this
song? They are rendering it in connection with harps, that is,
in connection with instruments of music. Now, says the
Apostle, sing the [ode], and I turn over here and I find out
that those who sang the ode did it in connection with the harp
and other instruments of music, and thus God's approval rests
upon it.
Again in the 14 ch apter: "And I looked, and, lo , a Lamb
stood on the mount Sion, and with him tan hundred, forty and
four thousa nd, having his Father's name written in their
foreheads.
2. "And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of
48 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder; and I heard
the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
3. "And the y sung as it were a new son g before th e throne."
A gain that word [ode], the song that Paul tells us to sing,
and here were these people in connec tion with the ir
adoration o f Jesus, in connection w ith praising the Lamb,
singing this song in connection with instruments of music.
Once more and finally, in the 15th chapter of this same book,
the Book of Revelations: "And I saw an other sign in heaven,
great and marvelous, seven angels having th e seven last p
lagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.
2. "And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and
them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his
image and over his mark, and over the number of his name,
stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.
3. "And they sing the song of M oses" —There again is the word
ode—"the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb." There it
is, my friends, singing the song of Moses, because Moses was
the type of Christ, singing the song of the Lamb, who was
Christ. and they did that in connection with the use of harps
and other instruments of music. Now, if we are authorized to
sing psalms, and we find out that those who sang the same
psalms did St, in connection with instruments of music, and if
we are admonished to sing the ode! and we find out that those
who san g the ode d id it in connection with instruments of
music, and that God approved it, who shall say nay? It is a
question of liberty in Christ Jesus the Lord. It is a question
of a man's right, and of a church's right to do things that
are approved, in such a way as n ot to violate anything taught
on the same subject either there or elsewhere. Now, my
friends, refe rring to the matter of baptism: I w ear
waterproof overalls becau se it aids me, and there
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 49
is nothing forbidding it that I have been able to f ind in the
word of God. A man who canno t hear very we ll uses a trumpet.
W hy? To aid h im in hearing, to aid his ear. A man who has
lost his teeth may use artificial teeth in singing the praises
of God, because they aid him in that. They help him to do the
thing that he is authorized to do by the word of the living
God, and being thus authorized to do it, it is not sinfu l,
for it transgresses no law.
It is said in the word of God that God is love, and from my
reading of his Word I believe it might as well be said that
God is music.
Elder Daniel Sommer: The time is up. Elder Briney: And so is
the speech.
W. W. Otey's Second Speech.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: In beginning the
second session of o ur discussio n, I desire to say tha t I am
deligh ted with the progress made, with one exception.
It becomes now my duty to remove what little rubbish my
opponent may have been able last evening to pile upon the
issue, and to clarify the water that was so little muddied.
In the first place I want to say that that part of the past
discussion with which I am not pleased as referred to, was the
wit and ridicule and stale humor th at was ind ulged in by my
opponent on yesterday evening. I am sorry beyond expressio n
that this has ta ken place so early in this debate, and I will
say, furthermore, that the importance of this occasion is too
great, the solemnity of the situation is too overpowering, for
me to feel like either be ing mirthful or trying to ex cite
your m irth. We are here on th is occasion in vestigating in
the light of God's
50 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
Word issues of such magnitude that they have rent asunder a
body of believers in Christ numbering one and a quarter
million of people, or more. It seems to me that it is an
occasion that should overwhelm us with sadness an d sorrow and
cause us to weep rather than anything else; and I earnestly
appeal to my worthy opponent this afternoon, as a son might
appeal to a father, let us not mar this occasion or the book
that shall be printed by anything of this character. Let us
elevate this discussion to that high and holy and grand and
glorious plane upon which it ou ght to rest.
Now, in the first place, I w ish to say some reply was made to
what I said with reference to the origin of the debate, and
what propositions ought to have been d iscussed. I am
satisfied with what was said on my part, and I pass that by.
The first thing I sha ll notice is this, the fact that h e has
chan ged in his teachings and practice since the year 1869.
This is shown by the article I read from his pen on yesterday
evening, and he acknowledges it as his own, and admits that he
has changed; not only changed, but absolutely reversed his
position upon th e question now at issue. I graciously
exonerated him from having changed through any impure or
sordid motive, but I said surely he must hav e been change d
by the Word of God, and I have asked him kindly and plainly
and pointedly and repeatedly to turn to the passages in God's
Word that wrought the change. We are waiting for the
Scripture, and we ask again. I said we would not imply for a
moment that anything but Scripture had wrought the change, so
let us have the Scripture. B ut did you notice his reply to
that? He said "I was then a bab y preacher," and implied that
you couldn't expect anything more of him at that age. Be that
as it may, but I have taken the argument word for word and
letter for letter from a man whom he calls "the baby
preacher," an d I give those arguments
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 51
my indorsement, and I make them my ow n, and now I ask the man
to refute the baby. Elder Briney has grown since then. He is a
man of power today, a man of intellect, a logician of
reputatio n that is as wide as the earth itself. He speaks in
contempt, you might say, of the argument of the "baby
preacher." T hen, it ought to be a very easy task indeed for a
man of Elder Briney's power and logic to refute a "baby
preacher." We ask that he refute him, and until he enters into
that essay item by item, argument by argument, scripture by
scripture, and shows wherein the reasoning is illogical, and
the conclusions are unscriptura l, it stands and will stand. N
ow let us h ave him re fute it. It has stood f orty years
unrefuted: will it stand to the close of this week? We shall
see. Now, you will reme mber that I drew the issue last night
as clearly as I could, and defined the issue as being the
issue of authority. By whose authority is instrumental music
used in the worship? Then I asked a question, "Is it from
heaven, or of men," and requested and demanded a categorical
answer. And what has he done? As I understand, he has
answered, and if I have misunderstood him, I am willing to be
corrected, and if I be correct in memory, then we have a
definite issue, and an opportunity for som e very close
logical, scriptural, analytical, work, and that is just the
kind of wo rk that I like to have.
Some months ago my opponent w rote me saying, "If you work w
ith me in discussion, you will have to work in short harness."
Now, how did he answer the question I asked him? He didn't
give a catego rical answer at that time, bu t later, if my
ears and th ose of oth ers heard him aright, he said that
instrumental music is authorized in the New Testament
Scripture. Now, we have something definite, something clear,
an issue defined. Now, what do we want? We want the Scripture,
or scriptures upon which he bases that affirmatio n, and then
we will meet there and test the question. Here is an issue as
clear as
52 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
light, as close as it can be drawn; an issue o f authority,
and he ha's affirmed, as I say, that it is used by Divine
Authority, and therefore, has said it is from Heaven and not
from men What was my first argument last night in proving that
instruments of worship were opposed to the New Testament
teaching and sinful? It was this, that it was a doctrine and
commandment of men, and as such it transgressed the
commandment of God ! and is sinfu l, and renders the worship
of those who used it, vain worship. Now, right here there is a
thought that presents itself. I am not assuming that an
instrument of music is sinful in itself. Instrume ntal music
in and of itself is all right, but the question to be decided
here is, is instrumental music as used in connection with the
Lord's Supper. opposed to New Testament teaching. and sinful,
and that is what I am affirming. You will remember that I read
the language of the Saviour in which he talked to the Jews.
The Jews had taken the act of washing cups and pots, etc., and
made it a religious observance. You will remember that I
called attention to the fact that these things were all right
in and of themselves, and furthe rmore I aff irmed it wo uld
have been wrong to have neglected them in the private circle
as acts of cleanliness, but I said when they did this as a
religious obs ervance, it changed the whole matter, and Jesus
said, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God? But
in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the
commandments o f men." (Matt. 15:3, 9.) Instrumental music in
the worsh ip, "when ce is it? from heaven or of men'" Then I
asked the question. How did my worthy opponent meet the
question? Did he come to that Scripture and analyze it and
show that it had another application than the one I made? Did
he show that my reasoning was unsound or that my conclusion
was false? If he did, I did not so understand it. You remember
last evening that he told you what he had
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 53
proved, and what I had not proved. That is no t my business. I
am not going to tell you what I have proved, or what he has
not proved. I am going to bring the Scripture and the
argument, and you may judge. Whenever an individual begins to
tell his audience what he has done and what his opponent has
not done, I feel that it is because he is uneasy for fear the
audience will not find it out without being told. I am willing
to produce scriptures and adduce the argument, but I will
leave the result with you. How did he treat that? He simply
said, it is not a matter of dom estic aff airs at all, and
brushed aside the sacred and solemn words of Jesus Christ with
lightness and levity and ridicule. So I say that argument
stands.
My next argument is this: The use of instrumental music in the
worship is opposed to the New Testament law of expedience. I
did not introduce any argument on that which I myself had
originated. What did I do? I took the argument of "the baby
preacher," arid for the time being rested my case on that. Did
it stand? If there wa s any attempt to refute it, I heard it
not. He brushed it aside by saying that that was written by a
"baby preac her." Will the man refute the "baby preacher," and
show wherein the "baby preacher" reasoned illogically, and
reached wrong conclusion s, and that w ill suffice. When he
defeats the "baby preacher,' it w ill be my defea t. for I am
standing upon that argum ent. Now, I am coming to consider
some other things. He said he had changed. He repudiates those
things which he said forty years ago, but I will come closer
to the present date. That he has changed. no one will deny,
but he is still changing. I am coming closer home and I am
going to read quotations from the Christian Companion that he
published and edited in this city a few years ago: "We are
fully satisfied tha t this (instrumental music) is a matter
that belongs to the sphere of Christian liberty,
54 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. and that it is a
trespass upon this liberty for anyone to unde rtake to abridge
it.... "Here we rest the case from this point of view, and
hold that the questio n is pure ly one of expediency.... "We
now state that the New Testament by fair and logical
implication, allows the u se of an ins trument in singing the
praise of God. . "We understand that it might or might not be
used;" that is you can use it or not. Now I come do wn close
to our time, an d I am read ing under the date of November
5th, 1907. That is not forty years ago: "We beg leave to say
that we do not defend the use of instruments of music in the
worship of the Lord. We do not care a rap about it." Last
night he said, "I do not care a snap a bout it." "Life is too
short and other things too important for US to spend time in
defending or opposing instrumental music in the wo rship."
"The New Testament is silent in regard to the use of
instruments of music in the wo rship of God." Now here is
February 4th , 1908 "T he use of instruments is an aid in
singin g, and it is proper to use it."
Again under the same date: "We deny that God prescribed any
music for worship in his church." I get these over the
signature of my worthy opponent in this year.
Again in April, 1908: "We now deny that singing is an
ordinance of divin e worship at all." "The brethren took to it
of their ow n accord in the early part of the church of Ch
rist." Again: "Christians without any command continued to use
that method to praise their M aster."
Now come down to last night when he says: "I now take an
advance step. The New Testament authorizes the use of
instrumental music in the wor ship." If that is n ot changin
g, I don't know what would be. "I have no settled practic e on
this subject,"
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 56
Now, in the name of all that s reasonable, when will the man
have any settled practice if he has been going at this rate
for the last ten months?
So we see that he says that he does not care "a rap about it,"
and then he sa ys "the New Testament is silent;" then he says
"it is an aid ," and then that "it is pro per;" next "we deny
that God has prescribed any music," that is, either vocal or
instrumental If he has not, by whose authority do w e use it?
"We deny that singing is an ord inance of divin e worship at
all." "The brethren took to it of their own accord." "God
never commanded or authorized it, but the brethren took to it
without any command at a ll." And he says, "I now take an
advanced step and say that the New Testament auth orizes it."
I have cut that out of a written discussion of his, conducted
within the last ten months. Now, w e want to know where he
stands this evening. He took an advance step last evening that
I never saw taken before. Where will he be this evening?
Now, I will take Up some things that were introduced last
evening. The most plausible thing that he referred to was
Miriam and the timbrels, and then to David and the ha rp, and
then to the disciples in the Temple, and finally to
Revelation.
Now take up Miriam We find that when they crossed the Red Sea
she took timbrels and went out and sang a song, and she used
the timbrels. She sang and had an instrumental accompaniment.
But let us see something else: "And Miriam . . . and all the
women went out after her with timbrels and with dances." (Ex.
15:20.) Now, he reasons that because Miriam and those women
used trimbrels with the psalm that we may use instrumental
accompaniments, tile organ, the fiddle or the horn, around the
Lord's Table on the Lord's Day. If he has proved that we may
use instrumen tal music in connection with the Lord's Supper,
he has proved also that we may dance
56 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
around the Lord s table. He says that the prophetess used
timbrels w ith her singing. All right. Does it not prove also
that she danced? Then, we say he has violated that principle
of logic which says, "that which proves too much proves
nothing." Stand by all or nothing. Now if he has proved that
because Miriam used timbrels in connection with the song, and
that therefore we can use an instrument of any kind in
connection with the Lord's Supper, he has proved that people
can come to the Lord's Table and dance.
Now, what else do we find? In the second place, we find that
he referred to David and Miriam, and justified his position by
going back to the law. What does Paul say about the man who
justifies his practice by the law? Turn to Galatians 5:1,3. H
e says: "Stand f ast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ
has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." What was that? Going back to the law, and he says in
the 3rd verse, "For I testify ag ain to every man that is
circum cised that he is a d ebtor to do the w hole law ."
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are
justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." Now, he
justifies to practice by the law. Paul says "Christ is become
of no effect unto you, whosoever o f you are justified by the
law ."
In the third place, what does he say? Whatever God at any time
commanded in the worship cannot be sinful in the worship now.
God once commanded instruments of music in the worship
Therefore, instruments of music in the worship cannot be
sinful now. That was his reasoning. In other words, he said it
was justified, because, if not specifically forbidden, it
could not be sinful now.
Here is the conclusion: Whatever God commanded in the worsh ip
at any time cann ot be sinful in the worship now. God once
commanded the burning of incense in the worship. Therefore,
the burning of incense in the
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 57
worship cannot be sinful now. They burnt incense under the
law. Would you burn incense now? Has God said in so many words
that you shall not bun, incense? H as God said in so many
words that you sh all not pray to the Virgin Mary? Has God
said in so many words you shall not go to the confessional?
Has God said in so many words that you shall not p ray souls
out of Purg atory? Oh, no . But we say that God's silence upon
these questions is binding, and so God's silence upon the
question of instrumental music is binding. That is the way we
reason. I s it correct, is it goo d reasonin g, is it
scriptural, is it logic al?
Now about Re velation. He went to Revelation, and what did he
find? They sang the song of Moses and the Lamb: "And when he
had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders
fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
golden vitals full of odo urs, wh ich are th e prayers o f
saints." (Rev. 5 :8.)
He said the word that is here translated song, is the same w
ord translated song In Ephesians 5:19, and that they sang th
is song in heaven with harps, and therefore, we may sing songs
in the church w ith instruments. If that prove s that we m ay
use instrum ental music in the worship, it also proves that we
may burn incense in connection with the Lord's Supper, for the
same verse that sa ys they used harps, also says that they
burned incense.
Suppose that where Elder Briney worships, some persons should
come in on Lord's Day with howls of incense to burn in
connection with the Lord's Supper, and some one should object
and say it is wrong to burn incense in the church. Then my
opponent could rush to their rescue and say, "They burned
incense in connection with the song in heaven, and what God
approves in heaven cannot be sinful to do in the church. Do
you not see that if he ju stifies the use o f instrumen tal
music from this scripture he also justifies the burning of
incense in the worship? But
58 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
if the harp ha d been m entioned b y name in this scripture
would he have suspected their being a harp there? If the Holy
Spirit had not used the specific word that is here translated
"harp" w ould any man have suspected that they used the harp?
In Ephesians there Is no word translated harp. Then, why
suppose that there was any musical instrument there? This is
an important question and we want a direct answer to it.
J. B. Briney's Second Reply.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I shall take hold
of that speech by the hot end, that is, where he left off, and
pursue him on the back track.
First. If the harp had not been mentioned, who would have
suspected that it had been there? My good Brother missed the
point wholly that I aimed to make by referrin g to this passa
ge. I did that to show that this Ode means a song that may be
accompanied with an instrument, and that is my proof. There it
is, and it is in Colossians, and in Ephesians. Sing the o de,
the rough breathing is not there. I turn to Revelation and I
find the ode is a song that may be sung to the accompaniment
of an instrum ent. Who cannot see that point?
And he referred to incense. It expressly says there that the
incense is the prayers of the Saints, That incense was a type
or representation of the prayers of the saints. Do you find
anything like tha t in regard to the music of the harp? He
says that God did not say, do not pray to the Virgin Mary, or
do not pray to get people out of Purgatory. May we do it now?
If God ever authorized it we may. My argument that he was
attempting to answer was that when God has authorized a thing,
that may be done in the same line, unless it is forbidden. Did
God ever
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 59
authorize people to pray to the Virgin Mary? Did- he ever
authorize people to pray people out of Purg atory? He's a
thousand miles from the subject.
Now about Miriam. My good brother fell into the trap just as I
expected he would. She went forth an d her sisters w ith
timbrels and dances. Now my friend says if we may have
instrumental music because the timbrels were there, then we m
ay dan ce around the Lord's Table, because the dances were
there. My good Brother, don't you know that the Hebrew people
had a musical instrument they called the "dance." If you
don't, read up on the subject. Get Smith's Bible dictionary
and learn something about the dance. They went forth with
timbrels and dances, that is, with timbrels, which were
musical instruments, and with musical instruments called
dances.
I don't know what my good brother would do if I hadn't written
something on this subject. He has not touched the subject this
afternoon at all. He has been bringing forward things that I
said. How does his proposition read?
The use of instruments of music under certain circum stances
is contrary to New Testament teaching, and sinful. That is the
thing that he is under obligation to prove, or to try to
prove, but he avoided as much of it as he possibly can. He
aims to keep just as far from it a s it is possible for him to
do. Is he afraid of his own proposition? Has he put some
dynamite in it that he is afraid may go off?
Where is the New Testament Scripture that the use of an
instrument of music in worship violates, and where is the
teaching of the New Testament against which the use of an
instrument arrays itself? I insist that my friend shall take
his proposition in one hand, and his alleged proof in the
other and bring them together. Le t him lay his prem ise in
the New Testament Scripture, and connect his premise with his
proof, and say, therefore the
60 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
use of an instrument of music in the sense in which we are
discussing the question, is contrary to New Testament teaching
and sinfu l. That is his burden. He cannot do it, and he has
to do something, and therefore he just plays all around the
subject, but fails to get to it. You have listened patiently
and carefully to this discussion so far, and I just want you
to go to work in your own minds and see if you can find the
passage or passages that he has adduced here out of the New
Testament, that condemn the use of musical instruments in
singing the praises of G od. You cannot do it for the simple
reason that he has not enabled you to do it. He has given you
no chance to perform that task, because he has not made an
attempt to show any passage of Scripture that he is willing to
lay down and say that the use of musical instruments
contradicts o r transgresses it. He says he w ants close,
short work. So do T. and we can have it right here. Give your
passages. name them one by one, that relate to the use of
musical instruments, and so relate to it as to condemn it and
make it sinful. Then you will have argument. These people know
what an argument is.
Well, has my friend attempted to show that singing is a divine
ordinance of worship? He seems much more concerned about
getting me to contradic t myself, than he is to try to sustain
his own proposition. When he adduces a passage which he claims
does make singing a divine ordinance in the worship of God,
then I will pay respectful attention to it but I insist that
he is off of the subject and out of reach of it in running all
over creation an d ignoring the proposition that he is under
obligation to try to prove. Now I insist that we shall have
some close work here, and we shall have it whenever he adduces
his passage or passages w hich he is willing to say the use of
instruments in singing the praises of G od contrad icts. He
has yielded the point of it being sinful in itself. He sa ys
it is not sinful in itself. Then it is sinful because it
transgresses
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 61
some law. Well, where is the law? l hat ought to be easy to
adduce if it exists. You can find the law of circumcision, and
for the sacrifice, but where is the law tha t the use of m
usical instruments in praising God transgresses? I have c
alled for it, and I shall call again and again, and about the
last thing I shall do in this debate will be to call for that
law, and I am sure it w ill not b e bef ore u s at th at tim
e. Now, he sa ys I don't care a rap about it. That is a fact..
I am wholly uninterested in it, hut when my brother con ies UP
w ith his inference, and undertakes to force that On me as a
standard of orthodoxy and faith, I object, and w ith all the
force and power in my ardent nature. I refuse to be bound
where Christ has left me free. ] say again that this is a que
stion of liberty and a question of expediency. The matter of
eating meat was a question of liberty and expediency. Whether
it might he done depended upon circumstances and expediency.
It was a matter of liberty, but Paul admonished his brethren
that they should not use their liberty to the hurt of other
people. A man may forego his privilege, and disregard his
liberty, and make concessions to other people for the sake of
harmony and peace.
My friend got among the cups and pots again this morning. Now
the Saviour in that connection said, "Why do ye thus
transgress the law of God?" T hen there was som e law on th at
subject. Now 1 call again for the law concerning instruments
of music. Where is the law that the use of instruments of
music transgresses? And when he shows that law, we shall have
something in the nature of argument from a logical point of
view, but not until then. My friend says w hen L do certain
things we shall have a clear issu e. We started w ith a clear
issue, and that clear issue requires you to prove your
proposition. That is clear enough. The proposition don't
require me to do anything hut follow him and notice what he
adduces under the name of argument. :l hat is all I am under
62 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
obligation to do. I may go beyond that, if I p lease, as I did
la st night, but the burden of proof is on him, and he drew
his own proposition, and if he didn't draw a propositio n that
presen ts a clear issue, what was he about? Was he aiming to
draw a pro position that w ould not present a clear issue? My
friend is interested in my welfare, and I sincerely appreciate
that very much, and he wants to know why I changed. I changed
because I found out I had been w rong. Tha t is why I changed,
and I congratulate myself on b eing in splendid company about
that. Peter changed his mind about going to the Gentiles and
preaching the Gospel to them. Paul changed his mind in regard
to the whole scheme of justification. God changed his mind in
regard to Nineveh. I say further, that just such speeches as
my brother has been delivering h ere were potent factors in
bringing about my change. When I came to look at the matter
caref ully and dispas sionately, I saw th at the argum ents in
support of the theory my friend is advocating were absolutely
void from a logical poin t of view. I h ad taken them up
without question and planted myself upon them, but when I came
to carefully weigh the matter, I saw there was nothing to them
from the standpoint of logic and argumentation, and therefore,
I changed, and I am ready to do it again whenever I see that I
am wrong, and will do it whenever he brings some Scripture
that the use of musical instruments contradicts. Whenever he
does that I will change, and I am not afraid of being called a
turn-coat either. As Bro. Franklin said, if I were to go out
to supper with my coat wrongside-out, and somebody called my
attention to it, I would turn it, and I wouldn't care whether
they called me a turncoat or not. My friend referred to what
he termed stale wit and humour. Now, my good broth er, I am
here to show th e futility of your argument, and if in doing
that they appear ridiculous and some people laugh, I have no
strings on the mouths of people. I deny that I went below the
plane of
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 63
high-minded, honorable discussion, as between brethren I am
aging to keep in good humour all the way through. There is
just a little vein of humour that bubbles through m e, and I
have never taken pains to throttle or destro y it. I am not
conducting a funeral. There is none on my side. If he has one
on his side, he can conduct it as it pleases him. I am not in
the funeral business.
Then he said he w as going to remove the rubbish . What rub
bish is he going to remove? The Scriptures fro m fifteen
hundre d years before Christ, on down and through his day and
the days of the Apostles, and the primitive Disciples. I have
quo ted Scripture running a ll through that period to show th
at the use ' of in struments o f music in praising God is from
God, and he calls that rubbish.
Now I laid down some propositions last night with the promise
that I would endeavor to make them good in due time. Now,
there are two words used in these passages from Ephesians and
Colossians, around which this controversy of course must
revolve' from a scriptural point of view. They are the word
psalo, in the verb form, or psalmos in the noun form, and the
word ode. These two words mean different kinds of songs or
hymns. What do these words mean, and how are you to find an
answer to that question? Of course we must go to the learned
scholars, to men who have studied these subjects and written
books upon them, and find out what these words mean as used in
the New Testament Scriptures.
I want to call your attention now . first of all' to what the
distinguished author of Thayers' Greek-English lexicon has to
say upon this subject. Under the word, "humnos, psalmos, o de:
Ode is the generic term; psalmos and humnos are specific, the
former designating a song which took its general character
from the old Testament psalms '(although not restricted to
them, See 1. Cor. XIV . 15, 26), the latter a song of praise "
Now here is a quotation from Bishop Lightfoot. one of the
greatest scholars that mode rn
64 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
times have produced, and which met with the approval of Thayer
himself, of course, bec ause he en ters no objection to it:
"While the leading idea of psalmos is a musical accompaniment,
and that of humnos, praise to God, ode is the general word for
song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise,
or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the
same song to be at once, psalmos, humnos and ode."
Now here these great scholars tell us that psalm os especially
suggests the idea of song accompanied by an instrum ent, and
that ode indicates a song that may be sung either with or
without instrument, and these two kinds of songs may be sung
in the connection in which they are named. I shall have
something more to say about that if my brother plants himself
on the ground that singing is an ordinance of worship. Now I
am going to call your attention to what some of the greatest
exegetes, interpreters of the Word of God, who ever wrote,
have to say on this subject. Commenting on this passage from
Ephesians the Expositors Bible says: " 'Singing and playing',
says the apostle. For music aided song; voice and instrument
blended in His praise whose glory claims the tribu te of all
creatu res. But it was 'with the heart', even more than with
voice or tuneful strings, that melody was made. For this
inward music th e Lord listens."
So in the interpretation of that passage this scholarly work
says that playing is implied, playing upon a musical
instrument.
And who more properly would come next than the celebrated and
disinguished Dr. McKnight. He says that "psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs are poems which were composed to be sung,
accompanied with a Iyre or othe r musical instrum ent."
Psalmos, one of the words used he re, and ode, another,
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 65
this scholar tells us, indicate songs that may be sung to the
accompaniment of an instrument, and that this is the idea of
this passage. Who is going to say that this distinguished man
and this distinguished work e rr in this matter?
When I say that Dean Alford was one of the greatest scholars
and exegetes that England ever produced, I se' what every
competent Judge knows to be the fact. Commenting on this
passage this distinguished scholar and textual critic says:
"Singing and playing (as well as speaking, not explanatory of
it Singing and playing corresponding to hymns and psalms
above)." So says that great scholar.
Now, my dear brethren, if on any disputed Greek word, we feel
authorized to go to the scholars, to the lexicographers, who
have studied these questions out, and who are as familiar with
them as my brother and I are w ith our A. B . C.'s, if that is
the source of appea l in regard to the meaning of words
generally, why not in regard to these particular words? And
when we make this appeal the a nswer co mes in clear and
ringing tones that these words mean songs that may be sung
with instrumental accompaniment,—"teaching and admonishing one
another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and
making melody in your heart unto the Lord." Singing and
psaloing. I want my friend to make the distinction. Sing and
do something else, and that something else indicated by the
word psalo, the w ord from which psalm comes. Singing and
psaloing, or m aking melody in your heart u nto the Lord.
There are two things. It is not singing or psaloing, but
singing and psaloing. Our word and is suggestive of the word
add. It implies an addition, that is, the essential thought is
that you are singing and adding something to it, and that
something is indicated by the word psalo. Now, my friend I
think m issed the po int in regard to
66 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
my allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures, and I want to
refresh his mind on this with my argument on that point. It is
this: We find that God approved the use of instru ments of m
usic in the praise tha t people rendered to him from the b
eginning o f the career o f the Israelites in their wilderness
life, on dow n. We find it in connection with the removal of
the A rk. We find it in connection with the building and
dedication of the Temple, and in connection with the
re-building and re-dedication of the Temple. We fin d it in
connection with the building and the dedicating of the walls
of Jerusalem, under the sanction of God, and then we come on
down and find it under the sanction of our Saviour.
Now, what did my brothe r do with th at? He d id not even
allude to it. There is something that has been going on for
fifteen hundred years under the approval of God and receiving
the sanction of God's Son. He is in the Tem ple where it is,
and not a frown or w ord of disa pproval. W. W. Otey's Third
Speech.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am sure you will
rejoice with me in the improved tone of the discussion, for
which I am thankful, and from which I tak e courage . I am
going, God willing, to publish this discussion by the
thousand, and I should very much regret that it should contain
anything that is not of a high tone Christian character
Now, I am going to begin and notice just a few thin gs where
he quit off, and I am going to notice nearly everything he
said, but I may lay over some things u ntil later.
One of the last things he said was th at Jesus sanctioned
instruments of music in the Temple. Very well, let us admit
that he did. Did he not sanction the burning of
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 67
incense, and the bu rning of b odies of an imals as w ell?
That was under the law, and whatever was under the law, the
Son of God sanctioned. Now, I am not going to tell you what I
have proved, or what he has not proved. I w ill let you decide
tha t your selves. Now he referred to what he said was
psaloing. He said it is to sing and add something. Very good.
What was added? He says psaloing. Very well. He says that
psaloing means making melody, and correctly so. Well, then
this psaloing is correctly translated "making melody." He says
it must be done with an instrument. Now let us find where the
melody was to be made, and -then we will find the instrument
to be used. Where do you make the melody? "Making melody in
your hearts." Is not that clear enough? Elder Briney says that
we must sing and do something else, and that that something
else is psaloing. What is the correct translation of psaloing?
He says- making melody. He says it was making melody on an
instrument. Let us grant it, but let us find where the melody
was to be made and we will find what the instrument was. We
find it was "making melody in your hearts." I have taken his
definition, and taken his application, I have taken the melody
as made by an instrument and located that instrument in your
hearts. The heart, then, is the instrument to be used in
psaloing. T hat is all that it is necessa ry to say in reply
to that long speech he made from the lexicons.
God says to do som ething. What is it? Sing, make melody. Now
then, if there is a musical instrument required, an organ or a
harp or a fiddle, we must have it. This is specific. There is
no may be or perhaps about it. God commands something
specific. If it is to sing, let us sing. If it is to play an
instrument, then let us play it. God says to do something.
What is it? Is it to "sing an`: make melod y in your heart "
or "sing and play? " Let him state positively.
68 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
I now proceed to examine some other things along this line,
and the first thing to which I want to call your atten tion is
this. You know he said I had slipped up on the dance. Have you
noticed how little he could get hold of on anything I said,
and how few slips he says I have made? He says that a dance
was a musical instrument. Let the word of the Lord def ine
that. Turn to 2 Samuel, 6: "David danced before the Lord with
all his might." What did David do? He danced.
Elder Briney said a while ag o that I missed the point w ith
reference to Miriam. He says that whatever God commanded at
any time and has not forbidden, is right to use now.
Therefore, God commanded the use of instrumental music under
the law, and has not spe cifically forbidden it, therefore it
is right to use it now. Do you remember that I spoke of the
incense? God commanded it under the law. Now, find the
Scripture where God has specifically for bidden inc ense in
the w orship now, and you will find where He has forbidden the
use of musical instruments. In the same chapter where God
forbids the incense, and says you shall not burn incen se, he
says you sha ll not use instruments. Everything under the law
that was not repeated under the Gospel of the Lord and Saviour
was rejecte d. He says, and insists that I must bring the sp
ecific Scripture that instrumental music in the worship
transgresses . Did I not bring Matthew 15, and Mark 7? Did I
not give you the interpretation of Jesus as to wha t
constitutes tran sgression? Did not Jesus sa y to the Jews
that when they washed their hands, cups and pots as a
religious observance that it transgressed the commandments of
God? He asks, "what Commandments"? Ah if only my those
Pharisees had had my worthy opponent to demand of the Saviour,
"Where is the command that it transgresses?" It transgressed
them all, and rende red all their worship v ain. That is w hat
Jesus said. He said
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 69
that to make the washing of hands a religious observance, made
all their worship vain.
He says I yielded the point that instrumental music was sinful
in itself. I never yielded it, as I never held that it was
sinful in itself. Therefore, I could not have yielded it, and
I want to call your attention to that at this time.
You remember that my second argument last evening was that the
use of instrumental music in the worship is opposed to the New
Testament law of expediency. Now, he demands that I bring the
Scripture that instrumental music transgresses. I will read
what the Apostle Paul says on exp ediency, I Cor. 6:12 and 13:
"All things a re lawful unto me, but all things are not
expedient: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be
brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the
belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them."
Again in I Cor. 8: 12 and I3: "But when ye sin so against the
brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against
Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to off end, I will
eat no flesh wh ile the world standeth, lest I make my brother
to offe nd."
I read again, I Cor. 11:32 and 33: "Give none offense, neither
to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own
profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." N ow,
here is the law of expedien cy as laid down by Paul, and to
what does Paul apply it? Before we can know whether or not the
use of instrumental music is opposed to the law of expediency
and transgresses it, we must know what the law of expediency
is, and to what Paul applied it. First, Paul applies it to
things named in the law o f Christ. Sec ond, he ap plies the
wo rd expedient to individual, personal, private privilege s,
like eating m eat. Third, before a thing can be expedient it
must edify. Fourth, if a nything of a p rivate nature or
character offends, it is not expedient. Now the fourth
characteristic
70 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
must necessarily be present before anything can be exped ient.
First, it must be named in the Law of Christ; se cond, it must
be an individual, personal, private privilege. Third, it must
edify. Fourth, it must not offend.
Now, does instrumental music violate the law of expediency on
any one of these four points? If so, we have found the
Scriptures that the use of instrumental music in the worship
transgresses.
Now, let us see: Paul applies the w ord expedient to thing s
lawful, things men tioned in the law of C hrist.
The organ, the horn and the fiddle are not lawful, because not
mentioned in the law of Christ.
Second, Paul applies the word expedient to individu al,
personal, private, liberties, like eating meat.
Now the second point of comparison: instrumenta l music is no
t a personal, private, individ ual liberty, but it is a public
act of worship in connection with the sacred and solemn
institution of the Lord's Supper. Third, before a thing can be
expedient, it must edify. Instrumental music cannot edif y.
Fourth, before anything can be expedient it must not give
offense to the weak brother. Instrumental music has offended
thousands and thousands of peop le, and divide d the body of
Christ.
Paul applies the w ord expedient to things lawful, things
mentioned in the law of Christ. Paul applies the word
expedient to individua l, personal, private liberties. Third,
before a thing can be expedient, it must edify. Fourth if it
does all these things, yet if it offends one weak brother, it
is not e xpedient.
I. Instrumental music is not lawful because it is not men
tioned in the law of Christ.
2. It is not an ind ividual, p ersonal, p rivate liberty.
3. It has no t the power to edify.
4. It offends brethren in Christ Now I claim that instrumental
m usic violates and trans
OTEY- BRINEY DEBATE. 71
gresses the law of expediency on those four points. Let us
join issues on this point and fight it out. I am willing to
rest the whole case here. He says that it helps; that it aids
the singing. Let us se e if instrumental music does aid in
obeying that commandment. Before we can know th at, we must
know clearly what are the purp oses and o bjects that God has
in view to accomplish by singing? What does God wish to do for
us or for Himself by the singing? We must have a clear
understanding on that point before we can know whether
instrumental music aids or not.
Paul says: "I will sing w ith spirit and understanding.' (I
Cor. 14: 15. ) Then he says, "Teach and admonish one another."
(Col. 3: 16.) Then again, "making melody in your heart to the
Lord." (Eph. 5 : 19.) So there are five objects that God wants
to accomplish by the singing. What are they?
1. To teach.
2. To admonish.
3. To do it w ith spirit.
4. With the understanding.
5. Make melody in the heart to the Lord.
Now, I will say I was under no obligation to leave the true
issue, and meet him on his own ground. He says that it is an
aid. That is not the true issue b etween u s. But I will deny
that it is an aid, and risk the whole question on that point.
What does God want to accomplish by singing? First, teach;
second, admonish; third, with the understanding: fourth, with
the sp irit; fifth, make melody in your heart to the Lord. Let
us see if instrumental music can help o r aid in doing this.
Can instrumental music aid in teaching your brothers? Mere
sound tends to obscure the meaning of the words sung. Hence it
cannot help to teach. Can mere sound aid in admonishing? You
know it is an utter impossibility, and it hinders admonishing.
72 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
Can instrumental music, mere sound, enlighten the
understanding? Let him affirm it and prove it if he can. I say
it can not.
Can the sound of an instrument aid the spirit to be more d
evout? You know it is impossible.
Can an instrument of music aid in making melody in your heart
to the L ord? You know it is an u tter irnpossibility.
Then I leave the question with you, friends, on that point for
you to say whether the sound of an instrument can aid in doing
any of the five things that God wants to do by singing.
Now, the question arises, if an instrument of music c annot,
in the very nature of things, aid in doing the five things, or
accomplishing the five objects that G od wants to accomplish
in singing, how, and in what way, may it and does it aid? I w
ill tell you: It aids the sound of the instrument to please
the fleshly sense of hearing, and that is all it can do. Now,
my friends, if we may add an instrument of sound to the
singing to please and satisfy and gratify the fleshly sense of
hearing, can it not be said with equal force that we may add
bread and the flesh of animals to the loaf, and the fruit of
the vine to aid these in satisfying the fleshly senses of
taste. Let him answer who can. I say then, that if we are at
liberty to add a mere instrument of sound to the solemn songs
of Jehovah to gratify the fleshly sense of hearing at the
Lord's Table, on the same principle we may add common bread,
and the flesh of animals to satisfy the fleshly sen se of
taste. B ut we learn that the worship of Jehovah is not for
the flesh, but for the spirit, is not to gratify and satisfy
the flesh, sense of hearing or the fleshly sense of taste, but
to edify and strengthen and build up the spirit of man, and to
honor and glorify God. When we realize this sacred and solemn
truth taugh t in God's word, that worship in all things is to
strengthen and nourish the spirit of man, and
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 73
to glorify God rather than to amuse and to entertain an appeal
to the fleshly and sensuous nature of man—I say, when we learn
this grand and important lesson, we will no long er mix the
tra ditions of m an with the mandates of God , but in faith an
d reverence and hum ility we will bow to the Throne of Heaven
and do only the things that God has required.
Now, here is an issue. He says it helps. Does it help or aid
in doing what God wants done? Or does it aid m pleasing the
flesh only? That is the point we w ant to consider. I will say
to you, my friends, that if you would express the inmost
thoughts of your hearts you would say that the first and last
thou ght in using instrumental music in the worship is to
gratify the flesh. We know that the introduction of
instrumental music is not to teach, nor to admonish, nor to
enlighten the understanding, nor to aid the spirit, nor to
make melody in the heart to God. but it is to please our
fleshly sense of hearing, and to attract the giddy and the va
in of the w orld. In the language of one w ho wrote clearly
and powerfully in a document that I shall read this evening,
you will see that the worship of the L ord's house is not
intended fo r the world.
Now, I desire to introduce my third argument. The use of
instruments of music in the worship violates the law of
Christian liberty, and is opposed to the New Testament
teaching, and is sinful. Here I will make another clear issue,
that the use of instrumental music in the worship is opposed
to the New Testament law of liberty, and, therefore sinful.
Now, that word "liberty" has been mot c abused than almost any
other w ord in th e language. What doe s liberty me an.? I am
going to give you some information on that subject from Paul's
letter to the Galatians, and then I w ill sum it up. Turn to
Galatians 3: 3 and 13: "Are ye so foolish? having begun in the
Spirit, -are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
13. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
74 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
law, being ma de a curse f or us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth o n a tree :"
Now in Galatians 4: 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, we read as follows:
3. "Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under
the elements of the world:
4. "But when the fulness o f the time w as come, G od sent fo
rth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. "To redeem them that were UNDER the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons.
9. "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known
of God, how turn ye again to the w eak and b eggarly eleme
nts, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage.
10. "Ye obser ve days, and months, and times, a nd years." Now
Chapter 5:1 to 4:
1. "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage.
2. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing.
3. "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that
he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, w hosoever of you
are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
14. "For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty: only use
not liberty for a n occasion to th e flesh, b ut by love serve
one another." Then Paul says in 2 Cor. 3:17: "Now the Lord is
that spirit: and where the spirit o f the Lord is, the re is
liberty."
Now we have liberty mentioned in contrast to bondage. What was
that bondage? T here was a two-fold bondage, a bondage-under
the law, and a bondage to the flesh. What is liberty in the
teaching of Ch rist? Stand fast therefore in the liberty
wherewith Christ has made you free. Where
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 75
do you stand? In the church , in the Gospel, in Christ. T hen
the word liberty is used in contrast to bondage. Liberty is
not license to do as you please, but used in contrast with
bondage under the law. In Christ, in the Gospel, in the
church, is where we have liberty in contra st with bondage,
and then Paul says, "Where the Spirit of th e Lord is, the re
is liberty." Where is the spirit of the L ord? It is in the
Gospel, in the body of Christ, in the Church. Liberty, then,
is bounded by the limits of the church of Jesus Christ, by the
Gospel. It is in the church, in the kingdom, and not license
to do as you please. How does the use of instruments of music
violate this law of liberty? By taking those who use it in the
worship back into bondage The Apostle says, "Ye have been
called to liberty; only use not libe rty for an occa sion to
the flesh." (Gal. 5: 13.)
Now, if you bring the instruments of music in, to gratify the
fleshly sense of hearing , you are in bon dage to the flesh.
Then again, he says, if you justify yourselves by the law, "Ye
hav e fallen from grace." (G al. 5:4.)
My worthy opponent has appealed to the
law to justify himself, and Paul says he has "fallen from
grace," has gone back into bondage, and that Christ has become
of no effect to him.
Perhaps he will say he appeals to the Psalms of David, an d
that is not law. If he wants to take that position, let him do
so, and I will meet on it. I say he appeals to the law to
justify the use of instruments in the worship, and Paul says
if you justify yourselves by the law, you have fallen from
grace, and Christ is of no effect. Therefore, you have gone
into bondage to the law. On the o ther hand, if you use it to
gratify the fleshly sense of hearing, you are in bondage to
the flesh, for the A postle says, do not use "liberty for a n
occasion to th e flesh." (Gal. 5: 13.) Prompted by either of
these motives, you are in bondage to the flesh or to the law,
and you have lost your liberty Are you in bondage to both the
law and the flesh? Let
76 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
us have this question met. Here is the Scripture that the use
of an instrument of music in the worship transgresses. Here it
is, unless he can refute the argument, unless he ca n define C
hristian liberty so as to justify its use. If he ca n, please
tell us how? Liberty is within the limits of the Gospel, not
outside. Others extend liberty far enough to justify the
burning of incense, and others to praying to the V irgin Mary,
others to praying souls out of Purgatory, others to bring in
this, that, and the other thing.
Now, if we are to determ ine the bou nds of C hristian liberty
by the judgment of man, all are right, and every man can
extend it just as far as he wants to. Then, by what rule of
measurement are we to fix the bounds of Christian liberty, and
where are we to stop? That is the question. Mark out the
bounds, take your compass and run the line. Point out how much
you may include under Christian liberty. What must we include,
and what must we exclude? I say, you must exclude everything
that God has not required or authorized in his word. J. B.
Briney's Third Reply.
Gentlemen Moderators, L adies and Gentlemen.—If you will
kindly give me your atten tion, I shall try to make this h alf
hour seem as sho rt as possible.
My good Brother began his speech by congratulating himself and
me, too, I suppose upon my improved tone. Now I just want to
say that anybody who has had any experience with debaters and
debating understands that is fol-de-rol. T hat is all it is,
and ev ery sensible person knows how to estimate that kind of
insinuation and innuendo. Talk about falling beneath the plane
of honorable debate, and spitting out of his mouth innuendo
and insinuations that have no foundation whatever in fact!
"Physician , heal thyse lf."
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 77
My good friend refers to burning incense,
and offering sacrifices. Now, I wonder if he does not know
that these things belonged to that arrangement that passed
away? Can he find where an y Apostle ever sanctioned any of
these things? I find where the Holy Spirit, through an
Apostle, authorized the singing of songs that were accompanied
by instruments of music. And what did he do with the
scholarship of the world that I read here against him? Nothing
under the heavens, but to wave his hand, and imply, "Avaunt
ye, I am here." The scholarship of the World says that these
words mean songs that may be sung with an instrument, and if
they do the Spirit of the Lo rd is there, because those words
were spoken by the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord.
My good brother said that psalloing w as something in addition
to singing, but he said, wh ere was it? "In the heart." Well,
that is not in the throat. Have you any vocal cords in your
heart? What is the idea? The idea is you are not to d o these
things simply from a worldly point of view. My friends, a
musician c an come just as nea r putting his heart into his
instrument as my good brother ca n come to putting his heart
into his throat. "Obey from the heart." That is, your heart
must be in it. I had the good fortune once to hear that
marvelou s violinist, Rem enyi, and you could just see that
his heart was in his instrument, his soul was wrapped up in
it, and it in his soul. That is the idea here, and we are to
do it heartily, as unto the Lord. You are to do it with the
idea of praising the Lord. My good brother says the only
purpose it can serve is to please the fleshly ear. What a
reflection tha t is upon D avid! Did David sing his psalm in
co nnection w ith his harp, or whatever musical instrument it
was, to plea se the sensu ous ear. W ho in this house will
claim to occupy a higher plane of spirituality than David did?
Who here will pretend to have more heart in doing things to
praise God than that man who was after the Lord's own heart.
You could do
78 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
this and not say a word. You tan make melody m your he art to
the Lord and not utter a syllable, and a good ma ny people
have to do it, for there are those who cannot sing; but they
can make melody in their hearts to the Lord. Well, a person
that can sing, and make melody in his heart to the Lord, can
play an instrument and make melody in his heart to the Lord.
My Brother's singing comes out of his throat. In the matter of
song, it says in the heart. It is not near the throat.
Sometimes his has been near there, but it don't belong there.
There is just as much difference between a heart and its
emotions and the throat with its vocal as there is between an
instrument and the vocal cords of the throat. Then he refers
to Samuel, and says that David danced. I didn't understand
him, but I don't think he took the position that in that
Miriam passage the word means that kind of exercise, and not a
musical instrument. How do I understand you on that? Do you
deny that it was a musical instrument, and do you claim that
it was the exercise of dancing, such as w e have, H e is as
dumb as an oyster, and no wonder. He dare not take a position
on that. That passage in Samuel says David danced. The other
passage says the women took timbrels and dances, and any good
authority will tell you those dances were musical instruments
that they took along with them in connection with the
timbrels. Then my friend goes to Matthew again, to where the
Saviour says. "Ye do transgress the law of good with your
tradition.'' The Saviour said that! and I do not think my good
friend Otey, tall as he is, is quite as tall as Jesus from the
standpoint of authority. He says an instrument of music
transgresses the law of God. The Saviour never said so. No
inspired A postle ever s aid so, no Prophet could ever have
said it. Nobody ever said it but an uninspired man, who spoke
not by authority on a question like this. He is to prove or
try to prove that the use of musical instruments in the
service, e tc., is contrary to New Testament teaching.
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 79
Now, he does not claim any passage th at it directly violates.
But he goes and gets several passages, and brings them
together, and draws inferences, and they are his inferences.
And I want to say that his inference is at variance with the
teaching and understanding and scholarship of the best
scholars of the world, in regard to the import of these
passages.
Now let us take the one conce rning eating meat. The idea is
you are not to do that which causes your brother to offend.
The idea is not that you shall not do anything that an ybody
might no t like—that is not the idea, but you must not do
anything that will lead another to sin. Here is an animal that
has been sacrificed to an idol, bought in the market place for
people to eat. There were people who had weak consciences, and
they supposed if you ate from the body of an animal sacrificed
to- an idol, that you recognized the id ol and engaged in
idolatry. Well, if I play an instrument and there by sin, I am
responsible for that, but I do not tell anybody else to d o
it. I am the only one. But I have called your attention to the
fact that an inspired apostle, by using words that the
scholarship of the world tells us indicates songs that may be
sung with an instrument, justifies the doin g of that, and it
is my liberty under that permission to engage in that; and
that liberty I may forego if I choose so to do, b ut it is a
libe rty.
Well, I believe that about covers what I have to say about
these passages from Corinthians.
Now, he says a th ing to be expedient m ust be lawful. I have
shown that it is lawful. I have shown from these passages, and
backed up my poor opinion with the mountain like opinions of
the world's best scholars, that tell me and you and him that
the Holy Spirit there uses words that mean singing done to the
accompaniment of an instrum ent, and that makes it lawful.
tender that permission I may do it, but as it is a mere
permission, and not an obligation, I
80 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
may fore go it and sacrifice my liberty in the case for the
sake of another.
"Sing with the spirit and with the understanding." That is
psallo, my brother, which the scholars tell us means such
singing as may be accompanied with an instrument, and I have
just shown you now that can be done with the spirit, and how
it can be done with the heart. You can tell the difference
between a man who pla ys an instrume nt with his heart in it,
and one who has not, just as you can tell the difference
between one who sings with his heart, and one who has not his
hea rt in it. You can tell the difference every time. My
brother says that singing does not aid in teaching. Well, I
think it does. He says it does not, and here we are. Singing,
well enunciated and sustained by harmonious melody of the
accompanying instruments, edifies me and aids in the matter of
teaching me. It has a subduing effect upon me. It brings me
more and more under the influence of the sentiment in the
words thus spoken. The words of real force can reach my soul
with add ed power, such as they would not have done without
the accompaniment. You know, my friends, that music has a tam
ing effect even upon wild animals. You can manage them better.
It su bdues them. Just so in regard to the human spirit, and I
imagine when David strung and tuned his harp, and sang those
beautiful songs of praise in the presence of the people, that
they felt the thrill of the sentiments of the words much more
keenly on account of the accompanying instrument. If not, why
was the instrument used? I again ask my brother to say whether
David was a sensuous man, and whether he used his harp to
appeal to the physical senses and the sensuousness of the
Lords' ear? Was he moving on that low plane, or moving on a
lofty plane of a high degree of spirituality and used his
instrument to help convey the sentiment and ideas and thoughts
of the words he uttered into the hearts and minds and lives of
those wh o heard him? Which was it?
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 81
He says it is done to attract the giddy and th e gay. Well, if
he w ants to become a judge of his brethren , all right. I am
w illing, my brother, to face you in judgment on that. Who is
this that says, "Sta nd ye apart, sensuous, fleshy, worldly?"
I wonder if David, in these grand , heartinspiring,
soul-uplifting psalms, in which he approached God, and on the
bosom of whose music he bore the people up to the very throne,
I wonder if he was appealing to the gay and th e giddy, and
the worldly and the frivolous. My brother Otey says that it's
all an instrument of music can do. David used an instrument of
music. Therefore, that is what David was doing!
Now, I want to say that pretty much all that the apostle has
to say in regard to being in bondage to the law has reference
to the law of circumcision. That u as a bone of contention
among the early disciples. They never contended about
instruments of music, because it had not dawned upon anybody's
mind then that instruments of music could not be used in
praising God . That was not the question. Wh y was it not a
question? Circumcision was a question. The eating of meat
sacrificed to idols was a question. But there was no question
am ong them in regard to the use of instruments of music.
simply because it had been ordained of God and continued on
down to the time of the destruction of the temple, and while
he correctly says the Saviour lived under the law, the
apostles didn't live under the law after the law passed aw ay,
and they went into the temple and participated in the exercise
just as the Saviour did before his death, and after the new
covenant was established, and the new order came in. And not
one word of disapproval, not a word of censure, not a question
raised as to the legitimacy of this music. Not a w ord. It
remain ed for after ages and uninspired men to coin out of
their own minds some opinions- and draw some inferences, a nd
try to erect them as a standard of orthodoxy, and make them a
bond of union and communion
82 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
among the people of God. It was not done in the days of the
apostles. Peter and John were go ing up in the temple at the
hour of prayer, being the ninth hour of the day, about 3
o'clock. There were these exercises and instrumental music,
and these men were going up there and participating. Why did
the y go at that hour' To engage in the services of that hour
in the prayers and praises. And incense and offerings gave way
to the things that the y typified. I c all my brother's
attention to--the fact that incense was but a shadow of
something to come and the substance came in and displaced the
shadow. What displaced the music? By taking the individual
back under the law, you destroy human liberty, that is, in
regard to circumcision. That is what Paul was talking about.
The Jews were insisting that the Gentiles should be
circumcised, and nobody could be saved under the gospel unless
he was circumcised. That is what Paul calls enslaving the
people, taking them back under that law of circumcision, which
was temporary, and of which it was expressly said it wag
removed and taken away. Where is that said in regard to the
use of an instrument in praising God?
Now, my friends , I want to take up my own line of argument.
You know I said there are two meth ods of m eeting an af
firmative arg ument. One is to show that the argument adduced
does. not sustain the proposition; the other is to e stablish
a contrary proposition. I have contended, and still maintain,
that that contrary proposition rests upon premises plain ly
laid in Scripture. And I want to say to you that instrumental
music is in the Church of Jesus Christ by prop hecy, and I
want to call your attention to the 45th Psalm which, by common
consen t,- is Messianic psalm, a psalm contemplating the
coming of Christ, and the establishing of his kingdom and the
praise of that kingdom:
"Thy throne, O Go d. is forever and ever: A scepter of equity
is the scepter of thy kingdom.
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 83
Thou hast loved righ teousness, and hated w ickedness:
Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of g
ladness above thy fellows. All thy garme nts smell of m yrrh,
and aloes, a nd cassia; Out of ivory pala ces stringed
instruments have made thee gla d." You would judge from my
good brother's speec hes that they make him very mad. Bu t
here is a ma n speakin g by the spirit of divine inspiration,
looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and the
establishing of his kingdom, and praise and worship of the
Lord. in and through that kingdom. and he says, "Stringed
instruments hath made me glad." A prophecy is often presented
in the past tense.
Then turn to the letter to the Hebrews, and you will find Paul
applying this psalm to Jesus in his kingdom. Of the psalm he
says, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever." This is.
spoken of the Son's kingdom, and the prophet is look ing
forward to that and contemplating it as a living reality. He
says, "Stringed instruments have made me glad." I am reading,
from the revised version of the Scriptures. Now, I want to
call your attention' to the eighty-seventh psalm, where we
have language of very similar import. To get the connection I
will read the entire psalm . It is short.
"His foundation is in the holy mountains.
Jehovah loveth the gates of Zion
More than all the dwellings of Jacob.
Glorious things are spoken of thee,
O, City of God.
I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon as among them that
know me:
Behold, Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia:
84 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
This one was born there.
Yea, of Zion it shall be said, this one and that one w as born
in her;
And the Most High himself w ill establish her.
Jehovah will count, when he writeth up the peoples.
This one was born there.
They that s ing as well as th ey that dance sh all say,
All my fo untains are in the e."
Now, in the margin we have this reading:
"Or the p layers on instruments shall be there." That is the
rendering, I believe, of the old version, and it is given in
the marg in as the equivalent of the other. Here we have two
distinct prophecies looking forward to the Messiah and His
kingdom, and these prophecies put the praise of Jehovah as
accompanied with instruments in that kingdom. It is there by
the authority o f prophecy.
Then when w e come to examine it from the standpoint of
history, and see the instructions that the inspired men of God
have given on the subject, we find their instructions
according with those prophecies. Now, just a word in
conclusion on that passage in Ephesians touching admonishing
one another. My friend and I are discussing singing from the
standpoin t of worsh ip. This is not worship. If so, they
would worship one another: "Teaching and admonishing one an
other." It is teaching and admonition, not worship. Teaching
and admonition addressed by the brethren one to another, and
not w orship add ressed to God. Is not that just as plain as
anything can possibly be made? Teaching and admonishing one
another and not worshiping God. And do this in psalms and
hymns and spiritual songs, using the two words to which I
referred in my former speech, which scholars say indicated
singing to the accom paniment of an instrument. Now, unless my
brother can come up and meet these scholars and say,
gentlemen, you are all wrong and I am
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 85
right about this—you university men, you men whose praises are
sung around the world on account of your scholarship, you men
who understand the Greek language to which these words belong,
you men who have studied these matters through and through,
you are mistaken in that matter, an d I, W. W. Otey, of Lynn,
In diana, am right.
EVENING SESSION.
W. W. Otey's Fourth Speech.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:—I shall not waste
your time by any preliminary remarks, but will enter at once
upon the discussion now before us, and it is necessary first
to reply to some things that my worthy opponent has said. You
remember that he said I had tried to make him "contradict"
himself. I b eg leave to say in kindness, that I did not try
to make him contradict h imself. I wo uld not try to make any
man do that. I simply read some statements made over his own
signature w ithin ten months of the present time, and, you can
decide whether or not he has contradicted himself. November
7th, 1907, he says: "We beg leave to say we do not defend the
use of instrumental music in the worship."
Under the same date he says, "we do not care a rap abo ut it."
Further on he says, "the New Testament is silent in regard to
instrumental music in the worship," and under date of February
4th, he says, "the use of instruments is an aid in singing ,"
and 'fit is proper to use them."
Then under the same date he says, "W e deny that God has
prescribed any music for the wo rship of his churches." Under
date of April, 1908 he says, "We now deny that singing is an
ordinance of divine w orship a t all."
Under the same da te he says, "The Brethren to ok to it
86 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
of their own accord." "Christians, without any command,
continue d to use that method to exp ress their devotions."
On yesterday evening, September 14TH, 1908, he says: "I now
take an advanced step. The New Testament authorize s the use
of instrumen ts of music.''
He then says, "I have no settled practice on the sub ject."
You w ill remember that he introduced Miriam a nd her timb
rels in order to prove that we should have instrumental music
in the worship now. I read Exodus 15:18, and found, "dancing,"
there as well as timbrels. You remember in his last speech he
took that matter up, and said my opinion was held up against
the scholarship of the world, and that I had been "trappe d.'
Now, I b eg leave to s ay this, that there was a time when a
part of the scholarship of the w orld said that the Hebrew
word translated dance, did mean a musical instrument, but now
the scholarship of the wo rld says it means to dance, a motion
o f the body. Furthermore, more than one hundred American
revise rs of our B ible have translated tha t word in its noun
form , and in eve ry instance it is translated to mean to
dance. Now, who is against the scholarship of the world? and
who is "trapped"?
That brings us to the next matter of importance, and that is
the word psallo in the Ephesian letter. You will remember that
my opponent has introduced that several times. I permitted it
to pass because the time was not yet ripe to reply. I waited
until all his arguments were introduced. You remember, also,
that his first authority introduced on that word was T hayer.
Now we will read from Th ayer. It is not fair to take only a
part of what any witness says, and suppress the balance.
The quotation made from Bishop Lig htfoot in Thayer's Lexicon,
to which he has referred, does not occur where Thayer is
giving the distinction between the classical meaning of psallo
and its New Testament meaning, nor was it given by Bishop L
ightfoot him self in that connection, but
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 87
it is a simple statement of the difference of meaning in these
words as used in history. But when Thayer comes to state the
difference between the classical and the New Testament
meaning, he distinctly declares that, while in classic Greek
it meant to p lay on an instrum ent of mu sic in the New
Testament, it means to "sing the praises of I will remind the
gentlem an, if he has forgotten it, tha t Liddell & Scott
is not a Greek Lexicon of the N ew Testament, but a classic
Greek Lexicon. We accept what it says on baptize, bec ause
baptize in the New Testament means to dip or immerse, just as
it mea nt in all classic Greek. That is, the meaning of the
word never changed. But psallo d id change in meaning; and
hence, Thayer, in his Lexicon, which is a New Testament
Lexicon, gives both meanings-the classical meaning and the New
Testament meaning; and in defining p sallo, which is the word
under which he gives the difference between the classical and
the New Testament meaning, he gives its classical meaning to
be to play an instrument of music, but he then adds that, "in
the New Testament, it means to sing, to celeb rate the p
raises of God in song."
Now I will read from Thayer. He says in the notes, "Sing a
hymn, celebrate the praises of God in song." Now. my friends,
in all kindness, but honestly, I ask you, and I ask my
opponent here, why did he suppress Thayer's New Testament
meaning of psallo? I ask you, is it fair, is it right? Does
truth need that kind of work? Why did he not give you what
Thayer had said as to its New Testament meaning. Our
controversy is not as to the meaning of the Greek word psallo
as found in classical Greek or in history, but as to the
meaning of that word as found in the New Testament, and yet
when my opponent comes h ere with Thayer as his autho rity to
define to you the meaning of the word in the New Testament, he
suppresses that definition and gives the definition of the
word as found
88 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
In classical Greek and in history. I leave that with you. Were
I disposed, I could say more on it but I w ill not at presen
t.
Now there are som e other ma tters that I wan t to attend to
ne xt. You remember that he went to the 45TH psalm to prove by
prophecy that instrume nts of music should be used in the
worship now. Do we need to go to prophecy to prove a
commandment under Jesus Christ? Is it possible that the
commandments of Jesus are so indef inite and so obscure that
we cannot learn what they are from th e law of Christ in the
New Testament, but that we must prove them by prophecy? Does
he n eed to go to prophecy to prove th e institution of the
Lord's supper? Does he need to refer to prophecy to prove that
we ought to sing? Does he need to go to prophecy to prove
anything else that is plain and simple in the New Testament?
No, he does not. But when he wants to prove that we should use
instrumental music in the worship, that is not so much as
mentioned in the New Testament, he goes to prophecy. Now, my
friends, that is not the first time that has been done. My
worthy opponent has held thirty debates before this one, and,
I presume some of them with our good friends, the
Presbyterians and the Methodists. Do you suppose that he would
permit them to go to Isaiah 52: IS, where it Is said "I will
sprinkle many nations," and prove what baptism is? Would he
not rather demand that his opponent should come down to the
New Testament, and find what the Lord commanded there? W ould
he no t tell his opponents, my friends, that it was a poor
practice that could not be sustained-by the Gospel in the New
Testament, but that the form of the commandment under Christ
must be sustained by prophecy? Now , I suggest to my good
friends, the Methodists and Presbyterians; if you ever debate
with him again, remember what he has don e here, and use it
against h im, becaus e it is fair, it is logical from his
stand
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 80
point. You remember that he said instrumental music "aids the
singing," and I said I would step over on his ground , and
meet him on tha t point. I then asked how an d in what sense
does it aid the singing? We saw that before we could decide
this question we would first-have to know what God wants to
accomplish by singing. W e learned that he wan ts us to
"teach" and "admonish," to do it "with the spirit," "with the
understanding ," and "to make melody in the heart to God." We
then learned that all that instrum ental music can do was, not
to help or aid in doing these five things that God wants done,
but it aids in pleasing the "fleshly sense of hearing." Do you
know what he said in reply to that, and how eloquent he became
over it? You have not forgotten. What did he say? He spoke
eloquently of David, and then said this: "That instruments of
music would soothe and subdue the savage nature of wild
beasts." That proved my statement exactly. Now I want to say
to you that I appre ciate a favor from any man, and my good
friend has given me the very illustration which proves just
that for which I was contending, that is, mere sound can not
build up the Christian spiritually, that mere sound cannot
"edify," that mere sound of an instrument cannot "teach,"
there mere sound of an instrument cannot 'made melody tin the
heart to God," but that the mere sound of an instrument does
appeal to the "fleshly sense of hearing." He says my argument
is true, for it "soothes the savage nature o f wild a nimals."
Now, in our hom es, in public gatherings on certain occasions,
I will say that it may be proper to have instruments of mu sic
to do this, an d to satisfy this fleshly sense of hearing. But
remember our w orship is not "fleshly" but "spiritual."
Another thought comes to my mind. He says that this "teach
ing" and "admonishing" was addressed one to another. But there
was a part of it addressed to God. It has a two-fold bearing,
the man-ward bearing and the God-ward bearing. It is to
benefit our brethren, to strengthen ou rselves and to
90 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
praise God. Why, then, should he ignore the two purposes God
has in view, and play upon the other.
Now, I want to bring befo re you some sc riptures on th is
subject of instruments of music "soothing the savage nature of
wild beasts :" "But the Spirit of Jehovah dep arted from
Saul." When Saul had back-slidden, the spirit of Jehovah
departed from him, and lo, his spirituality was gone His
spirit no longer hungered and thirsted to worship and praise
God, but his "savage animal nature must be soothed." "And an
evil spirit from Jehovah troubled h im."
16—Let our Lord now command thy servants, which are before
thee, to seek out a man; who is a cunning player on a ha rp:
and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from G od is
upon thee, that he sh all play with his ha nd, and tho u shalt
be w ell.
I7—And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that
can pla y well, and bring him to m e." ( I Sam . 16:14-16; 18:
10-11.) Now, do you know the story? David was brought, and it
made Saul feel better for a w hile, but did it make him
better? It so othed his "savage animal nature" for a while, bu
t did it make h im better morally and spiritually? If there is
power in sound alone to make a man better, morally and
spiritually, Saul ought to have been an excellent man, for
David was a skillful player. But it was not long before he
took hold of a javelin and tried to p in David to the wall.
When people lose their spirituality they want to be
entertained. They soon tire of old entertainme nts and want
something new. When we are tru ly humble and devout, when we
are sincerely worshiping the living God, do we need mere sound
to "soothe the savage animal nature"? I am going to let the
"baby preacher" answer that later. We will have some more from
him after while. Do you recollect how he appealed to your
sympathies because I said that instrumental music only aids in
pleasing the
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 91
fleshly sense of hearing? I am going to read from his own
brethren on this point at issue between us. I will read as
follows from Isaac Errett in the Harbinger, 1861:
"That melody in the heart is the g reat end to be sought, and
that artistic excellence is only valuable as it may conduce to
that end. That the highest artistic skill in sacred music has
somehow been generally associated with the lowest spiritual
culture, and has been far more promotiv e of sen suous than of
spiritual a ttractions."
That is stronger than I could pu t it. (Otey.) "That the
genius of this reformatory movement, like that of previous
reformations, is not favorable to choir singing and
instrumental music. Its sympathies are with the bewildered and
sinoppressed masses, and it wants 'music for the million.' Its
original power will be largely lost when the stirring melodies
of its early days shall have been supplanted by stately
artistic performances. "As the church of Christ is the common
home of all his people—'Barbarian, Scythian , bond a nd free
,' who are 'All one in Christ Jesus'—and as singing is the
only part of worship in which the great mass of Christians can
personally participate, no choir singing or instrumental music
should ever be allowed to interfere for a moment with this
privileg e and rig ht of the saints."
Now I will read some statements made by Professor McGarvey,
and President Loos, about four v ears ago in the Newbern trial
in the State of Tennessee. It was in answer to this
cross-question: "Have you not observed that the use of the
organ is apt to make the musical part of the worship lose, to
a marked degree, its simplicity of character and its
spirituality, and dege nerate into mere art or skill by no
means edifying in the sense of appealing to the Christian
character." That was the question in the concrete. and here is
the answer: "I am sure that is the ten92
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
dency and the usual effect—always the tendency and usually the
effect."
That is stronger than I put it a while ago. I wanted to be
cautious and temperate in all of my statements.
And to that same question President Loos answered: "I would
say yes, I have noticed that, and have spoken about that
myself, pub licly and privately; written about it."
Now, I am going to bring befo re you another argument on this,
and then I shall proceed to other matters. The use of
instrumental MUSIC in the worship is without faith, and
therefore SINFUL. Now, the position I take here is th at we
cannot use instrumental music in the worship by faith, that
is, we cannot possibly believe that it is the will of God that
we sh ould use it in the worship. A man may have an opinion,
he may have an in ference and all that, but to believe that G
od wants instrumental music in the worship under Jesus Christ,
I emphatically affirm, is impossible. Why do I say this? In
Romans, X: 17, Paul says: "So the n faith cometh by hearin g,
and h earing b y the Word of G od." Now it is not necessary
for me to go into de tail here at the present time to prove to
my opponent that faith can only come by hearing, by hearing
the Word of God. Now, if he can find in the New Testament
where God has commanded instrumental music in the worsh ip,
where God has taught that we shall u se it in connection w ith
the Lord's Supper, then he can use it by faith. But in the
absence of any plain declaration of Scripture that God demands
it and commands it, I say it is an utter impossibility for him
to use it by faith. Now, what if he does use it without faith?
I turn to Romans XIV: 23 and read, "And he that doubteth is
damned if he ear, because he eateth not of faith: for
whatsoever it not of faith is sin." If you do not use it by
faith, it is sinful, for "whatsoever is not of faith its sin."
What is Paul talking about? About eating
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 93
meat. Where? In a public assembly in connection with the
Lord's Supper? No, but outside of the worship. Now, if it is
sinful to eat meat outside of the worship doubting, without
faith, how much w orse wou ld it be to do anything withou t
faith in connection with the L ord's supper? I have
anticipated my opponent on this point. I imagine I can hear
him, with his stentorian voice, say that tha t was only eatin
g meat. But I call your attention to the fact in advance, that
if it is sinful to do a thing as a private act without faith,
how much worse must it necessarily be to do anything without
faith in connection with the Lord's Supper? Now, then, here is
a clearly defined issue. Here is the Scripture that forbids
the use of instrumental music in the worship and prov es it to
be sinfu l. Now, if he can p rove that he uses it by faith,
then , of course, th is argument of mine fails. But unless he
can show that he uses it as a matter of faith, that he
believes it is the will of God, that he believes God wants him
to use it in the w orship, then h e does it w ithout faith,
and if the individual who ate meat doubting, sinned, and was
damned, how much worse is it to do this in the solemn assembly
of the Lord without faith and doubting?
You have heard a good deal about the Apostles going to the
Temple and worshiping. Now, he solemnly affirmed, IF my ears
did not deceive me, that they used instruments of music in the
worship in the Temple; he solemn ly affirmed that when the
Apostles went there, they went to participate in that worship,
and solemnly affirmed that they actually did participate in
the use o f instrumental music, and sa ys that that authorizes
u s to use it in the worship now. Now, I want to say that he
has made three bold assumptions, that he cannot prove. He has
assumed: I. That instrumental music was used in the Temple in
those days. 2. That the A postles eng aged in the use of
instrum ental music in the Temple. 3. That this authorizes us
to use instrumental music in the worship now. Grant me
94 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
the liberty of three such assumptions, and I can prove that
the Pope of Rome is the head of the church by divine
authority. I have only to assume that, when Je sus said to P
eter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of
Heaven," he intended that he should be the head of the church
on earth . I will assume, in the second place, that he
intended that Peter should have a successor. and in the third
place, I will assume, that the present Pope is Peter's
successor. My three assumptions have as much foundation in
fact and in scripture as his three assumptions by which he
seeks to prove that the New Testament authorizes the use of
instrumental music in the worship. He says that the Apostles,
after Pentecost, participated in the use of instrumental music
in the Temple. Now, we demand the scripture that says they
did. If I stand up and solemnly affirm that the inspired A
postles did a thing, I must put my finger on the scripture
that says they did it, or apologize to men and repent to God.
He said that they participated in the worship with the use of
instrumental music. Le t us see if they did. They certainly
had the incense and ceremonial offering in the Temple. If the
apostles participated in the worship, they certainly
participated in the incense and the bloody sacrifice, and that
according to my opponent's logic, binds it upon us to observe
n ow. I will turn and rea d the statem ents in the New
Testament concerning the Apostles in the Temple. Beginning
with the second chapter of A cts, we find it says, "day by day
continuing with one accord in the Temple." "Peter and John
were going up into the Temple at the hour of prayer." W hat
were th ey going for? What did they do when they got there? T
hey were go ing to preach the Gospel. There is not a word sa
id that they were going the re to worsh ip with these musical
instruments or that an y musical instruments were used there,
and there is n o statemen t that they did it while they were
there. But we find that they were there to preach the Gospel.
The Angel of the Lord said to them:
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 95
"Go ye, and stand in the Temple and pa rticipate in the w
orship with instrumental music?" I believe I misread that. Let
us try it again. "Go ye and stand and speak in the Te mple to
the people all the words o f this life." (See Acts 2:46; 3: I,
IT, 5; 12: 19-20, 42.) That is why they were there. That is
what God sent them for, to "speak a ll of the wo rds of this
life" to the people. That is what they did in the Temple. My
opponent says they "participated in the worship w ith
instrumental music." Wh ere does he get authority for that
statement? Bring us the Scripture that so says, or apologize
to this audience, and repent to God.
J. B. Briney's Fourth Reply.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:—I am pretty sure
that most of you have forgotten what w e are discussing . I do
not think that there is a person in the audience who just came
in about the time my brother beg an his speech, after the
moderator read the proposition, who could tell what he is
trying to prove. It is that the use of instrumental music in
such a connection is contrary to Scriptural teaching and
sinful. That is his propo sition and he undertake s to
establish that proposition by inferences drawn from things
that do not relate to instrumental music at all, that do not
mention it, that make no allusion to it. What kind of a way is
that to establish a proposition? Give me that liberty, and I
hand him back what he s aid to me awhile ago. I can prove
anything if you will allow me to go to a passage that doesn't
say ONE thing about w hat is in d ispute, and form some
inference in regard to it, and then base my argument on this
inference, I can prove anything I undertake to prove. Now I
will take up the matter and run through this speech that we
have just listened to as rapidly as I can to be as careful as
I ought. There are a couple of
96 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
matters that I w ish to dispose of, that I have been defer"
ring until my good brother should lay himself ou t fully upon
them, and he has done this now, and I want to pay attention to
them, and show if I can that his position by way of reply to
me, failed wholly to meet the demands of the case. He says
that the law has passed away and with it everything pertaining
to the law. N ow, I gran t you that cerem onially that is
true. The ceremonial law of Moses served its purpose and
passed away, but that leaves the Prophets and the Psalms, and
the Prophets and the Psalms justify the use of instrumental
music in praising God. Now, I want to show you the distinction
that the Savior himself makes along this line. My go od
brother jumbles thin gs up, it seems to me— he will pardon me
the expression—and makes no distinction where a distinction
exists; and sometimes he makes distinctions wh ere there are
none. I call his attention and yours to the 24th chapter of
Luke and the 44th verse, to what Jesus said about his
resurrection. He said: "These are the words which I spake unto
you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be
fulfilled, which were written in the law of M oses and in the
Prophets and in the Psalms, concerning me." Now there are
three departments of Scripture. One department is the law of
Moses. Well, so far as that was concerned, ceremonially it
ended when the Savior cried, but it left the Prop hets and the
Psalms. Is my good b rother going to contend that when the law
of Moses disappeared, according to the divine arrangement of
things, the Prophets and the Psalms disappeared? That is the
position upon which his logic p laces him, b ut I find in the
Psalms of David, long after the law of Moses was gone, the
ceremonial law embracing incense and sacrifice and things of
that kind . After this law had been given and completed, we
find that David in the spirit of the Almighty lifted up his
soul and sung. No w, I ask m y good friend to stand Up and say
whether David was a sensuous man and an unspiritual man and a
man who was
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 97
simply playing his instrument while he lifted up his hea rt in
prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God simply to gratify his
sensuous nature. That is his logic. That is the accusation
that he brings against David, and against all those grand men
and women of God, including Miriam, to whom we sha ll com e
directly. They were doing it simply to gratify the flesh
either of themselves or somebody else. He does not say that
except in his logic. I want him to say directly whether he
means that or not—whether Miriam and her sisters were doing
this to gratify the sensations and passions of the flesh of
those women when they lifted up their hearts to Almighty God,
being led by this woman called a Prophetess, in their praise
of Almigh ty God, with tim brels and dances, instruments of
music. I will get to that a lso directly.
The ceremonial law of Moses went, but that left the Psalms and
the Prophets, and that left instrumen ts of music used in
connection w ith singing these Psalms and these Odes. A little
more on that further along.
Well, then, in regard to eating meat. None of those passages
mentioned instruments of music , not a one of them, and he is
going to prove the use of an instrument of music to be sinful
by a passage that makes no mentio n of it, no allusion to it.
Brethren, is that the way you are going to divide the church
of God? Is that the way that you are going to disfellowship
your brethren? Are you going to erect your inferences and your
opinions, which inferences and opinions are against the
SCHOLARSHIP OF the world? Are you going to do that and rend
the church of Jesus Christ asunder and disrupt it? I know
where this will end when that has been done, and so do you.
Now there are two things that my brother will have to concede
if he is going to claim these passages. Pau l taught that if
one ate meat doubting whether he ought to do it or not, he
would be condemned; that is, his attention is called to the
fact that the meat he is eating is from the carcass
98 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
Of an animal that had been off ered in sacrif ice to an idol.
His question of doubt was whether he cou ld do that w ithout
recog nizing the id ol. Paul said so long as that is a matter
of d oubt you can not eat, or you will sin. Now that is my
proposition. My good brother, if you are going to claim this
passage and apply it to those who are opposed to instrumen ts
of music, who are the weak brethren? Don't claim the passage,
unless you are willing to conced e that. If you are w illing
to conce de that, I am willing to meet you and say yes. if you
consider yourself so weak, your conscience so weak that you
are in doubt in regard to this matter, and want me to make
concessions to you on account of weakness of your conscience,
then here is my hand, and I don't think you will have any
difficulty. But to come up and claim to be the strong
brethren, and thus render the passage; to say that where the
re is no opposition, whe re there is no weak conscience to
offend, it is all right to us e the instrum ent, because where
there was no weak conscience to be led into offense by eating
meat, it was all right to eat meat— the passage overwhelms him
from two points of view. So, admit that you are the weak
brethren, and are claiming something on account of that fact,
or surrender the passage, and then admit that where there is
no weak conscience to offend and cond emn, it is all right,
and I am willing to clo se the deba te right here and now on
that basis.
He quotes me again. I don't know how my good Brother Otey
would get along without m e in this deba te. What is h is
proposition? The use of instrumental music is contrary to the
teachings of the New Testament and sinful. Elder Briney has
said so, and therefore my proposition is true! Is not that
logic? Sir William Hamilton I know, and Levi Hedge I know, in
logic, but who are you? 1 said I do not defend instruments of
music. I say it now. I repeat, I do not care anything about
it. I believe I am allowed by Scripture teaching to use it;
but I am allowed n ot to use it, and I am wholly indifferent w
ith regard to
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 99
whether it is used or not; but my indifference departs when my
brother comes up here and says, you will have to dism iss it,
or if you do not I will disfellowship you and rend the church.
Then it becomes a matter of interest. He claims that God has
prescribed singing in His worship. Well, let him prove it. The
fact that I deny it does not prove it. I ask for the passage
where God in the Gospel and in the Kingdom of Jesus Church has
prescribed any music in his wo rship. H e has allo wed it, I
think, but whe re is the passage wh ere it is prescribed;
where it says you must sing, and if you do not sing, you sin;
because when God establishes an ordinan ce, and you do not com
ply with that ordinance, you sin. Miriam danced, he says. My
friend told you what is the status of modern scholarship on
that, and then instead of reading from some great scholar he
read from one of the se papers that were showered on him when
he was making that speech, and I know he did not read from any
recognized authority on the subject. Now let him prove that,
if he will. He comes up here and says that tha t is true.
Well, let him come up here and prove it. When and who are the
modern scholars who unite in saying that dances referred to
here in connection with Miriam means those bodily exercises
that are called dancing? Who are they, and echo answers,
"who?" Well, my brother did get very pathetic. I am glad he
has that element in him, and he did seemingly out of the
compassion of his heart admonish me to confess myself to be a
great sinner before God in my use of Thayer; and I want to sa
y to you, my good f riends, if I never have to answer for
anything more serious than that, I think I can read my title
clear to mansions in the sky. Did he read anything from Thayer
in conflict with what I read from Th ayer? Thayer says that
this word means to sing, and that the word psalmos means a
song, but he does not say that it means to sing without an
instrument, and he does not say it means a song sung without
an instrum ent. He just sim ply says it
100 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
means to sing, and-we turn to what I read, and he tells us how
that was done. There is no conflict at all, nor was there any
inconsistency in me nor any moral ob loquy in making the use I
did of this celebrated author. Now I want to turn to that and
re ad again. I h ave already given the page. "Humnos, psalmos,
ode: Od e is the gene ric term; psalmos and humnos are
specific, the former designating a song w hich takes its
character from the O. T. Psalms." There he refers to the New
Testament. Brother Otey, why didn 't you read that? "While the
leading idea of psalmos is a musical accompaniment, and that
of humnos praise to God, Ode is the general word for song,
whether accompanied or unaccompanied. Thus it w as quite
possible for the same song to be at once psalmos, humnos and
ode."
Now he says that that d oes not apply to the New Testam ent,
but here Bishop Lightfoot refers to that very thing, and makes
an application o f this special p assage in the New Testament.
Now, didn't I comm it an egregious sin? I believe I might
submit the question to you that was submitted to the Savior
once when he was asked, "Master, who sinned?" Now, who was it?
My friend has, twice I think, trenched upon all propriety; one
in infant baptism heretofore, and tonight on the subject of
sprinkling.
Now I want to say that these things do not belong in the same
category at all, and it is not necessary for me to allude to
them, and I will say furthermore that I am not going to
violate all proprie ty and all courtesy by bringing these
things into this discussion here in this house that we are
occupying by the courtesy of people who practice those things.
If he wants to do it, he Call do it. They don't below to the
same category at all, and they have no place in this
discussion, and the introduction of them almost forfeits the
hospitality that we are enjoying in this house to
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 101
night by the courtesy of the people that worship here. That is
all I have to say about these matters.
This 45th Psalm. Now my friend says, Why go to prophecy? What
is prophecy for, if it is not to go to? But, fortunately for
me and unfortunately for m y brother, this Psalm is applied by
the Spirit of inspiration to the Messiah's reign.
Now turn to the first chapter of the letter to the Hebrews and
let us see what is there: "Of the Son he says, Thy throne, O
God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of righteousness is
the scepter of Thy kingdom. Thou lovest righteousness, and
hatest wickedness: therefore, God, Thy God, bath anointed Thee
with the oil of gladness above Thy fellow s." That is quoted
from this very Psalm, and this inspired writer says that this
psalm was spoken of the Son of God, and therefore the music
spoken of in this psalm is spoken of with reference to Jesus
and His kingdom. That is wh y I go to it. We have the prophecy
inspired by God, and there is no mistake about it, because the
Holy Spirit gave the prophecy, and then the Holy Spirit gave
the application.
Now the wild beasts. Wha t is music for? To teac h, My
brother, singing will do the same thing. I suppose singing
just addresses itself to the beastly natur e! Singing will do
the same th ing, and it do es it with the effect of making the
beast tractable and teachable. The teachers of wild animals
understand that under the spell of music they can teach them
more readily and manage them more readily than othe rwise. If
it does that with a b east, why not w ith man? W hy does it
not bring man under its magic spe ll and make man more
tractable a nd teachable? It does, as every careful observer
is aware. He says, mere sound. Who said anything about mere
sound but him? I am; claiming simply the right to use an
instrument of music as a help and aid from the same standpoint
that these gentlemen use the tuning fork or some other
instrument to start
102 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
them. I am not contending for mere sound, and that speech was
large ly of that order. We might hav e an instrum ent of mu
sic in our homes. My brother has introduced that. I would ask
him if w e are permitted to assemble the family together, and
read some chapter in the word of God and then sing "Jesus,
lover of my soul, let me to Thy Bosom fly, While the billows
near me roll, while the te mpest still is high," and have the
fair daughter of the family sit down at the piano or organ and
accompany that song? If so, is it worship? If yes, then you
are worshiping with an instrument of music. Does my brother
allow that? Do he and his associates in th is opinion that he
is advocating, say yes. Is it allowable to sing these w
orshipful so ngs aroun d the fam ily altar, being led by an
instrument, and if so, what makes it sinful when we go to a
church and sing the same song for the same purpose?
He refers to the case of Saul. Now there an instrument of
music expelled the evil spirit. Th ese brethren seem to thin k
that it inserts the evil spirit, and that it is of the very
devil himself. There David, this man of God, that sang so many
psalms in praise and thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God,
accompanying his productions with a harp or instrument of som
e kind, th is spiritual man— this man , I believe I might say
who occupied a sp iritual plane alm ost infinitely above that
which I and my friend occupy tonight,—one of the most
spiritual men who ever lived, one whose spiritual nature was
all involved and stirred up in connectio n with his
instrument, whose soul in adoration went out and up towards
Almighty God, winged by those psalm s in conne ction with the
harp that he played as he uttered his words. He says when
people lose their spirituality. Well, I am just willing, my
brother, to select any number of people, and you may select an
equal number of your brethren, and just selec t an impartial
jury, and have them decide how much more spiritual your crowd
is than mine, and I have no f ears in regard to the verdict.
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 103
W. W. Otey's Fifth Speech.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:—Mr. Moderator,
will you please read in my time the proposition for discussion
on the present occasion?
The Moderator read as follows: "The use of instrum ental music
in connection with the songs sung by the church on the Lord's
Day when assembled for edification and communion, is opposed
to the New Testament teaching an d sinfu l."
Elder Otey—It does not say anything about singing in the home,
then. That is not the question be fore us. I want to keep the
issue before the people. Now, Elder Briney has said something
about this matter of fellowship, and I am going to talk a
little while on that. He tries to make it appear that my
brethren are at fault; that we have erected our opinion into
barriers of fellowship that keep us apart. Let us see who has
done that. He may have an opinion that it is his liberty to
use a n instrument; that he is at liberty to use instrumental
music in the worship. I may have an opinion that we do not
have such liberty. Let him hold his opinion and I hold mine ,
and we a re in full fellowship. But he h as erected h is
opinion in the shape of an instrument in the worship. It is
not between us at all till he puts it there. A ten-year-old
child can see that he is the one who sets up his opinion as a
barrier against fellowship.
Now, one word as to my reference to the prophecy of Isaiah and
our Methodist friends. I have nothing but the kindest feelings
for them, and my friend knows that I meant no reflection on
them. He knew where the reflection was intended to fall. You
know that he, for forty years, has been preaching and debating
with them more or less. Now do you believe that he would
permit them to go to Isaiah 52:15 to prove what baptism is?
But he has tried that very plan of proof here, and I just
simply called his
104 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
attention and your attention to it, and I am sure that I have
not transcended the bounds of courtesy, and that none of my
Methodist Preshyterian friends w ill be offended at me for it.
Now, you see where that matter stands. He says that I have
forgotten what we were discussing. The main points we had
under discussion this afternoon were these: He said the
"Apostles went into the Temple and participated in
instrumental music worship." He also said that dance meant an
instrument. He said tha t psallo meant an instrument of music,
or carried the idea of an in strument. What did I do? I sim
ply referred to the authorities, and that settled the
question.
Now, with refere nce to this matter of the lexicograph er,
Thayer, I said this: That the p oint in controvers y was as to
w hat the wo rd psallo means as used in the New Testament, and
I will sa y again that fairness to us demanded that he should
have read Thayer's New Testament definition. But you know he
did not do it. You know that he suppressed Thayer's definition
as applied to the New Testament, and read the definition of
the word as used in history and classical Greek.
Now, he raised the question about the word dances. He asked
who was my authority. I told you that the American revisers of
the Bible had correctly translated the word dance. Did he say
they had not done so? Let him turn and see how they translated
that word, and that will settle the question.
We had also under consideration the statement that the
Apostles went into the Temple and worshiped with instrumental
music. He solemnly affirmed that they engag ed in instrum
ental music worship. I said that he cou ld not prov e it, or
at least, I did n't think h e could. We will put it in this
lan guage: I demand that he prove that the Jews used
instrumental music in the worship in the Temple at that time;
and I demand that he prove that the Apostles participated in
that worship. He has said that they used in
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 105
strumental music in the Temple in that day, and he has said
and REPEATED and REPEATED that the Apostles and the early
Christians participated in the use of instrumental music in
the Temple. I asked him to turn and read the word of the Lord
that so states, and I ask it again, and, my friends, if he
does not do it when you go aw ay you are going to wonder why
he did not do it. Or will there be any wonder about it? Now, a
word or two with reference to this sensuous less. What did I
say? I said that the sound of an instrument cannot teach that
the sound of an instrument cannot admonish, that the sound of
an instrument cannot enlighten the understanding, that the
sound of an instrument cannot aid you to be devout in spirit,
that the sound of an instrument cannot make melody in your
hearts. I said it appea ls to you and sa tisfies the flesh ly
sense of hearing, and he has turned that to mean sensuousness.
Listening to the strains of music is not immoral. There is
nothing degrading about it. It is pleasant, but he has
perverted that language and tried to make me say sensuo
usness. I said no such a thing. I implied no such a thing in
any statement that I made. Now, I ask my worthy opponent to
say that I did g ive it such a tu rn, and then I will appea l
to the stenographer's notes to prove it or else retract the
statement. Now, that is a fair proposition. I don't want to be
misrepresented in that way. I have said th at an instrum ent
of mu sic ill itself is not wr ong, that it is permissible as
a means of entertainment and all that. but I drew a
distinction between entertainment and worship. I am going to
read you some more from the "baby preacher." I am not at all
surprised that the fully matured mall is troubled over the
"baby preacher's'' arguments. He has not answered one argument
yet that the "baby preacher" made. Last night I read something
from him and I have got something more that I am going to read
now. You remember that he said he was a "ba by preache r" the
n. I don't
106 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
know about th at; he w as thirty years old. I am taking the
arguments of the "baby preacher," that have stood the test for
nearly forty years, and making them my own, and I call upon my
opponent, who now is a great logician, as all admit, to re
fute them. If he refutes them, he refutes me. Surely that is
fair; more than fair, that I should take the "baby preacher's"
arguments, and then call upon my opponent to meet them. He
ought to regard that as an easy task. I will read:
"THE DOCTRINE OF EXPEDIENCY."
"In the discussion of the question relating to the use of
instrumental music in the w orship, some very obvio us
fallacies hav e been used, a sample of which follows:
'Instruments were used in the Jewish kingdom; instruments will
be used in the everlasting kingdom. Therefore, instruments may
be used in the present kingdo m.' I will submit a parallel
case, viz.: Infa nts were in the Jewish kingdom ; infants will
be in the everlasting kingdom. Therefore, infants may be in
the present kingdom. Whoever sees the falla cy in this will
detec t it in that. That which proves too much proves nothing
"It is becoming quite apparent that certain persons are
getting a little sore under these comparisons. (See Harbinger,
current volume, page 266.) If people do not like to be pressed
with the consequences of dangerous and unscriptural positions,
they ought not to occupy them. Now I beg leave to state that
if there is an offense in the consequences of the doctrine of
expediency, we of the opposition are not responsible for it.
"The first object of these articles was introduced with an
extract from Prof. Stewart, to show that the ablest defenders
of infant baptism base their defense upon 'propriety and
expediency'—the same ground upon which the attempt is made to
defend the 'accompaniment,' and as they both relate to things
about which the Holy Spirit has legislated,
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 107
whatever argument supports the one, will, to the same extent,
support the other.
"It is no uncommon thing for a man, when he sees no other w ay
to evade the force of the arguments and comparisons of an
opponent, to declare them to be inapposite. All that a
pedobaptist ha s to do to convince a pedoba ptist audienc e
that the sixth chapter of Romans does not teach IMMERSION, is
to wave his hand majestically, assume a knowing look and
pronounce it all figurative. The wo rk is then do ne to his
own satisfaction and that of his auditory. But, thank the
Lord, our brethren are a reading and thinking people, and will
decide these matters for themselves.
"In the preceding article it was shown that the instrument in
the worship is an addition to a divine. ordinance , and affec
ts its character, and therefore must not be allowed.
"The Holy Spirit has provided for the singing in another ca
pacity aside from the worship proper. 'Let the word of Christ
dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing
one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, sing ing
with grace (gratitud e) in your hearts to the Lord.' Col. 3
:16. Singing, then, may be used in teaching and admonishing.
Can this be done w ith an instrum ent? Let th e Spirit answer.
'And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or
harp, except they give a distinction in sounds, how shall it
be known what is piped or h arped?' I. Cor. 15: 7. Ev idently,
there is neither teaching nor admonition in inarticulate so
unds. The instrument does not give the necessary distinction
in the sound. This being the case, there is no place in the
assembly of the saints for the organ, and they who introduce
it d o so at their pe ril.
"We are gravely told that the instrument tranquilizes the
troubled mind, soothes the disquieted s pirit, and fills the
soul with solemnity. Grant it. Does it necessarily follow that
this is worship? If this is devotion, then the lion may be as
devotional as man. Why does the ferocious wild beast lose its
ferocity for the moment under the soft strains of
108 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
music? Is it because its soul is filled with devotion? True
devotion consists in sentiments, not feelings nor sound. An
instrument cannot beget sentiment, and therefore cannot aid us
in our devotions. "Having seen that the 'Instrumental
accompaniment' is sinful per se (in itself considered), I wish
to put it upon another footing. In his first letter to the
Corinthians, Paul teaches that when an enlightened Christian
eats meat tha t has been s acrificed to an idol, his act is
not sinful, per se. But as he clearly teaches that there may
be circumstances under which such an act would be exceedingly
sinful, if there w ere those who were not so fully enlightened
upon this point, and whose conscienc e were, the refore, we
ak, this weakness was to be the rule of action in this case.
And of violating this rule the Apostle says, 'But when ye sin
against
he brethren and w ound th eir wea k conscience, ye sin aga
inst Christ.' Now, in this music affair I am willing to be
called a weak brother, if thereby the cause of my Savior can
be served. Indeed, 1 like that weakness which fe ars to leave
the channels designated by the word of God, to try the
trackless and shoreless sea of expediency. My conscience will
not allow me to engage in singing as an act of worship where
there is an 'Instrumental accompaniment.' A weak conscience,
you say. Be it so. I demand that my weak conscience shall be
respected. Remember, that when you introduce an organ into the
worship and thus wound my conscience, however weak it may be,
you sin a gainst Christ. and he w ill call you to an acco unt
for it in the G reat D ay. "Let the plain truth be told. The
introduction of the organ is no mere impropriety, it is a
gross insult to the Lord Jesus Ch rist, and a sin against the
god of Heaven. The observance of this Pauline principle will
keep the instrument out while time lasts.
"I do not believe that the congregation can be found among us,
which uses an orga n, that did no t introduce it
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 109
over the consciences of some of the brethren. True, the Rector
of the 'parish" of Syracuse says that it has caused no trouble
in his 'parish,' but perhaps he has not investigated the m
atter thoroughly. Let New Y ork City and St. Louis answer for
themselves. The congregation that has introduced an organ into
its worship over one protesting conscience, has sinned against
Christ, and stands in need of repentance before God. "The same
principle that prote cts the mino rity in a congregation, will
protect the minority in all the kingdom. Are the brethren in
Australia in the kingdom? So am I. If, therefore, they
introduce anything into the kingdom that wounds my conscience,
they sin against Christ. Thus has the Holy Spirit so hedged
the kingdom of the Master about, that there is absolutely no
door of entrance f or the instrum ent, and he who brings it in
must break down barriers interposed by Infinite Wisdom.
"Thus have we viewed the 'Accom paniment' from two
standpoints, and found it to b e sinful in bo th cases. It is
sinful per se, and it is sinful per accidents. It is not said
that instrumental music is sinful per se, for such is not the
case. But it is contended, and as I believe, proved, that the
'accompaniment' in singing,- as an act of worship, is sinful
per se (in itself considered). Sprinkling is not sinful per
se. A lady very innocently sprinkles her clothes preparatory
to ironing them. But when a priest sprinkles water upon a
person and calls it b aptism, his ac t is sinful per se. So
with the 'accompaniment.' Each interferes with a divine app
ointment.
"But of what is instrumental music in the house of worship an
accompaniment? Is it an 'accompaniment' of the worship of
those who are poor in spirit? Never. But it is an
'accompaniment' of pride, and of fashion, and of vanity, and
of dancing, and of theater going and the like. For the truth o
f this statement, I appeal to its histo ry.
110 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
"The field extends before me, but I must desist for th e
present. Respectfully and fraternally, J. B. B ."
(Apostolic Times, June 17, 1869, page 73. Published in
Lexington, Ky.)
That is the way Elder Briney wrote nearly forty years ago. I
now endorse every word of that article and make it my own. I
am willing to risk the whole question on the strength of what
he then wrote. That which he would have you accept today as
sound reasoning he once pronounced "fallacies." Does truth and
logic ever change He formerly argued that if because
instruments were in the Jewish kingdom, and instruments will
be in the ev erlasting kingdo m, that, therefore, we may have
instruments in the kingdom here on earth; that it also proves
that infants may be in the kingdom. Can he now refute his
former arguments? If he was wrong then, and reasoned
illogically, and reached unscriptural conclusions, surely he
is of all men the one who should be able to d etect those
errors and ref ute them. C an he do it? Till he enters into
those articles and refute s then., argum ent by argum ent, and
shows wherein the reasoning is unsound and the conclusions
unscriptural he does this they stand as a credit to the young
man, and as a proof of the mature man.
I will take my time and look' over a few things here. I will
come back to Romans 14: ~3. Paul says, "Whatsoever is not
faith is sin." My opponent labored hard to apply that to the
eating of meat only. Do you notice the broad term that Paul
uses there? "W hatsoever is not faith is sin." Let that be
meat or an instrument of music in the worship. Whatever you
do, if you do not do it as a matter of faith, Paul sa ys "it
is sin." Ah, that word is too broad and too co nclusive to m
ean merely eating the flesh of an animal sacrificed to an
idol. I know it applies there, but the of the weakness of the
position
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 111
argument I made was that what was eaten at a public temple was
not eaten in connec tion with the Lord's Supper.. My argument
was, that if the eating of flesh outside of the worship was
sinful, if it was done without faith, how much more sinful
would an act be, if done without faith, in connection with the
sacred and solemn institution of the "loaf and the fruit of
the vine" in commemoration of the death and suffering of our
Lord and Sav ior Jesus C hrist? Tha t is the point I made. I
applied it to instrumen tal music in the worship , and I say
that unless he can prove conclusively that the use of in
strumental m usic is authorized, and that it is a matter of
faith with him, and show how that faith is produced—unless he
can do this, does it not remain proved that the use of
instrumental music in the worship is "without faith" and
sinful? How can he use it without faith, without committing
sin, w hen Paul says "Whatsoever"—it makes no differen ce what
it is— "is not of fa ith, is sin." It stands there, and you
cannot get rid of it, you cannot evade it. It must be met or
it stands. Now let him-show that instrumental music in the
worship is a matter of faith, and theref ore accep table in
God's sight, or it stands proved to be used "without faith"
and therefore sinful. Now, just one word about this fellowship
between us. I want to say that the saddest thought to my heart
for twenty years has been the division among the disciples of
Christ. B ut where does the b lame lie? I will say to you that
he draws the line. I want to ask him if he will permit me to
preach in the meeting house where he holds membership, without
a protest? If he will, then he is more liberal than I am in
this matter of fellowship. If he will not, then we stand just
alike. He would regard me as an unsafe preacher and so would I
regard him. If he will say that he will permit me, without pro
test, to preach th ere, I will go and preach. If he says he
will not, and can find nothing against my Christian character,
then I say he makes a line as deep and as broad as I do, and
still tries to throw all the blame on me.
112 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
He wanted to know where the passage was that described the
worship. How many times have I read and quoted where the Holy
Sp irit said, "Sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs." The
Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, says do this, and also
tells us how to do it. He says God has prescribed no music for
the church. Is not singing music, and is not vocal music
prescribed? Is it not commanded? Is it not taught? The Holy
Spirit says sing, and then prescribes what to sing, and what
kind of music: vocal music. Bu t I cannot find where it says
that playing an instrument of music in the worship is all
right. If he can find such a scripture, that will settle it.
The New Testament has been translated by people who used
instruments of music in the worship and we presume they have
translated psallo faithfully. But they have not translated
that word to "play." Vocal music is prescrib ed for the f
ollowers o f Christ, and that is the kind we must have.
Therefore, we have no right to have any other kind.
J. B. Briney's Fifth Reply.
Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen:—As I said this
afternoon, if you will give me your careful attention, I will
try to make this half hour as short as possible.
When time was called on me in my last speech, I had not
reached some points made by my good brother in his preceding
one, and I shall begin where I left off then. I left off with
the implication made by my good brother that those who used
instruments of music in the worship of God are lacking in
spirituality. I offered a fair test of that and he did not
accept it. Peo ple know w ho is spiritual and who is not. You
can fool some people all the time. and you can fool all the
people some of the time, but you can't fo ol all the peop le
all the time. And he quotes from Isaac Errett
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 113
and Prof. Loos and i 'resident McGarvey in regard to what they
think is the tendency in the use of instrumental m usic in the
worship of God. Now, I just simply want to say that there is
the same tendency in singing, w hen you sing artistically.
There is just the same tendency to make a display and appeal
to the sensuous. And by the way, my good brother, I wish you
would go to the dictionary and find out the difference betwe
en the w ords "sensuous" and "sensual." So that if there is
any argument in that against the instrument, it lies as
heavily against singing itself, because everybody knows that
singing can be abused and can be perverted and turned out of
its proper channel and made to serve the sensuous in man, not
the sensual. I didn't say that, but the sensuous. Everybody
who knows a little of the dictionary knows the difference
between those two words.
Now, I was commenting on his passage from Corinthians, where
the matter of m eat is referred to and the weak brother caused
to offend; not simply to have his feelings hurt, but caused to
offend. I-l e says that faith comes by hearing. Haven't I
repeated over and over again the passages of Scriptures in
Ephesians and Colossians that authorize the singing of songs
and psalms and shown by the scholarship of the world that
those are songs and psalms sung in connection with instruments
of music? Is not that proof enough? I believe with all my
heart that God has expressly allowed me to make use of an
instrum ent in singing His praise and in worshiping Him. If I
did not believe that, I w ould not do it. Of course, I would
not, and if I did I would sin. He may not believe it, I am
sure he does not, and, therefore, he ought not to do it, but I
am beyond that. Then the matter of the temple. Now, it is said
that they were going up into the temple. It doesn't say they
were going on a bridge, or some other place, bu t they were
going up in the temple. That just happened as they were going
up into the temple, and they were going up into the temp le
114 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
at the hour of prayer. And what were they going up there at
that hour for if it were not to engage in the devo tional
exercises of that hour? And they went there from day to day.
Well, my friend says I assume that they were usin g
instruments of music in the temple at that time. When did they
quit using them? I have shown they were made use of in
connectio n with the dedication of the temple, and that they
were part of the furnish ings of the temple, and were used in
the temple service. Now, let him show when they ceased to be
used. I find them there by the authority of Scripture. Let him
take them out by authority of Scripture. He says, I erect an
instrument of music into a test of fellowship. Oh, no. And' my
good brother, I won't ask you to endorse my views about this,
not at all. I don't want to enforce my views upon you. I would
not, for my right arm, be trying to force my views on you, and
divide a Church for anything under the sun. I am willing to
meet you. You don't have to accept my views, but you won't let
me come unless I will accept yours. Now, who makes the test of
fellowship? Now family worship. He had the Moderator read the
proposition and that is a very good thing, else you will
forget it while he is arguing what we are not discussing.
There is no question but what that is a good method. No,
family worship is not there, but my point is that it is
allowable to worship God in the family, and that worsh ip is
acceptab le to God. Then by what law of morality or
spirituality is it cut out from the worship in the meetin g
house? If the family may use it about the family altar, and
open the dear old blessed Bible which lies on the stand, and
read some of those precious messages of divine truth and life,
and then sing that soul uplifting song, those blessed words
that establish a chain of communion and fellow ship with
heaven and with Almighty God and the ange ls and the sp irits
of the just m ade perfe ct, if that is acceptable to God, in
the name of all reason, what is it that makes it
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 115
sinful in a m eetin g house? My dear friends, can't you make
your own house a meeting house? Can't we have communion there?
Can't you call your neighbors together and engage in the
worship of God there? Of course you can, and if it is
legitimate there, what is it that illegitimatizes it in the
meeting house? That is the point. If it is right here, I do
not see how it is wrong there. And, my good friend doesn't
tell us whether he does that or not. I would like for him to
tell whether he has any instrument of music in his house.
Elder Otey: If you will permit me to answer that question, I
will say to you that I have not so much as a Jew's harp in my
home.
Elder Brin ey: Well, if you had one, would you use it? Elder
Ote y: I could not.
Elder Briney: If you had a daughter who could, would you let
her do it?
Elder Otey: I only promised to answer one question.
Elder Briney: I will give you a nickel to answer that
question.
Elder Otey. I am not a pau per.
Elder Briney: He is not a pauper in his pocket, but he is in
his argument.
Elder Otey: The audience can judge.
Elder Briney: There is the trouble; they do judge. Now, this
question of prophecy. Did my friend make any attempt to meet
my argument and make an answer on that. I find a prophecy here
made by the Holy Spirit and then taken up by the same Holy
Spirit and applie d to Christ and His kingdom, and I find
therefore, the Holy Spirit in the prophecy and in the
application approving the use of instrumental music. If he
cannot see the point in that, he ought to study up logic just
a little.
Now the matter of Thayer again. My friends, Thayer does not
say that psalms are songs sung without instruments, and I
quoted what Thayer says in regard to that
116 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
matter. He does not say whether they are accompanied by
instruments or not where he defines psallo, but when he comes
to define humnos, he sums the w hole matter u p and give s his
opinion, and refers to the very passages that we are
discussing. My friend g ets up and tells you it refers to
classical music or classical Greek, w hen Thayer himself says
it refers to the New Testament. My friend ought to do some
praying and repenting to night.
Now, in regard to this w ord "dances." I can't get his
attention to the fact that it is "dances." I don't know how
many kinds of dances they had. He says the revisers translated
that, but do the revisers tell us what they meant by it? That
is the question. They translated it that way and the
scholarship of the wo rld tells us it refers to a musical
instrument known by that name among the ancient Hebrews. That
is the status of the case. The mere fact that those people
translating the word "dances" left out the def inition and
didn't tell us what it meant doesn't cut any figure. They
simply translated it just as the y translated baptise. They
didn't tell us what baptise meant. It was just left that way,
and the scholars have to tell us what it means.
My friend is constantly referring to the "baby preacher." I
think he ought to give that baby preacher something for
affording him something to say during this debate. He goes
back thirty-nine or forty years and finds an old shell that I
outgrew and shed , and he crawls into that and masquerades
before you, and that old shell fits him about as well as Saul
s arm or fit David . The whole trend of my argument alla
speeches during this debate has been to answer the fallacies
that I perpetrated then, and if I am under obligation to do
any praying or ask for forgiveness, it is for the folly I
perpetrated back there. But I believed it at that time, and
there is this to be said, his quotations from me and putting
so much of what I have sa id in his boo k will give h is book
a fairly good literary finish, and it may aid him in the sale
of some copies from that point of
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 117
view. Now, what is the proposition that is before us. Mr.
Moderator, will you please read it.
The proposition was read, as follows:
"The use of instrumental music in connection with the songs
sung by the Church o n the Lord's Day, when assembled for
edification and communion, is opposed to New Testament teachin
gs, and sinful."
Elder Briney: Now, do you recall the passage or the passages
of the New Testament that the use of an instrum ent is
contrary to? He has not pretended to find one and produce it
he re, that forbids it. He goes to something else where
another subject is treated of altogether, and he builds up
some inferen ces that are contrary to the inferences of the
best exegetes in the world, and arraigns those inferences
against this language, and tries to substitute his inferences
for the word of God. You will not permit that. You can
discriminate between the word of God and the word o f my
brother. It is the word of God that settles this thing, not
the inferences of m y brother.
Now, I put my defense of the liberty of the people of God to
use instruments when they are singing, on very different
ground from that upon which I opposed it back yonde r. I
thought then that there was no authority in the New Testament
for it. I honestly thought that, and I believe that I have
always been accredited with having the courage 'of my
convictions; but I have learned better, and 1 hav e quoted h
ere again and again the passages, which, according to the
world's scholarship, allows the use of instruments in singing
the songs there in indicated, and I base my defense n ow as to
th e liberty of Go d's people to do that upon what the Spirit
has said in regard to the matter. My good brother has had a
good clear to say about fidd les an I horn s, and, by the w
ay, this leads me to suggest that he h as proved his propo
sition, - -"in a horn.' There was an old gentleman reared in a
county where I was, who belonged to a church where they were
talking about having an entertain118
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
ment and using a violin, and in discussing the question, some
of the brethren used the term fiddle and some used the term
violin, and this old brother arose and said, "I have no
objection whatever to the use of the violin in this matter,
but I don't think you ought to bring in the fiddle." My friend
has brought in the fiddle. Is this feeling of melody in the
lion or the wild beast, devotion? I say, No, it is not
devotion. Is the same thing prod uced in a m an devotion? No.
But it open s his heart for the reception of that which
produces devotion. It quiets him and calms him in the sight of
God. It melts and mellows him and renders him impression able
to those things that are don e in worsh iping. That is all I
claim. Now, he says on this question of fellowship, will I
allow him to come and preach a week at the church where I
belong? Well, my brother, I have not been m ade trustee o f
that churc h. I have no right to give such permission.
Elder Otey: Let me explain. I said will you permit me without
your protest to prea ch there, or w ould you pro test?
Elder Brin ey: No, sir; I wo uld not pro test if I were
permitted to be there to set you right, as I am here.
Elder Otey: Of course, I would permit you to be there.
Elder Briney: But you had better be careful, my brother; those
people up there know what good preaching is, and I don't know
what they would s ay about it.
Sing; psalm; command; I have not claim ed any commmand. I have
simply claim ed permission, and I ha ve the libe rty, and so
have all of my brethren under this permission given by the
Spirit of the living God to do this. I don't claim a command
for it, and that is where I am left at liberty. Why, there is
no liberty where there is a command. There is no liberty there
at all. But where there is simply permission, I am left at
liberty to avail myself of the commission or not, ac cording
to my own thoughts. He says, "Let him pro duce a passage which
means playing ." Well, I have done it according to the
scholarship of
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 119
the world. I ha ve read thre e or four standard books, books
written by scholars, and they say that the words used in those
verses mean playing. Singing and playing and mak ing melod y
in your heart to the Lord. Did my brother pay any attention to
the fact that this melody is in the heart and not in the
throat? Not a w ord. He didn't allude to it. He turns his
whole argument to the throat.
Now, I want to say to you, my friends, that a man can make
melody in his heart w ithout open ing his lips. A man can make
melody in his heart to God while he app lies his paint brush.
A man can make melody in his heart to God to the song of his
plow as it turns a furrow. The smith in his shop can make
melody in h is heart to God while he makes the anvil ring in
th e perform ance of h is duty there. Now, this singing of
psalms and hymns, I call his attention to the fact, is to the
brethren, and therefore, is not worship. I can exh ort my
brother, and do it with m usic in my heart, making melody in
my heart, but my exhortation addressed to him is not worship
towards God. Singing and teaching and admonishing one another.
This is singing or teaching or admonition, and not w orship. H
e says a part of it relates to God. Yes, and a part of it is
in the heart and does not have to have expression in words. It
pertains to God, an d while you a re doing this your heart is
attuned to Almighty God, but what you are doing by word of
mouth has reference to the brethren and therefore, is not
worship, unless we are worshiping one another. How can it be
plainer than that, teaching and admonishing one another.
Now, my friends, we have consumed two-thirds of the time
allotted to this proposition, and I ask you candidly to
revolve this matter in your mind. Go over the matter and ask
yourselves this question: "What Scripture did Brother Otey
adduce whose teaching the use of an instrument in praising God
violates?" I wan t you to search your heart with that
question. I want you to look at it in your mind, where is it
found in the New Testament? What passage
120 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
condemns it? Where has anything been said in that B ook in reg
ard to an instrument of music, attended with a censure or with
an objection or with a condemnation? Where is it to be found?
Just as I was closing one of my speeches I said that God is
called Love, and to that I a dded that, in m y judgment, it m
ight be said of Him that He is Music. He ha s attuned na ture
to his praises. The gentle zephyr that plays among the leaves
of the fore st lifts up its voice in recognition of God, and
the sighing of the waves of the ocean dec lare His praises.
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth
His handiwork. And in harmony with this deep-seated passion,
shall I call it, in His Divine nature, he allowed Miriam to
get timbrels and dances and lead her sisters in songs of
praise to Almighty God on account of their deliverance, and so
in regard to the tabernacle, and so in regard to the Ark, and
so in regard to th e temple, an d so in rega rd to the world
to come. Here is something that is continuous. You can no more
stop it than you can dam the Mississippi and stop its onflow
towards the mighty ocean. This music that lifts up its heart
in praise to God came down from heaven, and it turns its eye
upward and the aspirations of its heart are to get back to
God, and all along from the time of its introduction it has
been performing its functions, and on and on and on it go es
until by land bye that wonderful volume, when the Almighty
shall open th e diapason of the great organ of the universe,
and the an gels and archa ngels and the sp irits of the just m
ade perfe ct, the ransomed and the redeemed from all kindreds
and tribes of the earth shall give praises to the Father in
their heart and with instruments of music brought forward in
that connection, and I wonder if my good brother will rise up
an d say to those o f his thinking about him, "Come, brethren,
this is no place for us; let us get out o f this." How much
time have I, Mr. M oderator?
The Moderator: One minute.
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 121
Elder Briney: Well, as he gave me a half a minute, I will give
him a whole one, I w ill go him just that much better.
W. W. Otey's Sixth Speech.
Gentlemen' Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: We are now
entering upon the last session of the first proposition, and
there are so many things that need to be said that I shall not
waste time in preliminaries. The first remark that I shall
make, however, is that you will remember that on last evening
you heard som e remarks made with reference to "good
preaching" and "literary merit." I want to say frankly that I
am unable to answer that for two reasons. First, I have not
been taught in that school; and, secon d, loyalty to my Master
forbids that I shall.
In the second place, I want to say this, that the strongest
that has been said in favor of the psallo, is that it is a
song that may be sung with instrumental musical accompaniment,
but remember that no authority has said that it must be. I
will say here that the good old song, "Jesus, Lover of My
Soul," may be sung with an instrument, but no one can say that
it must be, and therefore we can sing the psalms, whether they
be the psalms of David, or psalms composed by any one else,
without an instrument. Now, let us remember that.
Now, the next matter I want to take up is the matter of the
dance. You will remember that my worthy opponent went back to
Miriam and her timbrel and her dances, as his authority for
the use of an instrument of music in the worship. You will
remember that I went back to Ex. 15: 20, and called you r
attention to the fact that he proved, not only the use of a
timbre!, but that dances were there also. Then you will
remember, my opponent said that I had been "caught in a trap"
that he had set, and he took
122 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
the position that dances meant other m usical instrum ents in
addition to timbrels, and boldly declared that the scholarship
of the world was against me on this subject. I reminded him of
the fact that more than one hundred American revisers had
unanimously translated the word DANCE, a motion of the body. I
now read from Judges 21: ~I, and I find this language: "And
see, and, Behold, if the dau ghters of Shiloh come out to
dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyard, and catch
you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to
the land of Benjamin." The Hebrew word translated "dance" here
is the same word that is used in Exodus 15: 20, where Miriam
had the "timbrels and dances." Furthermore, this same word is
translated some eight or ten times to mean "dance" and
"dances" every time. More than that, William Jesennius, in his
Hebrew Lexicon, defines it. to mean "dance," and the recent
Hebrew L exicon, by Brown, B riggs and Driner, also define it
to m ean to dan ce, a bodily mo tion. If this is called in
question, I will produce the authority. But I presume it will
not be called in question. So much for that. Now the next
point I wish to take up is the 45th Psalm. You will remember
how of ten he has re ferred to this Psalm, and how hard he has
labored to prove the use of instrumental music by the 45th
Psalm. I will turn now and read to you from the 45th Psalm, w
here it speak s of a stringe d instrument. He says that this
is a prophecy referring to the Messiah's Kingdom, and that the
stringed instrument here must be a literal instrument in the
kingdom of Christ. You will remember that I said that this was
the f irst time that a Disciple of Christ, so far as I know,
has ever app ealed to pro phecy to prove a commandment in the
church of Christ. Now I am going to read you a few verses from
this Psalm. Here is the passage w ith reference to stringed
instruments: "Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have
made you glad." Now, just a word here. My opponent said that
instrumental music
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 123
seemed to make me mad. Oh no, it does not. Then he said, "I
imagine when brother Otey gets to heaven, he will do thus and
so." Now, my friends, I want to say this to you, that while I
am in the temporal kingdom of my Master here and serving Him
here below, I try to be abundantly satisfied with the
provisions He has made for me, and unless I change in heart
and sp irit, and this I shall not do, when I enter the pearly
gate into the eternal kingdom of my Master, I shall still be
abundantly satisfied with the provisions he has made for me
there. If He puts a harp in my hand there, I shall loyally and
joyfully play it, but inasmuch as he has not put a harp in my
hand here below in the church, I refuse to dishonor Him by
playing one in the worship. My worthy opponent is abundantly
dissatisfied with the provisions that the common Master has
made for the regulation of H is kingdom here below, and wishes
to change the order of the church, regardless of the divided
condition of the body of Christ, regardless of the tears and
entreaties and prayers of the pure of earth and regardless of
the prayers of the dying Son of God. When he gets to heaven
will he wish to change the order there?
Now, I will read some other statements of the 45th Psalm in
connection with this: "My tongue is the pen of a ready
writer." If he makes instruments literal, he must make this
literal, too. "Gird thy sword upon thy thigh." No w, if
because David is prophesying here and uses the term "stringed
instruments," therefore, we must have an instrument of music
in the worship, equally it is true that we must have a literal
sword in the worship. What proves too much, proves nothing. He
has proved too much.
Again: "Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king's
enemies; whereby the people fall und er thee." The "arrows are
in the heart of the king's enemies." W e must hav e literal
arrows, then. I claim this is prophetic and symbolic, but if
he use s the instrum ent anti claims it is literal, he must
use the other literally also. I am now going
124 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
to bring before you m y answer to h is most formidable
arguments, that I will read to you: My opponent boasts of
three things which he seems to think are strong in his favor.
I. He claims that the scholarship of the world is on his side,
in regard to the meaning of psallo and the use of instruments
of music in the worship.
2. The character of David who used instruments of music.
3. He says that everything not expressly forbidden is allowed.
These are his three Gibralters.
I now propose to show that he is wrong on all of these three
points, and my hearers are to be the judges of my success.
1. I emphatic ally deny that the sch olarship of the wo rld is
in favor of instrumental music, or that it sustains his
construction on psallo. The Greek Church numbers many
millions, and the Greeks understan d their own language better
than any other people, and they have never found that psallo
means to use instruments, but they say it means to sing. The
Greek Church has never used instrum ental music in the
worship. Thus the scholarship of all the native Greeks of the
world sustains my position and is against my opponent. His
assertion that the scho larship of the world is with him is
untrue. But what is worse for his cause is the fact that the
scholarship of his own brethren who use instruments of music
in the worship is against him and w ith me. As p roof of this
statement I now read to you as follows:
ST. LO UIS, M o., December 24, 1907.
MR. W. G. ROBERTS, Rippey, Ia.
Dear Sir.—Replying to your question, "Is there any authority
in the Greek for the use of instrume ntal music in the worsh
ip?" or "Is there a command in the Greek commanding its use?"
or "Is it used as an aid, under the law of Christian libe
rty?' I reply as follow s: (I) It is held by some that the
Greek word psallo carries with it the use
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 125
of an instrumental accompaniment. We should not regard it, how
ever, as "authority" for an instrument in w orship, if such
authority were needed.
2. There is no command in the New
Testament, Greek or English, commanding the use of the
instrument. Such a command would be entirely out of harmo ny
with the spirit of the New T estament.
(3) Instruments are used under the law of Christian liberty,
just exactly as hymn books, notes and different parts of
music, and as a hundred other expedients are used.
Very sincerely yours, J. H. GARRISON.
CARBON, CAL., January 4, 1908.
A. S. BURKE, Rippey, Ia.
Dear Sir.—It is claimed by some that as the primitive meaning
of psallo (Eph. 5: 19 ) was "to touch, twang , play on a
musica l instrum ent," that the language is a command to play
on musical instruments. I regard it as far-fetched. Hardly a
plausible inference.
Brotherly, CLARK BRADEN.
EUREKA, ILL., Ja nuary 8, 1 908.
W. G. ROBERTS, Rippey, Ia.
My Dear Brother:—President Hieronymus has asked me to answer
your questions in your letter of December 23, 1907. Thayer's
Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testam ent defines psallo
thus: (a) to pluck off, pull out; (b) to cause to vibrate by
touching, to twang, to touch or strike the cord, to twang the
strings of a musical instrument so that they will vibrate
gently; and absolutely, to play on an instrument, to play the
harp.—In the New Testament—TO SING A HYMN, TO CELEBRATE THE
PRAISES OF GOD IN SONG. There is no command in the New
Testament to use instruments of m usic in worship, and there
is no command not to use them. Very truly yours, SILAS JONES.
126 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
DRAKE UNIVERSITY.
DES MOINES, IA., December 25, 1907.
MR. W. G. ROBERTS, Rippey, Ia.
My Dear Sir:—Your letter to the president of the university
was handed to me to answer. The word psallo means, prim arily,
to cause to vibrate by touching; to twang; to touch or strike
the cord; and in the New Testament it means to sing a hymn, to
celebrate the praises of God in song (Jas. 5: 13). This is
taken from Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament. I think the New Testament does not "authorize"
instrumental music by the word psallo or psalmois, or any
other word. Very sincerely, SHERMAN KIRK
Now, you see that the scholarship of his own brethren, the
scholarship of his own church, is overwhelmingly against him ,
and, to tell you the truth, he is the only man of any note o r
reputation th at I have ever heard of in the Christian Church
that has dared to take so absurd a position. What becomes of
his boast that the "scholarship of the world" is with him and
against me, when the scholarship of his own brethren are
against him and with me? Some men are strong in assertion and
very weak in proof.
2. I now come to speak of the character of David. I do not w
ish to speak against David, and shall not do so except as
Scripture authorizes, and what does it authorize? I read Gal.
4:1-7. "Now I say, That the heir, as long as h e is a child,
differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Iord of all;
But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of
the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage
under the elements of the world But when the fulness of the
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made
under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that
they might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are
sons, God hath sent
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 127
forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father." Th is shows that David belonged to the childhood age
of God's people, also to the age of servantship, and not of
sonship. But this is not all. Dav id was a man of blood —a man
who was not fit to build the temple because he had shed much
blood. Then in the case of Uriah, the Hittite, he was guilty
of one of the worst of crimes. He was an adulterer and a
murderer. I read II. Sam. 12:7-12. "Wherefore hast thou
despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight?
thou hast killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword, and hast
taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the
sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall
never depart from shine house; because thou hast despised me,
and hast taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to be thy
wife." This show s that Dav id despised the commandment of the
Lord, and despised even the Lord himself.
Finally, in I. Chron., 21st chapter, we read that he yielded
to the
devil and numbered Israel, and as a resu lt God slew of
Israel seventy thousand men. My opponent said last evening
that, in spirituality, David was "infinitely above" himself or
myself. He is at liberty to p lace his spirituality just as
high or as low as he wish es. If he says that h e is
"infinitely below" in spirituality the one who was an
adulterer and a murderer, he can do so, but as for myself, I
say that I am above that plane. David lived under the shadowy
dispensation. He lived in an age that is called the age of
"bondage." I am not saying anything about David's spirituality
except what I have read from the w ord of God. I have read
that to show you exactly what the word of God says about him.
Yet my opponent says that David's spiritu ality was
"infinitely above" his spirituality. He can say what he wishes
for himse lf on this question.
In regard to David an d instrumental music, I will remind my
opponent of the fact that Am os said, "W oe to them that are
at ease in Zion—that chant to the sound of the viol, and
128 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
invent unto themselves instruments of music like David." (Amos
6: 1-
5.) Here we learn that God pronounces a "woe" upon all who
follow David's example in using instrumental music in the
worship, even under the Jewish dispensation. How much worse,
shell, to follow David's example and introduce instrume ntal
music into the worship under Christ!
3. My opponent has several times said that whatever was
commanded in the Old Testament, and not expressly forbidden in
the New, is allowable to Christians, and he has even gone so
far as to say that anything not forbidden is allowable
to Christians . I now pro pose to test his claims and logic,
and see if he will stand by his own rule of reasoning.
1. There was a priesthood over the masses of God's people,
under the Old Testament, and thus there may be such a
priesthood now, for it is not expressly forbidden . Does he
accept this? No. He repudiates it.
2. The priests under the law wore special robes, and thus
there may be special robes now used because not expressly
forbidden. Is he ready for this? N o. He would repudiate it.
3. There was literal, material incense used in connection with
the worship under the Old Testament, and, therefore, such
incense may be used in the worship now because it is not.
expressly forbidden. Will he accept this? Certainly not. B ut
he will rejec t it
4. The bodies of animals were offered in connection with the
worship under the Old Testament, and they are not expressly
forbidden, and therefore they may be offered now. Is my
opponent ready for this? No. He opposes it.
5. He cannot find any New Testament Scripture th at expressly
forbids praying to the mother of our Saviour, nor to any other
dead saint. Nor can he find any Scripture that expressly
forbids the Romish doctrine of the Confessional, nor the
non-marriage of the clergy, nor the convent
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 129
doctrine, nor the doctrine of purgatory. Neither can he find
any Scripture that expressly forbids the social dance,
card-playing, theatergoing, festivals to raise money, nor
many, many other soul-destroying practices of the Christian
Church. Y et, according to my opponent's logic, he may engage
in all these unauthorized and ungodly practices, and still be
acceptable to God. This is the position into which he-is
irresistibly forced by his logic.
Still he argues that the "scholarship of the world" says that
psallo in Ephesians 5:19, and Colossians 3: 15, means "songs
and psalm s in connection with instrum ents of mu sic." But
hav en't I just show n that his affirmation is not true? Ha
ven't I just show n that the sch olarship of his own brethren
declare that it is not true? Garrison, Braden, the authorities
of Eureka College, in Illinois, and the authorities in Drake
University, in Des Moines, Iowa, are all with me and against
him? Have I not shown that he brou ght Thayer, a G reek lexico
grapher, into this discussion presumably to prove what psallo
means as used in the New Testam ent, but in stead of
permitting his w itness, T hayer, to say what that word means
as used in the New Testament, he suppresse d his witness on
the very point at issue, and gave what that witness quoted
from Liddell and Scott as to the meaning of psallo as used in
history and classical Greek? What shall we think of a man who
deliberately suppresses the testimon y of a witness on the
very point at issue, and, instead, substitutes what that
witness says on another point? How are we to trust him on any
other question?
He says with reference to eating meat, that it does not mean
"simply to have his feelings hurt," but caused to offend. But
does not Paul say that "If thy brother be grieved with thy
meat, now walkest thou not charitably." (Rom. 14: IS.) And
again: "If ye wound their weak conscience ye sin against
Christ." (I. Co r. 8: 12.) Is this not a clear case of
perverting the plain teachings of the
130 OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE.
word of God? But the use of instrumental music in the worship
does more than "grieve" the brethren and "wound their weak
conscien ce." It divides the body of Christ, and forces
followers of Jesus Ch rist to sin either by staying away fro m
the communion or by worshiping with instrumental music
The disciples in the temple again. He knows that th ere is not
one syllable of Scripture proof that the Jews used
instrumental music in the temple at thattime. Nor is it even
intimated that the Apostles participated in any of the temple
worship, notwithstanding his solemn affirmation that they did.
He has simp ly declared that G od's w ord says that which it
does not say. But if he could show that the Apostles used
instrumental music in the temple, and that this gives us th e
liberty to use it in the worship, he would at the same time
prove that we may burn incense and offer bloody sacrifices in
the worship now. We know these were observed in the temp le in
the days of the Apostles. God sent the Apostles to the temple
to "speak all the words of this lif e." (Acts 5: 20.)
Of course, he can find instrumental music under the law, in
the Church of Rome, and that it is said it will be in heaven.
But he does not find it in the Church described in the New
Testament. He can also find infants under the law, infants in
the Church of Rome, and infants w ill be in heaven. But he
cannot find infants in the New Testament Church. The same is
true of incense and many tether unauthorized things. He has
been driven to admit my argument against the use of
instrumental music in the worship o n the grou nd that it app
eals only to the fleshly sense of hearing. He said himself
that it cannot produce devotion in the heart, bu t that all he
claim s for it is that it "soothes the animal nature of man."
The very thought of a child of God having to resort to mere
sound to "soothe his savage animal nature"
OTEY-BRINEY DEBATE. 131
when he surrounds the Lord's table in order to be in a proper
mood-to worship G od! Just think of it!
I called attention to the fact that the melody (Eph. 5: 19) is
made in the heart, and not on a musical instrument.
How does he answer this?